Robert Faurisson – katana17

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

admin — Sat, 09 Nov 2024 04:59:43 +0000

Monika Schaefer

The Flipside with Monika

Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann

Sat, Nov 2, 2024

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 re Ernst Zundel (50:00)

• Also has book archive at archive.org under the name “Researcher-PDF” (50:30)

– KATANA]

https://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/the-flipside-with-monika-november-2-2024/

https://freespeechmonika.com

https://gab.com/MonikaSchaefer

https://odysee.com/@MonikaSchaefer:2

Monika’s book: https://barnesreview.org/product/sorry-mom-i-was-wrong-about-the-holocaust/

Jurgen Heumann at archive.og (many PDFs): PDF channel

Jurgen Heumann’s video archive at BitChute: JohnRobinson101

Published on Sat, Nov 2, 2024

Description

_____________

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 8,235 – Duration: 60 mins)

[Intro music]

[00:40]

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!

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 8,235

Total words in post = xxx
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Sun, Nov 10, 2024 — Updated RBN comments (9).

Version 1: Sat, Nov 9, 2024 — Published post. Transcript completed = 60/60 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes RBN comments (0).

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

admin — Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:03:14 +0000

Monika Schaefer

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with

Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel

Sat, Oct 12, 2024

[In this weekly podcast episode The Flipside with Monika on Republic Broadcasting Network, Canadian nationalist and author, Monika Schaefer talks with Jürgen Neumann and his time working with Ernst Zündel, the famous Canadian-German revisionist.

Key points include:

Jurgen Neumann worked as a videographer for Ernst Zundel for decades.

Ernst Zundel was a German immigrant to Canada who challenged the mainstream Holocaust narrative.

Zundel had a “moment of awakening” when he met Adrian Arcand, a French Canadian who had been in a Canadian concentration camp for six years during WWII.

Arcand showed Zundel historical information that contradicted the mainstream narrative: “he started showing him his library of thousands of books and started giving him all the other information that he had been denied all these years.”

Zundel described this experience as being “born again” with the truth.

In the late 1970s, Zundel ran for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, giving him a platform to speak about issues facing German immigrants.

In 1980, there was a major raid on Zundel’s supporters in Germany, leading to protests against him in Toronto.

Zundel began using video to document events and spread his message in the early 1980s.

Zundel met Robert Faurisson, described as “the world’s foremost revisionist”, who focused on questioning the existence of gas chambers.

Zundel faced legal troubles, including having his mail service cut off and being charged with “spreading false news.”

Zundel’s 1985 trial lasted six weeks and received extensive media coverage.

The trial featured testimony from Holocaust survivors that was heavily scrutinized: “it was the first time that former camp inmates were properly cross examined by a lawyer.”

A second trial in 1988 lasted almost four months and included even more information challenging the Holocaust narrative.

Jurgen Neumann accompanied Zundel on several trips to Auschwitz.

Neumann now maintains a BitChute channel called “John Robinson 101” where he uploads videos related to Zundel’s work. It contains “over a thousand videos” related to Holocaust revisionism and Zundel’s activities.

The discussion portrays Zundel as a truth-seeker facing persecution for his views, and Holocaust revisionism as a legitimate historical inquiry, rather than as hate speech or anti-semitism.

– KATANA]

https://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/the-flipside-with-monika-october-12-2024/

https://freespeechmonika.com

https://gab.com/MonikaSchaefer

https://odysee.com/@MonikaSchaefer:2

Monika’s book: https://barnesreview.org/product/sorry-mom-i-was-wrong-about-the-holocaust/

Published on Sat, Oct 12, 2024

Description

Real news, real talk, real people…  because you can handle the truth.
LISTEN to RBN *LIVE*
Your browser does not support the audio element for this particular LIVE RBN stream player. Visit: HOW TO LISTEN for more options!
Social media Share this article
The Flipside with Monika, October 12 , 2024
By RBN October 12, 2024 20:00
Related Articles
• The Flipside with Monika, July 13, 2024 4 13.Jul
• The Flipside with Monika, August 17, 2024 2 17.Aug
• The Flipside with Monika, July 27, 2024 2 27.Jul
Republic Broadcasting Network
The Flipside with Monika, October 12 , 2024
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Episode 15: Guest Jürgen Neumann was the videographer and right-hand man for Ernst Zündel during several decades. We discuss how Ernst Zündel learnt the truth about his native Germany and what he did with that knowledge.
Social media Share this article

By RBN October 12, 2024 20:00
Write a comment

_____________

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 7,778 – Duration: 60 mins)

[Intro music]

[01:05]

Monika Schaefer: Good evening. Greetings. You are listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network at Republicbroadcasting.org. It is October 12, 2024. And this is The Flipside with Monika. And I am your host, Monika Schaefer.

Okay, good news. We have a very special guest, and we had a small technical glitch, but I understand he is on the line.

And so I’m going to bring him on without too much further ado. But I’ll just set the stage a little bit and then invite my guest to give a little bit more background. His name is Jurgen Neumann, or Jurgen Neumann, I’m not sure how he likes to pronounce it. And he worked for many years, in fact, for decades, as a videographer for Ernst Zundel, or Ernst Zundel, pronounced German. And he was pretty much Ernst Zundel’s right hand man and did very many interesting things, went over to Auschwitz, not just once, but several times.

And probably most of you are familiar with the name Ernst Zundel. He was taken through the court system for reaching the wrong conclusions about World War Two, that untouchable topic that we are all supposed to believe in. Only one narrative, the Holocaust narrative! So that’s a big story.

And I always say this is still very relevant. Obviously, it is still very relevant. They put people in jail still to this day for doubting that story. And there are ever more countries that are criminalizing people who question that narrative. And Ernst Zundel was one of the greats in exposing the lies and revealing the truth about World War Two history and what exactly happened or did not happen in Germany. And Jurgen Neumann is continuing his work to this day with re-uploading videos from that are old interviews, old radio broadcasts that Ernst Zundel did decades ago. And he is busy every day doing this work.

And so I would like to welcome Jurgen Neumann to the show. Are you there?

Jürgen Neumann: I am, Monika. Thank you for having me on.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, you’re so welcome! I’m very, very happy to have you on.

And I think that people are going to learn a thing or two because I learned something new just today, earlier today when we were talking for 20 minutes or half an hour on the phone in anticipation of tonight’s show. And that was really, really great. I learned something new.

So anyway, why don’t you just set the stage a little bit more with your own background and involvement. Because then we will be talking mostly about Ernst Zundel and the greater story about that. But I do want people to know a little bit about you. So go ahead, please.

Jürgen Neumann: All right. Basically, for me, it started back in the early 1970s, anyway.

Now, my father was a German army veteran from World War Two, and so I have a little bit of a connection to that time, etcetera.

And so what happened was that he discovered through another veteran he was talking to, that there was going to be some sort of a meeting going on in Buffalo, New York. And he asked me if I would like to go along, that has something to do with at some German group there. So I agreed to go with them. We went, and I’ll cut this short, of course.

And so we went there, and they showed some films and did some speechifying and things of that nature. And afterwards, there were some book tables around. So I wandered around, figured I should buy a book. So I did. I walked over to a book table, looked at what they had, picked one up, went to, give the money to the gentleman sitting behind the table.

And I always remember that he just looked up at me. It seemed like a long time, but I’m sure it was only a few seconds, but he just did look at me.

And then he opened the book cover and wrote something in it, gave it back to me.

Came home. I got interested in topics, ordered a few books from the United States, and I decided:

“Well, someplace in Canada, maybe I could find some books rather than send my money there.”

And so eventually I thought to myself:

“Oh, somebody wrote something in one of my book covers.”

He did. He wrote his name and phone number, and it was Ernst Zundel. I phoned him, and my father and I went down to see him. And that was in 1975, when I first got to meet him. And we all hit it off with each other, and we started volunteering to come down on weekends and things and do stuff for him, etcetera.

And eventually, in 1980, there was a, … Well, he had been promoting his ideas, of course, to many people mailing out. He would do great mailings, big mailings, to not only his supporters, but to every MP, every MPP, church leaders, things like that, get them informed about what he was discovering.

So eventually, …

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, sorry, I was just going to ask, when you first met him and he was doing these mailings, was that about the topic of World War Two, or was that more about the immigrant situation? Because I know that he had a experienced some disappointments as a German immigrant in Canada, thinking that this would be such a great and wonderful free country. But what was, were those early mailings about? Was it about his discoveries about World War Two?

[07:53]

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, it was.

And as you say, yes, he was very disappointed when he got here because he, at first, he didn’t notice it that much because he only spoke limited English. So he made his [commercial art] business, he got very successful and he learned English. Went to night school to learn English, where he met his wife. And he asked her where she was from and she said:

“I’m from Canada.”

And he thought:

“I’m Canadian, here to learn English. What’s that?”

Turns out she was from Quebec. She only spoke French.

But once he learned English, he started seeing all this anti-German propaganda that was around because it had absolutely nothing to do with what he knew about his people and so on. Then they moved to Quebec and he learned French. And the French language stuff was just as bad.

And that’s how he started getting into this. And he started meeting people, interviewing people who were there, and that’s what he was sharing with his, …

Monika Schaefer: Right. And we had talked earlier about his great moment of “awakening” and he called it being born again [chuckling] in quotation marks, I’ll say And why don’t you set that up for us a little bit?

And then we do have a clip. It’s a four minute clip about his, that moment in his life when he learned the truth! Because when he left Germany as a 20 year old in, I do believe he was 20. He was born in 1939. Is that correct? Am I getting the dates right? He came over in 1950, or maybe it was 58 or 59.

Jürgen Neumann: So he was 18 going on 19.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, okay. He was even younger. And he was very much a pacifist. He just wanted out of war torn Germany.

And of course, he believed all the narratives that were being told then. Correct?

Jürgen Neumann: Correct.

Monika Schaefer: So then just set this up for us before we play that clip. Tell us about the man who helped him. Yeah.

Jürgen Neumann: So anyway, he got active in politics in the sixties, around the mid sixties or so. he was very active. He got on radio talk shows and things, talking about the Arab-Israeli debate. I think it was around the ‘67 war, or something. And anyway, he did a lot of activities and things.

And eventually he was approached by a retired RCMP called special constable. And he said:

“Oh, Mr Zundel, he said, you are interested in all these things. There is a fellow in Quebec that you should actually go see, because he has a great library about all these subjects. And he was involved in a lot of this stuff back in the day, so you should go see him.”

And so he did. He packed up his wife and child, went to Quebec, dropped her off with her mother, I think it was relatives.

And then he went to see this man whose name was Adrien Acand*. He’s a very famous Canadian, especially back in, let’s say, in the thirties and so on. He had a kind of a neo-Fascist party, political party in Quebec.

[* Adrien Arcand was a Canadian fascist politician, writer, and journalist. He founded and led the far-Right National Unity Party of Canada from 1934 until his death in 1967. During his political career, he proclaimed himself as the “Canadian Führer”. Arcand was detained by the federal government for the duration of the World War II under the Defence of Canada, Regulations. Wikipedia]

[See: The Greatest War in History, Now On! — International Jewish System Against National Patriotism – 1937]

So they were doing very well with getting support and running for things. And he was also an army officer in one of the well known French regiments, Quebec regiments. And he was also an editor for one of the largest daily French newspaper, French language newspaper, outside of France. He went to see him and he discovered that as the story went, he goes in there and he introduced himself, Acand looked at him, said:

“Oh, you are one of those brainwashed Germans!”

He said:

“Oh!”

“Yeah, well, come on in, sit down. Would you prefer us to speak in German? Would it be easier for you?”

And he was blown away. This man spoke perfect German.

And so they got to know each other and he started showing him his library of thousands of books and started giving him all the other information that he had been denied all these years.

And so he was quite blown away by the whole thing.

And one of the things that really shook him was the fact that on the day that Germany invaded Poland and Canada declared war on Germany, or three days later.

Anyway, on that day he was arrested with a number of his major people in the party, put in a Canadian concentration camp, without charge for the duration of the war.

Monika Schaefer: That blew my mind! That’s the bit that I learned today. I had heard, I kind of knew that Adrian Arcand had been in some kind of a concentration camp, but I had assumed it was in Europe, that he was still in Europe. So that blew my mind! This was in Canada and that was like basically at the very start of World War Two. Please continue.

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

So anyway, he said, after his first meeting with Arcand, which lasted about 3 hours, he said, he just kind of “floated out of the room”. He just could not [chuckling] believe what he had heard. And it made sense to him, from what he has already experienced with his own relatives and what he had seen in Germany and so on. Everything he heard made perfect sense to him.

Monika Schaefer: Thank you for that. I think this would be a perfect time to play that clip. So, Frank, if you could play that clip now, that would be great!

[14:26]

Ernst Zundel: Then I had a good fortune. Some people said misfortune. I think it was a good fortune to meet a French-Canadian in Quebec. And I was introduced to him through an Irish-Canadian, who said that this French-Canadian had a very big library about these topics, meaning communism, Bolshevism, jews, race, and I should go and see that man, because to my surprise, he said he was in concentration camp in Canada for six years during the entire Second World War. That was the first time that I heard about non-German concentration camps.

Up until that point, I was 20 years old. I always thought only the Germans had these concentration camps for political dissidents. Well, I was always a person that from the thought to the action, to inform myself or to do anything was a very short one. Some people take a long time, contemplate this, do that, plan this. I say:

“Oh, so there’s this guy in Quebec, even he’s supposed to speak German, because at the time when I was still learning the two languages, I’m gonna hop myself in my old Beetle Volkswagen and make a beeline for Quebec. Look that man up!”

And boy, oh boy, I thought I had culture shock before. Well, let me tell you, I walked into this French-Canadian’s home. It was a room somewhat like this, surrounded by many books, modern art. And he could hear by my accent that I was still struggling with the languages. And so instead of speaking French or English to me, he immediately proceeded to speak German. Big surprise to me! He was a native born Canadian, speaking pretty good German.

And it turns out he had taught himself in the concentration camp, through German prisoners to speak and read German.

And so this French-Canadian, who had been a political party leader in Canada of a very large political party before the Second World War, first called the national social Christian movement, then the National Unity Party of Canada, with a swastika under a little beaver.

So he obviously had national sort tendencies. They were somewhat in the vein of [Oswald] Mosley, you could call him a Canadian Mosley. And he proceeded in a tour de force to take me through German history and European history and world history in about three and a half hours that afternoon. And he had memorized, phenomenal memory, all these books, the points that he was illustrating to me, many of them illustrated by jewish authors, some of them dating back 100 years.

I remember one, a book called Unity in Dispersion, about the jewish dispersion and diaspora around. And about Bolshevism, the jewishness of Bolshevism, the early Bolsheviks. Blew my mind! He was the first one to make the connection between Freemasonry and revolutionaries, bankers. What it was a kind of a very condensed march through European history with the aim of showing me that there was a different side to the story! There was the standard, ordinary version of history, which turned out to be the allied propaganda version of history. Then there was very real European history.

And I’ll tell you, after three and a half hours, I walked out of that man’s room, his library. I don’t think to say to “walk out” is a correct description. I “wafted out” of that place! And it is only comparable, I think, to what Christians, born again Christians say when they found Christ, they are born again. Well, let me tell you, Ernst Zundel was born again in 1960!

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, indeed!

Monika Schaefer: Oops, I forgot to unmute.

Thank you very much, Mr Producer, for playing that clip. That indeed, yes, indeed. That was The Voice of Ernst Zundel telling the story of when he was quote, unquote, “born again” with the truth! And like you were saying, Jurgen, then he felt that everything made a lot more sense!

And so from then on, I think it became a mission of his life to restore the honor of the German people. Would you say that that’s basically the theme, the thread of all his actions in the next few decades? Would you say that would be pretty accurate?

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, that would be a very accurate description. As you say, restore the honor, the reputation of the Germans, generally speaking, and of the wartime generation in particular.

Monika Schaefer: Indeed.

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, that’s what he did. So, as I say, he was doing a lot of his activities in the sixties after he met Adrian Arcand.

And then eventually they had some really big problems in Quebec. And so he decided, him and his wife, they decided to move back to Toronto again. So they moved back to Ontario. And he carried on. He said he mailed out all these things.

And eventually, in 1980. Well, yeah, yeah, he was mailing out all these things. And there was big raids on his supporters in Germany.

Monika Schaefer: Okay, let’s just backtrack a little bit here, because that would have already been in the eighties then. I’m not sure.

But let’s just give a little more background for folks who may note, know this. What a big figure Ernst Zundel was.

He was an extraordinary man.

Now, what he was a very successful businessman, you could say. But what his business was he was a graphic artist, right? And he was earning very good money being a graphic artist, because he was an extremely talented man, very good artist.

Jürgen Neumann: Just to show you how good an artist he was, when we were having problems with the JDL* and things, he was in his office and a jewish gentleman came in to pick up his job that Ernst had retouched for him.

[* The Jewish Internet Defense Force was an organization ran social media campaigns from 2,000 to 2014 against websites and Facebook groups that it described as Islamic terrorism or anti-semitism. The group’s website, whose former domain now links to a gambling site, described the JIDF as a “private, independent, non-violent protest organization representing a collective of activists”. The JIDF was termed “hacktivism” by the BBC and Haaretz. Wikipedia]

And while he standing there waiting for us to pack it up, I asked this jewish gentleman:

“How is it that he could deal with Ernst, who has such big notoriety about the Holocaust and all this kind of stuff?”

And his answer was:

“Ahh, that doesn’t mean anything! Because I come from New York. And in New York, we have the best of everything, because we have the money to pay for the best of everything. And here in Toronto, Ernst is New York quality!”

[22:04]

Monika Schaefer: [chuckling] Wonderful! So he was just the best at it. So, okay. He became successful doing that. When was the race, the leadership race for the Liberal Party in which Ernst Zundel participated? Do you know what year that was?

Jürgen Neumann: I believe that was 1978, I think.

Monika Schaefer: Okay. That’s what I thought. I think it was the seventies still or late seventies. Just so the people listening, I think perhaps most of the listeners are not Canadian here. So you may not know this, but Ernst Zundel, he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, which was up for grabs at that time. And the winner of that leadership race would automatically land at 24 Sussex Drive, which is the home of the prime minister of Canada.

In other words, it was between elections that, I don’t know the details anymore of why there was a leadership race, who was stepping down and whatnot? Go ahead.

Jürgen Neumann: It was because the prime minister at the time had become very ill. I forget whether he had cancer or something like that. So he wanted to step down. So he was going to resign because of his illness.

And that’s why it was opened up to a leadership race within the party to become leader of the party, which would automatically make that person prime minister of Canada.

Monika Schaefer: Now, this gave Ernst Zundel a stage, a big, big audience. He was talking on the stage. This was in front of, what, 30 or 40,000 people?

And, of course, it also got broadcasted in the not just in Canada, but in other countries. So millions of people got to see and hear Ernst Zundel talk.

And I think his main issue was the treatment of immigrants in Canada, particularly German immigrants. We’re not talking about the kind of immigrants that are coming now who are the invaders, [chuckling] but from all kinds of third world countries. We’re talking about German immigrants at the time, who, it seems to me, the German people, wherever they went, they would work hard. And basically build up the country wherever they went. So yeah. And he didn’t have any expectations of winning, but it did certainly give him a platform from which to speak.

Jürgen Neumann: He did also talk on behalf of Eastern European immigrants, too, as well.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, good. Yes.

Jürgen Neumann: Because they were also looked down upon, generally speaking, in society. So he was also on their side as well.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

So okay, then let’s go forward to kind of the next major thing that happened in Ernst Zundel’s life. Back to you Jürgen.

Jürgen Neumann: As I kind of jump forward there a bit, to 1980, where there was the German government took upon itself to initiate the biggest raid in German history! And that was a raid on over 2,000 of Ernst supporters in Germany. And they raided all their houses, got all their addresses illegally through the post office. And they weren’t nice about it either. So they raided all these people, they were looking for all Ernst Zundel’s material, videotapes, … Well, not video, audio tapes, booklets, newsletters, all those types of things. And they took it away.

And that spilled over into the news here, of course, etcetera. And the jewish community in Toronto decided that they should demonstrate in front of Ernst Zundel’s place to denounce him as a neo-Nazi and a hate monger, all those things. So we got news of this demonstration and we were preparing for it.

And it turns out that one of his supporters was there who had an electronics business, you know, Hi-Fis, turntables, radios, things like that.

And so he said:

“Ernst, they’re going to come and demonstrate. Have you ever thought of video?”

Because he’s already been working with eight millimeter film, already done a few films. And he said:

“Well, I don’t know, I’m really busy right now organizing this stuff.”

He said:

“Well, okay, I’ll go out and I’ll videotape some of this stuff, this demonstration and you can have a look.”

He said:

“Yeah, yeah. Okay.”

So it happened. The guy went out there, he videotaped what he videotaped. And then after it was all over, come back in, and we’re sitting there winding down. And he said:

“Okay, Ernest, would you like to see what I did?”

He said:

“Yeah, okay.”

So he hooked it up to the television, and I remember this like it was yesterday. He pressed play, the video started, and Ernst eyes got big, looked at it, and he said:

“This is the future!”

Monika Schaefer: This is wonderful, wonderful story! [chuckling]

Jürgen Neumann: So he said:

“Oh, yeah, this is great!”

We watched it, etcetera, for a while, watched it. Then he said:

“Okay, well, we’re going to get into this! Who can we get to do the videos?”

So I put up my hand:

“I’ll volunteer. I’ve never done it. I’ve never done this before, but I will volunteer for it!”

Monika Schaefer: Oh, that’s wonderful! Who was it that did the original, that first video? I thought it was you. It was somebody else, was it?

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, it was somebody else did that.

Monika Schaefer: Okay. Okay, great!

But then you volunteered.

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, the video that is up on the Internet, the part where Ernst is sitting there talking about it. I was the camera guy for that. But all the exterior stuff was this other fellow.

Monika Schaefer: Right. But then you put up your hand and you decided:

“Okay, I’ll volunteer. This is great. Okay, here we go!”

Jürgen Neumann: It was actually 1981, in May 31st, as I recall. It was almost like, depending on who, what source you believe. There was about 2,000 demonstrators out front.

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

You know, I think we’re about to go into a break now, Juergens. So we’ll continue this after the break. And this is just getting me on the edge of my seat. It’s just really, really good! I thought I heard the music. Is that music coming on there? Oh, yeah. Okay. Hang on, everybody.

We’ll be back in a few minutes.

[29:13]

[music]

[29:43]

[ad]

[32:59]

[music]

[34:00]

Monika Schaefer: All right, we are back. The Flipside with Monika and our guest Jurgen Neumann. Before I ask you to continue, Jurgen, I’m just going to remind the listeners that if you have the means and if you possibly can, please do support the Republic Broadcasting Network. So go to Republicbroadcasting.org and you will find the means and methods to donate there, telephone numbers and whatnot.

And I’ll also just let you know that I do have a chat room at the Chatango site. And that is The Flipside W Monika dot Chatango.com. And I did, just before the show, I posted Juergen’s BitChute channel there and his alias there is JohnRobinson101 at Bitchute. And he has been working very, very hard Right to this day. I think daily there are new videos that he is posting and many of them are some very old videos. I think he does some upgrading of the sound and whatnot. Improving the sound. And old Ernst Zundel broadcast radio shows that he used to do. A Voice of Freedom, many of those. And Ernst Zundel did a lot of activity and radio interviews and whatnot.

Okay, so just before the break you were starting to talk about, … Actually, what [chuckling] were we talking about, Jürgen? We had gotten into the early eighties, I think. And the firebombing. Not quite firebombing yet, but the protests, that comes later. That’s right, with the trials. But we’re getting almost there to where that did happen. Go ahead.

Jürgen Neumann: We left off where I volunteered to be the video guy.

Monika Schaefer: Yes, yes, yes! [chuckling] That’s right. And all these people were protesting and that’s how that came about. That’s right. Okay, continue please.

Jürgen Neumann: One of the most, just as a kind of an aside, one of the most things that really sticks out to me in that video of the protests out in front of Ernst Zundel’s place was the police. There was a police line there, right to stop anything untoward happening, storming the house or something of that nature. But what really stuck out, it’s 1981, and how the police were dressed, right? They were dressed in slacks and short sleeve shirts. How were the police dressed nowadays?

Monika Schaefer: Well, they’re like.

Jürgen Neumann: Body armor, machine guns, all this stuff.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

Jürgen Neumann: Things have changed a lot. And not for the better.

Monika Schaefer: No, that’s right, yeah. And just on that, I would say they are dressed differently now because it is becoming more and more clear that the government is at war against their own people.

And so they do need to be dressed that way because they know that they are at war with their own people. Back then, it was a little bit more hidden and I think we just didn’t know it yet. But all those lies and whatnot, that was setting the scene for what is going on now. But that’s just an aside. But carry on. Go ahead, please.

Jürgen Neumann: So going back one or two years, in 1979, Ernst met the man who turned out to be the world’s foremost revisionist. A Frenchman by the name of Robert Faurisson. He was a Professor at French universities, so on.

So they had, I guess it was the inaugural opening meeting of the Institute for Historical Review, and it was in Chicago. And so Ernst was invited to that. So he went there, he met Faurisson. He had to actually read Faurisson’s paper, everybody, because Faurisson was so tired from all his traveling and stuff that he wasn’t really in much shape. So he asked Ernest if he would do that.

And by talking to Mr Faurisson he realized that Faurisson said to him, he said:

“He’s been looking at this and investigating and everything, this story about the Holocaust.”

And he said:

“He missed the obvious question at the beginning.”

Which he now says. He says:

“We have to look at what is a gas chamber? It doesn’t matter all the other anti-jewish stuff, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the gas chambers. What does it look like?”

Because he’s been to Auschwitz and stuff like that. And when you get down to the real nitty-gritty, there’s not much of a comparison between a real one and what they were talking about in Auschwitz.

So therefore Ernst, he started, of course, promoting this, promoting all that. We actually, a little later on, we did some videos with him about that subject.

Monika Schaefer: With Robert Faurisson, do you mean?

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. First he was given the publication in German called the, it was entitled, I think was Auschwitz Luge, perhaps by a German World War Two veteran by the name of Thies Christopherson.

Monika Schaefer: Right. And that means the Auschwitz Lie.

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. So he read that and he was blown away by that.

And so he decided he’s going to go and visit Mr Christopherson, which he did. He went there and he discussed it. It turns out that Christopherson had been, he was in the army, 1939, I believe. Yeah, it was 1939, the Polish campaign. He got a bit of a wound and then they considered him to be a non-combat anymore. He wasn’t good enough to fight anymore. He didn’t agree, but they did.

So eventually he had been a farmer and so they got him by 1940 or so, they sent him to Auschwitz as a agronomist, I guess they call them. And he used to study plants, kind of dandelion plants, grow them, because they produce kind of an elastic type of liquid if you crush them and all that. The whole point of Auschwitz was a plant to produce synthetic fuel and rubber for the tires and all that. And so they were going to use this as one of the additives. So he was there for, I think, a year and a half or something.

[41:36]

Monika Schaefer: You don’t say! It was a place where they were producing stuff. It wasn’t just a place where they, [laughing] you know.

Anyway, I’m just interjecting there. [chuckling] Okay, go on.

Jürgen Neumann: Well, the actual Auschwitz plant that they built there is still today the biggest chemical plant being used by the Poles in Poland. [chuckling]

So anyway, so he talked to him. And so that was another thing he started promoting. And not long after that, he was introduced to that booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? And so he was promoting that everywhere.

And because of that, next thing you know, [chuckling] he was invited onto a TV show in Hamilton. It’s called Cherington [The Tom Cherington Show (1983) – https://www. BitChute.com/video/omGAPCI4YOuK /]. The host was a well known fellow, talk show type of deal. And Ernst was invited on there to face the woman who had charged him for his postal hearing. Or did I not mention that yet?

Monika Schaefer: No. Yeah, that’s right. Go ahead. Mention that. [chuckling]

Jürgen Neumann: 1980 postal hearing. He got a letter from the Minister of Posts.

Monika Schaefer: Like you’re talking Canada, Post.

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, Canada, Post. The letter said:

“This is the last letter you will receive.”

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, they were doing something completely unheard of and completely unlawful! And they were cutting off his mail! Which had serious repercussions. It means he wouldn’t get any correspondence, let alone bills that he had to pay. Or for his work, you know, contracts, whatever.

Jürgen Neumann: So, yeah, and we had to go get the electrical bill and the insurance bills and then pay. He’d write out checks, and stuff. We’d have to go back and hand them back into the company because there’s no mail.

So this went on for about a year, until we finally got a hearing. And the hearing was longest one in Canadian history. I think it was about a week long. And the woman who made the charge against him, Sabina Citrone, she brought in a file, kind of a binder, about two, three inches thick, of all kinds of materials. And here’s all the hateful stuff that Ernst Zundel was sending in the mail. Because, you know, he’s trying to get it back. Of course, it’s an appeal.

So we looked at all the stuff. Eventually, it was quite obvious that 99% of what was in that binder had nothing to do with Ernst Zundel. So he hadn’t produced any of it, hadn’t mailed any of it. He didn’t even realize half of it existed.

Monika Schaefer: What was it? They it just put a bunch of other stuff from other people into the binder? Like, was it just, what was it?

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, it was just mostly stuff like KKK type of racist material.

Monika Schaefer: They just put stuff on him basically. They wanted to just smear him by some kind of a association or non-Association or whatever?

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, that he had been mailing this around. Anyway.

Monika Schaefer: Lying! Anyway. Lying! [chuckling]

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah.

Anyway, he won. He won it.

And then they refused to give him a copy of the transcript. But that took him, I forget how many years, ten years or something, to finally be able to look at it, but they wouldn’t give him a copy of it.

So he had his lawyer with him, and she typed out the whole transcript on her laptop, because they wouldn’t give a copy of it.

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, (((Sabina Citrone))), she was the one who’s going to be on this Cherington Show with another lawyer. And Ernst was going to be sitting across from them. And they went to it. And it was a really good show. It was like an hour and a half, I think, something like that. Live. It was really neat. He did very good job.

And then after it was over, we left the studio. We’re sitting in the lobby and you can still you still hear the program running because they had TVs in the lobby and stuff for people who would sit there. And Cherington said:

“Oh, and we’ll guess we’ll see what will happen, because there’s going to be a court case and we’ll see what’s going to happen.”

Monika Schaefer: Oh! Wow!

Jürgen Neumann: And Ernst pricked up his ear and:

“Oh, what? Court case? What’s this?”

Hadn’t heard anything about it.

And sure enough, two days later, along comes the serving of the papers that you have been charged with. Well, actually, they didn’t charge them with “hate” or anything, they just charged them with “spreading false news”.

Monika Schaefer: Right, this spreading false news.

But I find that very interesting, that these television sorts seem to have the inside knowledge of what’s going to happen.

Now, who was putting that into their ear, I wonder? And why did they have that inside knowledge of that Ernst Zundel was going to be charged? I find that very interesting! Wow!

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, so that went on to his moving ahead to his first trial. Went to court a couple of times, preliminary hearing. Had to fight our way into court. And just that every time we went into court, judges say:

“Oh, the prosecution’s not ready yet. Has to come back.”

He had do that three times, to fight our way into court.

[47:30]

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

And fighting your way into court, just to clarify for people who don’t know, that meant you were kind of running the gauntlet of all these violent thugs!

Jürgen Neumann: Oh, yeah, it was a literal fight. Literally fight! The first one, first two times, there was no police around us. Ernst and us supporters we literally had to fight our way into court. Because, of course, if you didn’t go in, then you’d automatically lose by not appearing in court.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

Jürgen Neumann: The third time, I think they finally brought out a lot of police to try to keep everybody apart.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, and it was during that trial that he first reached out to the revisionist community and said:

“Okay, everybody, now’s your chance! I need witnesses, we need information.”

And that’s when revisionism really got off the ground.

Monika Schaefer: Indeed.

Jürgen Neumann: Because it was broadcast, well, kind of around the world, but certainly in North America for, was it six weeks?

Everyday in the news, the newspapers and everything.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, exactly! And I’ll just interject here briefly. Like, I do remember, that was 1985 and I was a young adult.

And I remember it was daily news. Daily news! But for me at that time, it was kind of just background noise. But I did I didn’t think much of it. I didn’t look into it yet. And I was very much still asleep at the wheel and in The Matrix. But the media, the way they presented things, it. Ernst Zundel sounded like kind of a kooky guy, sort of a madman and a bad man, too. But I didn’t make that judgment of, oh, he’s evil. No, nothing like that. But he just was kind of a:

“Well, wow! Why would somebody do that? What he’s doing? Like the holocaust? I mean, of course it happened!”

You know, it was just as solid as the nose on your face that it happened. That’s how it was for me, my impressions.

But, yeah, it was daily news. Daily news. I mean, you couldn’t not hear about it if you lived in Canada at that time and were not with your head totally in the sand.

But you know what I did find out later when I learned more about it and read about it, if I had looked beyond the headlines, like in the newspapers, for example, if I had actually read the fine print, I would have learned a lot! It was amazing what the newspapers actually did, write! I mean, their headlines, the titles of their articles were very bad!

And a lot of people just skim over the headlines and then they move on to the next page or whatever. But within those articles, there was absolute, like, bombshell! Like it was a bomb. Like it was amazing! It was just blowing their narrative straight out of the like, it was just blowing apart their narrative, really, because they were writing what was actually going on in that trial. Back to you, Juergen.

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, exactly what was happening.

And what was very interesting about it was the court proceedings started at 10:00 am in the morning, and people started lining up to get a seat in the court at 08:00 in the morning to make sure they would get in.

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

Jürgen Neumann: That’s how much interest there was. And one morning, everybody was standing there in the hall outside the courtroom. Big line up there, people waiting. And what comes along, a jewish school class comes in and they usher them right into the courtroom.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, boy!

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. Oh, boy! Was there a revolution out in the hall! And there was an outcry to such an extent that they removed the school class.

Monika Schaefer: [laughing] I hadn’t heard about this before. Wow! Carry on.

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. You guys gotta wait your turn like everybody else. That was good. I never thought that they would do that, but they did. So that was good. There was some honesty back then.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

Jürgen Neumann: So, yeah, so anyway, it was six weeks or thereabouts, and then there was an appeal, and then the appeal was lost. No, it was won. And then it was up to the Attorney General. Not the Attorney General, but, …

Monika Schaefer: Crown prosecutor?

Jürgen Neumann: No. The main legal head of Ontario.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

Jürgen Neumann: Who to say, either we dropped the whole thing or have another trial. And he said:

“We’re going to have another trial.”

So that turned into the 1988 trial, which had even more information that went on for almost four months.

Monika Schaefer: Right! Now, I’ll just say a couple of words about these trials. The 1985 trial, there were “Holocaust survivors”. I’m putting that in quotation marks. Eyewitnesses on the stand. And did those eyewitnesses come back in 88, or did they have other eyewitnesses in 1988, Juergen?

Jürgen Neumann: No, they did not return, because as far as history goes, it was the first time that former camp inmates were properly cross examined by a lawyer!

Monika Schaefer: Right.

Jürgen Neumann: And what came out guaranteed that they are not going to come back again. [chuckling]

Monika Schaefer: Right. In other words, their testimony was absolutely shredded to bits!

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, absolutely! Totally!

Of course, one of the favorite ones was the fellow who said:

“Oh, yeah they were burning all these jews in Auschwitz. And I could tell. I look at the crematoriums, and the color of the flaming smoke coming out there would tell me the ethnic background of the jews that they were burning that day. Green for Polish jews, and red for Hungarian jews.”

Even the prosecutor kind of hurried that up.

Tried to shut him up.

Monika Schaefer: Because they knew it was just so much garbage. Oh, my goodness!

[53:58]

Jürgen Neumann: Oh yeah. I mean, even the prosecutor could see that.

Monika Schaefer: Even the prosecutor was kind of embarrassed about that and knew this is not going to bode well for our side if these witnesses are making up such ridiculous garbage! [chuckling] Anyway, it’s pretty funny, that one. Yeah. It’s so unbelievable that it’s hard to believe, but there it is. It’s in the transcripts that got said in court. There are many witnesses [chuckling] that had heard that.

Jürgen Neumann: Oh, yeah. The other interesting thing is, of course, they have a preliminary hearing to see if there’s going to be a trial.

And one of the witnesses at the preliminary hearing before the trial started was Sabrina Citrone, because as a teenager, she was picked up and sent to Auschwitz. So she was there. And in the preliminary hearing, her testimony was such that she didn’t come to the trial. Because her story really didn’t fit well with the holocaust narrative.

Monika Schaefer: Okay. So her, her own handlers advised her:

“You better stay away!”

Is that correct?

Jürgen Neumann: I imagine.

Yeah, if we have enough time. I’ll give you a quick rundown on her story.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah! Please!

Jürgen Neumann: She’s young. She gets scooped up. She gets off the train on the selection ramp at Auschwitz. We know that everybody says:

“Now, you go to the Left, you go to work, you go to right, you go up the chimney. Nobody gets out of Auschwitz except for up the chimney.”

So here’s what she said:

“She gets off, she’s sitting there. And the officer, whoever it is, comes up, says ‘Okay.’ And so he looks at her, ‘Okay, you’re young as well. You go over there with that group who’s going to work.’ And she said, ‘I’m not going to work for you Nazis!”

Paraphrase a little bit:

“Yes, you are! No, I’m not! Yes, you are. No, I’m not. Okay, if you’re not, then you go with that group!”

So she goes off with the other group. What does the other group do?

The other group goes off to the barracks. They get all decked out. And whatever they did, and she hung around and did nothing for a week. Just goofed around, ate, you know, wandered around, did whatever she wanted to do.

And then at the end of the week, her and the rest of the people from that group got put on another train and shipped out of Auschwitz to Germany.

Monika Schaefer: Wow! This is not something.

Jürgen Neumann: Late 1944. But here’s what’s really something. The train that they were on was a regular passenger train.

Monika Schaefer: Hmm. Not a cattle car?

Jürgen Neumann: It was regular passenger trains. She said the only dead jews that she actually saw was as they were driving through part of Germany and the train were attacked by allied fighter bombers.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

Jürgen Neumann: She [words unclear] and some of the jews got killed by the allied fighter bombers.

Monika Schaefer: Juergen, I can see that. I have to have you back soon. We only have about a minute left, and there was so much more to talk about. I mean, your trips to Auschwitz. We didn’t even touch on that. We haven’t really touched on the 1988 Trial and we are just touching the surface here. This is just incredibly interesting, but I want to make sure that people know where to find you. I alluded to it earlier.

Can you just tell us about your BitChute channel and what’s your alias there? How to find you?

Jürgen Neumann: It’s not actually an alias. It’s just the title of the channel.

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, for those who want to get there and have a look at all these things, it’s go to the BitChute platform and type in JohnRobinson101 [https:// www. BitChute.com/channel/pcBHZPgCtR2a]. All one word, and my channel should come up and you could enjoy and be educated.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, that’s fantastic! Yeah. I did say that you had been several times to Auschwitz. But you know what? I would like to have you back. And I do hear the music.

Is there anything else you’d like to say? Just going out words. Yeah.

Jürgen Neumann: One more quickie on my channel. I have over a thousand videos! So you’ve got a lot to look at.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, yes. And it will be a good education. Juergen, thank you so very much for being my guest today. The hour just flew by. That’s a good sign. [chuckling] And I’ll see you all next week. Bye bye for now.

Jürgen Neumann: Bye bye.

[58:37]

[music]

[58:44]

[ad]

[59:59]

END

top

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

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/20/2024 = 1)

1 Comment
1  Harry October 15, 03:04 How could there not be a decent sounding clip of Ernst Zundel audio? It’s clipping badly like someone amplified the volume all the way up…. And after the clip, she thanked the producer for playing it. Whereas I might have had some choice words… Seriously guys, it’s 2024 and we’ve all been doing this for years, so let’s get things right. I’ve been hearing so many technical errors and downright incompetence, I’m almost starting to think it’s deliberate. As if this is the new controlled opposition, where we won’t necessarily tell lies or conceal the jew, but we WILL be incompetent and waste everyone’s time with technical issues, vulgarity, etc.  Reply to this comment

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 7,778

Total words in post = 9,072
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Sat, Mar 29, 2025 — Added image of Zundel with mentor Arcand.

Version 1: Tue, Oct 22, 2024 — Published post. Transcript completed = 60/60 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes RBN comments (1).

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

admin — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:24:38 +0000

Monika Schaefer

The Flipside with Monika

Ep 2 – Alfred Schaefer

Sat, Jul 6, 2024

[In this weekly podcast episode on Republic Broadcasting Network, Canadian nationalist and author, Monika Schaefer has her brother Alfred Schaefer as a guest. He talks about real life stories which become metaphorical for our epic struggle that we find ourselves in. One is an ice-skating story and the other is a sailing story, both of which were life-threatening situations.

Key points include:

1. Monica introduces her brother Alfred as her first guest on her new show.

2. Monica provides background that they grew up in Canada but Alfred now lives in Germany.

3. Alfred tells a story about ice skating on a frozen lake in Germany.

4. A man fell through the ice but was able to pull himself out, becoming hypothermic.

5. Alfred yelled at the man to crawl to safety but he refused due to hypothermia confusion.

6. Eventually the man crawled to Alfred with encouragement.

7. Alfred connects this to people today not understanding real dangers due to indoctrination.

8. Alfred discusses a sailing trip where the rudder failed crossing the Atlantic.

9. The crew had to stabilize the boat without steering.

10. Some boastful crew members complained while others stepped up.

11. The crew neared the Irish coast using teamwork and skills.

12. Alfred believes a similar approach is needed as more people awaken to real problems.

13. He maintains voting will not solve the issues and that hands-on work is required.

– KATANA]

https://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/the-flipside-with-monika-july-6-2024/

https://freespeechmonika.com

Published on Sat, Jul 6, 2024

Description

Social media
Share this article
Print this article Send e-mail
The Flipside with Monika, July 6, 2024
RBN
By RBN
July 6, 2024 20:10
Related Articles
The Flipside with Monika, June 29, 2024 11 29.Jun
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Episode 2 of “The Flipside with Monika”
Guest Alfred Schaefer talks about real life stories which become metaphorical for our epic struggle that we find ourselves in. One is an ice-skating story and the other is a sailing story, both of which were life-threatening situations.
Social media
Share this article
Print this article Send e-mail
RBN
By RBN
July 6, 2024 20:10
Write a comment
2 COMMENTS

_____________

TRANSCRIPT QUALITY = 5 Stars

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Thanks.

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 7,967 – 1:00:00 mins)

[no intro music]

[01:35]

Monika Schaefer: Good evening and good day, everyone. It is Saturday, July 6th, in the year 2024, and the producer is working hard at there was a little technical glitch, and that’s why there’s no music. But I am sure we’ll get that going before the end of the show.

Yeah. My name is Monika Schaefer, and this is episode two of The Flip Side with Monika. And I am very happy to welcome my first guest on this episode, and that would be my brother, Alfred Schaefer! I’m going to give you a little bit of backstory for I’m always hoping that there are new listeners.

And actually, before I do that, I want to make a shout out to a couple of people. One is a shout out to Frederick, that’s aka Blackbird9 of the Saturday Snack Shack fame. Because he’s really been taking me under his wing. It was through his show just over a month ago that I even got this gig here on the Republic Broadcasting Network, and I’m just so grateful for that. And I didn’t really do a proper shout out to him last week, so I’m doing that now. Thank you so much, Frederick, for helping me out and kind of taking me under your wing. Yes, thank you!

And also Mer Bailey. She has a show on Sundays on the Republic Broadcasting Network. The title, which I believe is Yours Truly with Mer, I believe that’s the full title. And she did set up an account for me on Chatango.

So it is the Flipside W Monika.

So the W short for with so The Flip Side with Monika, but the just The Flipside W Monika dot chatango. Chatango.com. And that is a chat room where people can post things or ask questions or make comments, that kind of thing. It’s not very active yet over there because I’ve just begun! And I’m just hearing something in the background, but I think, yeah, we’ll carry on.

So I wanted to take care of those two messages of thanks to Mer for setting up that account.

Okay. So my brother Alfred, just briefly, we all grew up in Canada. So our parents, they immigrated from Germany to Canada in the early 1950s, and they had five children. We are all Canadian. And Alfred is the second eldest. I am the fourth in the family. So the second youngest in the family.

And Alfred, it turns out, reverse migrated in the eighties, in the 1980s. So he’s been living in Germany since several decades. He worked for a while in Canada, saved up enough money to do some traveling, cycling, and whatnot, and ended up staying in Germany.

And so that’s how it came to be that Alfred is living in Germany and I’m living in Canada, but we grew up in Canada together. And that’s kind of an important point because a lot of people have been a bit confused by that, including the judge in our trial! [chuckling]

Okay, so today we’d like to talk about some stories that probably Alfred hasn’t talked about on too many broadcasts before. And these are nice stories from the past, which happen to connect and tie in very nicely with the predicament that we find ourselves in now. One is a sailing story. One is a skating story. So you might wonder what this has to do with the predicament that we find ourselves in. But we’re going to get into that.

But before we do, I just want to say, welcome to The Flip Side with Monika! And welcome to this episode number two. And my first guest, and that is Alfred.

How are you today? In the wee hours of the morning, I might add, because it is the wee hours, Sunday morning for you.

Thank you so much for getting up so early. [chuckling]

Alfred Schaefer: Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Monika, for, first of all, for hosting the show and having me on your show. Yeah. It’s 02:00 am in the morning for me now, but that’s not a problem. This is a 24 hours job for us now to get this right. [chuckling] What’s going on in the world.

Yeah. There’s an event that happened to when I was quite new in Germany, actually.

You know, I think it might have been 1985 or something like that. I don’t remember the exact year.

Monika Schaefer: Are we talking about the sailing event, Alfred?

Alfred Schaefer: No, the ice!

Monika Schaefer: Oh, okay. If you want to start with that’s fine, because that was what then you, … I was going to give a little bit more backstory for why that is important right now.

But, yeah, let’s go with that.

Basically, in the trial, which took place in 2018. And this was a trial in Germany for us, both Alfred and myself. And it just had to do with, you know, Paragraph 130. And that’s the so-called, “Holocaust Denial Law”.

But anyway, Alfred did speak for about a day and a half. The German system, justice system, whatever else you might say about it, though, the one thing remaining that is still good about it is that they do give the accused “the last word”. And you can talk for as long as you want, as long as it is relevant to whatever it is that the charges are against you. And if they, the judge might question on that. Well, if you can demonstrate how it is relevant, then you carry on talking.

And so Alfred did talk for a day and a half at that trial. And he basically wove the whole thing into this tapestry of this story that he’s going to tell you about in a moment. And that is this ice skating story. And the judge did actually question Alfred, like:

“How is this relevant, and how is that relevant?”

And always you were able to bring it back to how it is relevant. And I was actually really moved by that, how you wove this tapestry together with this story.

So with that bit of an introduction to that story, please go ahead and tell what happened there back in, when was it, in the 1980s, when you were pretty new over there? Okay.

[08:42]

Alfred Schaefer: Correct. Yeah. Thanks, Monika, for bringing this additional information. Yeah, this is a story, I find it such a coincidence that this story happened to me. Because it’s helped me so much in helping to understand what’s at stake for us now, basically.

So I’ll just go into the story.

It was in the wintertime, obviously, and Ammersee, which is the lake where I was living at the time, is here near Munich. It had frozen over, which doesn’t happen very often, maybe once every ten years or so. and a snowstorm was set to come in. So I say:

“Well, I’ve got to skate across this lake one last time.”

Because it was just so beautiful, so wonderful! The pure, clear ice. And coming from Canada, of course, young people in Canada generally all skate.

So, anyway, I take off with my skates, go from the Herrsching to the other side in Diessen, it’s probably, I think, maybe 25 minutes or something to cross. I don’t even remember exactly how long it took.

But as I was going across, the snow was starting to set in stronger and stronger. And I get to the other side. There was some ice hockey players there and so forth.

So I just basically touched the other shore and headed back. And the snowstorm was increasing rapidly. Until the vision was basically like in a fog. I couldn’t see much at all anymore, but I could still maintain direction. That wasn’t the problem. Then suddenly I saw this. It looked like a seal laying on the ice. And I said:

“What the hell is that? A seal on the ice?”

So I went in that direction. And then suddenly, an arm! The seal raised an arm, and I could hear a help cry:

“Hilfe! Hilfe!”

And I said:

“Holy smokes. What’s this here? There’s a guy laying there on the ice. What’s he doing there?”

And then I reduced my speed, because I was skating, I reduced my speed. And then I heard the ice starting to make cracking sounds underneath my feet. So I instantly go down on all fours to spread my weight a little bit. And I started communicating with him, and I asked him:

“Hey, what’s wrong? What’s the problem?”

And he says:

“Well, I broke in. I broke in!”

But he wasn’t in the ice. He was laying on top of the ice.

And then through this continuing dialogue, he told me, yeah, he had broken in, and he managed to crawl out onto the ice, which is a major feat! Normally when somebody breaks into the ice and doesn’t have a pick or something as some kind of a tool to pick his way out of the ice.

Monika Schaefer: Like to anchor.

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah, like an anchor, right. It’s very hard, and very few people could do it. But this guy was obviously very athletic. He was fairly young, you know, healthy, athletic. And he managed to pull himself out of the ice. He wasn’t on skates. He was walking on foot. But he had these, at that time, these Walkmans were kind of in mode kind of thing, and he wasn’t paying attention to the sounds around him. And he broke in.

But he did manage to get out, and here he was. Had managed to get himself out of the life threatening situation that he had suddenly found himself in, namely, broken through the ice. Managed to get out, and then he started to. He was shocked, I guess it was, …

Monika Schaefer: Hypothermic, you could say. He must have been hypothermic. And you don’t think clearly anymore.

Alfred Schaefer: Exactly! Exactly! That’s exactly what happened. Hypothermia was setting in, and he thought it was more important to get his hands warmed up than to just start moving and get away from the hole where he had broken into.

And so I says:

“Hey, well, come on, come to me. I cannot come to you! You’ve got to move. Crawl! Crawl on all fours towards me, or on your belly. Crawl over to me. I cannot come to you!”

And of course, that was way before we had cell phones or anything like that.

And for me to go and get help would have been also his end, because the snow was setting in, and it was a pure coincidence that I happened to see him on my way back across the lake.

If I would have left him to go get help, we’d never find him again. And time is life or death in a situation like this.

And no matter how much I tried to convince him:

“Hey, your hands are not important. Just start moving towards me!”

He refused! He just says:

“No, I have to warm my hands. My hands are cold!”

And he’s laying on his belly there, rubbing his hands, thinking that’s important. His mind had., … It was like he did not understand! He could not reason anymore. And no matter how much I screamed at him, his hands were more important. And he just laid there.

And finally I got more fierce and more ferocious until he finally, I guess, finally I did make an impression on him. And after considerable screaming and yelling and insulting him and whatnot, he did start crawling towards me.

[14:24]

Now, all this yelling and screaming was not because I was angry with him. No! It was simply because I understood. Growing up in Canada, one learns the effects of hypothermia, and why when you’re getting cold and you’re hiking or something, you are not supposed to sit down and think, you can rest. You have to keep moving until you can actually find something where you can to warm up somehow. Because what if you sit down in the snow because you’re tired, that’s the last time you ever sit down, and you will die in that position.

And this guy was in a found himself in a position where he had actually managed to get with his own self, get himself out of the water.

And yet the hypothermia put him in a state of mind where he did not understand the next steps that he needs to follow through with to ensure that he survived.

And this is very much akin to what we collectively find ourselves in today in our world with what’s going on in our indoctrinated state of mind! We have been indoctrinated all our lives to the point where now the zombies, if you will, who still, who believe these lies, they are no longer capable of making the decisions that will save their lives!

And I mean, like fear from Corona snakes and getting a bioweapon vaccine, I mean, how many people has that already killed? And how many people will be dying and are dying every single day now because they listen to this nonsense and allowed themselves to be injected with a bio weapon.

Monika Schaefer: So Alfred, yeah, that’s fantastic!

And just before you carry on with that the analogy to today’s zombies basically not making the right decisions for their lives. I’m sure that the listeners are very curious how it actually ended with this guy. [chuckling] You just got to complete the story!

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. Okay.

Fnally, he was more afraid of my screaming at him than he was concerned about his poor cold hands. [chuckling] And he did start moving towards me. And then finally, as soon as he made his first little move, I was just elated:

“Okay, he’s coming! He’s coming!”

So I kept yelling and yelling and yelling until he got close enough to me. And then we backed away from the area where he was. And then I got up, and I helped him get on his feet, and then I walked with him. I was on my skates. He was just on his feet. And we headed towards the shore where these ice hockey skaters were.

After his first steps, he could see, he’s getting better. He’s getting better. He can do this! We’re going to make it!

And then when I got in sight of the shore, I say:

“Okay, you see those people over there? I’m going to go over there and tell them that you are on the way to join them. You need to get into a warm place and so forth.”

So I scooted ahead, told those people:

“You see that guy out there? He’s coming in your direction. He was in the ice. He needs help. He has to go into a warm place.”

He was saved with them.

Monika Schaefer: The reason you did that. I know that you had told us at the time it was getting dark. You needed to get yourself back across the ice, and the snowstorm was just getting bigger and bigger. Isn’t that the way it was, Alfred?

[Image: Monika skating safely in Canada]

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. Yes. And my whole concern there was this, because the snow was just getting more and more intense. I wanted to get myself back to the other shore. And seldom in my life did I feel such intense fear! Every time there was any kind of sounds that were like. Because this was this was in my bones now!

Monika Schaefer: Oh yeah!

Alfred Schaefer: Like, I just strided back to the other side, …

Monika Schaefer: And to avoid that fall. And here you are in the snowstorm. I can imagine that would have been spooky. And I do know from a lot of experience of ice skating on lakes, I call it “wild skating”. It’s one of my passions. I just love it! And I seek every opportunity to do. So but if somebody hasn’t done this before, and if they’re with me, they freak out at every little “ping, pong”. You know, you hear these sounds when the ice is making sort of these distance, distant, like, cracks form. That’s just a natural thing, even if the ice is thick. And there’s these “pings”! You know, and it’s a lot of fun, but in your state there. Yes. And it’s getting dark. I can only hardly imagine, actually, how frightening that would have been. Carry on. Thank you.

[Image: Monika avoiding becoming a seal, …]

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah, but this experience of having., … But just the only thing I physically did for this man who had broken in the ice was “words”. Yelling at him! Screaming at him! I did nothing else for him. He did it all for himself. And that’s what we have to do now. We have to reach our people who are just refusing to open their eyes! Refusing to want to grasp what is going on, but they do need to be reached!

And then, with their own strength, with their own resolve and power, we will save ourselves from this death matrix under which we are presently suffocating!

And, I mean, I noticed you and I, Monika, we were indoctrinated just like everybody else was.

Monika Schaefer: Certainly were! [chuckling]

Alfred Schaefer: And we’ve come out of it, and coming out was a very traumatizing process.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, yeah!

[20:13]

Alfred Schaefer: And these people who have not yet made the first step, they will all be needing incredible help and care when they do come out of this matrix. Because you change in your entire being once you detoxify, you know, decontaminate yourself from these horrible poisons, these toxins of these lies!

And that’s the process we’re seeing now in full steam, in full force. It’s really going fast now.

But this experience proved to me that it is possible. And without that, having had that experience, I don’t know if I would have had the perseverance to keep going in the struggle that we’re in now. But having experienced that, I know it is possible. It is possible!

And I’m seeing signs of every time I meet somebody who understands everything, I’m just elated because:

“There’s another one! Another one who understands!”

And so forth. And now our numbers are growing very rapidly, Monika.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, that’s fantastic! And I will just reiterate how you wove that into your “last word” as you were basically discussing our situation that we find ourselves and always bringing it back to that. And, it’s related also to this old saying about “don’t shoot the messenger”. You know, in this case, yeah, you had to really scream and yell at that guy. And you finally did get through to him in spite of his hypothermic state of mind and just how you must have just really had to scream and probably use some words that we can’t repeat on the radio here today, to just get through.

And then he did save his life with his own effort. Well, you did save his life. You really did! Because like you said earlier, I mean, if you hadn’t have just happened to come along, he would have sunk deeper into that hypothermic state. And when a person does go into that state, they actually do enter a pleasant state where they hallucinate.

I mean, there are lots of people who have, you know, been rescued from the hypothermic state where they will tell afterwards:

“Yeah, they were enjoying themselves!”

And people who are in a snowbank at 30 below, they’ll take off their jacket and mitts because they’re feeling really warm and toasty and enjoying themselves!

But that also compares to our current state, doesn’t it, Alfred? Because people are just going around just thinking everything is tickety boo. Perhaps some of the members of our own family are in that category. [chuckling] We don’t have to mention their names or anything. But yeah, but yet, okay, … When we’re bringing our message! Yeah, that’s what we’re trying to do, is rattle people awake. And go ahead. You have something you want to add to that?

Alfred Schaefer: What I had mentioned a few times during our court trial was that this is as if that guy who I had saved, whose life I had saved, just by screaming at him about getting him to understand the reality, as if he would come to me now, years later, and accuse me of not being polite enough!:

“Oh, you weren’t nice enough. You weren’t politically correct enough. You called me bad names and you hurt my feelings with those bad names.”

This is a life and death struggle that we are in. And everybody will, at some point in time, many will know it as they die:

“Oh. Oh! That was a mistake!”

But others are waking up. More and more are waking up. And this isn’t about being nice and being polite and so forth. This is about flying a flight path, or a course that where we don’t crash into the mountain, kind of thing. It should never have come to this point as we find ourselves now. That’s how it is.

And thank God, Monika! Thank God, that we are now seeing in this death matrix the typical last phase is when they make laws against naming the problem! And that’s always the last state, because then they just go into a panic kind of thing. And that’s what we’re seeing these days.

So now is a good time for everybody just to understand what’s going on and go full force! Completely ignoring any blots of toner or laws that they may have, telling us what we are allowed to say and not allowed to say. These people have no right to tell us what we are not allowed to say, as they are trying to kill us!

Monika Schaefer: Exactly! Exactly! If anybody thinks that they even have the right, or who would even dream of thinking that they can make a law to put our history into existence in a certain way. Does that even make sense? Or making a law that you’re not allowed to dislike a certain group of people or name a certain group of people, or just point out simple facts about that certain group of people? Well, if they need to make laws against that, then we know that there’s a problem with that certain group of people! It just is so obvious!

And I guess, we just have to carry on trying to wake people up to these very simple things! I do have a hard time sometimes to fathom that it is not becoming quite apparent to everybody. But the spell, the spell is so deep and so big that has been cast on our people and through words. Through word magic, really, even just the word “spell”, that also means to spell a word, like spelling. You know, we all participated in spelling bees in grade school, so to spell a word, but it also means this thing that is like casting a spell, like magic! Isn’t that interesting? Oh, there’s so many words when you study the language and how they have these multiple meanings, that they actually tell us things.

[26:32]

And while I’m thinking of this word magic, here’s an interesting one. It’s different from our topics here, Alfred, but I just am thinking of it, so I’m going to throw it out there. Think of the word “Aboriginal”, because lately I’ve been talking and thinking a lot about in Canada we’ve got this, these stories being concocted about the graves and mass graves and whatnot. And it’s very similar to the stories they concocted about World War Two and the so-called “Holocaust”.

And we’re getting our own “holocaust” set being set up right now as I speak. But think of the word “Aboriginal”. This is how they call the indigenous peoples of North America. Also in Australia, I know they use the word Aboriginal. Okay, think of the word “normal” and “abnormal”. Now think of the word “original” and “Aboriginal”. I’ll leave it at that they tell us things with the words! A dear friend of mine just pointed that out to me, so a shout out to him.

Okay, so, Alfred, there is another story that I would like you to tell the listeners, and that is when you were, … You had done quite a few sailing trips, and you could give a little bit of background about that beautiful old schooner that you had the privilege of getting onto. And I know we’re coming close to the bottom of the hour, and I’m not sure if the producer has sorted out the music.

[Image: Alfred pondering rudder design, …]

So if we hear that break well, … We’ve got a couple of minutes so we can get the story started and then continue after the break. But tell a little bit of background about the schooner, because I think that’s such a neat story.

And then about your sailing trip and where you found yourself in the middle of the Atlantic without a rudder [chuckling] and what happened next.

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. Before I start that story, I just want to say thank you for talking about this spell that we are under.

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

And I remember Nick Kollerstrom, and he had written that book, Breaking the Spell, and it was about the Holocaust, the “hollow hoax”. And I find that’s a very good way of looking at these things because it is a spell! It’s a spell like somebody has a magic wand and can get you paralyzed with that with abracadabra! Saying a few words and down you’re on your knees. That’s what these things are like, the Holocaust spell.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah!

Alfred Schaefer: And setting up these. And teaching our children these things in schools. That is actually a “mind rape”, is what that is.

Monika Schaefer: It is.

Alfred Schaefer: And it’s an absolute mind rape.

Monika Schaefer: And back to your skating. And the guy who pulled himself out of the ice water there, the hypothermic state that he was in, it’s a different kind of a mind. It’s not a spell, but it put him also into a state of mind where he could not think clearly.

So that was a very, very good analogy and a good story.

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. It’s like an anesthesia to the mind. It’s like a lobotomy. You are these people. It’s like a runner who has a broken leg. He cannot run as he could if his legs were healthy.

Monika Schaefer: Whoops! I think we’re up at the break now.

Alfred Schaefer: Okay. We’re into the break.

Monika Schaefer: Without the music! We’ll get that sorted out for next week because we did have bumper music. Nice, classic music. But okay, here we go.

Alfred Schaefer: Here we go. Okay.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, good. There it is.

[music break]

[commercial break]

[music break]

[37:28]

Monika Schaefer: Welcome back to The Flip Side with Monika. And thank you so much, Mr Producer, for getting that music going. That is just such a beautiful piece.

So, Alfred, before you get into this sailing story, we had another very short story, but it gives me the opportunity to highlight and mention and give a shout out to the absolutely critical and fantastic work that Professor Robert Faurisson did over the course of about four decades. He worked incredibly hard at putting, pulling together, investigating evidence, actual physical evidence, topographical evidence, documentary evidence, all these different kinds of evidence at Auschwitz, predominantly, I think, and to basically refute the mainstream story that we’ve been told about what happened at Auschwitz.

But anyway, I missed out on the great pleasure of meeting him. I never met him in person. But you did, Alfred.

So why don’t you just share this little short story? Because it does demonstrate that in all the serious, … And he was a man who was. What did he say? Something about “attention to details”. He said it a little bit differently. Maybe you remember exactly the words he used. Always attention to details.

But he also had a wonderful sense of humor, I think, because this story kind of does show that. Go ahead, Alfred.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah, yeah. That was a Professor Robert Faurisson. And the amazing thing is that he persevered for so many, like so early on he understood somehow where these lies were heading, where in our minds they were just, we didn’t even take them seriously. But he knew. No, no, this has to be taken seriously. And he was completely and totally uncompromising when it’s came to the details of the truth! You know, no compromising on that. And he always said:

“With the Holocaust, you’ve got to start with the gas. And there was no gas for any human beings! For like, that was a complete fabrication and absolute total fabrication!”

And so forth.

Of course we know that.

But anyway, I want to tell you, I was so lucky, so fortunate to be in a little group that went and visited him in Vichy on his 88th birthday in France there. And there’s quite a number of people there.

And when I got to sort of in the line to shake his hand and say hello to him, he was sitting in his chair there. And I says:

“Yeah, hi, I’m Alfred Schaefer.”

He looks up at me, says:

“Who’s Alfred Schaefer? I don’t know Alfred Schaefer.”

And I [chuckling] said:

“Well, I’m Monika’s brother.”

And with my arm, I pretended I was holding a violin and, like, playing a violin. And he instantly recognized who I’m talking about! And he jumped up from his chair and just gave me a huge hug! Like a real bear hug. A big hug! And he says:

“This hug is not for you! It’s for your sister Monika! I give this hug to your sister, Monika!”

And of course, I’ll never forget that. So I gave you that hug back several times.

Monika Schaefer: It was in court. In court! It actually in the courtroom is where you passed on. No?

Alfred Schaefer: Oh, yeah. There. Yeah. Yes, it was!

Monika Schaefer: Because this birthday party, I think it took place while I was in prison [chuckling] or somewhere around that time. No? But I think you’re exaggerating that he did know who you were. And you’re very humble, Alfred, to tell it as if he didn’t know who you were. [chuckling] Because it’s not how I heard it last time. I think he jumped up and just gave you the hug and then said:

“It was not for you, but for your sister!”

But anyway, you’re being very humble there that to say he didn’t know you, [chuckling] but I wasn’t there, so maybe that’s how it went. [chuckling]

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. Because it’s like he meets a lot of people and so he can’t know everybody.

But then at that time, Monika, that piece

, Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust. It really hit a chord! It was unique! We never had anything like that before. And that’s a what brought this enthusiasm and joy to people was to see such a simple message, and it just sticks in their minds.

Basically. This five minute video, Monika, undid hundreds of millions of dollars worth of indoctrination that they had spent and invested to get us believing all this utter nonsense! It was so powerful, Monika! So innocent and so beautiful! So that was a piece of history! So that’s, you know. Yeah.

Monika Schaefer: Well, that’s real nice. Thanks, Alfred.

Okay, so let’s get on to the sailing story. Tell us about that!

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. Through a chain reaction of coincidences, or whatever you want to call it. I was a crew member on an old sailing schooner, as a yacht, or whatever you want to call it was a built as a ship, an old wooden boat built in 1937, I think it was.

And the first time that we sailed this thing across the Atlantic, the North Atlantic, was in 2003. It was the Daimler Chrysler North Atlantic Challenge. And we were actually overstaffed, if you will, on this boat. Normally it’d be eight people on this boat, and we had, I think about eleven or something like that.

And anyway, the day after, our navigator said:

“Hey, listen, as we’re halfway from Newport, Rhode Island, Newport, halfway to Ireland, because it was going to go over the north of the UK kind of thing and so forth, halfway between Newport and Ireland and equally far to Greenland or Iceland.”

And that night, it was the other watch, the other shift kind of thing that was at the helm. Then the skipper went through the boat and he says:

“We have a rudder failure. Rudder failure!”

And I’ll never forget that, because we had a mechanical rudder failure, meaning that we couldn’t steer anymore with the steering wheel. And from an instant., … Oh, do we have music coming in? Okay.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, I’m not sure. I wasn’t thinking that we had another break. I’m thinking we keep going.

Alfred Schaefer: Okay, we’ll keep going, I guess.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

Alfred Schaefer: Anyway, from an instant, our entire being or existence on this ship went from getting the sails, always having the sails in perfect trim, and the course like, go, go, go! Like, it’s a race, like a regatta. It went from that mode into a mode of:

“Holy smokes! This is survival now!”

Like, we’re in danger of sinking if something happened, like, things could happen that would have us sink!

But this was a long keel boat, and the skipper and the people who understand this know that in a long keel boat, if you can get it pointed in the right direction and get the sail set properly, you can actually keep it on course without the rudder. You know, you can stabilize it somehow, but you don’t need it to keep your direction going.

And anyway, what happened, though, in this scenario, like, it took several days before we got the ship in a stabilized direction and going, you know, heading towards Ireland kind of thing. But with the people that were the loudmouths before, we thought they were the heroes and so forth and were on top of the world, there was a couple like that in that crew. And they were the ones who were the whining little wimps after this paradigm change! Which is what it is when you go from racing mode into survival mode.

And another group of people were the ones who would stay calm and just figure out:

“What do we do? What actions do we need to take?”

And then another group. So it was like three groups, basically.

Another group basically stayed below deck and stayed out of the way, were not a problem, but they just kind of went into their corners and kind of hid there.

Monika Schaefer: Basically stay out of the way, but not whimper and whine, …

Alfred Schaefer: Eaxtly!

Monika Schaefer: But available if needed, I guess. Right?

[46:38]

Alfred Schaefer: Yes, correct, correct! And my own role was basically, there was a couple guys that the skipper had hired, like professional sailors who had lots of experience and so forth. And I was neither the navigator nor was I the expert. But they always:

“Schaefer, come on, get up here! We’re gonna do this with that!”

Like, I was always there like holding stuff or doing this and doing that.

And this is a situation that we are facing now with this paradigm change that we are in at the beginning of right now, where we are dismantling the death matrix. And we’re going to come out of that understanding what the facts are, the truth of the matter is, and what needs to be done to reconquer our old civilization, like get control over our civilization again. This is what’s inevitable! We either do it or we die! This is one of the same situation as on that boat.

And those people who are now the big mouths on TV every day telling us this and telling us that, you will see them hiding. They will be hiding in the cracks! Because if anybody catches them someplace, they probably won’t survive. You know, if they walk down the street and somebody recognizes them and they happen to have a pitchfork in their hand, they’re going to get the feel the pointy end of that pitchfork real fast. I mean, it is so obnoxious what they are doing to us. And they will disappear. And the people that will be running and driving things are people that we don’t even necessarily know of, or have ever seen yet, but they will come out of this mass of people who are waking up and so forth.

So that’s also an experience that I had that clearly shows me what we can expect in the immediate future, if you want to call it that.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, I just think it’s so interesting. I remember you describing that a few years ago when you described that scenario where, like you say, it’s a paradigm shift, complete and utter paradigm shift, from just going along racing mode, everything’s good, and then to survival mode.

And then these three groups that emerge from the crew that you have that nobody foresaw that, they emerge, and you get your natural. Okay, the people who step up to the plate and they just get into action. And like you say, these people in our current situation, like, sometimes people are looking for a leader, and often it’s a matter of, okay, maybe just look in the mirror. You might find one there! [chuckling] But it can be surprising where, you know how people then react or where they’re going. And like you were saying that the ones that were kind of the, I don’t know where they boasting and bragging or just loud mouth people, and they go whining and whimpering and say:

“Oh, we got a call for help!”

Or they, weren’t they the first that called for they wanted you to all do the SOS call. Right?

Alfred Schaefer: Yes!

Monika Schaefer: Maybe you can continue with the story, because again, people are going to be wanting to know how it all ended! [chuckling] You didn’t crack! We know that!

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. At the end, we did make it to the Irish coast. And then when we were really close to the shore, then we radio to have a, the Coast Guard come in and tow us into this secure port because you can’t maneuver.

Monika Schaefer: Tell us how you did that. How did it go? Because you were rudderless and you were kind of floating like a cork, right?

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah, exactly! And we secured what was left of the rudder so that it would not get torn off, which could have created a hole in the Hull and then you’d have, …

Monika Schaefer: Well one of these fellows, the young strong guy, didn’t he kind of hang upside down and he, like, literally, … Off in the water? [chuckling] I mean, incredible, right?

Alfred Schaefer: Yeah. I won’t get into all the details of how we actually did that because that’s a story for itself. But, yeah, yeah, we had a couple of very competent people there.

But the interesting thing was these boasters, these bragger types who:

“Oh, I was here! I was there!”

They’re always bragging about how, you know what heroes they are. And these were the ones that were just whining and telling the skipper:

“He’s going to do an SOS! We got to get help!”

And so forth.

But if you have an SOS call out at seat on a boat like that and those people who come to get you, also get to keep your boat, you know, these are the “laws of the sea” sort of thing! [chuckling] So we managed with our own strength, with our own ingenuity to stabilize the boat, to get it on our own power sort of thing., …

Monika Schaefer: Like hobble. Basically, the analogy would be to hobble in. To hobble in, …

Alfred Schaefer: Yes, correct. We crawled or hobbled into port kind of thing. Yeah, that worked out very well.

But it was so interesting to see how those people who portrayed themselves as being the big heroes were actually whining wimps when suddenly the narrative changed! The paradigm shift happened!

And we will be seeing that here, too. See, we’ve been led to believe that life consists of buying shiny, nice little toys and things and so forth. And the more shiny toys you have, the more you are seen as being a successful person.

And yet the death matrix under which we are now being suffocated is our absolute certain death for all of us! Life does not consist of having a thing called money to buy toys. We have to think about where this is taking us. Having no borders. Everybody who has thinks it’s nicer to be in Germany or Canada or United States than a slum in Lagos or Calcutta.

[52:40]

Of course, we are an attractive place to go because we have everything, but that is artificial. Normally, all the stuff that we have, our infrastructure was not intended for those people who are poor in one of these teeming slums in the third world or something. We will turn into a steaming slum if this trajectory is allowed to continue. That’s what our situation is right now. Just like when our rudder failed, we had to do certain things. We did those certain things, and then we could continue our path, or we had a trajectory that took us to the coast safely. That’s what we have to do now. We have got to find a trajectory that will secure our future.

And right now, we are like in an airplane with a pilot who’s drunk. We’re heading to a mountain range. And if we continue on this flight path, we will all die! That’s our situation now.

But because people are waking up in droves, we will muster the strength and energy that we need to get this right!

But everybody has to understand. Just like that guy on the ice who didn’t understand his predicament, in the end, he did understand, and he did actually save himself with his own strength.

The only thing he got from me was screaming and shouting and orders. That’s all!

Monika Schaefer: You know, both of these stories actually are, they have parallels in that you know, the guy who was hypothermic, he did save himself. I mean, with your screaming and yelling obviously, but he did with his own strength, actually move.

And then in the sailing story, you all say you brought yourselves within reach of the shore where, yeah, I realize you just got the last bit, you got towed, but basically you were there, you hobbled in yourself. You rescued yourself. You rescued yourself!

So this, I think that’s really important for people to understand. Like, if people are still thinking:

“Oh, well, let’s vote harder and get ourselves out of the predicament!”

Nah! I don’t think that’s going to happen. You know, voting harder isn’t going to be the solution with this system we’ve got. No, this whole thing, it’s, …

Alfred Schaefer: Yes, there’s no voting our way out of this predicament! And we will come out of this predicament, but it’s going to be by rolling up our sleeves and doing what needs to be done!

And once we have understood what the facts are, what the reality is, and who it was who has brought us into the situation, then we will get the job done! Those people who, through treason, through utter treason and lies, brought this situation will no longer be at the helm! They will be dealt with. But they will probably find themselves behind bars, if they’re lucky, or dead, if they’re a little bit less lucky.

This has happened many times in history. This kind of a false trajectory, a trajectory to death. And we will, through our life, generally, does invest everything it can to rectify the situation. And what we are seeing now is a typical healing process. Any organizm, before it begins to heal, it understands what the problem is, and that is the point at which it starts to heal. After it understands! Your individual cells in your body, if you have a cut or something, it’s only after they understand your individual cells what the problem is, that they start to do the right thing to get the cut fixed kind of thing. And that’s what we’re seeing.

Now, we are all beginning to see what the problem is. It’s called a jew problem. You can call it that. And yet often some of our best fighters are actually jews, because they come out of this, they understand their bad instructions that are leading them to do what they do, and that makes them good people to help us get out of the situation.

So this is its all hands on deck right now! And we’re going to get this done, and we’re going to get it right!

Monika Schaefer: Yes, indeed! All hands on deck! And, Alfred, we’re almost out of time.

Actually, we’re pretty much within a minute of the top.

And I just want to thank you so much for those stories and for staying up so late or getting up so early, whichever way you want to look at it!

And I want to thank everyone for tuning in and listening. And please do support the Republic Broadcasting Network. I have heard many other hosts say that, and I am a new host here, and so I should say it, too. This is a cutting edge broadcasting, and we can tell you the truth about things. And I do hear the music coming in, and so I will say goodbye until next week. Thank you so very much. All right. Bye bye.

[58:06]

[music]

[58:50]

[ad]

[1; 00:00]

END

top

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

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/10/2024 = 2)

Adam Deiulio
July 7, 18:17
What a great show thanks Monika and Alfred
Reply to this comment

Monika
July 8, 10:54
Thank you so much for tuning in, Adam!
Reply to this comment

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 7,967

Total words in post = 8,662
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Thu, Jul 1, 2024 — A couple of correction from Monika. Added more images.

Version 1: Wed, Jul 10, 2024 — Published post. Includes RBN comments (2).

The Graham Hart Show — Brizer with Monika Schaefer, Dec 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:06:46 +0000

[In this 2 hour plus interview, Brizer, an Irish co-host of the Graham Hart Show, talks with Monika Schaefer about her journey towards seeking the taboo truth about WWII, the “Holocaust“, and the organized jewish perpetration of 9/11. Monika was arrested in Germany on January 3, 2018, and sentenced, and served, 10 months imprisonment for her 6 minute video that was put up on YouTube in June, 2016.

In that video she gave a heartfelt, belated apology to her mother, for blaming her generation of Germans for not doing enough to stop the alleged genocide of jews. She has since come to know that the so-called “Holocaust” is a gigantic, diabolical fraud, in that, yes jews were put into camps, yet there were no plans to exterminate jews, there were no gas chambers, and that far, far, less jews died in WWII than the “magical” number of six million.

— KATANA]

_______________________

The Graham Hart Show

Brizer with

Monika Schaefer

Dec 2018

Click the link below to listen to the audio:

http://grizzom.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-graham-hart-show-with-brizer_10.html

Description

The Graham Hart Show – With Brizer 2018.12.10

Brizer’s guests: Monika Schaefer

Alfred Schaefer
Stadelheim Prison
Stadelheimer Straße
81549 Munich
Germany

Graham Hart – Hoax Train.mp3

Published on Dec 10, 2018

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(131:00)

[00:00]

[INTRO MUSIC]

[02:05]

Brizer: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Graham Hart Show with me Brizer. I’m here on Cornwall Revolution Radio I don’t. And out of grisson dot blogspot dot com, where Mami welcomes you to the best news aggregate site on the World Wide Web! It’s good to have your company folks. Now if you’d like to join us in the Chat Room, click on the HTML 5 link on the top right hand side of the page, just below the player of your choice.

So I’ve got that one out of the way. It’s my first time doing that!

So, welcome along everybody! We have a great guest on our show tonight, which I’m really looking forward to talking to.

She needs no introduction to many of you, I’m sure. Her name, of course, is Monika Schaefer — a sister of Alfred — who was incarcerated in a German gulag for pretty much most of this year, 2018.

Thankfully she’s back in her native Canada again. And she’s still quite willing to speak out. Jail didn’t do anything to shut her up, or anything! She’s still going strong, fighting the good fight for our people, for our cause. So, without further ado, I’ll welcome Monika to the show. And Monika please give small introduction to the people who made not have heard about you. But I’m sure most people have.

Monika: Thank you so much for having me on! I am just honoured and delighted to be here! And I guess it was the better part of a year ago that Alfred was on your show, and I quite enjoyed that. And I wanted to tell you the song at the end was just fantastic, “The Goyim Know!” I sure enjoyed that! So I’m so happy to be on. And just a short introduction.

Yes, you mentioned I spent the better part of a year, that’s 10 months in the German jail in Munich. And that was just as a political prisoner! You know, I didn’t rob a bank, or hit anybody over the head with a sledgehammer, or anything like that! They didn’t like the things I talk about, and they have some pretty draconian laws there. So that’s why it landed me in prison. Did you want me to get it?

Brizer: It’s all, because of a YouTube video, I believe.

That’s, a big crime these days if it’s not got the correct message in there.

Well according to the elite was they call the correct message. Well actually, there’s nothing really bad about the video you’re just apologising to your mother.

Monika: Yes that’s right the video is called “Sorry mom, I was wrong about the ‘Holocaust’”. 02s ing and it’s just 6 minutes long and I did it in English. I also did an original version in German. And within a few days of it being released, out into the world, other people, who I had never met, or seen, or heard of before, translated into several other languages.

I think within the first four days there are already 3 more translations, like where they had to put the — what do you call it — the subtitles, I guess once, onto the English version. And it just kind of took off! It took my breath away at the time. That was June of 2016. I knew when that went out into the Internet that it was a door that I went through. I knew that I was going through a door. But heavens, I certainly did not expect all the things to happen that did happen to me! It’s been quite an education. Yeah.

Brizer: So you actually recorded that video in Germany? Is that the reason why you were nabbed. Is that it?

Monika: Well, you know, we studiously avoided answering that question, because first of all it was irrelevant where it was created, although for “the powers that should not be” over there, it was very relevant. That’s all they were interested in was the technical aspects. They were not interested in whether the contents of the various videos were accurate historically, or not. I mean, obviously that’s what bothered them, because they were exactly, you know, telling the truth about matters. But the truth hurts to those who hate the truth!

And so they basically invert everything and that’s what happened with the trial. It’s what happened with the prison time. It’s what happened with the hearings to see if I should be let out on bail awaiting the trial. They’ve basically always had a verdict first and followed with the show, whatever the show would be, whether it was a hearing itself in front of a judge, or whether it was the trial, and all of that. Everything got inverted! So just as we have everything in inverted in our world, everything gets inverted in these kinds of trials. And also the words they use to describe us and what we’re doing. So would you like me to describe what’s in the video, a little bit?

Brizer: Yes please.

See: Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust — TRANSCRIPT

Monika: Okay. It’s a short video, so this won’t take long to summarize it. But basically, I start out and finish with a little piece of fiddle music. So that’s kind of a cheerful way to have this message. Because I wanted it to be cheerful, because I was very relieved and happy to have learned the truth about my parents and ancestors.

So when I was a teenager and learning all these “terrible, horrible, evil” things that those bad Germans were doing, I was horrified! And being a very sensitive person, I was just so devastated. And I reproached my mother. She’s the person who basically I was closest with in the family home. And there I was, reproaching, and saying:

“Why didn’t you, and your friends, and relatives, … You should have organized! You could have organized, you could have gotten together and stopped all those things from happening!”

And I remember her listening to that, and saying:

“Well, Monika, we just didn’t know about those things, like those death camps! We just didn’t know!”

And she was very solemn, and quiet, and that’s all she said to me:

“We just did not know!”

Anyway, fast forward, many, many years, to just a few years ago, when I learned that those stories we’re false! That we’re talking about World War Two. We’re talking about “Holocaust” matters, and the gas chambers. And I started to open my eyes. Actually, first opened my eyes with relation to 9/11. But even that, it took till 10 years after 9/11 to learn about that. And then I kind of kept going down the rabbit hole, as it were, and figured out that lying was not invented in 2001! And it goes way back.

See: Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

And so, when I learned about that these things just did not happen the way they told us they happened, I felt really bad about those reproaches when I was a teenager. I never forgot that. I never forgot how I felt! I never forgot that I had reproached my mother, my parents, but mainly my mother. And so I felt really bad about that, and I regretted it, and I wished I could talk to them about it. But they were long gone, my parents had died already. And so, I didn’t have the opportunity to talk to them. So anyway, Alfred had set up, you know, he was already making some very good educational videos.

First one was about 9/11, “Gate keepers and Controlled Opposition”. And his videos were meant to educate people about how this all happens. How we have been subjected to the psychological warfare of deception and lies. Anyway, so with that, yeah, I was able to make an apology to my parents, and to my mother, to their spirit. And that’s what I did in that video. I apologized for those reproaches.

See: London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

[10:42]

Brizer: It was a nice thing to do. I mean, you realized you were wrong. But, of course, back in those days you had no idea really. Most of us had no idea about this anywhere. So, when you do figure out something like this you want to apologize to your mother, in spirit. Just say:

“I was wrong about all of this.”

The German people were not the “nasty” Germans that we all were told that they were. So, yeah, you just kind of, I suppose, made a little bit of peace with her. Something like that?

Monika: Definitely! Definitely! And not just peace with my mother and with my parents but also this notion that the German people are just “bad people”! You see, because many of us — I am really not alone in having experienced this — but many, many of us in our generation, and several generations now, of Germans, were quite ashamed to be German! And there developed this real rift between us and our ancestors. And that’s all very deliberate too. So these lies they serve many, many, purposes.

And one of these purposes is to cut us off from our ancestors, our parents, which means cutting us off from having pride in our culture, having pride in who we are as a people. And when that happens, we become like little children really. And that’s what Cicero, I think it was, has a quote to that effect that:

“If you do not know what happened before you were born, then you are reduced to being children forever.”

And so this is what has happened to us. We have a false understanding of what came before us, and, of course, a false understanding of the world as it is right now. But if you do not understand your history, and you do not have a sense of pride in your people, well that is just a recipe for annihilation, isn’t it? And, of course, we know what they have in mind with us.

You see, all these things are related, and they like to compartmentalize us anyway, with all these control words, and weaponized words. And that’s something that Alfred is really good at describing, you know, these words that trigger us to stop thinking. You know, neo-Nazi, or radical, right-wing, or “Holocaust” denier! I mean, that’s just the most weaponized term, and what does it even mean? It’s a so completely a ludicrous term! Nevertheless, this causes us to become quite compartmentalized. But also, the fact that we have this disconnect, or feel guilty about being who we are, to be German.

I heard from so many people after I created that video. I’ve heard from German people from around the world who described to me the experiences they had growing up in wherever, like Canada, Australia, the States, wherever. People are just ashamed of their heritage and hiding it! And that’s what I did. I learned very early on to hide my German heritage. I loved it at home, and we had a very beautiful traditional, very German style. And this time of year, especially, now we’re in the Advent season, and then Christmas. That was a very special time in our home. I loved it! I certainly wasn’t protesting against it at home, but outside and in school, I really learned very quickly to hide that heritage, not make any issue of being German. I mean, if somebody asked me where did my parents come from, of course, I told them. And we spoke German at home, and so occasionally if friends came over to the home, they heard us speak German with the parents, and that kind of thing. So yeah, that’s kind of how it was. [chuckling]

Brizer: Yeah, I can imagine growing up, it must have been difficult because, you had to grow up in the sixty’s time, not too long after the war, really. That memory still and that whole thing of being German, was just kind of a blot on you, or something. Is that how you would feel?

Monika: Absolutely! And anything that was on television. I mean, we didn’t even get television till, I think it was the late sixty’s. But nevertheless, then we were exposed to the television series that really made fun of the Germans, or they were always kind of the “bad guys” and then the movies, … I mean, we all know there’s just hundreds of Hollywood movies that always depict the Germans as the “bad guys”. And then this got ramped up. I mean, as we’re talking about “Holocaust” that did not even really get going until it was in the seventies. And that’s exactly when I was going through junior high and high school.

And that’s when they really got going with “Holocaust” propaganda, and there was that mini series on television called “Holocaust”. And if you watched clips of it now, it’s just so absurd and ridiculous! But, you know, in the beginning the stories that were told about how people died in the camps were not even, … They kept changing the stories! I just read an article the other day that after the, quote, unquote, “liberation of Auschwitz”. First, there was nothing in the Russian newspapers for a few days, and then finally something came up. And they talked about:

“Electrocuting the prisoners along conveyor belts.”

And that:

“They would drop dead into these pits.”

So what a different story that is from what came out later! That the “gas chamber” story came out later. And now, the tourists are now led through these museums, or through what they say are the ruins of the camps now. And these are “reconstructions” that at Auschwitz for sure. And I think most of the other places, these are “reconstructions” and the Russians have admitted to doing that after the war. And then the reconstructions of what supposedly was there are so sharply done I mean, they’re just completely careless!

[Click image to enlarge]

And I’d like to mention the late, great, Robert Faurisson who just died. I believe it was October 21st, or 22nd, just a few days before I came out of prison, he died. And he did so much good work and if anybody was always trying to be exact in his research, in his methodology, his research. I mean, there is the man himself! Like, he spent decades researching and being very meticulous with his work. And he studied the architectural plans, and he studied a lot of other things about Auschwitz. And I’m not sure what other camps as well, but my goodness his work is tremendous!

See: Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

And I would highly recommend that if people want to learn more, to just look up some of his articles that he has written over the years, about those actual camps. And just did the absurdity of making out that gas chambers, all the showers were actually gas lines and whatnot! Well there were doors, wooden doors with cracks, and the windows! And what I mean, it’s so ludicrous what they report on! And then, of course, the numbers have changed over the years. That all these things change, and change, and change, and yet the mainstream goes on to just say well:

“Yeah if you question this, then you’re a criminal! And you go to jail! You can’t question this!”

And yet jewish “Holocaust” historians, they have changed their story so many times over the years! They’ve changed their numbers, they’ve changed the methods, they’ve changed everything so much, that you have got to, even just people who haven’t looked into this issue at all, you just have to ask yourself, well at what point does one just say:

“Look! If this part is a lie, and that part is a lie, you know, the shrunken heads, the soap, and another part is a lie, and another part is lie, then how can it be that they have such a stranglehold on this?”

Well it’s, because it’s turned into a religion! It’s “Holocaustianity”, that if you question it then you are a heretic, basically you get burned at the stake, figuratively speaking! Thank goodness they don’t actually burn people at the stake, because then I would not be talking to you right now on this program! [chuckling] There you go.

Brizer: Yeah. It’s silly, because my aunt now she’s quite elderly, but she went to Auschwitz and she’s still brainwashed by that stuff. I brought it up gently with her once. She said she was there and she was told:

“The birds don’t sing at Auschwitz, because of all the terrible deeds that happened.”

But yet she said the trees were full of birds! She said the birds were flying all over the place. So there’s the first lie right there!

Monika: Isn’t that something. And yet, this wasn’t enough to help your aunt?

Brizer: No, not really, because she’s just brought up with that whole generation and believes the whole thing. It’s hard to break through to the people who were, …

Monika: It is!

Brizer: It’s hard! With most people it’s very hard. But I think once we break this taboo, I think this is why the jewish elite are so afraid, because we are getting to that hundred monkey situation now, where more and more people are beginning to see through the lies of the whole thing.

Monika: Absolutely!

Brizer: And, then of course, what we’re doing is, and this is why when I talk to people about this I don’t go into the details of gas chambers. I kind of go into the situation, according to the jewish, their own records, it was 3,800,000 jews in Europe before 1938.

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: And then there’s what, 15,000,000 odd, jews in the world, I think in 1938. And there was still 15,000,000 left in 1948!

Monika: That is right.

Brizer: Let’s do some mathematics here! It’s very simple. And people are kind of scratching their heads and saying:

“Oh, okay.”

But it’s still trying to break that down! I mean, the conditioning that people gone through is quite incredible! I mean, I was there myself, but somehow I got into this. I was just intrigued, I don’t know why it was with me. Like, sometimes I wonder:

“Why did I figure it out? And why can’t other people figure it out?”

I just let go of stuff, because I was going through my own issues. After losing my wife, and then fighting for my house. I’m still doing what the banks at the moment. I realized I’ve just loosed the fear. Once you let go of all of that stuff, that baggage that we carry around with us, everything opens up. And we begin to really see. We step outside the box.

[22:40]

Monika: That’s exactly right! Yeah, many, many roads lead to the same conclusions. And something you said there, a minute ago, just really rings true for me too. That I often wonder how is it that some of us are able to peel those layers, you know, peel the lid off our eyes, basically, and see. And other people who with whom we grow up together in the same condition, same environment, are not able to! And I don’t know, I don’t know what that is! If we knew we could solve all these problems.

But I also want to point out something along the lines of what you’re saying. That these jewish sources actually tell us these population figures. Jewish sources are sometimes the best sources for finding out what’s going on. And then you can also just throw it back at those who are doubting us and say:

“Look I got this from jewish sources.”

Like, for example, the population figures before and after the war, and how many jewish people worldwide, and whatnot. And they often talk very openly about what their plans are, and what they do, and what not. So that’s really good to use those.

And I also wanted to bring up the fact that many, many, more people do know and understand the truth, than what is visibly apparent to the outside. And the reason for that is that most people who do understand it, they realize what the consequences are of speaking publicly about it. That’s why they make an example out of people like myself and Alfred, when we do speak out publicly about these things. And also what I went through in Jasper — my hometown since 35 years — before I went to Germany, here this last December, and then only to get stuck there, on an extended “State paid vacation”. [chuckling] It was involuntary, but, …

Brizer: Government hotel! [laughing]

Monika: Yeah exactly! [chuckling] I went through what they call “ritual defamation”, in this town. And there are many purposes of that ritual defamation. And one of the purposes is to scare other people from looking into these issues. To actually learn the truth, or if they do understand the truth, to keep them silent, and thereby it gives the appearance to the average person, that there are very few of us. And then, of course, they make us look like a total nutcase and insane, or whatever.

[Click image to enlarge]

I mean, I actually had the local doctor tell me that I need to go seek psychiatric help, or be charged! And this was a couple of years ago, when he told me that. So basically, he was prescribing institutionalization for me! And that’s the local doctor, you know, and I live in a town that’s a small town, 5,000, or so. And I was already sort of known. I was in the public eye, I could say, because I wore many different hats. I had the music hat on as a local musician, I also had run politically in elections with the Green Party — that’s a whole other story! I certainly am not part of the Green Party anymore, that’s for sure! And then I also wore a public hat, I guess, as being involved on some local boards, and the culture and recreation board and some other involvements that I had.

So I was in the public eye. And visibility enhances the vulnerability to ritual defamation, right? So, if I had been a sort of an unknown entity and came out with this public proclamation — like I did in my apology to my mother — they could have quite easily just ignored me and it wouldn’t have become anything.

But, because I was in the public eye it was for them, those who do not like what we speak, those who do not like the truth, it was important for them to take me down! And boy oh boy, did they ever try hard to take me down! Now luckily, I had the confidence to know that truth lies on my side. It doesn’t mean I know everything, and I’m always open to learning more and looking at the evidence.

If somebody takes issue with anything I’m talking about, show me the evidence. Have a discussion with me. However, to generally have truth on my side when I did this, … And I didn’t do anything bad, I didn’t do anything wrong! I’m apologizing for having reproached my mother as a teenager. And that I’ve learned more about it now, and so it was quite a kind of loving thing to do really, in terms of my relationship with my parents. And yet I’m being called a “hater”! And I’m being called all kinds of other things, and they’re trying to destroy my livelihood, and all these other things that they did, and do!

But I kind of stayed upright on my feet, and they were probably surprised by that! [laughing] And it’s very threatening to them when somebody stays upright and doesn’t apologize for what they just did. Because that’s something that a lot of people will do if they’re subjected to this ritual defamation, they’ll immediately go:

“Oh I’m so sorry! I was wrong about that, and I take all that back!”

And then they go overboard in the other way, or something. [chuckling] I didn’t do that!

Brizer: Yeah it’s interesting what you’re saying, because tonight, just before I come on the show, I was at an anti-corruption meeting, hosted by this very brave journalist Geraldine O’Doughty [word unclear] who is exposing corruption at very, very high levels. In fact it’s infected everything in the public life in this country! It’s quite shocking what she had to say. And there were a few other speakers there as well. And actually one, or two of the other speakers, this guy who was a chicken farmer and he was trying to get his business going. He realized that he was working with companies who are committing absolute fraud! Getting backhanders, left, right and center. And he tried to expose it, and he brought it to the police, he brought it to the government ministers, and the whole lot, and they turned on him!

You know, they actually turned on him! Threatened to take he has, ruin his business and put his family out onto the street!

Monika: Exactly! That is what they do.

Brizer: And so it’s coming down to all levels of how we live.

Monika: Yes. And so what that tells us, is that there are some very corrupt officials at the top levels of wherever, like the police, the politicians, they have some very compromised people! That’s a better word, there are compromised people at the powerful levels.

Brizer: And they use fear as a weapon, they threaten people and that’s why you might have people within the media who, you know, again the media, as we all know, is corrupt as hell! But there’s people in there who might want to say things. And she, this lady Geraldine O’Doughty [word unclear] and another great journalist, John Waters, another great guy who, … He just got out, because it’s a complete cesspit!

You know, they just try to threaten them, and they’re standing up and saying:

“No, no, they’re going around the country, doing these talks and trying to wake people up to this kind of, … The bread and butter issues, if you will, just to see how we’ve been lied to, how we’re been deceived, how we’re being used! How they are using our tax monies against us! In every possible facet.”

And it was kind of grim to hear all that stuff. But we need to hear it, to see that really deep level of how this goes. So, as I just say, it just goes up the ladder to all different aspects of what’s going on. Our history has been rewritten more, or less. Like even here in Ireland where I am, our history it’s been kind of erased. It’s going to be taken out of school books.

Monika: Oh my!

[31:00]

Brizer: We’re all supposed to be good EU citizens now. All this kind of stuff. All the kids have been programmed with its nonsense! And a lot of “Holocaust” stuff being pushed into their history books constantly! So let’s not talk about the genocide, which was the potato famine. No, no, we’re not talk about that anymore! Let’s not talk about 1916 where a few brave man stood up against the Crown to declare our freedom for Ireland! Well, let’s not forget about all of that stuff! We’re all good EU citizens! And you just shut up and obey! And here’s your toys and our gadgets, TV and all of that.

So there you go. It’s insanity! I’m really enraged by this! And then last Thursday I was at a meeting, I spoke on this with Denis Fetcho’s show. I rang in after that meeting, that evening. A new party came out called the Irexit, which are all but trying to exit out of the EU. Of course, you’ve heard about this “Global Compact on Migration” Have you heard about this?

Monika: Yes. Yes! It’s absolutely horrifying!

Brizer: Yeah. I know Canada is fully committed to it. I know our country is fully committed to it. But the people aren’t, but their governments are, of course.

Monika: Yeah.

Brizer: So we kind of held a silent vigil. Of course, they had their Antifa groups all set up. The “rent a mob” were there calling, shouting “Nazi scum off our street!” and all this party is saying:

“We want to take control of our country again, take control of our borders, our economy, our laws. We want to take it all up back!”

And yet we were called “Nazi scum”, “fascists” all this type of stuff.

Monika: Yes, …

Brizer: And by a lot of young kids who are in university probably. Who were probably paid some beer money just to let them do that. I mean it’s just disgraceful!

Monika: Absolutely! It is, I mean, that’s the thing, if you take away people’s history, … Well, how did that same go in the 1984 movie?:

“If you control the past you control the future. And those who control the present control the past.”

See: House of Orwell

I mean, it is just absolutely spooky. And so they’re erasing the history from the history books, and I hear, I think it’s in some New York schools, they’re doing away with their actual physical libraries now. They’re getting rid of the physical libraries, so that it will only be virtual libraries online. Which means that they can just, at the click of a mouse, actually change these books online. Change the history. So it’s only when you have books that can last in a paper form that you can really check what’s going on in history.

I mean, when historians can look back at books that were actually printed in the previous century, in the thirty’s, forty’s, fifty’s, and see what was written in them, compared to what they’re trying to tell us now in sort of mainstream media, then you can verify it. If they’re changing it, or not. But if it’s just all online and you’re erasing, … I mean, that’s their specialty isn’t it? Like this group that we’re not supposed to name lest we be called “anti-semitic”. And they also talk about it in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that the agents will become, sorry, the “goyim” will become agents of their own destruction!

And so with the programming that happens by all these lies and deceptions, and they’re going younger and younger into the schools to actually soften up the brains of the youngsters that is making them ill actually. Like you could say it’s causing the people to be mentally ill, because it’s just these poisonous lies!

And amongst those poisonous lies, they’re also doing this thing that they call “sex education” in the schools. But really, what I have learned, what they are teaching the children, it’s porno pushing! It’s perversion pushing! That they’re doing at a younger and younger age! It’s absolutely horrifying!

And this just softens up the brains of these youngsters that they can’t even get to first base anymore, to be able to look at something that they’re being told in the news. You know, maybe first base would be to figure out 9/11, and then second base might be to figure out something further back in our history books. And then 3rd base might be to figure out that:

“Gee! They want to get rid of us!” [chuckling]

These things are all connected, these lies. And, of course, the “Holocaust” is the big, sort of like a chain, a hammer, that they can use on anybody’s heads when they start talking about:

“Gee! I don’t know, we never were asked about all these people coming into our country. Like this is just kind of happening, and I don’t remember being asked about this!”

So this is what perhaps is going through the heads of the average person. And they’re feeling uncomfortable about it. But lest you think out loud about it:

“Oh! You’re xenophobic! The next thing, you know, you’re going to have another ‘Holocaust’!”

This is how the “Holocaust” story, or fairy tale, is being used as a hammer, especially in Germany. And, of course, that’s where you see this invasion really going crazy! But it’s in all the European countries, and it’s in other White countries as well. You have this huge invasion of what they call “migrants”, but it’s basically opportunists from all kinds of places. And they lie about where they’re coming from! And I have firsthand experience with people lying about where they’re coming from. And if you want I could tell you a little bit about that.

See: Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

But, yeah, so that’s what we have. These things are all connected. That they use one part of the history that they’ve changed they use it as a blunt hammer to make sure you don’t question anything else. And then the children are being just prepared for the slaughter, basically.

See: Red Ice Radio Interview: Invasion of Europe — TRANSCRIPT

Brizer: Yeah, they’ll throw it in anywhere. Again, I was on another kind of march against the banks and how they are evicting people out of their homes. And one guy had a placard — one of the banks is called “AIB” — it says:

“AIB — Rothschild Sewer Bank!”

And the media immediately jumped on that and said:

“Anti-semites out marching against the banks!”

Can you believe that nonsense?

Monika: Oh!

Brizer: They just throw that in, just to push people away from that, because they don’t want to be associated with that.

Monika: Yes that word, …

Brizer: You’re probably next, your family’s next! They’re coming after us, they want to dispossess us, they want to replace us.

Monika: Exactly.

Brizer: They want to turn our countries, our beautiful White countries into third world slums! Not while I’ve got a breath of my body, they are not!

Monika: Yes, that’s exactly right! This is an existential crisis. And I feel the same as you do, that while we are still breathing, I mean, this is just the most important thing! If we do not turn this ship around then, well, we’re doomed really!

Brizer: We’re gone.

Monika: We can never give up hope. And that’s a big part of it. And that’s why I do like to talk about some of the things I learned.

After creating that video I learned that there are so many more people who are aware, and know, and have their eyes wide open, than as apparent. And I found that out, because people are writing me, and calling me, and what not, just from all around here, for starters. But then from many other places in the world. And then I realized every little hamlet, every little town, every little billet, every place, has people who are wide awake! And it’s up to us to make it easier for people to talk about it, and to, … I don’t know, I mean, we can’t sort of tell people what to do with this. Everybody has their own abilities, their own ideas, and imagination, what they can do as individuals. But everybody has to somehow do something, get involved, whether it’s little, or big!

Everybody needs to get involved in this! And the more people’s eyes we can open the better. And nobody should feel that they’re the only one. They are not! That’s what the enemy likes us to think, that we’re just isolated little cliques of people, here and there. But no! We are many! We need to repeat that again, and again, that we are many! And we need to be educating our neighbors, our friends, our family! I mean, that’s also a way to immunize ourselves from being “burned at the stake”, so to speak. Because if we have people around us who do understand, then it’s going to be harder for them to persecute those of us who do speak publicly, right?

[40:16]

Brizer: Yeah, like I mean, tonight there was the Q & A afterwards. Like, how can we do this? What can we do to turn this around? And this guy John Waters says:

“We have to get the conversation going. Get people talking about it.”

Also there is that fear, because people are afraid they might lose their jobs, and all this kind of stuff. And that is understandable. There’s also the friction maybe, within families, with matters like this. I know many people who have had friction within their families.

Monika: Yes. That’s right, lose your fear! That’s one of the most important things. And I’m telling you it is extremely liberating! And in spite of all the things that have happened to me, for example, I have zero regrets! I have absolutely no regrets! I never ever, you know, perhaps in the evening, just before going to sleep, say to myself:

“Gosh, darn! If only I hadn’t done that little video! If only I hadn’t done this, or that! That caused all these subsequent things to happen in my life!”

No! Never! Not once have I felt that way, because it is extremely liberating! That old saying:

“The truth will set you free!”

It really, really is true. So I would encourage people to lose their fear. It might mean you have some discomfort, it might mean a decrease in disposable income, it might mean a few things like that. However, the rewards are far greater! It liberates you! It is an uplifting that there’s nothing that can compare really. And while I was in jail, I felt that as well. And I wrote that in some letters to people too that, if they were concerned that I was going to be in a deep dark depression in there, or something. No! No! I said I feel a 1,000 times freer than the jail boss, for instance. I would never want to change places with the jail boss there, and I felt free, still. It was only in body that I was incarcerated, and even with that though, once I kind of found my, … I mean, in the beginning, of course, it was a shock, and it was difficult to sort of de-stress myself about my concerns about the home front. I was sort of ripped out of my life, right? Out of my normal life — whatever normal is anymore, anyway — that it had already changed so much through the ritual defamation.

But then once I kind of settled into the fact that I couldn’t do anything about it, I didn’t have the key, they had the keys. They had the power to turn the keys and dictate the routine of my day. Like okay, open the doors at 10:00, you go in the courtyard, and bring the hot meal at 11:15, and then lock the doors again, and open the doors again, for an hour and a half in the afternoon.

And so they had the control over my daily life. However, once I resigned myself to, okay, this is where I am for now, I can’t do anything about it, well, I’ll just make the best of it! And I really did! I made the best of it. And I can tell you that for the most part I was in a very good mood. And yes, and you do get to know other people there. You become very close friends with other prisoners with whom you can share a little bit of what you’re going through there. We’re all in the same boat there! One tends to be not judgmental. You take people at face value, who they are, while there. And I’m telling you, I’m not the only person there and it shouldn’t be there, like in terms of being innocent. True wrong doing, right? And you just get into, well I got into a very good rhythm and had a good routine going. And yeah, it was fine that way. I’m not saying that a voluntary place to be. I didn’t go knock on the door on January 3rd and say, :

“Hey! Do you have another room? And can I just come in? [laughing] I’d like to stay a while, and have bars across my window!”

No, it’s not like that at all. But once you’re there and you can’t do anything about it, well you make the most of it.

And I’m telling you, it was a huge education, like, I learned so much! And you could just sit back and watch things happen to, and learn about other people’s story. I’m telling you, I learned a lot of things there that, oh my goodness, what an education that was! And I would say I got stronger and grew. I grew in different ways. I learned a lot, but I grew I think in a spiritual way, as well. And yeah, I made the best of my time there, I could say.

Brizer: Now, because I do know of few other people who were incarcerated for saying the wrong thing, or doing the wrong thing, or was perceived to be the wrong thing. And they came out even stronger, they didn’t come out in repentance to the government:

“Oh I’m sorry! Oh my God!”

They were actually coming out stronger and more committed to the cause, I think. So maybe sending people to jail isn’t such a good thing!

[45:55]

Monika: [laughing] That’s exactly right!

Brizer: I think you had your music as well to help you. Were you allowed to play? I know you’re an accomplished violinist. Were you allowed to play the violin much, or what?

Monika: Well thank you for asking about that. Yes. So I was incarcerated January 3rd, and I believe it was March 22nd that I got my violin into the jail. And, of course, I had no idea how long I was going to be there, and whatnot. So I was very concerned at first that I’m going to lose my skills. I’m going to lose all those tunes I have in my head, as well. Like I play a variety of types of music so not just classical music but also a lot of fiddle tunes and a lot of those are by memory in my head. And so I made lists of the tunes, the names of them, right at the beginning I wrote down every tune name that I could remember. And then every day I would just hum the melodies to these tunes, like maybe three, or four, or five of them each day, to keep them in my head. Because I was quite worried that I would lose them because, you know, with that kind of thing if you don’t play them, you lose them. I have to have a little sip here. My throat is getting, …

Anyway, excuse me, my lawyer, who is a brilliant, brilliant, lawyer, I cannot say enough about this man who represented me! He gave a very good argument to the court. He had to, we had to get court approval for getting the violin in. And it was all his idea to do this, too. But he argued, very well, that:

“Look, I was there as an innocent person, because if you have not yet been charged charged and convicted then you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. No matter what they think of you! No matter what kind of an evil ‘Nazi’, terrible persons they label me as. I am technically still innocent until proven guilty!”

And he argued that as a musician, who makes her living as a musician, everybody knows that if you don’t practice your instrument, you’re going to lose your skills. Thereby I would be losing my ability to make a living!

Now, I mean, just putting aside the fact that they’ve just ripped me out of my normal life, so I don’t have my capacity to make a living now, anyway. But just putting that aside, there they are holding me, awaiting some kind of a trial, that’s at some unknown date in the future. And possibly a long sentence. You just don’t know, right? Anyway, he argued that they were already punishing me by not allowing me to have my violin with me. They were already punishing me, and I am innocent, right? So that was his argument. He made it much shorter than in my description, just now. He was very articulate and succinct. And it took a while for them to decide. But they then decided “yes”, but then it still had to go through the prison authorities. And I’m telling you, they make their own rules there, which override the court if they deem it for security reasons — that’s always the catch all phrase:

“Oh, for ‘security reasons’ we’re going to do this, and not the other thing.”

But anyway, they did then finally permit me to have it. And I’m telling you that really improved my life a lot! It also opened the door for me, in many ways, into other people’s hearts! [chuckling] I can say, because people enjoyed it, that I had it. It was very unusual. Long term guards there had never seen anything like that. And I got to play every Sunday in church. And so it was like a mini performance for me, a mini concert opportunity. And I practiced every day in my cell for about an hour. Like, I didn’t overdo it. I didn’t want to overdo it. Now the way the cells are there, we’re all surrounding a courtyard. So all the windows of the women’s prison, it’s a sort of a small prison there for the women. Next door is the men’s prison, the much older Stadelheim, which is where Alfred is right now. And it’s huge!

But the women’s prison, it’s quite new there, that they made next door. And we all face into the courtyard. And so the windows all face into the courtyard. Now, in the first few days that I had my violin, I was just so excited about this, I noticed that when I played and my window was cracked [open] a bit, suddenly I saw all these other heads at other windows, like heads and shoulders. You could see them all coming to the other windows, and I realized:

“Oh! They could hear me!”

And so, then I just opened the window really wide, like not just cracked [open] but just opened it wide and stood in front of the window and played into the courtyard! [laughing] And we had a bit of a, sort of a, quote, unquote, “party” for a few minutes! People were just loving it and applauding it!

Of course, it’s illegal there to talk even, from one cell to another, through the windows. So this was really, we were breaking all the rules! And then there was one woman who got all excited, and she didn’t like it at all, and she screamed at me, and said:

“Close your window if you’re going to practice that thing!”

And so I guess, maybe she was traumatized once by somebody who played the violin! I don’t know. And then the others all shouted back at her:

“No! No! We want more!”

And it was really quite funny! Anyway, I did that for a few days in a row, just for a few minutes each day where I had it wide open like that. Do a little little concert into the courtyard.

But then all that ended when a guard caught us. I didn’t realize there was a guard in one of the windows. I hadn’t seen her. And then she was jotting down everybody that she could see that was shouting, or applauding through the windows, because that was highly “verboten” [forbidden]. And then they stormed my room and locked my windows shut for a few days! Like that was my punishment! And I got called to the jail boss’s office. And got the little “disciplinary action”! And it was really quite, … It was worth it anyway to have had that little bit of fun, like this joviality. And I didn’t care about the little bit of disciplinary action, it was all worth it. We had our fun.

[52:23]

And then, they didn’t take away the violin, thank goodness, that would have been the worst. But they also realized that the world was watching and paying attention. Because I did get a lot of mail. And that was a godsend for me! Because they probably would have treated me more strictly had I not been receiving all that mail, because they would have just thought they could get away with things. But there were other things that happened there, whereby I knew that the fact that I was getting all this mail was helping me a lot! Because they understood and realized that the world is watching. So anyway, they didn’t take away my violin, they let me have it, but they said:

“Oh you have to always have your windows closed when you’re practicing.”

But after about a month, I started to crack it open again a little bit, but nobody was applauding any more openly through the window. But I got a lot of positive feedback at the courtyard hour. People were really enjoying it. They would close their eyes and dream for a moment that they were somewhere else, that they weren’t in prison, that they were in a normal place. And so I got a lot of that kind of feedback, you know, I mean, it could be hardened criminals that are telling me that! [chuckling] And it was very nice for me to have that extra little thing that made my life a little bit more like “normal”. And also that I could keep up my skills, because really, I mean, if I had gone 10 months without having my violin it would’ve taken a lot of work to get back into it. And it just provided a little bit of enjoyment for not just me, but for others. So I was very grateful for that.

Brizer: And it’s kind of, when you think of it, it’s these small little things that you’re stuck in there on your own, you don’t really know anybody, and you’re able to get your violin which you can play and you can cheer yourself up, and the people up, and probably even a prison guards up. You know what I mean?

Monika: Yes!

Brizer: Just little small things like that can always make a difference. And also it just kept you kind of sane in many ways, because this is the love of your life, the music.

Monika: Absolutely!

Brizer: It just keeps keeps you’re kind of, you know, … Because you could easily sink into a deep depression and all the rest of it, couldn’t you?

Monika: Yeah, I think you could. I mean, I had many things going for me that would prevent me from sinking into any kind of depression. Like I said I was in a good mood most of the time. So the violin was definitely one of those things. And the letters were another of those things that really were a lifeline for me! And with that I would like to encourage people to write letters to political prisoners and Alfred, my brother, he’s in Stadelheim jail — I’m sure that you will probably put his address into the description, or something. But sometimes people say they don’t know what to write, and they are afraid to write because they don’t know what to write.

But, you don’t have to write anything that is controversial, or political. In fact, it’s probably just as well if you don’t, but it’s the support, it’s the encouragement. You could just write about your pet dog, [chuckling] or a funny story, or whatever! It just doesn’t matter what you write, but the fact that you’re writing something. It could just be two lines, and it’s very encouraging for the person in the prison, and it also shows “them”, you know, the staff, the guards, and the court, and whatnot, it shows them, this person has not been forgotten, they’re not alone. And, that is a really good thing, if the they are shown that we are watching what’s going on, and we are many! That does help a lot.

For example, I’ll just give you a little story too while I was in prison there with the mail. Like, when you are still awaiting trial, all the mail goes through the court. They read it and they might photocopy letters that they deem they want to use as evidence, and all this stuff, and whatnot. But they read it and they send it on to the jail, and then the jail people check it for inserts, or if anything has been smuggled in, or whatever. So they check it again.

Now, if it goes through the courts it’s supposed to be opened in front of us, and I realized after a while, and I learned from other prisoners what the rules were on that. And they’re supposed to open these big brown envelopes in front of us! To do the final check for smuggled goods, or inserts. But mine were all opened already. And so the mail room in the basement downstairs, they were already opening mine and they were doing another check in front of my eyes. But that was like the 3rd check now through my mail. So I was getting extra special treatment there, in terms of having my letters controlled. So I called a meeting with the jail boss on this. I requested a meeting, and I had a meeting. And I brought this up and I said:

“This is against the law! You should be opening in front of my eyes in the office here.”

And she said:

“Oh no, in some special cases we open it already, in advance, you know, it’s a special case.”

So I said:

“What do you mean? Why special?”

“Oh, you know, for the safety and security of the institution.”

And, because I was challenging her on the legality of it. And she pulled a binder off the shelf and showed, you know, “safety and security” and all that stuff. That catch-all phrase, right? That they use when they want to do things against us and keeping things secret. It’s always that catch-all phrase:

“Oh, for security reasons! We can’t tell you this and we can’t tell you that. And we can do this, and we can do that.”

Anyway, so I said:

“Oh! Okay, well why? What’s this going to help?”

“Well in case you’re making plans! Maybe you’re making a gang here, or gathering followers, or whatever.”

I said:

“Oh, that means you’re reading my outgoing mail? I am sealing those envelopes to the court and sending them direct there. But you’re reading those too?”

“Oh no, just the incoming mail.”

“So, how are you going to find out about my plans, and my gang members, or whatever?” [chuckling]

And she says:

“Well they might be responding to your letter and saying, ‘Oh yes! Good plan! Good plan!”

Something like that. And I just burst out laughing at that point, because it was just getting more and more ludicrous. And then at some point I just said:

“You know, if you’re so worried about my conversations that I’m having here with other prisoners, then really you should be putting me into isolation, like into solitary confinement.”

I just said that right to her face. And she did not blink an eye, and she said:

“That’s the next step!”

And I did not blink an eye either, and I said to her:

“The world is watching!”

[chuckling] And that was about the end of that meeting with her. And I stood up and left. But I was very proud, and confident, and I think she was probably purple in the face, by then. She did not like me at all, the jail boss! Thank goodness I didn’t have very many interactions with her, or didn’t have to deal with her on a day-to-day basis. That was the big boss. But it was really true, that she knew that the world was watching! She knew I was right about that. And I think that give me a degree of safety. Because, I mean, it was a little bit uppity of me to say to her:

“You really you should be putting me into solitary, if you’re so worried about things I’m talking about here.”

And I just felt I could just get away with it! And I did. And they didn’t put me into solitary confinement, no way!

So I told you that she didn’t like me very much, I knew that. But, the guards, I have to tell you that from the beginning to the end there was a real transformation in how I was being treated in that jail. When I left and, of course, for months prior to leaving, I was being treated very well, with respect. I mean, they’re doing their job okay, they have to do their job and all that.

So they are strict and it’s not like they’re giving me special favors. But they treated me well. And in the beginning it was not like that. I was the “Nazi” coming in, and this is in “reeducated” Germany, where they’re all indoctrinated and programmed. And here I am, the “Nazi” coming in. And so I got kind of “extra special” treatment in the beginning, and I’m putting that in quotation marks. They really try to humiliate and degrade you in all kinds of ways.

And I think other prisoners also receive that kind of humiliating treatment, but they kind of loaded an extra dose of that on for me. And I know that for sure, because there were certain guards that, they just, … Oh my goodness! They just couldn’t stand that “Nazi”! And they gave me sometimes an earful.

Anyway, so that was an interesting transformation that took place through the course of time. And I think, because they saw that I was just a normal human being, and I was polite with them, and just tried to be friendly and normal. And they also can see that I’m in a pretty good mood most of the time. I’m getting along with other prisoners. I’m not creating strife, or conflict. And, in fact, sometimes I would mediate between people to try to smooth things out, that kind of thing. I mean, yeah it’s just life in prison, and I’m telling you, by the time I left I was being treated very well.

[62:01]

Brizer: Right. We’re just on the hour mark, or just over it. We can take a musical break, but before just that, Monika, I sent you a card ages ago. I don’t know if you remember, you probably got hundreds of them, but again it was just a simple message just saying I was thinking about you and praying for you and wishing you all the best. You know, that’s all you have to write.

I have a Christmas card here at home which I’m going to be sending off to Alfred. And I would urge everybody who is listening tonight to send Alfred a Christmas card! It’s that time of year. And I’ll just give out the address here, but we’ll put it in the show notes afterwards. It’s:

Alfred Schaefer.
Stadelheim Prison.
Stadelheimer Straße.
81549 Munich.
Germany.

So that’ll cheer him up no end. Just send loads of Christmas cards to him and just wish him a Merry Christmas, that’s all. You don’t have to say anything else. That will just cheer him up no end, I’m sure.

As you said Monika, it helped you big time, and I’m sure it’s going to help him. And we have to give him the support now because he’s there, where you were. We should keep him in our thoughts this time of year. It’s not going to be nice to be stuck in a prison at this time year, either.

Monika: That is for sure!

Brizer: So let’s do that guys, just get the cards out, it’s a simple thing to do. And it just makes a huge difference.

So, I’ll tell you what we’ll do, we’re going to play a song. I’m sure you might have heard of Monika, her name is Loreena McKennitt. She’s Canadian.

Monika: Oh yes! Love her music.

Brizer: I particularly like this song that I think she wrote when she came to Ireland. She connected with her Irish roots. And it’s called “The Old Ways”. And really, when you think about it, the old ways, okay, they weren’t perfect but they were a lot better than they are now, that’s for sure! And we can learn a lot from it. So we’re play this song, it goes on for about 5 minutes, so Monika, if you want to get a glass of water, or tea, or coffee, whatever. We’ll be back in 5 minutes folks and we’ll continue with this great conversation! So stick with us.

[64:19]

Okay, welcome back everybody! A beautiful song there by Loreena McKennitt, called “The Old Ways”.

That is the kind of music that just drives me on! Sometimes when you feel a bit down about all the stuff that’s ing on, the madness that is ing on in this world you just kind of go back to the old ways, think about our ancestors and what sacrifices they made. We’ve got to carry the torch forward, it’s as simple as that!

We have a special guest tonight, Monika Schaefer. We had a great first hour talking about her experiences. Welcome back Monika!

Monika: Thank you!

Brizer: Right, let’s go into the actual trial that yourself and Alfred went through, because I was reading a lot of this as it was going on. I never saw such a kangaroo court in all my life! An unbelievable nonsense! And I know a lot about law, because I’ve been going through my own situation regards the banks. And I see the lies and the deception, the corruption that is going on in there.

But in Germany it just seems to be a lot worse, from what I can see. I was shaking my head of disbelief. So anyway did you want to just kind of just go back to when it all started? So you were in prison at the time, but then Alfred was speaking out. You take it from there, Monika.

Monika: Okay. Yeah I’ll take it from there then. Yes, one day short of the 6 month deadline that they have, for how long they can hold a prisoner before trial begins — 6 months in Germany — one day before that, the trial began, July second. Now they would have just renewed that. It wouldn’t have been a problem for them, because I did meet other prisoners that were there a lot longer than I was without trial. So the things that go on in the prisons in Germany are just something that is unbelievable! I was shocked to learn that! Anyway it did start on July second. At first they had scheduled four days, then they scheduled seven days for the trial. But they just wanted to get it over with and done! And, you know, wipe their hands clean of it. They already had the verdict, of course, we know that. This was just for show, now. I mean, they made their verdict a long time ago, and now they need to to, … Because they still have laws, and it’s not quite overtly a dictatorship, but it certainly is covertly, one!

And yeah, that was the first time that I had seen Alfred in the 6 months. And it was a very joyous and jovial, very wonderful meeting. But what had been unexpected for me when I walked into that door — of course I was escorted there handcuffed to the guard — suddenly I am confronted with all these cameras! And I hadn’t even considered that would happen. But it’s just like in the news that you watch on television, where somebody goes through this throng of reporters, and all the cameras are blitzing away! And this is quite a surprise to me. And the door where I came in, that’s where Alfred was sitting, and he didn’t see me first, because his back was to me. And I just tapped him on the shoulder and he jumps up and out of his chair! And we have a big hug, and then he turns towards the cameras and he’s just giving them the whole spiel, like:

“Yeah! The lies are going down! And we’re winning!”

[laughing] It was really great! [laughing] Anyway it was quite the moment! It was such an adrenaline rush for me. Perhaps, because I just didn’t know what to expect. And, of course, having sat in jail for 6 months and then here is my first court day, you’re a little bit nervous going into that situation! Anyway, I could couldn’t even move my mouth, or my tongue, because everything had just became dry, I think it was a reaction as an adrenaline rush, reaction, or something. [laughing]

Anyway the camera people had to leave, because there were no cameras for the trial. So okay, got lead to my seat, this commotion all settled down then. And then there was the story of the water. Like, I needed water desperately, because like I said, I couldn’t even move my mouth! So if somebody had asked me a question, to even just answer my name, I wouldn’t even have been able to at that point. It was just completely, I was kind of paralyzed [chuckling] And we couldn’t get water. No, it was not permitted! No you can’t have water here! So you have to have a recess. Okay, well let’s have a recess and get water now! [laughing] I mean, this is the first half day, or the first day was such a show!

Then there was the issue of the microphones! There was a beautiful microphone system, all of us had one in front of us. Like each judge, the prosecutor, the lawyers, Alfred and I, we each had a microphone in front of us. But the system wasn’t turned on. And we were trying to have them turn it on! And the judge just dismissed that. He says:

“No, no. We don’t need it. We can all hear each other.”

But people from the gallery, the public gallery, were kind of shouting out that they couldn’t hear. And the judge got really angry at them for even opening their mouths. And he would just shout back at them, and say:

“You have nothing to say! It is not for you to speak. Keep your mouth closed! You’re not to open your mouths!”

He was really angry at them. And he was dismissing us about the microphones:

“We just don’t need them!”

He brushed it aside.

[70:30]

Anyway, this went on for some time, and then I just stood up out of my chair and kind of spoke out of turn. But I just couldn’t believe this was going on. And I just stood up and said:

“Look, either this is a public trial, or it is not a public trial! If the public cannot hear, then they really are there just for show. And then what Alfred has been saying is true!”

And, of course, Alfred was calling it a Muppet Show, and he was also calling it an “inquisition”. And he had done some other things, like he didn’t stand up for the judge when the judge walked in. That was very very, you know, going against the rules, and the judge was trying to get him to stand up. And the judge just didn’t know what to do with all this. But when I said that about either this is a public trial, or this is not a public trial, and if the public cannot hear, then they are just there for show, and then it really is a Muppet Show. Then Alfred is correct in what he has been describing this as!

And he still didn’t budge! Finally in exasperation I just muttered something about:

“Oh! My hearing isn’t so good anymore. I can’t hear.”

And that caught his attention! And I didn’t even, really say that very loudly. I just kind of muttered it, as I was frustrated. And suddenly though, his ears pricked up. He said:

“You can’t hear?”

I said:

“No. No, I can’t hear.”

And that’s when he got the technician in, and it took all of one, or two minutes to get this system turned on, and then we had microphones. But I’m telling you that was not at the beginning, that was halfway through the day, after we had a few recesses in this and that.

Now this this, what Alfred was doing there, that landed him in jail, that day. So he was held in detention. Actually, I think he was held in a police cell that night. And he came out the next morning on bail and certain conditions. Like, he had to give up his passport and show up at the police a couple times a week, or something like that. And then he was free again that week to travel back to his home each night. But the trial went for four days in a row there, the first week. And they went back to his home on Friday and picked him up, and arrested him. And he has been in jail ever since. And I did not know that until the following week. Then we didn’t have trial days til the following Thursday. And we’re all sitting there at 10 in the morning, or 9:30 in the morning and there’s no Alfred! And I’m looking around wondering what’s going on. And somebody is muttering something about the transport from the jail. And I’m just thinking:

“What is going on?”

And my lawyer looks me says:

“You don’t know?”

And I said:

“Know what?”

And he said:

“He’s in jail.”

And I just about fell off my chair! I did not know that he had been in jail already for 6 days, at that point. Right next door to me, basically. And I was just devastated! I was shocked that there he was incarcerated now.

Brizer: Was he held in contempt of court?

Monika: No, not at that point, okay. So the first night that he was held in detention it was, because of the behavior in court. I guess “contempt of court”. Thank you for that word, yes. After that they found a reason to put him away. And, of course, they couldn’t stand the fact that he kept talking to the world, you know, he wasn’t shutting up. And they found some reason and they said, called it [words unclear], which means to darken, which means, hiding evidence, which is completely ridiculous, because Alfred is doing quite the opposite, he’s exposing things, he’s telling things, he’s talking, he’s not hiding any evidence of anything!

[74:36]

And the other reason, I guess, they put was “flight risk”. And I mean, that was also ludicrous. It was clear that Alfred was very interested in attending court and being there for this inquisition. And basically giving them a big education and bringing them to the, well “plausible deniability”. That’s the term that he used a lot. They were going to be at the point of no return, that they could no longer use “plausible deniability”, as in, they didn’t understand it, or they didn’t know what was going on. I mean, that’s what the trial then was all about. But in the first week it was really quite tumultuous and wild. There were two other people besides Alfred who were thrown in jail. Sylvia Stolz that was thrown in jail for two days, for, in German [words unclear] which means, like, what did you say the word you used there?

Brizer: Contempt of court.

Monika: Yes, contempt of court. But she’s just said a word, at the end of the day, after court was already dismissed, but the judge heard her and didn’t like it. She just said:

“This is terror!”

When he had jailed Alfred. And she just said it very quietly, she’s a very soft spoken woman, but powerful! My goodness!

And she said that and the judge “woof” he just, you know, his ears pricked up and he and he threw in jail for to days for that. And then on day four, there was a fellow who had been attending all week, and he was thrown in jail and hauled off for four days. For something that he had said to the prosecutor outside of the court room. So again, not during court proceedings, but outside of the courtroom in the hallway. And he had said something to the prosecutor about:

“That he hoped that she would see the inside of a jail at some point.”

He just started out saying “shame!” you know, “shame on you!” hoping that she would see the inside of a jail. And then they fabricated more that he did not say. And there were witnesses around, but those fabrications stuck. And they were a little bit stronger than what I just told you and I’m not going to repeat them. Because, you know, you repeat fabrications and suddenly they become true. And they weren’t. So anyway, they have to lie even in things like that! So they threw him away for four days. And it was interesting when they were doing this, he stood up and said — just out of concern — he said:

“Okay, what’s going to happen with my car?”

Because obviously he was worried that his car was going to get hauled off somewhere, it was parked somewhere where it shouldn’t be parked for four days. The judge at that point lost his temper, and he just started screaming at this guy! It was unbelievable! Screaming at him:

“I don’t care what happens to your car! I just don’t want to see you! Get over here! I don’t care what’s going to happen! I don’t care what’s going out to you!”

And he just went off the rails there. And, in fact, the female judge beside him, she put her hand on his arm and trying to pull him down from his elevated state,

Brizer: Calm him down a bit.

Monika: Calm him down. And that happened several more times during the course of the trial. That she had to kind of bring him down a little bit from his state. And she could see that he was doing things that were not good, that were mistakes on their part. And she would kind of touch him, put her hand on his arm. And then they recessed. And he even said that, :

“Yeah, we’re going to have to bring this down a little bit. We’re going to have a 20 minute recess.”

Or whatever it was, to recompose, and come back. So the first week was just wild actually!

Now I could go into more details about what took place there, but I’ll just tell you what basically transpired during the trial, and then we can talk about some of the details.

At first, like I say, they wanted it to be over and done with very quickly. Why and how they thought it was going happen, is that they were going to just show little snippets, little clips, like a 30 second clip from this video and maybe a minute from that video. All the offending bits, the bits that they had outlined in the charges against Alfred and me.

Now for my part, that six minute video was so short, they were just going to show that whole thing, when it came time for that. But with Alfred’s videos as, you know, he has made quite a few educational videos. Some of them are one hour long, some of them are half an hour long. And there are a number of them. Now they picked little snippets and said:

“This is bad! This is bad! This is bad! You go to jail!”

Okay. Well, he had a brilliant strategy to force them to show the entire video so that they would be shown in context. And basically he did that by not answering certain questions that the judge was asking him, wanting to nail him, right away in that first week. They just wanted to nail him. Okay:

“You produced this there, and that time, and there you pushed a button and sent it out to the internet.”

Well, he just didn’t answer certain questions, the technical questions about where, and when, and how, and who, he produced this and put it on the Internet. Because those things then would just be enough for them to nail him! Because it’s against the law, and that’s it! :

“Ba-ta-boom ba-ta-bing! Off you go! And we’ll throw away the key while we’re at it!”

You know, that kind of thing. So finally the exasperated judge — they could see that they were losing this battle — they decided:

“Yes okay, we’re going to see the videos in their entirety.”

So then a lot more days were ultimately scheduled in for the trial. And it went on till late October. It was supposed to be over in July, right! But anyway. [laughing]

[80:44]

Basically that was huge chunk of time to see these videos. And if they were in English then the translator they had to give a translation, and the lawyers insisted that this be done properly. That they write the translations out so that it’s not just sort of simultaneous translation while the video was being shown. Because then you lose a lot. So they had to do that, like their homework. They had to translate these videos and then they would read the translations after the video was shown. And then there’d be question, answer, and discussion, and that kind of thing.

And it was a huge education! Alfred’s whole strategy here was to make sure that not a single person could sit through that trial and not understand what is really going on in the world. They could not at some later point in time, when this regime has collapsed, and fallen. And if they find themselves on trial, that they would say:

“Oh we just didn’t understand it! We just didn’t know we’re just, you know, going with our understanding and following orders!”

Brizer: Instead of the truth is no defense, lies is no defense.

Monika: There you go!

Brizer: That is the way to look at it. They are lying through their teeth and they know it! And they are getting away with it. That is where we come in to call them out on their lies. And we keep calling them out, call them out, call them out!

Monika: Exactly! Exactly!

Brizer: These people have been getting away with too much, for too long. I’ve had enough of them, and I’m sick of it! I’m sick of what they’re doing to my country! I’m sick of the doings of European countries! To our people! This is wrong! These lies have to come to the top and they will be exposed at some point, and it is getting there. We just have to stay strong and don’t give in.

Monika: Well, their means of upholding these lies are getting more and more extreme, so that it becomes more, and more, obvious that they are just upholding lies! That’s the thing, they’re kind of falling flat on their faces, because of the means that they use to keep these lies going.

Brizer: We will remember them Monika, we will remember those days and we will come to them and say:

“Right! We hold you accountable!”

Monika: Exactly.

Brizer:

“Now you’re going to prison, we’re going to throw away the key! You’re going to be on the other side of it!”

Monika: That’s right.

Brizer: And we’re definitely going to throw away the key this time. Because you people shouldn’t be out there! And don’t be coming go out with these excuses that:

“We didn’t know!”

Yes you did! You knew exactly what you were doing.

Monika: Of course, they know it. Absolutely they know it.

Yeah, I mean, they didn’t allow us to put evidence forth. Any of the motions for evidence, or requests for proof, that our side put forth, like Alfred, or his lawyer, or my lawyer, or myself, they rejected it. For example, if we wanted to have a historian, an historical expert to verify that what Alfred was reading out in these statements that he read out, like longish papers. That these are actually true, that these are real quotes.

For example, from jews who have said this is not about us. That they want to get rid of the White race, just simple things like that. Just minor details, okay, but that these are not just made up. We were not just making these things up. And an historical expert could come in and verify that these things were actually said by those people, the way that Alfred is putting it, either in his video, or in his statements that he was submitting. No! That was all rejected! All rejected!

And I’ll tell you about one specific witness who they weren’t even going to have, but he had to be called be due to exposing the fact that this witness had written a big long letter to the judge and they were hiding this from us! So, this man’s name is Gerd Ittner. You have probably heard of him, and many of your listeners may have heard of him, because he has been a political prisoner in the, what they call the BRD, Germany, for years. He’s out now, but again, he was in jail again for 6 months, or so just recently.

See: Entschuldigung Mama, ich hatte Unrecht was den Holocaust betrifft — TRANSCRIPT

Anyway, he originally was going to be called as a witness for this trial, the Schaefer Trial, then he was called off as a witness. Nobody explained why he was called off as a witness. But we think it’s because he’s in an “inconvenient” witness. And in the meantime he was in jail, and he wrote a very long letter to the judge. And it was because of our trial that he was going to be, how do you call it, [word unclear], like he was going to be taking, “lightening our load”, so to speak. I don’t know exactly the words to use. For example, one of the charges against me included the fact that in the video, “Dissidents Speak Out” which is an interview between Alfred and Gerd Ittner, they attached my 6 minute video at the end of that one, the German version. Because the German version was eliminated from the Internet in Germany very quickly. And Gerd Ittner had liked that video, and he decided he was going to give it more airtime, and put it on.

See: Alfred Schaefer – A Dissident Speaking Out – Gerhard Ittner — TRANSCRIPT

Anyway, so they charged me for that, because they said:

“Oh, in collusion with Gerd Ittner.”

And he was arguing that I didn’t even know. And that is true! I didn’t even know until after they did it, right? So it’s kind of like if you teach somebody the skills of building a fire and then they go down the street the next week and they light somebody’s house on fire, and now they charge you, because you taught them how to build a fire, like a bonfire in the backyard! It was just crazy logic!

And so, that plus he was also going to talk about the fact that the video interview that he did with Alfred, it was his inspiration, his talking, telling Alfred his own story, that inspired Alfred to go on and do all these videos. And then causing Alfred to be indicted now. So he was going to try to lighten that load, and take take the blame himself, right? And the judges didn’t let us know. But this was sent to the judges and they were hiding evidence. And they didn’t even share it with our lawyers, which is completely illegal!

But our lawyers caught wind of this long letter, and they brought it up. And suddenly the one judge turns red, purple in the face, and the other one goes White! They each had their physical reactions to this, because they knew that they really blew it! And suddenly he’s called in, yeah! I’m serious! [laughing] suddenly Gerd Ittner got called in for the following court day. Which was the Monday. And this was on a Friday.

Anyway, I’ll go back a little bit to just how they give a verdict first and then create their story. Going back, before the trial, when they were giving me hearings to determine if I was to still continue staying on in jail awaiting trial, or if they would let me out to go to my brother’s place, sort of in a form of house arrest. And this happened twice, that I went before a judge during that 6 month period, once in March and once, I believe it was, in May. And I guess that’s part of the rules, every so often you have got to have a hearing. But they weren’t going to let me out. There’s no way!

But at the first hearing there was some hope that I would get out. In fact, the judge in that case seemed very sympathetic, and she was talking about how I’d only have to go maybe twice a week to the police station to present myself. Whereas my lawyer was saying:

“I should go every day.”

And she’d said:

“Twice a week would be enough.”

So it really was going towards this notion that I would be let out, but not to go away from Germany, but to await trial. And at that point we had no idea when the trial was. I didn’t even have my charges yet, until late April. And this was in March.

Anyway, she said:

“Okay, well I’ll let, you know, tomorrow by fax what the result is.”

Everybody there thought that I was getting out. Even the guard that accompanied me, she was very nice, and said:

“Well, one more night in the jail, it’s not so bad with us, is it?”

She was being friendly. And the next day no news, and the day after that I kind of knew in my heart that I was getting out. And I had kind of a rough day that day because I started to get my hopes up! Then kind of crashed then. And then the day after that, I put the pictures back on the wall, because I had packed everything. Because, if you do get let out, you can’t go back in the cell. And then by Monday, or Tuesday, finally the reply came. And by then, I knew anyway. But the reply was “No!” And then they have to give reasons.

[90:10]

And one of the reasons was a complete fabrication! It was a complete lie! They said that something about my “active letter writing”. My letter correspondence with Gerd Ittner. Now I had not had a single letter from him, which also meant I had not written a single letter to him, because I wouldn’t have had an address, anyway. But not one letter went between us!

And they’re using this is one of the reasons like, oh, by the way, the judge why she said she would give the answer the next day, because she had to still talk to the prosecutor. And that’s what did it. The prosecutor gave her a bunch of lies, and one of these lies was that I had this active letter writing correspondence with Gerd Ittner. And this was a dangerous thing, I guess. I don’t know how they justified still keeping me in. Maybe they just didn’t want me to communicate with him and this is preventative, rather than reactive.

But there you go, it was a complete and utter lie! And that’s how it changed from giving me all indications that they were going to let me out to:

“No, you’re staying in.”

Right? So they give the verdict first, and then they make up the story. And so that was a hearing back in March. But fast forward to the trial, Gerd Ittner comes in. Then it didn’t work out in the end, because the judge was very impatient with him. And while he indicated that he wants to testify as a witness, but first he wanted to clarify this identity problem with him. Because they have him in there with the wrong name. But the judge was very impatient. Now the judge could have handled that differently and just said:

“Look okay, are you the person that appears in that video?”

And then he would have just said:

“Yes that is me.”

But anyway, that’s neither here, nor there.

The important part they were going to avoid him, because he was an “inconvenient” witness.

And I’ll tell you a little bit of an aside here, about another trial that was going on at the same time. But it had been going on for 5 years, and it finished up, I believe, it was in August that it finished up. And that was another trial which Gerd Ittner was supposed to be a witness too, but they kept him out of it, because they only want witnesses that are “convenient” to their side a story, and not the “inconvenient” witnesses, the ones who tell the truth and actually do have knowledge of what transpired. And that is the NSU. Did I tell you about that already in the first hour, I don’t think so?

Brizer: No you didn’t, no.

Monika: The NSU, that’s stands for the National Socialist Underground. And this is a very interesting story, because it tells you how these operations happen, and a little bit about, you know, deception coming from the government agencies, and whatnot, or the spy agencies. So the National Socialist Underground, it was basically a terrorist organization. And there was a woman in jail there with me that I got to know a little bit. And she has now been given a verdict of life! Life in prison! And like I say this trial that went on for about 5 years and, of course, the whole time she’s in prison, and I think she was in prison already before that. And maybe 300 court days, and very, very, many witnesses. Okay. So that wrapped up.

And I’ll just tell you in summary here a little bit about that, and it just knocks your socks off! Over 50 witnesses, or over 50 people, sorry, over 50 people it was revealed that they had been paid agents. So they’re called [words unclear] is the letter V. And that stands for [word unclear] And these are like, it’s like a secret agency type of thing, you know, to protect the Constitution type of agency in Germany. But this is a constitution built on a country that’s built on lies! And it’s not even a sovereign country, so the whole thing is just a criminal regime!

So there were over 50 people who were involved in this NSU. Some of whom became really good friends with this woman that I got to know, who was now a “fall” person. She was like one of the real people who was not a paid agent, but she was pulled into this organization. Now they could never prove her presence at any of these actual bombings, and actual events where people died. They actually could never prove her presence, but just from all the other surrounding, circumstantial evidence, and whatnot, they have convicted her to life in prison.

And get this, 120 years is how long they have locked the files away! So in 120 years if somebody wants to access them through Freedom of Information, or whatever rules they have at that time. Yeah, several generations later, they can access these files! Now what does that tell you?

Brizer: There’s something big to hide there!

Monika: Absolutely! So what they do is they create a story, and then, you know, they create the problem and then they create the solution. So the problem in this case was this organization was terrorizing immigrants okay, so well, these migrants, or invaders, as Alfred calls them. And that’s how they should be called, because they are being invited in by people who want to demolish us, and replace us, and destroyed us! And he’s their opportunists, and quite often they’re criminals themselves that, you know, maybe they’ve emptied their jails in some of these countries. Where they’ve just let them loose on our countries. And so, some of the people did die. There were some families that died and whatnot. And now this NSU, so National Socialists Underground, this is neo-Nazis, and there are all painted with this brush of being this, you know, they’re Nazis, they’re neo-Nazis! Oh my goodness, they’re radical right wing people!

And now all the people who are talking, raising their voices in concern about immigration policies, or about how we’ve been lied to about World War Two, are we being lied to about some of these other events going on now? We’re all painted with the same brush, all of these radical right wing people. And look at them, they’re violent, they kill people, and they’re awful! And then the general public, they don’t know what to make of this. And that’s how it goes, they create the problem, and they create the solution. Create a police state, more and more. And if anybody speaks out against all these people coming in, they scream “racism”, or they scream about xenophobia! They use all these weaponized words against us!

Brizer: Yes. And now that’s becoming a criminal act by voicing your opinion.

Monika: Exactly.

Brizer: And that is why all these “hate speech” laws are being pushed in all these countries. That’s what they’re going for now, because people are beginning to talk about it.

Monika: Exactly.

Brizer: The conversation has begun, and it’s getting bigger, and it’s getting bigger. So they have to shut that down. And the way to shut it down is just label people “neo-Nazis”, “fascists”, whatever. Whatever they want. But the way I look at it, it’s just a label. They can put it on me, I can take it off again, okay? I just a sovereign man who cares about my country, my people! I don’t want to see it turned into a 3rd World slum, it’s as simple as that!

Monika: Yeah!

Brizer: I have no animosity towards these people, wherever they come from. None at all. I wish them well in their countries. I’d love to see them thrive and do, but they don’t need to come here!

Monika: That is right! I am so glad you said that, no animosity towards these people. No. And think of it this way, if they are skilled people, and talented people, and they can do work, then they should have stayed home and done work in their own country and stayed there. They have abandoned their own countries. Now, if they are the criminals being let loose on us, we don’t want them either! Like go back home! I don’t have any personal animosity to any of them, either. And in jail I got along with everybody, no matter who they were really.

Brizer: You judge people by their character.

Monika: Exactly! Exactly! It’s these policies that are being made by people who want to replace us and do us in. And that is the important point. So people need to open their eyes and learn about it. And also they need to learn to not react to those words! Just let it fall off like water off a duck’s back, and laugh back at their faces.

Brizer: Laugh at them! That’s what we did on Thursday night when we were called “Nazi scum, get off our streets!” We just laughed at them! We all had our Irish flags. You know what flags they had? I saw an EU flag and a communist flag. That is what they had. There you go, that is very telling, isn’t it? And they were shouting:

“One race — human race!”

All this kind of thing. These are just idiots! Brainwashed idiots! A few people tried to go up and talk to them. And ask them, like:

“Why are you like this? I mean, we’re just standing up for our own country.”

And it was like:

“Fff-off Nazi! Fff-off fascist scum!”

Monika: They have nothing to say!

Brizer: They have nothing to say! They’re complete brainwashed idiots! And sadly Monika a lot of them, I could see, are university students. And with know the universities now, are complete cultural Marxist cesspits!

[100:31]

Monika: They are!

Brizer: Where they’re not being educated at all, they are being programmed and pumped with this nonsense!

Monika: That is right.

Brizer: I’m more worried, like this the next generation coming through, who are supposed to be educated. What are they going to be like? It’s bad now! What is it going to be like in 20 years time?

Monika: Yeah. The people who are getting it the easiest, are the people who are the ordinary folk working with their hands, the people who have not been “highly educated”, you know, in quotation marks. Because “highly educated” people have been highly programmed, [laughing] you know!

Brizer: A lot of people I meet in my circles of people who started up their own businesses and fell on hard times — no fault of their own — had literally everything taken off them.

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: So there’s nothing left, so they’re shouting out about it now and saying:

“I’ve not much left to loose.”

So I’m shouting out there. And maybe it has to kind of go down that way a bit. I don’t like to see people going through hardship, a lot of it is going on. But sometimes we have to kind of get into the darkness to come back into the light again.

Monika: Yeah.

Brizer: So we’re getting there. And another thing I wanted to bring up, I remember you were talking about it on the Andy Hitchcock Show, not too long ago. How any statements you make in your defense [Monika chuckles] can be used against you as another offense!

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: And I believe Alfred is due back in court in January, sometime.

Monika: Exactly! Now if that doesn’t make George Orwell roll over in his grave I don’t know what will! I mean, that is just mind blowing! What can you say? That in your own defense you cannot actually defend yourself. Like, for example, explaining how you reached these conclusions, or anything like that, because and you just recommitted another offence!

Brizer: Ohhh!

Monika: It’s laughable, except it’s so serious. And I’ll tell you one other example. I know we’re probably getting almost towards the end here but, …

Brizer: We can go over a bit, Monika. There’s no problem if you want to go over.

Monika: Okay. You were saying how the antifa people, or the counter demonstration people there, they just tell you to fff-off. They have nothing to say.

Well, I’ll tell you about a little incident in the trial too, where the prosecutor had absolutely nothing to say! This was after my lawyer had given a very rousing and, just a super powerful speech, I think was about 45 minutes long, and just filled with good information. And it was just such well documented information and whatnot. And he read it out, because in Germany that’s another issue — but we don’t even have time to go into that — if it’s not submitted in writing there’s no record of it. It’s just unbelievable! It’s like a secret trial in the Deep Dark Ages, that nothing, there’s no records, no transcript, no recording, of what went on in the trial!

But anyway, he did this, and when it came time for the prosecutor — they always have an opportunity to give a rebuttal, that kind of thing — well, she stands up and she says:

“You showed too much emotion in your speech!”

She was complaining about his tone of voice, because there was too much passion and emotion in it. Now, she had obviously found nothing that she could critique in the content of what he just said in this wonderful speech. And so she attacked him on that he was too passionate, or too emotional, and he looked over at the gallery once in a while, because he wasn’t just looking at judges. But it was just a surreal moment! And I did bring that up in my last word to that. I said:

“These issues that we’re talking about, this whole trial is about issues that go towards peace, and war, or destruction of our culture, or preservation of our people, and our culture. This is about the very fundamental question of life and death! And if we can not get emotional about these things, then what on earth can we get emotional about?”

And so I did raise that as an issue in my “last word”. And I just looked her straight in the eye when I said:

“If we can get emotional about these things what can we get emotional about?”

And I paused for a while and she starts squirming and having her funny smirk on her face that she always had when she was being like the devil. And it was surreal! It was surreal!

[105:08]

Brizer: Now you see these judges and politicians, they are all career judges, career politicians. Where all they care about is the big paycheck they get every month. From us, mainly!

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: From us! And then of course, you know, the lawyers who are making off like bandits, as well. So it’s a big corrupt system going on there. I suppose for say, you and Alfred to be going in there, you’re just ordinary people, you are up against a huge machine here. I’ve seen it myself, in my own experience, it’s daunting. But there’s more and more people now, who are going through the same thing. Whether you, like, facing eviction from their home. The homes that they worked hard, … [accidental musical interruption]. People now are beginning to see this.

And then this UN Global Compact thing has woken up quite a few people over here, because our government can’t WAIT to sign on the dotted line! Like Trudeau, over there in Canada.

See: Salim Mansur – Globalism and the UN Compact for Migration, Dec 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Now we have a gay, half Indian, prime minister over here, Leo Varadkar, an absolute traitor! I mean, this guy does not give a, I’ll say it, he doesn’t give a shit about the people of this country! None of this party, or none of the opposition, anybody! There’s no politicians who are there who will actually stand up for anything. We’re beginning to realize now it’s, of course, it’s up to us!

Monika: That’s right!

Brizer: We’ve got to get these gangsters out of out here!

Monika: Yeah, yeah.

Brizer: And the thing is again, it’s about getting the conversation going and getting more and more people, and maybe put in some kind of political party. And there are couple who are out there. I mean, the only problem I find with political parties is that they can get corrupted, as well, and infiltrated.

Monika: That’s right, they do get infiltrated. It’s like this Catch 22, how do you come up against it?

Brizer: Exactly! So we have to be aware of all of these things, we have to look at all the tricks that they pull in the trade.

We can use against them, in many ways. But just keep exposing them for tie lies and corruption.

Monika: Yeah, that is right. Like their measures are getting more and more extreme. And it’s like the devil is dancing more wildly, and ever closer to the light. And the light being truth, and the people waking up. But the devil is dancing, closer and closer, to the light, so that the shadows get worse, darker and more clear cut! And I mean, that we are all witnessing how they do seem to be going quite berserk, and they make a lot of mistakes, and so this does help a lot of people to see and wake up about it. So yeah, …

See: Andrew Hitchcock with Alison Chabloz – “No Regrets!” — TRANSCRIPT

Brizer: Your trial and Alfred’s trial has shown that. See what happened to Alison Chabloz in the UK, same thing.

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: She didn’t go to prison, but she’s on a suspended sentence. But she hasn’t shut up either. She can’t go on social media, but she’s still writing, still calling out the lies of this organization called the “Campaign Against Anti-semitism”.

See: Inside the Eye Live with Alison Chabloz – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Monika: Yeah!

Brizer: She’s received death threats and all this type of stuff.

Monika: Oh my goodness!

Brizer: I mean that’s a criminal offence right there! Where are the police there? Where are they? Where are they?

Monika: Oh! And speaking of that kind of thing. Like the things they do to us, and our comrades, and then they call us the “haters”!

Brizer: Yeah!

Monika: And they’re charging us for “hate” speech! And what is this “hate speech” thing anyway? When I talk to ordinary people about free speech and then they say:

“Oh, oh, of course, I believe in freedom of speech! But hate speech that’s different!”

And then you try to call them out on, what is that? What is “hate speech”?

Brizer: Well, we’re not preaching “hate”, Monika! Were preaching love! Love for our people, love for our country!

Monika: Exactly! And during the trial whenever there were non-court days following trial days, I would be telling my friends in prison how they were proving to us, over and over again, how they were supporting lies and that truth was on our side. And just by the things they were doing, and saying, in court and not allowing us to bring evidence. And just everything they’re doing.

You know, this prosecutor complaining about the emotion that my lawyer showed, critiquing what he said. So I was quite joyful, and happy, and telling them how we’re proving, over and over, how the truth lies on our side. Of course, I realized that wasn’t going to necessarily go in our favor, but I was just happy about it anyway. And then at the very end the judge said:

“We proved over and over again what haters we were!”

And then he looks right at me and he says:

“Oh! And we even learned that musicians and composers can be good haters too!”

[laughing] It was quite something! I mean, just everything is inverted! Everything is inverted!

[110:46]

Brizer: Everything! I’ve just come to realize that pretty much everything we’ve been told is a lie! Pretty much everything!

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: If it’s not a lie it’s been spun out in some way which suits them but not us. We’re being shafted, the ordinary folks of our country! We have been lied to, shouted to, and robbed!

Monika: Yeah.

Brizer: Our country has been stolen from underneath out feet!

We need to really get ourselves together here to save our civilization.

Monika: We really do.

Brizer: I’m committed to this! I don’t care, I’m going off, I’m ready! I’m ready for it! And I’ll do what I can.

It’s got to be said a lot of people are waking up. I spoke to a lot of people last Thursday night who know all about the jewish Question. They know big time what’s going on! And it was very refreshing, because I thought a lot of them were just kind of wanting to go on about, you know, :

“The Muslims are taking over!”

Yes. We know they are all coming over and we don’t want them here, particularly. We’d rather they stay in our own country and do their our own thing. Not against them or anything, but we don’t want them here. But we have to look beyond who’s controlling that. Who is on top of that pyramid? And people are beginning to get it now! And they know all about the “Holocaust” lie and are seeing it. And it’s very, it was really, it made my heart feel good, you know what I mean? Knowing that people, … I was in good form going home that night, knowing that my fellow folk are waking up to this and are beginning to realize this. And more, and more, people are doing it. That’s why, as I said they are coming go in now trying to bring in these “hate speech” laws.

See: Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: We can challenge all of that, because again, speaking your mind, or even being hateful, is not a crime!

Monika: That’s right!

Brizer: It’s as simple as that!

Monika: And I like how you’ve expressed it too. Just, because you don’t want these people in your own country, doesn’t mean you have something personally against them as individuals. No! You just don’t want them in your own country.

Brizer: Exactly!

Monika: That’s all!

Brizer: Think about it. Bring it back to your own house. You are not going to invite all and sundry into your house, and feed them, and clothe them, and look after them, and give them everything! Of course, you’ll invite your friends and people you know. You’re going to be a nice host and look after people. We all do it. But you are not going to invite strangers in, to just take everything you have and then just throw you out! [Monika chuckles]

Monika: Exactly!

Brizer: But this is the same with our country, because our country is our home. This is our home! We have nowhere else to go to!

Monika: That’s right.

Brizer: So, we can’t emigrate to Nigeria, or Somalia. They won’t let us in. Wrong skin colour! Well that’s racist! There we go!

Monika: Didn’t you hear about it? The only people that are able to be racist are whites? Didn’t you hear that? [laughing]

Brizer: Oh yes! It’s the same again, blacks and Africans can come to Europe, and move in, call themselves “migrants” and “refugees”, or whatever. White South Africans? Oh, no! No! No! Can’t have them!

Monika: Isn’t that just something else! Oh my goodness! We should actually be looking towards South Africa to see what they have in mind with us. I mean, the real story of South Africa, because they certainly don’t talk about it in the mainstream media very much, what is actually going on there right now. It’s just an absolute tragedy what’s going on there.

See: A Blind Eye to Murder of Whites in South Africa

Brizer: Clearly. We’ve had guests on here about that.

Monika: Yeah, that’s good., you know, thing I’d like to say, kind of as a hopeful thing, is that they are in such a panic! And they keep showing us what a panic they’re in, you know, they’re trying to shut down this and that site. And they throw people in jail. That means they’re in a panic. Now if they’re in a panic, that should actually be a sign that there is hope for us. Because if there was no hope for us, then they wouldn’t have to resort to these measures. They’d already have it all all fixed up, and done with, right? But they don’t!

Brizer: No they don’t.

Monika: Yeah, that’s my message of hope! It gives me a lot of hope! I think that if they were so, … Why were they so worried about me? Little old me!

Brizer: Yeah!

Monika: Like why were they worried about me?

Brizer: Yeah, some little lady in Jasper, Alberta playing her violin. She’s a threat to humanity, somehow? That is amazing isn’t it?

Monika: Yeah.

Brizer: That is crazy! A here’s little old me who’s worked most of my life, trying to take my house away. And I’m fighting back. I’m a threat. Because I talk to people who are of a like mind, or care about the country, I’m a “fascist”, a “neo-Nazi”! Whatever! But I don’t care! I don’t care about any of that. I just get on, talk to people about it. I used to be a little bit reticent a few years ago, but not anymore!

Monika: Yeah!

Brizer: Time for all of that has stopped! I speak out my mind. If you disagree with me, fine!

If you don’t want to listen to me, well go away then. Because I’m not going to talk to you if you don’t want to listen to me. But I’ll talk to people who want to listen to me. And there are people who are listening. There might be only one, or two, in a group of ten, but that is one, or two people. If somebody even listens to you a little bit, and gets a little bit of what you’re talking about, that’s a result!

Monika: Yeah. That’s great! Actually, having gone to jail for me, like I mean, I was already feeling quite free to speak oh before that. Like, as soon as that video [Sorry Mom] went out into the world, I felt freed up by that. Because okay, now I’ve broken the big taboo, now I can just talk freely! That was very liberating for me.

And then going to jail and then discovering that they do their verdict first anyway, and then they’ll put the show on afterwards, it also kind of gives a certain sense of freedom, ironically, you know?

Brizer: Yeah.

Monika: But it does. It frees you up, we’re free!

Brizer: Yes, you’re free! Because you don’t worry about anything anymore! You don’t worry about any of these labels, nothing! I don’t care about it any more. And I just get out now and just say, I speak my mind, and I don’t care what anybody, I don’t care about it really. I used to be like that:

“Oh! What will the neighbours think?”

That nonsense! Just say it! Speak your mind.

Monika: Exactly!

Brizer: It’s wonderful, let it go!

Monika: Yeah.

Brizer: Before we finish up Monika, how is Alfred doing? Have you been in touch with him? Any kind of communication with him?

Monika: Oh yeah. He writes just such excellent letters. So we’re writing letters. They take a long time to get back and forth. But, you know, he is such a positive person and in good spirits! Pretty much all the time. Although it was heartbreaking just after the trial was over, because suddenly he felt very, very alone there. But he got over that pretty quick. And then, he’s its just such a positive guy! And he’s got a job, and the job is not to get rich! He’s making about one euro twenty an hour in the job, in the laundry there. But the job gets him out of his cell and socializing with other people.

And he’s such a sociable character too, that I think he’s going to find that people just gravitate towards him and like him. He’s funny as get go! I mean, he has me in stitches so much, and the thing is [chuckling] I grew up with this guy, so I had the benefit of having that great sense of humor around me as we were growing up. And then during the trial too. Like once he was imprisoned, as well as me, and we’d be filed in and out of the court room from the basement dungeon’s waiting cells — because we’re in separate waiting cells always. Like, they wouldn’t allow us to be in the same waiting cell, because that means we might actually have, you know, conversation with each other.

But even the guards there, they got pretty friendly, and kind of turned a blind eye to us yakking the whole way down the halls and up the stairs, and all that. We were yakking, and just in stitches, laughing sometimes! I mean, his sense of humour is just terrific. And he always sees the silver lining of the cloud, in any situation. And we saw that before when they raided his home, and then he right away says:

“Okay, well yeah, thank you very much for that opportunity! I’ll make another video out of that!”

That type of thing. And he carries on in that vein, so it’s just wonderful. And I just want to stress to people that if you write letters, write cards, write whatever, just do it! It’s a really easy thing to do, but I know for younger people, they sometimes need instruction of how to do that! [laughing] You know, you just have to stick a piece of paper in an envelope, seal it, put a stamp in the right hand corner, go to the post office, get a stamp for the right amount, and address it, and send it off! And I mean, I know it sounds funny to be giving instructions, but I know for a lot of younger people they’ve never sent a letter in the snail mail letter system!

Brizer: Yeah, the old fashioned way of doing things. The old ways!

[120:27]

Monika: Yeah. [laughing]

Brizer: Well just put out the address. It’s coming go up for Christmas folks. And you still have time I’m sure. Send a Christmas card to Alfred. Just wish him a Merry Christmas, that’s all.

Just say you’re thinking about him and all the rest of it. That is all. It’s:

Alfred Schaefer
~~Stadelheim Prison~~
~~Stadelheimer Straße~~
~~81549 Munich,~~
~~Germany~~

[As of 2020]

Hindenburgring 12

86899 Landberg am Lech

Germany

And I’m sure he’d love to get them from all his supporters all around the world who know what he’s been doing, what he’s going through. It looks like he could be there for a while. Do you ever think he might get out early, on good behavior, or something like that?

Monika: Unfortunately they don’t, … Other prisoners, they could be violent criminals, they could be in there for whatever, they generally can be let out at two thirds, if they’re on good behavior, that kind of thing.

But not political prisoners! No! They kept Ernst Zundel, they kept him until the very last 5 years sentence, the maximum sentence. They don’t let political prisoners out one day early, ever! But he would get out earlier if, for example, the regime changes! That if the regime falls! And once again Alfred is optimistic that, that will happen. He’s in now for 3 years two months. But they have another court case coming up in January. Plus he’s still got this Dresden thing hanging over his head, that still hasn’t been dealt with, finished, for a speech he gave there in, I think it was in 2017.

There’s all these things, like they intend to keep them in there for a long, long, time. But hopefully that’s not going to be the case.

Brizer: We are praying for him. We have to put ir out there into the universe, all of us, to stop it, because this is pure injustice! There’s only one word for it. This is totally wrong! Totally wrong!

So, anyway Monika your last words please, to everybody. All I can say is, you’re a heroine! One day they will be naming streets in Germany for you, and Alfred, and others. Ernst Zundel, Robert Faurrison, and others who went before us.

Monika: Yeah.

Brizer: You know, we have to look to that day that we will get there. We have a big struggle ahead, there’s no doubt about that. But as long as we stand together, start talking to people about this, getting people to think, getting people’s heads out of mobile phones, and the TVs and all that nonsense, the mainstream media which is just filling their heads full of crap! Let’s get out there and do the ground! It’s up to us, as you have said. It’s up to us!

Monika: It is indeed! It is indeed! It is up to us. And thank you for those very kind words. And I also want to just thank you, and Graham Hart, for putting this together, and just for doing all the work you’re doing. It just is so important, and it is up to us! We can’t just wait and hope that:

“Oh it’s going to get better all on its own!”

Because it isn’t going to get better all on its own! We need to do the work! And it is not just a little game. Our very existence is at stake here! It is big. This is the big times!

Brizer: We are living in credibly “interesting times”, as the Chinese say. We are at a unique point in history, because this is probably the first time where a civilization is at risk here, the White race, the White people!

But we’ve got a small window of opportunity to turn this around. But as each day goes by, that window gets smaller.

Monika: Yes.

Brizer: And we have a corrupt, … We know what’s running the whole show at the top of the pyramid, but we know that. But we’ve got a corrupt government, corrupt officials, everybody, playing their part for the shekels. And we’ve got to pull them down first, and then well come after the others. Because then they will have nothing. They’ve got nothing else to stand on, have they? They’ve got nothing!

Monika: That’s right, because they suck their energy solely from us, or from the host. I mean, it is a parasitic relationship! They have used those words themselves. And we’re not just guessing this. It is that way, and we do need to regain our spirit, and regain our health. And part of that regaining of our health is from detoxifying ourselves of the lies and the deception. And what you said is so good, about unhooking from the television, and the mainstream. It is poison! It is poisoning our minds! Yes. And so we need to get healthy again and regain our spirits.

See: The Realist Report – Tanstaafl: The Jew As A Parasite — TRANSCRIPT

[125:40]

Brizer: Eating healthy and doing the healthy things to get our body strong, because if we’re not strong, in ourselves we can’t fight this. And that is another way they’re attacking us, is on the health front. GMOs and fluoride in the water, all this type of stuff. Vaccines, we know what they are doing.

Monika: Oh yes!

Brizer: And that is another form of genocide that they are pushing on us, you know what I mean?

Monika: Yes! They’re attacking us chemically as well. That’s right, that is a whole other topic.

Brizer: Another whole topic. Another whole show on it. They’re attacking us from every angle. And we’re kind of in a corner. But the one thing is, that there are more of us than there are of them. So the more of us that get together, … And it is growing, that’s why I’ll always kind of remain optimistic, even though I get very frustrated sometimes when I see it the apathy around me. But there are a lot of people, and I’ve met them, and it’s great to know that they are on my side. They’ll support me, I’ll support them! That’s what it’s all about. So there we go.

Monika: Yes! Thank you so much for having me on!

Brizer: Monika, absolute pleasure having you on. Thank you! You lost pretty much a year of your life there, but you’ve come out, you’ve put out a beautiful message there. You’re still just standing strong, not giving up. We’re all praying for Alfred and wishing him well. Let’s keep it going, guys! It’s up to us, as you said.

So Monika, thank you very much indeed! Wish you all the best for Christmas, and the New Year! May it be a lot better than the last one. Put it that way.

Monika: Thank you so much, and to you too! I wish you all the best! Thank, you very much. Bye, bye.

Brizer: We will call it a day. Monika, if you want to stay on for a little bit afterwards, no problem.

Monika: I certainly will. Yes.

Brizer: Hang in there. Folks, thanks very much for listening.

We’ll be back again next week, same time, not sure the guest. I think we could be having Max Igan on. But I’m not sure yet. But all going well, next week, same time we’ll be back, okay. So take care folks! And as usual we’re going to sign off with a great song!

“The Goyim Know!“

And by god the goyim do know! And it’s growing! Take care folks.

[Song lyrics]

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/unknown-Artist-english-goyim-know-lyrics.html

The Goyim Know.
Hey, ha Chaim.
(What?)
I think the goyim know.
(That’s ridiculous, the goyim don’t know!)
I think they know, there.
(They don’t know)
They know.

The goyim know, the goyim know.
They know all the things that we have done.
And now they’re telling everyone.

The goyim know.
The goyim know.

They know all the things we did back then.
And now we’re trying to do it again.
But the goyim know, the goyim know.

We wanna open the borders to their countries.
And fill them with diversity.
But the goyim know, the goyim know.

(SOLO)

The goyim know (the goyim know)
The goyim know (the goyim know)

We wanna turn the women into men.
And make the guys more feminine.
The goyim know (the goyim know)
The goyim know (the goyim know)

We wanna make the white man, feel guilty.
And put the black man all over the TV.
The goyim know (the goyim know)
The goyim know (the goyim know)

And soon they won’t want us around.
We’re gonna have to shut it down..

Cause the goyim know.
The goyim know.
The goyim know.
Cause the goyim know.
Cause the goyim know.

[130:58]

END

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

NOTES

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

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = 21,471
* Total images = 29
* Total A4 pages =

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 12: May 19, 2022 — Improved formatting. Added link for Orwell House.

Version 11: Jan 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version. Updated Alfred Schaefer’s prison address.

Version 10: Dec 30, 2018 — Added See Also links.

Version 9: Dec 29, 2018 — Added 20 more minutes. Added 14 images. Total transcript complete = 131 minutes. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!

Version 8: Dec 28, 2018 — Added 10 more minutes. Added 2 images. Total transcript complete = 110 minutes

Version 7: Dec 27, 2018 — Added 10 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 100 minutes

Version 6: Dec 24, 2018 — Added 10 more minutes. Added 6 images. Total transcript complete = 90 minutes

Version 5: Dec 23, 2018 — Added 10 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 80 minutes

Version 4: Dec 22, 2018 — Added 8 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 70 minutes

Version 3: Dec 21, 2018 — Added 10 more minutes. Added 1 image. Total transcript complete = 62 minutes

Version 2: Dec 20, 2018 — Added 22 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 52 minutes

Version 1: Dec 19, 2018 — Published post. 30 minutes of transcript complete.

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:28:36 +0000

[Alain Soral, a leading French dissident, talks about his association with Robert Faurisson and the impact that his Revisionist work had on him, awakening him to the power of organized jewry and their persecution of anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship their “Shoah”.

NOTE: The English voice-over in the video is provided by the talented musician Alison Chabloz, another admirer of the late Faurisson, and who expresses her disbelief of those historical lies through stinging satirical songs!

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Alain Soral

My Homage to

Robert Faurisson

Oct 2018

Click the link below to view the video:

https://alisonchabloz.com/2018/10/29/alain-soral-my-homage-to-robert-faurisson/

Alison Chabloz’s Description

Published on October 29, 2018

Of the many moving tributes following the recent death of Robert Faurisson, the video below is one of the most pertinent I have seen so far. Using today’s technology — featuring a mise en scène and dresscode worthy of note and which would certainly have met with Robert Faurisson’s approval — Alain Soral regales viewers with his in-a-nutshell analysis of the crucial importance of historical revisionism and the inestimable contribution made by Robert Faurisson.

Alain Soral is the founder of Égalité et Réconciliation, the leading dissident publication in France with seven million monthly clicks. He is also head of the publishing house Kontre Kulture. Mr Soral kindly granted me permission to translate his incisive impromptu text and redistribute the video below with voiceover in English. You can find the original here.

Many thanks to all who continue to support the revisionist cause.

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(19:24)

[00:31]

Well, it brings great sadness, as well as the end of an era. I could talk about this in different ways, but I’d like to use the occasion to try and make others understand how one might come to the Revisionist’s school of thought. Because this sensibility, which eventually leads to asking questions and to looking into the professor’s work, needs to be explained. I wish to emphasis that I’m sad that he’s gone. At the same time I’ve been in his company fairly often recently.

And just to note that Égalité et Réconciliation supported him by way of my barrister, as well as ensuring his security. And he was surrounded by friendship and affection. Friends presented him with the “Quenelle d’or”, the “Golden Quenelle” awarded to him by Dieudonne. And he sent me a very kind voice mail.

Now that he’s gone, aside from the Revisionist’s combat, we can say we accompanied him, I think, with warm and tender affection right to the end. And that is really important. He was someone, how to put it, we simply can’t imagine what he had to suffer! Ten times worst than what I was subjected to. And admittedly I sometimes have trouble keeping my calm.

There’s a price to pay for the organism, physically and psychologically. And he was someone who needed to be surrounded by love and affection in order to bring some kind of balance. I insist that not withstanding his combat, which is non-debatable, because we do not have the right to debate it, let’s say it as it is.

Apart from his non-debatable combat, there was the whole human aspect that was extremely important. And here I must mention Dieudonne. Dieudonne did a lot, a lot for Robert Faurisson.

Perhaps I also did a lot in order that Dieudonne found out about Faurisson, which some people reproached me for. But how could I be ashamed of that? He’s someone we accompanied during his final years, which was very important because he succeeded in transferring his combat to another generation. Meaning there were people who were interested in him, from the 1970s onwards, and in the generations that followed, 20 or 20 years down the line. People do burn out, but thanks to Dieudonne the younger generation became interested in Professor Faurisson.

If we look at his trials which took place toward is the end of his life, he was surrounded by people in their 20s and 30s. And it was a fountain of youth which he found both very useful and agreeable. That is the first aspect.

[03:10]

Now, let’s talk about Revisionism in a more fundamental way. How does one arrive at the point of becoming interested in his work? From my part, it so happened that I came to Paris with no knowledge of any of these issues. And I believed that reality corresponded to what I saw on TV and at the cinema in war films broadcast in continuity on TV channels, since I was a child.

The Second World War, the Germans, the Allies, the Resistance, the Americans. What we were shown in the cinema, a world with goodies and baddies. Aged twenty I firmly believed in all that!

And then I arrived in the capital, Paris, where I immediately became part of society, that might be referred to as the “superstructure”. First of all fashion, then journalism, publishing, and cinema.

And there I met members of a powerful community, which, by way of its own psychological interactions, bore no resemblance to those people of that particular community as depicted in Hollywood films. And therefore at one point I told myself, either there are two different categories when it comes to this kind of people, or else I’ve been sold something which doesn’t really correspond to reality.

And at that moment, one of those times when things seem to happen for a reason, by chance, I think, in 1983 I discovered a certain professor, whose work was based on alternative theories relating to critical studies of historical events.

And who was trying to show that the history of the “good and evil”, this caricature of “goodies and baddies” wasn’t quite as clear cut as that. And I became interested.

Just as I was interested in lots of other things. For example, the question of the workers struggle according to Marx. Questions of nationalism, by way of nationalist thinkers. I’ve always looked at things from all sides.

And I became fascinated at that time with Revisionism. And back then it wasn’t on the internet! It was physical. I went foraging at Laveletor [sp]. And there, I discovered a place which needed iron bars on its shop front, because of attacks by militants. And it’s there I learned that there weren’t only jews who were victims.

There were cultural jews and artistic jews. But there were also aggressive and violent leagues, thuggish and vitriolic with no concern for the debate of ideas.

We are here, present. Proud, noble and cruel jews. We’re well trained, We’re well-equipped. We are utterly fearless. Our enemies are more afraid of us than we are of them.

So I discovered the other side of the story. I discovered other kinds of jews, than the ones portrayed by the American film industry. Ultra-violent zionist jews shunning all debate! And I also discovered people who studied history dispassionately, with far fewer ideological overtones. And that things were far more complicated than they appeared.

Professor Faurisson never spoke about “the truth”. And he was vigorous in his conviction that only God knows the truth. And that it always boiled down to a question of opinion.

Faurisson: I am not looking exactly for what people call “truth”. Because I think that “truth” is too vague and pretentious. What I am looking for is “exactitude”. And for me history is to try to be exact! To deliver, to try to find some little truths that I can verify.

On the other hand, he stood firmly by what he called “exactitude”. The violence that he was subjected to is proportional to the thoroughness of his work. If his work had been more approximative and ideological, rather than exemplifying exactitude, it would have been easier to counter him on the grounds of exactitude, meaning serious historiography.

But he was exact to such a point that it was necessary to quietly usher in a vote, in summer, when there was no Deputies around, and naturally under the usual pressure from special interest groups, which led to the adoption of the totally iniquitous law prohibiting the study of a certain period in history, covering the years 1933 to 1945 and establishing, once and for all “history and truth revealed”!

Conclusions of the Nuremberg tribunals, which was the victors tribunal in the context of the immediate after war with high stakes, tensions, sufferings and overwhelming emotion, which might well be understandable at that particular moment in time.

[08:00]

But it would have been more logical, from a historical point of view, that the longer we had waited after these events, then the stakes might not have been quite so high, and we could have moved from ideology towards historiography and allowed historians to work with more hindsight.

However we went from the ideology of the victors to the ideology of “remembrance”. From the political to the religious.

“The Shoah, the extermination of the jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, … Sacred.”

And therefore I became interested in the work of Professor Faurisson, and in Revisionism in general. And from then on, I would say that my life changed definitively! I realized that the world of good and evil was a bit more complicated than that. And that those who dominate us weren’t necessarily synonymous with good. I mean the we hadn’t been victorious simply because we were the kindest, or more honest. I realized that evil was everywhere and that relative good was everywhere too.

I also realized that talking about it was eminently dangerous. And that if you did talk about it, you were immediately doomed to integral marginalization. And my marginalization, whether in film, or in journalism, before I had even spoken a word in public, sprang from the fact that my Revisionist readings and my conversations at the dining table about Revisionism became common knowledge. I practiced the same naivety as many other people who are naive by way of their own innate honesty.

I talked about the work of Robert Faurisson at dinner with people from the fashion, media, and film industries, telling them they ought to interested. I remember once saying the same to Eric Zemmour.

“You should take a look and read what he says! It’s interesting. It’s much more interesting than people like to believe, and what people say.”

I was totally naive! That’s how I came to be interested in the work of the Professor. And at first I was interested in Revisionism itself, without any concern for the actual person. Once I discovered the extraordinary persecution he had been subjected to, which shocked me further still, because when we talk about political prisoners in distant lands, the torture, and the conviction of political dissidents, we are always ready to lend a hand with reporters without borders, to mobilize in the name of far-away suffering.

And yet no French intellectual, no French journalist have ever publicly condemned the unbelievable persecution!

Right up to attempted murder! Of which Professor Faurisson was victim, along with Revisionists in general, imprisoned whether in Germany, Canada, or the US, simply for having produced research results, including scientific research results! Right, we’ll change the subject because it’s prohibited by law to talk about these issues!

[10:43]

For all the free speech hypocrites I mentioned earlier, have the guts to talk about the persecution suffered by Robert Faurisson during his life! For having had the audacity to work according to the principles of exactitude, concerning a sequence in history, which we are no longer allowed to study. That has been mythologized, sacrialized, in order to create a religion. Because, let me remind you, that Revisionists are reproached for blasphemy! For daring to discuss “revealed truths”. And this proves that the “Shoah” has become a religion.

(November 2013 — Proces Faurisson/Arianne Chemin)

“F*ck you! You’re Nazis! You spit on the memory of millions of dead!”

Anti-revisionism has become the State religion. And we see the same violence and the same debate denial on the part of anti-revisionists, as we see from religious extremists, and notably from those fingered by Zemmour, radical Islamists. The same levels of violence, the same refusal and denial of others. And I think we should criticise anti-revisionism as much as we criticise Daesh’s Islam, which never happens! That would show intellectual steadfastness, moral standing, and coherence. Few people are brave enough to be coherent. Coherence means paying the highest price.

Eventually I did meet the Professor with Dieudonne. And there, I met a man who was completely devoid of violence, or hatred, despite everything that had happened to him. Which is quite extraordinary as we are talking about religion here. He was full of good companionship and humour. English humour, let’s say because he was of Scottish origin. Not shy of laughing out loud! And of such kindness and devoid of any hatred. That is what I found.

And I also sensed that he was stricken with excruciating pain, and that what he had suffered was absolutely horrid! And I say, that I will never forget the Professor’s work, his personality, the persecution he suffered, those who persecuted him — who still persecute him, even on the moment of his death.

And who will continue to persecute him, despite his death. And I believe this is the true task of remembrance.

Furthermore, I think that France as a nation, and as a people, will only be free once the unique and iniquitous Gayssot Law falls. As Vincent Reynouard puts it very well:

“There is no chance of a nationalist revival, or feeling of nationalist pride, as long as historical Revisionism is forbidden.”

All the rest is lies, smoke and mirrors! And if day France becomes France again, not only will the Gayssot Law will have fallen, but at that moment in France, there will be no streets named aft Eric Zemmour. But there will be streets, or boulevards, even avenues named after Robert Faurisson. And I hope there will be schools named after him too! Because Robert Faurisson was a master, a school master, a master of exactitude, a master of moral rectitude!

And most of all, he was master of what I would call “authentic virility”. He’s the bravest man I have ever met during my lifetime. And he was a slight man, far braver than any of the beefy, loud-mouthed, far-Right joke characters that I have met over the years.

Including, I might add, the man of the “mere detail”, who didn’t have the courage that day to say that this thing is everything but a “mere detail”, because in fact it’s their Golgotha!

It’s the atomic nucleus around which turns the entire system of Western domination, as Maurice Bardèche already understand and discussed in his “Nuremberg”. A book for which I, and I alone, and the editor and republisher.

[14:24]

What else can I say? Perhaps to note that Revisionism is not a topic the relates to the far-Right, contrary the Revisionism’s reduced status according to all the professional liars, whom I shall not describe here. Historical Revisionism began on the Left by Rassinier and his two books, “Crossing the Line” and “The Lies of Ulysses”.

He was a member of the socialist Resistance, who, after the War, simply described his own experiences in the camps, which was different from the stories being related by these same professionals, who were already deploying “Remembrance” ideology with precise political objectives. Basically, to render impossible any criticism of the State of Israel, and to render untouchable a certain population group that have become increasingly dominant.

Historical Revisionism is not a far-Right concept, it’s an ideology which comes from the Left! Revisionism was perpetuated by a certain hard Left. And at the end of the 1950s, by the Italian Communist Party.

It popped up by way of Cohn-Bendit’s own brother, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, I think.

(Noam Chomsky)

“Coming to the rescue of freedom of expression. Because the French justice system is now attempting to ban historical Revisionism. Left leaning libertarians such as the American Noam Chomsky offer unexpected support for Faurisson. Among them is also Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Elder brother of the famous leader of May ‘68. Libertarian and close associate of publishing house La Vielle Taupe.

(Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit)

‘Pierre Guillame told me there’s a story concerning Faurisson, etc. They want to ban him. I had a look and I said: OK, I’m going to write something. I am against censorship. If I am not convinced of something then I have the right to harbour doubts. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced, and that I’m shaken by it. Arguments exist. Voila’.”

In fact, Revisionism was gaining ground everywhere, on the Left, even the hard-Left. I remember Revisionism being satirized during the time of Charlie Hebdo, at the time of Professor Sharhon’s [sp], “Hitler = SS”.

If in fact the Fabius Gayssot Law came into being quietly, it was because Revisionism was growing thanks to its exactitude. It was making a bee-line towards all the moralists, and truth seekers, both on the Left and on the Right.

“Roger Garaudy, 84, former university professor, former communist Deputy and Senator, a convert to Islam, author of 53 books including the one that give grounds for his appearance today in the criminal court in Paris. He is accused of contesting crimes against humanity for speaking of the myth of the extermination of 6 million jews.”

“L’Abbe Pierre persists and insists in an interview with Liberation this morning he launched a controversy long thought to be dead and declared that he’s satisfied with the support for Roger Garaudy: ‘I’m sure that the French people are breathing a sigh of relief that the taboo is finally lifted’ — L’Abbe Pierre speaking about Revisionist theories.”

So I say again, that whilst we might use Faurisson’s death to relay certain important truths, Revisionism is not a far-Right ideology. It’s an ideology of people who are curious about the truth and exactitude. An ideology born on the Left and which then rebounded to the far-Left, and which has also been seen on the far-Right. And all those today who walk behind Zemmour are shameless closet Revisionists! And all those that read and validated Faurisson, and who validate him still.

I won’t even mention my former good friend Terrie Aldison, [sp] who prided himself in former times as a Revisionist, and on whose bookshelf, on the second floor of his home, reserved uniquely for his friends and not just for his collaborators, stood the complete library of Revisionists works.

And the way we see how all these persons have bowed down to those who dominate us, whereas at the beginning they were readers and admirers of the Professor.

We are able to measure the courage and the uphill battle of the Professor’s life. We can characterize his life as Christ-like. Professor Faurisson, you are a role model for us! Our teacher and your posterity is assured, and will be further amplified. And one day you will be recognized as one of the greats in French history!

Who deserves to be in the Pantheon, if we first manage to rid that place of all the votarians who fatally, in the end, only ever brought votarian lies and arrogance! Simone Vay [sp] and tomorrow maybe it will be the Klarfeld’s.

And why not Bennot Levi [sp], finishing off with Anoona [sp] and then Zemmour for good measure, before everything come crashing down in a grand finale!

Adieu, Professor! Thank you, and infinite respect.

Translation/Subtitles/Voiceover by Alison Chabloz.

[19:24]

END

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

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages =

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 3: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 2: Jan 23, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 1: Nov 6, 2018 — Published post.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:05:15 +0000

[Jim Rizoli, in Oct 2015, interviewed the now late Professor Robert Faurisson. Prof Faurisson, one of the “fathers” of “Holocaust” Revisionism passed away on Oct 22, 2018, aged 89.

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Prof Robert Faurisson

Oct, 2015

Click the link below to view the video on YouTube (may not be available in some locations):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqRLnpJ_8ek&t=1838s

Also here on Bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FbVcINOtox9k/

YouTube Description

Extraordinary Revisionists

Certain features have been disabled for this video
In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

Jim Rizoli, Robert Professor Faurisson interview.

Published on Nov 9, 2015

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(114:46)

[00:00]

[Intro song] No one knows what it’s like to be a bad man, feel the sadness, behind the light, …

[00:33]

Jim: It’s a pleasure to meet you! I’ve seen a lot of your videos. I read your information, and I’m just amazed to see what you’ve been through. And I have a lot of questions for you. And I would like to ask you all these questions I have laid out for me. And the first question I’d like to ask you is, I would think anyway that you are the “patriarch” of the revisionist movement! Wouldn’t you say that?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, with brothers, my friends.

Jim: Okay. [chuckling] All right. First of all, where were you born?

Prof Faurisson: So, I was born in England, near London, in a place called Shepperton.

Jim: OK. All right.

Prof Faurisson: I was born to a Scottish mother and a need a French father.

Jim: All right.

Prof Faurisson: My father was working in a shipping company, in Fenchurch street, London. Excuse me?

Jim: What year? The year you were born?

Prof Faurisson: Oh, 1929. After Jesus Christ!

Jim: [laughing] OK! So you didn’t know Jesus?

Prof Faurisson: I’m nearly 87.

Jim: 87! Oh, okay, very good! All right. Well, you are getting up there. That’s good! Where did you go to school?

Prof Faurisson: At the beginning it was in Singapore, in an English school. A beautiful English school! I think it was 1934, ’35.

Jim: OK.

Prof Faurisson: Then in Japan, in Kobe in an American school. And then I came back to France. And my mates would mock me because of my English accent! Our shores. So I decided not to speak English any more!

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And that’s why I have to ask you to pardon me my poor and broken English.

Jim: I think you speak just fine! You speak better than half the people in my country. [laughing]

Prof Faurisson: Oh really!

Jim: Yeah! We have are some problems with people speaking English in my country!

Prof Faurisson: I understand.

Jim: Let me ask you this, about your education. Can you tell us about your education?

Prof Faurisson: So my education was really in France and only in Catholic schools.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And I have to say something which is perhaps sad for you. I don’t know. It happens that I am in [word unclear] but I’ve always been in Catholic schools.

Jim: OK.

Prof Faurisson: And especially in a Jesuit school in [word unclear].

Jim: Okay, all right.

Prof Faurisson: And then I was also in a Catholic school, a very famous one in Paris, called College [word unclear].

Jim: Okay. Very good.

The big question here is, how did the “Holocaust” issue come into play with you? When did you start, or how did you start getting interested in that issue?

[04:15]

Prof Faurisson: I’m going to be perhaps a little bit long. Excuse me.

Jim: That’s fine! You can talk as long as you want. My cameras are working, everything’s fine, so I might just move this down just a little bit, but that’s fine. All right. So you can tell us exactly, all about your “Holocaust” issue days. How’s that?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So during the war itself I was totally anti-German. And I had a little trouble, because of that. In 1939 I was ten. In 1945, end of the war, I was sixteen. Now I’m going to tell you something which happened in 1942. In 1942 Pierre Laval*, he was the Prime Minister of Marshall Petain.

[* Pierre Jean-Marie Laval (28 June 1883 – 15 October 1945) was a French politician. During the time of the Third Republic, he served as Prime Minister of France from 27 January 1931 to 20 February 1932, and a second time from 7 June 1935 to 24 January 1936.

Laval began his career as a socialist, but over time drifted far to the right. Following France’s defeat and armistice with Germany in 1940, he served in prominent roles in Philippe Pétain’s Vichy Regime, first as the vice-president of the Council of Ministers from 11 July 1940 to 13 December 1940, and later as the head of government from 18 April 1942 to 20 August 1944.

After the liberation of France in 1944, Laval was arrested by the French government under General Charles de Gaulle. In what was widely regarded as a flawed trial, Laval was found guilty of high treason, and after a thwarted suicide attempt, he was executed by firing squad. His manifold political activities left a complicated and controversial legacy, resulting in more than a dozen conflicting biographies of him. SOURCE: Wikpedia]

And he said in a speech. He said:

“I hope that Germany will win this war!”

And he added:

“Because otherwise it would be the victory of communism in Europe!”

And I was incensed, because he had said that he wished the victory of Germany. Because, myself, I was hoping the victory of the French, the Gaulists, the English, Churchill. Of the Americans, of course, and I have to add, it’s very important, I wished the victory of Stalin!

It happens that by being on the side of the Americans, I was also on the side of the Soviets! And remember, it was in a Jesuit college that the priest came into place where I had written on my pulpit, “Mo a Laval” [sp] which means “Death to Laval”. And he mocked me and he said, in front of my mates. He said, … I’m going to say it in French first. Okay?

“Oh fo Faurrisson [word unclear]”.

“Oh you Faurrisson! With your English people who are running like rabbits in the desert!”

It was because the English in Tobruk, Benghazi and places like that were having a difficult time with the German troops of Rommel. Okay, so I was on the side of those people.

And one day, exactly on the 8th of May 1945 which was the capitulation of Germany, if you remember.

My father entered my room, my bedroom, that I shared with my brother Phillipe, and he said in French. He said:

“Robert, es-tu heureux?”

“Robert, are you happy?”

And I remember that I was a little bit embarrassed by that question. And I said:

“Yes.”

But, suddenly, I don’t know why, I thought for the German people, for the German soldiers. And I thought to myself.

“Now that they are vanquished. They have been fighting so hard, I have to respect the vanquished. I am on the side of the victor. I have to respect those people. And I’m going to protect them! And I want to understand what really happened.”

Do you understand that?

Jim: Yeah! Yeah, no, I understand.

Prof Faurisson: And I decided in a way to be like a referee, trying to see what really happened. And I didn’t want to be any more, anti-German, or pro-Stalin, and so on.

And I can say that this very day, I was 16, I decided to revise history! Which means to have a second look, a third one, and so on. And to check and to double check and to be “fair”!

Do, you know, that “fair”, we cannot translate it into French. It’s so typically British, “fair”. Try to be fair with the vanquished!

So, I remember that in college [word unclear] where I was, many of my mates didn’t understand my opinion about all this. And some of them thought that I was a “Nazi”! I was absolutely not a “Nazi”! [laughing] I wanted to understand, that is all!

And it happens that I read a book by a man called Paul Rassinier. And Paul Rassinier wrote a book called, the title is extraordinary, “The Lies of Ulysses”. Ulysses, of course, Homer. A story told by Homer. Ulysses, you see, was among the victors. When he came back home, a long time after, he told plenty of stories about his experience of war.

And, especially about his sufferings He had, really, let’s say hundreds of sufferings, that he told the people a [word unclear] of stories about his sufferings. It’s normal in a way, it’s human.

So, Paul Rassinier himself, had been a Resistance [a member of the French Resistance] and he had been in two German concentration camps.

And when he heard the stories about gas chambers, and so on, he said:

“Oh! This is strange! Because in the camp where I was, there was no question of gas chambers. I am going to see, how is it that so many people are talking about gas chambers in Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora.”

And then, he checked, he tried to check for Auschwitz and other camps. And he was very surprised to see that we had only “testimonies”! No proof. No real proof was brought, like in a criminal case.

Let’s suppose that there is next to the place you are yourself, a crime. Automatically the judge, a magistrate will decide that there will be a forensic report. He will never say:

“Oh, I have so many witnesses that I don’t need such a report.”

No! He needs a report. And sir, I can tell you sound thing extraordinary.

Since 70 years, we had only one! One forensic report. We needed that. Thanks to a forensic report, you can see what was a “gas chamber”, how it functions, what was the place of the crime. What was the weapon of the crime, an extraordinary one!

And we don’t have that! We and only one report, it was a French one about a camp in France called Struthof*, near Strasbourg.

[* Natzweiler-Struthof was a German-run concentration camp located in the Vosges Mountains close to the Alsatian village of Natzwiller (German Natzweiler) in France, and the town of Schirmeck, about 50 km (31 m) south west of the city of Strasbourg.]

And the forensic report was done but Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy, in Paris. And we know the result. The report disappeared!

That we know, thanks to three other doctors, we know what were the conclusions of Struthof. The conclusion was:

“No hydrocyanic acid.”

Because Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid. None in the so-called “gas chambers”. None in the chimney! And none in the bodies of 86 jews, supposed to have been gassed!

Jim: Now where is that report today? Who has that report?

Prof Faurisson: The report should have been, should be today, but I’ve been and I’ve checked, and there is no report in a place called Meaux, a place for the [word unclear] You see? Where they have all those documents. And considering the results of Professor Rene Farbe, nobody else decided in 70 years to have a forensic report! Because they knew that it would be too dangerous.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And I think that very few people know that, because they think that we have witnesses, so we don’t need anything else!

Jim: Right!

Prof Faurisson: No! We need first a forensic report.

Jim: Now, let me let me get into your situation with the Zundel Trial. How did you get involved with Zundel Trial and all that? What happened there?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. I met Ernst Zundel, who is an extraordinary man! An exceptional man! I think in 1979, in Los Angeles. Because in Los Angeles, for the first conference of historical revisionist organization. I mean, myself a conference.

See: The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

And I remember a lady saying:

“Oh, this is dynamite!”

I am going to tell you why dynamite. I go back to Zundel. I will certainly not forget him!

I had been in Auschwitz in 1975. I am going to give you an idea of the way I made my investigations.

I saw, what is called “Crematoria I” with the supposed gas chamber to kill people. Immediately I saw that it was not, certainly not a gas chamber! Because you had a tiny little door with partly a glass. And the door would open on this side, so that the corpses, cadavers would have been there blocking the door.

Jim: So it opened inwards, it opened inwards, right?

Prof Faurisson: Yeah. And you see with the glass [the glass window in the door] you do this with your elbow. And hydrocyanic acid, you know what? It goes at twenty metres from there to the SS [word unclear]

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: So, it’s a totally impossible! But investigate, follow me there. I went to the Museum of Auschwitz, and I said to the people. There I am.

“I am a professor in Sorbonne, I am interested in Auschwitz, and I want someone of you people to help me in my investigation. But I want the top of the top of you people!”

And they said “okay”, and a man came. His name Marshar Wick [sp].

And we had a conversation in German. I said.

“Are you ready to help me?”

And he said:

“Jawohl!”

And he would always say “Jawohl!” [chuckling], except once where he said “Ja!”. So watch for this, which is coming.

And I said:

“Ich habe ein Problem!”

“I have a problem! Come with me!”

And I brought him to a place right in front of the Krema I (Crematoria I), which had on one side a supposed gas chamber. On the other side the place of the furnaces, for the cremation.

And the door, another door, not the little one before. The door was open and everyone could see an oven, a furnace. So, from where we were, I told them only, I asked him a question only, with one German word.

I said:

“Echt?”

Which means, “authentic?”

And he said:

“Jawohl!”

I said:

“Come with me.”

He came with me. I put my finger on the opening, and I showed him that there was no, I think you say “soot”?

Jim: Yeah. Soot.

Prof Faurisson: And then the man suddenly, his face changed. And he said:

“Rekonstruiert.”

Which means, “reconstructed”.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Now wait a minute. A reconstruction doesn’t mean that with have a lie there. Because it could be fair, it could be honest. But it could also be not fair and not honest. And I had an idea. You need to have ideas! And to express them right, you see.

I said suddenly, looking at his face, I said:

“Also hast du Pläne?”

Which means, “Therefore, you have plans?” And he said:

“Ja.”

Jim: Yeah [chuckling].

Prof Faurisson: And I said:

“Wo sind die Pläne?”

“Where are the plans?”

And he said:

“You would have to go and see Mr Iwaszko. The [person] responsible for the archives.”

But the next day I had to go back to France. So I came back in March, 1976.

And this is what I have been on the 19th of March, 1976. I went to see Mr Iwaszko. I brought in a bottle of alcohol. He didn’t say anything. He [word unclear] me, nothing. I said:

“I’ve seen Mr Marshar Wick, and I want to see the plans.”

Of those supposed gas chambers. Because not only in Crematoria I, Crematoria II, III, IV and V. I want to see them. He showed me a big table. Okay, I sat down and I wait. And the man brought me documents and documents of the trial of the poor Rudolf Hoess, who had been one of the three successive commandants of Auschwitz. And, it was about the trial, and it was all in Polish! I said:

“Oh! Bad luck for me. I don’t understand Polish at all.”

And so by looking, and looking over, I saw little, tiny little photos, with captions in German. And I understood the plans, of all those places! And I paid in zloty [Polish currency]. I paid for 116 photos. I came back to France. I was very pleased! But I had to wait and wait, and wait, to have the photos.

Anyway, to make it short, I didn’t know where I could publish! The internet did not exist. It was impossible! I knew that it was dynamite! What could I do? And finally, a friend of mine told me:

“I know a Spanish journalist. He could come and perhaps publish your stuff.”

The journalist came with someone helping him, okay.

And I said:

“You see, you can take photos, but I don’t want any photo of me. I don’t want my face in your magazine!”

He said:

“Yes.”

And so on, and went away. And a few months after, I discovered the magazine with a title, with of course, my face! And the title:

“Defense Lawyer of Hitler!”

I was the “defense lawyer of Hitler”! And the troubles began at that time. And I worked very, very [word unclear] very, very long time in a place called “Centre de documentation Juive Contemporaine”, “Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center”* Okay, it’s in Paris.

[The Centre de documentation Juive Contemporaine (CDJC, Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center) was clandestinely created in France to document the persecution of the country’s Jews during the Second World War. It is a key component of the Shoah Memorial.

The CDJC — Centre de documentation juive contemporaine, or Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center — was the seed from which the Shoah Memorial eventually grew. Its founders’ determination to document the genocide of Europe’s Jews during the war is still one of the main missions of the Shoah Memorial, a museum, documentation center and memorial at the same time.

The foundation of the CDJC dates back to April 28, 1943, when industrialist Isaac Schneersohn clandestinely brought together around 40 Jewish activists and community leaders in his Grenoble apartment to discuss the idea of creating an archive.

The goal was to set up an organization that would collect evidence on the persecution of the Jews in order to bear witness and demand justice after the war. A few years later, they achieved their aim when Nuremberg trial prosecutors relied on documents from the CDJC archives. Source: Http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/en/archives-and-documentation/the-documentation-center/the-history-of-the-cdjc.html]

And this is, I want to tell you, that I said when I entered the place for the first time, I said to the man:

“I want a photo of a gas chamber.”

And the answer of the man, was:

“We have many testimonies! We have many books.”

I said:

“A photo!”

And he said something else, like that. And I said:

“A photo!”

And he said:

“Sit down!”

And for 60 minutes I waited for a lady who was going everywhere trying to, find a plan, not a plan, excuse me, a photo of a gas chamber. And there were no photo, at all. Because he felt that I knew something about the topic, and [chuckling] it was dangerous for them.

Jim: Right.

[28:29]

Prof Faurisson: And, you see, I worked very much and I decided to the United States for our conference, where I met Zundel. And so I am coming back to Zundel.

My English being so bad, I decided to find someone to read the paper of my conference. And this man was Ernst Zundel! And, it was in Los Angeles in 1979. And I came back very often to the United States, because what I wanted to see was an American gas chamber.

You see, an American gas chamber — I visited one in Baltimore [word unclear] An American gas chamber, is, was, because they are no more, was functioning with hydrocyanic acid.

And what I saw was something extraordinary! To kill only one man, it was in iron [the construction of the chamber]. It was thick like that. The windows were something called “aircrete”, which means “very strong”.

And there was a pier in the center. Why a pier? And I’m going to give you immediately the answer. It’s rather easy to kill someone with hydrocyanic acid. But the question is, how can I kill someone without killing myself?

Jim: Right!

Prof Faurisson: How can I enter a place, where I have the corpse of someone which has so much hydrocyanic acid, because hydrocyanic acid penetrates everywhere!

You see, it’s fantastic how it penetrates! And stays there. And you cannot touch it. So how could medical doctor and two people helping him, how could they get into the place? So, I have know time to explain will try to explain that. It’s [word unclear].

Jim: So the so whole point was, that you saw that the gas chamber, they say was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, the crematory I, the gas chamber combination. You saw that there was no way they could gas anybody in a building like that. And when you came here to the United States, you saw a real gas chamber and now you can see, well this is the way you do it. The way they had it, you could not do it.

Prof Faurisson: Exactly.

Jim: Right, okay.

Prof Faurisson: And you see it was a terrible thing, because as soon as did this, I got into real problems. And my wife, and my children, and now some of my grandchildren. You have to be ready for that, okay?

Jim: Well tell tell us what, …

Prof Faurisson: I have to say something about American gas chambers.

Jim: Okay, go ahead.

Prof Faurisson: How is it. In this gas chamber you had [word unclear] which move, you see.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: To get after the killing of the man, to get all the gas you have something on the top for aspiration [extraction] of the poison. And the poison gets into, in French what we call [word unclear], which is a place where you neutralize hydrocyanic acid. Okay? And the stuff which is supposed to be neutralized is sent into pipe and then into a chimney. The chimney must be higher than all the penitentiary.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And the day of an execution, the guards have no right to be on the top [guard towers]. It’s so dangerous, you see.

And when you see that I would say it’s finished! You understand that it’s finished! Now what about the pillar, the central pillar. This is the explanation. The people are so afraid that the hydrocyanic acid could get outside, could [word unclear] everything for the installation, you see, that they try to make a depression [a lower pressure that outside the chamber]. A depression, you understand? Okay. If you make a depression all this could crumble [collapse] so you had to put a pillar to make it strong.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: Something else. Very important. Hydrocyanic acid is explosive! The Germans, … I have found documents and documents about all that. They talk about “Explosionsgefahr”, “danger of explosion”.

And, do you know why the man that you are going to kill is, how do you say “ligoté”, which is “strapped”, …

Jim: Strapped, yeah.

Prof Faurisson: Very strongly! Why? It’s because if this man gets loose, he might create static electricity.

Jim: Sparks. Right.

Prof Faurisson: And you would have an explosion.

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: But I remember when I visited [chuckling] this gas chamber in Baltimore, I had an explanation, not only from the director, but even from inmates helping the gassing procedure, and so on. And they said that the day you have an execution, or an exercise also, everybody is afraid. Everyone could be poisoned, or gassed, or killed, and so on.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And we have this silly story of the confession of Hoess. And how did they get this confession? So, I made a discovery about that. Do, you know, that I could make you confess to whatever I wanted?

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: And you could get me confessing whatever you want, without touching. Nothing! There is a way, a fantastic way! You forbid the man to sleep. One day is possible, two days, …

Jim: Oh, I see what you are saying. You are saying you have it so he doesn’t sleep, he stays up all the time?

Prof Faurisson: He cannot sleep.

Jim: Oh okay. Yeah. Deprive him of sleep.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. You don’t even need to touch the man, you need to make noise, and so on. Because those dirty people, they confessed in a book how they did manage to get those confessions. And said that with a stick when he was like that, they would waken the poor man.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And the stupidity of the story. Hoess confessed that when the people inside the gas chamber stopped screaming, they understood that they were dead. So, they put a ventilation, they push a button for a, how do you say, “ventilation”, …

Jim: A fan, a ventilation fan.

Prof Faurisson: A fan. And immediately they would get into the place. And “immediately” is the German word, “sofort”. It’s a terrible word. Immediately they would enter the place, eating and smoking! Which means without even a gas mask!

Jim: Right! Makes no sense.

Prof Faurisson: And smoking, you could have an explosion.

Jim: Yeah, right.

Prof Faurisson: You see, so those confessions are nothing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: They are lies only!

Jim: Now he said 2 1/2 million people were killed that way, didn’t he? Didn’t he say, 2 1/2 million?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, different figures. They got different figures from him. As, you know, about the figures it’s a fantastic story. So if you are very careful and if you want to see the figures given only for Auschwitz and Birkenau, it begins at 9 million!

Jim: Oh! Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Yes. Then you have 8, 7, I don’t remember if you have 6.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: But what we got for a very long time, was four million.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And suddenly in 1990 they decided to destroy this monument [plaque] with four million killed.

And then they put one million and a half! Suddenly. And then the historians got down one million, then you had someone like Pressac, a friend of the Klarsfelds, who said 700,000, and then you had a man giving 510,000. Nothing you see. There’s no sense.

Jim: How many do you think died, in the camps. Can you explain that to us? What do you think are the real figures?

Prof Faurisson: I cannot answer your questions, Sir.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And I’m going to tell you why. It’s because I would need to go into a place called [word unclear] where you have many many documents. And I cannot go to this place. It’s impossible. It would be forbidden.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: Now do you want me to tell you the reactions in France first, and then in the world, about my discoveries?

Jim: Sure! Yeah. Go ahead.

Prof Faurisson: Yeah, okay. So all this I put in a long paper. The title is “The Victories of Revisionism”.

And it was published on the internet on December 11, 2006. And I gave all sorts of reactions of the people who were against us. And it’s extraordinary the admission. Yes, extraordinary! I must say that in 78 [1978] I was attacked, physically attacked!

Jim: Where did that happen when you were attacked?

Prof Faurisson: Oh, I was attacked ten times! So the first part is important. Two in Lyon where I was a professor at the University of Lyon. Two in Vichy where I live. Four in Paris.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And two in Stockholm. In Stockholm I ran away so quickly that they were not even able to catch me!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Surprisingly, we have this on camera. You could check it.

Jim: Okay. Wow!

Prof Faurisson: So, I was attacked, especially one day in Vichy. They nearly killed me!

Jim: Yeah, wow!

Prof Faurisson: I was saved by a young man. I didn’t know this man. He was a fisherman. He was a student I was told. And he was nearly one meter ninety [190 cm/6’ 3” tall]. And the day after the attack, he saw my name in the newspaper and he said to the police, that he regretted to have saved my life! [chuckling]

Jim: Oh! Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And so, the newspaper, the most important in France, is Le Monde. And they had to publish something, they had to say a professor has been attacked! They tried to not say why.

Jim: Wow.

Prof Faurisson: So, we have in France what we call, the “right to reply”. But it is a very difficult one to angle. In answer I said:

“Why don’t you say to people why I was attacked?”

And I said:

“For years and years I’ve been sending you papers about the problem of the gas chambers. How is it that you don’t publish it. You should do it”.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And so, they were obliged to publish it, and it was a terrible hullaballoo!

Jim: Wow! What year was that? What year did you publish that?

Prof Faurisson: I published that, … Oh! Good question. I published that in Lavetour [sp].

[45:00]

People of the extreme Left. They published my stuff. So the question was, I said very simple:

“Show me, or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!”

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Why did I say, “or draw me”? Because some people might say:

“We cannot show you something that the Germans have destroyed.”

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: So I say okay, okay, so show me what the Germans have destroyed! I want to see.

And can you imagine the number of articles, of things like that, which appeared at that time. It was seventy eight, seventy nine.

Jim: Okay. Now let me ask your question. When you published this information, did that affect your job as a professor!

Prof Faurisson: Oh! It was finished for me!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: It was a disaster!

Jim: Did they fire you?

Prof Faurisson: My specialty I must say, the university, one of my two specialties was appraisal of texts and documents, literature, history major. You see it was my specialty.

I would train my students to look at a documentary. Very short. Three times. Once with the sound. They without the sound. And then again, with the sound.

And they were so surprised, to see for example, they show you in those films, they show you cadavers, corpses. And they talk about people being killed! So you think you are seeing people who have been killed! But they are in the same shape, all of them. You could see that they died from typhus.

Jim: Right. Sure. Natural causes, or diseases. Yeah, I get you.

Prof Faurisson: And you have to story, very interesting of Bergen-Belsen. Bergen-Belsen was a camp on the west, and the British were coming next to Bergen-Belsen. Where it was a disaster. Because of the bombings. Because no more Zyklon B as pesticide. Nothing to eat and even no more water. It was a disaster!

So the Germans decided something very strange. Not well known. They decided to go with a White flag to the troops of Montgomery, and say:

“Now be careful. You are approaching a place where you have typhus and so on. Don’t liberate the prisoners! It could be a disaster even for your troops.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: For us, for the civilians, and so on. And the British decided to collaborate with the Germans!

And they went to this camp, and this camp, it was a very sandy place. Sand, Sand. So they could put the bodies in the sand. Do you understand?

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And they wanted to know how many people had been buried like that. And they decided to make six big places to put back the bodies once they have a figure, a number. OK? So they took out the bodies, they counted them and a bulldozer pushed to the place where German woman of the Army were obliged with naked hands to throw the bodies into the new place.

And the bulldozer, you see it so quickly, that most of the people think it’s a German bulldozer, with a German driver. That it was a kind of industry to kill the people every day!

And to make it more possible to believe in that, you had even pictures with the driver, you cannot see his head! You cannot see it is a Tommy [British soldier]. That it is a British driver. People think it was a German industry!

Jim: Right.

[50:52]

Prof Faurisson: Because you must know something. All this topic about, how do you say that, those things and so on, had already been used during WWI! French and English propaganda would say that the Germans were an English [word unclear] of terrorists, or [word unclear] like that. Fabricating terrors and so on.

So the same story was taken for WWII, but they added “gas”.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Gas, when it was, be careful, when it was American, or Western propaganda. But for the Russians, nobody knows that. I described that. Let me tell you this. The Soviets liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945. So I had the idea to get someone to go and see the Pravda. “Pravda” means “truth”. The newspaper, the communist newspaper. And I said:

“You begin please on the 28th of January and see when they are going to talk about Auschwitz. On the 28th nothing! 29, nothing! 30, nothing. 31, nothing. First of February, a little thing. And then suddenly on the second of February the biggest discovery of the Soviets! Did, you know how, according to the Soviets, the people were killed in Auschwitz?

Jim: No.

Prof Faurisson: You cannot imagine. They were killed by electricity!

Jim: Oh, okay. I got it. Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And the bodies were full on something, which would bring them to a big furnace and so on.

Jim: So that was the first lie. The big lie.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So you had gas, then electricity!

Jim: [chuckling]

Prof Faurisson: Wait a minute. You had steam! Which is the case for Treblinka. Treblinka, you had a document called “PS3311”. And this document is about Polish testimony about what happened in Treblinka. In Treblinka, in this document. And this document, be careful, had automatically the value of a proof, according to the charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 21. Every Article of that kind had not to be proofed. It was the “truth”. Fantastic!

It’s thanks to that, that the Nuremberg Tribunal said that Katyn [Katyn Forest mass murder of Polish officers, etc., ] was made by the Germans! Everybody know that it was done by the Russians, of course.

And about Treblinka they said in detail that those poor Jews were killed in steam chambers. There was a well, there was a pipe, there was a boiler, and there was a chamber, very slippery! The Jews would fall down you see! [laughing] A silly story!

Jim: Right, right.

Prof Faurisson: You have only silly stories.

[55:28]

Jim: Now have you been to Treblinka?

Prof Faurisson: Yes! I’ve been to Treblinka. Good question! You are going to see why. Did you know the there is a film by Claude Lanzmann, called “Shoah”? Do you know that?

Jim: The “Shoah”?

Prof Faurisson: “Shoah”, means the “Holocaust”.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: “Shoah”. Nine hours and 25 minutes.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: I’ve taken notes during all that time. And there is especially Treblinka. And in Treblinka he would explain you this. That the Jews of Warsaw were brought to Treblinka. Treblinka, a place where they were immediately gassed! All of them!

And Lazmann filmed a man supposed to have been a witness. He was a locomotive driver. He was the man who would every day bring, like that, the Jews to their death in Treblinka! With gas. No more “steam”. And you could see this man, he was a very important witness of “Shoah”. Other witnesses also, but this on the locomotive driver.

Sir! I went to Treblinka and near Treblinka I found the locomotive driver. And we made a film about all this. A part of what he told us. And he was speaking about this. And suddenly I asked him a question. I said:

“So, everyday you were yourself were bringing Jews like that to their death!”

And he said:

“No!”

“How can you say no?”

“No!”

“But when did you know that they were killed?”

“Oh”, he said. “After the war.”

This is the big witness.

Jim: Yeah. Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And I found in Treblinka a very interesting man, a peasant. And I wrote many things about this, and I took dimensions of the place and so on. And you could see that it was an impossible story!

Jim: Sure. Oh yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And I wrote about that.

Jim: Well they say, what 800 – 950, 000 people were killed there, right?

Prof Faurisson: There are always different figures.

Jim: I know, I know it.

Prof Faurisson: Which is normal in a way. Okay.

Jim: And there is nothing at Treblinka now. There is nothing there! I mean, …

Prof Faurisson: There is nothing there! [chuckling] You see, did you hear anything about a priest called Patrick Desbois? He wrote a book called, “Shoah by Shooting”* or something. [“The Holocaust by Bullets“] I’m not able to put it into English. “La Shoah par balles”. Okay. And this man was a priest, decided one day to make an investigation like that, about those poor Jews killed in Ukraine, especially. And he told us:

“I have found many, many pits.”

And he said:

“Eight hundred of them, and the total of the dead was one million and a half.”

Oh! Sir. This is a joke! A total joke! A shameful one! This priest tells us that first he visited a rabbi in England. And the rabbi said:

“You must not trouble the dead! Don’t open whatever. Because they are saints!”

The Hebrew word was “sekiden” [sp]. They are sacred, don’t touch them. So [chuckling] this Patrick Desbois goes from one village to another and he asks all people to come and he shows you a field or a forest, or whatever. And people are like that you see. [motioning to indicate tears coming down his face] They are crying. And they say:

“Yes, in this place so many people, so many Jews were killed!”

And that is it. You cannot see even one corpse!

Jim: I know! I know!

[* See: Patrick Desbois and the “Mass Graves” of Jews in Ukraine by Carlo Mattogno.]

[61:55]

Jim: Let me ask you about your situation now the Zundel Trial, and how you came and in contact, and all that with Fred Leuchter? How did that come about?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So I came to help Zundel in 1985, 1988, 1992. Okay. He is really a friend. And I decided to help him. So, I came to Toronto even in 1984, 84, 85, and so on. And I came with 5 big trunks of documents.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Imagine that at the airport! [chuckling] Yes. And I was at Zundel’s house working day and night. And I attended, of course, those two trials. And I was admitted as an expert. You know that you have to ask to be an expert. And it was extraordinary! Because, to make it short I would say that in 85, we “killed” historian number one of the “Holocaust”, Raul Hilberg!

Jim: Yeah, Raul Hilberg.

Prof Faurisson: We “killed” also, I can’t remember his name, the witness number one. It’s not as interesting as that. And in 88, remember Fred Leuchter testified. So I’m going to talk about the first one, 85.

Jim: Okay. That is fine.

Prof Faurisson: We had this man. He came like this, very sure of himself, and it was a disaster! Raul Hilberg. Raul Hilberg had published a book in 1961, called “The Destruction of the European jews”. On page 177 he said there had been two orders from Hitler to kill the Jews! Oh! Two orders? Really?

And the first order was:

“Go and kill them where they are!”

Russia and so on. And the second one:

“Collect all those people and put them in places to kill them.”

And surprisingly there was no footnote! No text! Nothing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Coming out of the blue like that! Two affirmations. Usually Hilberg would always put footnotes. Be very precise. And there is nothing! Okay? And I was helping an extraordinary defense lawyer, Doug Christie.

Jim: Right. Doug Christie.

Prof Faurisson: And I used to work in the evening, during the night until 3, or for in the morning. And when he woke up he would find the question he had to put, and the documents. And he was there, a magnificent man, and I was on his side, on my chair. And I had little stickers, like that, yellow stickers. And every time I thought a question should be put — because it was long, you see. I would put a sticker on his desk. And you should have seen the face of Hilberg, with the yellow stickers! [making a face of shock and dread]

Jim: [chuckling].

Prof Faurisson: And I had the idea to ask Doug Christie to ask him a very simple question. Because I knew that this man was what I call, a “man of paper”! He was a professor of paper, and paper, and papers! And I said to Doug Christie:

“You are going to ask him which camps he visited. But don’t put the question like that. Give him a list of camps. Take Buchenwald. Did you visit this camp? How many times? And how much time every time?”

We started with Buchenwald, and he said:

“No.”

And the second one, he said:

“No.”

And the third one, he stopped us. And he said the had visited none!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Except! Except for a visit, a no official visit for his speech, or ceremony. So he was a man who had not even taken care to go and see where were this gas chambers! Even destroyed, because even destroyed it’s very important to see the dimensions, and so on.

And it was a total disaster, because we found something that he had said in 2000, wait a minute, yes the first one I said was in 1985. So in 1983, he had said somewhere, that finally there was no document, nothing. It was the German bureaucracy who had decided, suddenly, without any order whatsoever to kill the Jews! That to not write anything down, but to work by these, remember those words:

“By an incredible meeting of their minds! A consensus by mind reading!”

Jim: [chuckling] I know!

Prof Faurisson: I remember the day he said that. Once we were back at Zundel’s house there was the big table. And we were numerous. And I said:

“My friends! Do you know that today we are going to enter a new era! Because when I need a pot of coffee, or water, whatsoever, I will not even have to say, ‘I want coffee, or water’, because we are, all of us, to work by an incredible meeting of minds, consensus, mind reading!”

Jim: [laughing] Right! Right, telepathy!

Prof Faurisson: Now if it was incredible, sir, why should I believe? You say yourself that it was “incredible”! Okay? Now, how could we explain this change in Raul Hilberg?

I have an explanation. It’s because — we are going back to France — when there was this fantastic story everywhere, the Jews decided, some Jews decided to make a big international conference in Paris. In the Sorbonne, where I had been a professor. And to show the destruction of the European Jews, the “Holocaust”, the “Shoah“, and so on. And it lasted I think, four days, which is very much.

So I went to see the organizers of this conference. There were two of them. And I said:

“It’s against me. It’s against Faurisson! So I would like to attend this conference.”

And the first man said:

“No! No question!”

And I said:

“Even if I say that I will not talk? Say anything.”

“No! You cannot negotiate that!”

And to when I saw the second one, he told me exactly the same thing. So you see, you had a big international conference against me, and I had no right to go and attend this. And the only reaction of the professors was on the 21st of February 1979, when a journal, once more, they published something called “Une déclaration d’historiens”, “A Declaration of Historians”. There were 34 of them, French professors of history, and so on.

Let me find what they decided. It was in 79. If I can find it. Okay. Yes, there we are. Thirty four French historians, signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to my technical arguments, and so on. [chuckling] And, blah, blah blah! French are good at “blah, blah”!

Jim: [laughing].

Prof Faurisson: Yes! You see!

Jim: [chuckling] I don’t know, I’ve only talked to one Frenchman, and it’s been you! [laughing].

Prof Faurisson: [chuckling] Okay! And the conclusion of those people. Because you see that my arguments were technical! Physical! You call that? What’s the name? Sorry, I cannot remember, you see. An American expression. Oh, okay. But you see? It’s technical.

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: And the conclusion, listen sir! Don’t fall down from your chair!

Jim: I won’t!

Prof Faurisson:

“One must not ask oneself how technically such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened.”

Jim: [loud laughing]

Prof Faurisson: Are you pleased?

Jim: [laughter] Yeah, that is their big explanation! Right?

Prof Faurisson: The big explanation! And see, we are today, 2015. No explanation, whatsoever.

Jim: Let me ask you something. I want to ask you about, getting back to Raul Hilberg. The fact that you blew him out of the courtroom, is it true that he didn’t show up for the next trial, right?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, that is right. That’s right.

Jim: Because you embarrassed him so much, tight?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. I congratulate you for that. Because when there was the second trial in 88, he was asked by the Jewish organization to come back. And Doug Christie had a brilliant idea. And it could only happen in a kind of British court. In France it would be impossible. He said:

“So you had an exchange of letters. Can we see the letters?”

And the judge decided that yes, he had to show the letters.

And in the letters you could have seen a little boy, saying:

“Oh! I have been worst in this place in 85. It was awful! I don’t want to, …! No! No Mama I don’t want to go back!”

Jim: Yeah. You really ashamed him. He was shamed. He couldn’t show his face again. Right?

Prof Faurisson: Yea. You see he was, … because I don’t want to attack too much those people. They are what I call, “believers”! They believe! They might be sincere. Sincere, even when they change the things to test, [word unclear] and so on. Because I had so many examples. I am going to give you a few of those examples.

You had a German doctor, Johann Paul Kramer, who was [word unclear] in Auschwitz for some time. And he had a diary. And when he saw the Americans, he said:

“See my diary. I didn’t do anything bad.”

And in this diary, you had this.

“For the first time I’ve been present to a ‘special action’.”

“Besondere Aktion” in German. And he said:

“I was present. It was outside.”

Meaning, not in a room whatsoever. It was outside. Probably to receive the convoys of people who are arriving in Auschwitz. Something like that. And you had the word “draussen” [word unclear] And I was lucky enough to read it because it was in Gothic characters. I learned German in Gothic characters, d-r-a-u-s-s-e-n.

And when Mr Klarsfeld — you know to man? I suppose? Mr Klarsfeld published his big book called “Memorial” about the Jews deported from France. He put this thing of Dr Kramer, and he put the translation on the left, and he said:

“I have been present at a ‘special action’, …”.

And he titled it:

“… In a gas chamber.”

See, instead of “outside” he put this.

Jim: Hmm!

Prof Faurisson: And they are constantly doing the same thing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: For instance, everybody knows that the Germans had a “Final Solution” of the Jewish question. Okay?

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And we are told the it means “killing of Jews”. So, I’m sorry sir, the Germans sometimes would write this like that. But they had shortened it. The real phrase, which was, … “We want a, ….” How do you say that?

Jim: It’s “removal”. They wanted to remove them.

Prof Faurisson: Wait a minute. I’ll find it. Excuse me, … I’m going to try to find it.

Jim: Well, I know they wanted to deport them, and get rid of them. I know that. They didn’t want to kill them, they just wanted to get them out of there.

Prof Faurisson: No. They wanted a “territorial final solution”! Territorial! Ty want a territory for the Jews. It could be Madagascar, it could be Uganda, it could be Russia.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And they thought even at a time that it could be Palestine. But they decided “Oh! No! No Palestine.” because of the valiant, the noble and valiant Arabic people.

Jim: Right. They didn’t want to have a conflict with the Arabs. I understand.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. But you see it was a “territorial solution”.

Jim: Yep. Deportation. My next question. Let’s get back to the Zundel Trial and your relationship with Fred Leuchter. How was that?

[82:52]

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. So I said to Ernst Zundel. [word unclear] The trial came. I said:

“We need a specialist of American gas chambers.”

And finally we sent Fred Leuchter and so on. And we had this answer. The best one is a man called, Fred Leuchter. So Ernst asked me:

“Will you go and visit him in Boston?”

And I said:

“Yes.”

And I went to Boston, and I was in a hotel, and I saw the man in the snow [?] and I said to this man. I tried to see if this man knew something about the German, supposed gas chamber. And I asked him some questions. I said:

“So what about the gas chambers?”

And he said:

“Oh yes.”

He believed in the gas chambers. He believed in the German gas chambers. Never he had a doubt about that.

And I said:

“You have seen one?”

“No.”

“But how would you figure this out? How would you see a German gas chamber?”

I remember he told me:

“So if I see a big building with bricks and so on, and guards.”

He began with the guards.

“And have you long distance.”

I don’t remember exactly. At a very long distance. And I said:

“Why do you say the guards would be at a very long distance?”

He said:

“Oh, because the problem you see, is when the gas gets out of the chimney, because of the wind, you know, where to put the guards on the side, …”

And so on. And I showed him my documents. Where you could see that the in the furnace in Crematoria one, you could see that it was “Leichenhalle”, which means a place to put the bodies, a mortuary. And in the others, Crematoria II and III, you had “Leichenkellar”, cellars for cadavers. So you had it. And I remember that I had showed that to a man in France building crematories. And he was with someone, and I remember, he said:

“Oh! That is seven, eight metres thing.”

And I told him:

“What do you mean by that?”

Because this one is seven metres, and the other one is eight metres. He said:

“It was typical of a crematory. You need to metres for a cadaver in the mortuary. And two metres also, and in between three, or four for the, …”

How do you say, for the “chariot”? To bring the bodies, .. I don’t remember the English, …

Jim: You mean, how you bring them in there?

Prof. Faurisson: To bring the, …

Jim: You are talking about a trolley, the trolley thing?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. Something like that. So it was typical!

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: It was typical. Not only you had to [word unclear], but it was typical.

Jim: So you didn’t go to Auschwitz with Fred, he went there himself. And he came up with all the information.

Prof. Faurisson: That is right. That is right. And I showed him the plans and so on. And he felt that, he said something that he “smells a rat”.

Jim: Oh! Yeah. Smells like a rat!

Prof. Faurisson: Yeah. And he thought that it was interesting. And he went to see, he was invited by Ernst. And they decided that he would go to Auschwitz, Majdaneck, and all the places. He did a perfect work. And his conclusion was that not only was there no gas chamber, but it was impossible.

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Totally impossible.

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: And I want to say something about his statement in court. He was very impressive! I’m going to tell you why he was impressive. Because he was asked, by the judge, or someone. He was asked a question and he would always wait a few seconds before giving an answer. And I asked him:

“How is it that you do that?”

And he said:

“Because I’ve been taught to do that. To count to ten before giving an answer.”

So at the beginning it’s a little bit funny, to say is it a simpleton? And finally it was very impressive to see how much he was careful in choosing his words, and so on. And, I think it was in the 20th of April, 1988, it was devastating!

I was in court, of course, and the jews coming go to us like that you see [with head down, hunched over]. They were in a bad state.

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: Really. Yes. It was their “Stalingrad” you see!

Jim: Well that was an important document. The Leuchter Report was very important, because that helped to get Ernst off, Ernst Zundel off, would you say? Or what?

Prof. Faurisson: Oh, I think so. Yes. There’s no doubt about that.

Jim: Yeah. Well let me just finish up with this point here. Do you think that Revisionist is making headway today in the world. What do you think about that?

Prof. Faurisson: I think we are making many progress. You see an example of plenty [word unclear] victories there. And another one, which is very important, I want to talk about it. But it is necessary tiny little pieces aft tiny little pieces.

Jim: Yeah, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: It cannot be spectacular. No! Don’t wait for what we call, “the big event”. No. It is not coming go. Certainly not. It’s going to be very slow, and it is very slow. But there is no sigh of retreat! It’s be coming go more and more difficult for those people.

And you see, back to the internet. You can do something very simple. You take a monthly, jewish monthly and more, every three months and you can’t the number of times you have “gas chamber”. Gas chambers are disappearing. [I’ve noticed this —K]

Jim: Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: They say any word but, they don’t won’t too much “gas” you see. “Gas” is becoming rare!

Jim: Sure, yeah. Well, you know, you are one of my favourites now. You are in my “League of Extraordinary Revisionists”. I’ve already interviewed Fred Leuchter, and now I’ve interviewed you. And I’m going to try and see if I can interview all the other people that have been instrumental in exposing the “Holocaust”. I consider it a hoax. That is what I call it, anyway.

See: Jim Rizoli Interviews Fred Leuchter: His Story, His Way — TRANSCRIPT

And I think it is important that people especially now, in our day and age now they have to see the people who preceded us Revisionists now the younger ones, who are trying to get the message out now. Because we are getting stopped every which way, when we bring this up. I mean, in my town they stopped me completely from bringing my message out on cable shows on TV.

But in the internet we are trying, we are trying to do it through the internet. The internet is the means to doing it, so hopefully we can get more people to understand it, and see what’s going on. It’s tough! It’s really hard! The jews really don’t want this to be known. And your interview with me today, I’m sure they are not going to be happy about that either [chuckling]. They just don’t want the message out.

Do you have anything you want to conclude with saying?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes.

Jim: Sure. Let me hear you.

[94:06]

Prof. Faurisson: You see plenty of proofs, for instance you have a jewish professor who said, … listen to this:

“Sources for the study of the gas chambers are rare and unreliable!”

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Fantastic! I thought that they were never said so strong. I know that is what he had to say. You have another one who said about Krema I, that so many people are visiting. He said:

“Everything in it is false! Faurisson exploited those fabrications all the more easily since they didn’t want to answer him!”

It was in 1995. See, I had to wait a long time to see this. “everything in it is false!”

Now, you have a jew, I should give you the name of the man who said, let me see, … the man who in 1988 said:

“Source for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable!” is Arno Mayer.

Jim: Okay, I’ve heard of him.

Prof. Faurisson: But the man that I quote sometimes, “The Last Mohican”. The last one trying to defend the story is Van Pelt.

Jim: Oh, Van Pelt. Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: The jew. And he said that in Auschwitz they were spending a lot of money to get it “alive” in a way. But he suggested that no money should be spent for that. And that nature should sum back. And the journalist told him, the journalist of the [words unclear] said:

“If you want to prove the deniers, what you have to prove, if you do that you have nothing.”

And his reply was:

“99% of what we know doesn’t find it’s physical evidence in Auschwitz!”

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: It’s fantastic!

Jim: Yeah. They even admit it. Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Yeah. And you see if the myth of the gas chambers crumbles, everything crumbles! It’s finished!

Jim: Right. Well hopefully that day will happen in sum point in time. We should keep trying. What are you doing now, yourself? You are retired obviously, what do you do with your time now?

Prof. Faurisson: Working day and night! Because [chuckling] the lie is still alive!

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: And I have to defend myself. You see I am constantly treated in France as a “liar”, a “falsifier” and even a professional “falsifier”!

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Which is strange! I am going to tell you why. Because I’ve had so many, so many trials, and I have so many still today. You imagine my life!

Jim: Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Not once has a tribunal said that I was a liar. That I was a falsifier! Let me give you an example. In 1983 on the 26th of April I was in Paris in a courtroom and even in the very courtroom where Marshal Petain had been sentenced to death, it was impressive. And I had against me, I remember, twelve defence lawyers in black! You see, I don’t need to tell you what those people were! They were against me!

And I had myself two lawyers. One of the Right and one of the Left. The lawyer of the Left had been found by Jean Gabriel Conbendict, the brother of the famous Conbendict, a jew! He was on my side!

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Yes! Many jews had been on my side. And finally said:

“Oh don’t talk about that. Let us forget, …”.

And so on. And we were in court and something very strange happened. They wanted to condemn me for being a “liar”, and so on. About the twelve, only one tried to prove that the gas chambers had existed. He had been in been in Warsaw, he had been in Auschwitz, he had been in Israel, trying to find a proof. He didn’t find anything!

And I had all those documents of this man. I remember that he begun with one, and he said at the end, which was so surprising. He said:

“Yes! You are going to tell me it’s not very good.”

Or something like that. I was surprised. And the second one, the third one, and he want away. And I learned that he had been on a bench crying. And he had his wife to come to be with him, and so on. And it was a disaster for him. But anyway, I can tell you what was the results of this. And I need my paper for that.

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: So it was in 83. On April 26, 1983. And the court decided that in the writings of Faurisson on the gas chambers there were, I quote:

“No trace of rashness. No trace of negligence. No trace of having deliberately over looked anything, nor any trace of a lie. And as a consequence the appraisal of the value of the findings of the gas chambers defended by Mr Faurisson is a matter, therefore, solely for experts, historians, and the public.”

You could have said, “Oh! Victory!” now be careful. We are in France! [smiling] And as soon, in every of those trials, as soon as they say Faurisson is very serious in his words, they add;

“But the people against him are of good faith!”

Jim: Yeah, right.

Prof. Faurisson: Or they say:

“But we feel Faurisson is malevolent!”

Do you understand that?

Jim: Well, bad, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Every time! We had a very important man in France called Badenbare [sp] a jew, who dared to say one day, recently he said:

“When I was a lawyer, I got Faurisson sentenced for falsification.”

So I lodged a complaint against him and I proved that it was totally false. That even the tribunal said that I was very serious in my work, and so on. But anyway, the tribunal decided that Badenbare [sp] had failed in trying to bring proof of what he had said, but he was of “good faith”!

Jim: Hmm, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: They are always of “good faith” and I am merely always “malevolent”.

Jim: Well, that is how it always going to be.

Prof. Faurisson: It’s so easy.

Jim: Let me ask you a question. Do you have a favourite book, or book that deals with the “Holocaust” that you recommend people to read? What is your favourite book?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. The most famous, the brilliant, but a little bit difficult read, is the book of Arthur Butz. B-U-T-Z.

Jim: Okay, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: And this book, I have I think [looking on his shelves]. Do I have this book? Yes. “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”.

Jim: Right. Okay.

Prof. Faurisson: And not only this book has been printed for the first time in 1976. And at that time I met Butz. He was very impressive, this man. I call him, don’t say it, but I call “Dr Genius”! He’s very impressive! And he published an edition recently, I think in 2003, and later on, perhaps. And with three, or four additions. And it’s marvelous! [chuckling] And I remember the story of the elephant. I’m going to tell you the story of the elephant.

Butz said how strange, something extraordinary happened between, during the War that nobody noticed it at the time. They noticed it only aft the War. You see it’s like saying that at my home, in my cellar, I had an elephant. It was there but I didn’t know that it was there! The elephant went up — the staircase was strong enough — and it went into the room where I reading. I didn’t notice him. And he went through the window — he didn’t break it — and he went into the street. It was noon, there were plenty of people. Nobody noticed the elephant. But if you want to see him go and see him, you will see him in the zoo! [chuckling]

Because, you see, people, very important never during the war mentioned that! Churchill, never!

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Eisenhower, never! DeGaulle, never! And so on! The Pope. I wrote a book about the Pope. The title was “The Revisionism of Pious XII”. He had the experience of the First World War. He knew what was war propaganda. He found all this once more with those gas chambers, crematories, and so on.

Jim: Yeah. How many books have you written?

Prof. Faurisson: Oh! I’ve published nine, nine, or ten.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Now it’s first something called, “Memory in Defence” against those accusing me of falsifying history. And I have little books, answer to Pressac, answer to Vincent Niquent [sp] a book on the [words unclear] a booklet. And then I have something called “[word unclear] Revisionist”, “Revisionist Writings”. And it’s now seven volumes.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Three others should come.

Jim: Okay. So there’s your book, “Just Who is Robert Faurisson?” and can you get that on Amazon?

Prof. Faurisson: I don’t know at all if you can get it. Try to get it anyway! [chuckling] I wanted to show you this. [pointing at the cover illustration] See how cautious, slow, and prudent is the one hvg this, because the balloon is ballooning.

Jim: Oh yes. I see what you are saying. You are popping it. Yes, I get it. [laughing]

Prof. Faurisson: It’s dangerous!

Jim: Yes I understand. Well you have really influenced a lot of people. I’ve read a lot of books, I’ve seen your videos and you have been a big inspiration for me! I’m going to try to use all this information just to get more people interested in the subject.

Prof. Faurisson: Good.

Jim: It just takes time. A lot of people don’t know about the topic. And I think it’s important. Well, listen I think we have really covered a lot of topics today. You have done very well. You have given us a lot of information.

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. But I am very, very tired and my English is a disaster!

Jim: Oh! I think you have done great! I mean, I have understand everything you have said!

Prof. Faurisson: I don’t think so. I would have so many other things to say.

Jim: Okay.

Prof. Faurisson: For instance, let me tell you something about the six million.

Jim: Okay let’s talk about that. That is fine.

Prof. Faurisson: This is not a discovery of mine, absolutely not! But, it’s very simple. The story of the six million, that comes from something which began in, probably 1880.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Something like that. It was first in New York City in the New York Times. And in other places also. It was a way to get money. It would say something awful is happening in Russia, in Poland, in Hungary, in these sort of places. “Six million of our brothers are dying!”, “There is a “Holocaust”!” you have even the word. “Bring the money!”

Jim: Sure! Yeah. It’s all about money!

Prof. Faurisson: And I could tell you something about Nuremberg Trial. I would like to talk about the Nuremberg Trial, which was so disgusting!

Jim: Well, do you want to do the another time? Would you like to do that another time?

Prof. Faurisson: Perhaps another time, but I’m not sure, because I have more and more tired. And, you know, sir, when this will be made public, I will sued once more!

Jim: You think so?

Prof. Faurisson: Sure!

Jim: Wow! Anyway, I think we talked a lot, enough today. If there is another time you want to talk about anything in particular we can do this. I’m getting a little better at this. And we can go from there. How does that sound?

Prof. Faurisson: Okay. Goodbye.

Jim: Okay. You take care now. God bless you! All right we will see you. Bye!

[Produced by Jim Rizoli, September 2015]

[114:46]

END

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

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = 11,813
* Total images = 26
* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 9: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 8: Jan 3, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 7: Nov 3, 2018 — Added last 20 minutes of transcript. Added 2 images. Corrections to text and formatting. Transcript now complete.

Version 6: Nov 2, 2018 — Added 11 more minutes of transcript. Added 5 images. Total transcript complete = 94 minutes.

Version 5: Oct 30, 2018 — Added 21 more minutes of transcript. Added 3 images. Total transcript complete = 83 minutes.

Version 4: Oct 29, 2018 — Added 7 more minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total transcript complete = 62 minutes.

Version 3: Oct 28, 2018 — Added 5 more minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total transcript complete = 55 minutes.

Version 2: Oct 27, 2018 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Added images.

Version 1: Oct 25, 2018 — Published post. 45 minutes of transcript complete.

Inside the Eye Live with Alison Chabloz – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:51:34 +0000

[In this interview Dennis Fetcho talks with Alison Chabloz about her upcoming court appearance (March 7) after being charged under the Communications Act in the UK, for causing “gross offence” to some jews, by uploading several of her songs to YouTube, that parody the nonsense claimed by some alleged “Holocaust survivors“.

Readers are urged to show support for Alison by, if possible, attending her court appearance this Wednesday morning at Central London Magistrates Court — KATANA.]

UPDATE: “A blogger accused of broadcasting anti-Semitic songs has told a court there was “no proof” gas chambers were used to kill Jewish people in World War Two. …

The trial continues and a decision is expected in May [2018].”

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-43321482

Inside the Eye Live

with

Alison Chabloz

Mar 3, 2018

Click here for the audio:

https://ia601503.us.archive.org/33/items/ITELRadioFullShow3.3.18/ITEL%20Radio%20Full%20Show%20-%203.3.18.mp3

Click here for: Inside the Eye — Live!

Published on Sat, Mar 3, 2018

Dennis Fetcho, Inside the Eye – Live! 2018.03.03

Dennis Fetcho, aka “The Fetch“, is an American ex-patriot living in Amman, Jordan. He is the author of the Illuminatus Observor, a blog regarded by many as simply the finest Hermetic Qaballa blog in all of blogdom. The Fetch also has a second site called “Inside The Eye – Live!“

Alison Chabloz appeared on Inside the Eye – Live! on Saturday, March 3, 2018. Alison’s first appearance in November of 2016 was greeted the following day with an arrest initiated by an Israeli front NGO/charity known as “The Committee Against Anti-Semitism”.

Alison will be in court on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 in what, hopefully, will bring about a successful closure for the interests of free speech and Western values in the face of Jewish onslaught against Western civilization.

Many items of discussion were raised in this entertaining and delightful interview, including the ongoing social media purges, destruction of social working groups, “anti-Semitism”, and so much more.

Definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in contemporary battles for the heart and soul of Western civilization.

Hour 1 – News And Current Events

Hour 2 – Guest: Alison Chabloz

Hour 3 – News And Current Events

TRANSCRIPT

(106 mins)

[00:00]

Intro: Good morning everyone! Coming from somewhere in the Middle East. It is Saturday morning’s hottest streaming media political talk show! Inside the Eye Live with the Fetch!

If it was up to me I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow!

Hey good idea! Did someone tell us a standing member of Congress, that if it were up to them they would dump Israelis tomorrow?

Sound like something you might hear here on Inside the Eye Live.

The Fetch! Oh what a man! Oh my god! You have to listen to that show! He was brilliant! I didn’t know he had gonads of steel, like that! And a mind like a frigging razor! I didn’t realize the was so clear. He cut through that cognitive dissonance that is going on in the whole patriot movement!

Now it’s time for Inside the Eye Live! Intelligent media for the politically aware!

[01:20]

Fetch: This is the Fetch. And you are live Inside the Eye. Today’s date is Saturday March third, 2018. A good Saturday morning to all of you listening in the United States, and Canada, and a good late afternoon and evening to all of you listening in European and Asian time zones. And, of course, wherever you are listening out there on the worldwide web, or our F.M. and micro F.M. Broadcasting outlets, may all be well with you and yours.

The weather here in Riyadh is actually quite a comfortable day. Hitting a high of about seventy-five degrees right now. We’re certain as of the just sunset, just a few minutes ago we’re sitting at what? I don’t know something like seventy-one degrees so it’s really really nice. Got winds about seven miles per hour out of the south-east. And overall just sunny skies, just a beautiful day today. We’re going to be going down to what? Let’s see what the morning lows are going to be tomorrow. It looks like we’re going to go down to fifty-five degrees in the hour before sunrise, and throughout the useful part of the evening looks it like are going to be around sixty degrees, which is going to be about one o’clock in the morning here. So very, very nice weather for sure. So you have very, very nice weather.

And again thanks for the feedback over there. We’re going to be pretty much same old same all again. A little bit of a rise in temperature over the next few days, but for the most part here in Riyadh it’s going to be in the seventies, lower eighty’s, and then we’re going to hit maybe ninety, ninety-two by next weekend, but that’s not expected to last. We’re getting that tease of the summer months now, where we are hitting the ninety’s, but we are not getting it to sustain. The folklore around these parts, there’s actually a folklore about the man who sold his jacket too soon! And it has to deal, excuse me while I drink some coffee folks, has to deal with this idea of people selling their winter cloths before the winter is really over.

And so what happens here is it gets a little deceptive. You get a few days in the ninety’s. Next thing, you know, you’re almost down to freezing again. And so there’s that whole folklore story about the old man who sold his jacket too soon. Meaning that he just really wasn’t prepared to stick it out through the final part of the winter, and now he’s stuck in a bad situation, because he doesn’t have enough clothing to actually stay warm through the balance of the winter. But, you know, winter’s really coming to a draw, or to a close now, pretty quickly. We’ve only got a few weeks to go really before winter ends.

[04:08]

But that’s not really relevant I guess for the people of Britain, where you’ve got still lots of snow and ice warnings throughout the UK. It looks like the kids are out there having fun now, sledding around. Authorities warn that the rail travelers and drivers should expect ongoing disruptions even as temperatures rose above freezing for the first time in a few days. Heathrow Airport warned travelers to check with airlines before arriving at the airport. So if you’re listening you might want to do that everybody. Two hospitals in southwest England continue to appeal for four by four drivers to help get essential staff to work. Saying that icy roads still pose a problem. There are thousands in the UK still without power and flood warnings remain for some coastal regions. The Met Office said that temperatures are likely to inch up to 7 degrees Celsius. That’s 44 degrees Fahrenheit in the southern city of Plymouth. So they’re starting to see a little bit of warmer weather, but they’ve had quite a chill blow through the UK recently.

Meanwhile across the English Channel, the big chill, as they call it right now froze the canals in the Dutch capital of Amsterdam. So that means that you had ice on the historic Prinsengracht canal, which was thick enough for residents to lace up their skates and glide across the surface! How cool is that? I mean, I would love to do that, quite frankly. Live in a city where your canals freeze over, put your ice skates on, and just kind of cruise down the canal! That’s faster than walking, that’s for darn sure. So what a lot of fun time! I love winter folks! Winter is a great time a year, I know it’s a bit expensive for the traveling and not the traveling but the, you know, the heating bills and things like that. But you gotta love snow! You got to just love the way that ice comes down and just coats everything White! And I know everybody, you know, we in the European civilization we’ve been instructed now that snow, that’s right! Even snow is politically incorrect and probably is racist! You know, Mother Nature had a very racist tone when she created the idea of snow. So, you know, how the Leftist nutcakes are out there in the world today.

Now I was just out all week. I was at what’s called the AFED convention, here in Riyadh. And it’s called the “Armed Forces Exposition for Diversifying” their supplier base. There’s something like eighty thousand items were on display, not on display, not all eighty thousand, but some eighty thousand items are going up for bid. Basically taking that business away from US companies, and European companies for that matter and trying to diversify the supplier base here in Saudi to create jobs for their people. Mind you, that’s not a bad thing guys. Governments are creating jobs for their people, that’s not a bad thing. I had meetings and discussions with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, British Aerospace, and major heavyweights here like Taqnia, Sarvik.

Had a great to actually discussion with Sarvik.

Lets see, Armaco America on, Saudi Armaco America on. Really a lot of key players here were present. And so I worked the darn show for four days, five days, really had a lot of good high level meetings here about future plans going on inside of Saudi Arabia.

[07:48]

And the excitement somewhat is there! Now as I was leaving today I just left the facility about five fifteen this afternoon and rushed home. Got home just ten minutes ago, quite frankly, to try to get set up for the radio show. But as I was there one of the, I think the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the commander for the Saudi ground forces was there. He’s from the House of Saud. There was quite festivity. They had marching bands coming through, military marching bands, that would be. They had, really this guy had, like he was like, locally it’s like a rock star person. You know, we Americans, it’s not that big a deal. But nonetheless he did have some, you could see the energy coming off these guys! You know, it’s interesting if you guys are ever around power, or powerful people, they do carry about them a type of energy and a type of charisma. It’s hard to quantify, but you can certainly feel it, as they walk by. If you’re tuned into what is going on. And I can’t quite put my finger on it, but you can actually feel it! It’s rather a fascinating phenomenon.

So he was cruising around. So I got some pictures in. Not with him. But I got some pictures of him and some people that we know, of interest to us. So it was really quite an interesting show. If you’ve never been to one of these trade shows that has to deal with defense, or military weapons, or anything of that nature. You might want to look into it. It’s actually quite good stuff, just to get yourself educated. I learned quite a bit today and all throughout the week. So we had quite a lot of fun for sure. As we visited the show here today.

[09:35]

You can join us in the chat room everybody, Inside the Eye Live dot com. That’s Inside the Eye Live dot com. And I’m heading over there now everybody. And it’s now loading the page. You just click on the live chat button up there on the menu bar. That gets you over there. You’ll see my buddy, One Eye sleeping up a storm over there. And now we are there, I got Road Dogger, Wolfgang, Fake War, White Devil 1970, that’s a new name, so welcome. Uncle Douchebag, Black Bird is there, so already humming along. Saturdays are a great time to catch the chat room for sure. So definitely give us a shot over there. Say hello and see what else is going on. And lots of good information come through the chat room, when a show of this nature comes on. So it’s very, very good.

Good morning! I guess I can say good morning, right everybody? It’s telephone lines. If you’d like to call and get in early one three two three two seven five one three one four. That’s one three two three two seven five one three one four. And we’re going to have a guest in hour number two. Alison Chabloz. She is the gal from the UK that’s being targeted by the Committee for Anti-Semitism, or Committee Against Anti-Semitism, or something.

It’s basically a troll operation by a couple of jewish goons. From observing from the outside, these guys are thugs! I mean, these are literally jewish thugs! That’s our observation, again from the outside. But inside of the UK, these thugs carry at least some weight. They’re able to bring trials, and they’re able to bring charges against people. And that obviously, is not a great thing! So we’re asking people to obviously try to make it out to the Westminster courthouse tomorrow [Wed, 7th March], to support Alison Chabloz and really support your own interests, as to preserving your ability to speak freely in the face of jewish tyranny. And so it’s very, very important that you get out there.

[12:10]

You know, there’s been a lot of complaints to me recently. And they’re all valid, by the way. About jewish organizations, like Facebook, and Youtube. And then Twitter, which isn’t necessarily jewish, but works hand in hand with the ADL and the SPLC. And what is happening here is these anti-American, jewish organizations, like again the ADL and the SPLC especially. What they’ve done is they’re creating algorithms on behalf of, or in line, or in collaboration with Facebook, which is a jewish, let’s be honest Facebook is a jewish intel gathering site! YouTube, which is essentially now being super censored by jews, I guess, within the company. And then, of course, Twitter which is also censored quite heavily in favor of jews, and their agenda of bigotry, hate, or whatever you want to call it in there, with the way they use our language.

So they’ve created this idea called an “online hate index”. And imagine that our entire civilization is being dominated, or suppressed, by a hyper criminal gang stalking type of operation, like the ADL, or the SPLC! Folks, these guys spy on you! They go back and they monitor what you said ten, five, six years ago! And should you ever get into a position of some type of influence, they have run your entire history and say:

“This person said this about jews in 2005! They must be terminated! They must apologize! They must bow down to us jews now! , or else! Terminate them!”

You know, it’s like, guys this is a tyranny!

There’s a battle, really waging! It’s just like swirling around us now for control of political thought, political opinion, political ideas!

[14:25]

It’s become absolutely unconscionable that our major corporations, like a YouTube, like a Twitter, like a Facebook, that have garnered so much monopoly power, are able to participate in the political process, because that’s exactly what they are doing! When you have essentially a utility, like Facebook, like Twitter, like YouTube, that are engaged in taking sides inside of the political spectrum, they are no longer corporations serving the public interest. They are corporations serving a specific interest, or a special interest. And when it becomes clear that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, are clearly coming down on the side of foreign powers, like Israel, like the cosmopolitan internationalists, like the jewish power structure inside of America, then we know, as Americans, as British, as Germans, Swedes, as a united European group, that we have a very serious enemy working within our midst!

And, quite frankly, since these still remain from a, let’s just call a demographic still, they remained our majority positions, we should make it an absolute priority to do whatever is necessary to smash the ability of these corporations to control the flow of ideas! It is high time that the people that are making these decisions, start feeling the heat. And that the investor … [breaking up].

Everyone who are interested in the preservation of your nation states, really it’s time for real serious debate! Every day, absolutely, they brag about it. And it’s unconscionable that we continue with this treasonous fifth column in our midst and some obviously have to, … [breaking up]

[17:06]

Welcome back! It’s the Fetch Inside the Eye Live. Intelligent media for the politically aware, right here in revolution radio and Revolution dot com radio! Good Saturday morning everybody here on this March the third. Rapidly approaching, what do we call that, the spring equinox. And, of course, that means that winter will have officially finished. And we’re going to be rolling into spring before, you know, it! I know here I’ve only got a couple more months to go here on this particular contract and I’ll be out of the country. And obviously working overtime I think lately! Trying to get something happening! But yeah we are going to be out of Saudi Arabia ourselves, before, really, before summer. After right before the Ramadan holiday which is going to be somewhere around the month of Ramadan that is, somewhere around May sixteenth, the seventeenth. I’m hoping to wrap everything up and get home.

So guys we’re trying to wrap things up. Just want to remind you that in hour number two Alison Chabloz is going to be coming on. Alison is, of course, kind of famous for really being assaulted, I don’t know if you could call assaulted, but targeted by what’s called “C AA”, which by all indications appears to be an Israeli hate organization. It goes after pretty much anybody and everybody that they feel like. That they feel like they can pick off in a trollish way. Their actions are uncouth, to say the least. Their actions are uncivilised, they’re barbaric. They’re basically jewish, in a nut shell!

When we talk about jews and their uncouth, uncivilized, disgusting, quite frankly, mentality! Their lack of etiquette, their lack of morals, or lack of values, we’re often thinking about groups like the Committee Against Anti-Semitism, or something like that. Campaign Against, … anyway, a lot of people call this a fake NGO. But it is an Israeli run NGO. Israeli paid for NGO. And it’s really trying to stifle free speech in the UK.

And, quite frankly, to those of you who are in the UK and understanding this message, you’ve got to get over there to the Westminster courthouse and make your stand! Let it be known that you are tired of these punks and thugs that happen to be, oh boy! Just happen to be jews! Always trying to stifle debate and real discourse here in the West. Look, they’re not part of our culture. They are not part of our civilization! And it’s time for us to accept that. And to start pushing back! , because there’s a hundred times, or a thousand times more of us than them! And as long as everybody’s just quiet and cowering in the face of this hyper rabid minority, well they’re going to keep pushing, because they don’t know any other way folks! They only know how to act like a bunch of idiots, and that’s just the way it goes. Deal with it! They don’t like you! They don’t like your civilization! They don’t like your culture! They’re going to do anything they can to supplant you and destroy you!

So okay, understand that’s the game, and start to deal with it accordingly! That would be my advice.

[20:22]

Just like to remind you this is listener sponsored and supported radio. It relies upon your donations to help keep the network alive, funded, etc., etc., The best thing you can do is work your way over to Revolution dot radio. That’s right, Revolution dot radio, and when you go there, there is a page called, I’m going there now just so I can get a good handle on it. It’s called “Funding”. And if you click on the “Funding” page, you’ll see that so far we’re three days into this, we’ve raised about 173 dollars of the goal of to, 700 a month.

There’s books that you can buy. Looks like there is, I got to update my pages here. But guys, again there’s things you can, there’s swag as you call it. There’s the-shirts, I don’t know what else we have there. But my favorite thing guys is just, because we like this show so much. I’m assuming you like the show, is to get out there and make a donation on behalf of Inside the Eye Live. It’s very little, three, four, five dollars a month. Our attitude is, look if we can get one hundred of you guys and gals out there to sponsor the show at four dollars a month, that’s a dollar a week basically. And there’s one hundred of you that would be four, or five hundred dollars a month, that we would be raising straight up! Just for this show and Inside the Eye Prime Time. And so guys we really encourage you to do that, because again, with the way things are getting de-platformed nowdays, it’s really hard to build these platforms! And it’s worse for taking care of the platform itself and that means by fundamental ng it and helping keep the thing going. So guys, again we ask you to make a donation on behalf of Inside the Eye Live.

And again, three to four dollars, five dollars a month would be a great thing! Now the Intel Cat Report, of course, is how we are partially sponsored here. It’s proudly sponsored by North Cacalacky Trading Post, goods services and solutions for all things great and small. It’s inconveniently located at the corner of Walk and Don’t Walk and, of course, by Blackbird Nine Breakfast Club. A radio show hosted by Blackbird Nine, aka, Frederick C. Blackburn. Frederick is an NSA whistleblower, 9/11 Truth advocate, former thirty-two degree Mason, and a former North Carolina House candidate. And you can hear Blackbird Nine’s Breakfast Club every Wednesday evening from eight to ten pm on the Spreeker network. For more information you can visit Blackbird Nine Trading Post dot org. That’s Blackbird Nine Trading Post dot org.

Well, not a whole lot to report on the Cat Report today. It’s been very quiet this past week. The House has been quiet. Mating season everybody is pretty much over, you know. What that entails, is One Eye, the big guy, he is staying home again. He just kind of goes out does his thing. Stays out for an hour, or two. Kind of like wanders around and get some fresh air and by the afternoon hours one eye is right back inside the house chillin.

And saw a nice picture of him today. He was up on their favorite perch. I got to say take some pictures of these so you guys can just see what I’m talking about. But when I was out there in the kitchen, just chillin, we still got the cardboard there, so that black cat can’t jump into our house. But he was chillin and sleepin. And it was kind of cute this morning, I was on the phone to Jordan and One Eye comes into the bedroom. And he does it meow everybody, he kind of talks to you. Actually, my cats don’t meow too much. They all kind of talk. And so he just came in the room and he just like meowing at Emilie. And hey, you know, hopped up on the bed, climbed up to her left shoulder and just laid his head down, a starting to rub his head into her, basically around her armpits! I hope she took a shower! That, I hope she did! I’m sure she did! But you have to wonder sometimes with the way the cats react. But he just was a sweetheart today as usual. Bruiser usually has a sweet heart quite frankly. So for a blind cat what a great little guy!

But that’s about it you don’t not a whole lots going on right now. Not a whole lot around here quite frankly. The cats I used to feed Ma, she’s a mom again, you can see she’s nursing some kittens. She’s running around looking for food today. I saw our outside my hotel today. But it’s been very, very quiet, quite frankly. Even the fights, that I used to hear a lot around the house every night, sometimes two, three for a night they have been tapering down to one every other day. So it’s been very quiet. Cats just trying to get back to the routine of just being cats and not worrying about mating season., because mating season, if you really follow cats, it can be a really crazy, wild, insane time! , but that’s about it for the Intel Cat Report. Again probably sponsored by a North Cacalacky Trading Post, good services and solutions for all things great and small. And also, of course, by Blackbird Nine Breakfast Club. A radio show hosted by Blackbird Nine, aka Frederick C. Blackburn. And again you can hear Blackbird Nine Breakfast Club every Wednesday evening, from eight to ten pm on the Spreaker radio network.

And if you haven’t heard his shows, this guy really puts a lot of effort into his shows. It’s very well researched. Very well-organized. Very well presented, and so it’s a different style show for sure, but if you haven’t heard it before you ought to give it a call, or give it a listen, because we’re sure you’re going to like it. We know, because his audience continues to grow. So check out Blackbird Nine Breakfast Club! Again, every Wednesday evening from eight to ten pm on Spreeker. And then you can, of course, get up more information at Blackbird Nine Trading Post dot org.

[26:54]

Oy Vey Moment. [Music]

[27:20]

This Oy Vey moment is brought to you by Radio Wehrwolf and Heartland online. Radio Wehrwolf is now streaming twenty-four hours of no nonsense, uncensored radio, centered around the pro European Western Civilization spirit. And be sure to catch all their live shows eight o’clock pm Eastern. To listen live, or catch the archive shows a related content, visit Wehrwolf Radio dot com. That’s WEHR Wolf Radio dot com. And if you want to expand. Your information options and find like-minded content visit Heartland Online dot net, or you will find many popular and insightful Western centric podcast, news articles, videos music, and much more, including yours truly, The Fetch and Inside the Eye Live, so just remember Radio Wehrwolf as WEHR Wolf and Heartland Online dot com.

[28:26]

And everybody, this week’s “Oy Vey Moment” is coming to us from Poland. And it really is some of the fallout coming from the recent passing and now suspension of a law that made it a crime to implicate Poland in the “Holocaust”. See it was, of course, Poles are actually quite guilty of murdering many, many Germans. In fact, perhaps over a million Germans. So the Poles are not innocent on this, by any stretch of the imagination. And that’s with all due respect to our listeners in Poland.

I think all of us have an obligation, quite frankly, to recognize the crimes of our governments, and to deal with it in a professional way, and draw attention to it, so that we can really start to set the record straight. Because, quite frankly, a lot of us have been fighting this scourge called, really this jewish scourge, in all it’s different manifestations. And the Poles have done it, I guess in their way, from time, or from generations on. You know, from generations, some generations, or whatever. The Russians, of course, about their experiences. We Americans have lost many millions of people. Probably, quite frankly, to the scourge, through the various wars that jews have convinced us to fight. The Canadians equally are under a very heavy strain right now to jewish tyranny. The Brits themselves, are a proud people, who have had, of course, many of their crimes had been committed under the flag of Britain too.

[29:55]

So guys to us, one of the things I think we should always do is recognize the crimes of the government, so we have a very fair understanding of history. Is not fair, quite frankly, for the Russians and the Poles, and in my opinion, again I’m not there, I don’t understand. But I know they’re at each others throats, quite often. I guess I can respect that. It’s their nature, their culture. But at the same time, a lot of the crimes committed over the last century was done by the jewish people themselves!

They were some of the greatest mass murderers this planet has ever witnessed! In fact, they are probably the greatest mass murderers! It’s really the great thing that they brought to us, was misery! I think ,when you think of jews in Judaism, I think what we should all think about is deception, criminality, misery and things of this nature.

So now the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is again, brought to us by a guy [Eli Wiesel] that was a fraud, who left Auschwitz, he joined the Germans to march away from Auschwitz. He joined the column of Germans and others. And then you would think to yourself, why would a jew like anybody, march with these Germans away from the front lines, when the Russians were coming to liberate your camp? Why did Simon Wiesenthal [Eli Wiesel] do that? Why did nobody talk about the “Holocaust” in any of their memoirs? Churchill didn’t write about it. Eisenhower didn’t write about it. Nobody wrote about it! Until some many, many, years later, as jews started to gain a stranglehold on media. And, of course, they’ve always had a stranglehold, but let’s just call a larger stranglehold.

So the point here is, that when history cannot support these jewish lies. And the lies can only be supported by absolute tyrannical methods, which is basically to try to jail you, remove you from your job, destroy your family, whatever the case is, because you don’t believe in it! Folks! I’ve been there! I have dealt with this issue since the early 2000s and even before that, I was still talking about it. And I understand the way that jews go after you, and how they will try to make you a victim! And whine like a bunch of crybabies, because they don’t like what they heard.

Well now, you’ve got the Simon Wiesenthal, and I would tell the Simon Wiesenthal Center to get the hell out of my country! , because they’re joining in this intensifying, quote, unquote, “dispute” over the country’s past treatment of jews.

Look, if I am Poland, I’m going to bring up every single issue of jewish criminality within my country! I’m not going to hide the history, because I’m trying to protect Poland. I would be raising every single criminal act of the jewish people! Every single treasonous act of the jewish people! And then I would talk about how the jewish people mistreated the Poles and consequently they were treated overly fair under the circumstances.

Why on earth! Really! Why on earth should people continue to remain on the defensive in the face of an adversary who has no defense when you attack them with logic and reason? Let them! Seriously! Let the jewish people whine like a bunch of crybabies! Who cares? Keep raising the facts about their criminality! About their sadism! About their cannibalism! Whatever the case may be. Now there’s a couple of quotes here.

[33:41]

Rabbi, well it’s not a quote really, but Rabbi Marvin Hier. He’s the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal, … he’s the founder and the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He cited, again get this, declassified US intelligence report, released by the organization this week that counters the Polish narrative. Nobody cares about fabricated US intel reports! Look! US intelligence, as an intelligence agency, is so fricken stupid, they sold the world on an idea of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction! They have no credibility folks!

The US intelligence community is so, is so incompetent, they can’t even solve something as obvious as 9/11! Look, we’re not interested in jews bringing out some type of document about, quote, unquote, “anti-Semitism”! They’re trying to claim that there was a thirty-three page document from 1946 describing widespread anti-Semitism in Poland, after liberation from the Nazi occupied, or the German occupation.

It states that some jews “fearing for their lives”, well who cares whether they were fearing for their lives! That’s not our business! If they want to fear for their lives, hell they fear for their lives now, when somebody says “Oy Vey” to them in the wrong tone! So who cares that these guys “fear for their lives”! How stupid do people have to be to keep reading and actually responding to this crap! Says that they:

“Sought refuge in camps for displaced people in the US zone in Germany, rather than staying.”

Yes, because the people who were coming behind were also jewish and they were some of the most sadistic, disgustingly evil people, that has ever graced planet Earth! But jews don’t want to talk about that do they! They want to hide behind their little facade of whining victimhood! Don’t they? Now, they go out there:

“What made us released documents were comments by Polish officials that there were bad Poles, just like there were a few bad jews”

Well no, there were a lot of bad jews! Jews were probably the most sinister, evil component of World War Two! And that is the part of the history that has never ever been sold, told, or acknowledged! And I think it’s time that jewish people start to acknowledge the fact that they were exceedingly evil during World War Two. They were guilty of war crimes during World War Two! They were promoting mass genocide during World War Two! They actually enacted mass genocide during World War Two! And it’s time that the jewish people start to acknowledge these crimes, and start to pay back everything they have taken from the West!

[36:42]

There’s no reason why governments in the West should continue to kowtow to this classless “group think” strategy used by the jewish people here.

They’re talking here, Jasinsacken. He’s an aide to the prime minister. He insisted, Friday, yesterday, that:

“The dispute is a misunderstanding. And that anti-Semitism exists across Europe.”

Well again, anti-Semitism should exist across Europe! If it doesn’t exist, it means that Europeans are being idiots! , because the jewish people have made it very clear to everybody that it is their intent, their motive, and their motivation, to destroy European civilization! Well, if you’re not against these people, then you’ve got something wrong with you! You need to be against the jewish people. And no amount of “anti-Semitism” as they like to call it, or anti-jew sentiment, is unjustified here! No amount! It’s all justified!

[37:49]

Folks, they are not good people! They lie, they gaslight! They do whatever they can to gain a moral advantage over the people. It says here, Hier, whose parents emigrated from Poland in the twenties, said “neither he, nor his organization is anti-Polish.” No! It’s purely jewish! Which means that if it is, quote, unquote, “jewish” and it happens to be against Poland, then they don’t have a problem with that. So again, if you are Polish and your policies happen to be against the jewish people here, hey, just leave it. It’s not anti-Semitic! Hey, were just we’re just doing our thing, man! And it’s in our interests, and hey, we don’t give a crap what you jews think anymore! That’s how it has to be. And if you don’t like it, you are a foreign element by your own definition, get the heck out of our countries!

That’s what we created Israel for! That’s what the US [Europeans] lost a hundred million people for, so that the Israelis, the jewish maniacs that run this planet, pretty much, in the West, have a place to go to.

So it says here:

“Of course, there were no Polish death camps. But any scholar tell you, that the problem of anti-Semitism in Poland had nothing to do with communism.”

Are you kidding me! Are these jews that much friggin pathetic that they got to lie to our faces like that! Everybody in the West at that time understood the pure evil of jews and their communist ideologies! It was very well-known. Everybody knew about it. So, how does Hier, some classless clown, get off gaslighting us by trying to tell us the opposite is actually true?

You see what I mean? It’s like a never-ending parade of lying to us! Straight to our face! In a form of intellectual violence, and they never, ever, even blink, about the way in which they go about lying to us.

Poland, … This guy says here. He says:

“Poland would go really far by saying ‘We didn’t murder jews, but we have to acknowledge that anti-Semitism was a serious problem in Poland.’”

Well, you know, what, it’s time for jews to admit that:

Look! You weren’t murdered in a bunch of Death Camps, so stop playing the game! And the justification for the anti-jewish sentiment in Europe was not only valid, but a necessary part of the society of that day! And that it was absolutely critical for people to hold anti-jewish sentiments, because jews were such a criminal force within these countries, within which they were staying!

It’s time for jews to start literally acknowledging their crimes, acknowledging the fact that they are anti Western! Acknowledging the fact that they are not patriotic to their people! That is absolutely what must start to happen! It’s not a one way street here, folks.

[40:50]

People should start demanding of jews, you should absolutely acknowledge all of your crimes! And you should come up with ways to compensate all of those who were victims of jewish crimes in the last century! And while we are at, it let’s talk about the Iraqis today, the American servicemen and their families, who have lost their loved ones, because of who knows what, that’s killed off [killed, or injured] half a million American servicemen since the Gulf War. Folks, all of this goes on!

We must recognize jewish terror! We must recognize that Auschwitz, Birkenau, and all of these camps were not, quote, unquote, “death camps”. They were labor camps. They were providing a safe haven for jews to hide out the war, while everybody else was dying all around them. They were swimming in swimming pools, they were working. Yeah, well I know jews, that’s a crime to make a jew work. I know that. You know, their fingernail might have broken, they are not a working class. They could never survive, if they cannot parasite seemingly over everybody else.

But look, there were no death camps, folks! And none of this is real, and really it is becoming high time that jewish people start to absolutely recognize this! I don’t want to see a wall of jews sitting out there like mug shots, showing, “look at me, were all criminals, we were all criminals and we deserve to be here.” It’s time for jews to start showing the pictures of the tens of millions of people they went out of their way and executed, murdered, etc., within our lands.

Folks we were, as Europeans, over thirty-three percent of the world’s population in the 1930s. Now, Europeans are less than ten percent. If you don’t figure out that there is an absolute campaign against Europeans to prevent births, to prevent population growth, to stifle growth, to destroy growth, and even to destroy life itself, as we’re witnessing through this mass immigration scam, ongoing in the West, then you are just really not paying attention anymore.

[43:16]

Hi everybody. Welcome back. It’s the Fetch, Inside the Eye Live. Intelligent media for the politically aware. I believe she’s now live, joining us from somewhere in the UK, Alison Chabloz. She became kind of famous by being charged with a private crime of promoting something, or other, that jews didn’t like. And I’m not exactly sure what this case is really all about, because it’s all a lot of nonsense to me!

None the less, she’s here to join us. Alison Chabloz! Welcome back!

Alison: Thank you Dennis, it’s a great pleasure to be back again.

Fetch: Yeah. I mean, you know, what I don’t like to over use my guests, you know. [Alison laughing]

I’m not, you know, and people like to listen to me, so what can I do, you know? They say Fetch don’t bring on too many guests, we want to hear you talk. [Alison laughing]

Alison: Your very good at that!

Fetch: You listen to the show, from time to time, don’t you?

Alison: Yes I do, yes I do! You’re great! You’re a wonderful radio broadcaster. Really.

Your audience should be a lot bigger.

Fetch: You know, what, I think we’re being throttled. But, you know, what the heck, you know, we’re doing the best we can, and you know, what it’s like. Real quick. You were on the show a year, or so ago, and the issue was then, you were just, I think, going to trial. Was that the case when you?

Alison: No, you interviewed me, because I was banned from Twitter. That was, I mean, I’ve been going through problems, you know, I’d lost my job and the police were investigating some unwanted deliveries sent to my home address. And I think that investigation by then it being closed. But we spoke, the issue which led to you inviting me on was that I lost my Twitter account. And I think several of us at the same time had also lost theirs. So you kept a thread of that going, having me on. But that the funny thing is, that was obviously on a Saturday, it must have been the eleventh, or twelfth of November 2016, and the next day, there was a knock on the door, the next evening, and I was arrested! And that’s when my legal problems began.

Fetch: Now, just so people who aren’t familiar, a lot of people are, because we kind of talk about your case from time to time. But really there is a non-government NGO called the, I think the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.

Alison: Yes.

Fetch: Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, I believe it is.

Alison: Yes, a charity.

Fetch: Well, it’s a NGO. Charity, NGO, the same thing. We believe it’s funded by Israel. We can’t really say that from a fact. But we believe it’s really an Israeli front, that I think, targets really a lot of the BDS people that are trying to raise awareness about BDS and sanctioning Israel. Is that kind of true about these guys, from your understanding?

[46:23]

Alison: Yeah absolutely! And I think their objective, regarding people like me, another activist was one of their targets. Jez Turner, who you have also spoken to, I think, and had as a guest. And it’s that they want to bring about a legal precedent, which basically acts as a “Holocaust” denial law, as there is in Germany, France, etc. So that’s also there.

As well as going for the BDS, as well as, you know, trying to outlaw these boycotts of Israeli goods, etc., and to prevent the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement.

They also are, I think, tasked with trying to bring about a legal precedent via, mine is a test case for the moment. Jez Turners slightly different. He’s been charged under a different Act than me. But they’re going for me under the “Communications Act” to try and say that “Holocaust” denial, Revisionism, is grossly offensive. That’s how they’re trying to do it.

Fetch: What I don’t understand, and I follow some jewish logic, you hear my thing “jewish logic” which is as illogical as it gets. You have to call it “jewish logic”. And they talk about “slandering in the memory of millions”. I mean, have we reached peak stupidity within the jewish community, that they actually continue to sell that? And isn’t it about time that we the people, start to push back against this type of level of idiocy from the jewish community?

Alison: Yeah!

Fetch: What do they mean by “slandering in the memory of millions”? What a stupid thing is that! You’re going to make that a criminal offense? I mean, what type of bizarre world the jews live in where they believe this type of tyranny is even acceptable?

[48:21]

Alison: There’s so much at stake, isn’t there, with the official narrative. And the mainstream, you can forget the mainstream. They’re still pumping out the weekly press releases from the Auschwitz museum. You know, they found such and such a carving, you know, by a prisoner who suffered, and six million jews died in the gas chambers! They are still pumping it out. And I think there is a push back, but we have been corralled. And hence the draconian censorship of social media, not only Twitter, but now Google in YouTube.

Since September last year, my YouTube channel has been banned in the UK!

“This channel is no longer available. Please click here to unsubscribe.”

Can you believe that? But my channel is available in Ireland. It’s certainly available in Jordan, in Egypt, in Denmark. But my own channel with my own work on it, is not available in my own country! So desperate they are to silence me, and limit my reach. And that all began with another tweet on Twitter.

Fetch: Like you and I, mean, we are good at what we do, but our reaches is measurable. It’s not like were like some massive reach. We don’t have that, but I think perhaps, Alison, what they’re afraid of with you, and not so much me. They honestly don’t go after me too much, I don’t know why anymore. I’m starting to feel bad. It’s like maybe I’m doing something wrong. [laughing]

They just don’t bother me anymore. Like why? [chuckling] I don’t know if you heard last week, by the way, Twitter was investigating a lot of my tweets. That were raised about some of my anti-jewish rhetoric. And they came back and said we found nothing wrong people. Keep going.

What’s wrong with you guys? [laughing]

[50:21]

Alison: I mean, that is what they do all day is complain! They have the money to pay teams of dedicated flaggers! I’m sure the people who are clicking “Report” don’t even read, or watch the videos being flagged. They will be in groups, in messaging groups, etc., and there will be an order given “Report this video. Here is the link.” and they will just open the link and click “Report” without even bothering to watch the content. Richie Allen had his entire YouTube channel closed down! Now, I can consider myself lucky, my channel at least still exists!

Fetch: Yeah. And YouTube quite frankly, it’s not just regarding, I understand these jewish issues, they’re doing a lot of just nondescript, from UFOs, to body language. People done body language analysis of leading elites. They’re going out there and they’re hammering, going after everybody that doesn’t fit a very narrow definition. And you have to wonder, at some time, where’s the push-back going to come? Even from investors, you know, it’s got to be hurting the shares, in the stocks, by cutting views, cutting their advertising, etc., In other words there is more going on here and I think we’re just going to, obviously, let it play out. We have no choice, you know, we’re just going to see where it goes. But I think people really need to push back, we keep pushing for that.

Just want to cover a few more things, then we will go onto your trial here, coming up soon. But, you know, I look at some of the stuff that you used to tweet. And you used to tweet under your musical account, I believe, at one time, or yourself also.

But you would just say things like:

“It’s now widely accepted that most camp inmates died of typhus.”

That is such an innocuous statement. Yet, jews are putting this out there to be some massively evidence of denial and hatred! It’s like, what is wrong with the jewish community right now?

Alison: The jews and the liberals, the liberals as well. I had notification earlier today — there’s a group, I sometimes attend, there’s a group in London called the “Keep Talking Group”. And it’s just a discussion group. They began with talking about 9/11, and it’s moved on to other subjects. But the main Anti-fa, a Labour party front, but also a Zionist front. And it’s called “Hope Not Hate”, and they’ve managed to cancel this group! And it’s full of senior citizens! And there’s no way that any of these people are going to be, going to be creating any trouble for anybody. All they want to do is have a venue where they can invite interested people to go and discuss issues. And they’ll have a speaker who will talk on various topics.

And the excuse this time, is that they had Nick Kollerstrom, who once said that there was a swimming pool at Auschwitz. And I’ve also tweeted about that, and that too, even tweeting about soap and lampshades! Even tweeting about soap and lampshades, or singing about soap and lampshades, as the case of one of my songs which is subject to charges! That is considered to be anti-Semitic and a slander of the memory of the supposed six million.

Fetch: I hear you, but the point is, but so what?

Alison: Yes, exactly!

Fetch: You have the right to be anti-semitic.

Alison: Yes!

Fetch: Jews have a right to be anti-White and they show it every day!

Alison: They do!

Fetch: It’s like what is it about the jewish people, the insanity going on where they believe they are above any and all criticism, even when they’re rightly deserving of this criticism.

Alison: Yes, yes. It’s a whole industry, isn’t it?

Fetch: Now this all started back in 2015 with your famous quenelle salute.

Alison: Well, that was the first time my name hit the press. Prior to that, I’d lost at last one contract in Germany. I had been working for a cruise company. But yes, that’s when my name hit the headlines, with my quenelle salute, at the Edinburgh Festival. When my accusers didn’t want my show to go ahead, but the Edinburgh Fringe at that point said:

“Oh, we are the Edinburgh Fringe and she has the right to her freedom of expression. Therefore she can continue.”

The organizers had very kindly informed me of these letters trying to get my show banned. That was my response, I just tweeted a photograph of myself on Twitter with a nice quenelle.

Fetch: Now at the end of the day, come on! This is a silly picture and they make this out to be like the second coming of Joseph Stalin, or something! [Alison laughs] what do they mean by it. It’s like a silly little pose, at the end of the day!

Alison: Yes, yes.

Fetch: I mean, silly little pose at the end of the day! It’s just a pose! And they make it be this massive symbolic thing that’s worthy of going after and destroying people! They have to just, really, again! What is wrong with the jewish community, right now?

Alison: One of the top jews in France, Ala Yakubawitz, is his name, he said that the quenelle was symbolic of the sodomization of the victims of the Shoah! [laughing]

Fetch: Well, that’s a heck of a vivid imagination there! [Alison laughing like hell]

I would have to dig deep to come up with that imagery and put that on the air.

Alison: And then you have the double standards, you know, you have the French, this is in the case of the French political activist Alan Savale, is his name, going to the Berlin “Holocaust” memorial, you know, this horrible and ugly, slabs of concrete stones.

Fetch: An abomination!

Alison: Yes. And he made a quenelle salute in there. And he’s been fined so far about 30,000 euros for defaming the memory of the victims of the Shoah. But you get Israelis going there, so-called BDS Israelis going there, and doing even more obscene things. Which I won’t go into here. But not being subjected to any consequences, at all! So there’s this double standards, as well, in the way that certain figures are attacked, whereas others seem to be able to cause gross offense with impunity!

Fetch: Again, “gross offense” is so innocuous, it doesn’t mean anything. At the end of the day, unless it’s “jewish logic” from logic, it doesn’t mean anything. I don’t know how we are allowing as a people, to allow this stupidity to prosper within our country! What does this even mean?

[57:29]

Alison: I think that the shoah and the memory of the shoah that’s pumped, continually pumped, at us by the media, and these memorial days, and the ever increasing “Holocaust” memorial sites around the world. Museums. There’s a new one going to be built in London, right next to our Houses of Parliament!

You know, that’s the way they can start indoctrinated children at an early age with school trips, etc., When I was at school we didn’t go and visit Auschwitz. But I think it’s a pretty much par for the course now. You know, you get to these cheap flights. Day flights in and out of Poland and the children are taken around Auschwitz! And the “Holocaust” education begins in primary school now! It’s not just high school! It begins at an early age!

Fetch: They have that in America too.

Alison: Yeah, they use this myth, they use this myth, which is the foundation myth of the world we are living in and today, to create these liberal, good, democratic citizens.

“Oh racism! We can’t be having any racism”, “we know what leads to racism! It begins with name calling, and leads straight to the gas chambers at Auschwitz!”

So you can’t be racist! And you’ve got to remember the victims of the shoah. So it’s not only used to fortify the jewish angle of things, that jews are above criticism., but it’s also used to reinforce globalism and the globalist agenda of creating the world of endless tyranny and slavery for us all.

Fetch: Have you been in touch with anybody from the Monika Schaefer camp?

Alison: Yes, yes.

Fetch: Do, you know, what’s going on with case?

Alison: Well, I think she’s in good spirits.

Fetch: Is she still in jail?

Alison: Yes, she’s still in jail. She’s still awaiting trial now. I think that they can only keep her for six months.

Fetch: Only?

Alison: If there’s no reason to bring her to trial, … Yes, only! If there’s no reason to bring her to trial at that point, then I think that they are obliged to release her. I mean, she’s kept up, she’s held on remand as a flight risk, because she’s not a German citizen.

Obviously she’s of German origin, and she speaks the language. Imagine if you were in a German prison and you didn’t speak the language! And it must be the case with Middle Easterners, etc., But for an educated Western woman, who’s absolutely delightful and charming. But she’s in good spirits.

I’ve heard that she’s in a cell with three other German, well three other ladies. Three other women, not sure of their nationality, could be anything [one was White and the other two, Nigerians]. And she’s keeping fit. She can paint, and draw. She certainly in good spirits, and she’s certainly not having her spirit broken by this. And I think Alfred, her brother, is right in saying that this will further increase public awareness and be in our favor. They always go too far. And this isn’t just one more example of how they do that. Shooting themselves in their own foot. For a video where she apologizes to her own mother! There’s absolutely nothing hateful about this! Nothing!

[61:00]

Fetch: Just apologizing to your mother!

Alison: Yes!

Fetch: It’s like, I’ll be honest it’s like, I’ve given up trying to figure out what motivates those people.

Alison: Well, even the lawyers admit, you know, the truth is no defense! They know but the system is just so corrupt! So utterly corrupt! That even the top judges in Germany have said this, with the Horst Mahler case, in particular, this law is an ass!

Fetch: Yes, it’s an embarrassment to the German people, which are a proud people. They’re allowing themselves to be made fools of, quite frankly. In the public eyes, global eyes here, because how can you guys be that stupid? You’re proud people! And here we look at you prosecuting things in a way that truly makes you look like a laughingstock and a blight upon Western civilization! And that’s a sad situation.

[61:56]

Alison: Yes. I would like to see some big public outcry over this. There’s also this young Palestinian teenager who slapped a soldier, Ahed Tamine, who is now in prison in an Israeli jail.

Fetch: I think they have taken out fifteen of her family members last week.

Alison: This girl she slapped a soldier in an illegally military occupied zone, and they banged her up! And, of course, there’s no question that’s unjustifiable!

Fetch: You know, they shot her cousin in the head. Did you know, that?

Alison: Yeah, yes!

Fetch: But then, you know, what the story was? “Oh, he fell off his bike!”

Like you guys have become a level of evil I just can’t get my mind around.

Alison: They are evil, they are truly evil!

You know, there’s a Muslim human rights organization, Islamic, you know, the name’s “Inmines”. And they organized, it was a great “guerilla projection” they called it. A great initiative. They projected, they used a projector and they beamed onto the facade of the Houses of Parliament in London, great photographs “Free Ahmed Tamimi” and they did this group guerilla presentation. Of course, the press completely ignored it. But there were lots of people there, and they took photos. And I think we should do something similar.

Fetch: Do you find that the Palestinian advocate segment of the culture is actually much more affective than we are ourselves, in combating the issue relative to Israel and human rights?

Alison: Well I think this particular initiative impressed me! I thought yes, you know, why aren’t we doing the same for our own political prisoners? A young man, twenty-two, twenty-three years old, who said something unwise on social media, and has been locked up for two, or three years of their lives! Of their young lives, in the prime of their youth!

Why aren’t we coming together and organizing for these political prisoners? Yes! I think the Palestinian movement does do good work, but they need to be more vocal. I mean, I and others, and Gilad Atzmon, we think that, you know, a lot of the pro-Palestinian organizations have been taken over by jews! And these people who claim to be anti-Zionists, are, in fact, still Zionists! And still “Oh yes, Israel, blah, blah, blah, and the Holocaust”.

So yes, I think there is a possibility for us to join together and talk about racial issues, talk about national nationalist issues. But for the moment I think we have to concentrate on our own people and our Western governments. And opposing this tyranny.

[64:58]

Fetch: When I first met Graham Hart, he was really pro-Palestinian — he’s listens to this, so Graham don’t shoot me — but he was very pro Palestinian when I first met. I told him exactly what you said there. No, I think we need to spend more time on our own issues, and what is Palestine is Palestine. We have enough of our own issues to worry about. To just always “Palestine”!

Alison: We are all Palestinians now! We are all in “occupied territories” here in the West! Britain is occupied! Germany is occupied! France is occupied!

Fetch: Right.

Alison: The States they still have the First Amendment, but they’re going after that.

Fetch: Alison, what have you learned, really? , because you’re kind of late to this, but you’re also obviously having a court case brought against you, makes you become very focused, very fast. But what have you learned over the last few years now? From the time when you were just doing it, like most of us, doing our thing out there, not really paying attention. To now being in the spotlight and having to confront this power that a lot of people want to try to deny even exists. What have you learned about this? This Israeli infiltration of our nations and the type of tactics they use. What have you learned?

[66:23]

Are you there? What a great question, and she disappeared off the radar screen.

Fetch: Alt-Right everybody, welcome back. It’s a Fetch Inside the Eye Live. Intelligent media for the politically aware. A lot of funny things happening with Skype. Not sure exactly what’s happened to Alison. Are you still on the air?

Alison: Yes, yes. Did we get cut you off?

Fetch: Yeah. Here’s what’s happened, your contact has disconnected from my network, which means you would have to re-approve my contact request for you to actually communicate through IM, but I’m glad to hear you’re still on the air, so that’s a great thing.

Come on man, Skype, who know people I’m not a conspiracy guy about this stuff, you know, computers do wacky things. Before we went in the break I was asking a quick question. You were never into the nationalist side of things, you are an entertainer, you were doing your gigs, you’re on your cruises, pretty much minding your own business. Is that kind of a fair statement?

Alison: Yes, yes.

Fetch: And then all the sudden you find yourself being targeted for unknown reasons, obvious you have to look into why. You start to understand why. But now that you have a court case being brought against you, which is a very serious issue in any situation. What have you learned about this power structure that target citizens in our nations, that’s really a foreign power? What have you learned that you might share with some of the audience, about this power structure?

Alison: Well, they have the means, immeasurable fundamental ng to be able to carry out what they do. Do what they do.

Before I got cut off, I was realizing that I was cut off, I was saying that, … I’ve learned that everything I learned growing up was a child, … my grandfather was a soldier in the British Army and he was killed aged 23 in 1940. And I think he was, you know, like many of the others, thinking that they were going to war — propagandized by the powers that be — into fighting for the glory of this country!

And that if he knew, if he’d survived and became aware of the fact that, no, he was, in fact, fighting for the establishment of the Cudenhove Kalergi Plan, and the foundation of the Greater Israel, then I think he would have had remorse about going in there and fighting these brothers wars! I always learned:

“Oh, your grandfather sacrifice was to ensure that we can enjoy the liberties of Western civilization!”

But it’s just not true! Western civilization, yes it’s supposed to be founded on open debate, honesty, honour, duty, these pillars of Western civilization. But it’s just not true! And it was learning about the plight of people like Horst Mahler, Ursula Haverbeck, Sylvia Stolz, now Monika Schaefer, of course, Professor Faurisson in France. That these people are being silenced via legal means! And it’s not just the intimidation. Many of them have also suffered. The professor’s been beaten up ten times by people who are connected with the militant jewish organizations, Defense League type organizations. But they’re also using the law. They are also able to buy our corrupt, vain, greedy politicians to the extent where these politicians basically betray their own country and their own people!

[70:14]

Fetch: When you hear a lot of the arguments brought against you, you know, and they’re the same thing we’ve all received over time. But they talk about how this idea of diversity, diversity, diversity! And being tolerant of others. But I think what we’re now learning and people are grasping, is that these people aren’t tolerant to even one ounce of a pound, or a quarter of an inch! These guys have zero tolerance for anybody but their own views, don’t they?

Alison: Yes! And that’s the double standards Dennis! I was looking around the other day. I thought okay, well, you know, there are saying that my songs, for the listeners, I’m on trial for three songs that I uploaded to the internet. My own compositions. And two of these songs I take jewish melodies, which are parodies and, of course, I change the words, I wouldn’t sing in Hebrew, no thank you!

But I looked on the internet for parodies of Christmas carols. Not your Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer, I’m talking about religious Christian, Christmas carol music. And I found an American acapella act going by the name of “Paint” and it’s progressive Christmas carols. And it’s the usual stuff, you know, some of it might be okay. I didn’t find it particularly funny, but at one point, they imply, quite specifically, that Jesus was gay! Now, I find that quite offensive, to be honest.

Fetch: I’m not even, …

Alison: If a legal precedent is set with my case, then will it be possible for devout Christians to also cite this section one twenty-seven of the Communications Act for causing gross offense for things like this?

Fetch: I think the British people should en masse go after every single jewish person for this! You know, you make it a nightmare for the jewish people, because that’s what they’re looking to do. So okay, once they put it in motion, use it against them, because that’s the fastest way they will appeal it.

Alison: [laughing] Yes! You know, using jewish tunes, my goodness! What a crime! We have a stabbing every day in London, every day somebody is killed via stabbing!

And the drug dealing! And the theft! And not to mention all the terror plots, this, that and the other. Goodness me, going after a singer, really what, … [laughing]

My grandfather, to think that he was fighting for that? So that singers could be brought to trial for their parodies of jewish tunes! Did he think that he was fighting so that gay couples can adopt children? That’s the Jonathan Bowden quote, by the way, that is not come from me. But I really don’t think that the people who fought in the Second World War if they could see what’s happening today see that they would be impressed at all! And they wouldn’t consider that they won!

[73:25]

Fetch: How long has your trial been going on, from the time they, it went from a private prosecution, which is absurd, to a public prosecution. How long have you been now dealing with this headache?

Alison: Well I’ve been dealing with it since we last spoke! So that’s fifteen months, going on sixteen months!

Fetch: It’s that long, since you were here!

Alison: Eight, or nine court hearing for a summary, it’s a summary offense, under the communications Act for “sending”. There’s also this, you know, what did I “send”? I didn’t “send” my music to these individuals who are complaining! I simply posted a link uploaded to YouTube. They went and sought out these links themselves! There’s even one of the songs that’s been sand-boxed on YouTube.

They were all played in court last month, and the first day of my trial, which was very bizarre. And the sand-boxing “Are you sure you want to continue to watch this video” well, they know it’s me, you know. Why are they clicking on this song? Clearly it’s, because they want me locked up! They want me clamped in irons, Dennis! And made an example of!

Fetch: Did you have a lot of chuckles when they played it in the courtroom?

Alison: Yes! Yes, it was quite surreal for me to be sitting there in the dock.

Fetch: Now, just to set the record straight. You did not sing your song in the dock?

Alison: No! No I did not!

Fetch: So the Daily Mail and all these mainstream publications are just lying through their teeth?

Alison: They lie! They lied in unison! It was quite an experience! These songs are my babies, Dennis, you know, they have, they are part of me. They come from me! So to see my performances that I’ve not been allowed to share, or promote over the past eighteen months. I’ve been gagged on bail. I can’t share them.

To see these songs being played in court, especially the two videos from the London Forum, which was in front of a live audience, who were all cheering and laughing and clapping at the end. It was quite surreal! Quite something! Yes, the public gallery, they applauded after the first song was played. But the judge told them off! That they shouldn’t be doing that again.

Fetch: A lot of people may think that this is really personnel wise, a really big thing, right? But the truth of the matter is, this is just a couple of good, to me, okay? I can’t speak for you, but for me as an outside observer, a couple jewish thugs, basically. Trollish thugs, who have been empowered with the money to go after somebody. They decided you were one they were going to go after. And that’s it! There’s no other real issue here, is there? It’s just two of these thugs making a complaint! And again, that is not you speaking, that’s me as an outside observer looking at what’s going on. You’ve got the presiding district Judge, John Zane, is he still there?

Alison: Yes, yes, yes.

Fetch: No jury. Karen Robinson, she’s your prosecuting counsel. Adrian Davies is with you, correct?

Alison: Yes, yes.

Fetch: Then you’ve get Giddeon Falter the chairman of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and Stephen Silverman, who’s the director of quote, unquote, “Investigations and Enforcement”! What a stupid thing that sounds like! And, well, who is he to enforce anything?

Alison: Exactly!

Fetch: You know, I mean, who’s he to be enforcing anything? This is almost like, dude! You know, in America maybe, you know, I don’t want to say, but my goodness! You come at people like that in America, they may not be tolerant of you!

[77:11]

Alison: Well, one of my theories, you know, music is a powerful tool, a powerful language. And I think, someone said to me:

“Your songs are doing more than any textbook that’s ever been written on the subject.”

Because it is a heavy subject, the “Holocaust”. And yes, it might well offend certain sensibilities, but that’s subjective. It’s on their part. Lots of things offend me! I don’t have friends high up in the House of Commons, or in the police to go and complain constantly and whine about these things. And life’s too short, you know!

Fetch: Offence is nothing! It’s subjective. I’m offended that this guy actually believes that he should be in charge of “investigations and enforcement” against a private individual! I’m offended by that! Should he be in trial? Absolutely then! , because he’s going after the rights of the British people.

Alison: Yes!

Fetch: That’s highly offensive! And people should treat him in this way.

Alison: Well, I think they have lost credibility, not only among the public at large, and among the politicians, and the police, etc., But among the jewish community. That’s how it seems to me.

Fetch: And it should be!

Alison: The clever jews know that, you know, that they’ve, … my lawyer said under cross-examination of these two witnesses, that:

“If you’d have left her alone she’d have been with her handful of followers, doing her thing. Nobody would have heard more. But you have created this publicity around her by bringing this prosecution! You made her into a minor celebrity!”

And it’s true. Now, I think they’re trying to retract. They complained to police about “Survivors” [song] the day that I uploaded it to the Internet! They reported me to police!

Fetch: Isn’t them telling the police, they’re obsessing over you?

Alison: I think so. But they applied so much pressure. The poor Police and Crime Commissioner, he had three letters a week from the Silverman, trying to get me locked up, which they didn’t manage. They did eventually manage to get me locked up for two days last October, for this other song that I’m now charged with it.

I don’t know, perhaps they were also afraid of my influence, because I’m a fluent French speaker and they and, of course, the revisionism movement pretty much began in France with the work of Professor Faurrison. They knew that I was in contact with him. They considered him to me to be somebody specifically dangerous for their “foundation myth” of the shoah. Which is, you know, the religion of today, that one is not allowed to commit sacrilege, or heresy against these ridiculous lies. And it’s not as if my songs attack that particularly, they attack the lies of those survivors who have been debunked as such!

Fetch: This is very true.

Alison: But it’s fine for others, for liberals, to go out there and denigrate our Christian heritage, Christmas carols, our sacred music, and have millions of views on YouTube. Not get sand-boxed, be able to monetize their work. Yet we are not allowed to do that. So yes, they can become quite crucify us, but they can try their best to crucify us socially and professionally speaking!

Fetch: Well, of course, they have done that, but at the same time, I mean, this is going to happen. If not you, somebody else, unfortunately.

Alison: Yes.

Fetch: So it’s just a matter of people taking a stand, which to your credit you have taken this stand. I can’t stand when people apologize!

Alison: Oh no! Oh no, I won’t be making any groveling apology! And I don’t really need to. I don’t have any assets, such as to speak of but they will go to any lengths. They will continue, whatever happens on Wednesday.

Fetch: Last time we had thirty some odd, according to a caller from Scotland, who came down to support you. We’d like it more. I know Graham Hart has made a big robust statement out there. I told him that’s a little bit much, but we’d still like to get a lot of people. How do people get to this, … well first of all, let’s go back to the first day. The first trial was what? The prosecution presenting it’s case about a month, or so ago?

Alison: Yes.

Fetch: What was interesting about that, or can you talk about that? What was interesting about the way the case was presented by them?

[82:08]

Alison: There’s been a couple of interesting articles one was written by Dr Kollestrom again, Nick Kollestrom, which was published on the Occidental Observer and on the Unz Review. And that the prosecution doesn’t really have any evidence to prove one, that I broke any laws, because there’s still this “sending” issue. The “sending”, well is posting a link to the Internet, can that be construed as “sending” under this particular law? And secondly, neither of the prosecution witnesses really had any evidence to prove that I offended anybody, except them!

They talked about Irene Zisblatt, for example, and the chief witness Gideon Faulter, admitting that he had not even read this woman’s book! [The Fifth Diamond] So he’s trying to defend somebody, but he’s not even bothered to read her book!

It was quite amazing I have to say. Just sit there and listen to, they were reading from a script.

Fetch: At the end of the day, they are trolls and clowns! Let’s be honest. You’re not very, … they went after me, by the way, after you came on my show.

Alison: Yes.

Fetch: They did! They went after me, and I made some complaints to my circles and said:

“Hey, you need to, you better back off dude! Because, you know, it’s not just you running this world.”

And so they disappeared. They didn’t challenge it to beyond about thirty hours.

Alison: Yes. Well they want a law here. They know they’re never going to have a chance to have a similar rule in Jordan. But they will, that’s what they want here in the UK, you see. They’re not bothered about somebody singing quote “anti-Semitic” unquote songs anywhere else. They want to set a precedent here, in the UK. That is their, … and yeah the trolling, this guy.

Fetch: They are trolling, they are trolling right?

Alison: That was the most interesting thing as well, the most significant thing I think, of my trial in January, was this Nemo guy, “Sekara72” who was the one who had me banned from Twitter. But later on it was found out that it wasn’t he who had me banned, it was the Community Security Trust, which is the main jewish NGO in the UK. They admit on their own website, they admitted on Twitter that they worked to have me removed from Twitter! So it’s not as if I’ve broken any Twitter rules. This is the Community Security Trust.

Fetch: That’s an important sounding name.

Alison: Yes, they’re a long running body that supposed to, …

Fetch: Basically, the main jewish NGO there, has admitted to targetting British citizens?

Alison: Yeah! Yeah! Not me, I’m not the only one in this case.

Fetch: They are targetting British citizens. That’s it.

Alison: Yes!

Fetch: Targetting! Admitted to targetting British citizens.

Alison: Yes! Yes! Hasbara trolls who get suspended, the same organization will then work to have these hasbara trolls unsuspended from Twitter. [laughing] It really is that absurd! And I think that they are panicking. To some to some extent, they are panicking. They know that we are reaching, what’s the term, the point of no return, when our ideas will simply gain strength, while it.

Fetch: Come on! We are everywhere now. The dam has already broken! There’s leaks so far out there now, it’s not even it’s, … I can’t categorize it, quite frankly. If I go into Twitter now, I’m still there thankfully. What happened to Facebook? Were you blocked on Facebook also again?

Alison: Yes! Yes, yes.

Fetch: Well what did you do there?

Alison: For, oh, some fake news post that I’d shared. So yes, that was the day after my trial, so I was unable to share all the wonderful news coverage about me, supposedly singing in the dock.

Fetch: What were some of the great, well, what are some of the positives you’ve taken so far, out of what’s happened?

Alison: Can I just come back to that the significant thing of the trial.

Fetch: Sure, absolutely.

[86:32]

Alison: It ties in. The guy who did get me banned from Twitter, we discovered with the help of a long working, dedicated colleague, that this man is, in fact, a journalist, a freelance writer and film critic, going by the name of Steven Applebaum. And he writes for the jewish Chronicle. He wrote for the jewish Chronicle, an article about my quenelle salute in 2015. And he was the one, along with this Silverman character, who was trolling me, to the point of 500 tweets to me over the space of a few months. He was the one, he was the one, that was trolling me the most.

And one of these songs is about him! At that point his name was “Nemo” on Twitter. And I wrote one of the songs called, “Nemo’s Anti-semitic Universe”. So that will be interesting to hear the cross-examination of me, because that’s what’s going on next Wednesday. Of course, I’m the one that will be in the witness-box, presumably. Anything could happen, and it usually does.

Fetch: Are you going to the stand in your own defense?

Alison: Yes. Yes.

Fetch: It’s great! For people who want to come out and support you. What should they do?

Alison: Well, if they want to come to London, the court is the Westminster Magistrates. Central London Magistrates Court on Marylebone road. And the nearest train station is Marylebone. And there’s a tube there as well. And there’s another one at Edgeware Road, tube station. Good to be there at nine thirty. There’s a little security check before you go in. There will be quite a number of supporters who will be there outside court, waiting already, I presume, I suppose. There may be some media there, so for people who don’t want to be recognized, wear a hat and a pair of sunglasses! I’m not sure what the weather’s going to be like, but thankfully the snow’s melted.

And if people can’t come along, to just have a quick look at my blog. Leave a message there, leave a comment under one of my articles. That is Alison Chabloz dot wordpress dot com. And there’s also links where you can find my Pay Pal, Bit Coin, etcetera., for people who would like to leave a small donation to help me, get by!

Because, you know, that’s the thing. It’s been going on for so long! Will it be all over on Wednesday? I have doubts! Now will the judge reserve his decision and that will mean another month, or six weeks, still on bail. I’m still hoping.

Fetch: How it is this judge? Is he fair, or do you to think he’s really, …

Alison: Well I think so. When the second song was played, the “Anti-Semitic Universe” song. “Nemo’s Anti-semitic Universe”, the last verse, there’s a, it’s very pro-Palestinian. It’s:

“Zionists will flee, everybody will agree, from the river to the sea. Palestine will be Free! Free Palestine!”

And if that isn’t fair comment, I don’t know what it is. But, of course, the Crown witnesses were claiming that was an incitement to genocide all jews! So I think the judge, you know, I can’t really say more than more than that, but he seems to want to be a fair man.

[90:05]

When I was arrested and in court in the beginning of October, I think he was quite upset about that, as well. And the way that I was treated, like a common criminal for having, for singing songs. Yeah, it’s caused quite a lot of uproar. And no, the press has said nothing about this Applebaum character, who was trolling me relentlessly for two years, pretty much. They said nothing about this. It was all “Chabloz was singing in the dock!” There’s no surprise there. There’s no surprise that the press would take this angle, but it will be interesting to see what will happen on Wednesday. Will there be an outcome? And if not, you know, how the press going to spin things this time.

Fetch: How many seats are available inside the court?

Alison: Forty seats perhaps.

Fetch: So that we should know that everybody, and then get a crowd outside to take pictures of the media.

Alison: Yes! [laughing]

Fetch: Really! Take pictures of the media. I recommend it, because they’re the ones promoting this. To make them feel some heat.

Alison: Yes. Get down there! Get down there and show them! Show the authorities! It was a private prosecution! And then that the Crown took over, because that was a request from my team, that the Crown take over the charges. They didn’t take over that original charge. They brought new charges. Similar but different, because, …

Fetch: Why would a country being involving themselves in the stupidity?

Alison: Well I think it’s lobbying isn’t it? And the donations to political parties in this case, Theresa May, just a few weeks, or a couple of weeks before I was in court the first time, that was at the end of 2016, December 2016. The government “adopted”. Adopted — why they didn’t legislate — they adopted this international definition of “anti-semitism”. This awful definition which says, oh! :

“We can’t have ‘Holocaust’ denial on any media platform.”

You know, we are silenced, we are corralled, but with the Internet they are limited to the extent that, … and who believes the mainstream media? Who believes what they say? And who believes what government says?

Fetch: I tell you what, governments are putting themselves in the position what they look really childish! Seriously! This is the most childish display and abuse of power that I’ve seen in a long time. You’re a singer at the end of the day, Alison! You’re nothing! I don’t see you’re nothing, but in the realm of criminality, this is about as nothing as it gets! [Alison laughs] And what are you doing bringing charges like this for?

Alison: And this is the Conservative Party under Theresa May, and yes, eighty percent of the conservative members of parliament are “friends of Israel”. But it’s the same with the Labor Party! So even if May gets chucked out, it will still be the same with under the Labor party! We really need complete change.

Fetch: We’re out of time. Sorry to part with you Alison.

Alison: Thanks very much Dennis.

Fetch: All right everybody, we will get that out and get your web sites out. It’s Alison Chabloz everybody! Again get out to the Westminster courthouse on Wednesday the 7th [of March].

[94:02]

All right everybody, welcome back. It’s the Fetch, Inside the Eye Live. Intelligent media for the politically aware. Today’s March the 3rd, 2018. I want to thank Alison Chabloz for making an hour available to us. You know, she’s got the court case again coming up. She’ll be on the witness stand. Should be a very interesting time. So guys, everybody get out there that’s listening in the UK! Again this isn’t just about Alison. This is really about the thug, and again, this is my observation, because I know this will get back to certain people, so we’re going to phrase it in a very clear way. This is about, from clear observable observation, from a basic human perception, a couple of thugs, who wear a yarmulke, decided to go after and target somebody that, for whatever reason they don’t like. And if this isn’t tantamount to an exceedingly, oh, let’s call it an ostentatious display, how’s that for flowery words for you? But an exceedingly ostentatious display of bullying by people within the jewish community! I really don’t know what is. I mean, that’s exactly what was happening here.

Can you imagine, … I can feel for Alison, because I was trolled by some of the meanest, nastiest trolls that ever graced this planet! For years and years! So I can relate to some moron in the jewish community trolling me for five, six, just on, and on, and on, and on. I can get it! And you have to understand that when, and we don’t advocate trolling here. We think it’s a disgusting display of human interaction here. So we don’t really, we don’t condone it, by any stretch. You make your points, you get out! Make your points, get out! Not this constant droning of idiocy that is this troll world. Look, make your points, get out! Make your points, get out! But when you’re subjected to all this massive trolling, why is it that you can troll a politician that is jewish and you find yourself getting hauled into court for harassment!

But jews believe it’s more than morally acceptable to troll for a year, or more, because they think that you’re, quote, unquote, a “denier”. What a bunch of idiots, are we dealing with here? And we need to start calling it that guys! Look! There’s a time to grow up out there, when it comes to dealing with these types of clowns!

You know, if you look at some of the comments coming from the jewish community and why you should get out there. One of the things they said is something like, this comes on a Facebook post, and it is, let’s see if I can find it quick enough for you. You think I would be able to. I just had it. The name is jewish, Tim De Rosen. He writes in a post he said, obviously Mr De Rosen has to be obsessed here, to even bother, quite frankly, to go on to somebody Facebook page and comment. What an obsessed little jackass clown this guy is! That’s the facts guys! But his name is Tim De Rosen, and he says:

“There is no point in prosecuting this woman. She is clearly insane.”

Well, you know, what Mr Rosen, you’re an insane freak moron, quite frankly! And for you jews out there, to consistently try to consolidate, or define the reality for us, we’re sick of you clowns! I’m serious! The last thing I want to see is some a hate filled bigot like Tim De Rosen. Yeah that’s using their language everybody! Telling me what is, is not, acceptable out there! Look there’s nothing acceptable in the jewish community!

They’re out there celebrating right now, “Purim”! The mass slaughter of some 85,000 Persians, for no other reason than that jews were, people hated the jews! Whatever that’s supposed to mean. Don’t give us this idea what’s insane, dude! You’re sitting there celebrating Purim! You’re out there celebrating the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of people! And you’re going to tell us you’re sane! Are you kidding! Are you fricken out of your mind dude! And it’s that way across the entire jewish spectrum. These guys continue to want to just pop off with a lot of chutzpah, with a lot, a lot, a lot of gaslighting against us! And we’re supposed to actually take these people seriously?

[98:49]

No! You need to learn to push back guys! Put them back into some type of defensive mode! Stop being on the defensive here! Make them go into the defensive mode. Make them support why they are such flaming lunatics within our midst! And how they continue to insult and assault us with their stupidity, time, and time, again! They’re not smart people, folks! These are idiots! At the bottom end of the spectrum of the human scale, these are idiots! They’re not intellectual people by any stretch! Come on, the Committee Against Anti-Semitism, what a bunch of morons! Seriously! You come after me. You want to go complain to my people, you know, what? Try to come into certain areas, maybe we arrest these guys. These guys are clowns. They’re disgusting vile elements of human existence here. They want to sit there and try to oppress the rest of us, because what? They’re jews? Well, go back to Israel dude! Seriously! That’s why we all died. That is why our relatives died for you, so you can have your fricken place called Israel. Go! Go! Get out!

That’s my observation, as an outside observer. And it’s not people like Alison Chabloz that are promoting hatred! The people that are promoting hatred are this Mr Silverman, who wants to go after me for what? Dude you want to go after me, and you don’t think you’re not the one promoting hatred? Believe me dude, you want to go after us professionally, we have every right to find you loathsome and to go after you, and to hate you, and to do whatever we feel like doing on a rhetorical scale towards you! Because, you know, what? Who are you to go after us professionally all the time? No, we need to go after these guys professionally. We need to mock them! We need to scoff them! We need to make them feel like outcasts, in our own lands, so that they get the heck out!

And it’s a mass consciousness here. It’s not like just one person it’s cumulative. It’s death by a thousand cuts! Don’t keep allowing these people to always be on the offensive. This trial has got to be one of the dumbest childish things I’ve ever seen! Really! It is absolutely childish to watch these people operate out there! They actually think that, because they’re jews, they can just go ahead and target anybody they want for the dumbest of things! How do you wear “stupid” on your shoulder? You put a star David on your forehead! Is that what jews are trying to tell us here?

Mr Silverman, if you are listening, than you just might be, because I know you’re very obsessed right now with what’s going on. Dude! Where is that Star of David? Where is that symbol of hatred? Is it on your butt, or is on your forehead? Where is it dude?

See, we don’t hate anybody until you start to make a jackass out of yourself and then expect us to tolerate you! That’s the problem with the jewish community right now. They go out of their way to make complete moronic jackasses of themselves, and then they expect us to just stand by and say, :

“Oh you jews! You’ve just got so much chutzpah!”

“Oh! Let me worship your little finger nails, because they’re worth more than a thousand of us!”

No, we get it everybody! We are really starting, to really understand this idea of jewish hatred for Western civilization.

You know, there’s lots of comments over the years about Alison. And it’s not just Alison. It’s about a lot of us out there, who discuss a lot of these particular issues. And they always throw out this idea that you hate jews! And I’m like okay, well what’s wrong with that? Because what you’re telling me is you just made a judgment against me, not knowing me. You’re a fricken clown! Okay, I hate jews, so what! Are you telling me you like me? Do you love me? Are you going to worship me tomorrow? Otherwise you hate me too! So what’s the problem with you? Are you trying to tell me that your form of hate is different from my form of hate?

Look! Finish with these rhetorical games that we see continually see being played out there. How they use these words, weaponized words, to put people on the defensive! Look, being antagonistic towards other people is natural! Whether you like to believe it, or not. Trust me! It’s natural! I’ll give you an example over here in the Middle East. We have something on his cliques of Somalians out there. You cannot deal with them. You cannot rationalize with them. You cannot even, it’s hard to even socialize with them.

But, you know, there’s no reason for me to have to tolerate it. There’s no reason for me to kiss up and, “You guys are awesome!” And, you know, what? They’re often scheming against you, behind your back. This is normal behavior folks, within the human scale. Not everybody is enlightened. Not everybody has an open mind that allows them to work trans-culturally. This is normal. But when you meet particular ethnic groups out there, who do go out of their way to target other ethnic groups. Then the targeted ethnic group has every right, duty, and obligation see to go and defend themselves! That’s called human nature. That is what builds nations. That is what keeps different countries always at each other’s throats, because their views are such that they are never going to be able to work together!

And until they can work through these issues, that’s just the way human nature works. It’s not for enemies within your midst to define for you what is the moral battle ground upon which you will wage your wars! Look if you’re going to wage a war against a quote, unquote, a “semitic” mindset, understand it’s total war, one hundred percent of the time!

It is total war, one hundred percent of the time!

That means that they have no morals! They have no values! Have no ethics! It is whatever they can do to win the war! There’s no idea of Western chivalry out there! Not the Westerners have been all that chivalrous over their history outside their world. But there is this level still within our mindset of chivalry. It doesn’t exist when you’re dealing with these jewish constructions!

Look! They’re going after a singer for Christ’s sake! A singer! Who sang a song about a bunch of discredited “Holocaust” writers, who are a bunch of idiots on the scale of human existence here!

C’mon, Simon Wiesenthal, what a moron! Seriously! His story is pathetic! As are so many of these jewish quote, unquote “survivor” stories.

[96:00]

[Program continues, mostly on other topics]

[143:00]

END

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

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

Total words = xxx
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 4:

Version 3: Mar 24, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 2: Mar 9, 2018 — Added description from Inside the Eye website. Fixed some typos.

Version 1: Mar 6, 2018 — Published post. Total minutes proofed = 106. Added 18 images.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:49:37 +0000

[In yet another interesting interview Jim Rizoli talks with a well-known figure in the Revisionist movement, Hadding Scott. We learn about Hadding’s earlier years and how he first learnt from his mother the old saying, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!”

Then, we learn how he became aware of some of the character traits of jews from listening to the Larry King radio show. Hadding recounts it was in 1992 that he became finally convinced that the “Holocaust” was a myth after listening to a Dr. Willian Pierce radio show.

Further on, the matter of the “revisionists” who have moved away from revisionism, like Irving, Weber, Cole and now Eric Hunt, is discussed.

— KATANA]

_______________________

YouTube Description

Jim Rizoli interviews Hadding Scott, Feb 2017, discussing Hadding’s ‘awakening’ concerning revisionism of Iraq and then, of course, WWII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_553gsl07TQ&feature=youtu.be

[No longer available on Youtube]

UPDATE: Jul 2, 2022 – BitChute Video available here:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rQwBYc2s8vHJ/

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Hadding Scott

Published on Feb 17, 2017

TRANSCRIPT

(47:40)

[00:00]

Jim: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

So Hadding again, welcome to the program.

Hadding: Well, hello!

Jim: First of all, the only, really thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say is, because my brother Joe. He was very much involved listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

Hadding: Oh yeah, “The International Jew Study Hour”.

Jim: Right, right! So, maybe you can tell us a little bit, … I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you. So, what would you consider yourself?

Hadding: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying! This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to “Holocaust” revisionism through other things.

Jim: Yup.

Hadding: My origin has a lot to do with, … My parents were about a generation older than people my age. I just born in the ninety sixties. My parents were born in the nineteen twenties. And my mother was raised by her grandparents who were born not very long aft the War Between the States. So I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true. That this was exaggeration. And that slaves generally, were treated very well. And that the war was not about slavery, right?

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionist. And I grew up with that.

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

Hadding: I have been a teacher.

Jim: OK.

Hadding: Not presently.

Jim: OK. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

Hadding: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust revisionist, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the jews. Right?

I grew up with this idea that the jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the [???] jews were victimized by some mass psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

[05:01]

I used to, actually I dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King from my perspective was insane! [Jim laughing]

This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew first hand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time the he identified as jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City jews and the fact that jews were very prevalent in the mass media and had no shame about using their positions in mass media to promote specifically jewish interests.

And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and, … Well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in it’s imperfect form and the others. So, Larry King was sort of “concentrated jew”. And I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of jews!

Jim: Did you ever call into the show?

Hadding: I did a couple of times.

Jim: And what happened?

Hadding: It was a long time ago, … I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

Jim: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to jews. And he’s such a wack job anyway, that guy!

Hadding: The thing about Larry King is he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

Jim: Really?

Hadding: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t, you don’t get the shameless promotion of jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

Jim: Did he ever talk about the “Holocaust” or anything like [it]?

Hadding: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there and Eli Weasel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until the late nineteen eighties. I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. All right? Before I started to question the Holocaust. I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. And R. D. Laing labeled and demonized, obviously Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists might have their own story. That what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right?

So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed the “Holocaust” must have had at least some truth in it.

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to short wave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strong. But once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

[10:16]

And I was certainly already open to the, … I knew from listening to Larry King that jews had a lot to do with these problems. That jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989. It had Adolf Hitler on the cover, it was the one hundredth birthday of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue”. I had heard and read before that before the Zundel Trial. I heard Ernst Zundel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine.

I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody that reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but, it seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there. He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed him, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema one in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Krema’s [crematoria]. And this convinced me!

Jim: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

Hadding: I didn’t do very much was Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and the invocation of the “Holocaust” played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed of gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians! That Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein legend, which I knew to be false by that point about Adolf Hitler.

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Fallujah and there was nobody in the town. But then some Kurdish rebels went into Fallujah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Fallujah. What happened aft the Iranians went Fallujah and saw the dead Kurds is that they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

[14:48]

If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical what the Iranians say. The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw one hundred or so, bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Fallujah. But what happened after, Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower. jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September first, 1988.

There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times. In which William Safire mentions that this cyanide gas had been used to kill the Kurds at Fallujah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

So we have this war in 1991, but I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story that April Glaspie, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded Iraq.

Also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine of the fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

Jim: I’d like to see that picture.

Hadding: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, “Life magazine Auschwitz”. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up, to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend these people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was there was no such wall.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: Anyway, so this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for fifteen years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda. Because this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works. Most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear.

So what people will do, is that they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called “reifications” where you have a few, a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there. That’s called “reification”. It literally means “making the thing”, “thing making”.

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this, is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! All right, this is a crazy man! A man who might very well have been involved in the 9/11 attacks!

You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9/11 attacks, because that would that would require checking the evidence and most people will never do that. But it would fit, … If people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. And this is something that has to be addressed is also in regard to the Holocaust.

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, “What kinds of people were these that were accused of doing these things?” “What is the character of the people making the accusations?” That’s extremely important!

[20:12]

Now, since 9/11 and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9/11, there’s a lot less trust of jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9/11 that there was a lot of dishonesty.

I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if you believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust jews, he’s open to the possibility that the whole cause could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed if you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining, “Oh yes! The Nazis were these horrible people!” you’re not going to be very convincing.

Jim: The big thing for you to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too, … And I do I do believe you, what you say there about this psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved than that. That a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard, it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean?

I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name, Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

Hadding: Yeah.

Jim: So I mean, she was saying, …

Hadding: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the “Holocaust”. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, the tribes she belongs to, the tribe and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

Hadding: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance”. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind.

It’s irresistible to make the analogy, jews hearing the rumors in Auschwitz, or someplace like that. If they were, … If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were communists and had bad intentions and had been locked up in this camp. But were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seem justified. They would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumors that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumors that the jews had.

Jim: Can I ask you this about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it want on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

Hadding: Yeah, it was some 50 chapters.

Jim: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

Hadding: It was about a year, I guess.

Jim: Yeah, my brother, … I mean, the reason I know about that, is my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it and, you know, it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. My brother he, … And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. You know, right now I’m listening to “The Myth of German Villainy”. Are you familiar with that book?

Hadding: No. Who wrote that?

Jim: Oh my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to, … You have to read that book. Because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

[25:14]

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it.

So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as a mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

Hadding: She’s not doing very much these days, so she just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

Jim: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then OK, all right

Hadding: “jan27.org”

Jim: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

Hadding: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

Jim: Oh, OK. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

What do you think about, … Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting! They have [moved??] now. Like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

Hadding: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if it’s really “high ranking”. He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent, because he makes videos, …

Jim: Right.

Hadding: I think mostly, … Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: With Cole, he had an argument, …

Jim: Oh! David Cole, yeah, yeah, …

Hadding: And apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole. And he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead” [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

Jim: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the “Holocaust”-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

Hadding: To prove it didn’t happen!

Jim: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they want were killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

Hadding: That’s right.

Jim: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, “puff” and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

[30:12]

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

Hadding: I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

Jim: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR [Institute of Historical Review] material and, you know, the old stuff. And, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Webber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

Hadding: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed and prominent and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich” came out. David Irving wants his career back.

So that is why David Irving is espousing this semi-revisionism the continues the demonization of Goring and Goebbels and Himmler, .. But not Goring, but Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. That he constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming jews behind his back.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But this is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And really he’s just gone back to that. Mark Weber has a different motive, I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

In the case of David Cole, … David Cole got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel. The holocaust industry was, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer to The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, “They can count, you know!”

They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992. David Cole as a “Holocaust” revisionist.

By that time it was the period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books could be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But during that time David Cole got involved. He endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a jewish face on what others had already discovered.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

Hadding: Carto.

Jim: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

[35:12]

Hadding: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR.

Jim: Yes, she was part, …

Hadding: ??? And Carto had embezzled it and, …

Jim: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result, was he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out.

Hadding: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against the Zionist jewish power!

Jim: Right.

Hadding: He’s apparently happy to talks about Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the “Holocaust”.

Jim: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

Hadding: Who knows?

Jim: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. Because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

Hadding: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

Jim: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And, you know, we interviewed, we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but, you know, it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

Hadding: Well, I don’t think. I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber, all right. Mark Weber, I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account. Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they are in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a, just look at him. He does not convey strength.

Jim: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Luechter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too.

But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Luechter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

Hadding: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

Jim: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

[40:11]

Hadding: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

Jim: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

Hadding: Irv, …

Jim: OK, OK. Irv Ruben, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now.

So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

Hadding: Well Irv Ruben has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Ruben is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the interest that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust, as such. That is never what he wanted to do. He tried, like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: That’s my thesis.

Jim: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the “Holocaust” museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause, here. And doing videos and research for the pro-holocaust people.

Hadding: As Stein?

Jim: Yeah as Stein.

Hadding: OK.

Jim: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not really worry about it.

So what, … Do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

Hadding: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National hyphen Socialist hyphen Worldview dot blogspot dot com [http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com].

Jim: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

Hadding: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

Jim: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

Hadding: Germar Rudolf!

Jim: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

Hadding: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but the Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on the Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

Jim: Right, right. Who runs the Occidental Observer?

Hadding: That’s Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald is afraid of, seems to be afraid of, that subject.

Jim: Well, you got to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

Hadding: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

Jim: Oh, is that what it is. OK, well I can understand that. So, well that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the “Holocaust” handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

[44:51]

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time. Just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you know, you’re a good writer. You know, you have a nice, you know, style and insight. I would say about things and I think that’s important that people, you know, see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

Hadding: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

Jim: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

Hadding: I think that we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing that is what I keep doing.

Jim: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody even the revisionist views are! I know common sense! You know, me I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let, you know, that, OK!

Hadding: Thank you very much.

Jim: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us to, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

Hadding: All right. Well, thank you very much.

Jim: All right. Bye now!

[47:40]

END

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

PDF Notes

* Total words in post = 7,731

* Total words in transcript = 7,582

* Total Images = 27

* Total pages = 29

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.0 MB):

Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 5: Jul 2, 2022 — Improved formatting. Added BitChute link to video.

Version 4: Feb 3, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 3: Mar 14, 2017 — Added PDF of post for download.

Version 2: Feb 23, 2017 — Added 25 images.

Version 1: Feb 20, 2017 — Published post.

Book: White World Awake! — Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 02:25:14 +0000

[In this new book, by a well-known “Holocaust” Revisionist, Jurgen Graf, the planned “slow-motion” extermination of the White race by the globalists (aka, Organized jewry) using the socially engineered below replacement birth rates, mass Third World immigration and various other methods is described. In the introduction Graf talks about how he became involved in “Holocaust” revisionism and how the “Holocaust” is used to demoralize and guilt Whites into passively accepting their racial and cultural destruction — KATANA.]

[NOTE: The following excepts are provided to encourage readers to purchase the book. Please support the author and his work by purchasing the book at Barnes Review or as an e-book at Amazon.]

_______________________

White World Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination

of Our Volk

By JURGEN GRAF

TRANSLATED by DR. FREDRICK TOBEN

EDITED by JOHN R TIFFANY

THE BARNES REVIEW

ISBN 978-1-937787-32-5

FIRST US EDITION, 2016

Published by:

THE BARNES REVIEW

16000 Trade Zone Avenue #406 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 PEACE BOOKS P. O. Box 3300

Norwood SA 5067 Australia

Ordering more copies:

Order more copies of White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk (softcover, 540 pages, $35 plus $5 S&H) from THE BARNES REVIEW 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.

TBR subscribers may take 10% off the list price. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge copies to Visa, MasterCard, or Discover.

See more books and videos online at www.barnesreview.com.

Subscriptions:

A subscription to THE BARNES REVIEW historical magazine is $46 for one year (six issues) and $78 for two years (12 issues) inside the US. Outside the U.S: Canada/Mexico: $65 per year. All other nations: $80 per year sent via air mail. Send payment with request to TBR, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774. Call TBR toll free at 1- 877-773-9077 to charge. Order online at www.barnesreview.com. See a special subscription offer at the back of this volume, or call toll free number above and ask for best current subscription offer.

Reproduction Policy:

Portions of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission in critical reviews and other papers if credit is given to author, book title is listed and full contact information and subscription information are given for publishers as shown above.

Original Australian ISBN 978-0-994198-30-3

WHITE WORLD WORLD Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk

BY JURGEN GRAF

THE BARNES REVIEW 2016

AUTHOR’S DEDICATION

To my mother Valentina Ivanova, dedicated with love and gratitude.

— JORGEN GRAF

September 2016

PUBLISHER’S DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to the White race, whose very existence is on the brink of extinction. It is our hope that this book’s contents in some way can help to make more people aware this disturbing situation and work together to make it a prominent public issue. Certainly the loss of any individual race on this planet is a great tragedy, but the extinction of a race with such a noble and prolific history such as ours would be globally catastrophic.

— THE BARNES REVIEW

September 2016

From the Publisher

White World Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk.

Western civilization is in desperate peril. White people — our volk — are in trouble. The question of the day — and very likely the question of the millennium — is whether Europe will survive—and with it its American, Canadian, Australian and South African cousins — and, if so, how?

Seeking to answer those questions is a very important new book, White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk. Those who seek the truth will find the truth in the pages of this book, and those looking for a practical plan of action will find that as well.

For too long, observes the author, White people have fought among themselves. The European Union and NATO are failed efforts to correct that situation. Europe faces an existential threat with tsunamis of unassimilable Africans, Middle Easterners and Asians swarming in. Russians, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans and Poles, Serbs and Croats, Romanians, Finns and Greeks, Spaniards and Hungarians are all in the same rickety boat.

The time has come for Europe to speak with one nationalist voice on military and foreign policy matters, while it is equally necessary for each nation and ethnic group to preserve its distinctive language and culture, and for historical injustices to be discussed openly.

A Eurasian Federation is proposed, which, like Old America, will not interfere in other parts of the world except to provide humanitarian aid and ensure the safety of such places as Armenia and Georgia against any immigration threat.

Traitor politicians who see no problem in allowing Europe and other White nations to be transformed into mixed-race caliphates — a dream of the mysterious Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi — will be voted out of office.

Many of the solutions apply equally to the rest of the White World. “Close the borders! Stop the flood!” is key not only for Europe, but America and all other White areas of the world. Thus Graf lays out a practical 10-step program to stop the genocide of the West starting with Europe, the cradle of White Western civilization.

This is a book that needs and deserves to be in the hands of every concerned person who cares about the future of the Western world.

__________________

Introduction: How to Become a Dissident ……………… 7

1 The Red Bird from the Danube Delta ………………… 39

2 Conspiracy Theories? …………………………………….. 55

3 The Plan ……………………………………………………………………….. 71

4 Intelligence and Development ……………………………………… 93

5 The Blessings of Multiculturalism ………………………………….. 109

6 Battle of Ethnicities and Cultures ………………………………….. 133

7 The Cost of Suicide ………………………………………………………. 159

8 The Plan to Destroy Sweden …………………………………………. 171

9 The Decline of the U.S.A. ………………………………………………. 185

10 Two Types of Weights and Double Standards ………………. 199

11 The Destructive Principle ……………………………………………… 211

12 The Foundation of the New World Order ……………………… 237

13 Homosexual Propaganda & Gender Mainstreaming ……… 319

14 Infanticide in the Mother’s Womb ……………………………….. 337

15 The Locusts by Thomas Brookes …………………………………… 345

16 The Battering Ram of the New World Order ………………….. 365

17 The Ukrainian Scenario ………………………………………………… 401

18 The Henchmen ……………………………………………………………. 445

19 What to Do? …………………………………………………………………. 473

20 After the Storm ………………………………………………………….… 489

21 Afterword: Coloring the White World ……………………………. 505

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………….. 522

Name Index ………………………………………………………………………. 531

Jurgen Graf

INTRODUCTION

How To Become a Dissident

“C’est quily a de terrible quand on cherche la verite, c’est qu’on la trouve.”

“The terrible thing is that those who seek the truth will find the truth.”

— French biologist and scientist FELIX LE DENTEC (1869-1917)

When, at age 62, I reflect on my life, it appears to me that the first 35 years were nothing, but a preparation for future tasks. I still thank my teachers at the Basel Humanist High School, who gave me a general education. In my following education I obtained language qualifications that became indispensable to me. Since my 9th, or 10th year, I have always had a passionate interest in politics and history, and this interest was to determine my life’s journey. Early in life, in matters of national defense and foreign affairs, I was right wing, where “‘right wing” was essentially “‘anti-communist.” I had not quite consciously experienced the 1956 Hungarian uprising, but the construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban crisis were indelibly imprinted on my consciousness. The Soviet tanks in Prague and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, which I devoured, convinced me that the current battle was against eastern totalitarianism. Until the beginning of perestroika, I was firmly convinced of a …, perestroika, I was firmly convinced of a possibly inevitable Soviet occupation of Western Europe. Inevitably. my favorite politician was Franz Josef Strauss, the baroque Bavarian ancient colossus who incessantly warned Western civil society of the impending Red danger. Only sometime later was I able to revise my undifferentiated anti-communism and anti-Soviet Unionism- and as before in other matters — to correct my historical and world views.

At the same time, from the beginning I always stood left of center in social justice matters, and my anti-communism did not, for example, prevent me in the least from supporting the 1972 submitted Communist Party of Work initiative to grant a Volks pension, which was massively rejected at the referendum. The fact that on some points I could unhesitatingly support a right-wing and a left-wing position was proof for me that we lived in a dynamic democracy. I believed that there was no alternative to democratic capitalism; the deficiencies within the system would step-by-step be solved. All in all, I believed I was living in the best of all possible worlds.

However, quite early in my life that I realized that even this best of all possible political words could not do without a taboo, or two, of which the strongest concerned the topic of “the Third Reich and the Jews.” Just as in most European countries, in Switzerland during my childhood a pervasive anti-German climate was propagated by most of the media. During that time there were two daily newspapers in Basel: The left-wing National Zeitung was most noted for venomously inciting against Germans, while the right-wing Basler Nachrichten remained more reserved in its diatribe against Germans.

My father, Friedrich Graf, was a Swiss citizen born in the Ruhr Valley, and we had numerous relatives there whom we visited regularly. This is why from childhood I had a friendly disposition toward Germans, and I could not understand why the German people collectively were held responsible for crimes committed by the National Socialist government. However, not for a second did I question the historical reality of the crimes, especially that of the industrialized extermination of the Jewish people. After all, I had never come across a book, or a newspaper article in which the conventional version of events had been questioned, much less have someone cross my path who disputed the Nazi atrocities. Even my father, who had spent the entire war years in Germany, accepted the conventional version of events, except to insist that only since 1945 had he heard about the gas chambers.

It thus became quite clear to me: In a deceptive blinding ideological fit of madness, the National Socialist regime committed horrendous crimes of which its people were totally unaware, and for which they collectively stood accused. This offended my early childhood sense of justice.

That the government of Germany constantly and abjectly apologized for its Nazi past, and threw Israel ever new reparations down its insatiable throat, was disconcerting for me as much as the German media’s seeming obsession with dragging its own people into the dirt. Likewise, I found the Nazi war crime trials, 10 or more years after war’s end, repulsive.

A key event was the murky drama of the Majdanek Trial, which began in Dusseldorf in Nov. 1975 and dragged out until June 1981. Charged before the court stood former wardens of the Majdanek concentration camp, among them a number of women, who were accused of having participated in the gassing and shooting of Jewish prisoners. The trial forced the Federal Republic of Germany to renewed submissive penance rituals and offered the media a welcomed opportunity to redouble its hate campaign against its own people.

I could not then foresee that decades later I, together with Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno, would publish a book about Majdanek, [1] but I followed the proceedings with growing irritation. Although I had not the slightest sympathy for these accused individuals, I saw no sense in bringing to court three decades later a handful of scapegoats who had participated in this murderous struggle between nations that produced over 50 million casualties. This was all the more worrisome, because it was always Germans who had been accused of committing crimes: not a single individual of the victors was tried, for example, for the senseless destruction of militarily insignificant Dresden, the dropping of the atomic bombs on a capitulating Japan, the brutal ethnic cleansing of the old east Germany and Sudetenland, nor the Katyn Massacre. It seemed to me that I was the only one who saw the futility of holding such trials. After the Majdanek trial began, I attended the reading room of the University of Basel in order to follow the reporting of this trial by the national and international press. There seemed no differentiated evaluation of the procedures, which were clearly stated as being necessary; the only criticism was made of the West German judiciary for having unnecessarily delayed the opening of the trial.

In order to obtain a different view of things to that offered by the anti-German Basler Blattes, I had to read Munich’s much maligned “right-wing” National Zeitung, which I could buy at the Basel Railway Station.

Biting criticism in this newspaper was leveled against the Germans coming to terms with their past and with their Nazi trials, but even this newspaper did not question the reality of mass extermination at Majdanek and other camps. It only objected to having such trials against Germans only, and pointed out the inherent danger of witnesses not recalling exactly what they had experienced and so perjuring themselves, which increased the risk of a flawed judgment. That only an extreme “right wing” non-mainstream newspaper had the courage to state such fundamental truths irritated me no end. I comforted myself by hoping that the whipped up hysteria would die down as the events of World War II would, with each passing year, inevitably slip further into the past. How was I to know then that the mystery play of German executioners and Jewish victims, who in their millions marched into gas chambers disguised as showers, was created for eternity? [Note: there are two National Zeitungs, the German one and a Swiss paper of the same name, but different politics. — Ed.]

At the end of Dec. 1978 I first became acquainted with the Revisionist thesis that radically questioned the usual version of the Jewish fate during World War II. At that time, I regularly read Le Monde, because this paper reported in detail about the state of affairs in Indochina. Vietnam had marched into Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge was about to collapse. The genocide of the Pol Pot regime perpetrated on his own people was often compared to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. And now in Le Monde I came upon an article by a French professor of literature, Robert Faurisson, who made the assertion that the Nazi gas chambers were a myth, a fiction of propaganda. [2]

This article almost caused me physical discomfort, which lasted for some days. It was obvious that this professor was no fool; he offered factual arguments. The significant paragraph was the following:

“Anyone who today visits Auschwitz, or Majdanek will find places designated as ‘gas chambers,’ in wherein each gassing would have led to a catastrophe for the perpetrator and for the environment. A mass killing by gas must not be confused with a suicide, or accidental death through gas. To gas a single prisoner, the Americans use a volatile gas, in a small room, in which the gas is extracted and neutralized after the completed execution. How then could, for example, at Auschwitz, 2,000, yes, 3,000 people be piled into 210 (!) square meters, then insert granules of the commonly used and highly toxic insecticide Zyklon B, and then, immediately after the death of the victims, send a group of workers, who do not wear gas masks, into the room saturated with hydrogen cyanide in order to pull out the cyanide saturated corpses?”

Later I asked myself why I had not then contacted Faurisson. Essentially, I had the ideal prerequisites to become a Revisionist: I was friendly toward Germans, the self flagellation of the Federal Republic’s elite was abhorrent to me, and I had not the slightest guilt feelings toward Jews. Had I taken that compelling step then, my life would have taken a different course. But for that step I simply did not yet have the maturity. I was not prepared to dare to approach such a touchy subject and to possibly realize that the system in which I lived was a monstrous lie that was defended by a perfectly functioning censorship. And so I comforted myself with Christian Morgenstern’s Palmstrom, wherein it is stated, “that which cannot be, must not be,” [3] and I decided to forget the matter.

On Jan. 16, 1979 in Le Monde, and in reply to some articles of his opponents, Faurisson was able to publish an opposing view, which I apparently did not read, at least I cannot recall reading it. Likewise, I cannot recall the Feb. 21, 1979 declaration in Le Monde of 34 French historians, which produced the following disarming argument into the field:

“One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened. That is the requisite starting point for any historical enquiry into the subject It is incumbent upon us to state this truth simply: there is not, there cannot be any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.”

Only 12 years later did I receive this prime example of intellectual brilliance. But let us not get ahead of the events.

In July 1982 I embarked on a trip to East Asia. A year later I found a position as a lecturer in German in Taiwan where I remained until May 1988. After my return to Switzerland, I immediately noticed that my country had changed. This was in connection with the increasing number of immigrants that had come into Switzerland during my six-year absence. These new immigrants were not the familiar Italians and Spaniards of my childhood. Most immigrants came from foreign continents. The countless house facades smeared with Turkish slogans attests to that.

Obviously, non-European immigrants have always been a part of our society. During 1980 and 1981, I supported Vietnamese refugees and never once regretted doing so. The Vietnamese behaved as one would expect of them: they respected our laws and endeavored as quickly as possible to find a job so as not to become a burden upon the host nation.

Now, only less than a decade later, things looked different in Switzerland. By abusing our asylum laws, which enabled politically persecuted foreigners to seek refuge in Switzerland, a stream of economic immigrants flooded across the borders. The absolute majority was Turkish citizens of Kurdish background; the second largest group were the Tamils from Sri Lanka, where the rebel organization the Tamil Tigers had been fighting an underground war against the majority Singhalese government. The remainder of the asylum seekers came from Yugoslavia (where ever-increasing ominous warning signals of impending atrocities arose), Lebanon, the Indian subcontinent outside of Sri Lanka (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), as well as three African countries (Ghana, Zaire and Angola). A few Iranians and Afghans as well as some individual from diverse East European countries rounded out the picture.

After my return home to Switzerland, it seemed that fate gave me the first job, the role of an asylum adviser. Switzerland had established various reception centers for asylum seekers, one being located on the Rhine steamer Basilea, where on Aug. 8, 1988 I began my work. Very early into my job I had the feeling that I was in a typical Franz Kafka novel wherein the laws of logic had been suspended.

In order to apply for asylum in Switzerland two avenues were offered to foreigners: Either they applied at a Swiss embassy, or consulate in their home country, or they applied at a reception center in Switzerland. Few made use of the first possibility: It was implausible to enter a Swiss embassy freely, then claim political persecution. Thus the second avenue was to register at a reception center that — with the exception of Yugoslavia — required asylum seekers from all other countries to possess a Swiss entry visa, without which they could not legally cross into Switzerland. And so they entered Switzerland illegally and thus began their residence with a legal infraction.

After their registration, the asylum seekers remained from 7 to 10 days on the ship. After their interrogation they had to await instructions as to which canton they would be sent. Each canton was required to take asylum seekers according to their population number. The questioning of asylum seekers, often done through interpreters, focused on three points: personal information, travel route and flight reasons.

Problems already began at the first point. While Turkish and Yugoslavian asylum seekers could usually produce parts of a passport, or identity card, on the Basilea I do not recall ever having seen a Sri Lankan, Indian, Pakistani, or Ghanaian passport. Upon crossing to Switzerland, these applicants had lost their papers, or their handler had taken the documents from them. So it was impossible for the interviewer to ascertain whether the statements made were true, or not. Such statements were most likely not true in 99% of the cases.

The reason why these illegal immigrants had “lost” their papers was, because most of them had crossed to Switzerland from Germany where they had already applied for political asylum, and had been rejected. Others did not even wait for their application to be assessed in Germany, but secretly entered Switzerland where the work prospects were greater and the social security payments were higher. This negated their right to apply for Swiss asylum. Hence, without exception, the Sri Lankans, Indians, Ghanaians etc., asserted that they had entered Switzerland via Italy.

That this was not true became obvious because-again the exception being the Turks who crossed over to Switzerland via Italy — they could not describe the places where they allegedly crossed to Switzerland. I vividly recall a refugee from Bangladesh, who answered my question as to how he could possibly have swum across the huge river at, possibly have swum across the huge river at the Italian-Swiss border, which I had made up. He claimed his passport had become so wet that he had to throw it away. In a normally functioning state such a person would have been placed on the first available flight back to his country — but our asylum-seeking procedures could not be called normal. How was it possible that a large Gypsy family from Serbia — whose patriarch gave as a reason for his “flight” that his children were constantly teased at school — obtained the right to an extensive and expensive asylum procedure!?

The most absurd aspect of such procedures was the following: Our borders were manned by officers whose task it was to apprehend and to return illegal immigrants. Those who carried with them passports, or identity cards had these stamped with an “R,” for “refused.” However, if an illegal immigrant succeeded in tricking the officers, then he had won the game: Without hindrance he could travel by train to the next reception center where he could submit his asylum request which enabled him automatically to gain a residence permit until a decision on his application had been made. Once a Lebanese came to the Basilea who had more than half a dozen “R’s” stamped in his document. Six times he had been caught attempting to cross the Italian-Swiss border, but the seventh time he was lucky in convincing the Swiss officer to let him in. In such cases these border guards were sentenced to the “work of Sisyphus.”

Officially, the Swiss state behaved like a schizophrenic who constructs a fence around his house, but then loudly proclaims that anyone who can get over the fence is rewarded by unhindered entry to the home.

The real politically persecuted were found amongst the Turks who could show you physical evidence of torture on their bodies. At a point in time I conducted my own private statistics, which enabled me to conclude that in view of the asylum laws about 5% – 9% of Turkish asylum seekers were indeed political refugees. These private statistics were later confirmed through 1988 official figures: 5 – 4% of Turkish asylum seekers had obtained asylum. The remainder were economic refugees who had fled their own country’s harsh economic problems. As they could not gain entry in normal ways, they had to lie and invent persecution stories. The police were after them, because they had belonged to prohibited left-wing parties and had painted slogans on walls, or distributed leaflets.

I did not harbor any antagonistic feelings toward these Anatolian farmers and shepherds, with whose situation I could quite easily empathize. A certain antipathy was aroused in me by asylum seekers from Africa and the Indian subcontinent: First, such asylum seekers obviously belonged to the middle class (for a representative of this class from Angola, or Pakistan, even the cheapest flight was out of their reach) and, second, the detailed, but easily discerned fabricated stories that these gentlemen had made up stories about their persecution irritated me to no end. The success rates among these nationals were practically zero. Slightly different was the case with the Tamils and their claim to political persecution through the partisan activity of the Tamil Tigers, as well as the government’s reprisals. This was a ground for them not to be sent back to their home whenever an application was rejected. That these Tamils could resettle 30 km north of Sri Lanka, in the Indian state of Tamii Nadu, never crossed the minds of our asylum politicians.

After their first interview on the Basilea, each asylum seeker was assigned to a place of residence, where, after a while, he was subjected to a second and more in-depth interview as to his flight motives. This, together with the first interview, then became the basis on which a decision was made on his asylum application. As a result of the number of applications and the lack of qualified personnel, the procedure could take up to a year before a decision was made. Throughout this time the asylum seeker was supported by the Swiss state. After a rejection of his application, the applicant usually appealed; naturally, this did not occur without a Swiss lawyer, whose fees were paid by Swiss refugee organizations. Quite a few lawyers became rich through this procedure. Besides the social workers and the full-time Turkish, Arabic, Urdu and Tamil translators, the lawyers were also among those who profited from the misery Swiss asylum politics had become.

Generally, while the asylum seeker’s application was afoot, it was common for those with families to have their wives and children follow them, and to have their children enrolled in schools immediately. Then, after a “final” rejection of an asylum seeker’s application had been processed, the lawyers would object on the grounds that the children were already attending school and to return an applicant to their home country was a “callous” act. The argument usually succeeded in quashing the deportation order. And so the asylum law had become a de facto avenue for uncontrolled Third World migrants to enter Switzerland.

After two, or three months’ work on the Basilea, I wrote a long letter to the then-refugee commissioner, Peter Arbenz, and made specific suggestions how the procedure could be expedited. I received a polite, but non-committal reply.

At this time, I was still under the impression that those responsible for Swiss asylum politics were honest, but weak and timid individuals who, on grounds of their fearful panic of the left-leaning aggressive asylum lobby and the media, did not have the character strength to adopt effective measures to control the influx of refugees. That this Third World migration would have a terrible effect on Switzerland was inevitable, but the media behaved like the three famous monkeys: the first didn’t say anything, the second didn’t see anything and the third didn’t hear anything.

Constantly we heard that our “humanitarian principles” and “human rights” demanded we take in as many asylum seekers as possible and any question about the limits of our capacity to absorb more asylum seekers was not raised in the media. Quite early on I noticed that journalists writing for the various newspapers loudly advocated “humanitarian principles” and “human rights”, but applied them only to the immigrants, not to the indigenous Swiss. That the once effective class instruction in our school system was breaking down on account of large numbers of students not speaking the required language did not in the least interest our “free press”; not a single journalist regarded such a state of affairs as a violation of our students’ human rights. Protests were even organized against the deportation of drug dealers, on the ground that upon their return to their home country they could be politically persecuted. And when our drug-dependent youngsters died miserably in railway station toilets, those working in the media extended no empathetic understanding toward such individuals. Such individuals did not have any human rights, because they were just Swiss native citizens.

Just as I had followed the media reports on the Majdanek Trial in disbelief 13 years earlier, I now had to take note that, except for a few non-establishment papers, all media outlets specifically offered disinformation. except now it was a fundamental question concerning the future of our country. Again, I recognized quite early that there was a connection between these seemingly completely different questions — the Nazi crimes against the Jews and the mass migration to Switzerland — because it was stressed again and again in justifying a generous Swiss asylum program that Jewish refugees, who had been refused entry at the Swiss border during World War II, were sent to their certain death.

I felt growing anger at the asylum lobby, the journalists and the politicians who drew unjustified parallels with what happened then and now in order to torpedo a reform of our asylum policies. For me it was absurd and a sign of moral bankruptcy to bring into the discussion about foreigners and our asylum politics the Third Reich, which had disappeared 43 years ago, as a justification for implementing institutionalized censorship.

At the end of January 1989, I resigned from my position on the Basilea and began writing a book, which appeared a year later with the title Das Narrenschiff: Als Asylantenbefrager auf der Basilea. Naturally, without mentioning names, I clearly exposed and cited from questionnaires, and made the following suggestion:

Each asylum seeker is to be questioned by a group of three experts on the reasons for fleeing from his home country. A decision is then made on the spot whether to accept, or reject the asylum seeker’s application. If the three individuals unanimously agree that with reference to the Swiss asylum law there are really no valid refugee grounds, the applicant is immediately returned to their home country. Otherwise the matter is referred for further, closer inspection.

Introducing tightened procedures such as this would have enabled us to repatriate about 90% of asylum seekers, which would ever so quickly filter through to the countries of origin that Switzerland would not accept economic refugees anymore. Within a few weeks this would have stopped the flow of refugees and we would have become masters of the problem. That this was not the desired outcome became clear to me. I had finally understood that our asylum seeker policy had nothing to do with lack of courage, or stupidity on the responsible politicians’ behalf, because so much lack of courage and stupidity was not what it could be about. Also, the parallel development of policies in neighboring countries excluded such a coincidence. It soon became clear to me why the elites of Western Europe were interested in receiving an influx of asylum seekers from foreign cultures and races.

Thanks in large measure to a massive advertising campaign by Dr. Ulrich Schluer, the publisher of the right-wing conservative newspaper Schweizerzeit, the book Das Narrenschiff sold quite well, and in 1990 a second edition appeared. If I recall, around 6,000 copies were sold. I became known in patriotic circles. It was through the publication of this book that a number of Swiss Democrats — previously known as National Action for People and Homeland — invited me to address them.

In March 1991, at such an evening’s event, I met the retired secondary teacher Arthur Vogt, with whom I had earlier exchanged some correspondence. At one time, while reading through a number of newspapers, I had come upon a letter written by Vogt wherein he bitterly complained about the “suicidal asylum politics.” Vogt was not unknown to me, because in 1970 he had made headlines when, after supporting the James Schwarzenbach initiative that pressed for a citizen initiated referendum on “Being Swamped by Foreigners,” he was expelled from the Social Democratic Party. I had sent him a copy of my book and then invited him to attend my address at the Swiss Democrats in Zurich. At this conference we arranged to meet again in the middle of April, in Zurich, Vogt introduced himself as a Revisionist and handed me a copy of The Leuchter Report about the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, as well as a cassette and text titled The Holocaust — Legend or Reality? which also later appeared in printed form and today is available on the Internet.

That very evening I listened to this tape, and although Vogt’s deliberations had not quite convinced me, and countless questions remained unanswered, I experienced a serious shock. My somewhat critical attitude toward the system in which I lived did not now permit me — as I had done 12 and a half years earlier after reading the Faurisson article in Le Monde — to shield myself with an armor of slovenly thinking against undesirable truths. Vogt’s text contained an abundance of verifiable facts that caused any thinking person to be amazed. I was especially perplexed that the founder of Revisionism was not a German, but a Frenchman, who was also a resistance fighter — Paul Rassinier, a former prisoner of the Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps. How was that even possible?

The next day I began reading The Leuchter Report. The author, the American execution expert Fred Leuchter, had been responsible for the construction and servicing of gas chambers in various U.S. states where executions were still being carried out with cyanide gas. He had moved into the spotlight in 1988 when the second Toronto Revisionist Holocaust trial of German citizen Ernst Zundel took place. Three years earlier Zundel had been sentenced to 18 months in prison under an antiquated law against “spreading false news.” Zundel had republished a booklet by English Revisionist Richard Harwood called Did Six Million Really Die? During the appeal Zundel and Faurisson contacted Fred Leuchter and commissioned him to forensically investigate and write a report about the alleged mass gassings at Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek through the use of the insecticide Zyklon B. With a small group of helpers, Leuchter flew to Poland, examined the alleged gas chambers, then wrote his report that concluded it was technically impossible to gas people in such facilities. The most significant part of his report was the chemical analysis. Leuchter had taken samples from the walls of the alleged “homicidal chambers” at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau, and a similar number of samples from the delousing chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the undisputed fact existed that clothes had been fumigated there using Zyklon B. He sent the samples for analysis to an American chemist, Dr. James Roth, who did not have any idea where these samples had come from.

The laboratory results confirmed that the samples from the delousing chamber, even after four decades, still contained a high percentage of cyanide residue, while the samples from the “homicidal gas chambers” revealed no cyanide residue, or at most only a trace amount. Leuchter hypothesized that this small amount was due to cyanide having occasionally been used to delouse these facilities.

Although Leuchter was able to present his findings at the Toronto Appeal, the appeal court sentenced Zundel to 15 months in prison, which he did not have to serve, because in 1992 Canada’s Supreme Court declared the law about “spreading false news” to be unconstitutional.

Now the question about the gas chambers did not let me rest. I phoned Vogt and requested more Revisionist literature so that I could acquaint myself with the arguments, whose advocates the media of the free world had endearingly labeled “extreme right-wing deniers”, or “neo-Nazi nut cases.” At our next meeting, Vogt presented me with three of the then-important Revisionist texts: Serge Thion’s Verite Historique ou Verite politique?, Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and Wilhelm Staglich’s Der Auschwitz-Mythos. Even before I read these books I turned to an article that Vogt had also given to me. It had appeared in Pravda on Feb. 2, 1945 titled “The Death Kombinat at Auschwitz,” and was translated by the eminent German historian Udo Walendy, who published it in his Historische Tatsachen. Let us place this article within its historical context.

On Jan. 27, 1945 the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. The SS had left shortly before and had evacuated the prisoners to the west. About 4,299 inmates, mainly Jewish, remained behind, because they could not be evacuated: the sick, invalid, children and old people. Accompanying the Soviet army was a contingent of war correspondents, who immediately began the task of inspecting the camp and interviewing those inmates who had been left behind. One of the correspondents was the Soviet Jew Boris Polevoi, who penned the article that Pravda published seven days later.

This quite undisputed factual report must give rise to serious reflection by any critical thinker who is conversant with the official version of events at Auschwitz. It does not make sense, for example, if we follow the Holocaustian historians, that at Auschwitz between Feb. 1942 and Nov. 1944 about a million Jews were murdered, but 4,299 Gypsies were left behind, instead of these undesirable witnesses being liquidated. After having killed a million, it would not have mattered to also kill another 4,299 victims. Second, the so called “facts” contradict the official historical account that sick Jews, invalids, children and old people actually survived. According to the mass media version of events, it was these who, upon arrival at the camp, were immediately gassed and were not even registered. Establishment historians claim that Jewish prisoners who became sick were killed immediately either by gas, or injection. Most of the preserved documentation about Auschwitz places such claims in the sphere of fables.

Here is a single example. When the Red Army moved into Auschwitz it found among those prisoners left behind by the Germans 205 almost exclusively Jewish children in an age range between a few months and 15 years. [4] I was then not aware of this, but Walendy’s translation of the Pravda article speaks for itself. Four years later both Carlo Mattogno and I obtained a copy of the original Russian copy in Moscow. Here is an extract:

When last year the Red Army revealed to the international public the terrible and disgusting secrets of Majdanek, the Germans began to eliminate the traces of their crimes at Auschwitz. They leveled the hills surrounding the ancient tombs in the eastern part of the camp, removed and destroyed the traces of the electrical assembly line system where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electricity. The bodies fell onto a slow-moving conveyor belt that transported them into a blast furnace … The special mobile equipment for the killing of children [was] brought into the hinterland. The stationary gas chambers in the eastern part of the camp had been rebuilt. They had even attached to them turrets and ornamental architectural features so that they looked like harmless garages.

All this stands in contradiction to what the Holocaustian literature asserts about Auschwitz. If we believe what the Holocaust historians write, the mass murder of Jews began in February 1942. The place where this occurred is said to have been the chamber of Crematorium I, Stammlager Auschwitz. After a few months the gassings were said to have been transferred to two farm houses about 2 km outside the perimeters of Auschwitz.

From March 1943 onward, four crematories were commissioned at Birkenau, where it has been alleged specific rooms were used as gas chambers. The main place where exterminations occurred was Mortuary I of Krematoria II. Orthodox historians claim that those who were murdered at Auschwitz, or who died through sickness and weakness were burnt in the crematory, or, if capacity was exceeded by demand, were burnt on pyres, or in open pits. It is now impossible to locate in Holocaustian literature any reference to the “electric conveyor belt that simultaneously killed hundreds of people through electric current.” This conveyor belt was mentioned for the first and last time on Feb. 2, 1945. Holocaustian historians also know nothing about a slowly moving conveyor belt that dropped corpses into a furnace, or mobile contraptions that killed children. Finally, according to the Holocaust literature, the gas chambers were located not in the eastern part of the camp, but at Birkenau, west of the Stammlager, and thanks to the appended miniature towers and architectural ornamentation they looked like “harmless garages,” which not a single witness could confirm. In other words: Polevoi’s report was a total fabrication without any truth content.

Why? Why would comrade Polevoi serve up to his Pravda readers such fictitious horror stories if for days he had access to thousands of witnesses who could have reported on the real horror that occurred at Auschwitz?

The answer was obvious.

On this day, April 29, 1991, I understood that the recounting of the events at Auschwitz was not done historically, but propagandistically, and the system in which I grew up had lied to me from childhood. In 1958, or 1959, when I was about seven, or eight years old, I had for the first time heard about the gas chambers and had unshakably believed in them as I did in the existence of a continent called Africa, or a planet called Mercury. Now I knew better.

Later I learned how the official Auschwitz version had been created. On April 7, 1944, two young Czechoslovakian Jews, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, escaped from Auschwitz and had made their way to Pressburg (Slovenian Bratislava), where they wrote a report on Auschwitz and Birkenau. [5] This document was distributed by the Geneva-based Jewish organization “World Headquarters of Hechaluz.” According to the then still anonymous authors an unbelievably large number of Jews had been murdered in the Birkenau crematories with the insecticide Zyklon B. (To date such an assertion had not appeared in any earlier reports from Jewish, or Polish resistance organizations. In a later chapter I shall focus on their stories.) In Nov. 1944 this “authentic report” written by these two Czechoslovakian Jews was published in an English translation by the War Refugees Board, an organization headed by the Jewish US finance minister, Henry Morgenthau Jr. As the Morgenthau people did not get their document to their contacts in Moscow on time it was not in the possession of the Pravda reporter Polevoi by the end of Jan 1945, and so he gave his imagination free rein when he wrote the “historical truths” about Auschwitz. However, his errors were corrected some months later.

Three former Jewish Auschwitz inmates — Henryk Tauber, Szlama Dragon and Henryk Mandelstam — appeared before a Polish commission, where they testified they had witnessed mass gassings in the Birkenau crematoria. On May 24, 1945 Tauber stated that the total number of deaths in the camp was 4 million. [6] This just so happened to be the figure a Soviet commission had just obtained two and a half weeks previously.

Until the beginning of the 1990s the Polish historical record clung to this grotesque figure. Western Holocaust historians never accepted this figure and were satisfied in adopting a lower figure — 1.25 million, which included 1.1 million Jews, said Raul Hilberg. [7]

The Nazi gas chambers were thus a gigantic historical lie, as was also the “industrial extermination of Jews,” which it was alleged had happened in these chambers. It was quite obvious that Jews were the main profiteers of this swindle: The Holocaust myth of their victimization made them practicably unassailable. This lie was also of importance to those whose aim it was to exterminate through interbreeding the Europeans and European-related peoples. (I do not doubt anymore that this has been the aim of the Western elites.) The relentless Holocaustian propaganda served the purpose of inculcating not only the Germans, but all White people with a poisonous guilt complex and a revulsion against “racism.”

Under such circumstances the exposure of the lie of the extermination camps and their gas chambers had assumed existential proportions for Europe and beyond for the whole White race. I understood this to be my duty, no matter what personal disadvantage this would bring me by being part of this battle. Remaining neutral would have been like a cowardly capitulation.

After long conversations with Arthur Vogt, who also repeatedly supported me financially, I decided to fill a gap in the Revisionist literature and write a book mentioning all the important Revisionist arguments. Such a work was then not available. At the same time as working as a teacher of French and Latin at the Progymnasium Therwil I began on my project and, during the next two years, read over 100 books on the topic. Obviously among them were the standard texts of the orthodox Holocaust historiography. Until this time, l had filled most of my free time by learning more languages, but now that had to stop. Still, in 1992, I began to learn Polish, whose sound appealed to me. Later in my research the knowledge of Polish was invaluable when reading primary sources.

In March 1992, I traveled to Vichy so as to catch up with that visit, which had never eventuated 13 years earlier, to Prof. Robert Faurisson. In the meantime, I had sent him the first draft of my manuscript for evaluation. This extraordinary man had become the primary hate object of one of France’s Jewish organizations. He had been convicted by a capricious judiciary and heavily fined. In 1989 a pack of criminals, who called themselves “Sons of the Jewish Memory,” had set upon him in a park and brutally beaten him. Faurisson impressed me with his sharp mind and his detailed knowledge of the topic that had brought this together. But especially I was impressed by his love for truth. Here I had before me a man who would never compromise with a lie. Since our first meeting we have remained in constant contact and I have translated many of his works into German.

In September 1992, Faurisson and I traveled to Badenweiler to visit the former judge Wilhelm Staglich, the author of Ver Auschwitz Mythos (1979). In the late summer of 1944 Staglich was for a brief time stationed at Auschwitz as a lieutenant of the German antiaircraft gun defense. During the early 1970s, he published in a right-wing magazine a report of his experiences, wherein he stated that at Auschwitz he had not seen any evidence of crimes committed. For this heresy he was punished by having his doctorate revoked on the ground that his book was unworthy of an academic distinction. Ironically, the law that enabled this to occur was personally signed by Adolf Hitler.

This gave rise to a commitment within Staglich to find out what really happened at Auschwitz. The research resulted in his producing a standard Revisionist work whose chapter — a magnificent analysis of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial of 1963-65. During our discussion, Staglich commented pessimistically about a Revisionist breakthrough in Germany. The incessant brainwashing that already began in primary schools and the open attacks on Revisionists made such a development most unlikely.

Meanwhile, my manuscript had grown to a few hundred pages. Arthur Vogt and I agreed that a shorter version was needed wherein the Revisionist arguments were presented in compressed form. Anyone interested in more details could then read the longer version of the book. In March 1993 the abridged version was published as Der Holocaust auf dem Prufstand [8] and led to my immediate dismissal from the Progymnasium Therwil. Two months later the full version with an introduction by Robert Faurisson was published as Der Holocaust-Schwindel. [9]

After my dismissal I had a lot of time to myself, which I thought of using productively as long as I could write without fear of legal persecution. In December 1992, both houses of the Swiss Parliament had passed an “antiracism” law — Section 261 of the Criminal Code. It stated that “justification, trivializing and denying of genocide and other crimes against humanity” be punished by a maximum of three years in prison and an unlimited fine. The actual purpose of this law was to suppress Holocaust Revisionism. That in autumn 1993 a small group of Swiss citizens was able to collect enough signatures for a referendum prevented this legal muzzle from becoming active. The referendum was set for Sept. 25, 1994, which meant I could continue my work peacefully.

A week after my dismissal as a teacher, I became acquainted with Swiss engineer Gerhard Forster, a pensioner of German descent, who asked me to collect and critically analyze eyewitness reports about the alleged gassings at Auschwitz. Soon I was to meet the two men who were then to shape the profile of Revisionism. In June 1993, the 27-year-old German chemist Germar Rudolf visited me in Basel. He had just confirmed the results of his Rudolf Report in an exacting scientific paper, which he had published under the pseudonym “Ernst Gauss,” Vorlesungenl uber Zeitgeschichte. Rudolf appeared to be extremely self-confident. He was convinced that Revisionism would soon experience a breakthrough. He felt that there were no arguments against facts. Soon this brilliant scientist would experience firsthand the methods employed by the “most free state in Germany’s history,” without any argument, in order to suppress uncomfortable facts.

In September 1993, I traveled to Rome, where I visited the Italian Prof. Carlo Mattogno, who possessed numerous difficult-to-find texts, which were vital for my own book that I was writing about Auschwitz. For over a decade Mattogno had been writing books about National Socialist politics on the Jewish question, especially a brilliant analysis of the Gerstein Report, which served as the primary piece of evidence of the claim that Jews were gassed at the Belzec concentration camp, as well as a book titled Il Mito dello Sterminio (“The Myth of Jewish Extermination”). My visit, the first of about 15, was the impetus of a developing deep personal and productive relationship that extended to five extensive research trips as well as the production of a number of books.

My book, Tatergestandnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust (Perpetrator Confessions and Eyewitnesses of the Holocaust), was published by Gerhard Forster’s Neue Vision in May 1994. Four months later, Arthur Vogt and I traveled to California to attend the 12th International Revisionist Conference. Mattogno was one of the invited speakers at that conference. His text had been translated into English by an Italian-American citizen, Russell Granata, who was then to accompany us in the following year on our Moscow trip. At this conference I met the already then-legendary Ernst Zundel as well as his future wife, Ingrid Rimland, a German-American psychologist and author, who had only recently been convinced by Zundel of the correctness of the Revisionist thesis.

At that time the director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was Mark Weber, who, through a putsch, had replaced his boss, Willis Carto. Weber had a charming personality, which impressed me greatly. In subsequent years I wondered, though, why the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review lost its quality. This caused the magazine to lose subscribers and so Weber ceased publishing it. What surprised me was how Weber refused to translate and to publish Germar Rudolf’s fundamental volume, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. Only in A.D. 2000 did I meet the disempowered former IHR publisher Willis Carto and his wife Elisabeth and learned their side of the conflict. The Carto couple was convinced that Weber had deposed them on the urgings of Zionists in whose interest it was to neutralize the dangerous IHR. At first I was skeptical of such a view, but later I gradually became convinced that the Cartos may just have been right.

Soon after my return from California to Switzerland, on Sept. 25, 1994, we had the citizen-initiated referendum on the anti-racism law, which had been preceded by a malicious campaign conducted by the larger newspapers and media outlets. This new law was needed, it was argued by politicians and media scribblers, to protect foreigners from the threats of vile racists. They also lied unbelievably about the Revisionists, the so- called “Holocaust deniers” and “Auschwitz deniers.” Again and again it was asserted that we Revisionists deny the existence of the Auschwitz concentration camp. This propaganda of lies succeeded in persuading the Swiss citizens to vote in favor of their own disfranchisement by a 54% vote.

Meanwhile, Arthur Vogt and I, together with two other former teachers — Andreas Studer and Bernhard Schaub — founded the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Enttabuisierung der Zeitgeschichte” where we later changed the word “Enttabuisierung” — “get rid of taboo” to “Erforschung” — “research.” In the year following the publication of his book, Adler und Rose, in 1992, Schaub had lost his position as a German and history teacher at the Rudolf Steiner School. His book had contained a number of Revisionist arguments, and so he found himself in a similar position to me. We decided to continue our work after the muzzling law had come into effect. Vogt continued to publish his Aurora magazine of about 100 copies wherein he expressed his ideas about contemporary history and current affairs, as well as publishing some of my articles. Unfortunately, it was not possible to persuade Vogt not to send his magazine to judges and state prosecutors, because he fatally and erroneously believed these people were interested in historical facts. For this error he paid a heavy price. He was sentenced and convicted to heavy fines and only his advancing years in age prevented his being imprisoned.

In 1995 Carlo Mattogno and I undertook the already mentioned trip to Moscow, where we conducted extensive studies in two archives — the Center for Conserving of Historical Documents, which today is called the Russian Military Archive, and the Archive of the Russian Federation. We copied thousands of documents on which Mattogno was to base his future in-depth research about Auschwitz.

At the end of May 1997, Mattogno and I conducted a research trip that took us to Poland, Belarus and Lithuania, and from which we returned only in August. We returned with countless documents from the various archives on which the Majdanek book as well as the study about the Stutthof camp are based. Then in the historical archives of the Belarus capital city Minsk I met my future wife, the historian Olga Stepanowna, who had assisted researchers with their requests.

In May 1998, Mattogno and I undertook a trip to Belgium, where we met the indefatigable Revisionist publisher Siegfried Verbeke, then traveled to Holland, where we copied important documents held at the Amsterdam Imperial Archive for War Documents. Eleven years later these documents were to prove invaluable as we, together with the Swedish Revisionist Thomas Kues, published our book about the Sobibor camp.

In July 1998 Gerhard Forster and I appeared before court in Baden in Aargau for having distributed our Revisionist literature. As a witness for the defense I had invited Faurisson and the Austrian engineer, Wolfgang Frohlich, who was an expert in pest control as well as the killing of microbes through gas. The presiding judge refused Faurisson as a witness, but permitted Frohlich to make a statement. Frohlich had proposed to state the technical and chemical impossibility of the gassing scenario at Auschwitz, but was interrupted after a few sentences by state prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten, and threatened with prosecution were he to continue. This is how corrupt the Swiss judiciary had become. I was sentenced to 15 months in prison without parole as well as costs and fines totaling up to 40,000 francs. My barrister, Dr. Urs Oswald, who had mounted a competent defense, filed an appeal against this sentence.

Gerhard Forster, who was suffering from osteoporosis and other illnesses, appeared in court in a wheelchair. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison and received a fine almost as high as mine. He died two months after the trial.

Thanks to the German-Australian Dr. Fredrick Toben, who held a Revisionist conference in Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, two months after my trial it was possible for me to get to know the “Land Down Under”. Soon after my collaboration began with two Swiss comrades, Philippe Brennenstuhl and Rene-Louis Berclaz, the latter of whom had in September 1998 received a suspended sentence for translating the Rudolf Report into French. Together we founded the association Verite et Justice which then published numerous brochures. Among others, we also produced a response to the Bundesrat-produced Bergier Report which contained the usual lies about the role the Swiss played during World War II and lies about the ??? 82 year-old publicist Gaston Armand Amaudruz.

Soon after the Amaudruz trial, Mattogno and I undertook another trip to Moscow. There I learned that the Swiss Federal Court had confirmed my prison sentence. After our research in the Russian capital, I traveled to Minsk to visit Olga. At that time, we were not yet decided on whether I should serve my sentence, or whether I should move to Minsk, and so we postponed that decision to a later point.

Upon my return to Switzerland I was advised to begin my sentence on Oct. 2, 2000. As I could not pay the 40,000-franc fine imposed on me, my prison time would have been increased by about a year, and this would have meant a total of two and a half years of my freedom. So I left Switzerland on Aug. 15, my 49th birthday, and traveled, after a brief stop in Poland and Lemberg in west Ukraine, to Moscow, where Olga visited me. Instead of turning up on Oct. 2 at a Swiss prison, a day later I celebrated my engagement. Olga and I were not prepared to be separated for two and a half years. In any case, I did not see why I should spend time in prison for a crime I did not commit — “racial discrimination.” Our wedding took place in the following summer, because in November 2000 the Iranian Foreign Ministry had invited me to come to Tehran to assist in the preparation of an end of March/beginning of April 2001 conference on the topic of “Revisionism and Zionism.” The Iranian government did not wish to hold this conference in Iran, and so it was decided that it should be held in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.

In Tehran, I was looked after by three helpful and kind Foreign Ministry functionaries named Mohamed, Hasan and Nasir. I pointed out to my new Persian friends that a small and weak country like Lebanon, that bordered on Israel and was financially dependent on US financial support, could not, without difficulties, withstand the expected pressure coming from America and the Zionists. And so it came to pass. After the US State Department became involved, two weeks before it was to take place, the government in Beirut canceled the planned conference. In April 2001 I flew to Moscow, and from there traveled to Minsk. On July 26, Olga and I married in a civil ceremony in the White Russian capital. On Aug. 8 we had the wedding in a Roman Catholic church in Moscow.

In June 2002, my parents visited us in Moscow, which was the last time I saw my father: he died on June 7, 2008 at the age of 87. After my parents left us, Olga and I began our tour of the U.S., which we remember fondly. First we spent a few days as guests of Willis and Elisabeth Carto in Washington, where I also attended one of Carto’s Barnes Review conferences. There I was able to draw upon the book’s conclusions that Mattogno and I had written about Treblinka, which was to be published a few months later. We then flew to California, where we enjoyed the hospitality of our friend Russell Granata and his wife, Doris, and from there we journeyed to Germar Rudolf, who was then living in Alabama.

As a result of his Revisionist work, in 1995 Rudolf was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but he fled to England and from there to the US. Leaving aside the difficulties such moving about creates, Rudolf focused on Revisionism with extraordinary energy. He was then publishing the magazine Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung, and as well he became a publisher of German and English Revisionist books. Three and a half years after our visit, and in spite of his marriage to a U.S. citizen and having just become a father, he was extradited to Germany where he remained imprisoned until July 2009. After some difficult legal negotiations, the US immigration bureaucracy permitted his return to the U.S., where he now resides with his family. In his book Widerstand ist Pflicht [10] Rudolf recounts and documents his persecution by “the freest state in Germany’s history.”

One of the nicest individuals Olga and I met in America was a Protestant professor of theology and Greek, Robert Countess, and his wife Elma. In July we drove with him to Tennessee, where we spent some unforgettable days, with Ernst Zundel and his wife Ingrid. At that time, we did not anticipate the dark clouds that were forming over this couple. Half a year after our visit, and under an immigration pretext of not having attended a parole meeting, Zundel was extradited to Canada. Without being charged and without a trial, he spent two years in a maximum security immigration facility under a security certificate warrant before being extradited to Germany, where he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison — which he had to serve to the day. Since March 2010, he is again free, but US immigration officials have denied him a return to his wife in Tennessee.

After our America trip, Olga and I settled in Moscow, and I will probably return to the years spent in Russia at another time. Suffice it to say that most of my time was taken up with translation work, and I did not do enough for Revisionism. Still, in 2008 I was able to publish a book for our Russian readers, which my publisher titled Der Zusammenbruch der neuen Ordnung. Together, with Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno I wrote the above-mentioned study of Sobibor. As well, I wrote a number of articles that can be viewed on my website www.juergen-graf.vho.org.

Of those mentioned Revisionists some are no longer with us. My friend and mentor Arthur Vogt died on Oct. 30, 2003, two weeks before his 86th birthday. Russell Granata left us in 2004, Robert Countess in 2005 and Wilhelm Staglich in 2006. Andreas Studer, who had been totally blind for some years, died in autumn 2013.

On numerous occasions I have been asked whether I would have become a Revisionist had I not met Arthur Vogt. The answer to this question can only be, “Yes.” At the latest, however, since the enacting of the “anti racism law,” I would have certainly asked the political class, which I now deeply distrust, why our politicians want to deny a free and open investigation of the Holocaust. I would have followed up this matter, and I would have met Faurisson, Rudolf, Mattagna and the other Revisionists, albeit a little later. Whether I would have ever met Olga is difficult to say. Such thoughts are superfluous, because fate would have it that I became acquainted with Revisionism under the circumstances related above and during a Revisionist trip I met my wife. That she came from the former Soviet Union, which I so feared as a child and adolescent, was a fateful irony.

Now that my Russian exile is nearing its end I would like to return to the topic of my first book, which encapsulates what I observed decades ago, how Europe began its “long day’s journey into the night” through mass immigration of people from foreign cultures and races. After I had clarified in Narrenschiff the specific problem of asylum abuse in Switzerland, I have now set myself the goal of reflecting on this problem in a much broader context.

My earlier predicted apocalyptical conditions did not eventuate in my homeland. Although Switzerland belongs to those European countries with the highest number of foreigners, these foreigners are easily integrated Europeans — Italians, Germans and Portuguese. That we did not experience the horrendous catastrophe facing France, Belgium, Holland, or England is a result of two factors. First, thanks to a constitutional right the Swiss citizen can bring about a citizen-initiated referendum on factual questions by obtaining a minimum number of signatures. This is the fundamental difference between us and our neighbor state, the Federal Republic of Germany, which calls itself “democratic”, but refuses to grant its citizens the right to comment directly on factual matters, and which, in its long history, has never granted its citizens a single citizen-initiated referendum. Second, the largest political party in our government, the Swiss Volkspartei, does represent the interests of the majority of the indigenous peoples, while the German, French, British and so on do not have any representation in their governing parties.

Why is it that the peoples of the old continent have not resisted their ruling elites’ aim of killing their souls and bringing about their biological extinction? Ernst Junger provides an answer to this question in his marvelous novel Auf den Marmorklippen, wherein the tyranny of the head ranger at the Grossen Marina is vividly described:

There were other signs wherein the decline expressed itself. It is like a rash that appears, disappears and returns. In between there were also joyous days where everything seemed as before this was the head ranger’s — Oberforster’s — brilliant strategy; he injected fear in small doses, then increased them with the aim of paralyzing any resistance. [11]

If, during the 1960s, a European government had flooded its country with African and Asian immigrants, legalized the obscenely blasphemous same-sex “marriage” and introduced the criminal madness of “gender mainstreaming,” then the people would soon have had enough and voted them out. Thus the destruction of the social order needed to be done in small doses, as with Ernst Junger’s head ranger. Besides indoctrinating the younger generation, politicians and the media imbued the parent generation with fear in small doses and increased the pressure on those who contumaciously refused to march along toward the abyss and who were then labeled bigoted rednecks and screwed-up anti-progressives. And so those who still retained their independence of thought and whose instincts remained uncorrupted fled into silent resignation. For recalcitrant dissidents specific “anti-racism laws” were enacted throughout Europe.

According to the will of those who have written on their banners the extermination of the Europeans and the destruction of European culture, there is to be no tomorrow for the vanquished. But while I write these lines there is already a strong resistant wind blowing in the faces of those who are set on destroying our culture.

The last battle for Europe has not yet been fought.

Moscow, June 12, 2014

Notes to the Introduction:

1. Jurgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanck, Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, 1998.

2. Robert Faurisson, “Le probleme des chambres a gaz ou la rumeur d’Auschwitz,” Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978.

3. Christian Morgenstern, “Die unmogliche Tatasche,” in Palmstrom: All Galgenlieder, Diogenes Verlag, Zurich, 1987.

4. State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 7021-108-23, p. 179-198 and 200-217.

5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library, New York, WRB Box n 61.

6. Akten des Hoss-Prozesses, Band 11, P.130.

7. Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der euroaischen Juden, Frankfurt a. M., 1997, P. 946.

8. Jurgen Graf, Ver Holocaust auf dem Priufstand, Gideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993.

9. Jurgen Graf, Ver Holocaust Schwindel, Gideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993.

10. Germar Rudolf, Widerstand ist Pflicht, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2012.

11. Ernst Junger, Auf den Marmorklippen, 19. Auflage, Klett-Cotta 2008, p. 46. The first edition appeared in Hamburg in 1938.

Jean Raspail

CHAPTER ONE

THE RED BIRD

FROM THE DANUBE DELTA

When I think of the developments in Europe, I often recount with pain and sadness this mythical red bird of which the Romanian author Marin Preda metaphorically reports:

Romanian ornithologists have discovered a red-feathered bird that displays an inexplicable behavior. Each year foxes steal eggs from its nest and replace them with pebbles, which the bird incubates during summer, not realizing they are pebbles. In order to save the endangered species, the ornithologists chased away the foxes. To the scientists’ amazement, who watched with binoculars from a distance, the bird in an inexplicable hysterical rage broke the eggs with its beak, flapping its wings and dancing around in a mad fashion. What was wrong? Which dark instincts drove it to self- destruction? Why did it no longer wish to live? Who could know? Nature has condemned the red bird to death, and no one had the power to change the verdict. [1]

Just like this hapless red bird, it appears the European peoples are driven by a gloomy instinct to their self-destruction. This demographic winter already entered decades ago and should a spring not follow, then, according to the immutable laws of mathematics, it must lead to the aging and extinction of the peoples of the continent. In his 2002 book The Death of the West, the American author Patrick Buchanan described in a sober fashion the development as follows:

The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 and 2050, the world population will grow by more than 3 billion to over 9 billion people, but this 50% increase in global population will come entirely in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as one hundred million people of European stock vanish from the Earth. In 1960 people of European ancestry were one-fourth of the world’s population; in 2000, they were ones sixth; in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race. In 2000 the total population of Europe, from Iceland to Russia, was 728 million. At present birthrates, however, without new immigration, her population will crash to 600 million by 2050 … Europe dies. How bleak is the situation? Of the 20 nations with the lowest birthrates in the world, 18 are in Europe. The average fertility rate of a European woman has fallen to 1.4 children, with 2.1 needed just to replace the existing population … If the present fertility rates hold, Europe’s population will decline to 207 million by the end of the 21st century, less than 30% of today’s. The cradle of Western civilization will have become its grave … For 10 years Germany’s birthrate has stood at 1.3 children per woman, far below the 2.1 needed to replace the present population. Here is the future that is now hard upon the German nation. By 2050:

• 23 million Germans will have disappeared;

• Germany’s 82 million people will have fallen to 59 million;

• A third of Germany’s population will be over 65 years old. These seniors will outnumber German children more than two to one …

Prospects for the Italian race, which gave us Rome and all its glory, St. Peter’s and the Sistine Chapel, Dante and Michelangelo, Columbus and Galileo, are even more dire.

Italy’s birthrate has been below replacement levels for 25 years and is down to 1.2 children per woman. At this rate, Italy’s 57 million people will fall to 41 million by 2050 … Cardinal Giacomo Biffi of Bologna has called on Rome to restrict immigration to Catholics to “save the nation’s identity.” But where does his eminence propose to find these Catholics? Certainly not in Spain, where in the days of the Caudillo, Gen. Francisco Franco, big families were sacred and received medals and gifts from the state. In Spain, the birthrate is down to 1.07 children per woman, and the population is projected to fall by 25% in 50 years … What does the future hold for our British cousins?

Ethnic minorities already constitute 40% of London’s population. The fertility rate fell to 1.66 births per woman. [2]

But as Europe is dying;

“the Third World adds 100 million people — one new Mexico every 15 months. Forty new Mexicos in the Third World by 2050, while Europe will have lost the equivalent of the entire population of Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway — and Germany!”

It lies in the nature of things that the gradually aging, but still wealthy Western half of Europe attracts like a magnet the exploding population of the Third World. Already some decades ago, visionaries saw the writing on the wall. One of them was the author Jean Raspail. In his brilliant 1973 novel Le camp des saints (“The Camp of the Saints”) [3] he outlined a vision of the end of Europe which is heralded with the landing, on the French Mediterranean coast, of a giant fleet of I million refugees. For compelling literary reasons, Raspail let this armada arrive not from nearby north and west Africa, as would have been expected, but from faraway India. Several weeks would elapse from the time of the fleet’s departure to its landing at the French Mediterranean coast, as all of Africa had to be circumnavigated, due to the closure of the Suez Canal. This gave the author the opportunity to slowly increase the suspense.

Raspail depicts with terrifying realism the helplessness and inaction of the government in Paris. The agitation of the left-leaning intellectuals and journalists demanding self-righteously, in the name of human rights, the hospitable reception of the refugees. The happy excitement of the black and Arab population living in France, feverishly expectant of the impending Big Redistribution, as well as the final betrayal by the Catholic dignitaries of their true believers and indigenous population. Immediately after the landing of the armada, the French church leaders called and gathered for a hunger strike in support of the invaders, and the Cardinal of Paris offered the Muslims 30 churches to be converted into mosques. At that time the sitting Pope in the Vatican was Benedict XVI.

Pure Coincidence, or Clairvoyant Abilities?

Jean Raspail’s oppressive vision became reality long ago. Day after day boats navigate with refugees into European coastal waters. However, they do not arrive from India, but Africa. For most the first point of call is the Italian island of Lampedusa. A constant now of unseaworthy and overcrowded vessels arrives, with African passengers who, will then be transported to the mainland with the aim to “migrate” them to the north, where higher social service benefits are on offer and where a fanatic migrant lobby fights for the permanent stay of these illegal immigrants.

For this lobby — to which in Germany belong the Green Party, SPD (Social Democratic Party) and the left, but also increasingly the CDU —these Africans are “the poorest of the poor” and Europe is duty bound, for humanitarian reasons, to give the invaders a permanent stay. The publication Zuerst proves with naked facts that this view in no way coincides with reality:

To reach the EU from Africa and Asia without assistance works only in rare cases. In most circumstances the services of professional “people smugglers” are engaged, and they cost money, lots of money. This applies especially for the so-called professional people smugglers, who repeat failed illegal crossings until successful…. Often large families, or whole communities join together to finance organized people smugglers to transport a chosen person. His mission is: He must reach his destination, establish himself and obtain as much money as possible to enable other members of their community, or family to follow.

An Austrian member of Parliament, Dr. Johann Huebner, points out:

“Among the refugees are also numerous people who already were criminals in their country, among them street gangs from major black African cities, drug dealers and other criminals who have access to cash and foreign currencies which normally does not apply to the majority of black Africans.”

There is no question, but that there are many reasons for emigration. In all corners of the planet exist political, ethnic and religious conflicts, hostile clans fight for power and bully the population, natural disasters, misery and hunger rage. However, there are not only pushing, but also pulling forces: the allure of a life of plenty in faraway Europe transported by the rumor mill and the modern media. Television and Internet can today be found in every bamboo hut. [4]

Such logical arguments are naturally not amenable to the immigration lobby, as logic is a foreign word to them. Their actions are based purely on emotion, and the actual motives, mainly from the German advocates of this lobby, appear to be seldom genuine concern for the economic refugees. To most it serves as a battering ram for the destruction of their own country. Their real motive is the hatred for their own people which must quickly disappear in a racial melting pot. The system itself has cultivated this self-hate through the mindless Auschwitz and Holocaust propaganda. Therefore, the German immigration lobby is a waste product of this re-education.

So it is that almost daily boats continue to anchor in Lampedusa. And tragedies continue to happen such as the one of October 2013 when almost 400 Africans drowned. The politicians dutifully sprinkled ash on their heads and asked themselves how such catastrophes could be avoided in the future. The only right answer to this question was issued by a lone voice in the wilderness, Thilo Sarrazin:

Where lie the limits for the European conscience? A yearly number of 100,000 economic refugees from Africa, or 500,000, or perhaps 1 million? And what if even more should arrive? Even 2 million refugees would not bring lasting relief to conditions in Africa …

The sociologist Max Weber, in a presentation, distinguished between the ethics of thinking and the ethics of responsibility. He said:

“There is a profound difference whether someone acts under the maxim of thinking ethics — speaking in a religious sense: A Christian does the right thing and credits God for the successful outcome — or, under the ethics of responsibility, one has to accept the (foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions …”

Let’s look at Africa in this context: The population on this continent has in the last 50 years quadrupled and rests now at a billion people … Europe can assist by way of assuring that those who leave are not the ones who are needed to improve the conditions. It is not the poorest who are fleeing. It is the middle class, those who are relatively well educated and in a better financial situation and whose families are able to scrape together the $1,000, or $2,000 needed for a tug to Europe, so that a member of the family can go to Europe as a bridgehead. Those who are fleeing the African countries are needed most [in Africa] to help overcome their underdevelopment. Europe would do a service to these countries by preventing this exodus. Europe can best avoid deaths in the Mediterranean by not allowing refugees to reach the Maghreb coast …

“The only way to win the fight against people smuggle/os is by stopping the demand for their services. This can only be achieved when it is made clew ‘that all refugees picked up in the Mediterranean are returned to their coastal point of departures.” [5]

The following measures would dry up the influx to Lampedusa within days:

If Italy enacted a law which would make the commercial “people smuggling,” independent of the number of people smuggled, punishable with a five-year prison sentence. The captains of the refugee boats, or tugs could be made to face a court immediately after their arrival, convicted and the same day sent to prison for five years. This news would travel at speed to the Maghreb states and the potential immigrants would overnight have no more tugs available.

No attempt is made to check the identity and country of origin of the illegal immigrants on arrival. The latter is only seldom possible with black Africans, also due to language problems. Close to 2,000 dialects are spoken on the African continent, of which most Europeans have no knowledge, and apart from that, language and state borders in black Africa, states that were created by previous colonial powers and are arbitrary structures, do not correspond. Each arrival receives a shower and a warm meal, and he is handed a food package. Immediately following, the illegal immigrants will be returned by boat commanded by a European captain to the original departure point on the Libyan, or Tunisian coast from which they started their journey to the north. These points can easily be located from satellite pictures. The Libyan and Tunisian authorities will be responsible for the repatriation of the refugees.

Within days the “demand for people smuggler services” would sink to zero, to use Thilo Sarrazin’s phrasing. The stream of migrants over the Mediterranean would end, and no more refugees would drown.

Of course, as long as no radical political change occurs, no government in Rome will resort to such measures, as with nearly all governments in other European countries, so too are the Italians prisoners of their mad, liberal and international ideology.

Let us assume the impossible should occur and an Italian government decided to take up the steps above. In that scenario a deafening howl of protest would arise throughout the “free world,” and the do-gooders of all countries would cry out for sanctions against Rome. The loudest shouts would without doubt emanate from the Social Democratic Party in Germany, of which Sarrazin, for inexplicable reasons, is to this day a member. The SPD minister for social services in Lower Saxony, Cornelia Rundt, at the end of 2013, expressed the view that in future integration would no longer be demanded from immigrants, but to appreciate the growing diversity. She demanded the Germans develop a “culture of welcome.” How does a mentally sound human being such as Mr. Sarrazin feel in such a society? [6]

Lampedusa is not the only destination illegal immigrants from the Third World strive to reach by sea. In the autumn of 2012 Greece constructed a nine-foot-high fence bordering Turkey to stop economic and war refugees from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria using Greece as a thoroughfare on their march to Europe. Now many migrants reach Greece over the Aegean Sea, others cross the River Evros with the use of tugs.

“[For] whoever has made it to Turkey, from there the journey is child’s play. Every day more than 100 planes land in Istanbul from Asia and Africa. It is not hard to find someone who for payment would organize a trip over the Evros.” [7]

In the economically prostrate country of the Hellenes, by now 10% of the population originate from the Third World. Only a small number of the newcomers remain. Most move on to comfortably settle in middle, west and northern Europe. An especially attractive destination is Germany. The reason being, Athens has no functioning asylum system, and the German authorities do not send back illegal immigrants who reach Germany via Greece. However, this still does not satisfy the immigration lobby:

In order not to be deported, refugees must first make it to Germany on their own accord. Welfare organizations such as Pro Asyl are not content with this passive stance.

“It would be a sign of humanity, especially people in need of protection, such as families with children, or children traveling alone, to distribute according to humanitarian criteria to other EU states. This would also be a sign of solidarity with Greece,” said Karl Kopp, European speaker for Pro Asyl. [8]

Although illegal immigration from the Third World is often based on and takes place under dramatic circumstances, and takes center stage, this should not detract from the fact that legal immigration procedures to enable family reunion also take place. From the moment a migrant has obtained permanent residency status, his wife and children may follow. If he is single, there are two possibilities open to him. Either he returns for a holiday to his home country, marries and returns with his wife, who through the marriage gains also residency in the particular European country where he now resides. Should this be too costly for him, he can send for a bride from his home country, who with the help of people smugglers crosses the border illegally, and then legalizes her stay through marriage.

In April 2013 the highest court in France, the Court of Cassation, made a significant judgment. It decided that Algerian and Turkish migrants working in France, whose children are born in their respective home countries, have the right to claim child support payments from the French government, as long as they settle in France. This also applies if those children are from various marriages. In the case of Turkey, which forbids polygamy, the latter clause has no practical meaning. However, it applies in the case of Algeria where polygamy is legal. In other words:

An Algerian man with four wives, who bore him 15 children, may bring these 15 children to France, and claim money for child support.

The same country that allows, with these measures, north African Muslims in droves into France permits year after year around 200,000 French children to be legally killed in their mother’s womb. Since the lifting of the abortion ban in 1975, on the initiative of the Jewish “health minister” Simone Veil, till the end of 2013 approximately 7.6 million children were pierced, dismembered and cauterized with the state’s blessing. Only in a disappearing and small number of cases were the abortions for legitimate reasons (danger to the life, or health of the mother; pregnancy resulting from rape, or incest). The others were the result of “social reasons.”

As a youth I came across this Quote during a lecture about the New Testament: “Der Tod ist der Suende Soll,” — “Death is payment for our sins” (Romans 6:23). This made no sense to me, as death comes to all of us, the righteous and sinners. However, if you apply this quote not to the individual, but to people and nations, then with fearsome clarity the sense of this comes to light. A people which with in 38 years kills off over 7 minion of its children for “social reasons” but, at the same time, entices millions of people of other religions, cultures and race to their country, is guilty of a sin, whose payment is their death.

The excuse that the responsibility for this policy lies with the politicians and their appointed judges and not with the French citizens does not help. The French people have voted for these politicians. In May 2002 the incumbent President Jacques Chirac, an advocate of multiculturalism and African migration, took up his post after the second round of the presidential elections against Marine Le Pen from the National Front, who wanted to stop immigration. More than 81% of the French decided for Chirac and thereby agreed to their own displacement. As a mitigating circumstance one could allow the fact that their judgment was clouded due to the mendacious media propaganda. However, no mitigating circumstance can save the French people from their displacement if they do not wake up in time.

Dmitri Kisseljow’s Russian television program Vesti Nedli (“News of the Week”) of February 2013 conveys an unembellished picture of the situation in French cities. We quote here a few passages from the program with the title “The unrecognizable France.” [9] The documentary begins with scenes from an underground Koran school:

It is not permitted to speak French here, only Arabic. Every day the first lesson studied is the Koran. Every genuine Muslim must learn by heart the 114 surahs of the holy book … Aysche and her eight sisters from Morocco have been wearing the burka since the age of two. Aysche’s family has never attempted to learn French … In this school exist no worldly laws. “Worldly” is translated in Arabic as “anti-religious.”

[A female student speaks:] “I respect my religion. This is the reason I wear the burka. If France wishes to ban it, then it can ban it for the French women. For me, only Allah can ban it.”

Last year three Islamic underground schools were closed. This school has therefore taken measures. It does not exist on the Internet nor in the city’s address book.

In the Belleville area are practically no non-Muslims left.

[A Russian migrant speaks:] “Myself and my children have been attacked by [Muslim] youths several times.”

How many are here, no one knows. Between 6 and 8 million. That’s a European record. [About] 200,000 people enter legally year after year. Add to that another 200,000 who cross the border without papers.

[Marine Le Pen speaks:] “If we don’t want that, France has to hide behind a veil, then we have to stop the stream of migrants.”

Forty-three percent of the migrants have never tried to work [and] 18% live below the poverty line, on the street.

[A Russian-speaking Arab:] “Netu raboty, netu nitsu evo.” [“There is no work, there is nothing.”]

The improvised city of the homeless lies directly under the windows of the Benedictine cathedral St. Denis. In the Basilica of St. Denis, you find the largest burial vault in France. There lie 25 kings, 10 queens and 80 princes. The grave of King Clovis is also there. He was the first of the Frank’s rulers to convert to Christianity. Charles Martel, who has entered history as savior of Europe from the Arabs, also rests in this cathedral … Now this suburb of Paris is the poorest and most criminal of all. Nine kilometers from the Champs Elysees, it is considered not necessary to speak French.

In 2004 an ethnic French woman bore 1.7 children. The fertility rate of migrants from north Africa, black Africa and Turkey living in France are as follows:

• Algeria 2.57 children per woman

• Black Africa 2.86 children per woman

• Tunisia 2.90 children per woman

• Morocco 2.97 children per woman

• Turkey 3.21 children per woman.

In view of the much higher birth rates of the migrant women compared to those of ethnic French women, and that 400,000 overwhelmingly Muslim migrants stream into France annually, partly legally, partly illegally, the ethnic French will, with mathematical certainty. within a few decades, be the minority in their own country if there is no timely change in direction.

France’s present is intended for the rest of Europe’s future: as an example, nearly two decades ago Finland had a nearly 100% White population.

In contrast to many other European states, Finland had virtually no immigration to speak of. However, then a rapid increase began … Today, Somalis represent the largest African group in Finland. There are over 10,000 Somali-speaking people … The number of people with Somali background will, due to family reunion, increase in the near future … Immigration from other African countries to Finland has increased considerably since the 1990s.

Jean Raspail, the prophet of 1973, has long given up the belief of the survival of the Europeans. Thirty-one years after the publication of his masterpiece, Raspail called out in despair:

“The whole of Europe marches to its death.”

This shattering conclusion in no way applies only to the western half of the Old Continent.

Russia’s demographic statistics also allow little hope for the future. In 2002 Patrick Buchanan stated:

“With a birthrate of 1.35 children per woman, Russia’s 147 million people fall to 114 million by 2050.” [10]

Nevertheless, since 2010, Russia’s population has been on the increase. It stood at 146.1 minion at the end of 2014. So the situation is not hopeless.

Gloomier is the picture for a large part of Eastern Europe. As the social conditions in some Eastern European countries descend more and more to Third World standards, although these states do not attract masses of migrants from Africa, or Asia, they bleed following a decline in the birthrate and massive migration of their own population to Western Europe, or America. Bulgaria’s population sank from 8.981 million in 1988 to 7.246 million in 2013. The communist dictatorship, which restricted the rights of its citizens, but guaranteed the continuation of the Bulgarian population, was replaced by a democratic system that admittedly brought the Bulgarians various rights, including the right for gay parades. Their biological survival, however, was thereby threatened. The migrants who search for their luck in Western Europe and America belong naturally to the younger generation, and this decline runs parallel with a quickly aging population. Should this development continue, then a diminishing Bulgarian population inevitably will awaken a desire in their Turkish neighbors; just as the 1.355 billion today. and perhaps 1.7 billion Chinese tomorrow, continue to look with ever more covetous glances at a diminishing population in Siberia. Only a fool would rebuke the Turks and Chinese for that. On their side would be the right of the stronger, just as the right of the Americas was on the side of the European colonists and not the Indians.

The gloomy picture is balanced by the White population outside of the European continent being on retreat. In 2002 Patrick Buchanan believed that around the middle of the 21st century only every second U.S. citizen would belong to the White race. [11] Statistics today indicate this could happen much sooner. Also, in Canada and Australia the majority of their European origin population is on the defensive in light of continued migration — from Asia mainly.

What is the Reason for This Development?

In his monumental work Der Untergang des Abendlandes (“The Decline of the West”), Oswald Spengler presented his view that each culture is allotted a certain lifespan. If that is correct, and should the life of the Occident and its bearer, the White race, according to immutable laws, have expired, one can lament, just as we can lament the imminent death of an old man whose organs are failing, but we are unable to prevent it. Important facts speak against the idea that Europeans, decades after World War II, entered old age and their announced death was the logical result of this development.

It is helpful here to use as a comparison the decline of Classical culture. The parallels to our situation today — turning away from religion, turning toward materialism, the emergence of the entertainment industry (then chariot races, gladiator fights; today Hollywood), decline of art and morals — is obvious. However, crucial differences come to mind. While the decline of ancient culture was a lengthy process extending over centuries, the abdication of Europe (including its outposts of North America and Australia) is happening at an unnatural pace. This can be recognized by the clear examples of Great Britain and France. They still owned mighty colonial empires after the end of World War II, but a few decades later were themselves colonized by their previous black and brown subjects.

Even more incomprehensible than the fast pace at which the abdication of White humanity from the historical world stage has taken place is the fact that this process is actively supported and even controlled by the elite in European countries. Certainly, traitors who collaborated with foreign intruders have always existed in all countries and at all times. However, the total elite of a great number of states encourage the displacement of their own population and citizens who oppose this development are exposed to ridicule and where possible hauled before courts and accused of “racism.” This is a phenomenon which finds no parallel in the past. It is also worth taking a closer look at these extraordinary elites.

Notes to Chapter 1:

1. Marin Prcda. Delirul, Editura, Cartea Romaneasca, Bucharest. 1975, p. 311.

2. Patrick Buchanan, Death of the West. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 2002, pp. 12-19 ff.

3. Jean Raspail, Le Camp des Saints, Robert Laffont, Paris, 1973.

4. “Asylmssbrauch,” ~ in Zuerst, Dee. 2013. p. 8 ff.

5. “Integration gestrichen,” Zuerst. Dee. 2013. p. 7.

6. “Fluchpunkt Athen,” Die Zeit. 23 Sept. 2012.

7. Internet.

8. Ibid.

9. www.YouTube.com/watch?y=WYh124a8E

10. Buchanan, Death of the West, p. 17.

11. Death of the West, p. 19.

Oswald Spengler

CHAPTER TWO

CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler stressed that not all cultures die a natural death. He reminded us that the Aztec and Inca cultures did not die of old age, but were brutally destroyed by invaders. The same fate is now threatening the Europeans. [Note, however, that both the Aztecs and Incas were actually overthrown by the racially identical neighboring tribes of peoples they had enslaved and abused for generations, which were organized by racially different invaders, i.e., the Spaniards. — Ed.]

Initially, this parallel may not be fitting, because the Aztecs and the Incas had no chance of defending themselves against the superior weapons of the Spanish conquistadors. In addition, there were the introduced epidemics against which they had no effective defense and thus could not prevent their own mass extermination. In contrast to this state of affairs, it is easily possible for the Europeans to stop this influx of immigrants overnight. How this can be achieved was indicated in the previous chapter. If the political will is there, then it is quite possible to remove from Europe the culturally foreign and racially different immigrants, and the way to do it will be discussed in the final chapter of this book.

But it is exactly the will of the ruling elites of Western and Central Europe that is missing. Not only this, but they also desire this influx of foreigners and support any program that facilitates such developments, just as the US elites for decades have been encouraging the immigration of Mexicans and non-Whites.

In other words, the real enemy of the Europeans is their own elites. The innocent migrants from Africa and Asia merely serve as instruments in the process of destroying the traditional society and European culture together with its creators and carriers, the White peoples of the old continent. They are, in effect, the foot soldiers, the infantry, without whom officers cannot conduct a war.

To take the analogy further, the officers’ corps, with one, or two exceptions, has members from most ruling parties of Western and Central Europe, the gurus of the entertainment industry, the leading intellectuals as well as from the publishers and journalists of the controlled media. Any differences existing between the various parties, newspapers and television channels are today only microscopic. Whether the CDU/CSU governs alone in Germany, or with an SPD coalition, or whether the SPD forms a government with the Greens makes no marked difference. This also applies in Great Britain, France and other European countries where the electors can choose between conservatives, liberals, socialists, or Greens — all have adopted the same anti-nationalist policies of increasing poverty, cultural destruction and national death as well as the subjugation to the world hegemony of the U.S.A. The freedom to vote for any of these parties is like the choice between Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola.

This is especially applicable to migration politics. The Left and the Greens on the one hand and the centralists and the Right on the other may only disagree about the rate at which indigenous people are to be brought into a multicultural, mixed race society. The Left and the Greens wish to accomplish this process as quickly as possible while the centralists and the Right are quite happy with the speed at which this is progressing. For example, in Germany the Greens, the Left and the SPD would like to see the German people disappear overnight, while for the CDU-CSU it suffices if this process occurs tomorrow.

Parties that are not enthusiastic about “multicultural” blessings will not participate in governments. They are despised and defamed by the establishment media.

That not all European countries are marching to the same tune into the abyss is self-evident. As mentioned in the Introduction, Switzerland is in a far better position than, for example, Germany, France, or Britain. First, this is, because it has a citizen initiated referendum mechanism that can be activated through a large number of signatures. Second, the second largest Swiss party does at least nominally represent Swiss interests. In Hungary the party in power, Fidesz, has committed itself to representing traditional Christian values, and thereby is condemned in other countries. Unfortunately, such hopeful signs do not produce an optimistic picture for the European continent as such.

The Basic Thesis of this Book

The ruling elites of Western and Central Europe — as well as in the U.S.A. — aim to extinguish the White people through racial mixing. In order to achieve this, they actively encourage migration from Third World countries. As well, they encourage the birth rate of indigenous Europeans to fall. This is achieved through legalized abortions, as well as implementing financial policies that are detrimental to large families, but assist couples without children. Likewise, the propagation of homosexuality and the implementation of the obscenity of “gender mainstreaming” serve to achieve the goal.

Anyone who propounds such views is immediately attacked as a “conspiracy theorist.” Before we elaborate on this accusation, let us first focus on the question of how the ruling system in Europe handles critics who dare challenge the prevailing dogma.

Like Tibetan prayer wheels, the politicians of the West repeat the same mantra: the first thing is human rights, which can only be realized within a democracy, to which is added tolerance and free expression. For example, on May 15, 1995, then-German President Roman Herzog, when awarding the German Book Publishers Peace Prize to Islamic scholar Annemarie Schimmel, stated:

“When we begin a dialogue with others we bring into it some non-negotiable essentials. Free expression is one of these, and this means no one is to suffer, because of held convictions. A long and often bloody and cruel history has taught us Europeans that these rights must never become negotiable again … A dialogue is only possible when no one needs to fear that, because of an expressed opinion there is a possibility of imprisonment, torture, or murder. I repeat, for us human rights are non-negotiable, the dignity of the individual … freedom of expression, of religion and ideological conviction.”

Herzog’s hypocrisy was abhorrent. Only shortly before this had the television and press broadcast their sensationalized reports on former teacher and NPD chairman Gunter Deckert, who had been sentenced to two years in prison for “inciting racial hatred.”

In November 1991, Deckert had invited the US execution engineer Fred Leuchter — who in his report concluded that on technical grounds the gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have operated — to address the NPD, which address Deckert translated. For this, the Mannheim District Court sentenced him to a one year prison sentence, suspended. He appealed. The Federal Court quashed the sentence and ordered a retrial. In 1994 a new sentence was handed down. Presiding Judge Rainer Orlet, Judge Dr. Mueller and Mrs. Folkerts confirmed the original sentence, but gave the accused an excellent character reference — “strong character, responsible personality with clear principles.”

A storm of protest fell over Germany as if Heinrich Himmler had posthumously received the Nobel Peace Prize. In a new trial the federal judgment was vacated and, in April 1994, Gunter Deckert was sentenced to two years in prison without parole. This did not prevent this courageous man from continuing to air his Revisionist views openly. To date he has spent more than five years in prison.

Exactly three weeks before the quoted address by President Herzog wherein he sang the praises of free expression, the magazine Focus reported:

Rainer Voss, chairman of the German Association of Judges, stated the decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe was appropriate, which had sentenced the NPD national chairman Gunter Deckert to two years in prison without parole on Friday. The decision of the court that by denying the gas chamber murders Deckert had committed a dangerous intellectual arson, filled the Judges’ Association chairman with satisfaction…. The chairman of the Central Council of Jews, Ignatz Bubis, stated that the Karlsruhe court thus drew the correct conclusions … given the damage thus incurred, so the Secretary General of the FDP, Guido Westerwelle, the penalty imposed against Deckert is justifiable. Party colleague and Bundestag Vice President Burkhard Hirsch [said]:

“I welcome the judgment.”

[This chapter finishes off with a discussion on how 9/11 was clearly an “inside job” perpetrated by the same forces pushing for a “New [Jew] World Order” — KATANA]

[End of this sample Kindle book. Enjoyed the preview? Buy with 1-Click, or See details for this book in the Kindle Store]

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

Click to download a PDF of this post (1.4 MB):

White World Awake — Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk – Intro Ch 1 and 2

Version History

Version 5: Sep 17, 2023 — Improved formatting.

Version 4: Mar 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 3: Feb 10, 2017 — Added PDF of post for download.

Version 2: Feb 7, 2017 — Added chapter 1 and part of 2.

Version 1: Feb 6, 2017 — Published post.

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

admin — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:15:28 +0000

[In this article, written for the Dec. 1979 edition of the revisionist journal, Instauration, an interesting account is given of the first ever, “Anti-Holocaust” convention, with speakers including: Robert Faurisson from France; John Bennett from Australia; Udo Walendy from Germany; Louis FitzGibbon from Britain; Arthur Butz and James Martin from the US. This was held in Los Angeles and organized by the Institute for Historical Review — KATANA.]

Instauration – Dec, 1979

The World’s First

Anti-Holocaust Convention

Text

World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention

— Instauration, Dec. 1979

A great and historic weekend — $50,000 offered for proof of gassing.

Labor Day weekend marked what may be the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another — the end of the domination of the Six Million myth over the Western mind and the start of a new wave of historical revisionism that might well signal the reappearance of truth in history.

The Revisionist Convention of the Institute for Historical Review was held at Northrop Institute of Technology in Los Angeles. Speakers came from all over the world: Robert Faurisson from France; John Bennett from Australia; Udo Walendy from Germany; Louis FitzGibbon from Britain; Arthur Butz and James Martin from the US.

The proceedings began on Friday, August 31. Some of those present already knew each other. For the most part, however, the faces belonged to new converts to the anti-Holocaust cause. A significant proportion of the attendance were engineers — people with a liking for hard facts who instinctively resist overblown claims and sly innuendo. Also present were several physicists, a brace of computer programmers and one commercial airline pilot. The convention was dedicated to the memory of the founding father of revisionism, Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, who passed into the realm of eternal history in 1968.*

*[Actually, Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes passed away on Aug. 25, I969]

[Image] James Martin (left) with Harry Barnes, 1954.

Saturday, the meeting began in earnest in the Northrop auditorium.

The delegates were formally welcomed by Willis Carto, one of the organizers of the Institute for Historical Review and the dynamic force behind Liberty Lobby. He then yielded to the permanent chairman George Resch, a libertarian investment counsellor associated with the Institute for Human Studies in San Francisco.

[Image] Willis Cartos (undated photo).

The first speaker was Dr. James Martin, life-long friend and colleague of Barnes, who presented a lively and informative chronology of revisionism. The only professional historian at the meeting, Martin remarked that we need not worry that very few present-day revisionists are professional historians. After all, not one of the Holocaust promoters is! Martin asserted many modern historians privately accept the truth of the revisionist argument, but are afraid to come out and say so. “There are two ‘Six Million’ atrocity stories,” Martin stated:

“In Soviet propaganda the gassed six million are Slavs, not Jews. The Kremlin uses the myth to buttress the Soviet policy of keeping Germany divided and disarmed.”

Dr. Arthur Butz, author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, presented a fascinating account of developments in the revisionist field since publication of his book in 1976.

[Image] Dr. Arthur Butz, author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.

Butz described the continuing persecution of individuals in Europe who dared to question the Holocaust. Manfred Roeder, the German attorney, was expelled from the German bar, prosecuted for writing the foreword to Thies Christophersen’s Auschwitz Lie, and had to flee the country. Christophersen himself was given a suspended jail sentence for writing the truth about Auschwitz and faces a further trial upon his return to West Germany.

[Image] Thies Christophersen’s Auschwitz Lie with a foreword by Manfred Roeder

See: https://katana17.com/wp/2013/05/05/auschwitz-a-personal-account-by-thies-christophersen/

Butz also explained that Dr. Wilhelm Staglich, author of the recently published Auschwitz Myth and a retired Hamburg judge who served in an anti-aircraft battery at Auschwitz, has also been subject to legal attack. His pension was reduced by 20% for five years for contradicting death camp atrocity tales.

[Image] Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, (1916 – 2006) German judge and historian, was an important revisionist writer, most notably for his detailed study, Der Auschwitz-Mythos (The Auschwitz Myth). During the Second World War he served from mid-July to mid-September 1944 as an Ordonnanzoffizier (orderly officer) on the staff of an anti-aircraft detachment stationed near the Auschwitz camp. As part of his duties, he maintained contact with the SS camp command, and had unlimited access to the Auschwitz main camp, where the command was headquartered.

When he appealed, the judge ruled it was no good introducing the books, or articles of Butz and Faurisson as evidence, because Butz and Faurisson were pseudonyms! As for the German translation of the Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Butz said it has been placed on the Bonn government’s “Index“, which means that it may not be advertised, or sold to minors.

Butz went on to relate that late in 1978 a respected German historian, Professor Hellmut Diwald, had published his massive History of the Germans by Propylaen, a division of Axel Springer’s publishing combine.

[Image] Professor Hellmut Diwald’s book “Geschichte der Deutschen” (History of the Germans).

On two pages, Diwald wrote some critical things about the Holocaust story. The press shrieked for censorship. Golo Mann, Thomas Mann’s half- Jewish son, declared:

“These two pages are the most monstrous that I have yet to read in a German book since 1945.”

The publisher responded to the clamor by recalling the first edition of the book and substituting an altered version in which the offending pages were rewritten. Springer promised that this was only the start of an extensive job of rewriting and that eventually the history would be “unrecognizable.”

In the English-speaking world, Butz said, most of the efforts to suppress revisionism have been through the “curtain of silence” technique. But from time to time there had been official government intervention. Harwood’s work Did Six Million Really Die? was banned in South Africa at the behest of the Jewish Board of Deputies, which published an “Answer to Harwood” called Six Million Did Die. The German translation of Harwood’s book was placed on the German “verboten-for-young- people” Index in late 1978.

The Institute of Jewish Affairs in London published in the psychopolitical journal Patterns of Prejudice the only critique of Butz worthy of the name that has appeared anywhere in the world. In April 1977, Butz wrote the magazine Index on Censorship in London, which is supposed to defend academic freedom, and followed up his letter with a personal visit in the summer of 1977. No action was taken.

Butz concluded his lecture by underlining the unacademic behavior of academics toward the controversy. He gave as an example Professor Wolfe of New York University who wrote to the New York Times condemning a book which he called Fabrication of a Hoax. He demanded that Butz be brought up on charges of “academic incompetence.” Clearly, the man had never read the book and had only seen a New York Times mention of it, where the title had been incorrectly reported. In an afterthought, Butz philosophized:

“I’ve never been able to understand the hostile reaction from Zionist groups. Jews should be elated to discover that large numbers of their people were not deliberately destroyed.”

Next on the program was Udo Walendy, the German translator of Butz’s book, who gave his first English-language lecture. His subject was faked atrocity photographs, of which he showed many dramatic examples.

[Image] Udo Walendy, born in 1927 in Germany, is one of the most prolific revisionist researchers, writers and publishers in the world. He has written numerous books and since the early 1970s has been publishing a German periodical called Historische Tatsachen (Historical Facts), so far encompassing over 110 issues — including the German version of Did Six Million Really Die? and the German language version of the first Leuchter Report.

Walendy, who had been fired from his teaching job, because of his political views, exhibited an enlargement of one widely reproduced photograph of supposed victims of Dachau gas ovens. When it was established that Dachau never had any gas ovens, investigation proved the picture actually showed German corpses collected after the saturation bombing of Dresden.

On Saturday evening the convention members were “entertained” with a variety of Holocaust propaganda films, including Genocide (Britain), The Nuremberg Trials (USA) and Nacht und Nebel (France). Butz, Walendy and Faurisson presented a critique of each film in turn, but it was not long before viewers themselves were able to decipher the routine formula of the films, since each used almost exactly the same stills and clips.

The “martyred Warsaw ghetto boy” (now alive, well and well off in Britain) appeared in the films looking as plaintive as ever. As Faurisson pointed out, the commentary did not state that he had been arrested in a crackdown on juvenile thieves.

[Image] “Martyred Warsaw Ghetto Boy”. This photograph, perhaps the most familiar Holocaust image, shows seven-year-old Tsvi Nussbaum as he raises his hands in Warsaw in 1943. After the war, Nussbaum moved to Israel, and then to the United States, where he worked as a physician in New York State.

* D. Margolick, “Rockland Physician Thinks He is Boy in Holocaust Photo on Street in Warsaw,” The New York Times, May 28, 1982, pp. B1, B6; P. Moses, “Haunting Reminder,” New York Post, Feb. 20, 1990, p. 5.; In 1978 a London businessman named Israel (Issy) Rondel claimed to be the “Warsaw ghetto boy.” See: J. Finkelstone, “‘Ghetto boy’ lives here,” Jewish Chronicle (London), August 11, 1978, pp. 1, 2.; C. Harris, “Warsaw Ghetto Boy: Symbol of The Holocaust,” The Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1978, pp. L1, L9. This claim later proved to be untrue. See: E. Kossoy, “The boy from the ghetto,” Jerusalem Post, Sept. 1, 1978, p. 5.

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2499/

The audience searched in vain for shots and bodies piled up vertically/horizontally/pyramidically (depending on which Holocaust “expert” one reads) in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The gruesome shots came from Belsen, where thousands died of typhus epidemics, because no Zyklon B was available to disinfect the camp’s new arrivals.

[Image] Professor Faurisson. For more than 20 years, Robert Faurisson has been Europe’s foremost Holocaust revisionist scholar. He was born on January 25, 1929, in Shepperton, England. His father was French and his mother was Scottish. As a boy and young man, he attended schools in Singapore, Japan, and in France. He was educated at a Lycée in Paris, and at the renowned Sorbonne. For his views Faurisson has repeatedly been a victim of physical assault. Between November 1978 and May 1993 he was a victim of ten attacks, at least nine of them carried out by Jewish thugs. None of the criminal assailants in any of these assaults has ever been brought to justice.

Sunday morning, Professor Faurisson delivered an address on the fraudulent gas chambers at Auschwitz. He compared the alleged asphyxiation of inmates to the execution of murderers in American prison gas chambers, pointing out that it was the neutralization of the gas which posed the most problems. In the US a full hour must pass before the gas chamber can be opened. The prisoner’s body must then be hosed down by a clean-up squad wearing gas masks and rubber gloves. Fans expel the almost neutralized gas into the atmosphere, but even then the risk is still so high that the guards must come down from their watchtowers to avoid the possibility of receiving a fatal dose of gas. The gas chamber itself must be hermetically sealed.

[Image] Rudolf Höss (center) was born in Baden-Baden on 25 November 1900, the son of pious Catholic parents. Höss was appointed as the first Commandant at Auschwitz concentration camp on 1 May 1940 and held this position until 1 December 1943 (3 years, 7 months). Höss was arrested by British military police near Flensburg, Schleswig- Holstein, on 2 March 1946, tortured and then handed over to the Polish authorities just over two months later. He was executed by hanging on 7 April 1947, next to the house inside the Auschwitz camp, where he had lived with his wife and five children.

Faurisson asked the delegates to compare these precautionary measures with the account of Rudolf Hoss, one of the commandants of Auschwitz. In his “confession” to his Polish Communist jailers, Hoss stated the gas chamber operators entered the chamber immediately (sofort) after gassing 2,000 jews, while eating and drinking (and therefore not wearing gas masks). Faurisson demanded:

“What kind of super-powerful fan could have evacuated the room so efficiently that it even removed the hydrocyanic acid (gas) from the entire room, from the pockets of air in between the bodies and from the walls, clothing, hair and bodies?”

He then asked the audience to compare the Hoss confessions with the reality of the structures at Auschwitz. With a series of slides, some of which he obtained from the Auschwitz museum staff, Faurisson showed that the structure which is currently represented as a gas chamber is nothing of the sort. The entry to the room is not a hermetically sealed steel door, as described in Holocaust tracts. The “peephole” so frequently described is not in the gas chamber door, but in the door of an adjacent anteroom. Since there is an ordinary glass window high up in the gas chamber, Faurisson wondered why those being gassed could not have smashed their way our, or at the very least smashed the glass to allow the gas to escape.

Resolution unanimously adopted at the Revisionist Convention

We, the speakers, delegates and officers of the Institute for Historical Review 1979 Revisionist Convention, meeting at Los Angeles this September 2, after reviewing the evidence that the Germans killed six million Jews during World War II in an unprecedented act of genocide, and considering both sides of this question, as well as the evidence of genuine atrocities, resolve the following:

WHEREAS the facts surrounding the allegations that gas chambers existed in occupied Europe during World War II are demonstrably false, and

WHEREAS the whole theory of “the Holocaust” has been created by and promulgated by political Zionism for the attainment of political and economic ends, specifically the continued and perpetual financial support of the military aggression of Israel by the people of Germany and the U.S., and

WHEREAS the constantly escalating level of “Holocaust” propaganda distributed by the mass media and government agencies is poisoning the minds of the American people, especially youth, and

WHEREAS we are conscientiously concerned that this strident hate propaganda is seriously impeding the necessary peace, unity, brotherhood and understanding that we desire among all the peoples of the Western World; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED we urge that the Congress of the US investigate the whole question of war guilt, military aggression in the 20th century, the relationship of private political and banking interests with military aggression, deceitful wartime propaganda masquerading as fact, the real responsibility for war, twisted history, the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, proven atrocities and genocide, such as the murder of thousands of Ukrainians and Poles at Vinnitsa in 1937 and Katyn in 1940 and the truth of the alleged extermination of six million Jews in Europe during World War II.

Most astonishing of all, Faurisson showed pictures of the far end of the gas chamber where there is an open doorway, but no door! In fact, it appears there was never a door. The doorway leads to the crematorium where corpses were incinerated. How was it, Faurisson asked, that the gas stayed in the room and did not flow out and gas the incinerator workers? And how was it that the Germans used hydrocyanic acid, which is inflammable and explosive, so near the ovens?

At regular intervals along the gas chamber walls were the remains of partitions which had previously divided the room into segments. Puzzled by this, Faurisson took the original German plans of the room to a specialist in mortuary construction in Paris, who took one look at them and said straight away that the structure was obviously a morgue. Part of it had been built underground to keep the bodies cool.

[Image] Katyn Massacre (1977). Louis FitzGibbon (1925 – 2003), a British scholar and humanitarian, was active for years in publicizing the suppressed truth about the 1940 killing of thousands of captured Polish officers by the Soviet secret police. Although the facts about the massacre are now well established, during the 1970s his efforts on behalf of justice and historical truth were considered controversial because many people still endorsed the World War II claim by the Allied powers that the gruesome wartime killings had been carried out by German authorities.

Source: http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/fitzgibbon.html

Next on the program was Louis Fitz-Gibbon, the English author of Katyn, and half-brother of the pro-Holocaust writer Constantine Fitz-Gibbon (who translated the Hoss “confessions”). Louis presented a film about the Katyn massacre produced by the Polish Ex-Combatants Association in Britain. He then described his personal quest for 10,000 other missing Poles not found at Katyn. The author described how he had finally found what he was looking for, in the form of a KGB document which gave all the horrifying and clinical details of a similar massacre.

The final speaker of the morning session was Dr. Austin App, an elder statesman of the revisionist movement. The theme of his talk was the injustice of postwar reparations which pumped untold billions of dollars and marks into Israel – all, because of an “imaginary crime.”

[Image] Dr. Austin J. App (1902-1984) was a German-American scholar, was a major revisionist author and publicist. App was the author of more than a thousand articles, columns and book reviews, which appeared in a wide range of American and European periodicals, as well as of eight books.

In the afternoon the delegates reassembled to listen to Devin Garrity, head of Devin-Adair publishing house, who spoke about his life-long struggle against censorship in the publishing industry.

John Bennett, an Australian civil liberties lawyer, gave a short talk on what he had been up to down under, publishing his own flyers and sending Butz’s books to libraries and historians.

[Image] John T. Bennett (1936-2013) was for decades well known in Australia as a vigorous and outspoken defender of civil liberties and freedom of speech and inquiry. He is also known as a Australia’s leading revisionist writer and publicist.

Bennett was drawn into the controversy when Australian Zionists tried to force a Palestinian radio program off the air. In the course of defending the Palestinians’ right of free speech, he found the Butz book was being suppressed by the same crowd. Bennett quoted a real gem from one of his critics, a Dr. Rubenstein:

“Were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel’s propaganda armory disappears.”

The convention ended with a dramatic announcement from Willis Carto. He said the Institute for Historical Review was releasing a press statement offering a $50,000 reward to any person, anywhere in the world, who could prove that Nazis had operated gas chambers to exterminate Jews.

News of the reward, Carto stated, would be forwarded to the publishers of so-called “witness testimony” with the request that the witnesses step forward to have their evidence examined by a panel of knowledgeable investigators. As of November 25, no claimants for the reward had shown up. Carto also announced that the Institute would soon be starting a new publication journal of Historical Review to provide a platform for revisionists from around the world and that the first issue in the spring of 1980 would contain transcripts of the papers presented at the convention.*

Before the convention disbanded, the delegates were unanimous in expressing their profound thanks to the organizers for their foresight and courage. They had reason to only a few years ago such a meeting on such a subject would have been unthinkable.

* Subscriptions to the Journal of Historical Review cost $20 per year. But as an introductory offer charter subscribers will only be charged $16 and will also receive at no additional charge Katyn by Louis Fitz-Gibbon. The address is Institute for Historical Review, P.O. Box 1306, Torrance, CA 90505.

END

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

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.6 MB).

World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention 1979

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

_____________________

Version History

Version 5: Jan 24, 2026 — Fixed issue with images not appearing.

Version 4: Jan 27, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links and images.

Version 3: Sep 30, 2016 — Some minor additions to text. Formatting.

Version 2: Sep 28, 2016 — Added 13 images. Fixed some typos, formatting. Added PDF for download.

Version 1: Sep 28, 2016 — Created post.