Revolutionary praxis: the strategy of street protest

During recent days British and European nationalists have had to choose when and how to engage in street protests. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton offers this introduction to the strategy of street protest in 2023 – Este artículo también está disponible en traducción al español.

Spain is rapidly becoming ungovernable as patriots (including our European correspondent Isabel Peralta) take to the streets in protest against the squalid and treacherous amnesty deal offered to Catalan subversives by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Meanwhile in London, the career criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known as ‘Tommy Robinson’ – is attempting another political comeback as leader of counter-protests against supporters of Palestine. And in Paris, the main opposition leader Marine Le Pen, past and future presidential candidate for the nationalist party Rassemblement National (formerly the French National Front) has marched on a pro-Israel demonstration.

What factors should be borne in mind by racial nationalists when deciding whether to adopt a strategy of street protests?

First and foremost, we should focus our minds on the protest’s objective. This might seem obvious – but sadly in 2023 many nationalists are only too keen to put on their marching boots merely in order to “do something”, because they are frustrated by the evident crises of European society and the apparent inability of nationalist parties to mount a serious political challenge (following, for example, the collapse of the BNP into a mere fundraising channel for its corrupt and indolent leaders).

Taking the three examples above, the most obvious case is the Parisian demonstration which was solely and blatantly intended as a rally for Israel. Marine Le Pen’s stance was welcomed by none other than Serge Klarsfeld, the leading French “anti-nazi” now aged 88 who has longstanding ties to Israeli intelligence. Klarsfeld told the conservative newspaper Le Figaro: “when I see a big party of the far right abandon anti-semitism and negationism and move towards our Republican values, naturally I rejoice.”

H&D readers will understand that I’m not rejoicing. But neither am I surprised. This weekend is merely the culmination of a longstanding relationship between the Le Pen dynasty and Israeli intelligence services, who have at last succeeded in taking over both of the main political parties of the French “far right”.

Tommy Robinson’s call for British patriots to descend on London and oppose pro-Palestinian demonstrators was only slightly more complicated. Robinson came to prominence in 2009 as leader of the English Defence League (EDL) with an explicitly anti-Muslim agenda. Though it was avowedly “anti-racist” and had numerous non-White activists, the EDL grew just as the BNP was starting to implode, and it attracted many people who would once have been BNP supporters.

Though he has been discredited several times in the past decade, Robinson is heavily promoted by the media and is still viewed by some sincere nationalists as a leader of something that vaguely resembles our patriotic cause. He is especially popular with football gangs and others who are (often for honourable reasons) eager to confront the enemies of White Europe on the streets.

But the objective of last Saturday’s call to action in London was obviously fraudulent, as both H&D and Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett were quick to point out.

A wide range of reactionaries including Tory newspapers and then Home Secretary Suella Braverman (an Indian married to a Jew) amplified Robinson’s false claim that the Cenotaph was threatened by pro-Palestinian marchers (mainly of alien origin). The fact is that Saturday’s march for Gaza was never going to threaten the Cenotaph, or even pass down Whitehall.

In other words the central objective of Robinson’s rallying cry was fraudulent. Its objective was primarily to embed British nationalists (a tiny, fragmented and downmarket version of Marine Le Pen’s party) as explicit allies of Zionism. And secondly to divide, misdirect and discredit those patriots who might otherwise contribute to building a genuine racial nationalist challenge to our treacherous political elite.

Robinson’s motley crew managed to be both ‘bad optics’ for nationalism, and to represent a counter-productive, fundamentally flawed ideology. As was once said by a French analyst (and misattributed to the statesman Talleyrand): C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.

By contrast the central objective of the continuing demonstrations in Madrid is entirely valid: to oppose the break-up of Spain. This national betrayal is a cynical deal by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, leader of Spain’s fake ‘socialist’ party PSOE. As Isabel Peralta explained in issue 116 of H&D two months ago, Spain’s party political circus resulted in an inconclusive parliamentary election. To obtain a majority in Madrid’s parliament (the Cortes), Sánchez must cut deals not only with his main allies on the extreme left, but with an assortment of Basque and Catalan regionalist/separatist parties.

Among these is the hardline Catalan separatist party Junts, whose leaders have been fugitives from Spanish justice for several years. They were convicted of sedition and other crimes after they set up an illegal ‘referendum’ as part of an unconstitutional effort to secede from Spain. And despite being politically conservative in other respects, their anti-Spanish conspiracy won the support of the usual international gallery of anti-European subversives, including the ‘Scottish’ Pakistani lawyer Aamer Anwar, who began his political career as a Marxist vandal smashing the Rudolf Hess memorial stone near Glasgow.

Sánchez has offered an amnesty to Junts for its leaders’ crimes. The Prime Minister himself is deliberately subverting both the Spanish constitution and the rule of law, merely in order to obtain a parliamentary majority to sustain himself in office. The situation is in some ways similar to Britain in 1913-14, when the Conservative leader Bonar Law denounced a pact with Irish ‘Nationalists’ designed to keep Liberal Prime Minister Asquith in office:
“We do not recognise the Liberal cabinet as the constitutional government of a free people. We regard them as a revolutionary committee which has entered by fraud upon despotic power.”

In response to the outrageous amnesty deal, Spanish patriots have turned out for the past ten nights in central Madrid, confronting massed ranks of armed police outside the headquarters of the ruling PSOE. Elderly Madrid residents alongside football gangs; conservatives, civic nationalists, Falangists, and national socialists; all these and more have packed the streets of their capital city, and the authority of the Sánchez government is crumbling.

Therefore, in the case of the Madrid demonstrations – in stark contrast to Paris and London – the objective of the street protests is clearly valid and worth supporting. In fact it is the duty of racial nationalists to take a leading role in such protests, even if they are organised by conservative reactionaries with whom we have little else in common.

So the second question becomes, how does a particular street protest contribute to promoting our ideology and advancing our broader political project?

Turning again briefly to last Saturday’s shambles in London, we can easily see that (even setting aside the fundamentally fraudulent prospectus of ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his fellow Zionist propagandists) there was nothing to be gained for racial nationalists from participating in such an event.

There was no possibility of advancing racial nationalist ideas, and the entire charade was simply leading many otherwise sincere patriots down a political cul-de-sac.

In Madrid by contrast the situation calls for serious strategic planning as well as courage. It’s obvious that the leaders of the anti-Sánchez demonstrations are reactionaries – principally from the supposedly ‘right-wing’ Vox and the conservative Partido Popular. Therefore by participating, there is always a risk that racial nationalists are simply acting as footsoldiers for the benefit of our enemies.

For there can be no doubt that the reactionary ‘right-wing’ is our enemy. In some ways a more deadly enemy than the subversive ‘left’.

But it’s a risk well worth taking. Not only because it is our duty to be on the front line when our nation is under attack (whether as British and Ulster patriots confronting the IRA and its sympathisers, or as Spanish patriots confronting their Basque or Catalan equivalents), but because by demonstrating our commitment – our fanatical devotion to race and nation – we can begin to awaken even those of our compatriots who previously had a limited ideological perspective.

Moreover the self-evident bankruptcy of Spain’s 1978 ‘democratic’ constitution now means that events are moving rapidly, and the potential for radicalisation is greater than anywhere else in Western Europe.

It is, however, essential for racial nationalists to achieve the delicate balance of both participating in a broadly-based protest, but also maintaining our distinct message.

This can best be achieved by:
(a) continuing a barrage of online propaganda focused on our core ideology, and relating it to the rapidly developing confrontation on the streets:
and (b) ensuring that our militants are displaying placards and banners that reflect our message, not the reactionary message.

This means, for example, that whether in Madrid, Paris or London we should never carry placards or post online propaganda that puts our case in religious rather than racial terms.

Of course at various points in our struggle we shall have allies who think primarily in religious terms – which means that in Madrid our allies will often be devout Catholics, whereas in Belfast or Glasgow our allies will often be militant Protestants.

But our fight against the undermining of Western civilization and the betrayal of our nations and our race is not a fight against Islam, any more than it is a fight for or against the Pope. It makes absolutely no difference to us whether a non-European immigrant is Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Marxist/Atheist. We resist the non-European invasion in the name of racial preservation and true European renaissance – not in the name of any God or Gods.

To adopt an Islam-obsessed agenda is the worst kind of surrender to reactionary politics. Whether or not in particular cases it also serves the Zionist agenda, it simply has no part in an ideologically coherent racial nationalist struggle.

It is only by maintaining a coherent ideological line that we can obtain any political advantage from these street confrontations. We should never forget that ours is a war of ideas, not a mere street skirmish for adolescents. The battles on the streets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

Which brings us to a final topic for today’s analysis. Having addressed strategy, what about tactics? What methods are justifiable in pursuit of our objectives?

The simple answer to that is that any and every method is justifiable, provided it is necessary and properly focused.

In mainland Britain all talk of political violence is (in all conceivable present circumstances) utterly counter-productive and should be rejected by serious racial nationalists, irrespective of moral and legal considerations. Whereas in Northern Ireland there have been times in the very recent past where violence was not only necessary, but was the duty of every decent patriot in the struggle against a vile and murderous foe – the IRA and its proxies and splinters.

In Madrid the treacherous and subversive actions of the Prime Minister have crossed the line at which resistance – even violent resistance – becomes not only an option but a duty.

So the central question for nationalists is not whether violence is philosophically justified, but at what point it becomes both necessary and practically achievable. That’s a decision that can only be taken on a day-to-day basis by those involved. But again the imperative for our movement’s leaders is to maintain a sense of the broader objective. The adrenalin of battle needs to be tempered by strategic focus. We are in politics to achieve a national revolution, not to obtain the short term satisfaction that can be gained either by electing a councillor or vandalising our enemies’ premises.

And that national revolution will be achieved by consistent commitment and serious thinking, not by the mentality prevalent on the internet by which extravagant claims are made one day, only to be forgotten the next, in pursuit of the next ‘click-bait’, the next ‘likes’, the next ‘followers’.

The type of followers we need are people who will both read a book, and spend hours putting themselves on the line in a street confrontation. As my old comrade Jonathan Bowden put it, we need a return of Lord Byron’s ideal concept: the cultured thug.

Further articles on this site and in H&D will examine the ideology that will sustain and motivate these cultured thugs: the revolutionary praxis of the 2020s.

Scottish justice or “due deference” to French-Zionist lobby? The Reynouard case hangs in the balance [report now translated into four languages!]

On 21st September, a Scottish Crown prosecutor asked an Edinburgh court to show “due deference to France” and extradite a man who is accused of no crime under Scottish law. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton reports from the court. This article and related material also appears at Peter’s Real History blog and now also in Spanish by clicking on this link. Also now available in German translation at this link and in French translation at Vincent’s own blog. And Vincent’s open letter to President Macron is now also available in German translation for the first time.

The revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard was appearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for a full hearing of his extradition case. This was almost exactly ten months after his arrest in the Scottish fishing village of Anstruther, where Vincent had been working quietly as a private tutor and completing his most important historical revisionist work concerning the so-called “massacre” at Oradour.

He was arrested in a raid by Scottish police, working with Scotland Yard detectives, at the request of French prosecutors who wish to jail him for revisionist videos concerning both Oradour and the alleged homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.

None of these revisionist works contravenes Scottish or English law, but the UK authorities were heavily lobbied by the Jewish charity ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ and by the ultra-Zionist peer Lord Austin (formerly Ian Austin MP).

The sheer absurdity of this situation – the criminalisation of a scholar – was brought home to me by two incidents (one trivial, one serious) at the Edinburgh Court while waiting for Vincent’s case to be heard.

A sticker for the Edinburgh branch of the St Pauli supporters’ club was displayed in the lavatory at the Court. Supporters of St Pauli (a football club based in Hamburg) are notorious worldwide for their violent ‘anti-fascism’ and Marxism. It is impossible to imagine that a sticker promoting any violent ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ group (from, for example, supporters of a club such as Lazio, Chelsea, Millwall or Oldham) would have been allowed to remain on display at a court!

The other incident was more serious. Vincent’s case was being heard in a courtroom that specialises in extradition, which of course meant that more than two hours were taken up (before Vincent’s case began) by a long procession of procedural, pre-trial discussions of a range of unconnected defendants, including alleged gangsters from Eastern Europe.

By far the most serious of these procedural discussions involved a defendant appearing by video link. This was the notorious ‘Real IRA’ terrorist and assassin Antoin Duffy (aka Anton Duffy), who in 2015 was jailed for 17 years for conspiracy to murder two ex-UDA members (Johnny Adair and Sam ‘Skelly’ McCrory) exiled in Scotland after their expulsion from the UDA.

Duffy is still serving this sentence in a top-security Scottish jail, but he is also now wanted by police and prosecutors in the Irish Republic, to face charges of murdering Denis Donaldson, an MI5 agent inside the IRA, who was killed in 2006. This is why Duffy was appearing on the same day as Vincent, in the Edinburgh extradition court.

H&D cannot yet comment on the latest specific charges – but it is beyond dispute (based on earlier convictions and years of police and MI5 covert surveillance) that Duffy is one of the UK’s most dangerous terrorists. Extradition procedures are designed for those accused of actual crimes: yet this week in Edinburgh (and in fact for the past ten months) Vincent Reynouard – a scholar, not a criminal – has been subjected to these same procedures.

As we have also seen with persistent abuse of the Terrorism Act by the UK authorities, those who simply seek to tell the truth about European history are persecuted by UK authorities who choose to follow the instructions of shadowy international lobbyists rather than UK law.

Nevertheless, there are reasons to be optimistic about Vincent’s case. He was very ably represented by his solicitor Paul Dunne and advocate Fred Mackintosh KC (who also practices as a barrister in England). It should of course be emphasised that Vincent’s defence is (rightly and properly) based on legal arguments, not on his historical and political views per se. As in any other such case, it should not be inferred that either Mr Dunne or Mr Mackintosh is in any way sympathetic to Vincent’s opinions, or indeed that either of them have any views or expertise on historical or political matters. They are experts on extradition law, not on historical revisionism or national socialism.

Due to Vincent having already spent ten months in jail (for something that isn’t even a crime in the UK!) the initial French warrant has been discharged.

This initial warrant was based on his having already been convicted and sentenced (in his absence) by a Parisian court. But he is no longer extraditable on those grounds, because that sentence has (in effect) already been served in Scotland, while Vincent awaited this extradition hearing.

Having dealt with the discharge of the first warrant, Mr Mackintosh proceeded to address the second.

Since it involves new charges (rather than a prior conviction) the ‘ticklist’ of the old European Arrest Warrant (now operating in revised form post-Brexit) doesn’t apply. Mr Mackintosh therefore pointed out that the traditional extradition principle of “dual criminality” operates in this case.

In other words, the Edinburgh Court must be satisfied that the conduct of which Vincent is accused would potentially be criminal in Scotland as well as in France.

The judge should (Mr Mackintosh continued) draw inferences as to Vincent’s “intent”, by looking at his overall conduct, and by studying the entire transcripts of his videos, not merely accepting the prosecutors’ interpretation of certain phrases taken out of context.

He highlighted one video, on which the prosecutors had based a large part of their case, and emphasised that the judge should study the full translated transcript carefully. This was a video published on 22nd February 2020, whose title translates as “The Jewish Problem – what solution?”

Vincent’s counsel did not dispute that his videos contain what has been termed “Holocaust denial”, that some of them address the “Jewish problem”, and that one in particular “denies” the historicity of the “Oradour massacre”.

But Mr Mackintosh’s central argument as to why Vincent should not be extradited began with a judgment in 2015 by the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland.

The relevant aspect of this judgment (which involved a Turkish political activist accused of “denying” the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War), is that the European Court spelled out the very different laws among European states regarding “denial” of genocide.

Among those European countries that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court noted:
“there are now essentially four types of regimes in this domain, in terms of scope of the offence of genocide denial: (a) States, such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania, that only criminalise the denial of the Holocaust or more generally of Nazi crimes (Romania in addition criminalises the Nazi extermination of the Roma, and Greece criminalises, on top of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes, the denial of genocides recognised by an international court or its own Parliament); (b) States, such as the Czech Republic and Poland, that criminalise the denial of Nazi and communist crimes; (c) States, such as Andorra, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland, that criminalise the denial of any genocide (Lithuania in addition specifically criminalises denial of Soviet and Nazi crimes vis-à-vis the Lithuanians, but Cyprus only criminalises the denial of genocides recognised as such by a competent court); and (d) States, such as Finland, Italy, Spain (following the 2007 judgment of its Constitutional Court cited in paragraph 96 above), the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian States, that do not have special provisions criminalising such conduct.”

The European Court was clear, Mr Mackintosh said, that the UK had not chosen to make any form of “Holocaust denial” a specific criminal offence.

He added that in Vincent Reynouard’s case, the prosecution therefore had to satisfy the Scottish court that Vincent’s conduct (as alleged in the extradition warrant) met the test either for a S.127 Communications Act offence, or a breach of the peace (a common law offence).

The question of what behaviour can constitute a “breach of the peace” under Scottish law has been revised several times during recent decades – and is a matter on which Mr Mackintosh has special expertise, having for example written an article for Scottish Legal News on this very topic.

Such conduct must be serious enough to “cause alarm to ordinary people”, and it must “threaten serious disturbance to the community”. The relevant judgment was delivered in 2014 by Lady Clark of Calton, and Mr Mackintosh said that Lady Clark had reminded the lower courts that “for conduct to be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm there has to be something further than annoyance and distress”.

Mr Mackintosh explained that the test of whether conduct “threatens serious disturbance in the community” necessarily involves considering the full context. He quoted several cases in Scottish courts involving racial and sectarian abuse at football matches, where a crucial element was that this abuse had been directed at (or delivered in close proximity to) rival supporters, in the incendiary context of a football match attended by supporters of opposing teams.

In a 1981 case against communist activist Mike Duffield, the Sheriff Court had ruled that shouting pro-IRA slogans while selling the Marxist newspaper Fight Racism Fight Imperialism and the pro-IRA newspaper Hands off Ireland was a breach of the peace, despite this being carried out at the stadium of Glasgow Celtic, where many fans hold similar views.

And on the other side of politics, there had been a breach of the peace case involving a National Front activist selling the Young NF paper Bulldog outside the Hearts stadium in Edinburgh.

But in all these cases – and especially bearing in mind recent clarifications of the law in Scotland – it was essential to assess the wider context of the words used – in Vincent’s case, words used in videos broadcast online.

There were eight such videos referred to by French prosecutors in the present warrant. The first related specifically to Oradour. The second, third and fourth presented detailed arguments as to why (in Vincent’s considered opinion) there had been no homicidal ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz, explaining that conventional ‘Holocaust’ history is based on specious evidence. The fifth and sixth discussed the “Jewish problem” or “what to do about the Jews”. And the seventh and eighth returned to the topic of Auschwitz, the ‘gas chambers’, and broader ‘Holocaust’ themes.

Mr Mackintosh emphasised that in the case of six of these eight videos, Vincent Reynouard had not been calling for any form of action. None of the content potentially qualified as personal abuse, and none of it could be seen as “threatening”. The videos amounted to a historical critique – which might well be controversial, but not illegal in Scotland.

In the case of videos 5 and 6, Vincent was responding to a correspondent. The prosecution had chosen to isolate certain phrases out of context, but Mr Mackintosh said that once seen in context it was clear that Vincent was stating his opposition to any policy of “exterminating” the Jews.

The test that the court had to apply was not whether “reasonable people” would reject Vincent’s views, but whether these views threatened “serious disturbance to society”. Were the court to accept the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to ruling that discussion of controversial arguments regarding the ‘Holocaust’ had become a crime in the UK. Mr Mackintosh said it was open to Parliaments in London and Edinburgh to make ‘Holocaust denial’ a crime, but they had (so far) chosen not to do so.

Therefore to be criminal, Vincent’s words would have to cross a further line, a further evidential test, in order to be regarded as a “breach of the peace”.

Mr Mackintosh then turned to the alternative test, S.127 of the Communications Act. For Vincent’s videos to be considered criminal in this context, they would have to be not merely offensive, but “grossly offensive”.

Prosecutors had rested much of their argument on the precedent of the Chabloz case, as tried in the London courts during recent years – not a binding precedent, but, they argued, very much a “persuasive” precedent in this case. [Chabloz has in recent years been excluded from British revisionist circles, due to her treacherous and malicious conduct in betraying Robert Faurisson’s final meeting to the ‘anti-fascist’ publication ‘Hope not Hate’. But her earlier actions have, as we predicted at the time, served as a precedent to threaten the liberty of Vincent Reynouard.]

On appeal, Chabloz’s conduct had been found to go beyond satire, having crossed the legal line into deliberate, malicious abuse. By contrast, Mr Mackintosh argued, the judge in the present case would find (if he examined the full transcripts of Vincent’s videos) that his arguments – even when highly controversial – were delivered as a calm, academic analysis, not as crude anti-semitic abuse in the Chabloz style.

Mr Mackintosh referred to the leading S.127 case in relation to interpretation of what is “grossly offensive”, namely the Collins case, and the judgment of Lord Bingham.

This had made clear that what is “grossly offensive” has to be assessed in the context of the standards of an “open, just, multiracial society” – a contemporary context that is “reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist”.

In other words, Mr Mackintosh emphasised, the words complained of had to cause gross offence, not simply “to people who care about the Holocaust” and who, for whatever reasons, hold different views to Vincent, but to broader society.

Were ‘Holocaust denial’ or disputing the historicity of Oradour to be deemed criminal per se, the question would necessarily arise – what about the Amritsar massacre, what about the Armenian genocide, and many other controversial historical subjects?

Mr Mackintosh concluded his argument by addressing the question of proportionality. An extradition court is required to consider whether the alleged offence is sufficiently severe to attract a custodial sentence. For example, recent instructions to the lower courts had emphasised that defendants should not be extradited for minor public order offences.

He noted that even in the Chabloz case – where the defendant had been convicted for gross offensiveness which was of a very different character to Vincent’s videos – this had not led to custodial sentences.

It would therefore, Mr Mackintosh argued, be both wrong in law and disproportionate for the Edinburgh Court to extradite Vincent Reynouard to France.

In his argument, the prosecutor (Advocate depute Paul Harvey) insisted that Vincent’s videos did pass the evidential test for the Court to regard his conduct as either (or both) a breach of the peace, and/or “grossly offensive” under S.127.

He invited the judge to consider Vincent’s words in one of the video transcripts, where he had stated that “there is a Jewish problem”, and that in his analysis of this problem he would “go further” than Adolf Hitler. “Naturally, the Jews exploit the situation: to dominate, even to subjugate us.”

Mr Harvey described these words as “the most appalling anti-semitism”, and asked the judge to view all of the videos complained of in the French warrant, in the light of this “anti-semitism”.

Questioned by the judge on this point, Mr Harvey said that (in the prosecutors’ submission) each video should be looked at as a separate breach of the peace offence, but should also be interpreted overall as a “course of conduct” by Vincent.

The mere fact that the UK had no special provision criminalising “Holocaust denial” did not in itself absolve the defendant. When expressed in the terms used by Vincent, Mr Harvey insisted that “Holocaust denial” could be interpreted as criminal under UK as well as French law.

Quoting the case of Rangers fan William Kilpatrick, who had posted on Facebook endorsing the sending of “bombs and bombs” to Celtic manager Neil Lennon, Mr Harvey argued that under Scottish law, intending or inciting a specific action was not necessarily relevant to whether certain words were a “breach of the peace”.

Mr Harvey maintained that some of Vincent’s words in the video could reasonably have led to his being charged with a breach of the peace under Scottish law, because they were calculated to provoke a disturbance of public order.

In fact, he argued that Vincent’s words were potentially a more serious crime than breach of the peace in a football stadium: because they could be viewed online at any time, anywhere in Scotland. Incitement to specific criminal action did not, the prosecution argued, have to be proven.

Mr Harvey added that Vincent’s “crimes” had to be looked at in the context of the very different cultural context in France, and the more serious risk of “anti-semitism being incited”. While the words Vincent used could, Mr Harvey argued, be prosecutable even in Scotland, the Court should take account of the fact that in a French context, they were even more serious.

Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor rejected the defence argument that Vincent’s words were calm, academic discourse. He said they were comparable to the Chabloz case, where it had been established that once a clearly anti-semitic motive had been established, espousal of “Holocaust denial” was ipso facto grossly offensive.

Mr Harvey accepted that (under UK law) not every instance of “Holocaust denial” was criminal, but he maintained that in the cases of both Chabloz and Vincent Reynouard, denying the “Holocaust” did amount to “gross offensiveness”, and therefore contravened S.127.

The prosecutor said the judge would need to apply the proportionality test very carefully. Unlike, for example, a drugs or theft case, Vincent’s criminal conduct was highly context-specific, where the appropriate sentence might differ enormously between Scotland and France. The judge should therefore “respect and give due weight” to French circumstances involving their history, and even present day “racial relations”, which meant that a French court “is justified in taking a severe approach to this”.

Given Vincent’s long and repeated record of “criminal conduct”, Mr Harvey concluded that a custodial sentence in France was not only possible but highly likely: “I urge you to show due deference to France and their different traditions.”

In a brief reply concluding the hearing, Vincent’s counsel Fred Mackintosh said that if the judge accepted the prosecution’s argument, it would amount to saying that any “racist” statement on Facebook or YouTube, regardless of context, would be a breach of the peace. He urged the judge to reject this argument and to recognise that “Holocaust denial” when expressed in Vincent’s terms, is not a crime in Scotland – neither a breach of the peace, nor grossly offensive.

The judge said that he aimed to have read all relevant material and considered the arguments fully, in time to pass judgment on 12th October.

Clearly, the Vincent Reynouard case has become a vitally important test of whether historical revisionism will be criminalised in the UK via a ‘back door’ route, without any honest and open discussion in Parliament.

We shall make a further assessment of the broader context soon. But it should be recognised by all concerned that there will be no surrender of the basic principles involved. In the UK, Spain and Canada, European traditions of free historical inquiry are under attack. We shall defend those traditions, by any and every method that proves necessary.

[UPDATE: On 12th October the Edinburgh judge Sheriff Dickson ruled that Vincent should be extradited to France. For a report on this extraordinary judgement, click here. Vincent remains in Edinburgh Prison, pending an appeal in January 2024.]

Mossad’s investment in the Le Pen dynasty finally paying off?

Last week Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella (the president of her Rassemblement National party) gave unequivocal support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Le Pen’s niece Marion Maréchal, who next year will lead the European parliamentary election slate of a rival nationalist party Reconquête!) is an even more staunch and longstanding Zionist, saying that “France must stand unambiguously alongside Israel in this new ordeal.”

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, since Marion Maréchal’s real father Roger Auque was an agent of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad.

In a new article at the Real History blog, H&D‘s Peter Rushton examines the strange connections between the Le Pen dynasty and Mossad.

Vincent Reynouard reports from his Edinburgh jail on the eve of his extradition trial

Scottish justice will soon decide whether to extradite me to France or release me. Knowing that, if I am extradited, I will probably spend years in prison, we can say that my fate will be decided on September 21st.

My lawyers are optimistic. Indeed, having served the entire prison sentence which earned me the first arrest warrant, only the second remains. Paris is asking me to judge me for several videos. However, to be extradited, these videos must constitute crimes in both France and Scotland. My lawyers’ argument is clear: my comments do not transgress UK laws.

My opponents invoke the precedent set by the conviction of singer A. Chabloz in 2018. However, A. Chabloz was convicted for having composed, performed and broadcast “grossly offensive” songs. In question here were the vocabulary chosen, the tone adopted and the criticisms formulated against the Jewish people in general. My videos are totally different. Although they may shock and offend, they are never grossly offensive and, therefore, remain within the bounds of freedom of expression as conceived in the United Kingdom.

Many of my relatives are therefore optimistic about the outcome of this hearing. For my part, I am neither pessimistic nor optimistic, because I have learned not to hope for anything and not to fear anything. The reason is always the same: I trust in Providence. So far, she has protected me in my mission. I am therefore convinced that the decision of September 21 will be the most likely to serve the revisionist cause. Certainly, for me, it will undoubtedly be the occasion for new trials, but the trials are there so that we improve by overcoming them.

I will therefore accept the final truth, whatever it may be, and will continue to place the revisionist cause above my personal destiny, because revisionism serves the Common Good and, as a National Socialist, I have always advocated the primacy of the common good over particular interests. Therefore, I will not back down now. My personal destiny is of no importance.

Some will call me a fanatic. However, when we see how the anti-revisionists treat us, we understand that only diehards can endure the fight on the front line. If I wasn’t one, I would have given up a long time ago. Providence raises up the right people where they are needed. Our adversaries being fanatics, She opposes fanatics to them. It’s in the natural order of things.

So I calmly wait for September 21st. In the calm of my cell, I continue my activities of reading, writing, meditation and drawing. After ten months, a daily routine was established. I hardly notice that I am in prison anymore. I’m like on a ship where life unfolds peacefully. For the past few weeks, I have been the oldest on my wing. I know the staff and the inmates know me, because I am a somewhat unusual prisoner.

I should have been released on August 10th, once my prison sentence was fully served. However, the Scottish justice system decided to keep me in prison on the grounds that I could take advantage of my release to escape again. Knowing what I have done since October 2021, this fear is understandable. I would add that, even if this extension of my detention were illegal, I would not claim any compensation, because I did not suffer – far from it – in Edinburgh prison.

Besides, in Edinburgh prison, the deprivation of liberty as it affects me is entirely relative. Certainly, my body is held in a penitentiary establishment, but my mind remains free. Here, I read a lot: I discovered authors like Denis Marquet (on spirituality) and Jacques Ellul (on technique). I corresponded freely with wonderful people. I was able to exercise every day, including three times a week in a well-equipped gym. I enjoyed an excellent diet that many people would envy. Finally, I improved my drawing techniques, especially watercolour.

In my eyes, I am much freer than the citizen forced to get up every morning to do an uninteresting job. My freedom is a thousand times greater than that of people without an inner life, glued to their screen and slaves to social networks.

As for the prison guards, they were very kind to me, probably because they think that there is no legitimate reason for me to be in prison. Not long ago, in fact, a guard told me: “You have been in prison for almost a year, because France does not respect the right to freedom of expression!” I think she was expressing the thoughts of the guards in general…

It is true that, from this vantage point in Scotland, we observe, incredulously, the climate of hysteria which reigns in France around real or imagined anti-Semitism. The causes of this frenzy are undoubtedly multiple.

First of all, I think a lot of Jews are worried. In this changing and crisis-ridden world, they fear a new persecution, even a new “Holocaust”, on the grounds that they would always have been the scapegoats. The associations which represent them therefore act to eradicate anti-Judaism from society. However, knowing that, in our part of the world, “racism” has become the capital sin, the government – whoever it may be – is obliged to support this action.

To this is probably added another fact: at a time when the Rassemblement National (RN – National Rally) is considered, rightly or wrongly, as a force capable of influencing politics, attacking the ultra-right induces Marine Le Pen increasingly to dissociate herself from the ideals of the national right. And as we always end up becoming what we say, whether by conviction or by strategy, then the more the government attacks the ultra-right, the more the RN becomes normalised .

Finally, I think that for some, hitting the ultra-right is another way of attacking the RN, with a view to preventing a possible electoral victory for Marine Le Pen. Indeed, when a government has no positive record to its credit, its only political strategy consists of presenting itself as the ultimate bulwark against the foul Beast. He can then say: “See, the foul beast is not dead. Don’t be fooled; the de-demonisation of the RN is only apparent. If Marine Le Pen comes to power or even comes close, the ultra-right will take the opportunity to resurface.” In my eyes therefore, these various causes contribute to the ambient hysteria.

As for me, I represent an intellectual danger for the government, because I demonstrate that the crimes attributed to the Foul Beast are propaganda lies. My action appears all the more dangerous to him because I denounced a particularly fragile myth: the alleged massacre of women and children in the church of Oradour by the ‘barbaric’ Waffen SS. Without denying the deaths of these people, I demonstrate that the circumstances of this tragedy were very different.

However, if the myth of Oradour falls, some might wonder about Auschwitz. The link will be all the more natural since, since 2017, the challenge to the official History of Oradour has also been repressed by the anti-revisionist law. People will then say: “The myth of Oradour was protected by the same law which prohibits contesting the existence of the gas chambers of Auschwitz; therefore, are these gas chambers also a myth?”

The guardians of Memory cannot therefore retreat: they must defend tooth and nail the myth of Oradour. Hence their interest in silencing me. This doesn’t bode well for me. However, here again, my personal destiny is unimportant. I don’t expect anything down here. The reward will come after this earthly life. This is my conviction (which I do not impose on anyone). Therefore, I am calm.

H&D will report further on Vincent Reynouard’s case and additional reports will appear in English at the Real History blog and in French at Vincent’s own blog Sans Concession.

Dominique Venner – a hero of the True Europe

Ten years ago – on 21st May 2013 – a great French racial nationalist, Dominique Venner, committed suicide in dramatic circumstances at the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Venner’s father had been part of Jacques Doriot’s pre-war nationalist party. He was himself politically active from the mid-1950s until his death, as one of the leading figures in an intellectual movement known as the Nouvelle Droite, together with Alain de Benoist, Pierre Krebs, and the late Guillaume Faye. The ND’s leaders later came to disagree with each other on some fundamental issues, but for the past sixty years their work has been among the highest quality contributions to European resistance.

Usually, racial nationalists should disapprove of pessimism, and especially suicide, since our racial nationalist ideology is a celebration of life and optimism.

Of course, some leading European nationalists have killed themselves in exceptional situations, but in today’s world we should not usually accept that suicide is a positive political option.

But Venner was 78 and very seriously ill. He wanted to make a final political gesture while he was able to do so.

Dominique Venner died as he had lived – as a hero of the True Europe.

Paris march remembers Sebastien Deyzieu

On Saturday French patriots from a cross-party coalition held a march in central Paris to remember their comrade Sebastien Deyzieu, who died during a demonstration in 1994.

Deyzieu was part of a demonstration that sought to highlight disastrous consequences of the Allied invasion of Europe and the post-1945 political settlement – Soviet Russian domination of Eastern Europe and American global capitalist domination of Western Europe.

Parisian authorities banned this May 1994 event, organised by the nationalist student group Groupe Union Défense (GUD), and Deyzieu was killed during an ensuing confrontation with police.

Every year since then, GUD has been part of a cross-party ‘9th May Committee’ that organises a memorial event.

This year the French left and Zionist groups have reacted with predictably hysterical demands that the march should have been banned.

President Macron and his government are among the most fearful and unpopular of Europe’s rulers. Yesterday all counter-demonstrations were banned as Macron attended events to commemorate the “victory” over National Socialist Germany on May 8th 1945. Macron also travelled to Lyon yesterday to pay tribute to the “Resistance hero” Jean Moulin, who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1943 and died during interrogation.

Rival biographies in recent decades have suggested either that Moulin was himself a Kremlin agent, or that he was betrayed by communist rivals within the “Resistance”.

Perhaps that historical debate over Moulin will never be resolved. But what we do know is that the “victory” of 1945 inaugurated decades of tyranny, from which Europe is only now beginning to emerge. Sebastien Deyzieu is a hero of the True Europe whose spirit has survived that postwar tyranny.

H&D joins patriots across Europe in saluting his memory.

French nationalists forge ahead: Macron’s project in crisis

‘Centrist’ French President Emmanuel Macron – the ultimate Rothschild / Goldman Sachs politician – was lionised by international liberal journalists when he defeated nationalist candidate Marine Le Pen in 2017 (and to a lesser extent when he won re-election last year).

But the wheels have now come off Macron’s globalist project, and French nationalists once again seem poised for power.

The immediate crisis is due to Macron’s proposals to raise the pension age, as part of a package of reforms designed to shift social and economic policies away from the traditional French ‘big state’ towards a more Anglo-American, privatised, ‘business friendly’ model. Having failed to win a majority at last year’s parliamentary elections, Macron has opted to bypass the National Assembly and impose his new policy by presidential decree. This approach – reminiscent of the most chaotic years of Germany’s Weimar Republic – has understandably inflamed violent street protests.

Both the traditional left and Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National have strongly resisted these moves and present themselves as champions of French workers. Le Pen has for more than a decade succeeded in realigning her party (founded as the Front National by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen) towards what some would regard as more ‘left-wing’ economic policies.

Meanwhile Le Pen’s rival Éric Zemmour is pitching for a very different vote. His party Reconquête is more hardline on racial questions and less squeamish than Le Pen on issues related to French history, such as the legacy of Marshal Philippe Pétain’s wartime government at Vichy. Perhaps because Zemmour is Jewish, he has an ‘alibi’ that allows him to be relatively frank about Second World War history and more tolerant of semi-revisionist positions, from which Le Pen (unlike her father) is desperate to dissociate herself.

More directly relevant to most French voters, however, is Zemmour’s far more conservative stance on economic questions, where Reconquête is much closer to the Anglo-American mainstream right and pitches for middle-class voters, competing with the declining French conservative party (now rebranded as ‘Republicans’). Zemmour’s allies present his party as the only real voice of the ‘right’ in French politics.

In the most recent opinion polls, Zemmour is backed by 6-7% of the electorate (about the same as his 7.1% at last April’s presidential election), while Le Pen would lead a hypothetical first round with 30-33%, a significant advance on her 23.2% last year. Le Pen is well ahead of Macron’s likely successors as ‘centrist’ candidate, who would take 23-24% in the first round and compete with the far-left for the privilege of facing Le Pen in a second round run-off. (Macron himself is constitutionally barred from standing for a third term.)

In a legislative election, Le Pen’s RN would compete with the far-left, polling roughly 26% each, ahead of the President’s party on 22%. An alliance of the Republicans and other conservative parties is presently polling only 10-11%; while Reconquête polls slightly under 5%, as do dissident elements of the once-mighty Socialist Party who refuse to ally with the far-left. This is an obvious recipe for continued stalemate in the National Assembly, even if another ‘centrist’ President succeeded Macron.

Zemmour will turn 65 in August, and would be almost 69 at the next scheduled presidential election in 2027. The main far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is seven years older than Zemmour, and even Marine Le Pen (a decade younger than Zemmour) is seen by some French nationalists as only having one more credible shot at the presidency.

Given the strange dynastic pattern of French nationalism, the future of the movement might still belong to Marine’s niece Marion Maréchal, who is allied to Zemmour. To be a credible leader and future presidential candidate, Maréchal will have to transcend bitter rivalries (including a personal split with her aunt); bridge the gap between the RN’s economic interventionism and Reconquête’s pro-capitalist stance; continue to present racially conscious nationalism as serious and electable; and escape the taint of Putinism that caused serious damage to Zemmour’s campaign last year.

This might seem a tough proposition, but the crises and contradictions facing ‘centrist’, liberal and leftist strands in French politics are even more intractable.

Despite many obvious obstacles, the future of French politics belongs to nationalism. Jean-Marie Le Pen changed European politics when he built the Front National into a serious electoral force during the 1980s: in their different ways, his daughter and granddaughter have a genuine chance of entering the Elysée Palace as President of France.

Strong third-place for Marine Le Pen’s party in French by-election

Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National did well in Sunday’s by-election for one of the two seats in the National Assembly allocated to the department de l’Ariège, which is a very beautiful but rather poor and traditionally left-wing area of southern France, famous in history as the centre of the Cathar or Albigensian heresy.

The by-election was caused by irregularities in the conduct of the general election in this constituency.  The far-left candidate Bénédicte Taurine was elected at last year’s general election but has been forced to recontest the seat after the poll was quashed by the Constitutional Court. Ms Taurine represents a broad alliance of ultra-left groups which calls itself La France Insoumise (‘France Unbowed’), a title which reflects the oddly patriotic stance of French socialists who argue that economic liberalism (promoted by President Emmanuel Macron) is a betrayal of French traditions.

The RN’s vote went up by a quarter from 20% to 25% but that was not quite good enough to take RN candidate Jean-Marc Garnier into next Sunday’s second round, where the far-left’s Ms Taurine (whose first round vote slipped slightly from 33.1% to 31.2%) will run-off against a Socialist Party dissident, Martine Froger (whose vote rose from 20.0% to 26.4%, no doubt partly thanks to having her party’s name on the ballot paper this time).

The strange situation is that last year the Le Pen candidate only missed out on the run-off by eight votes, but in this week’s by-election they were 155 votes short despite a substantial increase in their own backing. Rival nationalist party Reconquête (led by Éric Zemmour) polled 2.8% (down from 3.3% last year), but while in theory this means that a combined nationalist vote would have taken second rather than third place, no-one can be sure that the RN could have relied on Reconquête voters’ backing.

Reconquête continues to be an annoyance to Marine Le Pen. It would however be simplistic to think that the two parties’ electorates are simply interchangeable. It is noteworthy that MLP’s niece Marion Maréchal (whose credibility has been badly damaged by Reconquête‘s electoral failure, but who is still seen as the eventual successor to Zemmour and perhaps as the eventual leader of French nationalism) has severely criticised the RN for not taking steps against a RN deputy who opened a mega-mosque in his constituency funded by the Turkish government. (Le Pen did eventually condemn the deputy concerned for this ‘personal initiative’.)

At the same time Maréchal and Zemmour have more or less endorsed President Macron’s view that raising the retirement age is inevitable given the burden of pension payments on the public purse.

So, rather in contrast to the way things have usually been in the UK’s nationalist movement (broad and narrow), the French movement’s middle class supporters take a harder line on race than its working class base (as well as forming a much larger proportion of the movement’s electoral base than they do here).

Macron’s candidate polled only 10.7% (down from 20.0% last year, reflecting the challenge to the president’s authority during the pensions crisis), and as in last year’s election there was no ‘centre-right’ candidate.

The split in the nationalist vote was unfortunate, but hatred between the Socialists and the far-left will be much increased by the bitter run-off on April 2nd, regardless of who wins!

Disillusionment with the entire French political system no doubt contributed to a very low turnout of only 39.6% in the by-election’s first round, down from 56.4% last year, despite a very wide range of candidates to choose from, comprising two rival nationalists, a Trotskyist who polled 2%, plus a local independent with 2.2%, and a Macronist, as well as the two rival left-wingers who will contest the run-off.

Vincent Reynouard case latest: new warrant, delayed extradition hearing

French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard – who has been jailed in Edinburgh for almost four months despite not being accused of any crime under Scottish or English law – was handed further charges today while in the dock at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

As with the previous charges, these have been issued by French prosecutors who are seeking Vincent’s extradition to be tried under the ‘Gayssot Law’, introduced in 1990 by a French Communist MP.

This bans the expression of sceptical historical views about the ‘crimes against humanity’ defined at the Nuremberg Trial and in the 1945 ‘London Charter’ that established that trial.

Most obviously, the Gayssot Law prohibits sceptical research into ‘Holocaust’ history, which is banned in several European countries, though perfectly legal in the UK.

Vincent Reynouard has previously been convicted several times of such ‘crimes’, and is best known for his investigation into the ‘Oradour massacre’ of June 1944. His published work about Oradour dates back to the 1990s, and he recently wrote a comprehensive investigation of this topic, now available (in French) from his website.

The latest warrant seems to reflect an admission by French prosecutors that they made an error in their initial warrant, under which Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Anstruther, Scotland, on 10th November last year. He has been held in Edinburgh Prison ever since his arrest.

An interview with Vincent Reynouard, by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton, will appear in the May-June edition of Heritage and Destiny. Vincent will next appear in court for a pre-trial hearing on 20th April, and the full extradition trial is presently scheduled for 8th June, again in Edinburgh.

Updates on the Vincent Reynouard case will appear here soon.

UN ESPION ANTI-FASCISTE DÉMASQUÉ

Une figure de proue de plusieurs groupes nationalistes radicaux, nationaux-socialistes et antisionistes en Espagne se révèle aujourd’hui être un agent « antifasciste » infiltré.

À partir de fin 2020 et d’une manière croissante depuis fin 2021, Armando Rodríguez Pérez a mené une double vie.

L’un des visages d’Armando Rodríguez Pérez est celui d’un avocat spécialisé dans les droits de l’homme, organisant des conférences à thème fortement « antifasciste » et dirigeant le bureau madrilène d’un cabinet d’avocats qui offre des conseils à des clients germanophones et anglophones en Espagne.

L’autre visage d’Armando Rodríguez Pérez est celui d’un leader radical de « l’extrême droite », non seulement représentant certains des nationaux-socialistes les plus connus d’Espagne mais aussi jouant un rôle actif dans la direction de leurs organisations, un fait qui soulève des questions troublantes concernant la mesure dans laquelle lui et ceux qui le commandent ont peut-être franchi la ligne entre l’infiltré et l’agent provocateur.

Au cours de novembre-décembre 2022, Armando Rodríguez Pérez :
(1) est devenu « secrétaire d’action politique » pour un nouveau mouvement qui représente la faction « nationale bolchevique » de « l’extrême droite » espagnole ;
(2) s’est infiltré dans le cercle d’une militante politique britannique et s’est rendu à sa résidence en Allemagne, où il a rencontré plusieurs militants nationaux-socialistes allemands de premier plan ;
(3) s’est porté volontaire pour assurer la liaison entre un dissident politique en fuite et le gouvernement iranien.

Pendant plus d’un an, jusqu’à la dissolution du groupe l’automne dernier, Armando Rodríguez Pérez a été co-dirigeant d’une formation de jeunesse national-socialiste, Bastión Frontal, et a organisé des liaisons à l’étranger avec des groupes homologues en France, en Italie, en Serbie, en Pologne et ailleurs.

Et, jusqu’à ce jour, il servait encore comme avocat de la défense de la militante qui a attiré l’attention des médias internationaux sur le Bastión Frontal, l’étudiante de 20 ans Isabel Peralta.

Pourtant, Armando Rodríguez Pérez n’est pas ce qu’il semble être.

INFILTRER « L’EXTRÊME DROITE »

Au cours de l’été 2020 – durant les premiers mois de la pandémie – la police secrète espagnole (le CGI, à peu près équivalent à la DGSI française) a commencé à surveiller les activités d’un nouveau groupe de jeunesse national-socialiste, le Bastión Frontal, dont les activités consistaient à la fois à s’opposer à l’immigration clandestine (en particulier aux gangs d’immigrés infestant les rues) et à attirer l’attention sur la situation besogneuse de nombreux Espagnols de la classe ouvrière qui souffraient des restrictions dues à la pandémie.

Une étudiante en histoire de 18 ans à l’Université Complutense de Madrid, Isabel Peralta, a été observée pour la première fois par la police secrète lors d’une activité du Bastión Frontal en septembre 2020. Elle avait auparavant milité dans d’autres groupes phalangistes mais avait été déçue par certains de leurs chefs réactionnaires et corrompus. Isabel s’est attiré l’attention internationale le 13 février 2021 lorsqu’elle a prononcé un discours en hommage aux héroïques volontaires anticommunistes de la División Azul, qui à partir de 1941 ont combattu sur le front de l’Est contre l’Armée rouge de Staline.

Fin 2020, un avocat de 30 ans, Armando Rodríguez Pérez, fait soudain son apparition dans les milieux « d’extrême droite ». Il s’est d’abord présenté parmi les ultras du football dans le dur quartier madrilène de San Blas-Canillejas, puis a prononcé un discours sur le bilan de l’engagement de la División Azul lors d’une réunion de nationaux-socialistes s’intéressant à l’histoire militaire. Il n’avait aucune activité politique connue, ni même le plus lointain lien avec une quelconque forme de mouvance nationaliste. Personne ne savait rien de lui et personne n’à fait une recherche sur lui. Pour des raisons qui maintenant semblent mystifiantes, Armando a été accueilli comme un camarade par diverses factions radicales, chacune supposant peut-être que quelqu’un s’était porté garant de lui.

Armando a renforcé sa crédibilité dans ces cercles en s’accrochant au Bastión Frontal après être devenu la face la plus visible du nationalisme radical espagnol, en grande partie grâce à sa co-dirigeante, Isabel Peralta.

En très peu de temps, il s’était imposé comme l’un des dirigeants de ce groupe de jeunes nationaux-socialistes, en partie parce qu’il était âgé de quelques années de plus et en partie parce qu’il leur offrait des conseils juridiques gratuits et même les représentait devant les tribunaux à titre gratuit.

Bientôt, il se faisait appeler « Armando Bastión » et prononçait régulièrement des discours lors des réunions du groupe, agissant également en tant que modérateur de leur forum en ligne sur Telegram. Après qu’Isabel Peralta a déménagé en Allemagne pendant quelques mois fin 2021 et début 2022, Armando Rodríguez Pérez s’est imposé comme chef du Bastión Frontal, surtout après l’emprisonnement du co-chef Rodrigo Miguélez. Armando a représenté Rodrigo et Isabel dans plusieurs affaires pénales et civiles.

À l’automne 2022, Bastión Frontal s’est effondré, mais Armando Rodríguez Pérez continue de représenter Isabel dans une longue affaire pénale, où les procureurs tentent de la faire emprisonner pour un discours prononcé en mai 2021 lors d’un rassemblement anti-immigration devant l’ambassade du Maroc. Il la représente également dans une action civile en cours qu’elle a intentée contre le Centre Simon Wiesenthal, basé aux États-Unis, et au Jerusalem Post.

Pourtant, dans ces deux affaires (et dans le cadre de soucis judiciaires antérieurs des militants du Bastión Frontal), Armando Rodríguez Pérez avait un grave conflit d’intérêts, ce qui faisait qu’il était manifestement malséant pour lui d’agir au nom de ces clients. Alors qu’eux étaient des militants nationalistes, nationaux-socialistes et antisionistes, Armando Rodríguez Pérez avait déjà une longue expérience (qu’il a dissimulée à ses nouveaux clients et « camarades ») de travail pour une fondation universitaire explicitement antifasciste et antinazie, entretenant d’étroits liens avec l’Etat d’Israël et des organisations juives internationales.

ARMANDO ET L’INSTITUT BERG

Armando Rodríguez Pérez est arrivé soudainement dans les cercles nationalistes / Armando Rodríguez Pérez est arrivé soudainement dans les cercles nationalistes / nationaux-socialistes après plusieurs années de travail avec un important organisme universitaire spécialisé dans les études sur « l’Holocauste » et d’autres thèmes « antifascistes » : l’Institut Berg (Instituto Berg), basé à Madrid.

Il a étudié pendant un an à l’Université hébraïque de Jérusalem. Sa biographie sur la version espagnole du site Web de son ancien cabinet d’avocats a, depuis quelque temps, été modifiée pour supprimer toute référence à son séjour à Jérusalem, mais une version antérieure de la même page en anglais porte toujours cette référence.

La maîtrise d’Armando en « Relations internationales, droit international et résolution des conflits » a été entreprise conjointement avec l’Université Alfonso X el Sabio de Madrid, l’« Université pour la paix » des Nations Unies et l’Institut Berg.

Il a ensuite travaillé au sein de « l’équipe de coordination académique » de l’Institut Berg et a participé aux programmes de formation de l’Institut menés conjointement avec l’armée et les forces de sécurité colombiennes.

Autrement dit, Armando Rodríguez Pérez ne faisait pas simplement des études en Israël, ni ne s’était simplement associé avec désinvolture à l’Institut Berg : il était en fait un organisateur et un coordinateur de plusieurs des projets de ce dernier. Et c’est d’autant plus troublant si on regarde plus en détail le contenu des conférences qu’il a organisées.

Des liens semblables avec l’Institut Berg ont été partagés avec les deux amis proches avec lesquels il a créé, en 2015, un cabinet d’avocats à Madrid appelé GABEIRO – José Feliciano Beceiro Armada et Jesús Gavilán Hormigo. Gavilán a étudié à Jérusalem en 2014 aux côtés d’Armando et a travaillé pour la Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón, nommée en l’honneur du juge « antifasciste » le plus tristement célèbre d’Espagne, tandis que Beceiro a précédé Armando en tant qu’organisateur de la conférence internationale annuelle de l’Institut Berg.

En janvier 2022 un quatrième avocat qui faisait partie de ce cabinet éphémère GABEIRO (Álvaro Domec López) a été impliqué par Armando en tant que conseil dans l’affaire pénale d’Isabel Peralta – un fait qui était complètement inconnu d’Isabel elle-même jusqu’à ce qu’il soit révélé dans des documents judiciaires.

Il faut regarder de plus près cet Institut Berg, pour lequel Armando Rodríguez Pérez a agi en tant que coordinateur/organisateur avant sa soudaine « conversion » à la cause radicale nationaliste/national-socialiste.

Il y a beaucoup de juifs dans le monde et, bien sûr, il serait ridicule de supposer qu’un avocat est un agent juif s’il a eu simplement un lien passager avec un client juif.

Le lien d’Armando est beaucoup plus grave, surtout lorsqu’on le considéré parallèlement au travail avec la police et l’armée, et au travail international entrepris avec le soutien de cette organisation antifasciste particulière.

Le lecteur doit garder à l’esprit le fait qu’Armando ne s’est à aucun moment confié à ses nouveaux camarades afin d’expliquer sa conversion politique. Son passé d’organisateur de conférences antifascistes était totalement secret jusqu’à ce qu’il soit révélé lors de l’enquête dont découle le présent article.

ARMANDO L’ORGANISATEUR DE CONFÉRENCES ANTI-NAZIES

En 2014 et 2015, Armando Rodríguez Pérez a été l’organisateur de deux conférences internationales pour l’Institut Berg. Il s’agissait d’événements de très haut niveau qui duraient chacun une quinzaine de jours, commençant à Madrid puis se déplaçant à plusieurs autres villes européennes. Les directeurs de la conférence étaient les deux co-directeurs de l’Institut Berg, dont l’un était le directeur académique d’Armando, le professeur Joaquin González Ibáñez.

Ces conférences étaient imprégnées de l’éthos « antinazi » et antifasciste propre à l’institut. Le 23 juin 2014, la deuxième journée de la conférence comprenait un hommage à l’exposition au Museo Reina Sofía consacrée au tableau de Picasso Guernica (la ville basque espagnole bombardée par la légion Condor, une force allemande qui appuyait les nationalistes du général Franco en avril 1937 pendant la guerre civile), œuvre qui a atteint un statut mythique et iconique pour les antifascistes.

Un co-directeur de l’Institut Berg y a fait une intervention intitulée « Le colonialisme, les guerres mondiales et l’Holocauste » ; après cette conférence, quelques-uns des participants ont visité la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Puis le 1er juillet suivant Armando a organisé une visite au camp de concentration de Natzweiler-Struthof en Alsace. C’était le seul camp de ce type établi par les autorités allemandes sur le sol français, et il est souvent décrit comme un «camp de la mort». On prétend – mais cela fait l’objet d’une certaine controverse – qu’il y a eu une chambre à gaz homicide dans le camp, mais qu’il s’agissait seulement d’un local primitif censé avoir été utilisé pour d’occasionnelles mises à mort expérimentales et non pour des massacres comme ceux que l’on met sur le compte d’Auschwitz et d’autres camps d’Europe de l’Est.

Le regretté universitaire révisionniste Prof. Robert Faurisson a analysé en détail cette histoire de « chambre à gaz » de Natzweiler-Struthof. Faurisson a découvert que même l’expert scientifique envoyé par les procureurs militaires français pour examiner le Struthof (il s’agit du professeur René Fabre, doyen de la faculté de pharmacologie de Paris) a conclu en décembre 1945 qu’il n’y avait aucune trace d’acide cyanhydrique (c’est-à-dire le principe actif de l’arme présumée du meurtre de masse, le ‘Zyklon B’, en fait un insecticide largement commercialisé) dans la prétendue « chambre à gaz » du camp. Les cadavres de victimes prétendument « gazées » que Fabre a inspectés dans une morgue de Strasbourg ne présentaient pas non plus de trace de ce poison. Natzweiler-Struthof est donc unique parmi les prétendus « camps de la mort » en ceci qu’il a fait l’objet d’une enquête scientifique menée non pas par un « révisionniste » mais par un expert travaillant pour la justice du nouveau gouvernement français en 1945 et dont les résultats montrent qu’il n’avait pas pu fonctionner pour les buts qu’encore aujourd’hui l’industrie de l’« Holocauste » lui impute.

Mais rien de tout cela n’est mentionné par l’Institut Berg, pour lequel la visite organisée par Armando n’était qu’une génuflexion sur un lieu de l’« Holocauste ». Comme le voyage à Madrid pour voir l’exposition consacrée au Guernica, c’était un acte d’hommage quasi religieux aux « victimes du nazisme ». Comme nous le verrons, toute la vision de l’Institut Berg repose sur des fondements holocaustiques.

Au lendemain de cet acte d’hommage au « camp de la mort », la conférence a discuté du grand procès de Nuremberg, encore un élément fondamental pour la version du « droit international des droits de l’homme » promue par l’Institut Berg.

Un an plus tard, en juin-juillet 2015, Armando a organisé une seconde conférence de l’Institut Berg selon des principes très similaires, intégrant à nouveau une visite du « camp de la mort » de Natzweiler-Struthof. Cette fois il y avait aussi une conférence du juriste universitaire Javier Chinchón, de l’Université Complutense de Madrid, sur le thème de la mémoire historique et de la responsabilité de l’État envers les «victimes». Chinchón a soutenu que l’Espagne n’avait pas suffisamment condamné les crimes de l’ère franquiste : il a été l’un des principaux lobbyistes universitaires à faire pression pour le passage d’une « loi de Mémoire Démocratique » stricte du type récemment adopté.

La cliente actuelle d’Armando, Isabel Peralta, a fait campagne de l’autre côté de ce débat – mais à aucun moment Armando ne lui a avoué qu’il avait lui-même été l’organisateur de conférences universitaires qui promouvaient activement la loi en question ; des conférences pleinement imprégnées d’une morale « antifasciste » cherchant à fonder toute l’approche aux « droits de l’homme » sur une certaine orientation politique pour ce qui concerne la guerre civile espagnole et la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

En 2013, une conférence précédente de l’Institut Berg – organisée dans le même sens que les deux qu’avait animées Armando lui-même en 2014-2015 – a été organisée par le partenaire d’Armando dans le cabinet GABEIRO, José Feliciano Beceiro Armada. Cela comprenait une réception offerte par l’ambassadeur colombien. (Beceiro et Armando ont tous deux participé aux séances de formation de l’Institut Berg pour l’armée et les forces de sécurité colombiennes.)

Encore une fois, la conférence s’est conclue par un pèlerinage solennel au « camp de la mort » de Natzweiler-Struthof.

Les collègues d’Armando à l’Institut Berg ont continué à organiser ces conférences chaque année, exception faite des annulations dues à la pandémie. En 2019, la conférence s’est tenue en Israël, en coordination avec le partenaire académique de longue date de l’Institut Berg qu’est l’Université hébraïque de Jérusalem. Il comprenait des visites à l’ancienne icône historique de Massada (où, dit-on, des soldats juifs se sont suicidés en 74 après J-C plutôt que de se rendre aux forces romaines qui avaient assiégé la forteresse) et au parlement israélien, la Knesset ; et bien sûr un pèlerinage au Musée de l’Holocauste, Yad Vashem.

En janvier 2022 une conférence internationale similaire organisée par l’Institut Berg comprenait un pèlerinage à Auschwitz.

L’INSTITUT BERG – ENRACINÉ DANS LES ÉTUDES SUR « L’HOLOCAUSTE » ET L’ANTI-NAZISME

L’Institut Berg – pour lequel Armando Rodríguez Pérez a travaillé et qui a été le co-organisateur de sa formation académique – est spécialisé dans la publication des travaux de personnalités juives de premier plan en relation avec « l’Holocauste », des procès pour crimes de guerre et des activités antinazies.

Formellement constitué en 2009 sous le nom de Fundación Berg Oceana Aufklarung, son fondateur et codirecteur est Joaquín Gonzáles Ibáñez, professeur de droit international et de relations internationales à la fois à l’Université Complutense de Madrid, établie de longue date, et à l’université privée Alfonso X, d’instauration beaucoup plus récente.

Dans un interview de janvier 2019 le professeur Gonzáles a expliqué que l’Institut s’était en partie inspiré de son héros politique Nelson Mandela, et a souligné que toute sa vision des « droits de l’homme » était enracinée dans l’antifascisme et l’antinazisme :
« Nous nous référons toujours à la perspective historique, selon laquelle vraisemblablement les trois pires héritages des derniers siècles, les heures les plus sombres, les chapitres les plus sombres, les moments les plus infâmes des deux derniers siècles de l’histoire mondiale ont été précisément créés par les Européens. Ce que je veux dire, c’est l’héritage du colonialisme et du fascisme, tous les deux sont des créations européennes. Ainsi, Franco, Mussolini et Hitler et d’autres personnages historiques sont tout aussi européens que van Gogh, Goya ou Picasso. Et dans ce programme, nous commençons par Auschwitz et nous allons au Musée d’Art Moderne Reina Sofía pour une rencontre avec le Guernica de Picasso. Et nous avons cet outil, qui est une approche juridique, mais aussi historique, politique… »

Le professeur Gonzáles poursuivait en expliquant comment son Institut Berg avait créé « la plus importante bibliothèque des droits de l’homme en langue espagnole ». Cela a commencé en 2010 avec la Trilogie d’Auschwitz de Primo Levi, qui fut « le berceau du projet, le premier livre de la collection, numéro zéro, nous avions la chance d’avoir le meilleur point de départ. … Aller à Auschwitz main dans la main avec Primo Levi, cela vous montre non seulement le passé, mais aussi quelles sont vos principales responsabilités envers la planète Terre. »

Au moment de cet entretien de 2019, l’Institut venait de publier Totalmente Extraoficial, les mémoires de Raphael Lemkin, publiés à l’origine en anglais en 2013 sous le titre Totally Unofficial. Plus célèbre comme l’homme qui a inventé le terme « génocide », Lemkin était un avocat juif polonais qui s’était transféré aux États-Unis et est devenu conseiller spécial au ministère de la guerre américain. Son livre de 1944, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, est considéré comme un « texte fondamental dans les études sur l’Holocauste », et Lemkin est devenu le principal conseiller de Robert H. Jackson, conseil en chef du procès de Nuremberg.

L’édition espagnole comportait 70 pages supplémentaires tirées des archives de Lemkin et un prologue de l’écrivain espagnol Antonio Muñoz Molina, lauréat du prix de Jérusalem qui réside actuellement à New York. Muñoz a également écrit une introduction à l’édition espagnole, réalisée par l’Institut Berg en 2019, des mémoires des « chasseurs de nazis » les plus célèbres d’Europe, Serge et Beate Klarsfeld (publiés à l’origine en français en 2015, puis en anglais en 2018 sous le titre Hunting the Truth: Memoirs of Beate and Serge Klarsfeld). La vidéo ci-dessous montre un événement organisé conjointement par l’Institut Berg et un centre culturel juif de Madrid – Centro Sefarad Israel – rendant hommage aux Klarsfeld.

On sait maintenant que les Klarsfeld travaillaient régulièrement avec la police secrète de l’Allemagne de l’est communiste – la Stasi – pour diaboliser des hommes politiques occidentaux en les traitant de « nazis » et monter des coups de propagande « anti-nazis ». Ils ont organisé de nombreuses opérations secrètes contre des anciens militaires nationaux-socialistes et des « néo-nazis », et en 1974 ont été reconnus coupables et condamnés à deux mois de prison (sursis accordé en définitive) pour la tentative d’enlèvement de l’ancien officier SS de renseignement Kurt Lischka.

Parmi les réalisations les plus célèbres des Klarsfeld figurent la recherche de l’ancien officier de la Gestapo Klaus Barbie et son expulsion de Bolivie vers la France pour y être jugé, et la campagne pour réclamer des poursuites contre le préfet de police de Paris à la retraite Maurice Papon. Ils ont également traqué René Bousquet, ancien fonctionnaire du gouvernement de Philippe Pétain à Vichy. Bousquet a été assassiné avant qu’il ne puisse passer en jugement.

A plusieurs reprises, les Klarsfeld ont tenté de retrouver Alois Brunner, un ancien fonctionnaire du Troisième Reich qui vivait à Damas après la guerre : Beate Klarsfeld a même entrepris une mission d’infiltration en Syrie, où elle a été brièvement emprisonnée.

Depuis la fin des années 1970, l’une des principales cibles des Klarsfeld était l’universitaire révisionniste français Robert Faurisson. Ils ont fait campagne pour des poursuites contre Faurisson, ont participé au tout premier procès intenté contre lui en 1979 et ont organisé une propagande anti-révisionniste dans de nombreux pays. Ils ont également été actifs dans des campagnes contre des personnages politiques représentant de nombreuses tendances nationalistes de nos jours, y compris Marine Le Pen qui s’éloigne minutieusement du racialisme, du révisionnisme historique et de « l’antisémitisme ».

Les Klarsfeld, beaucoup mis en valeur par le fondateur de l’Institut Berg, Gonzáles, sont parmi les principales inspirations de ce dernier, tout comme Fritz Bauer, le magistrat juif allemand qui était chargé d’informer le service de renseignement israélien, Mossad, sur la localisation d’Adolf Eichmann, ainsi permettant à cet organisme d’entamer l’opération qui s’est achevée par son enlèvement à Buenos Aires, suivi de son procès et son exécution à Jérusalem. Bauer a également été procureur au procès dit d’Auschwitz à Francfort qui a débuté en 1963, le procès le plus important lié à « l’Holocauste » après celui de Nuremberg. L’Institut Berg a travaillé avec l’Institut Fritz Bauer pour créer un « Prix du film sur les droits de l’homme » en l’honneur de Fritz Bauer et de Raphael Lemkin conjointement.

Le professeur Gonzáles a dit que, en construisant l’institut, il a « personnellement songé à mes héros, Lemkin, Primo Levi, bien sûr, Klarsfeld et enfin Fritz Bauer. … D’autre part, nous travaillons sur quelque chose de spécial sur la guerre civile en Espagne et l’après-guerre civile et le traumatisme et l’héritage punitif et infâme de la dictature de Franco et la bonne fortune d’une réponse démocratique au cours des 40 dernières années de démocratie espagnole. Nous n’avions en Espagne, lorsque s’est déroulée la transition, aucun programme de conçu concernant la manière de traiter les violations des droits de l’homme et les crimes de la dictature de Franco de 1939 à 1975. Probablement peu de gens avaient pensé à ce scénario nécessaire. »

En d’autres termes, le professeur Gonzáles aborde l’échec des efforts d’institutionnaliser « l’antifascisme » dans l’Espagne post-franquiste. On a remédié à cette lacune en 2022 avec la « loi de la Mémoire Démocratique » qui diabolise le nationalisme espagnol et consacre les communistes et les antifascistes comme des héros, et avec une loi connexe sur « l’antisémitisme » qui, en effet, fait un délit de la critique du judaïsme et de nombreuses formes de révisionnisme de « l’Holocauste ».

Parmi les autres livres publiés par l’Institut Berg on trouve:
– L’édition espagnole de El juicio de Eichmann de Deborah Lipstadt (2019) : titre d’origine : The Eichmann Trial (2011).
– L’édition espagnole des mémoires du juif allemand Richard Sonnenfeldt, officier du renseignement qui était l’interprète personnel du général William Donovan, chef de l’OSS (précurseur de la CIA), et interprète en chef de l’équipe d’accusation américaine lors du procès de Nuremberg ; ces mémoires ont été publiés en espagnol par l’Instituto Berg en 2018 sous le titre Testigo en Núremberg ; publié d’abord en anglais en 2006 sous le titre Witness to Nuremberg.
– Un livre sur les néo-nazis américains d’Aryeh Neier, avocate juive allemande qui pendant vingt ans a été présidente du réseau « philanthropique » de George Soros, l’Open Society Institute ; dans l’édition espagnole de l’Instituto Berg (2020), ce livre s’intitule Defendiendo a mi enemigo ; publié d’abord en anglais en 1979 sous le titre Defending My Enemy: American Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, and the Risks of Freedom.
– Les mémoires de Sari Nusseibeh, un Palestinien très controversé considéré par beaucoup de ses compatriotes comme un traître puisqu’il prône l’abandon du droit au retour des Palestiniens en échange d’accords non spécifiés de « paix » avec Israël ; en 2002 Nusseibeh a été co-fondateur d’une initiative conjointe avec Ami Ayalon, ancien chef du service de sécurité israélien Shin Bet ; ces mémoires ont été publiés par l’Instituto Berg en 2020 sous le titre Érase una vez un país: una vida palestina (première parution en anglais en 2007 sous le titre Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life).
– El juicio del Káiser, de l’universitaire juif canadien William Schabas, une histoire de la tentative après la Première Guerre mondiale de traduire en justice l’empereur allemand Guillaume II pour « crimes de guerre » ; cette édition espagnole a été publiée en 2020 ; le titre d’origine en est The Trial of the Kaiser (2018); une grande partie du travail de Schabas se concentre sur le développement de la doctrine des droits de l’homme dans le contexte de « l’Holocauste » et du procès de Nuremberg, bien qu’il ait parfois fait l’objet de controverse pour son association avec la gauche israélienne et ses critiques à l’encontre des gouvernements Netanyahu.
– Les mémoires de Telford Taylor, un avocat américain et officier du renseignement surtout connu pour son rôle de procureur en chef au procès de Nuremberg. Ce livre a été publié par l’Instituto Berg en 2022 sous le titre Anatomía de los juicios de Núremberg ; titre d’origine : The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir (1992).
– Justicia Imperfecta de Stuart Eizenstat, publié par l’Instituto Berg en 2019; première parution en anglais sous le titre Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labour, and the Unfinished Business of World War II (2009). Il s’agit d’un récit du rôle d’Eizenstat dans les années 1990 dans les tentatives d’obtenir une compensation financière pour les familles juives dont les biens immeubles, les biens personnels ou les comptes bancaires auraient été confisqués ou autrement perdus pendant « l’Holocauste ». Depuis 2013, il est le « conseiller spécial pour les questions de l’Holocauste » du Département d’État américain, nommé à ce poste par Hillary Clinton.

IIl ne pourrait vraiment pas être plus clair que l’Institut Berg est l’un des principaux établissements universitaires en Espagne qui font la promotion des études sur « l’Holocauste », et qu’il est imprégné d’une morale antifasciste et « antinazie ». Cependant, l’ancien élève de l’Institut qu’est Armando Rodríguez Pérez s’est présenté ces deux dernières années comme un militant fasciste, national-socialiste ou national-bolchevique : tantôt carliste, tantôt phalangiste, tantôt franquiste défenseur d’une nation espagnole unie, tantôt soutenant des desseins séparatistes. Tout en passant d’une faction à l’autre, Armando s’est étroitement associé aux groupes militants de «l’extrême droite» espagnole. Non seulement a-t-il agi en tant qu’avocat pour les figures de proue du groupe de jeunesse national-socialiste Bastión Frontal, aujourd’hui défunt, mais aussi il s’en était inséré au sein de la direction.

MISSION D’INFILTRATION

Ces derniers mois, la mission de l’infiltré antifasciste Armando Rodríguez Pérez a été élargie. Il a cherché à se rapprocher de Juan Antonio Llopart, nationaliste radical de longue date ainsi qu’éditeur. Armando se présente comme un militant antisioniste cherchant à assurer la liaison avec le gouvernement iranien et ses alliés.

Il est désormais répertorié comme « secrétaire à l’action politique » de la nouvelle organisation de Llopart, Movimiento Pueblo, qui essaie de s’enregistrer en tant que parti politique à temps pour les élections locales de 2023. Lors d’une récente conférence à Madrid qu’il a aidé Llopart à organiser, Armando a rencontré pour la première fois l’activiste britannique Lady Michèle Renouf, qui l’a plutôt naturellement supposé être un nationaliste et un antisioniste de bonne foi. Au cours du week-end du 2 au 4 décembre 2022, Armando a assisté à un petit rassemblement à la résidence secondaire de Lady Renouf dans la campagne allemande, où parmi les convives figuraient des personnalités bien connus de la scène national-socialiste. Bonne nouveauté pour l’infiltré antifasciste Armando, qui aura ramassé des renseignements et noué ce qu’il espère seront d’utiles rapports. Les personnes impliquées sont maintenant averties des véritables allégeances d’Armando, et nous espérons que les dégâts seront minimisés.

Ces relations britanniques et allemandes ont déjà permis à Armando Rodríguez Pérez de s’insinuer dans un stratagème visant à obtenir de l’aide de la part de l’Iran pour un fugitif politique recherché par les autorités allemandes. Nous sommes pleinement informés de ce plan mais, pour des raisons évidentes, nous n’en communiquons pas encore les détails. On prend actuellement des mesures pour minimiser les dégâts que l’infiltré antifasciste Armando Rodríguez Pérez peut causer – bien que l’on ne sache pas encore si son intention est de saboter les efforts en cours pour secourir le dissident en question ou d’utiliser toute l’affaire pour se mettre dans les bonnes grâces des réseaux iraniens et, peut-être, les infiltrer pour le compte des intérêts israéliens.

Ce qui est certain, c’est qu’Armando Rodríguez Pérez signifie des ennuis pour les nationalistes, les nationaux-socialistes, les révisionnistes et les antisionistes. Plusieurs de ses positions idéologiques incohérentes semblent avoir été adoptées avec l’intention première d’affaiblir et de diviser le mouvement nationaliste radical, tant en Espagne qu’au niveau international.

En janvier de 2022 la police de Madrid, lorsqu’elle tentait de retrouver Isabel Peralta (qui à l’époque résidait temporairement en Allemagne), a reçu un appel téléphonique d’un avocat du nom d’Alvaro Domec qui prétendait être le représentant légal d’Isabel. En fait, elle ne l’avait jamais rencontré, n’avait jamais correspondu avec lui et n’avait jamais entendu parler de lui, mais les pièces judiciaires de son procès en cours d’instruction pour le discours de mai 2021 devant l’ambassade du Maroc continuent de présenter Domec comme ayant été son avocat.

Pour des raisons inconnues, aucun des dossiers de la police et du parquet relatifs à l’enquête sur Isabel Peralta et le Bastión Frontal ne mentionne Armando Rodríguez Pérez. De plus, malgré l’intérêt intense des médias antifascistes et grand public pour le Bastión Frontal lequel, pendant une grande partie de 2021-2022, a été dépeint comme une organisation « néonazie » particulièrement dangereuse et violente, aucun journaliste ni aucun « antifasciste » n’a jamais démasqué l’avocat madrilène apparemment respectable Armando Rodríguez Pérez comme étant son co-dirigeant « Armando Bastión ».

Tout aussi mystérieuse était la réticence d’Armando lui-même en mars 2022, lorsque sa cliente Isabel Peralta a été détenue à l’aéroport de Francfort et interrogée avant d’être expulsée d’Allemagne dans ce qui semble être un acte éventuellement illégale ; même réticence en octobre 2022, lorsqu’Isabel a de nouveau été détenue par la police dans la région de Hesse et s’est vu signifier un ordre d’exclusion permanente. Dans les deux cas, elle avait cruellement besoin d’un avocat allemand fiable, mais Armando a donné toute l’impression qu’il n’avait aucune relation en Allemagne qui puisse l’aider.

Au moment de l’arrestation d’Isabel en mars à Francfort, c’est le rédacteur en chef adjoint de Heritage & Destiny, Peter Rushton – et non pas son avocat madrilène Armando Rodríguez Pérez – qui a pris contact avec un avocat de Berlin bien expérimenté, Mᵉ Wolfram Nahrath, et lui a demandé de représenter Isabel, ce qu’il a fait.

Cette circonstance a ensuite été utilisée six ou sept mois plus tard par les autorités allemandes comme « preuve » qu’Isabel elle-même avait des « relations de haut niveau » avec des « extrémistes politiques allemands ».

Totalement à l’insu d’Isabel, son avocat espagnol Armando entretient en effet des liens particulièrement étroits avec des avocats allemands, un fait qu’il avait soigneusement évité de lui mentionner. En fait, son cabinet d’avocats à Madrid (adresse : Calle de Serrano, 79, 7d, la même que son ancien cabinet GABEIRO) fonctionne maintenant comme la succursale madrilène du cabinet Strafverteidiger Spanien. Cette entreprise porte un nom allemand, bien qu’il soit basée à Barcelone et possède également une succursale dans la station touristique de Palma de Majorque.

Le cabinet est dirigé par l’amie et collègue d’Armando, María Barbancho Saborit, et se spécialise dans la représentation de clients germanophones ayant besoin de conseil en Espagne, y compris des personnes accusées de délits financiers et/ou faisant l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt européen.

Mme Barbancho Saborit semble être en partie d’ascendance allemande et a fait ses études à la Deutsche Schule de Barcelone, avant de passer une partie de son cursus universitaire à Heidelberg. Rien ne suggère que Mme Barbancho Saborit soit nécessairement partie prenante ou même consciente de la double vie d’Armando au sein des mouvements nationalistes en Europe. Elle est diplômée à la fois en droit espagnol et allemand.

CONCLUSION

La mission d’infiltration d’Armando Rodríguez Pérez en tant qu’espion au sein des cercles nationalistes radicaux et nationaux-socialistes soulève de graves questions sur le système judiciaire espagnol.

Comment peut-il être juste qu’un infiltré agisse en tant que représentant légal d’une personne accusée de délits politiques, alors qu’à l’insu de son client ce représentant a une longue histoire d’association avec des idées politiques complètement opposées ?

Naturellement, il est possible pour un avocat de représenter quelqu’un dont il ne partage pas les opinions. Mais dans le cas présent, Armando Rodríguez Pérez a fait semblant de partager ces opinions – il a en fait agi en tant que chef des groupes politiques concernés ainsi qu’avocat de leurs militants – tout en ayant, en fait, une allégeance de longue date aux forces opposées.

Il est urgent que les poursuites en cours contre Isabel Peralta soient abandonnées et que la police secrète et les procureurs espagnols expliquent ce qu’ils savent sur le véritable programme d’Armando Rodríguez Pérez.

En attendant, nous continuerons à travailler avec les membres des mouvements nationalistes, nationaux-socialistes, révisionnistes et antisionistes dans divers pays dans le but de minimiser et de réparer les dégâts provoqués par ce personnage.

Comme l’a écrit Friedrich Nietzsche il y a plus d’un siècle : Aus der Kriegsschule des Lebens – Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker. « Appris à l’école de guerre de la vie : ce qui ne me tue pas me rend plus fort. »

Next Page »