Monika Schaefer: Hey, everybody. Greetings. You are listening to The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer and this is on the Republic Broadcasting Network at Republicbroadcasting.org. It is the 21st day of December in the year 2024. It is the solstice today. So that’s the shortest day in the northern lands and the longest day in the southern lands. And after this, the sun comes back, or if you’re in the southern hemisphere, I guess the days will get shorter for you!

 

Welcome. It is episode 24 of The Flipside with Monika. I have a few announcements and I guess housekeeping items to take care of and things to tell you about before I bring my guest on. My guest today, I’m very excited about this. I’ve been wanting this to happen for a long time. His name is Anthony Hall. He is a professor. Well, he’s a retired professor now at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta. I know him well. And we are going to present you with an interesting story.

 

But first I would just like to say that I’m going to take a little bit of a different approach to asking you to support the network.

 

So this is always a very uncomfortable part of my task because I feel like I’m asking for money, but I have to remind myself I’m not asking for money for myself. The hosts do not get money out of this. We do this because we know what is at stake and it is just critically important that we get to talk about the truth! I’ll just ask you to mute your mic, Tony, until you come on! No problem. Just some interference there.

 

So, yeah, so the reason, I’m just saying it always makes me a little uncomfortable because I don’t like to ask for money. I don’t want to guilt trip anybody. And again, it’s not for me personally. It is the network. It is a listener supported network.

 

And what I’m going to do is I’m just going to tell you the facts about it and then it’s up to you, [chuckling] dear listener.

 

So it is a network that is 90% listener supported and about 10% from the sponsors. So those would be the advertisers. And they have an operating budget. There’s the commercial internet, there’s telephone services. They have multiple lines. There are the satellite connections, there’s the electric bill, there’s rent. There’s equipment repair and replacement. And I can tell you that the staff do not earn much money. And there is free unlimited archives on the Republic Broadcasting Network and in fact, it obviously is a very, very important host, important messages, important things that are being done with this network because there are on average a quarter of a million downloads per month. Now there is unlimited free downloading on RepublicBroadcasting.org you can go there and download to your heart’s content and share these programs. So that happens a quarter of a million times per month. So that’s pretty big, I would say.

 

So anyway, that’s my little spiel and then it’s up to you. Just letting you know it is listener supported. And they are clean out of cash at the moment. So it is kind of a critical time.

 

Here are the numbers if you’d like to Support the network, 1-800-724-2719 or 512-246-9549 or just go to the website at Republicbroadcasting.org and there is a donate button there. You can also do it the old fashioned way by mail.

 

And by the way, speaking of mail, the postal strike is over in Canada. They were on strike for a whole month, which I think was part of their agenda to make us all go digital and online with banking and all our other needs.

 

But anyway, I am getting sidetracked. The address if you’d like to mail either cash or check, RBN2251 Double Creek Drive, Suite 302, Round Rock, Texas. And the zip code is 78664 in the USA. So that’s that.

 

All right, I’m going to set the stage, so to speak, for before I bring Tony in to tell his story and that we’ll have a little conversation about some of the things that have happened to him. I’m more or less entitling this, “How They Keep the Professors in Line”. As I told you, he’s a university Professor and they have a lot of pressure on them to basically stick with the prescribed narratives on any number of topics. And by now, and I’m sure that most of the listeners listening to this program are aware that we are being lied to on a grand scale.

 

Okay, so if a Professor steps out of line, what happens to him? And Tony will tell us about that in a few minutes.

 

But just a bit of history here. I first met Tony in 2015, so about nine years ago, and he was traveling with Kevin Barrett on a speaking tour after Kevin Barrett had published the book We Are Not Charlie Hebdo. And there were multiple authors to that project.

 

And one of the authors was my friend Tony Hall. And they came, I hosted them in Jasper, Alberta where I lived at the time. And they spoke to do with the Charlie Hebdo incident, you may remember that.

 

And then in 2016 we traveled together to Germany and that was the year that I made my life changing video, Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust. We also contributed bits like video pieces which then CODOH, which is the Committee on Open Debate on the Holocaust, they edited together a four minute video in which we answered the question “Why Do You Support Open Debate on the Holocaust?” And Germar Rudolf was at that time, he was the one who was heading up the CODOH website, CODOH.com. He’s no longer heading that up now.

 

And by the way, he has been arrested! He is currently in jail and awaits transfer to another jail. And this is all to do with something completely trivial and unrelated to what they really are after him for. And he has done a huge amount of work on Holocaust Revisionism as they call it. I would call it “Correctionism”.

 

But anyway he has published many books, the Holocaust Handbook series and more recently the Holocaust Encyclopedia which is an incredible volume.

 

And so we will talk more about that with Tony because somehow this all ties together. And actually a little bit more history here. Before I met Tony there was this Tehran conference and I’m sure you’ll tell us more about that, Tony, but in 2014, the New Horizons Conference. But I’m just still setting the stage here to give people a bit of background.

 

After that conference there were some smear articles against you and I saw the clip there which you’ve included in your epic article, we’ll talk about that. But this newspaper article in which Ezra Levent was also pictured, but we’re not sure who authored these words. But they talked about you:

 

“Still a madman and poster boy for the end of tenure.”

 

And that was in 2014. And in 2016 after our trip to Germany together, something happened to you, Tony Hall, that indeed that statement two years earlier was a little bit prophetic.

 

And tenure for those who don’t know what that means, it basically gives Professors who have paid their dues and put in a lot of work and time and are full Professors, it gives them academic freedom or that is the theory.

 

Okay, and now one more thing, I’ll just say to set this up, I have a certain relative and his words ring in my ears when I was trying to inform him about the lies. And this was only about 9/11 at the time. I don’t think I’d yet gone down the road of Holocaust, discovering the lies about that. And his words ring in my ears as I was telling him about Bolshevism and how they murdered millions and millions and millions of people and that that was a jewish operation and all those things.

 

And then this relative says to me:

 

“You mean to tell me that all the university Professors were wrong?”

 

And I know I’ve shared that with you, Tony. You said yes, I’ve said it many times. But that sets the stage for today. So welcome, Tony, to the show, first of all, greetings. And why don’t you tell us what happened to you in 2016? Over to you.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Well, thanks, Monika, and congratulations on having a regular show!

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you.

 

Pro Tony Hall: You deserve it. And your story is very important. You know, just before I get into my own story, this whole phenomena of what happened in World War II, resulting in this production of this narrative which became known as “The Holocaust”. You know that in 1948, there was something called the Genocide Convention at the UN. So “genocide” entered the language, and many genocides have taken place over history. But when does a genocide become a holocaust? And when does “a Holocaust” become “The Holocaust”? Are we seeing a holocaust in Gaza? And how do you get this title of “The Holocaust”?

 

So The Holocaust becomes a narrative with a huge impact. You know, in a way, the winning side of World War II use their political currency to create the UN, to create Israel, to create the Genocide Convention. And this Holocaust story becomes kind of the core narrative of our times. It sort of defines right and wrong, good and bad, and it certainly becomes the political pillar for the state of Israel. And so as we were socialized to sort of feel very guilty and feel that this act of atonement through the creation of Israel was a good thing and a required thing.

 

But then, lo and behold, the people who received this first supposedly primal, defining genocide became deliverers of genocide since 2023. And now they don’t want to face the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice. They want to say:

 

“No, no, this is not a genocide. It is not a “Holocaust”.

 

I would say that the suffering we’re seeing imposed on the people of Gaza and it’s expanding from there, it’s beyond anything, even in the most extreme versions of what happened in the Holocaust, what happened at, say, Auschwitz. Meeting a death, let’s say we assume this controversial thesis that people died in gas chambers in Auschwitz. Dying in a gas chamber is nothing like the harshness, the ruthlessness, the cruelty imposed on people in Gaza who are being starved, no water, carpet bombed, just faced with an incredible array of various forms of genocide.

 

So I want to acknowledge the people who stand their ground. And you sort of led me down this pathway to see these things, going to Germany and meeting your brother. I mean, it was a great pleasure and honor for me to be invited by you and I took it, you know, it was a personal matter in a way, meeting Alfred [Monika’s older brother]. I’m sure the audience knows who Alfred is.

 

And then you made Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust, a story that you told me very many times about your mother. And we made together this other video called “Why do you believe in open debate on the holocaust?” Which led me to become a kind of marked man. When I was saying it at the time, it seemed to me it was a no-brainer, this idea that of course we should have open debate on everything.

 

And as a university Professor Guarding the principles of academic freedom as I thought, it was a no-brainer to look in the camera and say that and justify that. And I was astonished by my colleagues in the university who didn’t take that as a given! We can’t allow the precedent to be set that there’s things we can’t talk about and issues we must avoid.

 

So very quickly after we returned to Jasper, you were immediately spurned and blocked from lots of things. The Legion, which was the major musical venue, you couldn’t play there, and then you couldn’t be on the environmental committee, and then you couldn’t be in the fiddle teaching business. And you know, it was just amazing to see all these institutional things shutting you down. And then most everybody, I saw, most every one of your friends turned against you and said:

 

“Well, now you’re a holocaust denier and you really seem to actually support the National Socialists. And I just can’t be friends with such a person.’

 

And I have to say that watching you at the time, you handled it well and strongly. But there were times I saw such sadness in you and it was something to behold. I wrote letters to explain how wrong it was to judge you by your political beliefs, to say whether or not you could teach fiddle. I would say to the fiddle people who run that school:

 

“Well, now you’ve gone into the political business of deciding thought policing. So you’re not really a credible fiddle teaching agency anymore or environmental agency.”

 

All of this thought control stuff came into place and I watch and actually one of your close friends decided it must be me. It couldn’t be dear sweet Monika, who was becoming this horrific Holocaust denier. And they figured I must be leading you [chuckling] astray.

 

Monika Schaefer: You and my evil brother, you know! [chuckling]

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah he’s in there, too!

 

And I have to say, it was one thing to defend open debate on the Holocaust, but then quickly I could see there were other things involved in this.

 

And so, anyway, I started to take the flack for this and be demonized because of it. And lo and behold, that next term, this was shortly before the term started in September of 2016, there was a major assault on my reputation, led by something called B’nai Brith Canada, the extension of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States, who, I imagine most people, if you’re listening to this show, probably know what that is.

 

But basically they see themselves as, they’re going to find the future Nazis and make sure they never get in power, and they’re going to defame and diminish and ruin the reputation of and make them unemployable, people who they think might be going to raise issues that they do not want raised.

 

And so there was a terrible scam that Facebook and B’nai Brith played where they made up a Facebook post on my Facebook wall saying that I was saying:

 

“All the jews should be killed and they should be strung up. And the Holocaust didn’t happen, but it should have happened, and kill all jews!”

 

Was in there.

 

And so this was spread around without me knowing it on the Internet. And then I became aware of it. Oh, my God!

 

And so it turned out that this was the preparatory work to what became my suspension. I was literally kind of dragged out of the classroom in October and told:

 

“You cannot be on campus. You are a trespasser on campus!”

 

So one day I’m a tenured full Professor with my classes going. The next day I’m criminalized without any due process and told, I can’t come back on campus. And then it came out that the technique was to put aside the collective agreement, the rule book, the policy book, and the university went to the Human Rights Tribunal and said:

 

“Hall has violated the Human Rights act of Alberta.”

 

And so this was kind of bizarre, but they didn’t tell anybody. Well, Hall is accused of this by the university itself. All that appears in the paper is:

 

“Hall is under investigation by the Human Rights Tribunal.”

 

And anyway, so then suddenly, there I am, trying to gather myself. At the time, I couldn’t really think of anything like it that I really knew about in Canada. I’d read about Professors in the United States and I started to do a lot of research about them.

 

And of course, this initial statement that Hall, you know, says:

 

“Kill all jews the Holocaust never happened, but it should have.”

 

And intertwined, inter intermingled in all of this was the fact that you and I had been in Germany and that I made this film. And they played clips of this film, me saying there should be open debate on the Holocaust.

 

And so it sort of fit together that somebody who made a film like that might be saying those kind of things. And it was quite expertly woven together, this fiction about my beliefs at the time and everything. I hadn’t, as you know, gone into a lot of study of the Holocaust, ever! You know, I had written some things about the fact that US businesses, British businesses, had funded Hitler and that Auschwitz was actually IG Auschwitz was actually a slave labor camp to produce jet plane fuel and tires. And this new technology, this IG Farben with German technology being applied in a very dirty way, that this was a slave labor camp.

 

And so I’d written about that, but not about transforming, so the story goes, Auschwitz into a death camp, into an industrialized death camp to produce this astonishing number of victims of the Holocaust, this 6 million number. I mean, I wasn’t really in any position to judge that whole story one way or another.

 

But nevertheless, I was suddenly a Holocaust denier, an anti-semite and a conspiracy theorist! Those were the three things that those phrases become the weaponized terms. And so eventually we got, in order to have a court case, my faculty association, the collective body of university Professors, you know, at first they were astonished that this was happening.

 

But then I have to say that that the image of you was kind of exploited in a way.

 

Like I was reading Tadzio Richards on Alberta Views, which is a Left-wing progressive magazine, a kind of place where I might have looked for some support. And I was looking at an abbreviated version of this article, and it’s almost all about you, Monika.

 

And so this story where you stand your ground and say:

 

“Yes, I don’t believe in the Holocaust and yes, I like National Socialists.”

 

I mean, I wasn’t at the point where I could say that, but you were saying it. And that was said because I’m friendly with you and that somehow this is my opinion too. And that seemed like a very shoddy approach. Do you want to get, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, I’ll just interject that smear by association, that is a really common theme. It’s something that is used, it’s weaponized against us. Because I have experienced other people being smeared by association too. And even you know, second degree, third degree associations, people being smeared that, I don’t know, I guess they, the psychology of that is interesting.

 

And I think that those who seek to destroy us as the usual suspects there, they seem to know us better than we know us and they know that that’s something that people are very affected by in general. Like that their general population is very affected by that.

 

And earlier you said that some of my friends or former friends in Jasper, they just couldn’t fathom that I had become this quote, unquote, “evil person” because of course they’ve been raised and indoctrinated and programed to react in Pavlovian style to this term Holocaust scenario. And Monika, who was formerly, you know, pretty well liked and I was very active and wore many hats in my community in culturally and environmentally and I had, you know, politically as well. And I’d been writing lots of letters to the editor and I had lots of friends and all that and:

 

“Oh, how could she become so evil overnight?”

 

So they did blame the that on these men in my life. So that would be my brother Alfred and Tony Hall, [chuckling] like you were alluding to earlier. But yeah, the smear by association.

 

So about that article that you just alluded to. It was actually, you’re saying it was about you but somehow it ended up that they wrote more about me in it. But you are the bad man because suddenly you’re a Holocaust denier too. Or can you explain that a bit?

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah, they into the story on the edges of things, but it, you know, it was an abbreviated version of the article and I want to say Tadzio Richards, a journalist that has a lot to answer for. That was a real scam, dude! If Tadzio Richards ever comes up and you know, obviously Alberta Views is the answer to Alberta Report. You know, my background is like you is as a sort of liberal Left progressive, you know.

 

And so it was Owen Holmes, who was the founder of the University of Lethbridge, he wrote to Alberta Views about what was being done to me and the prosecution and persecution of me and lo and behold, surprise, surprise, it came out with yet more smear. But I just want to, I’m sure there’s going to be a break soon. I Just want to clarify that this situation of me at the university trying to cope with my role in the faculty association and where there are votes and there are assemblies and meetings and various executives that I was hoping to bring those people along. They would have a big say over what would happen.

 

And what did happen, we did get into court. It wasn’t me going into court. It was me in partnership with my faculty association, which had to have the approval of the fellow Professors. And I didn’t. I know a lot of them were having real trouble with the substance of this story and my role in it. Even the little movie, “Why do you believe in open debate on the Holocaust?” And there I was beside you and Alfred, and the three of us were strong on the same page, which in that case we were.

 

So there’s that phase of this story. But I just want to emphasize the point that now I’m Professor emeritus, but I’m retired. I’m not teaching anymore. They got me out of the classroom. But what you’ve done in standing your ground is of global importance!

 

And the fact you were put in jail for a year in Germany of this I’m connected to this, and I’m proud of it. And it’s one of the Summit moments of my career and my life really, to have participated in this basic, fundamental issue is, what is this thing the Holocaust? And how come you can’t debate it? And how come you can’t talk about it freely and openly?

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s a great way to take us into the break and please stay with us. We’ll come back in a few minutes after these messages.

 

[29:32]

 

[music]

 

[29:43]

 

[ad]

 

[35:59]

 

[music]

 

[36:16]

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, I’m going to bring us back in and we have a lot to talk about still. We’re just getting going on a roll.

 

I’m just going to recap a few things here, Tony. You had talked about I had lost all my friends in Jasper. Not all of them, by the way. There were some who stayed very loyal to me.

 

But you know, through all this adventure [chuckling] of discovering that we’ve been lied to and then and then doing some things about it, I gained new friends. And I’m telling you those new friendships I have made are so rich and deep and I never had any regrets. And I and I’m so happy that I did go down this road.

 

Now I do remember you lumping some terms together. They seem to love to do that. And at the time it was these four terms, 9/11 truther, holocaust denier, anti-semitic and conspiracy theorist! So you were all of those things and that wrapped up your career. Right?

 

But just before you come back in, I’ll just tell the listeners that there is no live show next week. So RBN is taking a break from doing live broadcasting. But there will always still be broadcasting. But so since there is no live show that means there’s no call-ins.

 

As far as call-ins today, I’m not sure if we will have time, maybe near the end if somebody had a burning question or comment for the good Professor. And I wanted to also say that on the Chatengo site which I have now, which is this new address, it’s flipsidemo.chatengo.com I did post this epic, epic article that Tony has written recently and it is called “On the Condemnation of Holocaust Denial”. It’s a big essay that it could be a university course.

 

In fact, in our universities after this terrible system that we are under now where they fire Professors for speaking truth. But when that collapses and we have universities that are real and where you really do have academic freedom, that article you wrote, it should be a university course. And I have posted that on the Chitango site. I will also, as soon as the show is over, post the CODOH video.

 

And again, that’s, CODOH.com but they asked the simple question, why do you support open debate on the Holocaust? It’s less than four minutes long. You can also find it on my Odysee channel. So just go to Odysee.com and put in my name, Monika Schaefer and then you can look for that video. Why do you support open debate on the Holocaust? Four minutes. Less than four minutes of your life will be taken up by taking a look at that.

 

One more thing I wanted to tell you, Tony. I talked with Alfred, my brother this morning and he sends you the very warm greetings. He has the utmost highest respect and regards for you.

 

And so I just wanted to pass that message on to you. So back to you, Tony.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah, so when you find yourself being referred to as something called a “Holocaust denier”, to me that is the harshest term they can come up with. To be called an “anti-semite” these days? Well, big deal! To be called a conspiracy theorist. Well, if you’re not looking into theories about conspiracy and you’re trying to be a public intellectual, what the hell are you doing? Obviously, people make theories about conspiracies, and it has to do with the exercise of power.

 

But this “Holocaust denial” phrase, it kind of has a judicial ring about it, a juridical ring about it. Like some judge somewhere has hammered down the gavel and said:

 

“Guilty of Holocaust denial!”

 

Like, what does that mean? So as you know, internalize it, and nothing would be more incentive of internalizing it than when you find yourself called that in hundreds of newspapers. And this smear operation to which I was subjected, I want to emphasize, it’s not like just in a few little sites here and there. It becomes a news story around the world and in Israel, throughout the United States, in Europe.

 

And so that becomes, you know how people who’ve never heard of you, who could care less that you existed and don’t really know what the University of Lethbridge is, let alone Lethbridge itself, and suddenly it’s reported as this major news.

 

So the demeaning character of such a statement, who I now know to associate with a Professor of Holocaust studies, Deborah Lipstadt, who wrote a book called Denying the Holocaust and kind of formalized and publicized this concept of “Holocaust denier” because it hasn’t been around that long. It’s a kind of new phrase. You know, it sort of leads me to believe it’s an approach saying:

 

“Hey, goys, you’re not entitled to talk about this! This is like a religious, sanctified thing that only our selected people can talk about, but you are allowed to say, ‘thumbs up’.”

 

“Yeah, I saw Schindler’s List, and it looks pretty good to me. And I got no problem with that.”

 

Or if you have any questions about any of the vast array the Holocaust is called, like, as if it’s one thing, but it took place in many countries, what they refer to the Holocaust. It’s a complex series of events. It’s World War II. So people were suffering and being punished in all kinds of ways, including, no doubt, some jews. Germans, of course, would get their Holocaust after World War II, when they were punished in different ways.

 

But say you want to debate one aspect of it, one or another aspect of it, and this was generally referred to before Deborah Lipstadt as “Holocaust revisionism”. That you want to improve history. History is all about revisionism. You know, history’s never done. You know, it’s improved attitude. People try new theories, interpretations. Other people say:

 

“No, that’s wrong! This is right.”

 

This is how history evolves. And as the state of the world unfolds, you need to sort of reorganize history a bit to pull out of it from history what you need.

 

Monika Schaefer: I’ll just interject, if I may, Tony. So I’ve taken to using the word “Correctionism”, because we know that we’re being lied to on a whole lot of things. And I mean, I have looked into this Holocaust narrative quite a lot, and no evidence for their story!

 

And that’s why they criminalize people, that they have to use force because they don’t actually have evidence. Because if they had evidence, they would just show us the evidence. But since they don’t have evidence, they can’t use facts and arguments because they don’t have any.

 

But anyway, I like to use the word “Correctionism” because revisionism, when I first heard that term, I didn’t like it because I thought:

 

“Well, wait a minute, they’re the ones who actually changed history.”

 

Like something either happened or it didn’t. Something either happened or it didn’t.

 

And so that word to me, I mean, I’ve had people explain it to me and justify the word “revisionism”. It’s just revising what you know, based on let’s say you find new evidence for this or that or the other thing. And I know that’s what you are saying, that if when you find other evidence that you hadn’t seen before, well then you have to revise your interpretation of what actually happened. So I know that is what you are saying, but I just wanted to interject that it has always kind of bothered me.

 

So now I’ve got this other word, correctionism in my lexicon. And about that term, like you were saying being called a Holocaust denier, it’s like it’s a bomb! It is a weapon, and these labels are weapons and all those other labels are weapons.

 

Pro Tony Hall: So you can go to jail for it. And you did go to jail for it!

 

And so you are a testimony, an embodiment of the punishments attached to this thing called “Holocaust denial” and all the ways it’s expressed in other forms and terms in the legal firmament. So ironically, there is a revisionism in Zionist history. Jabotinsky and the people who created Likud, which Netanyahu is in this very Right-wing extreme version of wanting an expanded Israel, a Greater Israel. They call it Zionist revisionism.

 

Anyway, this is just the starting point into a huge question. And so I’ve written this this year, and it sort of was like a just a gusher coming out of me because I’ve been thinking about this term Holocaust denial and what it can do to you and how it’s being manipulated and how it’s being transformed into a crime, a literal crime for which you can go to jail. What else is what other ideas or what other ethnic groups have this kind of power?

 

And so it obviously, this power to define a Holocaust denier is an expression of a power that is gross! Which is being manipulated, which is out of hand, which is disproportionate.

 

So this article I just went through looking at it from many, many Angles. One thing that was very interesting to me was to look at the literature of jewish communists who see themselves as you know, critics of this word that we could debate. But fascism, World War II had this image of communism versus fascism, although Adolf Hitler himself saw himself as a socialist.

 

Monika Schaefer: National Socialist.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah, National Socialist. But I found in Tony Greenstein’s new book about zionism during the Holocaust, during World War II, and that’s based on largely Lenny Brenner, another jewish communists who were. Both of them went into a great amount of detail about the Transfer Agreement.

 

The fact that the Zionists of Germany and the National Socialist government, with Adolf Eichmann as kind of the chief minister responsible for jewish affairs, they got along very well. And they, very quickly after Hitler came to power, negotiated an agreement that tens of thousands of jews from Germany and later beyond Germany would be helped to emigrate to Palestine, which was then under the British mandate of the League of Nations.

 

And in fact, there was a very thriving group of German jews in Palestine who could not only emigrate there, but they could get at their money and they could use their money to establish farms and such. And I think, actually begin to import products into the Middle East. And there became a market for those products. And it became a very big part in the Genesis of Israel, in the Zionist Genesis. You know, they hadn’t yet, before World War II, achieved creating a jewish state, but they did have the Balfour Declaration from the British saying that Palestine was to be a jewish homeland.

 

And so there was this very concerted movement involving some jews to create Israel as a country. This was their objective. So these jewish Communists wrote about how the Zionists of Germany and the National Socialists got together and then how these Zionists kind of manipulated Hitler into the position. And like Greenstein says they wanted jews to stay in position. If a jew wanted to go to the United States or emigrate, they didn’t want that. The only legitimate thing was to migrate to Palestine.

 

And then he sort of implies that they also wanted to keep a certain amount of jews on hand to be killed in what they now call the Holocaust. Incidentally, Yad Vashem had a Holocaust museum being planned in 1942. Yad Vashem is the main Holocaust museum in Israel and is kind of a center where the official story of the Holocaust is ratified. So imagine that already in 1942 they’re planning Holocaust museums!

 

Monika Schaefer: Kind of reminds me about the fact that the 6 million narrative was tossed around many, many, many times well before World War II, like World War I. And I mean, I’ve seen images of the articles and videos have been made about this, that:

 

“The 6 million lost souls or 6 million jews are under threat, or 6 million, you know, jews are being persecuted.”

 

That was tossed around a long, long time ago already and I think they even used, possibly they even used the word Holocaust in some of those articles.

 

But with this so-called Holocaust, they didn’t actually come out with that word until I think in the 60s. Like if people are saying that if they looked into an encyclopedia in the 50s, they would not find that word “Holocaust” with relation to World War II. Maybe you know something about that, Tony.

 

But yeah, that 6 million number was tossed around long before. And what an interesting fact that you just brought out about Yad Vashem Museum with their Holocaust Museum in 1942, already.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yes. So this, I’m getting this out of the book of Tony Greenstein. And of course he’s a darling in the progressive media and especially Mondo Weiss and Electronic Intifada, which get big audience, but they wouldn’t touch “The Holocaust” with the ten foot pole.

 

But taking the critique developed by Tony Greenstein of zionism during World War II, it’s pretty significant. It overturns a lot of preconceptions and stereotypes that just don’t apply. And there was this boycott of Germany, which I think was conducted in a way to put pressure on Hitler to sit down and negotiate with the Zionists of Germany.

 

Monika Schaefer: Are you talking about, … Sorry, I’ll just interject. You’re talking about 1933, within a few weeks of Adolf Hitler coming to power, that “Judea Declares War on Germany”?

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah. That famous newspaper headline. But Hitler hadn’t even been voted into power. He would soon get a majority vote where he was made sort of worthy of the title that Hindenburg already had given him, which is Chancellor.

 

So he had become the Chancellor. Anyway, just like the snap of a finger this Untermyer and other Zionists in New York organized this boycott. But it seems the boycott is to pressure Germany. It’s very sort of interesting how Zionists can manipulate situations and play both sides and whatnot. So that’s how I’m interpreting it.

 

So in any case, then there is the story of the Toronto trials. And the Toronto trials in 1985 and 1988 were the big moment for Ernst Zundel to take the stage. He was charged with a crime of “spreading false news”. And his response was to say:

 

“Yay! There’s going to be a platform!”

 

And, boy, did he ever make a platform. He brought in Robert Faurisson, who is an amazing analyst of all of this and really has the gas chamber story and the frauds involved in the gas chamber story down cold.

 

So then there was David Irving. He managed to pull in David Irving, who was sort of new to the subject of what was going on. But there were this exhaust system in the gas chamber in the reconstructed, what we’re told is the gas chamber that couldn’t have been there. And I saw he and David Cole doing a tour of Auschwitz. And the exhaust from the gas chamber was right outside the kitchen of the SS! And how practical would that be for scientific engineer Germans to construct it that way?

 

So the Toronto trials were sort of triumph where the chief historian [Raul Hilberg] of the Holocaust, you would remember his name. And these eyewitnesses were sort of humiliated on the stand. There was Doug Christie, the lawyer. And Faurisson gave him the backing, helping him out, gave him the information how to do stunning cross examinations of these people and demonstrate that these foremost authorities on the Holocaust couldn’t come up with evidence and eyewitnesses were proven to be wrong. And ever since then, there have been no eyewitnesses!

 

Monika Schaefer: I’ll just say Ernst Zundel amassed an amazing team now, the “Exterminationists”, so those who made the charges against Ernst Zundel, they thought that:

 

“Oh, they’ll be done within a few days, this will be over. They’ll just wipe their feet on him!”

 

And they actually afterwards conceded:

 

“Oh, my goodness, that was a bit of a victory for the revisionist side.”

 

And they got smeared.

 

And we only have about probably half a minute left, Tony.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah, give me that half minute, if you would.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, you go ahead.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah.

 

So this then results in Deborah Lipstadt entering the picture. And Deborah Lipstadt is a Professor of Holocaust studies, whatever that’s supposed to mean. If she was a real professor, she would have invited Ernst Zundel to speak in her class. But no, instead she writes this book, Denying the Holocaust.

 

Monika Schaefer: Which Germar Rudolf refuted.very word of it!

 

Pro Tony Hall: It’s very popular to refute her. And she is a real disgrace and shame to the academy. That woman is not of a high caliber to be teaching in a university. And so out of that came this Holocaust denial term. David Irving was smeared and there was this big trial resulting in the movie “The Denial”.

 

Monika Schaefer: We’re gonna have to have you back, Tony, I can see. Just a final word, I guess, like Happy Yule. Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Well, Merry Christmas to you, Monika, and to your family.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. Thank you, Tony.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah.

 

Monika Schaefer: All right. Thank you so much for coming on. Thank you, Mr. Producer. Thank you, dear listeners. And we’ll see you in the new year.

 

All right, everybody, thank you very much. Bye bye.

 

[59:33]

 

[music]

 

[59:48]

 

[ad]

 

[1:00:00]

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 12/23/2024 = 0)

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 24 – Prof Tony Hall – Dec 21, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 27 – Germar Rudolf – Jan 18, 2025 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer: I’m not hearing the broadcast yet. Can you hear me? Thank you.

 

All right. Good day. Good evening. Hello everybody. Welcome to another episode of The Flipside with Monika. And it is November 2, 2024. You’re listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network on RepublicBroadcasting.org and this is episode 18 of The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer.

 

I’m going to bring in a return guest. I’m very excited about that it’s Jurgen Neumann. But before I bring him on, I’m just going to give you a little update about some recent developments in Canada. I would say, you know, Canadiana, it’s really important actually, this stuff. And in the end, this all relates very much and very deeply to the topic we’re talking about today. And that will be about centering around World War II history and the so-called “Holocaust”, Ernst Zundel’s work, because Jurgen Neumann was Ernst Zundel’s videographer and worked with him for decades.

 

So what I’m talking about is our own little quote, unquote, “Holocaust” developing scene. And I say that quite deliberately. I use those words deliberately because they, there are so many parallels, … I’m hearing some noise in the background. Are we? This is going out though, is it? Okay, so anyway, I’ll carry on here.

 

I’ve talked about this story before about Canada’s own so-called alleged genocide. It’s these mass graves or unmarked graves. And yeah, so October 29th, that’s just a few days ago, there was the release of a report by Kimberly Murray, she’s the special interlocutor on these mass graves, the missing children at the residential schools.

 

Now this story goes back to May of 2021 when it went like wildfire around the world in big headlines that Canada has these mass graves and has murdered all these children at the residential schools.

 

And in the meantime, have any of these graves been dug up? Did they find any evidence? In spite of millions of dollars being spent on investigations or perhaps we should say non-investigations, nothing, nothing has been found. No evidence.

 

So this report that came out on Tuesday of this week, it highlights the need for, … Drumroll, please, legal mechanisms to address “denialism”. And now the report says that children were “disappeared”. So what started out as these absolutely incendiary reports about mass graves, they then became unmarked graves. That all came about because they had some ground penetrating radar that found anomalies. You know, these could be rocks and roots. And now they haven’t found any evidence.

 

So I guess the Canadian government and, or the Churches who ran the residential schools, they just simply “disappeared” the children. That’s a verb. They disappeared them. They got disappeared.

 

So I guess that’s why they have to now make laws to criminalize you if you question the story. And this has really been ramped up in the news lately. And, oh, funny enough, this past month there was a Bill tabled in the House of Commons, Bill C413, by an NDP Member of Parliament, Leah Gazan. She introduced a Bill that would indeed criminalize residential school denialism. She says:

 

“The purpose of the schools was to extinguish indigenous cultures and languages. And if government is serious about reconciliation, it needs to protect survivors and their families from hate.”

 

[chuckling] Oh, my goodness, there’s so much to say about that. I could go on for hours about just this topic. I did talk about this topic in episode seven. You could find that in the archives. But I’ll just ask a couple of questions here and then we’re going to move on from this topic.

 

But why would it be that some of the Indian chiefs and families, they were lobbying the government to keep the schools open when the government was closing them? All right? So they wanted them to be kept open. That’s one question to ask if they were genocidal places where children went missing.

 

And by the way, why didn’t the parents report these children missing? Like, there’s no evidence that there were reports of missing children at the time. Now these parents just go:

 

“Oh, okay, well, so what? Our child didn’t come home this time.”

 

And no. Anyway, another question to ask. Why is it that these the Oblate fathers, they actually created syllabics to have these languages?

 

Okay, so I’m just hearing noise there. I’m not sure if. Okay, I’ll carry on. The syllabics were, … This was a form of written language for these native languages. Now, this was done by the Oblate fathers. These were some of the Oblate, … Okay, thank you, Frank. I’m just going to carry on with this subject a little bit longer and then I’ll bring our guest on.

 

So they wrote these languages down. These languages had never been written before. Now, if one of the charges against the schools and the government is that the purpose of the residential schools was to obliterate the languages of the indigenous people. Why would they create a written language for it? Methinks that it was to help to preserve these languages! So anyway, that’s just some questions to ask about it.

 

[08:33]

 

Okay, I’m going to now give you a little bit of a recap of episode 15 of this show that we had on October 12th with the guest Jurgen Neumann, just to bring you up to speed. And then we’re going to carry on and I’ll bring him in. Jurgen Neumann was Ernst Zundel’s videographer and helped Ernst Zundel for decades with his work. Ernst Zundel was a German. I’m hearing a lot of background noise. I don’t know if that’s going out on the airwaves or if it’s another line. Anyway, …

 

Okay, so Ernst Zundel was a German immigrant to Canada who challenged the mainstream Holocaust narrative. He had his moment of awakening when he met Adrian Arcand, a French-Canadian who had been in a Canadian concentration camp. Yes, you heard that right. A Canadian concentration camp, for six years during World War II. Arcand, he showed Ernst Zundel historical information, his immense library of books and just so much information which he had been denied all those years. And Ernst Zundel felt he was “born again”. That’s the way he described it. [chuckling] He was born again with the truth! In the late 1970s, Ernst Zundel ran for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. It gave him a platform to speak about issues facing German immigrants at that time.

 

And in 1980, there was a major raid on Ernst Zundel’s supporters in Germany because he had done a lot of mailings and he had a lot of supporters. I think some maybe 2,000 of these German homes were raided by the police. It was the largest peacetime police raid as far as I know, in modern times in Germany.

 

And then after that, reports about that that led to, or it was followed by protests against him in Toronto.

 

And then he began to use video to document events and spread his message. He met Robert Faurisson, the world’s foremost revisionist who focused on questioning existence of gas chambers! And then some big legal troubles began, including his mail being cut off. And he was charged with, quote, unquote, “spreading false news”. In 1985, there was a trial that lasted six weeks. And the trial included testimony from Holocaust survivors. First time that former camp inmates were properly cross examined by a lawyer!

 

In other words, they didn’t, you know, shrink back from doing that thinking:

 

“Oh, but that would be too insensitive!”

 

Anyway, that’s about where we left off last time in our episode 15 with Jurgen Neumann.

 

And I just wanted to give a shout out to katana, his website, katana17.com he did do a transcript of that last episode and he does transcripts of a lot of videos and talks and interviews that he deems worthy of preservation. And so that is a great compliment to that show we did three weeks ago. And I encourage the listener to visit that website at your earliest convenience. It’s Katana. That’s katana17.com. And you will find a lot of good stuff there.

 

Okay. So, Jurgen Neumann, are you there?

 

Jürgen Neumann: I certainly am. How are you this evening?

 

Monika Schaefer: Good. Welcome back. Welcome back!

 

So, yeah, we talked this morning about carrying on from, … And I just did that little recap. I’m sure you heard it. That’s what we talked about generally last time. And you had told me you had touched upon the fact that there was an appeal.

 

Well, first of all, that Ernst Zundel was found guilty. Right. And then there was an appeal a year later in 1986. Can you carry on with that story, please?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Sure.

 

So after the trial in March 1985, that was when he was found guilty on, actually, he was charged under two charges. One was about the booklet Did Six Million really Die? And the other one was about, I guess you might call it a leaflet or pamphlet called The West, War and Islam.

 

And so which we think they just threw that in just to kind of mix things up, keep people kind of confused. So they didn’t just concentrate on the main subject.

 

Anyway, he was found guilty on just “Did Six Million really Die?”, but he was found not guilty on the “The West, War and Islam”.

 

So after that, the next month, he was dragged in for the his deportation hearing. They were going to deport him. It seems they started deportation proceedings about halfway into the trial. [chuckling] So I think they already had a plan, but the plan eventually got upset.

 

Monika Schaefer: So are you talking about the, … Excuse me. Are you talking about, they started their procedures to deport Ernst Zundel back to Germany? Is that correct?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

 

Monika Schaefer: It’s so interesting because I remember hearing over the years back then, that was kind of a topic that came up over and over again in the news to deport Ernst Zundel. And they never did. They never did until much later, you know, following the debacle when he was arrested in Tennessee, years later. And of course, that was following 9/11, when they had whole new set of rules. [chuckling] But please carry on.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, they started working on his deportation papers and all that stuff before the trial was even over! I mean, normally you wait till the person’s guilty before you do that.

 

So anyway, they started that. And of course, they couldn’t exactly deport him right away because he was appealing the decision. So in 1986, they went to the Ontario Appeal Court. And it was heard by the Chief Justice and five justices, five judges, for the appeal. So that was a pretty big appeal. So they heard it and that was in the summer of 86. They didn’t come down with their verdict until January of 87, at which time he won the appeal. They said:

 

“Yes, it was wrong, what happened during the trial and so therefore, we overturn the verdict of the trial.”

 

And immediately the authorities stepped up and they appealed the appeal. And so it went to. What was that? That was spring of 87. So April and June. Well, April they went to the Supreme Court of Canada with us.

 

And so they heard the case and they thought it over. And in June, they come back with their verdict, and that again, was overturned, the verdict of the 1985 trial. So therefore, in that case, what happened was the deportation hearing or deportation order were thrown out because that was based on the verdict, which is no longer good.

 

And also his, what do you call it, his gag order was also null and void because of that.

 

[16:39]

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, good. Just on a point here, people might be wondering why they threw out the 1985 verdict. Was it because of things that happened during the trial that were actually improper? Like they didn’t do proper proceedings? Like they did illegal things, perhaps during the trial?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, they didn’t really say the things were illegal, but they were improper. The judge of the trial made improper decisions and refused to allow evidence that should have been allowed, and allowed things that shouldn’t have been allowed and things of that nature.

 

Monika Schaefer: It’s funny that it just kind of reminds me of the Schaefer sibling trial in Germany in 2018! [chuckling]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Ha ha! Yeah!

 

Monika Schaefer: They didn’t allow any of our witnesses that would have been favorable to our side of the story. They didn’t allow any of those to even appear. And then they did all kinds of things that were completely illegal, every single trial day. [chuckling] But carry on with this, your story, please.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. I think it was even the next day when the Attorney General of Ontario, I think it was, he had the choice of either dropping the whole thing or ordering a new trial. And so undoubtedly, under pressure from certain (((groups))) and things, he decided it was best to have another trial. So he ordered a new trial.

 

And, oh, by the way, for those who don’t know, the concept of appealing something is its not another trial if there is a problem with the legality and all the technical things of the trial. It’s not a new trial.

 

So anyway, so therefore new one was ordered. And as it turns out, evidence surfaced that jewish groups had gone around to various news outlets and stuff and discussed with them that they should not report that trial the same way they reported the first trial. First trial got mega coverage, millions and millions of dollars! I mean, Mr. Zundel was a household word all across Canada and part of the northern United States, because it was broadcast everywhere for six weeks.

 

And of course, they didn’t want that to happen again.

 

Monika Schaefer: Very true, because there were a lot of details in the fine print of, for example, newspaper articles in mainstream newspapers that had I read past the headlines, I would have learned a lot. They actually reported what was going on in that trial, and evidence coming forward was not favorable to the mainstream orthodox narrative, was it?

 

Jürgen Neumann: No.

 

Monika Schaefer: So that was really quite something. It was very historic!

 

Jürgen Neumann: And especially the TV newscasts and stuff. They were really devastated.

 

So anyway, so they did actually manage to curtail the media reporting, restricting it for the second trial. There was nowhere near the amount of information that got out, which, of course is too bad because there was a lot more information that was revealed during the second trial. Second trial was actually four months long. It was even longer.

 

And anyway, so went to trial the second time around with everybody. Ernst got all his people together again. And so we started on the second trial. And during the second trial, it was Faurisson, for who you have mentioned, Robert Faurisson, who, by the way, had been, … Oh, no, he hadn’t been yet. Okay.

 

Anyway, it was him that kept saying:

 

“We should do this in a technical material fashion. We have to find somebody who knows something about the technology of gas chambers.”

 

And stuff like that. Because he was sure that what is suggested are gas chambers over in Auschwitz and stuff is total nonsense, because he had been there himself and looked at it. Right?

 

But he didn’t have the expertise in order to say it. Because he tried to introduce that evidence in the first trial, but he was not allowed because he was not an expert in execution equipment and gas chambers. So the judge disallowed him. So, Mr Faurisson said:

 

“Well, we have to find somebody.”

 

And so they started sending, during the trial already that’s when we started sending out letters to American prisons and to the state prisons, things who had executions, they had capital punishment, and those who had gas chambers and stuff, and asked them, the wardens and whoever else, if somebody would be willing to talk about this. Become maybe a witness for that kind of stuff.

 

And I think it was the was Missouri. I forget which state it was. Maybe Missouri.

 

Anyway, he only got one really. Well, he got a couple of replies and they said:

 

“No, actually we wouldn’t want to do that.”

 

But the warden of the one state penitentiary, Bill Armentrout, he replied that:

 

“Yeah, sure he wouldn’t mind.”

 

He understood the freedom of speech aspect and he thought:

 

“Yeah, sure, if my expertise and my evidence could be helpful, I would gladly be one.”

 

He said:

 

“But if you really want to know the nuts and bolts about gas chambers and things like that, you should talk to our engineer, Fred Leuchter.”

 

So right away we got in touch with Fred Leuchter. And so Robert Faurisson, he talked with him and they agreed. He flew down, flew to Boston where Mr. Leuchter was living, and he discussed it with him, and said:

 

“Yeah, this and this, and would you be willing to take part in all this?”

 

And Fred Leuchter said:

 

“Yeah, I would be willing to do that.”

 

So he flew back to Toronto and talked to Ernst. He said:

 

“Okay, he’s willing to do that, but, oh, we got a problem.”

 

And Ernst said:

 

“What’s that?”

 

He said:

 

“Well, Fred Leuchter believes in the Holocaust and the gas chambers.”

 

And Ernst said:

 

“Not to worry, not to worry. Didn’t we all at one time?”

 

[23:22]

 

Monika Schaefer: Exactly! Just like everybody else believes, that’s what we all learned, that’s what we all heard. So he probably hadn’t given it any more thought than that.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Exactly:

 

“So we’ll let him do it. And what he finds out is what he will find out.”

 

So he paid for him to fly to Toronto and he came and he discussed everything with Ernst and Faurisson on everything. Went over all the evidence and all the documents and everything and oh, that’s right. What had happened during the first trial was, … No, hold on a second here. I got this kind of or was it? I think it was made up for the second trial.

 

Yeah, one of our supporters is a professional model maker. And so we gave him the blueprints of the alleged gas chamber buildings and stuff like that. And he made proper scale models of these buildings that you could take apart and stuff and look and discuss and point out what’s what with them. So he pointed that out. He showed Fred Leuchter that as well. And Fred Leuchter was quite amazed at the whole thing. So he agreed that:

 

“Yeah, okay, we’ll go.”

 

So we set a team together, which is translator, Fred, Fred’s wife, the secretary, a draftsman, and myself as a video man. And in February during the trial, we flew to communist Poland and we started investigating these areas. And I’ll always remember the first time. And it was cold in February, it was cold!

 

Anyway, we were the Auschwitz camp and we approached the building that they claim is the gas chamber. And we were about 20 yards away, or more, and Fred stopped, so we all stopped. And he looked at it probably for a minute or more and he said:

 

“This is bs!”

 

He hasn’t got in the building yet, but he can already see for a distance that there’s something wrong with this one. And so anyway, so we went there and sure enough we went through the whole thing and he made his report on it. He also took samples from the walls. Because if it had been a, a homicidal gas chamber, there should be residue of the gas used, which was the same gas supposedly used, or the same gas that was used at American gas chambers was the one supposedly used here to murder people.

 

And of course that’s what made him an expert for these ones as well, because it’s supposed to be the same gas. So technically it should be, generally speaking, the same technology. Which of course it wasn’t.

 

So anyway, he took all these samples and we went through Auschwitz and Birkenau and Majdanek and eventually we got back, took the stuff back. He took the samples to a very well known lab in Massachusetts, I think it was, and they checked it. You know, he said:

 

“Oh well, didn’t want it biased, the test.”

 

So the laboratory was told that these are samples from an industrial accident and could they please tell us how much hydrogen cyanide is in the samples. So they did that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, that was, that was wise, I would say, wasn’t it? Because if they actually told them where it was from Auschwitz, that might have skewed the procedures for actually telling what’s in it.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, it definitely would have. I mean, later on the guy who did the testing, who was actually the manager of the lab, actually said that in a documentary that was made about it afterwards, he actually said that:

 

“Well, if we had known it was from Auschwitz.”

 

Well, right, that tells you everything you need to know.

 

Anyway, so Mr. Leuchter wrote his report, et cetera, came to the conclusion that all is not the way they say it is. And so it was tendered as evidence in the trial, right near the end of the trial, because it took a while for everything.

 

And of course that just absolutely blew everybody away! All the prosecution and the judges, everything. They were basically speechless!

 

Monika Schaefer: And yeah, quite something. It would have been like this big smoking gun going off, wasn’t it?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yep. So they brought this in and after they realized what it was, the judge said:

 

“The jury has to leave the room.”

 

So the jury filed out so they could discuss this. So they discussed it and the judge said:

 

“Okay, we can allow this as a lettered exhibit.”

 

Whatever that actually means, because it wasn’t allowed to be shown to the jury.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh!

 

Jürgen Neumann: So I don’t know what alleged “lettered exhibit” actually meant, but it wasn’t allowed to be shown there to them.

 

Monika Schaefer: So they were going to withhold this very, very critical piece of forensic evidence? They were withholding that from the jury. Did I hear that correctly?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, you heard that correctly. Absolutely! See, because if he gave as regular exhibit, they could have access to it and actually read it and think about it.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right! Jurgen, this is just actually got me on the edge of my seat because even though I knew quite a bit about this, I didn’t know that that that was withheld from the jury. But we’re going into a break. I just heard the music begin. Please stay with us and we’ll also invite callers after the break. But this is really interesting. Thank you so much!

 

[29:43]

 

[ad]

 

[35:59]

 

[music]

 

[36:12]

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, I’d like to welcome you back to The Flipside with Monika. First, I’d like to remind you, dear listeners, if you possibly, possibly can do support this network and there are three ways you can support Republic Broadcasting Network, but I will tell you right now there is an urgency. So I’ll say the first method is the best. And that would be a direct financial donation. You can go to RepublicBroadcasting.org and you’ll find the donation instructions or call 1-800-724-2719 to make an immediate contribution. And the reason being that I say there is urgency to this because they are barely able to cover their bills for the next couple of weeks. So it seems to happen from time to time that they get very low on funds. So that is the case right now.

 

The other ways you can support the network and it’s a little bit less direct, but it is important nevertheless. One is to support the sponsors the advertisers, the things that get advertised on the network.

 

And another is, and this is really important, you know, sometimes people, they might say:

 

“Oh, you’re just in an echo chamber!”

 

Well, I say, no, not if we share these shows. If you like what you’re hearing, if the show is good, you can pass it on to somebody. Because these kind of networks, these kind of shows, they don’t get spread around very easily unless we do it directly. So share, share, share!

 

Oh, and I just have a note from the producer here that mail in is good too. And mail in a donation. And the address is on that website. And I’ll repeat the website. It is RepublicBroadcasting.org.

 

Okay, that was a first thing I wanted to take care of oh, well, there it is. There’s the address. Thank you. 2251 Double Creek Drive 302 Round Rock, Texas 78664 USA.

 

So that’s the mailing address. If you wanted to do it the old fashioned way, write a check, that kind of thing.

 

Okay. I also want to tell you we are really having to condense this incredible story that Jurgen is telling right now. But he has a channel on Bitchute and the channel name is called JohnRobinson101. So go to Bitchute, put John Robinson 101 in the search bar and you will find a ton of videos because he is very actively re-uploading some of the old stuff plus new stuff. So you’ll find a lot of good, good things there.

 

And actually when you come back on Jurgen, you can give your other website, I think on Odysee if you like. I don’t have that in front of me right now. I’ve also put a couple of links to things in the chat room, and that’s the flipsidewmonica.chatango.com.

 

And one more thing, the call in numbers. If you’d like to join our conversation today, it’s 512-248-8252 or the toll free number is 1-800-313-9443.

 

Okay, with all that said, I don’t want to take any more time away from Jurgen. And we were just on that part which illustrates the extreme corruption of the court system. I would say it’s the criminals are on the wrong side of the they should be in the docket, or in the dock or whatever they call it! [chuckling] But they’re running the show where you said that the jury was not permitted to actually read The Leuchter Report . The Leuchter Report was a bomb that like, it just blows apart the Holocaust narrative right now! And of course that’s why they wanted to keep it hidden from them.

 

Carry on from there, please, Jurgen.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Okay, before I say a little bit more, I would like to comment a little bit on Fred Leuchter’s character, him and his wife who were there. And that is, he was a very honest and dedicated guy. He had a great sense of humor. When we were there, I got this headache and I didn’t know what to do about it. They had aspirins and stuff here:

 

“Here, here, have some aspirins.”

 

I had some aspirins. At night in the hotel room they brought along a deck of cards, played cards. They were always upbeat, smiling, great people! I really enjoyed it. And he was very dedicated in his work. When we were in Auschwitz Birkenau, which is the big camp, when they had destroyed the so-called, what do you call it, gas chamber buildings and stuff, crematory gas chamber buildings. In order for to get proper samples from that one, the only way you could access it was to go down, there was one hole that was left over in the ground. So he’d get into the basement and do these things.

 

And so he was going to crawl down on there. Remember, it’s February, it’s super cold. He gets there and he can’t fit through the hole because of his heavy coat. So what does he do? He takes off his coat, he’s all cold, and he goes down in there and we videotape that where he gets down there in the water and everything else and takes all the samples, etc. So he’s very, very dedicated.

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: So back to the trial, they couldn’t read the report itself. However, Fred was then called as a witness and he was allowed to testify in front of the jury and so on. So he talked about everything that he had done and what he had seen and so on and so forth, and so jury at least got to hear him personally, although they couldn’t verify anything by reading the report.

 

Monika Schaefer: Do you think that it might have made them wonder, though, why are we not allowed to see the report that this man produced? Do you think that, or would they even have been privy to that information, that there existed a report but they were not permitted to see it? Like this is very puzzling to me. Any logically thinking person would, it would raise their alarm bells, would it not?

 

Jürgen Neumann: I would hope so.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes!

 

Jürgen Neumann: I will say that I was not in the courtroom at that time.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So from what I heard afterwards in the debriefings and stuff, was that when the judge told the jury to leave the room and stuff, that was before they actually talked a lot about the concept of the report. So I have a feeling that maybe they didn’t quite realize that there was a written report for that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: I think so, anyway.

 

Monika Schaefer: Mmm.

 

[44:13]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, so the last witness was David Irving. He was a very controversial British historian. And he himself, when he got up there, he actually changed his mind on the stand. Because the prosecutor said:

 

“Oh, you believed in the Holocaust. You’ve said so in your books and stuff like that.”

 

He said:

 

“Yeah, well, that was until now. And so now I’m going to have to change this and I’m going to have to change that, and I will change all these things to conform with the new evidence that I now know about, et cetera.”

 

So that was a big sensation as well.

 

Monika Schaefer: Incredible, isn’t it? It is sensational! It really is, yes.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So anyway, it’s all over.

 

And once again, as was expected, he was found guilty. Right. So then, time to go for another appeal.

 

So, okay, so the appeal, this went on for a while. September 1989, Professor Faurisson, who was the number one helper for number one revisionist, number one person helping research, I think, for the trial, and a witnesses at the trial as well, near his home in France, he was beaten almost to death in the park by three assailants who, they don’t know, never did catch them.

 

So he was in the hospital for quite a while in critical condition, had to wire his jaw closed and all kinds of different things. But that did not deter him! He still kept on with his revisionist views, etc. Turns out that he had actually been beaten altogether about eight times, and that never stopped him at all! That did not terrorize him into silence!

 

Monika Schaefer: A man of integrity, honesty, and his favorite word, exactitude!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. We must not forget courage.

 

Monika Schaefer: And courage! Yes, thank you. The most important of all. Thank you. Go ahead.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

 

So anyway, put in the appeal, because when we want to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, you ask for leave to appeal, you don’t automatically get one. So we put together the factum, put together all the material that’s necessary, and then it was handed into the Supreme Court so that they could have a look at it and see if an appeal was warranted. And so wait a month, a month later, finally in 1990 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal after they thought about it for 10 months, which was pretty good that they even agreed to hear it. So that was good.

 

So then they set the appeal for, I think it was 1991. So it’s going to be a little while down the road. In the meantime, Ernst went back to Germany. He had helped organize this great big huge, what was called the Leuchter Congress. Great big meeting of all kinds of revisionists in Munich, et cetera. They rented a hall in one of the big museums there.

 

And of course on the day when they got there, the museums canceled their contract:

 

“Oh no, you can’t do this.”

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh! I’ll just interject a little bit very briefly here. That is how the enemy operates. They will wait till the day of or the day before an event. Surely they knew well in advance this was going to happen. But they wait till the day of, just so that it’s very difficult for the people to deal with that then, just to carry on with some kind of an event. They don’t give them notice, in other words, so that they could reorganize elsewhere.

 

And the other thing to make note of is that is prior to 1994, because I think it was 1994 when it would have been difficult to even enter Germany for Ernst Zundel without risk of being arrested. Isn’t that correct? I think 1994 is when they came down with their Paragraph 130. I might be wrong on that. But anyway, carry on please.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, they may have come with a more stringent one, but at that time so-called “Holocaust denial” was still against the law.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, okay, it was already against the law already.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, which was very interesting. So everybody was there. This is in March of ’91. All these people, hundreds and hundreds of people were there for the Leuchter Congress and stuff.

 

And so what they decided to do was they held it in the street outside of the museum.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh great! [chuckling]

 

Jürgen Neumann: And the police were there and everything and they allowed it, so everything got going, etc. And then when Fred got up and he was going to talk, everybody of course can’t say anything because you of what you really want to say because you’re going to get arrested and all that.

 

But as it turns out, the lawyer had already been in touch with the legal department with the local authorities and stuff like that. And he told them about the Leuchter Report and so on and so forth. And the decision was that, well, this is a scientific technical report and therefore you are allowed to talk about it.

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, wow!

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s something.

 

Jürgen Neumann: It’s not propaganda. So therefore he did have a few words to say about that in public. And it was really quite an amazing day. We produced a couple of videos on that one, but it’s all in German language pretty well, so.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. We might have some German speaking listeners. You never know. Are they on your BitChute channel or that other channel?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, they are.

 

Monika Schaefer: And just while we’re on that, I forgot to get you to actually give that other channel on Odysee. I think it’s got another name, Dzray or something. Did you want to give that out too?

 

[50:53]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, I rather do a little bit more of this stuff here and then maybe at the end I will talk about that more.

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, great!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, during this time Ernst came over and he was trying to keep a low profile, of course, but eventually they found him and they did arrest him. And that started a whole series of trials in Munich.

 

So eventually he went, …

 

Monika Schaefer: So you are saying Ernst Zundel was arrested there?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, he was.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh my goodness!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, he was arrested.

 

So anyway, so he had to go through all the trials for that. Eventually at that time he kind of was found not guilty. And he had to fly back and forth a couple of times for the trials, etc.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, so when he was arrested, they didn’t jail him, but they just basically told him to get lost, get out of the country? Because you’re now talking he’s flying back and forth, which means he’s not in jail.

 

Jürgen Neumann: No, he’s not in jail. They held him in custody, charged him and all that and said:

 

“This is it. And do you give your word that you will come back for the trial?”

 

He said:

 

“Yes, he wouldn’t miss it for the world!”

 

Monika Schaefer: [chuckling] That’s how Alfred and I talked to them. But they didn’t care about that they threw us in jail anyway before the verdict! [chuckling] Okay, carry on.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, the paragraph that you’re talking about were put in afterwards after his legal thing. I think they thought:

 

“No, this is not going to work. We got to add something more stringent.”

 

Anyway, so he managed to win that one as well. They had even taken away his passport, which he managed to get back through legal channels and so on. So he was always busy, always busy, busy, busy!

 

So eventually, in 1992, the Supreme Court came down with their verdict and they said that the law under which Ernst Zundel was charged, was unconstitutional and they scrapped the law. And therefore all the charges against Ernst were dropped. Which is very interesting!

 

Monika Schaefer: These are now the Canadian charges. Right? Because you were talking about being in Germany. He was charged, arrested and charged.

 

But now we’re talking back onto the Canadian, the 1988 trial. But this was the last appeal and they threw that out, Is that correct?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, the Canadian Supreme Court threw out that law, “Spreading false news” because it was against free speech.

 

Monika Schaefer: And it was hundreds of years old, that law, was it not?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. Like from, was it 12th century or something? 13th century, something like that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, taken over from the British Commonwealth. I mean, from the UK, Right? Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. Which is very interesting. They said it was unconstitutional nine years before, wherever it was when he first got charged with all this. The first argument that our lawyer, Doug Christie, made in court when the trial started was that the law was unconstitutional. And they said:

 

“No, no, it’s fine!”

 

So it took nine years and half a million dollars and all the BS for the Supreme Court of Canada to say, finally:

 

“Yes, it’s unconstitutional!”

 

They could have done that at the beginning, you know! Nonetheless, it was incredible! Definitely incredible!

 

Yep. So anyway, that was ’92.’93 we started doing the another Voice of Freedom series of videos and we’re broadcasting them via satellite and so on. And that was very groundbreaking. Caused a lot of stir, etc. As a matter of fact, [chuckling] our opposition was so upset that one of the broadcasting facilities which we bought time from down in the US was burned to the ground. So it was arsoned!
I

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, all kinds of attacks on him still, of course, but this is just incredible stuff! Yeah, go carry on, please. We just have a couple of minutes left, so.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, exactly!

 

So eventually the Supreme Court basically said that he had the Right as a minority to say whatever he want, even if it was false, etc.

 

So he had won all these rights. And did that stop them? No, it didn’t stop them. They created this so-called Human Rights Commission and he was charged under that. And of course, the basics of the Human Rights Commission is that “truth is no defense”.

 

Monika Schaefer: I’m so glad you just said that because that is that famous or infamous line that came out of the mouth of a Canadian judge that “truth is no defense”.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yep, that’s right.

 

And so he realized that they were just trying to bankrupt him because to bring in his lawyer, you know, once a month or whatever it was exorbitant and money and all that kind of stuff. So he said:

 

“Enough of that nonsense! I can see where this is going.”

 

And so he married an American citizen, moved to Tennessee, and he was working on getting his citizenship, green card and citizenship, all through legal channels, etc.

 

And then the 9/11 thing happened. The Department of Homeland Security was created and under those new laws, they came one day to his place in Tennessee and arrested him. And his wife said:

 

“Hey, you can’t take him!”

 

Lawyers and all this stuff. They just ignored her and took him away, and they flew him back to Canada, of all places. Because they didn’t know where else to put him.

 

Monika Schaefer: We have one minute left. So he spent a couple of years in solitary confinement. I do believe he was in solitary the whole time he was in the Toronto jail. Then they finally did succeed in their deportation back to Germany and he spent five years in jail there. But, Jurgen, please give us information where people can find your videos. That would be like, this is just incredible! There’s so much. And if people want to see some of this historic footage of these shows, these interviews, all kinds of stuff, please go ahead.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Okay, the two channels that I would suggest are my main one on Bitchute, as you mentioned earlier, JohnRobinson101, that’s all one word.

 

And the second one I would recommend is I have a PDF channel on archive.org for reading. I’ve got over 200 books and papers and things like that on there that I would think that people would probably really enjoy.

 

Monika Schaefer: Is that also UnderJohn Robinson101 when they go to archive.org?

 

Jürgen Neumann: No, it’s called Researcher_PDF.

[Note: Type in Researcher-PDF. at archive.org, i.e., hyphen, not an underscore.]

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, thanks. Researcher underscore PDF. I want to thank the listeners. I want to thank you, Jurgen, for coming back. I was on the edge of my seat. I want to thank the producer, Frank, and thank you everybody.

 

And remember, please, if you can support RBN, we’ll see you next week. Bye Bye!

 

[58:37]

 

[music]

 

[58:50]

 

[ad]

 

[60:00]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of Nov 10, 2024 = 9 )

9 COMMENTS

Blewitt
November 2, 22:38
It was not hydrogen cyanide itself that was looked for but a compound resulting from a reaction of hydrogen cyanide with iron that exists in bricks and mortar, which compound is extremely stable and will not deteriorate for many, many years.

Blewitt
November 2, 23:33
The Jews destroyed Leuchrer’s business, which provided the money he lived off, in response to his testimony at the Zundel trial. Leuchter’s business was to build various kinds of execution equipment, including plans for a gas chamber for one prison, for prisons throughout the United States that executed prisoners. The Jews contacted all the prisons that did business with Leuchter and persuaded them to cut ties with Leuchter. Leuchter was also charged with the crime of practicing engineering without a degree in engineering (he had a bachelor’s degree in history, not engineering — which was irrelevant for the man was an inventor, not an engineer). A lawyer freed Leuchter from this charge, but Leuchter eventually became embittered because he felt the right-wing people who persuaded him to produce his Holocaust-denying evidence must have known that the Jews would respond by destroying his execution hardware business.

kati
November 3, 09:05
Someone edited all parts of the german holocaust into one big video, 15,5 hours i listened it sure 10 times by now, downloaded it so i got it local, one day its gone from the archive
https://archive.org/details/ernst-zundel-the-german-holocaust-the-complete-collection-parts-1-34
here is one of the better Zuendel archives of all his samisdat
https://odysee.com/@ErnstZundelArchive:6

kati
November 3, 09:17
I have to thanks Mr Neumann thanks to him i listened to all interviews i could find, Ernst Zuendel was very wholesome and he would be a good leader if they let him, my favorite interview is this 3h40m long one, its very good
https://odysee.com/@ErnstZundelVideos:8/AVOF-258—261—The-Ultimate-Interview-with-Ernst-Zundel—full—July-21st-1999:9

katana17
November 9, 02:26
Thanks kati for that reference.

kati
November 3, 09:24
Mr Neumanns bitchute channel is blocked here in germany, Operas buildin vpn is already enough to watch the videos here in germany, really good collection and videos he has there

kati
November 3, 09:35
Grüße aus Deutschland, sicher sind hier deutschsprachige Zuhörer.

katana17
November 9, 02:22
[The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript]

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

[In this weekly podcast episode The Flipside with Monika on Republic Broadcasting Network, Canadian nationalist and author, Monika Schaefer talks again with Jürgen Neumann and his time working with Ernst Zündel, the famous Canadian-German revisionist.
Key points include:
• Guest is Jürgen Neumann, Ernst Zundel’s former videographer (1:30)
• Discussion of recent Canadian report on alleged “mass graves” at residential schools (2:00)
• Criticism of efforts to criminalize “residential school denialism” in Canada (4:00)
• Recap of previous episode about Ernst Zundel’s work challenging Holocaust narrative (7:00)
• Ernst Zundel found guilty in 1985 trial but verdict overturned on appeal in 1987 (15:00)
• New trial ordered in 1988, lasting 4 months (18:00)
• Fred Leuchter brought in as expert witness on gas chambers (20:00)
• “Fred Leuchter said, ‘This is BS’” upon seeing alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz (25:00)
• Leuchter Report not allowed to be shown to jury, only entered as “lettered exhibit” (28:00)
• David Irving changed his views
on Holocaust during testimony (35:00)
• Ernst Zundel found guilty again but the law “spreading false news” ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court in 1992 (40:00)
• “The Supreme Court basically said that he had the right as a minority to say whatever he want, even if it was false” (45:00)
• Zundel charged under Human Rights Commission where “truth is no defense” (46:00)
• Zundel moved to US but arrested and deported back to Canada after 9/11 (48:00)
• Spent years in solitary confinement in Canada before deportation to Germany (49:00)
• Served 5 years in prison in Germany (49:30)
• Jürgen Neumann has a Bitchute channel “JohnRobinson101” with historic footage (50:00)
• Also has book archive at archive.org under the name “Researcher-PDF” (50:30)
– KATANA]
[TRANSCRIPT – Words: 8,235 – Duration: 60 mins]

Monika
November 9, 12:53
Thank you once again, Katana, for all your fantastic work to preserve these interviews in a written form!

 

 

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

A Message to the Anti-White System – Laura Towler’s 2024 PA Conference Speech – Oct 19, 2024 – Transcript

Patriotic Alternative – Hope is Our Duty – Blair Cottrell’s 2024 PA Conference Speech – Oct 19, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

/>

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer: Good evening. Good day. You are listening to The Flip Side with Monika, episode three on the Republic Broadcasting Network. I am your host, Monika Schaefer. It is July 13, 2024.

 

I am very much looking forward to having a guest this evening. And he is a fellow Canadian. He has been in the trenches, you could say, for years. Actually, for decades. He was aware of really, the big picture of what is going on in this world long before I was! I think I was still playing in the sandbox [chuckling] when he was starting to tell the truth and do some things that got him into some hot water! And I’ll get him to tell his story.

 

But first, I’m going to just tell you about the summer fundraiser that the RBN is having. The Republic Broadcasting Network. And before I read their blurb about the summer fundraiser, I’d just like to say a word about this sort of thing about fundraising. Please never consider it as “charity”. Think of it more as this is just part of the cost of life. And when we are in an upside down world, then we need to take these things into our own hands.

 

Now, if we were not in an upside down world and we were living in a world where there were no lies and deceptions from government and from our institutions, then this type of thing would be paid for through our taxes and our, we would be just living a world where the mainstream media would be us! [chuckling]

 

But it’s not! So think of it as part of the cost of living. Cost of life. Yes.

 

So I’m just going to read their blurb. Please participate in this fundraising effort to help us get over this financial hump for the next three months. That is, for July, August, and September. Donors who contribute $100 or more within this timeframe may request a unique RBN T-shirt. And the first ten participants will also receive an RBN gift package. This will include an additional classic RBN T-shirt, bumper stickers, and business cards. And thank you for your participation. And T-shirts will be sent after the summer fundraiser is over, October 1. And please do include your shipping information and T-shirt size. And you can donate by telephone at 1800 724 2719, extension three. Or go to the Republicbroadcasting.org/news/Summer-fundraiser and you can find all the information there. There are other ways to donate as well. PayPal or., … Yeah, anyway, I’ll let you sort that out. You could always phone that number. 1800 724 2719, extension three.

 

Now, to introduce my guest this evening, I’ve mentioned he’s a Canadian and he’s been at this for a long time. Paul Fromm is my guest, and I’m so happy to welcome him.

 

And just before I get him to say hello, I would just like to tell you that when I was first in the “hot seat”, you can say after I did my video [Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust] and I was starting to endure the wrath of the people in my own community as well as further afield, one of the first things that I was smeared by association, I was smeared by association for I had associated with this man, Paul Fromm! [chuckling] I think it’s quite funny now. I mean, it’s comical!

 

Unfortunately, we tend to be very much a herd creature, our people in general. We like to be part of the group, the group mentality. It seems to be very important to us in general to be accepted by our group.

 

Now, that is fine if we’re not infiltrated by an enemy. But it is really a hindrance for us when we have an enemy that moves among us, hiding themselves and doing their business by stealth and lies and deception and tricking us into believing that they are part of our group and they are not!

 

And I’m just going to give one little story about how powerful that “by association” thing is. And Paul knows all of these characters that I’m going to talk about. He knows them well.

 

When Arthur Topham was facing the Inquisition and for speech that our enemy does not like, I was putting out the word on social media, Facebook and whatnot, I was saying:

 

“You’ve got to support this man. It’s about free speech. And even if you don’t agree with everything that he says, it’s really a fight for all of us. Because if he loses this battle, then we all lose!”

 

Because really think of it as a battle for free speech. Well, then one of my good friends at the time, who I played lots of music with, and he was a very intelligent man. He was a chief forester. So he really was very competent man. But he comes back to me with this. He says:

 

“Well, I’ve checked out Arthur Topham’s website.”

 

The radicalpress.com, that he had at the time. And I guess the most recent article there was, he did a very complimentary piece, like an obituary, you could say, for Douglas Christie, who had just died recently at that time. And Douglas, and my friend says:

 

“Douglas Christie, he defended Ernst Zundel! And now Arthur is writing good things about Douglas Christie! So, no, I’m not going to support this man. Sorry, Monika. No. Done! I’m not!”

 

So this was like a third degree of association, really. Third degree of association. So a lawyer defends Ernst Zundel. Ernst Zundel, in this man’s eyes, was bad. And then Arthur writes something nice about Doug Christie after Doug Christie dies. And this man, this former friend of mine, does not want to support the court case, or he doesn’t want to support this man, who is really in a big fight. And I was saying:

 

“You know, listen, support free speech for this.”

 

So there you go, by association.

 

[09:07]

 

So this similar thing happened with me. People were writing things in the local paper in Jasper:

 

“Oh, she associates with Paul Fromm!”

 

Talking about me. So in this upside down world, Paul, I would take that as a great compliment.

 

Now, of course, it’s when we’re still in that world, it just seems, you know, hurtful and whatnot for both you and me. But really, we should both take it as a compliment.

 

So welcome to The Flip Side with Monika, Paul Fromm! Hello? Are you there? Okay, Paul, do you want to unmute? Perhaps you’re muted now. I see a mute button on Paul’s, …

 

Hello? Paul? Hmm. Okay. We might have to just maybe figure that out, and I’ll carry on. And then as soon as Paul can get through, I would sure appreciate it if he could let us know. [chuckling]

 

Well, I’m going to get Paul to tell his story, because he had his own trials and tribulations. He used to be a teacher, I believe, math and English. I might be wrong on that. I’ll have to get him to tell us. But he did upset a certain group of people. That same group of people who is that we’re always up against, the ones we’re not allowed to criticize, lest we be called “anti-semitic”. It’s always them. They’re the ones who are responsible for having put my brother and myself in jail for saying certain things that disagreed with their narrative of World War Two, history, the so-called jewish Holocaust.

 

Anyway, I’m not exactly sure what it was that Paul was saying at the time, but he was fired from his job. I do know that. And so since then, he’s been hard at work. He’s got several organizations under his name, the CAFE, which is the Canadian Association for Free Expression and C-FAR, I think.

 

Okay, I’m not getting a clear signal. Are you getting something there?

 

Paul Fromm: I can hear you.

 

Monika Schaefer: There you go. You are there. Good! Okay, Paul, would you like to tell a little bit your story?

 

Paul Fromm: Oh, okay.

 

Monika Schaefer: I don’t know if you could hear me. Could you hear me?

 

Paul Fromm: Yeah, I can hear. I heard everything.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, good. So why don’t you carry on and fill in the blanks there. I was just starting to get into it.

 

Paul Fromm: Okay. Well, I’ve been a long time activist and freedom and patriotic causes going back to about 1965. And I, without going into my whole history, I have to say, and I do this by way of introduction. Well, I have two big issues, free speech and immigration. Not enough free speech and too much immigration!

 

And that’s what I’ve been pursuing for the better part of five decades. I was very sympathetic to you when you got into all this trouble. And it’s typical of the tactics of our enemy.

 

And immediately, one of the things that Doug Christie used to say about these so-called “hate charges”. That there’s a process. And it’s defamation, isolate, criminalize! So first of all, the media and others usually egged on by the usual suspects defame you. There are hysterical articles about how horrible you are and so on.

 

And then the next thing, the goal of that, among other things, is to isolate you. And exactly, exactly what you’re describing happened to you:

 

“Oh, I won’t help Arthur Topham because you said something nice about Paul Fromm. Or you associated with Paul Fromm.”

 

And so eventually, [words unclear] your supporters, because your friends or supporters are all intimidated and scared. Now that does not always work, but it’s what’s in place.

 

So in my own case, I’ve been an activist for a good number of years. I’ve been an English instructor in Peel County for 25 years. And I had a former Director of Education called me an “exemplary teacher”. So there’s never any problem with my teaching. And I kept my politics out of the classroom. I taught English, and I had fairly high standards. And I know I was appreciated because I was regularly called to do night school or summer school. So teachers who are not very good or real screw up, don’t get the invitation. I did. So, yeah, I was a successful professional.

 

And then in 1991, I went to a meeting of the Dramas [sp] Committee on community and racial relations. And at that meeting, there was a native Indian who was promoting, who was demanding more and more repression, that fascist groups should not be allowed to use facilities for meetings and so on and so on.

 

And he listed a number of things and then he said, and other measures. So I piped up [words unclear]

 

Now, I thought that was very funny. And many other people did, when I told the story over the years. What I was saying was:

 

“How far would you go? Just start [words unclear] free speech.”

 

Well, anyway, their meeting went nuts, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Paul, excuse me, can you just repeat what you typed up? Because your connection is not super clear. Not in my ear, anyway. And I just missed. What did you type up that sent them into a fit?

 

Paul Fromm: Well, no, I didn’t type up. I piped up. I heckled up.

 

Monika Schaefer: You piped up! I’m sorry. [chuckling] Okay.

 

Paul Fromm: And I said:

 

“Scalp them!”

 

You know, like how far? He was saying, “and other measures”.

 

And I said:

 

“Scalp them?”

 

Question mark. Like:

 

“How far would you go?”

 

Anyway, this was quite upsetting.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Paul Fromm: And so I was thrown out of the meeting. And the next day, the Canadian jewish Congress and others started demanding my Board of Education fire me!

 

[16:55]

 

Notice there’s nothing I did in the classroom or said in the classroom. On my own time, on my own dime, I made a comment.

 

Okay, well, this was fought over and finally the Board of Education decided to give me a reprimand that:

 

“I shouldn’t say things like that and I shouldn’t do it again.”

 

I never agreed with that. I thought I was on my own time, you know?

 

Anyway, so by now, though, the dark forces were really gunning for me. So they came across a film about 18 months later that I had of a meeting I’d attended in December of 1990. And it was for the Nationalist Heritage Front, and I had given a speech about freedom of speech.

 

Anyway, they alleged that somewhere in the corner of the room there was a swastika.

 

Now, I didn’t put it there, I didn’t waive it and so on, but I gained guilt by association. So now they were really after me! And the Board of Education was so flummoxed that they called upon the Minister of Education to do something, because the Minister of Education had the power in those days to take away your teaching certificate.

 

Monika Schaefer: You know, Paul, just to pause there, I find that interesting. Oh, somewhere in the room they found a swastika, and you mentioned you didn’t put it there.

 

Now, aside from the fact that the swastika is, it’s been demonized, and that’s just a really false thing because swastika has always represented something good. But just aside from that, probably it was provocateur that did that, because that’s how they operate. They want to get you, so they’ll do some action that’s like it’s a provocation. And they do it themselves. Like those who want to take you out, probably did that.

 

But anyway, carry on with your story.

 

Paul Fromm: Well, that’s possible. So they asked the Minister of Education to take away my teaching certificate.

 

Now, the Minister of Education at the time was an NDP’er [sp], but he didn’t! He investigated the case.

 

And apparently there were censorship groups that burst into his office cursing him and swearing and carrying on because he wouldn’t take it away.

 

Anyway, so what he did was he set up a special committee, sorry, special inquiry under an NDP lawyer who is going to look into me and my case. So that inquiry, which was supposed to be over in a month, ended up extending about, if I recall correctly, about seven months. And they heard from various lobby groups, they heard from a few students, they heard from a few teachers.

 

And I actually did have some support from a number of other teachers. One who was, I think, an NDP’er. And she said:

 

“Well, I don’t agree with Paul, but he’s always been a good teacher and he’s never brought his views into the classroom.”

 

And several others said the same thing.

 

And I was at that time the most investigated teacher ever in the province of Ontario!

 

Now I hadn’t molested students or stolen the coffee fund or anything like that! I had expressed my own views on my own time, off school property.

 

Okay, the inquiry, it was a complicated finding, but it said:

 

“Well, his remarks didn’t go far enough for him to be fired under the present legislation, but he should be. The legislation should be changed and then he could be fired and then, …”

 

Anyway, so the board of education didn’t know what to do with me, so they decided they would put me into adult education. And many people said that was the punishment because I would now have to deal with a lot of non-Whites. Well, it wasn’t a punishment! I mean, I didn’t see it as such.

 

The adults were very motivated to learn. They’d come back to school as adults and they came back because they wanted to get their high school diploma and they wanted to learn! Whereas many of the adolescents, I mean, some of the adolescents didn’t want to learn. They’re going through a rebellious stage and they hate adults. They hate everybody! So I had virtually no trouble with any of the adults, even though over 50% of them were non-White. And I’m supposed to have been made so angry by that. I wasn’t. Things went well.

 

But finally, we now skip ahead to 1997. So they’ve been after me for six years.

 

Finally, in 1997, the board voted to fire me. And that’s because the Supreme Court had heard the Malcolm Ross case. He was a teacher in New Brunswick and he had written a number of books, one against abortion, one against the jewish lobby, and so on. Again, on his own time, on his own dime, off school property.

 

And it was alleged in the human rights theory that he created a “poisoned environment”. And we would hear that more and more:

 

“Your very existence on this earth creates a poisoned environment!”

 

And you probably heard that, Monika, in Jasper. Your very being alive, poisons things!

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. This is so interesting, Paul. Yeah. The poisoned environment and the fact that they had to make special, you know, different laws. I mean, it reminded me of Robert Faurisson. For whom they made a special law in France, just for him! It’s just really amazing how they pursued you. And they really had a hard time to fire you because you did your job very well! [chuckling]

 

You’re the kind of guy they don’t like at all because you’re intelligent, you do your job well, you’re conscientious, but somehow they have to get rid of you because you’re too wise to the situation and you’re seeing things way in advance of most of us, I have to say. Like way before, most of us have seen really what was wrong with this mass immigration and mass immigration from third world countries and whatnot. That it would change the very fabric of our nations. And look at where we are at now! My goodness! And you were really ahead of the of the curveball there on that. But please carry on.

 

[24:08]

 

Paul Fromm: Unfortunately, those were the old days and there have been enough cases since then, not just in education, that we have a new form of slavery. Your employer owns you 24 hours a day! It used to be your employer was entitled to seven or 8 hours a day of your work and diligence. And what you did on your own time was your business in more. In many cases now, that’s no longer the situation.

 

Anyway, so I hired Doug Christie. We had a couple meetings with the Board. And he put up a fantastic fight! And I was supposed to be fired in a week. And we dragged it out for seven weeks.

 

And finally my union leader said, and the union was backing me at this stage. He said:

 

“Boy, your lawyer has made some great speeches. He is really powerful! But you’re going to lose.”

 

I said:

 

“What do you mean? You just said, I’ve got a great lawyer.”

 

He says:

 

“Well, I’ll tell you what. You’re going to lose, because the day they fire you (sorry), the day after they fire you, the phone calls stop!”

 

Monika Schaefer: The phone calls. What? Sorry?

 

Paul Fromm: The phone calls stop!

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh!

 

Paul Fromm: The pressure. And so in other words, …

 

Monika Schaefer: The board was getting probably many, many phone calls. And I wouldn’t doubt that there was a big organized lobby that was making these phone calls happen. And I just would venture to say that it was very likely the jewish lobby. They are very organized. That’s just., …

 

Paul Fromm: It was them!

 

Anyway, in January of 1997, I was fired!

 

Now, I’ve had a 25 year career. I had a wife and two small children. That didn’t matter. I was out on my rear end! I applied for unemployment insurance and was turned down because I was “fired for cause”. Well, I said:

 

“We are in the process of, the union and I, are in the process of aggrieving the firing!”

 

It didn’t matter.

 

So we went to the Court of Appeal, and I had a good lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka, or the late Barbara Kulaszka. The government’s Lawyer was an oriental woman. And the judge, I swear, was drunk! And he mocked both lawyers, and in the end, ruled against me.

 

So I’m unemployed, and although we’re appealing the firing, I have no income. The appeal, nothing goes quickly in Canadian justice. Took about a year and a half, and I lost on a two to one vote by the Arbitration Board. And I did various things to earn a living. And I got back into education with a different board as a substitute teacher. And this would be about seven or eight years later.

 

And then the Teachers Federation, under complaints, after complaints of the (((usual suspects))), the Teachers Federation, decided they would try to take away my teaching license. So without a teaching license you can’t teach in Ontario. And after a big fight, they did! They voted. They said that I had “consorted”. That was the term, “consorted with disreputable people”, one of them being Representative Dr David Duke. I had been at conferences in the United States, again, all my own time, off school property. And I had “bad friends”, or, I mean “bad acquaintances”. Pretty much what was being said about you and Arthur Topham. You knew bad people, so therefore you’re no good and you deserve no help!

 

And so that ended my teaching career.

 

And I had to look for other employment. And it’s a pretty ruthless world! And I learned a lot about human nature.

 

Monika Schaefer: No doubt! No doubt you did, Paul, as did I. This isolation tactic, and you perfectly said it earlier, that first the defamation and the isolation and then the criminalization!

 

Paul Fromm: Yeah. Now, because once you’re isolated, it’s easier to take you to court. You’ve got no friends, presumably now, no money, except your own, if you have any. And you know, you’re the ideal victim.

 

[music playing]

 

Monika Schaefer: We’re coming up against the bottom of the hour, but please hold on and we’ll be right back after these messages.

 

Thank you very much for listening.

 

[29:28]

 

[ad]

 

[36:00]

 

[music]

 

[37:00]

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, I think we’ll like to welcome you back to The Flipside with Monika and our guest, Paul Fromm. And we have a little bit more to discuss and talk about, and then we would like to take callers in the last 15 minutes of the show. So the number for that is 512 248 8252 or toll free 1800 313 9443.

 

Now, Paul, you were just going to tell us a story about your association or what they perceived as your association with the KKK. Why don’t you tell us what you had in mind there.

 

Paul Fromm: A radical Leftist author at the time dealt with the so-called Right in Canada and did a profile on me. And she called me a sort of a Fred McMurray character. You know, shirt and tie, gentle spoken, button down, and a good teacher. Okay.

 

But when it came time for my, … When they were trying to take away my teaching certificate, one of the allegations by one of my former department heads was:

 

“Well, the rumor was I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

 

And so when I had her on the witness stand, I said:

 

“Well, okay. Would that concern you?”

 

She said:

 

“Well, yes.”

 

I said:

 

“Well, where did you get the information?”

 

“Well, it was sort of general knowledge.”

 

I said:

 

“Come on, you’re university educated. You know the scientific method. I mean, you have to prove things. Well, what was the proof?”

 

“Oh, well, it was generally known.”

 

And I said:

 

“Okay, you thought that was the case. And you saw me every day in the English department office. Why didn’t you ever ask me? I mean, ‘is it true you’re a member of the Klan?’.”

 

“Oh, well, people were afraid of you.”

 

I said:

 

“Why was that? Did I ever threaten you?”

 

“No.”

 

“Did I ever threaten anybody else around the school?”

 

“Well, no.”

 

“Did I threaten the students?”

 

“Well, no.”

 

“So I said, nobody ever threatened you had this concern or belief, but you never asked me!”

 

Monika Schaefer: Isn’t that something!

 

Paul Fromm: And I thought:

 

“Honest to God, these people are disgusting!”

 

You know?

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, that’s, … I mean, I could think of many examples of similar stories like that wherever they could have just asked a simple question. Like the judge in Germany at one of my bail hearings, when afterwards, the justification for keeping me in jail was longer than our meeting itself, or it took longer to read it than the meeting took itself. And there were some ridiculous assumptions they made that I thought:

 

“Well, they could have just asked me that!”

 

But they didn’t. They just have their preconceived agenda, or their notion. And besides which, I’ll just say this, Paul, about the KKK. It’s another one of those things that, my goodness, have we ever been lied to about that whole organization! Not that I want to get into that now. I would be going down a whole another rabbit trail for our hour now.

 

But it’s just another one of those things that we’ve been really, really deceived about the nature of that organization and the history and whatnot, and what they did and what it was about.

 

So, yeah, just to put that. But there you go. They didn’t even ask you if you were part of it, but they just assumed you were. And that’s it. Verdict is made, and then, …

 

Paul Fromm: The fix was in. I was never going to win that hearing anyway, but I certainly landed a lot of, … Messed these witnesses up pretty well. And even through the help of Dave Lindsay, who is a sort of he doesn’t like being called a paralegal, because legally he’s not. But he probably knows more about the law than most lawyers anyway.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

 

Paul Fromm: I was told at one point it would cost., … The hearing was supposed to go on for about 20 some days, and it would cost about $1,000 a day for the transcript. And there’s no way I could afford it. By this time, the union was no longer supporting me. So my entire defense was out of my own pocket.

 

Well, Dave said:

 

“We will challenge that before the committee on the basis that the Magna Carta says that ‘justice shall not be bought or sold’.”

 

And we knocked them on their rear ends with that argument!:

 

“Look, if I’m not allowed to have the transcript, if I have to pay for it and I can’t afford it, justice is being denied to me!”

 

Well, that absolutely flummoxed them! And in the end, I got my transcript free!

 

So we won a few. Maybe I didn’t win the main battle, but it was a great fight. Oh, yes!

 

And at one of the sessions, two members of the jewish Defense League [JDL, not the ADL, but similar], they were picketing the hearing that day. I mean, God knows why! They wanted me gone. But okay, that’s what the hearing was about.

 

So the two members jumped into this elevator as I got in and they tried to attack me! And two metro police were in the elevator. They did it right in front of the cops and the cops restrained them, so they never landed the blow on me. And yeah, yeah, it was, as they said back in those days, a hairy time!

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, my goodness! Yeah.

 

And so, okay, so thanks for telling us about your story. Basically, I’m sure there, we could talk for hours about it and we still wouldn’t have heard all the interesting details about it.

 

But then, you know what I find so admirable is then what you’ve been doing for the last several decades with the Canadian Association for Free Expression and with C-FAR. What does C-FAR stand for?

 

Paul Fromm: It stands for Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform. But our major endeavor is publishing the Canadian Immigration Hotline. Our major issue is [word unclear] immigration.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right. And then you’ve also assisted and been involved, I think, to some degree or other, with many speech crime trials in Canada. And Arthur Tophams, that’s where I first met you face to face. And I know you were involved in many others. And there are current political prisoners. The two that come to my mind, and there might be more, but I’m not sure right now. But Leslie Bory, who is in prison in Ontario, and it’s probably the worst prison in Canada, it sounds like the conditions are just horrendous!

 

And then there’s Brad Love in northern Alberta. And he’s going to come out of, and yeah, … I hear some music, but it’s for a different show there! [chuckling] Okay. That’s it! It’s taken care of thanks.

 

Yeah, so we could talk a little bit about both of them. I had thought about reading excerpts, but I probably should dedicate a whole show to reading some excerpts out of their letters. I’m in correspondence with both of them. Brad Love is soon coming out. Like, I think in just a few days, maybe in a week from now or so. he did just a little tiny blurb here when he was writing, this was back in, let’s see, May. And there were lots of fires.

 

And so he was a bit concerned about his home. Because eight years ago he lost everything. And he says:

 

“Please, not again, Lord. But my landlord says all is well up there. Yet, still I’m nervous. I’d call the Mayor up there, but he would call the cops on me or he called the cops on me in 2020. I’d call the newspaper. But yeah, the same thing I kid you not! Oh, yeah. Radio station as well. And two MP’s. Should I continue?”

 

So [chuckling] you see, he’s in jail for writing letters and making phone calls to these representatives that are supposed to be available for us, the citizens! But that’s what he’s in jail for, because I guess they feel that he is pestering them too much.

 

And then there’s Leslie Bory, who has been in jail now for 16 months plus. And he has not yet been formally charged. Is that correct, Paul? Can you talk a little bit about that? And then we’ll take some callers before we reach the top of the hour.

 

[46:37]

 

Paul Fromm: The great abuses of the Canadian justice system is the remand system.

 

Now, you have a right, if you’re accused of a crime, charged with a crime, to get reasonable bail. That is a right. And it can only be canceled for very serious reasons.

 

Now, we, without naming names, but summarizing, there are a number of instances recently of people even, who’ve been accused of murder, who are out on bail, armed robbery, shooting people, blah, blah, blah, out on bail!

 

But political dissidents, like one of the leaders of the truckers Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich, she’d been in jail for 57 days, denied bail, and when she finally did get bail, she was virtually a prisoner in her own home, not allowed on the Internet, etcetera. Political dissidents have trouble getting bail. And that was Leslie Bory. Leslie had his own little television program on the Internet, I think it was called Brantford TV. And he took some pretty strong stands about, about jews, about police, and so on.

 

And so he did a broadcast on February 11th of 2023. Four days later, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Two days later, I believe.

 

Paul Fromm: Yeah, two days later the police show up armed, to the job he held in a workshop, and guns pointed. The guy was unarmed.

 

Monika Schaefer: He said he had a lunch kit in one hand and keys in the other hand, and they took him down, you know, SWAT team, like. Yeah, like a dangerous criminal style!

 

Paul Fromm: The police were raiding his home. They stole his computer and various towers, and his wife was taken off in handcuffs, put in a police cruiser. They put those spike strips across the street, blocked the street off. The woman is unarmed! And she was never charged. There was nothing to charge her with. But anyway, …

 

Monika Schaefer: So it’s to make a big scene, isn’t it, to show the neighborhood:

 

“There’s a very dangerous man living here!”

 

I mean, they did that to me. They came with their flashing lights, two of their, you know, reds and blues vehicles. And I lived like half a block from the RCMP station in Jasper, and yet they drove over with their lights going full bore. And I lived in a co-op there. So dense housing and so that all the neighbors could:

 

“See what a dangerous person lives here!”

 

[chuckling]

 

Paul Fromm: What did she do!:

 

“Oh, my God! Are our dogs even safe around her?”

 

But so it was a high impact takedown, and he was charged with three counts of uttering threats against groups, not individuals.

 

And then later he was charged with one count under the hate law:

 

“The willful promotion of hate against a privileged group.”

 

In this case, jews. And one count of:

 

“Willfully promoting genocide.”

 

And, okay, all these are non-violent offenses.

 

Monika Schaefer: If I could just interject, Paul. He’s the messenger. The long and the short of it is that he is the messenger. I say don’t shoot the messenger!

 

I mean, this is how it is right now.

 

And we do have a caller on the line, but if you’d like to just complete that thought briefly, we’ll take the call.

 

Paul Fromm: Anyway. He’s basically in there for running his mouth in a politically incorrect way.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

Paul Fromm: He had bad thoughts as opposed to people who get bail who did bad things, or I should say, do bad things, anyway.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. The irony is he could be in jail already, sitting in jail longer than what the charge would merit, as in the he’s already, … Like, they won’t let him out until he’s already served the time. That even if he’s guilty of some crime, like, you know what I mean? Like, they just hold him there.

 

Paul Fromm: He probably already has. Anyway, that was February 14, 2023. Despite numerous attempts to get bail, they have failed. Bail denied. He remains there in warehouse. And there is a very large number of people in Canada, particularly in Ontario, who are essentially being warehoused. They call it “remand”. They’re not given bail, and they’re just there in bad conditions in a prison week after week.

 

He is now being in for over 500 days. We’ve had six protests outside the prison to support him, and this is a real injustice. His alleged crime are bad words and bad thoughts! He hasn’t hurt anybody. But the system fears the thinker far more than they do the guy that goes and beats someone.

 

Monika Schaefer: That is the key, Paul! The system that is composed of the criminals. The criminals are running the show. They fear the speech. You know, the truth more than anything else, because that is exactly what will undermine their power!

 

[52:33]

 

Paul Fromm: If your audience has ever read Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He described the conditions in the prison camps, the Gulags, and yes, things were not very good for anybody. But killers and rapists and robbers were not treated as badly as the political prisoners. That incident is punished far more!

 

Monika Schaefer: This is what we’re seeing now. Mr Producer, could you bring in Larkin from Texas? Because we just have five minutes remaining and we’d like to., … He’s been waiting for a while there. Are you there, Lark?

 

Lark: I am. Thanks, Monika.

 

Monika Schaefer: Go ahead.

 

Lark: And how are you, Paul? Paul, I must say that I’ve long wanted to talk to you. Quickly. Are you familiar with Sam Dixon?

 

Paul Fromm: Oh, yeah. Great friend of mine.

 

Lark: Yeah. Maybe you could talk to him sometime. He did a keynote address on behalf of Richard Spencer and his group a dozen years ago and you can find it online. It was called America the God that Failed. And in the first couple. In the first couple of minutes, Mr Dixon describes himself as a communitarian.

 

So this is an important word that I want to bring to your attention because I’ve been researching this for 20 years. You know, I learned quite a bit about what you are confronting by a Professor, the late Doctor Harrell Rome.

 

Paul Fromm: Oh, yes, I knew him years ago. Yes.

 

Lark: Yeah. His stuff is still to be found on the Internet. But and this is for you too, Monika.

 

The truth is, you guys are running into what’s called R2P, or Responsibility to Protect. And this is a part and parcel of communitarian law.

 

Now, all law enforcement in America since the Patriot Act post 9/11 has been communitarian law enforcement. And it’s taken hold of the courts. Don’t forget that on day 9/11, 2001, it was a Canadian that was captain of the ship there at NORAD in Colorado Springs, Colorado. They basically were part of the command structure.

 

So the point is that a lot of Canadian history, as we all know, has been tied to the hip with the events that occurred in America over time. And we’ve heard talk about the North American Union and stuff like that. Well, this is actually occurring right on our watch.

 

But here’s why it called. If you do a search, it’s called COREVALUES, all capped. One word. COREVALUES. It was published in 2013. I’ve already supplied a link to the board op for your benefit, Monika and Paul.

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you.

 

Lark: And yeah, if you guys look at that, you’re going to get at the root of how it is that you’re being railroaded and essentially being harmed by the justice system. And because we have simply not been made aware, we were never sent the memo that the new law of the entire world in a hyper connected time is the same law as the European Union, because that’s the legal undergirding. And that law in the European Union is known as Communitarian Law. So I’ve dropped you a few breadcrumbs. You can always reach out to me if you ever want to talk. But this is what’s at the root of what has happened to you, Paul.

 

Paul Fromm: So you’ll have to give us a contact.

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you, Lark, for that call. Excellent call! And I do see the link there, so maybe, Paul, you can see it as well. We can use that link before we lose after the end of the call here. And we just have about a minute left. But thank you again, Lark, for the call. Excellent information.

 

So, Paul, would you like to tell people where they can find your work, your newsletters online, that kind of thing? Go ahead.

 

Paul Fromm: Yes. Well, first of all, if you want to contact me and get samples of my newsletters, email me at Paul@paulfromm.com. That’s Paulfromm.com. The free speech website is CAFE. Cafe.nfs.host.com. Or go online for the Canadian Association for Free Expression and you’ll get the contact there.

 

Monika Schaefer: Paul, 10 seconds. What about any other words to take us out?

 

Paul Fromm: It’s really important that you support the people who are in prison, the political prisoners. Get the address from Monika or me and drop them a note.

 

Monika Schaefer: Freespeechmonika.com has the political prisoner addresses. Thank you so much! Thank you, Paul, for coming on our show. And thank you, Mr Producer, for your excellent work. And we’ll see you next week.

 

[58:20]

 

[music]

 

[58:48]

 

[ad]

 

[1:00:00]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/14/2024 = 0)

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript