Celebrate St Edmund – the original English Patron Saint
Today – November 20th – is St Edmund’s Day. While St George (who had no historical connection to England) is commonly regarded as our Patron Saint, the original Patron Saint of England was St Edmund, who was King of East Anglia for about fourteen years until he was killed by Danish invaders in 869.
These invaders destroyed all records of Edmund’s reign, so it’s no longer even known precisely when and where he was born.
But about 150 years after his death, the Anglo-Danish King Canute converted to Christianity and began the tradition of venerating St Edmund as a Christian martyr and Patron Saint of England. For the next 500 years the abbey that Canute founded to house his relics, at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, was one of England’s most important shrines, attracting pilgrims from across the country.
Mediaeval chroniclers depicted Edmund as having been born in Nuremberg and descended from Saxon kings. His actual birthplace is uncertain, though we do know that the East Anglia over which he ruled was one of several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in what later became England, and was established around 550 by Germanic tribes arriving from the Frisian region (in what is now the Netherlands and north-western Germany) and Jutland (in what is now Denmark).
St Edmund’s origins, his death, and even the date of his feast day, combine to make him a highly appropriate patron saint of England in 2022 – when more than ever we should be aware of our racial roots and aware of the need for solidarity with our fellow Europeans against the encroaching tyranny of the multiracial new world order.
Liberals tell us we are a nation of immigrants, and point to the successive waves of migration that created England: including Edmund and his Anglo-Saxon ancestors, as well as the Viking invaders who killed him.
Racial nationalists by contrast understand that our fellow Europeans are our racial cousins, whereas the offspring of non-Europeans remain fundamentally alien, whether they were born in London or Lagos.
So whether he was born in Nuremberg or Norwich, St Edmund was an English king and a European king.
The fact that 20th November is the Feast Day of St Edmund, King and Martyr, is also appropriate for another reason. Today on the frontline of the European racial nationalist battle against alien tyranny, our Spanish comrades mark the anniversary of the martyrdom of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the Falangist leader murdered by communists on this day 86 years ago. November 20th has for decades been a day of pilgrimage for Spanish nationalists to the Valley of the Fallen, where he is buried in a vast basilica carved out of a mountain near Madrid.
The 21st century equivalents of his murderers now aim to desecrate José Antonio’s grave at this memorial to the victims of the Spanish Civil War. As H&D‘s European correspondent Isabel Peralta explains in the video below, this is part of a tyrannical “democratic memory law” by which Spain’s left-wing government is imposing a particular version of history. In this one-eyed ‘history’, the Spanish communists and their allies are to be treated as heroes – in fact Spain this month has a new postage stamp celebrating its Communist Party – whereas nationalists are to be damned as villains.
Isabel herself will next week face trial under the Spanish equivalent of the UK’s race laws: a politically motivated trial designed to distract from the failure of Spain’s immigration policy. H&D will soon be reporting on this trial, and before then we shall have a report on today’s commemoration of José Antonio.
The battle for Europe continues – and St Edmund is the ideal patron saint for Englishmen to concentrate our minds on this battle.
So let us all celebrate St Edmund today, celebrate the legacy of José Antonio, and celebrate the new generation of racial nationalists who will reclaim and rebuild a Europe fit for Europeans.
French scholar arrested in Scotland by ‘anti-terrorist’ police
French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Scotland on Thursday 10th November. He is presently in an Edinburgh prison cell, where he will remain at least until 23rd February next year, when a court will determine whether he should be extradited to France, where he would be jailed under that country’s laws restricting historical and scientific enquiry. (There will be a further hearing in Edinburgh on 8th December this year, but the main case will not be heard until February.)
Vincent Reynouard built his scholarly reputation with a detailed re-examination of what had been termed the ‘Massacre of Oradour’, and went on to become one of the world’s leading sceptical investigators of the ‘Holocaust’. Francophone readers should visit his excellent website.
British and American readers might be shocked that a specialist squad of police from SO15 – the Counter-Terrorism Command, directed from London – swooped on a small Scottish village to arrest this 53-year-old scholar, who is not accused of anything that would be a crime in the UK.
Yet in fact this is simply the latest example – though an especially important example – of an increasing trend across Europe, where politicised courts and prosecutors, aided by politicised police forces and intelligence agencies, are seeking to crush any dissent and enforce a quasi-religious obedience to one particular view of 20th century history.
We shall report on the case as it develops. Scottish readers able to assist Vincent should contact H&D as soon as possible.
15th November update: As a sequel to my article about Vincent Reynouard’s arrest, this morning I expose the background of the veteran politician who acted as intermediary, lobbying the British authorities to spend time and money pursuing this law-abiding French scholar.
There is no “anti-nazi law”: the French authorities are seeking Vincent Reynouard’s extradition under a law banning critical enquiry into ‘Holocaust’ history. No such law exists in the UK and it is shameful that Police Scotland collaborated in this arrest.
Ursula Haverbeck will begin prison sentence on October 25th
The courageous 93-year-old German publisher and educator Ursula Haverbeck has been told that she must report to prison on 25th October to begin a 12 month sentence.
This is for the “crime” of daring to dispute aspects of her own country’s history. We have reported regularly on Ursula’s case, most recently in August when her appeal was refused.
Updates on the campaign against this disgraceful persecution of a nonagenarian intellectual and patriot will be published soon.
Political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck will spend her 94th birthday in jail
Ursula Haverbeck – seen here with her defence attorney Wolfram Nahrath – is a political prisoner in today’s ‘democratic’ Germany.
Today the Court of Appeal in Berlin confirmed that Ursula must serve a 12 month jail sentence for the ‘crime’ of questioning aspects of her country’s history. She will be summoned to prison at some point during the next few weeks.
This means that Ursula will spend her 94th birthday on November 8th behind bars.
As Tim Garton Ash, the late Eric Hobsbawm and many other historians of widely varying ideological backgrounds have stated, it’s time to scrap the ‘historical memory’ laws that disgrace today’s Europe.
Further updates on Ursula’s case will appear here and at the Real History blog, as well as news of protest actions against tyrannical debate-denying laws that are spreading throughout Europe. Such laws are likely to be heading for the UK under a Liz Truss government – extending our own already tyrannical ‘race laws’. It’s time for Britons and fellow Europeans to reclaim our heritage.
Remembering Henry Hafenmayer
A year ago today our friend and comrade Henry Hafenmayer died at the shockingly young age of 48.
A former train driver who was dismissed for his political opinions, Henry became a prominent public champion of German historical revisionists, in a country where one can be jailed for questioning the official version of ‘Holocaust’ history. He was best known for his website Ende der Lüge (‘End of the Lie’) and associated social media accounts.
In this task he was especially closely associated with four jailed revisionists: former leftist lawyer and philosopher Horst Mahler (now 86); publisher and ecologist Ursula Haverbeck (now 93); lawyer Sylvia Stolz, first jailed for defending the late Ernst Zündel; and filmmaker / video blogger Alfred Schaefer.
All four have served long prison sentences, and Mr Schaefer was only recently released from jail in Munich. During 2022 he was been awarded – jointly with his equally courageous sister Monika – the Robert Faurisson International Prize and the George Orwell Free Speech Award.
With awards such as these and in celebrating the release of Alfred Schaefer, the spirit of Henry Hafenmayer lives on.
Henry also lives every time honest Europeans asks questions about their own continent’s history, despite the never-ending efforts of the enemies of truth.
Here in the UK we are – in theory – one of the last free European countries, in the sense that there is no law specifically forbidding historical research and discussion, as there is across so much of Europe.
Yet even here there is pressure for changes to ‘hate crime’ laws and online regulations.
At the end of 2021 the influential lobby group ‘Hacked Off’ presented a report to Parliament in which Heritage and Destiny was cited as the prime example of “harmful extremism”. They argue that H&D is too intelligently written to break existing laws, and is all the more damaging for that reason – so new regulations should be written to ban us from the internet even when we have done nothing illegal!
One of the three examples presented to Parliament, showing our “harmful extremism” was our obituary to Henry Hafenmayer!
We expect the new Prime Minister – almost certainly Liz Truss – on taking office next month to press ahead with new laws that favour Zionist lobby groups, and we are likely to be in their sights again.
Henry Hafenmayer will continue to live not only in our hearts and minds but in the fears of our enemies!
During the next week there will be further announcements here and at the Real History blog about new developments in the fight for historical truth.
Instagram’s war on truth: H&D writer banned within 24 hours
H&D writer Isabel Peralta – the 19-year-old student from Madrid who is the best and brightest of a new generation of European nationalist activists – launched a new Instagram account this week, but was banned within 24 hours!
Readers can judge for themselves whether this ban was justified under Instagram’s rules against promotion of ‘hate’.
Every attempt to ban Isabel from social media exposes the hypocrisy of our rulers and exposes what they truly fear.
Our rulers are happy with the crudest and most ill-focused expressions of ‘hatred’ and anti-social behaviour.
They fear a clearly expressed ideological challenge to their anti-European agenda.
We have total confidence that Isabel Peralta will continue that challenge with courage, intelligence and ideological fortitude.
Though banned now from Twitter and Instagram, Isabel still has a YouTube channel – but she has no connection with numerous other social media accounts that use her name.
Earlier today H&D published an English-subtitled version of Isabel’s latest video (see below), in which she recommends books and other cultural foundations for those who wish to dedicate themselves to a 21st century European renaissance.
H&D author banned by Twitter: Elon Musk’s new ‘freedom’ policy fails first test (video update)
The May issue of H&D featured 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, on May 2nd she launched a new account at https://twitter.com/isabel_mperalta
Soon after midnight on 18th June, this account was banned, despite Elon Musk’s repeated ‘freedom’ pledge. It seems that violent anti-fascists are welcome on Twitter, but even under the new regime Isabel Peralta is not. Elon Musk seems to be just another hypocrite in thrall to ‘woke’ definitions of political acceptability.
Shortly before her banning, a Twitter post from Isabel about ‘discrimination’ went viral and was widely reported in the Spanish mainstream press.
Now denied access to Twitter, Isabel has made the video below (with English subtitles added by H&D) to explain the background to last week’s controversy.
For those new to Isabel’s work, above is a new English-subtitled version of the introductory video on her YouTube channel. (I had edited out the now-defunct Instagram and Twitter links and inserted the new Twitter account, but of course this is also now inoperative.)
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 (at least 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.
Isabel’s work will continue to appear in translation at H&D, and we shall report here on her battle to be allowed to speak the truth online.
Ursula Haverbeck’s latest trial: Lady Michèle Renouf reports from Berlin
On April 1, 2022 an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allies (‘All lies’) Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense”!
After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry” (as dubbed by the late great Scots-French documents analyst and leading revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson).
Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one forensic off-limits historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the own-goal so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form the law deems to call criminal, e.g. stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm to show how high your dog can jump! (Currently the latter “crime” raised by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in Munich Prison!)
Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery…even as the Antifa hack was invited to take front row pride of place!
Luckily for me, although sad to see, the Public Gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer Siblings trial in Munich (July 2018), fear ‘being seen to take an interest’ in such ‘heresy’ trials. They have to show their identity papers, à la Orwell’s “Big Brother”, for likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow Attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and client exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for State-endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.
When Ursula emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Actually, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked me was “do you know Haverbeck?”. Proudly as an old personal friend, I proclaimed her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land – a national treasure!
Frau Ursula and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the “Collegium Humanum” in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either under Bolshevik Communism or Globalist Capitalism. It was at this time that Frau Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialised wartime phenomena worked and where were the physical remains of a “Holocaust”.
After the trial Wolfram Nahrath, Frau Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine too) gave the AFP, TBR and H&D readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.
MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?
Attorney Nahrath:
No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.
MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populace (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions, the real crime!
Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.
MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge – so “Woke” anti-culture in her biased mind, tone, and callous words – was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!
Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows” but then refused any reply.
MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes” was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?
Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison” and that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”
MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the documents analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” ie for a second time when dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France!) to Yahweh “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips”!
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that U.N. Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (ie a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among, but in service to Yahweh’s Chosen People). So much for our universal ‘we were never asked’ democracy!
Nahrath: As a defence attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defence. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e. it is obvious. For the defence counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial”.
MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense, makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – an “Alice in Wonderland” accusation. Completely the reverse of a rational courtroom where to do otherwise would be deemed seriously incompetent and open to action by your client for professional negligence!
Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a “better” result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.
MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust-Leugnung“. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly lies when denying something – whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.
Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grande dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.
MLR: Yes indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also, I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!
Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.
MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?
Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
Finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected, from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly. Then a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approx. 565,000 (356,000 of them in Auschwitz), and he moved the location of this alleged gassing to outside the central camp. It was after these developments that Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question: where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B”.
MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.
Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.
MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Planck Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.
Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific – and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.
MLR: I marvelled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause for well over two hours!
Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statement took in already known guidelines from other judgments.
She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime”, but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.
MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual calibre and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it “like a police detective”.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews”.
The little this “Woke”-blinded Judge knows about racial differences and indeed Judaic Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but “as cattle”. Thereby in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well”. This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two Germany ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust-denial” laws to be repealed.
Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone, she had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.
MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “Woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “Woke”, because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms – a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “Woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper – representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!
Nahrath: Years ago when the Americans sent weapons to the East, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WW3. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings not only to the causes of past events and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.
MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!
The aspect of that Day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly … once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.
At this moment RA Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the own-goal so-called victor Authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those sixteen years’ old survivors exemplify the four inseparable Classical Virtues, of Measure, Just Objectivity, Forensic attitude, and empathetic Courage.
The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.
It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!
Michèle, Lady Renouf
Tony Blair’s favourite oligarch hit by sanctions: ex-PM and ‘Holocaust’ lobby under scrutiny
As far back as 27th February H&D raised questions about former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his favourite oligarch Moshe Kantor, a close friend of both the ex-Labour leader and the Kremlin godfather Vladimir Putin.
We pointed out that since 2015 Blair has been chairman of Kantor’s ‘European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation’, which campaigns for ‘tougher laws against extremism’.
Naturally the extremism Blair and Kantor wish to criminalise involves such things as publishing a magazine or running a bookshop. For this type of extremism the likes of Blair and Kantor endorse the approach of Spanish prosecutors, who wish to jail Pedro Varela for twelve years, or German prosecutors who wish again to jail the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, or German border guards who defy their own laws and their country’s obligations under the European constitution to deport the 19-year-old student Isabel Peralta.
Invading a neighbouring country is, by contrast, not ‘extreme’: not if the invader is Moshe Kantor’s close friend Vladimir Putin.
Kantor’s many leading positions in international Jewry and Zionism include President of the European Jewish Council; Vice President of the UK’s Jewish Leadership Council (a registered charity); Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress; and President of the World Holocaust Forum Foundation.
In many of these roles he has worked closely with Tony Blair, who was one of the most pro-Israel Prime Ministers in UK history.
In 2015 Kantor organised a conference in the Czech Republic where he called on European governments including the UK to adopted standardised laws criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’. Defying the views of scholars and legal experts who wish to repeal these ‘historical memory laws’ that jail people for their opinions, Kantor wanted to make the laws stricter and the punishments harsher.
Tony Blair joined Kantor in promoting these arguments and demands for legal crackdowns on opinion-crime, via a major article in The Times newspaper.
The main vehicle for demanding these new debate-denial laws was the ironically named European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, with Kantor as President and paymaster, and Tony Blair as chairman.
Now Kantor himself is facing legal sanctions – not for opinions, but for his documented ties to the Kremlin’s war machine and lie machine.
It is now beyond dispute that for the past twenty years or more, Vladimir Putin has used Holocaust propaganda as an instrument of Russian diplomacy and as a justification for Russian military aggression.
Now is the time to ask the forbidden questions. Whatever European courts might say, it’s time to demand historical truth.
Back in 2007 – in a letter prominently published in a national newspaper – H&D‘s Peter Rushton discussed the way that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had used Holocaust propaganda to pressure US governments into allowing Israel to get away with nuclear proliferation. His letter ended: “Should a self-interested version of 1940s history be allowed to dictate the nuclear power politics of the 21st century, with potentially disastrous consequences?”
In 2022 the same question becomes more urgent, and we can no longer allow the risk of prosecution in many European countries to silence that question.
Therefore this week H&D will launch a new website section – Real History and the True Europe – in which over the coming months we shall ask the important questions about Europe’s history and culture, including the ‘Holocaust’.
On this website, in our magazine, and in a book to be published later this year – The Dogs That Didn’t Bark: British Intelligence, International Jewry and the Holocaust (the first of a series examining aspects of Britain’s secret history with the aid of new archival discoveries) – we will examine whether, just as Moshe Kantor and Vladimir Putin have exploited ‘Holocaust’ stories for propagandist purposes, other official and unofficial propaganda agencies were behind parts of the original ‘Holocaust’ narrative in the 1940s.
We shall re-examine the work of revisionist scholars including the late Professor Robert Faurisson, including work newly available in English translation.
We shall have interviews and court reports from across Europe, as politically biased judges seek to jail nonagenarians for ‘criminal’ opinions.
And we shall reveal other political abuses of the judicial system, where a new generation of European political activist is threatened with prosecution to distract from government treachery and failure to enforce immigration laws.
This online project and publishing venture will look at many other topics besides the ‘Holocaust’, but we shall not be afraid to challenge the establishment consensus. Europe is again at war. Historical and political truth is too important for us to tolerate its restriction by the courts.
Berlin appeal court confirms 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck – video interview update
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.
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.
