Caller 1: The present day European jews came up through Spain. They came through North Africa, through Spain, from Italy and from the Middle East, and they went through Germany and they went to Poland. That’s the route that they followed. The jews are now in Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hundreds of thousands come from under the stars in the Pale of Settlement. Can you tell me that.

Caller 1: They came from Poland?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, they came from Poland. They came from Poland and from Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’ve heard of big migration from Khazars into Poland and into Germany under Frederick the Great, to be exact.

 

Caller 1: No, no, no! You’re speaking of the Oriental jews who came up from the Caucasus Mountain. The mountain jews who came from Babylonia and some Assyria.

 

Host: Ah, well, when it comes to this area, …

 

Caller 1: Let’s forget about it.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, in a sense, why would you want to discuss it? Because it’s going to., …

 

Caller 1: What’s that got to do with the jews who are now in Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because then 80% of those jews living in Israel, according to the Arabs and according to this interpretation of it, are not Semites. Therefore they have no historic attachment to the Wailing Wall.

 

Caller 1: Good. Good heavens. You know what you sound like? Yesterday I read a book about a guy who said that the South American-Indians were the lost 10 tribes. They wandered across from Mesopotamia to India and to China. It crossed that Alaska and then down. The Incas and the Aztecs were descended from the 10 lost tribes.

 

Ernst Zundel: You are referring to the Book of Mormons, I suppose.

 

Caller 1: Oh, good heavens!

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not saying it, man! It’s the Jewish Encyclopedia that is.

 

Caller 1: I don’t believe you! I don’t believe you!

 

Host: Well, in terms of history, according to Jewish Encyclopedia, we have a caller who is well versed in jewish history and we’ll go to him in just a second. Okay, just one second now. I think this is the line. Is that you, Mr L?

 

Caller 2: Yes, yes.

 

Host: Okay. You’ve been listening. Have you been listening?

 

Caller 2: Hello.

 

Host: Have you been listening for the last few minutes, Mr. Lipman?

 

Caller 2: Yes, hello?

 

Host: Hello.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Lipman. Yes, speaking. Hello?

 

Host: Yes, just one second now.

 

Caller 2: Speaking, please.

 

Host: Okay, there, you’re on the line now. Pardon?

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I’m the caller, Mr. Lipman. I want to speak to the Nazi and I want to speak to the jew there.

 

Host: Well, the jew hung up and the Nazi, as you call him, [chuckling] is on the line.

 

Caller 2: Did you laugh at the Nazi there?

 

Host: Yeah, go ahead, Mr. L.

 

Ernst Zundel: I beg your pardon.

 

Host: Go ahead. You’re on the air now.

 

Caller 2: Is the jewish man there, too?

 

Host: No, he hung up.

 

Caller 2: Well, if he hung up. Hello?

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 2: Wouldn’t be surprised if you’re listening while I’m talking.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, the jewish man is here. Go on.

 

Caller 2: Hello?

 

Host: Hello? Go ahead, sir.

 

Caller 1: First of all, I would like to bag the jewish fellow to take my telephone number and call me personally. I want to speak to him personally after I’ll finish. My number is [bebbed out] Sometimes you can still have my telephone number. I’m not hiding anything.

 

And I’m not hiding anything. And I can debate with you what I want to know, Mr. Caller Number One. Hello?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes?

 

Caller 2: Caller Number One, is that you?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, are you referring to the, …

 

Caller 2: Are you caller Number One?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 2: Tell me, what capacity do you speak of the name of the Arab? Are you in capacity of making a peace between the jews? And are you official representative that you talk with such authority, or you just an ordinary journalist which writes in the yellow tabloid of [word unclear] Gable? Answer me the question, sir.

 

Ernst Zundel: First polite question.

 

Caller 2: I like concrete, man! I don’t like to talk nonsense! In what capacity do you speak to make peace between jews and Arabs?

 

Host: All right, he’s going to answer the question. Mr. L.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. M. Would you be polite?

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I will. Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

First of all, I’m not writing for Julius Streicher.

 

Caller 1: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not writing for Julius Streicher. And the other gentlemen because their papers have gone out of business.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but there’s plenty of Streichers at the moment. Plenty of Streichers roaming around in the streets of Montreal and in New York and in South America.

 

Host: Well, sir, let me. Just for the benefit of listeners, your response can be interpreted two ways. You’re not writing for them because they no longer exist. Does that mean if they did exist, you would write for them?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I was just trying to find out how, …

 

Caller 2: Listen, give me an answer, man! I want you to give me an answer. Caller number one.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I, …

 

Caller 2: In what capacity do you speak to make peace between the jews and the Arabs?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, all night stated in a, …

 

Caller 2: Yeah, go ahead. I didn’t hear.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, then you have, …

 

Caller 2: Repeat yourself.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Lipman, are you there?

 

Caller 1: I’ll beg your pardon.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. Would you hang on for just a second, …

 

[04:55]

 

Caller 2: Yeah, wait a minute. I’ll close the radio. I’ll be able to hear.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, very good.

 

Caller 2: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Radio done?

 

Caller 2: Yes, go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Now, Mr Lipman, if you have been listening and you have been hearing not what you wanted to hear, but what I said.

 

Caller 2: Yes, what did you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said repeatedly tonight that I spoke as an individual.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute. Yeah, but you speak like you’re sitting at a conference table with the jews.

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 2: And trying to make peace between the Arabs and jews!

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, I say it as a suggestion. It’s a free country we are in.

 

Caller 2: Well, no, no, no, no, wait a minute. There’s a different. There’s a dialogue, man! We can criticize the jews. We can criticize anybody.

 

Ernst Zundel: Sometimes I wonder.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, we can criticize the jews. They are right sometimes. Don’t give me that stuff, mister. You know well that we can criticize the jews.

 

Ernst Zundel: Anybody that listens to the headline tonight must wonder the, …

 

Caller 2: The [word unclear] doesn’t wonder. The only thing is I can’t understand Mr. Bell. I told him one time how does he allow such poison to be spread when there Streichers and so many Meyers and so many. What you call them? You call yourself Meyer. Your father was Meyer, you said. And so many [word unclear] walking around in the streets of Montreal.

 

Host: All right, now if you’ll let me say something for just a moment.

 

Now, there are callers who are barred from the line because in my opinion, they are guilty of what you suggested Mr. L.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Host: In my opinion, this gentleman is not guilty of what you suggest and it escapes me how you can accuse him of this.

 

Now, as I have said before.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Host: I take issue with some of his figures. Another gentleman called up with other figures. We have a few more lines loaded. People with other figures.

 

Caller 2: From the jewish Congress they called.

 

Host: How’s that?

 

Caller 2: From the Congress. Jewish Congress they called.

 

Host: Yeah, well, I have somebody on another line with more figures. In other words, over a figure dispute whether the man, … And a few statements that he has made. He could be historically inaccurate.

 

Now, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I don’t know. I’ve never read the thing.

 

Caller 2: Yes, Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: Not only inaccurate, he’s full of lies. And I can prove it to him!

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, wonderful! Why don’t you prove it?

 

Caller 2: I’ll prove it to you right away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: Listen. No, wait. I proved it to you! Give me a chance to prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you, man! I’ll prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you!

 

Ernst Zundel: I believe you.

 

Caller 2: Listen, listen! Will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, one hundred percent.

 

Caller 2: Will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: In other words, that we are going to be positive and not negative, that we don’t engage in name calling.

 

Caller 2: No, I wouldn’t call it a name calling, but just listen to.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: I want to expose you that you are working for the Nazis! And you’re an agent of the Nazis. Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. How much is my pay?

 

Caller 2: Do you know? I don’t know.

 

Ernst Zundel: And where is the headquarters by the way?

 

Caller 2: The headquarters in Nazis are still in Bonn. And it’s still in Cairo.

 

Ernst Zundel: So in other words, …

 

Caller 2: It’s still in Cairo!

 

Ernst Zundel: Is the Nazi headquarters in the, …

 

Caller 2: Is still in Bonn and Cairo. Will you listen? Will you listen? I want to refute your argument. Okay. I want to refute your argument.

 

Ernst Zundel: You’re wonderful!

 

Caller 2: I want to refute your argument. Oh, will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, yeah.

 

Caller 2: Well, listen. You made a statement that Germany restituted the jews so much. And you give figures, right?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I did.

 

Caller 2: You did fine. Do you know that whatever they give 800 some million dollars it’s restitution, right or not?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 1:800 million. I don’t argue. You had a figure. $826 million. They give a restitution to the jews. You said so.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t.

 

Host: I’m the one who said that.

 

Caller 2: Hey, beg your pardon.

 

Host: I’m the one who said that.

 

Caller 2: Where did you get the figure?

 

Host: I got the figure from the Almanac.

 

Caller 2: Okay, fine, let’s be. So I’ll take this figure too. $826 million was given restitution by the German to the jews.

 

First of all, if you know history, and history is very young, that when Grynszpan* made an attack on the German ambassador in Switzerland or in Sweden, I don’t remember exactly between these two places.

 

 

[* Herschel Feibel Grynszpan was a Polish-Jewish expatriate born and raised in Weimar Germany who shot and killed the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on 7 November 1938 in Paris. The NS’s alledgedly used this assassination as a pretext to launch Kristallnacht, “The Night of Broken Glass”, the pogrom of 9–10 November 1938. Grynszpan was seized by the Gestapo after the fall of France and brought to Germany; his further fate remains unknown. Wikipedia]

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought it was in France.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give me a chance to explain myself. So Hitler right away confiscated all the jewish wealth which amount to $4 billion. Before even he started to persecute the jews outside of Germany amounted to $4 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: Not true.

 

Caller 2: It’s true! It’s in the paper. The start of civil life. I started the life here in Montreal. I’ll prove it to you. Number one.

 

Second thing. The money that Germany gave to the jews, it’s not her money. It’s American money from American taxpayers. Because Mr. Eisenhower and the rest of his gang wanted to whitewash the dirty deeds of the former Nazi. And he said “let bygones be bygones”. And he contributed $4 billion to build up again the Bonn government.

 

So it’s not their money, it’s American taxpayer pay the money. Is it right?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute, I’m not finished yet. You got to listen. I listen to you. Because I listen to your story, which is full of lies. And I’m surprised that the jew that is a well capable man and that he converse with you. Because listen, I said to Mr. Bell, There is four brothers, four characters. Evil man, evil man, right or wrong. You still tell you that you’re wrong. So why they debate with you? You’re not an official capacity. You’re not an official capacity from the Arabs or from the Germans. What right have you got to speak in the name of the Arabs or the Germans or anybody else?

 

[10:12]

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s why you don’t like to talk to me. I’m just a goy.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t like the other chap to even converse with this fantastic goy.

 

Caller 2: What goy? Anyway, go on. This language is French to me.

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t speak Yiddish?

 

Caller 2: I speak Yiddish, yes. Goy is Hebrew. Goy means if you know Hebrew, goy means a nation, it’s not an individual. And he don’t even know the interpretation of goy. You don’t even know the interpretation of goyim.

 

Hello, Wait a minute. Listen, big shot. Goyim is plural, means nation. Goy means one race.

 

Ernst Zundel: And who is referred to usually as goyim?

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Who is usually referred to as goyim?

 

Caller 2: They referred goyim. Because these people that say goy, they are ignorant. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Because goy means a race, one, a nation, I mean. And goyim is plural. So they don’t know. You just inquire if I’m in the wrong, I’ll give anything. You see?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. Go on.

 

Caller 2: And number one, and we don’t use such language as “dirty jews” or any or anything else. When we. In our scriptures, if you want to know it’s written, when we go to the synagogue, we say:

 

“My Lord, forgive us all our sins. And also to those who live among us. Strangers that live among us.”

 

In other words, we pray for the non-jews too.

 

And as far as persecution is concerned, no jew persecuted yet a non-jew. It’s in history. And we were persecuted for 2,000 years.

 

And let me tell you one thing. I said sometimes I speak French. It’s [words unclear] English. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give me a chance.

 

Ernst Zundel: I think the Old testament.

 

Caller 2: No, no, no! I want to prove my point that the worst jew, the worst jew, which is called Judas Ishkariot, had a conscience. And when betrayed Jesus Christ, he gave him the kiss of death. His conscious part of him. And he hanged himself. And I never seen non-jew that is conscious of him by attacking a jew, he shall hang himself. I never seen yet.

 

I said this to French people many times. But I’m French. I live with French more than the jews. If I speak French just as fluent as Yiddish.

 

Ernst Zundel: Are we a bit far off the point, don’t you think?

 

Caller 2: Go ahead. No, no, This is a good point. Pardon me. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. I’ll listen to you. Then ask me question.

 

Ernst Zundel: No. You guys want to repeat all my arguments and call me and find out that I was a real liar and spreader of poison?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. I prove it to you and I mean it. If I said the word liar, it’s too mild. But I wouldn’t use any more of this word. I’ll debate with you like man to man. I’ll debate with you like man to man without any insults anymore.

 

Ernst Zundel: Would you say I’m maybe a super liar?

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe I’m a super liar.

 

Caller 2: Well, even this is mild.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, well, maybe we can find some other adjectives.

 

Caller 2: Yeah. Anyway. No, no, don’t worry. You’re a coward because when the man put you to the wall, cornered you last time, you ran away because you couldn’t take it.

 

Ernst Zundel: When was that?

 

Caller 2: That was two, three nights ago.

 

Ernst Zundel: Was the same man I spoke to?

 

Caller 2: The same man you spoke to? Yeah. He cornered you and you ran away and then you came back.

 

Ernst Zundel: The same man that I spoke to tonight for one hour that hung up on me!

 

Caller 2: No, no, no, no! You spoke tonight to the jewish family is well eloquent, but you’re still not acquainted well, with jewish history and world history.

 

Host: Right. That’s why I got you on the line, sir.

 

Now if we can dispense with personalities. You have accused the man of being a Nazi and of spreading poison. And you can’t for the life of you see why I permit it on the program. You will have to give me an example of a lie that amounts to spreading poison.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I’ll give it to you.

 

Host: Good.

 

[13:48]

 

 

Caller 2: Of course, I’ll give it plenty. I got it in my [word unclear] my dear man, I got in my [word unclear].

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: And then here I give you the first example.

 

First of all, he said that the jews always lived with the Arabs. And first in harmony all the time, the Semite Arabs, I mean. And Palestine around there in the Middle East. The jews were always persecuted by the Arabs in Casablanca they had no right to walk on the sidewalk. Just like the negro had no right to walk in Alabama. Exactly the same thing for the last, 2,000 years! People in Casablanca lived in a ghetto and they couldn’t go out and they couldn’t show their faces, number one.

 

Ernst Zundel: But I didn’t say it’s the same.

 

Caller 2: No, no, no, no! You said once before. Not tonight. You said before the jews lived well with the Arabs. And I know history. You don’t know my history, but I know your history, my friend.

 

Ernst Zundel: I never said that.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, you said it last time. I’m not speaking tonight. And many Arabs made the statement that the jews never fought with the Arabs before. They lived in harmony, they understood each other, they were brotherly till the zionism came. I’m not a Zionist. I never will be a Zionist. I’m a jew.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Lipman, why not.

 

Caller 2: What?

 

Ernst Zundel: What are the points that you differ with zionism?

 

Caller 2: What are the points differ what?

 

Ernst Zundel: Can you give us points where you differ with zionism?

 

Caller 2: Speak louder. I can’t hear good.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Why would you not be a Zionist?

 

Caller 2: Why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: Because theoretically I don’t agree with them.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, in other words, you wouldn’t say that the idea of zionism to found a jewish homeland in Palestine, …

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Doesn’t please you?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. It doesn’t mean to say that I’m a Zionist, because if jews have to have a home. First, I’m a Canadian and first, the 6 million jews are Americans, they’re not Zionist. Not all of them are Zionists. If they’re Zionist, some of them is their business. But I’m not. I’m speaking myself.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, but listen, I’m very interested.

 

Caller 2: Yes, yeah, I’ll do to you. I’ll give it to you.

 

Ernst Zundel: Very good.

 

Caller 2: Well, all right. If Mr. Bell permit a time, I’ll give it to you as much as you want.

 

Host: Well, you have seven minutes, sir.

 

Caller 2: Okay, then listen. I made a statement that if I’m not mistaken to Mr. Bell that we jews in Europe before the Hitler Holocaust, before the Nazis tried to spit their dirt in the world, we jews fought zionism with all our might in the street because we find it impractical! We said that we live in Europe 10,050 years. We have more right to demand our rights in Europe and live there than to the rights on Palestine. Right? Listen to this. Just a moment. I’ll give it to you. This story. We had a jewish organization which is called Bund.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh yes, I know about this.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, you know everything. Hey, you’re a real Nazi! You know all the information!

 

Host: Sir, you asked him if he knew. He said yes, he knew!

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Host: I said you asked him if he was aware of a certain fact. He admitted to being aware of the fact.

 

[16:46]

 

 

Caller 2: Okay.

 

Anyway, I’m hearing the Nazi organization, the jewish bund, which is a socialistic organization, they didn’t believe that the sand of Palestine shall be recultivated. And they said we have no right to think of Palestine because it’s impractical. Because the jews are living at their roots are in Europe. They live 10,050 years. And we shall try to fight our best for the rights of the jews which they entitled to.

 

Host: Which agrees with what the caller number one read from the encyclopedia. So I would assume that the encyclopedia is basically Zionist in its thinking.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon? I didn’t hear that.

 

Host: Did you hear me caller number one?

 

Ernst Zundel: I did.

 

Host: Would you agree with that?

 

Caller 2: Did you repeat that? I didn’t hear all this conversation tonight.

 

Host: Well, what you just said is similar to what the caller number one read from a Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

Caller 2: What do you read?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, you will listen.

 

Host: Well, what you said, sir, basically what you said is what he read from the encyclopedia. So I am suggesting that because the other gentleman questioned the encyclopedia, I am suggesting that conceivably it is a Zionist publication.

 

Ernst Zundel: I suppose so.

 

Host: Would you say that does sound reasonable to you, number one?

 

Ernst Zundel: Not really, no. I don’t think that the Jewish Encyclopedia that I’m referring to is a Zionist publication.

 

Host: Well, curiously, it’s, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Let’s say, it saying the same thing.

 

Host: I shouldn’t have said that. I should have said, as I phrased it the first time Zionist in its, …

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell, let me explain, please. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yeah, okay, go ahead.

 

Caller 2: I know my history well and I can explain it. And even a man who is 100% against the jews, you cannot refute my argument because the truth speaks for itself. You can expose, you cannot expose the truth! You can expose a lie.

 

Host: Right? Well, again, that’s why I brought you on the line because you know, we have had a number of discussions based on jewish history. And you do know jewish history.

 

Caller 2: I’ve had many conversations with ardent jew baiters in Quebec City. And I spoke with a man two and a half hours and in his hotel, and there was pleasant 20 Frenchmen. And he spoke the same language as Hitler and I exposed out of him and the Frenchman, which is a wonderful people. The moment he sees the truth, he came over. And he slapped him in the back and he said to him, you lost your discussion because the jew had the best of you! You see.

 

Ernst Zundel: Listen.

 

Caller 2: Hello.

 

Ernst Zundel: I just would like to find out. You said before that the jews had lived in Europe for 10,050 years.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

[19:26]

 

Caller 2: Not 10,050 years. Thousand and fifty. Not 10,000.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: If you know history, man!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I wonder if it is your, …

 

Caller 2: I wish you should know your history as I know! You don’t know your history. You just try to, …

 

Host: Well, I suggested that we not engage in personalities. We try to stick to the facts. So if you’ll proceed sir, …

 

Caller 2: I want to speak about the bund.

 

Host: Yeah, well the seven minutes you had is now three minutes.

 

Caller 2: Well, I don’t know. What can I do? Listen, you gave him so much time. You don’t give me time, Mr. Bell.

 

Host: I’m giving you time to make your case. But you are wasting all of your time by engaging in personalities.

 

Caller 2: You spend so much time to give him and you don’t give me time to explain to refute the argument.

 

Host: Well, you are one of many callers who are calling in to refute the argument. But you’re wasting your time with personality.

 

Caller 2: I’m not talking out of my people either. Like the rabbis, the rabbi. The rabbis, the religious rabbi were against Palestine too before it the holocaust of Hitler. Because they, from religious point of view, they believe that Messiah has to come. And they [word unclear] evil freedom. And the [word unclear] jew didn’t believe in that. He believed that we had to free ourselves with our own capability and with our own power.

 

And that’s why they fought those Zionists in the streets of Warsaw, in the streets of other places where jews live. That we shall fight for our rights in Europe. But here came Hitler and many Hitlers. He said after we lived in Europe 1,050 years, we are fifth class citizens and they try to destroy us. And we had to leave against our own will. So every jew, even a non-zionist like me, I’m a non-zionist. I came to convince that every jew, a jew is supposed to have a home. And where he lives, if he hasn’t got a home, his place is in Israel. And if he’s got a home in Canada, he has no business to think of Israel. Except, shall I say spiritually and financially he could help and morally. But as far as physically, it’s got nothing in common with Israel. You hear me?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I hear you.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I hear you very loud and clear, sir.

 

Caller 2: You hear me?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

[21:43]

 

 

Caller 2: Okay. So it shows you that a man like me that was against Zionist and yet many times debates in Europe against zionism and we.

 

And today I’m 100% backing Israel because every jew that knows after what we went through. Wait a minute. Besides that, I want., … This is not the point. I want the proof, facts, never mind statistics. You, I want to [words unclear] from the subject. The compensation that the Germans give these murderers that murdered 6 million jews. I don’t mean the German people, the German rulers. I don’t accuse the German people. I accuse the German ruler.s These German rulers and that killed the people. They paid their [word unclear]. They took away 10 times, 10 times 100 times as much as they give. And what they give, they give you one cent of their own. That was American taxpayers money. Because Eisenhower and the rest of the American people, I mean that’s the American rulers, not the people, wanted to whitewash their crime and to give them asylum and those that will run away from there and to give them as anti-[word unclear] against whatever political views they have. And they wanted to keep them in line to whitewash their faces. Because you cannot whitewash a criminal! Every criminal is a criminal!

 

Ernst Zundel: What crimes did Eisenhower commit against jews?

 

Caller 2: When he said “let bygones be bygones”. When he’s seen himself what happened in Belsenberg, he see with his own eyes the way the jews, … The English bulldozers were cleaned away to their grave because they couldn’t come near to them. They had to use bulldozers. And he had the nerve, the audacity to say that bygones be bygones after what he’s seen. That no human being can finish him like that, what he’s seen.

 

Ernst Zundel: And for that statement he paid $4 billion American dollars. Right?

 

Caller 1: And not him alone! The only paying behind them, the rulers, not the American people. The American people, the taxpayers pay. But he forced them to pay $4 billion to build out the Germany. Isn’t it seen that Germany has to lend money now to Canada. And she was defeated by us.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman, who was the gang behind Eisenhower?

 

Caller 2: What was the gang?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: All these Republican wheelers and dealers. All these Republican wheelers and dealers. And the same time applies not only the American wheelers and dealers. Applies to the Canadian wheelers and dealers. Applies to the English wheelers and dealers. I’m not speaking of people, the people are innocent. The jews, the Arabs are innocent. The English are innocent. The Americans are innocent. They are suckers!

 

Ernst Zundel: Are the German innocent?

 

Caller 2: The Germans are innocent to a certain extent. But one thing I say the Germans never express themselves to the, at least not all them are guilty. How shall I say morally they are guilty, but not physically. Because not everyone participates in the murder of the jews. It’s stupid to say that! But at least they should have collective shame. They didn’t even express collective shame. I didn’t see a German yet to bow his head and say:

 

“We are sorry what happened to the jews!”

 

They still stick to their own.

 

[24:54]

 

 

Host: Gentlemen, we’re a couple of minutes late with the 2 o’clock news and we have to break for it now.

 

Caller 2: Hey, anyway, listen. Don’t allow this poison to be spread. Let him go and hang himself like Ribbentrop!

 

Host: Well, sir, you’ve been on for some time and you still haven’t given us an example of poison.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Roberts.

 

Host: Well, [chuckling] he hung up on us again. Since the program as of next Monday starts running around 9:00. Complete idiot or something. I fail to see why I am being accused of being anti-Israeli. The caller on the line right now has stated a time or two that he is not anti-Israeli.

 

Ernst Zundel: Not at all Mr. Bell. I have no reason for anti-Israeli. Like in every other subject you must look at all sides in as unemotionally as possible. Now I know Mr. Lipman, I have heard of him. I also have read. I read all the jewish papers. I know what they are saying. I understand that they are very much involved. And I deplore the bloodshed in Israel. I deplore the terrorist raids against Israel. That’s why I suggested a very humble suggestion. I have stressed that and stressed it again. Possibly this might prove a way out. But I’m definitely not anti-Israeli! And everybody that knows me at university and has read my political party program when I was running for the Liberal Party, everybody knows. And I am a card carrying member of the Liberal Party. I am not, as one the first caller suggested, a neo-Nazi, or a Nazi as the second caller suggested. I don’t see where name calling gets us. If I am something. I am a young man that will have to live on this planet for a good long time. I hope 40, 50 years. And so my two sons that they are born in Canada by a Canadian mother.

 

So you see, all I am saying is I don’t want the world to blow up. So as a young man, a student at University of Political Science, I’m saying, have I maybe got an original thought? Is that a crime? I don’t want to offend anybody or hurt anybody. I’m just making this as a I hope a legitimate suggestion. Now if some of my figures are wrong, then I am sorry. I will certainly call these people back and I will certainly tomorrow call the Israeli consulate and find out what they have to say.

 

Host: Right, good. I’m glad you committed yourself to that.

 

Ernst Zundel: I definitely will do that.

 

Host: Fine. Would you say standby please and on CKGM. Good morning, sir.

 

Caller 3: [words unclear] I’ll hang up.

 

Host: Pardon?

 

Caller 3: [word unclear]

 

Host: Yeah, go right ahead, sir.

 

Caller 3: An upline show. I’m not by CKGS, the forum of healthy controversy and exchange of opinion.

 

Host: That’s true.

 

Caller 3: Yes. About two hours ago I opened the radio. I listened to some enormous deliberate distortions of facts! So that I was unable to go to sleep.

 

Actually I should have been in bed now because I had moved [word unclear] very early in the morning. But I couldn’t go to sleep. It’s a person whom I heard already a few times. In fact a few weeks ago he called Mr. David Bassett. As I answered later. He started to throw in figures like $14 billion. And he said that the figures were supplied by the German consulate.

 

Of course this is a lie! And after Geobbel’s said:

 

“Repeat a lie a thousand times and people will believe it!”

 

It’s such a big lie! I don’t know because he doesn’t seem ignorant because I don’t know if he realizes what $14 billion means. Here I have the figures in the latest. The New Middle East issue of December. It’s a monthly issue. A monthly paper issued in London. And they give the figures between. It’s a study about Israeli economy and they give the capital in different tables. And one table I see capital import sby major [word unclear]. From 1950 to 1967, 17 years German personal institutions $1, 190,000. German reparation. It just means to the government.

 

Host: I assume you mean 1,019,000,000.

 

Caller 3:1, 190,000,000. Yes.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 3: German reparation means to the government, [word unclear] which gives a total of over $1, 900,000,000, from 1950 to 1967. This is one fact. And this gentleman started to come with a figure like 15 billion.

 

And then he changed. He said maybe 7 billion. And then I don’t know.

 

[30:27]

 

 

Caller 4: (female) [garbled voice] What happened to the jews. It doesn’t matter whether it’s jews. Any nationality. It’s hard. It’s trans to me shaking. And you said you don’t give a damn. Those words are you in my ears. And the doctors and nurses that hurt you and shame on you’re not a nice man. You’re a nervous man. You’re crazy! You’re not just saying the clay. You’re just soft. Good relaxing voice in the middle of the night. People like to hear a nice soft voice so we get.

 

Host: Well, they can listen to Red Gail, ma’am. He’s got a nice soft voice.

 

Caller 4: [garbled] They told me that you’re cold one day. Yes. You want to even send a meter down for you’re a nervous. Look, you’re not for this job. Get out the way and give the job to Mr. Lagock or Mr. McCray or all these nice boys who have a little bit of heart and knowledge of everything. You are cruel, man! Very cruel. And you did say that you don’t give a damn what happened to those poor people in the ovens. And you know it! You and your passions are. You have any. And goodbye. Okay.

 

Host: So I can’t know who she is. Not only do I know who she is, I know she’s been here longer. Because when we taped the call yesterday, and when we taped the threats she’s made against my life, it was compared with another tape when I was not even here.

 

But she also threatened Hank [word unclear] ’s life. And we have a tape of that also.

 

So I suggest to the ladies and if you want me to prove who you are, call back. I’ll tell you off the air who you are because we. There’s a lot of people who know you and have been calling us off the air, suggesting that no matter what you say, you’re not dangerous. But let me put it this way. If there’s another threat of the nature that you have made through Hank and to make myself, I’ll do everything in my power to have you committed.

 

Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Hello, Mr. Bell?

 

Host: Yeah. Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Hello.

 

Host: Yes, Right. Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Is that Nightline?

 

Host: It is.

 

Caller 5: Is that you, Robert Bell?

 

Host: Yes, it is.

 

Caller 5: Okay. I’d like to know what the hell the conflict about anti-semitism was.

 

Host: Well, it’s all starting. Started with the, …

 

Caller 5: Let me make myself a little clearer. I am the Anno Automata for sale.

 

Host: Oh, yeah, yeah.

 

Caller 5: Now, I listen to the two babes yelling at each other and you played a kind of neutral role. Now, where do you stand?

 

Host: Where do I stand at? One was attacking me, one was defending me. I guess I stand with the one who defends me. [chuckling]

 

Caller 5: I’m not interested in whether they attacked or defended. But did anybody have some right to say what they said?

 

Host: No.

 

Caller 5: Come on, you can do a little better than that!

 

Host: Well, you asked if they had a right to say what they said. They have a right to say what they want. Of course. Assume you mean say, …

 

Caller 5: I mean, did they reflect something you’ve done in the last couple of days or said in the last couple of days, pro-or anti?

 

Host: No. What was referred to? I answered the charge. The charge was that I said I did not give a damn. What I said was during the course of a hysterical conversation where the lady was screaming and hollering at me.

 

Caller 5: Keep the conversation out of it. But what is your feeling?

 

Host: My feeling about what, sir?

 

Caller 5: I think the charge was anti-semitism and pro-semitism or what?

 

Host: That’s right. Yes. Huh. Do you know what anti-semitism indicates?

 

Caller 5: All right, you tell me. What does it indicate?

 

[34:15]

 

 

Host: Well, for one thing, a Semite is descended from Shem. So this. This includes Arabs and Israelis.

 

Caller 5: Yeah, they were blood tests, as I recall.

 

Host: That’s right. They’re all Semites.

 

Caller 5: Right.

 

Host: Now, in the context that most people use it, which is incorrect, anti-semitism denotes anti-jewishness.

 

Caller 5: Well, yeah, but it’s sort of in a practical sense that you can accuse [word unclear] ’s at pragmatic. It sort of is the way it works. Right.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: Okay. Now let’s go back to what I listened to. These two broads, two young ladies that were talking to you. I couldn’t figure out what the hell is happening because I tuned in a little late and I haven’t listened to program for the last couple of days.

 

Host: Well, one called me a Hitler and one said I wasn’t.

 

Caller 5: Well, what the hell is the real score?

 

Host: Well, we’ve been dealing with the Middle East situation.

 

Caller 5: Right. And?

 

Host: And there are Arabs who say I am anti-Arab, and there are Arabs who say I am pro-Arab. There are jews who say I’m anti-Israeli, and there are jews who say I am pro-Israeli.

 

Caller 5: I don’t give a damn what you are! I’d rather you told me what you are!

 

Host: Well, [chuckling] if you don’t give a damn what I am, that doesn’t follow. Are you trying to ascertain with whom my sympathies lie in the Middle East dispute?

 

Caller 5: No, no, the point isn’t. I’ll correct myself. I didn’t mean to say. I don’t give a damn what you are. What I really meant to say was I want you to tell me what you think.

 

Host: I think, you’re talking about the Middle East situation?

 

Caller 5: That’s what you told me you were talking about.

 

Host: Right now there is a state, a Republic called Israel, in that area.

 

Caller 5: Was established in 1948.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: By the United Nations.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: And I’m sorry, go ahead.

 

Host: Anyway, the state is in existence. The Arab world does not recognize the existence of this state.

 

Caller 5: Well, they don’t do it. Well, they sort of recognize it, but they don’t recognize it from a political point of view.

 

Host: Right. My position is it is there. To me it exists. I recognize it. There will never be a relaxing of the state of hostility until the Arab world accepts the existence. There are many reasons why they do not accept the existence.

 

Caller 5: I follow you. Go ahead.

 

[36:47]

 

 

Host: Now in allowing Arabs to come on the line or anyone to come on the line and explain the other position, I opened myself to being charged with being anti-Israeli. The term has been anti-semitism and second Hitler and so on and so forth.

 

Caller 5: Wow! Second Hitler. You have a mustache.

 

Host: No, I don’t.

 

Caller 5: Okay. [chuckling] And you’re not a second Hitler. No. But have you made any pronouncements that have made these broads talk the way they do?

 

Host: No. Except in a private conversation with the hysterical one.

 

Caller 5: You shouldn’t have had a private, …

 

Host: I know I shouldn’t have!

 

Caller 5: This is the first place., …

 

Host: And I rarely break that rule! I rarely talk to anybody except on the air. And whenever I do, I’ve done it twice. [chuckling] It’s bad news.

 

But anyway, I did, fortunately, because of the equipment here. Taken the precaution of taping, you know,. So and also I taped her threats against my life and so on so forth.

 

Caller 5: [word unclear] this provocative conversation that set me up to this hour. My wife is listening here we have seen it.

 

[buzzer sounds]

 

Mr. Bell?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: When and if I hear you saying something wrong, I’ll get on and be even more malicious than these young ladies can be. Will you tell them to control their emotions and bring a little bit of rationalization or rationale to their conversation? I’m the guy who told you a couple of weeks ago that you are too patient with some of these idiots. Remember the day, …

 

Host: I don’t remember the conversation, but I do remember, …

 

Caller 5: I remember listening about five minutes later and some drunken old gal got on and she said:

 

“Well that pseudo intellectual comes on and tells us to be rational.”

 

 

Remember that?

 

Host: Yeah, vaguely.

 

Caller 5: Okay, that’s where I remember. No, but kidding aside, I’d like to hear your position on it. If there is a position or if you have a position and you’re going to be attacked no matter what your position.

 

Host: True, I’m in the position, the historical position of the jews who I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t but I have stated that I am basically., … Pardon?

 

Caller 5: I said being a jew, I know what the name of the game is.

 

Host: Ah.

 

Caller 5: Go ahead.

 

Host: Anyway, I have said that, as with most of the Western world, my sympathies are with the jews in this matter. In other words, I would be more, …

 

[39:24]

 

 

Caller 5: I’m not even sure I am a Democrat sympathetic to the jews. I think the Arabs have got a you know, they got a lot of problems. And I’m being facetious at the moment. But not completely because I think there are a lot of poor people, poor uneducated people that could benefit by what Israel could contribute to the Middle East. Not looking at something, not looking at it from a Westerner point of view, but just looking at it from the point of view of what fits to the Middle East. I think that the jews that have come there, who are mostly Europeans, highly educated, highly sophisticated, you know, technologically skillful, they could, you know, remake the goddamn Arab world and they’re ready to do it! I don’t mean every one of them. I’m not talking about orthodox religion, I’m talking about the people who would do it!

 

And I think that that the whole damn Middle East has become a boiling pot for western both politics and Soviet, US deal and they’ve lost sight. And guys like Nasser and maybe some of the jewish leaders too, have lost sight of the fact that if they want to make something good for their people, which is presumably what we’re all born to do, they’ve got to stop playing games, stop worrying about whether Mr. [word unclear] is an anti-semite because I don’t give a damn if he is, but if you are, don’t walk across the street with me at the same time, [host chuckled] stop giggling! I think if they., …

 

Host: That was a chuckle, sir.

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: That was a chuckle.

 

Caller 5: I don’t know. You might have burped. I think the point is that if we really care about the Middle East for the Middle East sake, then we ought to tell the Arabs, and I think the jews have been trying to do that they don’t always do it very carefully. But then again, the gentile world hasn’t done it very gently all the time either.

 

If you want to cooperate. Cooperate. You want to be a bunch of silly [buzzer]. You know, just. Did I hear any deep beats?

 

Host: I don’t know what he’s doing in there.

 

Caller 5: Something to either.

 

Host: I think he may be softening your conversation a bit. It’s a little colorful.

 

Caller 5: Who’s the he?

 

Host: Pardon?

 

Caller 5: I said who’s the he?

 

Host: My engineer.

 

Caller 5: I thought it was a censor. No, I think if you want to tell him, keep on with your own idiocy and keep up this nonsense in this part of the world, fine. I think the jews by any right have a right to Israel. And it’s debatable, but they are there and they’re a force for good so long as the Arab world wants to accept them. The Arab world wants to [word unclear] you on any kind of silly nonsense like filthy punk termite Carmichael that Canadians don’t own Canada because the Eskimos was here first and we are in a democracy because the Indians owned it first. Then you can listen to these guys and they’re right up to a point, and they’re seeing a certain amount of social injustice. But deep down, Israel the jews, have a right to that land on any international basis. And they proved it by virtue of their skill. And they could make the Arab lands richer, healthier.

 

Now their emotionalism is going to say:

 

“We don’t want the jews, we want our land back. We want to go back to the 17th century.”

 

Then, okay, they have a right to do that they have a right to do as Arabs, as Nasser did in 1968, 67, remember?

 

Host: Yes.

 

[44:07]

 

 

Caller 5: He said on Sunday:

 

“We’ll throw them into the ocean!”

 

The jew said:

 

“Look, if we’re going to be thrown into the ocean, like Mr, we’re not going to let you do that. We’re going to do the best we can to stop you.”

 

So then the rest of the world said:

 

“The jews were the aggressors.”

 

Because they sort of stopped the guy that would throw them into the ocean from throwing them to the ocean. Mr Bell, do you have anything to contribute?

 

Host: No. You’re saying, in effect what has been said over the past few days. And I have said over and over again, you know, there are three sides to the story. There’s the Arab side, there’s the Israeli side, and then there’s the truth! Because the Israelis are blinded on one side, the Arabs are blinded on one side. And you cannot be objective over an issue like this. It’s impossible! This is why it is fairly obvious that, at least it should be fairly obvious that I am. You know, if I have to be one or the other. I’m basically pro-Israeli. However, …

 

Caller 5: … Myself., … Problem.

 

Host: No, but that’s just my personal feeling.

 

Caller 5: But I gotta wait and that’s my problem. Now you go ahead.

 

Host: Yeah. Now, I think it cannot be objective. That does not preclude your being fair. And that is what I try to do, functioning on this program. I try to be fair.

 

In other words, there are these sides to be heard. And of course, because it’s an emotional issue and you cannot be objective about it. And I don’t expect anyone to be objective about it, I open for myself to incredible criticizm and threats against my life and so on and so forth.

 

Caller 5: Why don’t you expect anybody to be objective about it?

 

Host: I don’t see how it’s possible.

 

Caller 5: Why?

 

Host: Because it is such a highly charged emotional issue.

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: Because it is such a highly charged emotional issue on both sides.

 

Caller 5: [buzzer sounds] Highly emotional? The French-Canadian separatism problem, the problem of the atom bomb, the problem of communism, of separatism, of everything. These are all highly emotional issues! No, I think you’re right. Most people are not capable of being objective. Including me and maybe you. I’m not including you because that’s your prerogative. But I don’t think it’s valid. Can’t be reasonably objective.

 

Host: Right. When I say, you know, ideally, objectivism or to be objective, it would be an ideal way to deal with it. But because it is unlikely, I say that there is no reason why you shouldn’t be fair.

 

Caller 5: Fair?

 

Host: I’m using that in place of the objectivity that you could use in reacting to another issue. In this particular type of issue, as I say, objectivity is unlikely. Are you open to taking a call, sir?

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: Are you open to taking a call?

 

Caller 5: I’ll take any calls at all!

 

Host: Go right ahead.

 

Caller 1: (female) Good evening.

 

Host: Good evening.

 

Caller 1: May I please speak to the gentleman who’s on with you now?

 

Host: Yes, go ahead.

 

Caller 1: Listen, Mr, I don’t know your name, but anyway, Mr Bell hasn’t been leveling with you at all!

 

Caller 5: Hello here. Would you talk a little louder?

 

Caller 1: Right. Mr. Bell hasn’t been leveling with you at all! Did you hear the night line last night? From 12 o’clock till 5 o’clock this morning?

 

Caller 5: Oh, dear! I Was busy sleeping, I think.

 

Caller 1: Well, let me. And it was obvious to everybody who was listening. It took a few hours, he [words unclear] that this man was upsetting every jewish person in Montreal.

 

Caller 5: Now, baby doll, he wasn’t upsetting me.

 

Caller 1: Well, he wasn’t upsetting you?

 

Caller 5: No, I wasn’t listening to him then.

 

Caller 1: He was upsetting me.

 

Caller 5: Okay, I’m sorry if he upset you. What did he do to you, [word unclear] idiot?

 

Caller 1: This neo-Nazi carried on for five hours!

 

Caller 5: What did he say?

 

Caller 1: He spoke all sorts of nonsense! We had very articulate jewish people on the line. We had very hysterical people on the line, people who had lost all their relations.

 

Caller 5: Okay, but what did Mr. Bell do?

 

Caller 1: Mr. Bell was absolutely neutral if he had anything to do. He gave the other chap all the time. He gave some people seven minutes. He gave some people a little longer.

 

Caller 5: I hear. Would you hold on for a minute? Okay. Mr Bell?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: You there?

 

Host: I am.

 

Caller 5: Did you do that?

 

Host: No, I did not. The gentleman was on the line, but in terms of time, my time and his time put together did not anywhere near equal the time in opposition, which, in effect was the jewish side.

 

Caller 1: He kept the man on five hours!

 

Host: Madam, I’m sorry. The jewish callers kept him on.

 

Caller 1: Mr Bell there were two callers. You gave them seven minutes, even then if they came back. I tried to get the line for five solid hours!

 

Host: Right. Now. When you add up all what we’ll call the jewish time and put it, let’s say, against the caller and my time and the news, you’ll find that the jewish callers had proportionately more time.

 

Now, I did not keep him on. The callers kept him on.

 

Caller 1: He kept me on the air for five hours with my position and [word unclear] beat the Arab people, I have no issue with Arabs coming on the line and explaining their side.

 

[49:52]

 

 

Host: Madam, when you called up, you want to talk to this gentleman, and I said:

 

“That’s fine.”

 

Now, if somebody calls up and wants to talk to you, that’s fine, too. You can hang on if you don’t object to taking their calls.

 

Caller 1: But I wanted to tell this gentleman that you were not telling him what went on last night, keeping him [words unclear] natural offender.

 

Caller 5: Dear, you listen to me for a minute. I didn’t listen to the conversation last night.

 

Caller 1: But I’m telling you I’m not, …

 

Caller 5: Hey, dear, I heard you and I got the message. Bell must be a rotten. Mr. Bell, you listening?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: Well, you must be kind of some kind of pervert! But he also is a very confident man that’s handling this kind of job. Are you listening, dear?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Maybe from time to time, this kind of job is a battle. So don’t attack him until he tells you he’s an anti-semite.

 

[sound cut out]

 

Host: I mention to you that we are undergoing some technical difficulties. I have three engineers and they’re working on it. So you will be cutting out from time to time? Possibly. It’s unfortunate, but that’s where it has to be for the moment.

 

Caller 1: Is that Mr. Bell speaking?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: (female) I am the third party, Mr. Bell, and I would appreciate very much. Even if it’s off the air, I would appreciate to speak to that gentleman and, …

 

Caller 5: And Just a minute, dear.

 

Caller 2: Is it possible?

 

Host: Well, you’re talking to him now, ma’am.

 

Caller 2: Thank you.

 

Caller 5: Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yes, sir.

 

Caller 5: Okay. I’m Hope, Chief Charity. And I said you’re Faith, …

 

Caller 2: Sir.

 

Host: So we have Faith, Hope and Charity on the line.

 

Caller 2: I am a human being. This is what happened. I appreciate the fact that you got, …

 

Caller 5: I wasn’t there and I didn’t look there, …

 

Caller 2: I appreciate the fact that you got out. The fate of the whole situation. I am not going to, … You know what that means?

 

Caller 5: I don’t speak that language. But go ahead, dear.

 

Caller 2: Oh, yes you do.

 

Caller 1: And I know what you mean.

 

Caller 2: You do?

 

Caller 1: Yes, I do.

 

Caller 2: Well, listen, the woman pulled up, …

 

Caller 5: How many women? Mr Bell.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: How many women, …

 

Host: Sir, you’re cutting out. Would you mind repeating what you said?

 

[52:32]

 

 

Caller 2: Hey, I said I appreciate the fact that the judgment got [word unclear] It saved the whole situation because that’s what we need, more brilliant people on the line, not just trusted on. If he’s such a hardened nurse, why listen to the stomach sickness in these days. Why isn’t she nursing? That’s the nurse I’m speaking of now, the gentleman was saying that the two women were young. I am in [word unclear] for the last two weeks, sir. And I heard everything. I heard the Sterling fellow and everybody. And I couldn’t cope with the way that both of the women were attacking Mr. Bell And I faced him. I came to his rescue. I don’t know if he cares to. There was such excitement. Well, why can’t Mr. Bell defend himself? He’s quite capable of defending himself. Oh, are you the lady? I’m the lady. Are you still the you call yourself a lady too? I’m not yelling at. I came on to speak to the gentlemen, and to Mr. Bell. I want to have a full weight.

 

Caller 1: [words unclear]

 

Caller 2: You’re not saying anything else, but the same thing all over again.

 

Caller 1: Please believe me. You didn’t believe me that I am jewish. I want to tell you I had more friends than you will ever have and I never had any misunderstanding with any one of them.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell, I came on. And you called me an anti-semite.

 

Host: All right, well, just moment. Let’s take space for a second. Go ahead.

 

Caller 5: Faith, faithful and charity.

 

Caller 2: Mr Bell, I came onto the air.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: To the gentleman, may I have my chance? May this lady please come on later.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, I’ll wait.

 

Caller 2: Well, I’ll be the judge of that, ma’am. Just stand by you have been designated Faith, hope and charity. Madam, you are Faith. Go ahead.

 

Caller 2: Now, Mr. Bell, if you knew that you were a upsetting so many people last night for five hours, why didn’t you cut this man? Why didn’t you stop the whole thing?

 

Host: Because upsetting one is no basis for cutting anyone off the air. We’ve had other discussions. I won’t even mention what they are, but they have upset people too.

 

Now, no matter what you talk about, if you’re dealing with an emotional issue, you’re going to upset people. And that just narrows what we, … I don’t want to get into budgie birds and puppies dogs and, …

 

Caller 2: Neither do I Mr Bell. But the whole point is this, that you knew quite well that the jewish people of this city whose relations are in Israel who are going to part of the war are in a panic anyway. You don’t need neo-Nazis to put us into a bigger panic!

 

[55:20]

 

 

Host: Well, you see, you’re accusing someone of being a neo-Nazi. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. It is not my opinion and I am running the show.

 

Caller 2: Hey, but what about all the dozens of others or [words unclear] and accuse him of being a neo-Nazi too?

 

Host: Well, what about the dozens and dozens of calls that came in not accusing of being a neo-Nazi?

 

Caller 2: Because you really compare the intelligence of the few people who called you up to compliment you and say:

 

“Oh, Mr Bell, we enjoy your show. Carry on. You do the good work.”

 

To these people who came on this articulate woman last night, who gave you the position of Israel to the man who comes on pretty often. Do you know that this particular Nazi, and we probably do know by now, does not get onto Mr. Burns, sir, Mr. Burns says:

 

“I smell this Nazi and he never gets onto that show!”

 

So if Mr. Burns thinks he’s a Nazi, surely you appreciate Mr Burns intelligence? I mean, really, Mr. Bell, there’s something so sadistic about you and this man and this, …

 

Caller 5: Hey, doll, can I interrupt?

 

Host: Yes, sir, go right ahead, Hope.

 

Caller 5: Dear, I haven’t heard a thing and I didn’t listen to the program last night, but I haven’t heard of a thing that Mr. Bell did last night. I was wrong to start [word unclear] some character talk. Did he do anything other than that?

 

Caller 2: Do you want me to answer?

 

Caller 5: Yes, you’re the one that’s caught me.

 

Caller 2: He upset people to such an extent, …

 

Caller 5: No, no, I’m asking you a question here.

 

Caller 2: Yes. This is one of the suggestions he made, that the Israelis should pay the refugees reparation.

 

Caller 5: I think it’s a pretty goddamn [buzzer sounds] I’m all of the, … Go ahead.

 

Caller 2: Would you like the 6 million jews plus the 28 million, 24 million other people to come out and also have to pay the reparation? How do you pay for these human lives?

 

Caller 5: Well, I don’t know how you pay for human lives. And you’re right.

 

Caller 2: And don’t you., …

 

Caller 5: Mr Bell.

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Just a minute.

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Mr. Bell ought to participate.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell does not participate!

 

Caller 5: Now, baby doll, quiet down. Quiet down, …

 

Caller 2: I’m not your baby doll.

 

Caller 5: Well, if you’re not my baby doll. You’re somebody else’s.

 

Caller 2: That’s for sure.

 

Caller 5: Okay, fine. Sure. You got to be somebody’s baby doll. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yes, sir.

 

Caller 5: Come on! You, sir, participate.

 

Host: All right. In terms of evaluating the lives lost and the caller was on earlier referred to it as a grisly subject, which it is.

 

Caller 2: [buzzer sounds]

 

Host: On one side with his lawyers and a jewish leader on the other side with his lawyers arrived at a settlement. Let’s say. That was a figure was arrived.

 

Caller 5: In relation to what?

 

Host: In relation to the lives lost in Germany.

 

Caller 5: Okay, all right, now I got the message. Go ahead.

 

Host: Well, this term, rather this figure was based on, as the caller mentioned, the fact that a father is responsible for the upbringing of children up to the age of 21. So then the state took over at that point. In terms of other members of the family logic. It was arrived at in similar logic, let’s say a lawyer’s logic, I guess, for lack of a better term.

 

 

Caller 5: Yeah, I got the message. Go ahead.

 

Host: Well, that is all that I’m saying on that point.

 

Caller 5: What the hell is this broad [word unclear] you up?

 

Host: It’s upsetting the jewish population of Montreal.

 

Caller 2: Well, why is it upsetting the jewish population? They know that’s [word unclear] for no reason.

 

Caller 5: You’re not a baby doll. I know. Okay.

 

Caller 2: Isn’t that awful?

 

Caller 5: No. Okay. It’s not awful!

 

Caller 2: Now, what sort of a remark is that from that woman? Isn’t that awful?

 

Host: Well, let’s listen to the [word unclear] charity. Go ahead. Charity.

 

Caller 2: I mean, this is ridiculous! Wouldn’t like to get on three, four times a day.

 

Host: Okay, now Charity is on the line. Go ahead, Charity.

 

Caller 2: There’s a point of this that it’s a well known fact, or it should be to Mr. Bell.

 

Host: One moment. You’re Faith, you’re Faith.

 

Caller 5: I’m sorry. [word unclear] responsibility. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: One moment, sir. One moment, sir.

 

Caller 4: You know you’ll never change that woman’s mind. She sticks to the same story. I shall tell tomorrow to every one.

 

Caller 2: And I discuss this with Mr. Bell. I don’t want that woman on the earth. I have nothing to do.

 

Caller 4: I can say the same things for you, my dear.

 

Caller 2: But I didn’t call up to talk to you, madam.

 

Caller 4: I didn’t talk to you.

 

Caller 2: I mean, you’re just a false spoke to the wheel.

 

Ernst Zundel: I would like my listeners to realize that all three individuals arguing with one another so vehemently are jews. Faith, Hope and Charity. All three are jews! The debate raged on. Much material was brought out and I would like you to have the opportunity to inform yourself further to these issues. You can obtain material book list from us from Zamistad, 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Postal code M5A 2L1. Telephone number 416-922-9850. [No longer valid]

 

[01:01:18]

 

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

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

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

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

Monika Schaefer: All right. Good evening. Greetings far and wide. You are listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network. It is Saturday, the 22nd day of March, 2025. And this is episode 36 of The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer. Welcome to the show today.

 

So I would just like to send a shout out to last week’s program. Last week’s show we had a twofer, you could say a doubleheader with Blackbird 9 on his famous Saturday Snack Shack show preceding mine. And we did the two hours together with my brother Alfred. And you can find those shows in the archives. And yeah, we had a good time with that. And I would just like to remind the listener that this is a listener supported network and we just would like it if we could keep this network on the air. So if you can, please do consider supporting the network.

 

And if you are already a supporter, thank you so very much for supporting the network. And I’ll just give you the numbers. You can go to the website, of course, at RepublicBroadcasting.org, you can find all the information there. Various ways to either send cash or check in the mail. The address is there and here are the numbers that you could call, 512-246-9549, or toll free number 1-800-724-2719. Okay, now I have return. Okay, great, thank you.

 

So after the bottom of the hour, I will give out the numbers for if you would like to call in and join us in our conversation. I have a return guest today. His name is Jurgen Neumann and he came on in episode 15 and 18. If after you’ve listened to this one and you think, gee, I want to listen to the archives of the previous two shows, you can find them from last fall, episodes 15 and 18.

 

So his name is Jurgen Neumann and he was, I guess you could say, the right-hand man for Ernst Zundel or Ernst Zindl, if you pronounce it in German, for several decades. And Ernst Zundel [24 April 1939-5 August, 20017] is no longer with us. He died a few years ago, may he rest in peace. But I consider him to be an absolute giant in terms of having been a man who helped us along tremendously in our quest for truth about what actually happened during World War II. And the narrative about World War II, at least for my generation, and I would say for all of us, is probably the most distorted and lied about event in history. Everything was turned on its head and was really backwards.

 

I mean, the things I grew up with learning in school and through (((Hollywood))) and through the mainstream media is completely upside down and reversed from what actually happened. And Ernst Zundel did much to reveal that to the world.

 

And of course, for his efforts, he was persecuted, prosecuted, jailed, all those usual things. A great man who had so much to offer to the world. So in our first episode, we talked a little bit about his own awakening. Ernst Zundel, he didn’t know the truth about World War II until he was a grown man. He was born in 1939, so he was a war baby. He’s from Germany. He came to Canada as a young man. I think he was 18 or so.

 

And so, yeah, in episode one [15], we went through that, talking about his awakening and then some of the trials and tribulations. In our second episode [18] that we had last November, we continued with that. We talked about the Leuchter Report or Fred Leuchter who went to Auschwitz and did some actual investigation of the physical place there, and then his various trials and things that happen. So we really went into quite a lot of detail with that.

 

So today we would like to expand on some of the, I guess you could say, the epic work that Ernst Zundel did because there was so much that he did through the years.

 

So, first of all, greeting Jurgen Neumann. Are you there? Frank, did you say that you were able to pull him up?

 

Okay, so I guess I’ll just carry on until you do get him back on there.

 

So I’ll just tell you a little story. I pulled up a video from one of Jurgen’s online platforms. Not sure if it was on his Bitchute or Odysee channel. And it just randomly pulled up a video of Ernst Zundel addressing a crowd of people back in, I think it was in the early 1990s, I’m not sure. And I couldn’t find it just now to refresh my memory. But something really struck me, and it was quite amusing. In the first few minutes when he was greeting the large crowd in the room, and it was packed, I don’t know, maybe 50 people or so. he told the audience that a jew that he had been talking to before this talk, and I think he was talking mainly about Adolf Hitler in this talk, and the audience was mostly young people. And Ernst Zundel addressed that point and was so delighted that there were so many young people in the audience, because he says:

 

“Usually I’m speaking to a lot of gray hairs!”

 

So there were a lot of young people there. They were very interested to hearing Ernst Zundel talk. And then he told about what the jew had said. He said:

 

“Oh, you could do that, talk in a telephone booth.”

 

And Ernst says:

 

“Well, this is a mighty big telephone booth!”

 

And everybody, of course, roared with laughter.

 

Now, some of the young listeners to this show might not even get the reference to the telephone booth because we don’t see too many telephone booths out there in public anymore. [chuckling] But you might know from old movies and such, that was a pretty small thing that was on many street corners back in the day before everybody had a phone in their hand or in their pocket, you see. So yeah. Do you have our guest on the line yet? No! Maybe. Okay, no problem.

 

[08:17]

 

So what we’re going to address today is radio, I think it was all by radio, perhaps Jurgen will correct me, it might have been with video as well, but it was called “Another Voice of Freedom” that Ernst Zundel did, these radio shows or these programs. And I think he carried that on for a number of years.

 

Oh, wonderful! Jurgen, are you there?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, I am. After going through a jungle of static and all kinds of other stuff, looks like we’re clear and full speed ahead!

 

Monika Schaefer: We are good to go. So perfect timing. I just gave a little bit of an introduction, talked about our previous shows that we did, and then I told the little story about the phone booth that Ernst Zundel, you know, was told by this fellow that. Yes, so I told that story already. And then I just started talking about the fact that he did many programs on something called A Voice of Freedom. And I wasn’t even sure if that was just radio or if it was with visual as well. I’ll pass it over to you to tell us a little bit about that and maybe how many years he did that for this show called, Another Voice of Freedom.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, we got into that when we got enough support to be able to get some reasonable consumer video equipment and audio equipment in order to make material that could be broadcast. And we started off with video TV broadcasting. Chose, Another Voice of Freedom as the title, and we started it in June 1993. So we decided to get our outreach out there, better than it was.

 

And so this is before the Internet was a big thing, and we certainly weren’t conversant with the Internet at all at that time. So therefore, we’re doing the best we can. And this was satellite broadcasting. Down in the US they have companies that will broadcast for you up on satellites. There’s old satellites that are floating around in space that no longer fit the needs of the people who originally put them up there and now they put up new ones. But the old ones are still kind of useful. So they sell these companies time on the satellites that are still useful at a cut rate.

 

And then we send them our material and then they will broadcast it on a given time. Usually it was on a Sunday evening. So that of course, once we started that first thing we do, Ernst did, was send copies of the programs to the media.

 

And of course they just, they were very excited about that one. So we got lots of interviews about that and newscasts about that they even showed clips of the videos that we sent them. And so it was quite a job. Eventually we ended up, I think we were broadcasting about 275 programs.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: A lot of work over a number of years. And of course our opposition, they got very upset. And within the first six months, [chuckling] I think they went to the broadcaster that we had at the time and they said, this is the way I understand it, right? The broadcasting facility of that company was burned to the ground! So consensus was it was probably because of Ernst. They contacted the broadcasting company and they said:

 

“Look, we don’t like this here. We want you to, basically to censor him. You shouldn’t be putting that on there. It’s hateful. It’s this, it’s that.”

 

And their reply was:

 

“Well, we don’t censor things. This is the United States. We have freedom of speech here. But tell you what, we will make a deal with you. If you like, you can make counter programs against him. And we will play it before his program or after his program or before and after his program. But we’re not going to censor.”

 

So therefore that’s probably why it had something to do with burning the place to the ground.

 

After that, anyway, we got another one and that worked out quite well. And then we also started doing radio programs as well at the same time. Our TV video broadcasts were like once a week, but the radio programs were like every day.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: So he had two programs. One was on an AM station and one was on an FM station right in the heartland of the U.S. It was quite a large reach.

 

And yeah, we were pouring out the material. I was the, of course, editor for the video parts of it, stuff. And we had another supporter who did all the audio stuff.

 

So yeah, we were going concerned for a long time, that’s for sure! I think we had for five or six hundred radio shows, I think. All this is like all half hour stuff, right. Et cetera. So yeah, it was really interesting. They were all wound up about that, needless to say.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, I’m sure they were! [chuckling]

 

Jürgen Neumann: And at about that time we had a lot of supporters down in the US and they have a thing down there called Public Access TV stations that they are required by law to have to allow local people to make content and broadcast content on their cable networks.

 

So a lot of them would contact us and request our shows. So we would mail them to them and they would broadcast them in their local communities. But it wasn’t all the same.

 

[15:05]

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, it wasn’t all the same. Go ahead. Sorry.

 

Jürgen Neumann: No, I mean like we were making half hour programs, right. But some of the public access stations, they didn’t broadcast half hour, they broadcast one hour. So there we had to re-edit stuff and maybe make something new just to fit the one hour slot. And all the formats were kind of different too. Some stations had regular VHS tapes, some used SVHS tapes, some used 3 quarter inch pneumatic tape.

 

So we had to get into all these different formats so we could fill the orders and they could broadcast all our material down there. So that was also a going concern. And they really got upset about that one too!

 

Monika Schaefer: You must have been working hard, Jurgen, because I understand that you were basically the guy who was really the tech guy and Ernst, you know, he was busy with the actual talking and that kind of thing. Right? I mean, you must have been really learning and working hard because this would have been a lot of new stuff for you?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, for some, yeah, it was pretty new. We were working an average of probably about 10 hours a day. And there for a while there when we were pumping a lot of material, we actually worked for about almost two weeks straight without a pause, about 12 hours a day.

 

So that was really something else. Certainly was happy when that was over. The big rush! Everybody putting it up. And then one of our supporters down in Canandaigua, New York, he had, they really came down on him a lot of the Holocaust lobby, I’ll call them, Shelley Shapiro and a bunch of these other, basically anti-revisionist jews who went down there and they put pressure on the station to cancel his broadcast and so on and so he was going to have a press conference and so Ernst went down there as part of the press conference and yeah, it was quite the thing.

 

They had police there, they had everything. One guy had a big boombox where he was cranking up some audio thing. I forget what it was offhand, but you know, trying to drown Ernst out from talking to the media and so on. Yeah.

 

So it took a better part of the day and the station actually got Ernst inside and interviewed him about that, what that was all about. That was nice to do that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, of course! And it sounds like Antifa type of activities, doesn’t it? I mean these days that happens a lot with protests and then counter-protesters trying to scream louder or something so that nobody can hear the actual speaker. [chuckling] Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: And if you want to know more about that incident, that’s in one of our another Voice of Freedom programs which you can find on my Bitchute channel. And it’s called. I forget the number of it, but it’s called Public Access and Freedom of Speech.

 

Monika Schaefer: So speaking of that, can people find all these, Another Voice of Freedoms on your Bitchute channel or your Odysee channel? Do you want to just tell people.

 

Jürgen Neumann: The BitChute channel is where the complete collection is on there.

 

It’s JohnRobinson101, all one word.

 

Monika Schaefer: Fantastic!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. So you can go through the whole works if you like. Lots of very good information on there.

 

Monika Schaefer: Indeed! It’s just heady times, I would say doing that. And just to put this into context for the listener, if you have aren’t fresh up on when things happened with Ernst Zundel and all his trials. The trials, the big Holocaust trials in Toronto, those were in 1985 and 1988. So this is after that.

 

[See: Andrew Hitchcock with Monika Schaefer on “Sorry Mom” — TRANSCRIPT]

 

So I think that’s absolutely fantastic that work that you both did! And yeah, so people can go and find those and listen to those and just there’s endless. You know, you can really learn a lot from those programs. You know the other thing that really caught my interest and we touched upon it in our last episode together that you and I did.

 

But then I started to learn a little bit more. And I’d like you to go into more detail about the Congress that Ernst Zundel organized in Germany called the Leuchter Congress. And things happened there [chuckling] made it very interesting. Can you get into that story, please?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. It was by 1991. This is when the actual meeting took place. By that time Ernst has been on the wanted list for Germany, right. He’s a wanted man because of his revisionist activities. So they always after him, but that didn’t stop him. [chuckling] So he flew in somewhere else and then drove him to Germany. And he talked to all these people to organize this Congress.

 

Of course he wasn’t going to be officially part of it because otherwise he’d be arrested. But he was there anyway and helping them along. And it was one of the main organizers was a young man by the name of Ewald Althans [sp].

 

And so they got this whole thing together and they got speakers like all lined up like for revisionism, had people like Fred Leuchter, right, which they named the whole Congress after him. And French revisionist Robert Faurisson, Swedish revisionist Ditlieb Felderer, and of course famous British author David Irving, who hardly needs any kind of introduction or anything.

 

 

And then there’s another gentleman German former judge by the name of Wilhelm Stäglich. He wrote, he was back in the day, he was, I think he was part of an anti-aircraft unit as a young man around in the Auschwitz area.

 

[21:42]

[Image: Wilhelm Stäglich]

So anyway he wrote a book about that. And of course he had been retired at the time. So they took away, I think most of his pension and took away his judge credentials and all that, for that.

 

 

So it was all set up and it was on. It’s going to be in Munich in one of the big museums there. They had a big hall for rent, very big hall, perfect for our purposes. So we get there, everybody, you know, gets to Munich, we’re all set to go and wa laa, the last moment the hall cancels! Needless to say we were a little bit upset about that. Our lawyer, our main lawyer, Jurgen Rieger, he went in there and you know, needless to try to get them to change their mind stuff, but they weren’t having any of that.

 

 

Monika Schaefer: I’ll just jump in here Jurgen, because this is classic, absolutely classic tactic of our opponents! They knew that Congress was taking place. They could have said:

 

“No, you can’t do it here!”

 

They could have done that I’m sure a month ahead or even months ahead. But this is a classic tactic. I’m sure that other people have heard of events or been at events where the same thing happens.

 

I had it happen in Jasper, little town of Jasper where I organized a speaker event. And my downfall or the disadvantage was that I did have time to organize this. And so people knew well in advance. And the last day before this event happened they were going to cancel me. But I kind of managed to actually get the woman who was on the board of this church hall. I talked to her for over an hour and at the end she says:

 

“Monika, you are very persuasive!”

 

But I’m talking about a small town where [chuckling] I had known this woman for decades. You know, so!

 

But there was a big storm. We could not have had it outside at all! But yes, I’ve heard of big events in big places where that happens. But do carry on and tell the story. What happened next?

 

Jürgen Neumann: I mean, yeah, they just try to get you to waste your time and your money.

 

So anyway, so everybody was kind of:

 

“Okay, what are we going to do about this? Everybody’s here, all the people are here, etc.”

 

So it was decided that:

 

“Okay, heck, we’re just going to do it right out on the street in front of the museum!”

 

And of course all the police were there, etc.

 

And so we started off with a car where the speakers would come up and they would open the door and you’d stand up, you know where you get into the car, you stand on that, look over the roof of the car and speak to the crowd. And those who couldn’t speak German. Then Mark Weber from the IHR, California, he was there and he would translate from whatever the speaker was saying in English to German.

 

Monika Schaefer: Institute for Historical Review.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, review.

 

Monika Schaefer: Continue.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, they have their own website, people can check that one out. They’re an excellent group to find all kinds of good solid intellectual information on these subjects. Plus they do a lot of political stuff.

 

Monika Schaefer: IHR.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Actually I think it might be IHR.org, okay, check both.

 

Monika Schaefer: But basically with the abbreviation IHR, not all spelled out is what you’re saying.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, it’s just IHR.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, so people can find that. Okay, carry on.

 

Jürgen Neumann: After be talking for a while, Fred Leuchter got up and he initially wasn’t going to say much because who knows who’s going to get arrested for what. So eventually our lawyer who had been talking with the authorities came up to Leuchter and he said:

 

“Look, just been talking to the judges lawyer, showed him the Leuchter Report and they agreed that it was just a scientific report and we can’t censor scientific reports. So you’re allowed to talk about it.”

 

So he did. The crowd went wild. They were just great! Everybody loved it!

 

And so after a bit of course it was decided that this car is not good enough. So somebody went out quickly and rented a truck, flatbed truck, and they brought that up and so all the speakers and everybody got up on the truck, so it was much better. Everybody could see you and everybody could hear you better. We had a sound system up, better sound system on the truck and so on. So it worked out very well. There was a like back in the day the Leftists in Germany were nasty to the point of being terrorists.

 

But the only Leftists that showed up on that day was about half a dozen of them in a bus, in a regular street bus, who went by holding signs up in the bus.

 

So everybody got a laugh out of that. Obviously they’re not what they used to be.

 

So, yeah, it was a very exciting day and a lot was said and a lot was done. And then something happened. After it was over, we all went to the various beer halls and stuff, restaurants, got together and so Ernst showed up for that. And not long after that, somebody said something to the authorities because the authorities came in and they arrested him. They found him and they arrested him.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh my goodness!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. So they took him away to jail, etc. So that was kind of not the best of all things. [chuckling]

 

[27:54]

 

Monika Schaefer: Remind us what year this was.

 

Jürgen Neumann: 1991.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Then he negotiated his way out of there. They said:

 

“Okay, well, you’re going to be charged with anti-Holocaust activities and so on. Denying the genocide of the jews.”

 

And so on, which is a law in Germany, right. So what you can get, I think they had a maximum of five years, for that. So eventually they put him on parole because he said:

 

“Yeah, okay.”

 

Not parole:

 

“But you can leave, but you have to come back for trial.”

 

So they thought he would do that, and he would do that because, oh yeah, there’s a big chance he wanted to try to organize a Leuchter type trial in Germany. So he was all good with that.

 

And about that particular issue, his trial and so on, there are videos of it up on my channel, Ernst Zundel in Munich, Munich trial in German and in English, where he talks about all that. So I’m not really going to get into that. I haven’t really brushed up on that particular thing. But if you want to see hear more about it, you can go there or we can do another show on it at some point.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. And we will come back after these messages. Thank you.

 

[29:26]

 

[music]

 

[29:44]

 

[ad]

 

[36:00]

 

[music]

 

[36:50]

 

Monika Schaefer: All right. Welcome back to The Flipside with Monika on the Republic Broadcasting Network.

 

So before the break, Jurgen Neumann, our guest, was telling us about this Leuchter Congress in Munich, I think it was in Munich. Did I get that right?

 

Anyway, in Germany in 1991, and exciting things were happening, and then he ended up being arrested and went to jail. How long did he go to jail for? He was let out pretty quick. Oh, yes, you said he was let out on the promise that he was going to be back for trial. Do you want to just carry on with that story?

 

And then we do have a caller on the line. He’s been waiting very patiently for a while, which is wonderful! Oh, and actually, I did forget to do that, is give the calling numbers if you’d like to join the conversation.

 

So I’ll just do that first and then Juergen, if you could tell the rest of that story and then we’ll start with callers.

 

So the number is 512-2488252 or 1-800-313-9443. Okay. Over to you, Jurgen.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, I must confess that I hadn’t brushed up on that story. So as I’m sitting here right now, my memory says:

 

“Well, can’t think of a whole lot but say about it at this moment.”

 

I just did mention [word unclear], but if we were going to ever do another show, I would brush up on it and we can get into some details.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, no problem!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Flopping around like a fish out of water wouldn’t work very well right now.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, God!

 

Jürgen Neumann: I would like to say one thing.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, go [chuckling] ahead.

 

Jürgen Neumann: I would like to say to me one of the final things about the Leuchter Congress that reflected in my life afterwards. And that was later on that year. This took place in March. So a few months later on, I was visiting my mother. And while I was there, the mail came. And in her mail was a copy of National Geographic. She’s never ordered National Geographic. She never reads it. So this was a mistake. This actually was addressed to somebody else on a different street, maybe six or eight blocks away. But it showed up in her place. Well, I thought:

 

“Just for fun, let’s have a look at it.”

 

So I pulled it out of the wrapper. And I had just started paging through it and lo and behold, what do we see? We see that National Geographic had been in Germany at that time of the Leuchter Congress. They were doing a thing about Germany and about the political situation and so-called Right-wing neo-Nazis, all that kind of stuff.

 

So they actually had part of their article on the Leuchter Congress. And they had a big picture, a big picture of that truck and the people standing on the truck talking. And on the truck, also on the left hand side of the picture was yours truly, me with the camera!

 

Monika Schaefer: Hey!

 

Jürgen Neumann: You couldn’t really see my face, the camera was covering it. But there I was.

 

And so I pointed it out to my mom and she was really excited:

 

“Wow, that’s cool!”

 

She never got another National Geographic, before or since!

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, into the National Geographic. That’s fantastic! That National Geographic magazine was meant to come into your hands even though it was mis-delivered. Yes, that’s wonderful, wonderful!

 

So we had Johnny from Michigan, but I guess he dropped off.

 

But we do have a caller, Joe in Florida. Are you there? Would you like to join our conversation, ask a question or give a comment on anything about Ernst Zundel or ask Jurgen a question, anything you want. Welcome.

 

[40:58]

 

Joe: Yes, Monika, thank you for taking my call. And greetings to Jurgen. Yeah, just a quick thing I want to say.

 

So thank you, Monika and Jurgen, for keeping the memory of this great man, Ernst Zundel alive. The other day recently I don’t know, Candace Owen, very kind of big, very popular blogger now she’s doing her pieces on the Hoaxicost is what I call it. And the lie of those events. And I just can’t help but think that, it’s Ernst that did the great groundwork. I mean he would be very proud.

 

But it’s on his amazing work that now it’s basically going mainstream. The lies that they built. I just wanted to say that thank you both for keeping his memory alive. And then Jurgen, the real question I wanted to ask you a question was. So among the things that jews like to do is to promote the idea that they’re all still peaceful people, but there can be very violent. And among the things they can be violent with this there preferential is bombing. We saw the King David Hotel, right? Jewish terrorists bombing people!

 

 

[See: Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript]

 

So tell us about, if you can, how it was that Ernst was really the first, one of the first victims of this bombing in Toronto. And am I right in thinking they bombed his house, which was a residence, or exactly how, where, was that a place that he worked out of but tell us what you can remember about that terrible incident.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Okay. Talking about bombings and stuff, as far as I’m aware, when it comes to revisionists, the very first bombing was in France, I think it was 1965. Maybe a French revisionist by the name of François Duprat. Him and his wife were going out. They got into their car, turned the key, and there was a car bomb. And it blew up and killed him and took off her legs below the knee. So that’s first one, and probably worse for revisionist terrorism.

 

[See also: Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years, and More, of Terrorism in France]

 

Now come up to 1984. And we are at Ernst Zundel building. Okay. So what it is, or what it was, really was his, number one, was when he first got it, he was an artist. And so he made it, he had his business, commercial art, and then he was also fine art painted. He was the most prolific artist in Canadian history. Actually sold over 600 paintings.

 

Joe: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: And so he had his gallery on the main floor and his commercial art business in the back. And upstairs he had the usual living quarters. That’s his home, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, stuff like that. So, yeah, it was a combination of our work environment plus his home.

 

Actually, as it turned out, I ended up staying there with him for a decade or two. I’d stay there basically during the week and then go home on weekends and stuff. So that’s basically what the building was.

 

So 1984, there was a bit of an explosion we had. And it turns out at the back, by his garage door, they had set off a bomb, pipe bomb, as the police discovered, you know, told us about later, a pipe bomb. So it blew up the garage door and actually sent splinters all around the neighborhood, damaged cars and stuff. If anybody was walking by and been hit by those splinters, they could have been fatal. Not that they care, of course.

 

So that was the first one. But what was interesting about it was the police said:

 

“Oh, yeah, we’re investigating, etc.”

 

After a week had gone by, or 10 days ago by nothing. We hadn’t heard anything. So Ernst contacted the police. And the one officer was very honest about it. He said:

 

“No, we’re not investigating, actually. We think that you did it yourself for publicity.”

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: So, yeah, well, I was right. Okay, fast forward to 1995. About the anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, May 1995. Ernst was off on a speaking tour, Western Canada way. And I was holding fort there. And where I sleep is in, it’s a long building, right. Not wide, but deep.

 

So I was sleeping in the back on the second floor beside the washroom, my little bedroom. And I’m lying there in the neighborhood in which we were located, it’s called Cabbagetown. And always a lot of weird stuff happening. There’s a lot of weirdos in that area and stuff. So it’s not unusual to hear all kinds of interesting things happening.

 

But anyway, I was sleeping and suddenly I woke up. And I mean woke up just like snap of the finger from asleep to totally wide awake! And I thought:

 

“Wow, what’s that?”

So I’m lying there for a second, wondering, and I hear way in the back, some very low voice called “Fire!” So I thought:

 

“Oh, yeah, a bunch of, … I wonder what’s going on in the neighborhood tonight?”

 

So I lie there for a little longer. And then The Voice gets louder, it gets closer:

 

“Fire! Fire!”

 

I thought:

 

“Oh, no, I better go have a look.”

 

So I get up, and when I step out of the out of my bedroom, I can look down the length of the house, the second floor, right into the kitchen. And the kitchen has a big window out on the street. And here’s flames rising up above the second floor window.

 

Joe: Wow!

 

[Image: TORONTO, ON, 206 Carlton St., Ernst Zundel’s house on May 7, 1995, showing the aftermath of the fire there]

 

Jürgen Neumann: That’s what the fire is about. All right, so I ran up forward a little bit, grabbed a phone, but that one had already burned out for that one.

 

So I went downstairs and I got another phone and phoned you know, 9/11. And they said:

 

“Oh, yeah, oh yeah, no problem. Don’t worry about it.”

 

They said:

 

“Other people have already called in, so everybody’s on their way.”

 

I said:

 

“Okay, great!”

 

So I started getting myself together, getting stuff. I’m going to leave the house, right? I hear this pounding at the side door. So I go over the side door, and all it is kind of a regular framed wooden door. It’s got a couple of hooks and that’s it. And the fire department’s out there and they can’t get through this door.

 

So anyway, I go out and unhook it, and they come in:

 

“Oh, are you alone here?”

 

“Yep, I’m alone.”

 

“Well, you know, get out this fire. We gotta go!”

 

I said:

 

“No, I’ll leave when I’m ready.”

 

They said:

 

“No, you have to leave.”

 

I said:

 

“No.”

 

Monika Schaefer: Good for you!

 

Jürgen Neumann: :

 

“And when I’m ready, I will leave.”

 

Because I still had a couple of things I wanted to do. So I quickly packed up the last of the things and then I left. Oh, I did phone. Make one more phone call. One of our supporters lived about three, four blocks away. And this is about five in the morning. So I phoned him and I said:

 

“If you want some excitement, Ernst’s house is on fire, so come on over!”

 

Then I went outside and away. Eventually other people came up, our supporters, they came up to see what was going on, etc. And he showed up eventually and he said:

 

“Well, he said, boy, your voice was really calm for what’s going on.”

 

So we’re sitting there or we’re standing there. I was talking to one of the fire-fighters and we were talking about response time, you know how you get there fast. And he said:

 

“It doesn’t really matter how fast we get here.”

 

I said:

 

“What do you mean by that?”

 

He said:

 

“We can’t touch it until Toronto Hydro comes and turns off the hydro, so that we don’t get electrocuted with water touching the electricity. So they actually have to be here first.”

 

I said:

 

“Oh, okay.”

 

So we’re standing there waiting and a man comes up to me and says:

 

“Are you one of the people from the house?”

 

I said:

 

“Yes.”

 

He said:

 

“Well, I saw the whole thing.”

 

I said:

 

“Oh, really?”

 

He said:

 

“Yeah, I’m in the store next door to us.”

 

Somebody had broken their plate glass window.

 

And so he was there replacing the window. And he said the man walked past him with his container of flammable liquid. He saw him walk. I mean, he could have reached out and touched him as he walked by. So he walked up to the house, poured the liquid on there and a trail out, which he lit up and away it went. And then he walked past him again.

 

I said:

 

“Oh, so you’d be willing to talk to the police?”

 

He said:

 

“Sure. That’s why I’m still waiting here.”

 

“Okay.”

 

So I went and told the police:

 

“Hey, we’ve got an eyewitness!”

 

The guy waited another hour and a half and then he had to go because he had other business to do. And the police never did talk to him.

 

Monika Schaefer: Unreal!

 

Joe: Unbelievable! Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So that was that one.

 

And then about a month later, it was about that, maybe a little longer, maybe two months later, got a package in the mail. It was a brown box, basically, reasonably light.

 

And so I brought it in, mailman brought it in, and Ernst looked at it, looked at, and he’s getting, he’s very sharp man, experience. He says:

 

“Okay, everybody, nobody touched this. Something I don’t like about this.”

 

It’s addressed to him. It’s got a return address out in British Columbia. So, okay. So he put it on the shelf. And the way we went about our business, except me being a foolish man at the time, I couldn’t resist. I went over and picked it up when nobody was around, shook it a little bit. Very foolish!

 

But anyway, I didn’t hear anything, didn’t feel anything. Put it back. This one.

 

So eventually a fellow phoned Ernst and it was one of our supporters from out west BC. So he asked him about the PO Box address and he said:

 

“Oh, that was an address I used to have a couple of years back. So obviously somebody else is using it, blah, blah, blah.”

 

So this is suspicious. So we took the box down to the police station, told them it might be a bomb. They freaked out!:

 

“It might be a bomb! And you brought it here! What’s the matter with you?”

 

Anyway, they cleared out the area around the station by about three blocks. So they took it and eventually they took it down to the bomb disposal place where they set it off. And they got back to us and said:

 

“Yeah, it was a bomb.”

 

And it was set to go off when the package was opened. Having done so, it would have killed everybody within 100 meters.

 

Joe: Unbelievable!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Very powerful!

 

So that was the explosive encounters that we had.

 

Joe: Unbelievable! Thank you Jurgen and [word unclear] tell me to say thank you. So Ernst is a true hero, right? In other words, he was one of the free speech pioneers and they obviously tried repeatedly to kill him and he stood his ground.

 

So thank you, Monika, for this show, keeping his memory alive, because he is a real hero and it’s great to see if only he ived long enough to see that what his efforts really are paying off where people can speak truthfully about history. Thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: Joe, I really appreciate. Yeah, I really appreciate that you called. That was an excellent call with these questions. And those stories are incredible! Thank you so much! Thank you again. And yes, we do intend to keep Ernst Zundel’s memory alive.

 

And I’m gonna do a shout out to Katana who encouraged me to do exactly that. And that did prompt me to call you up, Jurgen, or to write to you and say:

 

“I’m gonna have you on regularly. Like maybe every couple of months we’re gonna do another show on Ernst Zundel because there are very many things to talk about.”

 

So a shout out to Katana. He has a website, katana17.com. His specialty is making transcripts out of videos, or out of talk shows, or things that are in audio form, he turns into transcripts quite a lot. And his website is excellent! Has a lot of resources there. I would encourage everybody to visit that website again. That’s katana17.com. And katana with a ‘k’ and just like it sounds, so just another.

 

[53:54]

 

Joe: God bless you, Monika.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, bye bye. Joe, thank you so much!

 

Joe: Thanks. Jurgen too. God bless.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Bye bye,

 

Monika Schaefer: Bye bye. Jurgen, something else about those attacks and who, … Somebody claimed responsibility for at least one of them, did they not? Do you know about that? Didn’t a jewish, …

 

Jürgen Neumann: 1984 one? Some kind of jewish, I don’t know, it was a very convoluted name anyway. But yeah, it was some jewish organization that claimed responsibility for the 84 bomb.

 

But what was interesting is that one thing that not too many people know about that. Around the beginning of the 1985 trial, as it was just about to get underway, Ernst was approached by the RCMP, which is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. And they gave him a folder and they said:

 

“We have information that seems that there’s an assassin. An assassin has been put on a case to assassinate you. It’s a foreigner who’s going to be coming into Canada, or might already be here. And it’s a woman. And so you should be careful and on the lookout.”

 

And in the folder they had a picture of her even:

 

“So that if you can recognize her, everybody should look at the picture and if you see you’re wandering around or something, you know what’s going on.”

 

So that was nice of them to do that.

 

[Image: Police image of Merchant assassin]

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow, isn’t that something?

 

And yet the contrast to the police not being interested seemingly in talking to the eyewitness at the later episode. I think that was the later up episode. And then also just, yeah, they didn’t seem to want to uncover this or they didn’t seem to want to help Ernst Zundel. You know, this slow response, what not. I just find that quite interesting.

 

But good that they did warn him and good on Ernst Zundel that these things did not stop him from carrying on with his epically important work. And it was always his intention to restore the honor of Germany and the German people once he realized what had happened with the lies and deceptions.

 

But we don’t have a lot of time left. I want to pass it back to you. Do you want to tell people where they can find your channels? We did already talk about the Bitchute channel. John Robinson 101. I do believe you have an archive also. Do you want to talk about that, please? Where do people find your work?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Okay, yes, on Bitchute, you might call it my flagship channel. It’s called JohnRobinson101, and it is all videos. And I have about, I’m guessing about 500 Ernst videos on there. Want to look at it? But I have well over a thousand videos.

 

And so it’s not just material about Ernst, but there’s material from other sources about subject matter that would be of interest to all of our people and all people who are interested in different points of view on various documentaries. I even have culture on there. I’ve got some classical music, orchestras playing and so on. Everything that may be a interest to us and help for us, I have on there.

 

Now on archive.org I have, I had a couple of other channels and they’ve been kind of deleted in the meantime.

 

But finally, of the two that have been deleted, I finally figured out that maybe the problem there was is that I had a lot of material about Holocaust revisionism and Ernst Zundel. So I figured, okay, I’ll start another channel on there and stay away from those directly.

 

And so I started a PDF channel called Researcher_PDF and it’s all books and David Irving books, pamphlets, all kinds of stuff. If you have an interest in history from our point of view, that’s a good one.

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s on archive.org is it?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

Thank you so much for joining us again. Jurgen Neumann, and we will talk to you again next week. Thank you very, very much, all the listeners and the caller and the producer. Thank you all. Bye bye.

 

[58:30]

 

[music]

 

[58:49]

 

[ad]

 

[1:00:00]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/24/2025 = 4)

kati
March 23, 05:21
Here my favorite of Ernst Zuendel, all episodes of his “german holocaust” in one big video file, i sure listened them 10+ times, as german alot new things.
https://archive.org/details/ernst-zundel-the-german-holocaust-the-complete-collection-parts-1-34

kati
March 23, 05:25
All Samisdat episodes of Ernst Zuendel, about 300 maybe, are sure on Archive org too, or easier to watch on Odysee, this link you will have all episodes https://odysee.com/@ErnstZundelVideos:8

kati
March 23, 05:39
I linked the Odysee, here, i cannot watch Jürgens Bitchute here in germany, it gets geoblocked cause of the content against our laws, but the Odysee channel is not blocked.
Im avoiding bitchute in general now, too much blocked in germany and the ads are annoying.

kati
March 23, 05:48
Micheal Collins Piper told me alot about Mark Weber, its now silenced but Weber took shekels to let nationalist books out of print, you can hear the story on Pipers podcasts over several episodes. I asked a friend of Piper, the one who runs now FTJ if the story is true, he said yes.
So im careful to recommend Mark Weber now, sure the IHR is not to blame, its jsut Webers doing long ago, maybe 2 decades ago. I think “Silesias Inferno” is one of the books he run out of print, i got the german version here, its witness reports from what the red army did in Silesia/Schlesien, its the most graphic book i ever read and i had to pause a day after most reports. You can still buy the english version sure, for a good price. The german version is cheaper, from 1966 i think and not printed anymore, noone would print that now, i paid 2€ for it.

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

Monika Schaefer: All right. Greetings. Hello, good afternoon, good evening, good morning, wherever you might be listening from. You are listening to Republic Broadcasting Network at Republicbroadcasting.org and this is episode 27 of The Flipside with Monika. And I am your host, Monika Schaefer. And I am very pleased that my guest today will be Germar Rudolf.

 

Before I bring him on, though, I have some announcements, you could say, a public service announcement. And one is about an event, and the other is sad news that we will talk about with Germar together.

 

But the first one has to do with there’s a meeting going to happen in Powell River, British Columbia, Canada, and that is on the West coast. It’s on the Sunshine Coast. And I am telling you this because if you know anybody that’s on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver or along the Sunshine Coast, please tell them about this meeting because they should go! What it is Leah Gazan, that is the Member of Parliament from Manitoba, who has introduced a Bill last Autumn that is to criminalize the promotion of hatred against indigenous people. If you are condoning or justifying or downplaying the historical and lasting impact of residential schools.

 

Now, these are these Indian residential schools in Canada that I have spoken about before. She will be in Powell River this coming Monday, January 20th. And just a little bit about her. She has this thing called “being a survivor”. I mean, it’s in her blood, on her maternal side. Her grandmother was a Lakota Indian and apparently was a survivor of a school. And her grandfather was Chinese. And her paternal grandparents, they were both jewish. Father was born in Holland, the paternal grandfather, I should say. And he was a toddler when Germany invaded, and he spent the war years in hiding in Holland. And the grandmother was in a concentration camp apparently in Germany. So Leah Gazan has this survivorship all really, she’s expert at it. She’s got it down pat. She introduced this bill. To me, this Bill sounds very, very similar to the Holocaust denial bills in various countries, including in Germany, where myself and my brother Alfred were both in prison.

 

And so, yeah, it’s an issue that I think is really important.

 

Now, the woman who is the local MP there on the Sunshine Coast and Powell River, somebody Blaney*, I can’t remember her first name. She says:

 

“It’s not debatable that it occurred.”

 

And she’s talking about the residential schools happening. Yes, they did happen, just like the work camps in Germany happened.

 

 

And another parallel, you see. So she says:

 

“Every time we act as though it’s debatable that it occurred, we are silencing the voices of people and their families and their loved ones who went through that lived experience.”

 

Again, I see so many parallels with the Holocaust and this is our own, you know, Canadian so-called “genocide”. And they are going to criminalize you if you are merely skeptical about what they are telling us in that regard.

 

So that meeting again, if you have any friends in that area of either Vancouver Island or Vancouver or north on the Sunshine Coast, tell them about this meeting. It’s January 20th, starts at 5 pm at the Evergreen Theater. And yeah, that was that public service announcement.

 

And then I have sad news that a great man in our movement and that is the, you could say the “Revisionist” movement. I personally am not fond of that word. I would rather call it “Correctionist”. We are correcting history that we’ve been lied to about.

 

Nevertheless, Jurgen Graf (15 August 1951 – 13 January 2025), he has passed away this week, Monday, January 13th. And like Germar Rudolf, Jurgen Graf is a giant in our movement of trying to get the truth out there. He not only wrote books, he translated many books, and he apparently was very fluent in quite a few languages. And I think that Germar will be able to tell us more about that after I bring Germar on.

 

 

And I think at the beginning I was distracted by the fact that we didn’t have Germar on yet. I forgot to tell you the date today is January 18, 2025.

 

Also, just a little reminder that if you possibly can, dear listener, if you have the means, please remember that this is a listener supported network and if you go to RepublicBroadcasting.org you will find all the information there for how you can support the network either through phone number, through PayPal, through mailing cash or check. There are different means. There’s a donate button there and there’s the information there.

 

So all right, now I see that we have Germar here. I’ll just give a little bit of background and then I’m going to bring him on.

 

Germar Rudolf has written books. He has published many books through this codoh.com, that’s Committee on Open Debate on the Holocaust and Castle Hills Publishers. He will tell us more about all these things. The latest big work is the Holocaust Encyclopedia. Fantastic information in there! And he has been under the gun for all these things.

 

[Image: Jurgen, Carlo, and Germar]

 

Now he comes from Germany, he is a PhD level chemist, became curious about certain things that were a little bit of anomalies there in Auschwitz and then started to investigate and get into some trouble he is in the United States. I have no idea where, but he is on the line now. And Germar, are you there? Greetings to you.

 

Germar Rudolf: I am. Can you hear me?

 

[08:33]

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, we can. So would you like to just before we get into, actually two topics. One would be to talk a little bit about your dear friend Jurgen Graf, and also your latest adventure, or shall we say your latest encounter with “the system” in quotation.

 

Before we get into that, would you like to expand a little bit about your history in case we have some new listeners? I’m always hoping that we have new listeners. And on that note, I do encourage listeners to share these programs with others who you think need to hear these programs. Okay, go ahead, Germar.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes. Well, where do I start? Shall we start with my dear friend Jurgen?

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, let’s start there and then we’ll go into these other matters. Please do.

 

 

Germar Rudolf: We both had a similar introduction into revisionism in the early 1990s. We both learned about skepticism on the mainstream Holocaust narrative via the Canadian free speech trial by Ernst Zundel, the second one of 1989, where American expert on execution technologist Fred Leuchter appeared as a witness. And his report [The Leuchter Report] caused quite some stir internationally. Well, internationally you can say, it was translated into a lot of languages. And both Jurgen and I found out about it, got curious about what’s going on since forensic evidence is considered superior to any other, in particular to anecdotal evidence. We both picked up our ears. He was, however, a linguist and not a scientist, where I was a scientist and not a linguist.

 

[See: Book: White World Awake! — Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk]

 

Actually, as a matter of fact, I couldn’t speak any foreign languages. My English back then was so bad that I couldn’t even read normal English text fluently.

 

So he is fluent in, or was, I should say, unfortunately, 12 languages, if I’m correct, maybe it may have been more. And he took a historical-social approach to the topic. He was in touch with French scholar Dr. Robert Farrisson, who is one of the early leading lights in Holocaust skepticism and learned from him the ropes and then started writing a book in seclusion. And I was at the same time going down the scientific, the forensic rabbit hole, trying to figure out whether the infamous Zyklon B deployed in Auschwitz, presumably for mass murdering jews, could have left any long term traces in the Masonry of those alleged gas chambers. And if it could have left them, would they survive the time? And if they survived the time, could we still find them there?

 

[Image: Fred Leuchter holding up his original report]

 

So there’s this question that was raised by Fried Leuchter. But it was answered too hastily, too superficially. And I wanted to figure out really properly. I was not doing it in seclusion because as an expert witness, I was then actually showing up in various German trials, summoned by defense teams to testify on behalf of people who were on trial for, quote, unquote, “Holocaust denial”. And that, of course, I had to have my name under the expert report I wrote. And I had to appear under my real name as a witness. And that got me straight away in the cross-hairs of the authorities who were targeting me. And persecution started right there.

 

My expert report and a popularized book that was broadening the scope to many more topics. Both were published in 1993. At the same time Jurgen Graf had also published his two books. One called “The Holocaust Swindle”. The other one is “The Holocaust on a Test Stand”.

 

And we found out about each other’s existence only when we heard that each other’s books had been published. It was a little bit surprising because our point of contact should have been Robert, who was in contact with both of us, who advised us. And he actually kind of proofread my first version of my expert report to make sure that from his point of view, everything is straightened out. And he found a few flaws in it, fix it, helped me along the way.

 

But anyway, he kept us separate. So we found out about each other sometime in 93. We met for the first time in 94, which was about the time that he got in touch with Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno, who is probably the most knowledgeable Holocaust expert on the whole planet. He was just gearing up back then, and the way he geared up, he wanted to go, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to all the archives that were containing massive amounts of documents on the camps where “it” is supposed to have happened, whatever “it” is.

 

They were tucked away for decades after the war. The Soviets or Poles, or whoever, had tucked them away for the most part, were not accessible, or not even known to exist to Western scholars, or any scholars for that matter. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they became known and accessible.

 

So Carlo Mattogno, who couldn’t speak neither Polish nor Russian, wanted to get into these archives. Jurgen Graf was fluent both in Russian and Polish. So they teamed up and went on numerous trips to various places where the “crime of the century” is said to have happened. To get not only a forensic look at the leftovers in those camps, but also go into the archives, copy thousands and tens of thousands of documents, and started analyzing these. They sat down and wrote a number of books together, one on Treblinka, one on Majdanek. They are probably the most well known that they did together. They are part of the Holocaust Handbook series that I then started publishing.

 

So we were kind of a trio with Carlo Mattogno doing most of the hard archival work. Jurgen Graf was being the interpreter, doing the journeys and he was translating Carlo’s Italian stuff into German for me. I was the publisher initially only in German, and later when I was in English or American exile, polishing up my English, improving it to the point where I could actually publish academic level texts, was the one who was getting the message out.

 

 

Over the decades to this point, we have published 53 hard hitting archival forensic studies, for the most part. It’s the most comprehensive research study series on the Holocaust that exists in the world. It puts any mainstream work to shame! And it is the one series that makes the saying true that:

 

“The Holocaust is the best investigated and documented event in history.”

 

But not as the mainstream claims, but we are the ones who actually document it. The mainstream has, since the war, until the Soviet Union collapsed, collected anecdotal evidence. That’s not documented history! That is “chatted” history.

 

[16:04]

 

Monika Schaefer: I like that what you said, because that’s always what they say:

 

“This is the best documented event in history!”

 

And yeah, it is.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes it is! Because of holocausthandbooks.com. So 53 books, so much information and they’re complete overkill! Carlo Mattogno has the ability to go into the last nooks and crannies and describe every nut and bolt that was ever fixed in a German concentration camp because so much is documented. The Germans with a bureaucratic frenzy had documented every pencil then pushed from the left to the right of their desks. So I exaggerate here a little, of course.

 

Monika Schaefer: [chuckling] I think that’s great what you say, because the Germans are kind of, shall we say, putting it politely, they’re teased for being very meticulous about detail. So that is very important. It’s exciting.

 

Germar Rudolf: And it is fortunate because when it comes to two of the most important camps Majdanek and Auschwitz, there are mountains of documents! And the claim that the Germans destroyed something because they wanted to hide their crimes, it’s just wrong! No, they left it all behind. The Russians grabbed it and hid it in archives. And now it has become accessible, for a while.

 

In 1998, 99, the German government put both the Polish and the Russian government under pressure to close the archives and make them accessible only to accredited, officially recognized scholars. So we were excluded again from that point onward. But by that time we had enough material and we think the most important material to actually fill all these studies.

 

Now there is so much material that I have published over the past 35 years, both in English and German, over and over again in new editions and transformed into audio books and ebooks and all the rest of it.

 

And I had all this knowledge and access to it, but I had no overview. Even though I should be the one that has the best overview. It was just too much information even for me to retain. Many times I was looking for something that I know is written in some of the books. Where can I find that information? And I could pinpoint 3, 4, 5 volumes where it probably is. I had to look it up and search until I finally find it in one of my PDF files. And it happened over and over again! And finally I was sick of it!

 

And we had the idea we need to do something about it. An encyclopedia needs to be done, where certain keywords and buzzwords can be looked up and all the pertinent information is right there with a reference where you can find it mostly in our own books, but also mainstream literature, in periodicals, articles and so forth, whatever the case may be. So that the eternal search for something:

 

“I know I published it! Where is it? I can’t find it! This or this, or this?”

 

It finally ends! If I want all the witnesses that have ever claimed that flames shoot out of chimneys, which for technical reasons it is impossible, it’s invented. This is a cliche of the Holocaust that you can now find which witnesses have said it. How do I know? I go to the Encyclopedia. “Flames coming out of chimney” is an entry in there. Boom! There’s a long list of witnesses, all of which have copied from each other and all of which have lied!

 

 

And so there are a lot of features of the Holocaust where you can do that. And you look it up and boom, there it is! You will find it in no other resource. It’s wonderful! And I finally don’t have to search my own books anymore because I have it summarized.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yay!

 

Germar Rudolf: Yay!

 

So it was a selfish enterprise to finally not have to do it anymore. But the thing has been out for two years. We’re in a third edition now. So print on demand. We always make new editions that we keep up to date and correct whatever corrections are necessary. We have sold so far 2,000 copies. Roughly 2,000 copies direct marketing mainly of a specialized encyclopedia. This is unique! We are completely banned from Amazon. No libraries buy our book. Normally these specialty encyclopedias almost exclusively get bought by mid size and large libraries. There is no market really for it. But this one is such an amazing book. People read it cover to cover because every entry is just wonderful!

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, I can attest to that. I can attest to that. One of those is getting into my home. [chuckling]

 

Germar Rudolf: We are getting off the track. We were with Jurgen Graf.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, well, we wanted to talk about., … But you know, this is great anyway because I did want you to give some of your own history. And in so doing this is what is going on. So that’s fantastic!

 

[20:42]

 

Germar Rudolf: And just that was created by this trio of Carlo Mattogno, Jurgen Graf and me. I’m putting it out, making it fit for publication, present it that is presentable and accessible. Jurgen Graf has done a lot of the translation work, at least for the German edition. And Carlo Mattogno is the heart and the engine of the whole operation with producing most of the stuff.

 

So one of these trio of massive revisionist, skeptical producers of hard hitting scholarly material has now died, unfortunately, just a week ago. And I’m very sad for that.

 

I met him the last time in 2002. He came visit me with his wife. Back then I lived in Alabama, and he was with me for two weeks. We went hiking, we sang our German hiking songs and even back home we were having some campfire romance without the campfire, but the romance was there with singing folk songs. His wife Oda, Belarussian, and she is rooted into Russian tradition of Russian folk music. And there are some German folk music songs which have been translated or borrowed, should say, from Eastern European countries. They have a little bit of a Russian feel to them when it comes to the melody. And she loved it! Listening to music that sounded like home in the middle of America sung in the German language. A cultural mix that was quite amazing!

 

Anyway, we had a good time, last time I met him in person. Wonderful fellow, dear friend and a genius when it comes to languages. Speaking Indonesian, Chinese and almost all of the European languages they can come up with. A fantastic fellow! Unfortunately a victim of cancer.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, I’ll add, I only got to know him and not in person, not face to face like you, just in the last couple of years because, and I think this is probably it turned out to be one of the last major pieces of work he did because he did become ill during this project. But he did translate my book “Sorry Mom, I was Wrong about the Holocaust” into German. And we worked together on that. He would, because I do have a fairly good knowledge in German, he would send me chapter by chapter as he was translating. And I must say he does his translating work from his head. He does not use any computer translating, what do you call it, program? So it is, I think, very, very superior translation because he would just describe something the way one would say it in German, rather than sentence by sentence, just fixing the grammar or whatever. But really I think the German book turned out better because he made improvements and then the publisher did as well. So usually the translation of a book is not as good as the original, but in this case, that is not correct. I think the German book turned out better because of Jurgen Graf’s amazing work!

 

And so each chapter he’d sent me, and then if he didn’t, I would read them, and if it didn’t quite get the gist of this or that in the telling, then I would give him my feedback and he would make the corrections to that, and then we’d send it off to the publisher bit by bit by bit.

 

And I got to know this man, and not only is he a genius with knowing, I didn’t know that until a few days ago that he knew so many languages. Somebody told me 15 languages. I don’t know if that is correct, exact. But he obviously was a genius. He was a genius, but not only in the languages and also in his knowledge about historical events, but a very, very nice man! Good humor, just really sensitive. I have nothing but good things to say about this man. I’m going to pass it back to you, Germar, please.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, yes, absolutely! He was an artist when it comes to two languages. He would turn a book, a text in general that was a little dry, a little on the boring side, a little bit too technical, turned it into a text that was wonderful to read. He enlivened text with spirit! Sometimes he put in irony and sarcasm where I think it was deserved, because some of the material you have to deal with as a Holocaust skeptic is really absurd and sometimes even grotesque. Now, with scholarly text, you have to be careful with sarcasm and irony. And he was pushing it a little bit too much at times. [chuckling]

 

But when it comes to my. To my personal flavor, I would say:

 

“Right on, give it to them!”

 

Sometimes I had to edit it out because the author didn’t want that. So he wants it to be dry because such a controversial topic, he doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers.

 

But anyway, other than that, yes, he constantly, systematically turned text into something that was better, that was more pleasant to read. So it was wonderful!

 

He focused on translating from the 12 languages. German, French, English, Russian, Polish, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Spanish, Italian, you name it. He was roaming throughout Europe, and he would lecture in those languages live in those countries to audiences. This is amazing! You have to have this fluent ability to speak and express yourself expertly in all of these languages. And he taught many years German, I think, in other languages in Indonesia and in China. So he learned those languages too, along the process. So quite amazing! Quite amazing!

 

Monika Schaefer: Germar, I have a question regarding the translating services that he did. The work that he did he translate in both directions? Like, for example, would he translate a German book into French or Italian or whichever other language? Did he do that, or did he mainly translate other languages into German?

 

[27:18]

 

Germar Rudolf: He could, but he refused to. He has done here and there, English text, but he knew that his command of those other languages is not on par level with what he expected the quality of his translations to be. Therefore, he usually refused to do that, and only when pushed would he agree to that.

 

So, yeah, mostly he would translate from those languages into German, and not the other way round.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

So I think we’re gonna be at the break soon. And the original intent to invite you on my show was to speak about your latest adventures, or misadventures. But I am so glad that you were able to talk about Jurgen Graf, because you know him better than most of us, certainly a lot better than myself. And I just think this was very, very important to talk about him.

 

And we will talk about some of the things that you, I think you were arrested. Why don’t you just start on that? And then when the break comes, we’ll go to the other side.

 

Germar Rudolf: Well a little bit of the background. If people had humor in this country, you know, I’d say the cliche is the Germans don’t have humor because I tell people:

 

“Well, because in Germany, humor is illegal. You can go to prison for it. Therefore, Germans are not inclined to make jokes.”

 

So I say:

 

“The shortest German joke is ‘Auschwitz’, because the German word for joke is ‘witz’.”

 

So the last syllable of Auschwitz is the word witz. So Auschwitz is a witz. Auschwitz is a joke!

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, wonderful!

 

Germar Rudolf: You go to prison for that if you say that! And there are so many other [word unclear], you make jokes about mass immigration, about minorities, you go to prison for that!

 

So if you have a culture for decades, it started with Frederick the Great, and he started the censorship in Germany, and it’s been a tradition ever since. And it’s gotten worse and worse and worse with the first pinnacle, you can say, under the Nazis. And now in modern Germany, again.

 

Monika Schaefer: So Germar, we’ll carry on with this after the break and so I hope everybody hangs on and we’ll talk to you in a few minutes. Thank you.

 

[29:30]

 

[music]

 

[29:45]

 

[ad]

 

[36:01]

 

[music]

 

[36:43]

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, welcome back to The Flipside with Monika. I will give out the numbers now if you’d like to call in and join our conversation with our very special guest, Germar Rudolf. And the numbers are, 512-248-8252, or 1-800-313-9443.

 

Now, I just want to say that what I have seen of just the accomplishments of Germar Rudolf is that he must be one of the hardest working people that I know. And it is just phenomenal, how in German there’s a word “fleisig”, he’s just very hard working man. And so I just want to thank him now publicly for all the work that he has done over the years, over the many years and paid quite a price for all that work.

 

Now, Germar, I wrote you a letter and I don’t think you got that letter. And let me tell you where I sent that letter. I wrote it on December 27th and this is after our long mail strike in Canada. Finally, things were moving a little bit, although they were moving pretty slow, but I think you still wouldn’t have got it. I sent it on December 27th to Cattaraugus County Jail. Am I saying that right? Where is that? And what were you doing there? [chuckling]

 

Germar Rudolf: I was moved from there the day before. So you wrote it a day after I had been moved from there. So it would have been completely an effort in futility. Cattaraugus Jail, Cattaraugus County is, if I’m not mistaken, the West most county or one of the West most counties of upstate New York.

 

I was driving in my car west. I was planning to go to a dear friend of mine who had succumbed to cancer and was having health problems. And she was the last survivor of her family and had no one really. And I said:

 

“I’m coming over, I’m taking care of you. I can take my stuff with me and work from there and we’ll just have a good time, whatever time is left for you.”

 

Because she was terminal and they didn’t give her a lot of time, even though it turned out at the end it was even faster than they had predicted.

 

Anyway, I was on the way there and I got pulled over by the police because there was allegedly an arrest warrant out for me for or some minor thing in a different state, that is to say Pennsylvania. And normally that is a non-extradition affair because for misdemeanors they don’t go through the hoops of making extraditions. It’s very complicated. It goes from one state to the next and it’s time intensive and cost intensive and usually they don’t do that. And actually my case was marked as non-extraditable. So they called the Pennsylvania prosecutors and evidently that changed their mind. And he said:

 

“Yes, we want him.”

 

Monika Schaefer: And just on that note, I’m going to interject here. Do you think that this changing of their minds had anything to do with your volumes of work that you do? Even though this was on a completely unrelated trivial charge from a couple of years ago? What do you think?

 

Germar Rudolf: Pure speculation! Fact of the matter is, the case was two and a half years old. And in those two and a half years I have written an encyclopedia and the team I’m working with on marketing and all the rest of it, we had quite some success lately. As I mentioned, we have so far sold 2,000 copies to normal people for all walks of life. This is completely unusual!

 

So we have two unusual things. Normally a person doesn’t sit down and writes an encyclopedia. That’s to say teamwork of many scholars usually and takes a long time. And I wrote that thing in just five months.

 

So this is an unusual. A Singularity in history because I had all this knowledge already gathered and on my desk and right there at my fingertips. I was in a unique situation to be able to do that.

 

And then I had all the energy after my family had collapsed. It’s a different drama story.

 

[40:59]

 

Monika Schaefer: I’m very sorry. I’m very sorry.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. That has a long story. I don’t want to go into detail, anyway.

 

Monika Schaefer: No, we don’t really have time to get into those.

 

Germar Rudolf: Anyway. I was a caregiver of three children and ran a household. That was my primary thing. Revisionism, I was doing on the side.

 

And then suddenly all this disappeared and I was without purpose and aim. And a good friend of mine gave me purpose and aim back by saying:

 

“We need this encyclopedia because nobody can wrap their heads around this massive amount of work of 53 volumes. Impossible. You want to read it by the time you reach the middle you have already forgotten at the beginning!”

 

So I sat down, did it and then we got a good marketing strategy. It’s actually working! We’re breaking through all the censorship and blocking attempts of the enemy, going directly to the customer, circumventing anything of what they have put into the roadblocks there. Working wonderful!

 

Does it have an impact? When I saw we’re having more success, I said to one of my associates:

 

“Looking at past successes we ever had, knowing that as soon as we have success, the hammer falls. Some big move comes and they shut everything down.”

 

So something is coming our way. We don’t know yet what it’s going to be. Is it that? I don’t know. Behind the scenes, maybe it is, maybe it’s not so pure speculation at this point.

 

Now, coming back to what the background is of, why is there an arrest warrant for me. Let me get back to the humor and try your American-Canadian humor. Talking about cultural collisions. So as an immigrant who, by the time I came, had a fairly good command of the English language already. Not perfect, but fairly good, what struck me, coming from England to America, one of the first things, driving in people’s cars, showing me the countryside, is that you guys park on driveways and drive on parkways. You people need to clean up your language! [Monika’s laughing]

 

So this is a joke. But no, there’s a second, and that’s where it gets serious. If I were to buy, as a boy, boy shorts and wear them as boy shorts, should that be acceptable?

 

Monika Schaefer: The boy shorts, you say, or body shorts? I didn’t quite catch that.

 

Germar Rudolf: Boy shorts.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

Germar Rudolf: Okay. I’m in the habit of doing triathlons, and that time I was doing triathlons very early in the morning. It started, actually, when I was at the military. I rode my bicycle 20 miles to the barracks early in the morning. And I realized that normal bicycle clothes for men, almost everything, particularly the warmer ones for the wintertime, they’re all black! And back in the days, there were no LED lights.

 

But if you have LED light, it doesn’t matter. You have so little light on the bicycle. You have black clothes. You don’t get seen by cars. You could get run over. I had near collisions with cars because they weren’t seeing me a number of times. And I threw away all this standard clothes for cycling and went into a store to find gaudy clothes! Neon anything. Neon yellow, green, pink, whatever it is, I want to be seen because I don’t want to get run over!

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

 

Germar Rudolf: So that was prior to the Internet. I had to actually go to a store for sportswear, and I couldn’t find anything in the men’s department. I went to the women’s department. Rainbow colors, neon pink, neon green. Everything is there! Can’t find in the men’s departments, all black, gray, brown, dark blue. Suicide clothes! I’m not gonna wear this!

 

So I went to the women’s department and got the shorts and the jogging pants there that have these gaudy colors. I don’t give a rat’s arse. There’s no sex assigned.

 

Monika Schaefer: Besides just to remind, you were going at like early hours of the morning when it was still dark. That’s the idea.

 

Germar Rudolf: Having coming to America the issue is that in the areas I lived initially it was as I mentioned in Alabama. But then in southern Pennsylvania, summers gets quite hot. Hotter than the summers are in Europe from what I’m used to.

 

And if you go to triathlons, you don’t want to wear cyclopants which you can’t go swimming with and you can’t do jogging with. And I was doing also calisthenics. So I needed different clothes. We had the Internet, I went on the Internet and I wanted short legged shorts, gaudy colors. And I found online a pink pair of boy shorts. Wonderful! That’s exactly what I want. Can’t ride up. Keeps my thighs, where there’s massive heat from cycling is produced. Free. So that can cool. And what I didn’t know is that boy shorts is a type of women underwear!

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, [chuckling] I didn’t know that either.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, boy shorts are for girls and girl shorts are for boys! Which brings us back to the yeah, so you can laugh. Everyone can laugh. The problem is some people cannot laugh. If I have pink boy shorts riding on a bicycle that has even pink emblazoned on it. And I don’t know that this is a prominent women’s underwear brand! [chuckling]

 

[46:11]

 

Monika Schaefer: So Germar, I have to just kind of cut in here because we’ve got to cut to the chase a little bit.

 

And one thing that you told me on the phone, only because we’re running out of time, I’m enjoying this so much. Don’t get me wrong, this is a lot of fun. But we also do have a caller on the line. But I’ll bring him in soon. But not right away.

 

But one thing you told me on the phone because the whole thing is you got charged with something, what do they call it, “indecency” or something?

 

But you told me nothing was seen by anyone. Nothing! But wasn’t that something the prosecutor actually said?:

 

“Nothing was seen by anyone.”

 

Germar Rudolf: The police report said when they interviewed says:

 

“They didn’t see any genitals, anything exposed.”

 

They charge me for indecent exposure anyway because of a case where they said:

 

“Well even if nobody’s there and nothing is seen, if you expose yourself, you’re still doing indecent exposure.”

 

It’s a new case law and the legal profession is up in arms because that’s nonsense! Anyone pulling their pants down with no one around 4:00 in the middle of a night going pee. It’s also medically induced exposure.

 

In other words, we all are guilty of it because at some point when we were hiking, we had to do some business. Indecent exposure, right there! If you confess to having done it, you’re done! It’s insane!

 

Monika Schaefer: It is why I posed that rhetorical question. I’ll just say it was a rhetorical question. Do you think that all of this has anything to do with your actual work of publishing all these politically incorrect volumes and books?

 

Now, just before we bring on Chance from West Virginia, and we’re not forgetting about you. Thank you. But where can people get your books and where can people go to find those things? Because we’ve talked a lot about the Holocaust Encyclopedia. I think it’s probably pretty straightforward, isn’t it?

 

Now I’m going to put these things into my chat room, which is at Flipside Mo Chatango. I did put Codoh already in there for people who are visiting the chat room. But just tell us where they can get your books and then I’ll invite Chance onto the call.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. The Holocaust Encyclopedia can be accessed, all the information free of charge and a version downloaded free of charge. Or you can buy either ebooks or printed books at holocaustencyclopedia.com Very easy.

 

The Holocaust Handbooks, the 53 I mentioned can be had at holocausthandbooks.com. Very easy. Now if you go to Holocaust Encyclopedia, it has a link in the top menu it says bookstore. You click on that and you’ll get to the general bookstore, which is armreg.co.uk. Armreg is ARMREG. That’s kind of Germar backwards. It’s actually Gamra, so couldn’t make it quite fit because it is actually Academic Research Media Review and Education Group limited. That’s what it stands for. But it was designed to kind of be my first name backward because that’s the legacy.

 

Anyway, these are the ways to get to the stuff. Just brief thing. Is there a link? Yes. When I was at my hearing two and a half years ago when they charged me with this, the prosecutor, when it was about bail or not, said:

 

“Not only do I have these weird habits of wearing weird clothes and gaudy colors and do stuff in the early morning, but I’m also an intellectual pervert because I’m the leading international Holocaust denier who dodges the law by running from one country to another. And that’s the reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to get bailed.”

 

So there you have it. Clear violation of First Amendment. Throwing stuff in there has nothing to do with it. And declaring me an intellectual pervert because I dare to single handedly write an encyclopedia. That’s perversion!

 

Monika Schaefer: Bingo. There you have it. They’re trying to charge you with being a pervert. But it’s the intellectual pervert that they are calling you.

 

Okay, Chance from West Virginia. And we do have only a few minutes left and we’ve also got another caller on the line. So please give your comment or question for Germar.

 

Chance: Hello. Yes, yes, gutenab Monika and Herr Rudolf. I couldn’t believe Jurgen Graf has passed away. He’s only nine years older than me.

 

Now, Mr. Rudolf, you rekindled my memory hearing Jurgen Graf’s name. I went to my personal library and I pulled out a book that I bought over to 20 years ago, if you can recall it. The Giant with Feet of Clay.

 

Germar Rudolf: Of course. I published it. Yes.

 

 

Chance: Yes. Raul Hilberg and his standard work on the Holocaust. Yes, and I like that phrase that Raul Hilberg made in the lower right hand corner of the book:

 

“Superficiality is the major disease in the field of Holocaust studies.”

 

Germar Rudolf: Includes him!

 

 

Chance: Yes, yes. And can I ask you another question, Mr. Rudolf? You wrote a book in German with Sybil Schroeder, it says. I’m skimming through the book right. Now I’m going to reread it again to refresh my memory. I haven’t read it in 15 years. Do you still write with Sybil Schroeder?

 

Germar Rudolf: Sibyl Schroeder was a pen name of Ingrid Weckert. And that was not a book, that was an article. And it was included as an introduction to the article on Einsatzgruppen murders in Dissecting the Holocaust. You can find it there.

 

Chance: Yes. It was written in the German language.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. It’s translated in English, in Dissecting the Holocaust.

 

Chance: Yes. Yes. This book here, the Giant with Feet of Clay is, I think, the English edition is 2001, I believe. I purchased this book quite a while ago. And Jurgen Graf would have only been 73 or 74 years old when he passed away, correct?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, 73.

 

[52:21]

 

Monika Schaefer: He was born in 1951, so in August.

 

Chance: Rather young.

Germar Rudolf: The Giant with Feet of Clay exists now in a new edition that was put out just two and a half years ago. Updated and you can find it as I mentioned on armreg.co.uk. You search for “giant”, and boom, there it is.

 

Chance: If I may ask you real quick before I hang up, if you don’t mind. What part of Germany are you from?

 

Germar Rudolf: Northwest of Frankfurt. That’s where I was born and grew up.

 

Chance: My relatives are from the Black Forest region, originally.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, Chance, I’m going to let you go. Not to be rude, but we do have several more callers in just a few minutes left. Thank you very much for calling.

 

So, Joe from Florida, are you there? Mr. Producer? Yeah, is that Joe? Hello?

 

Joe: Hey, Monika, thanks for taking my call.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, all right. Do you have a question?

 

Joe: Yeah, real quick. By the way, I just want to validate what Germar was saying. I’m a crazy addicted man who’s a bike rider and I know exactly what he means about wearing light clothes at night. I totally identify, just FYI. So I validate that.

 

But here’s the thing. It’s my opinion, Germar, that you are, and Monika and the great Ernst Zundel, you have all done the thing, which is, in my opinion, you have paid great tribute to your ancestors. Okay? And speaking as somebody with Swiss German heritage, we need to honor you and for you and for Monika and somebody like Ernst Zundel.

 

But it’s interesting. I want to see your idea. It seems as though it was almost necessary for each of you in your own way to actually get out of the homeland, get out of Germany in order to be free enough and courageous, I have to say, to write and do the work that you’ve done that has done such great tribute to your ancestors, who were very viciously maligned by the jewish Mafia in this country and in Germany, which they controlled. What do you think about this idea that it was necessary to emigrate?

 

Germar Rudolf: This is a German tradition. Karl Marx had to go to England to write his books. He couldn’t do it in Germany.

 

Now, that’s the polar opposite of maybe, in a way, but there is a tradition. There were German Professors who were fighting for national unification of Germany in the 1840s. And they all had to leave Germany, or many of them, because they were persecuted and they had brought to work from outside Germany. Unfortunately, that is tradition that comes with a tradition of censorship and oppression in Germany that has been there for centuries. It’s not a domain of National Socialism. It’s a domain of German culture and tradition unfortunately. People do not fight for their freedom of speech. They are easy to submit to government demands of ratting out neighbors and thinking pretty correct. And forming a lynch mob against dissidents. That’s an unfortunate tradition in Germany, I must say.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, so that’s a very good observation, Joe, that you make, first of all, about people leaving to be able to speak, and also about honoring our ancestors. And sorry to let you go, but thank you for your call.

 

Joe: Thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: And I’ll take another caller. And we just have a very short amount of time. Barbie from, I’ve lost where you’re from, but please, Mr. Producer, could you bring on. Yes, Washington, D.C.

 

Barbie: It’s Barbie from Washington, D.C.

 

Monika Schaefer: Barbie Novak!

 

Barbie: Yes, I want to talk about the nudity. And I wanted to stick up for him because I was a nude model in Washington, Las Vegas.

 

My art teacher from Harvard was a nude teacher. I’ve taken lessons with her. And she gave me three of her paintings. I bought one. I have three nude males in my storage. [chuckling] You know what I mean? And it’s like:

 

“What are they doing to him?”

 

Now the one thing is, I was going to sell those three paintings. No one on Ebay wanted them. They would give a million dollars for a nude female. Zero. They don’t even exist.

 

So I think you’re being prejudiced against because you’re a male and nude. And I love to be at your trial! I love to speak up for you! I’ll bring my three paintings, my nude males with me.

 

Monika Schaefer: Germar, please, can you tell people where and when the trial is that that she could come?

 

Germar Rudolf: It’s not scheduled yet. It’s not scheduled yet. The schedule may happen in late February, so I don’t know yet. When it comes to this, I’ve gotten in contact with people who call themselves nudists and naturists. And the first encounter I had after these things, and I found out I didn’t even know what that means. And I happened to live together with a guy who called himself naturist. And I must say, I’m neither of these things. I have a completely relaxed German attitude to my body. I think that the natural state of anyone’s body can’t be a crime in itself. It depends on what you do with it.

 

But I’m just coming from a different culture and I’m thoughtlessly changing in public from one pants to another without thinking anything, because that’s what everyone does in Germany. And I didn’t realize initially it’s a problem in this country. Even though it is not a sexual activity, it’s not indecent exposure. It’s decent exposure for a few seconds to change! And there are other things that are going on. I don’t do these things intentionally. It was cultural collision because it’s just different in Germany.

 

Monika Schaefer: I like that word. We’re going to end on that “cultural collision”.

 

And of course you know your intellectual [chuckling] activities that they didn’t like. Thank you so much, Germar. Thank you to the listeners and the callers and thank you to the producer. And we will catch you next week. Thank you everybody.

 

[58:40]

 

[music]

 

[58:48]

 

[ad]

 

[60:00]

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/20/2025 = 3)

Blewitt
January 18, 22:31
I first learned of Holocaust Revisionism from a book written in the 1970s. This book was _The Hoax of the Twentieth Century_ by Arthur Butz, who was a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University.

kati
January 19, 09:04
im living near Hannover in germany, von der Leyen is near me here, we are said to be the most humorless in germany, stocksteif hochdeutsch thats what we are, wir gehen zum Lachen in den Keller is a saying we have here, we are serious by nature. Even the most nothern germans at the coast have more humour, south germans sure anyway always, or famous rheinländisch humour, thats not the case here, we go into the basement if we have to laugh.

kati
January 19, 09:21
Gemma oDoherty did a 2 hour talk with Germar too, highly recommended, and Kevin Barrett too, sure he tells the story more detailed when he is over 2 hours at them.
Imho the police did a trap on him, it was on purpose they got him, Germar should be careful in future he does not run into another trap.
And his experience in the jail was pure nightmare for me, they put him on purpose to the blacks, i would be rather with turks together but never blacks, thats the worst. Here in germany the prisons are mostly filled with these, but Alfred sure made that experience. My record is clean, i keep my opinions private, if i had to go to prison here in germany i would lose the last bit i have.
Thanks for the show like always very amazing und Grüße aus Deutschland!

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then this relative says to me:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Was in there.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[29:32]

 

[music]

 

[29:43]

 

[ad]

 

[35:59]

 

[music]

 

[36:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Guilty of Holocaust denial!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“No, that’s wrong! This is right.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: National Socialist.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And they actually afterwards conceded:

 

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

 

And they got smeared.

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, you go ahead.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. Thank you, Tony.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

[59:33]

 

[music]

 

[59:48]

 

[ad]

 

[1:00:00]

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

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

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[08:33]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh, but that would be too insensitive!”

 

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

 

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

 

Okay. So, Jurgen Neumann, are you there?

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Good. Welcome back. Welcome back!

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Sure.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[16:39]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Ha ha! Yeah!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: No.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Anyway, it was him that kept saying:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Well, we have to find somebody.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Yeah, sure he wouldn’t mind.”

 

He understood the freedom of speech aspect and he thought:

 

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

 

He said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And Fred Leuchter said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And Ernst said:

 

“What’s that?”

 

He said:

 

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

 

And Ernst said:

 

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

 

[23:22]

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Exactly:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Yeah, okay, we’ll go.”

 

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

 

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

 

“This is bs!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“The jury has to leave the room.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[29:43]

 

[ad]

 

[35:59]

 

[music]

 

[36:12]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh, you’re just in an echo chamber!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Carry on from there, please, Jurgen.

 

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

 

“Here, here, have some aspirins.”

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: I would hope so.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes!

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: I think so, anyway.

 

Monika Schaefer: Mmm.

 

[44:13]

 

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

 

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

 

He said:

 

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

 

So that was a big sensation as well.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. We must not forget courage.

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh no, you can’t do this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh great! [chuckling]

 

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

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, wow!

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s something.

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, they are.

 

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

 

[50:53]

 

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

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, great!

 

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

 

So eventually he went, …

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, he was.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh my goodness!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, he was arrested.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“No, no, it’s fine!”

 

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

 

“Yes, it’s unconstitutional!”

 

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

 

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

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, exactly!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yep, that’s right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Hey, you can’t take him!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: No, it’s called Researcher_PDF.

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

 

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

 

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

 

[58:37]

 

[music]

 

[58:50]

 

[ad]

 

[60:00]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of Nov 10, 2024 = 9 )

9 COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

/>

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And so eventually I thought to myself:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So eventually, …

 

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

 

[07:53]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, it was.

 

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

 

“I’m from Canada.”

 

And he thought:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jürgen Neumann: So he was 18 going on 19.