Demonstrate for Spain and for Europe: not for “democracy”! – Isabel Peralta reports from the front line in Madrid
H&D correspondent Isabel Peralta has been on the front line of recent demonstrations in central Madrid. In this frank assessment of the events in Calle Ferraz, their motive, and consequences, she draws a clear distinction between the radical nationalist response and “constitutional” conservatism.
(Click the bottom right of the screen above to view the podcast with more easily legible English subtitles.)
The disgraceful amnesty deal offered by socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to Catalan subversives is (Isabel points out) legal under Spain’s “democratic” 1978 constitution. Contrary to assertions by conservatives and reactionaries, the problem is not that Sánchez has acted unconstitutionally or anti-democratically.
The problem is “democracy” (in its present form) and the constitution itself. Yet the demonstrations have, Isabel believes, indicated that a revolutionary spirit – the true European spirit – is reviving among young Spaniards.
Chaos on the streets of Madrid – H&D correspondent on front line against subversion
As predicted in recent editions of H&D, Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has secured a parliamentary deal to maintain himself in office (at least for a short time), but the price for his self-interested pact is a fundamental betrayal of Spain itself.
Sánchez has offered leaders of the Catalan separatist party Junts an amnesty for their seditious crimes. In addition to Junts and his own PSOE, the Prime Minister relies on a second Catalan party, two Basque parties (including terrorist murderers closely allied to Sinn Fein / IRA), and a collection of extreme leftists.
For almost two weeks now, Spanish patriots – ranging from conservatives to Falangists and national socialists – have been protesting in the streets opposite the PSOE headquarters in Calle Ferraz, central Madrid.
Our own correspondent Isabel Peralta has been on the front line at the barricades, facing an increasingly politicised and brutal police force. Demonstrators have been attacked with tear gas and police batons.
In response to the radicalisation of Spanish youth, Isabel and her comrades are forming a new organisation, Sección de Asalto. As their banner last night – “Defend Europe” – indicated, they do not see this struggle as merely another episode in the party political game.
Indeed, as Isabel made clear in her article in Issue 115 of H&D, the reactionary party Vox and their potential conservative allies in the Partido Popular are merely an alternative face of the same problem. Neither globalist capitalism nor fake “socialism” – and least of all a separatist assault on Spain itself – offers any hope for Spaniards.
Though reactionaries are trying to deny this logic, the “democratic” constitution foisted on Spain in 1978 is part of the problem. Spain requires a national revolution – not an imitation of the Franco dictatorship which wasted the revolutionary potential of the martyred Falangist leaders of the 1930s, but a revival of the spirit and ideals of Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, and Onesimo Redondo.
H&D will have further reports soon from the frontline in Madrid, where the sinister forces of subversion that threaten all of Europe are now seen in their clearest light, and are being boldly defied.
Praxis revolucionaria: la estrategia de la protesta callejera
Durante los últimos días, los nacionalistas británicos y europeos han tenido que elegir cuándo y cómo participar en protestas callejeras. El editor asistente de H&D, Peter Rushton, ofrece esta introducción a la estrategia de protesta callejera en 2023. This article is also available in English.
España se está volviendo rápidamente ingobernable a medida que los patriotas (incluida nuestra corresponsal europea Isabel Peralta) salen a las calles en protesta contra el sórdido y traicionero acuerdo de amnistía ofrecido a los subversivos catalanes por el primer ministro Pedro Sánchez. Mientras tanto, en Londres, el criminal de carrera Stephen Yaxley-Lennon –más conocido como “Tommy Robinson”– está intentando otro regreso político como líder de las contraprotestas contra los partidarios de Palestina. Y en París, la principal líder de la oposición, Marine Le Pen, pasada y futura candidata presidencial por el partido nacionalista Rassemblement National (anteriormente Frente Nacional Francés), ha participado en una manifestación pro-Israel.
¿Qué factores deberían tener en cuenta los nacionalistas raciales al decidir si adoptan una estrategia de protestas callejeras?
En primer lugar, debemos centrar nuestra mente en el objetivo de la protesta. Esto puede parecer obvio, pero lamentablemente en 2023 muchos nacionalistas están demasiado dispuestos a calzarse las botas de marcha simplemente para “hacer algo”, porque están frustrados por las evidentes crisis de la sociedad europea y la aparente incapacidad de los partidos nacionalistas para montar un serio desafío político (tras, por ejemplo, el colapso del BNP en el Reino Unido hasta convertirlo en un mero canal de recaudación de fondos para sus líderes corruptos e indolentes).
Tomando los tres ejemplos anteriores, el caso más obvio es la manifestación parisina que pretendía única y descaradamente ser una manifestación a favor de Israel. La postura de Marine Le Pen fue bien recibida nada menos que por Serge Klarsfeld, el principal “antinazi” francés que ahora tiene 88 años y tiene vínculos de larga data con la inteligencia israelí. Klarsfeld dijo al periódico conservador Le Figaro: “Cuando veo a un gran partido de extrema derecha abandonar el antisemitismo y el negacionismo y avanzar hacia nuestros valores republicanos, naturalmente me alegro”.
Los lectores de H&D comprenderán que no me alegro. Pero tampoco me sorprende. Este fin de semana es simplemente la culminación de una relación de larga data entre la dinastía Le Pen y los servicios de inteligencia israelíes, que finalmente lograron apoderarse de los dos principales partidos políticos de la “extrema derecha” francesa.
El llamado de Tommy Robinson a los patriotas británicos para que descendieran sobre Londres y se opusieran a los manifestantes pro palestinos fue sólo un poco más complicado. Robinson saltó a la fama en 2009 como líder de la Liga de Defensa Inglesa (EDL) con una agenda explícitamente antimusulmana. Aunque era declaradamente “antirracista” y contaba con numerosos activistas no blancos, el EDL creció justo cuando el BNP comenzaba a implosionar y atrajo a muchas personas que alguna vez habrían sido partidarios del BNP.
Aunque ha sido desacreditado varias veces en la última década, Robinson recibe una fuerte promoción de los medios de comunicación y algunos nacionalistas sinceros todavía lo consideran un líder de algo que se parece vagamente a nuestra causa patriótica. Es especialmente popular entre las bandas de fútbol y otros que están (a menudo por razones honorables) deseosos de enfrentarse a los enemigos de la Europa blanca en las calles.
Pero el objetivo del llamado a la acción del sábado pasado en Londres fue obviamente fraudulento, como se apresuraron a señalar tanto H&D como el líder de Alternativa Patriótica, Mark Collett.
Una amplia gama de reaccionarios, incluidos periódicos conservadores y la entonces ministra del Interior, Suella Braverman (una india casada con un judío), amplificaron la falsa afirmación de Robinson de que el Cenotafio estaba amenazado por manifestantes pro palestinos (principalmente de origen extranjero). El hecho es que la marcha del sábado hacia Gaza nunca iba a amenazar el Cenotafio, ni siquiera pasar por Whitehall.
En otras palabras, el objetivo central del grito de guerra de Robinson era fraudulento. Su objetivo era principalmente incorporar a los nacionalistas británicos (una versión diminuta, fragmentada y de baja categoría del partido de Marine Le Pen) como aliados explícitos del sionismo. Y en segundo lugar, dividir, desviar y desacreditar a aquellos patriotas que de otro modo podrían contribuir a construir un auténtico desafío nacionalista racial a nuestra traicionera élite política.
El variopinto grupo de Robinson logró ser a la vez una “mala óptica” para el nacionalismo y representar una ideología contraproducente y fundamentalmente defectuosa. Como dijo una vez un analista francés (atribuido erróneamente al estadista Talleyrand): C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute. Es peor que un crimen, es un error.
Por el contrario, el objetivo central de las continuas manifestaciones en Madrid es totalmente válido: oponerse a la desintegración de España. Esta traición nacional es un acuerdo cínico del primer ministro Pedro Sánchez, líder del falso partido “socialista” español PSOE. Como explicó Isabel Peralta en el número 116 de H&D hace dos meses, el circo político partidista español resultó en unas elecciones parlamentarias inconclusas. Para obtener una mayoría en el parlamento de Madrid (las Cortes), Sánchez debe llegar a acuerdos no sólo con sus principales aliados de la extrema izquierda, sino también con una variedad de partidos regionalistas/separatistas vascos y catalanes.
Entre ellos se encuentra el partido separatista catalán de línea dura Junts, cuyos líderes han estado prófugos de la justicia española durante varios años. Fueron declarados culpables de sedición y otros delitos después de que organizaran un “referéndum” ilegal como parte de un esfuerzo inconstitucional para separarse de España. Y a pesar de ser políticamente conservadora en otros aspectos, su conspiración antiespañola se ganó el apoyo de la habitual galería internacional de subversivos antieuropeos, incluido el abogado paquistaní “escocés” Aamer Anwar, que comenzó su carrera política como un vándalo marxista destrozando el monumento erigida en homenaje a Rudolf Hess cerca de Glasgow.
Sánchez ha ofrecido una amnistía a Junts por los crímenes de sus dirigentes. El propio Primer Ministro está subvirtiendo deliberadamente tanto la Constitución española como el Estado de derecho, simplemente para obtener una mayoría parlamentaria que le permita mantenerse en el cargo. La situación es en cierto modo similar a la de Gran Bretaña en 1913-14, cuando el líder conservador Bonar Law denunció un pacto con los “nacionalistas” irlandeses diseñado para mantener en el cargo al primer ministro liberal Asquith:
“No reconocemos al gabinete liberal como el gobierno constitucional de un pueblo libre. Los consideramos un comité revolucionario que ha entrado mediante fraude en el poder despótico”.
En respuesta al escandaloso acuerdo de amnistía, los patriotas españoles se han manifestado durante las últimas diez noches en el centro de Madrid, enfrentándose a filas masivas de policías armados frente a la sede del gobernante PSOE. Mayores madrileños junto a bandas de fútbol; conservadores, nacionalistas cívicos, falangistas y nacionalsocialistas; Todo esto y más han llenado las calles de su capital, y la autoridad del gobierno de Sánchez se está desmoronando.
Por lo tanto, en el caso de las manifestaciones de Madrid –en marcado contraste con París y Londres– el objetivo de las protestas callejeras es claramente válido y vale la pena apoyarlo. De hecho, es deber de los nacionalistas raciales asumir un papel de liderazgo en tales protestas, incluso si están organizadas por reaccionarios conservadores con quienes tenemos poco más en común.
Entonces, la segunda pregunta es: ¿cómo contribuye una protesta callejera en particular a promover nuestra ideología y hacer avanzar nuestro proyecto político más amplio?
Volviendo brevemente al caos del sábado pasado en Londres, podemos ver fácilmente que (incluso dejando de lado el prospecto fundamentalmente fraudulento de “Tommy Robinson” y sus colegas propagandistas sionistas) los nacionalistas raciales no ganaban nada participando en tal evento.
No había posibilidad de promover ideas nacionalistas raciales, y toda la farsa simplemente estaba llevando a muchos patriotas, por lo demás sinceros, a un callejón sin salida político.
En Madrid, por el contrario, la situación exige una planificación estratégica seria, además de valentía. Es obvio que los líderes de las manifestaciones antiSánchez son reaccionarios, principalmente del supuestamente “derecha” Vox y del conservador Partido Popular. Por lo tanto, al participar, siempre existe el riesgo de que los nacionalistas raciales simplemente actúen como soldados de infantería en beneficio de nuestros enemigos.
Porque no cabe duda de que la reaccionaria “derecha” es nuestro enemigo. En cierto modo, un enemigo más mortífero que la “izquierda” subversiva.
Pero es un riesgo que vale la pena correr. No sólo porque es nuestro deber estar en primera línea cuando nuestra nación está bajo ataque (ya sea como patriotas británicos y del Ulster enfrentando al IRA y sus simpatizantes, o como patriotas españoles enfrentando a sus equivalentes vascos o catalanes), sino porque al demostrar nuestra compromiso –nuestra devoción fanática a la raza y la nación– podemos comenzar a despertar incluso a aquellos de nuestros compatriotas que anteriormente tenían una perspectiva ideológica limitada.
Además, la evidente quiebra de la constitución “democrática” española de 1978 significa ahora que los acontecimientos se están moviendo rápidamente y que el potencial de radicalización es mayor que en cualquier otro lugar de Europa occidental.
Sin embargo, es esencial que los nacionalistas raciales logren el delicado equilibrio de participar en una protesta de base amplia, pero también mantener nuestro mensaje distintivo.
Esto se puede lograr mejor mediante:
(a) continuar con un aluvión de propaganda en línea centrada en nuestra ideología central y relacionarla con la confrontación en rápido desarrollo en las calles:
y (b) garantizar que nuestros militantes exhiban carteles y pancartas que reflejen nuestro mensaje, no el mensaje reaccionario.
Esto significa, por ejemplo, que ya sea en Madrid, París o Londres nunca debemos llevar pancartas o publicar propaganda en línea que exponga nuestro caso en términos religiosos más que raciales.
Por supuesto, en varios puntos de nuestra lucha tendremos aliados que piensen principalmente en términos religiosos, lo que significa que en Madrid nuestros aliados serán a menudo católicos devotos, mientras que en Belfast o Glasgow nuestros aliados serán a menudo protestantes militantes.
Pero nuestra lucha contra el debilitamiento de la civilización occidental y la traición de nuestras naciones y nuestra raza no es una lucha contra el Islam, como tampoco es una lucha a favor o en contra del Papa. Para nosotros no supone ninguna diferencia si un inmigrante no europeo es musulmán, cristiano, hindú, budista, zoroástrico o marxista/ateo. Resistimos la invasión no europea en nombre de la preservación racial y del verdadero renacimiento europeo, no en nombre de ningún dios o dioses.
Adoptar una agenda obsesionada con el Islam es la peor forma de rendirse a la política reaccionaria. Ya sea que en casos particulares sirva o no a la agenda sionista, simplemente no tiene parte en una lucha nacionalista racial ideológicamente coherente.
Sólo manteniendo una línea ideológica coherente podremos obtener alguna ventaja política de estos enfrentamientos callejeros. Nunca debemos olvidar que la nuestra es una guerra de ideas, no una simple escaramuza callejera de adolescentes. Las batallas en las calles son un medio para lograr un fin, no un fin en sí mismas.
Lo que nos lleva a un tema final para el análisis de hoy. Habiendo abordado la estrategia, ¿qué pasa con las tácticas? ¿Qué métodos son justificables en la consecución de nuestros objetivos?
La respuesta simple es que todos y cada uno de los métodos son justificables, siempre que sean necesarios y estén adecuadamente enfocados.
En Gran Bretaña continental, todo discurso sobre violencia política es (en todas las circunstancias actuales concebibles) completamente contraproducente y debería ser rechazado por nacionalistas raciales serios, independientemente de consideraciones morales y legales. Mientras que en Irlanda del Norte ha habido momentos en el pasado muy reciente en los que la violencia no sólo era necesaria, sino que era el deber de todo patriota decente en la lucha contra un enemigo vil y asesino: el IRA y sus representantes y escisiones.
En Madrid, las acciones traicioneras y subversivas del Primer Ministro han cruzado la línea en la que la resistencia –incluso la resistencia violenta– se convierte no sólo en una opción sino en un deber.
Así que la pregunta central para los nacionalistas no es si la violencia está filosóficamente justificada, sino en qué punto se vuelve necesaria y prácticamente alcanzable. Esa es una decisión que sólo pueden tomar en el día a día los involucrados. Pero nuevamente el imperativo para los líderes de nuestro movimiento es mantener un sentido de objetivo más amplio. La adrenalina de la batalla debe atenuarse con un enfoque estratégico. Estamos en política para lograr una revolución nacional, no para obtener la satisfacción a corto plazo que se puede obtener eligiendo un concejal o destrozando las instalaciones de nuestros enemigos.
Y esa revolución nacional se logrará mediante un compromiso constante y un pensamiento serio, no mediante la mentalidad que prevalece en Internet según la cual un día se hacen afirmaciones extravagantes para ser olvidadas al día siguiente, en busca del siguiente “cebo para hacer clic”, el los siguientes “me gusta”, los siguientes “seguidores”.
El tipo de seguidores que necesitamos son personas que lean un libro y pasen horas arriesgándose en una confrontación callejera. Como dijo mi viejo camarada Jonathan Bowden, necesitamos el retorno del concepto ideal de Lord Byron: el matón culto.
Otros artículos en este sitio y en H&D examinarán la ideología que sustentará y motivará a estos matones cultos: la praxis revolucionaria de la década de 2020.
Revolutionary praxis: the strategy of street protest
During recent days British and European nationalists have had to choose when and how to engage in street protests. H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton offers this introduction to the strategy of street protest in 2023 – Este artículo también está disponible en traducción al español.
Spain is rapidly becoming ungovernable as patriots (including our European correspondent Isabel Peralta) take to the streets in protest against the squalid and treacherous amnesty deal offered to Catalan subversives by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Meanwhile in London, the career criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known as ‘Tommy Robinson’ – is attempting another political comeback as leader of counter-protests against supporters of Palestine. And in Paris, the main opposition leader Marine Le Pen, past and future presidential candidate for the nationalist party Rassemblement National (formerly the French National Front) has marched on a pro-Israel demonstration.
What factors should be borne in mind by racial nationalists when deciding whether to adopt a strategy of street protests?
First and foremost, we should focus our minds on the protest’s objective. This might seem obvious – but sadly in 2023 many nationalists are only too keen to put on their marching boots merely in order to “do something”, because they are frustrated by the evident crises of European society and the apparent inability of nationalist parties to mount a serious political challenge (following, for example, the collapse of the BNP into a mere fundraising channel for its corrupt and indolent leaders).
Taking the three examples above, the most obvious case is the Parisian demonstration which was solely and blatantly intended as a rally for Israel. Marine Le Pen’s stance was welcomed by none other than Serge Klarsfeld, the leading French “anti-nazi” now aged 88 who has longstanding ties to Israeli intelligence. Klarsfeld told the conservative newspaper Le Figaro: “when I see a big party of the far right abandon anti-semitism and negationism and move towards our Republican values, naturally I rejoice.”
H&D readers will understand that I’m not rejoicing. But neither am I surprised. This weekend is merely the culmination of a longstanding relationship between the Le Pen dynasty and Israeli intelligence services, who have at last succeeded in taking over both of the main political parties of the French “far right”.
Tommy Robinson’s call for British patriots to descend on London and oppose pro-Palestinian demonstrators was only slightly more complicated. Robinson came to prominence in 2009 as leader of the English Defence League (EDL) with an explicitly anti-Muslim agenda. Though it was avowedly “anti-racist” and had numerous non-White activists, the EDL grew just as the BNP was starting to implode, and it attracted many people who would once have been BNP supporters.
Though he has been discredited several times in the past decade, Robinson is heavily promoted by the media and is still viewed by some sincere nationalists as a leader of something that vaguely resembles our patriotic cause. He is especially popular with football gangs and others who are (often for honourable reasons) eager to confront the enemies of White Europe on the streets.
But the objective of last Saturday’s call to action in London was obviously fraudulent, as both H&D and Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett were quick to point out.
A wide range of reactionaries including Tory newspapers and then Home Secretary Suella Braverman (an Indian married to a Jew) amplified Robinson’s false claim that the Cenotaph was threatened by pro-Palestinian marchers (mainly of alien origin). The fact is that Saturday’s march for Gaza was never going to threaten the Cenotaph, or even pass down Whitehall.
In other words the central objective of Robinson’s rallying cry was fraudulent. Its objective was primarily to embed British nationalists (a tiny, fragmented and downmarket version of Marine Le Pen’s party) as explicit allies of Zionism. And secondly to divide, misdirect and discredit those patriots who might otherwise contribute to building a genuine racial nationalist challenge to our treacherous political elite.
Robinson’s motley crew managed to be both ‘bad optics’ for nationalism, and to represent a counter-productive, fundamentally flawed ideology. As was once said by a French analyst (and misattributed to the statesman Talleyrand): C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.
By contrast the central objective of the continuing demonstrations in Madrid is entirely valid: to oppose the break-up of Spain. This national betrayal is a cynical deal by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, leader of Spain’s fake ‘socialist’ party PSOE. As Isabel Peralta explained in issue 116 of H&D two months ago, Spain’s party political circus resulted in an inconclusive parliamentary election. To obtain a majority in Madrid’s parliament (the Cortes), Sánchez must cut deals not only with his main allies on the extreme left, but with an assortment of Basque and Catalan regionalist/separatist parties.
Among these is the hardline Catalan separatist party Junts, whose leaders have been fugitives from Spanish justice for several years. They were convicted of sedition and other crimes after they set up an illegal ‘referendum’ as part of an unconstitutional effort to secede from Spain. And despite being politically conservative in other respects, their anti-Spanish conspiracy won the support of the usual international gallery of anti-European subversives, including the ‘Scottish’ Pakistani lawyer Aamer Anwar, who began his political career as a Marxist vandal smashing the Rudolf Hess memorial stone near Glasgow.
Sánchez has offered an amnesty to Junts for its leaders’ crimes. The Prime Minister himself is deliberately subverting both the Spanish constitution and the rule of law, merely in order to obtain a parliamentary majority to sustain himself in office. The situation is in some ways similar to Britain in 1913-14, when the Conservative leader Bonar Law denounced a pact with Irish ‘Nationalists’ designed to keep Liberal Prime Minister Asquith in office:
“We do not recognise the Liberal cabinet as the constitutional government of a free people. We regard them as a revolutionary committee which has entered by fraud upon despotic power.”
In response to the outrageous amnesty deal, Spanish patriots have turned out for the past ten nights in central Madrid, confronting massed ranks of armed police outside the headquarters of the ruling PSOE. Elderly Madrid residents alongside football gangs; conservatives, civic nationalists, Falangists, and national socialists; all these and more have packed the streets of their capital city, and the authority of the Sánchez government is crumbling.
Therefore, in the case of the Madrid demonstrations – in stark contrast to Paris and London – the objective of the street protests is clearly valid and worth supporting. In fact it is the duty of racial nationalists to take a leading role in such protests, even if they are organised by conservative reactionaries with whom we have little else in common.
So the second question becomes, how does a particular street protest contribute to promoting our ideology and advancing our broader political project?
Turning again briefly to last Saturday’s shambles in London, we can easily see that (even setting aside the fundamentally fraudulent prospectus of ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his fellow Zionist propagandists) there was nothing to be gained for racial nationalists from participating in such an event.
There was no possibility of advancing racial nationalist ideas, and the entire charade was simply leading many otherwise sincere patriots down a political cul-de-sac.
In Madrid by contrast the situation calls for serious strategic planning as well as courage. It’s obvious that the leaders of the anti-Sánchez demonstrations are reactionaries – principally from the supposedly ‘right-wing’ Vox and the conservative Partido Popular. Therefore by participating, there is always a risk that racial nationalists are simply acting as footsoldiers for the benefit of our enemies.
For there can be no doubt that the reactionary ‘right-wing’ is our enemy. In some ways a more deadly enemy than the subversive ‘left’.
But it’s a risk well worth taking. Not only because it is our duty to be on the front line when our nation is under attack (whether as British and Ulster patriots confronting the IRA and its sympathisers, or as Spanish patriots confronting their Basque or Catalan equivalents), but because by demonstrating our commitment – our fanatical devotion to race and nation – we can begin to awaken even those of our compatriots who previously had a limited ideological perspective.
Moreover the self-evident bankruptcy of Spain’s 1978 ‘democratic’ constitution now means that events are moving rapidly, and the potential for radicalisation is greater than anywhere else in Western Europe.
It is, however, essential for racial nationalists to achieve the delicate balance of both participating in a broadly-based protest, but also maintaining our distinct message.
This can best be achieved by:
(a) continuing a barrage of online propaganda focused on our core ideology, and relating it to the rapidly developing confrontation on the streets:
and (b) ensuring that our militants are displaying placards and banners that reflect our message, not the reactionary message.
This means, for example, that whether in Madrid, Paris or London we should never carry placards or post online propaganda that puts our case in religious rather than racial terms.
Of course at various points in our struggle we shall have allies who think primarily in religious terms – which means that in Madrid our allies will often be devout Catholics, whereas in Belfast or Glasgow our allies will often be militant Protestants.
But our fight against the undermining of Western civilization and the betrayal of our nations and our race is not a fight against Islam, any more than it is a fight for or against the Pope. It makes absolutely no difference to us whether a non-European immigrant is Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Marxist/Atheist. We resist the non-European invasion in the name of racial preservation and true European renaissance – not in the name of any God or Gods.
To adopt an Islam-obsessed agenda is the worst kind of surrender to reactionary politics. Whether or not in particular cases it also serves the Zionist agenda, it simply has no part in an ideologically coherent racial nationalist struggle.
It is only by maintaining a coherent ideological line that we can obtain any political advantage from these street confrontations. We should never forget that ours is a war of ideas, not a mere street skirmish for adolescents. The battles on the streets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Which brings us to a final topic for today’s analysis. Having addressed strategy, what about tactics? What methods are justifiable in pursuit of our objectives?
The simple answer to that is that any and every method is justifiable, provided it is necessary and properly focused.
In mainland Britain all talk of political violence is (in all conceivable present circumstances) utterly counter-productive and should be rejected by serious racial nationalists, irrespective of moral and legal considerations. Whereas in Northern Ireland there have been times in the very recent past where violence was not only necessary, but was the duty of every decent patriot in the struggle against a vile and murderous foe – the IRA and its proxies and splinters.
In Madrid the treacherous and subversive actions of the Prime Minister have crossed the line at which resistance – even violent resistance – becomes not only an option but a duty.
So the central question for nationalists is not whether violence is philosophically justified, but at what point it becomes both necessary and practically achievable. That’s a decision that can only be taken on a day-to-day basis by those involved. But again the imperative for our movement’s leaders is to maintain a sense of the broader objective. The adrenalin of battle needs to be tempered by strategic focus. We are in politics to achieve a national revolution, not to obtain the short term satisfaction that can be gained either by electing a councillor or vandalising our enemies’ premises.
And that national revolution will be achieved by consistent commitment and serious thinking, not by the mentality prevalent on the internet by which extravagant claims are made one day, only to be forgotten the next, in pursuit of the next ‘click-bait’, the next ‘likes’, the next ‘followers’.
The type of followers we need are people who will both read a book, and spend hours putting themselves on the line in a street confrontation. As my old comrade Jonathan Bowden put it, we need a return of Lord Byron’s ideal concept: the cultured thug.
Further articles on this site and in H&D will examine the ideology that will sustain and motivate these cultured thugs: the revolutionary praxis of the 2020s.
New Isabel Peralta Twitter and YouTube accounts after Instagram ban
The YouTube and Instagram accounts of our European correspondent Isabel Peralta were banned this week in the latest acts of online censorship against the true European resistance.
In response to this attempted censorship, Isabel has returned to Twitter with a new account.
A new YouTube account has already been created and archival material will be uploaded soon, both on this new channel and at Odysee.
Isabel has also created a second Telegram channel, both as a back-up and (for now) as a channel for discussion.
Further updates will be posted soon, both here and at a new website which maintains up to date links to all Isabel’s social media accounts.
Click here to follow the new Isabel Peralta channel.
Videos from 2023 H&D Meeting now online
Despite many loud threats from the ultra-left and their financial backers, the 2023 H&D meeting went ahead unimpeded, at a hotel in the Lancashire countryside, just outside Preston.
We are have now uploaded videos from this event, courtesy of our media team who put in many hours of hard work on the day and during the following week.
Laura Towler, from Patriotic Alternative, paid tribute to the political legacy of Sir Oswald Mosley, one of the four men honoured at this year’s meeting, 75 years after the foundation of Mosley’s postwar Union Movement. Some of us at H&D knew veteran Mosleyites, and we are certain that they (and especially Lady Mosley) would have been very happy to know that Laura, her husband Sam, and the PA team are advancing the patriotic cause in 2023!
PA’s founder and leader Mark Collett gave the penultimate speech (which for technical reasons is only available in audio).
Mark spoke about his years in the BNP during the first decade of the millennium. As older viewers will remember, he was one of the most effective and hardworking BNP officers of that era, but his work and that of many other sincere patriots came to nothing, due to the corruption and incompetence of BNP leader Nick Griffin. In this frank and cogent analysis, Mark describes what was good about the BNP, and what went so badly wrong.
Professor John Kersey, Vice-President of the Traditional Britain Group, addressed the broken state of British politics and society, and emphasised that “musical freedom comes the moment you say it isn’t about the money or the fame, or about what anyone, powerful or not, thinks of it. It’s about the need to engage with our culture and community, to create, to communicate and to inspire. The reward isn’t money or fame. The reward is doing it and making your audience feel that you have connected with them in a way that nothing else can.”
‘Anti-fascist’ hysteria during the two weeks since the meeting has focused on our European correspondent, Isabel Peralta, who spoke of her conviction that political faith, loyalty, honour and fanaticism can move mountains.
Isabel called on racial nationalists to show the spirit of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defending Europe at Thermopylae, and of the national socialist martyrs who fell in Munich in 1923, almost a decade before the triumph of their cause.
The true European spirit is alive in our hearts and will triumph: those H&D readers and European nationalists lucky enough to know Isabel Peralta will never doubt it.
The closing speech was given by H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton, who also writes the Real History blog. Peter explains who the real “terrorists” are, and exposes their connections to the same establishment and ‘antifa’ organisations that sought to impede this year’s meeting; the same sinister forces that pulled the strings behind UK border security to harass fellow speaker Isabel Peralta.
Paying tribute to the four men honoured at this year’s event – Derek Beackon, Andrew Brons, Sir Oswald Mosley, and Ian Stuart – Peter emphasised that our enemies’ fear is a sign that the flame of European nationalism burns brightly in 2023. As Sir Oswald Mosley told his followers: “Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame, my brother Blackshirts, until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind.”
Dr Jim Lewthwaite, retired archaeology lecturer, Orangeman, and chairman of the British Democrats, based his speech around an analysis of Professor Nigel Biggar’s new book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning – which was reviewed in Issue 115 of H&D.
Jim talked about the positive side of the British Empire, as well as slavery and how the British were the first of the major powers of the time to ban it. The British Democrats are now beginning to attract significant numbers of experienced activists as well as those new to electoral politics. Despite disappointing council election results earlier this year, they are presently the main electoral force on the British nationalist scene. And unlike the tragic rump of the BNP (which lives off legacies and does no serious political work), the Brit Dems do not pay any staff. All their funds are spent on building the movement and spreading information about the present crisis of our nation.
Stephen Frost, National Secretary of British Movement, acknowledged that our movement of resistance to multicultural decay is a ‘broad church’ of patriots, not all of whom by any means are national socialists (as represented by BM and Colin Jordan’s earlier organisations). Yet as he emphasised, BM has always been prepared to lend its support to sincere comrades from other groups and parties – at demonstrations, election campaigns and at meetings such as this one.
Steve added that the task of all nationalists is to spread propaganda for our cause by any and every means and format: whether old-school with hard copy leaflets and newspapers or by more modern means using the internet including social media. The propaganda war is bringing increasing numbers to realisation of the essential truth of our values. Stephen Frost and BM have utilised these propaganda methods, via such means as the ‘Under the Sunwheel’ podcast. Colin Jordan’s political legacy continues to inspire new generations of activists.
Stephen Frost’s co-host at ‘Under the Sunwheel’, Benny Bullman, lead singer of the Rock Against Communism band Whitelaw, spoke in tribute to Ian Stuart, founder of Blood & Honour and lead singer of Skrewdriver, who tragically died 30 years ago this month.
Benny pointed out that Ian Stuart’s dedication to race and nation led him to turn his back on a lucrative career in ‘mainstream’ music (an industry controlled by the usual suspects). Ian achieved far more than the wealth and fame that was accrued by some of his contemporaries after they sold out. The legacy of Ian Stuart and Skrewdriver continues to inspire new generations of patriots throughout the White world.
Due to a slight technical problem with sound at the end of the video (now resolved) our US correspondent Ken Schmidt’s speech to the conference has only just been posted online.
Ken has been an activist and writer in the American nationalist movement since the 1980s. He writes a regular column in H&D entitled “From the other side of the Pond”. He is a member of the League of the South, although he is now living back in the north – in New Jersey.
He spoke firstly about Donald Trump and the US presidential election and then about how the USA as a country is breaking up due to multi-racialism/multi-culturalism. And then about the various movements who support secession and the break-up of the USA as the only long-term solution if White people are to have any future in North America.
Politicised policing in the UK
Home Secretary Suella Braverman – who was being applauded by some racial nationalists only a week ago after a speech about immigration – has wasted no time in seeking to politicise the response of UK police officers to the developing war in Palestine.
Braverman is the daughter of Indian immigrants who moved to Britain during the 1960s. She is married to a Jewish businessman, Rael Braverman.
And she has obvious ambitions to succeed her fellow Indian Rishi Sunak as the UK’s Prime Minister.
Today Braverman abandoned any pretence that her party is interested in a just and lasting Middle East peace settlement.
Writing to Chief Constables across England and Wales, Braverman reminded them that support for Hamas is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, which means that even wearing certain symbols can lead to a jail sentence in the UK. (See Saturday’s H&D article written within hours of Hamas breaching Israeli security.)
But she went further. In a blatant attempt to silence political debate, Braverman now seeks to criminalise one of the slogans most widely heard on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. She told Chief Constables:
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.”
Braverman even suggests that displaying a Palestinian flag at a demonstration should in some circumstances be regarded as a criminal offence.
Perhaps most significantly, the Home Secretary used this letter to suggest to Chief Constables that (for the first time in the UK) possession of a swastika symbol should be treated as a criminal offence, in the context of a pro-Palestinian demonstration.
In most cases, H&D readers would probably deprecate the use of swastikas at such events, as they are almost always used by leftwing anti-Zionists in the context of suggesting an equivalence between National Socialism and Zionism. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary’s suggestion – that simple possession of a swastika symbol should be a criminal offence – is a dangerous development and one which should be resisted by all legal means.
Our readers will not be surprised to see that Braverman highlighted the “close collaboration” between English and Welsh police forces and the ultra-Zionist lobby group Community Security Trust (CST).
CST grew out of the violent anti-fascist 62 Group which specialised in physical attacks on British nationalists during the 1960s. CST’s founder Gerald Ronson was in charge of finances for the 62 Group, working alongside its “field commander” Cyril Paskin and its intelligence chief Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight. Gable and two other 62 Group operatives were convicted for an illegal entry into the home of historian David Irving, where they aimed to steal documents.
Paskin, Ronson, and Gable planned many acts of political thuggery. One of the last 62 Group operations was in November 1971, when the 62 Group attacked a conference in a Brighton Hotel organised by the Northern League, an academic racial nationalist group. Paskin and others received suspended prison sentences for affray.
Some years earlier, Gerald Ronson was convicted of a politically motivated assault on a member of Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement.
During the mid-1960s, the 62 Group evolved into a more politically focused group called JACOB, which in turn evolved into CST. The development of JACOB was advised by Monica Medicks, an Israeli intelligence officer who had previously been a member of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun.
Unlike Suella Braverman and the Conservative Party, Heritage and Destiny supports the interests of Britons and Europeans rather than Israelis.
European nationalists have different views on the Middle East. But our movements – and future nationalist governments in Europe – will act in the interests of Europeans and will never prostrate ourselves as the uncritical tools of international Zionist lobbies. Especially not lobbies with a long record of anti-European, anti-nationalist violence.
Both Braverman and her political opponent Jeremy Corbyn are playing games with the issues of “racism” and “anti-semitism”. Corbyn persistently lies about the historical events of Cable Street in 1936 (where Jews and Communists fought London police in an effort to obstruct a march by Mosley’s supporters), and as we recently reported, he took the extraordinary step of writing to Braverman to pressure the Home Secretary into banning our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering the UK.
And now we see Braverman herself seeking to criminalise anti-Zionism and extend the UK’s criminal law into other areas of previously legitimate political debate.
H&D will of course try to stay within the law at all times. But Braverman is playing a dangerous game: her present trajectory is likely to force a confrontation in which not only British nationalists, but people of various political persuasions critical of Israel are dragged into court. If this happens, she can expect to be fought at every level, from the streets of Britain to the European Courts.
Jeremy Corbyn – the terrorists’ friend – attacks H&D and Isabel Peralta
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has launched an extraordinary attack on Heritage and Destiny, calling for our meetings to be banned. In a letter to Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Corbyn has targeted our European correspondent Isabel Peralta, demanding that she should be refused entry to the United Kingdom.
Isabel has never been convicted of any crime, but has twice been detained and questioned by UK Border Force, abusing their powers under the Terrorism Act.
Anyone interested in real terrorism should be looking not at Heritage & Destiny and Isabel Peralta, but at the close allies of Jeremy Corbyn, who has for decades been known as terrorism’s best friend in Parliament.
From 1985 to 1989 Corbyn was national secretary and later president of the notoriously violent group Anti-Fascist Action. AFA’s terrorist core – Red Action – held its meetings in Corbyn’s constituency office in Islington, north London, and provided security for Corbyn and for one of his closest political allies, IRA godfather Gerry Adams.
Even Corbyn’s own party has often been embarrassed by his especially close ties to the IRA. In 1984 Corbyn was reprimanded by Labour’s chief whip for taking IRA terrorists on a tour of Parliament. In 1987 Corbyn tried to appoint a notorious Irish republican sympathiser and anarchist, Ronan Bennett, as his parliamentary research assistant, but the authorities refused on security grounds to give Bennett a House of Commons pass.
Two of Corbyn’s comrades in Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action – Patrick Hayes (AFA London organiser) and Jan Taylor – were given long jail sentences for bombing the Harrods store in London on behalf of the IRA. Their fellow AFA activist, Liam Heffernan, was jailed for stealing explosives on behalf of another republican terrorist gang, the INLA.
A senior police officer later told the Sunday Times that Corbyn “knew they were open supporters of terrorism and he supported them”.
There has never been any suggestion that Corbyn was personally involved in specific acts of terrorism, but for decades police and security services monitored his close connections with terrorists and their active supporters. They were especially concerned that terrorists invited into Westminster premises by Corbyn had been able to familiarise themselves with the layout and security of the Houses of Parliament.
In 1985, Corbyn was the keynote speaker at Red Action’s national meeting. He maintained close ties for years to Red Action, a group whose journal openly stated: “both as an organisation and as individuals we support the activities of the Provisional IRA and the INLA unconditionally and uncritically.”
Some of the paymasters of “anti-fascism” will be embarrassed by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is now championing their cause. In addition to his support for the IRA, Corbyn has frequently been accused of “anti-semitism”, for example over his praise for a mural that promoted allegedly “anti-semitic tropes”.
H&D has been contacted by several Londoners appalled by Corbyn’s consistent association with terrorists and their propagandists. We have been offered premises in Corbyn’s Islington constituency to hold our next meeting, and we are discussing several options for this event.
Unlike Jeremy Corbyn’s murderous friends and allies, Isabel Peralta – the young Spanish activist whom Corbyn has so disgracefully targeted – has never committed any offence against UK law. In reply to Corbyn’s attack, Isabel writes:
“I honestly find it hard to believe that my mere presence in a country is so dangerous that even one of the main English politicians, former leader of the second-largest political force in England, writes to the Home Secretary asking for me to be banned. I find it difficult to believe that someone who has not committed any crime and has never been convicted is ostracised or exiled from several European countries. But it is like this. Our fanaticism moves mountains and our enemies have more faith in our triumph than we do ourselves.
“One does not fear a madman, one does not take seriously a merely anachronistic or atavistic enemy. There is fear of a revolution. We are a revolution, a living, organic idea, destined to be proudly implemented throughout Europe.”
Let there be no doubt: H&D will continue to expose the truth about Jeremy Corbyn and his crazed Marxist and Irish Republican friends. We shall continue to fight for the true Europe. And we shall contest (at whatever level proves necessary) any attempt to intimidate or exclude our comrade and European correspondent Isabel Peralta.
‘Anti-fascists’ demand Home Office action against H&D correspondent and speaker – but who are the real ‘terrorists’?
Having failed in their intense efforts to prevent the H&D meeting in Preston on 9th September, ‘anti-fascists’ – principally the notorious Searchlight organisation – have now begun a massive lobbying campaign, demanding that the Home Secretary should have banned our European correspondent Isabel Peralta from entering Britain!
Isabel has never been convicted of any criminal offence.
Her only crime is to be a brave and intelligent national socialist, which is not a crime in the UK, where the peaceful expression of political opinions and historical viewpoints is entirely lawful, so long as no one is inciting violence or hatred.
No one claims that anyone at our meeting broke the race laws, and the police have at no point even suggested that any laws were broken by Isabel or anybody else at the event, but the usual suspects are displaying their usual chutzpah.
In response to this outrageous behaviour by ‘anti-fascist’ lobbyists, our Assistant Editor today examines the record of our main accusers and asks: Who are the real terrorists?
This article is also available in Spanish – Quiénes son los verdaderos terroristas’?
Who are the real ‘terrorists’? H&D’s Peter Rushton investigates…
The day before this year’s Heritage and Destiny meeting, our European correspondent Isabel Peralta was again detained for more than four hours by border security at Manchester Airport, using Schedule 7 of the UK’s Terrorism Act. Her telephone and computer were seized and examined for two days by officers from the highly politicised Counter Terrorism Command (SO15, formerly Special Branch) who work closely with the British security service MI5.
This follows a similar procedure last year – another act of blatant political harassment. Needless to say no charges followed, because Isabel has committed no crime under UK law. It is not a crime in the UK to be a national socialist; it is not a crime to defend the honour of the División Azul (the brave Spanish volunteers who fought alongside the German Army in defence of Europe’s eastern frontier against Stalin’s barbarians); it is not a crime to dispute historical myths (however many well-funded lobby groups promote those myths); and it is not a crime to oppose the desecration of the grave of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the great Spanish patriot and Falangist leader.
Yet the ‘anti-fascist’ Searchlight magazine has begun a campaign to pressure the Home Secretary, claiming that Border Force harassment of Isabel Peralta was insufficient! They are demanding that this brave and determined patriot – leading light of a new generation of Europeans who are unafraid to stand up for our civilisation – should be excluded from the UK!
And they have the chutzpah to compare Isabel to the waves of illegal immigrants who flood our borders daily, from every corner of the world, and who are wholly alien to European culture and traditions.
It’s time to ask: just who are these ‘anti-fascists’, and who are the real terrorists?
Searchlight is proud to trace its origins from the militant gangs of Jews and communists who fought against Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and National Socialists during the 1930s. This violent Jewish-communist alliance (including some of London’s most notorious gangsters) boasted that one of its regular tactics was to embed razor blades into potatoes and hurl them at British fascists, policemen, and police horses.
More precisely, Searchlight claims descent from the more secretive but equally violent postwar alliance of Zionist Jews and Communists known as the 43 Group, who carried out undercover infiltration of British nationalist groups, as well as burglaries and violent assaults.
One critically important but often overlooked fact is that the 43 Group’s ‘anti-fascist’ violence coincided with a campaign of bombings and assassinations directed by one of the world’s most brutal networks of terrorist killers – Jews who fought against the British Empire as well as against Arab civilians from 1945 to 1948, so as to establish what is now the state of Israel.
In fact the very name of the 43 Group – contrary to many lies told in books about anti-fascism – was derived from a celebrated case of 43 paramilitaries who were arrested by the British authorities in Palestine in October 1939, just weeks after the start of the war. In a cynical act of political opportunism, even after the British Empire had declared war on Adolf Hitler, Jewish paramilitaries were illegally training to fight their own war, if necessary against the British. Only intense political pressure saved these 43 Jews from a long jail sentence.
After naming their group after these illegal Jewish trainee terrorists, many ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group operatives went on to work with Zionist terror gangs who were explicitly targeting British servicemen and civilians. For example Samuel Landman – a crooked solicitor and former secretary to the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann – worked for the Irgun terrorist group (responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel), supplying political intelligence from within the British establishment.
Landman’s children Deborah and David were both involved with the ‘anti-fascist’ 43 Group, and with Irgun terrorism. They were directly responsible for arranging a plot to murder General Sir Evelyn Barker, former commander of British forces in Palestine. These two 43 Group members (together with future Israeli President Ezer Weizman and a Jewish South African pilot, Boris Senior) made detailed plans to murder Sir Evelyn at his home – a plot they abandoned due to police surveillance.
Other victims of the Jewish terrorists were not so lucky. In May 1948 a young student, Rex Farran, was murdered by a parcel bomb at his family’s home near Wolverhampton. The bomb had been intended for his brother, an SAS war hero who had been too effective (from the Jews’ point of view) in postwar anti-terrorist operations in Palestine. The Jewish gang responsible for Farran’s murder were never apprehended.
Another member of the same gang planted a bomb inside a servicemen’s club near Trafalgar Square in March 1947. This ruthless terrorist escaped to Paris, where he was protected by fellow Jews and ‘anti-fascists’ including the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. The bomber is still alive, after spending an uninterrupted career in French academia – he is Professor Robert Misrahi, an active Zionist and ‘anti-fascist’.
Misrahi and his fellow terrorists were never troubled by the British police despite having exploded bombs on British soil. One of their number even plotted to infect London’s water supply with cholera, using contacts among Jewish scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.
Such are the terrorists from whom today’s ‘anti-fascists’ proudly trace their heritage.
Searchlight is directly descended from the intelligence arm of the 43 Group’s successor, the 62 Group, founded by Jews and communists in 1962 to mount violent attacks on British political movements led by Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, and John Bean.
Part of the 62 Group’s training came from an Israeli intelligence officer – Monica Medicks – who had direct experience of postwar Zionist terrorism, having volunteered soon after the Second World War to join the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the group responsible for many terrorist atrocities including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, killing 91 people.
Her husband Stanley Medicks (1925-2013) was a commander of Mahal (‘Volunteers from Abroad’) recruiting Jews from around the world to fight for the new Zionist state in 1948. Oddly, once this state was secured, Stanley and Monica Medicks chose not to stay in Palestine, instead moving first to Kenya (where Stanley Medicks had been born) then somewhat ironically fleeing from the anti-British, anti-White terrorism of the notorious Mau Mau and settling in London, where Stanley was on the surface a used car dealer, but both he and his wife worked in various roles for Israeli intelligence.
Monica Medicks – the anti-British terrorist turned Israeli intelligence officer and militant London ‘anti-fascist’ – went on to advise JACOB – the Jewish Aid Committee of Britain – which in the spring of 1966 circulated proposals within the Jewish community for a new, aggressive Jewish strategy. Metropolitan Police Special Branch monitored this new form of Jewish extremism, just as they had the 62 Group.
Eventually JACOB evolved into today’s very respectable ‘Community Security Trust’, a Jewish lobby group that works closely with the British police and security services. CST’s founding chairman, Gerald Ronson, is now friendly with British aristocrats and royalty, despite having been a 62 Group thug, and having been convicted for a violent assault on one of Sir Oswald Mosley’s followers. Ronson was a close friend and ally of the 62 Group’s intelligence officer, former Communist Party candidate Gerry Gable, who is now the editor and publisher of Searchlight, leading the campaign to paint Isabel Peralta as a criminal.
While Isabel Peralta has no criminal convictions, Ronson and Gable have several criminal convictions between them. In addition to his conviction for politically motivated violence, Ronson served several years in prison for his leading role in one of the City of London’s most notorious fraud cases, while Gable was convicted alongside two fellow ‘anti-fascists’ for illegally entering the home of the British historian David Irving, with the objective of stealing documents.
In later years, Searchlight developed close ties to other offshoots of extremely violent anti-fascism, notably ‘Anti-Fascist Action’. Searchlight‘s main northern operative – Steve Tilzey – was imprisoned for his part in kidnapping a young National Front activist. Passing sentence the judge told Tilzey and his fellow conspirators, who included leading figures in the Trotskyist ‘Socialist Workers Party’: “the weapons you took with you are quite dreadful, capable of inflicting the most serious injuries and of killing in many cases.”
One of Tilzey’s right-hand men in Manchester anti-fascism was a notorious gangland assassin: Dessie Noonan, who was later murdered by a fellow drug dealer.
Yet more serious violence was carried out by another of Searchlight‘s allies in Anti-Fascist Action, one of its leading London militants, Patrick Hayes, who was given a 30-year jail sentence for planting an IRA bomb outside Harrods, the famous store in central London. Another of Hayes’s fellow ‘anti-fascists’ – Liam Heffernan – was jailed for 23 years for stealing explosives on behalf of another Irish terrorist group, the INLA.
Throughout this period, Britain’s most militant ‘anti-fascists’ were often also involved with Irish terrorism, just as their predecessors had been active in Jewish terrorism against British targets.
Probably the worst crime committed by ‘anti-fascists’ working with the IRA was the Warrington bombing in 1993 which killed 12-year-old Tim Parry and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball.
Yet after these decades of association with some of the worst thuggery and brutality in British political history, ‘anti-fascists’ dare to campaign against a young woman whose only ‘crime’ is to express political and historical views that they disagree with.
We have this message for ‘anti-fascist’ bullies and their financial backers: Heritage and Destiny will support our brave comrade Isabel Peralta at whatever level necessary to defeat your campaign of intimidation. Whenever you lie about Isabel to induce British ‘anti-terrorist’ police to harass her, we shall respond with the truth about your own terrorist friends and connections going back many decades.
We are confident that no police force, no sinister security agency, and no financial string-pulling will defeat the truth.
The true Europe represented by Isabel Peralta will defeat the alien-imposed anti-European order of lies and chicanery.
