Seattle Police Chief Tells People To Call 911 If They Hear ‘Racist Name-Calling


[Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White. One wonders whether this apparently affirmative action appointee has ever heard of the First which ensures that people have the right to use even offensive language without fear of being hauled off by the cops.]

Seattle Police Chief Tells People To Call 911 If They Hear ‘Racist Name-Calling’

Don’t the authorities have better things to do with their time right now?

Robby Soave | 3.31.2020 1:02 PM


(Paul Christian Gordon/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Seattle’s top cop may want to get her priorities straightened out. In the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Police Chief Carmen Best used her most recent “chief’s brief” update on the coronavirus crisis to urge residents to dial 911 if they are the victims of racist name-calling.

It’s a time-wasting imperative—and one that’s at odds with the First Amendment.

In her briefing, Best called upon the expertise of a former local news anchor, Lori Matsukawa.

“Hate crimes have no place in our community,” said Matsukawa. “We are all trying to deal with the COVID-19 public health crisis together. If you are a victim of a hate crime or hate-based harassment, please call 911.”

“We will document and investigate every reported hate crime,” Best continued. “Even racist name-calling should be reported to police. If you aren’t sure if a hate crime occurred, call 911. We are here to help.”

Jews Target Free Expression in Fight Over ‘Hate Speech’

The tyrannical assault on the First Amendment and freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry has reached a whole new level, as establishment spokesmen and media outlets openly advance the notion that America needs “hate speech” laws.

In a recently published op-ed in The Washington Post, Richard Stengel, a former high-ranking State Department official under President Barack Obama and a former editor of Time magazine, argued that the United States should consider enacting “hate speech” laws similar to the tyrannical laws in many European countries that criminalize such things as “Holocaust denial” and “incitement of racial and religious hatred.” These types of laws have effectively been used to persecute and punish any individual investigating complex and disputed aspects of history, particularly relating to WWII, as well as those who criticize massive Third World immigration into the West, refugee resettlement, globalism more generally, and other politically incorrect topics.

“All speech is not equal,” Stengel hypocritically argues in his op-ed. “And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

The very concept of “hate speech,” long promoted by organizations such as the ADL and SPLC, essentially amounts to any criticism of any aspect of the New World Order agenda and the forces behind it. Freedom of speech, thought, and historical and scientific inquiry, bedrocks of the American political tradition specifically and Western civilization more generally, have increasingly been undermined and eroded by private entities such as Google, YouTube, and Twitter that censor and punish dissenting opinions on their platforms. Individuals expressing politically incorrect opinions also increasingly face the risk of becoming targets of radical leftwing organizations and activists, such as Antifa, that work tirelessly to publicly shame and expose “thought criminals,” often leading to social ostracization and loss of employment.

With establishment figures openly pushing for “hate speech” laws, the Senate and House have both established Bipartisan Task Forces for Combating Anti-Semitism, an initiative lobbied for by the Zionist lobby dominating Capitol Hill in an effort to punish those who criticize Israel and the pro-Zionist policies promoted by the D.C. establishment. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, praised the recently established task force, arguing that “we must all come together to fight the rise in anti-Semitism that threatens communities everywhere.”

Ronald Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress, likewise has called for more laws to combat anti-Semitism, especially online anti-Semitism.

“After three decades, anti-Semitism has now reared its head,” Lauder said in part during the recently concluded Second World Jewish Congress International Meeting of Special Envoys and Coordinators for Combating Anti-Semitism. “We want laws that really mean something.”

Of course, to them, anti-Semitism is not just about racism against Jewish people. It includes criticism of Israel as a way to muzzle opposition to that country’s policies.

Additionally, local and federal officials have even launched investigations into harmless flyers simply declaring “It’s OK to be White” at various universities across the country in an effort to determine if those responsible for posting the flyers committed a “hate crime.”

At Oklahoma City University School of Law, investigators are searching for the man who posted the flyers “to determine his intent and whether the actions are a hate crime,” according to a local ABC affiliate in Oklahoma. Similar flyers were posted on the campus of Western Connecticut State University recently, prompting an official investigation by local and state police as well as the FBI. University President John Clark described the posting of the flyers as “an attack on our university community” and assured students that his office is “making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished.”

The trouble is, even if the posters of these flyers only intended to state the obvious in protest of the vilification of white people especially on college campuses and never intended violence, it wouldn’t matter to leftists. Once their identities are exposed, they will be harassed, threatened, fired from their jobs, and likely driven from society all because they had the audacity to try to push back against the establishment today.

NB: This article was originally published by American Free Press on November 25, 2019. Subscribe to America’s last real newspaper today!

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

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

A ‘dramatic increase’ in coronavirus deaths could make Prime Minister invoke rules to track cellphone data

A ‘dramatic increase’ in coronavirus deaths could make Prime Minister invoke rules to track cellphone data

Shruti ShekarTelecom & Tech ReporterYahoo Finance CanadaMarch 26, 2020

El primer ministro canadiense, Justin Trudeau, se dirige a canadienses sobre la pandemia de COVID-19 desde Rideau Cottaga en Ottawa, Canadá, el jueves 26 de marzo de 2020. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press vía AP)

In an effort to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked the Quarantine Act requiring those returning from abroad to self-isolate. Ontario’s former information and privacy commissioner says if deaths increase exponentially the government could enact measures to track cellphone data to further limit the spread. 

“Let’s say the number of COVID-19 [deaths] in Toronto or Ontario tripled. Maybe they would use that as the excuse or a reason needed to invoke it,” Ann Cavoukian said in an interview. 

“I don’t know because I don’t want to think about it. I don’t want my mind to go there. But I would think a dramatic increase would possibly get them doing that.”

As of March 26, there are a total of 13 deaths reported in Ontario that are related to the coronavirus; there are 35 deaths in the country.  

During a press conference on March 25, Trudeau indicated that the government was “not taking measures” like collecting anonymous cellphone data to track the spread of the virus. 

“We recognize in an emergency situation we need to take certain steps that wouldn’t be taken in a non-emergency situation, but that is not something we are looking at now,” Trudeau said. “But all options are on the table to do what is necessary to keep Canadians safe.”

Cavoukian said that Trudeau said nothing was off the table because he is aware of these rules. 

“There are, unfortunately, privacy laws that can be invoked by the government that will enable them to engage in behaviours that wouldn’t be permitted under the [privacy] act. All privacy acts have these kinds of emergency measures, they’re supposed to be a last resort,” she said. 

“They’re supposed to be time-limited, clear sunset clauses, full transparency associated with what the government is doing.”

Cavoukian said that she didn’t think we were at that point yet for the prime minister to invoke rules and said “we should never get to that point.”

“When you are collecting all the personal information of citizens that just encroaches upon their freedom without privacy,” she said. 

Toronto Mayor John Tory initially said the city was collecting anonymous location data already, as first reported by The Logic, but later retracted his statements. A spokesperson clarified in an email that Toronto was not collecting any data. 

Bell, Telus, Rogers, and Shaw Communications’ Freedom Mobile confirmed in emailed statements that they have not been approached by the City of Toronto to gather cellphone data. 

Jesse Hirsh, president of Metaviews, said in an interview that these measures should have already been invoked. 

“I’m surprised that they have not already collected anonymized location


because given that both the federal government and the provincial government over the last few days have been escalating language around voluntary self-isolation, this would be one way to verify and find evidence instead of the government guessing,” he said. 

“I’d rather the government instead of guessing that people are or are not complying. I’d rather that they have accurate evidence.”

He added that collecting this data raises privacy concerns but they’re “minor privacy concerns” as this data is helpful in terms of informing public health policy. 

Hirsh noted that if the government drafted policy they would be able to work with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure the protection of the data and how it would be used. 

“We can have our cake and eat it too,” he said. “The expertise exists within the federal government.”

Stephanie Carvin, a security expert and assistant professor at Carleton University, doesn’t think these measures will be taken any time soon and most likely would be taken at a later date when things have restored back to normalcy. 

“You would almost want to implement something like this if the situation improved and we had an open society again,” she said.

“Let’s say if you were able to flatten that curve and then over a period of 18 months, you’re waiting, and all of a sudden there are flare-ups in the country and you want to contain it. That’s when something more targeted might be useful.”

Carvin indicated that even if the government were to take these measures it would require a lot of moving parts and individuals to get on board to make it happen. 

“People think that there’s some kind of switch we can flick, and it’s not that easy,” she said.

She also added that even if the government were able to track the data, they would have to be explicit in terms of what they were collecting and how it was to be used. 

“It’s just not clear to me, how that would be done, by who, under what circumstances,” she said. 

Sweden: Anti-White Totalitarianism and the Death of Free Speech

Sweden: Anti-White Totalitarianism and the Death of Free Speech

Chris Rossetti

Chris Rossetti · 19 January, 2020 4

by Simon Lindberg

The Nordic people’s constitutional freedoms and rights are being abolished. Repression against critics of the system is increasing. The situation is starting to get very serious…

THE MEDIA, politicians and celebrities in Sweden (in other words, the entire establishment) often talk about the lack of “democracy” in other countries. They speak with condemnation about totalitarian states and citizens who cannot say or think what they want, about the shameful treatment of the opposition by the ruling regime, and about police who violently retaliate against public protests and investigative journalists. We hear it about Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and China, just like we heard it before about countries like Libya and Iraq.

This article will not attempt to provide an account of the conditions in these countries or concern itself with the veracity of the establishment’s reporting on them. Instead we will examine what the situation looks like in Sweden. This country is nowhere near as free as the system would like people to believe — the rights and privileges of dissident Swedish citizens have been completely decimated.

In recent years, freedom of expression has been restricted more and more in Sweden. At present the establishment is discussing how both freedom of association and the freedom to demonstrate can be limited. Naturally, the ones being impacted and feeling the effects are those who go against the state and the establishment — i.e., the Swedish opposition.

The Sweden of today is a globalist country. The establishment is comprised of globalists, from the media to the politicians. Sweden’s constitutional laws have even been re-written to suit the globalists; for example, when it was enshrined in the constitution that Sweden would be a multicultural country and a member of the EU. As such, the opposition is not represented by the Moderates or Leftists, who instead can both be said to be the other side of the same coin as the Social Democrats and the rest of the parties in parliament. The opposition is instead the anti-globalists — i.e., the nationalists.

In this article I will examine some practical examples of how the people’s freedoms and rights are being increasingly restricted in Sweden, against nationalists in general and against those who are engaged in the most radical nationalist alternative — the Nordic Resistance Movement — in particular. These types of restrictions always begin with the most radical and refractory groups (and those with the most growth potential), but they will hardly stop there. Only when the entire population thinks exactly as those who rule desire them to will the restrictions cease. Only when every individual applauds the globalist agenda and their own national destruction will the witch hunt be over.

You will not hear about any of this in the mainstream media, other than in a strongly distorted form in which you as a consumer are encouraged to contribute to the death of freedom of expression and your nation. According to such editorials, opinion pieces, news items, radio reports, TV debate programmes and documentaries, it’s only “violent terrorists” who are subjected to repression. Of course, the number of people classed as “violent terrorists” and those affected by the ever-increasing banning craze will only grow larger and larger in time as the system becomes bolder.

Basic Freedom of Speech Does Not Exist in Sweden!

For example, did you know?

• What people are allowed to express is being increasingly restricted. Not only that which clearly defies the regime and its representatives is now punishable, but also that which biased prosecutors arbitrarily interpret as defiance.

The legislation which falls under the classification of “incitement to racial hatred” in Sweden is not — as the establishment would have you believe — a law which primarily exists to protect ethnic, religious and sexual minorities from abuse. These minorities already possess full legal protection under laws pertaining to defamation and illegal threats. In fact, via the hate crime amendment, these “minorities” enjoy a higher level of protection than we White heterosexual Swedes. It is also worth mentioning in this context that neither the hate crime amendment nor incitement to racial hatred legislation is applied when non-Swedes discriminate against Swedes on ethnically motivated grounds.

Instead the incitement to racial hatred law primarily exists to protect the regime from all forms of public criticism of their globalist world order. Representatives of the regime have even officially stated that there isn’t a need for a ban on “racist” groups in Sweden because the incitement to racial hatred law already exists and fulfils the same purpose: “Although the criminalisation focuses on the actions [of an organisation], the purpose of the Swedish legislation is that such organisations’ activities shall be prevented.”

One example of the real purpose of the law is demonstrated by the fact that a clear majority of all prosecutions relating to incitement to racial hatred do not originate from police reports by individuals from various minority groups who felt offended or upset, but from pro-system, taxpayer-supported political associations whose only purpose is to trawl the Internet for posts to mass report. Two culprits of such activities are Juridikfronten (The Legal Front), whose work attempts to restrict press freedom, and Näthatsgranskaren (Net Hate Inspectors), who hound pensioners who express themselves “incorrectly” online.

The Swedish Defence Research Agency (together with the police) has also launched a “hate-o-meter”, a piece of software designed to actively search the Internet for comments that could be regarded as constituting incitement to racial hatred.

The intention of the law becomes even clearer when one considers the flexibility with which it can be interpreted. One thing that strongly differentiates Sweden’s racial hatred legislation from the equivalent laws abroad is that in other countries it is often very clear and straightforward what is illegal to express and what is not. In Sweden, however, the law is always open for interpretation by the court, which leads to the unique and unjust situation in which people are judged in retrospect for things they believed were legal to express at the time. This means you can go to prison without even knowing that you did something illegal, no matter how well versed you are in the law. For obvious reasons, this should not be the case in a legal state, and there is no other law in the country that is applied in this way.

Increasingly, the Orwellian term “interpreted facts” is being used in Sweden, which in practice entails a judgement being based not only on what is expressed but also on who expressed it, leading to inequality under the law. As such, symbols, expressions, words and gestures are completely legal if, for example, a known Social Democrat uses them, but illegal if a known nationalist says, does or writes precisely the same thing.

• Troll factories attempting to influence elections are being operated openly by parliamentary parties and more covertly by pro-system journalists and the media.

More and more examples are continually being discovered of government parties, big media outlets and various state institutions actively organising people behind anonymous Internet accounts in order to combat dissident thinkers. One such case is the infamous apparatchik Dan Eliasson’s MSB (Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency), whose foremost task is to tackle so-called disinformation in society — in other words, views that are controversial, oppositional and critical of the system. In addition we have supposedly private initiatives (with personnel and financiers who clearly connect them to the current system) launching astroturf hashtag campaigns like jagärhär [I am here] or “interasistmen” [not racist but…]. The Social Democrats have also quite openly admitted to running troll operations.

The media are complicit here too. By openly and mendaciously reporting on troll factories and “fake news” by the opposition and attempting to make the system appear legitimate at all times, they themselves do more trolling than the trolls they are supposed to be responsible for exposing.

• Symbols, including those representing millennia-old culture — and even greetings that are used by opponents of the system — are continually being banned. It is now even illegal to honour individual people who historically stood up against the system.

For many years, the millennia-old solar symbol of the swastika, or fylfot, has been completely banned in Sweden. It is also prohibited to wear certain death’s-head symbols and some ancient Nordic runes and other cultural symbols in various combinations. Sweden’s interior minister, Morgan Johansson, said in 2018 that a committee had been appointed to investigate banning the Tyr rune, which, as well as being a letter in our forefathers’ runic alphabet, is also the symbol of the Nordic Resistance Movement. If the ban goes through, it will pave the way for the prohibition of all Nordic runes.

It is sometimes argued that the swastika and runes, despite their historical significance, have now taken on another meaning which legitimises a ban. Firstly, the belief that certain ideas should be forbidden from being manifested in symbols is a highly totalitarian point of view — but, as with the aforementioned examples, it is also noteworthy when considering where the boundaries are drawn and who has the right to set them. Where does it end?

Örebro city court ruled in October 2018 that it is forbidden to display an image of Adolf Hitler if the person responsible does not simultaneously repudiate Hitler’s life and actions. Here, just as in the case of the banned symbols, you can think what you want about Hitler, but the fact that someone is no longer allowed to publish photographs of people the establishment disapproves of is a glaring example of just how far our anti-free speech laws have been extended. Who will be forbidden from being portrayed next remains to be seen… Why not the old Swedish prime ministers Pär Albin Hansson and Tage Erlander, who clearly stood for a policy that, according to the system, would be regarded as very controversial today?

• Organisations the establishment disapproves of are defamed by the state’s public representatives and threatened with bans.

Almost every high-ranking politician or chief editor has on at least one occasion in recent years utilised the largest media outlets to urge for the curtailing of freedom of association and the banning of the Nordic Resistance Movement. In all cases, smears, shameful epithets and barefaced lies are used to justify the ban of what is a fully legal and — according to all the rules — correctly registered political party.

When the Center Party’s leader Annie Lööf calls the Resistance Movement a “hate sect”, and the prime minister himself, Stefan Löfven, labels the party “disgusting” and its members “the scum of history”, one realises just how extreme the level of defamation is. No logical reasoning or ideological arguments are ever used; instead it’s almost like a competition to see who can agitate against us in the most obscene way — all from the most high-ranking members of the establishment.

A large number of powerful lobby organisations also participate in the agitation. One particularly vociferous example is the World Jewish Congress (WJC), the world’s most powerful openly Jewish lobby organisation, which was the main culprit responsible for the incitement to racial hatred law coming to Sweden in the first place, in addition to being openly involved in the outbreak of World War II. The WJC employ outright lies in their agitation against the Resistance Movement and often repeat in their rhetoric that the organisation would use terror and violence to achieve its goals.

• The bank accounts of oppositional political parties and associations are shut down and they aren’t allowed to open new ones.

The various bank accounts the Nordic Resistance Movement had at its disposal and operated impeccably for many years were shut down by Nordea two years ago. Shortly thereafter, the accounts of the majority of other nationalist groups and websites were also shut down by other banks in addition to Nordea.

When the Nordic Resistance Movement registered as a political party to stand in elections, the party was denied an account by all registered banks in Sweden.

In a country like Sweden, where the possibility of using cash is quickly disappearing, being refused the use of bank accounts is a serious restriction of one’s rights. In effect, this is a partial ban of an organisation, as it prevents (or in our case makes it extremely difficult for) sympathisers who want to contribute financially to its operations, as well as making it harder for organisations to conduct vital aspects of their activities by paying invoices for goods and services.

The private banks’ justification for this repression is that the organisations’ activities violate the banks’ ethical values. There is never any mention of any economic impropriety such as money laundering; rather, it is totally motivated by ideology and political standpoints.

This means that either private businesses in Sweden are allowed — without any central judicial control or rules of conduct — to decide which political parties, media outlets and associations can exist and operate on the same terms as all the others, or that the state issues directives to private businesses dictating how they must act. Whatever the case, the message is that if you are not a globalist, you do not have the same rights as those who want to destroy our nations.

• Journalists are abused by police when they attempt to document what the state doesn’t want reported.

The police often blatantly use excessive force against nationalists in general and the Resistance Movement in particular. When journalists from Nordfront — a registered newspaper with publishing rights — document this, it isn’t unusual for them to be subjected to violence as well. On a number of occasions, people with video cameras and media vests have been pepper-sprayed and beaten with batons just because they filmed police attacks on activists. Earlier this year in Nyköping, for example, a police dog was set on a journalist and inflicted serious bite wounds.

It is also more the rule than the exception that the police break the law by confiscating legally source-protected material like cameras and hard disks from Nordfront’s journalists. When combined with incitement to racial hatred laws, which hit oppositional newspapers hard, this makes it all the more difficult to run a media operation that does what all media outlets should do: truly investigate the power-holders and their lackeys.

• The freedom to demonstrate — which was previously safeguarded despite other restrictions on people’s liberties — is now also under threat. Prosecutors assert that dissidents should be allowed to demonstrate in theory, but that they will be punished for other fictitious charges if they do so.

The Resistance Movement do not receive permission to hold demonstrations with anywhere near the same preconditions as other parties and political organisations — both in relation to the length and location of marching routes and the time before the conditions are typically severely reduced compared to those in the original permit.

Permission is still being granted at the time of writing, and so far there hasn’t been a case in Sweden in which an opposition party has been denied permission to demonstrate outright under all conditions. However, an upcoming trial in Gothenburg this autumn could result in the effective abolition of the freedom to demonstrate for dissidents if the prosecutor and police leadership of the West Sweden Region get their way. According to them, just attending a demonstration organised by the Nordic Resistance Movement will be regarded as incitement to racial hatred because the participants are “taking part in a march whose overall impression makes people think of 1930s Germany”. If an organisation is allowed to demonstrate in theory, but the people who participate in the demonstration are then convicted for racial hatred, the system has clearly banned the organisation from demonstrating in practice.

Even if the outcome of the trial leads to the demonstrators’ acquittal, the whole case is still a very interesting example of how the establishment deals with these issues. Just bringing such a case to court (together with the media’s headlines about being convicted for crimes for taking part in the Resistance Movement’s demonstrations) has had a visibly negative effect on the number of participants at the organisation’s events and has essentially paralysed sections of the nationalist demonstration culture which had been built up over the years.

• All large media outlets are pawns of the regime. As well as regularly publishing blatant lies about opposition politicians, they do not permit the broadcast of opinions not sanctioned by the government.

All established TV and radio channels and major newspapers — private and state-owned, national and local, news services and entertainment — are operated according to a globalist agenda. No media is neutral. A majority of media owners aren’t even Swedish. In addition, nobody is ever held accountable for the lies and defamation directed at organisations or associations.

All of this combined means that — aside from reading and watching alternative media — you cannot access information that doesn’t benefit globalist interests and which all too often is permeated with untruths. Individuals who are active in the opposition are also regularly doxxed, hounded and smeared purely because of their political engagement.

An example of a mainstream media doxxing article: “Expressen investigates the Swedish Nazi women”

News that doesn’t fit the globalist narrative is omitted or distorted beyond recognition. All opinion pieces and reports convey a globalist image of the world, and every time the nationalist opposition conduct any kind of activity, it is met by either silence or denunciation. For example, they always talk about the Resistance Movement, never with the Resistance Movement — or at least not without heavily editing and misrepresenting what is said. Even reader contributions and replies which are not to the liking of the new world order are consistently denied publication.

The media climate in Sweden is not just a narrow “opinion corridor” but an immense and total opinion vacuum. This is particularly serious because the media’s power is without a shadow of a doubt greater than that of the elected politicians. It is the media which actively influences and shapes the opinions of the people and makes them vote “correctly” in elections. In many cases, it is evidently the media that governs the politicians and not the reverse.

• International social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter are closely involved in the repression and delete accounts and posts the state wants censored.

The opposition’s posts on social media are deleted, their official accounts and those of their representatives are shut down, and those who still manage to “like” or share anything are exiled to the periphery of the Internet. On Facebook and Instagram, all users who link to any of the Resistance Movement’s websites are banned. On Twitter there is even a block filter that stops links to some of the Movement’s sites being posted at all. On YouTube, videos and accounts that don’t serve the globalists’ interests are deleted on a daily basis.

All this happens with the consent and support of the state. Politicians have openly admitted that they have direct contact with Facebook via their own phone line, which they can use to get anything they want censored and removed. The state’s representatives have also held meetings with companies like Google regarding censorship on YouTube.

In today’s society, it’s increasingly important to be on social media. More and more organisations and businesses don’t even have websites anymore but manage all their web presence via these Internet giants. Many people don’t interact with others in the same way as before and get nearly all their social contact via social media. In other words, being completely silenced in this arena is an effective way for the system to stop the opposition being seen or heard.

It is Your Duty to Act!

All of the above instances really only scratch the surface of the system’s attempts to silence citizens, media and organisations with the “wrong” opinions. Further examples include how those engaged with the opposition — completely or partly with the system’s help — lose their jobs, hunting weapons, membership in trade unions and residents’ associations, and how they are harassed with daily “routine checks”, or for that matter by groundless investigations by the Swedish Tax Agency because of so-called “reverse burden of proof” rules. Then there are the occasions when SÄPO (the Swedish Security Service) contact community centres to prevent the hiring of local premises, or when municipalities buy up old buildings for excessive prices to stop the Resistance Movement from purchasing them.

Opponents’ liberties are restricted more with every day that passes. Swedish freedom of opinion is dying out. Today it mostly affects the Nordic Resistance Movement and closely related groups, but if one observes how the system actively works to push the boundaries on issues such as incitement to racial hatred legislation — or how they cooperate with private entities like the social media giants and the banks, who in practice are not being limited by any constitutional laws — then one understands it is very obvious that it will come to affect more and more people and organisations, until we eventually live in a dictatorship wherein only the most pro-system globalists are not subject to its repression.

So is this article just a series of complaints? Am I playing the world’s biggest victim card?

No, this is purely a presentation of information. These are facts that will hopefully rouse you as a reader and incite you to act. If not for something more distant like your people’s future survival, then at least for freedom of speech — your freedom of speech — which is disappearing here and now, right in front of you!

Those of us who have been actively engaged in the Nordic Resistance Movement for many years are hardly surprised by what’s happening. We have long understood that their “democracy” is just a veiled dictatorship and that we are only allowed to have our freedoms and rights as long as we don’t use them against the globalists and win the people to our side. We saw through their “freedom” façade back in 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed, and when hundreds of thousands of German women were raped during the occupation. We saw through it in recent decades when multiculturalism’s uncountable numbers of victims were brushed aside and mocked (according to the establishment, those who dare to report ethnically motivated assaults, muggings and rapes are not victims but racists who must be fought and silenced). And we see through it today when they duplicitously praise their so-called democracy, diversity and freedom of thought on the one hand, while seeking to crush all forms of public rule, biological diversity and oppositional freedom of speech on the other.

So is everything in this article just hypocrisy? Won’t the Nordic Resistance Movement ban all other views when we take power?

No. In a National Socialist society, the people’s liberties and rights are sacrosanct. Freedom of speech will be extended compared to today, and there will be considerably more policy-making referenda on a variety of issues. Meanwhile, an authoritarian state makes it possible to take decisions in more acute matters without bureaucratic complications and parliamentary bickering.

The truth is that the system projects its own thoughts and views onto us — its sworn enemies. When they accuse us of wanting to destroy freedom of speech, it’s because they themselves desire the silencing of the people. When they describe us as hateful, it’s because they are driven by a pronounced hatred of the planet and the people of the world. When they call us violent terrorists, it’s to hide the fact that they are responsible for the majority of all the violence and terror in the world today. Not only are their claims about us false, but they are also hypocritical on an unparalleled scale.

Now that you have read these words and understand what is happening, it is time for you to act. Do whatever you think is best — support the Nordic Resistance Movement if you believe that is right — do something else if you believe in that. The important thing is that you do something and don’t just continue to sit still while the system takes away everything you have. Do not give away your rights without a fight. Do not give away your people’s future without a struggle. Don’t let them take away your life without resistance!



The appeal against both the conviction and savage sentence of  one year in prison (the maximum) for YOUR WARD NEWS Editor Dr. James Sears and one year’s house arrest for publisher Leroy St. Germaine had been set for tomorrow in Toronto. The editor and publisher of the satirical tabloid had been convicted by a humorless judge under Canada’s notorious “hate” law, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, for wilfully promoting hatred against privileged groups, in this case, Jews and women.

Because of the Coronavirus pandemic scare, the appeal has been postponed, likely until June. Free speech supporters will pack the court when the appeal date is reset.


Let Me Put it To You Plainly About Protests & Illegal Blockades

Let Me Put it To You Plainly About Protests & Illegal Blockades

Progressives and others on the “left” generally do not understand the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate protest. On the one hand they think that somebody who hands out a tract about the evil of murdering the unborn to a woman headed to an abortion clinic or who stands on the sidewalk across from it holding a placard with a pro-life message is doing something horrible that should be against the law. On the other hand they think that when a gang of environmentalist activists who claim to speak for aboriginal people blockades a railroad, preventing it from conducting its daily business of shuttling people and transporting goods across the country, and costing Canadian businesses multiple millions of dollars a day, that they are within their rights and may even consider it a noble and laudable act.

Since lefties have such difficulties with grasping this simple concept, I will explain it to them plainly.

Let us imagine that you are mad about some public issue and want to make your opinion known. You make up a sign expressing your point of view, go to the people who you want to hear it, and march up and down on the sidewalk in front of their building holding the sign up for everyone to read. Or, if a sign just won’t cut it, you write a pamphlet, have several copies printed, and start handing them out.

Note what you have not done. You have not gotten in anyone’s way. You have not used force to prevent other people from going somewhere or doing something.

Your protest, therefore, is a legitimate one. It does not matter whether your opinion is one that the vast majority of people would heartily agree with or one that the vast majority of people would find repugnant. You have made your position known without forcibly interfering with other people’s rights to go about their daily business.

Suppose, however, that you were to take a different approach. Let us say, for example, that the local university is hosting a speaker whose political views you disagree with. When the university refuses to listen to your demands that the lecture be cancelled you form a posse of like-minded individuals and go to the auditorium where the event is scheduled to occur and block all the entrances preventing speaker and audience alike from getting in.

In this instance you have not just made your opinion known, but you have forcibly interfered with the freedom of others to share and hear views different from yours. Your protest, in this case, is not a legitimate one. This has nothing to do with the content of your views, or the matter of whether they are right or wrong. It is because you are interfering with the rights and freedoms of other people.

Having made the basic difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate protest clear, let us consider one more scenario.

In the previous example of an illegitimate protest, you had interfered with the rights and freedoms of others but at least those others were people holding to the views you were protesting against. Suppose that you were upset that Project X was taking place somewhere in the country and in order to protest this you went somewhere else and erected an illegal barricade that interfered with the movement and daily business of millions of people regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with Project X.

Is it not obvious that by doing so you have exited the sphere of mere illegitimate protest and entered that of unlawful aggression against the civil order itself?

The duty of Her Majesty’s government in such an instance is clear. Unfortunately, since the First Minister of that government is still Captain Airhead, the Canadian electorate having proven itself foolish enough last fall to give him a totally undeserved second term, we are not likely to see that duty done any time soon. As the events of this past week have demonstrated, even beneath his fancy new beard, Captain Airhead is still Captain Airhead.

Should, however, Captain Airhead experience a miraculous epiphany, enduing him with a newfound sense of obligation towards the constitution, laws, and common good of our country, here is what he would do.

He would call a press conference immediately. He would address the “protesters” who have blocked the railroad, informing them that their action is one of unlawful aggression against the Dominion of Canada, its constitution, government, laws, civil order in general, economy and people. He would give them twenty four hours to cease and desist this aggression, remove their blockades from the railroad, and to surrender themselves to the police. He would then inform them that the police have been instructed that immediately at the end of that twenty four hour grace period they are to move in and remove any remaining barrier from the railroad and that the Canadian Armed Forces have been put on notice and are standing by to back up the police using whatever force is necessary to accomplish this end.

Yeah, I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen either.

The above arguments are, as stated, independent of any question of whether or not the protesters are right or wrong. Nevertheless, it is a fairly obvious observation that the illegitimate forms of protest are more likely to prove tempting to those whose cause rests upon a weak foundation. In the case of those currently blocking the railroad, you have environmentalist activists opposed to the pipeline project in British Columbia. They purport to be speaking on behalf of the Wet’suwet’en aboriginal tribe, but that tribe’s leaders have, in fact, approved the pipeline project, as have the other tribes in the area in question. This tribe has both elected and hereditary chiefs and the protesters claim that the latter are the legitimate chiefs for whom they speak, but even then only a minority of the hereditary chiefs have opposed the pipeline and it would appear that some shenanigans went down with regards to the hereditary titles apart from which this minority would have been even smaller. At any rate, contrary to the impression one would get from the CBC, the protesters are not all aboriginals, many appear to be of white European descent, and some have only recently come to Canada. As is often the case with environmentalist “protest” movements that speak entirely in neo-Marxist jargon, it is likely that the only people these protesters truly speak for are the American petroleum companies who benefit from environmentalist protests against Canadian pipelines because these pipelines, if constructed, would allow our major oil-producing provinces, both landlocked, to access world markets and no longer be dependent upon the American market.

Even if none of that were case and this was a sincere protest movement, however, its actions are intolerable and the government’s duty remains clear. It is the duty of all lawfully constituted civil authority to use lawful force to combat those who use unlawful force to wage anarchical war against order and civilization. Again, the government’s duty is clear. If only the Prime Minister cared.

Lady Renouf’s Trial For Telling Truths at Dresden Memorial Opens on May 15


Lady Renouf’s Trial For Telling Truths at Dresden Memorial Opens on May 15Renouf on Trial – May 2020

“Michèle, your fearless and direct utterances in Dresden, unfortunately forbidden to all Germans, blew open the window of truth in one blast.”said Gerard Menuhin, son of legendary violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, in February 2018
On 15th May 2020 an Australian-born Briton goes on trial in Dresden for “incitement” – not for terrorism or threats, but because of a 10-minute speech given to 300 mourners at a commemoration of the Allied terror bombing of Dresden in 1945.
The charges have been brought under Germany’s draconian volksverhetzung law – Para 130 of the criminal code, against Lady Michèle Renouf, former wife of New Zealand banking tycoon Sir Francis (‘Frank the Bank’) Renouf who was honoured with the Verdienstkreuz by the then West German government. In 1990 the engaged couple travelled to Bonn for the award of Sir Frank’s medal, and as his fiancée Lady Renouf was given a Verdienstkreuz lapel ribbon. This honour related to Sir Frank’s pioneering role in persuading the German federal government to relax its conservative policies and invest its financial surplus on world markets. (For similar reasons he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.)
In February 2018 Lady Renouf attended a public commemoration in central Dresden, marking the anniversary of the 1945 terror bombing by the Royal Air Force and the USAAF. Responding to an anti-British comment by someone in the crowd, Lady Renouf was invited to give a brief spontaneous speech in which she acknowledged Britain’s shame for its deliberate wartime policy of targeting civilians.
During this speech she referred to the following facts:
a) Many influential Britons at the time condemned Churchill’s barbaric terror bombing policy and the associated demand for unconditional surrender – such people included Lord Hankey (formerly Sir Maurice Hankey, founder of the modern civil service); the Rt Rev George Bell, Bishop of Chichester; Labour MP and future minister Richard Stokes; and government scientist and future bestselling novelist C.P. Snow.
b) The terror bombing of Dresden was a literal Holocaust in which tens of thousands of civilians were burned alive. We shall never know the atrocity’s exact death toll, because the city was packed with refugees – uncounted and undocumented – fleeing from the advancing Soviet Red Army.
c) The wider relevance of the Dresden war crime – Renouf emphasised – is that so-called ‘moral bombing’ of Dresden by the Second World War allies has effectively acted as a precedent for postwar crimes against civilians including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn has prompted unprecedented floods of refugees into Western Europe.
d) The Allied justification for this targeting of civilians was that Britain and America were at war with Germany, yet this factor is ignored when discussing what has become known as the ‘Holocaust’, an unchallengeable dogma taking the place of history.
e) The simple fact that Jewish civilians were interned in camps is today regarded as a ‘war crime’ and part of ‘genocide’, regardless of what did or did not happen in the camps themselves, a topic which Lady Renouf did not address, knowing that it is illegal in Germany to debate such matters. It is odd to condemn internment itself as criminal, bearing in mind that both Britain and America interned enemy aliens. It is scarcely surprising that European Jews were placed in this “enemy alien” category, given the actions of the self-styled leaders of World Jewry who had as early as 1933 declared economic war on Germany. Moreover the future founders of Israel such as Chaim Weizmann were actively engaged in a campaign of covert warfare, some of it contrary to international law, in collaboration with Britain’s Special Operations Executive. In itself it was not unreasonable for the German authorities to intern large numbers of European Jews as potential collaborators in this covert war.
It is for making these points in her brief impromptu February 2018 speech that Lady Renouf was arrested and now faces trial in Dresden on 15th May 2020 for offences which carry a maximum prison sentence of five years.
Her trial will focus press and public attention on the extraordinary German laws that deny normal historical debate and rational argument. These and similar laws in many other European countries (though not so far in the UK) were condemned more than a decade ago by a coalition of eminent historians and other academics writing under the label ‘Appel de Blois’: these critics included the late Eric Hobsbawm; Jewish journalist and author Geoffrey Alderman; Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg; and the Oxford professor Timothy Garton Ash.
Lady Renouf’s own background is not as an historian, scientist, lawyer or politician. So how did someone whose lifelong career since early childhood was as a model and advertising actress come to be on trial in Germany charged with having expressed forbidden opinions and having uttered forbidden historical facts?
Born in 1946, Michèle Mainwaring was directed mainly to classical ballet studies from the age of 3 to 23, eventually for a licentiateship at the Royal Academy of Dancing in London. Her earlier four years of undergraduate art studies at the National Art School were partly financed by her parallel modelling career (beginning at age 7) and prizes in beauty contests, including winning Radio 2HD’s Miss Beach Girl, Miss Newcastle & Hunter Valley, and Miss Zhivago. (The latter title, twenty years later was to bemuse Dr Zhivago’s co-star Omar Sharif, when he and Lady Renouf enjoyed gaming at London’s Ritz Hotel casino.)
At age 14 Michèle Mainwaring was performing as Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at the Sydney Conservatorium when the world-famous former Ballets Russes dancer and choreographer Kiril Vassilkovsky came backstage seeking to recruit her “ethereal quality” for the role as Clara in his production of The Nutcracker. However her mother would not allow her to leave school to joint the company!
The young Michèle performed as Radio 2HD’s Shirley Temple, singing and tap dancing for the station’s famous children’s radio presenter Twink Storey as an infant performer and symbol of innocence in the postwar years. While the actual Shirley Temple became a US Ambassador, Lady Renouf in later life was to have a rather different involvement with diplomacy and politics – considered by some to have an ‘ambassadorial’ role as a champion for the rights of historical revisionism without exceptionalism!
The future Lady Renouf came to England in the late 1960s shortly before her marriage to the late Daniel Griaznoff, descendent of a Russian noble family. During the 1970s and 1980s she used her marital title of Countess Griaznoff in association with many charitable activities and became well-known in London society. Prolific romantic novelist and socialite Barbara Cartland delighted in entertaining Count and Countess Griaznoff at her country home. Actors Edward Fox and his wife Joanna David generously contributed their celebrated artistry to charity soirees and balls hosted by the Griaznoffs at their Hampstead home.
Meanwhile from age 15 Lady Renouf had been recruited into an international career as an advertising actress in television commercials alongside her modelling career. This led to magazine and television advertisements worldwide for products and companies as diverse as Deutsche Post, Tchibo coffee, British Airways, Cable & Wireless, Nissan cars, Lenthéric perfume, and hundreds more.  On screen she appeared with such legends as the Muppets and Dick Emery.
In the mid-1990s Lady Renouf become a member of the fundraising advisory board for the reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Globe on Bankside, chairing the principal fundraising event. As a professional designer of garden mazes and knot gardens, she had also designed an Elizabethan knot garden and labyrinth for the Globe approved by the project’s head Sam Wanamaker, intended as part of the re-education of the general public in the coded poetic messages of flowers, familiar to a Tudor mindset but now lost: her knot garden project was featured in a major article for the Sunday Times.
In this invited role Lady Renouf mobilised a range of contacts among London’s diplomatic corps (built up as a longstanding member of the Ladies’ Committee of the European-Atlantic Group) to assist in the Shakespeare’s Globe project, including Adm. William Crowe, US Ambassador and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who became a family friend; and Australian High Commissioner Neal Blewett. After completing raising funds for the construction of the Wardrobe of Robes room, behind the Globe’s stage (marked today by a bronze plaque) – Lady Renouf’s private tribute to her mother, who was a designer of ballet costumes – she also invited another family friend Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon, to include his contribution to a time capsule buried beneath the reconstructed theatre.
Oddly the first steps towards Lady Renouf’s involvement with “political” questions came as the result of a Jewish member of her Shakespeare’s Globe committee insisting on the entire menu at a fundraising dinner being kosher. Merely the appearance of a non-kosher item on the menu sent this woman into a rant about “tyranny” and “anti-semitism”.
Understandably Lady Renouf was puzzled by this inexplicable reaction, and this led her into further investigations of the taboo subject of “anti-semitism”. She carried out extensive research into the composer Richard Wagner’s attitude to the Jewish question, and in 1997 published the monograph Richard Wagner’s Art-works of the Future and Judaism: Inspirational or Conspiratorial.
At the end of the 1990s Lady Renouf visited Palestine with her high society chum the Bey of Haifa, Jeannot Khayat, who informed her for the first time about the outrageous “absentee law” whereby Palestinian homes can be confiscated by the Israeli state if their owners leave the country even for a holiday.
Early in the 2000s she met and recorded interviews with British veterans of the war against Zionist terrorism in Palestine, 1945-48. These included unique interviews by the late Phillip Knightley with British Army veteran and author Eric Lowe – now archived at St Antony’s College, Oxford. Some of these landmark interviews (in cooperation with anti-Zionist Neturei Karta rabbis, Palestinian diplomats, and commentators including Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon) appeared in Lady Renouf’s first documentary film projects, Palestine Scrapbook and Israel in Flagrante: Caught in Acts of Twistspeak, screened at the House of Lords and House of Commons, under the auspices of Dr James Thring and Lord Stoddart.
In 2000 Lady Renouf attended the London trial of a libel case brought by the British historian David Irving against the Jewish-American author Deborah Lipstadt: this was the first she had heard of debates around the “Holocaust”, but she later became aware of a worldwide campaign of persecution against historical sceptics, notably the jailing of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik, Monika and Alfred Schaefer, and Ursula Haverbeck – including their lawyers Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz.  In 2006 she attended David Irving’s trial in Austria, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, eventually being released after one year thanks to an appeal filed by celebrated Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller. (In the recent film Denial, an actress plays the part of Lady Renouf, seated on the court bench as the sole observer on Irving’s side of the court throughout the hearings.)
During the summer of 2001 Lady Renouf arranged a meeting between Irving and Prince Fahd bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, eldest son of the present King Salman. Prince Fahd was owner of many racehorses including the 1991 Derby winner Generous, who was celebrated in a hillside maze garden designed by Lady Renouf, a friend of the Prince and Princess, at their Harewood estate in Surrey where Queen Elizabeth II had planted a tree. In a telephone call from Riyadh following their meeting, Prince Fahd confirmed his intention to purchase the entire property including Irving’s flat in Duke Street, Mayfair, and turn it into a “Real History Institute”, but he died suddenly a day later aged only 46.
One consequence of Lady Renouf’s defence of Irving was that a cabal of opponents engineered her expulsion from the Reform Club in 2003, following an earlier unsuccessful attempt to expel her in 2002 (when she was defended by eminent pollster Sir Bob Worcester). Lady Renouf had invited Irving to an event at the Reform Club (alongside family friend Count Nikolai Tolstoy) in the week of the Lipstadt trial verdict.
Since 2006 Lady Renouf’s Telling Films has produced many DVDs on the stifling of historical debate and the persecution of revisionist historians, scientists, authors, publishers, and latterly even their lawyers. These documentaries include Jailing Opinions, focused on the prosecutions of Irving in Vienna (Austria), Ernst Zündel in Toronto (Canada), and Robert Faurisson in Paris (France), and later documentary films such as Dresden Holocaust 1945 – An Apology to Germany is DueOut and Unbowed, about Ernst Zündel’s trials and imprisonment; Mourning the Victims, Naming the Culprits about the British torture centre at Bad Nenndorf (Germany); and many others.
In 2006 Lady Renouf attended and spoke at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, hosted in Tehran at the instigation of Iran’s then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The topic of her conference address was “Psychology of Holocaustianity” – an echo of her postgraduate studies in Psychology of Religion a few years earlier at London University’s Heythrop College. Veteran revisionist scholar and literary document analyst Professor Robert Faurisson said that he gave Lady Renouf’s speech “20 out of 20”!
Nominated by Prof. Faurisson, Lady Renouf was elected to serve on a five-member international fact-finding committee created at the end of the Tehran conference to advance research and support informed historical debate.
Between 2006 and 2020 Lady Renouf has been interviewed in many television and radio debates and discussions opposite (for example) Prof. Norman Finkelstein; former CIA officer Dr George Lambrakis; Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom; the Rev. Stephen Sizer; and Dmitry Shimelfarb, former adviser and press spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2005 she was honoured with the George Orwell Award by the Canadian Free Speech League, and has spoken at conferences in Canada, the USA and Mexico. Several of these speeches, films and interviews have focused on Lady Renouf’s campaign to raise awareness about the first, pre-Israel Jewish Homeland option in Birobidjan – the Jewish Autonomous Region created in 1928 in the former Soviet Union and still flourishing to this day in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
When the Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport in October 2008 and subjected to a European Arrest Warrant seeking his extradition to face criminal opinion charges in Germany, Lady Renouf mobilised a defence team that successfully opposed the warrant as invalid, forcing the German authorities to back down and accept his release. The Töben case proved an important precedent in relation to the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson, who was convicted in Germany for answers he gave to a Swedish television crew in November 2008, but who as a consequence of the success in Töben’s case, could not be subjected to a European Arrest Warrant. On Bishop Williamson’s return to London in 2009 he was met at the airport by Lady Renouf, who gave interviews to BBC Radio 4 and the World Service later that day, in which she debated the issues involved with Deborah Lipstadt and the late Greville Janner of the World Jewish Congress.
Now those same German authorities are seeking revenge in a wholly unwarranted prosecution of a British citizen for a perfectly normal and reasonable (though unplanned and unprepared) speech in Dresden two years ago, a speech intended as a humble acknowledgment of British guilt and contrition for a terrible crime against German civilians committed 75 years ago.
By this politically-motivated prosecution, the moribund Merkel government’s servants in the German state apparatus dishonour their own dead, and discredit themselves before the world’s media.
Lady Renouf’s former husband Sir Frank Renouf was a prisoner-of-war in Germany for four years following his capture after parachuting into Greece on 26th April 1941.  His time in an officers’ prisoner-of-war camp in Bavaria was well spent learning German from a friendly guard with the aid of Schiller’s poetry, building a tennis court, enjoying Red Cross food parcels, and conducting a correspondence course with Worcester College, Oxford, where he was admitted for a postwar degree.  His German connections were strengthened after the war as a friend of British Prime Minister Edward Heath and eminent figures in European banking including the British Lord Kindersley (a director of the Bank of England) and the German Hermann Abs (a director of Deutsche Bank). The Renoufs’ matrimonial home at 37 Eaton Square, Belgravia, had during the 1930s been the home of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who immediately before the Second World War rented out this same property as the home of German Ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop – the first prisoner executed by the Allies at Nuremberg in 1946.
It remains to be seen whether 21st century Germany will be as hospitable to Lady Renouf as wartime Germany was to her former husband!
– Friends and international observers will be welcome to attend the trial. Twitter and blog accounts carrying regular updates on the Renouf case will be online soon; check for details.

Mein Kampf, Stalag Edition, 4 More Books Banned by Amazon

Mein Kampf, Stalag Edition, 4 More Books Banned by Amazon

 Amazon has, under direction from Jewish Lobby pressure, banned another 5 books from its listings, including all editions of the 86-year-old Mein Kampf—except, of course, the awful and woefully inaccurate translation by the Jew Ralph Mannheim ( which also contains a “foreword” and “commentary” by Abraham Foxman, the former head of the ADL).This means that the only authorized English translation of Mein Kampf—the “Stalag edition”—will no longer be sold by Amazon or any of the book outlets it controls.In addition to the historically important Mein Kampf, a further four books—all more than 60 years old—have also been banned by Amazon in that organization’s ongoing efforts to suppress any and all historical accounts which are not in line with that demanded by the Jewish lobby.The five books which have been banned are:   Mein Kampf: The Stalag Edition—The Only Complete and Officially Authorized English Translation Ever Issued By Adolf Hitler. This is the only complete, unabridged, and officially authorized English translation ever issued by the Nazi party, and is not to be confused with any other version. Translated by a now-unknown English-speaking Nazi party member, it was printed by the Franz Eher Verlag in Berlin for the Central Press of the NSDAP in limited numbers during the years 1937 to 1944. Most copies were distributed to the camp libraries of English-speaking Prisoner of War (POW) camps, and became known as the “Stalag” editions (Stalag being a contraction of the German word Stammlager, or POW camp) because they all carried a camp library rubber stamp on the title page. Contrary to postwar propaganda, Mein Kampf does not contain a “plan for world domination” and instead consists of a short autobiography, the effect of the First World War upon Germany, a discussion of race and the Jewish Question, the constitutional and social make-up of a future German state, and the early struggles of the NSDAP up to 1923.$25.95 hardcover available Click here to order 

Communism with the Mask Off and Bolshevism in Theory and PracticeBy Joseph Goebbels. Two dramatic speeches, made by the German Minister of Propaganda, at the famous Nuremberg rallies of 1935 and 1936, which sum up the National Socialist interpretation of Communism and its threat to the world. In Communism with the Mask Off (1935), Goebbels describes in detail the Jewish origins of Marxism and Communism, and lists the Jewish leaders and instigators of that ideology in Russia, Germany, many European nations and even China. In Bolshevism in Theory and Practice (1936), he discussed the practical social, political and economic consequences of Marxism—and how Germany had broken that menace.$8.95 hardcover available. Click here to order Der Untermensch / The Underman in English and German By Jupp Daehler. A superb-quality digital copy taken from the original: contains the full original German and combined with the first fully professional completely accurate and complete English translation. Der Untermensch (“The Underman”) is possibly the Third Reich’s most famous, misquoted, and misrepresented publication ever. First issued in 1942 by the SS head office under the direct orders of Heinrich Himmler, The Underman has ever since been portrayed as “anti-Slavic,” “anti-Russian,” and “anti-Jewish.” In fact, only the third allegation has any truth to it. The “anti-Slavic” and “anti-Russian” claims are merely the product of postwar propaganda, reliant on the fact that almost no one would have the chance to read the publication for themselves.$14.95 also available in hardcover. Click here to orderAlso available in English and German language only editions. 

 Germany RebornBy Hermann Goering. This book, written by the man who would ultimately become Adolf Hitler’s deputy, was one of the first attempts to explain the National Socialist revolution to non-Germans. Goering, who was simultaneously Minister of the Interior for Prussia, president of the Reichstag, and Reich Commissioner of Aviation, was a famous figure in the Anglo-Saxon world because of his leadership of the “Flying Circus” World War I fighter squadron. He starts out by briefly but skillfully sketching out the background to the coming of power of the NSDAP, from the time of the end of the First World War, through the tumultuous Communist uprisings to the breathtaking political struggle of Hitler in ultimately gaining power against all the odds. Along the way, Goering openly addresses many of the burning issues of the time—from Jewish Communism and cultural subversion to practical economics. He also forcefully answers common objections made in other nations against tactics and policies employed by the NSDAP in its path to power and afterward.$9.95 hardcover available. Click here to order. 

The Myth of the Twentieth CenturyBy Alfred Rosenberg. Regarded as the second most important book to come out of Nazi Germany, Alfred Rosenberg’s Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts is a philosophical and political map which outlines the ideological background to the Nazi Party and maps out how that party viewed society, other races, social ordering, religion, art, aesthetics and the structure of the state.The “Mythus” to which Rosenberg (who was also editor of the Nazi Party newspaper) refers was the concept of blood, which, according to the preface, “unchains the racial world-revolution.” $19.95 Hardcover available. Click here to order.Earlier, Amazon also banned two other important books:  Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany and The Nameless War.

The Ongoing Torment of Christina Preacher Bill Whatcott by the LGBTQ Thought Control Lobby

Yaniv vs Whatcott, Oger vs Whatcott, & hate crime trial


by Bill Whatcott » Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:30 am


Jonathan Yaniv being a creep and taking a selfie of himself (and several unsuspecting real females) in a women’s bathroom


Jonathan being creepy while talking to a young girl on Facebook, demonstrating that he is a porn addicted biological male who should not be allowed into women’s bathrooms and changerooms

Dear Friends,

The $35,000 pseudo human rights complaint against me by serial litigant Jonathan Yaniv has been “deferred.” In actual fact I think it is safe to say Mr. Yaniv’s complaint against me is effectively being dismissed by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT). Here is the letter delivered to my Gmail inbox and cc’d to Mr. Yaniv.


British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

1270 – 605 Robson Street British Columbia Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
Phone: 604-775-2000
Fax: 604-775-2020
TTY: 604-775-2021
Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844

January 30, 2020
Bill Whatcott

Re: Jessica Yaniv v. Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 19374)

I am the Tribunal Member assigned to adjudicate the above-noted complaint.

In October 2019, the Tribunal ordered Ms. Yaniv to pay $6,000 in costs to various respondents because she had engaged in improper conduct by: filing complaints for an improper purpose, misleading the Tribunal in respect of a publication ban, being untruthful with respect to a central aspect of a complaint, engaging in extortionate behavior, and making scurrilous attacks on counsel for the respondents: Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons (No. 2), 2019 BCHRT 222.

Ms. Yaniv has notified the Tribunal that the costs award has not been paid to the respondents to date.

The Tribunal has therefore, on its own motion, deferred this complaint pursuant to Rule 16 (1)(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure until the costs award is paid or until six months has elapsed, whichever comes first. In other words, Ms. Yaniv is prohibited from pursuing her complaint during this period.

If, after six months (i.e. by July 29, 2020), the costs award has not been paid, the Tribunal will determine next steps, including whether a further deferral or dismissal of the complaint is warranted.

Paul Singh
Tribunal Member

cc: Jessica Yaniv

The BCHRT realizes it is highly unlikely Mr. Yaniv is coming up with $6,000 to pay off the costs awarded against him, so they are banking on having what they think is a legitimate excuse to dismiss his complaint against me in six months time and then forever wash their hands of him.

Having Mr. Yaniv’s case against me dismissed is a small relief I suppose. Mr. Yaniv’s nuisance suit was not going to develop any new case law and it was more probable that hell was going to freeze over than Mr. Yaniv was going to collect $35,000. However, Mr. Yaniv was an unwanted distraction and in the grand scheme of things, I prefer to focus on the far more important cases on my plate, so it is nice that Mr. Yaniv is out of my life.


Mr. Ronan Oger, tweeting (in the capacity of Vice President of the BC NDP) his initial support of Jonathan Yaniv’s vexatious human rights complaint demanding that 16 female estheticians be forced to wax his male genitalia

Mr. Ronan Oger’s BCHRT complaint which resulted in a $55,000 judgment against me for correctly gendering him during the last provincial election is a far more important case than Mr. Yaniv’s nuisance suit. Ronan’s case is extremely important for all Canadians, and is one that should concern everyone who cares about freedom of speech during our elections. Ronan’s case for me is not so much about the $55,000 judgment. I have lost as much sleep over Ronan trying to collect $55,000 from me, as I have lost over Mr. Yaniv trying to collect his $35,000, or the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission trying to collect their $17,500 judgment, or Regina Planned Parenthood trying to collect on their $50,000 lawsuit, or Doug Elliot trying to collect from his $104 million lawsuit. The fact of the matter is I have not lost one minute’s sleep over any of these litigants. Beyond preparing legal defenses or putting out more flyers exposing them, not one of these litigants have actually affected my day to day life in a meaningful way. I am currently unemployed, I own nothing in my name, and if I lose my hate crime trial I am looking at 18 months in an Ontario jail in about 3 months time; so the reality is Mr. Oger is as likely to collect his $55,000 from me as Doug Elliot was likely to collect his $104 million, or the estheticians are likely to collect their $6,000 from Mr. Yaniv. Ronan can have at suing me, but I would suggest he should not hold his breath when it comes to collecting.

“The ransom of a man’s life is his wealth, but a poor man hears no threat.” Proverbs 13:8

But Mr. Oger’s BCHRT case against me is really important as it pertains to the development of Canadian case law, and it should matter to Canadians who care about election freedom, gender ideology, parental rights, Oger’s fitness to hold a political office when he inevitably runs in the future, etc… If you are a Canadian who cares and who owns property, has a steady job, and if you aren’t crazy and don’t want to lose everything that a serial litigant such as Mr. Oger can potentially go after than Oger vs. Whatcott is a serious infringement on your freedom of speech already.

Canada has already become a strange new country where we can’t critically discuss a transgender activist candidate’s so-called gender identity during an election. Most Canadians aren’t even aware of this change, never mind comprehending the magnitude of this change yet.

While I am happy that Mr. Yaniv is out of my life and as far as I can tell he is no longer able to torment people with frivolous police complaints and so-called human rights lawsuits anymore, the reasoning used by the BCHRT to de facto dismiss Mr. Yaniv’s vexatious complaint is quite concerning to me. In fact there are a number of troubling things in this BCHRT letter written by Mr. Singh and addressed to myself and Mr. Yaniv that I would like to comment on.

The first and most obvious problem is the BCHRT adjudicator Mr. Singh (just like the adjudicator Ms. Cousineau in the Oger case, just like Justice Marzari in the BC Court of Appeal who ordered a father to call his gender confused teenaged daughter a boy) stubbornly pushing the false gender narrative that biological sex is subservient to so-called gender identity. This problem is evidenced in the above letter where Mr. Singh refers to Jonathan Yaniv as “Jessica Yaniv” and “Ms. Yaniv.” As long as our courts refuse to acknowledge that we human beings are made in the image of God and that He made us “male and female” (see Genesis 5:1,2), and so long as our courts refuse to affirm the truth that we are not able to switch our sex/gender as we see fit; these crazy aberrations such as Jonathan Yaniv suing 16 estheticians, a deaf woman getting raped in a Toronto women’s shelter by a biological male who identified as a “transwomen,” a father being forced to refer to his daughter as a boy, and our elections being subverted by a gender confused tyrant like Ronan Oger are going to continue to afflict our society.

I don’t take any comfort in Mr. Yaniv’s complaint against me being “deferred.” This deferral (which the BCHRT is calculating will really be a dismissal) is merely a cynical attempt to get rid of Mr. Yaniv, as the BCHRT realizes Mr. Yaniv’s very public sociopathy is an absolute public relations nightmare for them. Free speech and more importantly reality its self is still being denied by our courts and so-called human rights tribunals. As soon as a “respectable transwoman” shows up and files a human rights complaint against a business, church, individual, etc… that has failed to affirm the fake narrative that girls can be boys and vice versa, the crazy show trials and financially life altering judgments will begin again.

The second, serious, though not as profound concern I have with Mr. Singh’s dismissal of this complaint is the pretext he used to do it. I actually looked up Rule 16 (1)(b) of the BCHRT Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Rule 16 – Deferral of Complaint

Requirements for deferral

(1) The tribunal may defer consideration of a complaint until the outcome of another proceeding or a date set by the tribunal, if it determines that:

(a) another proceeding is capable of appropriately dealing with the substance of the
complaint; or

(b) it is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances to do so.

I’m no fan of any of Jonathan Yaniv’s complaints and I have no desire to help him out. However, if I actually broke the law when I preached in front of the BCHRT by referring to Mr. Yaniv with a male pronoun, why is it “fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances” to defer his complaint until he pays the estheticians he wronged $6,000? What does Mr. Yaniv’s conduct in his first hearing and failure to pay $6,000 to those wronged women have to do with whether or not I illegally “misgendered” him? It is concerning to me that an allegedly impartial, quasi-judicial, body can deny someone “justice” on such a specious pretext. Referring to Rule 1(b) and citing Mr. Yaniv’s bad conduct in a previous and unrelated hearing should not be a legitimate excuse to deny Mr. Yaniv legal protection, if in fact I committed an offense against him. In actual fact Paul Singh is making a political decision and is throwing Mr. Yaniv under the bus to get rid of the public relations nightmare that the Tribunal its self created by prosecuting Mr. Yaniv’s repugnant complaints in the first place.

The BCHRT is demonstrating by declining to prosecute Mr. Yaniv’s “misgendering” complaint against me that it is a political, rather than an impartial, judicial body. The rulings of the BCHRT are political rulings that are often at variance with facts and reality. They are not impartial rulings dedicated to finding and upholding what is true. The BCHRT’s treatment of Mr. Yaniv’s victims and Mr. Yaniv himself demonstrates the Tribunal’s complete lack of ethics and grasp of reality. The procedural rulings and judicial rulings of the BCHRT cry injustice and falsehood and should be a wakeup call to Canadians to demand that politicians do whatever it takes to shut this political Tribunal down so it can’t harm anyone else.

As for my so-called hate crime trial? No ruling yet on the Crown Prosecutor’s motion to introduce nearly 20 years of my social media and flyer history into evidence to prove my alleged “deep and complex hatred of homosexuals.” While I am not a lawyer, my God given common sense leaves me wondering why anything I said five years ago, or 19 years ago, or last week, would have anything to do with anything I said 3 years ago in my “Zombie Safe Sex” package at the Toronto unGodly Pride parade. Anyways, the judge seems to be struggling with making a ruling. He told the Crown and my Defense at the end of my last hearing that his ruling would be rendered within a week. Now we are past a month since the hearing and there is still no ruling. Will keep everyone posted when the ruling comes in. Pray that the judge looks at things my way and deems my publicly expressed opinions over the years on homosexuality, homofascism, homosexual activism, disease rates, etc…. irrelevant as to whether or not my flyer disguised as a “Zombie Safe Sex” package in 2016 is illegal.

The trial remains scheduled for June 1, 2020 at the 361 University Ave, Ontario, Superior Court, in Toronto….

In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:11-13

Ps: Please pray for Jonathan Yaniv. Mr. Yaniv is one of the most unsympathetic human beings I know of. Mr. Yaniv’s social media behaviour, lies, malicious litigation, menstruation fetishes, attempts at getting the city of Surrey to host underage topless pool parties, and more, are all disgusting. Yet, Mr. Yaniv is a human being made in God’s image. While Mr. Yaniv’s bad choices and cruelty towards vulnerable immigrant women and girls has rendered him a hated person, rejected and despised by people on the political right and left alike, still for Christians we are called to see that the God of miracles can do a miracle and redeem even a man such as him. The day Mr. Yaniv repents and admits he is a sinner in need of redemption is the day the Christian Church should open its doors to him and let him know he is loved and welcome.

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.””
Matthew 9:10-13