H&D author tests Twitter’s new ‘freedom of expression’ policy

The next issue of H&D, which will be printed early next week, features the first English-translated article by Isabel Peralta – brightest star of a new generation of European nationalists. Isabel has previously been banned from Twitter, but in a test of the new ‘freedom of expression’ policy outlined after the takeover by Elon Musk, she yesterday launched a new account at https://twitter.com/isabel_mperalta

For those new to Isabel’s work, above is a new English-subtitled version of the introductory video on her YouTube channel. (I have edited out the now-defunct Instagram and Twitter links and inserted the new Twitter account.)

Also now available for the first time with English subtitles is Isabel’s discussion of proposals for a ‘historical memory law’ in Spain. See video below.

She discusses the Spanish state’s threat to exhume José Antonio Prime de Rivera – founder of the Falange, murdered by communists in November 1936 – from his tomb at the Valle de los Caidos (‘Valley of the Fallen’) outside Madrid, and explains the history of José Antonio and the Falange.

The grotesque politically motivated ‘democratic memory’ law that proposes to criminalise alternative views of Spanish history remains on the Spanish left-wing government’s agenda, although temporarily they have had to withdraw the threat to desecrate José Antonio’s grave.

H&D will continue to report on the battle for historical truth – see our assistant editor’s new Real History blog.

Please note that Isabel Peralta presently has only two official accounts/channels: one on Twitter and one on YouTube. She has no connection with other accounts using her name. If she does open any new accounts, we will update this page accordingly.

Ursula Haverbeck’s latest trial: Lady Michèle Renouf reports from Berlin

Ursula Haverbeck (second left) outside the Berlin court of appeal on 1st April 2022 with (left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

On April 1, 2022 an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allies (‘All lies’) Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense”!

After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry” (as dubbed by the late great Scots-French documents analyst and leading revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson).

Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one forensic off-limits historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the own-goal so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form the law deems to call criminal, e.g. stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm to show how high your dog can jump! (Currently the latter “crime” raised by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in Munich Prison!)

Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery…even as the Antifa hack was invited to take front row pride of place!

Luckily for me, although sad to see, the Public Gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer Siblings trial in Munich (July 2018), fear ‘being seen to take an interest’ in such ‘heresy’ trials. They have to show their identity papers, à la Orwell’s “Big Brother”, for likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow Attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and client exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for State-endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.

When Ursula emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Actually, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked me was “do you know Haverbeck?”. Proudly as an old personal friend, I proclaimed her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land – a national treasure!

Frau Ursula and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the “Collegium Humanum” in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either under Bolshevik Communism or Globalist Capitalism. It was at this time that Frau Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialised wartime phenomena worked and where were the physical remains of a “Holocaust”.

After the trial Wolfram Nahrath, Frau Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine too) gave the AFP, TBR and H&D readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.

MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?

Attorney Nahrath:
No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.

MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populace (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions, the real crime!

Dr. Rigolf Hennig (above centre with Ursula and Michèle) – Ursula’s loyal comrade – was a freedom fighter in the early 1960s for the return from Italy of the South Tyrol for reunification with Austria. In part successful, for today children there are allowed to speak German in schools. A dedicated organizer of Europäische Aktion, Rigolf’s final action before he died last month, was to translate TBR interview by Dr. Edward de Vries with Lady Renouf on her attorney’s victory in Dresden, published in the magazine Volk in Bewegung (People in Movement). Incidentally, this TBR interview was also translated into French by the revisionist Francis Goumain and published by the Swiss revisionist Rene-Louis Berclaz in the Swiss-French magazine Courrier du Continent.

Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.

MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge – so “Woke” anti-culture in her biased mind, tone, and callous words – was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!

Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows” but then refused any reply.

MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes” was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?

Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison” and that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”

MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the documents analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” ie for a second time when dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France!) to Yahweh “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips”!
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that U.N. Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (ie a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among, but in service to Yahweh’s Chosen People). So much for our universal ‘we were never asked’ democracy!

Nahrath: As a defence attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defence. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e. it is obvious. For the defence counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial”.

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence

MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense, makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – an “Alice in Wonderland” accusation. Completely the reverse of a rational courtroom where to do otherwise would be deemed seriously incompetent and open to action by your client for professional negligence!

Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a “better” result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.

MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust-Leugnung“. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly lies when denying something – whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.

Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grande dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Wolfram Nahrath outside the Berlin court

MLR: Yes indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also, I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!

Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.

MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?

Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
Finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected, from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly. Then a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approx. 565,000 (356,000 of them in Auschwitz), and he moved the location of this alleged gassing to outside the central camp. It was after these developments that Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question: where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B”.

The great revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson outside one of his many court appearances

MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.

Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.

MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Planck Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.

Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific – and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.

MLR: I marvelled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause for well over two hours!

Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statement took in already known guidelines from other judgments.
She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime”, but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.

MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual calibre and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it “like a police detective”.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews”.
The little this “Woke”-blinded Judge knows about racial differences and indeed Judaic Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but “as cattle”. Thereby in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well”. This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two Germany ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust-denial” laws to be repealed.

Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone, she had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.

MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “Woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “Woke”, because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms – a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “Woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper – representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!

Nahrath: Years ago when the Americans sent weapons to the East, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WW3. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings not only to the causes of past events and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.

MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!

The aspect of that Day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly … once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.

Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller (above right) with his client Ernst Zündel and Lady Michèle Renouf on the day of Ernst’s release from Mannheim prison

At this moment RA Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the own-goal so-called victor Authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those sixteen years’ old survivors exemplify the four inseparable Classical Virtues, of Measure, Just Objectivity, Forensic attitude, and empathetic Courage.

The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.

It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!

Michèle, Lady Renouf

Tony Blair’s favourite oligarch hit by sanctions: ex-PM and ‘Holocaust’ lobby under scrutiny

Moshe Kantor hosting a conference in Terezin, Czech Republic, where he demanded that laws against ‘Holocaust denial’ be extended across Europe

As far back as 27th February H&D raised questions about former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his favourite oligarch Moshe Kantor, a close friend of both the ex-Labour leader and the Kremlin godfather Vladimir Putin.

We pointed out that since 2015 Blair has been chairman of Kantor’s ‘European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation’, which campaigns for ‘tougher laws against extremism’.

Naturally the extremism Blair and Kantor wish to criminalise involves such things as publishing a magazine or running a bookshop. For this type of extremism the likes of Blair and Kantor endorse the approach of Spanish prosecutors, who wish to jail Pedro Varela for twelve years, or German prosecutors who wish again to jail the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, or German border guards who defy their own laws and their country’s obligations under the European constitution to deport the 19-year-old student Isabel Peralta.

Invading a neighbouring country is, by contrast, not ‘extreme’: not if the invader is Moshe Kantor’s close friend Vladimir Putin.

Moshe Kantor has founded and sponsored Jewish lobby groups and ‘academic’ foundations around the world: he is now under sanctions for his ties to the Kremlin’s campaign of propaganda lies and brutal aggression against its neighbours

Yesterday – more than five weeks after we raised these questions – the British authorities belatedly acted against Kantor, adding him to their sanctions list.

Kantor’s many leading positions in international Jewry and Zionism include President of the European Jewish Council; Vice President of the UK’s Jewish Leadership Council (a registered charity); Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress; and President of the World Holocaust Forum Foundation.

In many of these roles he has worked closely with Tony Blair, who was one of the most pro-Israel Prime Ministers in UK history.

In 2015 Kantor organised a conference in the Czech Republic where he called on European governments including the UK to adopted standardised laws criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’. Defying the views of scholars and legal experts who wish to repeal these ‘historical memory laws’ that jail people for their opinions, Kantor wanted to make the laws stricter and the punishments harsher.

Tony Blair joined Kantor in promoting these arguments and demands for legal crackdowns on opinion-crime, via a major article in The Times newspaper.

The main vehicle for demanding these new debate-denial laws was the ironically named European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, with Kantor as President and paymaster, and Tony Blair as chairman.

Now Kantor himself is facing legal sanctions – not for opinions, but for his documented ties to the Kremlin’s war machine and lie machine.

Moshe Kantor and Tony Blair honouring Prince Albert of Monaco for his obeisance to the Holocaust lobby

It is now beyond dispute that for the past twenty years or more, Vladimir Putin has used Holocaust propaganda as an instrument of Russian diplomacy and as a justification for Russian military aggression.

Now is the time to ask the forbidden questions. Whatever European courts might say, it’s time to demand historical truth.

Back in 2007 – in a letter prominently published in a national newspaperH&D‘s Peter Rushton discussed the way that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had used Holocaust propaganda to pressure US governments into allowing Israel to get away with nuclear proliferation. His letter ended: “Should a self-interested version of 1940s history be allowed to dictate the nuclear power politics of the 21st century, with potentially disastrous consequences?”

In 2022 the same question becomes more urgent, and we can no longer allow the risk of prosecution in many European countries to silence that question.

In 2015 Tony Blair and Moshe Kantor demanded new laws to crack down on ‘antisemites’ and ‘Holocaust deniers’.

Therefore this week H&D will launch a new website section – Real History and the True Europe – in which over the coming months we shall ask the important questions about Europe’s history and culture, including the ‘Holocaust’.

On this website, in our magazine, and in a book to be published later this year – The Dogs That Didn’t Bark: British Intelligence, International Jewry and the Holocaust (the first of a series examining aspects of Britain’s secret history with the aid of new archival discoveries) – we will examine whether, just as Moshe Kantor and Vladimir Putin have exploited ‘Holocaust’ stories for propagandist purposes, other official and unofficial propaganda agencies were behind parts of the original ‘Holocaust’ narrative in the 1940s.

We shall re-examine the work of revisionist scholars including the late Professor Robert Faurisson, including work newly available in English translation.

We shall have interviews and court reports from across Europe, as politically biased judges seek to jail nonagenarians for ‘criminal’ opinions.

And we shall reveal other political abuses of the judicial system, where a new generation of European political activist is threatened with prosecution to distract from government treachery and failure to enforce immigration laws.

This online project and publishing venture will look at many other topics besides the ‘Holocaust’, but we shall not be afraid to challenge the establishment consensus. Europe is again at war. Historical and political truth is too important for us to tolerate its restriction by the courts.

Vladimir Putin and Moshe Kantor during an ‘international forum’ that Kantor sponsored on the 60th anniversary of the Soviet ‘liberation’ of Auschwitz

Berlin appeal court confirms 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck – video interview update

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) began her appeal hearing a few weeks ago where she was represented by Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right).

On Friday afternoon an appeal court in Berlin confirmed the conviction and 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old publisher and author Ursula Haverbeck.

Her ‘crimes’ involved expressing her opinions on German history, and asking ‘forbidden’ questions about the alleged murder of six million European Jews and the unique ‘mass murder weapon’ of the homicidal gas chamber.

Ursula Haverbeck (above second left) with supporters at her court hearing in Berlin last Friday: (above left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

In the video below our correspondent Lady Michèle Renouf – who has been a friend of Ursula’s for many years and was in court for the final day of the appeal hearing – interviews Nikolai Nerling, known to German nationalists as the Volkslehrer, whose filmed discussion with Ursula formed the basis of one of the ‘criminal’ charges.

A further report on the case will appear here soon.

Günter Deckert 1940-2022

H&D is shocked and saddened to report that our great friend and comrade Günter Deckert, former leader of Germany’s nationalist party NPD, has died aged 82. In fact those readers who knew Günter will appreciate that we could never really believe he was 82 years old, let alone that he has died. Günter always seemed the most energetic and committed comrade in the room, even when surrounded by fellow nationalists decades younger.

Born in January 1940 Günter Deckert developed a talent for languages as a very young man, first visiting London and staying with an English family in the 1950s (which was also when he first encountered British nationalists, when he happened upon a street rally of Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement). He went on to study English, French and other languages at the universities of Heidelberg, Kiel and Montpellier.

A young Günter Deckert was an activist in the West German liberal party FDP from 1962-1964.

For twenty years (from 1968 to 1988) he taught English and French at German schools and colleges, until he was dismissed for political reasons. In fact the authorities had tried three times to dismiss him, but the first two attempts were defeated in the courts.

Some readers might be surprised that his initial political activism was with West Germany’s liberal party the Free Democrats (FDP) in the early 1960s, though at that time (for complicated historical reasons) it was not unusual for German nationalists (and for that matter old national-socialists) to be in the FDP.

Günter first joined the NPD in 1966 and was active during its most successful election campaigns of the late 1960s, when the party was led by Mosley’s close friend and ally Adolf von Thadden. He was a parliamentary (Bundestag) candidate for the first time in 1972 and went on to contest many federal, state and local elections. One of his best election results was in 1974 when he received more than 25% of the vote in Weinheim’s mayoral election. From 1975 to 1999 and from 2019 until his death he was a municipal councillor in Weinheim, sometimes for the NPD and sometimes for the ‘Deutsche Liste’ which he created during a time when he was forced to relinquish NPD membership.

Günter Deckert during his 2019 election campaign

Just a few weeks before he died, Günter posted his party’s official video response to the Weinheim city council budget and would have been an election candidate again this year. Last month (shortly before his illness) he was expelled from the council chamber by police for allegedly ‘racist’ comments during a speech criticising the council budget.

Günter was elected leader of the NPD – Germany’s largest nationalist party – in 1991, and remained party leader until 1996.

Following a conference in 1991 where Günter was translator for the American revisionist Fred Leuchter, he was prosecuted for ‘inciting racial hatred’. Even though he was actually translating someone else’s words, prosecutors argued that he had translated too sympathetically and had therefore committed a crime.

Günter’s case was a landmark in German legal history, because though at first convicted he won on appeal. This victory was because the appeal court ruled ‘Holocaust denial’ was not by itself criminal. In response the German parliament changed the law, making ‘Holocaust denial’ itself an offence. Consequently Günter was tried again in 1995, convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Günter Deckert with the Alsatian German leader Pierre Rieffel

He was imprisoned at Bruchsal from 1995 to 2000, then again for five months at Mannheim prison early in 2013.

Günter Deckert was my first German comrade. We first met in 1993 when he addressed the BNP annual rally, and we later spoke together on many platforms in Britain, Germany and France. He addressed numerous meetings of British comrades in London, Yorkshire and elsewhere in England.

Last autumn we met (and were again fellow speakers) for the last time. It seems impossible to believe that I shall never see Günter Deckert again, but his irrepressible spirit will continue to inspire our activism for decades to come.

An obituary to Günter Deckert will appear in the next edition of H&D.

Günter Deckert speaking in autumn 2021, at a private gathering also addressed by H&D’s Peter Rushton

British historian condemns ‘moronic’ wokeness of US National Archives

British historian Andrew Roberts has ridiculed the US National Archives for its latest display of wokeness, after Washington officials placed a ‘trigger warning’ notice next to its historic copy of the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

‘Trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ have become commonplace in academic and public institutions in recent years as wokeness has taken over. The idea is that minority groups (or just people with ultra-woke ideas) might be offended by any contact with people or writings that convey different ideas, even in a historical context.

As Roberts (biographer of the wartime British Ambassador to Washington, Lord Halifax, and more recently of King George III against whom the Declaration was written) pointed out last weekend to an audience at the Oxford Literary Festival: “Anyone who thinks an 18th century document is not going to be outdated, biased and offensive is frankly a moron. When you go to see the Declaration, you read what it says about Native Americans and so on, you won’t be so offended that you can’t stand up.”

The really interesting thing about this row is what it tells us about American notions of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’. While liberals like to parrot the Declaration’s phrases about “all men” being “created equal” with “inalienable rights”, they ignore that in practice this meant White men.

The rotunda of the US National Archives in Washington, where the Declaration of Independence – and now the absurd ‘trigger warning’ – are displayed

Hence the words that are now found objectionable, where the Declaration complains that King George:
“has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Rather than focus their complaint on the word “savages”, the woke brigade might do better to reflect on what this tells us about American values than and now, and about the broader values of liberalism.

Red Indians – now known as Native Americans – supported the British Crown because they knew that the Empire offered them a better deal than they would get under liberal capitalism. The same applied half a century later to the British working-class, exploited as footsoldiers by the liberal middle-class in their campaign for ‘reform’, but then left worse off then ever under the ‘free’ capitalism of early and mid-Victorian England.

As for ‘racism’, Americans might find it uncomfortable to reflect on the fact that their famous Olympic athlete Jesse Owens was treated far better by Adolf Hitler in national-socialist Berlin in 1936 than he was by his fellow Americans!

And the American “rule of warfare” – despite the implication of their own Declaration of Independence, has turned out to be truly destructive “of all ages, sexes and conditions”, from Dresden to Hiroshima to Baghdad.

What this ridiculous fuss about ‘trigger warnings’ really tells us is that it is absurd to try to force history into our 21st century preconceptions. In Washington this absurdity takes the form of placing warning notices next to the Declaration of Independence, in modern Germany it takes the form of locking up 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck for expressing forbidden historical opinions and daring to ask forbidden questions.

American Olympic gold medallist Jesse Owens (above right) with fellow long jumper Luz Long, a German who won silver at the same 1936 Olympics in National Socialist Berlin. Luz Long was killed while fighting with the Germany Army in Sicily in July 1943, aged 30.

Senior judges and eminent historians called for scrapping of ‘historical memory laws’ that seek to jail 93-year-old

Ursula Haverbeck (above, far left) with friends including Dr Rigolf Hennig, who died yesterday, and the Austrian attorney Dr Herbert Schaller, on the day that Ernst Zündel (above centre) was released from Mannheim prison.

93-year-old educator and publisher Ursula Haverbeck was in court again in Berlin today for a further appeal hearing related to a 12-month prison sentence for two ‘offences’ of ‘Holocaust denial’.

We reported aspects of this case on Friday, and will continue to give further details as it develops. The latest update comes in this video from Berlin, recorded by Ursula’s friend Nikolai Nerling and ending with a tribute to our great comrade Dr Rigolf Hennig, which H&D has now republished with English subtitles. (You can expand the video to full size so as to read the subtitles.)

For further video updates on this and other stories please follow our new Instagram account at https://www.instagram.com/heritageanddestiny/

One extraordinary aspect of the story is that more than a decade ago two of Germany’s most senior judges, as well as a panel of eminent historians (mainly Marxists or liberal-leftists) called for the scrapping of the ‘Holocaust denial’ laws that have since been used to jail many Germans including Ursula Haverbeck and Horst Mahler.

Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem

In 2008 the recently retired Constitutional Court (i.e. Supreme Court) judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem told a conference in Berlin: “Were I a legislator, I would not criminalise Holocaust denial.”

A few weeks earlier his fellow Constitutional Court Judge Winfried Hassemer told one of Germany’s leading newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung that he was “not a supporter of Holocaust denial being punishable. Of course, this is a special German problem, which is due to our unfortunate history. But it would be fine with me if we didn’t have this special problem any more.”

In principle, Judge Hassemer said he was “not a supporter of such laws that make wrong opinions a punishable offence”.

Judge Winfried Hassemer

And in October 2008 a group of eminent European historians meeting in France issued what became known as the Appel de Blois, similarly opposing laws that sought to regulate and criminalise historical memory.

The test of the appeal, whose signatories included two of the world’s most famous Jewish historians Eric Hobsbawm and Carlo Ginzburg, read:

“Concerned about the retrospective moralization of history and intellectual censure, we call for the mobilization of European historians and for the wisdom of politicians.
“History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions.
“We call on historians to marshal their forces within each of their countries and to create structures similar to our own, and, for the time being, to individually sign the present appeal, to put a stop to this movement toward laws aimed at controlling history memory.
“We ask government authorities to recognize that, while they are responsible for the maintenance of the collective memory, they must not establish, by law and for the past, an official truth whose legal application can carry serious consequences for the profession of history and for intellectual liberty in general.
“In a democracy, liberty for history is liberty for all.”

A conference of eminent historians at Blois, France, in October 2008 appealed for an end to laws against ‘Holocaust denial’

Commenting on this appeal, another of its signatories Professor Timothy Garton Ash wrote that such criminalisation of history was “dangerous nonsense”.

Garton Ash continued:
“Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes ‘grossly trivialising’ them?
“…The evidence must be uncovered, checked and sifted, and various possible interpretations tested against it.
“It’s this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom – subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride.”

Unfortunately German prosecutors do not agree. They continue to drag Ursula Haverbeck and others before the courts. In doing so these prosecutors bring shame on the Federal Republic and expose ‘democracy’ to justified contempt.


Spot the criminal – Germany seeks to jail 93-year-old publisher while ‘Holocaust’ museums hang on to billionaire gangster’s donations

Ursula Haverbeck at the Berlin appeal court, 18th March 2022

Ursula Haverbeck – the extraordinarily courageous German patriot and educator now aged 93 – was back in court earlier today in Berlin, appealing against convictions for ‘Holocaust denial’ and a 12-month prison sentence.

This is a combined appeal against two convictions and sentences for similar ‘crimes’, one in 2017 involving a speech to an audience of 80 people in Berlin; the other in 2020 relating to a YouTube interview conducted by Nikolai Nehrling, known in German nationalist circles as the Volkslehrer.

Mainstream German press reports see nothing wrong in dragging a 93-year-old lady through the courts for the ‘crime’ of doubting and asking questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews by a mysterious unique mass murder weapon – the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

H&D’s assistant editor has met Ursula several times, and she could not be further from the stereotype of an ‘inciter of hate’. She is a polite, very well-educated lady who expresses her views in reasonable terms. And it should be noted that she is one of the last generation of Germans who experienced the horrors of fleeing with her family from the invading barbarians of Stalin’s Red Army in 1945.

Ursula Haverbeck knows what it means to be a genuine refugee.

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) with her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right) at today’s hearing

A very different type of human being is Roman Abramovich, chief financial fixer for the bloodstained tyrant Vladimir Putin.

BBC’s Panorama broadcast a detailed investigation of Abramovich’s criminal career on Monday evening. It is crystal clear that – aided and abetted by both Boris Yeltsin and in particular Putin – Abramovich built his fortune on defrauding the Russian people of literally billions of pounds worth of their national assets.

The beneficiaries of Abramovich’s loot include two of the world’s leading ‘Holocaust’ museums. A few days ago we discussed his links to Yad Vashem in Israel. Now it has become clear that the Imperial War Museum in London has no intention of returning the money given by Abramovich for its vastly expensive new ‘Holocaust’ gallery.

The museum has not disclosed quite how much Abramovich donated, but the total budget for the exhibition is at least £30.5 million.  In addition to his personal contribution (or should we say the contribution of the long-suffering Russian people, since Abramovich’s wealth comes from assets stolen from them) Abramovich also staged a fundraising event for the project at Stamford Bridge, the home of Chelsea Football Club, which he owned until his London assets were frozen this week.

London’s world-famous Imperial War Museum, founded in 1917, bends over backwards to avoid any association with ‘racism’ or ‘slavery’ – yet shamelessly hangs on to millions donated from the ill-gotten fortune of Roman Abramovich

At the time of the donation in October 2018, the Imperial War Museum’s director gushed that: “This donation will enable IWM to reinterpret these galleries, which will present critical insights into the Holocaust as well as integrate the devastating events of the Holocaust into the broader history of the Second World War, revealing why this often overlooked dimension is so important.”

Quite shamelessly – given that it is one of the world’s leading military museums so ought to be taking a close interest in the world-changing events currently under way in Ukraine – the IWM says it will be “retaining the funds from Roman Abramovich”, and in the sly tradition of the barrack room lawyer insists: “This is compliant with all government regulations regarding sanctions”.

Meanwhile Yad Vashem has said only that it is “suspending its strategic partnership” with Abramovich and has yet to confirm whether it will hand back any of the stolen money.

While the Kremlin dictator Putin attempts a real genocide, valiantly resisted by Ukrainian patriots, his gangster henchman Abramovich has funded several prominent examples of a one-sided view of history – exploited for the benefit of yesterday’s Soviet butchers, today’s Russian imperialists, and the shameless Zionist pirates of both yesterday and today.

Those like Ursula Haverbeck who face trials across Europe for the ‘crime’ of ‘denying the Holocaust’ doubtless appreciate the irony that official ‘Holocaust history’ is funded by one of the world’s worst fraudsters, whose career of theft and brutality has been protected by a genuine war criminal.

On Monday Ursula Haverbeck’s latest court ordeal continues in Berlin. H&D will carry further updates throughout the case, both here and in forthcoming issues of our magazine.

Abramovich disgraced – a nation mourns

Vladimir Putin’s favourite oligarch – Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich – is now in disgrace. He faces a range of sanctions by the British government and today was disqualified by the Premier League as a Chelsea director. The billionaire Abramovich is no longer regarded as a fit and proper person to be involved in the running of a football club. His assets at the club and elsewhere in the UK have been frozen.

One of the most recent causes to benefit from Abramovich’s largesse was Yad Vashem, the most prestigious international museum of ‘the Holocaust’. On February 22nd – just two days before his close friend and ally Vladimir Putin began his brutal invasion of Ukraine – Abramovich and Yad Vashem announced a “strategic partnership” in which the tycoon would donate tens of millions of dollars.

The Abramovich donations, it was said, would be “significantly enriching Yad Vashem’s world-renowned International Institute for Holocaust Research … at the center of ground-breaking research initiatives in the field of Holocaust studies, which serves as the basis for both commemorative and educational activities related to the atrocities committed by the Nazis and their collaborators before, during and after the Holocaust. This new strategic partnership will expand and bolster Yad Vashem’s research activities, at a time when Holocaust distortion, denial and politicization are rising alarmingly worldwide. The partnership will provide support over a period of five years, to further expand and develop the Institute’s activities on a global scale.”

At first Yad Vashem was lobbying governments not to sanction Abramovich. But less than three weeks later, the deal is off, in the face of real atrocities committed across Ukraine by the generous donor’s closest political ally.

Abramovich is not the only big donor to Israeli causes who is now under international sanctions, though it remains to be seen whether these wily operators will be able to evade the world’s financial regulators in time-honoured fashion.

Roman Abramovich (above right) at a Chelsea match with his close business associate and fellow director Eugene Shvidler, another Putin-linked billionaire now under scrutiny

Some of his closest associates include Eugene Shvidler, partner in many Abramovich businesses and once a fellow director at Chelsea FC. A private jet linked to Shvidler was impounded at a UK airport earlier this week.

Another is David Davidovich, Abramovich’s righthand man in his earliest days in business, who made more than $1 billion from his sale of Russian oil interests. Davidovich also owns Russia’s second largest meat and meat-processing business. He gives his nationality as “Israeli”.

Abramovich attending court with his longtime business partner David Davidovich, an Israeli citizen who became a billionaire from Russian oil and Russian meat processing.

Abramovich is not the first unusual ‘businessman’ to be a major donor and facilitator of Zionist operations.

During the Jewish terrorist war against Britain from 1945-48, prominent figures in the US Mafia helped smuggle weapons to Palestine from New York docks. These included the notorious killers Mayer Lansky, Albert Anastasia and Joe Adonis whose daily business was known as “Murder Incorporated”.

Other important allies of the Zionist terror gangs included Sam Kay, a leading Jewish gangster in Miami; Bugsy Siegel, pioneer of Mafia interests in the Las Vegas casino and entertainment business; and Mickey Cohen, then the leading mafioso in California.

Putin attacks ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘Banderites’: who does he mean and what does this rhetoric reveal?

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referred to the need to crush ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘Banderites’ as the key motives for his invasion of Ukraine.

Neither Russian nor Western media have adequately explained what he means.

Stepan Bandera was a Ukrainian nationalist leader assassinated in 1959 by the KGB (for which Putin himself later worked for sixteen years).

But why should Putin in 2022 be so obsessed by this long-dead nationalist and his movement?

In a major archival investigation for H&D, our assistant editor Peter Rushton visits recently declassified archives – including one document still secret in Britain but which can be accessed indirectly via CIA files.

Today he uncovers the complex story of Stepan Bandera and Ukrainian nationalism; its connection to both Third Reich and British intelligence agencies; the bravery of Ukraine’s anti-communist partisans but also the problematic aspects of their legacy; the reasons for Putin’s ‘anti-nazi’ obsessions; and how all this can inform a rational and honourable policy for today’s European nationalists.

Click here to read Who was Stepan Bandera?

Alisher Usmanov with his friend Vlad

PS: Just in case readers thought Putin’s favourite billionaire oligarchs were all Jews, here’s a Muslim one. But with a Jewish wife.

In 1980 as a hard-working young lawyer in Brezhnev’s decaying Soviet Union, Alisher Usmanov was the victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding that earned him an eight-year jail sentence for fraud and theft. Twenty years later, when he had become a tycoon, he was able to get the whole business straightened out and his conviction was quashed.

And until this week there had been no looking back. British readers will know Mr Usmanov for his decade of investment in Arsenal Football Club, which at one time he seemed likely to take over, though he later sold his shares for more than £500 million.

Mr and Mrs Usmanov – a heart-warming tale of love across the ethnic divide

Sadly, Mr Usmanov has fallen victim to another misunderstanding this week due to his innocent friendship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. His £437 million yacht has been seized by German authorities.

Especially after reading the heart-warming story of this honest Muslim billionaire’s marriage to a Jewess, we are sure readers will all be hoping that Mr and Mrs Usmanov get their yacht returned some time soon. Perhaps in time for Purim.

The Usmanovs’ yacht – a typically modest oligarch bauble

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers