CAFE

Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity

CAFE

Indian Lobbyist Wants to Make Questioning Residential School Claims A Criminal Offence & Justice Lametti Seems to Agree

Indian Lobbyist Wants to Make Questioning Residential School Claims A Criminal Offence & Justice Lametti Seems to Agree

In this age, victimhood is a prize commodity.. With it, a group can induce guilt into tenderhearted Europeans and with guilt comes entitlement and money. The organized Jewish lobby from the 1970s on, used the story of their sufferings in World War II — the so-called holocaust — to pry immense sums of money from Germany. (Germany just allocated another $1.5-billion to survivors. It’s been 78 years since the end of WW II!)

Guilt, though is a useful tool. The press is immensely sympathetic to Jewish interests. Canadians are meant to feel guilty about the so-called holocaust even though it didn’t happen here, it didn’t happen to Canadians, and Canada didn’t do it. Indeed, Canada fought against those who caused Jewish suffering.

Nevertheless, we have Holocaust Remembrance Day and Month and a Holocaust Monument. So powerful has this guilt tripping been that the holocaust has become almost a religion imposed by Western elites that sneer at Christianity.

However, there were soon pesky questions challenging the numbers and many other claims of the victim narrative from some former detention camp inmates (Rassinier), from scientists (Leuchter, Butz, Faurrison, Luftl, Rudolf) and historians (Irving) The power of the guilt message depends on emotionalism. Rational questions are disruptive.

So, the victim group demands that any questioning of its victim narrative be silenced or criminalized. Questioning the Hollywood version of World War II can get you five years in prison in Germany and many other European countries.Last year, Trudeau, he who smashed the peaceful Truckers’ Freedom Convoy with the Emergencies Act and who is no friend of free speech, snuck amendments into the budget criminalizing holocaust denial. No Member of Parliament opposed this gutting of free speech. The holocaust is now an imposed state religion in Canada. It is beyond historical or scientific discussion or skepticism. It must be believed, if one is doubtful, the skeptic must keep silent.

Well, now a spokesman for another entitled group, native Indians, is demanding that questioners of that group’s guilt narrative be silenced.

The guilt narrative suggests that Europeans abused and dispossessed the native people. oF COURSE, there certainly were frictions in the relations between the European founding/settler people of Canada and Native Indians.

The residential schools set up to educate Indian children — to help move them from the Stone Age to the edge of the Modern Age in one generation — were really attempts at genocide, oh, well, not real genocide, but cultural genocide, according to former Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin. The Harper Government apologized and shovelled out billions of dollars in compensation. The the guilt just keeps on giving. Trudeau has flung more money under various guises to Indians. Then, two years ago a propaganda bonanza occurred. The Kamloops band said that ground penetrating radar had found what might have been 216 graves near a former residential school. The press was is full guilt-mongering propaganda mode. The finding was dubbed “mass graves”, suggesting an undignified one-time burial, perhaps even extermination. Two years later, no further investigation has occurred. Are there even graves there; if so, who is in those graves and how, if it can be determined, did they die?

The irrational guiltmongering allowed the wrecking crew who hate Old Stock Canadians et quebecois de souche to tear down statues including of Canada’s first Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, to rename buildings and even institutions. Ryerson University, named after the father of education in Ontario, was renamed Metropolitan University and a statue of Egerton Ryerson was vandalized and beheaded. The head was later found on the Six Nations Reservation near Brantford. No charges were laid. Over 50 Christian churches were vandalized or destroyed or damaged by arson. Belatedly, Justin Trudeau said he did not condone the arson but said he understood.; Almost no charges have been laid in these attacks one of which destroyed a Coptic Christian church in Vancouver. The Copts came to Canada from Egypt AFTER the last residential school closed.

Our history needs rational discussion. If individual Indians were abused or assaulted by all means charge the perpetrators, if still alive.

However, as with the holocaust, discussion and questioning is not what is wanted. It would interrupt and dampen the very profitable guilt narrative. Thus, “Canada should give “urgent consideration” to legal mechanisms as a way to combat residential school denialism, said a Friday report from [Kimberly Murray] the independent special interlocutor on unmarked graves.

Justice Minister David Lametti said he is open to such a solution. …

In her interim report, Murray raised concerns about increasing attacks from “denialists” who challenge communities when they announce the discovery of possible unmarked graves.

‘This violence is prolific,”’ the report said. ‘And takes place via email, telephone, social media, op-eds and, at times, through in-person confrontations’.” (Canadian Press, June 16, 2023)

Notice that e-mail comments, post on social media and op eds are now labelled as “violence.”

No discussion or criticism is to be allowed: Just hang your head in guilt and shame and pay up! — Paul Fromm

These are reasonable questions.

Canada should consider legal solution to fight residential school denialism: special interlocutor

By The Canadian Press Jun 16, 2023

Kimberly Murray wants to see tougher action on residential school denialism

special tribunal

Kimberly Murray, Special Interlocuter at the first meeting for the National Gathering for Unmarked Burials


Canada should give “urgent consideration” to legal mechanisms as a way to combat residential school denialism, said a Friday report from the independent special interlocutor on unmarked graves.

Justice Minister David Lametti said he is open to such a solution.

Kimberly Murray made the call in her newly released interim report, just over a year after she was appointed to an advisory role focused on how Ottawa can help indigenous communities search for children who died and disappeared from residential schools.

Her final report is due next year and is expected to contain recommendations.

The former executive director of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada spent much of the past year travelling the country and hearing from different communities, experts and survivors.

The Liberal government created her role as it looked for ways to respond to First Nations from across Western Canada and in parts of Ontario using ground-penetrating radar to search former residential school sites for possible unmarked graves.

In her interim report, Murray raised concerns about increasing attacks from “denialists” who challenge communities when they announce the discovery of possible unmarked graves.

“This violence is prolific,” the report said. “And takes place via email, telephone, social media, op-eds and, at times, through in-person confrontations.”

Murray listed several examples, including after the May 2021 announcement by the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc Nation that ground-penetrating radar had discovered what are believed to be 215 unmarked graves at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.

The findings garnered international media attention and triggered an outpouring of grief, shock and anger from across the country, both in Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.

Murray said in her report that on top of dealing with an onslaught of media attention, the First Nation in British Columbia had to deal with individuals entering the site itself.

“Some came in the middle of the night, carrying shovels; they said they wanted to ‘see for themselves’ if children are buried there. Denialists also attacked the community on social media.”

Kukpi7 Rosanne Casimir of Tk’emlups te Secwepemc said she no longer uses social media without heavy filters because of the intensity of the “hate and racism” she experienced, according to the report, and believes the issue needs more attention…

Murray said Canada has a role to play to combat this sentiment and that “urgent consideration” should be given to what legal tools exist to address the problem, including both civil and criminal sanctions.

Lametti, who appointed Murray to her role, said that he is open to all possibilities to fighting residential-school denialism.

He said that includes “a legal solution and outlawing it,”  adding some countries have criminalized denial of the Holocaust during the Second World War.

The federal government followed suit last year, amending the Criminal Code to say someone could be found guilty if they wilfully promote antisemitism “by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.”

The measure does not apply to private conversations.

NDP MP Leah Gazan has also called for Parliament to legislate residential school denialism as hate speech.

“I recognize the damage denialism does,” Lametti said Friday as he joined the event in Cowessess First Nation by video conference.”

Vincent Renouard, Former Political Prisoner & Political Exile, Now Jailed in Edinburgh & Faces Extradition to France

Most revisionists know “the heroic Vincent Reynouard », as Dr Robert Faurisson would call him. Having fled to England and then Scotland to avoid imprisonment in France, Vincent was finally spotted in a small Scottish village, and France is demanding his extradition. The trial will take place on June 8. Charges against him are his research into the gas chambers, which confirms that of Professor Faurisson, and his study of the Oradour massacre. Here is the letter he sent to French President Emmanuel Macron on April 24. Please take the trouble to read it, Vincent deserves it. Our thanks to the translator.

:

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to you from Edinburgh prison, in Great Britain, where I have been detained since the 10th of November 2022. On the 8th of June 2023, the Scottish justice system will decide on my extradition, which France is requesting in order for me to serve the prison sentence I was sentenced to in June 2015.What crime have I committed to still be hunted down after more than seven years? Did I rob a bank, commit massive tax evasion, rape or murder? No, I posted a revisionist video on YouTube – you would say: “negationist” – in which I denounced the political recruitment of young people in the name of the “duty to remember”. More specifically, I exposed the untruths that were taught to them about Auschwitz. For this presentation of less than an hour, the French justice system sentenced me to one year in prison.

I then fled to England.Revisionism is not an offence in the UK, so in order to obtain my extradition, the French authorities did not hesitate to lie: they issued a European arrest warrant claiming that I had been convicted of “racism/xenophobia”, an offence which makes extradition automatic. The Scottish judiciary sniffed out the manoeuvre and Paris had to issue a second arrest warrant, based on three complaints against me, one of which was for ‘public provocation of hatred’.In a video broadcast in 2020, I allegedly preached anti-Judaism. To allege this, the judicial authorities extracted 31 seconds from a 45-minute presentation! I was responding to a viewer who said that the extermination of the Jews was a “necessary evil”. After stressing that a “necessary evil” was a moral contradiction, I explained why exterminating the Jews would serve no purpose, as they only revealed the dysfunctions from which our societies suffered and for which we were the first responsible. The 31 seconds extracted summarise this opinion: they could not constitute a call to hate the Jews.The viewing of the whole video confirms this. I also note that in thirty years of activism, I had never been prosecuted under the so-called “anti-racist” law. For a very simple reason: I am not a “racist” in the sense given to this word today (a “racist” would advocate racial hatred).

Moreover, I declare myself Judeo-indifferent. In other words: I have neither sympathy nor antipathy for this people composed – like all peoples – of very different people.These abusive proceedings for “public provocation to hatred” are a new manoeuvre attempted by France, which is struggling to obtain my extradition. The final objective is to throw me into prison and to keep me there as long as possible in order to reduce me to silence.What a confession, Mr President! I could not have hoped for a more glowing recognition of the value and importance of my work from your authorities. Indeed, let us compare the forces at work:* On the one hand, France has many memorial museums: the Shoah Memorial in Paris, the Deportation Museum in Lyon, the Caen Memorial, the Oradour Memorial Centre in Oradour-sur-Glane, not to mention the dozens of “memory books” throughout the country, to which are added the school programmes (the Shoah in primary, secondary and high school), In addition, there are “educational trips” to Struthof, Oradour or Auschwitz camps, “memory facilitators”, films, broadcasts, books, and witnesses in schools, because the “duty of remembrance” benefits from thousands of voices – all of them in line with the official history – and funding that reaches millions of euros.*

Faced with this, a man almost alone, who has no subsidy, only donations from his limited audience (two or three thousand people at the most); who, to live, gives private lessons; who distributes his work on a self-publishing basis and sells his books drop by drop, because no publisher agrees to publish his research; who, chased away from all the major sharing platforms, publishes his videos in the catacombs of the Internet – namely, a Gab channel and a blog in the United States of America.These are the elements involved, which could be described as follows: faced with a huge choir singing at the top of its voice accompanied by a deafening orchestra, a single man with a derisory paper cone as a megaphone. However, for the French authorities, this is still too much: this lone man must be made to shut up by arresting him at all costs and throwing him into prison! A first arrest warrant was not enough, so they issued a second one after filing three more complaints.

Yes, truly, I could not have hoped for a more glowing recognition of the value and importance of my work.You will no doubt argue, Mr. President, that the repression against me has a completely different cause: my theses, you will say, offend the victims and may lead certain fragile elements of the population to perpetrate “racist” acts. I would reply that this is false, for two reasons.* I have never denied the appalling tragedy experienced by the people present at Oradour-sur-Glane on Saturday the 10th of June 1944. I have never denied the tragedy of the hasty deportation, in the middle of the war, of millions of people, including women, children, the elderly, the weak and the disabled. Although the excavations carried out over the past twenty-five years in the camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Chelmno have not made it possible to discover gas chambers, they have contributed to the discovery of numerous improvised mass graves. I have never disputed the existence of these pits. They contain the bodies of tens of thousands of Jews who died in the trains or were euthanised on arrival because they were wounded, ill or too weak to go any further east.

Many accounts corroborate these physical findings. In several videos, I have quoted some of them, without disputing or rejecting them. In addition, there are the living conditions in the overcrowded and sometimes poorly supplied ghettos in Poland or in the East: they claimed many victims that I have also mentioned. Finally, there are all the deportees who died in the last months of the war, when the situation inside the camps deteriorated (overcrowding, lack of medicine, insufficient supplies) in a Germany that had been devastated by bombing. I have shown the appalling photos taken at the liberation of Buchenwald, Dachau, Vaihingen or Bergen-Belsen on many occasions, without ever calling them montages. No one, therefore, can honestly claim that I would offend the memory of the victims by denying their death or the terrible circumstances of their death.* As for leading some people to commit “racist” acts, my answer will be simple: in the thirty years that I have been disseminating my work, there has not been a single aggression in which I would have proven to be the inspiration.However, let us go further. Yes, let’s admit that my presentations could lead a handful of fragile people to perpetrate ‘racist’ violence. Should the entire population be deprived of certain historical truths by sanctioning their public dissemination? Certainly not!

However, I can already hear your reply, Mr. President: “France is a country of freedom of research and will never prohibit the dissemination of scientifically established truths. With the negationists, however, it is not a question of truths, but of lies refuted by reliable witnesses and a cohort of accredited historians. You are quite presumptuous, Mr Reynouard, to claim to be right against these people.In reality, I am no more presumptuous than an investigator who is convinced that he has solved a case despite the denials of the accused and their lawyers. And why is that? Because from Oradour to Auschwitz, I adopted the traditional methods used in criminal investigations.* I went to the scene to examine the alleged crime scene; * I made physical observations to understand what might have happened;* I verified the accounts collected (testimonies and confessions) by comparing them with the material findings and analysing their intrinsic consistency;* I completed my research by studying useful documents. In short, I have established the materiality of the facts.Am I wrong in my conclusions?

Let’s debate it fairly, each party being free to express itself and to place its documents on the table. I am ready for this confrontation on equal terms. I even demand it.You will object that one does not debate history with a person who has no training as a historian. Should I deduce from this, Mr. President, that a non-historian cannot intervene in a question of history? Thirty years ago, however, in 1993, the CNRS published a book entitled: « The Crematoria of Auschwitz. The machinery of mass murder ».The press praised it, claiming that it definitively refuted the revisionist theses. Yet its author, Jean-Claude Pressac, was a pharmacist by profession. Even more revealing: the man considered until his death as the number one expert on the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg, was not a trained historian either. I could also mention Robert Jan Von Pelt, Jean-Jacques Fouché or Guy Pauchou (for Oradour).

Proof that non-historians can intervene in questions of history.Some of my opponents – Gilles Karmasyn for example – claim to refute me, but without ever accepting the debate. They are comparable to boxers who, alone in the ring, would punch the air before raising their arms and shouting: “I won! He’s out.” To anyone who is surprised that their opponent is not there, they reply: “Come on! You don’t box with a non-boxer”. To claim that one does not debate history with a non-historian is a pitiful evasion.Admittedly, I have no training in the subject, but at Auschwitz and Oradour, the SS are accused of having massacred innocent people. These are therefore criminal cases. The fact that the alleged murders were committed in the past does not change the nature of the issue, so it does not change the methods of investigation. And, as I said, I apply these methods scrupulously.

Do you want proof? Here it is: in Birkenau, the SS allegedly set up homicidal gas chambers in four large crematoria. The most deadly – 400,000 alleged victims – was in Krema II. The SS allegedly poured Zykon B through four square holes in the roof. The lethal pellets were said to have fallen along four wire mesh columns firmly attached to the floor and ceiling. Although the crematorium was dynamited, the roof, partially collapsed, remains. Having inspected it from above and below, I saw no trace of any introduction hole or of a grill column attachment. Nothing.In 2004, three independent researchers (Keren, McCarthy and Mazal) claimed to have located three of the four holes, but the Auschwitz Museum authorities never dared to refer to their study.

Seven years later, moreover, the director of the Museum prefaced a Historical Guide to Auschwitz in which the two authors warned that it was futile to search for the exact location of these ghostly holes. Nothing has changed since then.In the event of a debate with a historian, I would first bring the discussion to this subject. I would propose that we go together to the site, to look for the alleged holes and the traces of the grilled columns. I would take advantage of our presence on the site to ask my adversary if he could show me blue traces on the wall or ceiling of the “gas chamber”.In the spring of 1943 (the date of the beginning of mass gassings in the crematoria according to the official chronology), the structure had just been built. Therefore, the masonry was alkaline. The hydrocyanic acid allegedly used by the SS for mass gassing would have partially penetrated the wet materials (bricks, plaster, concrete). There it dissociated to form a ferrocyanide-based pigment: Prussian Blue.Very stable, resistant to light and bad weather, the walls and ceiling of the room presented as having served as a gas chamber should still contain it today. Therefore, one should be able to see more or less large blue traces. However, the historian would be unable to show me any of them. Would he claim that this pigment cannot form in an unheated room? I would show him the opposite.

On the original blueprints of the crematorium, this room is designated as a morgue. Everything shows that it was used for this purpose, without ever having been converted into a homicidal gas chamber.”No Hole No Holocaust”, Professor Faurisson has been repeating since 1994. He was right, because without these holes, the 400,000 alleged victims of this gas chamber are imaginary. All the testimonies and confessions will not change anything.The anti-revisionists ask us: “If the millions of Jews were not exterminated, then where were they in 1945? Excuse me, but this is reversing the charge of proof. It is up to the anti-revisionists to demonstrate that the Jews were systematically exterminated, three million of whom perished in the gas chambers.According to the official history, Auschwitz-Birkenau was the centre of this extermination by gas (almost one million victims). The Krema II gas chamber was the most deadly (40% of those asphyxiated). It is therefore the first chamber to be examined. Where are the holes for the introduction of Zyklon B?

Historians, please show them to us so we can discuss them. And where are the blue traces? It is true that a training in chemistry is necessary to understand the importance of their absence. I have a degree in organic chemistry, so I am better suited than a historian to conclude.The same applies to Oradour. The Waffen SS are accused of having slaughtered several hundred women and children in the village church. They allegedly tried to suffocate them before machine-gunning them and then setting the building on fire. The widespread fire is said to have turned the holy place into a crematorium, and a large number of bodies were burnt to ashes. In this matter, notions of heat diffusion, radiation and material resistance are necessary.My studies led me to study these subjects and I used my knowledge to assess the church. This assessment is the subject of an entire chapter in my book published in December 2022: Oradour, the victims’ cry. I conclude that the official story is false: the women and children died in explosions that shook the whole building. How did I come to this conclusion? Here is how:* The fact that the wooden furniture (the confessional in the chapel of the Virgin and the altar in the chapel of St Joseph) has been preserved refutes the theory of a general fire;* The partial melting of the bells (some parts completely melted, others intact to the point of still showing the patterns engraved on them) shows that the destructive event was very rapid and very brief, in a word, an explosion;* The observation of the blows to the thin brass sphere under the apex cross confirms that the destructive phenomenon was accompanied by a powerful blast.The state of the bodies found in or near the church is also a factor: they are not charred, but shredded, with their clothes intact, as after a bombardment

.Finally, there are the stories told by the woman presented as the sole survivor of the church, Marguerite Rouffanche. A few weeks after the tragedy, twice in November 1944, then once in January 1953 (at the Waffen SS trial) and once again in 1969 (for television), she testified. A comparative study of the different versions reveals insurmountable contradictions and obvious material impossibilities.1. At the end of June 1944, Madame Rouffanche stated that the slaughter of the church had begun with a “crate” brought by two Waffen SS. The device had not exploded, it had only given off thick black smoke.2. A few months later, however, the vaults of the church nave collapsed, indicating that the building had been severely shaken. To explain this, it was necessary to invoke an explosion: on 16 November 1944, Mrs Rouffanche therefore made a 180-degree turn and claimed that the “box” had been the site of a “small detonation”.3. However, this was insufficient to explain the shaking of the fortified building. Two weeks later, the ‘sole survivor’ changed her story again: she claimed that the device had exploded strongly. This testimony became the official account, published everywhere, while the account of the 16th of November remained hidden from view, in the military archives closed to the public.In addition to the contradictions, there are obvious impossibilities. In particular, Mrs Rouffanche’s escape from the church, by climbing up to a stained glass window and then jumping from four metres high on a sloping surface without causing herself the slightest injury, an impossible task for a 46 year old woman.In the Oradour story, everything betrays a clumsily improvised lie. On the basis of material evidence, documents and ignored testimonies, I affirm that a clandestine ammunition depot was located under the roof of the church, above the vaults.Under what circumstances was it set on fire? As long as the military archives are closed to independent researchers, no definite answer can be given. However, assuming that the Waffen SS had discovered it and blown it up to kill the women and children, by 1944 the fact would have been revealed: Oradour-sur-Glane would have been presented as a heroic village in its resistance to the Occupier, a victim of abominable revenge by the “Nazis”. That is why I remain convinced that the Waffen SS bear no direct responsibility for the outbreak of the church tragedy.Having discovered that the building was used by the local Resistance (which hid Allied pilots who had fallen in France and were taken in by the “Comet Escape Line” escape network), my thesis is the following.On the 10th of June 1944, some resistance fighters had taken refuge in the church, with their ammunitions.

The Waffen SS had surrounded the village and it was impossible to escape. Reported by two collaborators living in the village (see Mathieu Borie’s testimony, finally published in full), they blew up the ammunition depot in order to cover their escape through a side door leading out of the town. They had not foreseen that the explosions would spread to the bell tower, causing the destruction of the vault weakened by the presence of the oculus. The overheated gases spread throughout the nave, causing debris to mutilate the people present.In Oradour, as in Auschwitz, my material observations are undeniable, my analyses meticulous, and my arguments rational. Far from any ideological consideration, I remain on the ground of facts. Hence this desire and determination to silence me, the other reasons given being fictitious pretexts.Will France manage to have me extradited? Perhaps, but it is too late: I have published my work on the Internet and I was only just able to finish my book on Oradour before my arrest on the 10th of November 2022. It has been on sale since last January.About thirty years ago, as a young revisionist, I was invited to the Faurissons’ home. One morning, I was discussing in the workroom; I pointed out that our adversaries had financial and repressive means at their disposal. Professor Faurisson was washing in the adjoining bathroom. On hearing this, he half-opened the door and, putting his head through, said: “Yes, but we sleep in peace ».It was true then, it remains true now: in my cell in Edinburgh I sleep peacefully, for having sown the seeds of historical truths, I have done my duty.

From now on, my personal fate is of no importance. France, which you represent, can insist on having me extradited in order to imprison me. When you consider the forces at work, this determination appears to be an acknowledgement: an acknowledgement that I am right and that my work is important. Yes, really, I am sleeping peacefully, and the more your henchmen persist, the more peacefully I shall be sleeping.Please accept, Mr President, the assurances of my highest consideration.Vincent Reynouard

French scholar Vincent Reynouard arrested in Scotland — Held for Extradition for Though Crimes in France

French scholar Vincent Reynouard arrested in Scotland

adminFranceHistorical memory lawsRobert Faurissonsite introVincent Reynouard

French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Scotland on Thursday 10th November. He is presently in an Edinburgh prison cell, awaiting a court hearing on 24th November to determine whether he should be extradited to France, where he would be jailed under that country’s laws restricting historical and scientific enquiry.

Vincent Reynouard built his scholarly reputation with a detailed re-examination of what had been termed the ‘Massacre of Oradour’, and went on to become one of the world’s leading sceptical investigators of the ‘Holocaust’. Francophone readers should visit his excellent website.

British and American readers might be shocked that a specialist squad of police from SO15 – the Counter-Terrorism Command, directed from London – swooped on a small Scottish village to arrest this 53-year-old scholar, who is not accused of anything that would be a crime in the UK.

Yet in fact this is simply the latest example – though an especially important example – of an increasing trend across Europe, where politicised courts and prosecutors, aided by politicised police forces and intelligence agencies, are seeking to crush any dissent and enforce a quasi-religious obedience to one particular view of 20th century history.

The question that should immediately occur to any educated European is: why?

Why should our rulers be so afraid of what remains a small minority of scholars who – inspired by revisionist pioneers Robert Faurisson in France and Arthur Butz in the USA – have persisted in raising serious questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews, in unfeasible homicidal gas chambers, on the undocumented alleged orders of Adolf Hitler?

Any other area of history with such blatant evidential problems would have attracted dozens of academic sceptics. Yet with a handful of honourable exceptions, the academic world has not only been cowed into silence, but has queued up to accept lucrative commissions and tenured positions promoting the new religion of Holocaustianity.

Our rulers approach has been the well-tried one of ‘carrot and stick’.

The carrot is the promise of well-remunerated posts in universities and charities, combined with fat cheques from publishers, newspapers, television stations and movie studios.

The stick (increasingly used during the last quarter-century) has involved heavy fines and prison sentences. In Germany, the 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to another year in prison, and is expected to begin her incarceration any day now. Her equally courageous compatriot Horst Mahler (now 86) has at the last count spent about fifteen years in prison since his 70th birthday, again for the ‘crimes’ of publishing articles and books, and giving interviews about this forbidden area of 20th century history. And in the USA the exiled German chemist Germar Rudolf faces determined efforts to have him extradited to Germany, where he would certainly be handed a long jail sentence.

Vincent Reynouard consulting his lawyer during one of his many court appearances in France. In the background can be seen one of Vincent’s most loyal supporters, Jérôme Bourbon, the editor of long-established journal Rivarol.

So far the UK has no such specific law criminalising historical revisionism, and several British historians, including leftists and liberals such as Timothy Garton Ash, have commendably condemned all such laws.

In 2008 a London court rejected the German government’s request for the extradition of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben under a European Arrest Warrant. Will a similar situation protect Vincent Reynouard?

New extradition arrangements post-Brexit have only been in force since 11 pm on 31st December 2020, so while we can see the statutory position, we have little in the way of case law (on either side of the border).

I am not a lawyer, but I was closely involved in research work for the Töben case, and have had good reason more recently to refresh my memory and understanding of the legal position regarding EU citizens travelling or resident in the UK.

Traditionally the UK’s position on extradition (as was once common internationally) was based on two essential principles. One was the existence of an extradition treaty with the country concerned, which entailed mutual respect for legal systems. For example, the lack of such a treaty with Spain (due to political embarrassment over the presence of numerous anti-Franco exiles, including terrorists, in the UK) meant that Spain became notorious for decades as a refuge for British criminals – i.e. non-political criminals such as bank robbers.

Despite Brexit, French prosecutors seem able to demand extradition from the UK of a man who has committed no crime under UK law.

Once such a treaty was in place, the essential principle was ‘dual criminality’, i.e. that the offence of which the requested fugitive was charged should also be an offence in the country from which extradition was sought. Naturally the criminal laws involved would rarely be identical, and it was up to the courts to resolve whether ‘dual criminality’ applied.

In a case such as that of Vincent Reynouard, this would once have presented a problem for the authorities. It would have been necessary to prove not only that he had committed ‘Holocaust denial’ (not in itself of course an offence in the UK), but that he had done so in a manner which also contravened some UK law (such as the laws against “inciting racial hatred”).

As readers can easily imagine, the “dual criminality” requirement allowed legal loopholes to be exploited in any number of criminal cases, especially those which involved wealthy crooks, or IRA terrorists who had a well-funded support network, and whose extradition from European countries (or the USA) to the UK was occasionally blocked.

So even setting aside our enemies’ broader political agenda, there were (from the general public’s viewpoint) apparent practical advantages to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system, which after long discussion replaced the traditional extradition laws, and took effect in the UK on 1st January 2004.

Under the EAW there was a fundamental assumption that all legal systems within the EU could trust each other to respect natural justice, etc.; and there was no need to establish “dual criminality”.

In place of the latter principle, the EAW established a list of “framework offences”. Once it could be shown that a fugitive was accused of anything that fell within these quite broadly defined “framework offences”, he would be extradited very swiftly in what amounted to a “rubber-stamp” procedure even though it formally took place in court. There was no provision in most cases for the courts to investigate the full circumstances of the alleged ‘crime’ before extradition under an EAW.

This is Baroness Scotland, the ‘British’ government minister who gave Parliament an assurance that the European Arrest Warrant would not be used as a back-door criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. If Vincent Reynouard is extradited, it will be clear evidence that she lied to Parliament.

One of the framework offences was “racism and xenophobia”. However, so far as ‘Holocaust denial’ was concerned, there remained a potential loophole.

This loophole only existed because of objections that were raised in the House of Lords during passage of the legislation that wrote the EAW system into UK law.

Under repeated cross-examination by peers, the Home Office minister in the Lords (Baroness Scotland) gave a specific assurance that the EAW would not amount to a back door criminalisation of Holocaust denial in the UK.

The position was to be as follows. If any element of the ‘offence’ of ‘Holocaust denial’ had taken place in the UK, it would be deemed to fall under UK law and therefore (unless it could be shown that it also involved other existing crimes under UK law) extradition would not take place.

A ‘Holocaust denier’ would only be extradited under a European Arrest Warrant if it could be shown by the requesting country’s authorities that the ‘crime’ had been committed purely and simply within the jurisdiction of the country concerned.

The specific example given to Parliament was of someone who had made a speech in Cologne market place denying the ‘Holocaust’, and had then escaped to the UK before being apprehended. In such a case (provided other boxes were ticked, such as the offence potentially attracting a prison sentence of more than 12 months) the requested person would be extradited.

However, if someone had produced a magazine, or a book, or a website, or an online video, etc., ‘denying the Holocaust’, then such a person would not be extradited. Even though part of the ‘offence’ might have been committed in France, Germany or wherever, part of it would also have been committed in the UK.

The minister’s precise words to Parliament included the following assurance:
“Holocaust denial …is a very particular offence. We would say that those engaging in that endeavour in part in this country would not be capable of being extradited as the offence would in part have allegedly been committed in this country, and in this country it is not an offence. So we would not extradite those involved in it.”

Dr Fredrick Töben, whose London lawyers defeated an extradition attempt by German prosecutors in 2008.

Such was the difficulty for the German authorities in the Töben case. They issued a European Arrest Warrant, and Töben was arrested while merely passing through London’s Heathrow Airport on 1st October 2008. He was jailed pending extradition, which at first was expected to be a ‘rubber-stamp’ process.

However, on closer examination (once Töben was represented by extradition specialist Kevin Lowry-Mullins rather than by a duty solicitor) it was found that the German request was insufficiently detailed. The reason for such vagueness was obvious: the authorities both in Berlin and London were well aware that Töben’s alleged criminal conduct did not fall within the very limited definition of ‘Holocaust denial crimes’ for which people could be extradited from the UK. To do so would be a flagrant betrayal of pledges to Parliament during passage of the EAW into UK law.

Consequently, the legal difficulty (and political embarrassment) was colossal. After the Westminster magistrate ruled against extradition, the British and German authorities swiftly dropped their appeal, resulting in Töben’s release.

So the question in 2022 becomes whether the new arrangements that have replaced the EAW post-Brexit, in relation to extradition from or to the UK, are in any way similar in their application to Vincent’s case.

Vincent Reynouard with two of his children: his case is a vital test of whether the UK still retains any respect for traditional liberties.

These new laws were agreed as part of the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ between the UK and the EU which regulates the whole spectrum of such relations post-Brexit. It passed into UK law in the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, which took effect at 11 pm on 31st December 2020.

Broadly speaking this replicates the EAW, in that it is intended to fast-track extradition (in each direction) between the UK and EU countries, and is similar to the existing arrangements that the EU has with Norway and Iceland.

Specifically, there are very limited grounds on which it will be possible to argue that Vincent should not be extradited, and there is a presumption that the whole procedure should be completed swiftly.

It is potentially important that the new law – unlike the EAW system – does not specifically state that the UK and EU nations have “mutual trust” and “mutual confidence” in one other’s legal systems.

Moreover it is stated in the new law that any extradition should be “proportionate” and in particular should avoid long periods of pre-trial detention.

One potential argument is that the French legal system is so heavily politicised in respect of thought-criminals (especially ‘Holocaust deniers’) that there are serious grounds for believing that Vincent Reynouard’s fundamental rights would be imperilled by extradition.

There will be extensive updates here at the Real History blog on the Vincent Reynouard case as it develops. And we shall very soon be reporting on a broader new initiative to advance revisionist scholarship with the aid of a new generation of European intellectual adventurers (to use Professor Robert Faurisson’s celebrated term). — Peter Rushton

The front page of Scotland’s oldest newspaper (now owned by Americans) led with the Reynouard story on Tuesday 15th November. Contrary to the headline, there is no “anti-nazi law”: the French authorities are seeking Vincent Reynouard’s extradition under a law banning critical enquiry into ‘Holocaust’ history. No such law exists in the UK and it is shameful that Police Scotland collaborated in this arrest.
The leading French nationalist journal Rivarol also has Vincent Reynouard’s arrest as its front page lead story, though unlike the Glasgow Herald, Rivarol defends traditional European freedoms.

extradition, gas chambers, Oradour

Richard Edmonds: Racial Nationalist, Free Speech Campaigner and Great Briton (1943-2020) R.I.P.

Heritage and Destiny

Richard Edmonds: Racial Nationalist, Free Speech Campaigner and Great Briton (1943-2020)

Posted by admin978 on December 23, 2020 · Leave a Comment 

Richard Edmonds with the framed photograph of the 1977 Lewisham NF rally, presented by H&D in 2017 to mark his 45 years in nationalism

Heritage and Destiny is very sad to announce the death of our loyal friend, steadfast racial nationalist and campaigner for historical truth Richard Edmonds, who died this morning at his home in Sutton, South London, aged 77. He had been seriously ill with heart problems in recent weeks.

Richard was the backbone of British racial nationalism. A true Englishman but no Little Englander, much of Richard’s political energy was directed by his insight that historical truth was a prerequisite for political progress, and that the traducing of Germany for the past 75 years meant the shackling of the White Race worldwide. Indeed he came to believe that unless the edifice of lies about the Second World War is consistently and courageously challenged, as he put it to Prof. Robert Faurisson’s translator and assistant Guillaume Nichols a few years ago: “Everything else is a waste of time.”

This entailed travelling to address rallies in Germany and France as well as tireless activism in the UK. Richard joined the National Front soon after the Uxbridge by-election of 1972, which confirmed that the NF was a serious organisation worth the dedication and sacrifice that meaningful activism would require.

He soon became party organiser in the racial battleground of Lewisham and a member of the NF Directorate. In the complicated internal politics of British nationalism, Richard was a consistent and loyal supporter of John Tyndall, NF chairman during the party’s best years. He became a founder member of the New National Front and its successor the British National Party under JT’s leadership from 1982 to 1999, for most of those years as National Organiser – effectively the party’s deputy leader.

After his place of work was exposed by Sunday Times journalists in 1988, Richard lost his job with Cable & Wireless but the company was forced to pay him a financial settlement as he had done nothing to warrant dismissal. With this money Richard purchased a bookshop in Welling, SE London, which became the famous BNP bookshop/headquarters.

Richard Edmonds campaigning for the National Front in Eltham, SE London

Richard lived above the shop at Upper Wickham Lane. Those were times when physical attacks by violent anti-fascists were an expected part of life for active nationalists, and Richard was one of the prime targets. A letter bomb exploded at the premises in 1994, and the ongoing enquiry into Metropolitan Police undercover operations is expected to reveal further details of how state operatives targeted both the BNP HQ and its opponents.

It was a tribute to Richard Edmonds that the state and ‘antifascists’ combined to set him up for several months imprisonment at a crucial moment in late 1993 and early 1994. Three days after the election of Derek Beackon – the first BNP councillor – in September 1993, Richard was falsely identified and arrested at a BNP event in Brick Lane, East London. During his months on remand, state operatives advanced their plan to disrupt and divide the party.

During the 1980s and 1990s Richard was the main distributor of Holocaust News, a tabloid-style popular introduction to historical revisionism that reached a worldwide audience. He was always ready to travel across Europe to campaign for truth and justice, including the trial of David Irving in Vienna, the release of Ernst Zündel in Mannheim, and demonstrations in support of Ursula Haverbeck, Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz.

Richard Edmonds with fellow speakers at the 2014 John Tyndall Memorial Meeting (back left to right) Jez Turner, H&D editor Mark Cotterill, Simon Sheppard and Ken Shapcott; (front left to right) former MEP Andrew Brons, Richard Edmonds, Keith Axon, Jim Lewthwaite, H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton and Alex Davies.

Richard was unusual in combining active historical revisionism with tireless electoral activism: first with the NF, then with the BNP, then back with the NF during the past decade, when he again served on the Directorate. Despite the ever-changing fortunes of nationalist parties, Richard was always prepared to travel to support branch activists, whether their meeting numbered a dozen or several hundred.

At the 1992 General Election, Richard achieved the BNP’s best result that year – 1,310 votes (3.6%) in Bethnal Green & Stepney; while in October 1974 he polled 1,731 votes (4.5%) in Deptford. It was in Clifton Rise, Deptford, that NF marchers assembled for what became known as the Battle of Lewisham on 13th August 1977.

As the NF’s Lewisham organiser, Richard knew the stakes, telling the press that the party did not recognise any “no go areas”:

“Clifton Rise is part of Britain, and we will march anywhere in Britain. This march is deliberately provocative. We are standing up for White people.”

Richard and the NF publicised an official police survey of street crime in South London which showed that 80% of the attackers were Black, and 85% of the victims were White.

Had he lived, Richard would again have been a National Front candidate at the Greater London Assembly elections, postponed from May this year to May 2021.

Richard Edmonds addresses the NF’s anti-immigration demo in Dover, 2015

In 2018 – alongside Lady Michèle Renouf and H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton – Richard organised and spoke at a revisionist conference in Shepperton, West London, which turned out to be the final speech by the great revisionist scholar Prof. Robert Faurisson. Earlier that year he had been a scheduled guest speaker at the February 2018 Dresden commemoration where Lady Renouf was arrested. The text of the speech he would have given that day was published by H&D here.

Richard paid tribute to Lady Renouf’s courage in Dresden that day. Following her victory over the German prosecutors a few weeks ago, Richard wrote: “Brilliant. You faced the music, Michèle and you won. Wonderful.”

At the 2019 NF Remembrance Day march to the Cenotaph, Richard completed a remarkable trek across Europe. Having spoken at a rally in Germany on the Saturday, he made it back to London in time to address the NF’s post-Cenotaph rally just off Whitehall the next day!

Richard Edmonds with megaphone addressing a demonstration outside the German Embassy in London, calling for the release of jailed revisionist publisher Ernst Zündel

Very rarely for an Englishman, Richard was able to address a French audience in French and a German audience in German! In January 2020 he spoke in Vichy at the conference marking what would have been Prof. Robert Faurisson’s 91st birthday, delivering the Robert Faurisson International Prize to exiled French scholar Vincent Reynouard, and he was planning to record an update to his highly informative video made at the spot in Westminster where Zionist lobbyists plan to build a gigantic ‘Holocaust memorial’. Our commentary on this memorial (still being opposed at a planning enquiry) will continue Richard’s work for posterity.

The day before his death, Richard completed translation of a Yuletide poem by the German patriot and attorney Wolfram Nahrath, renowned for his defence of political clients including Monika Schaefer, Ursula Haverbeck, Horst Mahler, Bishop Richard Williamson and Lady Michèle Renouf.

Here at H&D we knew Richard Edmonds as a loyal friend – but he was more than just a friend to us, he was a loyal friend of the British people and of the broader White cause.

We had a comrade, you will find no better.

H&D‘s Issue 100 to be published in a fortnight’s time will include a full obituary for our friend and comrade Richard Edmonds.

Richard Edmonds presents the 2020 Robert Faurisson International Prize to exiled French revisionist Vincent Reynouard

German patriot and attorney Wolfram Nahrath writes:

I‘m terribly sad.

It was a great experience to meet him, listen to him, talk to him, standing with him in front of a German prison, where he gave his legendary speech for the rights of freedom and free opinion.

In the name of my people, I have to thank him for his courage to raise his voice for us beaten and suppressed Germans.

I‘m glad having had him in my house as a very special guest. A clear mind in a gloomy and dangerous time for all the European People. His constant demands to be awake, to look behind the ugly mask of the destroyers of the variety of cultures and people (the Bishop blamed them as “the enemies of God”), to learn about history in order to avoid any further wars in Europe and to stand together for a living future, now became an order of conscience for us all.

Wherever a place for the braves might be: You‘ll meet him there.

We’ll march on, although your flag in life has to be pulled down now. Rest In Peace, Richard. With deference, Wolfram Nahrath, Germany

Filed under BNP, Movement News, National Front · Tagged with

Comments are closed.

  • Search This Site Search for:

Find By Category

Find By Category

Copyright © 2020 Heritage and Destiny · All rights reserved · This is a website for Heritage and Destiny of 40 Birkett Drive, Ribbleton, Preston, PR2 6HE England · All written correspondence should be sent to the above address

French Jews Apoplectic As Heroic “Holocaust Denier” Avoids Jail For Thoughtcrimes

French Jews Apoplectic As Heroic “Holocaust Denier” Avoids Jail For Thoughtcrimes

Bookmark and Share

Alain Soral, a French scholar, intellectual, and journalist, has been tyrannically persecuted by organized Jewry in France for years. Back in January, we reported that he was sentenced to a one year prison sentence for “inciting anti-Semitism” by publishing critiques of Jews on his website. He has since faced other prosecutions for his intellectual activity, and even his defense lawyer has been fined by the French judicial system for simply defending the man in court.

Soral explains in detail here:

The Jews have had this man in their crosshairs for years, and were hellbent on seeing him thrown behind bars for daring to question their fake “Holocaust” narrative and criticize them publicly.

Now, they are practically apoplectic because a public prosecutor in Paris overturned a previous ruling sentencing Soral to a one year prison sentence. The Algemeiner reports:

Alain Soral

French Jews reacted with fury on Tuesday after the Paris public prosecutor overturned a historic decision reached last month to sentence one of the country’s most notorious Holocaust deniers to a year in jail.

Far-right activist Alain Soral — who has earned several previous convictions for hate speech and Holocaust denial without being incarcerated — had been sentenced to twelve months behind bars on Apr. 15, after he was found guilty of publishing an article that denied the Holocaust on his website,“Égalité et Réconciliation” (“Equality and Reconciliation”).

But on Tuesday, the Paris public prosecutor’s office overruled that decision, arguing that the court sentence had wrongly applied the criminal code and was unlawful.

Many of the individuals and groups that hailed Soral’s original sentencing as a sea-change in the approach of French courts to antisemitic agitation angrily denounced the decision to spare him from actual jail time.

In an editorial published on the website of French Jewish communal organization CRIF, its president, Francis Kalifat, argued that the public prosecutor’s decision required “an explanation of the inexplicable.”

Kalifat asserted that the rising climate of antisemitism in France and Soral’s record as a repeat offender meant that a custodial sentence was both “legitimate” and “necessary.”

“It does not depart from the canons or the principles of criminal justice; it is the illustration of it,” Kalifat wrote.

Both Soral and the antisemitic comedian with whom he partners, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, were “the undisputed stars of this sinister market of hatred” toward Jews, Kalifat said.

In a statement published by the periodical Le Nouvel Observateur, four prominent anti-racist activists quipped darkly that Soral would now feel “as happy as an antisemite in France.”

The group, which included Sacha Ghozlan, president of the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), argued that the belief that French law was being faithfully applied in Soral’s case was effectively a surrender to his extremist views.

“Believing to protect the law, we end up protecting racists and antisemites from any effective punishment…by organizing their impunity,” they wrote.

The statement noted that antisemites, racists and Holocaust deniers were rarely sentenced to prison in France, pointing out that Robert Faurisson — France’s most outspoken Holocaust denier until his death last October — “died without having ever known a single day’s imprisonment.”

Along with a severe increase in antisemitic hate speech on the internet and in many public locations, French Jews experienced a 74-percent rise in violent attacks during 2018, according to official government figures.

It’s nice reading some good news for a change! Imagine facing a prison sentence for criticizing Jews and questioning their narratives of history. Only in this clown world we live in, which is totally run by Jews, would this be possible. Good for the French!

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Do you appreciate the work we do here? Please consider making a donation to help keep us going. Donations may be sent to:

John Friend
PO Box 20514
Long Beach, CA 90801

DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC

DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC

FREE SYNDICATION: We are partners not rivals. Reprint our news stories to quickly build your news platforms.

We’re used to Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents. However, the most notorious deniers of free speech are found under upturned rocks in the West.

assange

Investigative journalist Julian Assange sought sanctuary in London’s tiny Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. The whistle-blower refuses to be silenced. The Australian has been awarded more than a dozen journalism awards. Once evicted under a dodgy-deal, blackmail and bribery, Assange faces life imprisonment, perhaps a death sentence.

Thanks to a clerical error by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, the existence of sealed criminal charges against the Wikileaks founder has been confirmed.

If wars start by lies they can be stopped by truth

What is typically left out is that Wikileaks originally released the diplomatic cables in piecemeal form, with names removed to prevent loss of life and minimize harm. It was only after a Guardian journalist’s error led to the full legally edited cables leaking to third parties on the web that Wikileaks also published them. Assange even attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State.

Julian Assange

In other words, Wikileaks behaved precisely as any responsible journalist would in handling sensitive material should by removing information that could cause harm. The removals stopped only when they became pointless. The Pentagon later admitted under oath that they could not find any instances of individuals losing their lives as a result of being named in Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks.

When it comes to negligence a far stronger case can be made against Hillary Clinton for the way she handled State Department emails. Yet, no criminal charges have been laid against a woman mired in corruption and whose snail-trail lies over a score of corpses.

Assange is being targeted because he dared to challenge the western establishment but he is far from alone. Western governments routinely target scores of news reporting dissidents.

Sylvia Stolz 2

Imprisoned in Germany merely for investigating holocaust related fraud; Ursula Haverbeck (90), lawyer Sylvia Stolz, Music tutor Monika Schaeffer and her brother Alfred Schaeffer. In France, Professor Robert Faurisson, Brigitte Bardot, and Vincent Reynouard. The list of Western dissidents is as long and silent as are the names on the Cenotaph situated in Whitehall.

Moniker and Alfred 1

Any who associated with Julian Assange are pursued. Another well-known dissident is the National Security Agency (NSA) whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It was a time of globalist unease at the power of the internet to undermine authority.

! Petition

Who would have thought that the highest court in Europe would uphold a case in which a woman was prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam? Who would have thought that Britain, the supposed birthplace of liberalism and the free press would ban an independent journalist from its shores for satirising the same religion?

Free speech now a hate crime

Who would have thought that Germany, whose living memory of the totalitarian Stasi is just three decades old, would put its largest opposition party under surveillance? Just a few years ago, all three would sound far-fetched. But cases like these have become common as elites in virtually every western country mount a panicked attempt to contain the rise of populism.

! Tommy, one of these men is in gaol

A case in point is Tommy Robinson, the British critic of Islam who was dragged through Britain’s courts on fuzzy contempt-of-court charges. Sentenced to an astounding thirteen-month imprisonment, Robinson was eventually freed after a successful appeal. Robinson now awaits a final trial before Britain’s Attorney General. Shaky charges that have been successfully appealed were exploited to persecute a British citizen who was inconvenient to the establishment.

DSC_0745

Alison Chabloz is endlessly re-cycled through British courts at the urging of Jewish special interest groups. She has been sentenced, fined and ordered to work for the State without charge.

Jez Renegade picture

Her crime, she satirises the spin of World War II propagandists. Again in Britain, Jez Turner is sentenced to 12 months in prison merely for publicly stating that Britain’s regime is overly influenced by Zionists; ironically, Zionists boast much the same thing.

me 1

In the self-styled cradle of democracy, one of the last European countries to give voting rights to men and women, Michael Walsh was handed down 6 x 4-month prison sentences for publishing fliers critical of immigration.

BRITAIN-US-INTELLIGENCE-SNOWDEN

 

Britain routinely bans foreign politicians and media figures from the country for being right-wing.  Michael Savage, Geert Wilders, Lauren Southern, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer all enjoy this dubious distinction. Theresa May, who was responsible for internal affairs and immigration when Spencer and Geller were banned, is the Prime Minister.

Trump’s White House, supposedly an ally of populists, failed to intervene on behalf of the American citizens banned from the U.K. for expressing populist viewpoints.

Assange and shitheead

Julian Assange, a leftist oriented libertarian may share little ideological ground with right-wing critics of Islam. But they all share at least one thing: persecution by the Western States coupled with anti-establishment political speech or activities.

We also see attacks on free speech, with governments and politicians across the West pressuring Silicon Valley to suppress its critics. These toxic unaccountable, unelected elite can sweep away a person’s livelihood in minutes, and cut their political message off from millions of American citizens.  PayPal, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook routinely disconnect the accounts of even small ‘c’ conservatives.

sneaky_paypal

Undeniably, the West is as repressive as was the former Soviet Bloc. Who would have thought that countries like Ecuador, Russia, and Iran would offer sanctuary, safe passage and freedom to speak to Western dissidents; journalists, authors, poets, writers, libertarians and political activists?

Edward Snowden faces life in Russia as an exile for revealing the National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance of Americans. Before that, he sought refuge in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Western_Dissidents_Assange_Snowden_Robinson_Wilde

 

 

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.