The chaotic truth about Irish ‘nationalism’
On 7th June the Republic of Ireland will have local council elections as well as electing the fourteen Irish members of the European Parliament. Will some form of racial nationalism prove stronger in Ireland than it was in last week’s English local elections?
As regular H&D readers will know, racial nationalist politics in England is struggling to recover from damage inflicted more than a decade ago. This weakness was reflected in last week’s council contests.
Online racial nationalist commentators have become very excited in recent months about Irish resistance to mass immigration and ‘wokeism’, especially after recent demonstrations in central Dublin; the decisive defeat in referendums on 8th March of two attempts to liberalise the Irish constitution in the direction of feminism and ‘LGBT’ rights; and anti-immigration riots in Dublin last November.
Close examination of political reality, however, suggests that these commentators have vastly overrated racial nationalism in Ireland, and that in fact our movement on the other side of the Irish Sea (whether broadly defined as anti-immigration, anti-woke and socially conservative, or narrowly defined as racial nationalist) is organisationally and electorally weaker even than the movement in England.
When it comes to the electoral side of politics, racial nationalists in 2024 tend to have only a childish level of understanding, partly because a generation has grown up informed by online speculation rather than experience.
This gets worse when overseas observers look at the UK and Ireland, for several reasons. One is the Anglophobia which colours many overseas perspectives on the Irish question, especially in Catholic countries and/or among a generation of 21st century ‘nationalists’ who think in ‘Third Worldist’ or ‘anti-imperialist’ terms, and for whom the Irish are lionised as heroes of an anti-imperialist, anti-British struggle.
Another problem is that racial nationalists persistently overrate street demonstrations. Racial nationalists will tend to get more excited by a group marching down the street with banners, or shouting in a city centre, or even throwing petrol bombs, than by a political party building support with a properly organised branch structure nationwide, or engaging in serious ideological training of its cadres.
Partly this is due to learning the wrong lessons from a Hollywood version of national socialism. And partly it’s because (for younger movement activists especially) politics conducted in the style of football hooliganism is more exciting than educating themselves ideologically, attending meetings, and building support among the general public.
Therefore both the English Defence League and assorted anti-vaccination campaigns attracted support from racial nationalists, even though their respective causes were ideologically confused (at best), and despite the style of their activism being counter-productive and off-putting to the vast majority of Britons.
Perceptions of Irish anti-immigration politics are similarly unrealistic. What is actually happening in the southern portion of the Emerald Isle?
Nominations have now closed for the European elections, and though there is another week before local council nominations close, most parties have announced their candidates.
At the European election Ireland is divided into three giant constituencies, using the Single Transferable Vote method, which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference (and to choose between the candidates offered by each party rather than accepting the priority listed by the party).
Dublin elects four MEPs, and the other two regions (Midlands/NW and South) five each. In practice STV means that a winning candidate needs both a fairly solid level of first preference support, and a certain level of appeal to supporters of rival candidates giving their second preferences, etc.
The positive aspect of this system for any well-organised anti-immigration party is that there is no such thing as a ‘wasted vote’ under STV, so really there is no excuse for the ‘right’ not to poll its maximum vote.
In Dublin this year there will be no fewer than eight rival slates standing for varying types of anti-immigration policies and social conservatism.
Some of these are old-fashioned Catholic reactionaries, emphasising an anti-abortion and anti-LGBT agenda, but also including aspects of anti-immigration politics. Others are closer to Reform UK and are linked to opposing the European Union (though calls for ‘Irexit’ remain quite marginal). And one or two are something resembling a racial nationalist movement, but divisions within that scene are even more bitter and intense than anything we see in the UK.
For example the closest thing to a racial nationalist party in Ireland used to be the National Party, but this has split into two factions, each of which seek to use the party name, and each of which are standing in Dublin, both for the European Parliament and in the city council elections.
The hostility between the two National Party factions has descended to a tragi-comic level, with the rival leaders engaged in legal battles over ownership of a stock of gold bars stored in an Irish bank vault. The farcical situation can be seen in the video above where Justin Barrett (leader of one faction) attacks his rival James Reynolds.
A third faction (which includes some former National Party members) has formed the Ireland First party, whose leader is a noted Putinist and whose Dublin candidate was a prominent anti-vaccination campaigner.
Anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists are also involved in a fourth group calling itself ‘The Irish People’. Their Dublin candidate Andy Heasman was involved in the recent anti-immigration demonstration, but so were representatives of other factions, including several who will be rivalling Heasman on the European ballot paper next month.
Independent Ireland – a social conservative party that has been involved in anti-abortion activism – is also on the ballot, as is the larger social conservative party Aontú which has had candidates in both the Republic and Northern Ireland (though of course Northern Ireland like the rest of the UK is no longer part of the European Union so has no elections on 7th June).
Farage-style, anti-EU politics is represented on the ballot by the Irish Freedom Party.
And last but (in his own eyes) not least, is independent candidate Malachy Steenson, a veteran leftwinger who has reinvented himself as a populist conservative and anti-abortion activist. Steenson was once a leading activist in Republican Sinn Féin, political wing of the terrorist splinter group ‘Continuity IRA’.
Similar patterns are repeated in the other two constituencies. In the Midlands/NW constituency the two rival ‘leaders’ of the factions who each claim the name ‘National Party’ (Justin Barrett and James Reynolds) are standing against each other. The leader of Aontú, Peadar Tóibin, is also on the ballot paper in Midlands/NW, as are candidates from ‘The Irish People’, ‘Independent Ireland’, and ‘Ireland First’.
A fourth ‘right-wing’ party leader is also on the ballot in the Midlands/NW constituency: Nigel Farage’s Irish ally Hermann Kelly, leader of the Irish Freedom Party.
In the South constituency several of the right-wing parties are again present, with the exception of the National Party, neither of whose factions are standing. Also on the ballot in the South is the barrister Michael McNamara, who was one of the leaders of the winning ‘No’ campaign against the proposed feminist and LGBT constitutional changes in this year’s referendum. McNamara is already a member of the Dublin Parliament.
At the previous European Election in Dublin the Greens won most first preferences – 17.5%. Then the two old parties (Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil) in second and third. The far-left Independents for Change polled 11.6%, ahead of Sinn Féin.
Eventually the Sinn Féin second preferences split very heavily in favour of Independents for Change, pushing them ahead of Fianna Fáil into third place.
Because of their extreme Putinism, I very much doubt Independents for Change will poll as well this time. A lot of their vote will go instead to the Trotskyist party, People Before Profit, or back to Sinn Féin.
The ‘shock’ for H&D readers (and for racial nationalists worldwide who entertain delusions about the strength of racial nationalism in Ireland) will be that despite all the demonstrations, riots, and online noise, Sinn Féin’s vote will increase in June, compared to the last Euro election in 2019.
Readers can probably perceive what a shambles this is. In theory STV would allow all of these ‘right wing’ votes to transfer eventually to the strongest candidate/party (which would almost certainly be Aontú), but it’s more likely to end up a total failure and a triumph for the establishment parties, with the most substantial challenge to the political elite coming from the far left rather than from the broadly defined ‘right’.
At local level, ‘Independent Ireland’ are defending thirteen seats – former independent or Fianna Fáil councillors who defected to the new party mostly in rural areas. As with the European seats (though of course on a smaller scale) local councillors in Ireland are elected in multi-member LEAs using the STV system, which unlike the English first-past-the-post system means that smaller parties (including the ‘far right’) do not have to combat the ‘wasted vote’ argument.
But given the chaos outlined above, it would be unrealistic to expect any significant breakthrough even at local council level for any of the tiny, disorganised and squabbling anti-immigration factions.
Jeremy Corbyn – the terrorists’ friend – attacks H&D and Isabel Peralta
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has launched an extraordinary attack on Heritage and Destiny, calling for our meetings to be banned. In a letter to Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Corbyn has targeted our European correspondent Isabel Peralta, demanding that she should be refused entry to the United Kingdom.
Isabel has never been convicted of any crime, but has twice been detained and questioned by UK Border Force, abusing their powers under the Terrorism Act.
Anyone interested in real terrorism should be looking not at Heritage & Destiny and Isabel Peralta, but at the close allies of Jeremy Corbyn, who has for decades been known as terrorism’s best friend in Parliament.
From 1985 to 1989 Corbyn was national secretary and later president of the notoriously violent group Anti-Fascist Action. AFA’s terrorist core – Red Action – held its meetings in Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, north London, and provided security for Corbyn and for one of his closest political allies, IRA godfather Gerry Adams.
Even Corbyn’s own party has often been embarrassed by his especially close ties to the IRA. In 1984 Corbyn was reprimanded by Labour’s chief whip for taking IRA terrorists on a tour of Parliament. In 1987 Corbyn tried to appoint a notorious Irish republican sympathiser and anarchist, Ronan Bennett, as his parliamentary research assistant, but the authorities refused on security grounds to give Bennett a House of Commons pass.
Two of Corbyn’s comrades in Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action – Patrick Hayes (AFA London organiser) and Jan Taylor – were given long jail sentences for bombing the Harrods store in London on behalf of the IRA. Their fellow AFA activist, Liam Heffernan, was jailed for stealing explosives on behalf of another republican terrorist gang, the INLA.
A senior police officer later told the Sunday Times that Corbyn “knew they were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them”.
There has never been any suggestion that Corbyn was personally involved in specific acts of terrorism, but for decades police and security services monitored his close connections with terrorists and their active supporters. They were especially concerned that terrorists invited into Westminster premises by Corbyn had been able to familiarise themselves with the layout and security of the Houses of Parliament.
In 1985, Corbyn was the keynote speaker at Red Action’s national meeting. He maintained close ties for years to Red Action, a group whose journal openly stated: “both as an organisation and as individuals we support the activities of the Provisional IRA and the INLA unconditionally and uncritically.”
Some of the paymasters of “anti-fascism” will be embarrassed by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is now championing their cause. In addition to his support for the IRA, Corbyn has frequently been accused of “anti-semitism”, for example over his praise for a mural that promoted allegedly “anti-semitic tropes”.
H&D has been contacted by several Londoners appalled by Corbyn’s consistent association with terrorists and their propagandists. We have been offered premises in Corbyn’s Islington constituency to hold our next meeting, and we are discussing several options for this event.
Unlike Jeremy Corbyn’s murderous friends and allies, Isabel Peralta – the young Spanish activist whom Corbyn has so disgracefully targeted – has never committed any offence against UK law. In reply to Corbyn’s attack, Isabel writes:
“I honestly find it hard to believe that my mere presence in a country is so dangerous that even one of the main English politicians, former leader of the second-largest political force in England, writes to the Home Secretary asking for me to be banned. I find it difficult to believe that someone who has not committed any crime and has never been convicted is ostracised or exiled from several European countries. But it is like this. Our fanaticism moves mountains and our enemies have more faith in our triumph than we do ourselves.
“One does not fear a madman, one does not take seriously a merely anachronistic or atavistic enemy. There is fear of a revolution. We are a revolution, a living, organic idea, destined to be proudly implemented throughout Europe.”
Let there be no doubt: H&D will continue to expose the truth about Jeremy Corbyn and his crazed Marxist and Irish Republican friends. We shall continue to fight for the true Europe. And we shall contest (at whatever level proves necessary) any attempt to intimidate or exclude our comrade and European correspondent Isabel Peralta.
‘Anti-fascists’ demand Home Office action against H&D correspondent and speaker – but who are the real ‘terrorists’?
Having failed in their intense efforts to prevent the H&D meeting in Preston on 9th September, ‘anti-fascists’ – principally the notorious Searchlight organisation – have now begun a massive lobbying campaign, demanding that the Home Secretary should have banned our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering Britain!
Isabel has never been convicted of any criminal offence.
Her only crime is to be a brave and intelligent national socialist, which is not a crime in the UK, where the peaceful expression of political opinions and historical viewpoints is entirely lawful, so long as no one is inciting violence or hatred.
No one claims that anyone at our meeting broke the race laws, and the police have at no point even suggested that any laws were broken by Isabel or anybody else at the event, but the usual suspects are displaying their usual chutzpah.
In response to this outrageous behaviour by ‘anti-fascist’ lobbyists, our Assistant Editor today examines the record of our main accusers and asks: Who are the real terrorists?
This article is also available in Spanish – Quiénes son los verdaderos terroristas’?
Who are the real ‘terrorists’? H&D’s Peter Rushton investigates…
The day before this year’s Heritage and Destiny meeting, our European correspondent Isabel Peralta was again detained for more than four hours by border security at Manchester Airport, using Schedule 7 of the UK’s Terrorism Act. Her telephone and computer were seized and examined for two days by officers from the highly politicised Counter Terrorism Command (SO15, formerly Special Branch) who work closely with the British security service MI5.
This follows a similar procedure last year – another act of blatant political harassment. Needless to say no charges followed, because Isabel has committed no crime under UK law. It is not a crime in the UK to be a national socialist; it is not a crime to defend the honour of the División Azul (the brave Spanish volunteers who fought alongside the German Army in defence of Europe’s eastern frontier against Stalin’s barbarians); it is not a crime to dispute historical myths (however many well-funded lobby groups promote those myths); and it is not a crime to oppose the desecration of the grave of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the great Spanish patriot and Falangist leader.
Yet the ‘anti-fascist’ Searchlight magazine has begun a campaign to pressure the Home Secretary, claiming that Border Force harassment of Isabel Peralta was insufficient! They are demanding that this brave and determined patriot – leading light of a new generation of Europeans who are unafraid to stand up for our civilisation – should be excluded from the UK!
And they have the chutzpah to compare Isabel to the waves of illegal immigrants who flood our borders daily, from every corner of the world, and who are wholly alien to European culture and traditions.
It’s time to ask: just who are these ‘anti-fascists’, and who are the real terrorists?
Searchlight is proud to trace its origins from the militant gangs of Jews and communists who fought against Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and National Socialists during the 1930s. This violent Jewish-communist alliance (including some of London’s most notorious gangsters) boasted that one of its regular tactics was to embed razor blades into potatoes and hurl them at British fascists, policemen, and police horses.
More precisely, Searchlight claims descent from the more secretive but equally violent postwar alliance of Zionist Jews and Communists known as the 43 Group, who carried out undercover infiltration of British nationalist groups, as well as burglaries and violent assaults.
One critically important but often overlooked fact is that the 43 Group’s ‘anti-fascist’ violence coincided with a campaign of bombings and assassinations directed by one of the world’s most brutal networks of terrorist killers – Jews who fought against the British Empire as well as against Arab civilians from 1945 to 1948, so as to establish what is now the state of Israel.
In fact the very name of the 43 Group – contrary to many lies told in books about anti-fascism – was derived from a celebrated case of 43 paramilitaries who were arrested by the British authorities in Palestine in October 1939, just weeks after the start of the war. In a cynical act of political opportunism, even after the British Empire had declared war on Adolf Hitler, Jewish paramilitaries were illegally training to fight their own war, if necessary against the British. Only intense political pressure saved these 43 Jews from a long jail sentence.
After naming their group after these illegal Jewish trainee terrorists, many ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group operatives went on to work with Zionist terror gangs who were explicitly targeting British servicemen and civilians. For example Samuel Landman – a crooked solicitor and former secretary to the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann – worked for the Irgun terrorist group (responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel), supplying political intelligence from within the British establishment.
Landman’s children Deborah and David were both involved with the ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group, and with Irgun terrorism. They were directly responsible for arranging a plot to murder General Sir Evelyn Barker, former commander of British forces in Palestine. These two 43 Group members (together with future Israeli President Ezer Weizman and a Jewish South African pilot, Boris Senior) made detailed plans to murder Sir Evelyn at his home – a plot they abandoned due to police surveillance.
Other victims of the Jewish terrorists were not so lucky. In May 1948 a young student, Rex Farran, was murdered by a parcel bomb at his family’s home near Wolverhampton. The bomb had been intended for his brother, an SAS war hero who had been too effective (from the Jews’ point of view) in postwar anti-terrorist operations in Palestine. The Jewish gang responsible for Farran’s murder were never apprehended.
Another member of the same gang planted a bomb inside a servicemen’s club near Trafalgar Square in March 1947. This ruthless terrorist escaped to Paris, where he was protected by fellow Jews and ‘anti-fascists’ including the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. The bomber is still alive, after spending an uninterrupted career in French academia – he is Professor Robert Misrahi, an active Zionist and ‘anti-fascist’.
Misrahi and his fellow terrorists were never troubled by the British police despite having exploded bombs on British soil. One of their number even plotted to infect London’s water supply with cholera, using contacts among Jewish scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.
Such are the terrorists from whom today’s ‘anti-fascists’ proudly trace their heritage.
Searchlight is directly descended from the intelligence arm of the 43 Group’s successor, the 62 Group, founded by Jews and communists in 1962 to mount violent attacks on British political movements led by Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, and John Bean.
Part of the 62 Group’s training came from an Israeli intelligence officer – Monica Medicks – who had direct experience of postwar Zionist terrorism, having volunteered soon after the Second World War to join the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the group responsible for many terrorist atrocities including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, killing 91 people.
Her husband Stanley Medicks (1925-2013) was a commander of Mahal (‘Volunteers from Abroad’) recruiting Jews from around the world to fight for the new Zionist state in 1948. Oddly, once this state was secured, Stanley and Monica Medicks chose not to stay in Palestine, instead moving first to Kenya (where Stanley Medicks had been born) then somewhat ironically fleeing from the anti-British, anti-White terrorism of the notorious Mau Mau and settling in London, where Stanley was on the surface a used car dealer, but both he and his wife worked in various roles for Israeli intelligence.
Monica Medicks – the anti-British terrorist turned Israeli intelligence officer and militant London ‘anti-fascist’ – went on to advise JACOB – the Jewish Aid Committee of Britain – which in the spring of 1966 circulated proposals within the Jewish community for a new, aggressive Jewish strategy. Metropolitan Police Special Branch monitored this new form of Jewish extremism, just as they had the 62 Group.
Eventually JACOB evolved into today’s very respectable ‘Community Security Trust’, a Jewish lobby group that works closely with the British police and security services. CST’s founding chairman, Gerald Ronson, is now friendly with British aristocrats and royalty, despite having been a 62 Group thug, and having been convicted for a violent assault on one of Sir Oswald Mosley’s followers. Ronson was a close friend and ally of the 62 Group’s intelligence officer, former Communist Party candidate Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight, leading the campaign to paint Isabel Peralta as a criminal.
While Isabel Peralta has no criminal convictions, Ronson and Gable have several criminal convictions between them. In addition to his conviction for politically motivated violence, Ronson served several years in prison for his leading role in one of the City of London’s most notorious fraud cases, while Gable was convicted alongside two fellow ‘anti-fascists’ for illegally entering the home of the British historian David Irving, with the objective of stealing documents.
In later years, Searchlight developed close ties to other offshoots of extremely violent anti-fascism, notably ‘Anti-Fascist Action’. Searchlight‘s main northern operative – Steve Tilzey – was imprisoned for his part in kidnapping a young National Front activist. Passing sentence the judge told Tilzey and his fellow conspirators, who included leading figures in the Trotskyist ‘Socialist Workers Party’: “the weapons you took with you are quite dreadful, capable of inflicting the most serious injuries and of killing in many cases.”
One of Tilzey’s right-hand men in Manchester anti-fascism was a notorious gangland assassin: Dessie Noonan, who was later murdered by a fellow drug dealer.
Yet more serious violence was carried out by another of Searchlight‘s allies in Anti-Fascist Action, one of its leading London militants, Patrick Hayes, who was given a 30-year jail sentence for planting an IRA bomb outside Harrods, the famous store in central London. Another of Hayes’s fellow ‘anti-fascists’ – Liam Heffernan – was jailed for 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of another Irish terrorist group, the INLA.
Throughout this period, Britain’s most militant ‘anti-fascists’ were often also involved with Irish terrorism, just as their predecessors had been active in Jewish terrorism against British targets.
Probably the worst crime committed by ‘anti-fascists’ working with the IRA was the Warrington bombing in 1993 which killed 12-year-old Tim Parry and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball.
Yet after these decades of association with some of the worst thuggery and brutality in British political history, ‘anti-fascists’ dare to campaign against a young woman whose only ‘crime’ is to express political and historical views that they disagree with.
We have this message for ‘anti-fascist’ bullies and their financial backers: Heritage and Destiny will support our brave comrade Isabel Peralta at whatever level necessary to defeat your campaign of intimidation. Whenever you lie about Isabel to induce British ‘anti-terrorist’ police to harass her, we shall respond with the truth about your own terrorist friends and connections going back many decades.
We are confident that no police force, no sinister security agency, and no financial string-pulling will defeat the truth.
The true Europe represented by Isabel Peralta will defeat the alien-imposed anti-European order of lies and chicanery.
Quiénes son los verdaderos ‘terroristas’? Peter Rushton de H&D investiga…
El día antes de la reunión de Heritage & Destiny de este año, nuestra corresponsal europea Isabel Peralta fue nuevamente detenida durante más de cuatro horas por la seguridad fronteriza en el aeropuerto de Manchester, utilizando el Anexo 7 de la Ley contra el Terrorismo del Reino Unido. Su teléfono y su ordenador fueron confiscados y examinados durante dos días por agentes del altamente politizado Comando Antiterrorista (SO15, antigua Rama Especial), que trabaja en estrecha colaboración con el servicio de seguridad británico MI5.
Esto sigue a un procedimiento similar el año pasado: otro acto de flagrante acoso político. No hace falta decir que no se presentaron cargos, porque Isabel no ha cometido ningún delito según la ley del Reino Unido. En el Reino Unido no es un delito ser nacionalsocialista; no es un crimen defender el honor de la División Azul (los valientes voluntarios españoles que lucharon junto al ejército alemán en defensa de la frontera oriental de Europa contra los bárbaros de Stalin); no es un delito cuestionar los mitos históricos (por más que muchos grupos de presión bien financiados promuevan esos mitos); y no es delito oponerse a la profanación de la tumba de José Antonio Primo de Rivera, el gran patriota español y líder falangista.
Sin embargo, la revista “antifascista” Searchlight ha iniciado una campaña para presionar al Ministro del Interior, alegando que el acoso de las Fuerzas Fronterizas a Isabel Peralta fue insuficiente. ¡Exigen que este patriota valiente y decidido, líder de una nueva generación de europeos que no tienen miedo de defender nuestra civilización, sea excluido del Reino Unido!
Y tienen el descaro de comparar a Isabel con las oleadas de inmigrantes ilegales que inundan nuestras fronteras a diario, desde todos los rincones del mundo, y que son totalmente ajenos a la cultura y las tradiciones europeas.
Es hora de preguntar: ¿quiénes son estos “antifascistas” y quiénes son los verdaderos terroristas?
Searchlight se enorgullece de rastrear sus orígenes en las bandas militantes de judíos y comunistas que lucharon contra la Unión Británica de Fascistas y Nacionalsocialistas de Sir Oswald Mosley durante la década de 1930. Esta violenta alianza judío-comunista (que incluía a algunos de los gánsteres más notorios de Londres) se jactaba de que una de sus tácticas habituales era incrustar hojas de afeitar en patatas y arrojárselas a los fascistas, policías y caballos de policía británicos.
Más precisamente, Searchlight afirma descender de la alianza de posguerra más secreta pero igualmente violenta de judíos sionistas y comunistas conocida como el Grupo 43, que llevó a cabo infiltración encubierta de grupos nacionalistas británicos, así como robos y asaltos violentos.
Un hecho de importancia crítica, pero que a menudo se pasa por alto, es que la violencia “antifascista” del Grupo 43 coincidió con una campaña de atentados y asesinatos dirigida por una de las redes de asesinos terroristas más brutales del mundo: judíos que lucharon contra el Imperio Británico así como contra civiles árabes de 1945 a 1948, para establecer lo que hoy es el Estado de Israel.
De hecho, el nombre mismo del Grupo 43 –contrariamente a muchas mentiras contadas en libros sobre antifascismo– se deriva de un célebre caso de 43 paramilitares que fueron arrestados por las autoridades británicas en Palestina en octubre de 1939, pocas semanas después del inicio de la guerra. En un cínico acto de oportunismo político, incluso después de que el Imperio Británico hubiera declarado la guerra a Adolf Hitler, los paramilitares judíos se estaban entrenando ilegalmente para librar su propia guerra, de ser necesario contra los británicos. Sólo una intensa presión política salvó a estos 43 judíos de una larga sentencia de cárcel.
Después de nombrar a su grupo con el nombre de estos terroristas judíos ilegales en formación, muchos agentes “antifascistas” del Grupo 43 pasaron a trabajar con bandas terroristas sionistas que apuntaban explícitamente a militares y civiles británicos. Por ejemplo, Samuel Landman –un abogado corrupto y ex secretario del primer presidente de Israel, Chaim Weizmann– trabajó para el grupo terrorista Irgun (responsable del atentado contra el hotel King David), suministrando inteligencia política desde dentro del establishment británico.
Los hijos de Landman, Deborah y David, estuvieron involucrados con el Grupo 43 “antifascista” y con el terrorismo del Irgun. Fueron directamente responsables de organizar un complot para asesinar al general Sir Evelyn Barker, ex comandante de las fuerzas británicas en Palestina. Estos dos miembros del Grupo 43 (junto con el futuro presidente israelí Ezer Weizman y un piloto judío sudafricano, Boris Senior) hicieron planes detallados para asesinar a Sir Evelyn en su casa, un complot que abandonaron debido a la vigilancia policial.
Otras víctimas de los terroristas judíos no tuvieron tanta suerte. En mayo de 1948, un joven estudiante, Rex Farran, fue asesinado por un paquete bomba en la casa de su familia cerca de Wolverhampton. La bomba estaba destinada a su hermano, un héroe de guerra del SAS que había sido demasiado eficaz (desde el punto de vista de los judíos) en las operaciones antiterroristas de posguerra en Palestina. La banda judía responsable del asesinato de Farran nunca fue detenida.
Otro miembro de la misma banda colocó una bomba dentro de un club de militares cerca de Trafalgar Square en marzo de 1947. Este terrorista despiadado escapó a París, donde fue protegido por compañeros judíos y “antifascistas”, incluido el filósofo Jean-Paul Sartre. El atacante sigue vivo, después de haber desarrollado una carrera ininterrumpida en la academia francesa: es el profesor Robert Misrahi, un sionista activo y “antifascista”.
Misrahi y sus compañeros terroristas nunca fueron molestados por la policía británica a pesar de haber hecho explotar bombas en suelo británico. Uno de ellos incluso conspiró para infectar el suministro de agua de Londres con cólera, utilizando contactos entre científicos judíos del Instituto Pasteur de París.
Así son los terroristas de quienes los “antifascistas” de hoy remontan con orgullo su herencia.
Searchlight desciende directamente del brazo de inteligencia del sucesor del Grupo 43, el Grupo 62, fundado por judíos y comunistas en 1962 para montar ataques violentos contra los movimientos políticos británicos liderados por Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan, John Tyndall y John Bean.
Parte del entrenamiento del Grupo 62 provino de una oficial de inteligencia israelí, Monica Medicks, que tenía experiencia directa con el terrorismo sionista de posguerra y se ofreció como voluntaria poco después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial para unirse al Irgun Zvai Leumi, el grupo responsable de muchas atrocidades terroristas, incluido el bombardeo del Hotel Rey David de Jerusalén en julio de 1946, matando a 91 personas.
Su marido Stanley Medicks (1925-2013) fue un comandante de Mahal (‘Voluntarios del Extranjero’) que reclutaba judíos de todo el mundo para luchar por el nuevo estado sionista en 1948. Curiosamente, una vez que este estado estuvo asegurado, Stanley y Monica Medicks eligieron no quedarse en Palestina, sino mudarse primero a Kenia (donde había nacido Stanley Medicks) y luego, un tanto irónicamente, huir del terrorismo antibritánico y antiblanco del famoso Mau Mau y establecerse en Londres, donde Stanley era en la superficie un vendedor de autos usados, pero tanto él como su esposa trabajaron en diversos roles para la inteligencia israelí.
Monica Medicks –la terrorista antibritánica convertida en oficial de inteligencia israelí y militante “antifascista” de Londres– pasó a asesorar a JACOB –el Comité de Ayuda Judía de Gran Bretaña– que en la primavera de 1966 hizo circular propuestas dentro de la comunidad judía para una nueva, estrategia judía agresiva. La Brigada Especial de la Policía Metropolitana vigiló esta nueva forma de extremismo judío, al igual que lo había hecho con el Grupo 62.
Con el tiempo, JACOB evolucionó hasta convertirse en el hoy muy respetable “Community Security Trust”, un grupo de presión judío que trabaja en estrecha colaboración con la policía y los servicios de seguridad británicos. El presidente fundador del CST, Gerald Ronson, es ahora amigo de los aristócratas y la realeza británica, a pesar de haber sido un matón del Grupo 62 y de haber sido condenado por un asalto violento a uno de los seguidores de Sir Oswald Mosley. Ronson era un amigo cercano y aliado del oficial de inteligencia del Grupo 62, el ex candidato del Partido Comunista, Gerry Gable, quien ahora es el editor y editor de Searchlight, y lidera la campaña para presentar a Isabel Peralta como una criminal.
Si bien Isabel Peralta no tiene condenas penales, Ronson y Gable tienen varias condenas penales entre ellos. Además de su condena por violencia por motivos políticos, Ronson cumplió varios años de prisión por su papel destacado en uno de los casos de fraude más notorios de la City de Londres, mientras que Gable fue condenado junto con dos compañeros “antifascistas” por entrar ilegalmente en la casa de el historiador británico David Irving, con el objetivo de robar documentos.
En años posteriores, Searchlight desarrolló estrechos vínculos con otras ramas del antifascismo extremadamente violento, en particular la “Acción Antifascista”. El principal agente norteño de Searchlight, Steve Tilzey, fue encarcelado por su participación en el secuestro de un joven activista del Frente Nacional. Al dictar sentencia, el juez dijo a Tilzey y a sus compañeros de conspiración, entre los que se encontraban figuras destacadas del “Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores” trotskista: “las armas que se llevaron son bastante espantosas, capaces de infligir las heridas más graves y, en muchos casos, de matar”.
Una de las manos derechas de Tilzey en el antifascismo de Manchester era un famoso asesino del hampa: Dessie Noonan, que más tarde fue asesinado por un compañero traficante de drogas.
Aún más violencia grave fue llevada a cabo por otro de los aliados de Searchlight en Acción Antifascista, uno de sus principales militantes londinenses, Patrick Hayes, que fue condenado a 30 años de cárcel por colocar una bomba del IRA frente a Harrods, la famosa tienda en el centro de Londres. Otro de los compañeros “antifascistas” de Hayes –Liam Heffernan– fue encarcelado durante 23 años por robar explosivos en nombre de otro grupo terrorista irlandés, el INLA.
A lo largo de este período, los “antifascistas” más militantes de Gran Bretaña a menudo también estuvieron involucrados con el terrorismo irlandés, del mismo modo que sus predecesores habían estado activos en el terrorismo judío contra objetivos británicos.
Probablemente el peor crimen cometido por los “antifascistas” que trabajaban con el IRA fue el atentado de Warrington en 1993, en el que murieron Tim Parry, de 12 años, y Johnathan Ball, de 3.
Sin embargo, después de estas décadas de asociación con algunos de los peores matones y brutalidades de la historia política británica, los “antifascistas” se atreven a hacer campaña contra una joven cuyo único “crimen” es expresar puntos de vista políticos e históricos con los que no están de acuerdo.
Tenemos este mensaje para los matones “antifascistas” y sus patrocinadores financieros: Heritage and Destiny apoyará a nuestra valiente camarada Isabel Peralta en cualquier nivel necesario para derrotar su campaña de intimidación. Siempre que mientas sobre Isabel para inducir a la policía “antiterrorista” británica a acosarla, responderemos con la verdad sobre tus propios amigos terroristas y tus conexiones que se remontan a muchas décadas atrás.
Estamos seguros de que ninguna fuerza policial, ninguna agencia de seguridad siniestra y ninguna influencia financiera derrotarán la verdad.
La verdadera Europa representada por Isabel Peralta derrotará el orden antieuropeo de mentiras y argucias impuesto por la innombrable élite internacional.
One law for them and one law for us?
A recent decision by the Crown Prosecution Service raises serious questions as to whether ‘anti-terrorist’ law in the UK is being enforced in a partisan manner, or whether there is one law for those perceived to be on the radical left, and another for those perceived to be on the radical right.
Press reports this week suggest that far leftists seem to have got away with defying the UK’s Terrorism Act, Schedule 7 – the same law that has been repeatedly used against H&D, most recently to detain our European correspondent Isabel Peralta and seize her phone and computer.
On Friday 23rd June, the CPS and the Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police announced there would be no further action against Ernest Moret, a publisher who works as foreign rights manager for the Paris firm La Fabrique.
Moret was detained at St Pancras station under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, on the evening of 17th April 2023 after travelling by Eurostar from Paris (as reported in H&D two months ago). He was en route to the London Book Fair, where his firm was working in close collaboration with another far-left publisher, London-based Verso Books.
He allegedly refused to provide UK police with the pin code for his mobile phone, leading to his arrest and transfer to a London police station where he was held until the following day, “on suspicion of wilfully obstructing a Schedule 7 examination”.
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 entitles UK police and border control officers to question anyone entering the country at any airport, seaport, or in this case rail terminal (classed as a “port of entry”). Those arriving (even if they are UK citizens) can be detained for up to six hours without any reason being given and without any evidence or specific suspicion against them.
Since this six-hour period begins when the interrogation starts, then in practice the detention period can be longer (as one can be kept for some time before questioning).
Those detained are required to answer whatever questions are asked of them, and do not have the customary right to silence. They are obliged to hand over their possessions and provide any passwords, pin numbers etc needed for officers to be able to access electronic devices.
Any refusal to answer, or refusal to provide such access codes is regarded as an offence under the Terrorism Act.
Officers do not need to show any reasonable grounds for detaining and questioning someone under Schedule 7. Although the rationale behind the law is to allow officers to obtain information relevant to anti-terrorist investigations, there is no implication that those detained are themselves terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism.
A joint statement by La Fabrique and Verso wilfully ignored this legal reality, claiming that Moret’s participation in leftwing protests in France against President Macron, had been cited “as a justification” for his detention and questioning. No such “justification” is necessary under Schedule 7, but Moret’s employers seem to believe that the far left is exempt from laws that apply to the rest of us, especially to the so-called ‘far right’.
H&D has always argued that nationalists should avoid unnecessary confrontations with the police. We have always maintained that (outside the specific context of Northern Ireland) paramilitary activity and anything resembling terrorism is unjustifiable and counter-productive to the cause of racial nationalism.
Accordingly, we have consistently argued that if detained under Schedule 7, then whatever we might think about the disproportionate and arbitrary powers conveyed by that law, nationalists should accept that this is (for now) UK law and we should cooperate with those enforcing it.
H&D’s editor Mark Cotterill has been detained twice at Manchester Airport under Schedule 7, once when returning from Cancun, Mexico, and once when returning from Adelaide, Australia. Assistant editor Peter Rushton was detained at London Stansted Airport in 2019 after returning from Düsseldorf. And most recently, in September last year our European correspondent Isabel Peralta was detained at Manchester Airport on arrival from Madrid. (click here to view an interview with Isabel about this Schedule 7 detention)
The latter case was especially serious, since not content with an interrogation lasting almost six hours, the authorities retained Isabel’s phone and computer for almost a week.
H&D is now writing to the Metropolitan Police and to the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, seeking clarification of the Moret case. Naturally we know no more about the circumstances of his arrest (and his later release) than what has appeared in press reports and police statements, but these raise troubling questions which must be answered if nationalists are to retain confidence in the impartiality of the police, and if we are to continue to recommend compliance with police investigations.
Background note:
Verso was founded in 1970 as New Left Books, and throughout its history the firm has specialised in works by Marxist authors. It is especially associated with the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’ of Marxist theorists.
Ernest Moret’s employer La Fabrique was founded in 1998 by the left-wing French Jewish author Éric Hazan. It has published several controversial extreme leftist texts including The Coming Insurrection, written by a so-called “Invisible Committee” and calling for a revolutionary uprising. Moret’s employer Hazan was investigated by French anti-terrorist police seeking to confirm that the author of The Coming Insurrection was in fact Julien Coupat, who was arrested in 2008 for “direction of a terrorist organisation” in connection with the organised sabotage of French railway lines.
Information leading to Coupat’s arrest (and subsequent court cases that ended in legal chaos and acquittals) was supplied to French police by Mark Kennedy, an undercover English police officer who had infliltrated Coupat’s organisation. Kennedy’s actions as a police spy are themselves now among many such undercover operations being examined by an official enquiry.
In other words, whatever Ernest Moret has or hasn’t done, the UK authorities knew that his employer La Fabrique was closely connected to someone who was the focus of a very long-running investigation into politically-motivated criminal activity. And they knew that this anarchism (predating Moret’s involvement with La Fabrique) had also involved people in England.
Nothing published in H&D has ever been the subject of criminal charges, and we have never published any article that recommends criminal behaviour. Outside the specific context of Northern Ireland, we have never endorsed paramilitary activity. It is quite clear that the questioning of Mark Cotterill, Peter Rushton and Isabel Peralta under Schedule 7 was in each case a “fishing expedition” for political intelligence, conducted in the latter case as a favour for the German authorities, and had no connection to any actual or suspected terrorist activity or any other offences against UK law.
Leftists get a taste of their own ‘anti-terrorist’ medicine
Far left activists were outraged this week when a French Marxist publisher was arrested by London police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.
Ernest Moret was held for 24 hours after refusing to provide passwords for police to access his phone. He was released on bail yesterday evening.
Racial nationalists have known for many years that Schedule 7 gives UK police and border security officers extraordinary powers that would once have been seen as unconstitutional. Our own citizens as well as visitors can be detained on entering the country, and questioned for up to six hours.
Unlike any other arrest, those detained under Schedule 7 have no right to remain silent and are obliged to surrender their phones, computers and other devices, together with any relevant passwords. The authorities do not require any reason for detaining and questioning anyone under Schedule 7, and their questions can cover any subject.
Four of our H&D team have been detained under Schedule 7 in recent years. Editor Mark Cotterill has been stopped twice at Manchester Airport after returning from a non-political holiday to Mexico and a visit to H&D supporters in Australia. Assistant editor Peter Rushton was stopped at London Stansted Airport on returning from a visit to Germany. And last September our Spanish comrade and H&D writer Isabel Peralta was stopped at Manchester Airport, the night before speaking at our 2022 meeting in Preston.
Isabel’s case was especially outrageous because her computer and phone were retained for almost a week, without any justification, as part of a political ‘fishing expedition’ where UK authorities were liaising with political police and intelligence agencies in Germany and Spain.
Everyone at H&D understands that we have very limited rights under Schedule 7, but it seems that the far left is only now waking up to this reality.
In this week’s case, it seems likely that London police were cooperating with their Paris counterparts in an investigation of Ernest Moret’s involvement with protests against President Macron’s changes to French pensions.
Moret and a colleague were visiting fellow Marxists in London, associated with the well-known leftwing publishers Verso.
His fellow leftists at the Guardian and BBC, as well as the National Union of Journalists, were happy to publicise Moret’s case as some sort of outrage. Yet the same wokeists were perfectly happy when Mark, Peter and Isabel (who similarly have no connection to anything that could reasonably be called ‘terrorism’) were detained under the exact same law.
Why do Marxists assume that dictatorial laws will only be used against ‘racists’ and ‘fascists’, and that the far left is immune?
Italy on the front line of African migrant ‘invasion’
Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has warned EU leaders of an ever-worsening immigration crisis amid an ‘invasion’ from North Africa.
Meloni (who entered politics as a young activist in the neo-fascist party MSI and now heads a coalition of conservative and semi-nationalist parties) is derided by the liberal left as Europe’s most ‘far right’ leader since the Second World War. Her election victory last September was partly due to her promise to deal with Italy’s immigration crisis, but for reasons mainly beyond her control these problems have worsened rather than improved during her premiership.
Part of the crisis is due to dysfunctional governments in Tunisia and Libya. The collapse of Colonel Gadafy’s dictatorship in 2011 has led to a decade of chaos in Libya, where various warlords and factions battle for influence but have no interest in blocking the flow of illegal migrants (often crossing Libya from other parts of Africa). Meanwhile Tunisia’s own dictatorship is on the brink of collapse, and despite Meloni’s urging, the European Union and IMF are reluctant to send aid or loans that might encourage the Tunisians to cooperate in effective anti-immigration measures.
The numbers involved in this Mediterranean migrant trade dwarf the problems of ‘small boats’ crossing the English Channel. Many H&D readers have justifiable doubts about Meloni, but she is surely correct to argue that the problem can only be addressed by concerted European action, not by any individual government.
As Sir Oswald Mosley suggested decades ago, and as Meloni is now arguing, the most credible approach would have to combine resolute action against ‘people traffickers’ (whom Meloni proposes to jail for up to 16 years) with aid to African governments that will be strictly conditional on these governments turning off the immigration tap.
The problem is that African governments might seek to take advantage of the situation by blackmailing Europe: an example of shameless surrender to such blackmail is the Spanish government’s deal with Morocco, which inter alia led to the prosecution of H&D correspondent Isabel Peralta.
Fundamentally the answer to this migrant crisis is for Europeans to rediscover their confidence, get off their knees, and cease apologising for the ruthless methods necessary to secure our borders.
H&D writer Isabel Peralta banned from Germany for life
UPDATE: Isabel is now back on Twitter, even though banned from visiting Germany. The German government cannot suppress the truth forever, whether online or in person.
Germany is already known for its laws banning free political debate and historical research – most notoriously for the recent decision to imprison 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck. It has become almost routine for Germany to deny basic human rights to its own citizens, while welcoming alien immigrants from every corner of the world.
Now the German authorities have again breached their basic obligations under the Schengen treaty, by which fellow Europeans are supposed to be allowed freedom to travel across its borders.
They are attempting to impose a life ban on Spanish nationalist activist and H&D writer Isabel Peralta – despite the fact she has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal offence in Germany.
As we reported in Issue 111 of H&D (but has only yesterday been picked up by the mainstream press in Spain), German police detained Isabel on 6th October while she was minding her own business in the central German university town of Marburg. She was served with official papers ordering her to leave the country.
This followed earlier harassment at Manchester Airport, when Isabel was detained for more than six hours on 24th September, the night before her speech at the H&D meeting in Preston, which can be viewed online here.
It’s now apparent that UK authorities abused Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, so as to do a favour for their German colleagues. The UK authorities knew perfectly well that they had no valid reason to detain Isabel, but they used Schedule 7 as a ‘fishing expedition’ to collect political intelligence from her phone and computer, and pass it to the German authorities.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and nothing to do with UK law: British police and border security have become accomplices in the German authorities’ campaign of political persecution against nationalists.
Unlike post-Brexit UK citizens, Isabel is of course (as a Spanish citizen) entitled under European law (in fact under the European constitution) to enter Germany free of harassment, and for that matter to work or study in Germany.
Such rights can only be withdrawn in very exceptional circumstances: even convicted criminals are normally entitled to these rights.
In order to expel Isabel, and now to argue that she should be excluded from Germany for life, the authorities have had to argue not that she is a criminal (because they know that she has broken no German laws) but that she is a serious threat to “national security”, because she supposedly has such high-level connections with dangerous subversives in leadership positions among the “far right”, including people who aim to overthrow the German government!
This extraordinary paranoia reflects the fact that despite the evident short-term weakness of German nationalist movements, those who govern the occupied Federal Republic are aware of their lack of legitimacy. They know that their rule since the end of blatant Allied military occupation in the early 1950s has been based on lies, and they fear (correctly) that Isabel Peralta, as a brave and intelligent advocate of truth, is capable of inspiring a movement among new generations of Europeans that will eventually win.
That’s why they had to invent a quite ludicrous case against her, which now aims to exclude her from Germany for life. This legal and constitutional outrage will of course be appealed, if necessary as far as the European courts.
H&D and our colleagues in several European countries have been working for the last two months on a major investigation of the extreme measures that have been adopted by the enemies of nationalism to subvert our movement and deny legal and constitutional rights. Next week we shall publish the results of this investigation.
Our brave comrade Isabel is still facing legal proceedings in Spain under their version of the race laws (though this case is unrelated to her exclusion from Germany and does not provide any valid reason for the German authorities’ behaviour). She is also bringing a civil action against the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post, a case which has already begun in the Madrid courts.
Madrid authorities seek to jail H&D writer in blatant political prosecution
Isabel Peralta – European correspondent of H&D who recently addressed our meeting in Preston – is in court this week in Madrid, where the authorities aim to jail her for three years.
The case has been brought under Spain’s equivalent of the UK’s racial incitement laws, but as our assistant editor Peter Rushton explains in this article, Isabel is being targeted in blatant political machinations: not only by the Spanish government, but also by lobbyists working in the interests of the Moroccan government.
For this and other reasons which we shall disclose in a later article, the prosecution of Isabel Peralta is a disgrace to Spanish justice. If she is convicted, the matter will be appealed if necessary as far as the European Court. Spanish politicians and Moroccan lobbyists are the true criminals, working against the interests of Spain and against the interests of Europeans.
The case dates back to 18th May 2021, when a demonstration was held outside the Moroccan Embassy in Madrid by a Spanish nationalist youth group. Isabel was at the time a leading activist in this group.
In an interview and speech, both of which were later broadcast on YouTube, Isabel explained the purpose of this demonstration: to draw attention to the attempted blackmail being exerted by the Moroccan Government, who were threatening to flood Spain with immigrants unless Spain accepted Moroccan control over Western Sahara.
This is a diplomatic dispute that has been going on for more than half a century, ever since Spain gave up its colonial control over the province once known as Spanish Sahara. Morocco seeks to grab the entire area for itself, but is opposed by an independence movement called Polisario Front, which is backed by Algeria.
It is in Spaniards’ economic interest to back the Polisario, partly in order to remain on good terms with Algeria, which supplies Spain with natural gas. But for the past two years the Moroccan government has exerted blackmail on Spain.
Morocco’s main weapon is control over illegal immigration into Spanish territory. They have indicated that they are prepared to turn the immigration tap on or off. And Spain’s socialist government is naturally unable or unwilling to take firm action against the consequent flood, just as it fails to resist mass immigration from elsewhere.
Essentially this was the background to the demonstration addressed by Isabel Peralta in Madrid in May last year. The demonstration targeted both the Moroccan government’s blackmail, and the Spanish authorities’ weakness.
Isabel’s interview and speech was making a serious and well-informed case. She explained that the demonstrators had come to the Embassy “to stand up to the indecency of our politicians who look the other way, while we suffer unprecedented racial replacement”.
She emphasised that “the problem here is not Morocco. The problem is what purports to be our own government, which with impunity sets off this explosion: the arrival of immigrants on a massive scale.”
Since politicians were not prepared to stand up to the Moroccan government’s blackmail, Spanish nationalist youth had to come forward. Isabel concluded her interview with words that require some explanation to British readers: “We shall not allow another Green March.”
The Green March – on 6th November 1975 – was the deliberate incursion by 350,000 Moroccans (organised by their government) into what was still Spanish colonial territory, in what is now Western Sahara. Because Spain was beginning its decolonisation, its soldiers were ordered not to open fire and to accept what was essentially an invasion.
So the Green March was a Spanish surrender, abandoning their responsibility to their former colonial subjects. Spain signed the so-called Madrid Accords, which effectively rewarded Morocco for their illegal invasion. (Part of the problem was that this was happening during the last weeks of General Franco’s life: he was dying and incapable of exercising any political authority.)
During her speech to the rally outside the Moroccan Embassy, Isabel picked up the theme that had concluded her interview: “Now as in 1975, they are trying again and they are coming with force, and 5,000 now seems like a lot to us, but in ten years they will seem like few, because if we do not stop them this will be our future: immigration in Europe will supplant our race, our diversity, our religion and our culture, and we are the only ones who are going to fight for it.”
The context is very clear: Isabel is correctly comparing the surrender in 1975, when the Spanish government gave in to Moroccan invaders and betrayed the indigenous people of Western Sahara, to the potential surrender in 2021-2022, when today’s Spanish government is similarly weak in the face of Moroccan threats.
It turned out that Isabel was absolutely correct. Not only has the Madrid government continued to allow floods of immigrants, it has also surrendered to Morocco’s blackmail. In March 2022, almost a year after Isabel’s comments, Spain’s socialist government carried out a U-turn and adopted a pro-Moroccan position, abandoning the decades-long Spanish policy that Western Sahara’s future should be settled by a referendum of its inhabitants.
The U-turn threatens vital trade deals including the supply of natural gas from Algeria.
The entire situation is a shambles, rooted in the inability of Spain’s socialist government to stand up for Spanish interests.
As so often across the West, when the arguments of nationalists are vindicated, the authorities’ response is to persecute us. And as so often, weakness in the face of an invader or a blackmailer merely invites further invasion and further blackmail.
This time it is our correspondent Isabel Peralta who is on the frontline. As they prepared their surrender to Morocco, the Spanish authorities launched a prosecution of Isabel, which has come to court in Madrid this week. Prosecutors are asking for her to be jailed for up to three years.
In presenting her interview and speech as inciting racial violence, prosecutors have deliberately ignored its political context. They have not only deliberately distorted her speech, they have even omitted crucial words from the transcript. Isabel clearly said that the demonstration was anti-immigration, but not motivated by hatred of any race. Such hatred, she emphasised, would be absurd since our entire political outlook is based on recognition of racial differences. We are motivated, she pointed out, “by admiration and devotion to our own race in the face of a threat to its very existence”.
The political manipulation at the heart of this case is obvious from official papers that I have examined.
Ten days after the demonstration, Madrid’s political police were visited by Sofia Bencrimo, an employee of a charity that promotes the integration of immigrants. Later the same day these police officers sent a report to the prosecutors: this was the first step in the process leading to Isabel’s criminal trial.
The political police (duly followed by prosecutors) presented Ms Bencrimo’s complaint against Isabel as though it reflected a charity standing up for ordinary immigrants who felt threatened by Isabel’s words. In the entire prosecution dossier of more than 90 pages, which I have studied in detail, Ms Bencrimo’s is the only complaint from anyone outside Spanish officialdom.
Yet the organisation this complainant represented – the Ibn Battuta Foundation – is not as simple as police and prosecutors pretend.
Its president is Mohammed Chaib Akhdim, a veteran politician and businessman with close personal and financial ties to the Moroccan government – the very people whose actions were being exposed and criticised in Isabel’s speech.
Chaib is a former MP in both the Catalan and Madrid parliaments for the left-wing party PSC (Socialists Party of Catalonia). But he is also a wealthy businessman with financial interests in his native Morocco, and in particular stands to benefit from Morocco taking control of Western Sahara. Since 1992 he was been director of business development in Morocco for COMSA Industrial, a company with vast interests in engineering and construction projects in Morocco, including the disputed territory of Western Sahara.
It is a remarkable coincidence that the “charity worker” who brought the complaint against Isabel Peralta was an employee of Chaib’s foundation.
H&D fully supports our brave and brilliant comrade Isabel. We look forward to her victory over this politically motivated prosecution – however long that victory takes.
We shall be reporting further on the development of this case, and on the related political persecution of Isabel in Germany, which was assisted by border security in our own country who disgracefully detained her for more than six hours a few weeks ago during her visit to England. Check this website and our January edition of H&D for more extraordinary revelations about the state of European justice.
