The great German patriot, writer, publisher, and educator Ursula Haverbeck died today at her home in Vlotho, less than a fortnight after her 96th birthday. The occupation government that calls itself the Federal Republic of Germany was still seeking to jail Ursula right up to the instant of her death. (Este artículo también está disponible en español)
Though born in western Germany, Ursula was living in East Prussia as a young girl until it was overrun by Stalin’s Red Army, at which point she became a refugee, first in Sweden and then in the UK.
In 1963 she and her future husband Werner Haverbeck (a veteran national socialist academic) founded the Collegium Humanum – an educational institute based at their home in the northern German town of Vlotho.
This Collegium provided a wide range of educational and ideological training for several generations of Germans, with speakers including the intellectual founder of the modern European environmentalist movement, Dr E.F. Schumacher.
Ursula Haverbeck with fellow revisionist scholar Horst Mahler (now 88) who has also been jailed for his books and speeches on historical topics.
In 1992 Ursula became active in an organisation seeking to build proper memorials for German civilian victims of the Second World War, whether victims of the terror-bombing campaign by the Western allies, or the campaign of mass rapes, murders and expulsions by their Soviet counterparts.
Though this might have been thought a simple acknowledgment of historical facts, Ursula attracted the hostile attention of German state authorities who wished to impose an authorised version of history.
Increasingly this state-imposed version of history has concentrated on criminalising any attempt to question the alleged ‘Holocaust’ of six million Jews in supposed homicidal gas chambers on the presumed orders of Adolf Hitler.
The inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize was awarded to Ursula Haverbeck in 2019
Historians, scientists and even lawyers who draw attention to serious evidential problems with the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ narrative were first demonised and driven out of their jobs, then criminalised, and increasingly subjected to long jail sentences.
Ursula herself was first fined for this invented thought-crime of ‘Holocaust denial’ – defined in Germany as Volksverhetzung, or ‘public incitement’ – in 2004. Almost ten years ago, as her revisionist activities continued, Professor Robert Faurisson noted that “at her own risk and peril, a great German lady has publicly opened the black box of ‘the Holocaust’. She has done so in the country which, along with Austria, is the most ruthless in Europe against historical revisionism.”
In 2019, three months after the Professor’s death, Ursula was awarded the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize at a ceremony in Vichy organised by the Italian tenor and revisionist campaigner Joe Fallisi. The prize was accepted on her behalf by her Berlin lawyer Wolfram Nahrath, because Ursula herself was by that time imprisoned.
Ursula Haverbeck with her friends and fellow campaigners Dr Rigolf Hennig (1935-2022) and Lady Michèle Renouf.
During the last twenty years of her life, Ursula was repeatedly dragged into court, despite her advancing years, for the ‘crime’ of asking politely worded questions about ‘Holocaust’ history in letters to academics, politicians, and other public figures; for writing historical articles in magazines; and more recently for the ‘crime’ of answering questions in an online video interview.
From May 2018 until November 2020 Ursula served two and a half years in prison for such ‘crimes’, and in April 2022 she was sentenced to a further 12 months imprisonment.
Appeals against this sentence were turned down, and further cases continued this year in Hamburg. Right up until her death, Ursula was awaiting imprisonment – the main obstacle for the courts was finding a prison (even a prison hospital) that had appropriate facilities for a lady in her mid-90s!
Ursula Haverbeck with her indefatigable lawyer Wolfram Nahrath.
Even in death, Ursula is feared by our enemies worldwide: less than two weeks ago, to give just one example, YouTube banned an H&D video that had been posted to mark her 96th birthday – although this video was simply an excerpt of an interview with Ursula that had been broadcast on a mainstream German television channel!
The good news – which Ursula knew and celebrated – is that this censorship is visibly failing. New generations of European patriots and intellectuals are challenging the lies that have been imposed on our continent for almost eighty years.
H&D will continue to honour Ursula’s legacy: an obituary will appear in our next edition.
Ursula’s campaign for historical truth has spread across Europe.
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
Kimberly Murray wants to see tougher action on residential school denialism
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.”
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
