Huge Blow to French & European Free Speech Supporters: Prof. Robert Faurisson Dead at 90.

Huge Blow to French & European Free Speech Supporters: Prof. Robert Faurisson Dead at 90.

Dear friends,

Terribly sad news, Robert Faurisson has died tonight. He dropped dead (heart attack) as he entered the lobby of his home in Vichy after flying back from his triumph in London.. (Actually it was what he wanted as his swan song in his 90th year.)

Here is the video url that Vincent Reynouard had made this afternoon (before this tragic news was told to me by Robert’s brother just an hour ago):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQhcxeJc8A

LONG LIVE FAURISSON,
Michèle Lady Renouf

youtube.com
Account of a private gathering held on October 20 in the hometown of Professor Faurisson. The latter participated with Vincent Reynouard. It was without…

Terribly sad news, Robert Faurisson dropped dead (heart attack) as he entered the lobby of his home in Vichy after flying back from his triumph in London..

 

.

Professor Robert Faurisson, a good friend, and supporter of The Ethnic-European, passed on at the end of a long and tiring day on October 21.

Italian intellectual Giuseppe Fallisi writes, “I still have eyes that burn with tears and I cannot fall asleep. Returning, a few hours ago, from the Bari airport I was given tragic news: Robert Faurisson rose in the Elysian Fields. As soon as he returned to his home in Vichy, he collapsed to the ground, dead.

His big heart had stopped beating. With other faithful friends we met yesterday afternoon in Shepperton, in a hotel, the Anchor Hotel, which will now go down in history for hosting the professor’s last conference and at the same time for demonstrating once again, in the person of his vile master (a ball of tallow and black bile (( reference to fake soap, lampshades and shrunken heads presented at Nuremberg ‘courts’ artefacts), how much can the intimidation of the politically correct, of the very laid Judaic dictatorship that weighs on all Europe *.

In that city, Robert was born almost ninety years ago. Walking along he had confided to me, always lucid, composed and indomitable, but very, very tired and composed, accepting that his task had ended.

This man, more than brave, had completed all he had to do to make a contribution to the immense revisionist cause. In addition to the judicial, media and moral harassment he had to undergo, he was more than ten times physically assaulted by the hateful enemies, who wanted to prevent him from expressing himself, even from living.

He always knew how to resist and get up again, not deflecting a millimetre from the intrepid search for truth. One day he will be celebrated as a Hero of Free Thought: W ROBERT FAURISSON R.I.P.

Michele and Faurisson at Iran Conference

Michele and Faurisson at Iran Conference

The grand professor or truth, whose revisionism of Allied propaganda put the truth-teller head and shoulders over his contemporaries, was resigned to having done all that could be expected of a champion for truth and justice.

A couple of years ago the professor dropped me a line, which I can now divulge: “Dear Mike, Oh! Surprised I am. Thank you very much. I suppose you mean the video entitled, Un homme: Robert Faurisson? Michael, I am 88. I wish to die. My life has been made impossible. The same for my wife, who is nearly 86. Cordially, R. Faurisson.

My letter in response to Professor Faurisson: “Sir, we all stand in your shadow. Yes, you and your dear wife will shrug off your mortal coil as we all will. I might meet you in the afterlife.  Others die and leave nothing but a moss-covered headstone. When we die we leave the fields ploughed and the furrows seeded. This is our purpose. People like us never die; only the flesh does. I empathise with you. I have no fear at all of going; I already have done so many times. “I am no more afraid of dying than I was of being born.” Spartacus.  I salute you, Robert Faurisson.” ~ Mike Walsh

Americans Diane and Jim Rizoli were as indefatigable in their intent to destroy the myths surrounding what Professor Butz described as The Hoax of the 20th Century.

Diane writes, He is in the League of Extraordinary Revisionists, In honor of his 89 years and the beginning of our many tributes, the late Professor Robert Faurisson led a long and productive life fighting the lies surrounding the worst hoax of the 20th and 21st Centuries – the holocaust. May the Lord continue to bless his efforts.

Iran Premier and Faurisson

Iran Premier and Faurisson

These tributes and many more continue to pour in from the world over: The professor’s brother, Jean, writes: “I regret to inform you that my brother Professor Robert Faurisson died yesterday Sunday, October 21 around 1900 hours. Like him had just passed the front door of his house in Vichy on the return of a trip to his birthplace in Shepperton (UK), he collapsed. Probably as a result of a violent heart attack. There were meetings, with friends who were interrupted at twice violently by opponents to his views. I accompanied him on this occasion. His 90th birthday was to take place on January 25th. We will not forget it.

MY FAVOURITE PROFESSOR FAURISSON QUOTE: “The Zionist-American Axis has phosphorised German children, atomized Japanese children, soused Vietnamese children with Agent Orange and poisoned Iraqi children with depleted uranium. 

It is time for the devastated, scorned and humiliated to fight back. The best way to fight back is with what I for many years have called “the poor man’s atomic bomb:” that is, historical revisionism, or real history. This weapon kills and maims no one but it destroys the lies and defamation of the “holocaust©” myth. This includes the fantastically profitable libels of the “Holocaust© Industry” This is also known that have been fantastically profitable for mendacious super-swindlers such as Bernard Madoff, Elie Wiesel, the cohorts of “miraculously rescues” and murderers of the children of Gaza. ~ Prof. Robert Faurisson 2009.

To Judas, Shabbos Goy and liars in the media and judiciary, his gaolers too, you may know that you will never again cross the path of Professor Robert Faurisson; he is now somewhere where you are never likely to visit. You bear your shame with malice.

Mahmoud on the holocaust

MICHAEL WALSH is an internationally acclaimed journalist, author, and broadcaster shunned by liberal-left corporate

___________________________

 

ROBERT FAURISSON

 

Robert Faurisson’s path-breaking research and the impressive scale of his writings have been a service to humanity.  This brave and brilliant scholar will also be remembered as a principled fighter for free speech and free inquiry.

 

Future generations will one day look back on the way in which powerful enemies hatefully persecuted him as a shameful indictment of this vindictive age.

 

During his lifetime, Faurisson’s exemplary courage and tenacity were an inspiration to many. His legacy will endure long after his death.

 

Mark Weber

Lady Michele Renouf’s Report on Days 10, 11, & 12 of Alfred & Monika Schaefer’s Trial

Lady Michele Renouf’s Report on Days 10, 11, & 12 of Alfred & Monika Schaefer’s Trial

 

This Friday, September 14, the free speech trial of the Schaefers commences for three more days of hearings, not to render a verdict, Lady Michele makes clear in a recent letter.

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSIONTBR Special Message from the Editor

This just in from Munich . . .

Alfred Schaefer and Monika Schaefer 

Trial Summary, Days 10, 11 and 12


Michéle Renouf has provided another update for TBR subscribers on the Schaefer siblings trial in Munich.
Days 10, 11 & 12 – August 14, 15 & 16, 2018
A report by Michèle, Lady Renouf for THE BARNES REVIEW
DAY 10 – Tuesday, August 14, 2018
DENYING IMPLIES LYING IN THE GERMAN WORD “LEUGNER”
During today’s court hearing, Alfred commemorated the achievements of the late Ernst Zündel, the first anniversary of whose death was a week earlier on August 5. Together with his forensic and legal team, Ernst brought groundbreaking facts to light in cross-examination of key Jewish experts during trials conducted in Toronto, Canada in 1985 and 1989. A skilled publicist (out of necessity), he brought these to Canadian public attention despite special interest media resistance.
Monika’s Attorney Wolfram Nahrath comments: “For several minutes after today’s screening by Alfred Schaefer of the videoed interview of the Canadian-German [lifelong pacifist and publisher] Ernst Zündel, by [Scots-French documents expert] Professor Robert Faurisson, a respectful hush was felt by the entire courtroom,” so evident was their tenacious, scholarly perseverance in the face of totally one-sided violence which they (and other vital members of their forensic and legal teams) endured for decades in the normal duties involved in fact-finding for historical exactitude.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recently gave an interview in which he suggested that the social media company did not ban “Holocaust denial” because it was “wrong,” adding that it was sometimes not “intentionally” wrong.
“Intentionality” is the issue facing the Schaefer siblings, as it was for Ernst Zündel who served a total of seven years (two in solitary confinement) for insisting to speak what he “knew to be true” and supported this truth with the groundbreaking facts his legal team exposed in cross-examinations of key Jewish eye-witnesses to the allegedly industrial mass murder weapon plus the revered Jewish “Holocaust” historian in 1985. Never before and never again.
The nub of the present trial of the Schaefer siblings similarly concerns the special and additional element in the meaning of “leugner.” As pointed out (upon Zündel’s death) by the Canadian Jewish News: “Ernst Zündel, who became a virtual household name in Canada’s Jewish community for his [so-called] denial” in [so-called] “false news” trials—“the charge explored whether Zündel knew his views were false.” He was charged under Section 181 of the Criminal Code’s prohibition against “spreading false news” for publishing the booklet “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last.”
Appeals went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in 1992 struck down the false news section of the Criminal Code for violating Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On the 50th anniversary of the capitulation of the German military on May 8, 1995, Zündel’s home in Canada was firebombed, his historical investigative research went up in flames, this central Toronto property completely destroyed. And despite the mortal danger as well to every passerby or post-handler in service of the delivery process, the bombers (who self-identified as the Jewish Defence League) were never prosecuted. As is often the case, the corporate media “gatekeepers of mendacity and manipulative bias” mis-depicted the victim (who had harmed no one, save exposing testimonial liars) as if the callous culprit.
Zündel reports in this video, screened in court by Alfred, about how he had to flee from Canada to the USA because of increasingly serious deadly attacks against him. He was not to be safe there, either. When the validity of his visa expired in the USA, and despite being long married to an American citizen, within hours he was arrested (via this trivial administrative pretext) and deported to Canada on February 19, 2003. Under a new legislation later disqualified, he was deported to a German prison in 2005. In the video proof that the ADL had secret agreements with three non-transparent democracies may be deduced in the legalistic swindle enabling the extraordinary deportation of Ernst Zündel from Canada (where he had been a peaceful resident since age 19) to Germany (his birthplace). This sly (later found illegitimate) extradition of the civil-opinioned publisher was accomplished quietly with a private plane and seven officials.
Following the screening of this video, Alfred Schaefer emphasized why this film was so important to him. The interview helped him to understand a great deal and especially the “contrariwise” pretexts as he recognised them in similarly projected charges against his own good character and his civic-loving sister of “incitement to hatred, contempt or slander.”
Interviewed by Professor Faurisson, Ernst Zündel prophesied in this video: “I am happy in my role, if I contributed something for the truth and the freedom for our country. How many people in history have this opportunity?”
In these two legendary trials conducted in the 1980s in Canada, cross-examined eyewitnesses to the “unique mass homicidal gas chamber” weapon admitted deploying “poetic licence” in their testimonies. Dr. Raul Hilberg, key Jewish “Holocaust” historian, too admitted he was “at a loss” when asked to produce a single document (despite alleged “well-documented” shed-loads) as proof of a state order or a single scientifically feasible operations diagram as supportive evidence—other than, in his view, that a genocide of “6 million Jews” was carried out by the German people via telepathy (“a far-flung bureaucracy, an extraordinary meeting of minds”) during the Second World War.
Zündel was defamed severely for publishing Did Six Million Really Die? yet those who firebombed his home (the self-bragging Jewish Defence League) were never brought for public exposure. What outlasts their criminal malice is the legal testimonial legacy of those Zündel trials, where Jewish eyewitnesses and experts were fairly and freely cross-examined. Now their admissions stand in the annals of bringing history into accord with the facts obscured by wartime propaganda and subsequent “Holocaust Industry” (to cite Norman Finkelstein) for eternal reparation claimants.
On the occasion of Zündel’s death—a man who lived a life never wishing or visiting violence upon anyone—the oxymoronic “Anti-Defamation League” incited global hatred for him in their media-syndicated “enemedia” (a pithy quip by Irish poet Mike Walsh).
Their headline, “Ernst Zündel: The most evil man you’ve never heard of.” Perhaps “never heard of” enough . . . for the general public to have their democratic right to judge? However, for those who have, it is a case of once met never forgotten, for the “former Jew” Henry Herskovitz (leading American “Jews for German Justice”) who remarked, as cited in the Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA local Wikipage:
“Herskovitz shares the views of Ernst Zundel, German publisher known for promoting Holocaust revisionism and author of the “Hitler we Loved and Why” who was jailed for “spreading false news” but the conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada when the law criminalizing reporting false news [alternative opinion] was ruled unconstitutional. Following his visit, Herskovitz wrote, “Ernst Zundel, the reputed anti-Semitic devil, did not merely shake hands with me; he held mine in his. Eight years later the memory remains strong.”
Immediately after Zündel’s death, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the chief Nazi-hunter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the director of the center’s Israel Office and Eastern European Affairs, mistakenly declared: “After Zündel’s release from prison, he refused to comment on his views about the Holocaust, adding that he intended to “be careful not to offend anyone and their draconian laws.” This quote is perhaps the best indication of the effectiveness of legislation to specifically ban Holocaust denial.
It is not so “effective” as this culturally incompatible debate-hater implies. In fact, these debate-hating laws only increase public skepticism and suspicions of why such laws are made to enforce a certain era in history to be revered as “the Holy of Holies” versus criminal heresy, with its Teaching Guidelines stating that “normal historical debate and rational argument” must not be applied, thus rendering “the Holocaust” as a secular religiously imposed obligation.
Indeed, on the day when Ernst Zündel was released in Mannheim, after five years to the day in prison (despite entirely good behaviour), for merely an historical opinion and investigative criticism, I happened to record that event, “Unbowed,” for my Telling Films. In the car at the outset of our journey to his ancestral Black Forest home, Ernst, a dear friend, answered calmly: “I am unbent, unbowed, by this experience. Nothing will change my mind. I used to be a critic. Only now am I an enemy” . . . perforce by this grotesque judicial advance to barbarism.
That is what happens in dreadful consequence of these debate-hate laws and their malicious punishments. Healthy sceptics are dragged towards sickening cynicism, literally into the cesspit of incarceration with the lowest of brutal criminals. Yet in the film tribute “Unbowed” one can see the quickening instincts of the naturally kind life-enhancer when this staunch prisoner of conscience smells the forest, begins hunting for medicinal herbs, and speaks of rejuvenating things ennobling in human goodwill. In total seven years to the day shut away yet never after a whining word.
Zuroff continues: “The good news is that in the Western world, the fight against Holocaust denial has been fairly successful to date, thanks to the defeat of its most dangerous advocate David Irving’s libel suit against Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt, and the punishment of persons like him and Zundel. And, as of this week, at least we no longer have to worry about the latter, which is, indeed, a legitimate cause for joy, despite the admonitions of the book of Proverbs. The biblical book of Proverbs (Mishlei) instructs us ‘Do not be happy when your enemy falls, and do not rejoice when he fails (Chapter 24, verse 17)’.”
Knowing Ernst (aged 78), as I and many did (and many more shall do), one can be confident that had the death of Zuroff been announced during his lifetime, Ernst would not have spoken spitefully of his Judaic anti-gentile enemy. He would have pitied him—for Ernst believed in karma (the belief that a person’s actions in life will determine their fate in the next life). Long Live Ernst in the Role Model Book of the Goodly-honest of gentlemen.
Ernst had served prison sentences in solitary confinement in the Toronto Detention Centre (where I first visited him, then attended his habeas corpus trial, where his lawyer was not permitted to know who brought the case—a secret trial!) in Canada. He then was extradited to Mannheim prison Germany (where I attended in order to archive those transcript-less trials for Telling Films). There he served a further five years merely for publishing benign historical opinions.
Like the Schaefers, Zündel and his veteran colleagues never promoted violence or harmed anyone with their findings and opinions. The Munich judges are scratching around desperately to dig up any shred of evidence of “hatred” enactments engendered by their educationally intoned videos. There is nothing hateful, but rather more akin to a “teacher” tone in the Schaefer videos, as in Ernst’s. They are lessons, as they have termed them, in the conditioning and de-conditioning of political concepts akin to George Orwell’s 1984 exposé of political conditioning before 1948 (when he wrote it) about Bolshevik Communism (and how Alfred still sees it now expressed as glamorous globalism de-culturing by anti-ethno enforcement across Europe today). Alfred says he is indebted to the “brainwashing” exposés by the former KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, whose legacy of lectures of warnings to Americans of Bolshevik techniques Alfred had also screened for the court in earlier sessions.
In Monika Schaefer’s letter dated as written from Stadelheim prison, Munich on June 28, 2018, she notes to its recipient Brian Ruhe that his letter (dated April 5th) did not reach her “for almost eight weeks.” Now, ever since her trial began on July 2nd, there has been a dramatic change in the two-way correspondence delivery speed. One wonders if this is in order to facilitate the prosecution’s hope that somehow they can suggest—as the judge did about the public gallery person who “insulted” the prosecutor as she left the courtroom—that this sort of thing constitutes “evidence” of Monika’s and Alfred’s alleged intention to “incite hatred.” It seems the court is desperate to find examples. If blaming Alfred for a stranger who chose to “insult” the prosecutor after she left the courtroom with a remark—“You should experience the inside of a prison before sending anyone there”—is anything to go by as requisite “evidence” enough to keep the siblings locked away in cells behind bars for multiple years to come.
It is as well to remind American readers that politically incorrect civil utterances made on German soil are eligible as “evidence” of a crime, roping harmless individuals in prison. I recall Ernst Zündel (whom I’d occasionally meet for lunch in his childhood town of Pforzheim) explaining the incredible. He’d tell me: “When I get off the phone to Ingrid [his dear wife] I feel like a coward. She simply cannot grasp that I cannot say what she’d like me to say here in Germany” . . . and that would include anything for her to publish in her widespread Zündelgram, which would land him straight back in jail, an unbelievable reality.
Equally baffling is the action taken against Ernst, the political prisoner of conscience, to keep him separated from his toothbrush on a stool outside his solitary confinement cell in case this proven lifelong pacifist tried to deploy it as a weapon. Dr. Zuroff interprets conscientious objector Zündel’s migration at age 19 from his native Germany to Canada to avoid recruitment in the German army as shamefully “by his own admission, avoiding military service.” These thought-crime cases seem to rely, for the most part, on subjective interpretation. “I remain unbent, unbowed, by this experience,” said Ernst after seven inhumane years, forced to experience only the dangerous and deranged company of murderous criminals—an amazing feat of mind over matter.
Indeed, in a letter from her Munich prison, Monika wrote of B’nai Brith Canada who prompted her arrest: “I am feeling quite calm and strong. Also preparing myself for the wrath of a certain group of chosen people. No matter how much wrath they have, and no matter what they do, no matter how hard they try, they can NEVER transform their fictions into facts. And they will never extinguish the Light of Truth. Amen.”
How much longer, asks Alfred, can this kind of courtroom “Muppet Show” conduct go unchallenged by fair, non-biased judicial norms? This sounds similar to questions raised by learned judges in the USA about the conduct of the “lynch mob” Nuremberg trials in 1946.
At the beginning of the court session, again the urgency had been emphasised by the leading judge that the verdict was scheduled for pronouncement on Friday, August 17th, because of the upcoming vacation recess. Nevertheless, Alfred Schaefer suggested showing all his videos for they are self-explanatory, especially the content, he said, of the video from “Red Ice Radio.”
Earlier in the day the hearing had resumed with the reading of the last part of the translation of the film “Questions about the Holocaust” which had not been completed for the previous hearing.
The attorneys asked for a revision of the translation. Alfred commented on the translation that the truth must be said.
This part describes the gratuitous post-war crimes committed by the American Allies against German guards at Dachau prison in 1945, German guards who had only been detached to Dachau shortly before the Americans arrived. These Germans surrendered their weapons and were rounded up by the Americans, placed against a wall, and shot immediately. Such treatment of POWs is a war crime that has never been punished.
Furthermore, the conditions in the concentration camps at Nordhausen and Bergen-Belsen were described, following the bombing and invasion by the Allies. Nordhausen camp was aerial bombed by the Americans on April 3, 1945. Trains in which prisoners were sitting were machine-gunned. In the camp itself, there were 4,000 sick people who were shot at with air cannons. The British Allies previously had blown up the water supply to the camp. A Jewish eyewitness reported that only due to the Allied air raids and the incendiary bombs had the camp become a hell-hole. Then, after taking the camp with ground troops, this hell the Allies had created they then filmed and cynically presented, as evidence of German atrocities, at the Nuremberg Trials.
It should be noted that there were many decent Americans back home and distinguished American lawyers at the time who were highly critical of the evident “lynch mob justice” meted out during the entirely dubious conduct of the Nuremberg Trials and upon which so much of current illegitimacy is based
Germany’s continuing lack of sovereignty and wartime Allied occupation (as warned by Professor Carlo Schmid in 1948) may require citizens and legislators to take an interest, as did the two retired judges of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem, who called for the repeal of the “Holocaust-denial” law.
In English, the word denial does not imply lying. In the German word “leugner” there is the additional implication that the denier knows the truth, yet he/she knowingly denies that truth. The opposite is the case with the Schaefers, as was the case with Zündel. They believe it is the truth that is being denied and they seek to tell it. Yet laws made in opposition to what the general public presume have been created democratically fair, these “heresy laws” forbid open and free scholarly and forensic enquiry.
Having installed exceptionalism in law, this opposes the natural means of investigation to establish the facts with a stumbling block of pre-biased legislation. The “Holocaust” law asserts that “it” is “obvious” and requires no investigation. The term “Holocaust-denial,” therefore, is deliberate falsification, like a religious heresy, which ordains what is “known” must be accepted on faith in the shed-loads of critically unexamined eyewitness statements and photographs (some considered by Udo Walendy and John Ball to be fabricated) as proofs of an alleged method of a unique industrial mass murder, upheld above source critical and scientific enquiry for each and every subjective claim.
The CJN concludes: “Today, Holocaust education is firmly entrenched in school curricula around the world and Holocaust remembrance is engrained in Western culture. The memory of the Holocaust will long outlast Zundel’s legacy. . .” This is debatable. Some note that there are appearing “cracks in the Jewish cement covering the planet” (to quote Michael Hoffman from the Zündel videos). Ignorance of Zündel’s legal cross-examination legacy, and deference to fear-inducing tyrannical debate-denial laws are no longer prevailing.
My fellow educationalist Richard Edmonds provides me with a summary of the article written by the Spiegel magazine editor, Fritjof Meyer, and published in the semi-official German government periodical Osteuropa in May 2002. Meyer’s article has the headline, “The number of victims at Auschwitz: new research in the archives give us a new understanding.”
“The claim that four million were murdered at Auschwitz is a product of the Allies’ war-time propaganda. The Auschwitz camp Kommandant, Rudolf Hoess, was tortured by the British into making that claim.”
Meyer cites the Polish expert, Waclaw Dlugoborski, who was the former research director at the Polish government’s Auschwitz memorial centre. Dlugoborski wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 1998, “The claim that four million were murdered at Auschwitz was made at the Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders (1945-46) by the Soviet prosecutor. From the very beginning this claim was not accepted; but in Eastern Europe (at the time of communist regimes) it became a dogma and was enforced by law.”
Meyer further cites the research of British historian Rupert Butler revealed in his book,Legions of Death, published by Hamlyn Books of London in 1982. Butler interviewed members of a special unit of the British Army who had captured the former Auschwitz kommandant and tortured him to obtain the “confession” that he, Hoess, had murdered four million.
The plaques commemorating “4 million” at Auschwitz have long been replaced—consequence of the important normal work of historical source critical revisionists’ research—by plaques commemorating “1.1 million,” though even so, Meyer (like the International Red Cross inspectors of those camps) speaks of thousands not millions who died of various causes at that wartime concentration camp. Respected British newspaper Daily Express announced in 1933, “Judea Declares an Economic War on Germany,” with the result that concentration camps like Auschwitz were established largely, as is the norm in wartime, to concentrate in the camps declared enemies of that nation-state (in this case, declared as such by their people’s Jewish Federation president and World Zionist Organisation leader Chaim Weizmann). Not every citizen agrees with war declarations by their state or federation leaders. Alas, that is how it is for all citizens who are thus rendered by their own leaders as enemy agents—this is a universally accepted matter of fact.
Fritjof Meyer published his sensational theses on Auschwitz in the journal Osteuropa. An article by Professor György Schöpflin has this year appeared in this scientific newspaper Osteuropa, which is very well known in Europe, attacking European Union policy with sharp words. He openly declares that Europe is being blackmailed by the “Holocaust” and “human rights” policy and is leading to a new dictatorship. 
The article was published by renowned German Society for Eastern European Studies (DGO), Deutschen Gesellschaft für Osteuropakunde.
A paper entitled “Central Europe in the trap of misalliance with the EU” was published in the 3-5 / 2018 edition by Prof. Schöpflin. It is at least as revolutionary, by some opinions, and even more fundamental than the revelations of Meyer. The professor has taught at English universities and is a MEP for the Hungarian Fidesz Party. He is also an advisor to Hungarian President Viktor Orban. The article is so revolutionary that some cannot think it is possible to publish this contribution without massive support in the background.
Apparently, all contributions are first submitted in English and then translated into German. The article would appear to be a clear sign that the opposition to debate-denial is becoming stronger and stronger, as the Schaefers seem to think.
The Abstract reads as follows:
Western Europe is shaped by the hegemony of a quasi-fundamentalist liberalism, which a supra-state elite enforces with the help of a deterministic concept of history and the so-called human rights. This leads to tensions with the states of Central Europe. The societies of this region have experienced a different history, a history of oppression and forced modernization. This trauma is repeated; again the hope for a resurrection of the free nation has not been met; again democratically elected governments must defend against externally imposed changes. (Osteuropa 3-5 / 2018, p. 323-350).
These videos provided by the Schaefers demonstrate that Alfred and Monika Schaefer did not start their educational-intending work careless of any consequences, on the contrary, and so any accusations of malice must be judged unfounded Their videos and their socially conscientious conduct demonstrate they act out of deepest concern (right or wrong, but never knowingly wrong). Observers conclude, “The siblings undertook a thorough analysis of the subjects, working carefully with verifiable sources. In the videos they produced and screened in court we see Alfred Schaefer shows many commonly held opinions by field experts who query and provide their proofs of the controversial infeasibility of the official legend of ‘9/11,’ the Hollywood versions of history produced by Stephen Spielberg, the moon landing together with Stanley Kubrick’s self-confessed faking of moon landing photographs taken by this science fiction film-maker in his studio.”
As it happens, Lois and Buzz Aldrin were personal friends of mine, and had I had benefit at the time of knowledge of these fake photos by Stanley Kubrick, what an opportunity missed to quiz this “second man on the moon.” As it was, I only knew to enjoy his quip to the Australian TV commentator who tried to maintain that the reason for Buzz Aldrin’s subsequent 15 years’ depression was “sulking that he was only the second not the first man on the moon”! Buzz quipped convincingly that it would be wiser “to envy the third man, as he remained in the getaway van”!
As for Stanley Kubrick, whom I knew only professionally, Kubrick auditioned me on the set for a part in his terrifying movie “The Shining.” As it happens I got the part, though later refused it to my agent’s dismay, for I would not act opposite Jack Nicholson, as it turned out, in a nude scene. There again, one came close to posing an historical question and getting at least a firsthand impression from the horse’s mouth – yet without videos which inform of both sides of controversial issues, one is at a loss when opportunities for source criticism trot up for the asking! These are personal experiences, both lightweight and serious, among many one might make for open debate and rational argument.
Moreover, a witness to the siblings’ trial (an ex-policeman with an eye for “good and bad cop” techniques) noticed that “Alfred Schaefer gave a stage to leading Jews in his videos, who made no secret of the fact that they see all non-Jews as insects and human excrement, whose dissolution or extermination would be acceptable, as incited, in accord with their scriptural Talmudic law books by which Jews’ leaders of today interpret their guiding Bible.”
Alfred Schaefer does not let himself be branded as a criminal by what he calls this secular religious “inquisition” brought against him and his sister by B’nai Brith Canada in what he considers—in line with Professor Carlo Schmid—is a court still bereft of its own sovereignty. He explained to the judges that he “was witness to crimes being committed against himself by the employees of the BRD [Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Federal Republic of Germany] which can be seen in his video “Police Raid and My Confession.” It remains to be seen if the judges will allow this video to be shown on the upcoming court days. As for the siblings’ videos already shown, the four judges, public gallery visitors, the police officers and the left-wing media have witnessed the screening of these videos. “Dismay (concern) could be seen in the faces of those present, except for Judge Hoffmann, public Prosecutor Bankwitz and the left-wing media,” according to some public attendees.
Alfred added that his present time in prison is very instructive for him, because he is learning there that many young people already know about the true situation, especially those coming from war-torn lands with firsthand experience.
The Schaefer legal representatives requested that allegations number 1, 5 and 8 against Alfred Schaefer and allegations number 8 and 9 against Monika Schaefer be set aside. At 5 p.m. the session ended. The trial continues on Thursday, August 16, at 9:15 a.m. 
DAY 11 – Thursday, August 16th, 2018 
HERESY-THINK: Police assigned to court gallery, judge forbids memo-making 
Today was scheduled for the final pleas before the verdict was due to be pronounced the following day.
The session began with the reading of a court ruling accusing Alfred Schaefer of “incitement to hatred” at a demonstration in Dresden in 2017, for which he was fined “100 daily rates of 50 euros each.”
“Incitement” equates to any civilly expressed sympathy or calling into question and speaking publicly on topics which might appear to give a positive evaluation of ANY aspect of the National Socialist era, displaying any related insignia, or valor recognised even by the Allies of its wartime military prowess, technology, camaraderie, animal rights, workers’ rights, family values, aesthetics, scientific, medical or cultural advancements.
This month of August, press headlines announce: “To hide or not to hide Nazi past: Debate raging in Germany over video game displaying swastikas.”
The article “Germany lifts strict constitutional ban on Nazi symbols to allow them in video games” reports comments like these: “This is a good move in a time where everyone is too lazy to read about history,” one of the game admirers wrote on Twitter. “One doesn’t become a Nazi just by seeing a swastika,” said Klaus-Peter Sick, an historian at Berlin’s Marc Bloch Centre, a Franco-German social sciences research institute, adding that players “know how to tell the difference between fiction and reality.” 
How do they? The International Teaching Guidelines on the era insist that “normal historical debate and rational argument” must not be applied (page 11). The Entertainment Software Self-Regulation Body (USK), which is responsible for issuing age ratings for video games, promised to ensure that the softening of the ban would not promote Nazism: “This has long been the case for films and with regard to the freedom of the arts, this is now rightly also the case with computer and video games.”
Readers of the Munich reports are reminded that the Schaefer case hangs on the German definition of “leugner,” which implies the additional aspect, absent in the English word “denial,” of deliberate lying. The Schaefer siblings, as per the investigative method of historical source critical revisionism, define themselves as “Holocaust-Revisionists”—as opposed to their opponent’s interpretation and definition of them as “Holocaust-deniers.” The former assert their method means a revision of consensual-facts as opposed to knowingly denying (as a so-called “Holocaust-denier”) what he/she knows are the “obvious” facts as already set-in-stone to be revered in the manner of a religious faith with attendant heresy prosecution and above any citizen’s “decent thought” scrutiny.
As for skeptics (right or wrong) resistant to thought-crimes prosecution like the Schaefer siblings, ANY questioning of the historical sources of “the Holocaust” and criticizing anything Jewish or suggesting there are racial and ethical differences, German citizenry, like British citizenry, have been taught to fear and dread any association with or to be seen to take an interest in such “anti-semitic”-defined issues. This can be learnt on the broad and byways, transports and cafes in Munich—and can be experienced where raising these topics in any tone or mode can undermine family harmony.
These debate-denial termed “hate” and “denial” laws in themselves can incite fear so potently that a family will self-choose its own demise for the sake of remaining loyal to the politically correct line. An example has arisen during the Schaefer trial. In Britain, in the case of Jeremy Bedford-Turner—after being goaded by the demonstrators calling “kill him, kill him” and then during interrogation by the prosecutor expressing his civil opinions—he found out these “hate” laws, on the contrary, “can hound you out of house and home-life, so stigmatic is the infamy of simply upholding one’s non-violent opinions.” Some see the denouncing of family members has a certain resonance with Medieval religious heresy terror. Bewildering, to see its echo in our rather more secular day presumed to be less superstitiously gullible, though naturally as vulnerable.
Citizenry, argues Alfred, is being conditioned not only to fear prosecution (which he and his sister do not) but also to fear their own “nasty” skeptical thoughts termed “hate crimes.” Alfred alludes to this phenomenon in his own videos when citing the movie 1984. In the movie, as per Orwell’s book, the child overhears her father murmur against “The Party” in his nightmare, then denounces her father in her overriding loyalty to “Big Brother.” Dutifully she is satisfied with causing her father’s liquidation for heresy-think in his sleep. (It is the “brainwashing” aspect of the Schaefer trial that especially interests me, having learnt of the psychological methods of human conditioning during my marriage of 20 years to a gentile psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and later on from post-graduate studies in the Psychology of Religion at the University of London.)
The judgment on Alfred’s speech-crime is not yet final because Alfred had filed an appeal against it. In accordance with the Basic Law of the land as it stands since 1948, and most recently codified as “Paragraph 130,” all and any free debate is prohibited concerning that formerly democratically elected National Socialist era. By consensual definition, sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In a speech, “What does the Basic Law actually mean?” Professor Carlo Schmid (one of its signatories in 1948) clarified that German citizens enjoy no sovereignty over postwar Allied—reigning Germany—and nothing changed though the Berlin Wall came down with the part-unification of the Federal Republic of Germany.
In fact, according to the statutes of the UN, there exists no peace treaty between Canada and Germany (!)—the two colluding parties in the arrest and detention in a German prison without charge since January 3, 2018 of Monika Schaefer a Canadian citizen(!).
When Professor Schmid asked in 1948 his rhetorical question, “So what is the situation in Germany today?” he answered: “On May 8, 1945, the German Wehrmacht surrendered unconditionally. . . . The unconditional surrender had legal effects exclusively on the military. . . . The surrender deed signed then did not mean that the German people, by means of legitimized representatives, no longer exists as a state. . . . That is the position of this unconditional surrender and not another.”
To Members of the Parliamentary Council, on September 8, 1948—(as recorded in “Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948-1949, Akten und Protokolle” Volume 9, published by the German Bundestag and the Bundesarchiv, Harald Boldt Verlag im R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1996)—Schmid concludes on his concern at German citizenship’s lack of sovereignty: “For my part I think that it is not part of the concept of democracy that you yourselves create conditions for its elimination.”
Debate-denial laws inevitably came into existence to prosecute against speaking in public about politically incorrect taboo topics. A verdict on this type of trial is not usually expected necessary because the accused is pre-judged by the very word “Holocaust-leugner.” This term in itself renders a skeptical individual guilty of “only trying to deny the obvious genocide, which he/she knows but denies, of National Socialist tyranny by prosecutable submissions of infinite examples of pseudo-scientific proof.” Over the days of this trial one senses the mindset of the Queen of Hearts in whose courtroom she’d commence with, “Sentence first!”
Subsequently in the session arose a discussion of criminal norms in Germany. Attorney Nahrath took the view that the court had to inform Monika and Alfred Schaefer in particular about “Paragraph 130,” because both had spent most of their lives abroad and one could not assume that they were aware of it, especially since it was also a special law about which lawyers understand but a layman would not necessarily be aware. The judge was of the opinion that the lawyer could do the explaining to the two defendants during the lunch break. Attorney Nahrath refused, saying he was also entitled to a break. Otherwise, he would file an application for the court to clarify “Para 130” to the Schaefer siblings who cannot be presumed to have command of every subtlety of the German language and its special laws. The court’s answer is still pending.
Next, they turned to view another of Alfred’s videos, “End of the Lies,” in English, which also had been distributed with Russian subtitles and on various video platforms and thereby drew indignation from the court. The video covers many events in recent history. It quotes Jewish witnesses, good and bad—Benjamin Freedman with his ever-informative speech from the 1960s versus Barbara Lerner Spectre with her self-indicting statement about the plan that “Europe must learn to be multicultural and Jews will be resented for their leading role in this.” Alfred does not wish to comply with what race-dictating Barbara Spectre does not wish applied to her own exceptionalist ethnicity.
Like many commentators, Alfred foresees in Barbara Spectre’s “role” of social engineering over Europe, the engendering of a race-war—the oft cited “clash of civilizations.” Examples of such incompatible culture-clashes are increasingly arising.
Alfred Schaefer’s attorney pointed out that during the trial Alfred had repeatedly stated that his allegations “were not directed against all Jews, but only against those who had the expressed intention of wiping out white ethnicity.” Alfred had cited his specific instances.
This would be detrimental in general and intentional since this would make it impossible for white ethnicities to maintain their apparent superiority given this proof: The current mass migration of other races shows their choice of abode is in white nations, which have created societal benefits and infrastructural leadership abilities evaluated by them more highly above their own. According to Alfred Schaefer, one must defend himself against such statements as Spectre’s. He feels directly attacked and subjected to Spectre’s “leadership.” Rather than having to “learn” to live with her impositions, in fairness he sees he has his rights to offer counter-“lessons” in his videos. Alfred sees as otherwise the general public remains at the mercy of “self-irresponsible” deference and “Pavlovian dog-like obedience” to this prevailing politically secular though heresy-think intimidation.
When the court resumed in the afternoon, one could only surmise the reasoning behind the next surreality during its conduct. At the order of the leading judge, observers in the public gallery are no longer allowed to take notes! Only journalists were to be allowed to write during the proceedings. Policemen were assigned to keep the citizens in the public gallery under surveillance so that this new instruction was obeyed. By now, this is trial Day 11, so what has prompted this sudden prohibition of personal memo note-making? Can it be the court seeks to limit German citizens’ exposure to the admissions made freely by informative Jews like Freedman and Spectre, as cited that morning by Alfred?
In the course of the afternoon, a police chief detective from Fürstenfeldbruck was interrogated. Having received a complaint via email from the “Human Rights Commissioner” of B’nai Brith Canada against Alfred Schaefer an acting on the basis of the allegations, three house searches had been made of Alfred Schaefer’s apartment. The chief detective gave a detailed list of what items had been found there, how the apartment was constructed, who had been there and how they had merged two apartments into one.
Subsequently, an IT and video expert presented an opinion on the videos shown, rated these videos as not amateur, but as professional.
At the end of today’s trial session around 8:00 p.m., the prosecutor applied for more stringent detention conditions for Alfred Schaefer, because he spoke several languages, had travelled around the world and had money, so that there was an alleged increased risk of his absconding. (The obvious alternative of simply taking away both his current plus an outdated passport and placing upon him an electric tag did not occur or presumably suffice, though as yet Alfred has never been sentenced for any crime.) Both siblings remain behind bars though not sentenced.
The outcome of the Schaefer siblings’ trial will have vital implications for the liberties not only of Germans but of all visitors to European Union countries. Readers might expect that Alfred and Monika could seek protection from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and supposedly in force since 1976, protecting basic human rights such as freedom of expression. Article 19 of this Covenant states, “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.” It continues, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
The third paragraph of Article 19 then qualifies these rights by accepting that they can be restricted, but only by laws which are necessary “for respect of the rights or reputations of others” or for protecting national security, public order, public health or morals. Article 20 goes on, “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Yet this again contains hidden “Catch-22” exceptionalism.
Paragraph 49 of UN Human Rights Committee 2011 forbids “general prohibition,” insisting that states wishing to use the above exceptions must cite a specific instance. The French documents expert Professor Robert Faurisson wrote to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on December 22, 2011, requesting “helpful insight into the United Nations Organisation’s understanding of freedom on the practical level today in my country, a charter signatory to the 1966 Covenant but a country which, nevertheless, sentences peaceable citizens to imprisonment for their writings on history.”
Professor Faurisson clarified: “With respect to paragraphs 35 and 36 I submit that France, in its checks on public expression of views on history under the Gayssot Act, has failed to ‘demonstrate in specific and individualised fashion the precise nature of the threat’ to the rights and reputation of persons or to public order (Covenant, article 19) purportedly constituted by utterances and writings contravening the said Act, and has failed as well to demonstrate ‘the necessity and proportionality of the specific [restrictive] action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat’.”
The Professor received no reply. However, his query was taken up by Dr. William Schabas, of Middlesex University, in his doctorate on human rights, titled “New General Comment on Freedom of Expression Deals with Denial Laws.” Schabas writes: “The long-awaited General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee on freedom of expression was adopted at its recent session. It deals rather briefly with legislation that has been adopted in many countries dealing with denial of historical events like the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. Paragraph 49 of the General Comments says: ‘Laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts (fn 166) are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.’ Footnote 116 says ‘So called ‘memory-laws’, see Faurisson v. France, No. 550/93’.”
The General Comment also considers blasphemy legislation. At paragraph 48, it says: “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20(2) of the Covenant states: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This means that one can show disrespect for a religion or other belief system as long as it does not constitute incitement to discrimination or hostility. Dr. Schabas concludes: “It looks like a hard line to draw in practice.”
This is the “line” that the prosecution appears to be trying to press for the Schaefer siblings’ case to cross
Attorneys in Germany say they have been working with that comment for several years. The courts are ignoring it in Germany saying that this comment is not binding on them. Ex-Constitutional Court judges have said “Denying the Holocaust” law is a misusage of the individual’s human right of free opinion and free speech and “should be repealed.” If it truly is not binding, then does one conclude the UN Human Rights Committee in reality has no power? So much for our “guaranteed” rights
The possible alternative date proposed for the pronouncement of the judgment is September 14, 2018, in the event that tomorrow at 9:15 a.m. the hearing could not be concluded.

DAY 12 – Friday, August 17th, 2018 
VERDICT DEFERRED FOR A MONTH 
  • Judge loses on forbidding memo-making by public in gallery
  • B’nai Brith Canada caught out by videos ban dates in Germany
PREAMBLE
This Day Ten’s session proper had begun with this trial’s typical attempt to prevent the general public from all and any freedom of information to independent thought, opinion and debate:
On Day One the microphones were not permitted to be switched on, until Monika pointed out that it was not a public trial if the public were deliberately being obstructed from hearing it.
Citizens are intimidated by having to show their identity cards before admission into the public gallery in fear that being identified as taking an interest in politically incorrect trials is tantamount in some quarters as “anti-Semitic” (for, indeed, “taking an interest” is used as such a personality trait argument).
Next, in subsequent sessions, court trainees were asked to leave the room when the video translations into German were being heard.
And now—perhaps because there was a sizable attendance of some 30 public persons taking an interest—came the ultimate contrariwise: The judge announced no one but journalists were to be allowed note taking. Police were then stationed in the public gallery to supervise and denounce anyone caught writing anything down! Presumably this was to prevent what they had heard being “carried” outside and ideas opened for discussion, or even memos being mulled over later.
The trial may as well be a closed secret trial. Certainly Ernst Zündel’s final trial in Canada was a secret trial, for neither he nor his lawyers were permitted to know who brought the case or any detail whatever. Both defence and defendant were even denied all knowledge of how many witnesses spoke out against him, and what proofs were provided. No details at all. I witnessed that habeas corpus trial. Contrariwise—as when Alice in Wonderland is brought to face charges before the card game Court of the Queen of Hearts and she, its judge, declares, “Sentence first!”
SUMMARY of Friday’s morning session—which is now no longer the day for pronouncement of the verdict (the date of the 31st anniversary of the controversial demise of Rudolf Hess “prisoner of peace”).
Once the audience in the courtroom had taken their places, Sylvia Stolz (scientist of law), approached to ask the judge for the legal basis of his order given the day before prohibiting note-making. The judge answered that he had decided this ban. Attorney Nahrath, the attorney for Monica Schaefer, took the floor and pointed to a Landgericht(a district court such as the present one) judgment stating there is no note-taking ban in the public’s gallery. He was quoting from another criminal trial at anotherLandgericht.
If the judge did not allow listeners to take notes, the attorney would like to make a request for this right to be duly restored and exercised by all listeners. The court then withdrew for consultation and deliberated for three-quarters of an hour before the announcement that the audience was allowed to take notes but not to write up any notes(!).
That meant that the audience is allowed to write down notes but not a make a complete report, just short summaries of any point. Finally, everybody was able to write down what he/she wanted to.
The session proceeded with the detective chief commissioner again being asked to the witness stand. He was questioned about how it was possible that Alfred’s videos shown so far had been accessed since at the time they indicated the videos were no longer capable of retrieval on the Internet in Germany. This question the detective chief commissioner could not answer and referred instead to the colleague responsible for this. One of the attorneys, therefore, made the request to question the aforementioned colleague, since a video blocked in Germany could not be made punishable in Germany.
The court once again withdrew for advice and then announced that the colleague was on sick leave for a long time and might not be returning to the service for the performance of his duties and therefore would not be available as a witness. The attorney replied that if the colleague was on sick leave for the performance of his duties, this did not mean that he could not be summoned as a witness in court. “If five billion videos are uploaded worldwide in 2014 and six billion the following year, then the few videos from the Schaefers could pose no ‘threat’ and are only thus called owing to the Special Law of Paragraph 130.” He therefore insisted on the summons of the commissioner’s colleague to determine, in agreement with an expert on contemporary history, how the videos had been obtained, which were not officially retrievable and could not be “abusive” in Germany at the given time. Whether it should be illegal for monopolistic tech companies to decide what people are allowed to say—or even condition them to fear allowing oneself to think (i.e., heresy-think)—are questions beyond the scope of the trial.
Meanwhile, B’nai Brith Canada have a lot more than Monika and Alfred Schaefer on their plate this August. “Supporters of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers Plan to Protest B’nai Brith Canada,” reports the Canadian Jewish News, adding: “Recently, B’nai Brith Canada launched a smear campaign against CUPW, (which) has taken a principled stand in defence of Palestinian human rights,” the protest’s organizers wrote on Facebook. “As a result, CUPW [which represents some 50,000 postal workers, revealed that it had launched a “joint project” with the Palestinian Postal Service Workers’ Union and] has become the latest victim in a long list of smear campaigns launched by B’nai Brith Canada to silence human rights defenders who are critical of Israel’s violations of international law.”
Before the adjournment of the Munich trial prompted by “human rights association” B’nai Brith Canada, the prosecutor said a request from Alfred for further evidence was inappropriate, because the same views were repeatedly expressed. Alfred Schaefer saw no reason why his request, to offer more proofs of the “educational” nature of his video work, would need be abbreviated by the court. This is the reason, Alfred explains, why magazines such as Blick nach rechts (Look to the Right) present his thought processes as confused conspiracy theories. After all, how can a complete picture be made out of the actual predicament if requests for evidence are to be dispensed with. He has, for instance, Noel Ignatiev, a Jewish professor from Harvard University, quoted in his studies that all whites must be disassembled and destroyed because “we want it that way,” adding, “Racial traitors practice loyalty to humanity.” The journalist Deniz Yücel said of the entire German people: “Your DNA is a hideousness.” Such statements, shows Alfred, are not isolated cases and are the prompt for his emergency calls for “conditioning de-contamination.” This is the way his “lecture” videos are to be understood.
In a letter written in the Munich prison by Monika Schaefer (to Brian Ruhe in Canada), dated July 27, 2018, she seems reassured that: “The court is receiving a wonderful education. They are learning that we are all about peace. Peace and love. . . . Yesterday we got to watch two of those: Questioning the Holocaust – Why We Believed (that’s the one we only got half way through the translation of same), and the Ursula Haverbeck video The Greatest Problem of Our Time, in German with English subtitles. So you see, everyone is receiving a wonderful education. . . . The judge wanted to be finished by then, but that will not likely be possible. I don’t mind one bit. It is so important that this not be cut short—I don’t mind sitting a little longer.” Monika has not been charged or sentenced since January 2018. She sits behind bars for speaking her mind, just for making use of the basic right of free speech.
After further submissions of new evidence, the leading judge concluded that apparently the attorneys were not in such a hurry as the court to conclude the trial, so he declared the hearing over and announced the following session dates: September 14, 21 and 26, 2018.


RELATED FROM THE BARNES REVIEW STORE

LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined
Rudolf, Lectures On the HolocaustHere is the new standard work of Holocaust revisionism! It was written by German scholar, writer, and publisher Germar Rudolf, based on the research of the most prominent revisionists, most of which Rudolf had the pleasure to publish in a multitude of German and English language journal articles and books.
The book was written to fit the need of both those who have no in-depth knowledge of the Holocaust or of revisionism, as well as for well-versed readers familiar with revisionism. Anyone who wants to bring himself up to date on revisionist scholarship, but does not want to read all the special studies that were published during the past ten years, needs this book!
The book’s style is unique: It is a dialogue between the lecturer and the reactions of the audience. Rudolf introduces the most important arguments and counter arguments of Holocaust revisionism. The audience reacts with supportive, skeptical, and also hostile questions. The Lectures read like an exciting real-life exchange between persons of various points of view. The usual moral, political, and pseudo-scientific arguments against revisionism are addressed and refuted.
This book resembles an entertaining collection of answers to frequently asked questions on the Holocaust. With generous references to a vast bibliography, this easy-to-understand book is the best introduction into this taboo topic for both readers unfamiliar with the topic and for those wanting to know more. 500 pages, paperback, bibliography, indexed, $30.00.
Click here to read more about Lectures on the Holocaust, review the table of contents, read a sample, and order online from The Barnes Review.

THE HOLOCAUST HOAX EXPOSED: Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie
Holocaust Hoax Exposed, ThornBy Victor Thorn. Holocaust research is a dangerous business. Today, if a book similar to this one were published in Europe, its author would be arrested and imprisoned. The crime: questioning the holocaust tale. 
Indeed, researchers have endured solitary confinement, brutal beatings by assailants, ongoing harassment, lengthy court battles, career suicide and media attacks directed against them—all because they presented a Revisionist history of this pivotal event. Other Revisionist writers have been the victims of hate crimes, extensive smear campaigns, fines and death threats.
The perpetrators behind these police state tactics are part of an entire holocaust industry devoted to suppressing factual data in favor of peddling heavy-handed doses of error-laden propaganda.
The holocaust industry has become a tyrannical dictatorship that incessantly manipulates, distorts, marginalizes and manufactures false conclusions to prop up their sinking ship. By taking their hysterical obsessions to psychopathic levels, the charlatans behind this ruse make it glaringly apparent how weak the foundation of their argument is.
Thorn rips apart, in lay language, the veil-thin arguments used to prove the Jewish “Holocaust,” which is then used by global Zionists to justify the creation and continued existence of the state of Israel and as a tool to silence all critics; “Never again” is their rallying cry. The Holocaust Hoax Exposed dissects every element of what has become the 20th century’s most grotesque conspiracy.
Covered in this book is the mythology surrounding “death camps,” the truth about Zyklon B, Anne Frank’s fable, how the absurd “6 million” figure has become a laughing stock. From eye-opening facts that not one autopsy exists that shows the use of Zyklon B on work camp inmates to zero photographic evidence of this supposed enormous event to the ludicrous and licentious tales woven by the “Holocaust” historians, Thorn’s masterpiece should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding the underpinnings of the Jewish power elite.
Click here to read more about the book and order online: Softcover, 186 pages, b&w illustrations, $20.
And to learn more, listen to this podcast interview with Holocaust Hoax author, the late Victor Thorn, available on audio CD (one hour, $15).
Click here to purchase the book/CD combo: Both for just $30 plus S&H. Save $5.
Remember: TBR subscribers receive a 10% discount on product price of all purchases when order is placed over the phone (toll free 1-877-773-9077 or 1 202-547-5586. Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today, and don’t miss another issue of The Barnes Review, dedicated to bringing history into accord with the facts!

The Barnes Review • PO Box 15877, Washington, DC 20003
202-547-5586 or toll free 877-773-9077 • sales@barnesreview.org

Copyright © 2018 The Barnes Review. All rights reserved.

You received this email because you requested updates from TBR.
Click here to unsubscribe from ALL Barnes Review emails.

The German lady Ursula Haverbeck and the British lady Michèle Renouf

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

The German lady Ursula Haverbeck and the British lady Michèle Renouf

 

 

To begin, please see, on this blog, the account in French of May 9, 2018: En Allemagne, Ursula Haverbeck – âgée de près de 90 ans – vient d’être incarcérée pour révisionnisme (“In Germany, Ursula Haverbeck, at nearly 90 years of age, has just been imprisoned for revisionism”).

The revisionist Ursula Haverbeck, “the great German lady”, as her admirers call her, has been in prison in Bielefeld (North Rhine-Westphalia) since May 7. A great-grandmother, she will turn 90 on November 11. She is set to stand trial in another revisionist case in Hamburg on September 12. The distance between her place of detention and that city is more than 155 miles.

Lady Renouf, advised by barrister Wolfram Nahrath, informs us that the German authorities have decided to subject the prisoner to a veritable marathon voyage just before her approaching trial, to be held in a courtroom where, despite her inborn energy, she will risk arriving in rather poor physical condition. Leaving her prison in Bielefeld five or six days before the trial date, she will be stopping at five different prisons to spend the night! On each leg of the trip she will be in a crowded prison van, undergoing the regulation body search at each arrival point. Finally, in each of the five prisons, she will have to deal with new delinquents or criminals (see the 3m 12s video Ursula Haverbeck – Update).

Those who may wonder how the German authorities can even think of adopting such a harsh line of conduct will do well to remember that Germany, 73 years after her unconditional surrender of May 8, 1945, remains largely, with the presence still of numerous US military bases on her territory, an “occupied country”. She bows low, she believes or pretends to believe in what she is bidden to believe. And then, in any case, “the delirium of lying and believing is catching like the itch” (Céline).

The organisations claiming to represent the Jews prove to be ever more worried, and brutal. Since 1985 they have been in something of a panic. In January 1985 they observed Raul Hilberg’s devastating collapse as expert witness for the prosecution at the “first great Zündel trial in Toronto” (a collapse confirmed by his refusal, in writing, to appear again three years later at the “second great Zündel trial in Toronto”). Since then, the “Holocaust” religionists have experienced a major, enduring crisis that they vainly seek to ward off with increasingly senseless and fierce repression.

There is no doubt, however, that the revisionism of Ursula Haverbeck and Michèle Renouf will ultimately prevail. For historians there will remain the task of compiling a 20-tome Encyclopaedia of the Historical Lie of the Jewish Holocaust. In it will be found the names, in particular, of the judges who have disgraced themselves with such cynicism in convicting men and women who, in France, Britain, the United States, Canada and a good number of other countries, live, work and suffer for historical revisionism, that is, for one of mankind’s noblest intellectual adventures. This adventure will have known its “Righteous ones”, with Ursula Haverbeck and Lady Renouf figuring amongst them; the voluminous work will stand through the centuries ahead, like Horace’s “monumentum aere perennius”; it will be, let no-one doubt it, “a monument more lasting than bronze”.

August 14, 2018

Posted by N N

Labels: Céline, Horace, Michèle Renouf, Raul Hilberg, Ursula Haverb

CAFE Holds Memorial for Author, Wife & Freedom Fighter Ingrid Rimland in Toronto

CAFE Holds Memorial for Author, Wife & Freedom Fighter Ingrid Rimland in Toronto

TORONTO, December 3, 2017. They came from as far away as Michigan and from all across Southern Ontario to honour a free speech warrior and a passionate advocate of truth and justice for Germans.  Tpday,

Christian Klein a Toronto advocate for the German expellees and Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression spoke as did a surprise visitor from Michigan, Rudi LIst..

Part of a film Germans, Off Your Knees! featuring Ernst Zundel and Ingrid Rimland was also screened, showing important moments from their life together.

Music was supplied by Dieter Kahl on the accordion and Christian Klein on guitar. The memorial ended with one of the theme songs of the free speech movement, the old German folk song Die Gedanken Sind Frei (Thoughts Are Free).

MESSAGE FROM MARK WEBER, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW

A wise man once said that success should be measured not by the position one has reached in life, but rather by the obstacles he has overcome. That standard is certainly relevant as today we remember and honor a remarkable woman.

 

Ingrid Rimland was born in 1936 into an ethnic German Mennonite community in Soviet Ukraine. When she was five years old, her father was taken from her – arrested by Bolshevik authorities and deported to Siberia – never again to be seen by his little daughter or other loved ones. A short time later, the people of her community — along with millions of others in Ukraine and other Soviet-controlled areas – welcomed the German troops who were advancing eastwards to bring down the Red empire.

 

A few years later, during the final months of the war in Europe, and as the resurgent Red Army was retaking Ukraine, she and many others fled westwards with the retreating German troops. Then, after several years living as a refugee, she and other members of her community migrated to South America where they began new lives in an isolated Mennonite settlement in Paraguay.

 

From there she moved with a husband and a young son to Ontario, Canada, where she had a second son, and then to the United States, where she eventually became a U.S. citizen. She earned a Bachelor’s degree, and then a Master’s, and then, a Doctorate of education.  For years she worked as an educational psychologist in California public schools, specializing in special education and education for migrant children. She later worked as an education consultant and testing specialist for some 40 schools in southern California. At the same time she ran a private practice in child psychology.   

 

That’s already quite a record for someone of her modest origins and difficult early life. But she pushed herself still further, making a name as an acclaimed writer.

 

Her novel, The Wanderers, drew on experiences from her own life and the lives of others in the community of her birth. This book earned the California Literature Medal Award for best fiction in 1977. A mass-market paperback edition was issued by Bantam publishers.


 

She also wrote an autobiography, titled The Furies and the Flame, and a book entitled Demon Doctor, as well as an ambitious three-volume novel, Lebensraum.

 

During the final decades of her life she was well known, of course, for her association with Ernst Zündel, the bold, energetic and courageous publisher and activist. She was much more than just his wife. She was a fiercely loyal defender and a valued collaborator.

 

During those years — in California, and then in Tennessee, where she lived until her recent death — she dedicated herself to the task, as she saw it, of defending the heritage and honor of her much maligned and mistreated people.


To this new career she devoted the same tenacity, skill and self-discipline she had put into her earlier professional life. For years she wrote and published a newsletter that won a loyal readership, and she maintained the influential “Zundelsite” website.

 

Although I cannot say that I knew her well, I’m pleased that she and I worked together on several projects. The most important, probably, was the demonstration we staged together in early 2005 outside the Canadian Consulate in downtown Los Angeles to protest the outrageous treatment of Ernst Zündel by Canadian authorities.

 

Today we remember with gratitude the life of a woman of idealism and ability who overcame poverty, privation, uprooting, and personal loss to achieve success in life, and whose struggle serves to inspire and encourage all of us, and many others as well.

MESSAGE FROM DR. ROBERT FAURISSON

Ernst Zündel died on August 5, 2017.

I had phoned him at his place in Germany on August 4.

He revealed me that Ingrid was going to die very soon

and he got down to some terrible specifics.

Never would I have guessed that Ernst would disappear

the next day. I was surprised by his death. I was not

surprised by Ingrid’s death in spite of what she wrote

about her surgical operation in Power‘s issue Nr.462

(September 2017, p. 7A). She thought she knew better

than the doctors. She even wrote : “Don’t you believe

them […]. I am back home, recuperating […]”. She was wrong.

The doctors and her husband were right.

Barbara Kulaszka died on June 15, Ernst Zündel on

August 5, Serge Thion on October 15 and Ingrid Rimland-

Zündel few days later. I guess I know the next one.

“Les dieux ont soif” (Gods are thirsty) but, alive or dead, we shall win.

 Robert Faurisson, Vichy, Monday, October 30, 2017

A homage to Ernst Zündel

A homage to Ernst Zündel

Robert FAURISSON                                                                                          

     July 5, 2017

 

As the reader will have heard, in France, the person in charge of “Bocage” has taken a final bow with the 6,000th newsletter under that name. Thus ends an endeavour remarkable for its range and for the mass of work devoted, since 1979, to informing us on developments in historical revisionism.

 

This newsletter no. 6,000 salutes a prestigious hero of revisionism, Ernst Zündel, born in Germany in 1939. Those who, given their relatively young age, do not know just who this amazing figure is can ask us for a brief biography.

 

 

  1. Zündel has shown such energy, such inventiveness and such disinterestedness that one may rightly assert that, without him, revisionism would never have been able toamass so many victories, victories that have resounded throughout the world.

 

When finally the collapse of the “Jewish Holocaust” myth comes about, the tribunal of History will have to render justice to a sizeable number of revisionists and, to begin with,the Frenchman Paul Rassinier and the German Ernst Zündel, who never met but who, united in heart and spirit in one and the same truly heroic venture, haveindeed fought not only for the honour of their respective homelands but also for the honour of Europe as a whole.

 

***

 

 

Bocage, July 1, 2017

 

Our final message will be a tribute to Ernst Zündel, the German-Canadian revisionist to whom revisionism owes so much!

 

For revisionists, Ernst Zündel has played an unparalleled role: with his leaflets, his periodicals – always punctual – in English and German, his help in disseminating so many books in various languages, his radio and television broadcasts, his videos, he has been everywhere, and always present to inspire the movement. In 1990, thanks to a formidable undertaking organised as he knows how, our cause achieved a particularly fine victory: the elimination from the plaques at Auschwitz of the figure of four million dead,replaced later by that of a million and a half.

 

And it is above all he who, in the manner of anorchestral conductor, masterfully coordinated his two trials in Toronto (1985 and 1988), bringing revisionists and opponents of revisionism from all over the world there,especially in the 1985 trial, in order finally to organise a courtroom confrontation between the two camps (needless to say, when subjected to the inflexible cross-examination of barrister Douglas Christie, advised by Professor Faurisson, the opponents bit the dust so hard that a man like, for instance, Raul Hilberg, the “Pope of exterminationism”, would refuse to return for the 1988 trial!). We think anyone wishing to be informed about revisionism should begin by reading Michael Hoffman’sThe Great Holocaust Trial, published by Independent History & Research

(https://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.it/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html).

 

Therefore an end had to be put to Ernst Zündel’sexuberant and iconoclastic activity and it was on February 5, 2003 that this “hero” (the word is Professor Faurisson’s) was literally abducted at his Tennessee home; from that date, i.e. for the past 14 years, this manwas to find himself gagged, completelyunable to express himself on the subject thatwas his life’s work: to cleanse Germany, his country of origin, of the false accusations by which she is overwhelmed. After 7 years in prison, amongst which 2 in Canada in conditions close to torture and the rest in Germany, he would have to pass a probationperiod of 3 years, but the 10 years of silence were not to stop there: in order to maximise his chances of obtaining the right to return to his house in Tennessee, he would carry onmaintaining anear-complete silence for 4 years… and our readers will indeed have noted that at our end wedidour best to respect that silence.

 

Alas, on March 31of this year the dreaded final decision was issued: while the door stays open to so many migrants, the United States, through the voice of a certain Ron Rosenberg, chief of the Administrative Appeals Officeof the US Citizen and Immigration Services, which acts by delegation of theDepartment of Homeland Security, refusedthe eminent revisionist entry to its territory for all time, thus forbidding him foreverfrom returning to his own home there,beside his wife! However, the law is clear: a person convicted abroad who seeks entry to the United States is to be barred only if the conducthaving led to conviction is “deemed criminal by United States standards”; but “denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments [which in fact E. Zündelhas never done – Bocage] is just not a crime underAmerican law”, noted UCLA law professor Eugene Volokhin a Washington Post column published, cynically, on April 24, Ernst Zündel’s birthday!

 

It was only onMay 9 that we received a copy of thatiniquitousruling signed “Rosenberg”:readers who wishto have their own copy mayrequest itfrom us.

 

On May 17 we asked E. Zündel for his reaction, and he replied as follows:

 

Hi! I have read and reread that US ruling by Ron Rosenberg and am ever more disgusted.
I am so disgusted by this hypocritical charade that I find it nearly impossible to force myself to write something about it!

 

So here goes:

 

I had engaged a top immigration lawyer with over thirty years of practicalexperience with immigration law in the USA. This lawyer handled my casefrom the beginning!

 

I followed all his advice and US rules and regulations to the letter.

 

All things progressed well, I already lived with my wife in the USA at our own property, running our publishing business; I had been granted a work permit, a social security number, had a comprehensive health check-up, including x-rays, aids test,in short, I was fingerprinted by the FBI, even interrogated by a special agent of theFBI, passing all tests required, with flying colours. There was only one more visit to be undertaken with an immigration official beforeI would be granted permanent residence and could live and work in the USAfor the rest of my life!

 

We were able to obtain my FBI file after my arrest and deportation!The special agent of the FBI, called Scott Nowinski, recommended to his headquartersthat they close the Zündel file, assuming that I would be given residency status!

 

Ingrid and I carried on with our lives, being reassured by the attorneys that all
was only a matter of time and routine!

 

We were totally taken by surprise, when out of the clear blue sky I wasarrestedduring a workday without warning, while framing paintings for my soon to be opened art gallery! The US officials did not allow me to call my attorney, and they did not have an Arrest Warrant!

 

Instead they claimed that I had overstayed my visa, an obvious and blatant concocted lie, their cover story! In order to deport me from the USA.

 

Due to this deportation, which came after the events of 9/11 (the attacks onthe World Trade Center and the Pentagon),I was imprisoned in Canada, todetermine my status for two years! Then I was declared a security threat to the nation of Canada, where I had lived peacefully and productively for 42 years, and was declared persona non grata by Canada.

 

I was deported to Germany, arrested on the steps of the plane which had flown meacross the ocean in handcuffs from Canada and immediately imprisoned in Mannheim!

 

There I was tried in Court for my writings and broadcasts done in the USA, whichwere perfectly legal in America.

 

After a lengthy and grotesque trial in Mannheim I was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years under Germany’s controversial holocaust-related post war laws!

 

I lost all appeals, served every minute of the five-year sentence, plus another three years of “probation”, and was finally released on March 1, 2010!

 

We, my wife Ingrid and I, fought in the US courts for 14 years, trying to return to the USA. Virtually always lost, also lost all appeals.We spent untoldsums on legal fees and court proceedings!

 

The end result is the ruling by Homeland Security, signed by one Ron Rosenberg, which follows! There is also a critical review of this decision, by a US law professor from Los Angeles University by the name of Volkovh (?),whichclarifies matters somewhat!

 

The Zündel case reveals a great deal about the state of justice and human rights in America today!

 

There is a vast gap in the USA between their “reality” and American propaganda!

 

* * *

Ernst Zündel continues to describe himself as unvanquished and defiant,and he will not bend!

____________________

Colour photo above: Ernst Zündel, in Toronto in the 1980s, displaying before Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter, Robert Miller and DitliebFelderer the building plans of the five Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria, discovered by R. Faurisson in Poland on March 19, 1976. Those plans, kept hidden until then, enabledthe creation of scalemodels making it obvious thatthe alleged gigantic homicidal gassingoperations were physically impossible. See, in this regard, 1) An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek (Poland) prepared by Fred A. Leuchter on April 5, 1988, 193 p.; 2) Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel– 1988, edited by Barbara Kulaszka, 1992, viii-564 p.

The Rizoli Rebellion: Tenacious brothers battle immigration epidemic and Holocaust hoax

The Rizoli Rebellion: Tenacious brothers battle immigration epidemic and Holocaust hoax

. (March 2016) Their motto: Exercise the courage of your convictions By John Kaminski – pseudoskylax@gmail.com.

I know a lot of keyboard warriors. Heck, I’m one myself, trying to convince people of the dangers we face without actually confronting them in the real world. Though my advice might be authentic, my actions are not, because I’m not out there in public battling the tyrants and swindlers who are busy ripping us off and killing those who oppose them.

Am I afraid of suffering the harsh penalties incurred by so many who have challenged the powers that be? You bet I am. Do I know the day will come when I will be forced into open warfare with the people who run our country and have turned it into a giant prison system? Absolutely I do. It could happen any day now. And each day this unpleasant but vital task inevitably draws closer.

Though I am definitely a member of an exclusive club that has tried for decades to alert my fellow citizens to the lethal danger we face living in a society governed by ruthless  bankers who have no real point to their lives other than stealing from others and murdering those who stand in their way, my admiration really goes out to my compatriots who step out from behind their keyboards and wade out into the public chaos to defend the courage of their convictions and expose the constant and profound crimes that are being perpetrated by our owners against ordinary people who don’t ever quite seem to grasp the danger of their own predicament and how near they are to losing everything, including their own lives.


I’ve observed Jim Rizoli stepping out into the public spotlight for ten years now, first as a courageous protester of this strange and mysterious epidemic of foreign born illegal aliens being inserted into towns all across America, seriously diminishing the lives of native-born Americans who have worked all their lives for their modest piece of the pie. They have been constantly betrayed by their own leaders.

Some might consider what Rizoli is doing as tilting at windmills, but others of a more intelligent nature realize he is a 21st century patriot running at top speed to try and prevent the descent of the United States into a thoughtless prison camp dominated by aliens from the Third World and the Warsaw ghetto.

This surreptitious sabotage of American culture has grown to epidemic proportions with a deliberate but secret program of importing Third World aliens into the U.S. that has wracked big cities and small towns with ungrateful non-English speaking migrants who overload social systems and steal jobs from unemployed locals who need them.

And more lately, Rizoli has become the chronicler of one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century, a lucrative scam that has persisted into the 21st century as disingenuous Jews continue to swindle governments around the world with their heinous heist known as Holocaust reparations.

Inline image 1

He has done this by undertaking a series of YouTube videos aptly titled the League of Extraordinary Revisionists, introducing to the public those heroic truth tellers who have been savaged by the poisoned mainstream media yet have persevered to correct the damaging Jewish lies that not only caused the destruction of Germany back in World War II, but are now wrecking America and Europe with their Jewishcentric political correctness that encourages perversion, anarchy and dependence on government to destroy a thousands of years old family structure that has been the bulwark of civilization and now teeters on the brink of ruin.

“The Holocaust is like a wheel with spokes that extend out from the center and poison all areas of human activity,” Rizoli likes to say.
He, like so many of us, has seen far too much of it. But he, like so few of us, has been slugging away at the corrupt basis of it for more than a decade, going nose to nose with the Jews who control the political cobwebs of every town in America.

Oddly, it was his resistance to the sudden appearance of hundreds of Brazilian immigrants in his hometown of Framingham, Mass. that eventually led him to correlate this social disease to Jewish power and more specifically to the lies that have been told about the Holocaust.

“It all goes back to immigration,” Jim says. “My brother Joe got into it first.” Joe still writes commentaries and passes on links to his brother, but it is Jim, accompanied by his new sidekick Diane King, who are constantly updating a remarkably thorough website (ccfiile.com — note the extra “i”, standing for Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement) that contains both the story of their immigration battles with the corrupt town fathers as well as a unique and thorough set of files about the Jewish manipulation of reality.

“We held a meeting at the library, and right off the bat they jumped on us,” Jim explained. “They pegged us as racists and wouldn’t let us even talk about it.

“It made us more determined to go at it.”

It was the Rizolis’ stand against the barrage of immigrants overwhelming Framingham that initially got them in trouble with their community, repeatedly banned from their local cable TV channel, and on the Jewish Anti Defamation League’s target list as Holocaust denying anti-Semites. Its description of the Rizolis’ activities is absolutely heroic.

<http://archive.adl.org/…/7f918ae0-1eeb-4037-b83a-46c92344a4…>

During an October 2009 segment of his public access television show, which was aired during a primetime slot, Jim delivered a lengthy diatribe promoting Holocaust denial. He defended Holocaust denier and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instructed viewers to conduct their own research on the Holocaust to discover the “truth,” and directed people to visit Web sites that advance Holocaust denial.

Jim Rizoli has attempted to defend his statements about the Holocaust to the Boston Globe, which reported in November 2009 that he “believes…only around 300,000 people died, not six million, and that the majority were not killed but ‘died of sickness and disease.'”

During the same segment of his public access television show, Jim Rizoli alleged the existence of a “Zionist controlled government,” implying that Jews manipulate national and global institutions.
Rizoli also claimed during the show that “a lot of the Jewish people are not going to be happy to hear this [referring to his recommendation to view videos that advance Holocaust denial] because this whole thing all stems upon Judaism [sic] and what happened with them.” This is an anti-Semitic implication that Jews fabricate the Holocaust to advance their own agenda.

Joe Rizoli has questioned the severity of the Holocaust on the Jews. During an interview with the MetroWest Daily News in February 2004, he argued, “What happened to the Jews was atrocious, but you know what? Nine million people in Germany died in Dresden and related incidents. They say 13 to 20 million people died in Russia.” Rizoli went on to question, “Did the Holocaust happen? You define to me what the Holocaust is. I don’t know. There’s no letter or whatever that pinpoints Hitler saying it.”

In 2004, Joe Rizoli signed an Internet petition supporting Ernst Zundel, who was fighting deportation to his home in Canada from the U.S., which he entered illegally. Reportedly, Rizoli became interested in Zundel after receiving a “ZGram,” an E-mail that Zundel’s wife, also a Holocaust denier, sent to subscribers. Ironically for a xenophobe, Rizoli spoke out against Zundel’s deportation, which was the result of Zundel’s illegal entry into the U.S.
As they say, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. To those onto the Jewish scam of the Holocaust, these are all admirable achievements. But to Jews, ever the promoters of lies and false stories, Rizoli’s unflinching achievements are anathema.

“We had a good following,” Jim remembers. “We became like celebrities because we had the balls enough to talk about illegal immigrants. It opened up the door to talk about it in the whole state. Even the governor came and talked to us. And a Brazilian station put us on down there.”

“Then I started getting into the Holocaust and even the immigration people were scared off,” he remembers.

“We took the most heat from then on. In 2010 we were banned by our cable station for a year for false allegations. We came back in 2011 with four shows. We were on 12 times a week.

“We were pounding away at the Jews. It’s a wonder that they didn’t kill us.”

The cable company shut them down again in 2014.
“Nobody would dare come on a show dealing with the Holocaust issue.”

Good fortune came Rizoli’s way about this time when he hooked up with Diane on Facebook and the pair have become teammates in a game most Americans are afraid to play — Holocaust revisionism.
What has gained Rizoli new found attention after years of battling the Jews in a beat up suburb of Boston now dominated by Brazilians is a series of YouTubes sketching the lives of famous historians who can tell the real story of World War II, which is not the one told in movies and on TV by paid shills who spout the bogus Jewish version of reality.

League of Extraordinary Revisionists
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkhr7Ooo_lnt0NLW83Q2ovw
Be sure and check out the real heroes of the revisionist movement captured on film by JIm Rizoli.

These include, among many other luminaries, Fred Leuchter, author of the Leuchter Report that proved there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz; Robert Faurisson, the dean of Holocaust Revisionists who for more than a half century has been challenging the Jewish liars “to show me or draw me a picture of the gas chamber at Auschwitz”; Germar Rudolf, the German chemist jailed for his efforts at refining and reinforcing the evidence for the Holocaust hoax; and the late Bradley Smith, interviewed in the final months of his life after selfless decades of preaching historical sanity on college campuses with his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.

In addition, there are many other controversial topics covered in ccfiile.com — Holocaust Liars and Holocaust Truthers, Auschwitz and Treblinka, AIPAC and the Slave Trade, witch trials and Rizoli Uncensored.

Among the many highlights are a riveting account of the fake Boston Marathon bombing and a Police file that explains how public officials are allowed to commit crimes and get away with them.

“We’re not letting up,” says Joe, then making this writer not mention an event they’re in the process of unleashing on the public.
“It’s going to be a struggle forever,” says JIm. “I don’t know how we’re going to do it (“it” being to get the public to accept the real story of what happened in World War II in Germany).

“We just have to hang in there. We’re not looking to convert the world we’re just trying to get the word out.”

Rizoli is constantly emphasizing that “the Holocaust is the hub of what has gone wrong with the world.

“But I love the fight. I’m not going down on my knees. If I go down I’m going to be standing up. You have to do what you know is right.”
Support JIm Rizoli’s important work by mail at:  Jim Rizoli (LOER), 94 Pond St., Framingham MA 01702, 508-872-7292.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.

Amazon Bans ‘Holocaust Denial’, shreds and incinerates thousands of books

Amazon Bans ‘Holocaust Denial’, shreds and incinerates thousands of books

Hundreds of important books on the Holocaust by revisionist scholars have suddenly been been banned by Amazon on instructions from angry rabbis in Israel (see video at the end of this article) and from Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem.

Even books not directly relating to the Holocaust, but pertaining to Jewish affairs during WWII, have been included in the mass ban. Revisionist scholar Germar Rudolf has given a complete list of these books (see below) and it’s highly likely more volumes will be added to this growing list of “forbidden books” in the days ahead.

Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to muddy the waters, The Times of Israelpublished an article a few days ago in which it stated that only three books have been banned by Amazon in the UK — without referring to Amazon in the US or the long list of banned books mentioned by Germar Rudolf on CODOH. (See Amazon Mass-bans Dissident Materials, Hundreds of Titles Erased within a Day)

A reliable source informs me that several thousand volumes have been shredded or put through incinerators at Amazon, but this is hard to verify. This has to be one of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism perpetrated within recent times. In characteristic Orwellian fashion, many historical facts are being “flushed down the memory hole” and false factoids put in their place — like the fairy tales spun by Elie Wiesel, e.g., Jewish blood gushing from the ground in geysers (picture).

The Cultural Vandals dare not debate these matters in public, preferring the Stalinesque weapons of censorship and intimidation, followed in many cases by fines and imprisonment.

—  §  —

Only a few months ago, I was lucky enough to buy from Amazon a copy of M.S. King’s The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War 2. Mike King is the owner of the Tomato Bubble website. His lavishly illustrated  246-page book sits on my bedside table. I am one of the lucky ones who bought the book just in time. Because it has now been banned by Amazon.

Apparently Mike received a frosty note from Amazon the other day informing him that his book was no longer fit for human consumption. “We’re contacting you,” the email told him coldly, “regarding the following book: The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II. During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.”

What exactly are these mysterious “guidelines”? Amazon refuses to give details. Apparently the head honchos at Amazon don’t like Mike’s ideas. For example, in writing about World War Two, Mike expresses a sneaking sympathy for the German side, hinting it might have been better all round if the Germans had won the war. Mike mixes up the good guys with the bad guys. Let’s face it, that’s not acceptable.

It’s also possible that Mike, at some time or other, had expressed doubts that six million Jews had died in gas chambers during the Holocaust. That was a big mistake. In fact, it’s the biggest mistake anyone can make nowadays. It can get you slung into prison in at least sixteen countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland. Mike’s shockingly incorrect views on the Holocaust obviously jangled a few nerves at Amazon and consequently violated their “guidelines”. So Mike had to go.

And so Mike’s book was banned.

—  §  —

Before I go any further, a few words on Amazon would perhaps be in order.

Amazon is now the largest internet retailer in the world, valued at $240 billion. It is owned by Jeff Bezos, worth $45.2 billion. Jeff happens to be the fifth richest billionaire in the world, the first four being Bill Gates ($75 billion), Amancio Ortega ($67 billion), Warren Buffett ($60.8 billion), and  Carlos Slim Helu ($50 billion).

Is Jeff Bezos a Jew? I don’t think so, though he has “crypto-Jew status” among the more wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who people the internet. It’s possible that many of Jeff’s closest associates are Jewish, however, such as Tom Alberg, Jon Rubenstein and David Zapolsky.

It’s obviously relevant to enquire into Amazon’s Jewish connections, since there is more than enough evidence to support the view that Jewish rabbis have had an enormous input in dictating Amazon’s famous “guidelines” (see video below). While investigating Amazon’s possible Jewish links, I was amused to find myself on a website that gave a link to an article called “Is Jeff Bezos Evil?” I decided to click on this to find out, but lost interest once I was told I had to log in and give my password. So the question of whether Jeff is evil or not remains unanswered.

A few further clicks, however, provided me with some clues as to whether Jeff was “evil” or not. It tuns out that Jeff is the ultimate ruthless capitalist who exploits his  workers to the bone, getting the last drop of blood out of them — like a vampire running amok in a blood storage factory. He has 180,000 employees working for him full time, and 380,000 people working for him part time in various foreign countries, and boy! he really does drive them like a slavemaster! If “ruthless capitalist vampiric slavemaster” equates to evil, then I guess the word “evil” has to apply to Jeff Bezos.

JEFF BEZOS, OWNER OF AMAZON.COM

Does this man look Evil? YOU decide!

Here’s what the Daily Mail has to say about working conditions at Amazon. An undercover reporter for the newspaper managed to infiltrate the company by getting a job there, and seeing what it was like working 12-hour shifts for a company on the minimum wage.

— Amazombies: Seven seconds to find an item, every move filmed and blistering 12-hours shifts with timed toilet breaks.

— Workers faced relentless time targets for every task they were given.  Staff had to work ‘compulsory’ extra days and hours and were given short notice of shift changes. There was an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, with handheld scanners tracking workers’ whereabouts, plus CCTV cameras monitoring the warehouse, and airport-style security checks.

— Staff were left with blistered feet after walking up to 14 miles a day. One employee said: “You just leave your brains behind when you start working here. You’re just a zombie. On our induction day, training staff told us we could expect to walk ten to 14 miles a day [collecting items from distant shelves]. By comparison, Royal Mail postmen normally walk no more than eight miles a day.

EXPANDED PICTURE OF AMAZON WAREHOUSE

— The most common complaint among staff on the warehouse floor was about their sore feet. One told us: “I have such bad blisters on my feet. I am so exhausted. I never knew it would be this tough. My boots are falling apart, and it’s only been four days.”

— Staff are also disciplined for taking too long to walk back from breaks and time spent in the bathroom. One employee explained how he was given a warning in his second week for taking seven minutes during an unscheduled break to go to the bathroom. (Seehere)

—  §  —

According to Kevin Barrett, the best book he has read on the Holocaust is Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides. Barrett writes:

“The book is thorough, precise, well-documented, and lays out a convincing prima facie case that holocaust revisionism needs to be taken seriously. Scholarly, dispassionate, and utterly lacking in anything that could remotely be called “hate” or bigotry, Debating the Holocaust is no longer available on Amazon. And that is an outrage.”

To my regret, this is one book I don’t own. And now it’s too late to buy it from Amazon. Barrett goes on to name other books Amazon has tossed on the bonfire. Nick Kollerstrom’s Breaking the Spell is one of them.

With academic qualifications in Chemistry and a doctorate in the philosophy and history of science, Dr Kollerstrom had been under the impression that he was qualified to say something about Zyklon B, the gas allegedly utilized to kill Jews in gas chambers. The results of Kollerstrom’s painstaking research into Nazi “death camps” were set out in his controversial book Breaking the Spell. In this he reached conclusions which were obviously in conflict with the unstated “guidelines” set by his employer, University College, London.

Dr Kollerstrom had discovered that Zyklon B gas, purportedly used to exterminate Jews in large quantities, was actually used to kill lice in order to prevent Jews (and others in the camps) from dying of typhus. Zyklon B was a pesticide, not a murder weapon for thinning Jewish world population. Such a view, of course, could not be tolerated by Dr Kollerstrom’s prestigious university, especially by its Jewish staff. So Dr Kollerstrom was given the chop. Sacked by his college and then given the cold shoulder by Amazon.

Another revisionist scholar who has been affected by the ban on Holocaust revisionism is Dr. Robert Faurisson. We learn from Kevin Barrett:

A convert to Islam, Faurisson is wildly popular in Morocco, where his books were recommended to me by academic colleagues there during my year of Fulbright-sponsored Ph.D. research in 1999-2000.

Has Faurisson’s Amazon catalogue been tampered with? I can’t tell; but there certainly is a shocking paucity of affordable Faurisson offerings there. The bulk of his work is “currently unavailable.

ROBERT FAURISSON, FRENCH REVISIONIST,
his face badly disfigured by three Jewish thugs

You will find full details of this savage attack on the CODOH site. Similar facial disfigurement of political dissidents who dare to question the Jewish version of the Holocaust has been promised by the same Jewish organization that carried out the attack on Faurisson. “Faurisson is the first, but will not be the last,” they threatened.

Dr. Robert Faurisson, was severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on September 16, 1989. After spraying a stinging gas into his face, temporarily blinding him, three assailants punched Dr. Faurisson to the ground and then repeatedly kicked him in the face and chest. “He was conscious, but he couldn’t speak,” said a fire fighter who gave Faurisson first aid. “His jaw was smashed. They destroyed his face.”

The 60-year-old scholar, who had been out walking his poodle in a park in his home town of Vichy, suffered a broken jaw and severe head injuries. Physicians operated for four and a half hours to repair his jaw and treat a broken rib and badly swollen face.

A group calling itself, “The Sons of the Memory of the Jews” claimed responsibility for the savage attack. In a statement, the group threatened: “Professor Faurisson is the first, but will not be the last. Let those who deny the Shoah [Holocaust] beware.”

Another casualty of this Jewish witch hunt is Germar Rudolf.

Like Faurisson, Rudolf too has paid dearly for discovering unpalatable truths and transmitting them to others via the printed word. He has been thrown into prison. His books and papers have been stolen. His savings have also been plundered.

As you might expect, Germar Rudolf has been another victim of Amazon’s witch hunt. He is now too dangerous to be read. It would be highly toxic if thousands, if not millions of people, should begin to suspect that they had been bamboozled by the Holocaust merchants. That they had been the victims of a well-organized hoax.

Kevin Barret publishes a letter written to him by Germar Rudolf which I should now like to quote in full. It’s an important letter because it not only reveals the huge extent of Amazon’s censorship but also of Amazon’s complete capitulation to Jewish demands. If entire governments — like that of the United States, Britain, France and Germany — can fall so easily under the Jewish heel and take orders from the likes of the Rothschilds and the Soroses, what hope is there for mere international corporations like Amazon?

Dear Dr. Barrett:

In your latest article, which I read with interest and gratitude, you write about a handful of revisionist books. Well, what an understatement. While Castle Hill Publishers might be the biggest fish in the revisionist teapot, we’re by far not the only ones publishing books in that field. But from our program alone, the following 68 titles were banned on March 6. Use the links provided to see for yourself.

Books by Castle Hill Publishers, Online Availability as of March 8, 2017
Title ISBN Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Hoax of the Twentieth… 1591480795 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz 1591480744 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Der Holocaust: Die Argumente 1591480310 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Dissolution of Eastern… 1591480833 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Holocaust High Priest 159148085X Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auswanderung der Juden… 1591480841 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The “Extermination Camps”… 1591480876 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The “Extermination Camps”… 1591480884 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Real Case for Auschwitz 1591480892 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Schiffbruch 1591480272 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Vorlesungen über den Holocaust 1591480906 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Die Bunker von Auschwitz 1591480531 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Der Holocaust vor Gericht 0955716209 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Die Leuchter-Gutachten 1591480655 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Air Photo Evidence 1591480760 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Giant with Feet of Clay 1591480787 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Der Jahrhundertbetrug 159148068X Amazon USA Amazon UK
Die Zentralbauleitung… 1591480507 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Chelmno 159148040X Amazon USA Amazon UK
Sobibor 0955716284 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Der Auschwitz-Mythos 1591480817 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands… 1591480337 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Cremation Furnaces… 1591480914 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Cremation Furnaces… 1591480922 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Cremation Furnaces… 1591480930 Amazon USA Amazon UK
“Die Vernichtung der… 1591480949 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Breaking the Spell 1591480973 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Debating the Holocaust 1591480868 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Central Construction Office… 1591481120 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Dissecting the Holocaust 0967985625 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The First Holocaust 1591481163 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Leuchter Reports 159148118X Amazon USA Amazon UK
Exactitude 159148121X Amazon USA Amazon UK
Holocaust-Revisionismus 1591481244 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Jewish Emigration from the Third… 1591481252 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Debunking the Bunkers… 1591481260 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: Plain Facts 1591481325 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten 1591481317 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: Die erste Vergasung 1591481341 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Feuerzeichen: Die… 1591481309 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: The First Gassing 1591481333 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof 159148135X Amazon USA Amazon UK
Curated Lies 1591481279 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Concentration Camp Stutthof 1591481368 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Fail: “Debunking Holocaust… 1591481449 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Special Treatment in Auschwitz 1591481422 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz Lies 1591481392 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz 1591481228 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Tell the Truth and Shame… 1591481414 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Gesundheitsfürsorge… 591481503 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Holocaust: An Introduction 1591481465 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Fail: “Denying the Holocaust” 1591481538 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: Crematorium I 1591481562 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: Krematorium I 1591481554 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz: Open-Air… 1591481589 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Freiluftverbrennungen… 1591481570 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Belzec 1591481627 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Treblinka 1591481597 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Sobibor 1591481430 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Concentration Camp Majdanek 1591481600 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Inside the Gas Chambers 1591481619 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auschwitz-Lügen 1591481406 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Till Bastian, Auschwitz und… 1591481457 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Fail: “Denying History” 1591481481 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Healthcare in Auschwitz 1591481236 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Gas Vans 1591481643 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Der Holocaust: Die Argumente 1591481678 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Chelmno 1591481716 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Interestingly, if you look at the list of banned books, you might be astonished to find among them books which aren’t even dealing with “the Holocaust” as such:
Non-Denial Books by Castle Hill Publishers, also banned
Title ISBN Amazon USA Amazon UK
Auswanderung der Juden… 1591480841 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Jewish Emigration from the Third… 1591481252 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The First Holocaust 1591481163 Amazon USA Amazon UK
The Central Construction Office… 1591481120 Amazon USA Amazon UK
Die Zentralbauleitung… 1591480507 Amazon USA Amazon UK

The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem) had sent them a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.

Best regards

Germar Rudolf
Production Manager
Castle Hill Publishers & CODOH Book Shop,
Customer Service PO Box 243 Uckfield,
TN22 9AW, UK

—  §  —

This 2-minute video was posted on YouTube on July 6, 2015. It shows an angry rabbi demanding that Amazon stop selling books “denying the Holocaust”. He describes this exercise in historical updating as “blatant anti-Semitism.” It took Amazon little over a year to cave in to this man’s hysterical demands.

It hardly needs pointing out that it is only through the hard work of revisionist scholars like Faurisson that the world was to learn that no Jews were ever turned into lampshades and soap. If this rabbi had had his way, important facts like these would have been suppressed.

Revisionist Giant, Prof. Robert Faurisson Honoured on His 88th Birthday

Revisionist Giant, Prof. Robert Faurisson Honoured on His 88th Birthday
 
Admirers from across Europe and even two from Canada arrived in Vichy, France for a surprise birthday party for French revisionist giant Prof. Robert Faurisson on the occasion of his 88th birthday.
 
“On Wednesday, January 25, 100 guests gathered at the Aletti Palace, Vichy for a surprise luncheon in honour of Prof,. Robert Faurisson, complete with musical interlude in company of entertainers tenor Giuseppe Fallisi and Alison Chabloz. … Mr. Fallisi delighted the hall with his sumptuous musical compositions of poems by Baudelaire, Verlaine and Rimbaud. (Faurisson first became known to the French public because of his work on Rimbaud.) …
 
In France, the situation is drastic as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Professor Faurisson awaits March 4 when — upon non-payment if a fine for revisionism (his views of history and his rejection of the elite’s new religion of holocaust) — the authorities are due to cart the 88-year old academic off to prison or, at the very least, equip him with an electronic bracelet.
 
As well as risking a spell behind bars, Professor Faurisson will also be at the Court of Appeal to contest another conviction for his 60-word phrase, uttered at the 2006 conference on the holocaust in Tehran.
 
During the Professor’s birthday celebration, … he told the guests that Paris Appeal Court Judge Sophie Portier, has ruled that the professor and his barrister Damien Viguier, will each be given no more than 10 minutes to speak — contrary to the status guaranteed to citizens by French law. The ignorance of French magistrates might be pardonable, but not when this ignorance is relied upon in order to justify convictions pronounced with eyes and ears tightly shut — result of these same magistrates’ refusal to take into consideration the living, changing evolution of historical research.” (The Next Step (February, 2017)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

French Holocaust Skeptic Fined 9,000 Euros & Given 4 Months in Prison

French Holocaust Skeptic Fined 9,000 Euros & Given 4 Months in Prison
 
“Je suis Faurisson”? You have to be kidding!
 
In January, 2015, a cavalcade of Western leaders, including France’s President Francois Holland and Germany’s Angela Merkel (who preside over two of the most anti-free speech regimes in Europe) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Zionist allies around the world lobby for prison, fines and unemployment for dissidents, paraded through Paris. The cause? To protest the Moslem terrorist attack and murder of employees of the largely Trostskyist, Jewish satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
 
Freedom lovers everywhere proclaimed: “Je suis Charlie.”
 
However, don’t mistake that protest with a real belief in free speech. France groans under the infamous Fabius-Gayssot “hate law”. It was the devil child of a French communist deputy Gayssot and a Jewish Socialist Laurent Fabius.
 
It’s latest victim in 88 year old French scholar and holocaust skeptic, Dr. Robert Faurisson who also assisted at Ernst Zundel’s “false news trials” in the 1980s. [Zundel won and got the law ruled unconstitutional by Canada’s Supreme Court in 1992.]
 

 
For questioning the new religion of holocaust, this brave old man, once beaten nearly to death by Jewish anti-racists, faces four months in prison (suspended) and 9,000 Euros [$13,300 Cnd.] in fines and “costs” to his anti-racist tormentors.
 
So much for the land of “liberte”!
 
His lawyer reports below.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 
On June 21, 2016 Professor Robert Faurisson was prosecuted, with regard to his 2006 talk in Tehran and his paper “The Victories of Revisionism“ [http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2006/12/victories-of-revisionism.html], for “disputing the existence of crimes against humanity“, and, because of his 60-word sentence alone, for “racial defamation“.
 
Here is the result of that trial as conveyed to us by the Professor’s barrister: B
 
<START>
On September 27, 2016, in the case of the talk given by Robert Faurisson in Tehran in 2006, the 17th chamber of the Paris correctional court ruled as follows:
 
Two charges of disputing the existence of crimes against humanity were declared null.
 
The third charge, that of racial defamation for the sentence of approximately 60 words [included in his talk], resulted in Robert Faurisson’s conviction and sentence to four months’ imprisonment (suspended) along with a fine of €4,000. The LICRA [Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme], plaintiff, obtained €3,000 in damages and €2,000 in legal costs. Thus, a judgment totalling €9,000.
 
Professor Faurisson immediately lodged an appeal against this decision.
 
Tomorrow, September 28, at 1.30 pm, Robert Faurisson will appear again before the same court for having spoken about the Nazi gas chambers on the website Meta TV [in June 2014: http://meta.tv/robert-faurisson-au-bal-des-quenelles].
Damien Viguier
Barrister