The Week’s Most Stoned, Boned, and Bemoaned Headlines
“VEE HAFF VAYS OF MAKING YOU NOT TALK.”
Last week saw the 79th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, a.k.a. the day the
Japanese favored the world with a strikingly vivid real-life
illustration of the phrase “biting off more than you can chew.” Pearl
Harbor Day is certainly an appropriate time for reflecting upon what a
terrible, terrible world this would be if the Axis powers had won World
Imagine Germany in 2020 if the U.S. and Soviet Union had not beaten some democratic
sense into the totalitarian Nazi state. Imagine a Germany that had not
been immolatingly guided into embracing the sacred tenets of freedom and
human rights. A Germany not brought to heel in 1945 would surely be a
monstrous, oppressive society that tortures 92-year-old women just
because they don’t parrot state doctrine.
Oh, wait; that’s Germany today. Sorry, Hitler!
Ursula Haverbeck is 92 years old, and “free and democratic” Germany
just can’t stop imprisoning her. One could reasonably ask why any major
world power—or, frankly, any minor world power—would feel the need to
keep locking up one elderly woman. What manner of criminal mischief
could this senior scofflaw possibly be engaged in to merit repeated
stints in the pokey? Did she plow through an open-air market in her
Volkswagen? Is she a suspect in the disappearance of Hansel and Gretel?
Nope. She won’t stop saying that Auschwitz wasn’t an extermination
camp. And the fact that one insignificant old lady holds a view that the
state finds objectionable is something that free and democratic Germany
simply cannot allow.
In 2016 Haverbeck was sentenced to ten months imprisonment for saying
hurty words about Auschwitz. When she was released, the state asked
her, “Has your punishment taught you to stop holding your opinion?”
Haverbeck said no, and she was sent back to the pen for another two and a
A few weeks ago, she was released again. And again, the state asked
her if she would recite history in the manner that free and democratic
Germany insists it must be recited.
Unfortunately, the villainous granny still refused to parrot the
scripted words that the free-thought-loving, human-rights-respecting
German government was forcing her to recite, so back to jail she went
Ursula Haverbeck repeatedly claims that there was no mass
murder in Auschwitz. She was just in jail—and was immediately put on
trial again afterwards. The 92-year-old was sentenced to one year
imprisonment just one month after her release from a prison in
Bielefeld. She was released at the beginning of November after serving a
total of two and a half years.
In the words of Tagesspiegel, “She kept asserting that
Auschwitz was not an extermination camp.” And the German government has
pledged to continue imprisoning and re-imprisoning this frail
nonagenarian until she quits “asserting” stuff that the government
Thank heavens the Allies prevailed in Germany. Otherwise, who knows
what kind of dictatorial nightmare that nation might be today?
Free Speech But not for Those Who Question the New Secular Religion of “holocaust” –Top German jurist explains why ‘holocaust deniers’ of any age must be punished — With Commentary by Carolyn Yaeger
Published by carolyn on Thu, 2020-12-10 00:48
Lüge und Wahrheit
(Lie and Truth)
A column by Thomas Fischer
Thomas Fischer, born in 1953, is a noted German jurist of the 2nd Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice. Fischer is the presiding judge of the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe. His annual commentary on the Penal Code, “Beck’s Short Commentaries,” is considered the Bible of German Criminal Law. He is a honorary professor at the University of Würzburg lecturing on criminal law, criminal trial law and the sociology of law. In 2017, he was selected for that year’s European Press Prize shortlist.Through his weekly column “Fischer im Recht” on ZEIT ONLINE, Thomas Fischer has become a familiar name to a broad nationwide audience.
EXCEPT THAT HE DOESN’T explain it. His long-winded commentary is long on empty rhetoric, short on compelling reason. I decided to post this opinion piece “Lie and Truth” that was published recently by Spiegel to give you a chance to see for yourself the haphazard discourse that passes for the voice of wisdom in German constitutional law. This man is a disgrace, not only because he is grossly obese (which makes it hard to even look at him), but because he is politically motivated and not above resorting to lies and baseless insults against his fellow Germans, whose legitimate questions he cannot honestly answer. See for yourself. Note that I have added a few of my own comments in red. -cy
Anyone who publicly or in an assembly approves, denies or trivializes an act committed under the rule of National Socialism in the manner described in § 6 para. 1 of the International Criminal Code in a manner likely to disturb the public peace, either publicly or in an assembly, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years or by a fine.
[CY – To understand this, I found Article 6 of the Int. Criminal Code, which reads:
Article 6: Individual Criminal Responsibility
1. A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in Articles 2 to 4 of the present Statute, shall be individually responsible for the crime.]
Many call that which is subsequently punished [under § 130] an “Auschwitz lie. Those who commit one of the acts, that is, approve, deny, or trivialize the Holocaust, on the other hand, call it an “Auschwitz lie” to claim that the Holocaust took place on the generally known [substitute ‘believed’] scale. The reasonable argue with the mad, the truthtellers with the liars, about the right to the word “lie.” Of course, no one can win this fight on the battlefield of counter-arguments, which makes both sides all the more bitter the more important the word fetishes with which they throw at each other are to them.
There is not the slightest doubt that the earth is a sphere and not a tray, that it orbits around the sun and not the sun around Venus, that stones fall down because masses have gravity, and that in and by the leading state of the NSDAP tens of millions of people have been murdered for reasons that were called “racial” and are now called “racist,” because this word is somehow better and truer, since on the one hand there are no human “races” at all, but on the other hand the racists are called that way because they claim it, mostly connected with the courageous thesis that they themselves belong to the better, more beautiful, and in any case somehow more valuable “race” by lucky providence. [Did you follow that long sentence? Try again if necessary. He’s making a false analogy between ‘flat-earthers’ and ‘racists.’ There is no connection.] That, one may think, is then nevertheless stupid; one must decide. Purely humanly seen, it is understandable and touching, and not really surprising, that one’s own sand castle seems to one as the most beautiful, one’s own nose as the most delicate, and one’s own stupidity as the most significant. Of course, the fun ends when one draws the conclusion that one is in league with nature and the spirit of the world when one smashes other people’s noses. [As you will notice as you read on, he takes cheap swipes and uses insults very liberally, in place of any kind of valid point.]
What the truth is, the whole, real, immovable, and by what one can recognize it, is a quite old question. It is a part of human nature, although it deals with it only in passing. Dogs, cats and monkeys do not fight over the truth, because everything is reality to them and memory is only one form of it. Humans long for it when they walk on dream paths. But we have to live with the brain that we have and with the environment that we are. The truth is, once we leave aside the very great sources of truth, all of them located in the beyond or in concepts, which have been invented over the millennia and which are all characterized by the fact that theyrenounce any reality outside of themselves,a common, socially related reconstruction of reality influenced by evaluations, symbols and prognoses.It depends on them when more than one person is present, that is, practically always with the exception of the state of “delusions”. He never tells us what the truth is. This last appears to be gobbledygook to me. Try as I might, I can’t make sense of it.
Because this is so, truth is of such great importance for well-being. One could say: It is completely indifferent whether the Thirty Years’ War has taken place or whether the Elbe flows between Dresden and Hamburg even when we are sleeping or standing on the Rhine. Truth about the past is existentially important because it is an understanding of the present (reality).
Punishment and truth
I mention all this to give you the idea that prosecuting for denial of the obvious truth is a problematic matter. Here we go – truth is not defined, instead it is “obvious.” Criminal law has, after all, historically worked its way from the outside to the inside, so to speak: From the control of external behavior ever closer to the control of internal self-control and thinking. Since 500 years ago, God as the only instance of truth was shifted from the real world to a transcendent beyond. The rational control of reality was taken over by everyone in the world of absolutism [being] allowed to be happy in his own way, as long as he took care of it inwardly and adhered to the 19,000 paragraphs of the General Prussian Land Law outwardly. Nowadays we see it differently: we want the citizen to guide himself morally, so criminal law also has its sights set on his thoughts and feelings the “Gesinnung” [attitude] is worth a lot to us, and anyone who shoots at a person with a wooden toy gun because he mistakenly believes it to be real will be put in prison for life for attempted murder. Is this not nuts? How do you prove what he believes? How can you punish an attitude?
In addition, however, what constitutes freedom and makes human development possible has to assert itself. Optimized mind control leads, as has been proven many times, to blatantly dysfunctional societies, no matter under which “ideological,” irrational beliefs. So it depends – once again – on a balance between conflicting conditions, circumstances, tendencies and possibilities: as much as possible alignment by controlling a common “truth” on the one hand – and on the other hand as much freedom as possible for truth-expanding realities. Such a balance requires the form and these binding concepts of oneself. Somewhat easier: one must find forms of balance.
If one looks around in the world of criminal law, one finds many legal systems in which truth is acted [?] as a high object of protection, especially gladly the truth about the greatness of one’s own state history, about the tremendous victories of the respective leaders and the wickedness of all its opponents, about the quasi-historical necessity of rule as it is and will be forever. One can believe that or not. Some feel secure in such forms, especially when they are not among the lowest, but have even more contemptible ones among them.
In states that are called liberal constitutional states, it is more complicated, but much more pleasant: one may think what one wants, but in addition to the rules of external conduct, one must understand halfway the construction itself and pay attention to the functioning of social truth-finding. In Germany, the pure doctrine of truthfulness is not enforced by the Bundeswehr, but by rule-based public communication. This is the reason why the Federal Constitutional Court describes the basic right of freedom of opinion as “absolutely constitutive”.
Therefore it is actually rather remote that one protects “the truth” criminally and pursues the spreading of lies as attack on the truth. If this were to be taken literally, it would be the very opposite of what is “absolutely constitutive.” However: The spreading of panic by public threat of attacks is punishable even if the threat is not meant seriously (see § 126 StGB); the spreading of contents with glorification of inhuman cruelty is also punishable if the victims depicted are only “human-like” (see § 131 StGB), and everyone has a right, protected by criminal law, to have slander (incorrect factual claims) that do not violate their reputation and destroy their existence, spread (see §§ 186, 187 StGB). The truth about the past is thus protected to the extent that it is the basis of present life. Exactly. In order to prevent political National Socialism from reappearing, they must lie about it and criminalize it (the past) to “protect” the future. If two sections of the population claim that it is the “truth” that different gods have ordered them to destroy each other, one must not protect the truth but prevent civil war. One way to do this would be to prohibit the public dissemination of the aforementioned feeble-minded “truths”. Now truths that don’t protect their version of public peace become “feeble-minded truths.”
§ 130 – “Incitement of the people” – protects in the end, of course, body, life, existence of humans. This protection is, however, shifted forward here, because conditions are to be prevented in which it can no longer be guaranteed by the general rules (for example, prohibition of manslaughter and bodily injury). Hate against groups of the population, calls for violence, threats to security are, as history has shown a thousand times, dangerous acts. “Incitement of the people” is a so-called abstract crime of danger, which punishes attacks on the so-called public peace, i.e. a state in which the form of compensation is based on rules and not on violence and arbitrariness.
This brings us to the denial of the Holocaust, which is a variant of the crime of sedition. Of course, one can say: Whether any fools “believe” that the Holocaust of National Socialism did not take place is completely indifferent. For the world and for the truth this is no more significant than the view of some others that the world is ruled by aliens or was founded by Martians. These latter opinions would not be insignificant, however, if their followers were to call for the earth to be prepared for the return of the masters from space and, until then, for the slaughter of the elites or the burning of all forests. In other words: The truth about the Holocaust is not the core, but the medium of public peace, which § 130 paragraph 3 StGB wants to protect. This is all utter nonsense.
So much for the background of the penal provision. It does not change anything about the fact that § 130 Abs. 3 StGB is also a completely normal criminal provision: One must, in order to be punished, [word missing?] the objective (action) and the subjective (resolution) facts of the case. And what the intent of “denial” is, is not self-evident and also not indisputable. Very important.
Some people say: intent to deny already exists when the perpetrator knows that he denies something. Others – the “prevailing opinion” – say that premeditation presupposes that the perpetrator knows that his view of past reality contradicts the view of everyone else. Still others – for example, the columnist in his StGB commentary – say: Denial in the sense of § 130 (3) presupposes that the perpetrator knows or accepts that his assertion contradicts reality, i.e., is untrue. (Only) this latter view leads to the problem that people who do not know this are in a state of so-called “error of fact”, i.e. they cannot be punished (see § 16 para. 1 StGB). This is not a practically relevant problem because 99 percent of the “deniers” of course know full well that the Holocaust really took place, but feign their “disbelief” because they actually approve (or even would like to repeat) the genocide. Shockingly untrue!! Indefensible attitude from a judge, an unsupported assumption and CHEAP SHOT that has never been fairly demonstrated in any courtroom! That such persons can be punished according to § 130 is self-evident. Then one could, under certain circumstances, leave the few idiots who really believe that the earth is a piece of paper in their sad delusion alone. It is obvious that this is not quite so simple: How do you want to distinguish the real from the delusional liars?
Punishment and symbol
This brings us to Mrs. Haverbeck and comrades, including Mr. Horst Mahler or the (probably: former) fiancée and defense attorney of the same [Sylvia Stolz], who used their pleas to announce the death penalty to the judges. What death penalty? There are simply such people, and in their shadow quite a number of them, who hide around with half-baked swollen sympathies and ostensibly agnostic excuses: they only deny secretly and among their own kind. Unwarranted insult toward Haverbeck, Mahler and Stolz; more hate from the respected judge.
The decisive point here, too, is probably that the perpetrators are not concerned with “the truth” as scientific reality: they do not spend their lives researching whether Caesar really spoke with Brutus when he murdered him, or whether Cleopatra used to bathe in milk or champagne before meeting Antonius. Her [referring to Frau Haverbeck] center of truth is hyperexcited at only one point: Holocaust or non-Holocaust? Were there six million or perhaps only 5.8 million murdered? This alone shows that it is not about numbers, but about principle: the allegedly wrong view of the general public is for these persuaders of conviction proof and symbol of the alleged “wrong” opinion about National Socialism, which they consider to be a great thing by and large. The fight for the alleged truth is thus a fight not for past reality, but for the social and political future. Agitation against the alleged lie about Auschwitz is in reality agitation against Jews, Sinti and Roma, foreigners.
There is no reason not to punish perpetrators of conviction. To have any “conviction” is allowed, pleasant or not, and first of all a private matter. But he who “by conviction” murders, humiliates, hurts other people, must be made clear the boundary between mine and his actions. But they can’t prove the necessary extent of the murder, humiliation and hurt. It’s an arbitary claim and number. At the same time the sanctioning must show the others – that is, all – that this limit exists and that it must be observed. This too is “symbolic”. One could take the view that perpetrators like Ms. Haverbeck should not be offered further stages of self-representation in court through criminal prosecution. I think that would be too cheap an argument, on the edge of convenience. After all, criminal trials and main hearings do not have the task of protecting the public from becoming aware of crimes. Even those who, as accused, announce that they will make physical attacks during the trial will not be released, but rather tied up. Admittedly, one must not do the same with notorious agitators. In exceptional cases, however, they can be excluded, otherwise one must and can bear the gossip. As long as there is still a spark of legal defense underneath, one must listen and give the accused a chance. Nothing more. This applies equally to Haverbecks, holy warriors and other human happiness seekers.
Punishment and age
Should (very) old people be prosecuted and punished, even imprisoned? This is a question that is repeatedly asked in public, but surprisingly hardly ever in the case of jealousy killers, child rapists or terrorists. But especially with old Nazi criminals who lived “blamelessly” in hiding for 70 years and who were dragged out of the hiding places of their memories at the end of their lives. One might ask whether old people in wheelchairs are still the right addressees of the messages of criminal law. Counter question: Why not?
That applies in any case to such offenders who are still criminally active even at an advanced age. Anyone who, at the age of 92 and full of zest for action, strides from one sedition to the next will probably still be sprightly enough to bear responsibility for it. An 85-year-old man, who notoriously abuses children sexually, will not be able to argue, with any prospect of success, that at his age a criminal trial is no longer worthwhile; it would be better to let it go. Always equating holocaust revisionists with sexual abusers of children! They are not similar in any way.
It may be different when it concerns deeds that are a whole human life behind. Murder and genocide do not come under the statute of limitations: that is how it is, and that is what the majority of the population obviously wants. Hardly anyone complains that it is possible to solve 50-year-old sexual murders with the help of DNA analysis: “cold cases” are considered a very special treat for the daily horror. When the love of justice and the statute of limitations is so great, one should not exclude the ramp of Auschwitz, of all places.
There are limits to the ability to negotiate and to execute. But they are very wide: not because German criminal law is so merciless and inhuman, but because the well-being of prisoners is quite well taken care of, at least in physical terms. There are many old people living in prison today, many are chronically ill, quite a few die there from cancer, cardiovascular diseases, Aids. There are departments for old prisoners, prison hospitals and, if necessary, the possibility of external medical care. One should think about the penal system as a whole, without doubt. But the majority of citizens obviously do not want that at all. To open a media-public department for “mercy” instead would seem to me to make little sense and be extremely unfair. One could think of a few prisoners who perhaps deserved mercy more than highly active hate mongers. This is how he pretends he sees Ursula, as a hate monger rather than as a constitutionally protected German citizen. This allows him to stay in his judicial comfort zone. As a rule, one cannot choose whether one dies of lung cancer. Whether one simply keeps one’s mouth shut, yes.
So there is the legal answer to all who question the Dictate of eternal German guilt for the Holocaust: Shut up or we’ll shut you up.
What does the state have to hide when
they relentlessly persecute a 92-year-old peaceful woman who has never
done anything that we normally associate with “criminal”, never did
anything violent, never stolen, never vandalized, never defrauded
anyone, BUT has asked an inconvenient question over and over again. This
woman has just been released from jail, having spent 2&1/2 years
behind bars, and less than 2 weeks later was in court in Berlin for more
charges. Her name is Ursula Haverbeck. The Law is the infamous Par. 130.
This 16-minute video (in German) by the Volkslehrer (Folk Teacher) was sent my way recently by an English-only speaker, who wondered what was said. What follows is by no means a word-for-word translation, but a description giving the gist of it. I highly recommend viewing at least the first 8 minutes of the video even if you do not speak German, because it is beautifully put together especially the music and scenes at the beginning, followed by the interesting scene of reporters chumming outside the courtroom… excluding the independent journalist-reporter Nikolai Nerling the Volkslehrer– producer of this video.
The Volkslehrer asked Ursula Haverbeck
for an interview before court began, but she explained that she was not
allowed to speak to anyone at this time.
Then you see the throng of reporters
outside the courtroom awaiting entry, all friendly with each other,
laughing and joking, until one masked woman asks “who are you?!” to
Nikolai. He introduces himself, shows his press pass, explains that he
has been a journalist for the last 3&1/2 years. Condescendingly, she
scoffs at him, accuses him of having made up his press pass himself
(effectively calling him a liar), says this is nothing, it is not from
uh.. uh.. a proper organ of the press, and then natters about putting
the mask on properly. He answered that it had just slipped down.
After she disappears with his press pass, she returns, again delegitimizing him by saying his press pass has not been issued by a recognized institution. She cackles about not coming too near and that his mask is slipping yet again.
He read her the Grundgesetz – the
foundational law which stipulates freedom of the press, to no
avail. Nikolai Nerling was NOT allowed in, and was forcibly taken out of the building.
Next, Ursula Haverbeck was in fine
spirits when she came out of the building. The remainder of the video is
the interview with Haverbeck’s Attorney, Wolfram Nahrath.
how Ursula spoke so clearly, so honestly, with dignity, with grace,
brilliantly really, and made her case in court that day. She spoke about
how she came to her present understanding of what really happened in
WW2. It began in the 1960’s, as she was investigating the nuclear
industry on account of her concern for the environment. She read much,
researched much, which led her to question the official narrative of
emphasized that she never denies anything, but that she has repeatedly
asked the question over the years, to which nobody could ever give her
an answer. Nahrath referred to that famous question which she still
asks, but did not describe it in this interview. [The question is “where did the crime (the 6 million…) take place?”]
on to say that actually there is nobody in the courtroom who would be
capable of denying anything, because nobody was there to witness what
happened. So if they don’t know what it is that happened (because they
did not see it themselves), then none of them are in the position to
“deny” it either.
[It is an
interesting logic, because in German the word for deny is “leugnen”,
and by the German definition, you cannot “leugne” something that did not
happen. It is impossible. ~ MS]
went on to say that Ursula had said all these things with a clear mind
and spirit, and that she demonstrated that she has no guilt-awareness or
better said, no guilt feeling. In all the 10 different trials she has
been through, that not a single prosecutor nor judge nor anybody could
answer her question. Nor did anybody attempt to answer her question.
They simply declared her guilty.
[When they declared her guilty in the past, they proclaimed that Frau Haverbeck knows
the holocaust took place, and yet she denies it (leugner). So she is
guilty. ~ Evidently the judges and prosecutors engage in mind-reading. ~
We will see
what the verdict is on December 4th, he says. He fears it might be as
previous verdicts. Then it is far from over. There is another count that
she is charged with in Berlin for which the prosecutor appealed because
the 6-month sentence was not deemed stiff enough. Then there are the
court proceedings in Hamburg still underway in which the prosecutor
asked for 10 months.
Nahrath goes on to say that Frau Haverbeck is in no way-shape-or-form
agitating to incite. She operates on an intellectual level, searching
for answers. He laments the fact that they are dragging a 92 year-old
through the court. He of course makes the point that this Par. 130
should not exist at all, but really emphasizes how terrible it is that
they drag an elderly woman through this. He talks about how at this age
her health could take a turn at any time, and also that if she goes back
to jail after these legal battles, there is naturally the possibility
that she could be brought back out under a sheet directly to her grave.
The fact that she is willing to seek answers at the age of 92, in full
knowledge of the personal consequences — it rings forth – yeah –
Nahrath’s emotions could be felt coming
close to the surface when he said those things. The whole affair is such
a travesty. But if they do put Ursula Haverbeck back in jail, do they
not just show their desperation to protect their lies? Evidence is
forbidden. Independent reportage is forbidden. They read the accused’s
mind to say she KNOWS something only to deny it with the intention to
incite hatred. How absurd.
How is it not blatantly obvious to every thinking man and woman? The house of cards is tumbling down!
German Thought Criminal & Political Prisoner Ursula Haverbeck, 91, Freed After 18 Months in Prison
It is with delight that we learn that Frau Ursula Haverbeck, persecuted and imprisoned since 2004, has been released from her German jail.
Dubbed ‘The Nazi Grandma’ by toxic corporate-owned state-subservient mainstream media, the venerated denizen of truth-over-lies was, in fact, harassed because she determined to put an end to extortion posturing as reparations for deaths that have been constantly shown to be false.
In effect, Ursula Haverbeck was persecuted and imprisoned for claiming that you cannot convict a nation or its people for murder without showing genuine evidence of the victim.
Well, Ursula is not a No Body anymore is she? In fact, it is the esteemed heroine’s triumph. Her persecution and her imprisonment has drawn international attention to crimes of the German judiciary and the foulest media that ever blemished the fair face of freedom
I attack a victory meme. I invite you to use it as widely as possible to give two-fingers to her captor, the judiciary and the presstitutes of the West. Danke Ursula; you are everyone’s favourite grandma.
Michael Walsh, Europe Renaissance.
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Alain Soral, a right-wing French political dissident, was recently
sentenced to one year in jail for “insulting a judge” and making
“anti-Semitic” comments on his own personal website,
underscoring once again the threat the organized Jewish community and
their lackeys pose to the traditional Western concepts of free speech
A French court sentenced far-right Holocaust denier Alain Soral to one year in prison for insulting a judge and making anti-Semitic comments on Soral’s website.
On the site, which is called “Equality and Reconciliation,” Soral wrote that Jews “are manipulative, domineering and hateful,” the French news agency AFP reported from Thursday’s sentencing at the Correctional Tribunal of Bobigny just northeast of Paris.
Soral, 60, has been convicted multiple times of incitement to hatred due to his anti-Semitic comments over the years. His previous conviction was in December in a defamation case. The Paris Court of Appeal slapped him with a $4,500 fine for producing and selling on his website a poster targeting Jews.
“We will continue to prosecute Mr. Soral as long as he makes anti-Jewish remarks,” said attorney Ilana Soskin, representing the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, which brought the latest complaint against Soral.
To be honest, I’m not too familiar with Soral or his views, largely
because I do not speak or read French. I do know he is often associated
with Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, an Afro-French “anti-Semitic” comedian and
political dissident that has also been demonized and targeted by the
organized Jewish community. I have written about the persecution of Dieudonné the past:
Once again we see the organized Jewish community
demanding political correctness and obedient, slavish acceptance of
their false, artificially manufactured version of WWII, as if the people
of France are incapable of thinking for themselves.
This is typical Jewish behavior: the Jews are always behind
tyrannical anti-free speech, anti-free thought measures. The Jews have
managed to enact “Holocaust denial” and “anti-racism” (read: anti-White)
laws in numerous European countries, literally criminalizing
independent thought and political expression – particularly for White
Whatever it is Soral recently wrote and said, it clearly has the
organized Jewish community in France – and I’m sure around the world –
typically howling and screeching for censorship, punishment, and
revenge. How dare a Frenchman question the Jews and their anti-White,
highly weaponized historical and contemporary narratives in 2019!
Tragically, we’ve seen one White dissident after another be targeted
and persecuted by the Jews and their puppets for simply expressing their
political and historical views. Soral is facing a jail sentence,
similar to the heroic dissidents across the West that have been
persecuted in recent years: Ursula Haverbeck, Monika and Alfred Schaefer, Alison Chabloz, Sylvia Stolz, and many, many others.
In the US, countless Alt Right activists and other pro-White figures
have been tyrannically persecuted by local, state, and federal
prosecutors simply for engaging in legitimate exercises of free speech.
The oppressive legal actions taken against these and no doubt countless
other pro-White, “anti-Semitic” dissidents are almost exclusively the
result of Jewish ethnic organizing and lobbying effor
holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to two and a half
years in prison after the country’s highest court ruled that denying the
mass murder of Jews during Nazi Germany is not covered by the right to
free speech and “threatens public peace”.
In Germany, denying the Holocaust constitutes a crime of incitement to hatred and carries a prison sentence of up to five years.
The 89-year old went to Germany’s constitutional court to appeal her
sentence, claiming that her statements fall under the country’s right to
free speech, which is protected by law.
But in their ruling, the high court judges found that the right to free speech does not protect the denial of the Holocaust.
“The dissemination of untrue and deliberately false statements of
fact can not contribute to the development of public opinion and thus do
not fall in the remits of protection for free speech”, the judges wrote
in a statement.
“The denial of the Nazi genocide goes beyond the limits of the
peacefulness of public debate and threatens public peace,” they added.
has a long history of support for the former Nazi regime and co-founded
a now-banned right wing ‘education center’ called Collegium Humanum
with her late husband Werner Georg Haverbeck, a former Nazi party
Her articles denying the Holocaust were published in right-wing magazine Stimme des Reiches (Voice of the Empire).
Haverbeck has received several convictions from a range of German
courts for her claims that the systematic mass murder of millions of
Jews and other persecuted groups during Germany’s Nazi regime did not
On one occasion she was convicted for calling the Holocaust “the biggest and longest-lasting lie in history.”
Ursula Haverbeck, nominated the grand Dame of German Revisionism by the late Prof. Robert Faurisson, “celebrated” her 91st. birthday in prison. Yes, you read that correctly: Frau Ursula Haverbeck is ninety one years of age and she finds herself incarcerated in a prison cell, charged and found “guilty” of questioning the allegation of the so-called “Holocaust”, the allegation that the Germans during the Second World war murdered millions of Jews in homicidal gas-chambers. For expressing her non-violent opinions on aspects of the history of the Second World War which she herself lived through as a teenager, the current ruling establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, in its viciousness, has locked this 91 year old up in a prison cell in an attempt to silence her.
Saturday, the 9th. November, the very day of Ursula Haverbeck’s 91st.
birthday, hundreds of German nationalists, patriots and friends,
well-wishers and admirers of the grand Dame of German Historical
Revisionism marched through the centre of the north German town of
Bielefeld where Ursula is imprisoned. With great gusto we paraded with
flags flying and with banners held high proclaiming Ursula Haverbeck to
be a Heroine for Germany and demanding Truth and Justice for Germany.
The authorities gave us permission to hold a public rally right in the
centre of Bielefeld. There was of course a large contingent of Police
present. And there were of course large numbers of demented Lefties
shouting their usual obscenities. However our loud-speaker system
drowned out all that Sound and Fury signifying nothing (Shakespeare’s
Macbeth). Our rally lasted the best part of two hours; right in the
centre of town; the traffic was stopped; the trams ceased running; and
we held our rally without any interruption. Here is the translation of
the speech that I gave on this historic occasion:
“Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds, I am British.
“I have travelled here to Bielefeld to show solidarity with the very brave patriot, Ursula Haverbeck, whom I have known for many years.She is a wonderfully brave campaigner for the honour of Germany and now this fine woman must “celebrate” her 91st. birthday in prison. Shocking. Ursula Haverbeck, an educated and cultivated woman, has posed questions regarding the topic of the “Holocaust”; she has posed the most serious questions, forensic, scientific, objective questions. And for this, she finds herself on her 91st. birthday in jail here in Bielefeld.
I know , we are in the Federal Republic. In order to make the situation
clear, I will refer to the trial that took place in Mannheim in 2003,
the trial brought against the German-Canadian, Ernst Zundel, yet another
individual charged with “Holocaust”-denial. At Zundel’s trial, the
presiding judge, Dr. Ulrich Meinerzhagen, found himself obliged to state
in the open court, and I quote him: ‘It is completely irrelevant
whether the “Holocaust” took place or not. It is the act of denial of
the “Holocaust” which is a crime. And that is all that matters in this
court.’ : Presiding Judge Dr. Meinerzhagen.
with absolute modesty can I (R.Edmonds) state that in Great Britain and
in the United States of America, we have complete Freedom of Speech on
the subject of the “Holocaust”; this means that every type of question
may be posed on this topic; and eveyone has the right to publish answers
which are based on forensic, scientific, objective facts.
a guest here in Germany, I can only quote the former, now retired,
judge sitting on the supreme court in Germany, the Constitutional Court,
Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem:
would not make the questioning of the Holocaust a criminal offence.’
Judge Hoffmann -Riem, July 2008 (Der Tagesspiegel, 10. July 2008)
dear friends. I would like to quote the famous German hero, Ulrich von
Huten, who five hundred years ago, said: ‘Germany is there, where strong
hearts are beating.’ Thank you.” FINIS.
let me make this comment: one does have to wonder if a change is now
taking place in the Federal Republic of Germany, set up as it was by the
western Allies at the end of the Second World War, the twin in fact of
the Communist regime set up in Eastern Germany by the forces of the
Soviet Union. How else might one explain the readiness of the
authorities to give permission for this “Birthday celebration” right in
the centre of the town where Ursula Haverbeck is held prisoner in the
local jail ? The activity must have cost the town a great deal of money;
vast numbers of Police were employed, and the centre of the town was
effectively shut down for the afternoon: what with several hundred
Nationalists and possibly as many as two thousand Lefties plus large
numbers of Police officers, the result was that no trams were running
through the town, no cars or delivery vehicles, access to the main-line
railway station was barred for a time, little business could have been
conducted that day; all this was predictable, but permission was given,
in spite of counter-pressure from the usual suspects, permission was
given for the go-ahead. A historic week-end. A privilege to be there.
Letter from German Political Prisoner Ursula Haverbeck, Who Just Celebrated Her 91st Birthday in Jail
Letter from Ursula Haverbeck[British patriot and frequent NATIONAL FRONT candidate Richard Edmonds, writes:]
Today I have received a letter from the brave campaigner from Truth in History, Ursula Haverbeck. Ursula expresses her astonishment and thanks for the amazing number of letters and cards of support that she receives from Britain and from France, and indeed from the whole world. In her letter to me Ursula H. singles out her specific thanks to Michele R. and to Peter R.
Let me repeat here, that letters and cards of support are a God-send to every brave and honourable patriot locked up in a narrow prison cell mixed in together with anti-social types and criminals, and isolated from the world and friendly faces – that’s prison, and in this nightmare “modern” world many of the prisoners will be Third-world criminals with Third-world personal habits.
All the more reason to send a friendly, cheerful card or letter, (which does not have to bear the address of the sender) to our brave Ursula:
Frau Ursula Haverbeck, JVA Bielefeld-Brackwede, Umlostrasse 100, D-33649, Germany.
Note on a related matter: The Jewish community in Bielefeld has raised its objections to a parade through the town, which friends and supporters of our Ursula have planed for next month, to commemorate her 91st birthday, that the astoundingly vigorous Ursula Haverbeck will “celebrate” in the Bielefeld prison (JVA).
The notice below from <bocage-info> confirms the information.
Regards to all,
[“Isn’t it wonderful that we live in ‘the free world’?” — Paul Fromm]