Labour and the victim card

Diane Abbott addressing a rally in her Hackney constituency this week.

As the UK general election campaign ends its first week, Labour still looks a certain winner. But the party’s first stumble has illustrated the problem of victim culture in today’s woke world.

Veteran left-wing MP Diane Abbott was suspended from Labour more than a year ago, in one of the party’s many disputes over ‘anti-semitism’.

She had written a letter to The Observer (the UK’s oldest newspaper and traditionally linked to the liberal left) in which she tried to argue that only blacks suffer from “racism”.

Abbott (who was the UK’s first black female MP when elected for the North London constituency Hackney North & Stoke Newington in 1987) wrote that while other minorities such as Jews, Irish and “Travellers” (the obligatory woke term for gypsies) experience “prejudice”, which she defined as “similar to racism”, it was not the same as the black experience of racism, which she implied was something much worse.

“It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”

Also on Wednesday, Jeremy Corbyn launched his campaign to be re-elected as an Independent in Islington North, where has been a Labour MP since 1983.

As is inevitable in the 21st century, when any controversy over race arises, the question could not be debated in a normal manner and instead had to trigger an internal party “disciplinary procedure”, even after Abbott had apologised for her letter.

Disputes over whether this disciplinary process had concluded, and if so whether Abbott could now stand as a Labour candidate on 4th July, have become such a tangled affair that Abbott’s fate was twice the lead story for the BBC’s Newsnight on Tuesday and Wednesday this week.

Right now it looks as though Labour has tried to allow Abbott to retire with dignity after 37 years at Westminster, having been reinstated to the party, but they are determined not to allow her to stand again as a Labour candidate.

Setting all technicalities aside, what does it tell those of us outside Labour ranks about the state of today’s politics.

It’s interesting that the moment Abbott implied anything potentially anti-semitic (even if her implication was unintentional) she incurred the party leadership’s wrath – whereas her many anti-British and anti-White outbursts over the years were not only tolerated, but even won her promotion.

Diane Abbott’s pro-republican interview in 1984 where she explicitly linked the ‘Troops Out’ and ‘Black British’ causes.

In 1984, three years before she became an MP, Abbott told a pro-republican journal: “Ireland is our struggle – every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us.” This was a time when republican terrorists were routinely shooting and bombing civilians as well as soldiers and policemen, across Ulster and the British mainland.

In 1996 Abbott said that her local hospital should not recruit “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls” as nurses because they had “never met a black person before”.

These are just two of a whole catalogue of extremist remarks made by Abbott throughout her career.

Turning to her letter to The Observer last April, the truth is that ‘racism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ are political positions which should be argued in a normal manner – but in the 2020s anything venturing onto such ground is treated as an allegation or scandal, requiring months of investigation (if the alleged ‘anti-semite’ is black), or instant defenestration (if the miscreant is White).

Abbott’s real problem is not ‘anti-semitism’ but incoherence. Her mind is so muddled and her self-obsession as a black woman so complete, that she didn’t pause to consider the implications of what she was writing.

The important unwritten and unaddressed question behind Abbott’s letter is whether the orthodox account of ‘Holocaust’ history is correct.

In other words, were millions of Jews murdered in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War as part of a planned programme of extermination ordered by Adolf Hitler?

If they were, then Abbott’s equation of this experience with school playground abuse suffered by redheads was either monstrously ignorant or deliberately ‘anti-semitic’. If orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history is even broadly accurate, then nothing ever experienced by blacks comes close to what was experienced by Jews. The only times when black people have been the target of planned campaigns of ethnic extermination, have been at the hands of other blacks.

Stephen Pollard was one of many prominent Jewish journalists who called for Abbott’s expulsion from Labour.

But if the ‘Holocaust’ narrative is fundamentally wrong, then Abbott’s elevation of the black experience as a ‘victim card’ trumping anything experienced by Jews, Irish or other minorities, becomes more understandable and credible from her point of view – whatever we might think from our standpoint as White racial nationalists.

Inevitably, however, in all of the media hype around Diane Abbott, the fundamental question has not been considered. And if she chooses to stand again as an Independent, as her old comrade Jeremy Corbyn is doing, we can again expect that the underlying issues will be ignored.

Instead the media and fellow politicians will obsess over whether Diane Abbott has been shown sufficient ‘respect’ as a black woman. Or conversely whether she has shown enough ‘respect’ to Britain’s Jewish community.

We shouldn’t care a damn about these issues of ‘respect’. We shouldn’t care a damn about the ‘feelings’ of blacks, Jews, or any other minority group.

If politicians wish to play a part in governing the United Kingdom – once the centre of the greatest Empire the world has ever known – they should be capable of addressing issues in a responsible and adult manner, without having tantrums about the status of their particular ethnic group or gender. And the same applies to voters.

Sam Melia jailed for 2 years in shocking extension of race laws

Sam Melia – Yorkshire organiser of Patriotic Alternative and husband of PA’s deputy leader Laura Towler – has been jailed for two years this morning for organising a campaign of political stickers.

Yes, you read that correctly: two years imprisonment for distributing political stickers online.

Moreover, those with long experience of the UK’s infamous ‘race laws’ believed that Sam stood a good chance of acquittal, because by past standards the stickers were within the law.

The sad reality is that UK law is now being steadily tightened. Last month Vincent Reynouard was extradited to France, even though his “crimes” were no offence against UK laws. And now Sam has been imprisoned.

As comrades across the country know, Sam has for years been an exceptionally dedicated and selfless activist. The news is especially shocking because he and Laura are soon expecting their second child.

Although Sam will not now see that child’s birth and first months, he should know that his sacrifice will not be in vain.

Sam Melia is fighting for a better future not only for his own children but for all British children. When our victory is won, and they grow up in a Britain run by and for the British, Sam’s children will be proud of their father.

Don’t forget the nationalist political prisoners

While most of us will be celebrating Christmas and/or Yuletide and New Year in a week or so, with our families or friends (or maybe just down the pub as some of the H&D team will doing!), please spare a moment or two to remember the nationalist political prisoners, who have been locked up in jails up and down the country for no more than expressing an opinion different to that of the ruling liberal-left elite.

Please make the time to send them a card and/or letter of support, and let them know that you will be thinking of them this time of year.

Two H&D subscribers, Vincent Reynouard and James Allchurch are among those who will be spending this Christmas in jail this year, which will be a lonely and depressing time for them as they are isolated or separated from loved ones and  family. 

James Allchurch (AKA Sven Longshanks) was jailed for two years and four months, and Vincent has been held on remand for over 14 months fighting a deportation order back to France, where the French authorities wish to jail him for holocaust revisionism. These two men have dedicated large parts of their adult lives to nationalist and revisionist activism and had the courage to speak out against the corrupt liberal-left establishment.

James Costello

Although not an H&D subscriber James Costello (AKA James Mac) attended every H&D annual meeting during the past ten years, and is a good friend of the H&D team. He was jailed for five years for thought crimes, even though he had a clean record with no previous offences – even minor ones.

All three of these brave men will be spending their Christmas in a prison cell – not for violent crimes, not for harming others, but for saying things that the liberal-left state deems to be offensive.

However, you can help them by letting them know that they are not alone! Please make the time to send them a card and/or letter of support, and let them know that you will be thinking of them this time of year and that they know that they haven’t been forgotten – that despite being incarcerated, there are many people thinking of them and wishing them well.

If you are sending a card or a letter you will need their name, prisoner number and address. If you wish to send money as a gift, the prison service no longer accepts cash: you have do this online via the government website, and you will need the prisoner’s date of birth as well as the name and prisoner number.

Alternatively, Patriotic Alternative have set up GiveSendGo fundraisers for Allchurch and Costello. The links to these can be found below. All of the details you need for each prisoner are below.

Vincent’s legal situation has been covered fully in H&D magazine and further updates on his appeal will appear in future issues, and on our website and at the Real History blog www.realhistory.info which is mirrored at www.jailingopinions.com/realhistory

A Christmas message from Vincent Reynouard

The H&D team have sent all three of these prisoners cards and we were pleased to receive a nice drawing back from Vincent today – see above.

NAME: Vincent REYNOUARD,
PRISONER NUMBER: 160071
DATE OF BIRTH: 18.02.1969
ADDRESS: HMP Edinburgh, 33 Stenhouse Road, Edinburgh, EH11 3LN. 

NAME: James Allchurch
PRISONER NUMBER: A5903EY
DATE OF BIRTH: 28.12.1971
ADDRESS: HMP Berwyn, Bridge Road, Wrexham Ind. Est., Wrexham, LL13 9QE.

NAME: James Costello
PRISONER NUMBER: A3561FA
DATE OF BIRTH: 08.01.1985
ADDRESS: HMP Liverpool, 68 Hornby Road, Liverpool, L9 3DF

To send a prisoner money:

https://www.gov.uk/send-prisoner-money

GiveSendGo James Costello: https://www.givesendgo.com/SupportCostello

GiveSendGo James Allchurch: https://www.givesendgo.com/SupportSven

Please note, to send money to a prisoner using the above government link you must be on their approved contact list. An alternative way in which you can send them money if you don’t want to use their GiveSendGo is by sending cash to Patriotic Alternative,  PO Box 275, Pudsey, West Yorkshire, LS28 0FQ.  Don’t forget to mention whom you would like your money to go to.

Sending a Christmas card and/or letter will only take you a few minutes and costs very little, but a small act like this makes a huge difference to someone who has had their freedoms taken away.

Let’s hope the response to this campaign is so overwhelming that both Vincent Reynouard, James Allchurch and James Costello can decorate their cells with cards, and despite spending Christmas in a jail cell, that we can bring them some festive cheer and let them know that a huge number of people care about their plight.

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.

Terrorist and assassin Antoin Duffy appeared at the same extradition court a few minutes before Vincent – illustrating the absurdity by which revisionist scholars and advocates of national socialism (none of whose conduct is criminal in the UK) have been put on a par with some of the world’s most dangerous murderers.

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.]

10 years on: remember Golden Dawn’s martyrs – Giorgos Fountoulis and Manolis Kapelonis

Ten years ago today – on 1st November 2013 – the Athens headquarters of the Greek racial nationalist party Golden Dawn was attacked by ‘anti-fascist’ terrorists. At least a dozen bullets were fired and two Golden Dawn activists – Giorgos Fountoulis (27) and Manolis Kapelonis (22) – were killed.

No-one has ever been charged with these murders.

Five weeks earlier, many Golden Dawn members including their leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos had been arrested. Following years of pre-trial detention and house arrest, 68 party officials were convicted. In effect the party was banned.

The enemies of Greek nationalism – in fact the enemies of Europe – operate with their left hand via Marxist and anarchist terrorism, and with their right hand via the courts.

In 2013, eight days after the murders of Giorgos and Manolis, H&D‘s assistant editor spoke at a rally outside the Greek Embassy in London. This week racial nationalists from across Europe gathered in Athens. Even today, the treacherous rulers of Greece fear the legacy of Golden Dawn – and they especially fear those who are inspired by the memory of Giorgos Fountoulis and Manolis Kapelonis.

21 CasaPound activists including the organisation’s leader were arrested at Athens airport as they arrived for an event in tribute to the Golden Dawn martyrs

A ban on all public gatherings has been imposed and several rail and metro stations have been closed. Twentyone activists from the Italian organisation CasaPound were detained at Athens airport as they arrived to pay tribute to the Golden Dawn martyrs.

H&D readers join our European comrades in remembering Giorgos and Manolis. Their heroic sacrifice will continue to inspire resistance to the betrayal of Europe. And on the day when the true Europe is fully liberated, we shall continue to pay tribute to their memory.

Jeremy Corbyn – the terrorists’ friend – attacks H&D and Isabel Peralta

Jeremy Corbyn’s letter to the Home Secretary, calling for bans on H&D and Isabel Peralta

[The following article has also been published in Spanish – please click here for the Spanish translation.]

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.

Jeremy Corbyn with IRA godfather Gerry Adams, who has been one of Corbyn’s closest friends and allies for decades.

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.

Anti-Fascist Action’s London organiser was jailed for bombing Harrods. Patrick Hayes and his inner circle of violent “anti-fascists” regularly held meetings in Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency office.

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.

For further information on “Who are the real terrorists?” click here to read an article by H&D’s assistant editor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisionist pioneer Robert Faurisson addressing his final conference in Shepperton, England, attended by Vincent Reynouard and organised by H&D’s Peter Rushton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxing promoters aid anti-White racial propaganda war

Even more than Hollywood, the cynical world of professional boxing has this weekend displayed subversive racial propaganda at its worst.

Promotional material for last night’s heavyweight bout at London’s O2 Arena showed a calm and civilised looking negro, facing a snarling, posturing White barbarian.

The ‘British’ challenger (in fact of mainly Nigerian ancestry, mixed with a bit of Irish on his father’s side) was Anthony Joshua (full name Anthony Oluwafemi Olaseni Joshua).

Despite being awarded the OBE four years ago – i.e. he is an ‘Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire’ – Joshua has taken several opportunities to show his contempt for the White civilization that created the multi-millionaire lifestyle he now enjoys.

Anthony Joshua at a ‘Black Lives Matter’ rally

In 2017 Joshua used Instagram to preach about “the superior black race”. Had anyone written about “the superior White race” on Instagram their account would swiftly be terminated, their career would be over, and they would probably be arrested.

Joshua then used his Snapchat account to praise the genocidal, anti-White, Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

And in 2020 he addressed a “Black Lives Matter” rally, calling on his fellow blacks to discriminate against White businesses.

Joshua has been in trouble with the law more than once. Aged 19 (and already starting out as an amateur boxer) he spent two weeks in prison on remand for violent offences, and as a condition of his release was forced to wear an electronic tag for a year.

Then in 2011 he was convicted of possessing cannabis with intent to supply, and was very lucky to escape a prison sentence: instead he was made to do 100 hours of community service work.

Yet White British boxing fans are either remarkably forgiving or masochistic. They flock to support this black racist criminal.

And boxing promoters cynically produced posters that presented Joshua as ‘cool’ and civilized, while his opponent appears to be a crazy thug.

In reality Robert Helenius (a Finn based in Sweden) has no criminal record and (unlike Joshua) no record of ‘racism’. His image on the posters was simply playacting, living up to the image the promoters wanted.

Those promoters also knew that Helenius (who is 39 years old, at the end of his career, and only fighting at this level because a last minute replacement was needed) was almost certain to lose to Joshua. And as expected, Joshua knocked out Helenius in the 7th round.

The promoters had the result they wanted: Aryan barbarian given a beating by ‘cool’ negro.

EDL yobs disgracing their country by urinating on Westminster Abbey

Sadly, very many racial nationalists are just as keen to live up to the ‘barbaric’ image that fits our enemies’ script.

The popular image of a racial nationalist in 2023 is of a lout – in American terms a ‘redneck’ – his face contorted with hatred as he impotently rails against ‘superior’ liberals and non-Whites. In the worst examples, hooligans on anti-Muslim demonstrations are photographed urinating on one of Britain’s most historic buildings, Westminster Abbey, because they have consumed so many cans of lager on the way to the demonstration that they are unable to control themselves.

The truth of course is that racial nationalists are the defenders of civilization. Just as German forces (assisted by brave volunteers from many other countries, including Spain, France, Belgium, Ukraine, and the Baltic states) defended Europe’s front line against Stalin’s semi-Asiatic barbarians in 1945, racial nationalists today fight a political and cultural war (and sometimes a literal one) against various forms of anti-European barbarism.

Yet we allow ourselves to be portrayed as though we are the barbarians. Robert Helenius was innocently acting that role for the cameras, as part of the show business side of his sport. As politically aware racial nationalists, we have no such excuses and should have more sense.

Nationalist podcaster jailed – James Allchurch prison address update

James Allchurch, the prolific nationalist podcaster better known as Sven Longshanks, was sentenced this week to two and a half years in prison after his conviction for ‘inciting racial hatred’.

This related to his podcasts on Radio Albion, previously titled Radio Aryan, where Sven has interviewed many prominent nationalists over the years, including H&D‘s assistant editor.

Many readers will know that James / Sven is a dedicated racial nationalist who has used his technical skills to assist comrades over the years, regardless of faction.

The fact that he has been jailed under the UK’s notorious race laws is a tragic reflection of the way that free debate has been curtailed since passage of the first Race Relations Act in 1965. Restrictions on political discussion have been steadily tightened during recent decades. Right-wing Tories and civic ‘nationalists’ bleat about ‘freedom’, but will do nothing to repeal these oppressive laws.

Today’s court judgment is yet further evidence that a serious racial nationalist effort is long overdue.

From issues 92 to 95 of H&D, Peter Rushton wrote a comprehensive history of the development of race law prosecutions in the UK. On the basis of detailed archival research, these articles demonstrate the way that traditional British freedoms were undermined.

We are confident that H&D readers will give James their full support.

James Allchurch has been sent to HMP Swansea in South Wales, where he is likely to serve most of his sentence.

H&D readers can write to James and send him letters of support to this address;
James Allchurch – #A5903EY
HMP Swansea
200 Oystermouth Road
Swansea,
SA1 3SR

Please note that you must include your name/address/post code on the letter, otherwise the prison authorities will reject it.

A fundraising account has been created for James/Sven by his comrade Sam Melia of Patriotic Alternative. Online donations can be sent via https://www.givesendgo.com/SupportSven

Or cash can be sent to the following address:

PO Box 275, Pudsey, LS28 0FQ
(Please specify it’s for Sven)

Councillor investigated for objecting to anti-White racism

Councillor Pete Molloy

Pete Molloy – an independent member of Durham County Council – is the last nationalist councillor in Britain. So it’s no surprise that the woke lobby are out to get him.

Cllr Molloy (who was elected in the Spennymoor division of Durham in 2021 after earlier service on his local town council) dared to object to vile anti-British and anti-monarchy comments by an actress called Adjoa Andoh, during last weekend’s Coronation ceremony.

Ms Andoh told BBC viewers that the group of British royal family members on the Buckingham Palace balcony greeting crowds after the Coronation was “terribly White”.

These remarks prompted record numbers of complaints to the BBC, but when Cllr Molloy complained he found himself rather than Ms Andoh subject to censure!

Cllr Molloy rightly described Ms Andoh as: “Another non-indigenous British person with not just a chip, but a whole sack of King Eddie potatoes on their shoulder.”

He continued: “Britain is a white man’s country, just as Nigeria is a black man’s country, India is a brown man’s country and China is the yellow man’s country, so it is not down to the indigenous British people in their own homeland to assimilate with non-indigenous British people who live here. The duty is on those non-indigenous British people to assimilate, as best as possible, into the culture and society of the indigenous British people. The same goes for every other country in the world that have non-indigenous people living there too, their duty is not to try and change the ways of those countries, but to assimilate into those countries’ societies.

“…So if you dislike or hate the history, heritage, culture, religion, governance etc. of Great Britain, please feel free to make your way to any of the many air or sea ports and leave, because you don’t have to live here!”

Adjoa Andoh, a half-Ghanaian actress, whose televised comments about the British monarchy angered Cllr Molloy

Readers might imagine that most loyal Britons would share Cllr Molloy’s sentiments.

However, the Labour leader of Durham County Council, Cllr Carl Marshall, reacted hysterically: “These comments are racist, misogynistic, divisive… These comments fly in the face of the area we all represent and I will be calling on the councillor to resign from office immediately.”

Needless to say, Cllr Molloy has no intention of resigning and will continue to represent his constituents until facing re-election in Spennymoor in 2025.

Pete Molloy is a veteran of the Royal Corps of Signals. In 2008 he published a book, Scaley – an account of his years in the Army.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers