Kenny Ko: What is up, guys? Welcome back to Kenny Cancelled. I have a very special guest today. It is Germar Rudolf, who many of you may know, and many of you may yet to know, but I’m sure you will be happy to hear his story for a like-minded cause. Germar, thank you once again for taking the time to join the podcast and chat with me. I’ve been looking forward to this just because I’ve wanted to pick your brains on some of the stuff that I believe happened during the “Holocaust” and other certain events throughout history.

 

I’ll allow you to take the mic, introduce yourself for maybe the people who don’t know much about you as of yet.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you first of all for having me. A little bit about my background. I’m a German citizen. I grew up in West Germany. I had a kind of normal lower middle-class upbringing and ended up going to university studying chemistry, graduated from Bonn University, then moved on for postgrad studies for a PhD, got a position at a Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research to work on a PhD there.

 

And while I was doing that research, I became curious and interested in applying my knowledge as a forensic chemist, which I had developed during my graduate studies, to a field that is a little bit exotic—that is to say, history. I stumbled over an expert report that had been submitted in 1988 during a Canadian trial against a German immigrant who had been quote, unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. That expert report was written by the—back then—the only existing expert in execution technologies in the United States. Since we have the death penalty here in several states, there need to be people who can design and equip and maintain that kind of equipment.

 

So he was asked in that trial to come up with his expert opinion of whether or not the homicidal gas chambers that are said to have existed at the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps could have existed. He did that and he came to the conclusion:

 

“No, that wouldn’t have worked!”

 

Caused quite a brouhaha. I learned about it a year later. At the time when I was just graduating and then doing my fledgling PhD studies. I dipped my feet into that field and tried to find out a little bit more because I got a copy of that expert report from Fred Leuchter, from that American expert, and I was not satisfied. It didn’t live up to my expectations and I wanted to do a better job. And then I found actually a legal team who would finance that. So I got expenses paid—didn’t get anything paid but reimbursement for my expenses.

 

But that was good enough for me. I was personally curious about what was going on. And I eventually submitted an expert report that was introduced—or, I should say, the defense lawyers in seven or eight defense cases in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, more so than Germany actually—tried to introduce it. The courts turned it down in these cases. German courts don’t accept any evidence that challenges the mainstream narrative.

 

But anyway, that was my introduction into the topic. My conclusions basically were: Leuchter had it basically right, even though he jumped a little bit to conclusions that were not well founded. But I managed to do a lot of research and back it up.

 

And while this all was going on—doing my PhD studies, doing this forensic work, investigations and appearing in court as an expert witness who was always turned down—I realized, well, Auschwitz, the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers and whether forensic chemistry can elucidate any of the questions of whether it happened or not and if there are any traces, is only a very minor aspect of the Holocaust, which is a big issue. It’s three years, a whole continent, hundreds if not thousands of crime locations. And what can you deduct from thinking to have resolved one tiny issue about one alleged murder location in this context?

 

So I figured the area is bigger. I want to know more. I want to wrap my head around everything. And I was reaching out to other people. I was planning on doing an anthology, a collection of—I think it was initially—15 contributions by various authors from all over the world who were looking into other aspects of the Holocaust. And we eventually published that book. While that was being prepared, German authorities also…

 

Kenny Ko: Sorry to interrupt, just for the people that are watching, what was the name of the book?

 

[04:12]

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, it appeared in an English translation in 2,000 for the first time. And it’s called Dissecting the Holocaust. Now all the books and the research that I have pursued and published ever since, over the past 35 years, can all be accessed free of charge as ebooks on the website called Holocausthandbooks.com. So if anyone’s interested in actually following up and finding out what this is all about, you can go there and find it out.

 

So that was volume one of the Holocaust Handbooks, Dissecting the Holocaust. This anthology has more contributions now. The updated last edition is just two years old, I think. And volume two of it was actually— is now—an updated, expanded edition of my original forensic research into the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That’s volume two.

 

And as I mentioned, there are now 54 volumes, plus we have a range of documentaries and some other, more summary books—they’re called Holocaust Pocketbooks. All of this stuff is available free of charge on HolocaustHandbooks.com. You’ll find links there where you can also purchase hard copies which are not free of charge, of course; they cost to produce and mail.

 

So the authorities were going after me. I had by 1990, I think, five court cases pending, five criminal investigations pending, in addition to my original trial for my forensic research. As I mentioned, introducing that evidence gets impossible in German court cases.

 

And then they went a step further, actually putting me on trial for it, for my forensic research, and denied me then the right to defend myself by proving that I’m correct. Because that is “contesting the mainstream narrative” again; you’re not allowed to commit that crime in a courtroom, so you’re not allowed to defend your views. They actually later turned it into an actual crime to even file a motion to introduce evidence proving that my dissenting views—or anyone’s dissenting views for that matter—are correct, declared that a crime, and they would prosecute defendants or primarily defense lawyers who would file such motions, and convicted them.

 

So defense in Germany in these cases is illegal! It’s kind of absurd—a Kafkaesque situation. I had to go through this in my own trial. Eventually I decided I’m not putting up with this. I was sentenced to 14 months for my forensic research, but I didn’t have to serve time immediately because the appeal was pending. And when more and more criminal investigations were filed by the prosecutors for the various books and journal articles that I was working on, I had published, I decided to leave.

 

So I went into exile and in 1996 lived in England for three years, until a journalist there published a hit piece on me demanding that I be extradited to Germany. And then British Parliament even had a session where I was discussed. And so the situation got tricky there.

 

I had used the three years in England to expand my publishing activities. At that point I was a little bit hemmed in, couldn’t do active research anymore because I was kind of living under an assumed identity and couldn’t travel. But I was giving other researchers a platform; they could submit stuff to me, I would publish it online and in print, initially only in the German language.

 

But then I slowly started to get into doing stuff in English, which of course—if something in this modern world, with the lingua franca being English, does not exist in English—it basically doesn’t exist at all! You have to do stuff in English for it to be recognized and noticed by the world. Now my English initially when I came to England was pretty bad. But the three years helped me to get up to speed. And when things were heating up in England, I decided to leave. In late 1999 I came to this country and after a while applied for political asylum here.

 

Now I expanded then in this country to do what I had done before only in German, also in English, which down the road ended up with these 54 volumes plus all the other stuff.

 

However, there was a little bit of a bump in the road because America has waged two wars against Germany to make them do what they do—suppress historical dissent. So they were not willing to give me political asylum, even though the immigration judge who reviewed my case said multiple times during the hearing that:

 

“This is the best documented asylum case he’s ever seen!”

 

But the immigration judge is not a judge in the legal sense. He’s actually an employee of, back then, the State Department, and later it was the Department of Homeland Security. And he has to follow orders given by the administration, and they said:

 

“Deport him!”

 

And eventually that’s what happened. By that time, however, I had married a US citizen. The marriage had been recognized and I had been granted an immigrant visa. I had the documents that:

 

“Your immigrant visa for a Green Card is granted.”

 

And at that moment—when that certificate, this confirmation, was issued—I was arrested and deported. So just before getting to the counter to get my actual Green Card, they arrested me and deported me back to Germany.

 

Now Germany had an axe to grind because by that time I had published a further 20 books in the German language. And they had an arrest warrant out not only for the 14 months that I had to spend from before, but also for the 21 books that I had published and been selling in the time ever since I had left Germany.

 

Kenny Ko: So my question, and I’m sure the audience too, what’s the crime that they charged you with?

 

Germar Rudolf: Incitement to hate.

 

Kenny Ko: Exposing the truth?

 

[09:40]

 

Germar Rudolf: No, the crimes—they didn’t invent these new laws. They had been on the books, similar laws, ever since Frederick the Great! Believe it or not, Frederick the Great had a massive immigration policy because after the Thirty Years’ War, Prussia/Brandenburg was devastated and was depopulated to a large degree. And he wanted French Huguenots and Protestants who were persecuted in France to come to Prussia. So he invited them by the tens and hundreds of thousands. I don’t know the exact figures, but the Prussian subjects of Frederick the Great were not happy about this massive influx of immigrants from a different culture. So no different situation than today—people being not happy about mass immigration. And there was a lot of polemics going on. Frederick the Great issued a law: You can’t stir up the people against minorities—particularly non-German, non-Prussian minorities back then.

 

So that law has developed over time. It became part of Germany in 1871, when Prussia kind of merged into Germany and Germany took over the Prussian laws more or less. And that’s been on the books ever since. As a matter of fact, in 1936, I think, under National Socialism, a German Catholic priest by the name of Rupert Mayer was indicted by the Third Reich judiciary for inciting the masses and stirring up the masses, because he was preaching in his church against National Socialist policies. He was sent to a concentration camp for a few months. So he was kind of persecuted for the same—and prosecuted for the same—offense that I have been prosecuted for.

 

The group that is protected by this law depends on whatever the zeitgeist demands as a specially protected group. Under Frederick the Great, it was the French immigrants; under the National Socialists, it was the government and the National Socialists that wanted special protection. And nowadays it’s immigrants and jews and Zionists that have this special protection. So it’s a vaster, or more numerous, group of special interest groups that have special protection nowadays.

 

So that was stirring up the people—inciting to hatred—back then. They still have “inciting to racial hatred.” They have taken that term out because “races” don’t exist, as you know. It’s politically incorrect to assume that.

 

And then also “disparaging the commemoration of the dead” and “insults.” Insult is on still-living jewish witnesses—insult them by insinuating that they could not have told the truth! And disparaging the commemoration of the dead is just all the victims that died—you deny that they even existed as victims, and so on. So there are four laws I was actually tried under back then. They did not yet have a special law for, quote-unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. They introduced that in 1994, kind of as a result also of my activities that unfolded back in the years, and all the rest of it.

 

Anyway, I ended up being deported to Germany, put on trial there, got another 30 months for only two of the nine books I was indicted for. Twenty-one were in the arrest, 19 were in the indictment. And for two of them I got convicted to 30 months. Had it been 21, that could have gotten nasty. If you get one year or so for each one of them, you do the math. Because eventually I got 50 months for the two books—the two publications—they booked me for eventually.

 

So 44 months later, I was out. And the US authorities said—they eventually denied my political asylum. The case had still not been resolved by the time I was deported. So I was whisked away, not only in violation because I was rightfully married to a US citizen. And US law says you can adjust status if you have a clean record.

 

And what I was convicted for in Germany was not recognized as a crime here in the United States. It’s First Amendment stuff. So from the US perspective, I had a clean record, should have been allowed to adjust status to permanent legal residence, but they deported me. Plus, it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the right of anyone physically present in the United States to have due process.

 

Now, if in the middle of a hearing and procedure in front of a federal court, you arrest a defendant and throw him out of the country— which is exactly the reason why the case is pending; you want to prevent being deported—that’s the whole reason of the case, whether it’s political asylum or just withholding from deportation. Both of these cases we had filed for. Deporting me in the middle of it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court didn’t take the case. That’s the way how they prevent not adjudicating a case that is unpleasant to them.

 

So I was back in Germany and then had to fight my way back to get my immigrant visa, even though I had already been granted it; it wasn’t issued physically yet. And then I was outside of the country already, so I needed one to be able to get back. The US authorities weren’t adjudicating the application. They just said:

 

“It’s too complicated. We can’t decide whether we’ll ever be able to adjudicate it.”

 

In other words, they were stonewalling. I had to litigate against them, force them to a decision. Fortunately, I got a judge in the Chicago federal court who kind of sided with me. For once, something went my way. He is an immigrant judge from Syria. No, I think from Syria. Not quite sure. Anyway, from the Middle East. So he evidently saw through what’s going on here, and he rubber-stamped every motion that we filed in kind of lightning speed. For legal considerations, federal courts take months for things to be decided, but he was taking days.

 

And then in August, 2011, after two years of waiting and litigating after having gotten out of prison in Germany, I was back in the United States. So I’ve been in the country ever since. The Germans keep doing what they’re doing, issuing arrest warrants or Europe-wide arrest warrants. And they stopped issuing me a passport because they want to catch me, but I don’t need a passport.

 

So I have no intention of leaving the country.

 

[15:21]

 

Kenny Ko: I was going to say, do you ever plan on leaving the United States now?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, I can’t. I have no passport. I’ve tried to adjust to become a citizen. But no matter what your background is, you have no right to become a US citizen. That’s a discretionary act of the people of the United States, represented by the government. And I applied for it, but they were stonewalling that case too, not adjudicating it.

 

And then eventually a cop framed me for something that didn’t happen. Early in the morning—talking about fitness—I was doing triathlons early in the morning for four years. Some neighbor in the neighborhood didn’t like that I was working out in the park there, doing calisthenics, and going in the river to swim, and ride a bicycle.

 

Kenny Ko: Were they jewish?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, it’s just—I don’t know the neighbor. It’s just a riverfront property. And he went to work every morning and he saw me once in a while, and he was calling the cops for years! Cops were checking on me for years! I didn’t realize what was going on really, but I couldn’t do anything. They got pissed. They got called for years and years—six years or so—every other morning in the summertime when this guy saw me. He wasn’t happy about me working out in the park area there.

 

Kenny Ko: Wait, why did he dislike you so much, or what was his issue? Did he know your work or something?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, no, I don’t know.

 

Kenny Ko: Interesting!

 

Germar Rudolf: I have never contacted the guy. I don’t know anything. I know from a cop that eventually talked to me about this, that there is, they say:

 

“A man in the neighborhood, he calls anonymously.”

 

Nobody can call the police anonymously! So that was just a claim made up in order not to have to reveal to me who that is because they think some people may take revenge for the perpetrator. I know where he lives. I know his daily routine because I was there for 10 years, every morning from April to September/October, and I know his daily routine—what time he gets up, where his bedroom is, what he does next, when he goes to the kitchen, does his breakfast, and which TV channels he watches, until he gets in his car and leaves for work. That’s the routine. I’ve been there for 10 years. I know the routine of that neighborhood.

 

Anyway, the cops realized they can’t get the guy to stop complaining and they can’t do anything against me because it’s legal to be there! That’s a famous fishing, motor-boat, recreational area.

 

And so the guy just said he was going to make up a claim that I was doing indecent exposure there, which wasn’t true. But you have only a cop and yourself at four o’clock, at a dark, vacated park, nobody there. And the guy makes up a story and then he contradicts himself. That’s interesting. Because in the preliminary hearing he makes up a completely wild story. And I couldn’t believe it, what he was telling. And then by the time the trial came, the prosecution had realized that the case was physically impossible. The claims he made couldn’t have been. It was not visible what he was claiming. It was just physically impossible. So they completely changed the story.

 

And if you have that situation that a witness—and that’s only one witness—completely changes the story, that’s automatic proof of perjury.

 

So I have that actually published, both transcripts, and everyone can look at it. You see that a cop’s committing perjury on the behest and on instruction, I would assume, of the prosecution. Because the prosecutor doing the trial showed a photo of the scene, taken from the place where the cop said he saw things. And you could see the things he described in the preliminary time were impossible. The prosecutor must have realized that. And then they told the cop that and he changed his story.

 

I requested after that from three law firms, three lawyers: :

 

“What do we do about it? I want to file a criminal complaint against the cop for perjury.”

 

And the answer is:

 

“They framed you the first time—if you are right that they framed you—and the prosecutor actually was the one working with the cop to get that accomplished. Your criminal complaint against the cop for perjury would come on the desk of the very prosecutor that has framed you in the first place. What do you think is going to happen? You get a second framing so fast you can’t blink an eye! And if you have two of these cases hanging, as an immigrant, you get deported from this country automatically!”

 

And that’s what’s going on. So my attempt to get citizenship was stonewalled. They weren’t deciding it, but the moment I was convicted and the conviction was upheld in the appeal—which was kind of absurd too—they instantly denied my citizenship application because I have a criminal record. Now you see what’s going on. And the appeal, the argument was:

 

“Wait a minute. If a guy with a searchlight goes in a park at night, completely black, and looks around and then happens to find a person with pants down, as he claims, what do you call a person who’s doing that?”

 

Kenny Ko: A streaker, I guess, or flasher.

 

Germar Rudolf: Peeping Tom!

 

Kenny Ko: Yeah.

 

[20:03]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So if you give that guy a police badge, what do you call that? Still a peeping Tom!

 

So the argument wasn’t made that way. But basically, a crime of indecent exposure requires that somebody has been indecently exposed to someone of the public. A police officer who is going around with searchlights is not a person of the public. It doesn’t count. So therefore, the crime has not been committed, because as we all know, it was completely dark and it was vacated. Even if it were true—which it isn’t—but if it were true that I was there with my pants down, it cannot have been a crime because nobody was around. And the Appeals Court said:

 

“Well, it doesn’t matter. From now on, we say anyone who has the pants down anywhere in public, whether anyone is around or not, commits indecent exposure.”

 

Which means that every person in the world that ever lived has committed indecent exposure! If you were ever in nature and had a pee or did your business—which happens to us sometimes—it’s automatic indecent exposure.

 

Kenny Ko: They might be looking for me. I probably have over 50 charges against me here!

 

Germar Rudolf: Right! So legal professionals after that appeal decision said:

 

“This is impossible! This is completely untenable case law you’ve created here. Now, everyone has committed indecent exposure. Indecent exposure requires the intentional act to expose your genitals to someone in public who does not consent!”

 

If you’re in a nudist area, that’s not, because you have consent there, right? But if it’s not in a nudist area, you don’t get consent, then that’s a crime. But if there’s no one around, there’s no exposure. So later they actually reverted that by simply ignoring the case law. And every case that’s been adjudicated in Pennsylvania ever since still goes after the old law because the new case law is complete bullshit! But it shows you what was going on—trying to prevent me from getting citizenship, to have something, and to go to extreme lengths, to ridiculous lengths!

 

And I suspect that they got to my defense lawyer, because my defense lawyer threw me under the bus. I had all the evidence showing that this thing cannot happen. And of course we had him nailed when he contradicted himself—perjury. And my defense lawyer refused to defend me, refused to introduce any evidence.

 

So this is the curious thing about America. You have the First Amendment when you are outside the courtroom, you can speak your mind. If you’re inside the courtroom in a penal case and you’re the defendant, you don’t have First Amendment rights. You depend—you can speak out only if you go—if you’re defended by a lawyer, of course—you can speak about the case only if you go into the witness stand and then you can only answer to specific questions that you are asked. My defense lawyer, I had given him 10 questions I wanted him to ask me, and then develop the case and introduce all the evidence. And then I get into the witness stand and he doesn’t ask any of the questions! Only one:

 

“What did happen that morning?”

 

Which was complete bullshit because that didn’t allow me to introduce any of the evidence showing that I was working out, that I have a history of working out, and introduce images of my clothing, and so forth.

 

Anyway, the issue is, of course, now I don’t have citizenship and I have this criminal conviction. And the lawyers then said:

 

“Get the hell out of there! The best is to remove yourself from Pennsylvania—not just from this county—most certainly stay away from that county because they have you on their list there, and move!”

 

So that’s what I eventually did.

 

Kenny Ko: So where’d you move to from there?

 

Germar Rudolf: I’m in upstate New York now.

 

Kenny Ko: Okay. And you’ve been there since?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, you know, it was my marriage that fell apart. That’s been in decline ever since. You know, if you have been forcibly separated for six years, that doesn’t bode well for any marriage. And my wife suffered more than I during that time of separation because it wasn’t her battle and she had to be a single mother raising our daughter all by herself. She was stressed out and not happy.

 

And then of course, I wouldn’t stop doing what I was doing. Coming back, slowly getting my feet back into things—that is not conducive to marital bliss. Plus, which I found later, the family and friends evidently were undermining the marriage from behind the scenes, unbeknownst to me, to one degree or another. So that wasn’t a good situation.

 

Anyway, eventually, when all this unraveled, I left and lived with friends first until my marriage issues were resolved—getting through divorce and splitting up assets and so forth. Until you know what you have, you don’t want to make any moves. So when that was settled, I could actually get my own life back. And that happened a couple of years ago.

 

Now I’ve used that time well. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting research accessible at HolocaustHandbooks.com, unparalleled in the world when it comes to the depth and the scale and scope. For instance, if we look at Auschwitz, which is the most iconic crime scene of the Holocaust—whatever happened there—I mean, it was nasty even from a revisionist perspective, from a skeptical perspective: 135, 500 documented cases of deceased inmates. That’s a huge number.

 

[25:04]

 

Kenny Ko: Because I do want to pick your brain heavily on your research and what you found. One question I wanted, and I’m sure a lot of people have it: How’d you go from your PhD field—what you thought you were going to pursue—into so passionately looking into the events surrounding the Holocaust and the World War II time frame? What kind of sparked your interest, I guess, to want to navigate that?

 

Germar Rudolf: I had an interest in German history, just not that topic because it’s an unpleasant topic—modern German history, kind of circumnavigating the Holocaust, ever since, I would say, ever since I started studying at university, it was a kind of a private hobby. I knew about the importance of the topic when it comes to the German psyche, if you want to put it that way, because it weighs heavily on Germans, on their self-confidence as a nation, as an identity. But you kind of take it for granted. It’s cast in stone. It’s inevitable to have to deal with it. So it never crossed my mind to challenge the narrative, let’s say it that way.

 

But I refuse to accept that two wrongs make a right, that one evil can balance out another one. So using what happened in the past—whatever it is—as justification to commit other injustices, whether it’s against my own people and country after the Second World War or in subsequent issues that have come up more recently. Like we look at what’s going on in Gaza or the various wars that Israel is waging—that made me aware that it has relevance, political relevance; still not a way of challenging it.

 

But once I did stumble over arguments that I could verify—or refute, for that matter—the toxicological and forensic research that Fred Leuchter in the United States had done, I said:

 

“Well, I have to look into this is a question, a topic that has huge implications politically.”

 

Back then I thought only in German dimensions. I was kind of still in the German box. In the meantime, I’m more cosmopolitan, I see the larger picture. But it was enough for me to say:

 

“I want to find out!”

 

And the real motivator that got me going is to realize during my time as an expert witness how the system breaks all the rules it claims to defend. It claims to be at the core of its values—be it free speech, be it freedom of science, be it the rule of law. As an expert witness in court—when you are in Germany—the German procedural rules say if an expert witness is already in court, he is an expert at what he is supposed to testify for, he is able to testify, and the testimony is relevant to the case that’s being handled by the court, then he has to be heard. There’s no way of turning them down because there’s no effort for the court to get the expert—he’s already in the court—yet still they violated that law, in every one of the seven or eight cases I was summoned to testify!

 

And the panic that I saw in some cases in the eyes of the judges—because they knew they needed to violate the law; they are the criminals in that case. One of them ran out, called some superior—there is no superior of a judge—but evidently called probably the capital or whatever, some higher court to find out:

 

“Do I get backing from the higher courts if I violate the procedural rules here?”

 

And evidently the decision later on by the German Supreme Court:

 

“Yes, we’ve always done it, we will always keep doing it. That’s the way we have to do it!”

 

Bunch of horseshit! Excuse my English.

 

Kenny Ko: Hey, you can use whatever language you want. They put you through absolute hell! And first, I wanted to say too, thank you for all you have done, by the way. And also, sorry that you’ve been put through so much. But it just shows that the truth will always prevail. And we need people like you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for doing what you did, sacrificing what you have in order to get this information out to the masses.

 

[28:49]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:40:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/8/2026 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Harry Richardson: Multiculturalism in Australia, as elsewhere in the Anglo-sphere, is irrational and inconsistent. In order to perpetuate this monstrous ideology, its champions are compelled to attack free speech, that great Anglo tradition which exposes and ridicules such nonsense!

 

A recent example is Peter Drew, an Australian artist who produced a series of posters depicting people of non-European ethnicity who lived in Australia at the time of the so-called White Australia Policy. The posters all have the word “Aussie” underneath, implying that these people were Aussies because they’d lived here. These people faced difficulties because they were told that if they left Australia, they would not necessarily be able to return.

 

It’s a similar situation to that faced today by foreigners living in Thailand. European foreigners are known as “farang” and, unlike Thai people, they’re required to leave Thailand periodically and reapply to return. No guarantee is given that they will be allowed back into the country. These farang are not Thai, and nobody thinks that they are. Nobody thinks any less of Thailand for insisting on this policy, despite the inconvenience and upset that it causes many of these farang.

 

Peter Drew put up his posters around Melbourne without permission. Here he is explaining that in his own words:

 

“It’s a very popular project. It’s so popular that even though it’s illegal, I can put my name to it and I’m still allowed to do it, because people like it, whereas these copycat posters are done anonymously because nobody likes them.”

 

Peter Drew’s artwork is propaganda which reinforces the preferred narrative of the establishment elites who run the government, the media, the education system, the legal system, and the bureaucracies. And maybe it’s a coincidence, but it appears that Peter Drew has a picture of Chairman Mao on his wall. The establishment who are supposed to enforce laws don’t enforce this law, perhaps because they like what Peter Drew is doing. The rule of law doesn’t apply to propaganda that supports their narrative, apparently.

 

So fast forward to a short time ago, and a provocative young social media influencer decided to make a statement by creating posters in a similar style to those of Peter Drew. Instead of the faces of historical minorities, however, Auspill, as he’s known, put the faces of diverse Australians who’ve committed horrible crimes, as well as some others, including Donald Trump, with the word “Aussie” underneath them. The most confronting of these posters had the face of Naveed Akram on it. He was one of the two alleged perpetrators accused of the Bondi massacre.

 

Auspill then made a video of himself and a friend putting these posters up around Melbourne, as well as some of the reactions of establishment figures, with commentary from himself and his friend.

 

Full disclosure here: The BAC made two videos a couple of years ago about the Drew posters, and part of one of these was featured in Auspill’s video. We’ll post links to our videos in the description below, along with some references.

 

At this point, Dr. Dvir Abramovich stepped into the fray. Dr. Abramovich runs a well-known jewish defence and advocacy organisation called the Anti-Defamation Commission. Here’s what he had to say about Auspill’s posters:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars. It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi.”

 

Quote:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars.”

 

And Dvir Abramovich again:

 

“It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi. It’s psychological intimidation.”

 

Dr. Abramovich’s comments are interesting on a number of levels, especially in light of some of his previous statements. The first thing that strikes us is the severity of the punishment. He’s calling for. Prison time for putting up a poster? This is very extreme by Australian legal standards. Secondly, and perhaps most strikingly, is the way Dr. Abramovich has completely misunderstood the point of the posters. His statement characterises it as a deliberate attack on the grieving jewish community, when both common sense and Auspill’s own words suggest otherwise.

 

Peter Drew himself admits to attempting to deconstruct Australian identity and help ensure that anyone of any racial, religious, or cultural background can be an Aussie. To this end, he portrays a group of racially diverse people who lived in Australia and are perceived as positive for the nation.

 

Auspill has turned this concept on its head and made posters in the same style depicting racially diverse people who are either clearly bad for the nation or, in the case of Donald Trump, someone who’s never lived here. This dialectic is a form of discussion about the identity of the nation. It would seem that way to us, and Auspill appears to agree. Here he is explaining it in his own words:

 

“This project—this funny little Donald Trump, Naveed Akram—this is taking it to its natural conclusion. Naveed Akram—an Aussie; Donald Trump—an Aussie! It’s not exclusive, right? ‘No one’s illegal on stolen land! Everyone’s an Aussie! It’s a piece of paper!’ I don’t think many Australians the Anzacs or the founding people of this country, would agree with that. It is an invention—a very modern invention—that needs to be upheld by, literally, street propaganda. But we can counter it in the street and get people to look at the extreme conclusions of this ideology. And that’s what this really is about.”

 

Note that he also put up a poster of a Chinese man who’s believed to have deliberately scalded an Aussie baby with a boiling hot cup of coffee. This was a horrific attack on a vulnerable member of the Anglo community, but no one thinks that this was “dancing on the misery” of an injured baby. The image of Naveed Akram is well known because it has been shown repeatedly on mainstream media.

 

As far as we know, Dr. Abramovich had not complained about the image previously. It is understandable, however, that using this image to make a political statement could be upsetting. With that said, however, we feel that Dr. Abramovich is completely missing the point of Auspill’s video.

 

The reason I’m bringing up Dvir Abramovich’s comments is that he has a history of commenting on this topic. Back in 2016, TV personality Sonia Kruger made some remarks during a discussion on TV about Islamic immigration into Australia. I’ll quote from a news.com.au article at the time. She said, whilst talking about Islamic immigration:

 

“Personally, I would like to see it stop now for Australia.”

 

She referred to Japan, a racially homogenous country with a low proportion of Muslim migrants, and pointed out—correctly—that they don’t experience terror attacks by Islamic extremists. She also said that she would like to see freedom of speech. Bear in mind that Kruger made her comments in the wake of a horrific Islamic terror attack in France.

 

But we’d also had attacks in Australia. There was the Skaf [Bilal Skaf] rape gang of 50 Anglo girls in 2000; the Cronulla gang in 2005; the Endeavour Hills stabbings of 2014; the appalling Lindt Cafe siege, also in 2014; and the Parr a matter a shooting of a Chinese-Australian accountant who worked for the police in 2015.

 

In the same article, Ms. Kruger is given a severe dressing-down by none other than Dr. Abramovich, who said, and I quote:

 

“I am dismayed and concerned by this misguided and outrageous statement! Sonia Kruger’s call to ban Muslim immigration to Australia is deeply offensive, irrational and unacceptable.”

 

End quote. So I have to say, that statement didn’t age well at all! And, okay, maybe it was offensive to some Muslims, but “irrational” in light of recent events? Worse than that is Dr. Abramovich’s final claim that this position is “unacceptable.” In other words, no one should be even allowed to argue against this viewpoint. Freedom of speech should be suspended for this topic. Insisting on shutting down everyone else’s speech on a topic suggests a belief in one’s own infallibility. In this case, it turns out that Dr. Abramovich and his opinions were not as infallible as he’d assumed.

 

There’s a particularly sad irony to the staunch opposition to free speech expressed by some jewish community leaders, especially around immigration and diversity. For instance, parts of the organised jewish community were instrumental in draughting Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and defending it against Tony Abbott, who’d promised to repeal it.

 

The peak jewish national body were also consulted in the formation of the latest laws against anti-semitism, hate, and extremism, which gut the Anglo tradition of free speech, particularly where it includes criticism of minorities. During this consultation process, they advocated for stronger provisions and harsher sentencing.

 

Ethnic diversity tends to have serious and well-documented costs wherever it’s found, and this is true for all Australians. But in this latest tragic episode, it’s jews who have borne the brunt of these costs. This just Showcases the irrationality of multicultural minority politics. Australians are expected to suspend common sense when discussing minority interests. The policies of multiculturalism and its feed corn of indiscriminate immigration have never been discussed at an adult level. The shifting allegiances on which multiculturalism is based can shatter when people least expect it.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued his 2016 comment, stating that, quote:

 

“Banning anyone from entry to our country on the basis of their religion goes against long-standing Australian values of respect, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

 

End quote. What he fails to mention here is that for most of our history, Australian immigration policy restricted non-White intakes in order to minimise ethno-religious diversity. We did, however, have some jews in the colony from the beginning, and this was one of the safest and most welcoming countries for them. We had Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was jewish, as our first native-born Governor-General, which is the highest office in the land. General Sir John Monash, who was the pre-eminent Australian general in the First World War and was widely regarded as one of the finest Allied commanders on the Western Front, was also jewish.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued on in his criticism of Sonia Kruger. He said, quote:

 

“Such singling out and demonizing of Muslims is counterproductive and will only serve to foment fear and hatred. As we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, we must avoid falling into the trap of blaming individuals and communities.”

 

This just makes no sense at all! He admits that we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, but insists that we shouldn’t ban Muslim immigration because that will cause fear and hatred of Muslims. Bear in mind that he expressed this opinion after a string of Islamic-inspired attacks, and recent events simply emphasise how appallingly wrong-headed this approach is!

 

The only reason such weak arguments could prevail was the chilling of free speech, which put pressure on people like Sonia Kruger for opposing them.

 

The abolition of free speech means that influential people get to decide on vital policy directions for the whole nation. When these people are shielded from common-sense arguments, their fallibility is protected by a wall of censorship. Dr. Abramovich reinforced this approach when he continued, saying:

 

“Our nation is strengthened by diversity and it is crucial that all leaders stand united in combating any manifestations of bigotry and prejudice.”

 

End quote. This ideological nonsense just has to stop! Diversity is a strength? The fact is that our once peaceful nation of Australia is now riven by blood feuds that have been imported from around the world.

 

Unfortunately, minority advocates are not the only ones attacking free speech. Chris Minns, who’s the Leftist Premier of New South Wales, has been cheer leading the abolition of free speech for some time now. Why? Well, to protect diversity, of course:

 

Minns: When did I say ‘free speech is incompatible with a free society’?

John Ruddick: Mr Premier, you have said that on multiple occasions!

Minns: Would you mind repeating it to me where I have said it and what I said?

John Ruddick: Are you denying that you said it, Mr Premier?

Minns: I would love it for you to quote it back to me.

Minns: I recognise it and I’ve said it from the beginning, that we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community.

Minns: We don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States. We’ve got strict interpretation of hate speech in the state. If that needs to go further in a legislative sense, that’s exactly what I’ll do!

Minns: We have to take steps to protect that. It can’t just be a willy-nilly race to the bottom where civic society turns a blind eye and says, ‘Well, look, freedom of speech reigns here. People can say what they want.’ That’s not the case in New South Wales. We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason is because we love the country that we’ve got here and we are going to take steps to protect what has been built up over decades.

Minns: And I don’t apologise for the fact that we don’t have the same free speech laws that they have in the United States. It’s clear that we don’t! We don’t have the same set of regulations. It’s not embedded in our constitution the same way it is in the US.

Naturally, he isn’t the only one, but he is arrogant enough to say the quiet part out loud. This has to stop! Because, as George Washington once said:

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter!”

 

A majority never wanted mass, indiscriminate, immigration. And the elites who insisted on it are now intent on shutting down our rights to free speech so that we can no longer voice opposition to it. And maybe if Peter Drew wants to abolish a national identity, he should have a go at the Indians or the Chinese or the Palestinians, just to show that it isn’t only Anglo-Celtic identity that he wants to abolish.

 

The whole point of this is that these posters represent free speech. Peter Drew’s posters express an opinion on who can be an Aussie, and so do Auspill’s. Both of them should be allowed to express their opinions.

 

Unfortunately, when we allow powerful elites to destroy free speech, then they will decide what can and cannot be expressed. This is a very slippery slope which leads to tyranny and oppression!

 

In the meantime, the British-Australian Community will continue to defend the identity, the interests, and the free speech rights of our people, just as the rest of the multicultural community defend their people. If you think that this is a worthwhile goal, then join us now!

 

Thank you.

 

[14:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/4/2026 = 38)

@iksootm
1 day ago
If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country.
30

@LucienCanon
1 day ago
You must upload more BAC. Thanks so much for your work.
32

@britishaustraliancommunity
1 day ago
Thank you Lucien, agreed. We are more active on X and Instagram however – youtube doesn’t like us very much.
8

Hide replies

@SirJad_
1 day ago
Multiculturalism will always degrade a society into totalitarianism as the state naturally needs to expand its power to ensure all groups remain cohesive and the overall structure of society remains functional. There is no coincidence as Australia becomes more ‘diverse’, it becomes less free.
21

@southern-samurai
23 hours ago (edited)
The fact that we cannot even have an open conversation about this without risking violating hate speech laws if someone decides to interpret one side as racially offensive highlights the erosion of basic freedoms and cultural norms in Australia as a result of protecting multicultural ideology.
7

@keilgre5319
17 hours ago
Freedom. Remigration.
7

@Zinnia-x9c
1 day ago
Peter Drew is still crashing out over Auspill’s art series.
13

@Generico301
1 day ago
Nice 1, Harry. Need more like it.
7

@Whats_newss
1 day ago
Great video
7

@user-di8gh5fw6d
23 hours ago
Africa 54 countries, SA is now kicking out other africans from their South Africa country because their not South African. Are they racist.
5

@what_social_contract
1 day ago
Cracking video
4

@leonhanford5560
4 hours ago
Peter Drew is a delusional lefty.Full regime backing.And don’t get me started on Dvir
2

@joelwhaley8182
23 hours ago
Where is your 1901 federal red flag. Where is your Commonwealth of Australia. Where is your townspeople. Where is your self determination. Lest ye forget is strsight out of the AKJV bible. A warning that rings true today as Australians forgot who they are and what their ANZAC even fought for at all.
2

@Cohen-cidenceinspector
1 day ago
2:47 ….. looks like the ghost of a mud slime woman floating down the street.

@Westyrulz
3 hours ago
The European Race could cease to exist as all European societies have opened up to mass Non-White immigration.

@masscreationbroadcasts
1 day ago
Why do you try to convince people? Sorry, I’m not being clear enough. These people got power by taking advantage of your good will and giving themselves power over you because they hate their own kind for status. Debate won’t fix this.
2

@Melbournelost66
1 day ago
Those posters I utterly despise. I have noticed them around inner Melbourne, in particular Fitzroy, Collingwood etc. Who said its popular? Have they taken a poll? What if we rip them down????
4

@John-p7i5g
17 hours ago
Multiculti society = logical contradiction = balkanisation
1

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
Can you imagine the outrage and backlash, if China were to have an Australian-Anglo as its ‘Foreign Minister’, or if India were to have an Australian-Irishman as one of its parliamentary senators? Or if Israel were to have a non-Jewish, Australian Christian prime minister? Or if Saudi Arabia were to have an Australian atheist serve in its Council of Ministers? (continued below)
Why is it that we are expected to applaud all other nations of the earth for having their people represented by their founding stock, while White nations only are expected to prove their ‘diversity’ and ‘multicultural’ bonafides?
How log will this ridiculous canard be tolerated?
11

@Is_This_Really_Necessary
19 hours ago
Multiculturism only works when it’s NOT forced down everyone’s throats all the goddamn time. But because Western governments have chosen to impose multiculturalism onto everyone, as an Auzzie I choose freedom.
So I will say whatever I want, however I want, whenever I want, I don’t have a damn what anyone else thinks.
1

@raycap
2 hours ago
Minns is telling us we don’t matter, it’s, I will take away your freedoms, and you will keep your mouth shut, or it’s jail time. Slowly but surely, like any extreme left party, they are implementing communism.

@THEOFFICEOFHELP
1 day ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4YMXPiM6Jc

@insolent6702
15 hours ago
Mouse click sound effect is ruining this video
1

@australiasindustrialage689
4 hours ago
What Chris Minns said is a load of trash, he fails to understand that Australia was founded on Anglo-Australianism, free-speech was an implied right

@MELcontents.not.american
6 hours ago
You lost me in your first statement. Multiculturalism makes us strong, liveable, rich.
Multiculturalism is the kernel of the Australian experience.

@tsopmocful1958
6 hours ago
No, Australia and the entire West has gone downhill ever since multicultural policies were implemented as early as the 1970’s.
2

@MELcontents.not.american
4 hours ago
@tsopmocful1958 are you suggesting that for example, Vietnamese immigration has been a bad thing for Australia?

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/28/2026 = 5)

leibekohne
1 day ago
Well said,its simply policy promoting war on white people.This is done by tiny JZOGBots, who own media, those scum who gave so called power to useless stinky ugly fat aboerectus who parricides on white men who build Australia. We see that it will never work and only creates contention with patriotic nationalistic young Australians. As for Anzac one can make gymnastics about. The truth is we fought wrong enemies Germans Japanese Italians in WW1 WW2 our heroes “fought” for white Australia they thought only later the same JZOG turn it to multi-cultural melting pot, to destroy white race, just opposite what they were fighting for. Thus our existence is replaced and children no future for our children. This is truth about weakness and perversion of ANZAC its legitimacy has to be challenge again in high court as abos can not be allowed to subvert sabotage subjugate whites men ancestral holiday. Australia is whites men land always was and always will be. Abos have they theirs own name let it be so; “Kangaroo Island” or “Great Sandy Island.” . That’s why scum is burning Australian flag for which they should be severely punished, and they are not part of. That’s what they had and have with abo flag and jzog can do nothing about it. Challenge it in court as its opportunity to separate from abos and rest of non-whites and stop paying taxes for them once and for all. https://www.studycountry.com/wiki/what-did-the-aboriginals-call-australia-before
4
0

Watchman4u
Supporter
1 day ago
it’s the jews
3
0

charliebrownau
1 day ago
Gday Why would it stop the entire system is Anti White as more and more boomers die off the mask is revealed more and more No longer is the majority White Working Class thus the system no longer needs to pander to them Africans , Indians, Abos, Gays, Chinese and Jews are the new ‘Modern Australians’ legacy White Australians are just in the road of the Multi polar World Order utopia Even the false civnat claim that we are all equal and we don’t see race and we refuse to use racial identity ‘politics’ is slipping as Abos, Indians, Jews all have a racial group preference its just whitey that’s been brainwashed with race blind Universal Individualism No such thing exists as apolitical/unpolitical subjects/groups/activities everything is political anything that ‘isnt’ just means people don’t understand whats going on and you lot refuse to pull your head out of the sand and get off the fence It needs to be worse, more anti white and more Anti White Australians on a more widespread scale for the majority to change/adapt / forced to wake up Still not bad enough for massive change Accelerate towards victory —————————————- ” Truth Fears NO INVESTIGATION ” ” Facts don’t care about your feelings ” ” Access to White is not an Universal ((( RIGHT ))) ” ” My Wallet My Choice ” ” Real Freedom hasn’t been attempted yet ” _________ Regards Charliebrownau * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – https://t.me/s/Charliebrownau
2
0

Lokislad
Supporter+
1 day ago
Lost me when he started to manufacture Abo Lore BULLSHIT! It is a scam – period NO DREAMING BS AT ALL!

fastnail
11 hours ago
jews
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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