Demonstration marks 90th birthday of political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck

On the occasion of Ursula Haverbeck’s 90th birthday, six hundred German Nationalists paraded through the North German town of Bielefeld where the brave Revisionist is currently incarcerated for the expression of her non-violent views questioning the “Holocaust”. Speakers at the concluding rally included our friends Thorsten Heise and Nikolei Nerling, the Volkslehrer.

Letters and cards of support can be addressed to: Ursula Haverbeck, JVA Bielefeld-Senne, Bielefeld, D-33649, Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Collins gets it wrong again

Matthew Collins is a middle-aged thug from South London who in his youth was briefly associated with the National Front. He has turned this connection into a lifelong career as an ‘anti-fascist expert’, courted by sections of the liberal media because he is probably the only person of working-class origins they have ever encountered, and they are prepared to overlook his former pastime of poisoning fish in a local primary school.

Unfortunately for his employers, Mr Collins – like the Dick Emery character above – has a sad habit of getting things wrong.

His recent article for an anti-fascist website, after an incomprehensible paragraph about the London Forum, makes a series of errors (as well as an inexplicable reference to ‘homophobia’, which might reflect Mr Collins’ sensitivity on this subject, following his close friendship with Ian Anderson thirty years or so ago).

No-one in our circles has accused Stead Steadman of being responsible for the sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting on October 20th. We knew almost instantly who was responsible, partly thanks to security failures by Mr Collins’ employers.

On October 20th Mr Steadman was at the Traditional Britain Group conference (having made this arrangement long before our event was scheduled) – not as Mr Collins asserts in the Netherlands.

A young Matthew Collins (centre) on a National Front paper sale.

Weirdly Mr Collins posts a mocking caption on a photograph of Mr Steadman, describing him as “sad-faced” during the NF’s march to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.

Perhaps Mr Collins and his ilk view the centenary of the First World War – a true European Holocaust that left 20 million dead and 21 million wounded – as a cause for merriment. Decent Britons, including Mr Steadman and the NF marchers, are understandably saddened.

Peter Rushton was not a “McKenzie friend” for Alison Chabloz’s court case, he was a defence witness. Ms Chabloz did not have a “McKenzie friend”, she was professionally and ably represented by barrister Adrian Davies, as Mr Collins would know if he consulted prosecution witness Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, who was cross-examined by Mr Davies to considerable effect!

Perhaps guided by wiser heads, Mr Collins cunningly edits his quotation from our article exposing Alison Chabloz as a saboteur. He does this to avoid mentioning the name of ‘Sophie Johnson’, the Chabloz puppet whose role as informant was inadvertently exposed by Hope not Hate themselves. Giving away your sources is not good for ‘anti-fascist’ Shoah business.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

The sabotage of Prof. Robert Faurisson’s Shepperton meeting: informants exposed

Blow, blow thou winter wind.
Thou art not so unkind
As man’s ingratitude
(Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Sc. 7)

It was to be the final high-point of the year: the world-renowned expert, heroic and exact exponent of Historical Revisionism had decided in his ninetieth year to return to his place of birth in order to give his final speech: to sum up before a gathering of friends and supporters his lifetime’s endeavours in the intellectual adventure of the Twentieth Century (now running overdue). Professor Robert Faurisson, born to a Scottish mother and a French father in the outer London suburb of Shepperton, Middlesex in the year 1929, returned there on 20 October to address guests at a pleasant local hostelry; he spoke, as ever, clearly and with focus for an hour and twenty minutes, without notes and holding his audience spell-bound; fluent in both his mother’s language and his father’s, he moved effortlessly from one to the other to make certain points clearer. Our privilege to be there at this historic occasion; every man and woman carefully vetted: friends amongst friends.

And then came the sabotage: a left-wing hate-group had been informed of our meeting and found the venue: midway through, the group contacted the hotel’s management and threatened that a violent mob would come and wreck the meeting (plus harm staff and guests) unless the management pre-empted and closed the meeting down themselves. The management promptly obeyed the “order”, summoning the chairman to the desk and telling him to put an end to the conference at once. When he refused they resorted to “tough” tactics: repeatedly they set off the fire alarms, turned the lights off, brought a loud-speaker “ghetto-blaster” into the conference room and did their very worst by means of this cacophony to wreck the proceedings. Fortunately the Professor had completed what he had to say to us. He died of a heart attack immediately on returning to his French home a day later.

The question is: who sabotaged the meeting and why?

Was the meeting sabotaged from within “the movement”, defining “the movement” very broadly? And again what could the motive be for such a destructive act and deliberate betrayal of a hero, a man approaching the end of his life having returned to the place of his birth to be amongst friends and admirers to give his final talk to the world – the meeting was filmed.

There are names that are going to be recorded here; there have to be.

It is a fact that the singing satirist, Alison Chabloz, was not invited to the Shepperton meeting. Why not? Because Ms. Chabloz had taken it upon herself to condemn repeatedly the organiser of the Shepperton meeting, Peter Rushton, as “an enemy agent and liar.” This shameful abuse of a good man had no justification or foundation in fact; which fact has been repeatedly explained in detail to Ms. Chabloz. Hence she was excluded from the guest list for Professor Faurisson’s final meeting as an unwelcome entity.

Peter Rushton had served as Ms. Chabloz’s Defence witness at her trial at the Westminster Magistrates’ court, but had refused to go along with her campaign of abuse against Lady Michèle Renouf, a dedicated supporter of the right to free historical and scientific research, whom Ms. Chabloz has repeatedly maligned and defamed for the past year. The moment he dissociated himself from Ms. Chabloz’s endeavours to spread lies about Michèle Renouf, Mr Rushton himself became the target of the Chabloz lie machine. On her blog (10th May 2018) Ms. Chabloz had retorted (or threatened?) “it’s as if my detractors want me to sell my story to the enemy”.

Just a week before the Shepperton gathering, Ms. Chabloz sent a series of emails to Prof. Faurisson attempting to pressure him into intervening to allow her presence there. Ms. Chabloz’s tone was so insistent and outrageous that following her email of 16th October the Professor refused to reply any further to her messages. On arriving in Shepperton three days later he complained about being exhausted by Ms. Chabloz’s relentless behaviour. Despite knowing the reasons why she had been excluded from the Shepperton event, Ms Chabloz persisted during the few days leading up to October 20th in lobbying intensively among various naive nationalists, seeking information about an event to which she was not invited.

A second name must also be mentioned here: Sophie Johnson. Sophie Johnson is the name of the middle-aged Hungarian woman who at first regularly attended the hearings of Ms. Chabloz’s case at the Westminster Magistrates’ court. Sophie Johnson claims to be a close friend of Ms. Chabloz:  “I am squarely on the side of the unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. Some weeks before the Shepperton meeting, “Sophie Johnson” (described by Ms. Chabloz as a valued friend) left comments on the Danish activist NS Viking’s video platform, seriously demeaning Professor Robert Faurisson as senile – “an old fool” who had “authorised a vicious attack on Alison Chabloz”. This is another vile lie: the Professor never attacked Ms. Chabloz verbally or in writing; on the contrary he always had kind and encouraging words for her until eventually becoming exasperated – and even then he only complained about her conduct privately.  On the day of the Shepperton meeting, a ‘Sophie’ is registered on the twitter account of the left-wing hate-group, ‘Hope not Hate’ as contacting them with information relating to the Shepperton conference. Since (as she now admits) ‘Sophie’ does not have her own Twitter account, Hope not Hate had to use public Twitter posts in an effort to reach her and ask for further information.

Among the first trails of evidence exposing Hope not Hate’s informant were these Twitter posts on the afternoon of the Shepperton event.

Questions: Was it Sophie Johnson, or somebody in the name of Sophie Johnson who betrayed our Shepperton event? And why in all this time, has Ms. Chabloz never condemned this sabotage of Prof. Faurisson’s final appearance? And why has Ms. Chabloz never rebuked and corrected “Sophie Johnson” (if that be the correct name) for insulting the greatest Revisionist hero of our time, as “an old fool”? And why did Ms. Chabloz not dissociate herself at the time from a person having made such a disgusting comment?

Finally one has to say (after compiling a detailed timeline of these events, with the benefit of having read Alison Chabloz’s private emails to Prof. Faurisson and a great deal of other relevant correspondence): by the balance of probabilities it is the person calling herself “Sophie Johnson” who sabotaged our meeting and betrayed it to the enemy; and did so to please the individual, whom Sophie Johnson describes as the “unrivalled queen of English revisionism, the brilliant, richly talented, charming Alison Chabloz”. By the balance of probabilities, one is forced to the conclusion that Alison Chabloz, motivated by spite, arranged for the meeting from which she was excluded to be sabotaged.

By this disgraceful act, Ms. Chabloz damns herself as a traitor and saboteur. We are aware of the fact that several good nationalists have passed information to Ms. Chabloz which she has later misused – indeed we know precisely who informed her and when about the Shepperton event, enabling her sabotage – but we have no doubt that these folk were simply acting naively and in good faith. However from this point on, those who collaborate with Ms. Chabloz will be regarded as giving aid to an enemy informant.

The above statement is issued by Richard Edmonds, Michèle Renouf, and Peter Rushton, with the approval of Guillaume Nichols, Joe Fallisi and Fred Leuchter

Note: Mr Nichols was Prof. Faurisson’s right-hand man and translator for many years. Mr Fallisi (a veteran of the Gaza flotilla arrested by Israeli forces in 2010) sang for Prof. Faurisson’s 88th birthday celebration in 2017. Both Mr Nichols and Mr Fallisi were guests at Prof. Faurisson’s final event in Shepperton. Mr Leuchter is of course the execution technology expert whose revisionist report on Auschwitz led to decades of continuing persecution by the authorities, including his arrest and deportation from London in 1991.

We have no intention of getting drawn into a ‘debate’ with the traitor and saboteur Alison Chabloz, save only to note that in her own response to the above revelations she damns herself further by dismissing Prof. Faurisson as Michèle Renouf’s “principle [sic] PR agent”.

Having washed our hands of Ms. Chabloz, the January edition of H&D will turn to more serious matters. The campaign for historical truth proceeds, as we lesser men are raised up on the giant shoulders of Faurissonian exactitude. The intellectual adventure continues.

Political prisoner Horst Mahler critically ill in German jail

Lady Michèle Renouf reports:

German political-philosopher and imprisoned dissident Horst Mahler (born 1936) is in a very bad way in a prison hospital.

Behind bars for years and for the next 10 years despite his crippling condition after a leg amputation (in consequence of the prison diet, life-endangering for a diabetic) the octogenarian and former attorney has committed no crime for his jailed condition save expressing peaceful philosophical opinions.

Horst Mahler (above left), who is currently serving a twelve-year prison sentence for daring to challenge the orthodox interpretation of German history – seen here with the late Franz Schönhuber MEP of the Republikaner party.

Attorney Mahler’s wife writes (for general public interest release) the news her husband wishes conveyed via Robert Steinert.

Mr. Steinert is the co-producer of the film based on the groundbreaking book Other Losses … the untold loss of a million POW and German civilians driven, on the sociopathic postwar orders of the barbaric Eisenhower, intentionally starving them to death in tightly packed fields of the Rhine Meadows exposed to harsh elements.

Dear Herr Steinert, I am sending you this message at the request of my husband… Yesterday I visited my husband in the detention department of the municipal hospital in Brandenburg. He has been there since Wednesday – after a breakdown in the cell !

Horst suffers from necrosis of his remaining right foot (its big toe).

In addition pneumonia has set in – quite heavily now.

His CRP value of his blood is 300 – this is very high. A normal value is about 10.

For two days he has been on antibiotics – now we have to wait and see whether the inflammation levels drop.

Mentally Horst is clear, as always, but very weak. He fears that he will not get through this time….

Yours sincerely, Elzbieta Mahler

In the circumstances, well-wishers may like to take this opportunity to send their respects to Horst Mahler who is regarded by many (to quote Robert Steinert):
as without doubt one of the greatest thinkers Germany has ever produced. Nevertheless, I hope that he will survive this crisis, because we all need him urgently!

Horst’s prison address is:

Justizvollzugsanstalt Brandenburg A.D. Havel,
Inhaftierter: Horst Mahler
Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22
14772 Brandenburg
GERMANY

For those interested, Telling Films has many unique interviews with Horst Mahler available in English as listed at www.tellingfilms.co.uk and via dvdorders@tellingfilms.co.uk

Professor Robert Faurisson – the intellectual adventurer of the century – dies on return from this weekend’s triumphant trip to his native town

 

Professor Robert Faurisson died suddenly this evening, just after arriving at his home in Vichy, France, following a triumphant return to his native town of Shepperton, Surrey. He died instantly after suffering a heart attack as he crossed the threshold of his home.

Professor Robert Faurisson with Lady Michèle Renouf

Born to a Scots mother and French father in Shepperton in January 1929, Professor Faurisson would have been 90 in three months time. H&D is proud to have facilitated his final speech on the final weekend of his eventful and heroic life.

Yesterday at a hotel in Shepperton, before a personally invited audience of 70 friends and fellow students of real history, Professor Faurisson gave a masterful summary of his decades of research.

 

Time and again, beginning in the 1970s, he put his exceptional academic expertise in analysing documentary texts at the service of historical exactitude.

Travelling to many countries in his researches, Professor Faurisson was the first to establish that the so-called homicidal ‘gas chamber’ displayed to tourists in Auschwitz is a post-war ‘reconstruction’ – in fact a fake by Soviet propagandists – and the first to publish detailed original blueprints for what were later claimed to have been homicidal ‘gas chambers’ but were in fact mortuaries.

For decades Professor Faurisson was relentlessly pursued by French courts, after a special law was introduced to criminalise his work. Even at the hour of his death, several prosecutions were still ongoing in Paris and Vichy courtrooms.

Professor Robert Faurisson, Lady Michèle Renouf and the Professor’s translator and assistant Guillaume Nichols, seen here in Shepperton hours before the Professor’s death

Yesterday’s final Faurisson speech was at a private reception in his honour, arranged by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton with the backing of Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Max Musson. Guests were welcomed by Lady Renouf, and then heard an opening speech by Vincent Reynouard, the leading figure in a younger generation of Frenchmen inspired by Professor Faurisson to pursue their own researches into ‘forbidden’ history.

Professor Faurisson himself then presented a comprehensive overview of his career including very new and important discoveries – a full video of his speech will be broadcast later this week by Lady Renouf’s Telling Films. His swansong was also captured for posterity by an invited camera team from a Lebanese television station.

Just as the Professor was completing his speech, the hotel management summoned Peter Rushton. In another part of the hotel – while Professor Faurisson concluded his address – the hotel manager demanded that Mr Rushton close down the meeting. Mr Rushton insisted that the event had been booked in good faith as a private reception – with no duplicity – and that it would continue until the scheduled conclusion.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances in the 1990s

In a disgraceful breach of contract, the management then harassed the audience in the hotel’s private function room, haranguing Professor Faurisson and his friends, turning out the lights, setting off the fire alarm and playing loud disco music in an attempt to drown out Peter Rushton’s speech.

Undeterred, Mr Rushton persisted – speaking in the dark over the background noise of fire bells etc. – and the audience bravely suffered this unusual form of oratory!

The H&D team extend our profound thanks to the 70 guests from around Britain, and from Canada, Italy, France, Belgium, Ireland and the former Yugoslavia, who joined us in Shepperton yesterday and enabled Professor Faurisson to die a happy and contented man.

Our friend Vincent Reynouard uploaded the above video of yesterday’s events, just before news of the Professor’s death. A full report will appear in our January issue (since our November edition is already at the printers). As what is now a posthumous tribute to Professor Faurisson, the expanded text of Peter Rushton’s speech will also be published soon, incorporating the latest revelations from Britain’s official archives concerning wartime fakery of homicidal gassings and other atrocities.

Long live Robert Faurisson and Historical Exactitude!

UPDATE: Former presidential candidate and Front National founder Jean-Marie Le Pen MEP issued the statement below after hearing news of Professor Faurisson’s death. M. Le Pen writes: “I did not know Robert Faurisson personally, but the extensive means employed for decades in efforts to silence him appear to me as symbolic of the decline of freedom of speech and thought in our nation. The so-called historical memory laws used to criminalise political opponents of various persuasions are the sign of an anti-democratic strategy that the powers-that-be use and abuse against patriotic spirit and against peoples who rebel in defence of identity.”

Prof. Robert Faurisson with Lady Renouf at the Tehran Conference in 2006, where his speech became the focus of several criminal trials in Paris. Recently Lady Renouf was the Professor’s sole defence witness in Paris when he was prosecuted by a French court for his Tehran speech.

Park Idyll or Holocaustian Idol?

NB: For unfathomable reasons, YouTube has suspended access to this video: this decision is presently under appeal. However courtesy of Nationalist Sentinel the video can be downloaded by clicking on the link below:

Park Idyll or Holocaustian Idol?

 

Britain’s political establishment plans to impose a ‘Holocaust memorial’ on Victoria Tower Gardens, a Royal Park adjacent to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. Conservationists and local residents are objecting.

In a new YouTube video Richard Edmonds reports from Westminster on this controversy, and quotes Israeli author Miko Peled on the failure of Zionism and the oppression of Palestine – which is legitimated by ‘Holocaust memorials’ such as that proposed for this site.

 

Gaston-Armand Amaudruz: 1920-2018

The great European nationalist and campaigner for historical truth Gaston-Armand (‘Guy’) Amaudruz died on Friday aged 97, after more than seventy years of tireless activism.

His first political essay was published in 1945, and in 1951 he began editing the Courrier du Continent, originally the publication of a small Swiss nationalist party, which became Amaudruz’s personal journal and played an important role in coordinating the elite of European racial nationalists for decades.

From the 1990s Amaudruz campaigned against the trend towards ‘anti-racist’ and ‘anti-revisionist’ laws in many European countries, and in April 2000 (aged 79) he was himself sentenced to 12 months imprisonment by a criminal court in Lausanne, Switzerland, for ‘holocaust denial’.

In his testimony at this trial, Amaudruz courageously declared:

“If the Six Million figure were correct, and the gas chambers existed, it would not be necessary to suppress dissident opinions with a muzzle law. In such a situation one should be able to present proofs. The existence of Section 261 [Anti-Racism Law] is the best argument against the standard version of the fate of the Jews in the Second World War. Given how the media incessantly serves up this version, doubts are practically obligatory.”

Asked by prosecutors whether he was a racist, Amaudruz replied:

“Yes, and on the basis of the Petit Larousse [a standard dictionary] of 1947, which defines Racism as ‘the theory of those who seek to defend the unity of the race of the nation’.”

Questioned about his opposition to racial mixing, he replied: “Race-mixing destroys that which nature has created over aeons of time. Racism protects the rights of all human societies.” Amaudruz reaffirmed his belief that “the European peoples must remain white.”

A tribute to Gaston-Armand Amaudruz will appear in the November edition of Heritage and Destiny.

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.

Lady Renouf to speak at SW Forum: BBC broadcast ‘Why Can’t We Question The Holocaust?’

Jez Turner of London Forum, recently jailed under the notorious race laws

South West Forum organiser Julie Lake has announced her next event for Saturday 4th August. Speakers will include Lady Michèle Renouf and Paul Ballard.

This will be a special fundraising event for Jez Turner, the London Forum organiser recently jailed under Britain’s notorious race laws.

Mrs Lake writes:

PLEASE TEXT ME ON 07432 843745 IF YOU CAN DONATE AN ITEM FOR THE AUCTION

THE SAME IF YOU CAN DONATE AN ITEM FOR THE RAFFLE.

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT ME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE A BOOK STALL AT THE MEETING.

I AM SURE YOU WILL ALL AGREE WITH ME, THAT JEZ HAS GIVEN SO MUCH TO OUR MOVEMENT, THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO SOMETHING FOR HIM. ALL PROCEEDS AFTER RUNNING COSTS, WILL GO TO JEZ ON HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON, TO HELP HIM WITH ACCOMMODATION, AND PERSONAL EXPENSES.

IT IS A FITTING TRIBUTE TO JEZ THAT MICHELE AND PAUL WILL BE THERE TO SPEAK, AS TWO OF THE COUNTRIES MOST NOTABLE NATIONALISTS. A FURTHER TWO SPEAKERS AWAITING CONFIRMATION.

A FURTHER NOTICE WILL FOLLOW, NEARER THE TIME.

As a preview of this event, readers can now access an online version of two BBC broadcasts featuring Lady Renouf:

The BBC World Service in February 2009 broadcast an extraordinary progamme entitled “Why Can’t We Question About The Holocaust”. This Question was debated on worldwide radio during an hour-long show in which the two contenders, the British champion of normal historical revisionist source criticism without exception Lady Michèle Renouf, versus the Jewish American “Holocaust” extermination theorist Professor Deborah Lipstadt, were invited to answer phone-in queries from the BBC’s global audience. The prompt for this one-off free speech opportunity on this exceptionalist topic arose as follows.

On 25th February 2009 the traditional Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson made worldwide headlines when he arrived at Heathrow Airport following his expulsion from Argentina, where he had taught at a seminary for five years. These extraordinary events were due to Bishop Williamson expressing his opinion on recent ‘revisionist’ scholarship regarding the alleged homicidal gassing of six million European Jews, supposedly on the orders of Adolf Hitler – a version of history which has been effectively trademarked and sacralised as ‘the Holocaust’.

Expressing doubts about the new universal religion of Holocaustianity, or even calling for its emotional claims to be forensically substantiated by critical examination of historical sources and scientific analysis of evidence, has become a crime in many European countries (though not yet in the UK). Bishop Williamson had been ambushed by a Swedish television crew in Germany, one of the countries where expression of ‘revisionist’ opinions is illegal.

In the hours after Bishop Williamson’s arrival in London, Lady Michèle Renouf – who had mobilised a legal team the previous year to defend Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben and defeat the German government’s attempt to prompt English law, via the ‘ back door’, to “harmonise” with Germany’s “Holocaust-denial laws” by extraditing him from the UK on a European Arrest Warrant – was interviewed on two of the BBC’s flagship radio programmes.

First, on the main lunchtime news bulletin The World at One, Lady Renouf debated the issues raised by the Williamson case with Lord Janner (the former Labour MP Greville Janner), vice-president of the World Jewish Congress and co-founder of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Lord Janner was then among the most eminent leaders of the Anglo-Jewish community, though he was disgraced by allegations of paedophile abuse in the the years before his death in 2015.

In the evening of the same day, historical ‘revisionist’ supporter Lady Renouf was one of the two main guests in an hour-long debate – “Why Can’t We Question About The Holocaust?” – and phone-in on the BBC World Service, alongside American academic Deborah Lipstadt, whose allegations against British historian David Irving were the basis of a famous libel case in 2000. Irving’s case, in turn, had relied upon the ground-breaking trials in Toronto Canada in the late 1980s when revisionist scientific findings and “Holocaust” eye-witnesses exposed in cross-examination that the many testimonies and claims deployed “poetic licence”. Ever since, open objective forensic scrutiny of the scientific issues remains off-limits and emotionally barred from normal historical source critical debate. Even the “International Guidelines for Teaching About The Holocaust” insist on Page 11 that: “Care should be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational arguement”. Exceptionalist laws seek to progress the prosecution of all reasonable investigation as the “criminal” act of heretics.

 

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter