[In this very informative interview (100 mins ) Henrik Palmgren talks with a well known Swedish journalist/activist Ingrid Carlqvist. We learn how Ingrid has recently woken up to the central role of organized jewry in destroying Sweden through the pushing of the Third World invasion of Sweden.
Prior to this awakening she focused her attention on Muslims, i.e., the “effect” rather than the root cause.
Since her awakening she has even begun to question aspects of the “holy of hollies“, the “Holocaust” (or “Holohoax” as many of us like to call it). As a result, many people who have been supportive of her work have suddenly shown another face and have turned strongly against her — KATANA.]
Red Ice Radio
Scandal in Sweden
Questions the Unquestionable
Click here for the video:
Click here for the audio only:
Click on the above links, or copy the link into your browser to listen to the audio or watch the video.
Published on May 1, 2017
Red Ice TV Description
Ingrid Carlqvist worked in mainstream media for many years, before starting Dispatch International with Lars Hedegaard in 2012. She has been a writer for Gatestone Institute and co-hosts the popular Swedish podcast, Ingrid & Conrad.
Ingrid returns to Red Ice to discuss her experience as a journalist telling unpopular truths in Sweden. To begin, she tells us about how she set out to understand why Sweden had become multicultural. Ingrid quickly realized that it is nearly impossible to discuss Jewish influence, as most people – even those critical of Islam – are unwilling to venture into such controversial waters. We then discuss Barbara Spectre, an influential American Jew in Sweden who has called for the end of European civilization through mass immigration from the third world. Later, we discuss Holocaust revisionism, and how Ingrid’s willingness to question – not deny – this historical event has affected her journalism career.
Subscribe and stream or download over 1000 programs, videos, films, Insight episodes, Red Ice TV & watch our exclusive live show, Weekend Warrior.
More Red Ice:
Henrik: Hey boys and girls, welcome back. Thank you for tuning in. I’m Henrik Palmgren. This is Red Ice TV. You have also, of course, a radio version available of this show if you so prefer. Great to have you with us today. We have a special segment together with one of the co-hosts of Norse News which I definitely hope you have checked out by now.
We’re actually up in the third episode at this point., but we have Ingrid Carlqvist with us on the line today. And we’re going to talk a bit about some of the things have unfolded in the Swedish press over the last week, or so. She was basically drawn into a controversial issue of her raising some very important points when it comes to, you know, Swedish multiculturalism and what it is that we really are are faced and what it is that we’re battling in Sweden. You know, when it comes to the transformation of Swedish society. And it’s really important.
I also just want to mention this that, you know, Ingrid is a very, very talented journalist. I mean, she’s been, … She’s like a bloodhound, you know, she’s been digging into issues over the years and not let go. When she gets on a trail, she follows through and she catches her prey, so to speak. And in this case it’s really the same thing that has happened. So we were going to try to detail this today and try to outline for you exactly what it is that happened and the kind of chronology of this.
So, welcome to the show, Ingrid. Thank you so much for a coming on with us again.
Ingrid Gives an Outline of Her “Fall from Grace”
Ingrid: Thank you so much Henrik! Thanks for having me.
Henrik: So tell the audience first what happened and how did this all of the begin for those who haven’t followed the Swedish press.
Ingrid: Well, it actually began, I think, we have to go back to February, when I had a speech in Gothenburg. Some people wanted me to come and speak about a book that I plan to write. And the working title of my book is, “From Sweden to Absurdistan” and I want to, you know, try to understand how did this happen. How did we go from 1965, when our Prime Minister said:
“We are so lucky in Sweden, because we are an homogenous country, not only according to the race. We are so lucky!”
And then ten years later, in 1975, the Swedish parliament decided that Sweden was not going to be a Swedish country anymore, but a multicultural one! And we’ve all seen what has happened since then, so that the focus of my work, what I want to find out is: How did this happen? How did we go in just ten years from a Prime Minister praising the homogeneity of Sweden to Parliament saying that Swedish is not good, we want to be a multicultural country?
And when I, you know, researched this subject I found out that it all started in October 1964 with an op-ed in one of the biggest Swedish newspapers called “Dagens Nyheter”, “The Daily News”. And it was written by a Jewish man called David Schwartz*. And he had come to Sweden in 1950, or so. He had been a prisoner in a concentration camp in Germany. And came to Sweden and started his life here.
[* David Schwarz, born in 1928 in Poland, died in November 2008,  was a Swedish-Jewish social reformer and editor. During World War II he was placed in the concentration camps Buchenwald, Nordhausen, Dora and Bergen-Belsen.
Like many other interns in the concentration camps, he was affected by both typhoid and tuberculosis. Schwarz, however, was more fortunate than many other victims and was first admitted to a sanatorium in Germany and later moved to another in Italy where he remained until 1950.
When the Italian sanatorium was closed, Schwarz was sent to Sweden where he was treated at different places until 1954. When Schwarz recovered, he initially lived on government grants but later came to study at Stockholm University.
Over time, immigrant issues became the central part of his life, a question whereby Schwarz came to have a significant influence on Swedish social development. As a diligent debate in the daily press and as editor of the journal Immigrants and minorities, he was deeply engaged in Swedish immigration policy from the 1960s.
Source: Google translation of Swedish Wikipedia article: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schwarz]
And he quite quickly became a figure that people knew about. You know, he was very active, he wanted to do good things for immigrants in Sweden and after a few years he became the editor of a newspaper called something like, “Immigration and Minorities”.
And in October 1964, he wrote an op-ed in one of the biggest Swedish newspapers where he called for multiculturalism in Sweden. Because as he saw it, the Jews were a little minority in Sweden, but, of course, they had been here for two, or three hundred years, and after the war there came other Jews. But we had a Jewish population, very small, but a Jewish population that had lived in Sweden for two, or three hundred years.
But he wanted, … He saw the majority society as a threat to minorities! So his suggestion was that Sweden would turn into a multicultural country, so there would be many minorities in Sweden, so the Jews would not the only minority, so we wouldn’t think badly of them! Of course, I mean, I’m just, you know, shortening it down, but that was really his mission.
Henrik: Yes in a way it’s, I guess, it’s a tactic as an ethnic minority to kind of protect yourself, right? To make sure that you’re not singled out and maybe that you’re targeted and considering then the, you know, the history in these kinds of things, it was a way for them to protect themselves. But, of course, in the wake of this, what they have to recognize is also that then leads to the destruction of a nation!
Henrik: Which can also also actually cause people to be antagonistic towards this kind of behavior, right?
Jewish Ethnic Interests at the Expense of the Majority Swedes
Ingrid: And what I think that, I’m not sure that he wanted to destroy the Swedish people. I think he was, … I have actually talked to people who knew him in the 80s and they say that at that point he was not very happy with the mass immigration into Sweden. So maybe, he had remorse, maybe he thought that what he started didn’t really work out very well.
So we have to, you know, think that maybe he didn’t know what he was doing. But if you have an ethnic group, a minority, who wants to have, you know, a better place in society, a better, … I don’t know what to call it, you know, yeah, a better place in society. That people don’t single you out and so on. So it’s quite normal for you to say that my ethnic group would profit from other ethnic minorities, because the Swedish majority, maybe they will not like the Jews. So, but if we bring new minorities into the country, then they will not just think about the Jews and that would be good for the ethnic Jewish interests.
But what you have to understand, if you do good for one ethnic minority, you will do bad for another, for the ethnic majority! And that is exactly what we see now, forty, or fifty years after his first article about this, we see that the Swedish people are to become a minority in our own country, because of what started in 1964!
And that is what I said in my speech in Gothenberg in February. And there was a person there, Jan Sjunnesson and he is sort of a journalist. Sort of a patriot. And he was there to write about my speech for one of these alternative media sites, called Avpixlat. But he never wrote anything! So I thought, okay maybe this was too much for him. Because, you know, there are people who say you can talk about everything, you can talk about mass immigration, you can talk about Islamization, but don’t mention the Jews! If you do that, you are, … [making a cutting your throat gesture] Like this.
Henrik: Its a “third rail”. You die if you touch it, as they say.
Ingrid’s Speech at Gothenberg and Jan Sjunnesson’s Reaction
Ingrid: Absolutely! And I was very, you know, nervous before I had my speech. I actually said to the audience, … They gave me a big applause when I came up to up on the stage. And I said to them:
“Thank you very much. I hope you’re going to applaud when I’m finished.”
Because I really didn’t know how they were going to react. Maybe they would boo, maybe they would throw rotten tomatoes at me, or something like that.
But, everything went very well and most people applauded very, very hard, you know, and they really liked it. But this person, Jan Sjunnesson, he just disappeared, very quickly. And he never wrote about it. So I thought, okay, this was too much for him. He doesn’t want anyone to talk about the jewish, you know, how the jews had some effect on what has happened in Sweden. And so, nothing ever happened, until a week ago.
And then he suddenly wrote an article on his blog saying that:
“I don’t want to have anything to do with that anti-Semitism that comes from Ingrid Carlqvist and the site Avpixlat!”
The site where he works, because they also, they actually had an article with the same content as I said, in my speech in Gothenberg, about David Schwartz and about that article from 1964. So he felt the need to write that he didn’t support me or Avpixlat when they wrote about the thing about the jews.
David Schwarz and His Push for Multi-Culturalism
Henrik: Yup. Of course, this is a proposition 1975-26. This is the official proposition that David Schwartz helped to create in Sweden. And, of course, this initiated the process of Sweden slowly becoming and adopting a multicultural, you know, viewpoint and official stance as a country.
And I believe that you’re right when you say that this is, … What we’re living through today is the not even the final process, but it’s in the midst of the true effects of this proposition that they backed so many years ago.
And you have a similar one, of course, in America the Hart-Celler Act, where you also actually had a jew, a part in writing that. It’s just a fact. I mean, it’s like if we can’t talk and discuss about reality of this, I don’t know where to begin with some of these people! Especially, of course, when they’re free speech advocates.
My point that I mentioned about you Ingrid, is that you’ve been a kind of a blood [hound]! You go on a trail and you follow through on that. You let the truth lead you where it will, right? And in this case, it leads to David Schwartz. It leads to, you know, that person transforming Swedish society. And I think that we should be able to talk about that. I think we should be able to recognize the reality of that.
Ingrid: Well, of course! I mean, as a journalist I think that you always have to have the truth, as your, you know, your star, where you’re heading. And it’s been like that for me ever since I was eighteen years old and started in the School of Journalism.
So it may sound pathetic, but that’s really true! I always wanted to find the truth and I’ve never, you know, if everyone is running to the right, I turn to the left to see what is there. Because I really don’t like, you know, when people get into this frenzy where everybody’s writing about, like, for example, pedophilia, “Everyone is a pedophile! All daddies are paedophiles!” and so on. And I really don’t like that, you know! I want to see what is on the other side, because I don’t like when people get, you know, hysterical about something.
And so, I’ve always tried to see where is the truth and I don’t really care about being popular!
Ingrid’s Mission in Life as a Journalist
Ingrid: You know, that? Most people want to be popular. They want to be loved, they want to be liked, they want everybody to, you know, pat your back and say, “Oh, you’re wonderful Ingrid!” I’ve never really cared about that!
What I care about is, I think I was born with a talent, or some talents. I have a talent for writing in a way that most people understand. I don’t try to write in a very difficult language. I want everybody to understand what I want to tell them. And I also have the ability to speak to people in a way that they understand.
So I think, that my mission in this life is to, … When I find out some things, when I understand something, it is my duty to tell other people about it. And many times people will say:
“We don’t like it! We don’t like what you’re telling us. We don’t want to hear this.”
But that doesn’t matter to me, because I need to tell it anyway. And most of the time, and after ten years, or twenty years, they will say:
“Okay, you were right. We’re sorry we didn’t listen to you!”
But that’s okay. I just feel this is my talent in life and this is my duty to do it.
Henrik: Absolutely! I mean, you’re very, … I think the truth is the noblest quest one can have. And truth is not always polite, and yes, even from a strategic point of view sometimes it isn’t the correct thing to apply truth. Sometimes we amend it to, you know, preserve relationships and things like this. But as a journalistic, you know, an integrity, as an effort, this surely has to be the at the front line of this, right?
So the critique that you received is basically:
“You’re not allowed to talk about this. If this is where things go, it’s off the table. You’re not allowed to talk about it!”
So I’m wondering, what relationship can we have to a subject like this when it comes to how we became multicultural without discussing and recognizing the reality of the situation?
Because it’s not that these sources that have criticized you, have argued on the points that you brought up themselves and said:
“Listen! You’re factually incorrect! This is what happened, blah, blah, blah.”
No! That’s not the case at all. In this case is just, you are now a horrible person, because you have recognized something that we are not allowed to talk about!
Ingrid: Yeah absolutely! And that makes me really, really sad! Because, you know, for many years I have been talking about the dangerous of Islam and Islamization. And lot of people, of course, they called me an Islamaphobe. But, I have had a lot of fans saying that:
“Oh, what you’re doing is so important and think about what the Muslims do to the Jews in Sweden. They harass them and so on!”
But now, when I found out that there’s something strange going on with how the jews are operating in Sweden, and now, I’m not only talking about David Schwartz and what he did in one 1964. But what the jewish leaders in Sweden — not all jews, I’m not talking about all jews. I’m talking about jewish organizations and jews leaders. Something strange is going on with what they’re doing.
And when I say that, people go crazy! I mean, all the people who said:
“Oh! You don’t hate Muslims! We understand everything you’re saying. You just want to criticize Islam. That’s your right, freedom of speech!” la, la, la!
And now when I say, okay, there’s something strange going on with the jewish leaders, you know, they are not scared of the Muslims! They’re actually working for mass immigration into Sweden!
Ingrid: Some other people have said:
“That is so good what you doing, just go after the Muslims, or after Islam!”
Now they say:
“You’re horrible Ingrid! You can’t do that!”
But I’m doing just the same as I did all the time! I’m finding out who are the bad guys. Why are they doing this to our country? But, if you talk about Muslims, okay, you will be called an Islamaphobe. But a lot of people will say, “Great! Do it!”
But if you mention the jews, you know, now it just got into my head, you know, Fawlty Towers he said, “Don’t mention the war!”
Henrik: “Don’t mention the war!” That’s right!
Ingrid: Yes, this is the same! Don’t mention the jews! Because if you do that you are, … [making a cutting the throat gesture]
Henrik: Right. Right. And again it’s, you know, it to, but also this aspect of this has to be prefaced, and that’s okay and that’s fine.
You know, we have to talk about this and there’s a lot of sensitivity around this issue and, you know, because of the way that we’re taught and the history we’re taught. We have a special emotional bond, almost like a trauma around the subject, which has made it, as I said, a third rail, one you can’t touch. And if you do, you die!
But the fact is we can discuss, no matter what people think about this, we can discuss the reality of this, we can discuss and theorize. Is there an ethnic interest, you know, from the many other people who push multiculturalism, as we know.
And again, if we’re not allowed to discuss that, I don’t know how to approach people, because it’s the same thing as if we had Islamic factions, which we, of course, we do. But let’s assume that we had them at prominent positions within the media, they were in prominent positions in politics, or lobbying, or these kinds of positions, people like yourselves would have pointed this out! And that’s not a crime to do. It is just recognizing the reality and saying:
“Listen! Here are a lot of people, they’re not Swedish, they have their own group, they belong to their own group — that’s fine — but are they transforming and influencing and changing Swedish society? And if so we are going to talk about that.”
There’s nothing strange about that. That’s not a crime, but my point is, the associations of all of this has now made it, almost become a crime, right? That you see the response, the reflex that people have and recoil in horror when you like dare to address the issue! That is very strange to me. It’s almost like people are almost mind controlled! We’re just talking about the reality of this thing! This is not a crime! What’s going on here?
Ingrid’s Interview on Spingola Speaks with Deanna
Ingrid: This is what makes me very, very sad! You know, first of all, I want to say that I, for many many years, I couldn’t understand how anyone could say anything about the jews. Because I had the image that all jews in Sweden, they were assimilated. I thought they were sweet, they were praying to another god, but most of them were secular. They didn’t really believe in God, so I felt there was no difference.
And I really didn’t, this is I must tell you, all these things aside, as I told you I have, you know, written about things that nobody else wanted to write about. Fathers being accused of incest and so on. Really, you know, the stuff that doesn’t make you popular. But the thing about the jews, I couldn’t even think that there was something like this going on! And the first time I ever heard about this, was in a radio interview with a station called, I don’t know Deanna Spingola, or something like that?
Henrik: A lot of this material was not, … It was brought to your attention sometimes by, almost in a hostile way, you know, in other times it was just, “Hey Ingrid! Look at this! What’s going on here?” You know, curiosity right? What’s going on here?
But tell us about the radio show before we can listen to a clip here.
Spingola Asks Ingrid About Barbara Spectre
Ingrid: Yes, she sent me an e-mail asking if I and my code editor Lars Hedegaard wanted to be on her radio show and we had just started Dispatch International and we thought, well okay, that’s good, if someone in America wants to listen to us and what we want to do with this newspaper, fine! So I didn’t really do any research, you know, what is this Spingola Speaks, I just thought, oh that’s a radio station and that’s okay.
And she called us up and we sat, actually together in Copenhagen, me and Lars Hedegaard, and we talked, I think for one hour about the mass immigration and the problems with Muslims and Islam. And then suddenly she says:
“Well, what about Barbara Spectre, the jewish person in Stockholm, and what she says about multiculturalism?”
And we were, you know, like looking at each other and said:
“What? Who? What are you talking about? Who is Barbara Spectre?”
And she said:
“You must know!”
She said, sort of their big jewish leader and she says that Europe has to become multicultural, if they don’t do, they will die! And that was that.
“We don’t know what you’re talking about!”
And then she played the clip and I think you have what happened after that.
Henrik: Yes, should we play the Barbara Spectre clip first and see for those who haven’t seen it?
Barbara Spectre’s Infamous Interview and the Role of Paideia
Henrik: So check this out folks:
NARRATOR: There are people in Sweden who support Israel and have a deep sense of the injustice of the present situation. It is these people who give hope to those who do believe that things will get better here. One of them is Barbara Spectre, a former American who made Aliya* and then ten years ago, with the help of the government of Sweden set up a non-denominational institute of jewish learning with the Greek name of Paideia, here in Stockholm. She believes that the current wave of anti-semitism in Sweden will pass. And that jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.
SPECTRE: “I think there’s a resurgence of anti-semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”
[* Aliyah (aliyah, “ascent”) is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael). Also defined as “the act of going up” or as in progressing towards Jerusalem. It is one of the most basic tenets of Zionist ideology. The opposite action, emigration from Israel, is referred to as yerida (“descent”). The concept of Aliyah (return) to the Holy Land was first developed in Jewish history during the Babylonian exile. During the Jewish diaspora, Aliyah was developed as a national aspiration for the Jewish people, although it was not usually fulfilled until the development of the Zionist movement in the late nineteenth century. Large-scale immigration to Palestine began in 1882. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, more than 3 million Jews from over 90 countries have ‘made Aliyah’ and arrived in Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah]
Henrik: I mean, that’s pretty bold right! That’s a pretty bold statement. I don’t know how she can talk, in one sense for all jews, which she does, but I guess, she knows something we don’t. But should we listen to the reactions of you and Lars at the program, right? It’s pretty interesting.
Ingrid: Please do.
Henrik: Let’s listen to this, here folks.
Deanna: Barbara Spectre. And she’s promoting multiculturalism in Sweden. She set up an organization there ten years ago, to do that. And she says people are pretty upset about it, and they’re pretty upset at the jews, because jews seem to be the ones who are promoting it. And that’s why there is so much anti-semitism in Sweden.
Ingrid: But that’s not true Deanna. Because nobody has heard of this Barbara Spectre and, you know, we have problems with anti-semitism, but that is not from the natives Swedes. The new thing that’s happened is that we have so many Muslims in the country now and they hate jews! You know, that. That’s part of their so-called religion, and especially in my town, Malmo, the Jews are fleeing from the town, because they can’t walk outside with a kippa, for example, because Muslim youths are throwing stones at them, calling them names and harassing them in all ways! So, the anti-semitism is not from native Swedes, it’s from Muslims from all over the world that are now staying in Sweden.
Henrik: So I mean, that’s true on one level, right? That there are actually, many jews in Malmo that have been forced to leave, but it’s not the Barbara Spectre’s that are affected by the policies that they are incorporating, or pushing on Sweden, right?
Ingrid: To tell you the truth when I was that clip, when she sent that clip to me, I was in shock! In total shock! I had never heard anyone, Swede, or jew, or Muslim saying anything like this. It’s absolutely preposterous what this person is saying! She actually says that we need to become multicultural, and the jews are going to be in the forefront, and they will be resented, because the Europeans won’t like it. But this is the only way, because if the jews don’t go, you know, fixing this multiculturalism, Europe will die!
Attempts to Suppress the Barbara Spectre Interview Clip
Henrik: How is that? This is not prefaced, of course, in this documentary, it’s a clip, by the way, that we watch from, I think it’s an Israeli Broadcasting Company and they were actually vehemently going after anyone who actually reference this clip, for the longest time on You Tube.
There’s even a court case in Britain right now, referencing one of the videos where Barbara Spectre is mentioned in. And I believe it’s still her and some other people trying to get Google and You Tube, which Google owns, to stop all of these kinds of clips from being out there. But she is the one who said it! We were not saying this! This is her words! Right? [laughing]
Ingrid: Absolutely! And what I thought, when I first saw it, after Deanna Spingola sent it to me, you know, I was in shock, but I thought, who is this person? I had never heard about her. I mean, I am a Swedish journalist, if she was an important person I would have heard about her!
Paideia Institute and Its “Nazi Gold” Blackmail of Sweden
Ingrid: But! That was not the case.
Afterwards, when I started to research this person, I understood that she was the headmaster of a jewish learning institute called Paideia. Now she just resigned, just a few months ago. They changed the headmaster. But she was the headmaster for more than ten years.
And how did this Paideia Institute happen? What, why did it come to be? Well, it was like this. The jewish organizations in Sweden, they said to the government, again and again:
“We believe that your central bank were dealing with looted gold! Nazi gold, during World War Two. And then you owe us money!”
So the Swedish government, they actually did two, or three, investigations into this to see was it true. Did the central bank actually deal with looted gold? And the answer was, again and again, no! There was no proof of this! But these jewish organizations they didn’t settle for that. So finally the government decided that they were going to give this jewish organization forty million kroner. That’s about four million dollars.
Henrik: Wow! Amazing!
Ingrid: Yeah. Not, because of looted gold, because that was no looted gold! But as a gesture of kindness!
Henrik: It’s bribe money, right? It’s blackmail frankly, emotional blackmail!
Ingrid: Yeah! And what I have found out, and this I will publish in a few months, but I will give you a preview of this, …
Ingrid: I found out that, when they were negotiating with the Swedish government, they told the government:
“If you don’t give us this money. We have, behind us, we have the World jewish Congress.
And if you don’t give us the money, we will tell all the world that Sweden is anti-semitic!”
Henrik: Oh god!
Ingrid: That’s how they got the money.
So they gave them fourteen million kroner, four million dollars, and they set up this institute of Paedeia. And this person as they said in that clip, that she was born in America and then she went to Israel. And her husband was a rabbi and he got a job in Stockholm synagogue. So that’s why she came to Stockholm. And she needed something to do as someone xxx [?] .
Henrik: Let’s make Sweden multicultural! That’ll be fun! Let’s do that! [laughing]
Paedeia Institute Working with Muslim Organizations in Sweden
Ingrid: So, yes she got to be headmaster of this Paedeia.
And since then she has been working so, you know, intensely to do everything to make Sweden more multicultural. And what is really also shocking, you know, I have written so many articles about the Muslim harassment of jews. Which I think is horrible! Horrible! I don’t want people in my country harassing people in the streets, just because they wear a kippa, or a Star of David, or whatever! I don’t want that!
So I’ve been writing a lot of articles about that. But what is actually going on now, is that the Paedeia Institute, Barbara Spectre’s institute, they are working closely together with Muslim organizations in Sweden. They have, I don’t know if you have the picture where Barbara’s Spectre and someone who is a boss of a Muslim organization, they’re all standing together doing the Tawheed thing, finger. You know, one God.
Ingrid: There is only One God. A lot of Muslims and jews, they think that we Christians, we don’t believe in One God. The Trinity, they believe that we believe in three gods.
Ingrid: Yeah. So yeah, that was a horrible experience finding out who Barbara Spectre really was, and what she has been doing is Sweden for so many years.
And she has, you know, gone under the radar for so many years! No Swedes know about! But her institute, they have connections inside the government, so they know exactly what to do! They know exactly how to pull the strings and get what they want! And they don’t need to be known by Swedes. They prefer not to be known by Swedes.
Henrik: You’re right, I mean, it’s about holding power more behind the scenes and not being out in the open. Because this clip that we watched, from the Israeli Broadcasting Company, or agency, or whatever they’re called, it was never meant to be for the consumption of every, you know, European out there.
The Crime of Transforming Sweden from a Homogenous Nation to a Multicultural One
Henrik: This was for their own television show, of basically tracking, monitoring, like what is it like for jewish people in Sweden? is it good? And also in line with what David Schwartz kind of advocated for. You know, the more multicultural it is, the better it’s going to be for our group. Because we can kind of, you know, we’ll blend in, we’ll not be the only one the group that’s targeted, and these kinds of things.
Although there’s a price for, I guess, what you should we call them, lower class jews? That, for example, live in Malmo, where they actually are targeted in these kinds of capacities. By Muslims on the street when they see that they wear their yarmulke, whatever.
But it’s not about that. It’s about the bigger more important goal it seems like almost, of making sure that Sweden is forever transformed! And we go from a ethnically homogenous nation to a multicultural one. And look at the damage!
I mean, Ingrid, for Christ’s sake, and to everyone out there listening and watching this. Ask yourself; why are we not supposed to be able to talk about this?
Henrik: Why are we not be able to recognise that this is what’s happening? And those who have themselves, not us, they have declared themselves our enemies! They are saying, somehow it’s wrong for us to just be remain Swedish in our own country! And that we, I mean, she doesn’t preface how we’re going to survive with all these people. It’s actually quite the opposite. We’re actually demographically in decline, because of it.
I see this as a crime! This is a crime towards humanity! It’s a crime towards Sweden, turning it into this very, incredibly, unsafe country! And she should be held responsible for her advocacy of this!
Ingrid: Absolutely! And what I really fear, because I am sure, I know that so many, you know, normal Swedish jews, the ones who are not in the lead are not chairman of the different jewish organizations, not rabbis in the synagogue and so on. Normal jews! I’ve talked to quite a few of them, they are really, really scared of what is going on in Sweden. They are scared of these Muslim mass immigration and they are scared that they’re going to be beaten up and so on. But, if you ask them:
“Please, can you tell me. I’m a journalist, can you tell me, I want to write about this, …”
They all say:
“No, no, no, I can’t talk to you about this! You have to speak to the Rabbi! You have to speak to the chairman of the jewish organization.” and so on.
And I wonder why? Why are they so scared? Okay, you can say, most Swedes are scared too. We don’t want to talk. A lot of people, Swedish don’t want to talk, because they’re afraid that they will lose their jobs and so on.
But if are a minority in a country and you see that things are going wrong, where should you have your loyalty? Why, if these jews, who are scared of Muslim immigration, they’re scared to be beaten up and so on, why don’t they go with the Swedes? Why do they go to the leaders of their synagogues and their organizations who are doing exactly what they are afraid of?
And that is something that, you know, scares me, because I will always thought Jewish people in Sweden, they were Swedish. They were just like, okay we pray to another god and so on, but we are Swedish first and foremost!
And when I hear them saying that they don’t want to talk about it, I have to speak to the rabbi, or some other person who is in charge of what the jews think! Then I get scared. Because this is not how you build a country, this is not democracy, this is not, you know, solidarity between the people and it makes me scared.
“There is No Such Thing as a Native Swedish Culture”
Henrik: Yeah, definitely. And there’s other examples Ingrid. Let me just talk about this for a moment.
We had another official working, actually working for the Swedish government, telling us that there is no such thing as a native Swedish culture, you know! And again I found out it’s not, I didn’t go look for the stuff. It was just these people, you know, come with their ridiculous accusations against us as a people and then I find out that this woman, Ingrid Lungfaust [sp] , she is, just happened to be educated in Jerusalem at the xxx university there.
She is jewish, she was trained at the Hebrew College in Boston and she’s even the general secretary at the jewish synagogue, or the jewish community in Stockholm. And she in one of her speeches said, talking about these points of, you know, she’s head of “Living History”, as it’s called in Sweden, telling us that immigration is nothing new.
We’re all a consequence of immigration and there isn’t actually any domestic, or like native Swedish culture. I mean, this is what, … It’s like, stay out of this! Why are you talking about these things? I mean, it’s such a radical, you know, attitudes here! She’s sitting in front of the Swedish King, even, who’s at this lecture with her. Lecturing us that there is no Swedish culture! I mean, what the hell is this!
Ingrid: It’s preposterous! Who does this woman think she is! Standing in front of the Swedish King and Queen and saying:
“There is no such thing as a Swedish culture!”
Ingrid: “Everything is from abroad.” I mean, I was sick! I was sick when I saw the King and Queen, you know, clapping!
Henrik: Yeah! Exactly!
Ingrid: And it is absolutely crazy! And this woman, I think that she believed, because this has, … You could you could do this for so many years in Sweden. The Swedes never protested. They could say anything about us:
“You don’t have a culture, you don’t have a language, you don’t have a history. The Vikings were never there! Blah, blah, blah!”
And all we said was:
“Okay, okay, okay, …” “This is not your country!”, “Okay, okay, okay, …” “All the people in the world need your country!” “Okay, okay, …”
This has been going on for so many years! So I’m actually not surprised that she thought that she could stand in front of the King and the Queen and say there is no such thing as a Swedish culture! But actually, that blew up in her face! Because, a lot of Swedes, they, you know, they just got crazy when they heard her. Because people, I mean, we might be very docile and very, you know, banged down in our shoes, or whatever you call it in English, …
Henrik: Passive to a certain extent. Yeah.
Ingrid: Yeah. This actually made the Swedes really angry!
Ingrid: So it was all over the news the next day, that:
“Why? What is she talking about? Of course, there’s a Swedish culture!” and so on.
So she actually, the next day, she had to go out and say:
“Oh, I’m sorry! That’s not what I meant! I just meant that, of course, the Swedish culture has influences from my cultures, …” and so on.
Henrik: Yeah, yeah. It’s amazing Ingrid, that they have gotten away with it so long. But they’re not doing that anymore.
But, for a moment then, go back to this point you were talking about. About Specter and your reactions to these kinds of things. And again you ended up on a on a trail where you basically started, you know, questioning certain things and discovering certain aspects and saying, “What is this?” you know, “Is there any truth to these rumors?”, because as you said initially, you were basically, you know, shocked, but you were also kind of standoffish and like:
“No, this woman [Barbara Spectre] doesn’t hold any power, it’s a moot point. It doesn’t matter, doesn’t apply!”
But then the more you looked into it you realized that she’s not the only one, there’s many others, …
Your Right to Investigate Accepted History
Henrik: And there is a trail here, there are people and, you know, I see it as your right to investigate historical instances! I see it as your right to come to your own conclusions when it comes to information! We’ve seen in the past, how dangerous it is when people accept, you know, government propaganda and bans on history and telling it’s people this, or that, for whatever political, you know, gain. And it is up to us.
It is up to journalists to question and look into these kinds of things. But unfortunately the climate has been so restrictive and so hard around certain things, that, you know, they’ve started to legislate against it. And this is really the battle that we are in right now when it comes to, you know, freedom of speech on, not only Facebook with all these fake news accusations, but also YouTube and on Google and these kinds of things.
And, you know, I’m one who basically wants to open up the issue of free speech to anyone who wants to question. I think that anything goes in this matter, as long as it doesn’t, you know, physically hurt people, or whatever. That none of this mental stuff that some people are hurt emotionally by what someone thinks or whatever. That is bullshit!
But, I think Ingrid that we should be able to question these things and present the evidence to people and say:
“Listen! Don’t take my word for it. Look into it for yourself. See what conclusion you can come to.”
And that’s the stance that you’ve held in this all along. But see, that’s not enough for people! You are to be morally lambasted! You’re to be morally shamed for your position, isn’t that right?
Being Called an “Anti-Semite” and a “Holocaust Denier”
So what happened after this person that I told you about before, Jan Sjunnesson. When he wrote this a blog about me being an anti-semite and so on, … Then it’s all, you know, it’s just spinned off. And people are saying all sorts of crazy stuff and then suddenly, I was a “Holocaust denier”!
Because someone said, I wrote an email to her and asked her about the “Holocaust”, and she said:
“Well, there are some strange things that doesn’t fit, that doesn’t make sense.”
So then, I was a “Holocaust denier”!
And then it just, it just sort of spun off, and I had no way of stopping it! So in six hours I was the most “horrible Holocaust denier” in Sweden. [Henrik laughs].
I never “denied” the “Holocaust”. I don’t know everything about the “Holocaust”, but, what I do know, is that now I know a lot more than I did a few years ago! Because like, you know, the rest of Westerners, I always believed that what I was taught in school was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
And then, when I started my journey on this, which started with Barbara Spectre. And then, when you start looking into something, then you get curious and you want to look at another thing. And then I found things that didn’t add up, and I said:
“What is this! ? Could it be that I have, that ‘I’, the person who wants to dig into everything, this has been a blind spot for me? That I could never, ever, …”
If someone had told me that there might be some things about the “Holocaust” that don’t add up, I would have said, five years ago:
“You’re crazy! You’re horrible! You’re a Nazi! Go away!”
Could it be, that me, the brave journalist who wants to look into everything, was there a blind spot inside me? Something that made me scared, so I couldn’t look at these things?
Then I really got angry with myself, because that’s not the way I look at myself. I want to be brave! I want to look into everything, BUT, of course, I’m not stupid! I know that this is the most dangerous topic of all!
Henrik: Right! And, you know, we, I’ve questioned why that is. I frankly, personally haven’t seen the level of seriousness behind it, because, let’s just face it, people are not this scared to discuss whether Stalin murdered, you know, sixty million, or twenty million, right?
I mean, we don’t have to get into the mechanics of this. I’m just trying to put this forth as a as a exercise of us being able to look into history, to question history, to lay forth dissident opinions, contradictory opinions, and say:
“What’s going on? Let’s come to our own conclusions around this. And let’s look at that data which we find interesting. Which held out of the mainstream and these kinds of things.”
I think it’s worth it for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of truth, for the sake of really knowing this guilt cloud that’s held over us today. That, as soon as we begin to organize as an ethnic group and have interest, supposedly that always turns into some “Holocaust” right? So, we have to be able to question this, shouldn’t we?
Why Do You Want to Dig into the “Holocaust”?
Ingrid: Of course, and that’s why I think, … I mean, many people tell me:
“Why do you want to dig into the Holocaust? It’s so many years ago. It doesn’t matter today! Just leave it alone! If there was something wrong about the story, just leave it alone, it doesn’t matter!”
But I think it does matter, because everything we do today, if we, as you said, if we try to organize ourselves, … If we say:
“I am Swedish, I’m proud to be a Swede. I love my country! Sweden is the country of the Swedes and I want us to take our country back!”
Then, I will always hear:
“Oh! So you want another ‘Holocaust’? ! Is that what you want! Your a Nazi! Everyone who is a patriot, a nationalist is a Nazi. And that leads to wanting to gas the jews!”
Henrik: Right, right. It’s just silly.
Ingrid: That is why I do think it’s important! Even if it’s so many years ago, it is important. Because, you know, every time you try to say, “I love my country” then they always come [up with] the “Holocaust”.
Henrik: Yeah, you’re a Nazi! Right?
No Free Speech When It Comes to the “Holocaust”
Henrik: So, you are going to do what the National Socialist did, you know, supposedly. And then you’re like:
“Okay, well let’s just talk about that then and see what is the crime. Is it true?”
But despite all those things it doesn’t equate to that. It doesn’t equate to that we want to do the same thing that the Nazi Germany did in the 1930s. It’s a different time, it’s seventy years ago, it’s not applicable., but they are so paranoid about this, that it’s almost like they just can’t leave it alone! You know, it’s always back to that point! Always back at that point!
But regardless, I just think out of sake of accuracy and truth that we should be able to question this. As we know Ingrid, in some countries it’s against the law to question these things. People actually end up in jail. They were imprisoned! I mean, if there’s a topic for free speech advocates, this would be THE topic for this issue! And I know it’s very emotional, it’s difficult. It’s all these different things, but the fact is I don’t think that you should legally, or rather legislate, against people’s inquiry into a historic event. I just don’t see the function of that, to be honest.
Ingrid: No. And, you know, it’s just a few years ago that I really understood how forbidden it is in Germany to even say that I have doubts! I doubt some details in the story of the “Holocaust”. That’s forbidden! And when I really realized this, I was so shocked. And I said:
“Germany is a democracy. They have the rule of law. It’s supposed to be free speech and everything.”
How is it possible that people are thrown in jail in Germany for saying:
“I studied this and I came up with another conclusion?”
How could that be against the law!
And if you could show a little clip where it shows that even the lawyers who defend the people who said that something is wrong in this picture, they also get thrown in jail!
Ernst Zundel’s Defense Attorney Jailed for Three Years
Henrik: Yeah, absolutely. Let’s take a look at this folks.
MC: Let me briefly explain with whom we are dealing with. This defense attorney has the courage of the lion. She is stronger than a man, and I have never met a woman with such a profile. She bravely stood up and took it upon herself to defend Ernst Zundel in the famous case against him, for so-called ‘Holocaust denial’. She was the trial lawyer of Ernst Zundel. During the legal proceedings she provided evidence to the court, which could raise doubts regarding the official account of history.
This caused furor in the courtroom. And she was prohibited from speaking any further. This speech-ban was ordered as she was presenting the arguments of the defendant. She was not allowed to argue the case, and barred from listing more evidence. She ignored the speech-ban and continued to submit evidence. And was to threatened on pain of penalties if she persisted.
As it became too much for the authorities, she was arrested right there in the courtroom during her defence of the so-called ‘Holocaust denier’ Ernst Zundel.
But not even this could silence her, as she continued to speak the case of her defendant while being forcefully removed from the courtroom. For this she was imprisoned for almost three and a half years, in spite of her having no previous convictions. Arrested in the courtroom and directly into prison.
On top of this, she had to face 5 years of ‘berufsverbot’ through cancellation of her license to work as an attorney, and was removed from the Association for German Lawyers.
They threw her out, but we would like to carry her into our midst. [cheering] I urge you to help her along. [applause as Sylvia Stolz goes to the stage] We are talking about a legend here. Making headlines across Europe. Welcome Sylvia Stolz. [shaking hands]
Sylvia Stolz: Thank you for the warm welcome. Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends. I’ll say it again, thank you for the warm welcome.
I would like to begin my presentation with one sentence, with which I also intend to end it. I believe that in this sentence, the very essence of being human is unfolded.
“To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good, hereby the spirit finds the purpose of a life in reason.”
This is a quote from Johann Gottfried von Herder, …
Henrik: So, Ingrid this is a very important case, Sylvia Stolz in Germany. And she was, as the clip explained, a defense attorney for Ernst Zundel. There was a big trial called, “The Great Holocaust Trial”. It’s still on YouTube. I definitely recommend people to look at that one. Very interesting. It’s one of the only trials that have ever been. And there was a remarkable amount of evidence that came out.
I know that there was another lawyer in Canada at the time which I forget the name of [Doug Christie] that also was included. And he was also a free speech advocate in Canada and knew a lot of things., but Sylvia Stolz as pointed out here, of course, has been imprisoned! Just for defending her clients! I mean, what is going on here? This is remarkable!
Ingrid: Well it’s absolutely horrifying! I mean, a lawyer is supposed to speak out for her defendant. She is supposed to make the best speech ever for her defendant, the person that she is representing. And in Germany it is forbidden for a lawyer to try to make her best for the defendant!
She was actually, … If you are defending a person who denied even part of the “Holocaust” you don’t need to, you know, deny everything about the “Holocaust”. I don’t remember what Ernst Zundel’s case was, but, for example, let’s say that you don’t believe in a tiny piece of the story. Let’s say that you don’t believe in the soap and the lampshades. If you say that, you can go to prison! And if you have a lawyer, the lawyer can’t defend you! The lawyer is forbidden to say:
“Well, there is some jewish historians who said that this is absolutely not true!”
If she says that, if the lawyer says that, she will go to prison! What is this? In Europe? In our days? What is going on? When I found this out, I got really, really, scared. And I thought, there is something here that doesn’t add up., because if everything is true, why would you be scared of someone, you know, scrutinizing the evidence? Why would you be afraid if, you know, that everything is true and solid, why would you say to someone:
“It’s forbidden to say something about it.”
And why would you say to the lawyer:
“You can’t defend your client!”
Henrik: Right! I mean, truth shouldn’t fear any investigation, as they say., but you don’t think that there would be a problem with this, but as you’ve kind of stated already, in Germany it’s a law according to what happened and so if you question that law then it’s illegal by technicalities. So, of course, it’s a specific kind of circumstance in Germany. And some of the other Central European countries.
It’s not as bad in Sweden, as far as I understand it., but it’s still bad enough when it comes to the social ostracization that happens and that occurs when people start, you know, to question these kinds of things. So, you know, Sylvia Stolz is a good example of what could happen if you just basically try to defend someone who has questions about this kind of stuff.
What else was it that you looked at that made you, because as you say, I mean, people say:
“Well, okay. Now you’re a ‘Holocaust denier’.”
Which is, of course, a straw-man argument. It’s going to the furthest extreme that you possibly can, to try to basically demonize you as a person, instead of saying:
“What do you actually say? What do you propose?”
I see the line:
“Are you ‘Holocaust denier’, kind of like, ‘when did you stop beating your wife’?”
Like, there’s no way out of the situation. You’ve never denied that there wasn’t a campaign to, you know, round up jews in Germany in the 1930a, or that they, you know, lived, you know, through horrible conditions, or anything like that.
Why Ingrid Began to Investigate the “Holocaust”
Henrik: There’s other aspects of it and it’s testimony, and things like that. What do you think people should reasonably, question? What was curious to you when you started looking into this?
Ingrid: Well the thing was that, you know, as all other westerners, I was told in school that, this and this happened and it’s the most horrible thing of all! And I remember as a child I asked my parents:
“Why they did they do this? Why did Hitler hate the jews? Why did the Germans do this?”
I don’t understand this! Just because they believed in another God? And the only answer I got was.
“Well, they went crazy!”
And, you know, I think this is what they want you to believe. They want you to believe that all the Germans they suddenly got crazy! The jews never did anything and Hitler was crazy, and he made all the German people crazy!
Shrunken Heads, Lampshades and Soap
But there was something that was stuck in my heart like, I don’t really understand it. I always need to understand why things happen. But for a lot of years I just shut it out, because it was, you know, it’s too dangerous to even get close to it. But what actually happened, when it started with the Barbara Spectre clip. Then I got some other clips and I went out on YouTube and I found other things, and then I realize there are some aspects of this “Holocaust” story that doesn’t add up!
For example, a lot of people still believe that the Nazis made soap and lampshades out of dead jews. This story has been debunked since, I think, many years by jewish historians, among them, Deborah Lipstadt. Who’s famous, because she was in a trial with “Holocaust denier” David Irving.
So Deborah Lipstadt and some other jewish historians, they have proved that this story about soap and lampshades, it’s not true! And even though they did it, most people still believe that the Nazis made soap and lampshades out of jewish bodies. And if you say to people that that is a lie, they go crazy on you. Then they start, you know, saying all sorts of horrible things to you. And it’s it doesn’t even help if you show them that jewish historians have said that this is a lie! This never happened! And they just don’t want to believe you.
Henrik: You know, there’s more, in like the accusations of the shrunken heads. I don’t knw if you saw that, that supposedly during the de-Nazification period they paraded all these objects, including the lampshades, as we can see here, but also shrunken heads! That the Nazis had nothing better to do [laughing] than to do, you know, these kinds of bizarre experiments after fighting a two front war, and basically are collapsing in on themselves. They have the time to, you know, shrink heads and do all these weird things, and it’s just preposterous!
[Image] A display of shrunken heads, tattooed skin, and a lampshade allegedly made from human skin being displayed at Buchenwald concentration camp, by the Allies for propaganda purposes. The table itself was apparently made from compressed jews, in what was then called, “jew board“.
And there’s other things surrounding this too, which I think proves that we should be allowed to question the so-called survivors, or eyewitness testimony! Because obviously, the reasoning dictates itself, none that are alive to tell the story we’re killed! [laughing] Right? That’s the logical conclusion with it! So they’ve seen something, or something with which which were resembles these kinds of things. Were there any of these eyewitness testimonies that stood out to you, Ingrid? As preposterous?
Oprah Winfrey Show and Rosenblatt’s Lies
Ingrid: Well, of course! I’ve seen a lot of them and, of course, I’ve seen the Henry, or what’s it called Rosenblat? He was famous. He was on the Oprah Winfrey Show telling the whole world about how his later wife, she was standing outside the fence of Auschwitz and throwing apples at him! And the whole world said:
“Oh, what a fantastic story!”
And then we found out that it was just a lie!
Henrik: So let’s play that here.
Announcer (male): The survival in the Nazi concentration camps. A story that is genuinely extraordinary! But as he explained to us in this exclusive interview he felt he needed to make things up to get people to pay attention.
Announcer (female): The Greatest Love Story Ever Told on this show!
Announcer (male): Herman Rosenblat received international attention for his story about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp, who was thrown apples every day by a little girl on the other side of the fence. Years later according to this story, Rosenblat met that same girl on a blind date in New York City and he proposed on the spot.
Roma Rosenblat [wife]: They used to come by every day, bring the apples in my jacket and a piece of bread. And he used to say:
“I’ll see you tomorrow!”
Announcer (male): The story landed Herman and Roma Rosenblatt on Oprah twice, and in newspapers all over the world. They also got a book and movie deal! But the story wasn’t true!
Announcer (male): Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?
Herman Rosenblat: It wasn’t a lie! It was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it.
Henrik: What more can you say Ingrid? I mean [laughing]:
“In my mind I believed it!”
So therefore, whatever, it’s real right?
Jews Making up Stories for Their Cause
Ingrid: But this is actually scary! Because I have talked to jews, today, and talking to them about how come that again, and again, we see Jews talking about someone carving out, you know, the swastika on their doors and so on. And then the police find out that it wasn’t true. They did it themselves!
And when I talk to Jews, they say:
“Well, it doesn’t matter, because even if this wasn’t true, there is so much anti-Semitism, so it’s good that someone does it to point to the anti-Semitism!”
And, you know, I get, … I just, …
“What are you saying are you actually condoning people, you know, lying and making things up, because you think you have a bigger goal?”
And to me that is just like a crooked cop, you know, planting evidence, because he knows that this guy is the killer! So if we can’t frame him, if we can’t get him into prison, then more girls will be killed and raped and so on. So it’s a good thing that I plant this DNA, or something like that. And we will say:
“No! That’s not the way to do it. You’re a crooked cop! You can’t do this!”
But Jews, some jews, not all jews, but some jews, they think it’s good! Because even though it wasn’t true, they did the swastika themselves, but it was a good thing, because there was so much anti-Semitism! So it’s a good thing to “pretend” that this was true, because then the whole world would see how great anti-Semitism is!
Henrik: Right! Exactly! The Nazis are out there, it’s happening, this is really dangerous, you know, aspect, so we can basically kind of just add on a little bit to show people that it’s really their, right? But from our point of view then you’re like:
“Oh well, okay, well what else is wrong then, right? What else is an exaggerated, or what else can we should we be allowed to question here?”
Because, you know, there are a lot of other testimony too, and I think we can take a look at a couple of them to just kind of see, … Like people can make their own conclusions. We’re not trying to, you know, instill in you and tell you what to think about these things, we just want you to look, look honestly at these things and make up your own mind. And question, are these viable, you know, testimony, or is this reality that they’re describing here? Or are these exaggerations, right? So let’s take a look.
Spielberg’s Horror Stories for the Whole Family
Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): The whole time I was in the camp through the experiments, every time I was selected I swallowed the diamonds. So every time I swallowed them, I had to find them again. We were allowed to go to the latrine once a day, and I never sat on the hole, because I had to go and find my diamonds. And when the SS woman walked by the door and she saw me in the corner, and I already had the diamonds in my hand. And usually I was waiting until on the way back I would rinse them off, like in the mud, or if there was no mud, in the soup that we were going to get next. But I had no time, and I had to swallow them.
Former inmate (female): Everybody’s telling you, they told us:
“Don’t eat, don’t eat, because it’s hard to die when they give you the gas, because your stomach is so full!”
Narrator (male): Shyfler visited a German pharmacy after the war to buy some soap:
Former inmate (Shyfler): And this was six months after the war! They were selling jew soap! Made from jew fat from the concentration camps! So tell me, who were the Germans!?”
British interviewer (female): Now when you got to Auschwitz with your mother you said she went into what you thought was a shower room, but actually it was a gas chamber!
Former inmate (female wearing gray jacket): We walked in, we were trembling. A little while later water came through. Ice-cold water, wonderful! We drunk it, we were so dry and thirsty. And we showered ourselves, and then the water stopped, we came out of there. And the women who worked there, screamed:
“Oh you are alive! How wonderful to see you!”
And was embracing us! I said:
“What are you told? Why you so shouting?“
“Don’t, you know, where you have been?”
“You were in the gas-chamber!”
Former inmate (female wearing a black jacket): It’s just like a room. You can get a shower. With a shower-head and tiles. Made us strip naked. But, you know, that it’s not water coming out, but gas!
Former inmate (female wearing white pullover): We knew we were going to the gas chamber. But, by some miracle. I don’t know how, what then, water came down instead of the gas!
Former inmate (male wearing blue shirt): There were signs there on the wall that you should tie your shoes together, and hang them up with your clothes, so that [when] we come out of the … these disinfections, you can find them again. There were shower-heads in the ceiling, but never did any shower, any water come out of them. They were just to camouflage, of their real intentions.
Former inmate (female wearing white pullover): By some miracle, I don’t know how, what, then, water came down, instead of the gas!
Former inmate (Dr Edith Eva Eger): We didn’t never knew when we took a shower, whether water is going to come out, or gas!
Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): So they said, for every person that’s going to take their lives, they’re going to torture to death, five of us!
Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt):Then they punished us for every man that ran to the wire, they took a hundred inmates and they killed them in front of everybody, as an example.
They didn’t even let us die when we wanted [to].
Voiceover (Eric Hunt): Spielberg’s character exaggerates twenty times from her original story, but screws up, and still holds up the same amount of fingers.
Former inmate (Dario Gabbai): You put about four [bodies], … It takes thirty, thirty to forty minutes to burn them.
Voiceover (Denier Bud): That would take more like four hours. He lies about the cremation rate to obscure the fact that fifteen ovens isn’t enough to handle two-thousand bodies. And when that’s established, the overall number of half a million, can’t be true either.
Because “Holocaust” historians tell us that Crematorium II wasn’t in operation until spring 1943 and ended in November 1944. It was only supposedly in operation for a year and a half.
They tell us that five hundred thousand people were killed in this building. But, because of the slow cremation rate, that’s not enough time to kill that many people. Fifteen ovens would not have been enough, even if they had been these computerized ovens.
So the first thing to notice is incredibly bad design. Two-thousand jews go in here, go through this narrow passage, into the gas-chamber.
Why not have it be above ground? This is the dressing-room, and this is the gas-chamber; and have four large doors between, so that five-hundred people can go through each door, totaling two-thousand. Then four large doors open up on the right side where there is a conveyor belt that takes the bodies to a blast-furnace. When the bodies here are removed, carts on wheels are then brought in for the heavy job of moving the seventeen-hundred remaining bodies to the conveyor belt.
“Carts on wheels”, because even a smaller man of a hundred and thirty-five pounds is equal to three plates in the gym, which is draggable, but slow going, and one would get tired quickly.
So how did they do it in this one hundred-foot, elongated-room? If say, they had seven-hundred bodies left to haul out, down at the end of the gas-chamber, and had to move them seventy-feet to the door?
Interviewer (female): So, when they would open the doors of the gas-chamber, whose job was it to take the bodies out?
Former inmate (Dario Gabbai): Well, they, they give us some… umm, canes. You reverse the cane and put them in their [mimics putting hook of can around his neck], and you drag them out. Because when the gas, they get very, very tight and it takes a long… a lot of force to be able to drag the bodies from the gas-chambers. You know, to put it in the elevator going on the second-floor.
Voiceover (Denier Bud): Dragging with canes instead of using wheels? Not believable!
There’s also the bad design of taking everyone underground just to have the problem of then taking all their bodies back up to ground level.
Former inmate (male with Aussie accent): The crematoriums were not big enough, and they could only burn about a thousand bodies each day. But in the pits, they could burn up to fifteen thousand! In the three pits, they were very large pits, around six to eight metres long, about two metres wide. And at each pit they threw in a thousand people! And it only took a few minutes to burn them completely! Maybe, thirty minutes, and they were completely burnt, or partly burnt. There were still a few hands, or feet that had fallen out to the side, and we had to put them back on the fire!
Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): And a lot of us were lucky enough to be selected for work. I was selected for experiments. Fifteen of us one morning were selected. We had to undress outside. And we had, this doctor, this German doctor examined our body and what, … They were, … They took us out, because we had no blemished bodies. They wanted people with smooth skin and no blemishes on the skin.
Interviewer (female): Do you remember the name of the doctor that gave a xxx?
Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): No, it could have been Eichmann, it could have been Mengele. You know, after a while they all look the same.
And then finally we got to the fourth experiment, the third experiment. Which was, they selected the five of us and they, … Again with the smooth skin.
And she said:
“Well I hate to tell you this, but I think that, umm.. Ilse Koch, …”
That was taking the human skin and making gloves and lamp-shades, that she was coming to Majdanek to select her, her material for the lampshades. And we had the skin for it. And she said to me:
“Let’s go back to the barrack and not go here.”
And I said:
“Well, are they going to let us do that?”
And she says:
“No! They’ll gonna kill us! But it’s better to die here, than going to Majdanek and let them skin our skin.”
“They’re going to skin our skin? Why?”
And she said:
“Because there is a SS woman and she is a maniac! She has to be a maniac to do this! She likes human gloves made out of human skin, and lampshades, and God knows what else she, she does!”
Former inmate (female wearing patterned gray and white top): But there was an active underground in Auschwitz. And every day the women who worked in this gunpowder, with gunpowder in the factory, they smuggled out pinches of gunpowder, in very special crevices, in their bodies.
The news reached us, by way of the grapevine [smiling], that the reason we no longer can work in gas-chamber, in crematorium number four, is because it was blown up, and put out of action! We, we were jubilant!
Former inmate (female wearing red top): See they had a live orchestra, jewish people played live orchestra. And whenever a transport came, a new transport arrived — and they were making the selection and burning people — the music played!
Many times, for a long time, when I would hear music, I started to cry! People couldn’t understood why, and I love music. You can see I have lots of tapes and things, but, because I always remembered.
So, the barbarism! Can you imagine killing people and music playing? And with Mengele and with others, nurses were giving injections for xxx, because it wasn’t always the gas-chambers. I was told this, I didn’t experience, because when I came, unfortunately they had the gas-chambers. But before, they used the gas-vans, they gave injections. You know, in the heart.
Former inmate (female wearing black top): But suddenly SS, who was guarding me, you know, they had bayonets on their [rifles], and they ran up after the child. And he caught the child, he tore out the bottle of water, throw it away, and he tossed the child in the sky and picked it up on his bayonet! And he smashed his head against the wall!
[sound of piano playing]
Former inmate (female wearing pink top): They needed that long nails [gesturing with her hands about 30 cms (12 inches) apart]. At that size. And my little finger thick [the thickness of the nails] … and they nailed it in my head [gesturing the nail being hammered into the top of her head]. That was hurting like crazy! I was screaming! And I was going in a coma. And then I finally came out and there was that nail in there [in her head]. The Nazis did their [were] fleeing. So they nailed us to the boards, or hung us. I was hanged like that at the wall … and there was a chain here [gesturing around her neck] , that is made out of knives. So when you moved you cut yourself! That’s why I have that cut here on my chin [pointing just under her chin to no obvious mark].
Former inmate (female in red top): You know, some of the British jews who have beards would put, put on a kerchief. So they would hide the beard because, … I remember the first time when I saw, … They was pulling the hairs one by one. Another time I saw that they were, … They cut just a half, and then leave the others, just to mock us.
Interviewer (female): Can you describe for us the very first thing you remember when that door opened up to the wagon?
Former inmate (Dario Gabbai): The first thing that I remember is that the SS always is:
“Schnell! Schnell! Schnell!”
Right, … We got into line and there was Mengele. Was there, making the selection. Always with his two fingers.
Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): I think that [scratching her head] was Mengele that took me out of there. And he just attached me to that xxx, and I went to the gas-chamber. And as I was going into the gas-chamber, … You know, everybody was being pushed into the gas-tank, to the gas-chamber. And I was going backwards, somehow I was being pushed backwards, … And I was like stuck in the door. And I don’t know, I guess God told me to do that.
Former inmate (female in red dress): Mengele stopped me, with his stick, and said:
“You! Come here!”
And I came, and he said:
“Are you jewish?”
And I was very tall for my age, I think that’s why he noticed me, also I had thick long, blonde, braids … and that was the typical Aryan girl, you know, the German ideas of the pure race. So that’s why he asked me if I was jewish, and I said:
“Yes, of course, I’m Jewish”.
So it’s such an insane thing to remember this, that Mengele who was sending thousands and thousands and probably tens of thousands to their death. Stopped and took time out to save my life at that moment, simply because I was blonde, and I had long braids and I had blue eyes, and maybe I looked like the Aryan ideal.
Voiceover (female): Dr Joseph Mengele, the notoriously evil Nazi doctor was looking for entertainment. The girls in the barracks volunteered. The only accomplished ballerina among them: Edith.
Former inmate (Dr. Edith Eva Eger): And I ended up dancing for Dr. Mengele! But I closed my eyes and I pretended that I was dancing the Romeo and Juliet at Budapest opera house.
Interviewer (female): That dancing for Mengele saved your life?
Former inmate (Dr. Edith Eva Eger): It did, and he gave me a piece of bread, which I shared with the girls.
TV show host (female): Some people you meet change you forever. She is one of them. Edith tells me that she still dances to this day. Her message of hope and love over evil has brought her to speak all over the world, and a book on her life is coming out.
Ingrid’s Response — You Need Evidence Not Just “Testimony”
Ingrid: OK. We saw some eyewitnesses. And that’s one of the, you know, the comments; most of the comments I’ve had on Facebook and Twitter after this, you know, this story about me being a “Holocaust denier”, which I’m not! But anyway. So many people say to me:
“Haven’t you seen the eyewitnesses? Just look at their stories and then you will understand! That this all happened just as they said it happened!”
And then I just want to ask you — how come that we know from so many research studies, that eyewitnesses are not to be trusted. That is why when you go to trial, the prosecutor needs to have real evidence. They cannot just trust the victim, if the victim is still alive, or someone who was an eyewitness. They need some forensic evidence, because you cannot trust eyewitnesses!
Everybody knows that. If it’s a trial about a killer, or rapist, or anything, you know, you cannot trust eyewitnesses. They can be part of the proof, but it cannot be the only proof. But still people say to me:
“You have to listen to the survivors. If you just listen to the survivors then you will understand that everything is true!”
And we have just seen so many survivors saying preposterous things! Everybody understands that this is not true! So, as it is all over the place, you cannot trust eyewitnesses!
The “Holocaust Industry”
Henrik: Yeah! I mean, some people say:
“Well, are you saying that some of these people, … Are you saying that they’re lying?”
And it’s like:
“Yeah, [laughing] that’s how simple it is!”
Actually I am because, you know, as Norman Finklestein, and others have pointed out, the “Holocaust” has actually become a history [an industry].
And much of Israel’s dependency on economic aid from Germany, for example, has been tremendously important, and it has actually [been] held up by this, by this industry, by the “Holocaust industry”. And again it doesn’t mean that there weren’t people that were hurt, or displaced, or you know, probably horrible things happened to them. It’s not about denying all, you know, those things separately. It’s about the fact that it has now, … The history itself has been weaved into a political agenda, an emotional agenda. In much bigger aspect. And I’m not saying …personally, I don’t know if these people are communicating with each other, and saying:
“Yeah, let’s lie about this!”
Or if it’s just, you know, they get fed these things?
You know, many of these people who speak out today, they were like five, six, seven years old, when some of the stuff happened! You know, they were young! They were, I mean, imagine yourself being, like being told at that age, what it was like for people, that your whole group, they want to exterminate your whole group! I mean, I can imagine that that’s traumatizing. I’ve seen footage of Israelis going to, you know, Auschwitz and these places, and literally being, like, induced into this emotional state of what you’re supposed to feel when you’re there, and things like this.
I’m not saying it’s easy for some of those young people, they’re going through this programming today, either. But nonetheless, we have to be in a position where we can gather these testimonies, gather these stories, and say:
“Listen, this is enough of evidence for us to initiate an interest, to look into this further.”
I mean, even look at it from an insurance point of view, claim. Right, that if they’re now receiving money from this, an insurance company would continue to question your claim, again, and again, to make sure that you’re not lying when you’re receiving money. So I think that this is a healthy approach, that we should have to this issue, and especially when people are being caught lying. That’s a red flag and a herring in itself, and that we have to follow through on. Right?
Ingrid: Yeah, yeah absolutely! And I don’t believe, you know, they say that:
“Well what do you think, that all the Jews in the world are in sort of a world conspiracy?”
No! I don’t think that! I think that stories like this make people, you know, there are some people who are very easily, what’s it called, “suggestible? ”
We Have an Obligation to Look into Things
Ingrid: Yeah. And if you are a Jew, and maybe you feel that you too want to be part of this story, you want people to feel sorry for you, you want to become someone, you want to be special! Then you start thinking about this, and you say, — well like the crooked cop, you say:
“Well, maybe I didn’t experience this, but somebody else did! So it’s OK for me to do it.”
And you have, … All these people are not like that! That’s not what I’m saying. But among these people, of course, there are some who will, you know, take advantage of this story, and that is why I tell everybody:
“Don’t believe everything you hear, everything you read, there are some things about this story that doesn’t add up and you have a responsibility for yourself!”
If you are European, and you care about your own people, because we are the ones that are constantly being bashed, for you know, we did this, OK we didn’t do, but our parents, or our grandparents. And so we are, you know, we are in a position where we can’t even defend ourselves, so therefore we have an obligation to look into this, to see what is right, and what is wrong. That is all I’m saying! We as intelligent people, we have to look into this story, we can’t just let other people say to us:
“You did this, and end of story! And don’t question it! Because if you do, you are an anti-Semite, and you will start gassing jews again!”
We can’t stand that anymore!
The “Six Million” Story Goes Back to the Late 1880s
Henrik: I totally agree! I think it’s a way that we can question these things in a rational way which it’s not, you know, hateful, or completely irrational, or out of left field. I think it’s, as [with] all subjects, there is intelligent approach to it and you question it, and you go through it methodically, and just like anything. But, there are a lot of, you know, strange things around this.
I mean, even we were talking before we came on here, Ingrid, about, for example, the six-million figure itself. I remember seeing a video a couple of years ago, someone pointed out all these papers going back to as early as, … This particular one is from one 1915. But there’s even back to the late 1800s, where they actually discuss this issue in the papers, that six-million Jews have been, you know, targeted in some way. And it’s and it’s paper, after paper, after paper!
And these makes you kind of question as well, right? It was, like whoa, … wait, wait a minute, if this is not true back then with those six million, how can we, … how can we know that it’s true … the latest incarnation that they said, that this was true?
What do you think about something, when you see this kind of stuff?
Ingrid: Well, you know, I was brought up with “six-million Jews who were gassed to death”. And I thought of everybody who questioned that was a crazy person, or a cruel person, a horrible person, an evil person!
So it was really, really, hard for me to even start looking into this. But then I found out, as you said, when I saw all these newspapers talking about “six-million Jews are to perish”, because of starvation, and a lot of different things. So apparently six-million Jews is sort of a holy figure in Judaism.
And then I found out that after the war the Red Cross, they made in a list of how many people they estimated had died in the concentration camps. And I think that was about three, or four hundred thousand people [300,000 – 400,000] . And that was the official figure for many years. And then suddenly something happened. And then the figure six million came up. And how did they come up with the figure six million? Well, they counted the deaths in the so-called extermination camps, and the worst of them was Auschwitz, and the Russians who then occupied Poland, where Auschwitz is situated, they said that four-million people were killed in Auschwitz.
Four Million Dead in Auschwitz Becomes 1.1 Million
So the Russians said six million. Among them were four million from Auschwitz and the allies said six million, and among them were four million in Auschwitz. Then when the wall [Berlin Wall] came down, and Poland and Russia became democracies, and the communism was gone; then Auschwitz [Museum] said:
“No, four million was wrong!”
So they took it down to one and a half million! And now it’s 1.1 million. But still the total is six million jews! And maybe I am totally stupid Henrik, but I don’t understand if you have six million, and you take almost three million from that total, and you still have six million! Can you explain that to me? Because I really don’t get it!
[Click image to enlarge]
Henrik: Yeah, I don’t get it either, it’s very strange. You know, that they can change so radically in millions of numbers are changed. And yet after all just the overarching picture of how many perished in this atrocity of World War II. Why does it remain the same? I mean, it’s a reasonable question, it’s a logical question to ask.
And as you said it … many people go to this route:
“Well, it’s not about that!” or “that doesn’t matter!”
Actually it does matter, it does very much matter! What is it, what is true? I mean, if this is a documented, you know, provable extermination campaign, I think we should know about that, and that evidence for that should be should be presented, instead of us solely relying on somewhat dubious testimony, and what seems to be kind of an occult esoteric number that they’ve been trying to kind of put forth for a for many, many years, for decades before this was supposedly happened.
So I have a lot of questions. I don’t know! I don’t have all the stories about this. I simply just think that there’s a lot of things around us that we simply don’t know. We’ve been through it, … you have economic incentive, political incentive, you have, you know, a number of different things and it’s become what they call a Gordian knot today. It’s like almost an unsolvable, difficult, you know, labyrinth to go through.
But I think we have enough material that suggests that something is not quite right! Something is not as we’re being told. Now exactly what the truth is, that I think we should continue to investigate, and try to find out what was it, right?
Ingrid: Of course! That is the only thing I want. I don’t deny that there was a “Holocaust”! I don’t say that everything that we have been told is a lie. I just say I have seen some things that doesn’t add up! I have seen things that are lies! I have seen things that I don’t believe in, because they are preposterous.
So let’s, … Why don’t we let historians dig into this and really see; are these people, the so-called “holocaust deniers”, like David Irving and Faurisson, and whatever their names are. Why don’t you, … You put together a group of people trying to find out what really happened! Why is this so difficult? Why is this so dangerous?
Henrik: We could go on about this for a long time, there’s a lot of material. People have been talking about this for decades. We’re not going to solve it in a one half-hour show, it’s just ridiculous to perceive [expect] that. I just hope that we’ve encouraged the viewer, or aroused enough curiosity, that the viewer themselves [to] say:
“OK, well I’m going to look into some of the things that they say.”
And investigate for themselves. As opposed to you saying:
“You know what? You guys are crazy! You’re hateful bigots! And I’m not going to listen to what you say!”
Do some investigations! Look into it for yourself! See what your conclusion is. Is there any truth to this, right? We just want to arouse, interest in this topic and it shouldn’t be, you know, off the table to question these kinds of things.
What Has the Impact of Your Investigations Been on You Personally?
But I think Ingrid, one of the more important things I wanted to ask you about, is just kind of on a personal note, how the impact of this has been for you? For, as you said before, I mean, you’ve looked into, you know, what happened, you know, when you were starting to look at the Muslim question and mass immigration into Sweden, and all these kinds of things. What happened this time when you started looking at this kind of stuff? And how was the reactions, and how were you met?
Ingrid: Well what was, … What really happened was that, of course, I knew that when this came up, it doesn’t matter how small the matter, if you say something about that you don’t really believe everything about the Holocaust, then you will be trashed! A lot of people will hate you. But what happened was that a lot of my friends, sort of, Facebook friends, and so on, who really have been applauding my work against Islamisation, they suddenly said:
“We hate you!”
It’s not, … They don’t ask me:
“Why are you doing this? Can you tell me what’s happened? What did you find out?”
They’re not curious — they just say:
“I hate you! You’ve done something so horrible! Now you have proven that you are a horrible person!”
So they don’t care, that they have been following me, applauding me for five, or six years. Suddenly, in an hour, I am a horrible person, because I’m saying something that they don’t like. So then I am off the table!
“…. the Establishment Are Lying About Practically Everything!”
Henrik: What would you like, you know, people to know about? Either if it’s the subject, or maybe even yourself in terms of like, I mean, … I know you’re not a hateful person. I know all these things. I know what a kind, warm person, how funny you are. It’s not about any of these, any of these character assassinations that comes in the wake of something like this, we know that it’s all lies. I mean, listen! We know that the establishment are lying about practically everything! And we’re onto to some of these people, and we’re questioning them, and we’re trying to put them up against a wall and say:
“Listen! You have some stuff to answer for here!”
That’s all we’re doing.
I think that this is a reflection of their insecurity, and them just not, you know, accepting a different perspective and so forth. But what would you like the viewer to something, … and the listener to something like this, to kind of take away with them? You know, after we’ve talked about all these very emotional and difficult topics, Ingrid?
“My Greatest Hope”
Ingrid: Well, my greatest hope is that people start thinking for themselves!
If we are going to save Europe, we all have to start thinking! Don’t just believe what people are saying to you! Don’t believe the politicians! Don’t believe the journalists! Don’t believe the teachers! Don’t believe the lobbyists! Don’t believe anyone! Be skeptical!
And it has never been so easy to find out things, as it is today. There is a whole internet out there. And on YouTube you can find so many movies. And I don’t say:
“Go and see one movie and then you find the truth!”
No, you have to watch a lot of them, and you have to think, you have to think for yourself!
Watch a lot of people, watch a lot of movies and think! And then you come up to a conclusion. And I am sure your conclusion will be:
“There is something fishy here, and I want a big investigation. I want to know the truth!”
Henrik: I think that’s very reasonable Ingrid.
And I just want to personally say thank you for being brave enough to talk about this, for a subject so many people shy away from. I think it’s a true heroic stance, considering the fact that it is just such a difficult area to go into. And I don’t wish upon anyone, the things that some of these people have been subjected to. You know, throughout the decades for simply bringing valid points to the table.
I think again, just to go back to that last point and we’ll wrap this up after this, but, you know, I think that they are in a defensive position.
I think that they are so terrified of people questioning more about this event that they have to go to legislation to try to shut people down, and imprison them, and set examples for other people to say:
“You don’t touch on this subject!”
Because then, you know, what is going to happen.
Ultimately though I think it’s a false tactic, I think it’s a failing tactic! Because, the more you try to shut people down, guess what? The more they are going to want to try to find out the truth. And if someone tells you:
“You can visit any room in this apartment, but don’t go in through, you know, door number three, here, in the hallway!”
That’s all you going to want to do, you know! What is behind that door? Let me peer behind it. It’s what curious, interested people do. And that’s all we’re asking here folks, to be allowed to look at, and say, you know, make up our own mind, and make our own determination about what actually happened there.
So thank you Ingrid for being brave! Thank you for coming on, clarifying this to us, to the viewer, of what it is that you’re actually, what you actually think about this; as opposed to buying, you know, the BS that everyone else is trying to claim, that what you think, or what your opinion is about this stuff is.
So, thank you again.
Ingrid: Thank you!
Version 1: Published Mar 24, 2018
* Total words = 16,611
* Total Images = 44
* Total pages = 99
Click to download a PDF of this post (6.5 MB):
Version 14: Jul 26, 2020 — Added Table of Contents with links.
Version 13: Jul 9, 2020 — Improved formatting.
Version 12: Jan 31, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.
Version 11: Mar 24, 2018 — Improved formatting. Added PDF of post for download.
Version 10: Jul 23, 2017 — Added more images.
Version 9: Jul 22, 2017 — Added 25 more minutes (with special thanks to Helena for that). Total proofed = 100 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!
Version 8: Jul 18, 2017 — Added 10 more minutes (with thanks to Helena for that). Total proofed = 75 mins.
Version 7: Jul 17, 2017 — Added more images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 65 mins.
Version 6: Jul 16, 2017 — Improved formatting. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 60 mins.
Version 5: May 16, 2017 — proofed 10 minutes. Total proofed = 55 mins.
Version 4: May 11, 2017 — proofed 7 minutes. Added one image. Total proofed = 45 mins.
Version 3: May 6, 2017 — proofed 10 minutes. Added images. Total proofed = 38 mins.
Version 2: May 5, 2017 — proofed 20 minutes. Added images. Sannhet from CODOH did 3 minutes. Total proofed = 28 mins.
Version 1: May 2, 2017 — created post. First 5 minutes proofed.