Political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck will spend her 94th birthday in jail
Ursula Haverbeck – seen here with her defence attorney Wolfram Nahrath – is a political prisoner in today’s ‘democratic’ Germany.
Today the Court of Appeal in Berlin confirmed that Ursula must serve a 12 month jail sentence for the ‘crime’ of questioning aspects of her country’s history. She will be summoned to prison at some point during the next few weeks.
This means that Ursula will spend her 94th birthday on November 8th behind bars.
As Tim Garton Ash, the late Eric Hobsbawm and many other historians of widely varying ideological backgrounds have stated, it’s time to scrap the ‘historical memory’ laws that disgrace today’s Europe.
Further updates on Ursula’s case will appear here and at the Real History blog, as well as news of protest actions against tyrannical debate-denying laws that are spreading throughout Europe. Such laws are likely to be heading for the UK under a Liz Truss government – extending our own already tyrannical ‘race laws’. It’s time for Britons and fellow Europeans to reclaim our heritage.
How Rudolf Hess tried to stop war – and why others wanted to kill him
Thirty-five years ago today, the 93-year-old Rudolf Hess died at Spandau, where he had been the sole prisoner for more than twenty years. He had been incarcerated for almost half a century, since his crash landing in Scotland in May 1941.
Hess flew to Britain hoping that Germany and Britain could end their mutually-destructive war. He proposed that Britain should develop her Empire which was in no way threatened by Germany, who only required the return of her relatively modest colonies from the Kaiser’s era.
Under Hess’s proposals, Germany would be given a free hand in Europe, including dealing with Stalin’s Soviet Union.
After war had intensified during 1940, Hess perceived that Britain would not now easily agree a peace settlement without losing prestige, so he decided to take the risk of flying to Britain himself, “so that by his own presence in England, England would be enabled to consider an approach.” Hess hoped that he could provide some foundation on which peace talks could proceed.
Instead this martyr for peace found himself in one prison or another for the rest of his life.
To begin with Hess used cautious language about the Soviet Union, not wishing to give away too much in advance of what he hoped would be serious negotiations with the British. But by July 1941 when he wrote a memorandum titled “Germany – England from the viewpoint of war against the Soviet Union”, eventually handed to government minister and Daily Express owner Lord Beaverbrook, Hess was open (and prescient) about the overriding threat from Moscow that he believed an Anglo-German alliance should combat.
He believed that Germany was strong enough to defeat Russia, correctly pointing out that German morale was far higher in this war than it had been during the First World War:
“It will hardly be doubted that the spirit of the troops is magnificent. The elements which in the [first] world war eventually weakened the spirit of the German troops – the disruptive influences from home infected with Marxist communism, and hunger at home – are missing today.
“Thanks to the effects of national-socialism, the German armed forces are not only immune from Bolshevik propaganda, but fantastically anti-Bolshevik.”
Nevertheless, Hess asked influential Britons such as Beaverbrook to consider the consequences for the British Empire of a German defeat.
“Consequent on the Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, a victory for England would be a victory for the Bolsheviks.
“…Should England’s hopes of a German weakening be realised, the Soviet state, after the expansion of its armament capacity, would be the strongest military power in the world.
“Only a strong Germany as counter-balance, supported by all Europe, and in trustful relationship with England, could hinder this.
“I believe that Germany, destined by fate, was compelled at a given moment to draw aside the curtain covering the secret of the Bolshevik army, so that revelation of the danger might even yet make possible the defence of the civilised world.
“…England should further bear in mind the danger that would face certain parts of her Empire when the Bolshevik giant – which today is hardly conquerable by the biggest army in the world – has reached the military strength to be anticipated in the future.
“The danger will be still further increased by the attraction of Bolshevik ideas with the native-born populations with a low standard of living.
“…I am convinced that world domination awaits the Soviet Union in the future – if her power is not broken at the last minute – with the loss to Great Britain of her position as an Imperial power.”
Which of us in 2022 could say he was wrong?
The current issue of H&D includes an article by our assistant editor Peter Rushton giving the most likely explanation of Hess’s murder in 1987.
And way back in 1941, soon after Hess’s arrival in Britain, there was an abortive plot to kill him, involving exiled Polish troops and an officer of the Special Operations Executive – the ‘dirty tricks’ wing of the British war effort.
Remembering Henry Hafenmayer
A year ago today our friend and comrade Henry Hafenmayer died at the shockingly young age of 48.
A former train driver who was dismissed for his political opinions, Henry became a prominent public champion of German historical revisionists, in a country where one can be jailed for questioning the official version of ‘Holocaust’ history. He was best known for his website Ende der Lüge (‘End of the Lie’) and associated social media accounts.
In this task he was especially closely associated with four jailed revisionists: former leftist lawyer and philosopher Horst Mahler (now 86); publisher and ecologist Ursula Haverbeck (now 93); lawyer Sylvia Stolz, first jailed for defending the late Ernst Zündel; and filmmaker / video blogger Alfred Schaefer.
All four have served long prison sentences, and Mr Schaefer was only recently released from jail in Munich. During 2022 he was been awarded – jointly with his equally courageous sister Monika – the Robert Faurisson International Prize and the George Orwell Free Speech Award.
With awards such as these and in celebrating the release of Alfred Schaefer, the spirit of Henry Hafenmayer lives on.
Henry also lives every time honest Europeans asks questions about their own continent’s history, despite the never-ending efforts of the enemies of truth.
Here in the UK we are – in theory – one of the last free European countries, in the sense that there is no law specifically forbidding historical research and discussion, as there is across so much of Europe.
Yet even here there is pressure for changes to ‘hate crime’ laws and online regulations.
At the end of 2021 the influential lobby group ‘Hacked Off’ presented a report to Parliament in which Heritage and Destiny was cited as the prime example of “harmful extremism”. They argue that H&D is too intelligently written to break existing laws, and is all the more damaging for that reason – so new regulations should be written to ban us from the internet even when we have done nothing illegal!
One of the three examples presented to Parliament, showing our “harmful extremism” was our obituary to Henry Hafenmayer!
We expect the new Prime Minister – almost certainly Liz Truss – on taking office next month to press ahead with new laws that favour Zionist lobby groups, and we are likely to be in their sights again.
Henry Hafenmayer will continue to live not only in our hearts and minds but in the fears of our enemies!
During the next week there will be further announcements here and at the Real History blog about new developments in the fight for historical truth.
Another defeat for London Holocaust Memorial plan – is it time to scrap the scheme?
Vastly expensive plans for a huge Holocaust memorial in London, next to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey, have suffered another defeat after the Court of Appeal refused to hear the case.
In April this year the High Court blocked the plans, and this week an appeal by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation fell at the first hurdle.
Former prime minister David Cameron launched the plan in 2014 by appointing a Holocaust Commission which reported the following year, recommending a prominent new memorial with attached “learning centre”. The plan soon acquired cross-party support and in July 2016 Victoria Tower Gardens – a park adjacent to Parliament – was chosen as the site.
Architects David Adjaye and Ron Arad were chosen for the project. Their initial budget of £50 million has since risen to a current estimate of £102.9 million.
In 2019 Westminster City Council’s planning authority rejected the proposal. The two leading politicians who co-chaired the project – Conservative Lord Pickles and Labour’s Ed Balls – wrote to the council complaining that planning officers were “giving excessive weight to the number of objections lodged on the planning portal”.
These objections lodged with the council included a detailed report by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton (who now also writes the Real History Blog). His report to Westminster City Council was based on detailed research into the planning history of the original London Holocaust memorial in the 1980s – click here to read.
The late Richard Edmonds recorded a film with Lady Michèle Renouf on the site of the proposed memorial. Click here to view this film.
Government ministers sought to override Westminster Council by appointing a Whitehall inspector who recommended acceptance of the plan. Housing minister Chris Pincher officially approved the scheme in July 2021. (Pincher has since been disgraced after a series of alcohol-fuelled sexual assaults on young men; his downfall led to the recent resignation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.)
In April this year Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court ruled that Pincher had acted unlawfully, because Victoria Tower Gardens is protected by a statute dating back to 1900 which specifically prevents it being used as anything other than a garden open to the public.
This week the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no realistic prospect of the High Court judgment being overturned, so it would not hear the case. “There is no real prospect of successfully arguing that the judge’s construction of the 1900 Act was wrong… On the contrary, it was plainly correct.”
The Appeal Court judges rebuked the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for arguing that objectors to the proposal should not have been allowed to raise one of their successful legal points: “It is extremely unattractive for the losing party to argue that his opponent should not have been allowed to introduce a legal argument that turned out to be correct.”
In a typically shameless and arrogant gesture, government minister Paul Scully and Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive Karen Pollock insisted this week that they still support the project, despite it now having been rejected three times – by city council planners, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal.
H&D understands that the only realistic possibility of forcing through the project now would be for the government to introduce legislation (which would have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament) repealing the 1900 law and allowing Victoria Tower Gardens to be used for something other than a park.
If such a law is proposed, we shall use this as an opportunity for a long-overdue debate on the whole principle of whether London should be forced to have a vastly expensive Holocaust memorial. Such a debate must ask the central questions:
What was the ‘Holocaust’?
What did British intelligence and British ministers know (or think they knew) about the ‘Holocaust’ during the 1940s, and what was the factual basis for their knowledge?
What was the relationship between international Jewish organisations and the British war effort, including propaganda and subversive warfare organisations?
If the British taxpayer is expected to pay more than £100 million, and sacrifice a large chunk of the nation’s capital city, to memorialise the ‘Holocaust’, then we have a right to expect answers to these questions.
17th June 1953 – still relevant to us in 2022
This is a translation of a perceptive article posted online yesterday by the fast-growing German nationalist group Der III. Weg (‘The Third Way’ – no connection to the 1980s / 1990s UK organisation of the same name). Photos added by H&D: any errors in translation are our responsibility.
Almost 70 years have passed since people in central Germany rose up against the Bolshevisation of their homeland by Moscow’s GDR puppets and fought desperately against oncoming Soviet tanks, which finally violently crushed the uprising. 34 demonstrators lost their lives in the anti-Soviet uprising (Volksaufstand) that day. Subsequently, more insurgents died as a result of death sentences by Soviet court-martials or as a result of the conditions in the communist prisons.
On June 17th 1953, Germans had gathered in East Berlin, Halle, Magdeburg, Leipzig and Dresden with the Deutschlandlied on their lips and, in addition to social improvements, also demanded national goals such as the dismissal of the GDR government, which was dependent on Moscow, the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the Reunification of Germany. This uprising against the corrupt Soviet system, together with the “Prague Spring” of 1968, symbolises the resistance of the oppressed peoples in the Eastern Bloc countries against the Muscovite tyranny, against which the nations of Europe fought heroically in the years 1941-45, before they finally had to kneel before Moscow thanks to the alliance of Churchill and Roosevelt with Stalin.
Until recently, awareness of the Muscovite threat seemed to be shared only among the older generations among us. Too far away in the past was the time when the oppressive Stalinist regime in central Germany shot down rebellious workers who wanted a united German fatherland. The idea that Moscow could again reach out to Europe to seize parts of it and impose its system on them, as the Soviet predecessor system of today’s Russian Federation practiced against all western neighbouring states and on itself since the beginning of its existence, was too unreal. Though with the help of the Allies from 1945, it was even able to subdue the entire eastern half of Europe.
In the years that followed, Russia joined the ranks of the “democratic states” in the world. From then on, the USA and its allies were considered the only imperialists in the world who, with their wars of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and the continued presence of American military bases in Europe even after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, rightly earned the status of occupiers and warmongers . That changed when the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022 under the pretext of “denazifying” Ukraine, but actually wanting to reincorporate it into the Russian Empire. What had been hidden for years before was now openly apparent. The restoration of the old imperialist Soviet Union is a declared goal of the Kremlin’s policy under Putin.
What happened almost 70 years ago in the cities of Central Germany, we are experiencing again just 2000 km to the east, in cities like Kherson and Melitopol, where the civilian population is making life as difficult as possible for the Russian occupiers, blocking the progress of military vehicles and gathering for mass protests on the streets under waving national flags, even at the risk of being gunned down by Putin’s troops. In Kherson, however, the Russian occupiers are planning to install another separatist bandit republic under the leadership of puppets loyal to Moscow – in the spirit of Ulbricht, Pieck and Grotewohl at the time of the early GDR – after the removal and arrest of local Ukrainian politicians.
And the so-called “victory flag” of the Russians has not changed compared to then. The red flag with hammer and sickle is now waving in central squares in Russian-held cities where the national symbols of Ukraine have been removed. The Bolshevik monster was never dead, just slumbering for the past 30 years. Europe’s struggle for freedom against the old enemy did not come to an end after the fall of the Soviet Union, but is now experiencing a resurrection. Reason enough to commemorate June 17th 1953 and its freedom fighters more consciously than ever this year, because our people still have a long way to go before they have paid the last bloody toll in the fight against Bolshevism and Muscovite imperialism.
Ursula Haverbeck’s latest trial: Lady Michèle Renouf reports from Berlin
On April 1, 2022 an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allies (‘All lies’) Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense”!
After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry” (as dubbed by the late great Scots-French documents analyst and leading revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson).
Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one forensic off-limits historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the own-goal so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form the law deems to call criminal, e.g. stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm to show how high your dog can jump! (Currently the latter “crime” raised by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in Munich Prison!)
Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery…even as the Antifa hack was invited to take front row pride of place!
Luckily for me, although sad to see, the Public Gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer Siblings trial in Munich (July 2018), fear ‘being seen to take an interest’ in such ‘heresy’ trials. They have to show their identity papers, à la Orwell’s “Big Brother”, for likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow Attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and client exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for State-endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.
When Ursula emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Actually, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked me was “do you know Haverbeck?”. Proudly as an old personal friend, I proclaimed her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land – a national treasure!
Frau Ursula and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the “Collegium Humanum” in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either under Bolshevik Communism or Globalist Capitalism. It was at this time that Frau Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialised wartime phenomena worked and where were the physical remains of a “Holocaust”.
After the trial Wolfram Nahrath, Frau Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine too) gave the AFP, TBR and H&D readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.
MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?
Attorney Nahrath:
No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.
MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populace (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions, the real crime!
Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.
MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge – so “Woke” anti-culture in her biased mind, tone, and callous words – was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!
Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows” but then refused any reply.
MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes” was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?
Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison” and that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”
MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the documents analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” ie for a second time when dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France!) to Yahweh “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips”!
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that U.N. Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (ie a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among, but in service to Yahweh’s Chosen People). So much for our universal ‘we were never asked’ democracy!
Nahrath: As a defence attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defence. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e. it is obvious. For the defence counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial”.
MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense, makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – an “Alice in Wonderland” accusation. Completely the reverse of a rational courtroom where to do otherwise would be deemed seriously incompetent and open to action by your client for professional negligence!
Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a “better” result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.
MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust-Leugnung“. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly lies when denying something – whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.
Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grande dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.
MLR: Yes indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also, I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!
Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.
MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?
Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
Finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected, from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly. Then a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approx. 565,000 (356,000 of them in Auschwitz), and he moved the location of this alleged gassing to outside the central camp. It was after these developments that Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question: where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B”.
MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.
Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.
MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Planck Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.
Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific – and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.
MLR: I marvelled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause for well over two hours!
Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statement took in already known guidelines from other judgments.
She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime”, but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.
MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual calibre and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it “like a police detective”.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews”.
The little this “Woke”-blinded Judge knows about racial differences and indeed Judaic Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but “as cattle”. Thereby in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well”. This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two Germany ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust-denial” laws to be repealed.
Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone, she had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.
MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “Woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “Woke”, because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms – a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “Woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper – representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!
Nahrath: Years ago when the Americans sent weapons to the East, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WW3. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings not only to the causes of past events and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.
MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!
The aspect of that Day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly … once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.
At this moment RA Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the own-goal so-called victor Authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those sixteen years’ old survivors exemplify the four inseparable Classical Virtues, of Measure, Just Objectivity, Forensic attitude, and empathetic Courage.
The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.
It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!
Michèle, Lady Renouf
Tony Blair’s favourite oligarch hit by sanctions: ex-PM and ‘Holocaust’ lobby under scrutiny
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.
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.
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 newspaper – H&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.
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.
Madeleine Albright and Mossad: the Jewess who ‘thought she was a Catholic’
Madeleine Albright – who served as Secretary of State in Bill Clinton’s second administration from 1997 to 2001, has died in Washington aged 84.
Soon after her appointment to the top job in US foreign policy at the start of 1997, Mrs Albright ‘discovered’ that she was racially Jewish, having supposedly been in ignorance of this for her entire life. Her parents had converted to Catholicism during her infancy.
However the Israeli government certainly knew about Albright’s Jewish roots as early as 1994, soon after her appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations.
Their source was the British publisher George Weidenfeld, who had been a friend of Albright’s father, Czech diplomat Josef Korbel, when Korbel was in a senior role with the Czech government-in-exile in London during the Second World War. (In this capacity Korbel worked with British propaganda and other secret departments.)
H&D can today reveal a few details of Weidenfeld’s career as a Zionist and later Israeli intelligence operative, which make it likely that Mossad was well aware of Albright’s family background for decades – almost certainly as far back as the 1970s, when she worked as congressional liaison for the National Security Council.
Weidenfeld – this close friend of Albright’s father – was closely monitored by Britain’s security service MI5, who knew of his Zionist intelligence work and were concerned that he might be engaged in subversive activities in London on behalf of the nascent Israeli state.
Although his file has not yet been published in British archives and remains entirely secret, we can reveal today that Weidenfeld had a personal file at MI5 numbered PF 604363.
On 27th October 1949 MI5 recorded a conversation via its regular monitoring of a line at the Israeli Legation (later Embassy) in London. Weidenfeld was speaking with Reggie Kidron, a senior diplomat who was responsible for Mossad’s intelligence work in London.
During the conversation Kidron thanked Weidenfeld for certain “contacts”, referring to a recent lunch Weidenfeld had with the senior government minister Herbert Morrison, who was later to succeed Ernest Bevin as British Foreign Secretary.
Whereas Bevin had been staunchly anti-Zionist, Morrison was far more friendly to the new state of Israel. His daughter married the advertising manager of the Jewish Chronicle (London’s main Jewish newspaper) and his grandson Peter Mandelson (now Lord Mandelson) became one of the most influential, pro-Israeli politicians in Britain during the Labour governments of the 1990s and 2000s.
Weidenfeld went on to work for Israel’s first President Chaim Weizmann as “foreign affairs adviser”, before returning to London where his publishing empire served as a convenient means to pass Israeli funds to favoured politicians, in the guise of cash ‘advances’ for books that were never going to generated the sums paid.
Recipients of this largesse included Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his political secretary Marcia Williams.
As we have recently reported on this site, Wilson and Williams had close relationships with several influential Jewish businessmen who were of concern to MI5, either because of their links to Zionist intelligence, or to Soviet bloc intelligence, or their general criminality.
Several of these characters received either knighthoods or peerages from Wilson, notably in his final honours list in 1976, known as the “lavender list” because it was drafted on the personal notepaper of Marcia Williams. The Mossad operative George Weidenfeld – having earlier been knighted by Wilson in 1969 – became Lord Weidenfeld on this 1976 list.
Last week H&D‘s Peter Rushton filed a Freedom of Information request for still-secret official files about this honours list, and the cabal of businessmen and suspected spies surrounding Harold Wilson.
Weidenfeld’s Mossad contact Kidron appeared in a ‘Top Secret’ British intelligence document drawn up in December 1949, listing twenty-five individuals who had wartime access to British secrets but who were now known to be serving the Israeli government. Kidron had been Jewish Agency liaison with the South African armed forces during the Second World War, and was feared to have had access to British military secrets, in addition to his dangerous intelligence work among postwar British politicians via Weidenfeld.
Further aspects of our dossier on the fluctuating relationship between British and Zionist intelligence services, during and after the Second World War, will be published soon.
One strange coincidence which might disturb some on the ‘anti-Zionist’ left, is that the sister of this top Mossad officer Reggie Kidron became one of Britain’s leading Trotskyist activists.
This was Chanie Rosenberg, who died last year aged 99. She was married to the leading Trotskyist in Britain – Tony Cliff (born Ygael Gluckstein), founder of what is today the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
Even in old age, Rosenberg was an active militant ‘anti-fascist’, travelling to Burnley in 2002 to oppose British National Party election campaigning.
We wonder whether she ever told her comrades about her close family ties to Mossad?
Senior judges and eminent historians called for scrapping of ‘historical memory laws’ that seek to jail 93-year-old
93-year-old educator and publisher Ursula Haverbeck was in court again in Berlin today for a further appeal hearing related to a 12-month prison sentence for two ‘offences’ of ‘Holocaust denial’.
We reported aspects of this case on Friday, and will continue to give further details as it develops. The latest update comes in this video from Berlin, recorded by Ursula’s friend Nikolai Nerling and ending with a tribute to our great comrade Dr Rigolf Hennig, which H&D has now republished with English subtitles. (You can expand the video to full size so as to read the subtitles.)
One extraordinary aspect of the story is that more than a decade ago two of Germany’s most senior judges, as well as a panel of eminent historians (mainly Marxists or liberal-leftists) called for the scrapping of the ‘Holocaust denial’ laws that have since been used to jail many Germans including Ursula Haverbeck and Horst Mahler.
In 2008 the recently retired Constitutional Court (i.e. Supreme Court) judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem told a conference in Berlin: “Were I a legislator, I would not criminalise Holocaust denial.”
A few weeks earlier his fellow Constitutional Court Judge Winfried Hassemer told one of Germany’s leading newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung that he was “not a supporter of Holocaust denial being punishable. Of course, this is a special German problem, which is due to our unfortunate history. But it would be fine with me if we didn’t have this special problem any more.”
In principle, Judge Hassemer said he was “not a supporter of such laws that make wrong opinions a punishable offence”.
And in October 2008 a group of eminent European historians meeting in France issued what became known as the Appel de Blois, similarly opposing laws that sought to regulate and criminalise historical memory.
The test of the appeal, whose signatories included two of the world’s most famous Jewish historians Eric Hobsbawm and Carlo Ginzburg, read:
“Concerned about the retrospective moralization of history and intellectual censure, we call for the mobilization of European historians and for the wisdom of politicians.
“History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions.
“We call on historians to marshal their forces within each of their countries and to create structures similar to our own, and, for the time being, to individually sign the present appeal, to put a stop to this movement toward laws aimed at controlling history memory.
“We ask government authorities to recognize that, while they are responsible for the maintenance of the collective memory, they must not establish, by law and for the past, an official truth whose legal application can carry serious consequences for the profession of history and for intellectual liberty in general.
“In a democracy, liberty for history is liberty for all.”
Commenting on this appeal, another of its signatories Professor Timothy Garton Ash wrote that such criminalisation of history was “dangerous nonsense”.
Garton Ash continued:
“Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes ‘grossly trivialising’ them?
“…The evidence must be uncovered, checked and sifted, and various possible interpretations tested against it.
“It’s this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom – subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride.”
Unfortunately German prosecutors do not agree. They continue to drag Ursula Haverbeck and others before the courts. In doing so these prosecutors bring shame on the Federal Republic and expose ‘democracy’ to justified contempt.
Spot the criminal – Germany seeks to jail 93-year-old publisher while ‘Holocaust’ museums hang on to billionaire gangster’s donations
Ursula Haverbeck – the extraordinarily courageous German patriot and educator now aged 93 – was back in court earlier today in Berlin, appealing against convictions for ‘Holocaust denial’ and a 12-month prison sentence.
This is a combined appeal against two convictions and sentences for similar ‘crimes’, one in 2017 involving a speech to an audience of 80 people in Berlin; the other in 2020 relating to a YouTube interview conducted by Nikolai Nehrling, known in German nationalist circles as the Volkslehrer.
Mainstream German press reports see nothing wrong in dragging a 93-year-old lady through the courts for the ‘crime’ of doubting and asking questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews by a mysterious unique mass murder weapon – the alleged homicidal gas chambers.
H&D’s assistant editor has met Ursula several times, and she could not be further from the stereotype of an ‘inciter of hate’. She is a polite, very well-educated lady who expresses her views in reasonable terms. And it should be noted that she is one of the last generation of Germans who experienced the horrors of fleeing with her family from the invading barbarians of Stalin’s Red Army in 1945.
Ursula Haverbeck knows what it means to be a genuine refugee.
A very different type of human being is Roman Abramovich, chief financial fixer for the bloodstained tyrant Vladimir Putin.
BBC’s Panorama broadcast a detailed investigation of Abramovich’s criminal career on Monday evening. It is crystal clear that – aided and abetted by both Boris Yeltsin and in particular Putin – Abramovich built his fortune on defrauding the Russian people of literally billions of pounds worth of their national assets.
The beneficiaries of Abramovich’s loot include two of the world’s leading ‘Holocaust’ museums. A few days ago we discussed his links to Yad Vashem in Israel. Now it has become clear that the Imperial War Museum in London has no intention of returning the money given by Abramovich for its vastly expensive new ‘Holocaust’ gallery.
The museum has not disclosed quite how much Abramovich donated, but the total budget for the exhibition is at least £30.5 million. In addition to his personal contribution (or should we say the contribution of the long-suffering Russian people, since Abramovich’s wealth comes from assets stolen from them) Abramovich also staged a fundraising event for the project at Stamford Bridge, the home of Chelsea Football Club, which he owned until his London assets were frozen this week.
At the time of the donation in October 2018, the Imperial War Museum’s director gushed that: “This donation will enable IWM to reinterpret these galleries, which will present critical insights into the Holocaust as well as integrate the devastating events of the Holocaust into the broader history of the Second World War, revealing why this often overlooked dimension is so important.”
Quite shamelessly – given that it is one of the world’s leading military museums so ought to be taking a close interest in the world-changing events currently under way in Ukraine – the IWM says it will be “retaining the funds from Roman Abramovich”, and in the sly tradition of the barrack room lawyer insists: “This is compliant with all government regulations regarding sanctions”.
Meanwhile Yad Vashem has said only that it is “suspending its strategic partnership” with Abramovich and has yet to confirm whether it will hand back any of the stolen money.
While the Kremlin dictator Putin attempts a real genocide, valiantly resisted by Ukrainian patriots, his gangster henchman Abramovich has funded several prominent examples of a one-sided view of history – exploited for the benefit of yesterday’s Soviet butchers, today’s Russian imperialists, and the shameless Zionist pirates of both yesterday and today.
Those like Ursula Haverbeck who face trials across Europe for the ‘crime’ of ‘denying the Holocaust’ doubtless appreciate the irony that official ‘Holocaust history’ is funded by one of the world’s worst fraudsters, whose career of theft and brutality has been protected by a genuine war criminal.
On Monday Ursula Haverbeck’s latest court ordeal continues in Berlin. H&D will carry further updates throughout the case, both here and in forthcoming issues of our magazine.
