John Friend: Welcome to the AFP Report. This is your host, John Friend. Today is Friday, July 7, 2023. The AFP Report is a podcast series where I will be interviewing reporters and contributors to American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper, as well as other special guests. Please consider subscribing to the newspaper if you are not already. Subscription details can be found at Americanfreepress.net.

And today, I’m joined once again by Phil Giraldi, a regular columnist for American Free Press and one of America’s leading foreign policy experts.

All right, Phil Giraldi, welcome back to the program, sir. How are you this morning?

Phil Giraldi: Fine. How about yourself?

John Friend: Not too bad, not too bad. Doing just fine.

Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me. As always, you are a regular columnist for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper. And you are also a featured writer at the Unz Review, which is one of the best alternative commentary and analysis websites on the Internet. And the website for the Unz Review is unz.com. And you are one of America’s leading foreign policy experts and geopolitical analysts. And we’ve got some major developments in Russia to discuss today, to say the least.

Let me, first off, start off by saying if you’re not subscribing to American Free Press, you really should be. Our website is Americanfreepress.net, and you can find subscription details and options right at the website. AFP really is America’s last real newspaper. It is a populist, independent print publication that is not afraid to address the most controversial and important issues facing the country and facing the world.

So please do consider subscribing to the newspaper if you are not already to help support our efforts.

Now, Phil, I want to discuss the alleged coup attempt in Russia, led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader and public spokesman for the Wagner Group, which is this private military company funded by the Kremlin, funded by the Russian Ministry of Defense that has operated around the world, that’s operated in Syria, in parts of Africa.

And, of course, it has played a key role in the quote, unquote:

“Special Military Operation in Ukraine.”

There has been a public feud, to put it very lightly, developing, between Prigozhin and commanders of the Wagner Group, which, as I said, has played a leading role in the Special Military Operation in Ukraine, and the Russian military leadership centered in the Ministry of Defense in Moscow. Prigozhin has been very critical of the MOD and the military bureaucracy, essentially arguing that they are sabotaging the war effort. They are failing to supply the Wagner Group with ammunition and other critical supplies. And they even allege that they have targeted Wagner forces in military strikes, including, most recently, apparently, that’s what led up to this alleged coup, is they were attacked by, I believe, either helicopters or missile strikes.

Now, a lot of Russian nationalists and military hardliners have been just as critical of the Kremlin’s prosecution of the so-called Special Military Operation.

[03:30]

So a lot of the critiques that Prigozhin has offered of the Ministry of Defense and the Kremlin more broadly do not appear to be entirely off base.

So I’m curious. Just to get started, what do you make of this dispute between Prigozhin and the Ministry of Defense, which is led by a man named Sergei Shoigu, who, from what I understand, what I’ve read about him, this guy does not even have a military background? And he appears to be a very corrupt, very unpopular figure running the Ministry of Defense in Russia. So is this just a conflict between two corrupt oligarchs, or what is going on here? What’s your assessment?

Phil Giraldi: Well, I like your use of the word “alleged” about this plot. [chuckling] There are a lot of holes in the story that need to be explored more, and hopefully in the next couple of weeks we’ll find out more.

But, yeah, this is a conflict between two oligarchs to a certain extent. And bear in mind that Prigozhin also does not have any military background. He’s a businessman. He made a lot of his money in catering to the Russian government, in publications. He acquired the Wagner Group basically as one of his business interests. So he’s not a General. He’s not a military man.

The fact is, I think the complaints that he’s raising are legitimate. I have been unable to confirm that the Russians actually either use missiles or helicopters to attack his soldiers. That’s one of his claims. But certainly a lot of the other stuff does appear to be true. His central complaint is that the war is being fought way too timidly, that this should have been resolved a long time ago. And it would have required, obviously, a much greater effort and a political decision by Vladimir Putin that this was the way to go. But Putin has been playing it the other way, trying to keep casualties down and to lower the intensity.

So it’s all kind of legitimate up to that level. What bothers me when you go from there is the whole issue of whether Pregosian actually intended to use the Wagner Group to stage something like acoup d’étator to remove certain people. You named one general, and there are other generals that he has fingered before as being complicit. Was this really his intention, or was it to scare someone into changing policy? So that remains unclear.

John Friend: Yeah, that’s a good point. And there are a lot of mysteries surrounding this entire situation. And you sort of talked about the background of this Prigozhin character. From what I understand again, I’m certainly no expert in Russian history or Russian politics, but from what I understand, he is like this more or less corrupt oligarch, like pretty much everybody running Russia and running the West, running Europe. It seems to be a problem all around the world as we have these corrupt oligarchs in position of power and influence. And you’re right.

[07:11]

And also, I think it’s worth pointing out that he actually served a jail term in Russia. I’m not sure exactly how long. I think it was over five years.

So this man is a convicted criminal. He came out and set up this catering business. He was catering to the Kremlin. He was catering to the Russian military, even, from what I understand, like Russian schools and stuff. So he built up this business empire and eventually took over this Wagner group, or he’s become the public spokesperson of it. I think originally the Wagner Group goes back to 2014, and it was founded by Russian nationalists, basically, from what I understand.

So it’s a really interesting situation. Most of the budget, if not all of it, for the Wagner group, comes directly from the Russian government, from the Ministry of Defense.

So it’s a really sort of interesting situation. The alleged coup. Whenever I use the word “coup” when I’m writing, I always put it in quotes because I’m not certain this was an alleged coup or really how to even characterize it’s. A very bizarre situation.

This unfolded on Saturday, June 24, so almost two weeks ago. And allegedly Prigozhin and other Wagner forces marched on Rostov-on-Don, which is where the Russian Army’s Southern Command is located. And this Southern Command was primarily responsible for prosecuting the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. It’s not far from Ukrainian territory, and apparently they took over some key buildings in the city which housed Russian military personnel directing the war. They had some negotiations and they had some other forces march on Moscow!

And this is when the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, apparently stepped in and negotiated directly with Prigozhin and elements in the Kremlin. And they came up with a deal that basically sent Prigozhin and Wagner to Belarus. All the charges against Prigozhin and other Wagner fighters were dropped, and many of them were offered contracts to officially integrate into the Russian military structure. So help us understand this.

I mean, I saw video footage. There’s a guy named Patrick Lancaster who is an American guy that lives over in Ukraine, and he’s like this independent journalist. He goes out and films right on the front lines in many cases. And he’s been covering Russia and sort of like Central Asia, the conflicts that have erupted there over the years for a very long time. And he does some really interesting work.

And he was actually in Rostov-on-Don right when Wagner was getting there, and sort of this was all kind of unfolding. And you watch his video and everybody in the town is, like, praising Wagner and is totally in support of this group rolling through the town.

[10:03]

And then they eventually evacuated and left the city, and they didn’t make it to Moscow. So kind of walk us through this. What is your understanding of what actually took place? I mean, the latest reports that I’ve seen is that Prigozhin is actually back in Russia. He’s not even in Belarus. He’s actually in St. Petersburg.

And he apparently even recently walked right into an FSB building, which is, like Russia’s, essentially the FBI, from what I understand, like the Russian Federal Security Service, he walked right into an FSB building in the city and took back his pistol and allegedly some money and other arms that were confiscated in a raid by Russian law enforcement when this alleged coup was going down. So help us make some sense of this, Phil. I’m confused! [chuckling]

Phil Giraldi: Well, that’s the part that has me if not confused, maybe “bemused” would be a better word. There’s something fishy about all this. Here you have an armed insurrection against the central government, and this guy gets off the hook with some kind of deal where he was supposed to go into exile, and he stays there for about, what, eight or nine days?

And then suddenly he’s back where his principal mansion is in St. Petersburg. Which is where he’s from, incidentally. And he goes by the local intelligence law enforcement office and picks up, one account. I saw, something like $100 million worth of gold and cash boxes and boxes of $100 bills. He picks up a bunch of duplicate false passports. He picks up disguises. He picks up all the stuff that was found in his house when they searched it after the deal was made for him to go to Belarus.

So this is very smelly, [chuckling] shall we say?

And then, of course, there’s the other side of what has been going on around this story, which is the intelligence services side. The United States intelligence agencies, I don’t know whether it was CIA or Office of National Intelligence, briefed Congress days before this event took place to tell them about it, and we still don’t know what they told them.

Apparently, the Russians, and including at least one of the generals that was under suspicion, knew about this in advance. And we also know that Prigozhin, because of the activity of Wagner in Africa, has made trips to that area where he very well could have been targeted by Western intelligence. So somebody knew about all of this. And I rather suspect that it may be even more complicated than that.

One thing I’m hearing from my remaining CIA contacts is that they’ve come to the conclusion that this was a “deception operation”, which means maybe that Fragosian agreed to do something with Western intelligence, but then turned around and told Putin and his advisors about it. And they concocted this scheme to make this kind of painless action happen in some way, to make Western intelligence and the Western governments look stupid after they weighed in on it.

[13:44]

John Friend: Interesting! Yeah. Boy, it’s really tough to know exactly what was going on with this entire situation. I’m looking at the TASS news agency, which is like, I think it’s actually funded by the Russian government on the official news agency of Russia. And this is just from this morning headline here:

“Kremlin has nothing to add on question of Wagner chief’s whereabouts.”

And they’re quoting Dmitry Peskov, who’s, like the spokesman for the Kremlin, saying that they have no information on Prigozhin’s location or his whereabouts. They have nothing to say.

So it’s a very weird situation. I mean, when Putin came on TV, and I don’t know if he directly accused Prigozhin himself or even Wagner directly. I don’t know if he actually specifically named them as being traitors, but he was basically alluding to that.

So, I mean, it’s a very weird situation how you could, on the one hand, basically insinuate or allude to or even outright imply that these men are traitors, and yet ten minutes later, you’re offering them amnesty and allowing them to essentially escape into Belarus. And then if these reports are accurate, which they appear to be, the Kremlin is basically confirming this, that Prigozhin is back in Russia.

Phil Giraldi: Yeah, that’s absolutely correct. And Lukashenko has confirmed that. He said:

“That he’s no longer in Belarus.”

He was in, as I suggested before, St. Petersburg.

And then Lukashenko made an interesting comment. [chuckling] He said:

“For all I know, he could be back in Moscow.”

John Friend: Right.

Phil Giraldi: So that was kind of entertaining, shall we say.

But obviously something is going on behind the scenes here. If this guy really staged an armed intervention or whatever you want to call it, coup directed against the Russian government, why did they cut a deal with him? And why is he running loose?

There has to be another story that we don’t really know about yet. And going back to what you were saying about what Putin said, Putin did call them “traitors” at the point when they were occupying Rostov. This was his first public comment on the evening when all of this was happening.

But then he walked that back.

John Friend: Okay.

Phil Giraldi: Said that these were loyal Russian soldiers, and indeed, the soldiers in the Wagner group probably didn’t know anything about this, why they were marching or what they were doing. They were following orders.

So this is a mysterious thing. And then Putin, interestingly, made a speech the next day in which he really, to my mind, directly implicated Western governments and Western intelligence services in having cranked this thing up.

John Friend: Wow! Really? Okay. Yeah. You’ve kind of already alluded to that. But I am curious what you think of the potential role that the CIA, for example, or NATO or other Western intelligence agencies played in all of this.

[16:49]

Phil Giraldi: Well, it depends on what incentives they might have. Let’s presume that if they wanted to get in touch with this guy, they would have figured out a way to do it. And whether it was in Africa or whether it was in Ukraine itself, wherever he was, they probably knew where he was and figured out a way to access him.

So in this kind of case, they would probably be thinking in terms of:

“What kind of incentives can we offer this individual to do just that, to destabilize the Russian government of Putin, by staging what would appear to be a military uprising.”

And as you mentioned in the beginning, there is indeed a lot of popular support for, or rather popular criticizm of the way the war is being waged.

So this was not exactly a gesture that was toothless.

John Friend: Right!

Phil Giraldi: Yeah.

So there are so many things that go together in this pot and we’re still, I think, seeing what’s coming out of it. And to me, the most astonishing part is that Prigozhin is now running loose in Russia, and nobody knows where, or no one is claiming to know where he is.

John Friend: Right. Well, this kind of gets to a broader question. How do you think that this alleged, quote, unquote, “coup” impacts the Putin regime and it’s credibility? I mean, that’s kind of like a big talking point that I’ve heard from mainstream analysts. And I just have a hard time listening to these talking heads proclaim that Putin is losing credibility and facing this huge internal crisis, when really it was more or less a big nothing burger.

I mean, there were reports that some helicopters got shot down and there may have been a few deaths. I don’t even know if that’s been really confirmed. But this whole coup situation really appears to be more of like a PR type thing more than anything else.

So I have a hard time listening to these people get up there and say that Putin is facing this huge crisis when France is literally on fire, facing a genuine insurrection from all these immigrants that they brought into their country. America is more divided and dysfunctional than ever. I mean, it seems like the credibility of our regimes are much more suspect than what’s going on in Russia. But that could just be my opinion. I don’t know. What do you think?

Phil Giraldi: No, I think you’ve nailed the main point. Maybe this was what the Russians, what the Russian government, if they were colluding with Prigozhin on this whole theatrical event, if we want to look at it that way, maybe this is the point that they were trying to make! So we’ll see. This will probably surface in the next couple of weeks while the story is still hot, and we have to take it where it goes.

[19:46]

But the fact is that the United States and NATO effort to support this counterattack being staged by Ukraine has been nothing but a failure. And anyone that is thinking Russia is going to militarily lose this war, I think is just blowing smoke. Russia has a very large and very modern arms industry, which most Western countries no longer have. And Russia and Putin is very popular.

In spite of concerns about the war, he is very popular.

So I think that they’re kind of hoping for something to happen. There was comments by Tony Blinken, our alleged Secretary of State shortly after this started, and he was saying:

“Russia is falling apart. Russia is losing the war. Russia is doing this. Vladimir Putin is hated all over the world!”

All of this stuff is nonsense!

John Friend: Yeah, well, see, that to me, is really the goal of the Deep State controlling Washington, DC. These neocons controlling the federal government, not only in DC, but also in Brussels and NATO. Their main priority is dragging out this conflict, killing as many Russians, and Ukrainians, for that matter, and other foreign fighters that are going to fight. It seems like most of these people coming from overseas are going to fight for the Ukrainians for some bizarre reason, but just basically killing as many Europeans, I should add, as possible in this conflict. Weakening Russia, creating turmoil and chaos, and ultimately they want a regime change and a total dismemberment of the Russian Federation.

And this seems to be something that Putin himself and the Russian political leadership understand full well.

So I guess one question I had I actually have a couple of questions. One is relating to your assessment of how this Special Military Operation has been prosecuted.

But secondly, and maybe we can start with this, it seems like Putin does recognize this, right, based on his speeches and his critiques of the West and NATO and just their overall policy.

So if he seemingly understands all of this and recognizes that these people in DC absolutely hate him! Absolutely hate Russia and everything that Russia stands for, and want to see this country dismembered, just like they did in the Middle East, just like they did in the Balkans, why does he continue to seemingly be Hoodwinked by the West?

Putin has basically admitted that the Russians got fooled by the West with the Minsk Accords, that the West and Ukraine never honestly attempted to implement the measures laid out in these accords, and that it was basically this big ploy to build up Ukraine’s military and to take back all of the Donbas in Crimea.

[22:56]

So, I mean, for what, like, eight years, Russia was played by the West, deceived by the West. And this is something that these military hardliners and Russian nationalists have been saying for almost ten years now. They’ve been very critical of this.

So, on the one hand, Putin seems to be continually deceived by the West. And even more recently, it was revealed that right when Russia had its troops surrounding Kiev and basically in full control, not full control of the country, but they more or less had Kiev surrounded, had much of the Eastern part of the country under their control, shortly after this Special Military Operation was launched last year, they entered into negotiations with Kiev in Turkey, and they had an agreement finalized, which was apparently initialed by representatives from both Ukraine and Russia. And then Putin, in a gesture of goodwill – I don’t know why he would do this, it makes no sense to me – he withdrew Russian troops, and then Ukraine proceeded to tear up the deal at the behest of NATO and their puppet masters in Washington, DC.

So I just don’t understand this. Can you address this for me? Why does Russia continue to let the West and Ukraine fool them, seemingly, in such brazen ways?

Phil Giraldi: Well, I think the simple answer to that is that Putin is kind of an international character. He lived a large part of his life in the West, in Germany in particular, and he has long sought to build economic bridges, like Nord Stream, for example, with Western Europe, because he saw the future of Russia as being in that direction.

Now, in terms of why the war took place, well, even those who will not see eventually do see.

And I think he realized that there was no going forward in that direction anymore, particularly since the United States and Britain were pushing strongly against him and encouraging Ukraine. And he decided on the special or the limited military intervention to, first of all, take back Donbas, which he has basically done, and then to build a land bridge between Donbas and the Crimea, which he has essentially done.

I don’t think he ever had an intention of trying to conquer Ukraine or take it over, because then he would have been confronted with a 40 million person country waging guerrilla war against him for the next 20 years! I think he understood that.

So I think, I made a joke when I was talking to Judge Napolitano last week. I said:

“Sometimes when you judge Putin by what he says and what he does, he could very much come across as the only adult in the room.”

John Friend: Right? Well, that’s certainly true. I mean, listening to Putin and other Russian political figures address the press and just answer questions, these people are much more serious, much more honorable, much more honest, much more straightforward than anything you’d see in DC or Brussels or London. It’s like a whole other level.

I guess I understand the point you’re making, but it’s almost like, how many times is he going to like, I mean and I don’t know. I guess I don’t mean to be too critical of him because he is in a very tough situation. Right?

[26:24]

But at the same time, it’s like these people totally hate you and everything you stand for and want to see you overthrown! And yet it’s like he still continues to try to play nice with them. I just don’t understand it. And that seems to be how this Special Military Operation has basically been prosecuted from the beginning. Gestures of goodwill and attempts to limit casualties, which is very noble and understandable to a certain extent.

But at the end of the day, how is this going to play out, I guess? How does this work when the other side is absolutely determined to see regime change, to see the Russian Federation totally dismembered and broken into a million pieces and totally rendered impotent on the world stage? When you have the one side operating from that mindset, and Russia continues to at least seemingly be conciliatory and try to strike a deal and try to come to a reasonable conclusion. It’s like one side is totally irrational and not reasonable, and Russia continues to be rational and reasonable. You know what I mean?

Phil Giraldi: Yeah, no, I know exactly what you mean.

And of course, this is probably a strategic kind of issue where how he sees, he and his government see the long term interests of Russia and how they are really engaged in protecting that. That’s why this war took place. When Putin and Russia perceived that vital national security interests were at stake, because it looked at that point like NATO would welcome Ukraine, and there was continuing artillery fire into Donbas, which killed, what, 8,500 civilians?

So there were issues that were vital national security issues for him. And when he perceived that, he acted! I applaud him for being courageous and doing what was right for his country.

Now, we find that the loonies continue to be in charge. In Washington. We have Joe Biden, I guess, today, signing off on these cluster munitions going into this war. Cluster munitions are, for most of the world, the use of the cluster munitions is considered to be a war crime.

So we’re committing a war crime!

And then there was a report today where US drones in Syria were interfered with by Russian aircraft. Now Russian aircraft are in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. We are in there as a hostile force illegally! And somehow we feel we have the will of God, or the right to engage in this kind of practice, to engage in military actions in a foreign country which we are legally engaged in. This is ridiculous!

[29:41]

John Friend: Right. Absolutely! Well, that’s sort of like, I guess, a question we can kind of wrap up with is, how politically, like, domestically in America? We got an election coming up next year. The Biden administration is just I mean, they, they’ve just pledged unlimited amounts of money to Ukraine. We continue to do. So unlimited amounts of money, unlimited amounts of weaponry and equipment. Same thing, basically, with all of Western Europe and all the NATO countries.

At some point, you’ve got to think that this is going to turn into be a major political liability to continue to support this absurd, counterproductive, ridiculous policy of just endlessly supplying Ukraine with weapons. How do you see this impacting the upcoming election? I mean, do you think that the Democrats are going to finally recognize that this is just simply unsustainable?

Phil Giraldi: I think a lot of them have already recognized that, as well as a fair number of Conservatives. But bear in mind that there are crazy people on both sides, in both parties. And our former vice president Mike Pence yesterday, I believe, said that:

“If Ukraine is beaten by the Russians in this war (whatever that means in his mind) we would have to intervene and go to war with Russia!”

John Friend: Yeah, right. Yeah, these people will continue to double down. It seems like this is their pet issue. And like you said, both sides are going along with this madness.

And I think that has something to do with the fact that both sides are more or less controlled by the same neocon Zionist factions that have long dominated American politics. And yeah, so I guess we’ll see what’s going to happen.

I mean, this alleged coup situation, I think more information is going to come out, and I simply don’t know what to make of it at the moment. I’m starting to think actually now that it was sort of this deception operation by the Russians to sort of throw off the Western intelligence agencies and make it appear as if Russia is divided or something like that, when in fact it’s nothing of the sort.

So I don’t know. I guess we’ll see. But I don’t know. Phil, did you have any other concluding remarks before we wrap up here?

Phil Giraldi: No, I think we always come back, I think, sensibly enough to the same kind of question. Why are we there at all? There was never a vital American interest in interfering in this war, if you want to call it that. The United States was never threatened by it. And now we’ve escalated this to a situation where if this goes nuclear, the United States will definitely be threatened by it, and it could destroy pretty much of the world as we know it!

So, I mean, this is an absurd kind of escalation, development, however you want to phrase it, and it’s all done for internal US politics, where, as you point out, that hideous group known as the “neocons” have control over what takes place and how it takes place. And we have to maybe be thinking in terms of let’s not see any more neocons at the top levels of the State Department and national security apparatus. Maybe that’s something we should aspire to.

John Friend: Yes, absolutely!

Well, Phil, thanks a lot for taking the time. I appreciate it. Keep up the great work. And guys, be sure to check out Phil’s article in the latest issue of American Free Press. The website is Americanfreepress.net. And Phil, take care, man. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. We’ll do this again in the future.

Phil Giraldi: Okay. Thank you for having me on.

[33:27]

END

top

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

Podcast Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/7/2023 = 1)

ONE COMMENT
Freya July 8, 2023 5:08 AM
The American expert in geopolitics never says:
IT’S THE JEWS. Why not? Not mentioning the JEWISH ROLE (elephant in the room) means walking in the dark…
Q.: WHO is “Prigozhin”?
A.: He is a JEW, a mercenary hired by a JEWISH oligarch faction working out of Russia – more OR LESS IN CONTROL of the “Russian government”? i.e. Putin’s position remains stable (as said Hungarian President Viktor Orban)
Q.: WHAT is the “Wagner group”?
A.: Another version of “Al Qaida” – “ISIS” (I-srahellish S-ecret I-ntelligence S-ervices) – another Mossad “Special Operation”!!!
WHERE does the German name “Wagner” come from?
A.: A psychological mind game? Subconsciously always hinting at some “hidden German” involvement? Never forget: BLAME THE GERMANS! It is always about “Nazis” in the Ukraine… who “must be totally beaten”!!!
In reality: It is always JEWS under disguise – here and there.
JEWISH anti-Ukrainian mercenary Prigozhin’s criticism of the PUTIN government: “The war is fought much too timidly”… …
Prigozhin, i.e. the ISRAHELLISH MOSSAD FACTION would prefer to fight the Ukrainian nationalists THE JEWISH TALMUDIC SATANIC WAY… Storched earth!!! As many deaths as possible. As many billions for profit as possible. By bombing everything into rubble… leaving a totally destroyed wasteland behind… just like Germany in WWII
It is the US-British JEWISH-TALMUDIC WAY… on how to wage war for over a hundred years, since 1917 – Always attacking countries / nations which DID NOT ATTACK (North) America & Britain first!!! Always leaving waste land behind WWI, WWII etc … endless WAR OF TERROR!!!
Creating a never ending INVASION of Muslim rapefugees into all white countries as a result!!! Replacement Migration!!! White Genocide!!!
Consolidating JEWISH POWER.

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

See Also

top

John Mearsheimer – Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault? – Sep 26, 2015 – Transcript

Mark Collett – NATO is to Blame for the Conflict in the Ukraine – Mar 4, 2022 – Transcript

Putin Explains the Military Situation and Why Ukraine Might Lose Its Future – Mar 7, 2022 – Transcript

Red Ice TV – How Jewish Activism Transformed the West, Who Benefits from Ukraine-Russia War? – Kevin MacDonald – Mar 27, 2022 – Transcript

John J. Mearsheimer – Who (Really) Caused the Crisis in Ukraine – Mar 2, 2022 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

The Z Blog – A Ukraine Primer – Jan 13, 2023 – Transcript

Judge Napolitano – Putin & Xi Have Met – Now What in Ukraine? Col Doug Macgregor – Mar 22, 2023 – Transcript

Douglas Macgregor – The US Want Russia to Collapse – Feb 1, 2023 – Transcript

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

PDF Download

top

• Total words in post = 5943
• Total words in transcript = 5086
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Sun, Jul 9, 2023 — Published post. Includes Podcast comments (1).

John Friend: All right folks. Welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. Today is Tuesday, May 31st, 20022.

Of course, my website is therealistreport.com where you will find an extensive archive of these podcasts. You will also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my Twitter feed, which is embedded in the right-hand sidebar of the website, and many other useful and important links.

You can also follow me on Twitter and Gab at Realist Report. And I am also on Telegram at t.me/therealistreport. There is also an RSS link in the right-hand sidebar of the website, as well as below each podcast post.

For those who are interested in subscribing to the audio feed for all of the podcasts appearing on therealistreport.com. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper. And I also contribute to the Barnes Review, the bi-monthly revisionist history magazine. Please do subscribe to these fine print publications if you do not already. Check out Americanfreepress.net and Barnesreview.org for all the details.

And recently I have received emails from a couple different listeners asking how they can support my work here. I have been banned from virtually all online payment processors. But if anyone is interested in financially contributing to my efforts please do send me an email. And I can give you some options.

Again there is a contact page right at the top of the website. Also another easy way to support my work is simply to subscribe to the Barnes Review and American Free Press. Two publications that I have been contributing to for several years now. But again, anybody interested in contributing directly to this website, please shoot me an email. And I can provide you with some options for contributing.

All right, with that said, let me introduce our special guest. Monika Shaefer is joining us once again. Monika is a German-Canadian activist and revisionist and her website is freespeechmonika.com. All right. Monika Schaefer. Welcome back to the program. How are you today? It’s great to have you.

Monika Schaefer: I’m doing very well thanks John! I’m just so looking forward to this interview and talking with you again. Yeah thanks.

John Friend: Yeah, you’ve been a guest a number of times on the program. And you’re one of my favorite people to talk to. And, of course, there’s no shortage of topics to cover. And I want to kind of jump right into it. Your website is freespeechmonika.com and I will, of course, have a link to your website when I post this podcast program. I’ve also got your website linked on the right-hand sidebar of my website under the recommended sites. So people can find it that way as well, or just go to freespeechmonika.com.

And I know you’re also involved in the Truth and Justice for Germans Society which is truthandjusticeforGermans.com. And I recently read an article that just came out just a couple days ago. And it was a sort of like a Q&A written conversation that you had with NS-Kampf ruf. Am I pronouncing that correctly?

Monika Schaefer: Yes it was also in the New Order this is NS, National Socialism. But it’s a fellow in the United States, who has also been persecuted and jailed for his views on, you know, National Socialist Germany. And he did this interview with me back in during the winter. This came out in the January and the February issue. And I had it on my own website. But I just recently put it on to the Truth and Justice for Germans website as well.

John Friend: Okay. Very good. Yeah, it’s great. Yeah. I know it’s great. It kind of gives your background and your sort of wake up to Revisionism. And I want to remind everybody we actually did a what it turned out to be a really good Q&A as well. Sort of similar to this. We covered a few different topics but we actually published it in the Barnes Review, as sort of like a written Q&A interview with Monika Schaefer, persecuted Canadian thinker. And we talked about your situation in Germany, and your views on the “Holocaust”.

And kind of got into some of the information relating to Alfred, your brother, which we’ll talk about as we wrap up this podcast.

But I just wanted to remind everybody that was in the November, December 2020 issue of the Barnes Review. And, of course, I would highly recommend everybody to go out and subscribe to the Barnes Review. It’s really the last like Revisionist print publication. One of the top ones in America. I know this other one that you mentioned, the New Order. Do they actually print physical, …

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

John Friend: Okay. So there is, …

Monika Schaefer: And they get translated into many languages as well, online. Now their website got taken down recently, but the fellow who is doing this he is working hard at getting a few like a series of websites back up. It’s incredible actually. It’s Gerhard Lauck. And you may have heard that name, or perhaps, yes?

John Friend: Yeah, I know that sounds familiar.

Monika Schaefer: He’s an incredibly hard worker. And he’s been out this for decades really. I mean, he was born into activism, I think! [chuckling]

John Friend: Very good. Well, that’s cool. I’m glad to hear that. There’s not enough printed material anymore. It’s always a challenge to do that. There’s costs involved with it. But I think it is important. I mean, as you said, we can get censored so easily online.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, and his publication it’s like four pages each time. And it’s just pages that are stapled together. So it’s not like the Barnes Review magazine, which I will do a shout out, to add to what you just said, to highly recommend that people subscribe to. It really is excellent that publication. And I was just so honored that you did that interview with me! Thanks, John! [chuckling]

John Friend: Yeah, of course, no problem. Yeah, I think it turned out really good. Very sort of unique and the Barnes Review is always covering a lot of very unique aspects of history. So again everybody check it out. It’s Barnes Review.org, or you could go to Barnes Review dot com it basically takes you to the same place. And you can check out some of the articles, some of the interviews. And, of course, subscribe to the print publication.

There’s also a huge list of books for sale including pretty much all of the major “Holocaust” revisionist books. So check it out!

Anyways, Monika I want to talk first about this recently introduced. Well, I guess it was back in February, there was a government budget that was introduced in Canada. Basically criminalizing “Holocaust” denial.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, I don’t want to interrupt you.

John Friend: But, oh no, just real briefly. Just some quick background. It was a basically from my understanding – you can correct me if I’m wrong – it was a new Criminal Code offense for denying the “Holocaust”. And this was inserted into a recently proposed Budget Bill.

And then there was also from what I understand a near identical piece of legislation that was proposed in the House of Commons by a Conservative MP named Kevin Waugh, W-A-U-G-H. I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing that correctly.

Monika Schaefer: I think you are.

John Friend: It was basically introduced as an actual piece of legislation. And then also it was introduced as part of the Criminal Code in the Budget Bill. And it, from what I understand, both of the legislation and the actual budget are still in the process of being ratified. So it hasn’t officially been adopted from what I understand.

But anyways, why don’t you comment on that. What do you know, about the situation? Carolyn Yeager wrote a really good article on May first, that I’ll have linked when I post this podcast, kind of outlining everything and discussing it. And, of course, talking about the jewish organizations that were central in promoting this legislation. So go ahead.

Monika Schaefer: I’m going to read that article. I haven’t read that article yet. But here’s what I know. It seems to be that the Criminal Code amendment, … See the Criminal Code of Canada already has this Hate Speech law in it, Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada. And they want to add this other part, to that specifically makes “Holocaust” denial a criminal offense.

Here’s the thing John, why did they embed this in the Budget Bill? Now, what does legislating how history went down. First of all that shouldn’t be legislated in the at all! I mean, isn’t it a ridiculous thing to legislate our history? Isn’t that something that historians should be dealing with, not the law?

But even if it was something that was appropriate for the lawmakers, what are they doing putting it into the Budget Bill? It kind of reminds me of I used to hear a lot about your Omnibus Bills in the States, where they would put, you know, maybe 300 different things within an Omnibus Bill, so that half the people, the representatives that are voting yay, or nay, they don’t even know what’s in it! They just go along with what they’re supposed to do. Like the party Whip tells them how to vote.

[10:00]

So a Budget Bill, that’s an annual thing that happens every year. And the NDP in Canada that’s the New Democratic Party. There are, I’ve already said, they’re supporting the Liberal Party which has a minority. So they basically are constituting the government. And it’s already must have gone through the third reading, because it’s in front of the Senate right now.

I read an article, just a few days ago, what the B’nai Brith Canada, they are making recommendations of course, you know. That’s how it works. These jewish organizations, and B’nai Brith is 100% jewish organization, they make recommendations to the Senate on this new “Holocaust” Denial Bill.

So some of the things they’re saying is, well they want this word “distortion” in it, rather than “downplaying”. So anybody who distorts the so-called facts about the so-called “Holocaust”, that instead of this word, “downplaying”. I’m not sure what their reasoning on that is. But here’s the big one that we need to take note of they specifically say that they want to remove the ability for anyone to use “defense of truth” against the charges.

So if you’ve been charged with this “Holocaust” denial Criminal Code offense, then you cannot say in my defense “I have truth” in my defense. You cannot use that since, quote:

“The facts around the ‘Holocaust‘ are well established, and well documented.”

This is what they’re saying. I mean, isn’t that the mantra? Yeah go ahead.

John Friend: Well isn’t that a common tactic in some of these “Holocaust” trials where the judge will take, I believe they refer to it as “judicial notice”?

Monika Schaefer: Exactly!

John Friend: Where they basically affirm the standard “Holocaust” narrative. And they basically say it’s common knowledge. And it’s not really up for dispute, or questioning, therefore you can’t even present your perspective. Yeah, it’s really, talk about like Orwellian, tyrannical like in your face!

Monika Schaefer: They brought up Ernest Zundel’s case, B’nai Brith did in their recommendations to the Senate. So they were saying, because Ernst Zundel, the retrial in his case, the court there took judicial notice that the “Holocaust” existed, and allowing a defense of truth would be a step backwards. This is what they say. This would be a step backwards.

Yeah, they want this, because otherwise this “defense of truth” can be used to repeatedly litigate whether the “Holocaust” happened. You see, they really don’t like it when the “Holocaust” goes on trial, because they don’t have any facts on their side.

John Friend: And they get exposed big time. Yeah, they don’t want any sort of discussion, or honest debate, or questioning, or just open dialogue on this subject.

Monika Schaefer: And the history of this judicial notice goes right back to the Nuremberg Trials in which Articles 19 and, 201, so people can look this up. We don’t just make this stuff up.

Those two articles in the Nuremberg Trials basically – just to paraphrase it because I don’t have them in front of me. But they said that evidence is not required, because it is something that is common knowledge. And something that is common knowledge does not require evidence. So if it is self-evident, it does not require evidence.

So they basically just declared the “Holocaust” happened. And there was not going to be any room for defense, or facts about what actually happened, or didn’t. Well, in particular, any facts that were telling the truth about what didn’t happen.

You see here they allege something happened. And then they put the onus on the people who are saying it didn’t happen, to prove it didn’t happen, which I really think that the onus is on the wrong people here. Like in all the cases since then, where they took judicial notice thereof.

And the Ernst Zundel trials in the 1980s, in Toronto, that was a big exception, where evidence and facts actually did make it into the court. And it was historical! It was absolutely phenomenal! And if I had taken the time and the care at that time – I was in my 20s – to read the fine print of the newspaper articles that reported on this, I would have learned a lot. Because the newspaper articles if you read the fine print, they actually did report a lot of what was said.

However, the headlines were still even portraying Ernst Zundel as kind of a madman, a bad man, maybe a crazy man. All those things, right. And also the radio. I mean, day after day. I remember my father liked to listen to the CBC radio news. And so it was kind of background noise. Actually, it wasn’t. I was out gone from the home. But I guess I listened to this stuff. It was background noise for me. I didn’t really pay too much attention to it. But all I knew was:

“Sounds like this guy is kind of a nut case!”

That’s how they portrayed him. However, if you had read the fine print [chuckling], you would have learned a lot! [chuckling].

[15:37]

John Friend: Yeah. And realize:

“Oh, this guy actually makes a lot of sense!”

And is presenting a very legitimate and rational perspective. And he’s not at all this evil monster, or this irrational, jew hater, or something like that. I mean, he was a very knowledgeable, bright, funny, compassionate, very affable man. I mean, that’s how Ernst Zundel was. And that’s the way he came across if you just sat down and listened to him.

Monika Schaefer: All of the above is true! It’s so true! I mean, I’ve listened to quite a few of his interviews, and I’m telling you cannot help but like the man. And he is highly intelligent. And yeah, I mean, he’s a pacifist. He’s a self-proclaimed pacifist.

He came to Canada, I think he was 19, or 20 years old. He was a war baby he was born in 1939. So his childhood was kind of shaped by war-torn Germany. And then he wanted to go to a country where there was no draft, because of his pacifism, and this kind of thing.

And then it was sometime after he arrived in Canada that he started to learn about the truth about Germany. And he wanted to restore the honor of Germany and Germans. Like he wanted to restore the honor, because really Germany and Germans have been vilified and demonized, not just during and after World War II, but decades before that. And ever since! Don’t you think John? I think that the vilification of the Germans hasn’t really abated.

John Friend: No, you’re absolutely right! And I think it’s actually only expanded to incorporate the entire Western world.

Monika Schaefer: Actually, yeah, you’re right. It’s expanded to incorporate all White people!

John Friend: All White people, exactly.

Monika Schaefer: All White people.

John Friend: Well Ernest Zundel’s struggles to restore Germany’s honor are definitely carried on by people like you, and the Truth and Justice for Germans website, that society. I think that’s some very, very, very important work.

And really anybody talking openly and honestly about World War II, about the alleged jewish “Holocaust”, and engaging in historical revisionism sort of carries on this legacy, and I think it’s one of the most important endeavors. Certainly from a scholarly, or historical perspective.

Because this is one of the most weaponized narratives of history, that is constantly rammed down our throat! It almost seems like every month there’s some sort of like “Holocaust” Remembrance Day, whether it’s in America, or Israel, or any country around the world. There’s these “Holocaust” Museums everywhere! All across the world!

Monika Schaefer: They’re certainly ramping it up, aren’t they?

John Friend: Yeah, it’s insane! One thing I was curious, do you think that this is gonna backfire? I mean, won’t it sort of wake more people up to the concept of “Holocaust” revisionism, and get people to start to question, why can’t we openly discuss this one event in history? What is so special about this?

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. I think you’re right. Although they just carry on, they carry on. However, I think what has woken people up, or caused people to maybe look twice at all of these things, more than anything else, is this last couple of years of this Covid scam! And all the things they’ve been doing to us with that!

I know a lot of people have gone along with it. But they do skew the numbers on that, too. I mean, I know we see masked people. And so a lot of people have fallen for it. And they’re very, very afraid of that very, very bad, bad, bad, virus! [chuckling] And now it’s going to be the Monkeypox!

But so many people have actually woken up. That is a really good thing. And so then it’s really important, it’s up to us to connect the dots for people that when we do talk about World War II history, the “Holocaust”, all these new laws and, …

John Friend: Okay Monika. I’m sorry about that. I’m not sure what happened.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, it just suddenly lost.

John Friend: Yeah. But look we could just pick up right where we left off. You were saying something about how these new laws were gonna start sort of waking people up, I believe is where you’re going.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, basically connecting the dots with what they’re doing right now with the Covid scam, what they’ve been doing in the last two two and a half years, with all of that. So many people know there’s something not quite right with that. And so this is the time when we really need to connect all these dots for people. That these things are not separate from each other. They’re not in little boxes, and categories, separate from each other. I think that is really important right now.

John Friend: Yeah. I know. I tend to agree with you. And that’s also what some Civil Liberties groups in Canada are saying. I’m looking at an article here from the National Post, which I believe is one of the top newspapers in Canada, correct?

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

John Friend: Like one of the more mainstream.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, it’s definitely mainstream.

John Friend: This is an article from May 19th. So just a couple weeks ago. And the title is “Government Bill on “Holocaust” Denial Ineffective and Likely Unconstitutional”. Civil Liberties group. So the Civil Liberties group is basically saying that this is not even going to work. And it’s probably illegal! Let me just read a couple excerpts here from this article:

“Civil Liberties groups say a proposed law that would make “Holocaust” denial a criminal offense is likely unconstitutional and unlikely to be effective in dealing with anti-semitism. The Liberals have included a proposed change to the criminal law in their budget that would make, quote ‘condoning, denying, or downplaying, the “Holocaust” a criminal offense’. Cara Zwibble, director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Civil Liberties Association said the Bill is more about politics, than actually addressing anti-semitism. Quote ‘we are opposed to this. But that’s not, because we don’t think “Holocaust” denial is egregious, and terrible. And it’s not, because we don’t think it’s harmful. It’s because we don’t think that the criminal law is the way to approach it.’ she said ‘We’re talking about putting people in prison for things that they said.’”

Yeah, it’s so crazy! Like we have to say that out loud. Like that’s literally what they’re saying. Like, we’re gonna throw you in jail for something that you said!

Monika Schaefer: That’s right. I did see that article. And I think that that Civil Liberties group is a controlled opposition group. Well, you can see that just from what they say that:

“Oh. It’s not that we don’t think that “Holocaust” denial is egregious.”

And basically terrible and evil. But that we should just have freedom of speech. So yeah. What do you think? I think it’s controlled opposition. However it’s hopeful that they said this law wouldn’t even work. But I don’t know what to make of that. It could be just, … They kind of create the frame for what we’re allowed to talk about:

“But oh, “Holocaust” denial is still really bad!”

And so pretending that we have true opposition to it. I don’t know. What do you think about that?

John Friend: It’s interesting. I think you’re probably right. It probably is some sort of limited hangout, controlled opposition type group. Just like the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] is in America.

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

John Friend: And if they were genuine defenders of Civil Liberties and free speech, they would be suing the government to prevent this Bill from even being passed, because it’s a total violation of freedom of speech. Which I believe is actually enshrined in the Canadian Charter, right?

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. I mean, …

John Friend: Maybe not to the extent it is in the First Amendment.

Monika Schaefer: It’s not like what you have in the States. And actually, I can’t really address that right now. I’m not fresh! I’m not sure exactly what’s in there. But it’s not like what you guys have. Like we always look to the Americans for any remnants of hope for maintaining that freedom of speech, even! You guys don’t really have it either, because they find other ways to go after you, right?

John Friend: Oh, absolutely! Well, one of the big concerns that this lady has with the Civil Liberties group is that she actually cites in this article the case of Zundel, that we talked about previously. And she basically wants to prevent a trial like that from taking place, which would give somebody like Zundel, or somebody like you, or I, a platform to make the arguments against the official “Holocaust” narrative. And so that’s one of her big concerns.

She also talks about how there’s already basically laws on the books that criminalize promoting hatred, which is tied into questioning the “Holocaust”.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, that’s Section 319. And I mean, people like Arthur Topham. He was chased, and criminalized, and dragged through the courts for more than a dozen years. And they used that Section 319, this Hate Speech law. So really that would be my answer to what we just talked about a moment ago about do we have free speech in Canada. No! They say:

“We do. Oh! But hate speech is different!”

Right. So all these countries and, you know, where lawmakers, where they say:

“Oh yeah! We have freedom of speech. But this is different. Like hate speech is different!”

In Germany, when I was in jail. And I would tell fellow prisoners what I was there for and I said:

“Yeah, just for words spoken.”

And they say:

“Oh, no. That’s not possible. We have total freedom of speech in Germany! It’s in the gungazettes [sp]!”

Which is the foundational law. And then I would tell them but it was about the “Holocaust”. And they’d say:

“Oh yeah! That’s different!”

John Friend: Yeah, that’s different! Yeah. You can’t question, the “Holocaust”! You can’t criticize, or say mean things about jews. I mean, if we really do have free speech, then we should be able to question, the “Holocaust”. We should be able to question any aspect of history, no matter what it is. No matter whose feelings it hurts. No matter who gets upset by it. We should be able to openly discuss, and talk about, and criticize specific groups of people, whether they’re jews, or blacks, or Whites, or whatever.

I mean, certainly we can openly criticize and condemn White people!

[26:30]

Monika Schaefer: Oh. That’s the only people you can openly criticize and condemn these days. That’s the only group of people you can do that to! And like that’s just fine, White people.

But here in Canada right now it’s getting to the point where you can’t even point out anything about what the native people are doing, factual, or otherwise. It doesn’t matter. That’s like your “Black Lives Matter”. We’ve got the equivalent going on with the native people here. And we had those supposed mass graves found. Not a single bone has been found, or dug out.

John Friend: It’s basically another atrocity propaganda hoax.

Monika Schaefer: Yes, it is.

John Friend: Yeah, it is. It absolutely is. I’ve followed it. In fact, I wrote an article for American Free Press. It’s probably been about a year ago. But I remember Lauren Southern did the documentary about it. That was really well done.

Monika Schaefer: So yeah, people don’t want to talk about it. Because they know that it’s to their advantage to kind of just conceal the fact. Like they didn’t want to talk to Lauren Southern when she tried. And no, no! They don’t want to do that, because she would expose that, gee there might be some problems with these graves that they supposedly “discovered”. And so the native people it’s in their interest to keep it hush-hush. They’re going along with the mainstream agenda that is basically to elevate them into some higher status.

And it’s to get Whitey off the land here. I mean, the bills that they have passed, Bill C-15, it’s one that basically is out to dispossess us of our lands. I was recently visiting a friend in Powell River, BC, and the natives there are trying hard, or it’s a handful of people are trying hard, to change the name of that city. And I mean, it just goes on and on. It’s basically dispossess Whitey.

John Friend: It’s White genocide.

Monika Schaefer: It is.

John Friend: I mean, it’s part of the broader, global, White genocide agenda.

Monika Schaefer: It is.

John Friend: Taking place in every formerly Western country, including Canada, including the United States. Including basically every country in Europe. It’s obvious. It’s on display on a daily basis. And yet it’s never presented in these terms. It’s never pointed out this way.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, and why is it that it’s happening all over the world in White countries, all at the same time? And the same things get reported in the press, like almost word for word for word. Some people sometimes put together these little sound bite collages, where reporters in Australia, reporters in New Zealand, Canada, United States, and UK, everywhere they’re saying virtually using the same words when there’s some new idea, or new event, or new something.

John Friend: It’s like they all have the same talking points as if they’re somehow like internationally coordinated through some sort of like jewish secret society.

Monika Schaefer: Oh yeah!

John Friend: Right. And, of course, we’re referring to the Kahilla, which is a word. And it’s something I was sort of familiar with that I come across in doing research over the years. But you actually sent me an interesting article that we’ll talk about here in just a moment. There’s just a couple things I want to mention more in this article from the National Post. And then we can move on and discuss that topic.

Let me just pick back up here. There’s just a couple of last excerpts that I wanted to read here and get your take on. The article continues. It says:

“The new Criminal Code offense was included in the Budget Bill, but a near identical piece of legislation was also moving through the House of Commons, as a private member’s Bill, which was introduced by Conservative MP Kevin Waugh.”

Again, I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing that correctly. And I sort of alluded to that previously. It says here:

“The Budget Bill is currently working through the House of Commons. It also includes funding for education programs around racism and anti-semitism, as well as 20 million dollars toward a “Holocaust” Museum in Montreal.”

And then it quotes the Simon Wiesenthal Center President and CEO, Michael Levitt. And he’s basically advocating in favor of this new Criminal Code, saying that:

“Anti-semitism is on the rise. “Holocaust” denial is on the rise.”

Which, I don’t know. Is that true? I mean, you live in Canada. Are there people out there like denying the “Holocaust” and condemning jews left and right? Is that going on? It’s like the jewish community, you read the jewish press, you read like the ADL, you follow groups like the ADL. And every single day there’s a report about how anti-semitism is rising in Canada, in Germany, and Brazil, in Argentina, in Australia! Everywhere around the world! It’s like this constantly reinforced meme and persecution!

[31:29]

Monika Schaefer: Yeah! Who does that? Who is it that sets up events that make it look like oh anti-semitism is on the rise? And which high-ranking rabbi was it, maybe you remember, who said that anti-semitism is their best friend! They create these things, like when there’s gravestones that have been painted with swastikas, or whatever.

It’s always jews who do that, because they need to have this idea, this meme out there, that anti-semitism is on the rise! It’s not like there’s people out in the streets standing on their pulpits saying.:

“Yeah. The “Holocaust” didn’t happen!”

I mean, yeah. I think a lot of people are waking up to the truth about that the jews lie about history. And they’ve been lying about events. And that they’re behind the Covid thing. And I mean, a lot of people are waking up to what the jews are actually doing. But when they call this:

“Anti-semitism is on the rise!”

You know, maybe they’re really scared and worried, because people are starting to wake up to their game. And what they’re really doing.

John Friend: Right. It’s like those memes of like the rabbi on the telephone:

“The goyim know! Shut it down!”

[chuckling] And that’s what it is. It’s the organized jewish community, they simply cannot have anybody knowing and looking into what they’re up to! They can openly do these things, and talk about how they want to fight anti-semitism, and lobby the government for more money for “Holocaust” Museums, for Israel, for jewish organizations.
I mean they run like one big extortion racket. It’s like one big international criminal conspiracy that they openly, … You follow them and read what they have to say, or hear what they have to say, in their press conferences and stuff, and this is how they operate. Yet, if you notice it, and if you’re opposed to it, or criticize it, then you’re some irrational hater! It’s totally ridiculous!

Monika Schaefer: You just have to point it out, right, John. You just have to point out what they’re doing in real time. We don’t even have to talk about history, we could talk about what they’re doing in real time, reporting things from their own press. But they see that you are noticing. And then they call you “anti-semitic”. They call you the “hater”.

John Friend: And all of their puppet politicians line up and say the same thing and back this stuff up. And pledge their unwavering support for Israel and the jewish community, and how they have to continue to fight anti-semitism and bigotry, and all this other nonsense! They’re all totally controlled, at least almost every single one of them.

Monika Schaefer: And back to that Civil Liberties organization and that article that you were quoting from. That’s why it bothers me when groups like that, just the fact that they’re such controlled opposition. The fact that they had to put that in there:

“Oh, it’s not that we don’t think that ‘Holocaust’ denial is egregious.”

Because really what they’re doing is they are propping up and supporting – by making that statement – they’re supporting this money being spent on these “Holocaust” Museums. Like this huge budget amount that goes towards the “Holocaust” denial prevention, or whatever they want to call it.

John Friend:20 million for a museum in Montreal! Why does Montreal need a “Holocaust” Museum? And if they do, why can’t the jews themselves organize money to fund it?

[34:58]

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. And then there’s that Kotler, Irvin Kotler, I think is his name. He’s the minister in charge of whatever it’s called. I don’t know what the ministry is called. But somehow this anti-semitism ministry, or whatever!

John Friend: He’s like the anti-semite, or anti-semitism envoy. Like the US government has a position it’s a ambassador level position in the State Department. The Envoy to Combat Anti-semitism. And it’s that hideous jewish witch, Deborah Lipstadt!

Monika Schaefer: Oh, my!

John Friend: Yeah, she was recently nominated and was actually just sworn in recently. I put up an article, it’s actually on American Free Press’s website and on my website right now. It addresses it and talks about her position. And I think we’ve actually talked about it previously.

It’s a position that was basically created by the federal by the US federal government to basically advance jewish interests around the world. And there’s positions like this in almost every Western country. You could look at Canada, you could look at the UK, you could look at all these European countries. And almost all of them have some sort of like anti-semitism envoy.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

John Friend: That’s there to sort of prevent the goyim from knowing, right.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. Why don’t they have a minister for preventing the hate that’s being told and spread about White people? Why don’t they have a minister that’s in charge of teaching people about our own history, and about our own heritage, and about our own culture, and all that stuff? No! Like they don’t teach that!

And in high school curriculum in Canada, my friend showed the high school curriculum to me, the Social Studies curriculum. And I just was astonished! I thought:

“Wow! If all the White children don’t commit suicide before the end of the school year, I’d be astonished!”

Like it was nothing but guilt! Guilt! Guilt! Guilt! Not one stitch in there about anything about their own European heritage! Where they came from, their culture, their traditions. Nothing! It was all guilt!

John Friend: It’s psychological warfare.

Monika Schaefer: It is!

John Friend: That’s what it is. It’s weaponized narratives designed to target us at a very deep emotional and psychological level. The way Western history is presented all over the Western world, it’s presented as if White people are the oppressors, like the evil people that have been responsible for all of the world’s problems.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah!

John Friend: When in reality, like an objective assessment of Western history, would be 100% the opposite. And this is what was so astonishing reading Mein Kampf, and hearing Hitler present it this way.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. Who goes to Africa to build schools, or to volunteer to dig wells and whatnot? It’s always White people who do these kind of things!

John Friend: Yeah. Who’s cleaning up the parks on the weekends? Who’s cleaning up the harbor? Who’s cleaning up the streams and the rivers and the lakes? Who’s taking care of the environment? Who’s taking care of the homeless?

Monika Schaefer: Yeah! Who takes care of the beached whales! Like who does all that?

John Friend: Who takes who takes care of these refugees, in their little dinghies washing up on shore in Italy, or Greece, or California? I just saw a video the other day of a bunch of Mexicans – I’m assuming they were Mexicans – well, you know, Central Americans, Mexicans, washing up and just scattering as soon as they got on the beach. Just running for the hills basically!

Who’s taking care of the unwashed masses of the world? Well it’s White people! It’s White money. It’s White societies. And, of course, it’s all part of this broader jewish plan. But yeah.

Monika Schaefer: It’s this guilt thing John. There’s just one thing that just popped into my head. When I was in Powell River and I attended a meeting where the public could talk about this name change, pro and contra. And there were these young White women, you know, blonde, blue eyed, young women. Those were the ones who were the most fanatical about that we must change the name. And they were saying things like:

“Oh, I’m fifth generation colonialist!”

And this one in particular, still the image’s in my mind, like she was just about in tears. She’s feeling so guilty for her forefathers fifth generation colonialist! She’s absolutely just dripping with guilt! And I’m thinking:

“Oh, you poor girl!”

She’s been traumatized.

John Friend: Yes, she has had her mind poisoned!

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

John Friend: By anti-White, jewish propaganda! That’s it. I mean, that’s what it is. And it’s totally unacceptable!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

John Friend: So it shows how effective this propaganda is. And we have got to take control back of our destiny, and think for ourselves, and stop listening to these people. Because this is how they present everything. It’s always the White, you know, devil’s fault for everything.

And it’s just totally not even true, first of all time objectively. We ought to be proud of founding America, and founding Canada, and founding all of the great civilizations in the world, all throughout history.

[40:35]

Monika Schaefer: Yes indeed. That’s why it’s so important to tell the truth about our history. That’s what it comes down to. Because we have to, like you say, take pride in our people, love our people. And also if we are so ashamed of our ancestors it means that we don’t want to take on their traditions, or keep their traditions alive. Which means that there’s a vacuum.

And what does that vacuum get filled with? Smut and degeneracy that the jews are pushing on us!

John Friend: Every time! All throughout history.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

John Friend: Well, get this. There’s one last thing here I want to quote from the article. And then we’ll move on. They quote a guy, a David Taylor, who’s a spokesperson for justice minister David lametty. And he’s basically saying he’s representing the government. He’s basically, again advocating for this law. And he says:

“Our government takes the fight against anti-semitism and all hate crimes very seriously. No jewish Canadian should be subjected to racism and hateful rhetoric. That has no place in our country.”

And this sort of rhetoric is exactly what you hear from US officials, and British officials, and German officials, and any government spokesman, the whole world over, essentially. And this guy Taylor, the spokesperson for the justice minister, said that:

“They are confident that the Bill will stand up to any judicial scrutiny.”

And he says, … Get this. Okay. This is the hypocrisy and the double think you have to engage in to actually take what these people say seriously. He says:

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom protected under the Charter. Like all rights and freedoms it is not absolute, and maybe subject to reasonable limits under the Charter. This Bill was reviewed for consistency with the Charter. It is our government’s position that the offense is consistent with the Charter. And this proposed new offense mirrors existing hate crime provisions.”

So I mean, again, think about it. The total hypocrisy of our elected officials, who say they support free speech and freedom of expression, yet they back bills criminalizing using free speech and free expression, and freedom of intellectual inquiry to basically criminalize anybody that is voicing criticism, or skepticism of various aspects of history, especially the alleged jewish “Holocaust” narrative.

So I mean, it’s just a total, in your face, blatant hypocrisy, that is just insulting!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. The Charter, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that has that “not withstanding” clause in it. And while that excerpt from the article didn’t exactly say those words, the “not withstanding” clause, you did refer to it though, where reasonable limits like “subject to these reasonable limits”. So yeah, we have all these rights except for there need to be these reasonable limits. That comes from this “not withstanding” clause. Which is like basically okay you have this Charter. And then you just shred it! It’s just well, worthless!

John Friend: Right. Well, you have free speech unless it offends jews. And then you don’t. And then you don’t have free speech [chuckling]! Either jews, or they’re like puppets, you know, minority groups that they’re manipulating and using to advance their anti-White agenda. That’s basically what they’re saying. So we’ll see. It’s pretty outrageous.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing calls for legislation similar to this in the United States. Shortly after the alleged shooting in Buffalo, which took place a couple weeks ago. And that’s a shooting that I have a lot of questions about. An alleged shooting, I should say, because I’m not even sure that anything like that even really took place there. It looks extremely suspect.

But anyways, immediately after that there were calls for more domestic terrorism laws. And they passed a resolution in the Congress that was approved by everybody except for one representative Thomas Massey, a Republican from Kentucky. And it was an anti-semitism resolution that condemned “Holocaust” denial, and condemned anti-semitism, and condemned unquote “conspiracy theories”, like the Great Replacement, which they say is this delusional conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile you look at any demographic statistics from any city, any state, any Western country, and it clearly shows that there is, in fact, a great replacement happening. And the White European demographic continues to decline. And we’re going to be replaced in the countries that our ancestors founded!

[45:31]

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. And I think it’s kind of interesting that they can call this “conspiracy theory”, and they call it bunk when those same politicians, or their colleagues, can talk quite openly about how:

“Oh by the year such and such, Whites will be in the minority in this region, that region. And the other regions.”

John Friend: They celebrate it! And they brag, and they boast, and they celebrate it. Yeah, exactly!

Monika Schaefer: They celebrate it. And then on the other hand they’re saying.

“Oh. This is just a bogus conspiracy theory! Where’d you get that idea?”

John Friend: Well, that’s the psychological warfare. That’s the gas lighting! The in your face abuse that you’re supposed to sit there and put up with.

Monika Schaefer: Thank you. “Gas lighting” is a good term for that. It really is! It makes you crazy have isn’t it? I mean, it just makes you crazy. That’s what they’re trying to do. That’s what they do with that kind of stuff.

John Friend: Yeah, exactly. It’s enough to drive you crazy! It makes me crazy just sitting here thinking about it. [chuckling] Yeah, it’s outrageous. And yeah, we’ve been talking about this sort of stuff for a long, long, time, over 10 years. And you start scratching your head. It’s like:

“Is anybody paying attention? Are we going to actually do anything about this?”

I think we’re making some progress. But it still feels still feels very, … I don’t want to say hopeless. But I think the political solutions are very, very limited at this point.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, definitely! The political solutions like in terms of voting and getting representatives, … I mean, like Ezra Pound’s words on democracy. He says:

“Democracy is jews speak for country run by jews.”

John Friend: Yes. Absolutely! Well, Hitler said the same thing about democracy. One of the best books I’ve ever read is For My Legionaries by Cornelius Codrianu. A Romanian, basically like National Socialist type revolutionary figure. Are you familiar with that book?

Monika Schaefer: No, I’m not.

John Friend: Oh you’d love it. Yeah you got to read it. It’s great! I can’t remember off the top my head. But I want to say he was active right around the time that Hitler was as well. But anyways, the book is outstanding. And he basically makes the same points that basically in a democracy whoever controls information, whoever controls the media, basically controls the government. And that’s exactly what we have in every Western country. And it’s been this way for a very, very long time!

Monika Schaefer: It has.

John Friend: And that kind of leads us into the next topic. This Kahilla sort of organization that you actually brought to my attention shortly before we started the podcast. And I’m going to have a link over to an article that was actually published at the Renegade Tribune, renegadetribune.com. A really good website. I used to sort of be affiliated with the Renegade Tribune. But they still do a lot of good work. And it’s an excerpt from a chapter in Ben Klassen’s book, Nature’s Eternal Religion. And you can actually download that book online for free as a PDF. I’ll have a link to do that in this podcast post, when I post it. And this chapter talks specifically about the Kahilla. Am I pronouncing that correctly, by the way?

Monika Schaefer: That’s what I think. I might be wrong on that. But I just have Kahilla. I’ve heard that word for a long time. But I didn’t really know what it was all about until I read this article. It blew my mind! Right. Well it’s basically like an organized secret society of jews based on a very strict hierarchy. And this would explain how they’re able to instill and reinforce these narratives and talking points in public policy all across the world. Right?

Monika Schaefer: Yes. This principle of sevens, did you want to talk about that, or would you like me to talk about that briefly?

John Friend: Yeah, go ahead. And then there’s a really good excerpt that I’ll read from the chapter. But yeah, go ahead. I want you kind of explain it to us.

[49:45]

Monika Schaefer: So over the entire world they’ve got a leader in the Eastern hemisphere, and a leader in the Western hemisphere. And the Eastern hemisphere is based out of London. The Western hemisphere based out of New York City. That’s where the headquarters are. It’s on the “sevens principle”. So there’s seven layers of seven so okay they make decisions. And there’s a board of directors. That’s 300 people. They have to be over 60 years old. And they are full bearded jews, okay.

So there’s board of directors. They’ll discuss things and make decisions. And then this leader in the Western and the Eastern hemisphere, they each call seven people that are under them, and tell them do this, or do that. Then those seven call each of them call seven under them. So you got 49. Then each of them calls seven under them. Now, I don’t have the numbers in front of me. Then there’s seven layers like that. By the seventh layer you’ve got almost a million people in the Eastern hemisphere. And in the Western hemisphere, each.

So you’ve got like over one and a half million worldwide. And it’s very secretive. The people who are being called, they’re all jews, of course. They don’t even know who each other are. And they carry out this agenda. And that’s why really any one of them only has to make seven calls. And then there’s the seven layers of this. And that’s how you can get this huge number of people.

And these jews have insinuated themselves everywhere, like into organizations, into government, into media, into everywhere. And that’s how they can so quickly have their agenda unfold and be in lock step with one another world wide! I mean, it is amazingly fast and efficient method to communicate.

And in 2017 Alfred was on a speaking tour in Canada. And he talked about internet stuff. And he talked about this jewish internet before the internet existed. And I don’t think he named the Kahilla, or named this specific method of organization. But he said that they long before we had heard about any of these things, they had their methods of communicating really quickly all over the world. And I guess this is the method. This is how they’ve been doing it I don’t know how long this specific, the Kahilla, has been in existence. But this is just incredible!

John Friend: Yeah. You’re right. You make a lot of good points. And it’s an interesting way of looking at the situation. I don’t know if there’s too much concrete, hard proof, of the existence of this sort of organization. Maybe it existed at some point in history. And I’m not even denying that it exists today. I wouldn’t be surprised if it does. But you can just look at the way jewish organizations network with each other. And the way they coordinate. And they’re all on the same page, always!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

John Friend: And most of these organizations have connections to the media. They have connections to the government. They have connections to synagogues, local synagogues, international. So they’re all very, very, well networked and organized.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. Church organizations, not just synagogues, right. But there’re all the other churches, they’ve been all infiltrated. And then teachers organizations.

John Friend: In Masonry, unions, exactly.

Monika Schaefer: Absolutely.

John Friend: Well, let me just read briefly an excerpt here. It says here:

“With a secret, dedicated, fanatically loyal organization, with this kind of structure it is easy to see how orders can be communicated and carried out with the minimum of delay, or red tape. When the hemispheric head of the Kahilla gives orders to his seven, from there on there are only six steps down the line of command in order to have every one of the one million Kahilla members notified in short order. All that is necessary to make seven sets of phone calls down the chain of command. Remember each man only has to make seven calls to the seven men below him, and in a matter of minutes the whole network of one million members has been given their marching orders. This is how the jews manage to set in motion strikes, agitations, student riots, or whatever is the order of the day, all over the world at the same time. This is the leadership principle at work. Among other things the Kahilla members are taught to infiltrate the management of our schools, colleges, and universities, in order to indoctrinate our younger and rising leaders with their false philosophies.”

And it goes on to discuss how they’ve also infiltrated media organizations, and other secret societies, like Freemasonry, and the Catholic Church, and the Jesuits, and things of this nature. So this actually makes a lot of sense. And even today I don’t know if necessarily it’s this sort of a hierarchical. Because there are so many jewish organizations that are so well networked and connected. That it’s almost this is just how they operate.

I mean look at how like the Black Lives Matters protest got off the ground, back in 2020. Nationwide in a matter of one night, virtually every major city in the country had a major, basically violent revolution at on their hands! That’s how these people operate.

[55:37]

Monika Schaefer: That’s right.

John Friend: We see that same thing going on recently with the Supreme Court leak. I don’t know if you followed that, but somebody within the Supreme Court. It had to be one of the clerks working for one of the Supreme Court justices, leaked a draft opinion that would have basically overturned Roe vs Wade. And it was leaked to the media.

And almost overnight there were massive protests. And all these radical crazy abortionists, and feminists, and Antifa. And all these very crazy like Left-wing radicals were out in the streets. They were protesting in front of Supreme Court justices private homes. They were surrounding the Supreme Court in Washington DC. I mean, like literally like an insurrection organized instantly. That’s how these people work. That’s how these people operate. None of that happened organically [chuckling]!

John Friend: No! Absolutely not!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. No, it’s quite something isn’t it?

John Friend: Yeah. Anyways, very interesting. I’m glad that you brought that to my attention. Like I said, I was sort of familiar with the concept. But that article is very interesting. And if anybody’s interested definitely check out the article. And you can even download the full book and read it. I’ve actually never read Nature’s Eternal Religion. I am familiar with Ben Klassen. I know he’s like very anti-Christian which has always kind of turned me off to his writings, and his work, and stuff. I haven’t really investigated it all that closely. But for anybody interested it’s there. You can find a link to it when I post this program. Was there anything else you wanted to mention about this topic?

Monika Schaefer: No. We could move on.

John Friend: Okay. I gotta ask you really quickly. And we don’t have to spend a lot of time on this. I’m just curious if you have any opinion on these alleged mass shootings that have recently taken place. I talked extensively about the alleged shooting in Buffalo with Russ Winter on a recent podcast. So I’d encourage everybody to check that out if they haven’t heard it already. But between then there was also another alleged shooting in Texas, which was very, very bizarre. It almost looks like, …

Monika Schaefer: You’re talking about this Uvaldi [sp], or whatever it’s called? It just smacks of false flag, and lots of problems with that.

John Friend: Yeah.

Monika Schaefer: I’m not somebody who has looked into and researched all the details there, but right away a lot of red flags went up. So I think that there’s a lot of problems with their story, with the authenticity of it.

John Friend: Absolutely. It’s one of the most bizarre official shooting stories that I’ve ever heard. It very much reminds me of like a Mexican version of Sandy Hook! Like Sandy Hook was extremely bizarre. And the interviews with the alleged parents, and none of it added up. The official story didn’t make any sort of sense. And it’s the same exact thing in this case.

I actually just read an article that was published by the New York Post – so not some like random blog on the internet – talking about how there was a drill, a mass shooting drill, that took place in the same town at the high school. But this was back in March. And so it seems like there’s always like some sort of drill involved leading up to an alleged mass shooting. I don’t know what to make of that. But it is very interesting.

And if you just read the official story. I mean, it’s literally like the most asinine, ludicrous story! This kid shoots his grandma in the face with the weapon that he only recently purchased. He apparently bought two of these high powered assault rifles. Which, I mean, they’re like thousands of dollars. Where is this kid getting the money to purchase these weapons, to purchase all this ammunition? He had tons of ammunition. How was he carrying it on himself and like running around and shooting everybody.

He apparently got in a truck and drove his truck into a ditch. If you drive your truck into a ditch how are you not injured? I mean, he like instantly like jumped out of his truck and was like running around and like shooting people, shooting at people. And then he entered the school, and the door was opened by a teacher. [chuckling] I mean, it’s just like the most ridiculous story!

[60:10]

Monika Schaefer: And then the part that I thought was really weird makes no sense, is that the police didn’t go in for an hour!

John Friend: Exactly!

Monika Schaefer: What’s that all about? I couldn’t even make sense of what they’re trying to achieve with that part of the story.

John Friend: It’s almost like they’re trying to like discredit the police. And they’ve been trying to do that for a long time with these Black Lives Matters sort of protests, and police brutality, and yeah all this other nonsense. And the police do make mistakes. Obviously, they’re not perfect.

Monika Schaefer: But it’s part of that drive I think to defund the police. And then you have total mayhem right.

John Friend: Yes. Exactly! And to make them look totally incompetent. And in many cases. I think they probably are incompetent.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. No doubt. But still there’s an agenda here. Because then they’ll, you know, accompany that with the violent sort of BLM which I call, Burn Loot and Murder [chuckling]! It’s what it stands for.

John Friend: Absolutely. So anyways, we don’t got to spend a lot of time on it. I don’t know how closely you’ve looked into it. But it is a very, very weird bizarre situation that makes absolutely no sense!

Monika Schaefer: I put that into the false flag, you know, staged event category. And we can move on.

John Friend: Yeah, okay, all right, good. So we’re on the same page there then.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

John Friend: I kind of figured we would be. We’ll go ahead and wrap up with our last topic. And that is I wanted you to provide some updates on Alfred. You have a letter, it’s like excerpts from letters.

Monika Schaefer: Excepts from four different letters that he wrote recently to me. And I just thought he really has a knack for thinking of comparisons, metaphors, analogies. He has a wonderful way of being able to formulate our problem that we have, and make comparisons to nature. I just think there’s some real words of wisdom in his writings, and I was inspired to put this article up. I hadn’t done one in a while where I’ve just put Alfred’s letters and stuff.

So yeah, you had put a little excerpt there in your message to me. Do you still have that in front of you. It was just very, very short. Why don’t you start with that. That would be good.

John Friend: Yes I do. He was talking about free speech. Let me see.

Monika Schaefer: Oh yeah!

John Friend: Yeah I have it. And, by the way, let me mention this. I’ll have a link to this post on your website. But again your website is freespeechmonika.com. And it’s the most current post right now anyways, as we’re speaking. It was published may 28th. So just a couple days ago. And he says:

“We do have free speech, that has been granted to us by god almighty at the time of our birth. That is our birthright. And by that we shall live, and also die as free men and women.”

And boy, that totally resonates with me! Certainly!

Monika Schaefer: Yes. It’s really important. It also kind of reminds me of when I was in jail and I wrote this in some letters. And I really felt it. I genuinely meant this when I said:

“I feel a thousand times freer than the jail boss.”

So that is related to what Alfred said there with the freedom of speech. That we have freedom of speech, it’s a god-given right. I mean, they can pretend that they’re taking it away. Those are just blots of toner on paper. He talks about when their laws, their so-called laws against, that we can’t say this. And we can’t say that. He just calls it “blots of toner on paper”. Well they mean nothing! We have these rights, they exist! They can’t take these away.

John Friend: Right. And what’s so incredible about America is that the founding fathers recognized these as specifically god-given rights that could not be taken by any man. These were rights that were given to us by our creator. And they were in enshrined in the US constitution in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. And Canada and other Western countries have sort of a version of this, although it may not be as explicitly stated as it is in the First Amendment to the US constitution.

Monika Schaefer: No. We really don’t, we really don’t. Then there’s that Hate Speech law that just nullifies and voids anything that we might think is freedom of speech.

John Friend: But nevertheless this is a bedrock principle of Western civilization!

Monika Schaefer: It is.

John Friend: And it’s something that our societies and our civilization has been based on, and founded upon. And it’s something that we all ought to take very, very seriously. This is what our society is all about. And what made us the greatest civilization in the history of the world!

[65:12]

Monika Schaefer: That’s right. And I think that White people in general have this very strong spirit. It’s an individualistic spirit. It’s a spirit of that we have this innately in our blood. You could say that we feel that we have the freedom to speak, to be, and not to have somebody lord it over us. Now, we have been rendered quite ill right now. And I say collectively, we have become ill, because we have been subjected to decades and decades of lies, and deceptions, and demoralization, and degeneration.

But genetically we do have this free spirit. And it still courses through our blood. And we have to get back up on our feet. Which is what we are, you and I with this. And all the work you do, and the work that I’m doing, the work that Alfred’s doing.

This is what we’re trying to do, is it is get our people back up on their feet again. So that we reclaim these natural, god-given rights and blessings and abilities. And just our natural selves, who we are.

But I guess all those reasons, all those qualities that we that I just talked about, is why the jews hate us so!

John Friend: Right.

Monika Schaefer: Is why they hate us. So we are the biggest obstacle to their being, their agenda, all through history. But they also love to be in the parasitic relationship with us. Because we create, we have this creative spirit. We create stuff, and create civilizations.

And they, you know what better host than somebody who’s creative for the parasite to be latching on to. But you see it’s this love-hate thing they have for us. And right now, they’re hell-bent on destroying us. And yeah, it’s not going to work out very well for them, is it now [chuckling]?

John Friend: Yeah. I pray. And Alfred, yeah you’re right, he’ll have some extremely profound statements in a lot of these letters that you come across. Some little gems that you frankly won’t really hear, or see anywhere else. He goes on with this quote. He says here:

“If someone thinks they stand above god almighty, let them step forward. But we shall never abandon, or relinquish, or abdicate, this god-given right, especially not if the psychopaths asking us to do so, are known mass murderers, and child rapers, …”

That second part. I mean, yeah, that’s a little bit more controversial. But absolutely these people that would basically legislate our right to free speech, to freedom of expression, to freedom of inquiry, of intellectual, or historical inquiry, these people are the scum of the earth! They are mass murderers. Many of them no doubt are sexual predators, and sexual deviants. There’s no doubt about that. And they have no right to rule over us, or to take away our rights!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. That’s right. There’s another very short quote here I’d like to read. And it was in response to, … I had recently been in touch with Kai Muros. I don’t know if you are familiar with him. But he has made some excellent speeches! Very, very inspirational. Anyway, when I sent his greetings to Alfred in a letter. Then Alfred writes back. He says:

“Oh, of course, I know Kai Muros! His quotation is so wonderful! His words have never left my inner compass. It has been people like Kai Muros who have left an indelible mark on me and gave me the total confidence that we will reach our mark. He speaks from the very core of our DNA. The tiny message from you about Kai is like a turbo boost of energy for me, because I know the power of words in this dark and stormy sea! They are the lighthouses that guide the ships to the safety of the harbor of truth!”

Isn’t that beautiful?

John Friend: Yes, absolutely!

Monika Schaefer: :

“I know the power of words in this dark and stormy sea, they are the lighthouses that guide the ships to the safety of the harbor of truth!”

I just love that statement there! Oh, it’s actually giving me, you know, tingly feeling up and down my arms and my back! It’s beautiful.

John Friend: Yeah, absolutely! Well I gotta ask you one last thing I guess, unless there’s any other topics you wanted to get to. But at the very beginning of the excerpts that you have in your recent post, he talks about the criminality that we see today is beyond imaginable. And he was actually talking about how you can’t even leave Canada without taking the jab. I know he’s been very, very suspicious of this whole fake pandemic, right? From the beginning.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

John Friend: Yeah. And he refuses to wear the mask. He refuses to get tested, and get, of course, get the jab. Can you not leave Canada without taking the jab, like without presenting proof that you took the vaccine? Is that true?

[70:45]

Monika Schaefer: Well, I think it is. I mean, I’ve been talking to quite a few people about it, and from all indications I think it is true, although some people say:

“Oh well, if you drive you can’t go. And if you fly you can. Then you go to quarantine for 14 days.”

But it’s very confusing. Like, I myself, am not going to go buy an airplane ticket and then get stopped, because it sounds like we cannot leave. That’s from all accounts.

Now if somebody can tell me otherwise that’s great, if there’s a way. I think that maybe there’s a way to go and just, I don’t know.

John Friend: Gosh, it’s so unbelievable, we’ve gotten to this point!

Monika Schaefer: We’re behind the Iron Curtain here at the purebloods. The purebloods were behind the Iron Curtain. And I have kind of heard rumblings about this Monkeypox thing that they’re rolling out. It’s going to be very different from the Covid roll out. They’re going to be putting intense pressure.

And they’ll start with certain segments of the population, perhaps the gay population. Because the gay population is very, very Leftist, bought into the agenda already. So they’re going to be easy to kind of get high compliance on getting the jab for the Monkeypox, now. Even though this Monkeypox supposedly is very mild. And I think it really is just the effects of the first jabs series, right? So people are going to have lesions on their skin, and this and that. So then they just call it this new virus. And they’re going to say:

“Okay, we need another vaccine jab.”

And then they start with some segments of the population and then really come down hard on those who are going to resist. And all the way up to putting them in camps. I don’t know it’s just something some rumblings I’ve been reading and hearing about how they’re going to perhaps roll this out very, very differently than what they did with the Covid, with general lockdowns. It could be that it’s quite different.

And also when they do these things by incremental, then people just kind of carry on, just keep going, and just go along to get along. And:

“Okay, it’s not happening to me. So I can just carry on.”

Like it’s kind of a dangerous situation. We need to really be alert to that. So I’m just putting that out there just to, I guess, just to have people be alert to what methods they are gonna roll out here.

John Friend: Right. Well I think the biggest thing is just people have got to stand their ground and have a backbone, and just say no! I mean this whole time that’s been my approach is like:

“Look. No, I’m sorry, I’m not taking a vaccine. I’m not doing this.”

Yeah. I mean, in certain situations especially with like the face mask it was almost impossible. Like, if you’re taking a flight, for example. But I mean, I think much of this medical tyranny that we’ve seen over the past couple years has really just been the public caving in, and just giving in, and not even fighting back.

Monika Schaefer: Absolutely!

John Friend: That’s the biggest part of it. Including people that like will tell you that they don’t want to take the vaccine. They’re skeptical of it. They don’t trust the science. They don’t even buy into the whole narrative. And yet they will still go out and take it, because they think they have to, or whatever.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, they want to travel, or to keep their job, or to do this, or to that, which is really this disastrous situation. Because what they don’t fully understand where this is taking us. And also what that jab may, or may not do to them. I mean, depending maybe they got the placebo. But if they are against it, but they take it anyway, I guess they don’t really understand it. Like if it’s just to:

“Oh I want to travel.”

Or:

“I want to have my job.”

Well, you’re not going to have any of those things if you keel over!

John Friend: If you have a heart attack for taking it. Yeah, I just saw an article. There was a marathon in Brooklyn recently. And it was like, I can’t even remember off the top of my head. It was like 10 people. Like, I don’t know if they died, I can’t remember. I should have pulled it up before. I didn’t even realize we’d be talking about this.

But this is happening all over. Professional athletes, and just all sorts of people, are having very, very serious negative health consequences, and other consequences, after taking the vaccine. And I don’t know exactly what is going on. You mentioned there may be like some sort of placebo. And other doses may be actually the real deal. And it’s really impacting people.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

John Friend: I don’t know. I think vaccines in general tend to impact everybody differently, depending on your, I don’t know, your genetics. I mean, everything, your diet, your overall health in general. I think everybody’s impacted by these things differently. And some people may not, you know, face any sort of negative health repercussions. Other people may be severely debilitated.

Monika Schaefer: Absolutely, or keel right over. Right?

John Friend: Yeah. And that that appears to be definitely happening from all indications. And it’s so evil. And so wrong yeah. And it breaks my heart that people have just caved in like this, when simply all you to do is say:

“No!”

Look you ought to be a free person to make your own choices and not be bullied into taking, basically like a forced medical intervention. I mean, it’s insane!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, it is. If everybody had just said “no” right from the get-go about the masks, we could have really stopped it in its tracks. I think right from the get-go if everybody had just said:

“No! Sorry.”

John Friend: I don’t think I could wear a mask again, at this point. I think if they wanted to kick me out:

“Okay. Sorry, I guess I just won’t shop here.”

Whatever. I mean, I haven’t even been forced into that sort of situation for a long time now. But for a very long time, you know, especially when this the whole thing first rolled out in like 2020, it was like you couldn’t even step foot anywhere without somebody asking you to put a mask on, or threatening to kick you out, or whatever. So it’s tough! It’s tough. But I think, at this point, no. I do not comply! I will not take the vaccine! I’m not putting a face mask over my mouth. I’m not going along with this.

Monika Schaefer: And there’s a lot of us John! Like they skew the numbers on purpose to make it sound like everybody’s taking it. But no. There’s a lot of us who just will not comply. And that’s great! And we need to really reinforce that message for people that there are many of us. So yeah,

John Friend: Including your brother.

John Friend: Yeah. That’s the whole reason he’s in solitary confinement since December 3rd, 2020! He has been in solitary confinement. And then they upped the level of solitary, in a quarantined solitary confinement, when he refused to even take the test. So he’s standing on principle, because he insisted on breathing freely. Like this is why they put him in solitary since then. It’s absolutely unbelievable that this could happen in a so-called Western, free, democratic country!

John Friend: Right. Well, anyway he’s getting out! He’s getting out of jail! He’s got his get out of jail card for July 4th, independence day for you guys.

John Friend: How appropriate!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, he likes that. He likes the symbolism of that, that’s for sure. But it’s just amazing to me, because when it was starting to get close, because it was always like this forever thing. Like it seemed like he was in jail forever. For me it just seemed like:

“Oh this is just forever!”

And then about two months ago I just realized:

“Oh my goodness! This is coming right up. And it’s gonna go so fast!”

And it is indeed. Like now it’s just a matter of weeks. And he’s going to be out. And we’re going to be able to talk in real time via Skype, or whatever. I would love to fly over there John to meet him at the gate. Oh my goodness! I would just like that so much. But I can’t!

John Friend: Yeah.

Monika Schaefer: It’s not possible. But he’ll want to do interviews, I know that. So I know he’ll want to talk with you. You were one of the very first people that interviewed him when, I think it was after he did his first major video. And you had contacted him. I think you, or maybe one other, was the first to reach out to him for one of these kinds of interviews. So there you go John. He will be happy to talk to you again, that’s for sure.

John Friend: Oh yeah! I know. I very much look forward to doing just that.

Monika Schaefer: Great!

John Friend: Yeah, well okay Monika. Thank you so much for joining me once again. This has been a great conversation, as I knew it would be.

Monika Schaefer: I’ve enjoyed it immensely! Thank you so much for having me on again.

John Friend: No problem.

Monika Schaefer: And I look forward to doing it again.

John Friend: Okay, sounds good. Yeah. We’ll stay in touch, and we’ll have to coordinate something as we approach Alfred’s release date. Which is, as you said, in about a month, a little over a month.

Monika Schaefer: Just over a month, yes.

John Friend: Very good. Okay. Well, god bless you and god bless your brother.

Monika Schaefer: God bless you too.

John Friend: Yeah, I very much look forward to speaking to Alfred. Okay, take care Monika.

Monika Schaefer: My pleasure. Thank you.

John Friend: No problem. Thank you very much. Bye.

[80:18]

END

If you would like to help with this, and other transcripts, please leave a note in the Comment section. If you spot any errors, typos, etc., also let me know.

___________________________

Comments

top

6 COMMENTS

Realist Report May 31, 2022 5:06 pm
Here is a link to the Q&A I mentioned at the beginning of the podcast:
https://truthandjusticeforgermans.com/ns-kampfruf-frontline-report-monika-schaefer-on-the-holocaust-politics-national-socialist-germany-and-adolf-hitler/
Reply

Freya June 1, 2022 3:56 am
(banner) HONK IF YOU KNOW THE (6 MIILLION) HOLOCAUST IS FAKE
Exposing the crime is not a crime! It is the right thing to do, right?
Exposing the Jewish crimes against humanity is not a crime! It is the right thing to do, right?
Telling the truth is not a crime! It is the right thing to do, right?
EXPOSING the crimes (of Jews or non-Jews) is not the crime! COMMITTING the crime is the crime, right?
What “Semites” are the Jewish criminals talking about? It is not about “Semites” – It is about the Jewish criminals hiding behind self-invented illogical WORDS … in order to evade criticism and legal prosecution for their most heinous crimes!
Most of those who call themselves ‘Jews’ are not even Semites! Ergo: Critisizing them for their crimes CANNOT be “anti-Semitic”… right?
https://therealistreport.com/is-anti-semitism-a-crime/#comments
Reply

Stephen Yuill June 1, 2022 8:00 am
Thank you John for bringing on Monika once again. I always look forward to the interview. Monika is a heroine for those of us in the know in this sad country of Canada. Can’t wait for your interview after Alfred’s release.
Reply

Karin Joy Passmore June 2, 2022 2:23 pm
Not enough said about atrocities against Christians. I’m learning that our clergy have been mercilessly targeted and genocided in countries taken by the communists, and yet people do not point that out nor educate each other about such things. Let us change our focus from the “holocaust” and teach our children what has been done to our own ancestors. That will cause the needed bond, and free our children from guilt before any man, though not before the Lord.
Reply

Kate June 3, 2022 5:40 pm
Love Monika! What a heroine! Like Joan of Arc!
Reply

Victor Paul Fletcher June 5, 2022 5:48 pm
Met Monika briefly in Toronto when she was released from German jail where a support meeting group took place to welcome here now that she is back in Canada.
Reply

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

See Also

top

Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust — TRANSCRIPT

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

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

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

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

PDF

top

PDF Notes

* Total words in post = 13,939

* Total words in transcript = 13,114
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

top

Version 6: Jun 19, 2022 — Added remainder of transcript. Transcript now completed.

Version 5: Jun 17, 2022 — Added more transcript. Now 60/80 mins completed.

Version 4: Jun 16, 2022 — Added more transcript. Now 70/80 mins completed.

Version 3: Jun 14, 2022 — Added more transcript. Now 45/80 mins completed.

Version 2: Jun 13, 2022 — Added more transcript. Now 31/80 mins completed.

Version 1: Jun 10, 2022 — Published post. Total transcript completed so far = 26/80 mins.

John Friend: All right folks welcome back to another edition of the Realist Report. This is your host, John Friend. Today is Thursday, October [November] 5th, 2020.

Of course my website is therealistreport dot com, where you will find an extensive archive of these podcasts as well as other programs I’ve participated in. You will also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my twitter feed, which is embedded in the right hand sidebar of the website, and many other useful and important links.

I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper. And I also contribute to the Barnes Review, the bi-monthly revisionist history magazine. Please do subscribe to these fine print publications. Check out American Free Press dot net and Barnes Review dot org for all the details.

All right with that said let me introduce our special guest today. The one and only Germar Rudolf is joining us for the very first time! Germar, welcome to the program! How are you this morning, sir?

Germar Rudolf: Well, thank you for having me. I’m doing fine. And yourself?

John Friend: I’m doing good! I’m doing good! The past couple of days have been crazy with this election going on. This still unresolved election. I think it’s pretty clear that there are trying to steal this thing from Trump. So we will have to kind of wait and see what happens with that.

But we have a number of other important topics to discuss here this morning, so it’s really an honor to have you here. I’ve been very much influenced by your writing and your work over the years. I’ve heard you interviewed on other programs. And I’ve always wanted to have you as a guest here. So I’m glad that you are able to join me this morning, and I thank you for taking the time.

To get started could you maybe just introduce yourself a little bit? Give us a little bit of background and explain your experience in the revisionist movement and what lead you into critically investigating the World War Two narrative and specifically the alleged Jewish “Holocaust” of six million Jews during this monumental period of history.

Germar’s Background and His Start in Revisionism

top

Germar Rudolf: Yes! Well, that’s a question that the answer to which could take an hour already! [chuckling] I’ll make it shorter than that.

I’m a native German. So I grew up in Germany and I got my school and university education in Germany. I finished with a Masters degree, or an equivalent of that in Chemistry, back in 1989. And then started a year later after doing my compulsory military service, I started working on a PhD in Chemistry.

And it was around that time that the Leuchter Report was issued. That was in 1988. I found out about it in 1989. And was curious about it. I had a keen interest in German history for years, but I never touched upon the “Holocaust”. That was too hot a topic, too unpleasant a topic for Germans, I would say. Maybe a number of them would make a career out of it, of doing the “mea culpa” thing. There are a lot of them actually in Germany. But that wasn’t my thing.

So I stayed away from it. German history, for me it was, of interest, was the Kaiser time, First World War, the run up to the Second World War, and how the Second World War got started, and the aftermath. So I kind of stayed out of the war itself. Because it’s just too bloody a topic, and of course in particular the “Holocaust”.

Paul Rassiner, the French Founder of Holocaust Revisionism

top

What changed it was a book that I read just a few months before I found out about the Leuchter Report. And that was a book by French historian Paul Rassiner, who is considered the founder of historical revisionism.

He himself had been in a concentration camp because he had helped Jews get illegal papers to get out of occupied France. And he ended up in the Buchenwald camp, and after the war wrote about it. And was not pleased by the exaggerations and lies that was spread by his fellow inmates. And that was his starting point.

And when I obtained the book of his in, I think it was spring 1988, 1989, I was amazed! Up to that point anyone who was questioning the orthodox “Holocaust” narrative for me was just a Nazi, a Right-wing extremist, an anti-semite, and all the kind of labels that are put on people who question the “Holocaust”. And I was among those mainstream people who automatically, in a Pavlovian reflex, threw these words at people who would dare to doubt.

[05:03]

But this guy, I couldn’t do that with him because he was a victim of National Socialism! He had been inside a concentration camp as a prisoner. He had suffered terribly. And yet there he was doubting the whole narrative and bringing up arguments against the gas chamber claims, which opened up my mind. Allowed me to have doubts, to question the thing itself. I did not yet do it, but the preparation of my mind, the opening up of my mind was there.

[Image] Fred Leuchter holding up his copy of the original Leuchter Report for the second Zundel Trial in Canada, in 1988.

Discovering the Leuchter Report

top

And then a few months later I happened to stumble over the Leuchter Report. Which of course in one of its sections talks about taking wall samples and analyzing them chemically.

Now of course I had just graduated in chemistry a year before, roughly a year before. And that was my field of expertise. History had been a hobby, a field of interest, but I never felt like I could contribute in any way to it because I’m not an historian by any stretch of the imagination. I was just a consumer, an aficionado, if you wish.

But there was a topic where I thought:

“Well, I can understand it, I can verify that, I can actually maybe even contribute to it.”

And that is how I got going on that.

Starting My PhD at Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart

top

And while I was doing that, a year later starting my PhD at Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, I realized that they have a fine research library, and they had an online research.

Back then in 1990, 1991, there wasn’t no such thing as the internet yet. But there was intranet of libraries that were already connected and communicating in a similar fashion, as it was then expanded to encompass everyone in the world wide web.

So there was a pre-existing web, and it was fantastic! I could use it without getting charged. I could do all the research that I wanted.

And in my spare time when I was not working on my PhD, I went there and had the librarians work for me on that topic of, well, what chemicals are being formed, how are they being formed, and what kind of chemistry is going on, and what conditions had been prevalent and would be needed. And all these questions that were raised, I started to answer.

The Leuchter Report — Jumping the Gun

top

Not because I was planning on doing anything with it. I was just curious. It was just pure curiosity. Because in my mind it was too important a topic to ignore it, and to leave it half done! Because that was my impression when I read the Leuchter Report. He just took those sample, had them analyzed, got the results and then said:

“Well, because the results are not as I expect them, that proves that there was not any mass gassings going on in Auschwitz.”

But my opinion back then and still today, he kind of jumped the gun. Because there were so many questions the were not properly answered.

Like the chemical compound that he had been looking for in his analysis. Could they be long-term stable enough to survive forty years? Because between the end of the war and the time he took the samples — we’re talking about roughly forty years — would they be able to survive? Unless you can give a definitive answer to that, it makes little sense to take samples.

And then the next question is; well of course if we have established — and I did that then by doing a lot of research — that they do survive forty years or more, so that it makes sense to look for them analytically, could they form in the first place? What were the conditions that are claimed to have been present during those mass gassings? The physical conditions, the chemical conditions, the actual conditions of what happened exactly, what concentrations were used, how quickly was it ventilated? Could it have been ventilated?

All these questions that came up to my mind and I think had to be answered. And I couldn’t find the answer in the Leuchter Report. So he left me high and dry, and thirsting for more. And that was what I was doing for my own curiosity sake.

Zyklon B — How Stable over Time?

top

But I knew that a lot of people out there who would be interested in these findings. And as soon as I had my first findings, in early 1991, that showed that the chemical which was analyzed, which was detected by those analyses, called, … There’s an umbrella term term called “iron blue”, and there is some subsets of it called “Prussian blue”, and “Turnbull blue” and all kinds of other names are used for it. But it’s a blue pigment essentially that is a combination of iron and cyanide.

[10:08]

And cyanide is the part which comes from Zyklon B, which is the infamous product said to have been used to mass murder jews in Auschwitz.

So I found out with a number of peer-reviewed papers that had been published in the fifties, sixties and seventies, that this pigment is indeed is extremely stable and should survive with ease those forty years between World War Two and the time that Leuchter had taken his samples.

And I sent those papers, I made copies of the papers and sent them to a list of people and institutions that I had received from a friend of mine who told me that they might be interested. I didn’t know any of these people. I just sent it out. It was some twenty people, or so.

A Trip to Auschwitz for Samples

top

And one of them must have become interested in me expanding that research, because he contacted me, and invited me, and then asked me whether I would be willing to myself go to Auschwitz, take samples and do a similar analysis. And I happily agreed to do that.

I took a few days off from my employment as a PhD student to go on an extended weekend to Auschwitz. And we did our research there and took samples and had them analyzed.

Fortunately at Max Plank Institute also had a nice engineering department where you could get, as a PhD student, you could get your own machinery built. So if you were doing some experiment, or were planning on doing some novel experience [experiment?] you needed some novel machine, some novel setup to do your experiment, they would actually construct it for you.

Having Max Planck Institute Build a Little Gas Chamber

top

So I had an engineer friend of mine make construction drawings of an experimental little gas chamber that we could use to expose building material to hydrogen cyanide, to Zyklon B fumes, essentially. To see how they react to verify that my chemical findings were accurate.

And Max Plank Institute actually built it for me, at their expense. As a matter of fact it sounds a little bit spurious that I did that, but I had a contract with the Max Plank Institute, the Max Plank Society. Actually the full name is “Max Plank Society for the Furthering of Science”. So what they do, their mission is to further science in any which way possible. And the contract I had with them allowed me to do my PhD, but allowed me also, expressively [explicitly] in a chapter it says:

“That any student who wants to do his own research on his own initiative is encouraged and invited to do so and use the Institute’s resources for it.”

Bingo! [chuckling]

John Friend: Wow!

Germar Rudolf: At the end of the day they didn’t like what I did with it, and then they eventually wanted to fire me because I had done that. And it went to court because I thought:

“You can’t do this, because I have the contract here that says explicitly I’m allowed to do it.”

And we settled then out of court and the contract with them was resolved [?] two or three months before it would come to a normal end. Anyhow it was only a limited contract of three years.

So anyway that was the setup. And the guy who actually contacted me and asked me whether I wanted to do that research and take my own samples, he was in contact with a lawyer who had clients who were on trial, or were prosecuted and soon to be on trial for quote, unquote, “holocaust denial”. And they then asked me to get all my results together, write an expert report that could be presented in court in Germany. Which I did.

And then I appeared in some seven or eight court cases as an expert witness. However I was never heard by the court because they basically violated German penal code. Because it said that:

“If an expert witness is already in the court room.”

So to say, there’s no expense and no time wasted for the court to get this witness. The witness is already there. He is an expert by his education, which I was. You don’t need a PhD degree to be an expert. Already if you have a diploma degree, which is somewhere between a Master’s degree and a PhD degree in the US. If you have that already you are considered an expert in chemistry and you can testify. And if you are in control of your mind, so you are not under the influence of some drugs or so, or unconscious, then you can’t testify of course.

[15:14]

And if what you have to say is relevant to the case, which it is, because those people were on trial for denying that there were gassings in Auschwitz, and I could prove, or explain, to the court what could and could not happen according to the material evidence that I had found. So what I would testify was relevant.

German Court Breaks the Law and Denies Expert Testimony

top

Under these circumstances the German penal code forces a court to hear the evidence. They cannot reject it! It’s already there, it’s relevant, it’s possible, do it! But no! They broke the law and denied me to testify anyway. And in one case the judge actually threatened me!

Now this is a crime under German penal law to threaten a witness in the witness stand, or in the courtroom, that if he testifies to his best knowledge that he would get prosecuted for it. And that is exactly what that judge did. He said:

“Witness, are you really going to testify along the line as the motion of the defense suggests?”

I said:

“Well you will hear, when I’m in the stand.”

So I didn’t even answer to that. But then he said:

“Well if you do testify along those lines, you are making yourself liable to prosecution because it’s going to be a crime!”

[chuckling] So he was threatening me as a witness that if I testify in a certain way that I would be prosecuted! But that is standard procedure in Germany. Back then actually you could still file a motion as a lawyer to have evidence like that introduced.

That changed in the mean time because of me. Because of my appearances they wanted to put a stop to it, so they changed the case law by a supreme court decision. That a lawyer who files a motion to introduce evidence which by its content denies the “Holocaust”, the lawyer actually commits a crime, and will be prosecuted. Merely for filing the motion! That does not even include the evidentiary statement itself, but only suggests that the statement would go along this line, and then this is already considered a crime.

German Lawyers Prosecuted for Filing “Holocaust Denial” Motion

top

And several lawyers were prosecuted and sentenced in Germany for having done exactly that. And the first case that set the precedent was when a lawyer filed a motion to have me testify.

John Friend: Yeah, it’s pretty unbelievable where literally in Germany if you present evidence that questions, or criticizes the official “Holocaust” story, it’s literally a crime. For presenting authentic, legitimate, evidence. It’s totally tyrannical and Orwellian to a degree that I can’t even express!

Germar Rudolf: Right. It is the step before. They don’t even get to present it! They just file a motion:

“I would like to present this evidence.”

That is already a crime! You don’t even get to present the evidence! Yeah, it’s ridiculous!

So initially the first couple of years I was doing that, I was chasing the system ahead of me, they were panicking, judges were panicking. It was a big upheaval, and they were trying to stop me. They would do anything to stop me.

Fleeing Germany and Starting a Publishing Enterprise

top

And they did eventually. They dragged me in court for my expert report and sentenced me. I left the country before it actually became valid, because an appeal was pending and I had not been arrested for it, because they thought there was no danger that I might flee because I was married, I had children, I had a job, I had a home. So they thought:

“No, I’m not going to run.”

And I did.

And I lived abroad for a number of years, expanding my activities in this regard. Turning what was initially only a research on a small level into a publishing enterprise that was focusing on this issue. Expanding more, and more the research horizons. Not just Auschwitz, but all the camps. Not just the camps, but the whole topic of the “Holocaust”.

Italian Scholar Carlo Mattogno World’s Foremost Expert

top

Not just me. I mean, I’m a minor contributor at this point. I’m primarily editing and publishing other authors, particularly the Italian scholar Carlo Mattogno. Who I consider to be the world’s foremost expert in matters of “Holocaust” in general.

[Image] Jurgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno and Germar-Rudolf.

He has published monographs on pretty much anything you can imagine of — with a few exceptions maybe. But he’s covered the whole territory and he has a knowledge that is rivaled by no one! Not even mainstream historians! They cannot touch him with anything with the depth and intensity of knowledge that he has. He would blow any orthodox historian out of the water with ease!

[20:17]

John Friend: Yeah.

Germar Rudolf: And I have the pleasure and the honor to publish his material.

And actually right now I’m working on getting another one of his books translated from Italian to English. I’ve turned into a translator and editor mainly. I’m doing translations, and I have been doing for the past 2, or 3 years, from Italian on some regular basis. So I have passive knowledge of Italian [words unclear]. That is what I’m doing now days!

John Friend: Very good! You are doing a great job! You have been doing a great job for a number of years. So I wanted to ask you. So your main forensic and chemical investigations into the alleged “Holocaust” really focuses on Auschwitz, correct? That was the main camp that you kind of focused on?

Why the Focus on Auschwitz?

top

Germar Rudolf: Yes. I exclusively focused on Auschwitz simply because back then I was a student that didn’t have the means of travelling to other camps and doing research on them as well. Auschwitz is kind of the big elephant in the room anyhow, if we are talking about the “Holocaust” in terms of propagandistic importance from the orthodox side in terms of number of victims, in terms of the documentation that has been left. Because pretty much most of the camp archives from the Construction Office, as well as from the Headquarters has survived.

Also when it comes to the number of witness statement we have, because there are so many Auschwitz survivors. They go into the hundreds of thousands after the war, which already tells you a lot about how successful an extermination could have been, said to have happened there. If hundreds of thousands are left after the war, allowed to survive and tell their story to the world.

Gas Chamber Stories from a Tiny Number of Survivors

top

As a matter of fact, had the things that are claimed happened, you would have hundreds of thousands, or even two hundred thousand, testimonies pretty much saying the same thing. But we don’t have that! We have maybe 50 that are relevant in terms someone claiming he actually saw something in person. We have a lot more that repeat rumours and that regurgitate what has been published in the media. But actual people who claim:

“I was there! I did that and I saw that!”

There’s maybe 50, maybe a 100. But if you consider you have 200,000 survivors and a 100 of them come up with a story, and the other 199,900 don’t! Then you have a pretty good statistical idea of where the truth is.

Under 200,000 people you find a 100 pathetic liars! And they are!

Your Main Conclusions About Auschwitz?

top

John Friend: Yeah, exactly! Well, I wanted to ask you, and it’s kind of a broad question, but what are the main conclusions that you have come to regarding Auschwitz and how it fits in to the overall “Holocaust” story.

Germar Rudolf: Well, pretty much the same as Leuchter’s.

They are based on a much broader basis of evidence. And I’m not blaming Leuchter for not having been able to do that, because he was asked, in the middle of a trial [Zundel Trial II] to do, within a few days, which normally you wouldn’t do because the topic is so complex, you couldn’t have done the preparatory research on any level to actually allow him to come to these conclusions. So I think he was pushing it a little bit.

[Image] Fred Leuchter (second from left) with the Zundel team for the second Zundel Trial (1988).

But basically I’m saying the same thing. If we look at the facilities where it is claimed to have happened, we look at the technical, the engineering, the architectural design, and capabilities, you can say that already from that point of view these facilities would not have been able to do what is claimed to have happened in them.

And then you come to the chemical part, and I prove with a lot of research. That first of all, the components that we analyze are so stable that we need to find them to this day. And they actually would have formed, because there are numerous factors, chemical and physical in nature, which I can back up with a lot of expert literature from normal chemical and physical peer-reviewed journals — you know, mainstream journals that publish that kind of research — showing that this stuff would have formed under the circumstances. And actually the homicidal gas chambers would have been the primary place where we should expect them, because of their chemical and physical makeup.

[24:58]

So, basically coming to the same conclusion on a much wider evidentiary basis.

Also because I happened to revise my report, getting more and more access to material that is in the archives of the Auschwitz Museum, in the Moscow archives, because the Red Army came and took most of the documents they found in Auschwitz and took them to Moscow. And they revealed them only in the mid 1990s.

And we got a hold of them. And Carlo Mattogno has done analysis of a lot of this material from all these archives. And I have a good working relation with him, so I get a lot of the material that is interesting and have used them for newer editions of my report, to further substantiate the conclusions that I had already come to in my first edition of 1992.

The Facilities and the Chemical Evidence Shows That It Didn’t Happen

top

Basically, the facilities couldn’t have done it, and the chemical evidence shows that it didn’t happen.

Auschwitz was a Death Camp, but Not a Murder Camp

top

John Friend: Right. So Auschwitz is presented as this like mass extermination centre, right, at least by the mainstream court historians. So what was going on at Auschwitz then? If it wasn’t this death camp what was really going on there?

Germar Rudolf: It was a “death camp“. But not a “murder camp“! They’re different!

History of the Camp — Planned as a POW Camp for Russians

top

Auschwitz initially was just a normal concentration camp where primarily Polish political prisoners and resistance fighters were incarcerated. And that changed after the start of the Soviet-German war in the summer of 1941. At which point they wanted to build in the vicinity of Auschwitz a huge POW camp. Where they planned on housing 100,000, or even 200,000 Soviet prisoners of war.

Now if you look into the history of war the Germans had millions of Soviet POWs, but they were all grounded somewhere in Russia. And there was no logistical means for them to actually get millions of people back west. Because their transport infrastructure to get soldiers, munitions, and supplies to the front and back, were so strained that they just didn’t have the capacity to get any of the Soviet people, Soviet prisoners out of there, or very few.

And of course then winter broke, it broke out relatively early that year in October and November already, things were completely shut down. And then those Soviet prisoners of war in those, they were not really prisoner of war camps, they just put them in a spot, put some barbed wire around them and some people with machine guns and guarded them that way, because they were just not prepared for this sudden huge amount of prisoners. And they started dying like flies.

So the plans to have that POW camp near Auschwitz, which was then called Birkenau [Auschwitz II] filled with Soviet POWs didn’t work out. They wanted to use those POWs to work in the chemical factories that were being constructed at that time, nearby. Which was absolutely crucial for the German war effort, because basically Germany manufactured the most important things for conducting war, there’s fuel, ammunition, and all kinds of basic chemicals that are used to run any kind of machinery, rubber, lubricants, everything. They were synthesizing it out of air and coal.

So they had plans on using the coal mines in Upper Silesia to get the coal, get them into coal liquidfication and gasification plants near Auschwitz, which they were building there. Because there is a lot of process water [needed]. The rivers Vistula, the Sola. There’s a lot of water, for the processes you need water. And they wanted to build these huge factories which would then produce fuel, lubricants, and other chemicals to fuel the machinery. And they needed workers for them. So they planned on using the POWs for working in those factories. And they didn’t come!

[Image] Map of the Auschwitz complex. (click image to enlarge)

Plan B — Use Jews as Forced Labour

top

The Plan B was, which they switched to early 1942 when they knew they can’t get the Russian POWs out of Russia, to use the jews. The jews of Europe. They started deporting from Czechoslovakia, and then from France. Jews and put them in the POW camp, instead. It took them two years actually to rename the camp from “POW” to “concentration camp“. So initially they kept the name even though it never really was a POW camp. It was filled with jews.

[30:12]

And when they started filling it up with jews in early 1942, there wasn’t much of a camp. It was pretty much similar like with all the other camps. Initially they put a barbed wire fence around an area, threw the people in there and gave them some boards and some hammers, and some nails, and told them:

“Build your own barrack. Build your own huts. Build your own bed, and that’s it!”

Lack of Sanitary Facilities Leads to Typhus and Catastrophe

top

Not a nice situation for anyone. So up to the end of 1942, the first three quarter years basically no sanitary facilities worth mentioning. No proper toilets, no showers at all, no de-lousing facilities. And you can imagine if you cram people together in an area that is only developing housing, that is only developing sanitary installations, the hygienic conditions are going to be catastrophic! Which they were.

And right from the beginning they were infested with lice and fleas. Inevitably, if you cram people together and they can’t wash and shower, and then their clothes don’t get de-loused, then you have these vermin spread like crazy! And it’s only a matter of time, during wartime, that diseases are spread by these pests.

You know fleas spread the plague, lice spread typhus! The plague, fortunately, did not break out in those years, even though we can see from the documents that the German authorities were afraid it might.

Hundreds Die Each Day

top

But the lice did introduce typhus. And right from the beginning people started dying like flies in that camp, because of hygienic situation, because of typhus spreading like crazy. It reached it’s peak in August and September of 1942. So just not even half a year they started shipping jews into that camp. And the peak, I think, was that 500 inmates died on one day! I think it was in late August or September. I can’t remember exactly. But it stayed around several hundreds from July into October, when it subsided a little bit, but it re-surged again in early 1943.

They got it under control only towards the end of 43, early 1944. So during that time for large stretches, hundreds of people died every day from this typhus epidemic.

[33:04]

SS Personel Succumb to Typhus

top

It was so bad that actually the SS guards and SS officials, they were supposed to run the camp, at least remotely, getting some inmates in charge inside who would run it for them inside. But of course there had to be some interaction between the SS and the inmates. And the SS people succumbed to typhus as well.

It was the very first garrison physician of Auschwitz, Dr Schwela who got sick of it in April, or May of 42. And he died in May. And the next one put in charge, Dr Uhlenbroock got sick of it too in September, and he barely survived. He was incapacitated for a month.

And the next physician they put in charge, he came from the Dachau concentration camp, was put in charge in September. He took over. And he described in letters that he wrote after the war, what situation he found when he came to Auschwitz. That there was no sanitary facilities, people were filthy, they were covered in lice, and fleas were everywhere. He could see everything crawling in the huts. He said that:

“It looks like the wood everywhere is moving because there just are lice and fleas everywhere! It was absolutely horrific! Dead inmates lying in bunks, not being removed for sometimes days, because there was no organization, no structure.”

Dr Wirths

top

Dr Wirths was the third garrison position who then moved heaven and earth to get things improved. It took him two years to get it under control. When you consider the completely chaotic conditions were completely out of control! They had so many people die there. They had only one crematoria, an old one in the main camp, the original concentration camp [Auschwitz I]. And they couldn’t burn it [the bodies] because they just didn’t have the capacity, and then they overloaded that and it broke down anyhow.

High Ground Water Levels Require Bodies to Be Burnt

top

So they had to bury most of these victims for a period of time in the second half of 1942 in mass graves. And as I mentioned this is an area where the rivers Vistula and Sola flow together, so it’s a low lying meadow land, and it’s swampy. And if you dig up mass graves there and throw thousands of people in there, they are going to be in the ground water, they are going to rot, and they are going to poison the ground water.

And that was the danger that the ground water in the entire area would get poisoned and that other diseases caused by, that get transferred through drinking water, typhoid fever, and cholera, and whatever else that can get into it. You have not only typhus, but typhoid fever, which is a different thing. And then you have cholera, all things can happen! So they were freaking out. And then they had inmates actually excavate those mass graves again and try to incinerate the rotting left overs of those typhus victims, to make sure they wouldn’t poison the ground water.

So it’s a complete nightmarish scenario that I’m describing to you here. And it’s allegedly also the same time when mass gassings are supposed to have happened. Now if you imagine how completely out of control the situation was for the SS, where the SS men themselves are dying, and have no means of getting a hand and a control of the situation!

It is unfathomable that on top of all this they would start mass murdering jews that were being shipped to Auschwitz! As a matter of fact we know from the documentation that all the jews up to July 1942 that were ever shipped to Auschwitz, and can be proved to have been shipped there, were properly registered there and entered the camp as normal inmates. So they were not mass murdered. So mass murder claims for the first half of 1942 are completely bogus! There’s no documentary evidence for it.

[37:20]

But considering how completely out of control the situation was, the SS could not possibly have had the logistical means to organize, to implement, and then to clean up such a mass murder program, because they were completely unable to handle the quote, unquote “natural death” cases they had on hand.

Introduction of Delousing Facilities Including Microwave Devices

top

So you can see that, yes, Auschwitz during that phase was a death camp, but not because of murder, but because of mass dying due to the absolutely outrageous conditions that prevailed in the camp during the first year. It got better only, as I said, when Dr. Wirths came. He had showers built, delousing facilities built. He actually saw to it that the most modern delousing device ever created was installed at Auschwitz. It was a microwave delousing facility.

The Germans had discovered microwaves during the Olympics in 1936 with their strong TV emitters that had a broadband spectrum that went into the microwave, and they were frying flies that were getting near to the emitters. And they suddenly realized:

“Oh! Look at this! At that frequency range radiation actually does something that radio waves don’t do. It heats up water and kills every bug.”

So they started developing — it was Siemens — started developing delousing devices based on microwave radiation. And the first one was ready in 1943 and eventually got sent to Auschwitz. And then Auschwitz got a stationary installation in 1944.

Roughly a month, the same time they also got the first DTT, which as you know, was invented by a Swiss chemical company. And they licensed it out to German companies, to American companies. And they all started using it in 1943, 1944.

Auschwitz got it’s first tons of DTT in May of 1944. And at that point things were under control. Not talking about DTT being a good thing. As we know, down the road, it has very detrimental environmental effects, but at that point it saved the lives of thousands of people, if not tens of thousands of people. And got all the epidemics that were raging in Europe under control.

John Friend: Wow!

Germar Rudolf: And among them also the ones in Auschwitz. In addition to the microwave systems they had built there.

John Friend: Very interesting! That’s probably the best explanation of Auschwitz that I’ve heard, ever! So thank you for explaining all of that.

And it really kind of shows you that the Germans did not, absolutely did not have this State sanctioned policy of murdering jews. They were just dealing with very chaotic situation with all these people in their control, right? I mean I think that’s what it really boils down to. They weren’t prepared, they didn’t have the resources.

[40:33]

Germar Rudolf: Yeah.

John Friend: Is that what you were getting at?

Responsibility for the Deaths Lies with the Reich

top

Germar Rudolf: When we are talking about the local people at Auschwitz they have at numerous times, both Dr. Wirths and the camp command said:

“Stop shipping jews to us. We can’t handle the situation!”

The responsibility for what evolved there lies clearly with the Reich government [words unclear] The main office in charge of [word unclear], basically Nazi Germany’s “Department of Homeland Security”, who decided that we have to have people working in our factories, all our men are at the front, we have no workforce anymore, and now we’ve tried to get volunteers from foreign countries and they are not enough.

So jews were the primary scapegoat of the National Socialists. So they picked those:

“You are going to be our slave laborers.”

And then they ship them to Auschwitz, even though they were informed sooner. There’s some responsibility of the SS at Auschwitz. They tried to cover it up, the disastrous situation, they were not screaming “bloody murder” loud enough, if at all, earlier on. They should have done it. It was only Dr Wirths who started doing that.

But still then, the Reich government wouldn’t stop shipping jews down there!

Starting July 1942 Most Jews Were Not Admitted to the Camp but Sent Elsewhere in the Region

top

Starting in July and August of 1942, most jews that were deported to the Auschwitz region were not admitted to the camp anymore. And that’s where the mainstream narrative comes from, that says:

“Okay, we have this train. We know it left Compiègne, let’s say, in France, with 1,000 jews. And we see them in the camp records that say only 150 had been admitted to the camp. So, we conclude that 850 of them were killed on arrival in gas chambers.”

That’s not true. We have found document that shows very clearly in July the typhus epidemic was completely out of control, and it was decided then to not send the jews into the camp anymore, but to but to take them off trains in other places and let them work in factories. And let the factories set up little workers’ camps in their vicinity. So there were a lot of them in the vicinity of Auschwitz where the inmates were temporarily housed, because the Auschwitz camp was completely out of control and it would be just irresponsible to send people there.

Still they did admit a lot of people. If you look at the people, the French jews who sent to Auschwitz in 1942, all of them who were sent there until early July were properly registered. We have their names.

Death Book Records vs Four Million

top

And we see also in the Death Books where all inmates that died are recorded as one after one of these people died. So most of these French jews, indeed, were shipped en mass to Auschwitz, even though the conditions there were terrible! The Reich government just didn’t care. They wanted them there. They wanted them to work. If there were bad conditions, too bad! Just see to it that it gets better. We need to get this done. And then they died like flies.

And at the end you can see all the names. Not a single one of these 70,000 jews who were deported were killed in a gas chamber. We can see it! They died of typhus and all the other bad things that happened there, because of the conditions.

But most of the them did die, and within a year.

John Friend: I’m curious, because most people are aware that Auschwitz originally, I think up until the early 90s, if I’m not mistaken, I mean the official narrative was that 3 million people were murdered!

Germar Rudolf: Four.

John Friend: Oh was it four? OK, I’m sorry.

Germar Rudolf: Yeah.

John Friend: And then they reduced it down to one million, I think now is the official narrative. So how many people in total? I mean, do you have any idea of how many people actually died during the war at Auschwitz? It certainly wasn’t four million! It probably wasn’t even one million! How many people do you think actually died there?

Germar Rudolf: The Death Books, which officially recorded every death case in the camp of inmates that were registered in the camp, have, … Let me rephrase that.

The volumes of the Death Books that have been released to the public have recorded around 68,000 death cases. Roughly half of them are jews. And the rest of mainly Poles, Christian Poles who were there.

Now this set is incomplete. We know from an accompanying letter of the Russian archives that they do have more. But it seems like they have not released those, and they keep them hidden. Or they have been destroyed in the meantime. So there is a set missing that goes, if I’m not mistaken, from the end of 43 to the end of 1944. And there are a few volumes, here and there, missing at the beginning, too.

Now from the conditions that prevailed we can see that probably the death rate shrank dramatically towards the end of 43 and into 1944. And that is maybe one reason why they are hiding them and not releasing them, because they clearly show that Auschwitz camp got the situation under control and they were relatively little death cases during that time.

But we can set an upper limit of what is possible by a number of logistical factors that if we extrapolate things, if we look at the conditions. If we look at what would have been possible to destroy when we come to talking about cremation.

Because evidently Auschwitz with the situation there, they couldn’t bury people in mass graves, so they had to cremate them.

And they built crematoria. And we know what capacity they have. We know for good stretches what fuel they got delivered. We know how much fuel you need. And we can make calculations what is the maximum number of people that could have been cremated there. And we know that there aren’t huge mass graves. And the narrative doesn’t even claim that after the initial typhus victims that there were any people buried in mass graves.

Total Auschwitz Deaths About 100,000

top

So they all need to have been cremated in those crematoria. But there are technical limits of what they could have achieved in that time, with that fuel, with the equipment they had.

And so the upper limit is is maybe roughly double the amount that is recorded in those Death Books. So we are talking 140,000 as an upper limit.

But this is definitely really an upper limit. It’s probably a little less. We’re talking about an order of magnitude of 100,000, plus or minus a few 10,000 up or down.

If you consider this in comparison to what has been claimed, one million, or even four million, it sounds like little, it sounds like a minimization, a trivialization of what happened in Auschwitz.

But give me a break! We have one camp that existed basically only during a few years during the war, and roughly 100,000 people die there, because of prevailing catastrophic conditions. For which the SS and the Reich government is responsible. And if they can’t provide proper amenities for the inmates to be able to survive, they ship them there anyway, it’s their responsibility.

A 100,000 people, is a huge number! And I find it shocking that people don’t find such a number shocking, but consider that it is a trivialization and a mockery! No it’s not! It’s a 100,000 individual fates of death!

In the realm of the concentration camps that existed in Germany. You know Buchenwald, you know, Mauthausen, Dachau, and all the other ones. They all had their their death talk. None of them are claimed to have had mass gassings going on there. Some minor claims of test gassings, here and there, but not numerically significant.

None of these come anywhere close to the death toll that Auschwitz has. So, even if we take the revisionist narrative of it, this camp’s still has been the main location of loss of life, of catastrophic, of tragic loss, of tragic loss of life in the concentration camp system.

So that’s why I’m saying, it was a “death camp” in that term. Not because of murder. Not because of gas chambers.

Genocide Does Not Require Gas Chambers

top

Just the other day I mentioned to an acquaintance of mine, who was not familiar with my views on that. And we got to talk about it. And I said:

“Genocide does not require gas chambers.”

In fact the whole history of mankind is riddled with genocide! And not a single one of them included mass gassings in gas chambers! So why do you insist on this one, of having had gas chambers?

[50:20]

The Genocide Charge Doesn’t Go Away

top

If you look at the definition of genocide:

“When you persecute a defined group in a way that its numbers, its population numbers, shrinks due to your measures of preventing births, of preventing families to form, of putting them under conditions where they die in masses.”

This is today’s definition. And today’s definition still applies even if you take out gas chambers. So the genocide charge, ethically speaking, not legally speaking, because the law didn’t exist back then, but today it does. But ethically it’s always been there, the genocide charge doesn’t go away.

John Friend: Right. Yeah, and I mean even a 100,000, as you mentioned, is itself a tragedy. A 100,000 people, that is a small city just dying in one camp in these horrible conditions. And that really is important to understand and to consider that it really was a horrific situation.

Not a State sanctioned policy by the Germans, but just given the environment and given the conditions, given the war, and just how strained the German government was, it probably was a pretty irresponsible thing to do. And it did lead to a lot of deaths.

Germar Rudolf: Right. And of course now days Germany has to deal with it morally, but they of course pile up stuff on top of it which is inaccurate and is just exaggeration, or outright lying. This is just not right either.

John Friend: Yes, exactly. Well we could probably spend another two hours discussing this, or even more.

Your Current Legal Problems

top

I know you are going to have to run here in just a minute. I wanted you to briefly kind of just promote your website and also your fundraiser. I know you have had a, … Well you have had a number of legal challenges and legal issues over the years, both here in the United States and of course in Germany. And I know recently you’re sort of facing a legal situation that I wanted you to talk about briefly, if you have just a couple more minutes?

Germar Rudolf: Sure. Well, I actually don’t want to spend too much on it. I have my own personal website where you can find a brief introduction to it, and then a short video I did, I posted on YouTube. You can find the link there.

Personal Website and Holocaust Handbooks Website

top

And my website is just my name, germarrudolf dot com. And right on the home page there you will find a little attention catcher, paragraph, that explains the trials and tribulations that I’ve been going through. And a video where it explains it gets you also to a GoFundMe page, and gives you other options there on the website to donate if you feel so inclined.

But also, what I also want to point out that is more to the topic is that there are other websites that are of more interest to those that are curious about the topic we’ve been talking about. And the main one is probably Holocaust Handbooks dot com, where we have posted for free download as e-books, PDFs, Kindle and epub, almost all of the volumes of the Holocaust Handbook series, which comprises 40 volumes by now. And it keeps growing. [Now 41, with “Carlo Mattogno: The Making of the Auschwitz Myth”]

And it also has some documentary movies there that you can watch in case moving pictures are more your thing, rather than reading. And you’ll find links there to purchase hard copies of them. And the shop that I’m actually operating is connected with CODOH, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. The website is shop dot codoh dot com.

But, you’ll find the link on Holocaust Handbook dot com website. That’s probably  the best point to start at. It has recommendations on what to read if you want an introduction, starting with simple leaflets, to brochures, to booklets, going to lengthier books, and actually thick tomes, depending on what you are looking for.

And then we have the documentaries there and links too, if you want to buy something. And you can go from there. That is probably the best starting point.

John Friend: Very good! I will definitely have that link. And I will also have your personal website link, and your GoFundMe pages as well. And I would encourage people to support you, whether that is by donating directly to the GoFundMe, or purchasing books from your website.

So yeah! Thanks a lot man! I appreciate you taking the time. We’ll have to do this again, and maybe spend a little bit more time discussing the “Holocaust”. There’s no shortage of information to discuss, that is for sure!

Germar Rudolf: I’m already on the call that I was expecting now. So I have to run.

John Friend: Okay! Thanks Germar! Have a good one. I’ll talk to you soon!

Germar Rudolf: Yep. Bye!

[55:25]

END

___________________________

Comments at the Realist Report

top

22 COMMENTS

• Jim Rizoli

  November 5, 2020 1:34 pm

  Just to add to the discussion…..not all the inmates in the camps were Jews of the 70k or more who died in the camp half were Jews. Auschwitz was a major transit camp for all over the German Reich for camp labor.
  Birkenau was the biggest camp mainly a camp for older people and children who didn’t work.
  Germar blames the Germans for something that they had no control over. It All was the collateral damage of war. Auschwitz was not a planned genocide, the deaths happened sorry to say because of the trials and tribulations of war.

  Reply

• Monika Schaefer

  November 5, 2020 4:46 pm

  Great interview! I want to say a big big “thank you” to Germar Rudolf for years and years of hard work, in order to get the truth out there.
  Thanks for having him on your show John.

  Reply

• AJ

  November 5, 2020 5:18 pm

  Great job, John. Always good to hear from Germar.

  Reply

• Jim Rizoli

  November 6, 2020 8:08 am

  Monika
  You should be very concerned on how Germar is blaming the Germans for something that was out of their control. No amount of Jew appeasement is going to make him look any better to the Jews. By the way the Germans suffered way more then the Jews when the final results were tallied up. Where is the outcry against the allies for what they did. The Jews actually were saved by being in the camps because the camps were for the most part no bombed by the allies. The Germans were open targets in all their so called peaceful cities. Germar might want to think about what he is doing by his careless statements. If you want to criticize the Germans for their lack of care of people in the camps you might want to look at the Allies for their wanton destruction and “Genocide” of the Germans that lasted for several years AFTER the war. Having a cold floor to sleep on doesn’t match the incendiary burning the Germans had to put up with by the Allies.

  Reply

• Diane K King

  November 6, 2020 8:11 am

  It seems Germar attempts to AGAIN denigrate the Germans, specifically the NS Germans, criticize them which is clearly JEW-SPEAK. Fails the Hitler test. Which means, he fails to TRULY understand what occurred in the THIRD REICH and also by consequence, the events of today.

  It WON’T ingratiate him to the jews since he already came against their GOD (the holohoax)

  THE HOLOCAUST IS THE JEWS’ GOD
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/rjQWR16XdjIX/
  with his chemical findings.

  Germar ALSO spoke against the Germans in his interview with Jim in 2017 like he’s on a campaign to redeem himself with the jews!!!! (AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN as I stated above)

  JIM INTERVIEWS GERMAR RUDOLF, 2017
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/SMEHvBvGPQy2/

  We need to police ourselves, take each other to task when we egregiously erroneously assault the Germans.

  Can’t wait for your interview with JIM RIZOLI

  Reply

  • Realist Report

    November 7, 2020 5:45 pm

    I think Germar’s main point was that the German government was not prepared to handle the sheer amount of people that ended up at Auschwitz and that the camp itself was not equipped or established for such large numbers. I don’t want to speak for him, but that was my big take away.

    Perhaps it was irresponsible or dangerous for them to do such a thing? That’s for people to decide for themselves. The Jews openly declared war against Germany and made known their intentions, so I could care less about their suffering (real, imagined, or exaggerated), frankly. Everyone suffered and experienced tremendous hardships and tragedies during WWII, including the Jews. The Jews have just made their tragedies (again, real and imagined) the focus of our entire understanding of the war.

    I think Germar’s nuanced explanation was very insightful and made a lot of sense. I don’t think he was being too hard on the Germans, he was just explaining the reality of the situation, and I certainly don’t think he’s trying to ingratiate himself to the Jews.

    Reply

    • Thaddeus Noble

      November 7, 2020 7:07 pm

      Well stated !

      Jews started the Second World War by their goods boycott. This is indisputable fact.

      Up until supply of vital supplies begin being interrupted camp inmates received adequate nutrition, medical care, delousing was scrupulously maintained and deceased inmates were properly disposed of. This is empirical record. The Red Cross records affirm this.

      When supply lines to camp facilities were severely interrupted vital supplies were stopped. Medicine and food are essential to a highly concentrated group of humans.

      When supply lines to camp facilities were severely interrupted vital support products were stopped. This included chemicals necessary for Delousing function and coal for proper sanitary operations of Cremation services.

      Immune impaired camp population + lack of adequate nutrition and medication + cessation of proper delousing ability + inability to properly dispose of deceased bodies = rampant spread of life threatening diseases resulting in the unnecessary loss of inmate lives.

      Note here: The Allies were WELL AWARE of the conditions in these camps as a result of their intentional disruption of needed supplies BUT DID NOTHING to intervene even though they were well aware that it was causing unneeded deaths of inmates.

      Germans were NOT to blame here, but allied guilt is unequivocal.

      Reply

      • michael

        November 8, 2020 8:26 pm

        “Jews started the Second World War by their goods boycott. This is indisputable fact.”

        The boycott that lasted 1 day?

        The fable of the sensationalistic headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany” that no one has even bothered to read was a 2-page article made in response to attacks on Jewish businesses starting in January 1933 that eventually led to this March 24, 1933 appeal being raised against Germany, 2 days ironically after the Dachau concentration camp was opened. Some of the first political prisoner just happened to be Jewish store owners.

        “Continued anti-Semitism in Germany is likely to react seriously against her. A move is on foot on the part of Jewish financiers to exert pressure to force anti-Jewish action to stop. ” — The Daily Express, “Judea Declares War On Germany” (March 24, 1933), page 2.

        How did “the Jews” influence Hitler to keep breaking his own treaties throughout the 1930s leading into his then broken 1938 Munich Pact to breaking his 1934 Non-Aggression Pact with Poland with his invasion in 1939, that then caused Hitler to ignore Chamberlain’s last appeal for peace and for Hitler to leave Poland which being ignored on the eve caused War on Germany to be then declared against Germany?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2X1dTMFsY

        Reply

        • DM

          November 13, 2020 7:05 pm

          Ha!

          It’s nice to you kvetch here with bullshit.

          We have endured 70 years of a “boycott”.

          Not just “one day”.

          Piss off anti-christ.

  • michael

    November 8, 2020 8:36 pm

    “Germar ALSO spoke against the Germans in his interview with Jim in 2017 like he’s on a campaign to redeem himself with the jews!!!! (AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN as I stated above)

    JIM INTERVIEWS GERMAR RUDOLF, 2017
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/SMEHvBvGPQy2/”

    Unfortunately this is the same interview and reason why you and Jim censored Germar’s remarks that caused him to instead be interviewed a week later by Brian Ruhe. see, “The Mistakes of Adolf Hitler” https://www.bitchute.com/video/h2bgkBxqlrIU/

    “In early July 2017, Jim Rizoli and Diane King [editor’s note: “Free Speech campaigners”] interviewed me, but they cut out a 20-minute section where I touched briefly upon the mistakes of Adolf Hitler. I wasn’t happy about that censorship, so my next interview partner, Brian Ruhe, a confessing National Socialist, got to feel the heat of my wrath.” -Germar Rudolf

    Reply

• Monika Schaefer

  November 6, 2020 10:00 am

  I totally agree with you, Jim, that the conditions which led to the death (by disease) of many people in the camps was “collateral damage of war”, and also, that many inmates were non-jews. Those are things which were left out of the discussion unfortunately.

  However, I want to give Germar Rudolf his due for publishing, translating, and distributing many excellent books in the Holocaust Handbook series, as well as his work on the codoh.com website, not to mention his own legal battles, incarceration and persecutions that he has endured.

  Reply

  • BrendanO

    November 10, 2020 8:57 pm

    A huge number of jews were saved by being in Auschwitz rather than in German civilian centers which, if they had 50 thousand or more inhabitants were all fire-bombed incinerating most of the people in them .

    Reply

• Fred Leuchter

  November 6, 2020 2:10 pm

  Dear John,

  I would like the opportunity to discuss several points in Germar’s interview in which he does not understand the Job I had to do in the preparation of my report. He corroborates my report but discusses short comings that do not exist. Further, I do not believe his understanding of the History of the Auschwitz complex is correct and he has a complex as a German that causes a self-flagellation issue for him and the German People. I am an American who should be biased against Germany since I had family involved in the war. I review the historical facts and, even with this bias, have a clearer understanding of what happened medically at Auschwitz. I think the blame for these issues lay equally with the Allies and the Red Cross. Therefore, I request equal opportunity in an interview to speak of these matters.

  Thank you

  Fred Leuchter

  Reply

  • Realist Report

    November 7, 2020 9:50 am

    I would love to have you on! I’ll be in touch via email soon!

    Reply

• Alison Chabloz

  November 7, 2020 11:16 am

  Thanks for the interview.

  It’s more than a little disheartening to read criticism towards Germar Rudolf, not from the “usual suspects”, but rather from fellow travellers on the rocky road of historical revisionism.

  Those ready to counter-signal might remember Germar’s unfortunate encounter earlier this year with a creature of the forest, which sprang shortly after his recent legal battles, with all the implications of eventual extradition.

  Germar is first and foremost a scientist. When asked precise questions, he will answer precisely, yet comprehensively. This was not a discussion on the reasons for the war, on Allied war crimes, or on state-sponsored persecution of revisionists. The fact that Germar did not want to dwell on his own persecution, yet provided his expert opinion on the reasons for so many deaths at Auschwitz in particular, sheds light on his unassuming seriousness and dedication to the revisionist cause. He has my utmost respect.

  I look forward to listening to Fred Leuchter.

  Reply

• Jim Rizoli

  November 7, 2020 11:58 am

  Fred and I will respond shortly with a video. Part of true revisionism is NOT denigrating and blaming the Germans, Germar has to be re-educated on this point.
  Fred and I will not hold back on our video, stay tuned.

  Reply

  • Jim Rizoli

    November 7, 2020 12:38 pm

    Here is our reply
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/Rt2cOdOZsgVJ/

    Reply

    • A Reader

      November 7, 2020 7:59 pm

      How are German readers/listeners supposed to watch the video of Jim Rizoli? Why doesn’t Jim Rizoli publish his videos on his own site or on US server-based video platforms?

      Jim Rizoli’s Bitchute channel can no longer be viewed from Germany since September 01, 2020, when the following message appeared: “CHANNEL UNAVAILABLE[,] This channel is unavailable as the contents have been deemed illegal by the authorities within your country.”

      I think the company Bitchute is located in England, so it was obvious
      from the beginning that sooner or later the censorship would strike.

      Bitchute has become useless as an alternative to Youtube: Countless of the films and channels published there can no longer be viewed from Germany. Bitchute is in any case no longer an alternative.

      Reply

      • Saggy

        November 16, 2020 8:00 pm

        I just got a VPN so I’m new to this, but won’t a VPN allow German’s to view whatever vids they want? Proton VPN has a free option !!!

        For my money, BitChute rules.

        Reply

• Thaddeus Noble

  November 7, 2020 6:41 pm

  Firstly, I want to commend Germar for his past contributions. He has provided much clarity to the complexities of the “Hoax”.

  I see many famous contributors here such as Fred Leuchter who’s Leuchter Report is undoubtedly the Gold Standard in empirical evidence debunking the outright lies, deceit and mass fabrications connected to the Holahoax scam.

  Jim and Diane, Monika and Alison, all truth seekers with outstanding credentials and many more lesser known, but just as commendable, truth seeking Revisionist who plow ahead regardless of the screeching Jews.

  Jews LOVE to create dissension in the ranks. This is a tool they employ to encourage in-fighting therefore weakening an opponent. DON’T FALL FOR IT !!
  Germar has been under constant assault from the Elves Of Satan for his failure to heel and role over. He needs our support, not condemnation.

  Keep up the fact finding, expose what you find, support each other, NEVER STOP ! We are making more than just a dent or the rabid Piglets would not be oinking so loudly.

  Reply

• katana

  November 8, 2020 5:24 pm

  I’ve started a transcript of the interview here:

  https://katana17.com/wp/2020/11/09/the-realist-report-john-friend-with-germar-rudolf-nov-5-2020-transcript/

  Thanks John and Germar.

  Reply

  • Realist Report

    November 8, 2020 5:35 pm

    Thank you!

Click here for the audio:

Published on Sep 17, 2018

The Realist Report Description

TRANSCRIPT

(64 mins)

[00:00]

Friend: All right folks, welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. The website is The Realist Report dot com, where you will find an extensive archive of these podcasts, as well as other programs I’ve appeared on as a guest over the years. You will also find all of my blog posts and articles. A contact page, my Twitter feed, which is embedded in the right hand sidebar of the website, and many other useful and important links. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper. And I also contribute to the Barnes Review, the bi-monthly history magazine affiliated with American Free Press. I encourage listeners to subscribe to these fine print publications. Check out American Free Press dot net, and Barnes Review dot org for more details.

Okay, with that said, let me introduce my special guest this evening. Tonight we are joined by Christopher Bollyn! An investigative journalist, author, and long time 9/11 researcher. Chris and I will be focusing on 9/11 primarily and his recently published book “The War on Terror — The Plot to Rule the Middle East”, which is available from Amazon dot com..

Chris, welcome to the program sir! It’s really a great honor having you here.

[02:00]

Bollyn: Thank you John. It’s nice to be with you.

Friend: Yes. Yes, this is good. I’m glad that we could talk. I’ve been wanting to interview you for a number of years. Your work has been very influential on my thinking, especially about 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism, and American foreign policy. And really what’s kind of going on in the world, especially in the Middle East.

See: Christopher Bollyn explains who really did 9/11 at the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth meet up group on Sunday, September 9, 2018.

So on that, it’s great to actually sit down and talk. I went down to San Diego a couple weekends ago and heard you give a very fine presentation about your book. You focused primarily on your book. So it was great. And I wanted you to maybe kind of comment on your speaking tour. I know you’re on a mini one right now, from what I understand. And you’ve spoken at the 9/11 Truth group in the past as well. So could you kind of talk about your current speaking tour?

Bollyn: Yes, I’m on a really short tour as you said. I was invited to speak in Texas, in San Antonio, and then I came to, I was invited also to speak at the San Diego [9/11] Truth group. Which is one of the best truth groups in the United States. A very active group with a lot of outreach and regular events. And that was on the ninth of September. And now I have two events left in Seattle, on the twentieth, and the twenty-second of the month, in northern Seattle at libraries. And that’ll be it for this tour.

And it’s based, as you said, on my book “Solving 9/11 — The Deception That Changed the World”, … not that one, but the “The War on Terror — The Plot to Rule the Middle East”, the shorter book, that came out in 2017. Because it’s very urgent at the commemoration of the September eleventh, every year.

But now, it’s very important for Americans to understand what the “War on Terror” is all about! And why we are engaged in this, now seventeen year old war, and why we have spent something like seven trillion dollars, as President Trump said a little while ago, in seventeen years and got nothing for it! And so, Americans need to understand that we are in a deceitful and fraudulent war! And that’s what my speaking tour is all about.

Friend: Yes, absolutely! And you mentioned the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth group, and I did want to briefly talk about them, because that was really how I kind of got into all of this! I went to one of their meet ups and you’re right they have got to be, … I’ve never really dealt with other 9/11 Truth groups around the country, but I’d be willing to bet everything that I have, that they are definitely one of the most organized, motivated, you know, dedicated, and professional 9/11 Truth groups out there! And you can probably attest to this. I’m sure you’ve dealt with some other 9/11 Truth groups.

So I really want to kind of just tip my hat to them. They always put on a monthly meet up. They usually have a speaker to come in and present, and screen a documentary, and then have a Q & A afterwards. So they really do a really good job!

And I was talking to Adam Green, a mutual friend, just last night, and he’s kind of involved in the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth group. And it’s really just refreshing knowing that there are other people out there that really do care about this topic, and are doing something, you know, proactive and productive, to kind of get the word out there. So, I kind of want to just say that, as we start here.

I know you’ve dealt pretty extensively with the 9/11 Truth Group here in San Diego, so.

[05:26]

Bollyn: Yeah! They were actually the first group to invite me to speak, and I went there in the fall of 2014. And I’ve been back several times since. And yeah, they’re great! They have outreach. They have an outreach once a month, or so, in downtown San Diego, right across from the USS Midway, where it’s berthed. And they reach out to the public and try to educate the public, which is what this is all about! Educating the public about 9/11 and the war on terror.

Friend: Yes. And you’ve been covering 9/11 really from the day that it happened. And I want to kind of talk about your research over the years, and have your main conclusions changed, or sort of evolved over the years? Or did you kind of, because almost like, right off the bat, you were talking about the Israeli connections. You know, the individuals that were arrested in New York City on the day that 9/11 happened. So, I guess, what are your main conclusions, and how they kind of evolved over the years?

Bollyn: Yeah. That’s a good question. Well, I was fortunate, if you will, to have been on the East Coast when 9/11 happened. I was actually in New York City early on the day. I was a writer, like you, for American Free Press, at the time. And so that was my job. And when 9/11 happened, I was on my way back to Washington DC, after a weekend up in Vermont. And the Pentagon was struck, I couldn’t go there, so I called the office and said I’m heading back for Chicago with my family. You know, I couldn’t go to Washington, I couldn’t stay in the East Coast.

So I, you know, my specialty, I’d worked for American Free Press for over a year when this started, so I had, you know, I started writing journalistic articles. And the first thing that struck me was that there were important aspects of 9/11 that were being blocked, or were omitted from the official government, or the media narrative.

And those were, most conspicuously, the reports of explosions that people saw and heard. And then there was this story, which was my first story actually, about these five dancing Israelis, we call them, who were Israeli citizens, who were seen, observing, and photographing, and celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center, from across the Hudson River. The Hudson at East River there, on the Jersey side, just a stone throw from the World Trade Center. And that became my first article..

And as a writer for American Free Press, I was allowed and able to, I was encouraged to, to continue my research and to write about this. And with the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of 9/11 attacks, I began with the hypothesis that this could be a false flag attack. An Israeli operation, that was meant to be blamed on Muslims! And blamed on Arabs! In order to increase US, American hostility in the Middle East against these foes of Israel, the Arabs, and Muslims..

And with that hypothesis I started doing research and articles, and weeks became months, became years. But the hypothesis remained and was validated by what I discovered, as time went by. And so, after a couple of years, it became not my hypothesis anymore, but really my thesis!

And then finally, in 2012, I published the book “Solving 9/11 — The Deception That Changed the World”, and it’s companion volume “Solving 9/11 — The Original Articles”, which contains my articles that were published originally in the American Free Press, in chronological order. So people can see how this how this hypothesis developed into a thesis and developed into my book..

And then, just last year, 2017 in August, I published a little book, “The War on Terror — The Plot to Rule the Middle East”. I wrote this as a very small, concise, volume that can be shared with people. Because this is very important that Americans understand how 9/11 fits into the “War on Terror” logic! Because really, that’s what happened, is that the “War on Terror” was a preexisting construct that needed a “spark plug” to make it operational! And that “spark plug” was 9/11!

[09:51]

Friend: Yes, exactly! And as you kind of explained there, right off the bat, there were all these Israeli connections that you were highlighting and writing about, but they weren’t getting a lot of coverage in the mainstream certainly. And it’s interesting how you were sort of thinking:

“Look, maybe this was a false flag, where Israel was behind it and they’re trying to blame it on their enemies?”

And ironically enough, these guys ever arrested in New York — you can find the police reports from the East Rutherford Police Department, publicly available online. This is no secret. This is no, you know, crazy, outlandish conspiracy theory, or something! This is very well documented, very easy to demonstrate, and easy to verify for yourself. You know, they were arrested by these local police officers. And they’re sitting there telling them:

“Look, we’re Israelis! Your problems are our problems! Our problems are the Palestinians and the Arabs!”

 

So right off the bat, you know, they’re almost trying to frame this entire thing on Arabs, on Muslims in general. So I mean, that should be a red flag right away to anybody that sat down and read that document. And secondly, why are these Israelis being arrested? They’re obviously tied into what was going on. Why was this not given more coverage? And interestingly, it actually was covered in the mainstream media at the time, but it was quickly downplayed, and kind of swept under the rug, as you well know.

[11:18]

Bollyn: Yes! Yes, there was, it was written about in New Jersey, in a paper called “The Bergen Record” by a journalist named Paulo Lima. And I contacted Mr Lima after 9/11, a day, or two afterwards, and talked to him about the article. Because it came out, I believe, September twelfth, in this New Jersey paper. But oddly enough, as you said, the story did not cross the river and get published in the New York papers. Because when Ted Koppel on September eleventh, he came on the air, I believe it was Ted Koppel, and he said that, about noon, or twelve thirty, he said that:

“The FBI was looking for five Middle Eastern men who were seeing video taping and celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center, …” et cetera, et cetera.

And when it was discovered that these five men were Middle Eastern, but were also “Israelis”, then there was no interest in the media to repeat this story. So it remained in the “Bergen Record” for one day, or so, and then got pushed under the under the carpet, so to speak. But it became the essence of my first article that was printed that week after 9/11, in American Free Press.

Friend: Interesting. Yeah, that’s incredible! That you were right there to start talking about this, and covering it. And it wasn’t only the Bergen Record. I mean, I don’t know the exact time frame, but I know in the months, and maybe a year, or so, after 9/11, there were a number of mainstream articles that were written about this massive Israeli espionage operation, that had been unraveled and uncovered leading up to 9/11.

And even on 9/11 itself! If I’m not mistaken, there was well over one hundred Israeli agents that were involved in this. And many of them were, in fact, arrested and deported back to Israel. What do you know about this broader network of Israeli spies that were operating all across the country? There are indications that they may have been tracking, or monitoring some of the alleged hijackers. Could you kind of demystify this a little bit?

[13:21]

Bollyn: Well that’s the DEA investigation. The Drug Enforcement Agency investigation that was done, in which they found these so-called Israeli “art students” who were, you know, snooping around and trying to gain access to DEA offices, and even going to the homes of the DEA agents. And the DEA did a report that was leaked, that gave the names and talked about these people, these Israelis. As you said, it was over a hundred..

But also, there was, shortly after 9/11, there were reports in the New York media, and other media, about Israelis that were picked up here, and here, and here, and here! And so there were numerous reports of various Israeli gangs, or cells, being arrested with trucks that were exploding, bombs, and various things by the Holland Tunnel.

[Click image to enlarge]

And so, I called the Israeli Embassy in that week after 9/11, and asked them. I said:

“By my calculations, this is like ten, twenty, thirty, you know, thirty Israelis involved in this, have been arrested.”

And I said:

“Is that true?”

And they said, I think I gave a number like sixty, or something. They said:

“At least! At least that number have been arrested.”

So there’s, when you calculate in all these various “art students” and things, yes it was hundreds of Israelis who were involved in this operation! Many of whom, who had been arrested on, shortly after 9/11, or on 9/11 itself.

Friend: Yes! And there is a very well produced Fox News investigative series into all of this, that was published and ran by Fox News. It was quickly taken off their website, I know. You can still find it on YouTube. It’s the infamous Carl Cameron investigative series* into all of these Israeli spies that were again, basically uncovered and arrested by our own government, by the federal government, by the DEA, the FBI!

[* Four Part Series Carl Cameron Israeli Spies in US]

So, it’s really quite astonishing that we have all of this very legitimate, valid information, tying all of these Israelis into what was going on, on 9/11. And again, it’s just kind of swept down the memory hole, essentially..

I did have a question, just to kind of get some clarification. The Israeli spies that were investigated, and in many cases arrested, by the DEA and by the FBI, were a lot of these spies tied in to the people in New York City, involved with Urban Moving Systems? Which was another Mossad front, essentially.

[15:50]

Bollyn: Yeah. As you said, the five dancing Israelis, and others who were arrested in New York, were nominally, or were employees of this Urban Moving Systems, in Weehawken, in New Jersey. Which, as Carl Cameron, or Fox News, you know, they went to investigate this a little bit too. This was a front! And it was a front for the Mossad. And that revelation came from an FBI person, to “Forward” newspaper, which is the jewish newspaper in New York, which printed that, I think, in March of 2002, or something like that.

So that, this group of Israelis, all these Israelis who were caught in connection to 9/11, were employees of Dominik Suter’s, Urban Moving Systems, in Weehawken, New Jersey. Which was an Israeli intelligence front, which was not really a valid moving company at all, but was actually a front!

And there were American employees who worked there, who noticed that on 9/11, the Israelis who worked at Urban Moving Systems, were jubilant! And were very happy with the attacks of 9/11! Like those five dancing Israelis. And the Americans couldn’t understand it. That they were in tears, they were crying, and these Israelis were like celebrating! Which was for them, really, you know, they’re celebrating a job well done! They had they succeeded in their criminal plot!

Friend: Yeah! It’s really amazing knowing that there is all this proof tying Israel, … That’s what’s so incredible to me! It’s like, when I was first getting into 9/11 truth, rather than even trying to get involved with all the kind of more complicated information relating to 9/11, why aren’t we just out telling people:

“Look! Our own government investigated what was going on, and they arrested the people that were tied into what took place on 9/11. And they weren’t Muslims from the Middle East! They were Israeli spies! And we can easily prove this!”

Bollyn: Right! Yeah, that is the whole point, you see. And so you say:

“How did the Israelis go ahead forward with this operation in New York City, and get caught with so many of these people with their involvement in 9/11? How did they have the audacity? How did they have, … why did they go forward with this plot?”

And the answer to that is, because they knew that they had protection within the law enforcement of the United States of America! Because the person who was responsible for the investigation of 9/11, was himself an Israeli spy! That was Michael Chertoff, who was the Assistant Attorney General under John Ashcroft. And he was the Attorney General responsible for the criminal division of the Department of Justice. And beneath him, the FBI serves as the agency that provides the evidence and the information that he needs to prosecute the case.

And under Michael Chertoff there was, in fact, no real investigation, because the evidence was being destroyed from day one! And there was no prosecution! And he’s the one who oversaw the release of these Israelis who were arrested, sent back to Israel, on visa violations, within two months after 9/11.

[18:56]

Friend: Yeah! Nothing to see here, guys! We’re just going to deport these prime suspects in what took place on 9/11, back to Israel! Nothing to see here! Yep, it’s pretty incredible when you stop and think about it..

And I want to talk more about, like you have an article on your website, “The Key zionist Control Points of 9/11” . I kind of want to focus on that for just a minute. Before we do that, I want to ask you, could you maybe just like summarize your overall views of 9/11? If you had to, like explain it like an average American, you how would you go about explaining 9/11 to them?

Bollyn: Yeah, well, that 9/11 was a hoax, a false flag operation, that was done by Israeli intelligence, military intelligence primarily, I believe. And the purpose was to was to start the “War on Terror”!

And the “War on Terror” itself, is really a construct that goes back to, about 1979, July, when Menachem Begin then the Prime Minister of Israel, organized a conference in Jerusalem. Some conference about international terrorism under the auspices of Netanyahu family, Benjamin, and his father, Benzion. And they had this propaganda offensive, where they rolled out “international terrorism” as the new global bogeyman.

And this “War on Terror” that’s been promoted for decades until — and it was like a bonfire he was trying to light, but it wouldn’t light without the proper fuel. And the fuel that was necessary to ignite and make, …

And that’s what brought the United States militarily into the Middle East, waging war against Israel’s enemies!

And this is all, you know, the “War on Terror” is based on a strategy that Israel has, called, the “Yinon Plan” to basically fragment, to conquer, to destroy the militaries of the strong Arab nations, like Iraq, and Syria, and then to balkanize, or break up those countries into ethnic statelets! Which is what’s currently being done. And all of this is, you know, now the “War on Terror” has become America’s longest war, longest foreign war, and most expensive in US history!

[21:23]

Friend: Oh yeah! It’s incredible how much money we’ve spent! I just put it together, an article yesterday, a blog post over on the Realist Report dot com. And even like mainstream reports put the price tag at like, four trillion dollars, I think it is! And some estimates are even higher! It’s just incredible how much money we spent since 9/11, prosecuting this fraudulent global war on terrorism, that’s totally against America’s national interests! And, of course, totally for the interests of Israel, and the wider international jewish community. Certainly in the Middle East it’s just such a big scam, it’s truly outrageous!

But I wanted to talk about the key control points of 9/11. And you outlined this very well, …

Bollyn: Yup.

Friend: In an article on your website. And really this is, what all of your books are really all about, is kind of explaining how they were able to do 9/11. Because that was what was so kind of just baffling to me! Once I realized the official narrative, the official conspiracy theory, and that is what it is, the official story of 9/11, is itself a conspiracy theory. But the official narrative was just full of holes, it didn’t make sense. It was obviously fraudulent.

But I was just dumbfounded how it could actually be carried out.

Bollyn: Right!

Friend: And I think once you realize that all their key players were in positions of influence to facilitate it, and to make it happen, and to cover it up, it really starts making more sense.

And the key points you have here, are:

The control of law enforcement.

The control of the criminal investigation. You mentioned Michael Chertoff. He was the number two in the Justice Department, I believe you said. So, they were responsible for covering it up basically, and not doing an authentic genuine investigation.

And really their goal was to avoid prosecuting the culprits, many of whom, again we arrested that day, and in the weeks afterwards, a lot of these Israeli spies. So they controlled the law enforcement aspect. And that the criminal investigation into it.

Of course, they control the mass media. And you have a point here, you mentioned Philip Zelikow who was responsible for the, was it the 9/11 Commission report he was in charge of?

Bollyn: Yeah!

Friend: And this is like the official “myth of 9/11”, the way the public understands 9/11. The way it’s officially, …

Bollyn: Interpreted.

Friend: Interpreted! Yeah! Exactly by the government, by the mass media. And here’s Philip Zelikow, this hard-line zionist. I don’t know if he’s a dual citizen, but he’s definitely jewish, and definitely has ties to the international jewish community. So of course, you know, they control the mass media.

They control the litigation, after the fact, with US Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

They controlled the security at the World Trade Center, and at the various airports. And, in fact, the buildings themselves, the World Trade Center complex, was basically sold to Larry Silverstein, who is obviously a jewish individual, who has ties to Israel and the broader international jewish community. In the way, that even the way that the World Trade Center complex was privatized was like this zionist criminal conspiracy, essentially, right? I mean, yeah, the way they went about selling it to Silverstein, it was clearly like this insight deal, right?

[24:42]

Bollyn: Yeah. It was very much so. And it’s important to note that Larry Silverstein had a very close relationship with Mr Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel. They would speak every Sunday afternoon on the phone, for years prior to 9/11, all the way through. And so, what we’re talking about? This was part of the setting up of the operation.

And then, as you said, then in the summer of 2001, the World Trade Center, which was basically publicly owned property — belonging to the Port Authority of New York, New Jersey — it was sold. It was negotiated and sold to Larry Silverstein. This was a very convoluted process.

But Larry Silverstein and the head of the Port Authority at that time, Louis Eisenberg, were themselves both directors of the zionist fundraising out organization called, “The UJA Federation of New York”, the United jewish Appeal Federation of New York. Larry Silverstein was the Honorary National Chairman, he had been the National Chairman, in that position, and Louis Eisenberg was on the planning board of the UJA Federation.

So, these two men, the ones who oversaw the transfer of the property of the World Trade Center to Larry Silverstein, they were both brothers in arms on the UJA, which is the biggest fund-raising organization for the state of Israel, in the United States.

Friend: So these individuals were like, heavily involved, key players, not only in like American-jewish affairs, but really on an international scale, right? I mean, they had ties to Israel, they had ties to their cousins over in Europe, ex cetera. So, I mean, these guys were major players. And just that the way that it was transferred to Silverstein’s control, just right before 9/11! I mean, how obvious could they make it, right?

Bollyn: Yeah it’s really just, …

Friend: In your face like, suspicious!

Bollyn: Yeah. He got the property I think, on July 24th.

Friend: Yeah! It was just a few months before 9/11.

Bollyn: It was five weeks!

Friend: Oh okay! Jeez! Well yeah, I guess it was. Yes, I mean, it was like, right before 9/11! And then, of course, he takes out these insurance policies, protecting him against “acts of terrorism”. And, of course, that’s exactly what 9/11 was! So he’s, I don’t know exactly what the numbers are, I’ve written about it a few times over the years for American Free Press, in fact. And I think the guy’s got, I mean, I don’t know what it is, but he’s made a ton of money off of this scam!

Bollyn: Yeah!

Friend: He should [unclear] for the insurance fraud!

Bollyn: Yeah. He put down a hundred million dollars of borrowed money, and got back something like five billion dollars! Five thousand million dollars in awards. And yeah, Larry Silverstein is clearly one of the people that is tied into this terrible operation. And he’s the guy that owned all three buildings that fell that day. He’s the person who told public television that he ordered building “to pull it”, regarding building seven [WTC 7]. And he said:

“And I watched the building come down.”

And as the owner and the beneficiary of this insurance policy, in which, this was the first time in history, that this clause pertaining to terrorist attacks, was ever used in insurance history! So I mean, yeah this guy deserves to be thoroughly investigated!

[28:02]

Friend: Oh yeah! Exactly. Well, moving on, you also point out here that government, the zionist control of really the Bush administration, but key positions in the Bush administration.

All of the neo-cons, like in the Pentagon, for example. Could you elaborate on this a little bit? Key positions that these zionists, and a lot of them were dual citizens, had in the Bush administration that, kind of facilitated 9/11?

Bollyn: Yeah. Well, the thing is that every person in the Bush administration, like Cheney, and Bush himself, Condoleezza Rice, and what have you. These people all had advisors, high level advisors. You know, the second person chief of staff, what have you, who were zionist neo-cons! Like Philip Zelikow, the person who wrote the executive Commission, who was the director, executive director, and the person who actually wrote this fraudulent White Paper, that covered 9/11. He was Condoleezza Rice’s senior counsel! He was her adviser. And then there was Libby, was the advisor to Cheney. Rumsfeld had a deputy called Paul Wolfowitz. And Bush had an advisor.

So, all of the Bush administration was supported by these zionist neo-cons, who were basically “Israel Firsters” and this organization also.

These zionist neo-cons, they were the people who were at the Defense Policy Board. And the Defense Policy Board is this group of appointed people who craft the policy for the Pentagon. And as I said, the Deputy Secretary of Defense was Paul Wolfowitz. And there was Rabbi Zakkai, who was the comptroller at the Pentagon, when something like two point one trillion dollars went missing, it was announced the day before 9/11. And Douglas Feith, and people like that.

And these are the people who created the policy calling for the United States to overthrow seven countries in five years! And this was the memo that was discovered, you know, it was revealed in the Pentagon by General Wesley Clark. He discovered this memo circulating in the Pentagon, just a few days after 9/11. So it called for the United States to go to the Middle East and overthrow seven countries in five years! And that is exactly what we have been doing for the past seventeen years!

Friend: Yes. Exactly! Well and to make it even worse, we had Ehud Barak, who is a long time, top Israeli political, and I think he was also a general, if I’m not mistaken. But he this big time Israeli politician. Was the prime minister, defense minister. And on the day of 9/11 he is on the BBC being interviewed. And he basically explains the whole, what’s going to happen. You know, this is an attack by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, he says. And now is the time for America and the wider Western world see to unite and engage in this struggle to defeat radical Islamic terrorism! And he names a number of countries, many of which General Wesley Clark exposed.

So it was very clear that they had this preconceived agenda, and 9/11 was just used to justify it. Into, really not only justify it, but like institutionalize it as our official US foreign policy! And that’s exactly what has happened in the aftermath, and still carries on to this very day!

Bollyn: That’s right and Ehud Barak was, at the time, Israel’s most decorated soldier, they say. He had been chief of staff, he had been, as you said, Minister of Defense, he had been Prime Minister. And he just happened to be in London on September eleventh, in the studio of the BBC World Television, ready to give his interpretation of 9/11!

Now this is called the “primacy effect”. When they, when something terrible like this happens, the first plausible explanation given to the public is the one that will stick in the minds of people. And that’s what he was all about. He was giving this plausible explanation. He said:

 

“The world will never be the same from today on.”

And he said is that BBC World, which is the largest English-speaking television network in the world. It spans the globe. And he said that:

“We know who’s behind this.”

He said:

“It’s Osama bin Laden, and we know where he is.”

And he said:

 

“Now is the time for America to start an operational, concrete, ‘War on Terror’!”

And as I said, this, he had also been the commander of the covert commando force on the Sayeret Matkal, where Bibi Netanyahu had been his one of his soldiers. And there was some other Sayeret Matkal players involved. I think Daniel Levin on Flight eleven was a Sayeret Matkal member. And this is a covert commando force that serves directly under the Israeli chief of staff.

So, all of these connections, it shows that a Ehud Barak was primed and ready to give that interpretation. It’s so important! Because in order for such a deception to succeed, as I said, you have to get your explanation out there, and you have to spread throughout the world, as soon as possible! And that’s what he was doing in London.

[33:20]

And then he went from the BBC, he went straight Sky News, Sky Television, which is owned by Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, and told the same story. So, there were other agents around the world, in San Diego, and other places, who said exactly what Ehud Barak had been saying. So yeah, they got it out, they got the story out there.

Friend: Yeah, they had their script ready to go. And, you know what 9/11, was really a very traumatizing, and just intense event for people to experience. And people were in fear, people were scared, and in a scenario like that, right after it happens, everyone’s traumatized, no one’s really thinking critically. They’re just looking for an explanation, looking for answers. And here these guys are on television, ready to explain exactly what America’s going to do in the aftermath. It’s really astonishing!

Adam Green asked me this last night. He asked me what, you know, just my general observations of your speech the other night, down in San Diego. And just my, I guess my views on your work in general. And what really strikes me, is just how really transparent all of this is! It’s like, so obvious that they were behind this, and they’ve benefited from it! They really don’t make it a secret you. And find numerous quotes from people like Netanyahu, and others, where they’re basically boasting about how 9/11 has benefited Israel.

And there’s one quote where one Israeli, counter counter-terrorism analyst, or whatever, is talking about how 9/11 was the “greatest public relations event ever carried out, in the jews favor.” I mean, it’s really incredible some of the things that you can find online and verify for yourself. Just how really, truly, how obvious all of this is! How transparent their whole agenda is!

Bollyn: Yeah! On September eleventh, James Bennett, The New York Times, interviewed Bibi Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu. And asked him:

“How will this affect Israeli-American relations?”

And Netanyahu said right away without, you know, skipping a beat, he said:

“It’s very good!”

And then he checked himself:

“Well, it’s not very good, but it’ll generate immediate sympathy!”

And as he said, a few years later, he spoke to an Israeli audience and told them that:

 

“Israel is benefiting from one thing” he said. “And that is the attack on the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”

And so how does Israel benefit? Well, Israel is benefiting, because the Israeli strategic plan, the Yinon Plan is calling for the destruction of Iraq, and Syria, and host of other Arab countries, was being fulfilled, is being fulfilled by the American struggle in Iraq! And now the American struggle in Iraq, and Syria.

[36:06]

And Americans need to understand this “War on Terror” is really an Israeli war of aggression and conquest, being disguised in the pretext of fighting terrorism!

Friend: Right! And yeah and that’s really what your book, your latest book anyways, “The War on Terror — The Plot to Rule the Middle East”. That’s really what it’s all about! Like kind of the origins of this idea of a global war on terrorism.

And I wanted to spend some time and talk about this, a little bit. Because I found this so fascinating, researching 9/11. How this whole narrative, this whole paradigm of international relations — that’s really what it is — it not only goes back to the 1970s, but it was literally, like concocted and manufactured by people like Benjamin Netanyahu, and other hardline zionists in Israel. Like geo-political and military strategists, who were working in cahoots, working hand in hand, with the neo-cons in America. They were kind of formulating this idea, this narrative of a global war on terrorism.

And they had been talking about, for years, how they needed a “catalyzing event”, a new “Pearl Harbor” to kind of kick-start it, and get it going. And they again, they openly wrote about this in some of their public policy papers. The PNAC document, that everybody knows about, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. It explicitly says this.

Bollyn: Yes.

Friend: You know:

“We need a new Pearl Harbor to kick-start this, otherwise the American people are not going to go along with it.”

And again, of course, that’s obviously what 9/11 was.

So can you kind of address this, the origins of the global war on terrorism? I know Benjamin Netanyahu organized a conference in 1979, if I’m not mistaken.

Bollyn: Yes.

Friend: Which was kind of, you know what kick started all of this yes.

Bollyn: Yes. That conference, the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism, was July second, third, fourth, I think, 1979. As I said, it was held at the Netanyahu Institute. It was organized and arranged by the Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, who was the arch terrorist of the Irgun, of Israeli history, zionist history. And this was the plan that they put into effect, and rolled out in 1979. And the thing is, is that at the same time that they rolled out this plan, the Israeli chief of the Mossad, Isser Harel, predicted to an American, that Arabs would attack the tallest building in York City. And that happened, you know, with 9/11.

Another Israeli filmmaker named Arnon Milchan, a senior Israeli intelligence agent, made a film called “The Medusa Touch”, in which he depicted a Boeing 747 crash into the Pan Am building. And at the same time they began calling for this “War on Terror” in 1979. So all of this activity, calling for a “War on Terror” and a terrible terrorist atrocity to befall the United States, this came out in the late 1970s. And this is the time when the terrorist parties, as I said, the Irgun and the Stern gang, when the leaders of these terror parties, organizations, came to power in Israel.

And they came to power in 1977, and they began their agenda! There’s an interesting note, that in 1979 the Israelis were occupying Lebanon. They began a terrorist operation of putting bombs, car bombs, and truck bombs, throughout Lebanon, to stir up problems, and foment war. And this is documented in the one of the books called, “Rise and Kill First”, written by an Israeli, Ronen Bergman.

[39:48]

But it’s interesting that this, the fact that Israel was running this terror operation for four years from 1979 to 1983, in Lebanon, killing thousands of people! It’s documented in the book. It’s not discussed in the US media, because if the American jew, and the American public, understands Israel’s history of terrorism, they would understand that Israel is behind 9/11! Behind the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, most likely! And scores of other bomb attacks, and fomenting war in the Middle East! And that, would let the cat out of the bag!

Friend: Yeah! Yeah, and this, what you are about here, the Israelis running, like, this terror ring, or whatever, in Lebanon. They were basically setting up, it was like false-flag terrorism, essentially. They were setting up attacks and trying to get the different factions in Lebanon, fighting against each other. Is that basically what was going on?

Bollyn: Yes. Exactly!

Friend: Well, I think you’re right! I mean, that is their MO. I mean, they have a long history of staging false flag attacks, which is why it should surprise no one that they were really behind 9/11. This is just, you know how they’ve always operated, going back to the very founding of the jewish state of Israel.

Bollyn: That’s right.

Friend: I tend to think that a lot of what we have seen over the years in Iraq, especially, certainly, what we see in Syria right now. We see these various radical terrorist groups, that are in many cases funded and directed by Western intelligence. And they’re used to just totally destabilize the sovereign governments of these countries.

Again, I mean, this is very clearly on display with what’s going on in Syria, where all of these rebel groups are in cahoots with the CIA, and British intelligence. They’re getting funding from, in some cases, like these international organizations, like George Soros, for example. There’s even reports in mainstream media, where Israel is providing medical aid to these people, as they are wounded in battle! It’s really incredible! Even what’s admitted in the mainstream press.

Bollyn: Right.

Friend: But this to me is really kind of what the whole, … this is, how the global “War on Terror” is perpetuated, is that it is all entirely manufactured. And I’m frankly not really convinced that there is this threat of radical Islamic terrorism. I mean, I don’t think that people from Middle East, Muslims from the Middle East should be coming over to Europe. I certainly don’t think we should be over there, and they shouldn’t be in our countries. But this idea that they pose this huge threat to us, is just totally nonsense! And it’s clear that this is entirely manufactured by these intelligence agencies, to foment this strife, and to perpetuate the “Global War on Terrorism”!

Bollyn: That’s right! That’s right! And the people that became all Qaeda were trained in Pakistan in the early eighty’s, by Israeli military intelligence, under the command of Ehud Barak. You know, this is a little known fact, that when “Charlie Wilson’s War” began, with US funding, and Saudi, funding, the people who were training, and arming, and training these Arabs who became all-Qaeda, was Israeli Military Intelligence, under Ehud Barak!

Friend: Yes. The same person who was on TV on 9/11 telling Americans, and the rest of the world, what was going to happen in the aftermath! It’s gosh, again, it’s just so very transparent and obvious what is going on!

I want to ask a little bit more about the whole “Global War on Terrorism”. We go back to this conference. There were terrorist events leading up to 9/11, but 9/11 is really like the main catalyst, that kind of totally changed American foreign policy.

Could you maybe talk a little bit about, like the history of some of this false like terrorism, and really kind of the strategy that these Israeli military strategists have pursued? And what their agenda is?

Bollyn: Yeah. Yeah, the Israeli use of false flag terrorism against the United States, is something I talk about in my latest presentation. Because it goes back to the foundation of the state of Israel.

Even before the state of Israel, Israel was bombing British embassies in Rome, and other places, Egypt. In the 1950s Shimon Peres [Szymon Persky]with Moshe Dayan, they were bombing, using nitroglycerin bombs and Egyptian terror cells, to bomb British and American facilities in Cairo, in Egypt, in order to drive a wedge between the United States and Nasser, not just Egypt.

And then there was, the Israelis with massacre, they would murder anybody who got in their way, whether it’s the British official for the Middle East, Lord Moyne, or the Count Folke Bernadotte, who was the United Nations mediator to Palestine in the aftermath of the partition plan of 1947.

And then they would attack Americans directly! Like with the USS Liberty, in 1967, when they attacked this American ship in international waters, murdering thirty-four Americans in one fell swoop! And causing casualties to two-thirds of the ship’s crew. And this was another false flag operation, to drive the American policy against the Arabs!

See:Andrew Hitchcock – Erasing the Liberty – The 50th Anniversary Of Israel’s Attack On America — TRANSCRIPT

So that’s what they’re always trying to do. There was a bombing in Lebanon in 1983, against the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport. Time, and time again, you know, we find Israeli operations against American military, American targets, designed to create hatred, or ill will, on the part of the American public, or the American government against the Arabs.

And 9/11 was simply their masterstroke, if you will!

That was the event that really panned out for them! And it’s been very successful, you have to say. But it’s only successful, because the media in our country, the United States, does not investigate the crime itself. And as I said, the actual person who was supposed to investigate the crime, did not investigate the crime! It was declared an “act of war” and United States went promptly to war. And there we’ve been ever since! For seventeen years now!

[46:23]

Friend: Yes, it’s truly outrageous!

Well, you know, there has been a lot of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim propaganda put out by the media, also by Hollywood. There is a documentary I remember watching a few years ago. I think it’s called “Real Bad Arabs”, or something like that. Where it kind of goes through and shows all of the anti-Muslim, anti-Arab propaganda that have been in Hollywood movies, and TV shows, and stuff like that. So, on the one hand Muslims and Arabs are highly demonized, and we’re made to think that they pose this grave threat to us. Where, on the other hand, they’re now being encouraged to resettle as refugees in Europe, and also in America. It’s so backwards! It’s like we’re supposed to hate them, and yet welcome them at the same time! Have you noticed this phenomenon? It’s insane!

And, of course, it’s the, frankly, the organized jewish community that is largely pushing this idea that we need to accept more refugees. Groups like the ADL, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and many other jewish, you know, organized jewish groups, they’re largely behind this push So it’s really, talk about Orwellian! I mean, we’re supposed to hate them, and be fighting and killing them over in their own countries, and yet welcoming them into ours, as refugees! It’s really insane! Have you studied this at all?

Bollyn: Oh yeah! Well what’s being done, is that they’re trying to depopulate regions of the Middle East, that the, … They’re trying to, as I said, this is a plot to redraw the map of Middle East. And so, like last summer the United States was involved militarily with the Kurdish allies, so-called allies, attacking Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, and Rocca in Syria.

And we basically, with our “Kurdish allies”, laid waste to these cities, and caused a great deal of migration from the cities. Because they want to depopulate these areas! They want to depopulate and move, transfer, populations around, like they did back in 47, 48. In order to create space for this “Greater Israel” project. They want to expand Israel, make it a larger state. And in order to do so, they need to depopulate certain regions. And at the same time, by sending these people to Europe, they’re trying to cause ill will against the Muslims, you know, as a reaction. So we’re getting, of course, this resurgence of Right wing elements in Europe, because they’re responding, they’re reacting to this forced migration that is being imposed on them.

[49:08]

Friend: Yes. It’s a destabilization template that has worked very, very well! I mean, they’re destabilizing the Middle East. That’s really what the whole “Global War on Terrorism” is! It’s destabilizing the Middle East, overthrowing the sovereign governments to advance Israeli hegemony in the region, and using American military and financial might.

I mean, it’s not even as if the Israelis are themselves doing this, they’re getting us to fight their battles for them! And it’s also destabilizing our countries by flooding Europe, especially. It seems like it is really kind of bearing the brunt of this, where, every day, a boatload of “refugees” from Africa and the Middle East show up. And they’re all presented as “refugees” that are fleeing persecution. When in reality most of them are young men of fighting age, that are probably criminals. And yet, you know, Europe is supposed to welcome these people with open arms! It’s a total destabilization template, working perfectly.

Bollyn: Absolutely! And Gadhafi warned of this! He warned the West, that:

“If you remove me, as the head of Libya, you will be taking the cork out of the bottle!”

That bottle being, Africa. And that’s exactly what’s happened. These boatloads of refugees are coming from Libya, which is now a fractured, failed state, where the oil is being produced, but the state doesn’t work. And these African, and other refugees, are flooding into Italy, through Sicily, and the islands, which is very close to Libya. Gadhafi was absolutely right!

And so, the West certainly knew, the Europeans and the Americans, certainly knew, that if they removed Gadhafi, this migration, this increased migration from Africa, would result as a direct consequence. And it has!

Friend: Yeah. And in my view, I think it is actually a part of their agenda. A key part of their agenda. Not only destabilizing Europe and America, and traditional Western countries, but basically, you know, displacing the traditional people that founded and built these countries, and replacing them with migrants from the Third World. I think that’s a key aspect of what’s going on as well. And the global war on terrorism has facilitated this.

And I wanted to ask you, I kind of want to wrap up here, we’ve got about ten more minutes, or so. When is the global war on terrorism ever going to actually end? From what I can tell it’s this, like Orwellian, never-ending nightmare! Again, I just wrote a piece about this where, there’s reports coming out about how “extreme” quote, unquote, “extremism” is a greater threat today than it was on 9/11! And we’ve got to double down in Afghanistan! And keep fighting in Iraq! And carry on what we’re doing in Syria, and maybe invade Iran next! It’s like they’re just perpetuating this.

So I mean, when is this nightmare ever going to end?

Bollyn: Exactly! That’s the point! When is the nightmare going to end? And again, that’s why I wrote the book, because until the American people realize the fraud of the “War on Terror” and 9/11, until they realize that, they will be unable to resist the war! Because as long as Americans believe that we’re actually fighting terrorism, which would be a good thing. If they, as long as they believe the cover story, they will not resist the war.! And they haven’t! They haven’t! And that’s the problem! The war is destroying us! Destroying our societies, as you said. And yet there’s no virtually no resistance, politically, or from the public, about this “War on Terror”.

And God forbid, if these people continue with their agenda, they will take this country to war with Iran, and perhaps with Russia, because this is like this “War on Terror” goes on, and on, and on!

Very much like another Arnon Milchan film, called “Brazil”, which he made in 1986, in which a futuristic film, in which, the nation was constantly involved in this war, this distant war against terrorists. And that’s where we are!

The American media, the US media never talks, or shows us images of what’s going on in Syria, or Iraq. It’s just like it’s happening there on the fringe, far from our consciousness. Something we don’t see, out of sight, out of mind! And as long as it remains out of sight, out of mind, it will go on! As long as we give our tacit approval by not protesting. We have to come around and understand that we’ve been lied to! We’ve been cheated! We’re being plundered! And we have to resist the war!

[53:52]

Friend: I completely agree with you! And that’s why I’ve continued to talk about 9/11. And I mean, really if you think about it, 9/11 is the main pillar of our foreign policy. It’s the main paradigm that has a profound influence on our understanding of the world, certainly what’s going on in the Middle East.

But it transcends Middle East. Look at what’s happened with our airports, for example, in this whole Orwellian concept of Homeland Security, which comes directly from Israel. Once again! Israeli police advisors, they’re training our FBI, training our local law enforcement, basically propagandizing our own law enforcement into their own narratives, where everyone is a suspect. Everyone’s a potential terrorist! So it impacts not only our foreign policy, but also what’s going on domestically.

This war is never going to end! Nothing is ever going to get solved unless we get to the bottom of 9/11, and start arresting the people responsible! And that leads me to one of the most important questions I want to ask you.

If you were in charge of an official investigation into 9/11, and you had the ability to arrest and interrogate, who would you choose, who are the top 9/11 suspects, in your mind?

Bollyn: Well, I would start by a purge, arresting the people who are clearly involved in the cover up, and the non-investigation. So, you know, it would involve arresting George Bush, the President, Cheney, Michael Chertoff, Larry Silverstein. All the people that you can see are involved in the crime itself, or the cover up, or the deception. And it would also involve a lot of the heads of media. Because the media is who interprets reality for us politically, and the media has for seventeen years, covered up 9/11, knowing full well that they were omitting important facts from the public narrative!

So, you would have to arrest these people, and give them the treatment that they dished out to people, like in Guantanamo! Whereby, you know, enhanced interrogation, to find out what they know. But, Rahm Emanuel would be one of them, as well. The mayor of Chicago, because he was involved in the setting up of the crime scene during the Clinton administration.

[56:16]

Friend: Oh wow! Yeah! I didn’t even think about Rahm Emanuel. But that would not surprise me, if he was tied in with what was going on a 9/11.

I don’t for sure, for me, it would definitely be Larry Silverstein, and it would be definitely be Michael Chertoff! I mean, in my mind, those are the top suspects right there!

Bollyn: Absolutely!

Friend: If we arrested those individuals, I think we could really unravel what actually happened on 9/11. Because in my view, I mean, I’m not really sure what exactly happened, how they were able to do this. There’s a lot of debate online, and over the years, that’s been a huge focus of the 9/11 truth movement, is how it was actually done. You know, was it mini nukes, or thermite? There’s all these different theories and ideas. In my view they’re interesting and worth pursuing. But, at the end of the day, this is the most important aspect, is we got to understand who is responsible for it? Who benefited from it? And what agenda it served?

And that’s what your work is all about. And that’s what people need to understand. Because, again, it’s very clear, it’s very obvious, it’s very easy to demonstrate all this stuff that we’re saying! Again, it’s not some ridiculous theory that we’re making up, or inferring! It’s not conjecture. I mean, this is easily prove. You could verify everything we’ve said in this entire discussion for yourself! Very easily, just using, Google, for example.

Bollyn: That’s right! That’s right. And that’s why, again, that’s why I wrote the book, “The War on Terror — The Plot to Rule the Middle East”. And I made it very small and concise, so people can share it with other people. It’s affordable, the book cost fifteen dollars online. And you can give it to your neighbor, and share it. Because, we have to inform our fellow citizens of the dire straits we’re in! Because, as you say, if we don’t end this war, it will end us! I mean, it really will! It will! It will destroy the country!

Friend: Oh my gosh! It’s practically destroyed the country! It’s certainly bankrupted the country. I mean, we spent, I don’t know how much, we talked about this previously. Some reports are four trillion! Trump, you have a quote here from Trump on your website.

I wanted to wrap up actually with this. You wrote a memo to President Trump. And right at the very beginning you quote. You have a quote here from him, where he says:

“We have spent seven trillion dollars! Trillion with a that! Seven trillion dollars in the Middle East. And, you know what we have for it? Nothing! We have nothing for it!”

I’ve been on the “Trump Train”, I’m not going to lie! I was very inspired by his candidacy. And I think he’s saying a lot of important things. And he’s been critical of the wars in the Middle East, although he’s not really doing much to stop them, at this point. He also hasn’t done a whole lot to build the wall, and all that other stuff he said. But, I think he has a much different political actor than anybody I’ve ever seen, anyways.

So, do you want to maybe wrap up on this? What are your thoughts on Trump? Do you think he’s actually ever going to do anything about 9/11? And I guess, what is the state of the 9/11 Truth Movement? See, in my view, in my personal experience, people are more receptive to this information, than it any other time I’ve been involved in this. I can say that for sure.

Bollyn: Yeah, well I mean, if you explain to people how this war is detrimental to our nation, and to our prestige, and to our moral fiber. It distorts everything about us, it distorts the public, it brutalizes our society. If you start from that, and explain how 9/11 was done to make this war happen, people be more receptive.

I don’t know what Trump’s going to do, and I’ve sent him open letters, and sent in my books. And I hope that he would understand the need to end this war. Because, as you said, he said “seven trillion dollars”. And people will argue about this figure, but in that figure, he’s including interest on the payments on the debt, and future costs that have been already incurred that would be paid out in the future. So he’s not exaggerating. It has cost that much money!

As I said, as long as the most expensive war history, and we have to really lean on our politicians, including Donald Trump, to end this war! Because this war is so destructive of our nation, and the world! And it has to end! We can’t allow this Israeli nightmare to distort our lives, going forward! We have to come out of this Israeli nightmare! This is, you know, “Milchan movie”, and reclaim our history, reclaim our integrity, and end the war!

Friend: Yeah! Reclaim our reality! Our reality! We’ve been living in this “artificial reality” for so long. You use that term in the book. And it’s one I’ve heard, you know, John Kaminski, for example. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with him, I’ve been following his work for a number of years, and he uses that phrase, “artificial reality”. That’s exactly what 9/11 has done! It has created this “artificial reality”, that our entire foreign policy is revolving around. It’s very easy to demonstrate this, and it’s totally unacceptable, and outrageous! Everybody should be speaking out against this.

And I think reading a book like yours, and in following your work, and following your website, will really give people some clarity on these subjects. And allow them to come to these conclusions, and really kind of figure out 9/11, basically.

Bollyn: Yes, I hope so! Because, as you say, this artificial reality, they’re trying to make our country, the United States of America, the “Greater Israel”! So that we are like Israelis, that we’re constantly at war. We’re fighting, fighting, fighting, and terrorizing the world!

We don’t want that reality! Thank you very much! We want America back the way it should be! And we want to throw off these Israeli spectacles, and this artificial reality that they have imposed on us, and get back to our reality! You know, thank you very much. You said it very well.

Friend: Yes sir! Yeah, thanks man! Chris we’ll go ahead and wrap up now. I want to kind of plug your Web site real quick. Because you can pretty much find all of your information, your contact, all of the books that you have for sale. Just right out, Bollyn dot com, correct?

Bollyn: Yeah. And I have a special deal that I offer, the entire set, three books. The two “Solving 9/11” books, and the “War on Terror” book for fifty dollars donation. And that you can do through Bollyn dot com, or through Pay Pal.

And all I ask is that people give me a mailing address, and a phone number, and a fifty dollars donation, and I’ll send a set of books. And that’s like twenty-five dollars cheaper than they would get it from Amazon dot com. So, and that includes shipping.

Friend: Oh! There you go!

Bollyn: So it’s a good deal.

Friend: That’s a hell of a deal! Yeah. Do you do sign those books that you send out?

Bollyn: No, I can’t sign books, if I’m not at an event, because the books and I, are in different places. The books are produced, … so when I do an event then I can sign books. And if you get the book now, or the book in the future, I can send them a bookmark, you know, signed bookmark. But that’s best I can do, about signing them.

[63:25]

Friend: Very good! Well, I certainly encourage all of our listeners to support your work and to purchase your books. I have all of your books. I picked up the most recent book, down there to say the San Diego for 9/11 Truth event. So, I think you’re doing great work! I’m glad that you’re still out there talking about 9/11, going to events, speaking to public audiences, and really engaging people! I think you do a great job!

You put on a great presentation every time I’ve ever seen you, whether it’s on YouTube, or in real person. And you’ve been a big influence, and you’re just really an inspirational figure in my development, in my thinking, in my writing! So I want to thank you very much for taking the time, Chris. I really appreciate it!

Bollyn: Thank you John. It’s been a pleasure talking to you.

Friend: All right. Well, I will talk to you again, real soon.

Bollyn: Okay, thank you very much.

Friend: Okay, thanks.

[64:12]

END