Falangist leader exhumed from Madrid war memorial

On the 120th anniversary of his birth, the remains of Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera are today being removed from his tomb at the Valley of the Fallen (Valle de los Caídos), a vast memorial to the dead of Spain’s Civil War. H&D‘s Isabel Peralta reported today from the scene of José Antonio’s reburial in Madrid (see video below).

José Antonio founded the Falange Española in 1933 in an effort to transcend petty factionalism and offer Spaniards a non-Marxist critique of capitalism:
“The National-Syndicalist State will not stand cruelly aloof from economic conflicts between men, nor will it look on impassively as the strongest class subjugates the weakest. Our regime will make class struggle totally impossible, since all those cooperating in production will constitute an organic whole therein. We deplore and shall prevent at all costs the abuses of partial vested interests, as well as anarchy in the workforce.”

In November 1936, aged 33, José Antonio was murdered by leftist assassins in the prison yard at Alicante. After the nationalist victory in 1939 his Falangist followers carried José Antonio’s remains 300km to the Escorial near Madrid, and in 1959 he was reburied nearby at the newly consecrated Valley of the Fallen, a huge cathedral carved out of a mountain, where Spain’s caudillo Francisco Franco was also buried in 1975.

For decades the Valley of the Fallen was a place of pilgrimage for Falangist veterans and Spanish nationalists from various factions, who were often joined on November 20th each year (the anniversary of both José Antonio’s murder and Franco’s death) by comrades from across Europe. H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton was part of BNP delegations to the Valley on several occasions during the 1990s.

The left-wing government in Madrid have for several years made clear their determination to desecrate José Antonio’s grave as an act of political spite. Last autumn they introduced new laws designed to criminalise aspects of Spanish history. One was designated a “democratic memory law” and the other was a new law against “anti-semitism”, which effectively means a law exempting Jews and Zionism from criticism.

José Antonio’s family surrendered to official pressure, and took the decision to go ahead with his exhumation and reburial of his remains at Madrid’s San Isidro cemetery.

H&D correspondent Isabel Peralta first wrote about the impending exhumation of José Antonio in Issue 110 of our magazine, and also made several videos discussing related issues (see versions below with English subtitles).

Isabel has recently been banned from Twitter but has a new website at www.isabelperalta.net with an English version at www.isabelperalta.net/english

Reports on the Spanish government’s attack on their own history will appear at these sites and here at H&D. Isabel also writes in the forthcoming edition of our magazine, which will be published at the start of May.

Leftists get a taste of their own ‘anti-terrorist’ medicine

Far left activists were outraged this week when a French Marxist publisher was arrested by London police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.

Ernest Moret was held for 24 hours after refusing to provide passwords for police to access his phone. He was released on bail yesterday evening.

Racial nationalists have known for many years that Schedule 7 gives UK police and border security officers extraordinary powers that would once have been seen as unconstitutional. Our own citizens as well as visitors can be detained on entering the country, and questioned for up to six hours.

Unlike any other arrest, those detained under Schedule 7 have no right to remain silent and are obliged to surrender their phones, computers and other devices, together with any relevant passwords. The authorities do not require any reason for detaining and questioning anyone under Schedule 7, and their questions can cover any subject.

Four of our H&D team have been detained under Schedule 7 in recent years. Editor Mark Cotterill has been stopped twice at Manchester Airport after returning from a non-political holiday to Mexico and a visit to H&D supporters in Australia. Assistant editor Peter Rushton was stopped at London Stansted Airport on returning from a visit to Germany. And last September our Spanish comrade and H&D writer Isabel Peralta was stopped at Manchester Airport, the night before speaking at our 2022 meeting in Preston.

Isabel’s case was especially outrageous because her computer and phone were retained for almost a week, without any justification, as part of a political ‘fishing expedition’ where UK authorities were liaising with political police and intelligence agencies in Germany and Spain.

---

Everyone at H&D understands that we have very limited rights under Schedule 7, but it seems that the far left is only now waking up to this reality.

In this week’s case, it seems likely that London police were cooperating with their Paris counterparts in an investigation of Ernest Moret’s involvement with protests against President Macron’s changes to French pensions.

Moret and a colleague were visiting fellow Marxists in London, associated with the well-known leftwing publishers Verso.

His fellow leftists at the Guardian and BBC, as well as the National Union of Journalists, were happy to publicise Moret’s case as some sort of outrage. Yet the same wokeists were perfectly happy when Mark, Peter and Isabel (who similarly have no connection to anything that could reasonably be called ‘terrorism’) were detained under the exact same law.

Why do Marxists assume that dictatorial laws will only be used against ‘racists’ and ‘fascists’, and that the far left is immune?

Fascism, Women and Democracy – by Mosleyite veteran Norah Elam

Many British publications and institutions – including the National Archives, British Library, and universities throughout the UK – are celebrating Women’s History Month.

But few are likely to mention the fact that Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was supported by many of the women who had previously been active ‘suffragette’ campaigners.

Among them was Norah Elam (1878-1961) who was imprisoned in 1914 for her militant campaigning in favour of votes for women, and was interned at the same London prison – Holloway – in 1940 because of her active role in Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

Though she lived with fellow Mosleyite Dudley Elam (who was similarly interned without trial under the notorious Regulation 18b) and she took his name, Norah was never actually married to him, as she could not obtain a divorce from the husband she had married in 1909, so legally remained Norah Dacre Fox.

Alongside her prominent role in the women’s section of the BUF, Norah Elam was also a militant campaigner for animal rights and against vivisection.

As part of H&D‘s contribution to Women’s History Month – and as a tribute to those women who continue to play important roles in the intellectual and practical leadership of racial nationalism – H&D is republishing online this essay by Norah Elam, first published in The Fascist Quarterly in 1935.

Fascism, Women and Democracy

“Experience shows that in all countries today democracy can develop its nature freely, the most scandalous corruption is displayed without anyone considering it of use to conceal its rascalities… Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers.” – Georges Sorel, Reflexions sur la Violence.

To a genuine cynic who lived through the struggle for votes for women from 1906 to 1914, no spectacle is more diverting than the post-war enthusiast whose one obsession seems to be the alleged danger to enfranchised women in a Fascist Britain.

This unsuspected solicitude finds its most insistent champions in unlikely places, and those who were so bitter against the pre-war struggle have today executed a complete volte face. Our new-found patrons are second to none in their determination that women shall be denied nothing in principle, even if in practice they are to be denied most things essential to their existence.

To the woman who took part in that historic fight, and, regarding the vote merely as a symbol, believed that with its help a new and a better world might be possible, this kind of patronage is as distasteful as was that of a generation ago. She thinks, and with some justification, that it is humbug that those who in all those weary years never raised a hand to help her, but on the contrary were wont to describe her as an unsexed virago or a disappointed spinster, should in the hour of success endeavour to exploit her sex in the interests of a reactionary and decadent system. Such effrontery is possible only because those who resort to it entirely misunderstood and still misunderstand the meaning of that struggle, and construed the demand for political liberty as a desire for personal licence.

The time has come when the principles which underlay that remarkable and determined manifestation for ordered change, not only in the position of women but in the accepted attitude to them, should be restated.

What was it then, which underlay the passionate stirring that moved the hearts of thousands of women, and guided their heads, in those stormy years? It was not, as so many imagined, the ignoble desire of individual sex-interest, nor a struggle on behalf of women for their own sex alone. On the contrary, from the leaders to the most humble of the rank and file it was the fundamental belief, that in a world peopled by men and women and under a political system controlling the destinies of both sexes, the country which shut out from its councils the influence, viewpoint and talents of more than half its people, would be to that extent handicapped in working out the best system of government. If men were the victims of chaotic economic conditions, women suffered with them. If the social conditions under which men dragged out an almost hopeless existence were intolerable, they were equally so for their womenfolk.

Looking round on the great cities of their land, from north to south and from east to west, they saw housing conditions which man and woman agreed were a disgrace to modern civilization; watching the labour market, they gazed with apprehension on the spectre of insecurity which haunts the wage-earner and which is inherent in the old system. In the political field, they noted that, both in Home and Foreign policy, affairs were being conducted in such a manner as to strike terror into the heart of any person who cared deeply for Britain or realized the decadence that had already begun its erosion upon all parties of the State. They rose to demand that women should be called in on equal terms with men, to lend a hand before it was too late.

This uprising was in short a challenge to the old antagonisms and a call for co-operation in the corporate body of the State.

In this conception of practical citizenship, the women’s struggle resembles closely the new philosophy of Fascism. Indeed, Fascism is the logical, if much grander, conception of the momentous issues raised by the militant women of a generation ago. Nor do the points of resemblance end here. The Women’s movement, like the Fascist movement, was conducted under strict discipline, and cut across all Party allegiance; its supporters were drawn from every class and Party. It appealed to women to forget self-interest; to relinquish petty personal advantages and the privilege of the sheltered few for the benefit of the many; and to stand together against the wrongs and injustices which were inherent in a system so disastrous to the well-being of the race. Like the Fascist movement, too, it chose its Leader, and once having chosen gave to that Leader absolute authority to direct its policy and destiny, displaying a loyalty and a devotion never surpassed in the history of this country. Moreover, like the Fascist movement again, it faced the brutality of the streets; the jeers of its opponents; the misapprehensions of the well-disposed; and the rancour of the politicians. It endured the hatred of the existing Government, and finally the loneliness of the prison cell and the horror of forcible feeding. Its speakers standing in the open spaces and at the street corners were denied the right of free speech; it champions selling their literature spat upon and reviled; its deputations were manhandled. Suffragettes became the sport of any rowdy who cared to take the law into his own hands. To make the analogy the more exact, no calumny was too vile and no slander too base to set about the moral character of its leaders, or the aims and objects of the women who owed them allegiance.

Thus it came about that women welded together in such association had no illusions about political and party shibboleths, and when the sacred words “Democracy” and “Individual Liberty” were a commonplace on the lips of their detractors, they remembered that these things were done under a Liberal Administration, and by the champions of a Party which had made the democratic system the summit of its political wisdom. That under it, they were classed with criminals, lunatics and children. They argued and with some cogency, that if this were democracy then women had little to hope for from it.

Their experience as outlaws from the democratic system was as nothing compared with that which faced them, when they found themselves honoured citizens under its doubtful protection. They had earned, it is true, the right to individual liberty for a very brief space once every five years, but when they had put that fatal cross upon the ballot paper and closed the door of the polling booth behind them, from that moment they found themselves completely helpless before the democratic machine.

Though we shall be told that this was what we had fought for, a moment’s reflexion will show that this was regarded as but the symbol. Women never made the fatal error of imagining that because men voted they were necessarily free. It is the mark of the unintelligent woman today to suppose that a woman is free because she also votes, or that democracy can ever offer anything but the careful and organized exploitation of men and women who suffer it to exist.

Given the vote on a limited basis at the close of the War, women were also granted the right of entering Parliament, and the election in the late autumn of 1918 gave them their first opportunity. The Party system was already beginning to show the first signs of decay, and by the inexorable law of retributive justice, the Party which had given birth to democracy in Britain was in full retreat before its ungrateful offspring. Nevertheless, women in the first flush of their triumph turned to the then existing parties either as voters or prospective candidates.

My own distrust of Party politics made me chary of turning in this direction, and I preferred to stand as an Independent, going down with all the other women candidates on this occasion, save one. The exception was the Sinn Fein Countess Markievicz, who though a notorious and avowed enemy of Britain, found it a perfectly simple matter under the democratic system to secure election to the Parliament of the country which she had openly boasted that she would destroy, disintegrate and discredit. She was, if I remember rightly, returned unopposed. The next example was hardly more encouraging, for the first woman to be elected for an English constituency was an American-born citizen who had no credentials to represent British women in their own Parliament, save that she had married a British subject who found himself forced to the Upper House on the death of his father. Detractors of the Women’s Movement pointed with a hardly disguised satisfaction to this denouement, and were at pains to hold up this lady as a sorry specimen of feminine irresponsibility. They need not have been so personal, for she was no better and no worse than any other woman elected to the British House of Commons, as a result of years of effort and struggle of the militant women. It is a sorry fact, though none the less true, that the subsequent election of Party women to Westminster has not made one tittle of difference either to men or to women, and though many able women have joined the ranks of our elected representatives their influence has been wholly negligible on the destinies of Britain or her Empire. They, like their men colleagues, are simply cogs in the Party wheels of the democratic system, marching into the lobbies at the crack of the Party Whip, helpless before the Juggernaut of the official machinery which rolls on, crushing all initiative and independence before it, and reducing every person who owes it allegiance to a mere cipher for the carrying through of its policies and its measures. And if this be true of Parliament – and who can deny it? – it is even more true of the woman voter. She, too, is caught up in this inexorable system, a veritable slave to her Party organization.

To those who challenge this, the question must be put: What power has the woman member or the woman voter, under the present system, to alter any one policy of any government yet elected? Does the most enthusiastic admirer of the present system allege that women, no matter to what party they belong, are satisfied with the existing position of this country?  Are they willing to see economic conditions whereby the employment figures have reached the incredible total of between two and three millions remain unchanged? Do they rest content with the spectacle of those derelict areas which strike despair into the heart of every living person? Are they indifferent to the decay of the agricultural districts and the plight of the farming industry and unconcerned with the appalling housing conditions which all parties alike deplore?

Turning to the vast field of Imperial and Foreign politics, is it to be contended that the bulk of British women desire to see the disintegration of the Empire, or the orientation of the present foreign policy of the alleged National Government, whereby pacts and commitments are being made in their names and in secret with the avowed enemies of this country, while at the same time we are being left defenceless, not only for the purposes of our own immediate defence, but if the need should arise to honour those commitments? Do we indeed know to what we are being committed; what this policy of collective security involves, or what is the sinister power which dictates it? “Democracy is the land of plenty dreamt of by unscrupulous financiers,” says Georges Sorel. Have enfranchised women any power to check a Home or a Foreign policy dictated for the purpose of making that dream a living reality? Let it be remembered that when the time comes to foot the bill, we shall be driven as sleep to the slaughter, helpless before the results of these policies. What is the value of so-called freedom if it cannot give us the power to alter these momentous issues?

If it be true that the average woman voter wants none of these things, why, if she be free under the democratic system, does she permit them? If she possesses this freedom, is she not doubly and trebly guilty in suffering them for one hour longer? This is the test of her claim to a responsible part in the government of her country. If she has gained the necessary power and liberty under the existing system, the charge that she is incapable of playing a citizen’s part in the affairs of her country, and is in fact unfitted for responsibility, is proved up to the hilt.

None of these things is true. The truth will be found in the fact that there is no freedom either for men or for women under the present antiquated system. What fetters both men and women is that the Party system is in decay, and this is the more noticeable since the granting of adult suffrage under an unbridled democracy. Throughout the world the same decadence has set in, by the inevitable march of time and circumstance, the change from a world of poverty to a world of boundless plenty makes ordered planning not only requisite but vital to existence. Under these changes the methods of the old world are obsolete and must give place to the new. If women are to be worthy of their place in the councils of the nation, they must face as realists the new world conditions which are gathering round them. Sooner or later they must choose. The decision is momentous, for upon it will depend the status of women for a considerable period of time. It is therefore no light matter that they should weigh well in the balance the history of the world.

There are two courses open to women. The first is that she should struggle on with the decaying system of the old world, content to be the handmaid of the professional politicians of the various parties to which she attaches herself. Of this it may be said that she has given it a long and faithful trial, and that if under it she could have accomplished any practical change in the direction of social, political or economic freedom, she has lamentably failed. She must now consider whether the fault lies within herself or within the system to which she still clings. In this connexion she will note that the separate parties are themselves gradually disappearing. The Liberal Party has passed into the twilight of the past; the Conservative Party is in rapid disintegration, and we know upon the assurance of its own Leader, that there is no hope of its regaining its independence. The same fate awaits the Socialist Party, since it too must travel along the same road which has sucked the other two parties under the quicksand of Social Democracy.

She must therefore look for some better system; one more in accord with modern conditions. What is to take the place of the tottering edifice of the past?

Every student of politics realizes that the issue now lies between Fascism and Communism. So far as British women are concerned, Communism makes little appeal. To go no further, it is the philosophy of destruction, and is the negation of the natural instincts of womanhood. It is the antithesis of every principle and practice which women value and require.

Fascism seems to be the only solution. It has within it every principle peculiarly suitable and adaptable to the genius of the British character. It offers real freedom and liberty to all men and women of goodwill towards this country. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, we shall define these so often loosely-used terms, in words with which no democrat will quarrel, for they are taken from that apostle of unadulterated democracy, John Stuart Mill.

“The sole end,” he wrote, “for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”

This is precisely the Fascist conception of individual liberty, and it is obviously a conception that so far as women are concerned gives them every opportunity that they can legitimately require in their future status as women citizens. In no other system are these principles embodied. Moreover, in the machinery of the Corporate State, Fascism assures women an equal status with their menfolk, for it holds within it the only means whereby they will be enabled to direct and control the conditions under which they shall live; thus Fascism alone will complete the work begun on their behalf by the militant women from 1906 to 1914. In addition, it will rescue them from the vitiated atmosphere of corruption inherent in the Party system, and for the first time it will give an opportunity, through the machinery of their own special Corporations, tackling with some hope of success those great questions which so closely concern their own and their children’s lives.

In the economic field it will assure security with equal pay for equal work, that eternal bone of contention which has rent the sexes asunder with such dire results to industry.

In the social sphere, it removes all class barriers, while in the political, it gives justice and equality for the first time in the history of the Women’s struggle.

And most important of all, Fascism comes to lay for ever the haunting spectre of war, by removing the fundamental causes, which exist and have their being in Internationalism, an instrument forged for the purpose of enabling “unscrupulous financiers” to take advantage of that “land of plenty” called “democracy” of which they dream.

To enable all this to be accomplished, Fascism will require that women equally with men should offer a disciplined cooperation in the welding together of an ordered State, and Fascism will rightly lay upon all the citizens of the State the responsibility and the duty of working in harmony, not in the interests of any section or class but for the benefit of all its people. It will call upon women as upon men, to subordinate all selfish individual privileges, that the less fortunate may under its protection be safe from exploitation.

This is Fascism. All else is mirage. Is it to be said that British women cannot rise to this great occasion in the history of their country? Those who would bid them reject this opportunity are the enemies not alone of women, but of all progress and of civilization. Those women who endured the ordeal of the great struggle of pre-war days have at least learned the right to challenge the people who once again would enslave them in the subjugation of the past, and fetter them within a system which denies them all opportunity to play an honourable part in the necessary reorganization of their country. British women have never failed or faltered when Britain has had need of them. They too, with the men of their generation, will raise aloft the banner of British Fascism, and bearing it high above the turmoil and sordid quarrels of the Party system, will hasten that day which shall see their nation reborn. In that triumphant hour, they will have truly earned the proud right to pay homage to a regenerated and Great Britain, and to rest at last within the Peace, Security and Prosperity of her Sovereign People.

Europeans mark two contrasting anniversaries

H&D‘s friends and comrades in Europe have marked two contrasting anniversaries in recent days.

In Dresden commemorations were held for the greatest crime of the Second World War – the terror bombing that destroyed this ancient city in February 1945. As discussed in a new article by our assistant editor Peter Rushton at the Real History blog, no one knows the true death toll at Dresden, partly because the city was packed with refugees who had fled from Stalin’s Red Army as it advanced into eastern Germany. Based on his detailed archival research, the British historian David Irving has estimated 135,000 deaths.

Dresden was the culmination of a deliberate policy of terror bombing – a deliberate decision to flout pre-war agreements (and to abandon the policies of the British government at the start of the war, maintained until Churchill took office).

The most famous British military historian, J.F.C. Fuller wrote in 1948:
“It may seem a little strange, nevertheless it is a fact, that this reversion to wars of primitive savagery was made by Britain and the United States, the two great democracies… With the disappearance of the gentleman as the back-bone of the ruling class in England, political power rapidly passed into the hands of demagogues who, by playing upon the emotions and ignorance of the masses, created a permanent war-psychosis.”

Fuller went on to acknowledge that as a consequence of the seizure of power in Britain by such “demagogues”, notably Churchill, “the obliteration of cities by bombing was probably the most devastating blow ever struck at civilisation”. Fuller wrote of “the moral decline which characterised the war.”

The Spanish nationalist group Devenir Europeo carried out a campaign of leaflets and posters targeting universities and military academies in an effort to raise awareness of the events of the Second World War and how they shaped our world. Our correspondent Isabel Peralta was very much involved in this campaign: she also marked this week’s other important historic anniversary.

In February 1943, 4,000 Spanish anti-communist volunteers – the División Azul (‘Blue Division’) – successfully fought off a vastly greater force of Stalin’s Red Army at the Battle of Krasny Bor, near Leningrad, allowing their German allies to regroup and maintain the Leningrad front.

Speaking beside the División Azul memorial at the Almudena cemetery, Madrid, this week, Isabel pointed out that her compatriots won at Krasny Bor not because they had greater numbers or greater weapons, but because they had greater faith in their cause – the noble ideals of the true Europe.

Spain is now at the front line of the struggle to maintain freedom of research and freedom of speech on historical and political questions. Under their new ‘democratic memory law’ some forms of historical revisionism are now illegal, although in other respects Spanish laws on ‘incitement of racial hatred’ are less restrictive than in the UK.

Isabel herself is presently facing trial in Madrid for a speech at an anti-immigration rally outside the Spanish Embassy last year.

The spy exposed in his own words

Madrid lawyer Armando Rodríguez Pérez was exposed this week as a spy operating inside the Spanish nationalist movement and seeking to subvert international anti-Zionist networks.

Now further information has come to light, drawn from this infiltrator’s own former Twitter account.

Armando first began to infiltrate radical nationalist circles at the end of 2020 and later became co-leader of a militant national-socialist group, Bastión Frontal.

As explained in a detailed investigation earlier this week, his past record involved working for a staunchly pro-Zionist and anti-Nazi academic institute. He disguised this past record from his new comrades.

Now the extent of Armando’s personal commitment to the Zionist cause can be revealed in his own words.

During May-June 2017 – when retweeting and commenting on tweets from an official Israeli government account, Armando publicly declared his commitment to the hardline Zionist position of “reuniting Jerusalem” as the Jewish capital.

On 27th May 2017 after a hardline pro-Zionist resolution by the Czech Parliament had condemned UNESCO for its criticism of Israel and endorsed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Armando wrote that the Czechs had set a “great example” and said to the Israeli government account: “Let’s hope that many others follow this example at once.”

Ten days later, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the notorious Israeli aggression known as the ‘Six Day War’, which resulted in the Zionist seizure of vast swathes of territory from its Arab neighbours, Armando tweeted: “In my opinion, the study of the Six-Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem can help us understand many things: brilliant!”

Though most of his old Twitter account is devoted to his cycling hobby, the political tweets/retweets reflect a consistently militant pro-Zionist and “anti-Nazi” stance – curious in man who three years later was to reinvent himself as a leading national-socialist and ‘radical’ anti-Zionist pursuing links with Iran.

Armando never at any stage explained this curious ideological journey, and until now none of his new comrades had checked up on his record.

While there can be many reasons (including irony) for retweeting something you disagree with, it is obvious when seen in the context of his own words above, and his own record already described in detail in the earlier article, that Armando Rodríguez Pérez was retweeting in celebration of anti-nazism and Zionism.

For example, in recent months he has been an outspoken Anglophobe and enemy of all things American, yet on the 2017 anniversary of the Anglo-American D-Day landings in Normandy (6th June 1944) Armando tweeted in celebration of this decisive blow against the Third Reich.

He also retweeted anti-Nazi and pro-Zionist resolutions such as the one below from the European Parliament.

And in response to terrorist attacks in Egypt and Barcelona, the people Armando set out to retweet were for some reason the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Israel’s extremist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Taken in isolation any one of these might be seen as a one-off, provoked by Islamist terrorism. But taken together (and bearing in mind his own extreme Zionist sentiments expressed above) we can perceive Armando Rodríguez Pérez as a committed anti-nazi and supporter of Israel who set out to infiltrate national socialist and anti-Zionist groups.

In doing so he disguised his true allegiances and past record from his own client, Isabel Peralta, and betrayed her when she was visiting Germany during 2022.

The spy has now been exposed, and our movement will emerge stronger from this unfortunate experience.

Anti-Fascist Spy Exposed

A leading figure in several radical nationalist, national socialist and anti-Zionist groups in Spain can today be revealed as an undercover ‘anti-fascist’ agent. This exposé is also published at the Real History Blog and in German, in Spanish, in French, and in Italian.

Beginning in late 2020 and with increasing prominence since late 2021, Armando Rodríguez Pérez has led a double life.

One face of Armando Rodríguez Pérez is as a lawyer with an academic specialism in human rights, organising conferences with a strongly ‘anti-fascist’ theme, and sharing the Madrid office of a legal firm offering advice to German and English speaking clients in Spain.

The other face of Armando Rodríguez Pérez is as a radical leader of the ‘far right’, not only representing some of Spain’s most noted national socialists, but also taking an active role in leading their organisations, raising troubling questions about the extent to which he and his controllers may have crossed the line between infiltrator and agent provocateur.

During November-December 2022 Armando Rodríguez Pérez (recently using the online identity ‘Armando Renacer’ and previously ‘Armando Bastión’):
(1) became “political action secretary” for a new movement that represents the ‘National Bolshevik’ faction of Spain’s ‘far right’;
(2) infiltrated the circle of a British political activist and travelled to her home in Germany, where he met with several leading German national socialist activists;
(3) volunteered to act as liaison between a fugitive political dissident and the Iranian Government.

For more than a year until the group’s dissolution in the autumn of 2022, Armando Rodríguez Pérez was co-leader of a national socialist youth group, Bastión Frontal, and organised international connections with similar groups in France, Italy, Serbia, Poland and elsewhere.

And until today he was still acting as lawyer for the activist who attracted international media attention to Bastión Frontal, the 20-year-old student Isabel Peralta.

Yet Armando Rodríguez Pérez is not what he seems.

INFILTRATING THE ‘FAR RIGHT’

During the summer of 2020 – in the early months of the pandemic – Spain’s secret police (the CGI, roughly equivalent to the old British Special Branch, or what is now SO15) began to monitor the activities of a new national socialist youth group, Bastión Frontal, whose activities involved both opposing illegal immigration (especially immigrant street gangs) and drawing attention to the economic plight of many working-class Spaniards suffering under pandemic restrictions.

An 18-year-old history student at Complutense University of Madrid, Isabel Peralta, was first observed by the secret police at a Bastión Frontal activity in September 2020. She had previously been active in other Falangist groups but had become disillusioned by some of their reactionary and corrupt leaders. Isabel attracted international attention on 13th February 2021 when she gave a speech in tribute to the heroic anti-communist volunteers of the Blue Division (División Azul), who fought on the Eastern Front after 1941 against Stalin’s Red Army.

At the end of 2020, a 30-year-old lawyer named Armando Rodríguez Pérez suddenly appeared in ‘far right’ circles. He first turned up among football ultras in the tough Madrid district of San Blas-Canillejas, then gave a speech about the Blue Division’s war record at a meeting of national socialists with an interest in military history. He had no known past political activity, or indeed even the remotest connection to any form of nationalist movement. No one knew anything about him and no one checked up on him. For reasons that now seem mystifying, Armando was accepted as a comrade by various radical factions, each perhaps assuming that someone else had vouched for him.

Armando enhanced his credibility in such circles by latching onto Bastión Frontal after it had become the most visible face of Spanish radical nationalism, largely thanks to its co-leader Isabel Peralta.

Within a very short time he had emerged as one of the leaders of this national socialist youth group, partly because he was a few years older, and partly because he offered them free legal advice and even represented them in court without charge.

Soon he was calling himself ‘Armando Bastión’ and making regular speeches at the group’s meetings, also acting as moderator for their online Telegram forum. After Isabel Peralta moved to Germany for a few months during late 2021 and early 2022, Armando Rodríguez Pérez established himself as effectively the leader of Bastión Frontal, especially after co-leader Rodrigo Miguélez was imprisoned. Armando represented both Rodrigo and Isabel in several criminal and civil cases.

During the autumn of 2022 Bastión Frontal collapsed, but Armando Rodríguez Pérez is continuing to represent Isabel in a long-running criminal case, where prosecutors are trying to jail her for a speech made at an anti-immigration rally outside the Moroccan Embassy in May 2021. He is also representing her in a continuing civil action that she has brought against the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post.

Yet in both of these cases (and earlier legal problems relating to Bastión Frontal activists) Armando Rodríguez Pérez had a conflict of interest that made it grossly improper for him to act on behalf of such clients. While they are militant nationalists, national socialists and anti-Zionists, Armando Rodríguez Pérez has a long background (which he disguised from his new clients and ‘comrades’) working for an explicitly anti-fascist and anti-nazi academic foundation with close connections to Israel and international Jewish organisations.

ARMANDO AND THE BERG INSTITUTE

Armando Rodríguez Pérez arrived suddenly in nationalist / national-socialist circles after a background of several years working with an important academic organisation that specialises in ‘Holocaust’ studies and other ‘anti-fascist’ themes, the Madrid-based Berg Institute (Instituto Berg).

He studied for a year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His biography on the Spanish version of his former law firm’s website was later edited to remove reference to his time in Jerusalem, but an earlier English-language draft of the same page still includes this reference.

Armando’s master’s degree in “International Relations, International Law and Conflict Resolution” was undertaken jointly with Alfonso X el Sabio University, Madrid; the UN’s ‘University for Peace’; and the Berg Institute.

He went on to work as part of the Berg Institute’s ‘academic coordination team’ and took part in the Institute’s joint training programmes with the Colombian Army and security forces.

In other words Armando Rodríguez Pérez was not simply studying in Israel, or casually associated with the Berg Institute: he was actually an organiser and coordinator for several of their projects. This is especially disturbing when one looks in more detail at the content of the conferences that he organised.

Similar connections with the Berg Institute were shared with both of the close friends with whom in 2015 Armando Rodríguez Pérez set up a law firm in Madrid called GABEIRO – José Feliciano Beceiro Armada and Jesús Gavilán Hormigo. Gavilán studied in Jerusalem during 2014 alongside Armando, and worked for the Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón, named in honour of Spain’s most infamously left-wing, ‘anti-fascist’ judge. While Beceiro preceded Armando as organiser of the Berg Institute’s international conference.

A fourth lawyer who was part of this short-lived GABEIRO firm (Álvaro Domec López) was brought into Isabel Peralta’s criminal case by Armando in January 2022 – a fact that was completely unknown to Isabel herself until it was revealed in court documents.

It is necessary to look more closely at this Berg Institute, for which Armando Rodríguez Pérez acted as a coordinator / organiser before his sudden ‘conversion’ to the radical nationalist / national socialist cause.

There are many Jews in the world, and of course it would be ridiculous to assume that a lawyer is a Jewish agent if he simply had a passing connection with a Jewish client.

Armando’s connection is far more serious, especially when viewed alongside work with the police and military, and international work undertaken with the backing of this particular anti-fascist organisation.

Readers should bear in mind that Armando has never at any stage confided in his new comrades, in order to explain his political conversion. His past as the organiser of anti-fascist conferences was completely secret until revealed during this investigation.

ARMANDO THE ANTI-NAZI CONFERENCE ORGANISER

In 2014 and 2015, Armando Rodríguez Pérez was the organiser of two international conferences for the Berg Institute. These were very high-level events lasting in each case for a fortnight, starting in Madrid and moving on to several other European cities. The academic directors of the conference were the two co-directors of the Berg Institute, one of whom was Armando’s academic supervisor, Prof. Joaquin González Ibáñez.

These conferences were imbued with the ‘anti-nazi’ and anti-fascist ethos of the Berg Institute. On 23rd June 2014, the second day of the conference included a homage to an exhibition at the Museo Reina Sofía dedicated to the Picasso painting Guernica, the Spanish town bombed by the Condor Legion (a German force supporting General Franco’s Nationalists) in April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, which has attained mythic, iconic status for anti-fascists.

A co-director of the Berg Institute gave a lecture to the conference titled ‘Colonialism, World Wars and the Holocaust’, then on 1st July (after the conference participants had visited the European Court of Human Rights), Armando organised a visit to the concentration camp at Natzweiler-Struthof in Alsace. This was the only such camp established by the German authorities on French soil, and is often described as a ‘death camp’. Controversially, there is claimed to have been a homicidal gas chamber at the camp, but only a primitive one supposedly used for occasional experimental killings, not the mass killings alleged at Auschwitz and other camps in Eastern Europe.

The late revisionist scholar Prof. Robert Faurisson analysed this Natzweiler-Struthof ‘gas chamber’ story in detail. Faurisson discovered that even the scientific expert sent by French prosecutors to examine Struthof (Prof. René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacology Faculty in Paris) concluded in December 1945 that there was no trace of hydrocyanic acid (i.e. the active ingredient in the alleged mass murder weapon ‘Zyklon B’, actually an insecticide) in Struthof’s alleged ‘gas chamber’. Neither did the corpses of allegedly ‘gassed’ victims that Fabre inspected in a Strasbourg morgue show any trace of this poison. Natzweiler-Struthof is thus unique among the alleged ‘death camps’ in having been inspected – not by a ‘revisionist’ but by an expert witness working for the new French government – and found not to have been used in the manner now described by the ‘Holocaust’ industry.

But none of this is mentioned by the Berg Institute, for whom the visit organised by Armando was simply a genuflection at a ‘Holocaust’ site. As with the trip to the Guernica exhibition in Madrid, this was an act of quasi-religious homage to the ‘victims of nazism’. As we shall see, the entire outlook of the Berg Institute is based on Holocaustian foundations.

The day after this act of homage at the ‘death camp’, the conference discussed the Nuremberg trials, which again are fundamental to the version of ‘international human rights law’ promoted by the Berg Institute.

A year later, in June-July 2015, Armando organised a second Berg Institute conference along very similar lines, again incorporating a visit to the Natzweiler-Struthof ‘death camp’. This time there was also a lecture by the academic lawyer Javier Chinchón from Madrid’s Complutense University, on the theme of historical memory and the state’s responsibility to ‘victims’. Chinchón argued that Spain had failed sufficiently to condemn the crimes of the Franco era: he has been one of the main academic lobbyists pushing for a strict ‘democratic memory law’ of the type recently adopted.

Armando’s present client Isabel Peralta has campaigned on the other side of this argument – but at no point has Armando admitted to her that he had himself been the organiser of academic conferences that actively promoted such a law; conferences that were thoroughly imbued with an ‘anti-fascist’ ethos seeking to ground the entire approach to ‘human rights’ in a politically-slanted approach to the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War.

In 2013 an earlier Berg Institute conference – run along similar lines to the two organised by Armando himself during 2014-2015 – was organised by Armando’s partner in the GABEIRO firm, José Feliciano Beceiro Armada. This included a reception hosted by the Colombian Ambassador. (Beceiro and Armando were both involved in the Berg Institute’s training sessions for the Colombian Army and Security Forces.)

Yet again, this conference concluded with a solemn pilgrimage to the ‘death camp’ at Natzweiler-Struthof.

Armando’s colleagues at the Berg Institute have continued to organise these conferences every year, when not disrupted by the pandemic. In 2019 the conference was held in Israel, in coordination with the Berg Institute’s longstanding academic partner, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It included visits to the ancient historic icon of Masada, where, allegedly, Jewish soldiers killed themselves in 74 AD rather than surrender to Roman forces that had besieged the fortress; to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset; and of course a pilgrimage to the Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem.

In January 2022 a similar international conference organised by the Berg Institute included a pilgrimage to Auschwitz.

THE BERG INSTITUTE – ROOTED IN ‘HOLOCAUST’ STUDIES AND ANTI-NAZISM

The Berg Institute – for which Armando Rodríguez Pérez has worked and which was the co-organiser of his academic training – specialises in publishing the work of leading Jews in relation to the ‘Holocaust’, war crimes trials, and anti-Nazi activities.

Formally incorporated in 2009 as the Fundación Berg Oceana Aufklarung, its founder and co-director is Joaquín Gonzáles Ibáñez, a professor of international law and international relations at both the long-established Complutense University, Madrid, and at the much newer private university Alfonso X.

Interviewed in January 2019, Prof. Gonzáles explained that the Institute was partly inspired by his political hero Nelson Mandela, and stressed that its entire outlook on “human rights” was rooted in anti-fascism and anti-nazism:
“We always refer to the historic perspective, that probably the three worst legacies in the last centuries, the darkest hours, the darkest chapters, the most infamous moments in the last two centuries in world history were precisely created by Europeans. What I mean are the legacy of colonialism and fascism, all of them are European creations. So, Franco, Mussolini and Hitler and other historical characters are as European as van Gogh, Goya or Picasso. And in this program, we start with Auschwitz and we go to the Modern Art Reina Sofía Museum to encounter the Guernica from Picasso. And we have this tool, which is a legal approach, but also historical, political…”

Prof. Gonzáles went on to describe how his Berg Institute had created “the most important human rights library in the Spanish language.” This began in 2010 with Primo Levi’s Auschwitz Trilogy, which was “the cradle of the project, the first book of the collection, number zero, we were lucky to have the best departure point. …Going to Auschwitz hand in hand with Primo Levi, it shows you not just the past, but what are your main responsibilities towards planet earth.”

At the time of this interview in 2019, the Institute had just published Totalmente Extraoficial, the memoirs of Raphael Lemkin, first published in English in 2013 as Totally Unofficial. Most famous as the man who coined the term ‘genocide’, Lemkin was a Polish Jewish lawyer who moved to the USA and became a special adviser to the US War Department. His 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe is regarded as a “foundational text in Holocaust studies”, and Lemkin went on to be the senior adviser to Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel to the Nuremberg trials.

The Spanish edition had 70 extra pages drawn from Lemkin’s archive and a prologue by the Spanish writer Antonio Muñoz Molina, a winner of the Jerusalem Prize who now resides in New York. Muñoz also wrote an introduction to the Berg Institute’s 2019 Spanish edition of the memoirs of Europe’s most famous militant “nazi-hunters”, Serge and Beate Klarsfeld (first published in French in 2015 and in English in 2018 as Hunting the Truth: Memoirs of Beate and Serge Klarsfeld). The video below shows an event jointly organised by the Berg Institute and a Jewish cultural centre in Madrid – Centro Sefarad Israel – paying tribute to the Klarsfelds.

It’s now known that the Klarsfelds worked on a regular basis with the communist East German secret police – the Stasi – to demonise Western politicians as “nazis” and stage “anti-nazi” propaganda stunts. They organised many secret operations against national socialist veterans and “neo-nazis” and in 1974 were convicted and given two-month jail sentences (later suspended) for the attempted kidnapping of former SS intelligence officer Kurt Lischka.

The Klarsfelds’ most famous achievements include tracking down former Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie and having him deported from Bolivia to France for trial, and campaigning for the prosecution of retired French police chief Maurice Papon. They also tracked down René Bousquet, a former civil servant in the French government of Philippe Pétain in Vichy. Bousquet was murdered before he could stand trial.

On several occasions the Klarsfelds tried to track down Alois Brunner, a former Third Reich official who lived in Damascus after the war: Beate Klarsfeld even undertook an undercover mission to Syria, where she was briefly jailed.

Since the late 1970s one of the Klarsfelds’ main targets was the French revisionist scholar Prof. Robert Faurisson. They campaigned for his prosecution, testified at his trials, and organised anti-revisionist propaganda in many countries. They have also been active in campaigns against many different varieties of modern-day nationalist politicians, even those such as Marine Le Pen who painstakingly distance themselves from racialism, historical revisionism and ‘anti-semitism’.

The Klarsfelds are highlighted by Berg Institute founder Gonzáles as among his main inspirations, as is Fritz Bauer, the German Jewish judge who was responsible for alerting Israel’s intelligence service Mossad to the whereabouts of Adolf Eichmann, allowing them to begin the operation that ended in his kidnapping from Buenos Aires and subsequent trial and execution. Bauer also led the prosecution at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial that began in 1963, and was the most important ‘Holocaust’-related trial after that of Nuremberg. The Berg Institute worked with the Fritz Bauer Institute to create a “Human Rights Film Award” in joint honour of Fritz Bauer and Raphael Lemkin.

Prof. Gonzáles has said that, while building the Institute, he “personally dreamt of my heroes, Lemkin, Primo Levi, of course, Klarsfeld and finally, Fritz Bauer. …Also, we are working in something special about the Civil War in Spain and the post-civil war and the trauma and the punitive and infamous legacy of Franco´s dictatorship and the luck of a democratic response during the last 40 years of Spanish democracy. We didn’t have in Spain any agenda designed when the Spanish transition unfolded on how to address the human rights violations and crimes of Franco’s dictatorship from 1939 to 1975. Probably few people thought about this necessary scenario.”

In other words, Prof. Gonzáles addresses the failure to institutionalise “anti-fascism” in post-Franco Spain. This deficiency was remedied in 2022 with the “democratic memory law” which demonises Spanish nationalism and enshrines communists and anti-fascists as heroes, and by an accompanying “anti-semitism” law that effectively criminalises criticism of Judaism and many forms of Holocaust revisionism.

Other books published by the Berg Institute include:
– The Spanish edition of Deborah Lipstadt’s El juicio de Eichmann (2019): first published in English in 2011 as The Eichmann Trial.
– The Spanish edition of the memoirs of Richard Sonnenfeldt, a German-Jewish intelligence officer who was personal interpreter to Gen. William Donovan, head of the OSS (precursor to the CIA), and chief interpreter to the US prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials; these memoirs were published in Spanish by the Instituto Berg in 2018 as Testigo en Núremberg; first published in English in 2006 as Witness to Nuremberg.
– A book about American neo-nazis by Aryeh Neier, a German-Jewish lawyer who served for twenty years as president of George Soros’s ‘philanthropic’ network, the Open Society Institute; in the Instituto Berg’s Spanish edition (2020) this book is called Defendiendo a mi enemigo; first published in English in 1979 as Defending My Enemy: American Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, and the Risks of Freedom.
– The memoirs of Sari Nusseibeh, a highly controversial Palestinian seen by many of his countrymen as a traitor because he advocates giving up the Palestinians’ right of return in exchange for unspecified ‘peace’ deals with Israel; Nusseibeh co-founded a joint initiative in 2002 with Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet; the memoir was published by Instituto Berg in 2020 as Érase una vez un país: una vida palestina (first published in English in 2007 as Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life).
– El juicio del Káiser, by the Canadian Jewish academic William Schabas, a history of the attempt to put German Kaiser Wilhelm II on trial for ‘war crimes’ after the First World War; this Spanish edition was published in 2020; the first English edition in 2018 was titled The Trial of the Kaiser; much of Schabas’s work focuses on the development of human rights law in the context of the ‘Holocaust’ and the Nuremberg trial, though he has sometimes been controversial for his association with the Israeli left-wing and his criticisms of the Netanyahu governments.
– The memoirs of Telford Taylor, an American lawyer and intelligence officer most famous for his role as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial. This was published by Instituto Berg in 2022 as Anatomía de los juicios de Núremberg, and first published in English in 1992 as The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir.
– Justicia Imperfecta by Stuart Eizenstat, published by Instituto Berg in 2019, first published in 2009 as Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II. This is an account of Eizenstat’s role during the 1990s in attempts to obtain financial compensation for Jewish families whose properties, belongings or bank accounts had allegedly been confiscated or otherwise lost during the ‘Holocaust’. Since 2013 he has been the US State Department’s “Special Adviser for Holocaust Issues”, appointed to that role by Hillary Clinton.

It really could not be clearer that the Berg Institute is one of Spain’s leading academic promoters of ‘Holocaust’ studies and is imbued with an anti-fascist and ‘anti-nazi’ ethos. Meanwhile the Berg Institute alumnus Armando Rodríguez Pérez has portrayed himself for the past two years as a militant fascist, national socialist, or national bolshevik: sometimes a Carlist, sometimes a Falangist, sometimes a pro-Franco advocate of an integral Spanish nation, sometimes promoting separatist schemes. While switching switching between factions, Armando has closely associated himself with militant wings of the Spanish ‘far right’. Not only did he act as a lawyer for the leading figures in the now defunct national socialist youth group Bastion Frontal, but he inserted himself into its leadership.

ARMANDO’S INFILTRATION MISSION

In recent months the mission of the anti-fascist infiltrator Armando Rodríguez Pérez has been extended. He has sought to become ever closer to Juan Antonio Llopart, a veteran radical nationalist and publisher. Armando portrays himself as a militant anti-Zionist seeking to liaise with the Iranian government and its allies.

He is now listed as ‘political action secretary’ to Llopart’s new organisation Movimiento Pueblo, which is seeking to register as a political party in time for the 2023 local elections. At a recent Madrid conference that he helped Llopart to organise, Armando met for the first time the British activist Lady Michèle Renouf, who naturally enough assumed that he was a bona fide nationalist and anti-Zionist. During the weekend of 2nd-4th December 2022, Armando attended a small gathering at Lady Renouf’s second home in the German countryside, where fellow guests included some well known figures on the German national socialist scene. Good news for the anti-fascist infiltrator Armando, who will have picked up intelligence and made what he hopes will be useful contacts. Those involved are now being warned as to Armando’s true allegiances, and we hope that the damage will be minimised.

These British and German connections have already allowed Armando Rodríguez Pérez to insinuate himself into a scheme to obtain Iranian assistance for a political fugitive wanted by the German authorities. We are fully informed about this plan, but for obvious reasons are not yet reporting the full details. Steps are being taken to minimise the damage that the anti-fascist infiltrator Armando Rodríguez Pérez can cause – though of course it’s not yet known whether his intention is to sabotage the rescue of this dissident, or to use the entire affair in order to ingratiate himself with Iranian networks and perhaps infiltrate them on behalf of Israeli interests.

What is certain is that Armando Rodríguez Pérez is bad news for nationalists, national socialists, revisionists and anti-Zionists. Several of his inconsistent ideological positions seem to have been adopted with the primary intention of weakening and dividing the radical nationalist movement, both within Spain and internationally.

In January this year when Madrid police were attempting to track down Isabel Peralta (who was at the time temporarily resident in Germany) they were telephoned by a lawyer called Alvaro Domec who claimed to be Isabel’s legal representative. In fact she had never met him, never corresponded with him, and never heard of him, but court papers in her ongoing trial for the May 2021 speech outside the Moroccan Embassy continue to present Domec as having been her lawyer.

For unknown reasons, none of the police and prosecution files relating to the investigation of Isabel Peralta and Bastión Frontal mention Armando Rodríguez Pérez. Moreover, despite the anti-fascist and mainstream media’s intense interest in Bastión Frontal, which was portrayed for much of 2021-2022 as a particularly dangerous and violent ‘neo-nazi’ organisation, no journalist and no ‘anti-fascist’ ever exposed its co-leader ‘Armando Bastión’ as being the outwardly respectable Madrid lawyer Armando Rodríguez Pérez. It is worth mentioning that the legal action brought by Isabel against the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post, in which Armando is acting as her legal representative, has twice been extended since no response had been received by the plaintiffs within the required deadline.

Equally mysterious was Armando’s own reticence during March 2022, when his client Isabel Peralta was detained at Frankfurt Airport and questioned, before being expelled from Germany in what appears to be a potentially illegal deportation; and in October 2022 when she was again detained by German police in Hessen and served with an exclusion order. On both occasions she was badly in need of a reliable German lawyer, but Armando gave every impression that he had no German contacts who could help.

At the time of Isabel’s March arrest in Frankfurt, it was the assistant editor of Heritage & Destiny, Peter Rushton – not her Madrid lawyer Armando Rodríguez Pérez – who made contact with an experienced German lawyer from Berlin, Wolfram Nahrath, and asked him to represent Isabel, which he did.

This was then used six or seven months later by the German authorities as ‘evidence’ that Isabel herself had ‘high-level connections’ with ‘German political extremists’.

Completely unknown to Isabel, her Spanish lawyer Armando actually has particularly close associations with German lawyers, a fact that he had studiously avoided mentioning to her. In fact his legal office in Madrid (C. de Serrano, 79, 7d), which was at one time the office of his defunct firm GABEIRO, now operates as the Madrid branch of a legal firm called Strafverteidiger Spanien. This firm has a German name, even though it is based in Barcelona and also has a branch in the tourist resort town of Palma de Mallorca.

The firm is headed by Armando’s friend and colleague María Barbancho Saborit, and specialises in representing German-speaking clients in need of legal representation in Spain, including people accused of financial crimes and/or facing European arrest warrants.

Ms Barbancho Saborit seems to be of part-German ancestry, and was educated at the Deutsche Schule in Barcelona, before spending part of her university course at Heidelberg. There is no suggestion that Ms Barbancho Saborit is necessarily party to or even aware of Armando’s double life inside European national socialist movements. She is qualified in both Spanish and German law.

CONCLUSION

The infiltration mission of Armando Rodríguez Pérez as a spy within radical nationalist and national socialist circles raises serious questions about the Spanish justice system.

How can it be right for an infiltrator to act as the legal representative for someone accused of political crimes, when unbeknown to his client, the lawyer concerned has a long record of association with completely opposed political ideas?

Naturally it is possible for a lawyer to represent someone whose views he does not share. But in this case Armando Rodríguez Pérez pretended to share those views – in fact acted as a leader of the political groups concerned as well as lawyer for their activists – while actually having a longstanding allegiance to opposing forces.

It is urgently necessary for the present prosecution of Isabel Peralta to be abandoned, and for the Spanish secret police and prosecutors to explain just how much they know about the real agenda of Armando Rodríguez Pérez.

Meanwhile we shall continue to work with those in nationalist, national socialist, revisionist and anti-Zionist movements in various countries in an effort to minimise and repair the damage inflicted by Armando Rodríguez Pérez.

As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote more than a century ago: Aus der Kriegsschule des Lebens – Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker. “From the military school of life – What fails to kill me, makes me stronger.”

H&D writer Isabel Peralta banned from Germany for life

UPDATE: Isabel is now back on Twitter, even though banned from visiting Germany. The German government cannot suppress the truth forever, whether online or in person.

Germany is already known for its laws banning free political debate and historical research – most notoriously for the recent decision to imprison 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck. It has become almost routine for Germany to deny basic human rights to its own citizens, while welcoming alien immigrants from every corner of the world.

Now the German authorities have again breached their basic obligations under the Schengen treaty, by which fellow Europeans are supposed to be allowed freedom to travel across its borders.

They are attempting to impose a life ban on Spanish nationalist activist and H&D writer Isabel Peralta – despite the fact she has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal offence in Germany.

As we reported in Issue 111 of H&D (but has only yesterday been picked up by the mainstream press in Spain), German police detained Isabel on 6th October while she was minding her own business in the central German university town of Marburg. She was served with official papers ordering her to leave the country.

This followed earlier harassment at Manchester Airport, when Isabel was detained for more than six hours on 24th September, the night before her speech at the H&D meeting in Preston, which can be viewed online here.

It’s now apparent that UK authorities abused Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, so as to do a favour for their German colleagues. The UK authorities knew perfectly well that they had no valid reason to detain Isabel, but they used Schedule 7 as a ‘fishing expedition’ to collect political intelligence from her phone and computer, and pass it to the German authorities.

This has nothing to do with terrorism and nothing to do with UK law: British police and border security have become accomplices in the German authorities’ campaign of political persecution against nationalists.

Unlike post-Brexit UK citizens, Isabel is of course (as a Spanish citizen) entitled under European law (in fact under the European constitution) to enter Germany free of harassment, and for that matter to work or study in Germany.

Such rights can only be withdrawn in very exceptional circumstances: even convicted criminals are normally entitled to these rights.

In order to expel Isabel, and now to argue that she should be excluded from Germany for life, the authorities have had to argue not that she is a criminal (because they know that she has broken no German laws) but that she is a serious threat to “national security”, because she supposedly has such high-level connections with dangerous subversives in leadership positions among the “far right”, including people who aim to overthrow the German government!

This extraordinary paranoia reflects the fact that despite the evident short-term weakness of German nationalist movements, those who govern the occupied Federal Republic are aware of their lack of legitimacy. They know that their rule since the end of blatant Allied military occupation in the early 1950s has been based on lies, and they fear (correctly) that Isabel Peralta, as a brave and intelligent advocate of truth, is capable of inspiring a movement among new generations of Europeans that will eventually win.

That’s why they had to invent a quite ludicrous case against her, which now aims to exclude her from Germany for life. This legal and constitutional outrage will of course be appealed, if necessary as far as the European courts.

H&D and our colleagues in several European countries have been working for the last two months on a major investigation of the extreme measures that have been adopted by the enemies of nationalism to subvert our movement and deny legal and constitutional rights. Next week we shall publish the results of this investigation.

Our brave comrade Isabel is still facing legal proceedings in Spain under their version of the race laws (though this case is unrelated to her exclusion from Germany and does not provide any valid reason for the German authorities’ behaviour). She is also bringing a civil action against the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post, a case which has already begun in the Madrid courts.

Madrid authorities seek to jail H&D writer in blatant political prosecution

Isabel Peralta – European correspondent of H&D who recently addressed our meeting in Preston – is in court this week in Madrid, where the authorities aim to jail her for three years.

The case has been brought under Spain’s equivalent of the UK’s racial incitement laws, but as our assistant editor Peter Rushton explains in this article, Isabel is being targeted in blatant political machinations: not only by the Spanish government, but also by lobbyists working in the interests of the Moroccan government.

For this and other reasons which we shall disclose in a later article, the prosecution of Isabel Peralta is a disgrace to Spanish justice. If she is convicted, the matter will be appealed if necessary as far as the European Court. Spanish politicians and Moroccan lobbyists are the true criminals, working against the interests of Spain and against the interests of Europeans.

The case dates back to 18th May 2021, when a demonstration was held outside the Moroccan Embassy in Madrid by a Spanish nationalist youth group. Isabel was at the time a leading activist in this group.

In an interview and speech, both of which were later broadcast on YouTube, Isabel explained the purpose of this demonstration: to draw attention to the attempted blackmail being exerted by the Moroccan Government, who were threatening to flood Spain with immigrants unless Spain accepted Moroccan control over Western Sahara.

This is a diplomatic dispute that has been going on for more than half a century, ever since Spain gave up its colonial control over the province once known as Spanish Sahara. Morocco seeks to grab the entire area for itself, but is opposed by an independence movement called Polisario Front, which is backed by Algeria.

It is in Spaniards’ economic interest to back the Polisario, partly in order to remain on good terms with Algeria, which supplies Spain with natural gas. But for the past two years the Moroccan government has exerted blackmail on Spain.

Morocco’s main weapon is control over illegal immigration into Spanish territory. They have indicated that they are prepared to turn the immigration tap on or off. And Spain’s socialist government is naturally unable or unwilling to take firm action against the consequent flood, just as it fails to resist mass immigration from elsewhere.

Essentially this was the background to the demonstration addressed by Isabel Peralta in Madrid in May last year. The demonstration targeted both the Moroccan government’s blackmail, and the Spanish authorities’ weakness.

Isabel’s interview and speech was making a serious and well-informed case. She explained that the demonstrators had come to the Embassy “to stand up to the indecency of our politicians who look the other way, while we suffer unprecedented racial replacement”.

She emphasised that “the problem here is not Morocco. The problem is what purports to be our own government, which with impunity sets off this explosion: the arrival of immigrants on a massive scale.”

Since politicians were not prepared to stand up to the Moroccan government’s blackmail, Spanish nationalist youth had to come forward. Isabel concluded her interview with words that require some explanation to British readers: “We shall not allow another Green March.”

The Green March – on 6th November 1975 – was the deliberate incursion by 350,000 Moroccans (organised by their government) into what was still Spanish colonial territory, in what is now Western Sahara. Because Spain was beginning its decolonisation, its soldiers were ordered not to open fire and to accept what was essentially an invasion.

So the Green March was a Spanish surrender, abandoning their responsibility to their former colonial subjects. Spain signed the so-called Madrid Accords, which effectively rewarded Morocco for their illegal invasion. (Part of the problem was that this was happening during the last weeks of General Franco’s life: he was dying and incapable of exercising any political authority.)

During her speech to the rally outside the Moroccan Embassy, Isabel picked up the theme that had concluded her interview: “Now as in 1975, they are trying again and they are coming with force, and 5,000 now seems like a lot to us, but in ten years they will seem like few, because if we do not stop them this will be our future: immigration in Europe will supplant our race, our diversity, our religion and our culture, and we are the only ones who are going to fight for it.”

The context is very clear: Isabel is correctly comparing the surrender in 1975, when the Spanish government gave in to Moroccan invaders and betrayed the indigenous people of Western Sahara, to the potential surrender in 2021-2022, when today’s Spanish government is similarly weak in the face of Moroccan threats.

It turned out that Isabel was absolutely correct. Not only has the Madrid government continued to allow floods of immigrants, it has also surrendered to Morocco’s blackmail. In March 2022, almost a year after Isabel’s comments, Spain’s socialist government carried out a U-turn and adopted a pro-Moroccan position, abandoning the decades-long Spanish policy that Western Sahara’s future should be settled by a referendum of its inhabitants.

The U-turn threatens vital trade deals including the supply of natural gas from Algeria.

The entire situation is a shambles, rooted in the inability of Spain’s socialist government to stand up for Spanish interests.

As so often across the West, when the arguments of nationalists are vindicated, the authorities’ response is to persecute us. And as so often, weakness in the face of an invader or a blackmailer merely invites further invasion and further blackmail.

This time it is our correspondent Isabel Peralta who is on the frontline. As they prepared their surrender to Morocco, the Spanish authorities launched a prosecution of Isabel, which has come to court in Madrid this week. Prosecutors are asking for her to be jailed for up to three years.

In presenting her interview and speech as inciting racial violence, prosecutors have deliberately ignored its political context. They have not only deliberately distorted her speech, they have even omitted crucial words from the transcript. Isabel clearly said that the demonstration was anti-immigration, but not motivated by hatred of any race. Such hatred, she emphasised, would be absurd since our entire political outlook is based on recognition of racial differences. We are motivated, she pointed out, “by admiration and devotion to our own race in the face of a threat to its very existence”.

The political manipulation at the heart of this case is obvious from official papers that I have examined.

Ten days after the demonstration, Madrid’s political police were visited by Sofia Bencrimo, an employee of a charity that promotes the integration of immigrants. Later the same day these police officers sent a report to the prosecutors: this was the first step in the process leading to Isabel’s criminal trial.

The political police (duly followed by prosecutors) presented Ms Bencrimo’s complaint against Isabel as though it reflected a charity standing up for ordinary immigrants who felt threatened by Isabel’s words. In the entire prosecution dossier of more than 90 pages, which I have studied in detail, Ms Bencrimo’s is the only complaint from anyone outside Spanish officialdom.

Yet the organisation this complainant represented – the Ibn Battuta Foundation – is not as simple as police and prosecutors pretend.

Its president is Mohammed Chaib Akhdim, a veteran politician and businessman with close personal and financial ties to the Moroccan government – the very people whose actions were being exposed and criticised in Isabel’s speech.

Chaib is a former MP in both the Catalan and Madrid parliaments for the left-wing party PSC (Socialists Party of Catalonia). But he is also a wealthy businessman with financial interests in his native Morocco, and in particular stands to benefit from Morocco taking control of Western Sahara. Since 1992 he was been director of business development in Morocco for COMSA Industrial, a company with vast interests in engineering and construction projects in Morocco, including the disputed territory of Western Sahara.

It is a remarkable coincidence that the “charity worker” who brought the complaint against Isabel Peralta was an employee of Chaib’s foundation.

H&D fully supports our brave and brilliant comrade Isabel. We look forward to her victory over this politically motivated prosecution – however long that victory takes.

We shall be reporting further on the development of this case, and on the related political persecution of Isabel in Germany, which was assisted by border security in our own country who disgracefully detained her for more than six hours a few weeks ago during her visit to England. Check this website and our January edition of H&D for more extraordinary revelations about the state of European justice.

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.

“Terrorist” travesty – police act as political puppets in harassment of H&D’s Isabel Peralta

Our guest speaker at the recent Preston meeting – Spanish nationalist activist Isabel Peralta – was detained at Manchester Airport for more than six hours (under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act) after flying from Madrid the night before the event.

Isabel and H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton therefore had only 90 minutes sleep before the meeting!

Despite never having been convicted of any offence, Isabel was further harassed by the authorities, who retained her phone and computer for five days. And the extraordinary fortnight of persecution continued when German authorities issued an exclusion order banning Isabel from Germany for 20 years! This is again despite her never having been convicted of any criminal offence. In fact Isabel herself has brought a court action in Madrid against the Jerusalem Post and Simon Wiesenthal Center.

In the attached video, we examine the political persecution of Isabel Peralta and the discrediting of Europe’s anti-terrorist laws, which are used as excuses for political harassment and “fishing expeditions” for political intelligence, wholly unrelated to any genuine anti-terrorist concerns.

Click here to view the interview with Isabel Peralta, hours after her detention under the “Terrorism Act”.

Next Page »