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)

Blair’s unusual silence explained

Many readers have wondered why Tony Blair has been remarkably quiet so far about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Look no further than Blair’s very close relationship with one of Putin’s favourite billionaire Jewish oligarchs, Moshe Kantor. Among many prominent positions in international Zionism, Kantor is President of the European Jewish Congress and Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress.

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.

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

Moshe Kantor also funded the World Holocaust Forum, which provided a platform for Putin to indulge his now familiar ‘anti-Nazi’ posturing.

Israel’s ‘Holocaust museum’ Yad Vashem has repeatedly accepted major donations from Putin’s favourite oligarchs, including not only Kantor but also Roman Abramovich who now faces ostracism in the UK for his close Kremlin ties but is still very welcome in Jerusalem.

Media hype assorted cranks and loons in effort to criminalise nationalism

During the last fortnight several criminal convictions in English courts have provided further ammunition for those seeking to restrict political freedoms in Britain.

The UK has not had anything approaching ‘free speech’ on racial matters since the first Race Relations Act in 1965, and as H&D has explained in several detailed articles over the years, these restrictions have been progressively tightened. This dishonest campaign by the political establishment has involved deliberately distorting the truth about serious crimes.

Of course most H&D readers would rightly regard the entire structure of race law as a sinister infringement of what were once traditional British freedoms, and as part of a concerted effort quite literally to change the face of Britain.

However this does not mean that we should regard everyone prosecuted under these laws (or the related extension of terrorism laws to encompass a range of non-violent if unwise political activities) as some sort of hero or heroine.

To do so – to campaign on behalf of everyone convicted under these laws as though they were all quite simply free speech martyrs – would be foolish and counter-productive: indeed it would be to play the enemy’s game.

For example, two of those recently convicted under the ‘terrorism’ laws were autistic children who had bought into the imagery of ‘nazism’ rather than anything substantial.

It really was pathetic to see national newspapers give front page treatment to the case of 22-year-old London police officer Benjamin Hannam, who as a confused teenager with a Jewish step-grandfather and a Muslim girlfriend had briefly been involved with the now-defunct National Action and one of its offshoots.

He had also downloaded the ‘manifesto’ of a real terrorist maniac, Anders Breivik, and in common with several of his ilk seemed to view Breivik – an ultra-Zionist whose beliefs and actions were the very antithesis of national socialism – as some kind of ‘nazi’ / ‘fascist’ comrade.

There are one or two people on the fringes of our movement who indulge such dangerous nonsense, and it’s time for responsible racial nationalists, national socialists, historical revisionists – indeed all of those involved in the broad campaign for the rescue of historical truth and national, racial, and cultural integrity – to draw the line.

Racial nationalism is not the mindless promotion of hatred, and racial nationalists are the very opposite of nihilistic terrorists. National Socialism is not Hollywood nazism or psychotic satanism. Historical revisionism is not a platform for crank conspiracy theory or vacuous Jew-baiting.

There is serious work underway – led by individuals with decades of experience as well as new recruits of high calibre – to defend serious racial nationalist politics and historical revisionist work in post-pandemic and post-Brexit Britain.

We are not going to be derailed by fantasists, cranks, or enemy informants – nor by those thousands of miles away who issue grand proclamations while utterly ignorant of the personalities and realities involved.

Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door

Richard Edmonds reports

“Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, scene 2.

Found “Guilty” at the Westminster Magistrates’ court last year and given a suspended prison sentence, folk-singer and satirist Alison Chabloz has decided to appeal her conviction and sentence to Southwark Crown court in central London. (Technically this is a full retrial of the case rather than an appeal on a point of law.)

As always in appealing to a higher court against the findings and sentencing of a lower court, there is the risk that, as in the case of Ms. Chabloz, the suspended prison sentence of some weeks’ duration (i.e. at “liberty” but subject to certain conditions), is regarded as too indulgent by the higher court which then hands down an actual prison sentence of months – months locked up in a concrete cell in close proximity with criminals and various other anti-social types. Taking the risk of appealing against the findings of a lower court is always a very personal matter. 

For legal reasons no comment is made here on the merits or demerits of the case itself. What is under examination here are the tactics and implications of taking the case to a higher level of the court system. 

Because, what is not a personal matter in the case of Ms. Chabloz, is what the consequences of her decision to appeal might be for the Revisionist movement here in Britain. That is the question. As the law stands, the findings of a Magistrates’ court are not regarded as setting any legal precedent. This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called “Holocaust”, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning “Holocaust”-denial.

This is not some idle theory and speculation. Recently the brave French revisionist and refugee from French “Justice” currently residing in Britain, Vincent Reynouard, raised the whole question of the possible consequences of Ms. Chabloz‘ appeal. In an interview that he gave to the highly regarded nationalist and revisionist, French-language publication, RIVAROL (12. December 2018), Reynouard expressed his fears. Referring directly to the case of Alison Chabloz in Britain, Vincent Reynouard asked, “who says that her case may not create a legal precedent ?” Reynouard reminded the readers of RIVAROL how the judicial authorities in North America had employed legal pretexts to arrest Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in order to extradite the pair of them back to their land of origin, where both were immediately jailed for many years. Reynouard stressed that the possibility cannot be excluded that he might get the same treatment. 

Question: Does Ms. Chabloz know what she is doing ?

New organisation for prisoners’ aid: The Link

UPDATE: Please note Simon Sheppard’s new prison address, see below.

The Link has been formed as an urgent necessity to aid victims of government anti-race laws. Since the introduction of various measures, ostensibly to combat the menace of genuine terrorism, many dissident patriots have been arrested and harassed as a deliberate act of government policy.

The Link has been formed to help ensure that those accused of ‘hate crimes’ (thought crimes) obtain the full support of our freedom loving community throughout and beyond their current ordeal.

We urgently need detailed information about anyone who has been imprisoned or threatened by the encroaching Orwellian state.

In the first instance please contact Michael Woodbridge on 01490 440418 or email tarkatheotterwestwardho@hotmail.com

Two prominent thought criminals and friends of H&D presently incarcerated are Jez Turner and Simon Sheppard. They can be contacted at the addresses below:

Jeremy Bedford-Turner, A5544EE, Wing E3-02, HMP Wandsworth, PO Box 757, Heathfield Road, London, SW18 3HU

Simon Sheppard, A8042AA, HMP Humber, Everthorpe, Brough, East Yorkshire, HU15 2JZ

 

Simon Sheppard jailed for nine months in latest ‘opinion crime’

Yorkshire-based author Simon Sheppard was jailed yesterday for the latest in a series of ‘opinion crimes’.

A judge at York Crown Court sentenced Mr Sheppard to nine months imprisonment after a jury convicted him of using “racially aggravated words” to a Sky engineer fitting a satellite dish to the next door flat in Selby, North Yorkshire.

The words were not aimed at the engineer, but referred to Mr Sheppard’s complaints against his black neighbour. The jury acquitted Mr Sheppard of waging what the prosecution had called “a two-year racial harassment campaign”.

Mr Sheppard is perhaps best known for his attempt in 2008 to claim political asylum in the USA after an earlier conviction under Britain’s infamous race laws. Neither that nor this week’s conviction would have amounted to criminal offences in the USA, where Mr Sheppard’s alleged ‘criminal’ conduct would be covered by the Constitution’s protection of free speech.

 

Lady Renouf to speak at SW Forum: BBC broadcast ‘Why Can’t We Question The Holocaust?’

South West Forum organiser Julie Lake has announced her next event for Saturday 4th August. Speakers will include Lady Michèle Renouf and Paul Ballard.

This will be a special fundraising event for Jez Turner, the London Forum organiser recently jailed under Britain’s notorious race laws.

Mrs Lake writes:

PLEASE TEXT ME ON 07432 843745 IF YOU CAN DONATE AN ITEM FOR THE AUCTION

THE SAME IF YOU CAN DONATE AN ITEM FOR THE RAFFLE.

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT ME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE A BOOK STALL AT THE MEETING.

I AM SURE YOU WILL ALL AGREE WITH ME, THAT JEZ HAS GIVEN SO MUCH TO OUR MOVEMENT, THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO SOMETHING FOR HIM. ALL PROCEEDS AFTER RUNNING COSTS, WILL GO TO JEZ ON HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON, TO HELP HIM WITH ACCOMMODATION, AND PERSONAL EXPENSES.

IT IS A FITTING TRIBUTE TO JEZ THAT MICHELE AND PAUL WILL BE THERE TO SPEAK, AS TWO OF THE COUNTRIES MOST NOTABLE NATIONALISTS. A FURTHER TWO SPEAKERS AWAITING CONFIRMATION.

A FURTHER NOTICE WILL FOLLOW, NEARER THE TIME.

As a preview of this event, readers can now access an online version of two BBC broadcasts featuring Lady Renouf:

The BBC World Service in February 2009 broadcast an extraordinary progamme entitled “Why Can’t We Question About The Holocaust”. This Question was debated on worldwide radio during an hour-long show in which the two contenders, the British champion of normal historical revisionist source criticism without exception Lady Michèle Renouf, versus the Jewish American “Holocaust” extermination theorist Professor Deborah Lipstadt, were invited to answer phone-in queries from the BBC’s global audience. The prompt for this one-off free speech opportunity on this exceptionalist topic arose as follows.

On 25th February 2009 the traditional Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson made worldwide headlines when he arrived at Heathrow Airport following his expulsion from Argentina, where he had taught at a seminary for five years. These extraordinary events were due to Bishop Williamson expressing his opinion on recent ‘revisionist’ scholarship regarding the alleged homicidal gassing of six million European Jews, supposedly on the orders of Adolf Hitler – a version of history which has been effectively trademarked and sacralised as ‘the Holocaust’.

Expressing doubts about the new universal religion of Holocaustianity, or even calling for its emotional claims to be forensically substantiated by critical examination of historical sources and scientific analysis of evidence, has become a crime in many European countries (though not yet in the UK). Bishop Williamson had been ambushed by a Swedish television crew in Germany, one of the countries where expression of ‘revisionist’ opinions is illegal.

In the hours after Bishop Williamson’s arrival in London, Lady Michèle Renouf – who had mobilised a legal team the previous year to defend Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben and defeat the German government’s attempt to prompt English law, via the ‘ back door’, to “harmonise” with Germany’s “Holocaust-denial laws” by extraditing him from the UK on a European Arrest Warrant – was interviewed on two of the BBC’s flagship radio programmes.

First, on the main lunchtime news bulletin The World at One, Lady Renouf debated the issues raised by the Williamson case with Lord Janner (the former Labour MP Greville Janner), vice-president of the World Jewish Congress and co-founder of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Lord Janner was then among the most eminent leaders of the Anglo-Jewish community, though he was disgraced by allegations of paedophile abuse in the the years before his death in 2015.

In the evening of the same day, historical ‘revisionist’ supporter Lady Renouf was one of the two main guests in an hour-long debate – “Why Can’t We Question About The Holocaust?” – and phone-in on the BBC World Service, alongside American academic Deborah Lipstadt, whose allegations against British historian David Irving were the basis of a famous libel case in 2000. Irving’s case, in turn, had relied upon the ground-breaking trials in Toronto Canada in the late 1980s when revisionist scientific findings and “Holocaust” eye-witnesses exposed in cross-examination that the many testimonies and claims deployed “poetic licence”. Ever since, open objective forensic scrutiny of the scientific issues remains off-limits and emotionally barred from normal historical source critical debate. Even the “International Guidelines for Teaching About The Holocaust” insist on Page 11 that: “Care should be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational arguement”. Exceptionalist laws seek to progress the prosecution of all reasonable investigation as the “criminal” act of heretics.

 

Do we now have a Holocaust Denial law? Confusion reigns after Chabloz ruling

Reaction to Friday’s conviction of Alison Chabloz for posting “grossly offensive” videos to YouTube has left great confusion as to whether England now has a de facto law against ‘Holocaust denial’, and if not whether such a law is likely to be enacted. The confusion has been heightened by contradictory messages from two prosecution witnesses, Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman of the hardline Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitism.  It was CAA that first brought a private prosecution against Ms Chabloz, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to bring charges.  The CPS later obediently came into line, taking over this private prosecution at public expense.

District Judge John Zani convicted Ms Chabloz of three offences against the Communications Act 2003, but his ill-argued judgment has done nothing to clarify matters.

For H&D the main interest of this case involved one of the three songs for which Ms Chabloz was prosecuted – namely (((Survivors))), which mocked the lies and fantasies propagated by three supposed ‘Holocaust survivors’, Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank.  H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton gave defence evidence, based on research at the British Library, which established that these three ‘survivors’, especially Wiesel and Zisblatt, had been subjected to pungent abuse from mainstream academics and commentators.  As defence barrister Adrian Davies asked the court: can it be “grossly offensive” to call someone a liar if that person demonstrably is a liar?

Yet in his 24-page judgment, a copy of which has been made available to H&D, Judge Zani completely ignores this challenge, leaving it still an open question – even after Ms Chabloz’s conviction – whether one can be guilty of “grossly offensive” communications regardless of truth or falsehood.  Is the communication liable to be judged “grossly offensive”, and therefore criminal, whether or not it is truthful?

In para 56 of his judgment, Zani states: “This court is not required to decide whether, for example, the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate.” At issue was whether the material was “grossly offensive”, and “the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and just multicultural society”. Zani relied on an earlier ruling by the House of Lords that “if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society.”

In other words, if a Jew is grossly offended by something, the rest of “reasonable” society is required also to regard it as “grossly offensive”.

In para 111 of his judgment, Zani appears to contradict his earlier claim that he would not be taking a view on the truth or falsehood of ‘Holocaust history’. He writes: “It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.”

Does Judge Zani believe that the Communications Act forces Britons to hold a ‘respectful’ view of liars and fantasists?

The learned Judge simply fails to answer the points made in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence concerning (for example) Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt.  Fifteen years before he attracted Alison Chabloz’s attention, Elie Wiesel was subjected to deliberately offensive criticism in a widely read column by one of the world’s leading journalists, the late Christopher Hitchens. In a column printed under the headline ‘Wiesel Words’ in the American left-liberal magazine The Nation on 19th February 2001, Mr Hitchens wrote: “Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?” The saintly Wiesel is subjected to further pungent abuse at the hands of his fellow Jew, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, in the latter’s book, The Holocaust Industry, where he is accused of acting as “official interpreter of The Holocaust… By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.”

Finkelstein goes to the heart of the matter in the following paragraph: “Apart from the frailties of memory, some Holocaust survivor testimony may be suspect for additional reasons. Because survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment. Elie Wiesel reminisces in his acclaimed memoir that, recently liberated and only 18 years old, ‘I read The Critique of Pure Reason – don’t laugh! – in Yiddish.’ Leaving aside Wiesel’s acknowledgment that at the time ‘I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar,’ The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. …And to a New York Times reporter, he recalls that he was once hit by a taxi in Times Square. ‘I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th.’ ‘The truth I present is unvarnished,’ Wiesel sighs, ‘I cannot do otherwise.’”

An even more ludicrous fantasist than Wiesel is another Chabloz target, Irene Zisblatt, who has best been exposed by a Polish Jewish scholar, Dr Joachim Neander. (Again Dr Neander’s work was submitted in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence.) He writes: “Mrs Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. …What if the kids, who were deeply impressed by Mrs Zisblatt’s story, some day reach for a scholarly book about the Holocaust or a memoir vetted by experts and find out that things could not have happened as told by her? …Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.”

Dr Neander details many obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mrs Zisblatt’s story. For example, she claimed that when she was in the Birkenau camp, the crematorium chimneys were “spewing ashes” and that these hot ashes fell like rain around her. Most infamously, Mrs Zisblatt claimed that throughout her captivity she concealed four diamonds given her by her mother, repeatedly swallowing the diamonds and recovering them from among her faeces in the camp latrine.

Other absurd tales peddled by Zisblatt include her miraculous escape from a gas chamber, and her return visit to Birkenau in the 1990s when she claimed to have visited a “gas chamber” – “When I got to the entrance I grabbed onto the door, and dug my fingernails into the blue wall that was still blue from the cyclone B gas [sic]; I could smell the gas that was still very strong.”  As Dr Neander points out, there are no such blue stains and no such gas smell – moreover the only remaining “gas chamber” is admitted to be a postwar reconstruction, in fact better described as a falsification (as discovered by Prof Robert Faurisson as long ago as 1976.)

Dr Neander concludes:”It was shown that Mrs Zisblatt’s Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny.  As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors’ memoirs.  It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who – in a ‘worst case scenario’ – begin to doubt everything she tells.”

Yet according to Judge Zani it is “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal to mock the absurd fantasist / liar Irene Zisblatt, at any rate if such mockery is posted online, thus falling within the provisions of the Communications Act.

Does this mean that ‘Holocaust denial’ has been criminalised by the Chabloz case?  In his first reaction after the verdict, Gideon Falter (chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who had brought the original prosecution) delightedly asserted: “This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Yet Falter’s CAA colleague Steve Silverman quickly contradicted his chairman, writing: “There is a misconception that the trial of Alison Chabloz was about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial.  This is a failure to understand the depth of her offending and the danger it presents to British Jews.”  Silverman insisted: “This woman has been responsible for the vilest outpouring of antisemitic hatred I have ever encountered.” He gave various examples of her anti-Jewish rhetoric (strictly unrelated to ‘Holocaust’ revisionism) then concluded: “This is not Holocaust denial; it is the use of Holocaust denial to give people reasons to fear and hate Jews.  Alison Chabloz did this for years, obsessively and with increasing malevolence.”

One interpretation of Judge Zani’s ruling is that – entirely regardless of historical truth or falsehood – Ms Chabloz’s crime was to have been deliberately and callously offensive, as a form of online revenge for having lost a job on a cruise ship a few years ago.  Having failed to respond in any way to Mr Rushton’s defence evidence, Judge Zani writes in para 106: “In the court’s view none of the songs complained of can reasonably be considered to be an acceptable or legitimate attempt by Ms Chabloz to provoke reasoned debate on important topics, rather each of these songs appears to have been designed to spitefully offend others in as grotesque and unpleasant a manner as she felt able to achieve.”

In paras 113-114 Judge Zani concludes: “The defendant has failed, by some considerable margin, to persuade this court that her right to Freedom of Speech, as provided by Article 10, under the guise of her work as an artist, can properly provide her with immunity from prosecution in relation to each of the songs complained of.  Having had the opportunity to assess the Defendant’s live evidence during the course of these proceedings, I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates or, at least, that she must have recognised that there was a risk of so doing.”

A few hours after the judgment, the government’s chief pro-Zionist toady Sir Eric Pickles (newly ennobled as Lord Pickles), former Conservative Party chairman, still chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel and official government “envoy for post-Holocaust issues”, called for a new law specifically criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’.

Pickles, honorary patron of the CAA, told the BBC’s Martin Bashir that although he had previously opposed such a law, the Chabloz case had convinced him that there should be longer sentences for ‘Holocaust denial’.

This exposes the cynical ploy behind the entire Chabloz case charade.  A far longer sentence (up to seven years) would have been available had Ms Chabloz (like Jez Turner) been prosecuted under the Public Order Act, but this would require proving that her songs were likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The Communications Act allowed a far lower standard of proof.  Once the court had found that songs posted to YouTube fell within the legal definitions of this particular Act, all the prosecution had to prove was “gross offensiveness”.  The weasel words of the prosecution and their witnesses, endorsed by Judge Zani, allowed the court to evade the question of whether particular ‘Holocaust’ fables are true or false. We are thus in a very dangerous situation.

The only clearing of this judicial fog will have to come from a new, British based, thoroughly researched challenge to aspects of ‘Holocaust’ history: a challenge that is indubitably grounded in reasoned argument rather than anything that can be easily dismissed as spiteful abuse.

Watch this space…

The sick state of British ‘justice’

In July 2015 a howling mob of ultra-leftwing Jews confronted a British Army veteran on Whitehall. So that no one could mistake their political outlook – and the tradition of brutal terror which they proudly claim to follow – this mob displayed the banners above: one reading “F**k Racism – Daloy Politzei” and another carrying the number “43” alongside the slogan “Jewish Anti-Fascist Action”.

Gentile readers might not know the full meaning of these banners, but the demonstrators knew perfectly well.  The slogan “Daloy Politzei”, waved with impunity in the faces of Metropolitan Police officers that day, means “F**k the Police”.

In fact it is a far more offensive slogan even than these words alone might imply.  The slogan “Daloy Politzei” is a combination of Yiddish and Russian.  It is a slogan that was deployed by murderous Jewish revolutionaries in early 20th century Russia, who proved that they were not employing idle threats when they led the Bolshevik overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

The song goes on to say: “let’s bury little Nikolai along with his mother”.  In fact a Jewish-controlled gang did go on to bury Tsar Nicholas, his wife and children in July 1918 in Yekaterinburg.  The children’s faces were smashed in with rifle butts and the bodies dissolved with sulphuric acid. The man in charge of the executioners, Jewish Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov, was honoured by his comrades who renamed the city of Yekaterinburg as Sverdlovsk.

Police in London almost a century later did nothing to restrain Sverdlov’s fellow Marxists, co-racialists and co-religionists as they spewed their bile in the faces of Britons including Jez Turner, who was speaking that day at a protest against an exclusive Jewish police force known as Shomrim.

There was a time when London policemen would have known what the second ‘anti-fascist’ banner meant by displaying the number “43”.  This is a reference to the ’43 Group’, a gang of Jewish criminals backed by notorious East End gangster Jack Spot who sought to terrorise the followers of Sir Oswald Mosley and other British nationalists at the dawn of the multiracial transformation of our country during the late 1940s.

The 43 Group’s terror tactics were not confined to nationalist political activists. This Zionist gang was closely tied to the murderous terrorists of the Irgun, engaged in a campaign of bombings and assassinations against British soldiers and police as well as Arab civilians in what was then the British-administered Mandate of Palestine. One 43 Group activist David Landman (who later emigrated to Israel) was actively engaged with his sister and father in terrorist plots on British soil, including an attempt to assassinate Gen. Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commander of British Forces in Palestine.

As H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton pointed out in his speech on the day, the ‘anti-fascist’ mob represented the combined forces of anti-British terrorism: some were fans of the IRA (including the Harrods bombers who were leading activists in the London branch of Anti-Fascist Action), while others were fans of Irgun and the Stern Gang, whose bombers had tried to blow up Whitehall itself seventy years ago.

Yet these terrorist fan clubs went unmolested by the police.

After extensive pressure from Zionist lobby groups (the Community Security Trust and the Campaign Against Antisemitism) the police instead brought charges against Mr Turner whose speech (in contrast to the foul-mouthed and violent language of his adversaries) had contained no obscenities.

Last Thursday the case came before a jury at Southwark Crown Court, in a three-day trial presided over by Judge David Tomlinson, who proved almost a parody of disgraceful judicial bias, and Jez Turner was duly convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

At the very start of the trial Judge Tomlinson refused the application of Jez Turner’s barrister Adrian Davies to ask jury members whether they were members of any of the three Jewish groups involved in the proceedings.  Even this simple method of seeking to ensure a fair trial was rejected.

The judge went on to make repeated sarcastic interventions during Jez Turner’s testimony, which served no legal purpose and at best had the effect of distracting the defendant in the witness box, while at worst prejudicing the jury.

Jez Turner was being cross-examined by prosecuting counsel on lines from his speech three years ago.  A large part of this speech referred to historical questions, and had the prosecution wished to do so they could have brought ‘expert witness’ testimony from historically qualified witnesses to dispute the defendant’s interpretations.

Of course had they done so, the defence could also then have summoned their own expert witnesses, and the jury could have heard various aspects of Jewish history dispassionately debated.

But the prosecution chose not to bring any such expert testimony.  Instead the judge himself (a law graduate who claims no specific historical expertise and certainly did not demonstrate any) made his own crude interventions on historical topics. At one point he disputed Jez Turner’s contention that the Soviet Union had invaded Poland from the East in 1939 while Germany invaded from the West – the learned judge seemed to believe that the Soviets had only sought to invade Poland following Germany’s defeat in 1945!

Even worse, Judge Tomlinson interrupted Jez Turner on what might be thought the incontrovertible point that Jews dominated the leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution, having a grossly disproportionate role in the leadership of the Soviet murder squads of the KGB and equivalent organisations thereafter.

In a blatant attempt to sway the jury, Judge Tomlinson questioned the defendant about Viktor Abakumov, asking rhetorically “was Abakumov a Jew”, and suggesting that this demolished the notion that the Soviet terror state was disproportionately Jewish.

Confronted with this random name out of the blue, Jez Turner was not equipped to enter a detailed historical debate with the judge from the witness box: nor should he have been expected to do so.  The judge’s interrogation of the witness was gravely improper – had the court wished to debate the racial composition of the Soviet bureaucracy (and specifically the KGB) the proper course was to introduce expert witnesses.

Judge Tomlinson implied that Abakumov was some sort of number two to Stalin in the postwar USSR.  In fact he was a (gentile) thug brought in by Stalin partly to counterbalance the power of KGB chief Beria.  It is certainly true that Stalin purged a large number of Jews (in various stages) from the leadership of the KGB and the Communist Party, and Abakumov was a leading apparatchik carrying out the postwar purges, but in the overall context of Soviet Communism he is hardly a major figure.

Still less does the presence of Abakumov and his ilk carrying out anti-Jewish purges disprove the defendant’s original argument that the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet state were disproportionately Jewish.  In fact the very presence of such vast numbers of Jews to be purged from leading positions rather proves Jez Turner’s argument!

Where did Judge Tomlinson get his obsession with Viktor Abakumov?  H&D suspects that the learned judge has recently read a widely-reviewed book on SMERSH, the murderous counter-intelligence force once headed by Abakumov: but this hardly makes Judge Tomlinson suitable to act as an expert witness in his own court!

In Part II of our analysis of the judicial travesty in Southwark, later this week, we shall further examine Judge Tomlinson’s actions and background.

Jez Turner imprisoned for Race Act ‘offences’

After a three-day trial, London Forum founder Jez Turner was convicted and sentenced today to 12 months imprisonment for offences against Britain’s notorious race laws.

Mr Turner’s ‘offence’ dated back to 2015 when he spoke at a demonstration in Whitehall against the special Jewish police force known as Shomrim. (H&D‘s assistant editor spoke at the same event – click here for transcript.)

This racially exclusive police force had already attracted opposition from several senior police officers.  When Shomrim first began to appear in North London in 2008, then Hackney borough commander Steve Dann said: I am very upset that no-one has approached me about this.  It has been done behind my back.  I see this as a slight against us, that we are not providing a service.

In 2010 Dann’s successor in Hackney, Steve Bending said: I do not support the concept of any community having their own patrol service.  There is a risk of other communities feeling intimidated by this course of action.

So upset was Bending that he left the Metropolitan Police and emigrated to the United Arab Emirates.

Later in 2010 the Met’s borough commander in Barnet, another area where Shomrim were becoming active, also criticised this exclusive Jewish police force, saying: Uniformed patrols which communities are asked to pay for make me extremely nervous.

Yet Mr Turner’s criticism of Shomrim has today been criminalised.  The Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service had at first not thought to prosecute him for the 2015 speech, but relentless pressure was exerted by the ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ and the Community Security Trust, an ultra-Zionist lobby group whose founders were part of the violent Jewish 62 Group, which also spawned Searchlight magazine.

In a sense this was a CST prosecution, not a Crown prosecution.  We now know who rules 21st century Britain. Meanwhile on the very same day as Mr Turner was imprisoned, the Zionist state shamelessly slaughtered another 55 Palestinians, a crime which will go unpunished – in fact simply drawing attention to this mass murder will itself be judged a crime, unless anyone who dares criticise the Jewish state weighs his words very carefully.

Mr Turner’s barrister Adrian Davies gave a brilliant summing up of the defence case last Friday, which might have weighed in the mind of Judge David Tomlinson (son of Mary Poppins actor David Tomlinson). The judge’s interventions had been crudely hostile early in the case, but his own summing up today was far more fair.

H&D will be writing later in more detail about the Jez Turner case and its implications.  For now we shall simply say this: certain individuals have engaged in a disgraceful campaign of personal slurs against Jez Turner, even while he was facing trial and imprisonment.  This treason from within the so-called nationalist movement will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

 

 

Next Page »