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.

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.]

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.

Ireland set to adopt new ‘hate crime’ law

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar – a strong supporter of the new hate crime law – with US President Joe Biden in April 2023

The Republic of Ireland’s parliament is about to pass a new law on ‘hate crime’ that will be among the most restrictive in Europe.

This will bring Ireland broadly into line with most European Union countries that already restrict historical investigation of aspects of the Second World War, notably the alleged mass murder of six million Jews in purported homicidal ‘gas chambers’.

Section 8 of the new law describes historical revisionism in similar terms to those used in many other debate-denying European laws that have been strengthened since the 1980s: “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace”.

Offences under this section will be punished by up to one year in prison. Moreover even possession of revisionist material will be criminalised under Section 10: courts will assume that an offender intended this material for distribution, and the burden of proof will be on a defendant to show otherwise.

Former French Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, co-author of one of Europe’s many ‘hate crime’ laws

The maximum sentence for such “possession” (which could be in printed or electronic format) will be two years imprisonment. There will be potential exemptions, including for material that can be shown to be of scholarly importance, but as elsewhere in Europe courts are likely to impose historical judgments that should normally be outside their competence.

In a direct attack on conservative Catholic traditions that were once the backbone of Irish society, the new law targets not only the usual categories of racial ‘hate crime’, but also offences against new, fashionable ‘protected characteristics’ involving gender and sexual orientation.

In short, it will be a ‘hate crime’ for anyone to fail to agree that a man who asserts he is a woman, has actually become a woman.

Almost all parties in the Dail, Dublin’s parliament, are supporting this Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill. In Northern Ireland, only Traditional Unionist Voice has so far spoken out against the new law.

Jim Allister of TUV is the only political leader in Northern Ireland to have spoken out so far against the new ‘hate crime’ law expected to be enacted soon south of the border.

At H&D, we are unsurprised to see Irish politics going down this route. It has long been obvious that despite the persistent delusions of many Irish-Americans, Sinn Fein is fully on board with a toxic mix of Marxism and post-1968 leftist liberalism.

Dublin is increasingly multiracial, and its political culture is almost entirely ‘woke’.

Added to these toxic trends is a more fundamental problem. More than any other country in the world (except Israel), the Irish Republic is founded on a set of historical lies and distortions, reflected even in the absurdity of fake ‘Irish’ titles for Prime Minister (Taoiseach), Parliament (Dail) and many other party names and official positions.

Having forged their own identity on the basis of ‘victim’ imposture, Irish republicans now find themselves obliged to surrender to those who deploy stronger ‘victim cards’.

Home Secretary plays the ‘Holocaust’ card in migrant row

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has played the ‘Holocaust card’ in defending her immigration policies.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has been the first to play the victim card in an ongoing row with the BBC over the UK government’s immigration policy.

Speaking to Nick Robinson’s podcast Political Thinking this morning, Braverman (who is herself a Buddhist of Goanese ancestry) said that she had been “personally offended” by the comments of Gary Lineker, the former England footballer who has been presenter of Match of the Day for more than twenty years.

Braverman added:
“My husband is Jewish, my children are therefore directly descendant from people who were murdered in gas chambers during the Holocaust. And my husband’s family is very – feels very – keenly the impact of the Holocaust, actually.”

Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker

Lineker, one of the highest-paid broadcasters in Britain, has repeatedly expressed politically-correct views on Twitter and recently criticised the government’s immigration policies. Replying to an opponent this week, Lineker tweeted:
“There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.
“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

Predictably the row has degenerated into both sides playing the ‘nazi’ card, and Braverman clearly feels that her tangential connection to the ‘Holocaust’ gives her some advantage in the victim stakes.

Lineker’s comments were stupid and should be criticised for their foolishness, not because they might offend someone married to a Jew.

The underlying point of course is that St Gary is another symptom of the crude political correctness that can be expected from the football industry after several decades of relentless ‘anti-racist’ indoctrination.

Ron Atkinson – former manager of West Brom, Manchester United, Atletico Madrid, and Aston Villa – is among several well-known broadcasters whose careers were swfitly ended because of politically incorrect comments (in Atkinson’s case made in private).

In earlier generations, ‘racism’ when expressed by people within football was inevitably crudified, and so is ‘anti-racism’. No big deal either way, and not grounds for sacking – provided that (within reason) football commentators are also allowed to express anti-immigration sentiments. Provided it is not obligatory to kneel in memory of black criminal George Floyd, and provided it is permissible for BBC broadcasters to assert that White Lives Matter, none of us should be too worried about Lineker and his ilk expressing their opinions.

The problem is that only one side of the political fence is considered acceptable.

Perhaps the case should be put to Mr Lineker in those terms, and that would I think silence him rather more effectively than attempts at straightforward censorship!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British historian condemns ‘moronic’ wokeness of US National Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish lobby seeks to censor BBC

Lady Mosley pictured on the front cover of society magazine The Tatler, December 1938. Now – nineteen years after her death – Lady Mosley remains the target of a vengeful Jewish lobby.

Desert Island Discs is one of the longest-running radio series in the world, having recently celebrated 80 years on the air since its first broadcast in January 1942. As all British readers will know, the programme features a different guest each week who is asked to select eight records, one book, and one ‘luxury item’ they would choose if ‘cast away’ on a desert island in the manner of Robinson Crusoe.

More than 2,300 episodes are now available on the BBC website, but last weekend the Sunday Telegraph focused on just one of them: broadcast in November 1989 when the ‘castaway’ was Lady Mosley (the former Diana Mitford), widow of British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley.

This theoretically conservative newspaper seems to have joined forces with the Anglo-Jewish lobby to complain that the Mosley episode of Desert Island Discs is freely available for today’s listeners without any “introductory warnings that it may contain material of an offensive nature”.

Government ‘anti-semitism’ adviser Lord Mann told the paper: “It would be appropriate to put a warning in relation to this broadcast and the holocaust denial that is spewed out by Mosley.”

And Dave Rich from the Jewish lobby group Community Security Trust kvetched that Lady Mosley’s “anti-Jewish animus and her admiration for Hitler shine through. Most objectionable of all is her denial that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. The whole package could not be more repulsive. There is no mention of any of this in the blurb that promotes the episode on the BBC Sounds website.”

(above left) CST founder Gerald Ronson – a veteran of the violent Jewish ‘anti-fascist’ 62 Group, with London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Rich’s organisation CST was founded and is chaired by Gerald Ronson, a veteran of the violent Jewish ‘anti-fascist’ 62 Group, some of whose history will be exposed in a forthcoming two-part review article in Heritage and Destiny Issues 107 and 108.

There is no law against ‘holocaust denial’ in the UK and the problem seems to be simply that Lady Mosley attempted to give truthful answers to questions about her attitude to the Third Reich. Speaking of Adolf Hitler she said: “He had so much to say, so interesting, so fascinating… I can’t regret the relationship.”

And when pressed about the ‘Holocaust’ she replied: “First of all, after the war, I simply didn’t believe it, having been in Germany … And it was years before I could really believe that such things had happened.”

Pressed further as to whether she now believed in the extermination stories, she replied: “I don’t really, I’m
afraid … believe that six million people were … I just think it’s not conceivable, it’s too many.”

For today’s fanatical Zionist censors, even this now classes as ‘Holocaust denial’. Just what are they afraid of? H&D readers will soon find out…

Government adviser targeted in fake ‘racism’ storm

Paul Collier

The distinguished economist Sir Paul Collier is today at the centre of a fierce row over his views on race and immigration, following his appointment to an advisory council that will guide the British government’s “levelling up” agenda.

The Conservative Party’s election victory in December 2019 was partly based on convincing former Labour voters that the Tories were now serious about tackling social inequalities and lack of opportunity. Senior minister Michael Gove has been given charge of this agenda, and this week Gove confirmed that advisory council members “such as Sir Paul Collier, renowned economist at Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, [would be ] providing further support and constructive analysis.”

Woke commentators and the race relations industry today rounded on Sir Paul, condemning his comments that “the indigenous British had become a minority in their own capital”, and his critique of the “easy-access welfare system, which tempts migrants into remaining at the bottom of the social ladder”.

One of Sir Paul’s sins was in the video below, where he dared to ask: “Is London such a great success for the indigenous population? Something rather drastic has happened to the indigenous population in London … I can think of no other major city where the indigenous population has more than halved.”

Other European capitals are set to follow London’s lead, with equally disastrous consequences, if Europe remains dominated by the socially destructive ideology of ‘free market capitalism’.

It is ironic that the so-called left – in their blind devotion to this ‘free market’ – are lining up to condemn Sir Paul Collier. Yet further evidence that radical nationalists should take over the ‘socialist’ agenda and defend the interests of indigenous European workers.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers