Illegal immigrant ‘army’ arriving in UK every year

A new report reveals that the illegal immigrant population of the UK is rising by 70,000 each year – equivalent to the size of the British Army – and contributing to a steadily increasing total which has now reached more than a million.

More than 105,000 illegal immigrants turn up each year, with only about 35,000 leaving the country each year as our grossly overstretched border forces struggle to cope. This means a net annual increase of around 70,000.

Police forces have been heavily brainwashed by political correctness, and simultaneously suffer from inadequate training in how to enforce immigration law. Moreover the National Crime Agency reported in May this year that “corrupt public and private sector workers” were helping gangs to facilitate illegal immigration. Small seaports around our coastline are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by immigration racketeers.

Think tank Migration Watch urgently recommends that “funding for immigration enforcement should be boosted by around £100 million. There should also be a major boost in the amount of support and training provided to HO staff.” Migration Watch also warns that “attempts to ‘weaponise’ the Windrush issue in order to destroy sensible border controls should be firmly rejected”.

 

 

 

 

Big gains for Swedish anti-immigration party

Sweden Democrats’ leader Jimmie Åkesson casting his vote in today’s general election

As counting ends after today’s general election in Sweden, the anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats have made significant gains, polling 17.6% of the vote and probably holding the balance of power. It will be impossible for the centre-right ‘Moderates’ to form a government without the support of the Sweden Democrats, while the ruling Social Democrats have slipped to their worst result since 1908 and can now only govern with the support of the extreme left.

In reality the Sweden Democrats (led by a former Moderates activist Jimmie Åkesson) are today ideologically similar to the right-wing of our Conservative Party, though when it was founded in the late 1980s the origins of the party were among hardline racial nationalists, including former members of the Waffen-SS.

The biggest reason for the party’s recent success has been the shocking ethnic transformation of Sweden, which within living memory was an almost entirely White country. Since 2015 the left-wing government has allowed the entry of 163,000 immigrants – and remember that Sweden has less than one-sixth the population of the UK. Sweden has for the last few years had the highest per capita immigration rate of any European country.

It will be very interesting to see whether the Sweden Democrats are allowed any role in government, in what was arguably the most consistently left-wing 20th century democracy. And if they are excluded from government, will the anti-immigration rage of the Swedish people be further inflamed?

 

‘Antisemitism’ in wartime Britain: article suppressed by The Times

Cyril Radcliffe (later Lord Radcliffe), Director-General of Britain’s wartime Ministry of Information

In the early hours of this morning The Times published an online article under the headline ‘Antisemitism in Britain’, revealing the attitudes held by ordinary Britons towards Jews during the Second World War. This article quoted extensively from an official British document written in May 1943 by the Director-General of the British Government’s Ministry of Information, responsible both for some wartime propaganda and for monitoring the opinions of British civilians.

Within hours The Times suppressed their own article and the link now produces a one-line message: “This article has been removed”.

H&D does not know why The Times decided their readers should not be informed on this topic – but since we ourselves have obtained a copy of the once-secret wartime document, we now publish its contents. Even if The Times is afraid of the truth, we are not.

On 27th May 1943 Cyril Radcliffe KC (Director-General of the Ministry of Information) wrote to his Minister, Brendan Bracken. Radcliffe had spent the previous morning with his Regional Officers from every part of the UK discussing “the question of anti-Semitism”. He believed that they had given him a comprehensive picture of the scale of anti-Jewish feeling among the British public and that no other organisation would have been capable of giving “a better impressionistic view of the position than they were able to provide”.

Radcliffe’s letter to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken in May 1943 about “anti-Semitism” among British civilians during the Second World War

Only Northern Ireland and North East England seemed to show little anti-Semitism, according to Radcliffe: everywhere else in the UK there was “general agreement on the fact that from the beginning of the war there had been a considerable increase in anti-Semitic feeling”. This did not seem to have been incited by anti-Jewish organisations. According to the Ministry’s Regional Officers: “They seemed to regard it as quite beyond argument that the increase of anti-Semitic feeling was caused by serious errors of conduct on the part of Jews.”

This view of Jews had developed not only in cities with a long-established Jewish presence, such as Manchester and Leeds, but also in “areas which had known the Jews mainly as wartime evacuees from the cities”.

Radcliffe continued: “The main heads of complaint against them were undoubtedly an inordinate attention to the possibilities of the ‘black market’ and a lack of pleasant standards of conduct as evacuees. The chief enemy of the Jew appears to be in most areas the small trader who suffers peculiarly from the operations of Jews, whether they are in fact ‘black market’ operations or not. There was a general belief that Jews somehow or other get supplies and advantages which are not available to other people.”

One section of the letter is still censored, dealing with the proportion of Jews involved in black market criminal offences brought before the London courts.

Minister of Information Brendan Bracken (seen above right with his mentor Winston Churchill) was the recipient of a newly-revealed letter discussing propaganda strategies for dealing with ordinary Britons’ negative perceptions of Jews.

Radcliffe and his officers had discussed how official propaganda could best deal with British civilian “anti-Semitism”.

His advice was that rather than seeking to change people’s minds about Jewish behaviour and characteristics, propaganda should concentrate on hammering home the message that saying bad things about Jews was divisive and “peculiarly the badge of the Nazi”. This is strangely reminiscent of more recent propaganda that seeks to ignore specific facts about Jews or blacks, merely insisting that “the truth is no defence” in cases of “racial hatred”.

In 1943 there was of course not yet any question of criminalising “racist” or “anti-Semitic” opinions. This criminalisation of political incorrectness in Britain did not begin for another twenty years: wartime internment of British dissidents was restricted to active members of banned political groups such as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union. Radcliffe and his officials preferred more subtly to persuade Britons to adopt the view that anti-Semitism was “a thing to be regretted, even if they thought that the Jews were to a large measure responsible”.

H&D would be very interested to learn who at The Times took the decision today to censor these wartime revelations, and why. Can the paper be shamed into reinstating their own story?

 

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

VIDEO: New police raid during latest thought-crime trial in Munich of Canadian-Germans Monika and Alfred Schaefer

Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf writes:

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-born brother Alfred). Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) advised me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika (while she attended the former attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018). This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery. Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser, our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe. The parties provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings in any case if witnessing the process.

I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmayer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker (though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “international affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making daily reports to include this advice, as given by my own attorney, in fact serves to strengthen the dramatic resonance of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this bewildering “Alice in Wonderland” anti-National, non-Sovereign German legalese-land where – ‘first we have the verdict’ then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence. How else but bewildering can one assess the nonsensical norm for WW2 historical sceptics where lawyers risk prosecution themselves if they defend certain clients’ opinions and findings “too well”? During trials conducted in Mannheim Court, I have personally witnessed the lawyers acting for artist and publicist Ernst Zündel, and Planck Institute graduate and chemist Germar Rudolf, finding themselves charged for “acting too well” for their historical revisionist clients. Indeed, some of those German lawyers have been punished with either crippling fines or incarceration for defending their clients “too well”.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz (Scientist of Law); Attorney Wolfram Nahrath (Monika Schaefer’s counsel); Attorney Frank Miksch (Alfred’s counsel); Alfred Schaefer (Defendant); Lady Renouf (press correspondent for The Barnes Review and American Free Press)

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his political awakening via the suspect videos. I am only anxious that the judges may manage to forbid this exposé by him. The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these Processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings as provided to me from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by valiant former-attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay/Schöffe judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schöffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the “curiouser and curiouser” Wonderland world of occupied-German law, the leading Judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a farcical “Muppet Show”. (I concur for, in The Great Muppet Caper movie, I act as role-model for Miss Piggy’s catwalk imposture!)

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the Judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full. The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the playing-card Queen’s in Alice in Wonderland wherein these “contrariwise” trials commence with “Sentence first – then the evidence”….unless one’s lawyer attempts to defend his/her historical revisionist client “too well” and then the lawyer also is prosecuted for “defending the client too well”. The “Holocaust” exceptionalist law presumes not only a bottomline of “obviousness” but also that any attempt by the lawyer to offer his/her client’s evidential exhibits to prove the case will be “criminalised” as a heretic and suffer incarceration. Attorney Nahrath and others are always dancing on the wire.

No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the “Holocaust” on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument”!

Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests, on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented (by Renouf, much loathed by Lipstadt) instead of the omnipotent Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws, there have been numerous attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. These ex-Constitutional Court Judges argued that the “Holocaust” denial law was in contrary yo the Federal Constitution of the Bundesrepublik! Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zündel, Dr. Herbert Schaller, RA Manfred Roeder, RA Jürgen Rieger, Gerd Honsik – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Udo Walendy, Henry Hafenmayer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Günter Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Arnold Höfs, Sven Lobeck and Christian Haeger to name but a few. Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the global tidal wave for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…

Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 8-15 which included two reporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa whom they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

Henry Hafenmayer, Alfred Schaefer, Michèle Renouf at Munich Courthouse moments before the Schaufer sibling’s trial for Volksverhetzung/populace incitement para 130

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 1, AFTERNOON SESSION Monday July 2nd, 2018.

The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias against the Defendant Alfred Schaefer. The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.

The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handing Alfred an arrest warrant which meant he must be taken into police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the new case of para.86 against him.

Monika Schaefer achieved her common-sense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now already the day’s session was half over! Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic is illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his honourable sister. At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his suspect gesture, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed (but not to the judge) that the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”. After all, Alfred’s disdain of Federal Republic law was of the essence to his own defence!

When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge (to whom she had not directed her outrage) about what, perhaps, she meant by inquisitional terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”… as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal “ criminal” events. By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end. Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s perspicacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness passing naturally between these truly loyal siblings.

The trial continues at 12.30 on Tuesday 3rd July.
Michèle Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 2, AFTERNOON SESSION Tuesday July 3rd, 2018.

This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on Day Two of the Schaefer sibling’s trial, we learn that the period of punishment for Alfred (under para 86a) who was taken yesterday into police custody is over for the time being. After today’s session he will be permitted to return home. Alfred now has this further trivial case to face later in the lower court. Alfred, ever-feisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another ludicrous action taken against him for a suspect gesture! He also had to surrender his passports – quite as if he could ever be a ‘flight risk’ as a man completely determined to face down what he considers are his country’s traitors and those swindle-speakers responsible for the “contamination” of its citizens’ capacity for rational, healthy hatred of sociopathic depravity and corruption.

The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. Monika’s veteran attorney Wolfram Nahrath will be presenting his 22-page argument against Para 130 of the law Volksverhetzung/populace incitement in which he will raise the precedent of the two ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem who, in 2006, called for the Repeal of this “ Holocaust”-denial law based on heresy values versus scientific attitude (our Hellenic scientific attitude versus the “Holocaust” anti-rational argument Teaching Guidelines).

Tomorrow we shall learn whether the lead Judge Hofmann will have to step down because of his evident bias against the defendants. The disdain of this Judge for withholding due microphone use so both defendants and the public gallery could hear the proceedings, and the ruling over the norm of a ready glass of water for defendants, are but two of the ‘contrariwise’ obstructive aspects to the due basic rights of all citizenry. These mocking obstructions give further surreality to the conditions under which Germans and foreigners must encounter under the Basic Laws in favour of prosecuting the expression of free opinion among citizens and right to discuss normal historical source criticism without legalese-protected exceptionalism.


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 3, AFTERNOON SESSION Wednesday July 4th, 2018

Not so incidentally, today it has been an ordeal simply locating another venue with both electric outlet for my Mac plus WLAN (since yesterday, one of our legal team sensed I was being observed by a recognised policewoman who might just decide to do the usual and seize my laptop – “so leave now!”). Conditions and situations for me to go on reporting from here are unpredictable. All reminiscent of when I was advised to leave swiftly after participating at a “holocaust” conference at the UN parliament building in Brussels … having informed the assembly that the document Netanyahu likes brandishing before the UN General Assembly is the one Professor Robert Faurisson discovered and published in ca. 1976 which is simply a diagram of a small WW2 clothing disinfection gas chamber. The Schaefer Siblings are “out to break all the thought crime rules since the penalty is the same” they say! Their resonant question here is “Do we live, or are we lived?”

Before court prooceedings got underway, Alfred’s attorney Frank Miksche learned that Judge Hofmann was not to be removed for bias, for he was judged (from above) neutral since all judges are presumed to uphold his attitude when serving this exceptionalistic law. The question is: Is this law in accord with the Constitution? The case must go up to a higher court in hopes of addressing this. Even so, RA Miksche caught Judge Hofmann out as the latter had made a wrong statement. That is, Alfred had not given him permission to accept a shorter version of his Defence presentation to a mere 20 pages from the original 77. Nor was Alfred prepared to permit cherry picking from his videos rather than have the court watch his videos in full. Alfred is to have his videos duly viewed in full in the courtroom tomorrow (Thursday).

During the morning session it was Monika’s turn to tell of their family dynamics. In the afternoon session, Alfred endorsed his sister’s closely shared upbringing and adventurous hang-gliding near-death experiences which served, as such brushes do, to stir one to do or die the way one goes henceforth. The threat of blindness served to embolden him. A fertile civic-minded atmosphere in which the sibling’s sense of fairplay and loyalty thrived is indeed the prompt for their forthright approach conscientiously to live their lives. The Process, as public gallery eyewinesses remarked, had turned to matters emotional. And when the State Prosecutor criticised Monika’s attorney RA Nahrath for introducing an emotional tone, surprisingly the Judge chastened her (whose name we are not told) not Nahrath.

Eyewitnesses in the public gallery say they felt the siblings spread an aura of uplift in the courtroom. Alfred says he wished to convey this by his various telling of personal life-threatening experiences – for instance, how his doctor brothers acted to save his impending blindness in the left eye. From such frequent tests, Alfred believes he has “got guardian angels” which make him fearless in the face of all adversity – a formidable opponent to those who rely for their identity on a group sense of god-awesomeship. Alfred the Siegfried who knows no fear! Just the chap Wagner had in mind when he said in 1871 that German unification already needed fearless emancipation from such god-awful influences. For Alfred and Monika, nature and thoughts are to be explored, not tyrannised. He said his father had received the Order of Canada for his services as a medic to the welfare of the Arctic people in recognising the way they live their lives affects their health. One might say Alfred and his community-spirited sister do the same in their way with the influences prevailing over what he calls “the gate keepers”. The Gate-Keepers is the chief video he plans to screen for the court today. I have just this very moment received a call from Alfred alerting me to rendezvous at yesterday’s venue where I shall find out for you, all that has transpired today!

Alfred Schaefer and Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz see each freed after being taken from the courtroom under police custody!

Yesterday at end of the day’s session, separately Alfred and Sylvia set off to meet me in the Löhenbräukeller beer garden to discover – to each other’s surprised delight – that each has been released! They had last seen one another being taking into police custody directly from the courtroom. Suddenly, to their mutual satisfaction (see pic attached), they find out they had been, unexpectedly, freed. Having committed no actual harm (i.e. no crime which is an act not a thought!) whatever, why would they be treated as criminals at all? We all here hope for this outcome today for civic-conscientious, harmlessly intelligent, good-natured Monika – release from Munich’s high security prison after six months’ abuse for a benign, videoed apology: “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust”.

As it happened, Sylvia and Monika had travelled in the same police transfer van to the prison though they had little chance to speak owing to the noise of the others surrounding them. However, Sylvia found, during the hour when inmates can make their walk that fellow prisoners told her “how much they all love Monika”!

At the close today’s court session, I have arranged to record an important interview with Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz. I will be asking her to explain in a nutshell, why the Federal Republic itself is illegitimate. Ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem are quoted in my 2006 “Ernst Zündel Unbowed” Telling Film that the “Holocaust” denial law is even contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic! This is surely the cornerstone of Alfred’s case and the world needs this chance to grasp it …before it can fall…. for he and Monika are intend on emboldening that day.

This week’s 4 days’ trial sessions will pause and return for the concluding dates of 12, 13, and 16 of July. Beforehand I shall be making available the feisty interview with Alfred in his garden; and the interview I am about to make with Sylvia the Scientist of Law on that key to Germany’s sovereignty, that graspable cornerstone.

“No surrender”!
Michèle Renouf

——————————————————-

Friday afternoon update, July 6th

Greetings all: today at 2pm at the home of Alfred Schaefer he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters re his videos he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom …and then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my Laptop …and so I went to wash my hands.

I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was as if one were suddenly in a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action! At first I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood 2 armed officers awaiting me.

I handed over my passport; they said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw 5 of them handcuff my host.

Taking with him the little packed cheese lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband, Alfred was hauled away for reasons the police declined to explain to me. Possibly it was about something he had perhaps said when yesterday he had duly turned up at the police station, as he has to do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now. His wife advised that I and HH should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure.

Vot a business. Cat and mouse – but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each retrieved the cheese!

 

The Inquisition of Alfred and Monika Schaefer – Part 1 from NS VIKING on Vimeo.

New organisation for prisoners’ aid: The Link

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

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

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

left to right: Joe Pearce (twice imprisoned for thought crimes during the 1980s) with then-comrades Richard Lawson, Nick Griffin and Steve Brady

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Jez Turner of London Forum, recently jailed under the notorious race laws

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

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

Mrs Lake writes:

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

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

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

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

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

A FURTHER NOTICE WILL FOLLOW, NEARER THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

UPDATE: Alison Chabloz given suspended sentence for “grossly offensive” YouTube videos

Alison Chabloz

Folk singer and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted this morning at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on three charges relating to “grossly offensive” material on YouTube.

Judge John Zani found Ms Chabloz guilty of what he termed “serious” offences under the Communications Act 2003: he will pass sentence on June 14th after receiving probation reports. The maximum potential sentence is six months imprisonment on each charge.

Click here to read a more detailed report, analysing Judge Zani’s ruling and his dangerous failure to respond to the important issues raised in defence evidence from H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

14th June update: Ms Chabloz has been given a 20-week suspended prison sentence, combined with 180 hours community service and a 20-day “rehabilitation programme”. She has also been banned from posting to social media. The Campaign Against Antisemitism which brought the original private prosecution said in their statement following the sentencing hearing this morning:

“The case effectively delivers a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

In his personal statement, Gideon Falter of CAA repeated his earlier assertion that the verdict amounts to the outlawing of revisionism:
“This sentence sends a strong message that in Britain, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

As explained in our detailed report, it is by no means clear whether Judge Zani’s verdict does criminalise ‘Holocaust denial’ per se, or only particular forms of such denial which are deemed to be ‘grossly offensive’.

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

Jewish boxer confronts free speech defender outside Chabloz trial

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

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

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

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

Elie Wiesel (left) pro-Israel propagandist and High Priest of Holocaustianity, with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

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

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

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

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

Columnist Christopher Hitchens dismissed Elie Wiesel in grossly offensive terms: Judge Zani refused to explain when and how such attacks become criminalised

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

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

Holocaust fantasist Irene Zisblatt: the latest court judgment implies we must treat her lies with respect.

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

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

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

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

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

Gideon Falter (third from right) with colleagues from CAA and other Jewish organisations including Shomrim, meeting the Police & Crime Commissioner of Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa

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

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

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

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

CAA Patron Sir Eric Pickles, seen here with Prime Minister Theresa May, called within hours of the Chabloz judgment for a new law criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this space…

The sick state of British ‘justice’

Jewish demonstrators at the July 4th 2015 event which eventually led to criminal charges – not against this mob – but against British Army veteran Jez Turner

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

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

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

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

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

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

East End villain Jack Spot, backer of the notorious ’43 Group’ celebrated on the ‘anti-fascist’ banner above.

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

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

Yet these terrorist fan clubs went unmolested by the police.

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

Judge David Tomlinson

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

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

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

Betty Knout (alias Lazarus), the Zionist terrorist who planted a bomb on Whitehall just yards from the site of the demonstration

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

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

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

Yakov Sverdlov, Jewish Bolshevik murderer of the Russian Royal Family

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

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

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

Viktor Abakumov, the Stalinist thug bizarrely namedropped by Judge Tomlinson

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

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

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

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

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter