Secret police files reveal truth about ‘far right violence’

Even the so-called ‘conservative’ press has joined ‘anti-fascists’ in a festival of propaganda during the past week, alternately warning of ‘far-right violence’ and celebrating its apparent defeat.

But by a strange coincidence, an official inquiry into the operations of undercover police officers has simultaneously revealed some of the truth behind this hype. H&D has spent some time examining the records of this inquiry, including testimony given at a hearing in London on 24th July this year.

During 1990 and 1991, an undercover police officer codenamed HN 56 was deployed to infiltrate the British National Party (BNP). It would be a criminal offence to reveal the true name of HN 56, but while inside the BNP he used the pseudonym Alan Nicholson and was known as ‘Nick’.

This officer worked in coordination with the Security Service (MI5) as part of a top secret police unit known as the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). The names and birth certificates of dead children were used to create fake identities for SDS officers, who were then infiltrated into ‘extremist’ organisations. This strategy was first adopted after riots outside the US Embassy in 1968, during the Vietnam War. MI5 and the police became aware that they lacked intelligence on new and violent far-left groups, so this infiltration strategy was developed.

According to journalistic and anti-fascist hype, the early 1990s was a time when ‘far-right’ violence against non-Whites was increasing, especially in London. Had ‘nazis’ been behind this ‘racist violence’, the obvious place to find evidence would have been inside the BNP.

HN 56 – given the fake identity of Alan ‘Nick’ Nicholson – was sent to join the Loughton branch of the BNP. A decision to point him in this direction was taken by his superiors in August 1989. After several months of training he began his mission in April 1990, hanging around for about six weeks at a pub in Loughton, regularly frequented by BNP members and sympathisers, before filling in an application form for BNP membership. Perhaps surprisingly, he was not given a fake passport in his cover name, though he was given a bank account in this name, a driving licence, and other fake documents.

The most telling section of his testimony to the inquiry was that he thought he had been chosen to infiltrate the ‘far right’ because he was physically tough and had a black belt in karate:
“I think there was a perception that if you are going to get a smack on the head, it was probably if you were on the right-wing rather than the left.”

Sir John Mitting, chairman of the inquiry, asked HN 56:
“So a perception that you were more likely, yourself, to become a victim of violence, if I can put it that way?”

“Yes.”

“If deployed into a right-wing group.”

“Yes, I think so.”

Later in his testimony, HN 56 adds: “Well, the thing about the British National Party was if they ever showed up anywhere there was always opposition, generally. It often would result in violence. …Disorder in the sense of – they would not be instigators. It would be on them, generally.”

He is then asked by the inquiry chairman:
“So you thought that you were going to find disorder in which members of the BNP would be set upon?”

And HN 56 replies: “Yes, for example when they held an annual meeting, you know, the venue would have been a closely guarded secret, only revealed maybe a couple of hours before to forestall any invasion by people who wanted to disrupt it.”

One regular concern when infiltrating the ‘far-right’ was that an agent might be uncovered by the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight, who might believe he was a ‘genuine’ BNP activist.

HN 56 testified to the inquiry: “Occasionally the [SDS] managers would quiz me on aspects of my proposed cover identity. The anti-fascist Searchlight organisation would investigate people who associated with extreme right-wing groups and while they were unlikely to warn any of the groups, there was always the possibility that an undercover officer or the unit could be unmasked by them. There were no organised civilian groups looking at the extreme left-wing in quite the same way.”

He added that at the time of his deployment he was expecting to spend four years as an undercover officer: “this made sense because of the preparation time required and the need to develop a credible legend.”

Rather naively, HN 56 told the enquiry that the rationale for his mission was that “the aim of the BNP was a reduction in immigration, being a voice for white people which they deemed had no voice, and ultimately white supremacy. I did not think these aims were subversive but they were criminal and likely to lead to public disorder. I obtained information about their aims from the BNP newspaper and within John Tyndall’s book [The Eleventh Hour].”

Throughout his entire infiltration mission, HN 56 only witnessed one violent incident, when a member of his BNP branch punched an ‘anti-fascist’ during a ‘Rights for Whites’ march in November 1990. This march was part of a campaign supporting the family of John Stoner, a local schoolboy who was stabbed and almost killed by a Bangladeshi gang in Bethnal Green, East London.

One of his problems was that whereas the type of left-wing parties and groups that SDS infiltrated “tended to have frequent and regular meetings and a well-defined group of members, the extreme right-wing was much less strictly organised and tended not to have regular meetings or a fixed membership beyond one or two active organisers.”

This observation probably reflects the state of East London BNP at that time, where a number of activists and organisers had only just been recruited to the BNP from the declining NF, and there was also a looser group of nationalists, some linked to football gangs and others to what later became Combat 18.

Perhaps due to a lack of intelligence among police and MI5 officers, HN 56 had been deployed to a branch that was declining – partly because the Epping Forest organiser had stepped down for family reasons – even while other branches nearby in East London were expanding. Among the few Epping Forest BNP activists who seems to have been befriended by HN 56 during his deployment was Rod Law, who was the subject of a detailed report submitted to Special Branch. Mr Law (who was of course entirely unaware of the fact that this apparent new recruit Nicholson was an undercover police officer) remained a dedicated nationalist and was elected as a BNP councillor for Loughton Alderton ward, Epping Forest, in 2006.

Despite the large amount of public money invested in his training and infiltration mission, it seems that HN 56 lost his nerve, leading to the premature end of his mission in early 1991.

He believed that he had been followed, once on foot and once in a vehicle, in late 1990 and thought that Dave Bruce, a senior BNP official, suspected him of being an infiltrator. There are some hints in HN 56’s testimony that he believed a BNP sympathiser within the police had given him away.

During his testimony to the enquiry last month, HN 56 was asked:
“Were you apprehensive about what the British National Party might do if they thought you were a police officer?”

He replied: “Very much so, yes.”

“What did you think they might do?”

“Beat the shit out of me.”

Even more absurdly, in his witness statement to the inquiry HN 56 said that he was concerned about his superiors having asked him to attend a BNP meeting in another area, because he thought this would seem suspicious for someone so new to the party and “I was concerned I could have been killed.”

Despite the failure of his undercover mission, HN 56 remained within London’s political police, then known as Special Branch, until his retirement in the late 2000s.

None of the Special Branch or MI5 documents released to the inquiry in association with HN 56’s testimony give any indication that the BNP was involved in organised violence. The documents identify a number of individuals well known to older H&D readers, including former Glasgow BNP organiser Eric Brand, who stepped down from this post for family reasons in 1990 during HN 56’s deployment. There is also a document recording BNP members’ visit to Belfast for the 12th July celebrations in 1990.

HN 56’s report from inside the BNP’s 1990 annual rally (held on 13th October 1990) refers to speeches by old comrades of ours including Steve Cartwright, Tony Lecomber (referred to in the report under his pseudonym Tony Wells), Steve Smith (now a senior activist with the British Democrats), and our late comrades Dave Bruce, John Peacock, Richard Edmonds, and John Tyndall.

It’s interesting to note that in this secret police report, most audience members at the BNP rally were described as “smartly dressed, apparently intelligent and relatively affluent. The notorious ‘skinhead’ element made up no more than 5% of those assembled.”

At this 1990 rally the advertised guest speaker Manfred Roeder had been banned from the UK by the Home Secretary (see our recent report on the tenth anniversary of Manfred’s death).

For some reason the name of the replacement guest speaker has been redacted from the report, although older H&D readers will remember that this was Karl Philipp, a German NPD activist and close associate of the historian David Irving. Mr Philipp’s speech focused on ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, and HN 56 summarises his argument as follows (note that these are the words of a secret police report, and that in this context they use normal and reasonable language to summarise revisionist arguments, whereas today in public documents the police would always adopt hysterical anti-fascist language about ‘Holocaust deniers’ and ‘hatred’):
“…The ‘bogey’ always thrown at nationalism and at nationalists, in attempts to stifle not only its growth but its acceptance as well, was the spectre of the Holocaust. Until this ‘bogey’ was laid to rest or put into its proper context (by accepting recent research by noted historians, such as David Irving and others, into the actual numbers and nationalities of those killed in the death camps, in particular Auschwitz), then this ‘bogey’ will always be used by those who see nationalism as a threat, to scare off people who would otherwise embrace the nationalist ideals.”

HN 56 said that the mood of the BNP was very optimistic, and that Richard Edmonds in particular had highlighted the excellent trend of local election results in East London.

Perhaps surprisingly, HN 56 gives a positive account of John Tyndall’s speech to the rally. He writes in his secret report that John Tyndall’s “speech, delivered professionally and in complete tune with those assembled, dealt firstly with the betrayal of this country, by successive governments, since the war. Indeed, he stated, the die was cast in 1939 when ‘cousin’ was set to fight ‘cousin’, instead of a mutual peace being agreed. …He further stated that the so-called ‘vanquished’ of the war, Germany and Japan, were now victorious because of their love of their countries and their adherence to the tenets of nationalism, while the so-called ‘victors’ were now enfeebled by the betrayal of their subsequent governments. …How is it, he went on, that the governments at the time of the Second World War allowed young men to die defending their country from foreign invasion only for successive governments since then to let the creeping invasion of ‘aliens’ take place and to nearly lose our country to them. He, too, closed his speech on the subject of the police. He said that Sir Peter Imbert [Metropolitan Police Commissioner] was no more than a ‘puppet’ dancing to the tune of the British Board of Deputies [the UK’s main Jewish organisation]. He said that Imbert, having recently been summoned to appear before the Board, later stated that he would ‘wipe racism off the streets’. By racism, Tyndall said, he means us – the BNP.”

HN 56 concluded that “the BNP must view this rally as a great success. The whole feeling of it was that of a celebration of recent successes of the party in book publicity and electoral support. Without doubt the two election results in Tower Hamlets have shown Party members that people are prepared to vote for them if they work hard to get the message across. The results have given them a sense of purpose in belonging to a Party which can attract the support of the public and consequently more members to its ranks.”

Later that year a separate source with access to higher level BNP discussions (well above anything HN 56 could have learned) reported that party strategists Dave Bruce, Richard Edmonds and John Morse had decided that the BNP would focus on the 1991 council elections in East London rather than wasting resources on any General Election that might be called by the new Prime Minister John Major, who had replaced Margaret Thatcher in November 1990. A similar high-level source reported to Special Branch on the BNP’s purchase of computer equipment to assist production of the newspaper British Nationalist.

HN 56 was clearly paranoid about the likelihood of his fellow officers having ‘blown his cover’ to the BNP, and about the likelihood of BNP activists inflicting violence on a police infiltrator even if we discovered one. East London was a very different place to East Belfast!

But he was correct to discern that the party was (justifiably) feeling optimistic about its electoral progress during the early 1990s.

After being on the political margins for most of the 1980s, in May 1990 the BNP polled 8.7% in Holy Trinity ward, Tower Hamlets, where its candidate was Steve Smith.

Steve then polled 8.4% in a Park ward by-election in July 1990, followed by his colleague Ken Walsh polling 12.1% in St Peter’s ward in September 1990.

The progress was obvious, and continued in the two years following the failure of HN 56’s infiltration mission.

Barry Osborne polled 20% in Millwall ward in October 1992, and a year later Derek Beackon won the same ward to become the BNP’s first elected councillor, a result which shocked the political establishment and the liberal media.

These years of progress are a sad contrast to the present-day marginalisation of racial nationalism.

Yet we should look back on those times not with sadness or resignation, but with optimism.

The rapid progress of racial nationalism in those years can be achieved again, provided that our movement can regain the will, determination, and intelligence to mobilise the undoubted potential for our cause that exists throughout our Disunited Kingdom.

We can learn many things from the belated testimony of HN 56 to last month’s inquiry. H&D will continue to scrutinise and report on official documents relating to our cause, as and when such documents become available to us.

Casino politics and lack of honour – Sunak’s Tories and Farage’s Reform UK show they are unfit for office

Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives and their main challenger on the ‘right’ – Reform UK leader Nigel Farage – have dragged UK politics to a new low: a level of dishonour that combines farce and tragedy.

First the farce. Every day now brings a fresh story of senior Tory officials, MPs, or others in close contact with the Prime Minister, having placed bets on the election date. Now of course all this could be pure coincidence and they might not have been acting on inside information! Police investigations must eventually establish the truth.

What we already know for certain, is that had these people been professional footballers or involved in the management of a football club, and had placed bets on football, they would automatically face a lengthy ban, regardless of whether it could be ‘proven’ that they had cheated in any way.

The reason should be obvious. But for those close to Rishi Sunak, their first thought as the election approached wasn’t “how can I apologise to the British people for the mistakes of the past five years, and promise to do better if re-elected?” No – their first thought was: “how can I line my pockets for one more time, before being turfed out of office?”

---

With the Tories in total collapse, it’s understandable that many lifelong Tory voters are turning to Nigel Farage and his apparently radical ‘right-wing’ party, Reform UK.

But the truth is that Farage himself is dishonourable on a level that dwarfs the petty cheating and incompetence of Sunak’s team.

During and immediately after the Second World War, a new stereotype entered British culture and was often portrayed in comedy shows of that era. The “spiv” was a man who sought to make a fast profit out of others’ misfortunes, in an age of rationing and shortages. In real life, a disproportionate number of “spivs” were Jews – as was well known to the public at the time and has been established by modern historical research.

Following the so-called “big bang” liberalisation of the City of London in the mid-1980s, a new generation of spivs entered British life. While most of these operated within the law, they also operated with absolutely no regard for the UK’s national interest. The young Rishi Sunak profited from hedge fund speculations against UK banks during the financial crisis of the 2000s. And long before that, Nigel Farage’s first career was in the London Metals Exchange: his career was only modestly successful compared to Sunak’s, and eventually his commodities brokerage Farage Limited went bankrupt.

Farage’s blatantly dishonest spivvery has been in the political rather than the financial world.

His biggest con is his pretence of being anti-immigration. The slavishly pro-Farage channel GB News and much of the press have collaborated in this deception – but the truth is that Farage has always “welcomed immigration”, as he once told the European Parliament. Farage’s team promoted the idea of Brexit to UK-based Indians (including restaurant owners) on the basis that leaving the EU would mean that the UK could replace European workers with Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani workers.

And so it has turned out: with an extra helping of Africans added on top.

Farage and Reform UK now promise not to end immigration, still less to reverse the tide of immigration, but only to have a “one in, one out” policy: which of course would mean for the most part replacing White Britons and Europeans with non-White immigrants. Last year, for example, this Reform UK policy would have meant admitting 600,000 migrants.

None of this should come as any surprise. Farage is fundamentally committed to the toxic ideology of “free market” capitalism, which is essentially anti-nationalist, pro-immigration, and anti-White.

Those who are serious about ending immigration have two parties who fortunately are not standing against each other, and who in a small number of constituencies are offering voters a genuine patriotic alternative – the British Democrats and the English Democrats. Each of these parties is run by honest leaders who are genuinely committed on the immigration issue. Unfortunately they are standing in fewer than twenty constituencies, but they are sending a clear signal of the direction that UK politics could and should take in the post-Conservative era.

Could Farage and Reform UK be at least a step in the right direction?

No: because they are basically crooked.

Even aside from the immigration issue, Farage has shown himself to be untrustworthy on two other central issues of 2024.

---

Just a few weeks ago, Reform UK entered a pact with Traditional Unionist Voice, the party led by Jim Allister KC which promises to take Northern Ireland along with the rest of the UK into a genuine Brexit, rather than allowing a border in the Irish Sea – a trade barrier separating one part of the UK from the rest.

This sea border has come about because of a treacherous deal negotiated by Rishi Sunak’s government with the misnamed ‘Democratic Unionist Party’ earlier this year. At first it seemed that Reform UK agreed with TUV on a common platform of a real Brexit and no sea border. A pact was publicly announced on this basis.

But no sooner had the campaign begun than Nigel Farage unilaterally tore up this pact. In two constituencies – including the one being contested by TUV leader Jim Allister – Farage instead endorsed DUP candidates and betrayed his supposed TUV allies.

Quite incredibly, Farage was thus endorsing two of the very people who sold out Brexit and sold out the people of Northern Ireland.

He was able to do this because Reform UK has no genuine existence as a political party. It is a business rather than a constitutional party, and as the owner of that business, Farage can do whatever he likes.

He can issue a manifesto whose tax promises are the most dishonest and innumerate of any party; he can recruit or expel candidates on a whim; and he can make up policy as he goes along, to impress his gullible target audience of ageing reactionaries.

---

And now Farage has committed his foulest betrayal. Not content with betraying White Britons over immigration, and not content with betraying his erstwhile allies in Ulster, Farage now betrays those who are fighting at Europe’s frontier, those who are paying the ultimate price to defend their nation from Kremlin aggression.

Again, this came as no surprise to long-term Farage-watchers. He has for more than a decade been the most dangerous type of Putinist propagandist.

As serious historical students of propaganda know, the most insidious propagandists are not those who blatantly endorse every aspect of those whose interests they (deliberately or otherwise) serve.

Whether in the Second World War or the Cold War, the greatest success for a professional propaganda agency was to get someone to parrot treachery without it being obvious treachery. Thus, communist dupes in the West didn’t openly call for surrendering to Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev – they called for “peace”. Moscow’s front organisations often had names such as “World Peace Council”.

Moreover, it’s been a longstanding practice of invaders and their proxies to call for “peace”, once their initial advances have ground to a halt. “Peace” of this sort rewards the invader and allows his forces to become firmly entrenched.

Those propagandising for an aggressor will do anything to avoid the central issue. They will point fingers in every direction, sometimes contradicting themselves, but always seeking to undermine firm action against the invader. And they will ignore basic historical and political facts.

---

So it has been with Farage. During 2010-14 (at a time when he was a relatively minor figure in UK politics) the then UKIP leader appeared seventeen times on Putin’s propaganda channel Russia Today.

RT itself was proud to claim that Farage “has been known far longer to the RT audience than to most of the British electorate”.

And he swiftly rewarded his Moscow friends. During an earlier Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Putin grabbed Crimea, Farage typically maintained that the Kremlin despot had been “provoked” and absurdly insisted that the European Union had “blood on its hands in Ukraine”.

The reality was (and is) that NATO and the EU had been far too weak, and it was their unwillingness to risk “provoking” Putin a few years earlier, when they failed to respond to appeals from Ukrainian nationalists for an alliance against Moscow, that encouraged Putin’s imperialism.

Ever since then, Farage’s cynical tactic has been to utter a few words distancing himself from Putin’s dictatorial behaviour, but then going on to endorse his foreign policy.

In 2014, asked which world leader he most admired, Farage replied: “as an operator”, Putin.

His short-lived successor as UKIP leader, Diane James, went further, describing Putin as one of her political “heroes”. Yet another UKIP leader, Paul Nuttall, agreed that Putin was “generally getting it right in many areas”.

In 2017 Farage again made token comments distancing himself from Putin’s imprisonment of journalists, etc., before saying that Putin was “a strong national leader”.

In 2018 speaking to an interviewer from Newsweek magazine, Farage was even more explicit in his policy of surrender to the Kremlin: “We would have done better to recognize that there are some big issues on which we have a shared interest with Russia. Instead, our foreign policy approach to Russia has been very confrontational.”

Following Putin’s notorious interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Farage argued that the West should have discussed a “deal” with Putin immediately after the invasion. In other words, right from day one, Farage’s policy was not to resist the invader. His policy instead was one of craven surrender: a “deal”.

Absurdly, Farage’s argument was (and remains) that “our foreign policy approach to Russia has been very confrontational.” Not that the Kremlin was being “confrontational” by invading its neighbour, but that others had been “confrontational” in not bowing to Putin’s expansionist agenda.

Last week during his interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Farage expanded on this theory.

We must remember that Farage is a man of limited formal education. He has never studied Russian or Ukrainian history; he has no personal experience of the region; and he has absolutely no academic training in military history, intelligence history, or strategic studies.

Yet like golf club reactionaries everywhere, as they prop up the bar and regale their fellow Rotarians, Farage is an instant expert and never admits that he might ever have been wrong about anything important.

Once again (as he has repeated since that interview) Farage made token, insincere, and weak comments distancing himself from Putin’s invasion. But he then went on to claim that the invasion had somehow been “provoked” by the West.

Essentially, therefore, Farage’s message can be paraphrased as – yes, the war is unfortunate and wrong, but the basic fault lies not with Putin but with the West: we should have given Putin most of what he wanted without war, and then the invasion wouldn’t have been necessary!

---

True strategic genius from the man who went straight from school to the London Metals Exchange without pausing to obtain an education.

When faced by an aggressor, says Nigel, don’t “provoke” him; don’t stand up him; instead – surrender in advance!

What Farage has never understood (or in his contrarian pursuit of American-style conspiracy theory, simply doesn’t want to understand) is that Putin was responding to a perception of Western weakness, not Western ‘provocation’.

The Kremlin misread signals and misread the determination of Ukrainian patriots.

Putin was correct that the Western response to his invasion would be slow. What he didn’t realise was that Ukrainian resistance would be so effective that his troops would grind to a halt, far short of their objective, and that an alliance of his neighbours, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, would put some backbone into the cowardly ‘West’.

Farage – the ultimate political spiv – will never understand true patriotism. His ‘free market’, quick-profit mentality is fundamentally anti-nationalist and anti-White. He betrays his own political allies without a second thought.

To Farage, all this is ‘clever’ politics. To the rest of us, it is rank treachery which confirms that he is unfit for office.

Nigel Farage and Reform UK will doubtless play their part in destroying the Conservative Party – but if he and even a tiny group of Reform UK MPs are elected to Parliament, they will rapidly self-destruct.

Farage and his ilk are not and never will be part of a ‘transition’ to a better, patriotic politics. They are part of the problem: wholly unfit for office.

Political establishment joins forces to promote ‘Holocaust’ cult

This week political leaders from across the party spectrum joined forces in Westminster to demand obeisance to the only religion that now has any significance for the international elite: the cult of Holocaustianity.

As regular readers will know, recent Tory governments (in response to insistent demands by the Zionist lobby) have been determined to build a vast ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ in Victoria Tower Gardens, a park adjacent to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

This month a parliamentary report on the project said that its costs (originally estimated at £50 million) could rise to more than £150 million.

Undaunted, Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron addressed a cross-party gathering this week and insisted: “We will get it built, and when we get it built, it will be a lasting memorial, not just vital because of what it commemorates, but vital because of what it educates.”

Will this grandiose project truly be dedicated to “education”? Will it promote serious research into the ‘Holocaust’ – research and questioning that is already illegal in many European countries?

Or will it further entrench the approach implied by the recent judgment of Scotland’s highest court when extraditing dissident scholar Vincent Reynouard to France? The judge in the Reynouard case ruled that raising difficult questions about the ‘Holocaust’ and related subjects could be deemed “grossly offensive” under Scottish (and by extension one can assume also English) law.

All this is a long way from the approach of a previous Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, who in response to earlier demands from British Jews for a much smaller Holocaust memorial wrote: “The whole idea is preposterous.”

Carrington’s senior advisers at the Foreign Office summarised the arguments in an aide memoire drawn up for his meeting to discuss the proposed memorial with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

One might think that in the light of current events, such objections are even more valid in 2024 than they were in the early 1980s.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton researched this entire subject in considerable detail and presented a report to the Westminster City Council planning enquiry into the present proposals.

This enquiry decided against the ‘Memorial’, and a court judgment later ruled against the Government.

Adding yet further expense to the project, subsequent Tory governments have pressed ahead and forced through a change in the law, overriding both the courts and Westminster City Council.

No one can be in any doubt as to who rules Britain in 2024. The vast ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ deliberately dominates the scene alongside some of Britain’s most historic buildings. Only one people and their self-serving version of history now matters – and it’s not the British people.

Will Spain’s PM resign after Moroccan lobbying scandal?

[29th April update: Sánchez has shamelessly relied on public rallies of his supporters to defy the judicial process and ignore serious questions. So far the UK media has colluded with him. Had a politician of the ‘right’ behaved in this way, then UK journalists would have denounced him as a populist demagogue. But a politician of the ‘left’ is given a free pass.]

Mystery surrounds Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez this weekend after he fuelled speculation that he might resign due to a series of corruption allegations against himself and his wife. Many observers suspect that Sánchez is manoeuvring to rally support on the left, and that tomorrow he will use political leverage to try to close down investigations.

[This article is also available in Spanish translation – Este artículo también está disponible en traducción al español.]

Some of these allegations relate to a court case brought by a legal foundation run by a veteran Spanish nationalist, and some also involve Spain’s business and political relationships with the Kingdom of Morocco.

More than a year ago, we exposed the role of Moroccan lobbyists in the politically motivated prosecution of our European correspondent Isabel Peralta.

Isabel has campaigned against the corruption of Spanish politics: she has highlighted 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 was 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 three or four years the Moroccan government has exerted blackmail on Spain.

Isabel denounced this blackmail at a demonstration outside the Moroccan Embassy in Madrid in May 2021. (At the time she was leading a Spanish nationalist youth group.)

Ten days after this demonstration, Madrid’s political police were visited by Sofia Bencrimo, who at that time was employed by a charity that promotes the integration of immigrants. This charity’s 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). This is one of the parties on which Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez depends to keep his coalition government in power.

But Chaib 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.

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 prosecution dossier of more than 90 pages (a copy of which has been obtained by H&D) was based on just a single complaint – the ‘evidence’ of Sofia Bencrimo, employee of the politically well-connected Moroccan lobbyist Mohammed Chaib.

In this context, and with the criminal charges against Isabel still slowly proceeding through the Madrid court system, readers will understand that H&D has taken an especially close interest in the sinister connections between the Spanish government and Moroccan lobbyists. Not only have these connections subverted Spain’s immigration policy, they have also led to our own correspondent being prosecuted. A patriotic activist is in the dock, while the real criminals are those in authority!

The full extent of this criminality is at last becoming clearer, which is why Prime Minister Sánchez made his unprecedented threat to resign, and this week is in hiding from the world’s press.

H&D cannot comment on all of the wide-ranging and sometimes bizarre allegations against Sánchez and his wife, but certain disturbing facts are already clear.

The timing of the Prime Minister’s resignation threat is related to two recent developments.

First, a Madrid court opened a preliminary investigation into his wife Begoña Gomez “for the alleged offence of influence peddling and corruption”. This investigation is based on a complaint by Manos Limpias (‘Clean Hands’), a foundation run by Miguel Bernad, a Madrid lawyer (now aged 82) whose political roots are in the nationalist party Fuerza Nueva and who was a senior ally of that party’s leader Blas Piñar.

Curiously, Bernad had personal knowledge of Ms Gomez’s strange family background. Her father Sabiniano Gómez owns several gay sauna establishments in Madrid, and conservative journalists have reported that Miguel Bernad was the city council official responsible for licensing such establishments, which several Spanish newspapers have openly described as homosexual brothels.

It’s certainly an odd connection: the London equivalent would be if Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law were the owner of Soho saunas rather than being one of the richest men in India…

Perhaps significantly, it’s also known that leading members of Spain’s main conservative party (PP) planned several years ago to carry out investigations of the Prime Minister’s father-in-law and exploit any scandals.

And this is where alleged Moroccan blackmail again becomes relevant.

Pegasus spyware, developed by Israel, was used by Moroccan authorities to target mobile phones belonging to Prime Minister Sánchez and some of his ministers. Rather then press for an investigation and punishment of those who had spied on him, Sánchez was happy to allow the case to drop. Partly because the Israeli company behind the spyware refused to cooperate, a Spanish judge dropped his investigation after 12 months.

However, last Tuesday the case was reopened, thanks to information provided to the Spanish courts by the French investigation of similar Moroccan espionage.

Within days of the espionage case being reopened, Sanchez threatened to resign. Is he again attempting to interfere with the investigation, and if so, what revelations does he fear?

What is known is that Morocco spied on Prime Minister Sánchez in 2021, around the time when he suddenly changed Spain’s policy and began to favour Morocco over Western Sahara.

Since then, Sánchez has repeatedly favoured Morocco. A few weeks ago he announced plans for Spanish investment in Morocco totalling €45bn.

Another curious aspect is that the Kingdom of Morocco has close relations not only with Israel (hence their use of Israeli espionage software) but also with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

In 2016, while preparing to work with Israeli technology to spy on Western European governments, Morocco signed an agreement with Russia to cooperate on military and intelligence matters.

This cooperation has extended since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Defying European sanctions, Morocco has become one of the Kremlin’s most important business partners. Morocco imports oil from Russia, and also exports oil to Spain.

If it were found that Sánchez and his Moroccan friends had connived at evading oil sanctions, to the benefit of the Kremlin, this would be a serious betrayal of Europe.

The Spanish government’s failed immigration policy is already a betrayal not only of Spaniards but of all Europeans; if Sánchez (via Morocco) is indirectly aiding the neo-Stalinist war machine, his disgusting record of treachery would be compounded.

As our regular readers know, our correspondent Isabel Peralta has three times had her travel to the UK interrupted due to harassment by border security working with their Spanish and German counterparts. The latest evidence ought to convince the Home Office that the real threat to British and European security interests comes from the Spanish government itself, not from Isabel. We shall continue to fight for our comrade, and we are confident that no obstacle will prevent her from continuing to champion the true Europe, as the brightest beacon of hope for our cause.

¿Dimitirá el primer ministro español tras el escándalo del lobby marroquí?

[Actualización del 29 de abril: Sánchez ha recurrido descaradamente a las manifestaciones públicas de sus partidarios para desafiar el proceso judicial e ignorar cuestiones serias. Hasta ahora los medios del Reino Unido han estado en connivencia con él. Si un político de “derecha” se hubiera comportado de esta manera, los periodistas británicos lo habrían denunciado como un demagogo populista. Pero a un político de “izquierda” se le da vía libre.]

El misterio rodea al primer ministro socialista de España, Pedro Sánchez, este fin de semana después de que alimentó especulaciones de que podría renunciar debido a una serie de acusaciones de corrupción contra él y su esposa. Muchos observadores sospechan que Sánchez está maniobrando para reforzar su apoyo en la izquierda y que mañana utilizará su influencia política para intentar cerrar las investigaciones.

[Este artículo también está disponible en inglés – This article is also available in English.]

Algunas de estas acusaciones se relacionan con un caso judicial iniciado por una fundación legal dirigida por un veterano nacionalista español, y algunas también involucran las relaciones comerciales y políticas de España con el Reino de Marruecos.

Hace más de un año, expusimos el papel de los lobistas marroquíes en el procesamiento por motivos políticos de nuestra corresponsal europea Isabel Peralta.

Isabel ha hecho campaña contra la corrupción de la política española: ha destacado el intento de chantaje ejercido por el Gobierno marroquí, que amenazaba con inundar España de inmigrantes a menos que España aceptara el control marroquí sobre el Sáhara Occidental.

Esta es una disputa diplomática que ha durado más de medio siglo, desde que España renunció a su control colonial sobre la provincia que alguna vez se conoció como Sahara español. Marruecos busca apoderarse de toda el área, pero se opone a un movimiento independentista llamado Frente Polisario, que cuenta con el respaldo de Argelia.

A los españoles les interesaba económicamente respaldar al Polisario, en parte para mantener buenas relaciones con Argelia, que suministra gas natural a España. Pero durante los últimos tres o cuatro años el gobierno marroquí ha ejercido chantaje a España.

Isabel denunció este chantaje en una manifestación frente a la embajada de Marruecos en Madrid en mayo de 2021 (en ese momento lideraba un grupo juvenil nacionalista español).

Diez días después de esta manifestación, la policía política de Madrid recibió la visita de Sofía Bencrimo, que en aquel momento trabajaba en una organización benéfica que promueve la integración de inmigrantes. El presidente de esta organización benéfica es Mohammed Chaib Akhdim, un veterano político y hombre de negocios con estrechos vínculos personales y financieros con el gobierno marroquí, la misma gente cuyas acciones fueron expuestas y criticadas en el discurso de Isabel.

Chaib es exdiputado en los parlamentos catalán y de Madrid por el partido de izquierda PSC (Partido Socialista de Cataluña). Este es uno de los partidos de los que depende el presidente Pedro Sánchez para mantener en el poder su gobierno de coalición.

Pero Chaib también es un rico hombre de negocios con intereses financieros en su Marruecos natal y, en particular, se beneficiará de que Marruecos tome el control del Sáhara Occidental. Desde 1992 fue director de desarrollo de negocio en Marruecos de COMSA Industrial, empresa con amplios intereses en proyectos de ingeniería y construcción en Marruecos, incluido el territorio en disputa del Sáhara Occidental.

Más tarde, ese mismo día, estos policías enviaron un informe a los fiscales: este fue el primer paso en el proceso que condujo al juicio penal de Isabel. El expediente de la fiscalía, de más de 90 páginas (cuya copia ha sido obtenida por H&D) se basó en una sola denuncia: las “pruebas” de Sofia Bencrimo, empleada del lobista marroquí con buenas conexiones políticas Mohammed Chaib.

En este contexto, y con los cargos penales contra Isabel aún avanzando lentamente en el sistema judicial de Madrid, los lectores comprenderán que H&D se ha interesado especialmente en las siniestras conexiones entre el gobierno español y los lobbystas marroquíes. Estas conexiones no sólo han subvertido la política de inmigración de España, sino que también han llevado a que nuestro propio corresponsal sea procesado. ¡Un activista patriótico está en el banquillo, mientras que los verdaderos criminales son los que tienen autoridad!

El alcance total de esta criminalidad finalmente se está volviendo más claro, razón por la cual el presidente Sánchez hizo su amenaza sin precedentes de dimitir, y esta semana se esconde de la prensa mundial.

H&D no puede comentar sobre todas las acusaciones amplias y a veces extrañas contra Sánchez y su esposa, pero ciertos hechos inquietantes ya están claros.

El momento de la amenaza de dimisión del Primer Ministro está relacionado con dos acontecimientos recientes.

En primer lugar, un juzgado de Madrid abrió una investigación previa contra su esposa Begoña Gómez “por el presunto delito de tráfico de influencias y corrupción”. Esta investigación se basa en una denuncia de Manos Limpias, una fundación dirigida por Miguel Bernad, un abogado madrileño (ahora de 82 años) cuyas raíces políticas están en el partido nacionalista Fuerza Nueva y que fue un alto aliado de ese El líder del partido, Blas Piñar.

Curiosamente, Bernad tenía conocimiento personal de los extraños antecedentes familiares de la señora Gómez. Su padre, Sabiniano Gómez, es propietario de varios establecimientos de saunas gay en Madrid, y periodistas conservadores han informado que Miguel Bernad era el funcionario del ayuntamiento responsable de conceder licencias a dichos establecimientos, que varios periódicos españoles han descrito abiertamente como burdeles homosexuales.

Ciertamente es una conexión extraña: el equivalente en Londres sería si el suegro de Rishi Sunak fuera el propietario de las saunas del Soho en lugar de ser uno de los hombres más ricos de la India…

Quizás sea significativo que también se sepa que miembros destacados del principal partido conservador (PP) de España planearon hace varios años llevar a cabo investigaciones sobre el suegro del presidente del Gobierno y explotar cualquier escándalo.

Y aquí es donde el supuesto chantaje marroquí vuelve a cobrar relevancia.

El software espía Pegasus, desarrollado por Israel, fue utilizado por las autoridades marroquíes para atacar los teléfonos móviles del presidente Sánchez y de algunos de sus ministros. En lugar de presionar para que se investigara y castigara a quienes lo habían espiado, Sánchez se mostró feliz de permitir que el caso se desestimara. En parte porque la empresa israelí detrás del software espía se negó a cooperar, un juez español abandonó su investigación después de 12 meses.

Sin embargo, el pasado martes se reabrió el caso, gracias a la información facilitada a los tribunales españoles por la investigación francesa sobre un espionaje marroquí similar.

A los pocos días de reabrirse el caso de espionaje, Sánchez amenazó con dimitir. ¿Está intentando nuevamente interferir con la investigación y, de ser así, qué revelaciones teme?

Lo que sí se sabe es que Marruecos espió al presidente Sánchez en 2021, cuando de repente cambió la política de España y empezó a favorecer a Marruecos sobre el Sáhara Occidental.

Desde entonces, Sánchez ha favorecido repetidamente a Marruecos. Hace unas semanas anunció planes de inversión española en Marruecos por un total de 45.000 millones de euros.

Otro aspecto curioso es que el Reino de Marruecos tiene estrechas relaciones no sólo con Israel (de ahí su uso de software de espionaje israelí) sino también con la Rusia de Vladimir Putin.

En 2016, mientras se preparaba para trabajar con tecnología israelí para espiar a los gobiernos de Europa occidental, Marruecos firmó un acuerdo con Rusia para cooperar en asuntos militares y de inteligencia.

Esta cooperación se ha extendido desde la invasión de Ucrania por parte de Putin. Desafiando las sanciones europeas, Marruecos se ha convertido en uno de los socios comerciales más importantes del Kremlin. Marruecos importa petróleo de Rusia y también exporta petróleo a España.

Si se descubriera que Sánchez y sus amigos marroquíes habían confabulado para evadir las sanciones petroleras, en beneficio del Kremlin, esto sería una grave traición a Europa.

La fallida política de inmigración del gobierno español ya es una traición no sólo a los españoles sino a todos los europeos; Si Sánchez (a través de Marruecos) está ayudando indirectamente a la maquinaria de guerra neoestalinista, su repugnante historial de traición se agravaría.

Como saben nuestros lectores habituales, nuestra corresponsal Isabel Peralta ha visto interrumpido su viaje al Reino Unido en tres ocasiones debido al acoso por parte de la seguridad fronteriza que trabaja con sus homólogos españoles y alemanes. Las últimas pruebas deberían convencer al Ministerio del Interior de que la verdadera amenaza a los intereses de seguridad británicos y europeos proviene del propio gobierno español, no de Isabel. Seguiremos luchando por nuestra camarada y confiamos en que ningún obstáculo le impedirá seguir defendiendo la verdadera Europa, como el más brillante faro de esperanza para nuestra causa.

British Democrats win town council by-election

British Democrat candidate Ken Perrin won yesterday’s by-election in the Slade Lode South ward of Chatteris Town Council in Cambridgeshire. He gained 47.5% of the vote, ahead of Labour’s Richard Hirson on 27.7% and an Independent on 24.8%.

Much of the campaign focused on local housing/planning issues, which are often ones where racial nationalist ideas come into sharp focus for ordinary voters.

As Mr Perrin pointed out in an interview with his local newspaper, developers were planning “to build on land that is actually a run-off for flood water”.

In the broader context, the British Democrats have emphasised that “there isn’t a housing crisis in this country; there’s an immigration crisis causing a housing shortage!”

Town councils, sometimes called parish councils or community councils, sometimes operate in a non-partisan manner and the wards are usually much smaller than a borough ward or a county council division.

But on housing and other planning applications they can have an important role – and as several nationalist parties including the Brit Dems have pointed out, gaining experience on a parish council can be an important step in winning back credibility for our movement.

Congratulations to Ken Perrin and his campaign team on bringing H&D readers some good news! Chatteris is best known historically as the place where Boudicca and her Iceni warriors made their last stand against the invading Romans. So it’s an appropriate place to take a political stand against our 21st century invaders!

English Democrats campaign to end politically correct Policing

The English Democrats Party are standing four candidates (so far) in this May’s Police Commissioner elections – in Essex, Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire and West Mercia – and three candidates (so far) for the Mayoral elections (which also includes Police Commissionerships).

Party activists have been out and about in these constituencies distributing leaflets in preparation for those elections.

The chairman of the English Democrats Robin Tilbrook always leads from the front and is standing as the party’s Police Commissioner candidate in his local area – Essex.

The party’s other candidates are David Dickason for Lincolnshire; Antonio Daniel Vitiello for Bedfordshire; and Henry Curteis for West Mercia.

The party’s Mayoral candidates are Stephen Morris for Greater Manchester; David Allen for South Yorkshire and Thérèse Hirst for West Yorkshire.

The English Democrats will also be standing a number of local council candidates up and down the country. Full details of these will be published after nominations close at the end of March.
H&D readers wishing to help the English Democrats in any of the constituencies they are contesting can contact the party by writing to: The English Democrats, Queries Green, Willingale, Essex, SS2 5QF.

Or Telephone 0207 242 1066 or 01277 896000

Or Email – Enquiries@EnglishDemocrats.Party

Check out the party’s website at – www.englishdemocrats.party

An appalling week for British ‘justice’

Police are still searching for the “asylum seeker” Abdul Shakoor Ezedi, suspected of a vicious attack on a 31-year-old woman and her two young children in London on Wednesday.

As has been widely reported, Ezedi arrived in the UK illegally from Afghanistan in 2016. Almost eight years later, he (like many other similar illegal immigrants) is still here.

In Ezedi’s case this is especially extraordinary because he was convicted in 2018 for a sexual assault. His ‘asylum’ application was twice refused, but granted on the third occasion after the intervention of a priest who testified that Ezedi had converted to Christianity and would therefore be subject to ‘persecution’ in his home country.

Yet we know learn there is some doubt as to whether Ezedi is even an Afghan. Records suggest that he was born in Iran, a country where Christians are not subject to ‘persecution’.

In any case, to everyone outside the almost uniformly ‘woke’ ranks of 21st century Christian priests, it is manifestly absurd to believe that a barbarian becomes British on conversion to Christianity, or that illegal immigrants should be granted a free pass to remain in the UK simply by claiming to be Christian.

Though one might have thought that an Afghan (or Iranian) with visible injuries to the side of his face would be quite conspicuous, Ezedi seems for the moment to have melted into the background of multiracial Britain. The attack for which he is prime suspect occurred on Wednesday, and it is now Saturday, with police still searching for him.

British authorities bent over backwards to assist Ezedi, despite his having entered the country illegally and having been convicted of a sexual assault.

Contrast his case with that of the French scholar Vincent Reynouard, who by a bitter irony was this week deported from Scotland to France to face trial and almost certain imprisonment for the ‘crime’ of writing books and publishing videos about Second World War history.

While a nationwide manhunt was underway for a barbarian who hurled caustic liquid in the face of a young woman and her children, armed police were taking Vincent from his prison cell (where he has been incarcerated since November 2022 despite committing no crime under UK law) and placing the handcuffed historian onto a plane to Paris.

200 miles south of Edinburgh – roughly halfway between Vincent’s jail cell and the London street where Ezedi’s attack took place – another political ‘criminal’ awaits sentencing.

Sam Melia, Yorkshire organiser of Patriotic Alternative, has been convicted of the ‘crime’ of producing stickers warning Britons about the consequences of the multiracial society and urging his fellow countrymen to campaign against the policies of mass immigration that we never voted for.

While Ezedi was allowed to remain in the UK as an illegal immigrant for eight years, Vincent Reynouard was jailed and extradited. While Ezedi was spared jail after conviction for a sexual assault, Sam Melia is likely to be jailed (in our alleged ‘democracy’) for producing stickers that promote a political argument.

Such is the state of justice in multiracial, woke-addled Britain. As Enoch Powell said in his famous speech on 20th April 1968: Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

Revolutionary praxis: the strategy of street protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Page »