Political establishment humiliated in Bavarian election

Horst Seehofer (right) with Chancellor Angela Merkel: the ruling CSU was rejected by Bavarian voters yesterday after Seehofer’s inconsistent stance on immigration

The latest in a series of historic defeats for Europe’s political establishment saw German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s partners in the Christian Social Union (CSU) fall to a humilating defeat in the Bavarian regional elections.

Ever since the creation of Bismarck’s Germany in 1871 Bavaria has had a unique position as a Catholic region in a majority-Protestant state and has almost always been ruled by Catholic-conservative parties. In postwar arrangements that grew out of Anglo-American military occupation, the Christian Democrats (CDU) are the main conservative party in fifteen of Germany’s sixteen regions or länder, while the CSU operates as the CDU’s Catholic partner in Bavaria.

CSU leader Horst Seehofer is Interior Minister in Merkel’s cabinet, and for more than a year he has been trying to distance himself from her disastrous immigration policies. However Bavaria’s voters saw through Seehofer’s inconsistency: if he really disagreed so much with Merkel’s determination to admit hordes of migrants, he should have split the CDU-CSU alliance and brought down the government. Seehofer cannot continue to serve in such a senior government role, then when it suits him avoid responsibility for government policy.

Seehofer’s CSU polled its worst result since 1950, down from 47.6% to 37.2%, finishing eighteen seats short of a majority.

Alternative für Deutschland (AfD – Alternative for Germany) – the anti-immigration party that was created just after the previous Bavarian elections in 2013 – achieved 10.2% and will have 22 seats in the new Bavarian parliament (Landtag). AfD now has members in every regional parliament except Hesse (the region that includes Frankfurt), where the newly-created party narrowly missed out at the September 2013 Landtag election, polling 4.1%, below the 5% threshold required to obtain seats. AfD is confident of winning seats at the next election in Hesse, which is on October 28th. Opinion polls suggest AfD’s Hesse vote will be between 10% and 14%.

 

Since there is no chance of the CSU agreeing to coalition talks with AfD, the ruling party will now seek a deal with the so-called ‘Free Voters’ (FW), a loosely-knit grouping of regionalist parties that will have a shopping list of demands representing particular local interests. FW’s platform is anti-immigration, but not so strongly as AfD, and their support can probably by bought by CSU concessions on specific issues (e.g. opposition to a third runway at Munich’s international airport).

The big question know is whether this latest electoral humiliation will signal the end for Angela Merkel. Armin Gastl, CSU leader in the central Munich constituency, said: “Voters are abandoning us chiefly because of Merkel. I hope she will step down—she is a woman of the past, not a woman of the future. This is the twilight of the chancellor.”

 

VIDEO: New police raid during latest thought-crime trial in Munich of Canadian-Germans Monika and Alfred Schaefer

Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf writes:

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-born brother Alfred). Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) advised me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika (while she attended the former attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018). This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery. Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser, our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe. The parties provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings in any case if witnessing the process.

I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmayer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker (though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “international affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making daily reports to include this advice, as given by my own attorney, in fact serves to strengthen the dramatic resonance of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this bewildering “Alice in Wonderland” anti-National, non-Sovereign German legalese-land where – ‘first we have the verdict’ then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence. How else but bewildering can one assess the nonsensical norm for WW2 historical sceptics where lawyers risk prosecution themselves if they defend certain clients’ opinions and findings “too well”? During trials conducted in Mannheim Court, I have personally witnessed the lawyers acting for artist and publicist Ernst Zündel, and Planck Institute graduate and chemist Germar Rudolf, finding themselves charged for “acting too well” for their historical revisionist clients. Indeed, some of those German lawyers have been punished with either crippling fines or incarceration for defending their clients “too well”.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz (Scientist of Law); Attorney Wolfram Nahrath (Monika Schaefer’s counsel); Attorney Frank Miksch (Alfred’s counsel); Alfred Schaefer (Defendant); Lady Renouf (press correspondent for The Barnes Review and American Free Press)

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his political awakening via the suspect videos. I am only anxious that the judges may manage to forbid this exposé by him. The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these Processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings as provided to me from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by valiant former-attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay/Schöffe judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schöffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the “curiouser and curiouser” Wonderland world of occupied-German law, the leading Judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a farcical “Muppet Show”. (I concur for, in The Great Muppet Caper movie, I act as role-model for Miss Piggy’s catwalk imposture!)

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the Judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full. The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the playing-card Queen’s in Alice in Wonderland wherein these “contrariwise” trials commence with “Sentence first – then the evidence”….unless one’s lawyer attempts to defend his/her historical revisionist client “too well” and then the lawyer also is prosecuted for “defending the client too well”. The “Holocaust” exceptionalist law presumes not only a bottomline of “obviousness” but also that any attempt by the lawyer to offer his/her client’s evidential exhibits to prove the case will be “criminalised” as a heretic and suffer incarceration. Attorney Nahrath and others are always dancing on the wire.

No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the “Holocaust” on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument”!

Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests, on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented (by Renouf, much loathed by Lipstadt) instead of the omnipotent Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws, there have been numerous attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. These ex-Constitutional Court Judges argued that the “Holocaust” denial law was in contrary yo the Federal Constitution of the Bundesrepublik! Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zündel, Dr. Herbert Schaller, RA Manfred Roeder, RA Jürgen Rieger, Gerd Honsik – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Udo Walendy, Henry Hafenmayer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Günter Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Arnold Höfs, Sven Lobeck and Christian Haeger to name but a few. Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the global tidal wave for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…

Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 8-15 which included two reporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa whom they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

Henry Hafenmayer, Alfred Schaefer, Michèle Renouf at Munich Courthouse moments before the Schaufer sibling’s trial for Volksverhetzung/populace incitement para 130

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 1, AFTERNOON SESSION Monday July 2nd, 2018.

The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias against the Defendant Alfred Schaefer. The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.

The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handing Alfred an arrest warrant which meant he must be taken into police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the new case of para.86 against him.

Monika Schaefer achieved her common-sense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now already the day’s session was half over! Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic is illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his honourable sister. At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his suspect gesture, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed (but not to the judge) that the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”. After all, Alfred’s disdain of Federal Republic law was of the essence to his own defence!

When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge (to whom she had not directed her outrage) about what, perhaps, she meant by inquisitional terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”… as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal “ criminal” events. By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end. Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s perspicacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness passing naturally between these truly loyal siblings.

The trial continues at 12.30 on Tuesday 3rd July.
Michèle Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 2, AFTERNOON SESSION Tuesday July 3rd, 2018.

This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on Day Two of the Schaefer sibling’s trial, we learn that the period of punishment for Alfred (under para 86a) who was taken yesterday into police custody is over for the time being. After today’s session he will be permitted to return home. Alfred now has this further trivial case to face later in the lower court. Alfred, ever-feisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another ludicrous action taken against him for a suspect gesture! He also had to surrender his passports – quite as if he could ever be a ‘flight risk’ as a man completely determined to face down what he considers are his country’s traitors and those swindle-speakers responsible for the “contamination” of its citizens’ capacity for rational, healthy hatred of sociopathic depravity and corruption.

The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. Monika’s veteran attorney Wolfram Nahrath will be presenting his 22-page argument against Para 130 of the law Volksverhetzung/populace incitement in which he will raise the precedent of the two ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem who, in 2006, called for the Repeal of this “ Holocaust”-denial law based on heresy values versus scientific attitude (our Hellenic scientific attitude versus the “Holocaust” anti-rational argument Teaching Guidelines).

Tomorrow we shall learn whether the lead Judge Hofmann will have to step down because of his evident bias against the defendants. The disdain of this Judge for withholding due microphone use so both defendants and the public gallery could hear the proceedings, and the ruling over the norm of a ready glass of water for defendants, are but two of the ‘contrariwise’ obstructive aspects to the due basic rights of all citizenry. These mocking obstructions give further surreality to the conditions under which Germans and foreigners must encounter under the Basic Laws in favour of prosecuting the expression of free opinion among citizens and right to discuss normal historical source criticism without legalese-protected exceptionalism.


 

The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH,Day 3, AFTERNOON SESSION Wednesday July 4th, 2018

Not so incidentally, today it has been an ordeal simply locating another venue with both electric outlet for my Mac plus WLAN (since yesterday, one of our legal team sensed I was being observed by a recognised policewoman who might just decide to do the usual and seize my laptop – “so leave now!”). Conditions and situations for me to go on reporting from here are unpredictable. All reminiscent of when I was advised to leave swiftly after participating at a “holocaust” conference at the UN parliament building in Brussels … having informed the assembly that the document Netanyahu likes brandishing before the UN General Assembly is the one Professor Robert Faurisson discovered and published in ca. 1976 which is simply a diagram of a small WW2 clothing disinfection gas chamber. The Schaefer Siblings are “out to break all the thought crime rules since the penalty is the same” they say! Their resonant question here is “Do we live, or are we lived?”

Before court prooceedings got underway, Alfred’s attorney Frank Miksche learned that Judge Hofmann was not to be removed for bias, for he was judged (from above) neutral since all judges are presumed to uphold his attitude when serving this exceptionalistic law. The question is: Is this law in accord with the Constitution? The case must go up to a higher court in hopes of addressing this. Even so, RA Miksche caught Judge Hofmann out as the latter had made a wrong statement. That is, Alfred had not given him permission to accept a shorter version of his Defence presentation to a mere 20 pages from the original 77. Nor was Alfred prepared to permit cherry picking from his videos rather than have the court watch his videos in full. Alfred is to have his videos duly viewed in full in the courtroom tomorrow (Thursday).

During the morning session it was Monika’s turn to tell of their family dynamics. In the afternoon session, Alfred endorsed his sister’s closely shared upbringing and adventurous hang-gliding near-death experiences which served, as such brushes do, to stir one to do or die the way one goes henceforth. The threat of blindness served to embolden him. A fertile civic-minded atmosphere in which the sibling’s sense of fairplay and loyalty thrived is indeed the prompt for their forthright approach conscientiously to live their lives. The Process, as public gallery eyewinesses remarked, had turned to matters emotional. And when the State Prosecutor criticised Monika’s attorney RA Nahrath for introducing an emotional tone, surprisingly the Judge chastened her (whose name we are not told) not Nahrath.

Eyewitnesses in the public gallery say they felt the siblings spread an aura of uplift in the courtroom. Alfred says he wished to convey this by his various telling of personal life-threatening experiences – for instance, how his doctor brothers acted to save his impending blindness in the left eye. From such frequent tests, Alfred believes he has “got guardian angels” which make him fearless in the face of all adversity – a formidable opponent to those who rely for their identity on a group sense of god-awesomeship. Alfred the Siegfried who knows no fear! Just the chap Wagner had in mind when he said in 1871 that German unification already needed fearless emancipation from such god-awful influences. For Alfred and Monika, nature and thoughts are to be explored, not tyrannised. He said his father had received the Order of Canada for his services as a medic to the welfare of the Arctic people in recognising the way they live their lives affects their health. One might say Alfred and his community-spirited sister do the same in their way with the influences prevailing over what he calls “the gate keepers”. The Gate-Keepers is the chief video he plans to screen for the court today. I have just this very moment received a call from Alfred alerting me to rendezvous at yesterday’s venue where I shall find out for you, all that has transpired today!

Alfred Schaefer and Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz see each freed after being taken from the courtroom under police custody!

Yesterday at end of the day’s session, separately Alfred and Sylvia set off to meet me in the Löhenbräukeller beer garden to discover – to each other’s surprised delight – that each has been released! They had last seen one another being taking into police custody directly from the courtroom. Suddenly, to their mutual satisfaction (see pic attached), they find out they had been, unexpectedly, freed. Having committed no actual harm (i.e. no crime which is an act not a thought!) whatever, why would they be treated as criminals at all? We all here hope for this outcome today for civic-conscientious, harmlessly intelligent, good-natured Monika – release from Munich’s high security prison after six months’ abuse for a benign, videoed apology: “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust”.

As it happened, Sylvia and Monika had travelled in the same police transfer van to the prison though they had little chance to speak owing to the noise of the others surrounding them. However, Sylvia found, during the hour when inmates can make their walk that fellow prisoners told her “how much they all love Monika”!

At the close today’s court session, I have arranged to record an important interview with Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz. I will be asking her to explain in a nutshell, why the Federal Republic itself is illegitimate. Ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem are quoted in my 2006 “Ernst Zündel Unbowed” Telling Film that the “Holocaust” denial law is even contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic! This is surely the cornerstone of Alfred’s case and the world needs this chance to grasp it …before it can fall…. for he and Monika are intend on emboldening that day.

This week’s 4 days’ trial sessions will pause and return for the concluding dates of 12, 13, and 16 of July. Beforehand I shall be making available the feisty interview with Alfred in his garden; and the interview I am about to make with Sylvia the Scientist of Law on that key to Germany’s sovereignty, that graspable cornerstone.

“No surrender”!
Michèle Renouf

——————————————————-

Friday afternoon update, July 6th

Greetings all: today at 2pm at the home of Alfred Schaefer he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters re his videos he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom …and then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my Laptop …and so I went to wash my hands.

I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was as if one were suddenly in a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action! At first I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood 2 armed officers awaiting me.

I handed over my passport; they said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw 5 of them handcuff my host.

Taking with him the little packed cheese lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband, Alfred was hauled away for reasons the police declined to explain to me. Possibly it was about something he had perhaps said when yesterday he had duly turned up at the police station, as he has to do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now. His wife advised that I and HH should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure.

Vot a business. Cat and mouse – but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each retrieved the cheese!

 

The Inquisition of Alfred and Monika Schaefer – Part 1 from NS VIKING on Vimeo.

German government on the brink over immigration policy – is this the end for Merkel?

Angela Merkel (left) is at odds with her own interior minister Horst Seehofer (right) over immigration policy in a row that could transform European politics.

Germany’s coalition government is on the verge of collapse due to serious splits over immigration policy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel took the disastrous decision in 2015 to admit more than a million refugees in what amounted to an ‘open border’ policy. Now her own interior minister (equivalent to a British Home Secretary) is threatening to resign.

This is especially serious because the minister concerned (Horst Seehofer) leads the Bavarian conservative party CSU, which has been allied to Merkel’s CDU for the entire history of the German Federal Republic: all the way back to 1945.

Seehofer’s immediate concern is so-called “secondary migration”, by which immigrants to one EU country then move to another EU country. Understandably he wants Germany to have control of its own borders.

Merkel tried last week to reach a deal with other EU leaders which would satisfy her anti-immigration critics, both among her own government allies and in the general population, but she seems to have failed.

If Seehofer’s CSU splits from the CDU, it will be the most serious change in Western European politics since the Second World War – a much bigger deal than Brexit – and might give a tremendous boost to plans for a continent-wide alliance of anti-immigration parties, now being promoted by Italy’s deputy prime minister and interior minister Matteo Salvini.

(July 3rd update: Seehofer and Merkel seemed to have patched up a deal to avoid an immediate split in the government, but the big issues remain unresolved and the latest deal is causing a fresh immigration row with Austria.)

Meanwhile demonstrations have been held for the last two weekends in the cities of Hamm and Nuremberg against the imprisonment of 89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck for the opinion crime of ‘Holocaust denial’. Mrs Haverbeck dared to question the establishment’s line on 1940s history – the very same historical myths that underpinned the postwar political consensus which is now collapsing.

The most recent protest march last Saturday (see below) was attended by veteran British nationalist and campaigner for historical truth Richard Edmonds, whose speech begins at 25:28 in the first video below.

This week the latest Orwellian trial will take place in Germany, featuring Canadian-German Alfred Schaefer and his sister, violinist Monika Schaefer, a Canadian citizen who has been imprisoned since January awaiting trial for the ‘crime’ of uploading a ‘Holocaust denial’ video to YouTube.

Monika Schaefer imprisoned: her brother Alfred and Lady Michèle Renouf arrested – two videos from Germany

Canadian-German violinist and former Green Party candidate Monika Schaefer remains imprisoned in Germany following her arrest in January under the notorious German law dictating the approved interpretation of 20th century history.

Regularly updated information about Monika’s case can be found at the website of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Last December Monika met with a small group of friends (including several H&D subscribers) to celebrate the traditional festival of the Winter Solstice. The video below is a memento of this occasion and is posted here as a tribute to the brave Monika Schaefer.

H&D readers outraged by Germany’s abandonment of the normal traditions of free historical enquiry can write to Monika Schaefer at her prison address:

Monika Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Schwarzenbergstr. 14
81549 München
GERMANY

Monika’s brother Alfred Schaefer is also now facing criminal charges for the speech he gave in February 2017 at a commemoration in Dresden of the terrible Holocaust carried out in that city by British and American terror bombing in February 1945.

At this year’s Dresden commemoration, Lady Michèle Renouf, British campaigner for the right of free scientific and historical enquiry, was herself arrested following her speech which can be viewed in the video below.

It is truly tragic that the German police and authorities feel compelled so to dishonour their own civilian dead, by criminalising the holocaust of hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen, including countless women and children burned alive seventy-three years ago in Dresden.

H&D will continue to carry regular updates on the worldwide struggle to save traditional European freedoms.

 

Gerd Honsik, 1941-2018

Poet and historical revisionist Gerd Honsik died on Saturday 7th April at his home in Sopron, Hungary, just across the border from his native Austria.

A political activist since the 1960s, Honsik had been a federal executive member of Austria’s National Democratic Party, which was banned in 1988 under increasingly draconian anti-democratic laws designed to protect the political establishment.

That same year Honsik wrote a book titled Freisprüch für Hitler? (Acquittal for Hitler?), questioning the historical orthodoxies that are now backed by the full force of criminal law in much of Europe.  This began thirty years of legal persecution.  In 1992 he was given an 18-month prison sentence by a Vienna court, having already been convicted in Munich: both the Austrian and German legal systems ruled that historical revisionism amounted to “incitement” and that, as under British race laws (which do not yet criminalise revisionism), the truth is no defence.

Honsik fled to Spain to escape this persecution, and while in Spain published further revisionist article in the magazine Halt.  He remained in exile until Spanish law was changed to permit his arrest and extradition to Austria in 2007, then began serving the 18-month sentence from fifteen years earlier, and in 2009 was convicted of additional offences and given a further five year prison sentence. This was reduced on appeal to four years, but an extra two year sentence was added in 2010.

Gerd Honsik (left) with Spanish patriot, author and publisher Pedro Varela in 2012

The famous 2006 Tehran Conference on the Holocaust was partly at Honsik’s instigation, after he had asked Iran’s Ambassador to Germany in December 2005 whether the Islamic Republic could provide legal or diplomatic assistance for the Canadian-German revisionist publisher Ernst Zündel.  Honsik was forbidden to travel to Iran, but the Tehran Conference was addressed by his attorney Dr Herbert Schaller. In 2011 Dr Schaller won his client an early release from prison, but nevertheless Honsik had served four years merely for the normal pursuit of historical enquiry.

Gerd Honsik took refuge in Hungary last year, as the Austrian authorities were threatening further legal moves against him. His death marks another heroic milestone in the pursuit of historical truth and justice. Within the last eight months we have lost Ernst Zündel, his widow Ingrid Rimland Zündel, Don Salvador Borrego, Dr Herbert Schaller, and now Gerd Honsik. They lit a flame that younger generations must now carry forward.

 

Text of Richard Edmonds’ speech on Dresden commemoration

This is the translation of an intended speech to be given by Richard Edmonds in the centre of Dresden, 17th. February 2018. Unfortunately the Police closed the meeting down before Richard was called to speak. There now follows what he intended to say:

Richard Edmonds at the 2014 NF Remembrance Day ceremony

Friends, my name is Richard Edmonds. I am British and I have travelled here to Dresden to say that the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 was a crime, a crime which was committed by the British government. As we know, in the final weeks of the Second World War hundreds of British bombers mercilessly attacked this city. The blood of the victims stains and besmirches the hands of the government that ordered this dreadful attack.

It was Churchill’s government which ordered the attack on Dresden. And it was Churchill’s government which started the bombing war: the bombing war which deliberately rained terror, mutilation, fire and death onto the homes of millions of defenceless civilians, women, mothers, children and old folk. And the British government openly and shamelessly confirmed in the official history of the British Royal Air Force that it was Britain that started the dreadful and pitiless bombing war. I quote from the official history of the Royal Air Force:

“It was we British who started the bombing war which aimed deliberately to target civilians.” End of quote.

Fact: it was British bombers which deliberately bombed the German city of Muenchen Gladbach as early as April 1940; in the early summer of 1940 British bombers repeatedly bombed the towns of the Ruhr district. The reaction of the German government against these repeated bombing attacks on German towns and cities came only months later. For example, the notorious attack by the German Luftwaffe on Coventry came as late as November 1940.

The role of Churchill’s government in initiating the bombing war and its increasing barbarism is clear. For example the leading British official and Secretary of State at the British Ministry of War, James Spaight, described in his official book, “ Bombing vindicated”, and I quote:

“We British started the bombing war which was aimed deliberately at civilians living in homes hundreds of miles behind the fighting front-lines.” And the British Secretary of State, member of Churchill’s government said that “we are proud, proud of what we did”: Quote from “Bombing vindicated”. These are the words of the British Secretary of State and member of Churchill’s war-time government. Hundreds of thousands of civilians fell victim to the British and American bombing war. It is of course a war-crime for a soldier to aim his weapon at a civilians. The British and Americans gave themselves permission a million times over to commit this particular war-crime. And Churchill’s Secretary of State was “proud” of what they had done. One sees the source the of the cold-blooded barbarism.

In war-time Britain there were principled individuals who publicly spoke out and condemned Churchill’s merciless bombing war. One of these brave individuals was the British academic, Charles Percy Snow, and I quote:

“The British plans to bomb and to destroy German working-class residential areas, were plans motived by a deep sadistic impulse to kill thousands of women and children.” And Charles Percy Snow continued, “ What will future generations think of us Britons ? Will future generations say that we were but wolves in the form of men ? Will future generations think that we British forswore our humanity ? They will have the right to say so. “ End of quote.

As a British person in the centre of Dresden here on this day of mourning, I would like to say that with all decency, the present British government should apologise to the German people for the crimes committed by Churchill’s government and in particular for the sadistic impulse of Churchill’s government to murder defenceless civilians, mothers and children.

British speaker arrested as German police halt Dresden commemoration

Lady Michèle Renouf was arrested this afternoon in Dresden as police closed down a commemorative rally in memory of more than 500,000 victims of the terror bombing in the city 73 years ago.

Lady Renouf had just spoken at the outdoor rally in the city centre.  Fellow Briton Richard Edmonds and event organiser Gerd Ittner were prevented from speaking and the crowd was forcibly dispersed. This evening Lady Renouf was released after several hours’ questioning at Dresden’s police station.[spacer height=”20px”]

Dr Fredrick Töben and Lady Michèle Renouf as the Australian academic prepared to leave London in November 2008, following the invalidation of a European Arrest Warrant. Today Lady Renouf was arrested in Dresden after speaking at a rally, where a message of solidarity was read from Dr Töben.

[spacer height=”20px”]Sadly the German police have allowed themselves to be used as political tools of a corrupt establishment determined to silence normal historical debate and rational argument.  On the same day as Lady Renouf’s arrest, British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were attempting to reach agreement after a “security summit” in Munich on post-Brexit plans to continue the alliance between their countries’ secret state agencies, each determined to preserve a neo-Stalinist order.

Fortunately the German people are beginning to resist tyranny, with the rapid growth of a new political party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), now the main opposition force in the Bundestag federal parliament in Berlin.[spacer height=”20px”]

Richard Edmonds speaks at POW camp commemoration

Translation of the speech made by Richard Edmonds on the 25. November 2017 at the commemoration held to remember the suffering of the German prisoners-of-war at the site of the Feld des Jammers (Field of extreme distress), Bretzenheim, near Bad Kreuznach, Germany. Note here that the Canadian historian, James Bacque, in his book, Other Losses describes the hardship suffered at this location, the Rheinwiesen prisoner of war camp, where hundreds of thousands of German prisoners of the US Army were corralled for months on end in the exposed open-air, and without any proper sanitary arrangements in place and fed on bare starvation rations.

 

Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds and I am British. I would like to say here that it was the British Establishment which twice both in 1914 and then just twenty five years later in 1939 declared War against Germany, and without any good reason whatsoever.

We all know that the two World Wars were the most destructive wars that history has ever witnessed. The British Establishment’s declarations of war led to, in effect, the whole world attacking Germany. It is astounding that one nation could withstand for a total of ten years against such a combined massive force. As the French patriot and founder of the Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen said, the Germans are the martyr-folk of Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Second World War did not end on May 1945. Neither at the Rheinwiesen POW camp nor anywhere else in post-War Germany was there an end to the suffering. The War continued: in the place of bombs and bullets there now came all the crimes and injustices that men are capable of.

Here I would like to quote the German Professor of the University of Munich, Dr. Franz Seidler, from his book, Das Recht in Siegerhand (Victors’ Justice):

“It has taken more than a half century for it to become permissible to condemn the Western Allies (Britain and the USA) for the crimes that they committed in the Second World War against the rules of war and against the treatment of civilians during and after that war. The Western Allies bombed German residential areas with the cold blooded purpose of attempting to break the moral of the population and the Western Allies cared nothing for the five hundred thousand victims who lost their lives. The Western Allies shot thousands of German POWs. After the capitulation of the German armed forces the Western Allies denied German POWs their rights as prisoners of war as guaranteed by international conventions, and left them to rot in open fields (as at the Rheinwiesen camp). The German POWs were employed illegally by the Allies as slave-labour. The Western Allies approved and supported the greatest act of genocide ever committed in Europe when 15 million Germans were expelled from their ancestral home-lands. The Western Allies ruthlessly looted German industries and stole German technical know-how. They did nothing as hundreds of thousand of Germans, denied adequate rations and heating, succumbed to hunger and cold. The Western Allies imprisoned three million Germans in camps. All this after the War was over.” Quote ends.

Dr. Seidler speaks here of the violations committed during the Second World War by the Western Allies against the Rules Of war and Conventions on Human Rights. Amongst the many other subjects in his book, Dr. Seidler deals with the Nuremberg Tribunal and condemns both morally and from a judicial stand-point the trial which the triumphant Allies (the USA, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) had organized at the end the War against the militarily defeated German leaders. Question who were the judges and prosecutors at this trial of the defeated Germans ? Answer: the British were the judges: the British who had mercilessly bombed Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin; the Americans were the judges: the Americans who destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atom-bombs at the very end of the War; the judges were Soviet Russians, and everybody knows of the crimes committed by the Soviet Russians (including the rape of two million German girls and women at the War’s end). I quote again Dr. Seidler: “The Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders was a crime itself and a violation of all the rules of law of the civilised world.

But it was not only the German professor, Dr. Seidler, alone who more than half a century later condemned the the Nuremberg Tribunal of the former Allies. No, already at the very time that the trials were taking place in 1945-46, leading Americans publicly condemned the trials. For example, the top number one judge of the USA, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F, Stone, condemned the Allies’ trial as “Lynch-justice”, and leading US politician, US Senator Robert Taft, condemned that trial as a “perversion of Justice, and that America’s participation constituted a blot on the honour of the USA”; Taft went further, he predicted that in years to come, Europeans would condemn the USA for its participation. So spoke US Senator Robert Taft in 1945.

Question: Why did leading American contemporaries speak so sharply against the trial organised by the Allies in terms of “Lynch-justice and perversion of Justice” ? Answer: because at the very time of the trials rumours became too loud to be ignored that Germans held in captivity by the Americans were being tortured by American interrogators for the purpose of “softening” them up in order that they be compliant witnesses for the prosecution. To cut a long story short, the American judge, Edward van Roden, was send from the USA to investigate officially the conditions of Germans held in American captivity. Judge van Roden discovered that under interrogation, 137 Germans had had their testicles crushed beyond repair. On his return to the USA, Judge van Roden held a number of press-conferences where he revealed what he had seen and learnt.

But amongst the Western Allies it was not only the Americans who tortured defenceless Germans. The British authorities also tortured German prisoners, who it was intended should serve the Allies’ interests as defendants or witnesses in the trials that were being prepared. In 2002 the journalist, Fritjof Meyer, an editor of the (left-liberal) German weekly news-magazine, der SPIEGEL, published an article in the German government publication, OSTEUROPA, which dealt with the case of the former Auschwitz camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess. The SPIEGEL journalist described exactly how Hoess had been captured after the War by the British occupation authorities and how these had tortured Hoess almost to the point of death in order to extract from the former Auschwitz camp commandant the “confession” that he, Rudolf Hoess had murdered four million at Auschwitz,.

It is clear that the SPIEGEL journalist does not believe a word of the confession extracted from the former Auschwitz commandant. The SPIEGEL journalist, Fritjof Meyer entitled his article published in the May 2002 edition of OSTEUROPA, “The number of victims of Auschwitz”, and wrote – and I quote his words – “Four Million victims in Auschwitz – a product of the war-propaganda of the Allies” The SPIEGEL journalist went further and quoted in his article, a statement made by the Polish expert, Waclaw Dlugoborski. Dlugoborski had been the Director of Research at the (Communist) Polish government memorial centre at Auschwitz. Dlugoborski had written in the (left-liberal) German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in September 1998, and I quote:

“Shortly before the end of the War a Soviet Commission of Enquiry determined, without any further research into the matter, that the number of victims of Auschwitz was four million,” Dlugoborski continued, “although from the beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of this estimation, the estimation became dogma. Up to the year 1989 (the year of the collapse of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe) it was forbidden to question the number of four million murdered at Auschwitz; staff at the Auschwitz memorial centre were threatened with disciplinary procedures if they did so.” Although from the very beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of the estimation.

The SPIEGEL journalist Meyer concluded with: “In February 1946 the Soviet prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Major Leo Smirnov, claimed that four million been murdered at Auschwitz.” A product of war-propaganda.

Friends, it is clear that by all standards of decency, the governments of the former war-time Allies, the British government, the American government and the Russian government should officially apologize to the German people for the crimes committed by their predecessors.

Long live Germany !  Long live Europe !.

AfD tries to shrug off leadership split after record gains

AfD co-leader Frauke Petry walked out of her party’s press conference this morning: she will sit as an independent

[spacer height=”20px”]Only a few hours after achieving record gains in the German general election, the anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD – Alternative for Deutschland) had its first setback.

Co-leader Frauke Petry stunned a press conference this morning by announcing she was quitting to sit as an independent in Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag.  Mrs Petry then walked out, refusing to answer any questions.

This is partly the old story of ego overtaking party commitment. Mrs Petry rapidly became the best known public face of AfD after ousting the party’s founder Bernd Lucke in July 2015, and she might have started to believe she was bigger than the party.

Commentators also need to be more careful in referring to ‘moderate’ and ‘hardline’ factions in AfD. Mrs Petry herself was considered an ‘extremist’ when her faction took over the party two years ago.  Most of AfD’s founders had been interested mainly in reforming the EU, and were a very moderate version of UKIP. Mrs Petry and her allies were unafraid of using hardline anti-immigration rhetoric.

This paid off as German voters revolted against conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door policy on ‘asylum seekers’.  At one stage AfD was polling close to 20% and began winning seats in regional parliaments (Landtag) across Germany.[spacer height=”20px”]

AfD’s candidate for Chancellor, 72-year-old former CDU official Alexander Gauland (right) was unimpressed by Mrs Petry’s behaviour this morning

[spacer height=”20px”]However Mrs Petry – while happy to use extreme language about immigration and especially about Islam – was very nervous about offending Germany’s small but noisy Jewish population, and wanted to avoid challenging taboo subjects connected to her country’s 20th century history.

Last year she refused to join the witch-hunting of AfD activist Wolfgang Gedeon for his historical views, but we can now see that this was more about her personal rivalry with Gedeon’s arch-critic Jörg Meuthen. Today it is Mrs Petry who styles herself the ‘moderate’, and Mr Meuthen who remains loyal to the party leadership.

Notably she refused to back the leader of anti-Islam group Pegida when he proposed that circumcision of children should be banned until they reach 18 and can decide for themselves. AfD’s draft manifesto in 2016 supported this policy, but Mrs Petry and her allies blocked it, realising that the policy would be seen as anti-Jewish as well as anti-Muslim.

In April 2017 she told German newspaper Die Welt that her party “is one of the few political guarantors of Jewish life, also in times of illegal, anti-Semitic migration to Germany”.[spacer height=”20px”]

Thuringia Landtag member Bjorn Höcke (centre), one of AfD’s most prominent spokesmen, seen here with Alexander Gauland and Frauke Petry, who later tried to have Höcke expelled from the party

[spacer height=”20px”]By this time Mrs Petry was engaged in an internal battle within the party to enforce a policy of genuflecting to the national religion of ‘Holocaustianity’. She tried to get one party official, Bjorn Höcke, expelled from AfD – not for ‘Holocaust denial’, but for a speech in which he called the Berlin Holocaust memorial a “monument of shame”, and an interview in which he told the Wall Street Journal: “The big problem is that one presents Hitler as absolutely evil. But of course we know that there is no black and no white in history.”

After failing to enforce a rigid party discipline on such matters, and partly because she was expecting her fifth child, Mrs Petry stepped down earlier this year as AfD’s candidate for Chancellor.  In July there was even a serious attempt to block her from standing as a party candidate for the Bundestag, partly because of her “divisive” behavious but also because she face criminal charges for alleged perjury, connected with the running and financing of AfD in her home region of Saxony.

Even during the election campaign Mrs Petry was seen as a troublemaker, particularly hostile to party co-founder Alexander Gauland, the 72-year-old candidate for Chancellor, who upset her by referring to fellow Germans’ “right to be proud of the achievements of the German soldiers in two world wars.”[spacer height=”20px”]

AfD’s leading candidates at the Bundestag election – Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel – celebrating their record high vote last night

[spacer height=”20px”]At this morning’s press conference Mrs Petry did not expand on her reasons for quitting the party.  She seems to have the backing of a small faction in the north-eastern state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where four fellow MPs elected yesterday as AfD candidates say they will also now sit as independents.

However the vast majority of the party is likely to view this morning’s outburst as petty and divisive, motivated by personal spite and vanity.  Mrs Petry has almost certainly consigned herself to political oblivion.  In particular it is difficult for her to sustain the argument that her line is the only “pragmatic” one, after AfD has just secured the best election result it could reasonably have hoped for.

AfD achieved 5.9 million votes (12.6%) and will have 94 seats in the new Bundestag. This is up from 2 million votes (4.7%) at the last general election in 2013, when the party fell just below the 5% threshold so had no seats. AfD’s results were especially outstanding in parts of the former East Germany – becoming the largest party in the region of Saxony (which includes the cities of Leipzig, Dresden and Chemnitz). AfD polled almost 670,000 votes (27.0%) in Saxony, ahead of Merkel’s CDU on 26.9%.[spacer height=”20px”]

AfD activists celebrating at their election night party

[spacer height=”20px”]One unfortunate side-effect of AfD’s success is that the vote for Germany’s traditional nationalist party the NPD fell to 176,715 (0.4%), from 560,828 (1.3%) in 2013. Therefore the NPD has fallen below the 0.5% required for state funding, which would be a serious financial blow were it not for the fact that the Bundestag had already voted three months ago to cut off state funding of the NPD even if it qualified!

The best NPD constituency result was 2.0% in a Mecklenburg-Vorpommern district close to the Polish border in the far north-east; the party also managed 1.9% in several constituencies in Thuringia and Saxony. NPD polled 1.1% (28,434 votes) in Saxony as a whole, and 1.2% in Thuringia.

 

German nationalists win Bundestag seats with record high vote

AfD candidate for Chancellor Alexander Gauland has led the party into the Bundestag for the first time with more than 80 MPs

The German anti-immigration party Alternative for Deutschland (AfD – Alternative for Germany) has won seats for the first time in the country’s national parliament, the Bundestag, polling 12.6% of the nationwide vote.

German general elections are a combination of Westminster-style constituencies (where an MP is elected first-past-the-post) and a proportional list-based system.  Voters choose both an MP for their locality, and express a preference for a party. After each directly elected MP has been chosen, the rest of the Bundestag is drawn from various party lists so that its final composition matches the proportion of votes for each party (with a threshold of 5% of the national vote, below which a party gets no MPs at all).[spacer height=”20px”]

Frauke Petry, co-leader of Alternative for Germany, has won her constituency in Saxony and will be one of a projected 88 AfD MPs.

[spacer height=”20px”]AfD’s co-leader Frauke Petry has won her constituency in Saxony, top of the poll with 37.4% and gaining the district from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling CDU.  Two of Mrs Petry’s AfD colleagues in neighbouring Saxony districts were also directly elected – and at 2 a.m. German time came the sensational news that AfD is now the largest party in Saxony as a whole with almost 670,000 votes (27.0%) in this region of former East Germany! At a press conference the morning after this stunning result, Frauke Petry unfortunately distracted from the party’s success by announcing that she would not sit with AfD in the Bundestag. She then walked out of the press conference leaving party colleagues surprised and embarrassed. The party will hope not to be blighted by further displays of political immaturity.

AfD’s 12.6% vote was a significant improvement on polls at the start of the campaign that had put the party below 10%. This will make AfD the third largest party in the Bundestag: they are now projected to have 88 MPs but the precise total will depend detailed calculations not yet complete, due to the electoral system. Conservative Chancellor Merkel and her ex-coalition partners, the social-democratic SPD, have each polled lower than expected. Merkel will now struggle to form a viable coalition government, and will have to enter talks with both the liberal FDP and the Greens.[spacer height=”20px”]

Exit poll shows that AfD is now the most popular party among male voters in the former East Germany

[spacer height=”20px”]Merkel’s CDU/CSU polled 33.0%, down 9% from the previous election in 2013.  The SPD was second on 20.5%, down 5.2% and a record postwar low, despite having enjoyed a brief boost in the polls earlier this year. AfD were third with 12.6%, up 7.9%. The liberal FDP (on various occasions postwar coalition partners with either CDU/CSU or SPD) will be back in the Bundestag with 10.7% (up 5.9%) after losing all their MPs in 2013. The Left Party (ex-communists and left-wing former SPD members) managed 9.2% (up 0.6%) and the Greens are similarly almost unchanged from last time with 8.9% (up 0.5%).[spacer height=”20px”]

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pro-immigration policies have cost her party millions of votes

[spacer height=”20px”]A few days ago in one of his final campaign speeches, AfD’s lead candidate Alexander Gauland said that Germans had the right to be proud of their soldiers’ record in the two 20th century world wars:

“If the French are rightly proud of their emperor and the Britons of Nelson and Churchill, we have the right to be proud of the achievements of the German soldiers in two world wars.”

Many journalists worldwide have been writing that AfD will be the first “far right” party to gain seats in the postwar German Bundestag.  However the Guardian’s Berlin correspondent Philip Oltermann points out that at the very first Bundestag election in 1949 the Deutsche Rechtspartei (DRP – German Right Party), sometimes known as the German Conservative Party (DKP), won five seats.

This party suffered various splits, with some of its MPs joining the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) which was banned in 1952.[spacer height=”20px”]

Ace fighter pilot and postwar nationalist politician Hans-Ulrich Rudel (third from left) at a social event in Munich, September 1968, with (left to right) Freda Jones, Ursula Rudel, John Tyndall, Beryl Cheetham, Savitri Devi and Joe Jones

Some others then joined the Deutsche Reichspartei (German Reich Party, or German Empire Party, confusingly also abbreviated as DRP) which developed links with Sir Oswald Mosley and included Luftwaffe ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel among its members.  This DRP never won Bundestag seats, though did win representation in the Rhineland-Palatinate Landtag.
 
The NPD of course never won a Bundestag seat, though again winning various Landtag seats, and polling a peak of 3.6% at the 1969 Bundestag election.
 
The Deutsche Partei (German Party, DP) was a more respectable version of nationalism and had Bundestag seats from 1949 to 1961: indeed the DP was a coalition partner with the conservative CDU and CSU until 1960.
 
In 1960 the DP merged with the GB/BHE (a party representing Germans expelled from the eastern territories) to form the All-German Party (GDP), but this new merged party failed to win Bundestag seats at the 1961 election, and quickly faded, with several of its leading activists co-founding the new NPD in 1964.
 
Schönhuber’s Republikaner (Republican) party, which had its big success at the 1989 European election with 6 MEPs, never entered the Bundestag: its best result was 2.1% in 1990.  At the founding of the Republikaner in 1983 as a split from the Bavarian conservative CSU, they had two Bundestag MPs (who had been elected as CSU) but by the time of the next Bundestag election in 1987 these two had quit the party and Schönhuber decided the party was too weak to contest those elections.

Thirty years on, German politics has been transformed. Today’s front pages convey the liberal establishment’s horror.[spacer height=”20px”]

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter