H&D author tests Twitter’s new ‘freedom of expression’ policy

The next issue of H&D, which will be printed early next week, features the first English-translated article by Isabel Peralta – brightest star of a new generation of European nationalists. Isabel has previously been banned from Twitter, but in a test of the new ‘freedom of expression’ policy outlined after the takeover by Elon Musk, she yesterday launched a new account at https://twitter.com/isabel_mperalta

For those new to Isabel’s work, above is a new English-subtitled version of the introductory video on her YouTube channel. (I have edited out the now-defunct Instagram and Twitter links and inserted the new Twitter account.)

Also now available for the first time with English subtitles is Isabel’s discussion of proposals for a ‘historical memory law’ in Spain. See video below.

She discusses the Spanish state’s threat to exhume José Antonio Prime de Rivera – founder of the Falange, murdered by communists in November 1936 – from his tomb at the Valle de los Caidos (‘Valley of the Fallen’) outside Madrid, and explains the history of José Antonio and the Falange.

The grotesque politically motivated ‘democratic memory’ law that proposes to criminalise alternative views of Spanish history remains on the Spanish left-wing government’s agenda, although temporarily they have had to withdraw the threat to desecrate José Antonio’s grave.

H&D will continue to report on the battle for historical truth – see our assistant editor’s new Real History blog.

Please note that Isabel Peralta presently has only two official accounts/channels: one on Twitter and one on YouTube. She has no connection with other accounts using her name. If she does open any new accounts, we will update this page accordingly.

Ursula Haverbeck’s latest trial: Lady Michèle Renouf reports from Berlin

Ursula Haverbeck (second left) outside the Berlin court of appeal on 1st April 2022 with (left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

On April 1, 2022 an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allies (‘All lies’) Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense”!

After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry” (as dubbed by the late great Scots-French documents analyst and leading revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson).

Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one forensic off-limits historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the own-goal so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form the law deems to call criminal, e.g. stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm to show how high your dog can jump! (Currently the latter “crime” raised by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in Munich Prison!)

Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery…even as the Antifa hack was invited to take front row pride of place!

Luckily for me, although sad to see, the Public Gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer Siblings trial in Munich (July 2018), fear ‘being seen to take an interest’ in such ‘heresy’ trials. They have to show their identity papers, à la Orwell’s “Big Brother”, for likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow Attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and client exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for State-endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.

When Ursula emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Actually, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked me was “do you know Haverbeck?”. Proudly as an old personal friend, I proclaimed her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land – a national treasure!

Frau Ursula and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the “Collegium Humanum” in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either under Bolshevik Communism or Globalist Capitalism. It was at this time that Frau Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialised wartime phenomena worked and where were the physical remains of a “Holocaust”.

After the trial Wolfram Nahrath, Frau Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine too) gave the AFP, TBR and H&D readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.

MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?

Attorney Nahrath:
No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.

MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populace (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions, the real crime!

Dr. Rigolf Hennig (above centre with Ursula and Michèle) – Ursula’s loyal comrade – was a freedom fighter in the early 1960s for the return from Italy of the South Tyrol for reunification with Austria. In part successful, for today children there are allowed to speak German in schools. A dedicated organizer of Europäische Aktion, Rigolf’s final action before he died last month, was to translate TBR interview by Dr. Edward de Vries with Lady Renouf on her attorney’s victory in Dresden, published in the magazine Volk in Bewegung (People in Movement). Incidentally, this TBR interview was also translated into French by the revisionist Francis Goumain and published by the Swiss revisionist Rene-Louis Berclaz in the Swiss-French magazine Courrier du Continent.

Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.

MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge – so “Woke” anti-culture in her biased mind, tone, and callous words – was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!

Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows” but then refused any reply.

MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes” was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?

Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison” and that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”

MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the documents analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” ie for a second time when dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France!) to Yahweh “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips”!
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that U.N. Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (ie a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among, but in service to Yahweh’s Chosen People). So much for our universal ‘we were never asked’ democracy!

Nahrath: As a defence attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defence. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e. it is obvious. For the defence counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial”.

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence

MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense, makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – an “Alice in Wonderland” accusation. Completely the reverse of a rational courtroom where to do otherwise would be deemed seriously incompetent and open to action by your client for professional negligence!

Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a “better” result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.

MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust-Leugnung“. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly lies when denying something – whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.

Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grande dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Wolfram Nahrath outside the Berlin court

MLR: Yes indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also, I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!

Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.

MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?

Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
Finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected, from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly. Then a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approx. 565,000 (356,000 of them in Auschwitz), and he moved the location of this alleged gassing to outside the central camp. It was after these developments that Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question: where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B”.

The great revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson outside one of his many court appearances

MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.

Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.

MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Planck Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.

Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific – and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.

MLR: I marvelled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause for well over two hours!

Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statement took in already known guidelines from other judgments.
She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime”, but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.

MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual calibre and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it “like a police detective”.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews”.
The little this “Woke”-blinded Judge knows about racial differences and indeed Judaic Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but “as cattle”. Thereby in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well”. This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two Germany ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust-denial” laws to be repealed.

Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone, she had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.

MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “Woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “Woke”, because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms – a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “Woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper – representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!

Nahrath: Years ago when the Americans sent weapons to the East, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WW3. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings not only to the causes of past events and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.

MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!

The aspect of that Day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly … once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.

Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller (above right) with his client Ernst Zündel and Lady Michèle Renouf on the day of Ernst’s release from Mannheim prison

At this moment RA Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the own-goal so-called victor Authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those sixteen years’ old survivors exemplify the four inseparable Classical Virtues, of Measure, Just Objectivity, Forensic attitude, and empathetic Courage.

The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.

It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!

Michèle, Lady Renouf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berlin appeal court confirms 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck – video interview update

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) began her appeal hearing a few weeks ago where she was represented by Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right).

On Friday afternoon an appeal court in Berlin confirmed the conviction and 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old publisher and author Ursula Haverbeck.

Her ‘crimes’ involved expressing her opinions on German history, and asking ‘forbidden’ questions about the alleged murder of six million European Jews and the unique ‘mass murder weapon’ of the homicidal gas chamber.

Ursula Haverbeck (above second left) with supporters at her court hearing in Berlin last Friday: (above left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

In the video below our correspondent Lady Michèle Renouf – who has been a friend of Ursula’s for many years and was in court for the final day of the appeal hearing – interviews Nikolai Nerling, known to German nationalists as the Volkslehrer, whose filmed discussion with Ursula formed the basis of one of the ‘criminal’ charges.

A further report on the case will appear here soon.

Senior judges and eminent historians called for scrapping of ‘historical memory laws’ that seek to jail 93-year-old

Ursula Haverbeck (above, far left) with friends including Dr Rigolf Hennig, who died yesterday, and the Austrian attorney Dr Herbert Schaller, on the day that Ernst Zündel (above centre) was released from Mannheim prison.

93-year-old educator and publisher Ursula Haverbeck was in court again in Berlin today for a further appeal hearing related to a 12-month prison sentence for two ‘offences’ of ‘Holocaust denial’.

We reported aspects of this case on Friday, and will continue to give further details as it develops. The latest update comes in this video from Berlin, recorded by Ursula’s friend Nikolai Nerling and ending with a tribute to our great comrade Dr Rigolf Hennig, which H&D has now republished with English subtitles. (You can expand the video to full size so as to read the subtitles.)

For further video updates on this and other stories please follow our new Instagram account at https://www.instagram.com/heritageanddestiny/

One extraordinary aspect of the story is that more than a decade ago two of Germany’s most senior judges, as well as a panel of eminent historians (mainly Marxists or liberal-leftists) called for the scrapping of the ‘Holocaust denial’ laws that have since been used to jail many Germans including Ursula Haverbeck and Horst Mahler.

Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem

In 2008 the recently retired Constitutional Court (i.e. Supreme Court) judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem told a conference in Berlin: “Were I a legislator, I would not criminalise Holocaust denial.”

A few weeks earlier his fellow Constitutional Court Judge Winfried Hassemer told one of Germany’s leading newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung that he was “not a supporter of Holocaust denial being punishable. Of course, this is a special German problem, which is due to our unfortunate history. But it would be fine with me if we didn’t have this special problem any more.”

In principle, Judge Hassemer said he was “not a supporter of such laws that make wrong opinions a punishable offence”.

Judge Winfried Hassemer

And in October 2008 a group of eminent European historians meeting in France issued what became known as the Appel de Blois, similarly opposing laws that sought to regulate and criminalise historical memory.

The test of the appeal, whose signatories included two of the world’s most famous Jewish historians Eric Hobsbawm and Carlo Ginzburg, read:

“Concerned about the retrospective moralization of history and intellectual censure, we call for the mobilization of European historians and for the wisdom of politicians.
“History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions.
“We call on historians to marshal their forces within each of their countries and to create structures similar to our own, and, for the time being, to individually sign the present appeal, to put a stop to this movement toward laws aimed at controlling history memory.
“We ask government authorities to recognize that, while they are responsible for the maintenance of the collective memory, they must not establish, by law and for the past, an official truth whose legal application can carry serious consequences for the profession of history and for intellectual liberty in general.
“In a democracy, liberty for history is liberty for all.”

A conference of eminent historians at Blois, France, in October 2008 appealed for an end to laws against ‘Holocaust denial’

Commenting on this appeal, another of its signatories Professor Timothy Garton Ash wrote that such criminalisation of history was “dangerous nonsense”.

Garton Ash continued:
“Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes ‘grossly trivialising’ them?
“…The evidence must be uncovered, checked and sifted, and various possible interpretations tested against it.
“It’s this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom – subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride.”

Unfortunately German prosecutors do not agree. They continue to drag Ursula Haverbeck and others before the courts. In doing so these prosecutors bring shame on the Federal Republic and expose ‘democracy’ to justified contempt.


Blair’s unusual silence explained

Tony Blair with his patron Moshe Kantor, one of Vladimir Putin’s closest Jewish oligarch allies and main sponsor of the World Holocaust Forum

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin with his close ally Moshe Kantor

Naturally the extremism Blair and Kantor wish to criminalise involves such things as publishing a magazine or running a bookshop. For this type of extremism the likes of Blair and Kantor endorse the approach of Spanish prosecutors, who wish to jail Pedro Varela for twelve years, or German prosecutors who wish again to jail the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck.

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

Roman Abramovich, another of Putin’s favourite oligarchs, ostracised in Britain but defended by Israel’s ‘Holocaust museum’ Yad Vashem, to which he has made large donations

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

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

Moscow’s “fake factory” – 2022 version derided by Western media; 1945 version enshrined in Western law

Soviet military and KGB prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials, which enshrined the products of an earlier generation of Moscow propagandists as what has become an unchallengeable version of history

Analysis of recent Russian propaganda in the Ukraine shows that films purporting to show Ukrainian ‘saboteurs’ were actually made by a Russian ‘fake factory’.

The anti-Putin investigative journalists at Bellingcat point out: “Russia has a long record of doing this. It isn’t surprising.”

What is surprising is that Western countries themselves have built an entire structure of debate-denying laws, on the foundations of an earlier generation of Moscow “fake factories” and “lie machines”.

Right now for example, 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck in Germany, and the Spanish author, publisher and bookseller Pedro Varela, are facing criminal proceedings and jail sentences for raising forbidden questions about the alleged extermination of six million Jews and the unique mass-murder weapon of the homicidal gas chamber.

Soviet ‘investigators’ pioneered their technique of ‘Holocaust history’ at the Majdanek camp in the summer of 1944, and the same year ‘investigated’ the Janowska camp near the old Habsburg city of Lemberg (later Lvov or Lviv). The foundations of Auschwitz history were laid in early 1945 by a similar Soviet ‘investigatory commission’. The entire story was presented by the Soviet prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials, whose verdict it is forbidden to question in many European countries.

While the liberal media’s renewed interest in Moscow propaganda lies lead them to re-examine ‘Holocaust’ history? Or even to accept that courts should be prepared to hear evidence on such matters, rather than moving straight to conviction of ‘Holocaust deniers’ without even allowing evidence to be submitted, as for example is frequently the case in today’s German courts?

Soviet ‘investigators’ at Auschwitz, 1945
Soviet ‘investigators’ at the Janowska camp near Lvov (aka Lviv or Lemberg) in western Ukraine, 1944

Berlin court sets crazy timetable for Ursula Haverbeck, 93

(above left to right) Ursula Haverbeck, Rigolf Hennig and Lady Michèle Renouf

H&D readers will be familiar with the case of Ursula Haverbeck, the courageous German publisher and activist – now aged 93 – who has been subjected to repeated persecution by the German authorities for the ‘crime’ of asking questions about her own country’s history.

Former co-organiser of the Collegium Humanum which staged conferences and lectures featuring some of the greatest names in German academia, Ursula Haverbeck is herself a survivor of one of the most traumatic episodes in German history, having had to flee East Prussia as a 16-year-old when her country was invaded by Stalin’s brutal Asiatic hordes of the ‘Red Army’.

From 1992 to 2003 she founded and chaired the Verein Gedächtnisstätte (Memorial Sites Association) which aimed to build a suitable memorial to German civilian victims of the Second World War, and to end “the unjustified unilateral nature of the view of history”.

Since 2004 she has been repeatedly prosecuted under Germany’s notorious Volksverhetzung law which forbids rational discussion of alleged events now taken out of history and sacralised as the quasi-religion of ‘Holocaust remembrance’. It is forbidden in Germany to investigate whether, where and how the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers’ on the alleged orders of Adolf Hitler actually took place.

Following several convictions, Ursula Haverbeck was jailed in May 2018 at the age of 88 and remained incarcerated for more than two years. H&D‘s great comrade the late Richard Edmonds addressed a rally in Germany on Ursula’s 91st birthday in 2019 – click here for details.

H&D has just published a groundbreaking revisionist essay by assistant editor Peter Rushton, dedicated to Ursula Haverbeck and her fellow campaigners for free historical research Lady Michèle Renouf and Isabel Peralta. Click here for details.

At the age of 93 there are several further ‘criminal’ proceedings against her. (In Germany it’s common for several stages of appeal to take place before a jail sentence is actually served.)

Court hearings like other aspects of life have been affected by the pandemic, but the Berlin appeal court has now ordered that this 93-year-old lady must attend four days of hearings spread over three weeks, on March 18th, 21st and 25th, and April 4th 2022.

This necessarily involves either repeated travel from Frau Haverbeck’s home (more than 200 miles from Berlin) or a long stay in a Berlin hotel, which might not even be allowed under CoVID regulations.

Ursula Haverbeck at one of many court appearances with her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath

There are strong differences of opinion among H&D readers about these CoVID regulations, so that aspect of the argument should be for the moment ignored. Even if one regards the German government’s CoVID measures as entirely justified, what surely cannot be justified is the continued persecution of a brave 93-year-old simply for asking questions about her own country’s history.

Frau Haverbeck’s alleged ‘crimes’ would of course be perfectly legal in the UK, and in the USA would be protected by constitutional rights.

The continued existence of the Volksverhetzung law and its use in this manner to silence dissent is a disgrace to a nominally ‘democratic’ nation. H&D‘s assistant editor remembers his arrest and interrogation by the East German communist secret police in 1987, when he was a young student. Today’s ‘democratic’ authorities in the Federal Republic have shown themselves to be no better.

Prosecutor seeks 12-year prison term for leading Spanish nationalist

Prosecutors in Barcelona are demanding a total of twelve years imprisonment for the leading nationalist activist, author and publisher Pedro Varela in the latest sign that Spain is on the frontline of the struggle for European civilisation and real history.

Varela (now 64) has for decades been among the most courageous and intelligent racial nationalists in Europe, and has already faced years of legal persecution. For fifteen years during Spain’s transition to ‘democracy’ following the death of the country’s military leader General Franco, Varela was president of CEDADE (‘Spanish Circle of Friends of Europe’) which had close international links with defenders of the true Europe including the Tyndall-era BNP.

During the 1990s the first BNP delegation to the annual November commemorations for Franco and Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera – a delegation which included H&D‘s assistant editor – visited CEDADE’s Madrid office, and even then Pedro Varela was in jail (that time in Vienna, where he was eventually acquitted).

Pedro Varela introducing the British historian David Irving

CEDADE was officially dissolved in 1993, but Pedro Varela continued operating the Europa bookshop in Barcelona and associated publishing houses. Meetings at the bookshop have been addressed by guest speakers from across our movement, including Lady Michèle Renouf and the late Richard Edmonds.

After a conviction in 2008 for “justifying genocide”, Varela spent time in prison between 2010 and 2012. In 2015 he addressed a meeting of the London Forum organised by Jez Turner, and was given the ‘scandal’ treatment by the Mail on Sunday.

A Barcelona court in 2016 ordered the closure of the bookshop which was searched by a squad from Spain’s political police: these latest charges are a delayed outcome of those raids, but also reflect a new hardening of Spain’s left-wing government, determined to construct an undeniable ‘official history’.

We are sure that H&D readers will support Pedro Varela and our Spanish comrades in every possible way as the battle for real European history moves into a new and more intense phase. Both here and in our magazine, we shall soon have major updates on that battle.

The new radical nationalist group Bastion Frontal is – like Pedro Varela – fighting for all true Europeans against what Yockey called the “culture distorters”.
The late Richard Edmonds was one of many leading figures in the racial nationalist and historical revisionist worlds who spoke at Pedro Varela’s bookshop meetings in Barcelona over the years.

Jewish lobby seeks to censor BBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers