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.

 

UPDATE: Alison Chabloz given suspended sentence for “grossly offensive” YouTube videos

Alison Chabloz

Folk singer and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted this morning at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on three charges relating to “grossly offensive” material on YouTube.

Judge John Zani found Ms Chabloz guilty of what he termed “serious” offences under the Communications Act 2003: he will pass sentence on June 14th after receiving probation reports. The maximum potential sentence is six months imprisonment on each charge.

Click here to read a more detailed report, analysing Judge Zani’s ruling and his dangerous failure to respond to the important issues raised in defence evidence from H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

14th June update: Ms Chabloz has been given a 20-week suspended prison sentence, combined with 180 hours community service and a 20-day “rehabilitation programme”. She has also been banned from posting to social media. The Campaign Against Antisemitism which brought the original private prosecution said in their statement following the sentencing hearing this morning:

“The case effectively delivers a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

In his personal statement, Gideon Falter of CAA repeated his earlier assertion that the verdict amounts to the outlawing of revisionism:
“This sentence sends a strong message that in Britain, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

As explained in our detailed report, it is by no means clear whether Judge Zani’s verdict does criminalise ‘Holocaust denial’ per se, or only particular forms of such denial which are deemed to be ‘grossly offensive’.

Do we now have a Holocaust Denial law? Confusion reigns after Chabloz ruling

Jewish boxer confronts free speech defender outside Chabloz trial

Reaction to Friday’s conviction of Alison Chabloz for posting “grossly offensive” videos to YouTube has left great confusion as to whether England now has a de facto law against ‘Holocaust denial’, and if not whether such a law is likely to be enacted. The confusion has been heightened by contradictory messages from two prosecution witnesses, Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman of the hardline Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitism.  It was CAA that first brought a private prosecution against Ms Chabloz, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to bring charges.  The CPS later obediently came into line, taking over this private prosecution at public expense.

District Judge John Zani convicted Ms Chabloz of three offences against the Communications Act 2003, but his ill-argued judgment has done nothing to clarify matters.

For H&D the main interest of this case involved one of the three songs for which Ms Chabloz was prosecuted – namely (((Survivors))), which mocked the lies and fantasies propagated by three supposed ‘Holocaust survivors’, Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank.  H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton gave defence evidence, based on research at the British Library, which established that these three ‘survivors’, especially Wiesel and Zisblatt, had been subjected to pungent abuse from mainstream academics and commentators.  As defence barrister Adrian Davies asked the court: can it be “grossly offensive” to call someone a liar if that person demonstrably is a liar?

Yet in his 24-page judgment, a copy of which has been made available to H&D, Judge Zani completely ignores this challenge, leaving it still an open question – even after Ms Chabloz’s conviction – whether one can be guilty of “grossly offensive” communications regardless of truth or falsehood.  Is the communication liable to be judged “grossly offensive”, and therefore criminal, whether or not it is truthful?

Elie Wiesel (left) pro-Israel propagandist and High Priest of Holocaustianity, with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

In para 56 of his judgment, Zani states: “This court is not required to decide whether, for example, the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate.” At issue was whether the material was “grossly offensive”, and “the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and just multicultural society”. Zani relied on an earlier ruling by the House of Lords that “if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society.”

In other words, if a Jew is grossly offended by something, the rest of “reasonable” society is required also to regard it as “grossly offensive”.

In para 111 of his judgment, Zani appears to contradict his earlier claim that he would not be taking a view on the truth or falsehood of ‘Holocaust history’. He writes: “It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.”

Does Judge Zani believe that the Communications Act forces Britons to hold a ‘respectful’ view of liars and fantasists?

Columnist Christopher Hitchens dismissed Elie Wiesel in grossly offensive terms: Judge Zani refused to explain when and how such attacks become criminalised

The learned Judge simply fails to answer the points made in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence concerning (for example) Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt.  Fifteen years before he attracted Alison Chabloz’s attention, Elie Wiesel was subjected to deliberately offensive criticism in a widely read column by one of the world’s leading journalists, the late Christopher Hitchens. In a column printed under the headline ‘Wiesel Words’ in the American left-liberal magazine The Nation on 19th February 2001, Mr Hitchens wrote: “Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?” The saintly Wiesel is subjected to further pungent abuse at the hands of his fellow Jew, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, in the latter’s book, The Holocaust Industry, where he is accused of acting as “official interpreter of The Holocaust… By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.”

Finkelstein goes to the heart of the matter in the following paragraph: “Apart from the frailties of memory, some Holocaust survivor testimony may be suspect for additional reasons. Because survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment. Elie Wiesel reminisces in his acclaimed memoir that, recently liberated and only 18 years old, ‘I read The Critique of Pure Reason – don’t laugh! – in Yiddish.’ Leaving aside Wiesel’s acknowledgment that at the time ‘I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar,’ The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. …And to a New York Times reporter, he recalls that he was once hit by a taxi in Times Square. ‘I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th.’ ‘The truth I present is unvarnished,’ Wiesel sighs, ‘I cannot do otherwise.’”

Holocaust fantasist Irene Zisblatt: the latest court judgment implies we must treat her lies with respect.

An even more ludicrous fantasist than Wiesel is another Chabloz target, Irene Zisblatt, who has best been exposed by a Polish Jewish scholar, Dr Joachim Neander. (Again Dr Neander’s work was submitted in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence.) He writes: “Mrs Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. …What if the kids, who were deeply impressed by Mrs Zisblatt’s story, some day reach for a scholarly book about the Holocaust or a memoir vetted by experts and find out that things could not have happened as told by her? …Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.”

Dr Neander details many obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mrs Zisblatt’s story. For example, she claimed that when she was in the Birkenau camp, the crematorium chimneys were “spewing ashes” and that these hot ashes fell like rain around her. Most infamously, Mrs Zisblatt claimed that throughout her captivity she concealed four diamonds given her by her mother, repeatedly swallowing the diamonds and recovering them from among her faeces in the camp latrine.

Other absurd tales peddled by Zisblatt include her miraculous escape from a gas chamber, and her return visit to Birkenau in the 1990s when she claimed to have visited a “gas chamber” – “When I got to the entrance I grabbed onto the door, and dug my fingernails into the blue wall that was still blue from the cyclone B gas [sic]; I could smell the gas that was still very strong.”  As Dr Neander points out, there are no such blue stains and no such gas smell – moreover the only remaining “gas chamber” is admitted to be a postwar reconstruction, in fact better described as a falsification (as discovered by Prof Robert Faurisson as long ago as 1976.)

Dr Neander concludes:”It was shown that Mrs Zisblatt’s Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny.  As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors’ memoirs.  It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who – in a ‘worst case scenario’ – begin to doubt everything she tells.”

Yet according to Judge Zani it is “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal to mock the absurd fantasist / liar Irene Zisblatt, at any rate if such mockery is posted online, thus falling within the provisions of the Communications Act.

Gideon Falter (third from right) with colleagues from CAA and other Jewish organisations including Shomrim, meeting the Police & Crime Commissioner of Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa

Does this mean that ‘Holocaust denial’ has been criminalised by the Chabloz case?  In his first reaction after the verdict, Gideon Falter (chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who had brought the original prosecution) delightedly asserted: “This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Yet Falter’s CAA colleague Steve Silverman quickly contradicted his chairman, writing: “There is a misconception that the trial of Alison Chabloz was about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial.  This is a failure to understand the depth of her offending and the danger it presents to British Jews.”  Silverman insisted: “This woman has been responsible for the vilest outpouring of antisemitic hatred I have ever encountered.” He gave various examples of her anti-Jewish rhetoric (strictly unrelated to ‘Holocaust’ revisionism) then concluded: “This is not Holocaust denial; it is the use of Holocaust denial to give people reasons to fear and hate Jews.  Alison Chabloz did this for years, obsessively and with increasing malevolence.”

One interpretation of Judge Zani’s ruling is that – entirely regardless of historical truth or falsehood – Ms Chabloz’s crime was to have been deliberately and callously offensive, as a form of online revenge for having lost a job on a cruise ship a few years ago.  Having failed to respond in any way to Mr Rushton’s defence evidence, Judge Zani writes in para 106: “In the court’s view none of the songs complained of can reasonably be considered to be an acceptable or legitimate attempt by Ms Chabloz to provoke reasoned debate on important topics, rather each of these songs appears to have been designed to spitefully offend others in as grotesque and unpleasant a manner as she felt able to achieve.”

In paras 113-114 Judge Zani concludes: “The defendant has failed, by some considerable margin, to persuade this court that her right to Freedom of Speech, as provided by Article 10, under the guise of her work as an artist, can properly provide her with immunity from prosecution in relation to each of the songs complained of.  Having had the opportunity to assess the Defendant’s live evidence during the course of these proceedings, I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates or, at least, that she must have recognised that there was a risk of so doing.”

CAA Patron Sir Eric Pickles, seen here with Prime Minister Theresa May, called within hours of the Chabloz judgment for a new law criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

A few hours after the judgment, the government’s chief pro-Zionist toady Sir Eric Pickles (newly ennobled as Lord Pickles), former Conservative Party chairman, still chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel and official government “envoy for post-Holocaust issues”, called for a new law specifically criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’.

Pickles, honorary patron of the CAA, told the BBC’s Martin Bashir that although he had previously opposed such a law, the Chabloz case had convinced him that there should be longer sentences for ‘Holocaust denial’.

This exposes the cynical ploy behind the entire Chabloz case charade.  A far longer sentence (up to seven years) would have been available had Ms Chabloz (like Jez Turner) been prosecuted under the Public Order Act, but this would require proving that her songs were likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The Communications Act allowed a far lower standard of proof.  Once the court had found that songs posted to YouTube fell within the legal definitions of this particular Act, all the prosecution had to prove was “gross offensiveness”.  The weasel words of the prosecution and their witnesses, endorsed by Judge Zani, allowed the court to evade the question of whether particular ‘Holocaust’ fables are true or false. We are thus in a very dangerous situation.

The only clearing of this judicial fog will have to come from a new, British based, thoroughly researched challenge to aspects of ‘Holocaust’ history: a challenge that is indubitably grounded in reasoned argument rather than anything that can be easily dismissed as spiteful abuse.

Watch this space…

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.

 

Canadians protest at German Consulate after violinist arrested for Thought Crime

Last week a group of concerned Canadians deliver a letter of protest at the German Consulate in Vancouver, following the extraordinary arrest of a Canadian violinist for violating Germany’s notorious laws restricting historical analysis and debate.

Violinist Monica Schaefer was seized by German police while quietly attending the trial of attorney Sylvia Stolz, who has been subjected to repeated prosecutions and imprisonments for defending her historical revisionist clients in German courts.

Now Monika herself is being held in prison while the authorities determine how she can be tried.  Despite her good character, she is likely to remain in custody for several months before any trial.

Germany’s notorious volksverhetzung law makes it a criminal offence to raise questions about the alleged ‘Holocaust’ of six million Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers’.  Those imprisoned under this law have included German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, author and lawyer Horst Mahler, and his fellow attorney Sylvia Stolz.

For further information about Monika Schaefer’s case read Paul Fromm’s regularly updated website.

H&D readers can contact Monika Schaefer at her prison address:

Monika Schaefer, Political Prisoner,

Stadelheim Prison

Schwarzenbergstr. 14

81549 München

Germany

Veteran fighters for truth and justice: Dr Herbert Schaller and Don Salvador Borrego

We regret to report the deaths of two of the world’s leading veteran fighters for historical truth and justice: Dr Herbert Schaller of Austria and Don Salvador Borrego of Mexico.

Don Salvador was one of the very first revisionist historians of the Second World War, with his landmark book Derrota Mundial (Worldwide Defeat) published in 1953, and remained active with further publications and speeches until his death aged 102 on January 8th. Don Salvador’s 100th birthday was celebrated in Guadalajara in 2015 with an international congress, attended by Ernst and Ingrid Zündel, David Duke, Mark Weber, Lady Michèle Renouf, Pedro Varela and many other well known campaigners for the right to free historical research (see video link above).

The young Wehrmacht Oberleutnant Herbert Schaller in 1944

Dr Herbert Schaller was educated at one of the elite Napola (Nationalpolitische Lehranstalt – National Political Institutes of Education), designed to produce the future leaders of National Socialism.  After wartime service in the Wehrmacht, Dr Schaller became a prominent lawyer in Vienna and was best known for his defence of numerous political ‘criminals’ hauled before Austrian courts under increasingly repressive laws.

Among Dr Schaller’s clients were the British historian David Irving, Austrian author Gerd Honsik, and German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel.  It was thanks to Dr Schaller’s legal expertise that David Irving won an early release in December 2006 from his Viennese prison sentence.  Eventually the Austrian state brought in a new law enforcing a compulsory retirement age for lawyers, solely in order to prevent Dr Schaller from practising!

Dr Herbert Schaller died on January 18th aged 94. Interviews filmed at his home in Vienna and on the day of his client Ernst Zündel’s release in Mannheim will be published later this year. For further tributes to the life and work of Don Salvador Borrego and Dr Herbert Schaller, read the March 2018 edition of Heritage and Destiny.

Don Salvador Borrego (above right) at the international congress held on his 100th birthday in 2015.

International guests at the Guadalajara congress held in honour of Don Salvador Borrego’s 100th birthday

Dr Herbert Schaller with his client Ernst Zündel on the day of the latter’s release from Mannheim prison in 2010.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter