Author Archives: Searchlight Team

Is Russia using the extreme right to carry out operations in Europe? By Roger Pearce

As Searchlight has previously reported, the British far-right is bitterly divided over whether to support Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. For the past two years this has caused splits among nazis and other extremist groups around the world. Recent events in the UK – including arrests for terror offences allegedly carried out on behalf of Russia – raise again the question of whether Russian intelligence might use its connections on the far right to carry out violent attacks and other subversive activity.

One of the few precedents for this was during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia thirty years ago, when Serbian military intelligence exploited contacts with Charlie Sargent’s violent gang Combat 18, while some other British nazis with a paramilitary inclination signed up to fight for Croatia.

At the end of 2022 several European police and intelligence services suspected that far-right networks were behind a series of letter bomb attacks against Ukrainian targets, including the Ukrainian Embassy, in Spain. They had good reasons for these suspicions, because Spanish fascists including some who explicitly identify themselves as “National Bolsheviks” had built close connections with the Russian Imperial Movement, which acts as a bridge between Putin’s intelligence services and the European right.

The emblem of the Russian Imperial Movement

Eventually the trail led to a retired local government grave digger, Pompeyo Gonzalez Pascual, who is now facing terrorism charges. He is passionately pro-Russian but his political connections are strange. He seems also to have been influenced by ‘anti-imperialist’ journals and online channels that support the Venezuelan government and other Latin American populist movements, sometimes linked to the European left but also backed by far-right conspiracy theorists. He had the Russia Today and Sputnik apps installed on his mobile phone as well as the Sputnik VPN application, to conceal his geolocation. 

Pompeyo under arrest

Pompeyo’s targets also included the US Embassy in Madrid, which led to a much-increased focus by US intelligence on the activities of Russia-supporting right-wing extremists. His other targets included the Spanish President, Pedro Sánchez; Serhii Pohoreltsev, director of the Instalaza company which manufactures C-90 rocket launchers for the Ukrainian army; the director of the Satellite Centre at the Torrejón de Ardoz air base in Madrid; and Margarita Robles, the Spanish Minister of Defence. Pompeyo’s intention, according to prosecutors, was to force a change in Spain’s pro-Ukraine policy.

Police said that “Although it is presumed that the detainee made and sent the explosive devices by himself, (we) do not rule out the participation or influence of other persons in the events.”

Elsewhere in Europe, anti-Ukrainian terrorism has been very clearly linked to prominent far-right individuals working for Moscow. The most blatant case dates back more than three years before Putin’s invasion, when Russian intelligence was using terrorist networks as part of a plan to sow discord between Ukraine and its neighbours.

The leading far-right German journalist Manuel Ochsenreiter (above, with ‘Putin’s philosopher’ Alexander Dugin) paid a Polish extremist to firebomb a Hungarian cultural centre in the western Ukrainian border city of Uzhhorod. The idea was to blame the attack on “Ukrainian nazis”, in line with Putin’s regular strategy of highlighting the wartime role of many Ukrainian nationalists such as the notorious antisemite Stepan Bandera.

At the time Ochsenreiter was employed in the parliamentary office of an AfD Bundestag member, Markus Frohnmeier. He was also known to have close connections to Russian intelligence agents, including another far-right Pole, Mateusz Piskorski.

Mateusz Piskorski

Though he at first protested his innocence, Ochsenreiter quickly fled to Moscow, where he conveniently died in 2021 aged 45. Anti-fascists had for years seen Ochsenreiter as one of the leaders of the German far right’s younger generation. He stood at the interface between the semi-respectable parliamentary extremism of AfD, the German and European neo-nazi movement, and pro-Moscow circles.

At the age of 18 Ochsenreiter began writing for Junge Freiheit, a weekly paper that appeals mainly to well-heeled young conservatives, but via the Burschenschaften student fraternities also has some overlap with the extra-parliamentary right.

In 2011 Ochsenreiter became editor of the monthly nationalist magazine Zuerst. This had more overt ties to neo-nazis, but was expensively produced and unlike most fringe publications had wide distribution.

The most interesting aspect is that Zuerst was and is part of Dietmar Munier’s publishing empire and grew out of a much older German extremist journal, Nation und Europa (originally known as Nation Europa and dating back to the earliest efforts to rehabilitate Nazism in post-war Germany).

Under its several guises, the Nation Europa project tried to unite German nationalist factions and also to build a pan-European fascist network, at times linked to the “Europe a Nation” schemes of Sir Oswald Mosley.

But after it was taken over by Munier in 2009 and transformed into Zuerst, this idea of European unity took on a more explicitly anti-American, and implicitly pro-Moscow slant. Munier had previously been known as the main sponsor of efforts to resettle ethnic Germans in the Kaliningrad region of the former East Prussia, which was taken over by the old Soviet Union in 1945 and remains part of Russia.

And editorial board meeting of Zuesrt, shortly after Munier’s takeover

Beginning in the mid-1990s both Munier and the convicted nazi terrorist Manfred Roeder were involved with these projects. Former BNP deputy leader Richard Edmonds and several other leading British nazis visited Kaliningrad in 1993 in connection with Roeder’s efforts, and in 1999 Edmonds returned to the region, this time working for several years teaching as part of Munier’s project in a settlement known as Trakehnen.

Kaliningrad (known for centuries as Königsberg and still regarded by German nationalists as a German city) is today a potential flashpoint for confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Both antifascists and European intelligence agencies have been concerned by developing ties between the German far-right and Russia. During Putin’s early years in power, he seemed to be hostile to Munier, who after being banned from travelling to the Kaliningrad region eventually sold the Trakehnen settlement to a Russian businessman.

But during the past decade Munier and Zuerst have built more cordial ties to Moscow, especially with the ultra-nationalist ‘philosopher’ and anti-Ukrainian propagandist Alexander Dugin. The magazine has also published articles by pro-Moscow AfD activists such as Björn Höcke, leader of the party’s extremist Flügel faction.

Another European nazi group with suspicious ties to Moscow is the Nordic Resistance Movement, which operates in several countries and was banned by the Finnish authorities in 2019 for terrorism. Former NRM member Mikko Vehvilainen (half-Finnish) joined the British Army but also signed up to the nazi terror group National Action and was jailed for eight years under the Terrorism Act.

National Action terrorist Mikko Vehvilainen

Yan Petrovsky, second in command of the Russian militia Rusich and a veteran of Wagner Group atrocities in Ukraine, Syria and Africa, spent several years in Scandinavia where he built ties both to the NRM and to the more openly terroristic and pro-Moscow Soldiers of Odin. Petrovsky is wanted in Ukraine for war crimes, and while Finnish courts have refused his extradition, he is facing trial for other offences in Finland.

Petrovsky’s activities are one of the reasons for bitter arguments within the neo-nazi scene between pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia factions. These disputes have already disrupted plans to revive the Holocaust denial publishing scene. Convicted Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf is so hostile to Moscow that he has broken off contact with many of his former friends, as have his fellow nazis at the British neo-Nazi magazine Heritage & Destiny, Peter Rushton and Isabel Peralta.

A few days earlier in Germany, AfD’s number one candidate at this year’s European elections, Maximilian Krah, was embarrassed by the arrest of his parliamentary aide on charges of spying for China. Krah has long been known as one of the most pro-Chinese and pro-Russian officials of AfD. But again, he is a divisive character in far-right circles. A few years ago, Catholic extremists linked to the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson (including at least one former National Front directorate member) accused Krah of acting as an agent of – you might have guessed! – mysterious global Zionist forces, looking to undermine Williamson’s defence.

Several British and German nazis have now revived these old allegations to add to Krah’s troubles. For it’s guaranteed that any discussion in these circles, whether of Ukraine or China or global warming, will eventually develop into an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Why is Ofcom letting GB News off the hook? By Dorothy Byrne

As former Head of News at Channel Four, Dorothy Byrne has
enormous experience in broadcasting – and she is worried.
She thinks Ofcom’s repeated refusal to punish GB News for
serious breaches of impartiality poses a threat to UK democracy

The UK Government is much exercised by the need to protect us all against extremism.  A new definition of extremism has been unveiled which, we are told, ‘adds to the tools to tackle this ever-evolving threat’. A specific threat the government is concerned about is the attempt to ‘undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights’.

But right in front of our eyes, a tool which protects our democratic system is itself being undermined. You might not have realised this was happening because when stories about it pop up, they seem to be about misbehaviour at the relatively obscure television news channel GB News.  

Last month, the regulator Ofcom found that GB News had broken broadcasting rules on due impartiality across no fewer than five episodes by allowing three Conservative MPs to act as newsreaders. GB News has now been found to be in breach of Ofcom rules on 11 occasions. Another eight investigations are open.

I was Head of News and Current Affairs at Channel Four Television for seventeen years. If I had allowed our programmes to breach the rules on 11 occasions, I would have been out of a job. And Channel Four would have expected a major fine for such flagrancy. Seventeen years ago, Channel Four was fined £1.5 million by Ofcom for a breach of the regulations over a television phone-in. How much more important is it to uphold political impartiality when an election is looming than to ensure a phone-in is fair?

The powers of the regulator are mighty. Ofcom revoked the licence to broadcast of the Iranian Government news channel Press TV in 2012 for flagrant breaches. Two years ago, it revoked Russia Today’s right to broadcast. Yet the regulator has taken no action whatsoever against GB News for 11 breaches other than a ticking off. Why are they being so cowardly and why does it matter so much?

In the UK, the public has great trust in television news and current affairs. Around 70% of the public say they trust television news. They also get their news from social media but their trust in those sources is much lower – 40%. Their trust in politicians is even lower.

The foundation of that public trust in television is our system of broadcast regulation – a system which is the envy of the world. I have been asked to lecture journalists in countries as far apart as Brazil and Pakistan about the way it works. They were jealous. In the UK, television and radio news and current affairs programmes must be fair, accurate and duly impartial. Due impartiality does not require that equal weight is given to a silly argument and a serious argument; however, when a matter of public importance is discussed, different views of significance should be included so that the viewer and listeners can reach an informed opinion of their own. Regulation does not prevent powerful investigative journalism. I oversaw many programmes in which we investigated and even secretly filmed major politicians, all without breaching the regulations.

A specific requirement of the regulatory system is that news programmes must be presented by figures who are not politically partial. The recent breaches by GB News occurred when the channel allowed former House of Commons Leader Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former Secretary of State Esther McVey and backbencher Philip Davies – all Conservative MPs – to present news. Rees-Mogg talked about a verdict in one of Donald Trump’s court cases, McVey and Davies presented news about a number of matters including train strikes, the UK economy, an anti-Ulez protest rally and the doctors’ strike. These are all clearly matters of significant public policy and all controversial matters.

Ofcom said the politicians, ‘acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events without exceptional justification. News was therefore not presented with due impartiality. Politicians have an inherently partial role in society and news content presented by them is likely to be viewed by audiences in light of that perceived bias. In our view, the use of politicians to present the news risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news.’

 This is a serious criticism indeed. Ofcom does not mince its words. Yet there was no sanction handed down. I cannot understand why. Although I do note that since the rules breaches Rishi Sunak has shown his approval of McVey by appointing her to a ministerial post and of Davies by awarding him with a knighthood. Is Ofcom cowed by the Conservative Government? It is supposed to act independently.

Earlier last month, Ofcom also found that GB News breached the rules when former actor, now right-wing campaigner, Laurence Fox launched what Ofcom described as a ‘degrading’, ‘demeaning’ and ‘clearly and unambiguously misogynistic’ attack on a female journalist. In December, the channel’s Don’t Kill Cash campaign was found to have broken the requirement to be duly impartial. The campaign urged the government to introduce legislation but, bizarrely, GB News claimed it was not political. Other breaches include a programme in which McVey and Davies interviewed the Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt about the Budget without being duly impartial. Common sense would tell you that two Tories interviewing a Tory was not likely to result in a duly impartial interview.

The eight open Ofcom investigations include a special, the People’s Forum, in which the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was questioned live, and an episode of the former UKIP and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage’s programme.

GB News may not be regular viewing for Searchlight readers but its viewing figures are not to be scoffed at. According to the ratings agency Barb, the channel reached an average of 2.7 million a month last year. That was only a 0.45 share of linear television and it loses money. But its online page views rose 431% to 51.9 million views.

All these figures are likely to go up markedly when Boris Johnson joins GB News in the run-up to the next General Election. We will then have Johnson, a known liar, as the most important presenter on a right-wing television channel which has flagrantly breached regulations that protect the fairness, accuracy and due impartiality of political coverage.

So what happens when a democracy no longer requires news channels to be truthful and politically impartial? Look across the waters at the USA. It used to have rules not dissimilar to our own enshrined in what was known as the fairness doctrine. Broadcasters had to present controversial matters of public importance in a way that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. The doctrine was abolished in 1987 in the Reagan era. Critics argued it was restricting freedom of speech.

GB News used similar arguments to protest against Ofcom’s recent rulings. It says it was ‘deeply concerned’ by Ofcom’s rulings and that they constituted a ‘chilling development’. GB News said that Ofcom had arbitrarily changed its rules and that ‘Ofcom is obliged by law to promote free speech and media plurality and to ensure that alternative voices are heard.’

Judge for yourselves whether two Tories interviewing a Tory, or Tory politicians presenting the news, ensures that ‘alternative voices are heard.’ But look across the Atlantic to see what happens when the public is fed lies on television and radio.

The people who attacked Capitol Hill after the results of the last US election were driven into a frenzy of rage after being fed the lie by Fox News and others that Donald Trump had been cheated of his rightful victory. Democracy itself was put at risk in a nation where people had thought democracy was unassailable.

Television regulation is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If this government wants to protect us against extremists who threaten democracy, it should be asking the regulator why it is being so weak about GB News breaking the rules. And so should we all.

Vile UKIP racism on open display

Content warning: this post concerns and shows highly offensive racist propaganda.

This particularly nauseous post appeared recently on the Berkshire UKIP Facebook page run by Gary Johnson, Director of UKIP Ltd, NEC member, South East Regional Chair and apparently Chair of any number of fantasy UKIP branches in Berkshire and at least six other counties. 

Gary Johnson – who runs the Facebook page on which this appeared

If you thought that this was just a party of harmless old anti-EU duffers, you would be quite wrong. UKIP’s lurch to the racist and conspiracist right continues apace…

Nostalgic right wingers gather on St George’s Day

Alan Harvey

While Tommy Robinson’s chums are tramping through London on St George’s Day, there will be an altogether more sedate gathering at the Civil Service Club, in Westminster. The Springbok Club, an outfit dedicated to commemorating all that was wonderful about apartheid South Africa and pre-majority rule Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), will be addressed by Washington Times journalist Geoff Hill.

Organiser of the Springbok Club, and of the meeting, is one Alan Harvey, a name which will be familiar to veteran readers of Searchlight. He is an ex-NF organiser who later helped set up and run the Swinton Circle, that nasty little outfit that formed a bridge between the far Tory right, and the fascist right. He now runs the Patriotic Forum, the latest iteration of the Swinton Circle.

An Ulsterman, Harvey spent time living in South Africa in those good old apartheid days and played a shady role liaising between Ulster loyalists and South African intelligence. His twitter handle is, of course, @EmpireLoyalist.

One of the highlight’s of the Springbok Club’s calendar is an annual ceremony to mark the declaration of UDI by Ian Smith’s racist Rhodesian government, an occasion when, amongst other delights, the old Rhodesian national anthem enjoys a full-throated rendition.

For those interested in attending, Mr Hill’s talk will be in the Elizabeth Room, kicking off at 19.00.

Nick Griffin in last ditch attempt to resurrect his political career.

Nick Griffin is attempting one last return to the leadership of British fascism. As Searchlight has expected, he is formalising links with the Independent Nationalist Network, a faction mainly based in the Midlands.

The INN was formed as a split from Mark Collett’s Patriotic Alternative, and it includes some of the many PA members who reacted against the over-centralised and money-making approach of Collett’s cult.

For that reason, the INN doesn’t have a leader, but arguably its leading force is Richard Lumby from Wolverhampton (pictured with Griffin) who was West Midlands deputy regional organiser and election candidate in the Griffin BNP.

Lumby has stayed close to Griffin. Although he attended a “unity meeting” in May last year chaired by fellow INN activist Joe Strutt (known online as “Anglo Joe”), at which he discussed reconciliation with Collett and even a possible agreement with the Brtish Democrats, whose leader Jim Lewthwaite also attended the meeting, it always seemed more likely that he would team up again with his old führer.

On June 29th Griffin will speak in the Midlands at an “election training” event hosted by Lumby. Supposedly this will be open to all nationalists and non-factional, but Collett’s followers see it as part of Griffin’s plan to take advantage of PA’s failures. Those most likely to attend the “training” will be the oddballs of British fascism who dislike both Collett and his rival Kenny Smith.

Among these oddballs, the most committed is Alek Yerbury who unlike the others has managed to register a political party. Yerbury’s National Rebirth Party is the political arm of Yerbury’s paramilitary style National Support Detachment. Simply because they have enemies in common, and also because he is one of the few “independent nationalists” who can remain sober for 24 hours, Griffin hopes to get Yerbury onto his team.

For his part, Yerbury has given it a cautious welcome, advising that if any of his supporters feel themselves in need of election training they can attend. But this just shows how low the bar is set: for Yerbury makes clear it’s not about tactics, let alone strategy, but about how to process election nomination papers. However, he may have a point: two out of three proposed Patriotic Alternative candidates in the upcoming council elections failed to get on the ballot paper precisely because they failed to complete the required paperwork.

Joe Strutt, on the other hand, might stay clear of Griffin, as any such association would mean the death of his “unity” strategy.

Griffin doesn’t want his fellow fascists to spend money on elections that would otherwise go to him and his business partner Jim Dowson, but he sees some advantage in putting up local council candidates so that he can pretend to social media followers that he still has some political relevance.

He probably won’t like Searchlight reminding readers that he is now 65 years old. The same age that John Tyndall was when Griffin urged that he should be pensioned off in favour of a younger generation.