Carnival carnage in Notting Hill

In this year’s least surprising news, the infamous Notting Hill Carnival again resulted in an orgy of violence, theft, and drug abuse, bringing untold misery to local residents and imposing further burdens on the overstretched and undermanned Metropolitan Police.

For once, the Met’s spokesman didn’t mince his words:
“We are tired of saying the same words every year. We are tired of telling families that their loved ones are seriously injured, or worse. We are tired of seeing crime scenes at Carnival.”

There were eight stabbings during the two-day event, three of which left the victims with life-threatening injuries. 53 police officers were injured.

On Sunday there were 103 arrests, followed by a further 230 arrests on Monday. In addition to the stabbings, there were many other violent crimes, as well as sexual offences, thefts, and drug-related mayhem.

The roots of this event (which has become one of the world’s most famous celebrations of ‘black culture’) go back to 1959, when a Caribbean Carnival was staged at St Pancras Town Hall, in response to the previous year’s Notting Hill race riots.

The first outdoor carnival in Notting Hill itself was held in 1966. Ten years later it began to acquire a particular notoriety for rioting and other violent crime.

To the despair of local residents, the authorities have persistently indulged this carnage. Even Conservative politicians, most famously the former party leader William Hague, have tried to demonstrate their ‘cool’ credentials by attending Carnival – though Hague gave the game away by removing his expensive watch before venturing onto the streets of Notting Hill to sample Caribbean ‘culture’!

It’s now become obvious that for all the rhetoric about crime and immigration, nothing will be done about this disgraceful annual festival of crime until a serious racial nationalist party gets its act together.

In 2024 we have any number of ‘right wing’ journalists on the likes of GB News and Talk TV, acting as a fan club for Nigel Farage and Reform UK. But none of these talking heads are prepared to get to the root of the problem and admit that the United Kingdom used to be a White European country. Multiracialism has failed: not because of the Koran, not because of terrorists, but because people of different races are better off living in their own countries.

Isabel Peralta answers X users’ questions

Two weeks after being banned from Instagram, our European correspondent Isabel Peralta answered questions submitted by Twitter users in a live podcast last night.

We have now produced an English-subtitled video version of this podcast.

Among other issues, Isabel focuses on the need for European unity to combat the present racial crisis. This is a theme that will be addressed further in the November edition of H&D as we continue our discussion of nationalist strategy.

Secret police files reveal truth about ‘far right violence’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes.”

“If deployed into a right-wing group.”

“Yes, I think so.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He replied: “Very much so, yes.”

“What did you think they might do?”

“Beat the shit out of me.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Racist’ riots and fake news

Throughout the White world, attention has turned to the UK in recent days as long-simmering tensions within an increasingly unstable multiracial society exploded into chaos on our streets.

Let’s make one thing clear – to racial nationalists and ‘anti-fascists’ alike, who have fundamentally misread the nature of these riots.

This is not a racial counter-revolution. This is not the beginning of a Reconquista.

Many (perhaps most) of the rioters were simply looking for an excuse to fight the police, destroy symbols of authority, and (in some cases) loot shops.

But all this tumult does reflect a fault line permeating our so-called democracy. Among the generally disorderly and criminal element were ordinary Britons who know that something is radically wrong with our country, even if they haven’t fully appreciated what that is.

Their ancestors turned Lancashire into the workshop of the world, the dynamo of the Industrial Revolution, only to be thrown on the scrapheap. They fought in two world wars, only to see their country invaded and subjugated by aliens. They built the greatest empire the world has ever seen, yet now are regarded as worthless scum in their own country and disregarded by their own rulers.

It’s not surprising that they revolted, but equally it’s not surprising that this revolt lacked any meaningful political direction or ideological core.

In 2016 the revolt took the form of Brexit – but Brexiteer charlatans such as Nigel Farage have never been serious about halting immigration: their free market capitalist ideology is part of the problem, not the solution.

During the same decade in some parts of England the revolt was channelled into the English Defence League (EDL), a hooligan alliance directed by a career criminal and Zionist puppet, ‘Tommy Robinson’.

And this month the revolt has similarly been channelled into counter-productive rioting.

Unlike almost all other nationalist commentators on these events, members of the H&D team are not tweeting from a hotel pool in Cyprus or streaming from the safety of homes many miles from the scene.

We have been on the front line visiting several Lancashire towns, both on Saturday and again on Wednesday evening.

On Saturday in Manchester our team witnessed youths scuffling with police in central Manchester and attacking shops; while in Preston a very multiracial crowd (apparently including many football hooligans) again scuffled with police and had no apparent political motive (see above – and yes, the non-Whites were theoretically the ‘patriots’!). Indeed many – far from being outraged or in mourning at the death of three young girls, butchered last week by a Rwandan – seemed actually to be enjoying the chance to confront police.

Many of the so-called ‘patriotic’ demonstrators were visibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As has become common at events involving ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his ilk, Zionist flags were flown and lager libations were an important part of the sub-nationalist ritual.

Contrary to the delusions of sincere nationalists, both in the UK and worldwide, these riots are not a step forward – in fact they are a serious setback for the credibility of racial nationalism.

But though the left will win this battle – and the newly elected Labour government will relish the opportunity to extend new laws against patriots – they will not win the war.

Multiracial ideology is contrary to nature and contrary to millennia of European civilisation. However long it takes, and whatever it takes, the true European cause will defeat the institutionalised lies of our enemies.

The Southport murders and the eugenics of immigration

For all the usual legal reasons, H&D has to be careful what we publish about last Monday’s horrific murders in Southport (just 20 miles from our office).

Since we cannot write specifically about Axel Rudakubana, the 17-year-old who has been charged with these crimes – and since individual crimes, however horrific, are not in any case a sound basis for political debate – let us instead look at broader issues.

Does it make sense for the UK to admit refugees from Rwanda, a country that was scarred during the 1990s by one of the most bestial civil wars in history?

Rwanda was never a British colony, so (for once) none of its ills can be laid at the door of the British Empire. For several decades it was part of the Kaiser’s German empire, and after Germany’s defeat in the First World War it fell under Belgian control until independence.

But for more than 60 years Rwanda has been independent: its troubles can be blamed on Rwandans themselves, no-one else.

There are very few Muslims in Rwanda: aside from tribal religions, the country is divided between Catholics and various Protestant denominations, with a large minority following Seventh Day Adventism.

Refugees from Rwanda would have to cross at least four other African countries before they reached Europe, so by no stretch of the imagination could the UK be deemed the first ‘safe country’ that they reached.

So why would Rwandans end up in the UK and is it reasonable for them to be granted leave to remain?

Note that many such cases appear to date from the 1990s, long before the recent ‘small boats’ crisis, and even before the justly reviled Tony Blair opened the immigration floodgates still further.

In other words, Rwandan immigration has nothing to do with the Nigel Farage and ‘Tommy Robinson’ agenda. These opportunists hate to talk about racial realities, but there comes a point where this is a duty.

Did it ever make sense for Britain to admit large scale African immigration, and did it ever make sense to call an African ‘English’?

Back in the 1940s, under the Labour government of Clement Attlee which is supposedly venerated by Keir Starmer and his ministers in 2024, it was assumed that Africanisation of our country was unthinkable.

The Fabian Society – a socialist think-tank closely tied to the Labour Party – reported in 1945 on what immigration policy would be best suited to rebuilding war-torn Britain:

“From the population point of view we need to encourage potential parents of healthy stock to settle in the British Isles, and to discourage those whom we already have from leaving.”

The Labour-Fabian approach was clear: the precise opposite of today’s great replacement. And we should note that the authors of this report were far from being ‘nazis’ – they were left-wing socialists. The chairman of the committee producing this report was an Anglo-Jewish academic, Dr William Robson, and his committee included the pioneer feminist Eva Hubback (who was related to the leading Anglo-Jewish families Spielmann, Montagu, and Sebag-Montefiore).

The Fabian report continued:

“Men and women of European stock, between the ages of 20 and 30, are the immigrants best suited to assist population policy. …The utmost care should, of course, be taken to admit only those physically and mentally sound, and free from criminal records, who will introduce a sound stock into the country. The eugenics of immigration cannot be over-stressed.”

A Royal Commission appointed by Attlee reported in 1949, along similar lines to these Fabian views:

“Immigrants on a large scale into a fully established society like ours could only be welcomed without reserve, if the immigrants were of good human stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the local population and becoming merged with it.”

Note the apparent assumption that black immigrants would (in practice) not be appropriate for intermarriage with native Britons.

At what point was this common sense attitude abandoned by the British Labour Party? And were the British people ever consulted?

We shall examine these questions in part two of this article in a few days’ time.

Censorship and the ‘greatest treason’

[This article is also available in Spanish / al español, and in German / auf deutsch.]

“The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.“

When T.S. Eliot wrote these lines in Murder in the Cathedral, he was thinking of the temptations of intellectual vanity and self-aggrandisement that potentially soil the motivation even of a religious martyr.

Eliot’s reflections on Archbishop Thomas Becket are worth thinking about, for anyone aspiring to political leadership – especially in a dissident cause such as racial nationalism – but today those lines came into my mind for other reasons, grounded in the grim state of 21st century European politics rather than 20th century poetry or mediaeval history.

Last week the German magazine Compact was banned by the Federal Republic’s interior minister, who cited alleged incitement of racial hatred (and all the usual ‘anti-woke crimes’) by the journal and its editor Jürgen Elsässer.

Yet, as has been pointed out by our friends at Dritte Weg (which is one of the very few genuine German nationalist organisations and remains untainted by the cowardice and treachery that pervades the ‘patriotic’ scene), this latest ban is more complicated than it seems.

To be clear: Compact and Jürgen Elsässer (unlike Dritte Weg) are not real nationalists or even real patriots. The magazine has built a large readership on the basis of American-style conspiracy theory and shallow posturing on quasi-nationalist themes. Until recently – unlike most of the nationalist scene in Germany – Compact had been unmolested by the authorities, lavishly funded, and widely distributed.

The most striking feature of Compact was/is its slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin. Under the guise of calls for ‘peace’, it has persistently peddled Kremlin propaganda. Of course in every nation there have always been genuine pacifists, whose stance must in some ways be respected even if one disagrees with them. But that isn’t where Elsässer and Compact are coming from. Nor are they rooted in any form of nationalist tradition.

Elsässer began his political life as a dedicated follower of communism and a proponent of the Moscow line, as it was during the 1970s and 1980s: anti-nazi, anti-racist, etc. During the 1990s he was among the founders of what (believe it or not) was proudly termed the ‘anti-German’ movement. This particular leftist faction argued that Germany had an inherent historical tendency towards ‘nazi’-style crimes, and therefore that Germany should never again be allowed to have a viable military or play any serious role in international affairs.

Elsässer’s ‘anti-German’ movement became notorious for turning up at commemorations of the 1945 Dresden terror bombing and chanting: “Bomber Harris, do it again!” For them, Germany couldn’t be punished severely enough, and however weak Germany became, it deserved to be degraded still further.

But – very significantly – this ‘anti-German’ tendency also took the form of opposing German participation in military operations in the former Yugoslavia. In retrospect (whatever else we might think about the Yugoslav civil war of that era) we can see the continuity: the likes of Elsässer consistently took the Kremlin line, whether during the dying decades of the Soviet Union, the corrupt Yeltsin era, or the neo-Stalinist Putin era.

It didn’t matter whether this line was ‘anti-nazi’, pro-Serb, or anti-Ukrainian: if it was the Kremlin line, it was faithfully followed by Elsässer’s gang.

During the 2000s, recognising the damage that had been inflicted on the credibility of the West (even internally) by the Iraq War, Putin’s intelligence service began to capitalise on ill-focused dissidence and conspiracy theorising among an audience of credulous online readers that was replacing traditional categories of ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Between 2009-2011, this Moscow line infiltrated the ‘right wing’ scene in Germany via (for example) two expensively produced magazines. Zuerst! had roots in genuine nationalist movements, but from 2011 it was edited by a Kremlin agent, Manuel Ochsenreiter. With financial backing from his Moscow masters (including the oligarch Konstantin Malofeev), Ochsenreiter travelled widely (especially in the Middle East) and networked with other nationalists – he was well-known for example to H&D‘s assistant editor and to our late comrade Richard Edmonds, and he worked in the European parliamentary office of an AfD politician.

Long suspected of being a Russian agent, Ochsenreiter’s career ended in 2019 when two Polish ‘far right’ activists whom he had commissioned to carry out a terrorist attack in the Ukrainian border city of Uzhhorod, were caught red-handed and confessed.

Though his lawyer issued the usual feeble denials, Ochsenreiter knew the game was up. Facing terrorist charges, he fled to Moscow and sought his masters’ protection. Now an embarrassment to Putin, Ochsenreiter died from a convenient heart attack in a Moscow hospital, aged 45. (The fact that the mainstream media, including the BBC, has occasionally reported the truth about Ochsenreiter and his fellow Russian agents doesn’t make it any less true! Shamefully, the mainstream media has told more truth about Putin than has most of the ‘alternative’ media: a sad symptom of our movement’s sickness.)

Zuerst! continues to peddle Moscow’s lies, but Compact (launched around the same time and with a less umbilical connection to the nationalist scene) became a far more influential Putinist mouthpiece. Until February this year, when certain outlets began refusing to stock it, Compact was widely available at mainstream news kiosks on the streets and railway stations of German towns and cities.

Naturally enough, Elsässer’s magazine latched onto every fashionable theme linked to the broadly defined dissident right, from anti-Islam movements such as PEGIDA to anti-vaccination and anti-lockdown demos, though without promoting anything that could be described as a coherent nationalist ideology (which is unsurprising given Elsässer’s own roots on the communist left).

Yet, as our friends at Dritte Weg have pointed out, the federal republic’s interior ministry does not seem to have relied on the treacherous Putinism of Elsässer and Compact as a basis for their banning.

Instead, the minister Nancy Faeser prattled on about ‘racism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ – all the usual ‘crimes’ against wokeness. She specifically stated that the authorities “would not allow ethnic definitions to be used to define who belongs to Germany and who does not.”

The message is clear – ethno-nationalism itself is to be criminalised, in fact made unconstitutional. (The irony being that Compact is not in any serious sense ethno-nationalist!)

In this respect, the action against Compact is an action against all of us, although the federal republic has a record of attempting such bans but then failing in the courts, and the same might happen this time.

Does this mean we should all be rallying around, despite clear and obvious political differences, and defending Compact against censorship?

No: there are two good reasons why we should oppose censorship, but also distance ourselves from Compact.

Firstly, there is no point making all the sacrifices and taking all the risks involved in nationalist political life if we are prepared to sacrifice our principles and ignore clear ideological dividing lines. Our enemy’s enemy is not necessarily our friend – which is why European racial nationalists didn’t march in support of ‘anti-Zionist’ Al-Qaeda or IS sympathisers when they were carted off to Guantanamo. The same applies to Putinists now, as applied to IS then: they are our enemy, whether or not they are also to any genuine extent our enemy’s enemy.

Secondly, as the case of Manuel Ochsenreiter demonstrates, if we allow our cause to be tainted by blatant treason, we are handing our rulers a stick to beat us with. Perhaps, as the collapse of the multiracial experiment becomes ever more obvious, the state will find some excuse to intern us.

But let’s not make it easy for them by associating our cause with the indefensible. Let’s not allow our cause to be dragged into the Putinist gutter.

European nationalists should stand against censorship; we should stand in support of our comrades’ right to free expression; but we should not endorse the anti-nationalist, anti-European traitors Jürgen Elsässer and Compact magazine.

Zensur und der „größte Verrat“

[Dieser Artikel ist auch im englischen Original und in einer spanischen Übersetzung verfügbar.]

“Die letzte Versuchung ist der größte Verrat, aus falschem Grund zu tun die rechte Tat.”

Als T.S. Eliot diese Zeilen in Mord im Dom schrieb, dachte er an die Versuchungen intellektueller Eitelkeit und Selbstverherrlichung, die selbst die Motivation eines religiösen Märtyrers beschmutzen können.

Eliots Betrachtungen über Erzbischof Thomas Becket sind für jeden, der eine politische Führungsrolle anstrebt – insbesondere in einem oppositionellen Bereich wie dem Rassennationalismus –, eine Überlegung wert. Heute jedoch kamen mir diese Zeilen aus anderen Gründen in den Sinn, die eher im düsteren Zustand der europäischen Politik des 21. Jahrhunderts wurzeln als in der Poesie des 20. Jahrhunderts oder der mittelalterlichen Geschichte.

Letzte Woche wurde das deutsche Magazin Compact vom Bundesinnenminister verboten, der der Zeitschrift und ihrem Herausgeber Jürgen Elsässer angebliche Anstiftung zum Rassenhass (und alle üblichen „Anti-Woke-Verbrechen“) vorwarf.

Aber wie unsere Freunde vom Dritten Weg (eine der ganz wenigen echten deutschen nationalistischen Organisationen, die von der Feigheit und dem Verrat, die die „patriotische“ Szene durchdringen, verschont geblieben sind) bereits betont haben, ist dieses jüngste Verbot komplizierter, als es scheint.

Um es klar zu sagen: Compact und Jürgen Elsässer (anders als der Dritte Weg) sind keine echten Nationalisten oder gar echte Patrioten. Das Magazin hat sich auf der Grundlage amerikanischer Verschwörungstheorien und oberflächlicher Haltung zu quasi-nationalistischen Themen eine große Leserschaft aufgebaut. Bis vor kurzem wurde Compact – anders als der Großteil der nationalistischen Szene in Deutschland – von den Behörden unbehelligt gelassen, großzügig finanziert und weit verbreitet.

Das auffälligste Merkmal von Compact war/ist seine sklavische Hingabe an Wladimir Putin. Unter dem Deckmantel von „Friedens“-Aufrufen hat es ständig Kreml-Propaganda verbreitet. Natürlich hat es in jedem Land immer echte Pazifisten gegeben, deren Haltung bis zu einem gewissen Grad respektiert werden muss, auch wenn man nicht mit ihnen übereinstimmt. Doch Elsässer und Compact verfolgen keinen solchen Ansatz und stehen auch nicht in einer nationalistischen Tradition.

Elsässer begann sein politisches Leben als überzeugter Anhänger des Kommunismus und Befürworter der Moskauer Linie, wie sie in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren war: anti-nazistisch, antirassistisch usw. In den 1990er Jahren gehörte er zu den Gründern dessen, was (ob Sie es glauben oder nicht) stolz als „antideutsche“ Bewegung bezeichnet wurde. Diese spezielle linke Fraktion argumentierte, dass Deutschland eine inhärente historische Tendenz zu Verbrechen im „Nazi“-Stil habe und dass Deutschland deshalb nie wieder ein funktionsfähiges Militär haben oder eine ernsthafte Rolle in internationalen Angelegenheiten spielen dürfe.

Elsässers „antideutsche“ Bewegung wurde berüchtigt, weil sie bei Gedenkfeiern zum Terrorbombenanschlag von Dresden 1945 auftauchte und skandierte: „Bomber Harris, do it again!” („Bomber Harris, mach es nochmal!“). Für sie konnte Deutschland nicht hart genug bestraft werden, und so schwach Deutschland auch wurde, es verdiente eine weitere Erniedrigung.

Aber – und das ist sehr bezeichnend – diese „antideutsche“ Tendenz äußerte sich auch in der Ablehnung der deutschen Beteiligung an Militäroperationen im ehemaligen Jugoslawien. Rückblickend (was auch immer wir sonst über den jugoslawischen Bürgerkrieg dieser Zeit denken mögen) können wir die Kontinuität erkennen: Leute wie Elsässer vertraten konsequent die Linie des Kremls, ob in den letzten Jahrzehnten der Sowjetunion, der korrupten Jelzin-Ära oder der neostalinistischen Putin-Ära.

Es spielte keine Rolle, ob diese Linie „anti-nazistisch“, pro-serbisch oder anti-ukrainisch war: Wenn es die Linie des Kremls war, wurde sie von Elsässers Bande treu befolgt.

In den 2000er Jahren erkannte Putins Geheimdienst, wie sehr der Irakkrieg der Glaubwürdigkeit des Westens (sogar im Inland) geschadet hatte, und begann, aus der unkonzentrierten Dissidenz und den Verschwörungstheorien eines Publikums leichtgläubiger Online-Leser Kapital zu schlagen, das die traditionellen Kategorien „links“ und „rechts“ ersetzte.

Zwischen 2009 und 2011 infiltrierte diese Moskauer Linie die „rechte“ Szene in Deutschland beispielsweise über zwei aufwändig produzierte Zeitschriften. Zuerst! hatte seine Wurzeln in echten nationalistischen Bewegungen, wurde aber ab 2011 von einem Kreml-Agenten, Manuel Ochsenreiter, herausgegeben. Mit finanzieller Unterstützung seiner Moskauer Herren (darunter der Oligarch Konstantin Malofejew) unternahm Ochsenreiter weite Reisen (vor allem in den Nahen Osten) und knüpfte Kontakte zu anderen Nationalisten – er war beispielsweise dem stellvertretenden Herausgeber von H&D und unserem verstorbenen Kameraden Richard Edmonds wohlbekannt und arbeitete im Europaparlamentsbüro eines AfD-Politikers.

Ochsenreiter stand lange unter Verdacht, ein russischer Agent zu sein, und seine Karriere endete 2019, als zwei polnische „rechtsextreme“ Aktivisten, die er beauftragt hatte, einen Terroranschlag in der ukrainischen Grenzstadt Uschhorod zu verüben, auf frischer Tat ertappt wurden und gestanden.

Obwohl sein Anwalt die üblichen schwachen Dementis von sich gab, wusste Ochsenreiter, dass das Spiel vorbei war. Angesichts der Terrorismusvorwürfe floh er nach Moskau und suchte den Schutz seiner Herren. Ochsenreiter, der nun eine Peinlichkeit für Putin darstellte, starb im Alter von 45 Jahren in einem Moskauer Krankenhaus an einem Herzinfarkt. (Die Tatsache, dass die Mainstream-Medien, einschließlich der BBC, gelegentlich die Wahrheit über Ochsenreiter und seine russischen Agentenkollegen berichtet haben, macht sie nicht weniger wahr! Beschämenderweise haben die Mainstream-Medien mehr Wahrheit über Putin erzählt als die meisten „alternativen“ Medien: ein trauriges Symptom der Krankheit unserer Bewegung.)

Zuerst! verbreitet weiterhin Moskaus Lügen, aber Compact (das etwa zur gleichen Zeit auf den Markt kam und weniger eng mit der nationalistischen Szene verbunden war) wurde zu einem weitaus einflussreicheren Sprachrohr Putins. Bis Februar dieses Jahres, als bestimmte Verkaufsstellen begannen, es nicht mehr in ihr Sortiment aufzunehmen, war Compact an den wichtigsten Zeitungskiosken auf den Straßen und Bahnhöfen deutscher Städte weithin erhältlich.

Natürlich griff Elsässers Magazin jedes modische Thema auf, das mit der weit gefassten dissidenten Rechten in Verbindung gebracht wurde, von antiislamischen Bewegungen wie PEGIDA bis hin zu Anti-Impf- und Anti-Lockdown-Demos, allerdings ohne etwas zu fördern, das man als kohärente nationalistische Ideologie bezeichnen könnte (was angesichts von Elsässers eigenen Wurzeln in der kommunistischen Linken nicht überraschend ist).

Doch wie unsere Freunde von Dritte Weg betont haben, scheint sich das Innenministerium der Bundesrepublik nicht auf den verräterischen Putinismus von Elsässer und Compact als Grundlage für ihr Verbot gestützt zu haben.

Stattdessen plapperte Ministerin Nancy Faeser über „Rassismus“ und „Antisemitismus“ – die üblichen „Verbrechen“ gegen die Wokeness. Sie erklärte ausdrücklich, dass die Behörden „nicht zulassen würden, dass ethnische Definitionen verwendet werden, um zu definieren, wer zu Deutschland gehört und wer nicht.“

Die Botschaft ist klar – Ethnonationalismus selbst soll kriminalisiert und sogar verfassungswidrig gemacht werden. (Die Ironie dabei ist, dass Compact in keiner ernsthaften Weise ethnonationalistisch ist!)

Insofern ist die Klage gegen Compact eine Klage gegen uns alle, auch wenn die Bundesrepublik in der Vergangenheit schon öfter solche Verbote versucht hat, dann aber vor Gericht gescheitert ist, und das könnte auch diesmal wieder passieren.

Bedeutet das, dass wir uns alle trotz klarer und offensichtlicher politischer Differenzen zusammenschließen und Compact gegen Zensur verteidigen sollten?

Nein: Es gibt zwei gute Gründe, warum wir uns gegen Zensur stellen, uns aber auch von Compact distanzieren sollten.

Erstens: Es hat keinen Sinn, alle Opfer zu bringen und alle Risiken eines nationalistischen politischen Lebens auf uns zu nehmen, wenn wir bereit sind, unsere Prinzipien zu opfern und klare ideologische Trennlinien zu ignorieren. Der Feind unseres Feindes ist nicht unbedingt unser Freund – deshalb marschierten europäische Rassennationalisten nicht zur Unterstützung der „antizionistischen“ Al-Qaida- oder IS-Sympathisanten, als diese nach Guantanamo verschleppt wurden. Dasselbe gilt heute für die Putinisten, was damals für den IS galt: Sie sind unser Feind, ob sie nun auch in einem echten Ausmaß der Feind unseres Feindes sind oder nicht.

Zweitens, wie der Fall Manuel Ochsenreiter zeigt, geben wir unseren Herrschern einen Stock, mit dem sie uns schlagen können, wenn wir zulassen, dass unsere Sache durch offensichtlichen Verrat beschmutzt wird. Vielleicht wird der Staat, wenn der Zusammenbruch des multirassischen Experiments immer offensichtlicher wird, irgendeinen Vorwand finden, uns einzusperren.

Aber machen wir es ihnen nicht leicht, indem wir unsere Sache mit dem Unhaltbaren in Verbindung bringen. Lassen wir nicht zu, dass unsere Sache in die Putinsche Gosse gezogen wird.

Europäische Nationalisten sollten sich gegen Zensur stellen; wir sollten das Recht unserer Kameraden auf freie Meinungsäußerung unterstützen; aber wir sollten die antinationalistischen, antieuropäischen Verräter Jürgen Elsässer und das Compact-Magazin nicht unterstützen.

La censura y la ‘mayor traición’

[Este artículo también está disponible en inglés y alemán.]

“La última tentación es la mayor traición: Hacer la acción correcta por la razón equivocada.”

Cuando T.S. Eliot escribió estas líneas en Asesinato en la catedral, pensaba en las tentaciones de la vanidad intelectual y el autoengrandecimiento que potencialmente manchan la motivación incluso de un mártir religioso.

Vale la pena que cualquiera que aspire a un liderazgo político piense en las reflexiones de Eliot sobre el arzobispo Thomas Becket, especialmente en una causa disidente como el nacionalismo racial, pero hoy esas líneas me vinieron a la mente por otras razones, basadas en el sombrío estado de la política europea del siglo XXI, en lugar de poesía del siglo XX o historia medieval.

La semana pasada, la revista alemana Compact fue prohibida por el Ministro del Interior de la República Federal, quien citó una supuesta incitación al odio racial (y todos los habituales “crímenes contra el despertar”) por parte de la revista y su editor Jürgen Elsässer.

Sin embargo, como han señalado nuestros amigos de Dritte Weg (que es una de las pocas organizaciones nacionalistas alemanas genuinas y no está contaminada por la cobardía y la traición que impregna la escena “patriótica”), esta última prohibición es más complicada de lo que parece.

Para ser claros: Compact y Jürgen Elsässer (a diferencia de Dritte Weg) no son verdaderos nacionalistas ni siquiera verdaderos patriotas. La revista ha conseguido un gran número de lectores sobre la base de teorías de conspiración al estilo estadounidense y posturas superficiales sobre temas cuasi nacionalistas. Hasta hace poco –a diferencia de la mayor parte de la escena nacionalista en Alemania– Compact no había sido molestado por las autoridades, estaba generosamente financiado y se había distribuido ampliamente.

La característica más llamativa del Compact fue/es su servil devoción a Vladimir Putin. Bajo la apariencia de llamados a la “paz”, ha difundido persistentemente propaganda del Kremlin. Por supuesto, en todas las naciones siempre ha habido pacifistas genuinos, cuya postura debe, en cierto modo, respetarse incluso si uno no está de acuerdo con ellos. Pero Elsässer y Compact no vienen de ahí. Tampoco tienen sus raíces en ninguna forma de tradición nacionalista.

Elsässer comenzó su vida política como un devoto seguidor del comunismo y defensor de la línea de Moscú, como lo fue durante los años 1970 y 1980: antinazi, antirracista, etc. Durante los años 1990 estuvo entre los fundadores de lo que (¡increíblemente!) fue denominado con orgullo el movimiento “antialemán”. Esta facción izquierdista en particular argumentó que Alemania tenía una tendencia histórica inherente hacia crímenes de estilo “nazi” y, por lo tanto, que nunca más se le debería permitir a Alemania tener un ejército viable o desempeñar un papel serio en los asuntos internacionales.

El movimiento “antialemán” de Elsässer se hizo famoso por aparecer en las conmemoraciones del atentado terrorista de Dresde de 1945 y corear: “¡Bombardero Harris, hazlo de nuevo!” Para ellos, Alemania no podía ser castigada con la suficiente severidad y, por muy débil que se volviera, merecía ser degradada aún más.

Pero –muy significativamente– esta tendencia “antialemana” también tomó la forma de oponerse a la participación alemana en operaciones militares en la ex Yugoslavia. En retrospectiva (cualquier otra cosa que podamos pensar sobre la guerra civil yugoslava de esa época) podemos ver la continuidad: personas como Elsässer adoptaron consistentemente la línea del Kremlin, ya sea durante las últimas décadas de la Unión Soviética, la era corrupta de Yeltsin o la Era neoestalinista de Putin.

No importaba si esta línea era “antinazi”, proserbia o antiucraniana: si era la línea del Kremlin, era fielmente seguida por la banda de Elsässer.

Durante la década de 2000, reconociendo el daño que la guerra de Irak había causado a la credibilidad de Occidente (incluso internamente), el servicio de inteligencia de Putin comenzó a capitalizar la disidencia mal enfocada y las teorías de conspiración entre una audiencia de lectores crédulos en línea que estaba reemplazando categorías tradicionales de “izquierda” y “derecha”.

Entre 2009 y 2011, esta línea de Moscú se infiltró en la escena de la “derecha” en Alemania a través (por ejemplo) de dos revistas de costosa producción. ¡Zuerst! tenía raíces en genuinos movimientos nacionalistas, pero desde 2011 fue editado por un agente del Kremlin, Manuel Ochsenreiter. Con el respaldo financiero de sus maestros de Moscú (incluido el oligarca Konstantin Malofeev), Ochsenreiter viajó mucho (especialmente en el Medio Oriente) y estableció contactos con otros nacionalistas; era muy conocido, por ejemplo, por el editor asistente de H&D y por nuestro difunto camarada Richard Edmonds, y trabajó en la oficina parlamentaria europea de un político de AfD.

Sospechoso durante mucho tiempo de ser un agente ruso, la carrera de Ochsenreiter terminó en 2019 cuando dos activistas polacos de “extrema derecha” a quienes había encargado llevar a cabo un ataque terrorista en la ciudad fronteriza ucraniana de Uzhhorod fueron capturados con las manos en la masa y confesaron.

Aunque su abogado emitió las débiles negativas habituales, Ochsenreiter sabía que el juego había terminado. Ante acusaciones de terrorismo, huyó a Moscú y buscó la protección de sus amos. Ahora una vergüenza para Putin, Ochsenreiter murió de un conveniente ataque cardíaco en un hospital de Moscú, a la edad de 45 años. (El hecho de que los principales medios de comunicación, incluida la BBC, hayan informado ocasionalmente la verdad sobre Ochsenreiter y sus compañeros agentes rusos no significa que sea es menos cierto. Vergonzosamente, los principales medios de comunicación han dicho más verdades sobre Putin que la mayoría de los medios “alternativos”: un triste síntoma de la enfermedad de nuestro movimiento).

¡Zuerst! continúa vendiendo las mentiras de Moscú, pero Compact (lanzado casi al mismo tiempo y con una conexión menos umbilical con la escena nacionalista) se convirtió en un portavoz putinista mucho más influyente. Hasta febrero de este año, cuando algunos medios comenzaron a negarse a venderlo, Compact estaba ampliamente disponible en los principales quioscos de noticias en las calles y estaciones de ferrocarril de pueblos y ciudades alemanas.

Naturalmente, la revista de Elsässer se aferró a todos los temas de moda relacionados con la derecha disidente ampliamente definida, desde movimientos antiislámicos como PEGIDA hasta manifestaciones antivacunas y anticonfinamientos, aunque sin promover nada que pudiera describirse como una ideología nacionalista coherente ( lo cual no es sorprendente dadas las raíces del propio Elsässer en la izquierda comunista).

Sin embargo, como han señalado nuestros amigos de Dritte Weg, el Ministerio del Interior de la república federal no parece haber confiado en el traicionero putinismo de Elsässer y Compact como base para su prohibición.

En cambio, la ministra Nancy Faeser parloteó sobre el “racismo” y el “antisemitismo”, todos los “crímenes” habituales contra el despertar. Declaró específicamente que las autoridades “no permitirían que se utilizaran definiciones étnicas para definir quién pertenece a Alemania y quién no”.

El mensaje es claro: el etnonacionalismo en sí debe ser criminalizado y, de hecho, declarado inconstitucional. (¡La ironía es que Compact no es etnonacionalista en ningún sentido serio!)

En este sentido, la acción contra Compact es una acción contra todos nosotros, aunque la república federal tiene un historial de intentar tales prohibiciones pero luego fracasar en los tribunales, y lo mismo podría suceder esta vez.

¿Significa esto que todos deberíamos unirnos, a pesar de las diferencias políticas claras y obvias, y defender Compact contra la censura?

No: hay dos buenas razones por las que deberíamos oponernos a la censura, pero también distanciarnos del Compact.

En primer lugar, no tiene sentido hacer todos los sacrificios y correr todos los riesgos que implica la vida política nacionalista si estamos dispuestos a sacrificar nuestros principios e ignorar líneas divisorias ideológicas claras. El enemigo de nuestro enemigo no es necesariamente nuestro amigo, razón por la cual los nacionalistas raciales europeos no marcharon en apoyo de los simpatizantes “antisionistas” de Al Qaeda o del EI cuando fueron llevados a Guantánamo. Lo mismo se aplica a los putinistas ahora, como se aplicaba entonces al EI: son nuestro enemigo, sean o no, en cierta medida, enemigos genuinos de nuestro enemigo.

En segundo lugar, como lo demuestra el caso de Manuel Ochsenreiter, si permitimos que nuestra causa se vea manchada por una traición flagrante, le estamos dando a nuestros gobernantes un palo con el que golpearnos. Quizás, a medida que el colapso del experimento multirracial se haga cada vez más evidente, el Estado encontrará alguna excusa para internarnos.

Pero no se lo pongamos fácil asociando nuestra causa a lo indefendible. No permitamos que nuestra causa sea arrastrada a la cloaca putinista.

Los nacionalistas europeos deberían oponerse a la censura; debemos apoyar el derecho de nuestros camaradas a la libre expresión; pero no debemos respaldar a los traidores antinacionalistas y antieuropeos Jürgen Elsässer y la revista Compact.

French authorities ban nationalist youth group GUD

Groupe Union Défense, a long-established nationalist organisation founded by students in 1968 and revived by a new generation in 2022, was banned yesterday by the French government, at the instigation of Gérald Darmanin, interior minister (French equivalent of the UK Home Secretary).

GUD is perhaps best known in recent years for its very well organised annual event in memory of the nationalist activist Sébastien Deyzieu, who was killed during a confrontation with police in 1994. It is one of several European nationalist groups who have been prominent in resisting the tide of Putinist propaganda and supporting Ukraine’s valiant resistance.

English readers will remember Darmanin for his disgraceful behaviour in 2022, when he was responsible for allowing gangs of non-European thieves to disrupt the Champions League final at the Stade de France. An inquiry by the French Senate condemned Darmanin in the strongest terms:
“It is unfair to have sought to blame supporters of the Liverpool team for the disturbances, as the interior minister has done, to deflect attention from the state’s inability to properly manage the crowd and suppress the action of several hundred violent and organised delinquents.”

Nominally from a conservative background, Darmanin has sold what is left of his soul to President Emmanuel Macron and his ‘centrist’ government led by the half-Jewish, homosexual Prime Minister Gabriel Attal.

After the banning order, GUD Paris issued the following statement:

The dissolution of GUD Paris was pronounced this morning in the Council of Ministers by Gérald Darmanin. Prisoner of an obsession bordering on neurosis, the Minister of the Interior continues his crazy policy of repressing the nationalist scene.

We shall not dwell on the fallacious reasons attempting to legitimise the dissolution of our movement: somehow, the servile officials of the Ministry of the Interior seek to justify the unjustifiable. However, they are fooling no one, and only highlight their instinctive recourse to lies and their formidable amateurism in matters of ‘intelligence’.

For 56 years, the Groupe Union Défense has been in every battle, at the forefront of political and student struggles, always on the front line. We, nationalist activists, having taken up the name of GUD Paris in 2022, are proud to have followed in the footsteps of the ‘black rats’ who preceded us, and hope to have proven ourselves worthy of them. [H&D note: The black rat is GUD’s cartoon symbol, invented by the movement’s co-founder Jack Marchal, whom our assistant editor met in Paris more than 25 years ago.]

Following the example of our elders and aware of what we must pass on to future militant generations, we will continue the nationalist and revolutionary struggle. Until we win, or until the sun dies.

Julian Assange is no hero

His strangely assorted fan club of ageing hippies, libertarians, and Putinists have greeted Julian Assange as a hero today, after the Wikileaks founder was released from prison following a plea bargain with US authorities.

Assange admitted breaching the Espionage Act, but having already spent five years in an English prison awaiting extradition, was allowed to fly home to Australia.

Due to Hillary Clinton being among the most famous victims of data published by Wikileaks, some H&D readers will be tempted to see Assange as “our enemy’s enemy” – but he is no friend of British nationalists, and he is no hero. Nor is he any sort of champion of “free speech”. There are many people in Europe (including in the UK) who, unlike Assange, are imprisoned solely because of expressing their opinions, but neither Assange nor his fan club ever lifted a finger to defend the likes of Sam Melia, Vincent Reynouard, or Ursula Haverbeck.

We should never forget that Assange eagerly published the home addresses of British National Party members, thus putting their families at risk from physical attack or intimidation from “anti-fascists”.

No doubt this (like his other “leaks”) had the blessing of Assange’s allies in the Russian intelligence service.

Wikileaks acted for years as the de facto partner of Putin’s espionage network. It was entirely fitting that Assange faced conviction and imprisonment under the Espionage Act.

At no time did Assange act as a bona fide investigative journalist. His method was simply to obtain vast quantities of data (sometimes with the help of Russian intelligence) and then publish it, without any assessment of its value, and without any consideration of those whose lives he turned upside down.

Unfortunately the “dissident right” in the UK and US contains many who would fit Lenin’s appraisal as “useful idiots” – useful that is for “anti-fascists” and for the Kremlin. They are certainly no use to nationalism.

The rational nationalist response to Julian Assange would be to say: good riddance to bad rubbish. Let us hope that he never sets foot in the UK again, and that we hear no more of this cynical, irresponsible opportunist.

Next Page »