Winners and losers as Europe’s populist tide ebbs and flows

Leading figures in ‘The Movement’, an alliance of European populists – (left to right) former Trump adviser Steve Bannon; Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini; and Brussels-based Jewish lawyer Mischael Modrikamen

While Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party celebrated big victories in this week’s European elections, the much-advertised populist breakthrough proved to be at best a patchy affair.

Predictably the big populist winners included Italy‘s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, whose anti-immigration Lega party topped the polls with 34.3% and 29 seats – a huge increase on their 6.2% and five seats in 2014, when the party was known as Lega Nord (Northern League).

Also continuing to advance were the nationalist-conservative governing parties in Poland and Hungary.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party are suspended from the European conservative group EPP, but Orban had the last laugh this week. While most European conservative parties are in crisis, Fidesz increased their support to 52.3%, up from 51.5% in 2014.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban was among the big winners at this year’s Euro-elections

A very radical nationalist party polled exceptionally well in Slovakia. Marian Kotleba’s People’s Party Our Slovakia – a party that stands staunchly in the tradition of Slovakia’s wartime leader Monsignor Jozef Tiso – gained two MEPs after polling 12.1% (up from 1.8% in 2014).

By contrast some previously successful populist and anti-Islam parties suffered poor results. The once-influential Dutch Freedom Party led by Geert Wilders was wiped out, losing all four of their MEPs and polling 3.5% (down from 13.2% in 2014).

Also badly beaten was the Danish People’s Party who lost three of their four MEPs after their vote fell from 26.6% to 10.7%. Voters in Denmark showed the strongest evidence of a trend also witnessed in some other European countries: an anti-populist backlash with increased turnouts among previously apathetic voters.

Marine Le Pen, once Europe’s most successful anti-immigration politician, has been to some extent eclipsed by her Italian ally Salvini, but Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) – previously the National Front (FN) – again topped the poll in France with 23.3% (slightly down from the FN’s 24.9% in 2014). The more ‘moderate’ French eurosceptic party France Arise (DLF) led by Farage’s main French ally Nicolas Dupont-Aignan fell below the 5% threshold to obtain MEPs. DLF polled 3.5% (down from 3.8% under an earlier party name in 2014).

Marine Le Pen (leader of the renamed French National Front) stayed top of the polls, but her ally Geert Wilders saw his Dutch Freedom Party wiped out.

Le Pen’s former FN vice-president Florian Philippot broke away in September 2017 to form a splinter party called The Patriots, mainly on the European issue: unlike Le Pen he wants France to leave the European Union. Philippot’s party polled only 0.7% despite seeking to appropriate the name of the anti-establishment “yellow vest” street protestors.

Having lost one of her main European parliamentary allies with the demise of Geert Wilders’ Dutch Freedom Party, Le Pen will have been greatly cheered by the landslide gains for the Flemish nationalists Vlaams Belang. In simultaneous Belgian regional, parliamentary and European elections, VB’s young leader Tom Van Grieken (elected in 2014 as a 28-year-old) succeeded in turning round the party’s fortunes.

VB now have 18 seats in the Belgian Parliament (up from 3 in 2014) and three MEPs (up from one in 2014).

The other important Le Pen ally is the Austrian Freedom Party, who managed to hold on 18.1% (down from 19.7% in 2014) despite a financial scandal that has destroyed the career of party leader and former Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache. In fact these European elections pale into insignificance against the background of Austria’s political crisis, which has now brought down the government and provoked a general election to be held in September.

Rather than consistent populist/nationalist success, the main event of this year’s European elections in most of the continent was a dramatic increase in turnout: up from 42.2% to 50.1% in France; from 48.1% to 61.4% in Germany; and from 43.8% to 64.3% in Spain.

Golden Dawn supporters rally outside the Greek Parliament

The new Spanish anti-immigration party Vox elected three MEPs for the first time after polling 6.2% (up from 1.6% in 2014 but down from 10.3% at this year’s general election).

In Germany the civic nationalist and anti-immigration party AfD (Alternative for Germany) polled 4.1m votes (11.0%), up from 2.1m votes (7.1%) in 2014, increasing their tally of MEPs from seven to eleven.

One side-effect of AfD’s success was the defeat of the long-established German nationalist party NPD, who polled 101,000 votes (0.3%), down from 301,000 votes (1.0%) in 2014. The NPD’s sole MEP Udo Voigt consequently lost his seat. Two smaller German nationalist parties also contested the Euro-election. Die Rechte polled 25,000 votes for a slate headed by 90-year-old author and historical justice campaigner Ursula Haverbeck, who is presently serving a prison sentence for “holocaust denial”. The III Path (Dritte Weg) polled 13,000 votes.

Greek national socialist party Golden Dawn lost one of their three MEPs after polling 4.8%, down from 9.4% in 2014 (though in contrast to some populist parties Golden Dawn is disproportionately strong among young voters). Their Maltese counterparts Imperium Europa, a national socialist party led by Norman Lowell, polled 3.2%, up from 2.8% in 2014.



German lawyer arrested again: faces 18 months in jail

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence in April 2011: today she was again imprisoned.

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz was arrested again today for what George Orwell would have called ‘thought crimes’ – in the supposedly ‘democratic’ Federal Republic.

Her ‘offence’ is to have given a speech in Switzerland in 2012 where she spoke about her earlier conviction in 2008 for offences against Germany’s notorious ‘Paragraph 130’ law that forbids discussion of or research into forbidden historical topics.

Sylvia Stolz was imprisoned from 2008 to 2011. For her speech in Switzerland she was convicted again in February 2015 and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, later reduced on appeal to 18 months.

It is this 18 month sentence that she must now serve following today’s arrest.

Less than two weeks ago the host of the Swiss conference where Sylvia Stolz gave her ‘offending’ speech – religious broadcaster and author Ivo Sasek – was represented at an alternative media conference in the Bundestag (Germany’s federal parliament in Berlin) held by the civic nationalist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

Despite the climate of fear engendered by ‘liberal dictatorships’ across Europe (seen at its worst in Germany), voters in this week’s European elections are set to defy political elites.

Not only AfD but a host of anti-establishment parties are set to win seats in the European Parliament. Voters in the UK went to the polls today, but because most countries do not vote until Sunday, there will be no counting until Sunday night and Monday morning.

This website will bring up to date coverage and analysis of results as they are declared. The present May-June edition of H&D contains a detailed analysis of the many different populist or nationalist parties standing in different European countries; the July-August edition will have reports on the results and on the widening division between Europeans and their rulers.

Final candidate totals for 2019 local elections

With today’s release of nominations for local authority elections in Northern Ireland, H&D can now publish our calculation of the final candidate totals for the UK’s various eurosceptic / nationalist political parties.

Not all of these parties are in any way racial nationalist, and not all racial nationalists are in any way eurosceptic, but we publish this list for our readers’ interest in showing the state of British electoral politics everywhere to the right of the Conservative Party.

Perhaps even “right” is not the correct word, but it is from somewhere within this spectrum that a new force will have to be drawn to rescue the United Kingdom from its multiracial / multicultural chaos of recent decades.

UKIP has eighteen candidates in various parts of Ulster, given them a total of 1,400 candidates across the UK for the scheduled local council elections, plus three mayoral candidates and about twenty in local by-elections that are also being held on May 2nd.

In other words UKIP will be contesting 16% of the available seats this year

Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain Movement has no candidates in Ulster, so their total remains 42.

Democrats & Veterans have three Ulster candidates, giving them 20 nationwide, plus a by-election candidate in the London Borough of Lewisham.

The new party Aontú, on which H&D recently reported, is a socially conservative and eurosceptic split from both Sinn Féin and the SDLP (north of the border) and Fianna Fáil south of the border. Aontú has sixteen candidates in various parts of Northern Ireland: an impressive total for a very new party.

Jolene Bunting, originally elected as a councillor for Traditional Unionist Voice, later became associated with the anti-Islamist group Britain First, which has failed to register as a political party but is supporting two independent candidates for English councils. Ms Bunting is standing as an Independent in the Court area of Belfast. It is not clear to H&D precisely what her present relationship is with Britain First following some internal rows last year.

TUV themselves have 32 local authority candidates this year.

So the updated candidate totals are as follows:

  • UKIP 1,400
  • For Britain 42
  • Traditional Unionist Voice 32
  • Democrats & Veterans 20
  • Aontú 16
  • English Democrats 10
  • Veterans & People’s Party 7
  • Our Nation 5
  • National Front 3
  • Populist 3
  • Britain First (standing as Independents) 3
  • British Democrats 2
  • BNP 2
  • British Resistance 1
  • Patria 1
  • Independents 3

For further details check our earlier articles on election nominations here and here.

H&D will continue to report on the local election campaign, and will include a comprehensive report on the results in our next issue, which as a consequence will appear slightly later than normal in early May.

Political Vacuum at 2019 Elections

Despite the Great Brexit Betrayal at Westminster, this year’s local elections bear witness to a vacuum where nationalist (and even eurosceptic) politics used to exist.

Nominations closed this afternoon with polling day on May 2nd, and though many councils have yet to publish their lists of candidates, it seems from H&D‘s early analysis that UKIP and its various splinters have put up smaller slates than expected, though almost everywhere UKIP remains well ahead of its rivals For Britain and Democrats & Veterans.

An exception is Epping Forest, where an efficient For Britain branch directed by former BNP election guru Eddy Butler is fielding two candidates, both of them ex-BNP, compared to one for UKIP. Former BNP councillor Mrs Patricia Richardson in Waltham Abbey Honey Lane and former London mayoral candidate Julian Leppert in Waltham Abbey Paternoster have already carried out extensive leafletting and are among the very few nationalist candidates with any chance of winning this year. Elsewhere in the borough English Democrat leader Robin Tilbrook is contesting his home ward of Chipping Ongar.

Stoke-on-Trent, once a jewel in the BNP crown, now elects its full complement of councillors once every four years, so 2019 should have been an important opportunity for both UKIP and Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain Movement, who presently have their sole councillor here.

Some anti-fascist “experts” had predicted a big slate of For Britain candidates here: in fact there are only three, including incumbent councillor Richard Broughan. Similarly UKIP have just three Stoke candidates.

A more impressive showing for Ms Waters’ party is in Leeds, where they are contesting eight of the 33 vacancies – in three of these they will have no UKIP opponent. UKIP have 16 Leeds candidates, and in Bramley & Stanningley ward voters will have UKIP, For Britain and the English Democrats on their ballot paper!

Another failure is in Burnley, where UKIP is contesting only three of the 15 wards and For Britain none. While racial nationalist parties are conspicuous by their absence from most ballot papers, there is one National Front candidate in Burnley – former BNP organiser Steven Smith, who we are pleased to note will have no UKIP opposition in the Brunshaw ward.

Other NF candidates so far declared include the party’s deputy chairman Jordan Pont in East Ecclesfield ward, Sheffield (where he unfortunately has UKIP opposition); and Chris Jackson in his home ward of Todmorden, Calderdale. Like Steven Smith, Chris has no UKIP opposition. Across Sheffield, UKIP are contesting 22 of the 28 vacancies, while D&V have three candidates, only one of whom has UKIP opposition. In Calderdale there are no UKIP candidates at all, and just one For Britain candidate.

Dr Jim Lewthwaite of the British Democrats

Former councillor Dr Jim Lewthwaite is again contesting Wyke ward, Bradford, for the British Democrats. He has no UKIP or D&V opponent and can expect a creditable result. The British Democrats are also contesting Loughborough Shelthorpe ward in Charnwood, Leicestershire.

Elsewhere in Bradford there are nine UKIP candidates, one from D&V, and none from For Britain, even though the latter’s head office is in the city!

For Britain (like the National Front before them) focused much campaigning energy in Rochdale following various Asian/Muslim scandals, but this has produced nothing electorally: UKIP will contest 16 of the 20 Rochdale wards, For Britain none. Even more startling is the total absence of nationalist/eurosceptic parties in Blackpool, an area that voted 75% for Brexit and where (as in Rochdale) there has been extensive campaigning by a range of anti-Islamist groups. For Britain supporters have talked for some time about targeting Blackpool, but they have not fielded a single candidate, and this year there will be no-one from Blackpool UKIP on the ballot paper either.

A similarly rare example of UKIP progress (at least in terms of candidates) is Oldham, where there is a serious slate of 14 UKIP candidates – though not the full slate of 20 that gullible “anti-fascists” had predicted. In nearby Tameside, UKIP have five candidates, Democrats & Veterans one, and For Britain none; while in Stockport there are six UKIP candidates and none from D&V or FB.

Yet another hopelessly inaccurate prediction by lavishly funded “anti-fascist experts” was in Hartlepool, where UKIP was said to have collapsed in favour of For Britain. In fact For Britain has just one candidate in Hartlepool, compared to three for UKIP, one for Democrats & Veterans, and a profusion of independents.

Thanks to boundary changes the most racially divided borough in England – Blackburn with Darwen – has an all-out election, so as in Stoke this should have been a bonanza year for any party seeking to recover some of the votes once cast for the BNP and the England First Party. Yet UKIP have just four candidates, and For Britain none.

Across the Pennines, UKIP is contesting only five of 21 vacancies in Wakefield; and eight out of 23 in Kirklees.

The English Democrats have staged a mini-revival in Barnsley, perhaps helped by the bold action of their leader Robin Tilbrook in launching a legal action to rescue Brexit. There are six EDs here (for 21 vacancies), compared to just three for UKIP and three from the UKIP splinter group Democrats & Veterans. D&V also have two candidates in Kirklees. Another English Democrat candidate is former NF and BNP activist Mick Sharpe, contesting Ripley & Marehay ward, Amber Valley.

In Sunderland UKIP have managed a full slate of 26 candidates, while For Britain and D&V each have just one. Elsewhere in the North-East the eurosceptic cause is less vigorous: Gateshead has seven UKIP candidates for 22 vacancies. Darlington is one of the very few councils anywhere in England where UKIP (with two candidates) has been overtaken by For Britain (with three). In Cheshire East the former UKIP councillor Brian Silvester (who has been re-elected unopposed as a parish councillor) is the sole For Britain candidate, and there is no-one from UKIP.

Another former nationalist heartland where none of the existing parties is reaping electoral potential is the West Midlands borough of Sandwell. UKIP and For Britain each have just four candidates here for 24 vacancies: the only good news is that only one ward has the parties fighting each other. Next door in Dudley there are fourteen UKIP candidates and none from For Britain.

Among the many former UKIP strongholds where the party has collapsed is Thurrock, where almost the entire former UKIP branch has regrouped as ‘Thurrock Independents’. They will have a full slate of seventeen candidates, while UKIP have only two. Similarly there are only three UKIP candidates this year in Thanet, where they once controlled the council and Nigel Farage once hoped to become an MP. The bulk of Thanet’s UKIP activists now call themselves ‘Thanet Independents’. Like their Thurrock counterparts, they will probably end up in Farage’s new Brexit Party, but this is gearing up to fight European (and perhaps General) elections, not local councils. For Britain has one Thanet candidate – ex-BNP parliamentary candidate Michael Barnbrook.

Veteran nationalist Joe Owens is contesting the Kensington & Fairfield ward of his native Liverpool, without a party description, but can be expected to run a professional campaign. Other nationalist independents include Paul Rudge, a Britain First activist standing in Rowley ward, Sandwell, with the party’s backing but without its name on the ballot paper; and former BNP activist Pete Molloy, standing in the Spennymoor ward of Durham.

During the next two days as councils continue to publish their lists of candidates, H&D will carry out a complete analysis of the nationalist/eurosceptic electoral picture, and of course our next edition will report on the election results and our movement’s prospects for recovery.

So far this year’s local election picture can be summarised as follows: UKIP has collapsed in many former strongholds, rather as the BNP did before its eventual death, while retaining pockets of strength. While his embrace of radical anti-Islamism has contributed to UKIP’s implosion, party leader Gerard Batten has the consolation that this same strategy has probably helped to stifle the For Britain Movement, whose founder Anne Marie Waters had hoped that anti-Islamism would be her party’s unique selling point.

Though failing to make a breakthrough in terms of defections from UKIP and overall candidate numbers, For Britain can reasonably hope to elect one or two councillors – perhaps in Stoke, perhaps in Epping Forest, perhaps in Thanet.

Overall however – while in past years we would have been looking at dozens of racial nationalist councillors, and hundreds of UKIP councillors – this year’s elections are likely merely to confirm the continuing crisis of both nationalism and euroscepticism, despite an obvious public appetite for alternatives to the Westminster charade.


Guillaume Faye (1949-2019)

One of Europe’s greatest intellectuals Guillaume Faye has died from cancer at the age of 69.

Guillaume Faye (right) addressing a meeting of American Renaissance alongside AR’s founder Jared Taylor

M. Faye was a major figure of the French New Right, originally centred on the Paris-based organisation GRECE at the end of the 1970s.

The publishers Arktos has done an important service to the cause of White European survival by producing English translations of some of Faye’s most important works, several of which were reviewed for H&D by Ian Freeman.

An obituary of Guillaume Faye will appear in the May edition of H&D.

Chabloz succeeds in criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

‘Sophie Johnson’ and Alison Chabloz – Hope not Hate informants – celebrating the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’ this week.

Yesterday in Southwark Crown Court, Alison Chabloz was again found guilty of posting “grossly offensive” YouTube videos, in contravention of the Communications Act 2003. This reaffirmed the verdict of District Judge John Zani, sitting last May in Marylebone Magistrates Court, who had found Chabloz guilty on three charges of “sending grossly offensive communications via a public communications network”.

This week Judge Christopher Hehir, sitting alongside magistrate Mena Rego (a Kenyan Asian immigrant and Roman Catholic school governor), reimposed exactly the same sentence as Judge Zani had passed last year: a 20-week suspended prison sentence, plus 180 hours of unpaid “community service”, plus a 12 month ban from social media.

So for Ms Chabloz, the outcome of her “appeal” (actually a full retrial of the facts, rather than an appeal on points of law), was unchanged. She (or rather her donors) will probably face a heavy costs bill for having pursued an unsuccessful retrial – especially after the prosecution instructed a QC for this retrial – but otherwise exactly the same verdict and sentence.

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious.

That’s because the earlier court judgment could not set a precedent: it applied only to Ms Chabloz’s particular case. Richard Edmonds warned in an article for the Heritage & Destiny website published on January 2nd – ‘Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door’. Mr Edmonds’ warning has been fully vindicated this week.

He wrote:
“This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning ‘Holocaust’-denial.”

Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Dr James Thring commemorating the Dresden Holocaust.

Mr Edmonds (and H&D) were severely criticised for these observations. Ms Chabloz’s right-hand-woman – a Hungarian lady who uses the name ‘Sophie Johnson’ – sent Mr Edmonds an impertinent email calling him a “dotard” who had produced “stupid burblings” and “ugly bile”.

Yet the outcome this week has been precisely as Mr Edmonds warned.

Within hours of the verdict Zionist lobbyist Gideon Falter, a law graduate who founded the Campaign Against Antisemitism which began the case against Ms Chabloz, issued a triumphant statement:
“The decision sets a new precedent in British law. The case effectively delivered a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

For more than thirty years, Jewish lobby groups have been frustrated that the UK has stood apart from a general European trend towards criminalising ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, which they like to term ‘Holocaust denial’. In one form or another, most European countries outlaw the expression or publication of views which dare to question the established historical orthodoxy: that six million Jews were killed, mostly in homicidal gas chambers and mostly in concentration camps, during the Second World War, on the orders of Adolf Hitler and other senior figures in Germany’s National Socialist government.

Professor Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter were targetted by London’s Jewish lobbyists in 1991.

In November 1991 for example – as revealed last month by H&D – a British government document prepared for then Prime Minister John Major in advance of a confidential meeting with leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, stated that Anglo-Jewish leaders were wishing to prevent a visit to London by leading revisionists Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The document added:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

Fred Leuchter was duly arrested and deported from the UK, but there was no legal means of excluding Prof. Faurisson (a dual French-British citizen), and despite continual lobbying there has never been any anti-revisionist law in this country.

In 2008 there was an attempt to ban revisionism via the backdoor method of the European Arrest Warrant system. German authorities issued an EAW leading to the arrest of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Toben, who was seized from a plane while in transit at London’s Heathrow airport and locked up in Brixton prison awaiting extradition to Germany, where he would have faced imprisonment for ‘crimes’ that are not illegal in this country.

After the last-minute mobilisation of a legal team by Lady Michèle Renouf (acting on timely information from Dr David Duke) the authorities’ attempt to extradite Dr Toben was blocked. This meant it was impossible for European courts to extradite Bishop Richard Williamson or other historical revisionists living in Britain, such as the French author Vincent Reynouard.

Solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins outside the City of London Magistrates’ Court during the successful action to overturn a European Arrest Warrant against Dr Fredrick Toben in 2008.

During parliamentary discussion of the European Arrest Warrant system, several well-informed members of the House of Lords had criticised European laws restricting free historical research. Israeli-funded lobbies realised it would be difficult to pass a UK version of such laws through Parliament, and that even making the attempt might cause unwelcome scrutiny of the entire Holocaust story.

Time for Plan B.

In the UK, law can be made either through Parliamentary statute or through case-law precedent. In most cases of Holocaust revisionism, it is difficult to obtain a conviction using the race laws, since they demand evidence either that the words concerned were intended to stir up racial hatred, or that in all the relevant circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

Sometimes an element of ‘Holocaust denial’ can be bundled in with a wider set of charges against a ‘racist’ publication, as was the case in 1998 when Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard were convicted at Harrow Crown Court for editing and publishing a magazine called The Rune. But in most cases this avenue would have little chance.

Jewish activists looked instead at the Communications Act, which is the latest version of a law dating back before the Second World War, and originally intended to criminalise “grossly offensive” telephone calls. There is a technical legal question as to whether this law even applies to the internet (and in particular to YouTube), but assuming prosecutors could succeed with that technical argument, all they needed was a form of historical revisionism that could plausibly be portrayed as “grossly offensive”.

Enter Alison Chabloz, a cruise-ship singer with no background in revisionism, or any other form of historical research. (Her political activism had previously been limited to the fringes of Corbynite Labour, and even there she could hardly be described as active or at all significant.)

A couple of Chabloz’s anti-Zionist songs were posted on YouTube in 2016, attracting complaints from the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity funded by Jews who believed their community’s leadership was too ‘soft’ on their enemies. CAA pursued a private prosecution, but at this early stage it seemed possible that the case could be won. Brave lawyers agreed to take on Chabloz’s defence, despite the pittance paid by legal aid and the bad publicity they would attract.

During 2017 and 2018 Chabloz repeatedly damaged her own defence, for example by uploading an additional song (while on bail) which was both non-revisionist, or even anti-revisionist, in singing about soap, lampshades and other long-discredited aspects of the Holocaust myth; and more blatantly “grossly offensive” within the meaning of the Communications Act, since the words suggested that one should wish that Jewish children had indeed been turned into soap, lampshades, etc.

As her trial proceeded early in 2018, Chabloz launched an extraordinary tirade against her own sole defence witness Peter Rushton. After she received a light sentence at Marylebone Magistrates, she decided to escalate the case at a higher legal level. The only thing this was likely to achieve was to establish a precedent that (in certain circumstances) criminalises Holocaust denial in the UK.

And so it has turned out, much to the delight of Gidon Falter and his backers. There was even a veteran of the 43 Group on hand in the public gallery to mark the occasion. (This was a Jewish criminal gang who specialised in violent attacks on British nationalist meetings in the late 1940s.)

Notorious Jewish gangster Jack Spot was among the Jewish thugs who attacked lawful British natonalist events in the 1930s and 1940s. A veteran of the ’43 Group’ gang was present to celebrate the Zionist victory in Southwark Crown Court this week.

So where do we now stand.

The good news is that this week’s judgment is not a blanket ban on Holocaust denial. Judge Hehir and his colleague write:
“it is important to bear in mind, as Mr Davies [Chabloz’s barrister Adrian Davies] understandably stresses, that there is no crime of Holocaust denial in this jurisdiction. Material which consists of or includes Holocaust denial can only found liability under section 127 [of the Communications Act] if it is grossly offensive. No type of speech, Holocaust denial included, can be characterised as grossly offensive per se: the question of whether particular speech is grossly offensive is always fact-specific.”

Later in the judgment, it is confirmed that:
“we emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive. However her anti-Semitism and her attitude to the Holocaust are in our judgment highly relevant to her state of mind so far as her musical compositions are concerned.”

Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team celebrate after their partial legal victory over British historian David Irving in 2001

Here we move to the bad news. Where this week’s judgment does break new ground is in the bald statement:
“no tribunal of fact is required to proceed on the basis of absurdity or fiction. The Holocaust – by which we mean the systematic extermination of millions of people, predominantly though not exclusively Jews, by the forces of Nazi Germany and their collaborators, between 1941 and 1945 – happened. World War II is surely the best documented and most extensively studied period of modern history, and the Holocaust is one of the best documented aspects of that conflict, if not the best. A mass of evidence, of various kinds, attests to it. Moreover the Holocaust has been the subject of extensive judicial enquiry, from the Nuremberg Trials onwards, in a number of jurisdictions.”

This week’s judgment quotes the ruling in a civil rather than criminal judgment from 2001 (a libel case between British historian David Irving and his American critic Deborah Lipstadt) to the effect that:
“no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”

Judge Hehir and his colleague for the first time enshrine this conclusion in a criminal judgment:
“We therefore take judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. We agree with Mr Mulholland QC for the prosecution that the undoubted historical fact of the Holocaust represents part of the context in which these songs must be judged.”

The judgment will be closely analysed by lawyers in the coming weeks, and we should bear in mind that (so far) the precedent is ‘persuasive’ rather than ‘binding’. If the case proceeds further then on certain points of law a ‘binding’ precedent could be set, which would of course be even worse news!

However at first sight it seems that revisionists – even in the UK – have now been placed in one respect in an equivalent position to their German colleagues. Just as the German courts refuse even to consider revisionist arguments, a British criminal court now (for the first time) regards the “historical fact of the Holocaust” as “undoubted” – or as the German courts put it, “manifestly obvious”.

It has always been the case that revisionists (just like racial nationalists) have had to take care that their words would not be seen as likely to “incite racial hatred”.

But now the criminal bar has been substantially lowered. Revisionism no longer needs to incite hatred to be prosecutable, it can merely be “grossly offensive” – and it is accepted that anything deemed grossly offensive to Jews should be deemed by the law as grossly offensive to the general public.

The effect of the Chabloz case has therefore been to shift the goalposts considerably to the benefit of organised Jewry and International Zionism, and much to the detriment of free historical research. The only reason why any aspect of this case this has become a ‘persuasive’ legal precedent, endangering both native Britons and fugitive European revisionists, is that Ms Chabloz’s vanity (or worse) caused her to escalate the case above the level of Magistrates’ Court where it would otherwise have remained. Richard Edmonds (and the anonymous author of an article circulated in 2017 by Agence Bocage) are fully vindicated by this week’s developments.

Alison Chabloz and her chief crony ‘Sophie Johnson’, motivated by spite or perhaps something worse, acted as informants for the ‘antifascist’ organisation Hope not Hate, disrupting the final meeting addressed by the late Prof Robert Faurisson in his Shepperton birthplace last October. That disgusting betrayal already put them beyond the pale.

This week’s disaster is arguably even worse. Alison Chabloz has succeeded in criminalising revisionism (at least in certain circumstances). Those (including at one time ourselves at H&D) who have afforded her financial and other assistance should examine their consciences.

Matthew Collins gets it wrong again

Matthew Collins is a middle-aged thug from South London who in his youth was briefly associated with the National Front. He has turned this connection into a lifelong career as an ‘anti-fascist expert’, courted by sections of the liberal media because he is probably the only person of working-class origins they have ever encountered, and they are prepared to overlook his former pastime of poisoning fish in a local primary school.

Unfortunately for his employers, Mr Collins – like the Dick Emery character above – has a sad habit of getting things wrong.

His recent article for an anti-fascist website, after an incomprehensible paragraph about the London Forum, makes a series of errors (as well as an inexplicable reference to ‘homophobia’, which might reflect Mr Collins’ sensitivity on this subject, following his close friendship with Ian Anderson thirty years or so ago).

No-one in our circles has accused Stead Steadman of being responsible for the sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting on October 20th. We knew almost instantly who was responsible, partly thanks to security failures by Mr Collins’ employers.

On October 20th Mr Steadman was at the Traditional Britain Group conference (having made this arrangement long before our event was scheduled) – not as Mr Collins asserts in the Netherlands.

A young Matthew Collins (centre) on a National Front paper sale.

Weirdly Mr Collins posts a mocking caption on a photograph of Mr Steadman, describing him as “sad-faced” during the NF’s march to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.

Perhaps Mr Collins and his ilk view the centenary of the First World War – a true European Holocaust that left 20 million dead and 21 million wounded – as a cause for merriment. Decent Britons, including Mr Steadman and the NF marchers, are understandably saddened.

Peter Rushton was not a “McKenzie friend” for Alison Chabloz’s court case, he was a defence witness. Ms Chabloz did not have a “McKenzie friend”, she was professionally and ably represented by barrister Adrian Davies, as Mr Collins would know if he consulted prosecution witness Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, who was cross-examined by Mr Davies to considerable effect!

Perhaps guided by wiser heads, Mr Collins cunningly edits his quotation from our article exposing Alison Chabloz as a saboteur. He does this to avoid mentioning the name of ‘Sophie Johnson’, the Chabloz puppet whose role as informant was inadvertently exposed by Hope not Hate themselves. Giving away your sources is not good for ‘anti-fascist’ Shoah business.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

H&D Issue 87 published

The new issue (#87) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is now out. The 26 page, November – December 2018 issue, has as its lead.

Anglo-Jewry at War with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party

Issue 87
November-December 2018.

Contents include:

  • Editorial – by Mark Cotterill
  • TV Review – The Man in the High Castle – Part 1 – by Ian Freeman
  • Immigration Facts Revealed – by Peter Rushton
  • Book Review: The Occult And Subversive Movements – Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power – by Dr. Kerry Bolton – reviewed by Edmond Morrison
  • Memories of My Youth in National Socialist Germany – Part I – by Dirk G. van de Walle (with introduction by Stephen Mitford Goodson)
  • Book Review: Though We Be Dead Our Day Will Come – by Tito Perdue – reviewed by Adam Young
  • ‘United They Stand’ – Their Hubris Alienating Labour Supporters by the Thousands – by Max Musson
  • Book Review: Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to the Christian Theology – by Andrew Fraser – reviewed by Hugh Parry
  • Political Trials in Germany: is it 1984 or 2018?
  • Book Review: UVF Behind The Mask – by Aaron Edwards – reviewed by Craig Dale
  • Obituary – Gaston-Armand Amaudruz: 1920-2018 – by Peter Rushton and Richard Edmonds
  • Two pages of readers’ letters
  • Movement News – Latest analysis of the nationalist movement – by Peter Rushton

If you would like 2 sample copies please send £5.00 /$10.00 or for a years (6 issues) subscription, send £26.00 (UK) – $48.00 (USA) – £35.00/$48.00 (Rest of World).

 

BREAKING NEWS: MI5 takes over state campaign against ‘far right’

Andy Carmichael – the MI5 mole in the NF – operated long after the party had already gone into decline

According to a report posted this evening on the Guardian website, Britain’s security service MI5 is taking over responsibility for “combating extreme rightwing terrorism amid mounting fears that white supremacists are increasing their efforts to foment violent racial conflict on Britain’s streets”.

Until now, although MI5 maintained a small section monitoring the ‘far right’ from a counter-subversion angle, most state monitoring of such movements has been handled by the police, specifically Special Branch and its successor SO15.

For example the vast majority of operations against the ‘far right’ have involved public order questions surrounding demonstrations and marches by the likes of the English Defence League. ‘Anti-terrorist’ operations in this area have (until now) involved mainly connections between racial nationalists in the NF or BNP and Ulster loyalist paramilitaries.

As distinct from a range of police responsibilities to combat crime and preserve public order, MI5’s responsibility involves serious threats to national security. It is an extraordinary tribute to the failure of the multicultural experiment that racial nationalist groups are now deemed to fall into this category!

Contrary to the Guardian‘s implication, it is not unheard of for MI5 to take an interest in British racial nationalism. H&D has just finished serialising a detailed analysis of MI5’s files on British Movement founder Colin Jordan, dating from the 1940s to the end of the 1960s, while far more recently an MI5 agent operated inside a moribund splinter from the National Front, the late Ian Anderson’s ‘National Democrats’.

Several European countries have long-established sections of their security / counter-subversion services specialising in the ‘far right’. MI5 will hope that they fare better than their colleagues in Germany’s BfV, which has lost two directors in recent years due to scandals surrounding its handling of the ‘far right’.

 

 

Professor Robert Faurisson – the intellectual adventurer of the century – dies on return from this weekend’s triumphant trip to his native town

 

Professor Robert Faurisson died suddenly this evening, just after arriving at his home in Vichy, France, following a triumphant return to his native town of Shepperton, Surrey. He died instantly after suffering a heart attack as he crossed the threshold of his home.

Professor Robert Faurisson with Lady Michèle Renouf

Born to a Scots mother and French father in Shepperton in January 1929, Professor Faurisson would have been 90 in three months time. H&D is proud to have facilitated his final speech on the final weekend of his eventful and heroic life.

Yesterday at a hotel in Shepperton, before a personally invited audience of 70 friends and fellow students of real history, Professor Faurisson gave a masterful summary of his decades of research.

 

Time and again, beginning in the 1970s, he put his exceptional academic expertise in analysing documentary texts at the service of historical exactitude.

Travelling to many countries in his researches, Professor Faurisson was the first to establish that the so-called homicidal ‘gas chamber’ displayed to tourists in Auschwitz is a post-war ‘reconstruction’ – in fact a fake by Soviet propagandists – and the first to publish detailed original blueprints for what were later claimed to have been homicidal ‘gas chambers’ but were in fact mortuaries.

For decades Professor Faurisson was relentlessly pursued by French courts, after a special law was introduced to criminalise his work. Even at the hour of his death, several prosecutions were still ongoing in Paris and Vichy courtrooms.

Professor Robert Faurisson, Lady Michèle Renouf and the Professor’s translator and assistant Guillaume Nichols, seen here in Shepperton hours before the Professor’s death

Yesterday’s final Faurisson speech was at a private reception in his honour, arranged by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton with the backing of Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Max Musson. Guests were welcomed by Lady Renouf, and then heard an opening speech by Vincent Reynouard, the leading figure in a younger generation of Frenchmen inspired by Professor Faurisson to pursue their own researches into ‘forbidden’ history.

Professor Faurisson himself then presented a comprehensive overview of his career including very new and important discoveries – a full video of his speech will be broadcast later this week by Lady Renouf’s Telling Films. His swansong was also captured for posterity by an invited camera team from a Lebanese television station.

Just as the Professor was completing his speech, the hotel management summoned Peter Rushton. In another part of the hotel – while Professor Faurisson concluded his address – the hotel manager demanded that Mr Rushton close down the meeting. Mr Rushton insisted that the event had been booked in good faith as a private reception – with no duplicity – and that it would continue until the scheduled conclusion.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances in the 1990s

In a disgraceful breach of contract, the management then harassed the audience in the hotel’s private function room, haranguing Professor Faurisson and his friends, turning out the lights, setting off the fire alarm and playing loud disco music in an attempt to drown out Peter Rushton’s speech.

Undeterred, Mr Rushton persisted – speaking in the dark over the background noise of fire bells etc. – and the audience bravely suffered this unusual form of oratory!

The H&D team extend our profound thanks to the 70 guests from around Britain, and from Canada, Italy, France, Belgium, Ireland and the former Yugoslavia, who joined us in Shepperton yesterday and enabled Professor Faurisson to die a happy and contented man.

Our friend Vincent Reynouard uploaded the above video of yesterday’s events, just before news of the Professor’s death. A full report will appear in our January issue (since our November edition is already at the printers). As what is now a posthumous tribute to Professor Faurisson, the expanded text of Peter Rushton’s speech will also be published soon, incorporating the latest revelations from Britain’s official archives concerning wartime fakery of homicidal gassings and other atrocities.

Long live Robert Faurisson and Historical Exactitude!

UPDATE: Former presidential candidate and Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen MEP issued the statement below after hearing news of Professor Faurisson’s death. M. Le Pen writes: “I did not know Robert Faurisson personally, but the extensive means employed for decades in efforts to silence him appear to me as symbolic of the decline of freedom of speech and thought in our nation. The so-called historical memory laws used to criminalise political opponents of various persuasions are the sign of an anti-democratic strategy that the powers-that-be use and abuse against patriotic spirit and against peoples who rebel in defence of identity.”

Prof. Robert Faurisson with Lady Renouf at the Tehran Conference in 2006, where his speech became the focus of several criminal trials in Paris. Recently Lady Renouf was the Professor’s sole defence witness in Paris when he was prosecuted by a French court for his Tehran speech.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter