Month: June 2016

Faurisson risks jail for 60-word summary of his research during Tehran conference

Alison Chabloz7 Comments

A brief resumé of the hearing held last week in Paris, by Alison Chabloz.

In contrast to the Court of Appeal hearing given last March, this latest bout of Ziocon persecution of revisionist, Robert Faurisson, was held in the 17° Chambre Correctionelle of the High Court at the Palais de Justice in Paris, ensuring that numerous members of the public who’d gathered there to support the professor were able to witness the proceedings from the court room’s spacious gallery.

Starting an hour late owing to the morning session having overrun the allocated time-slot, magistrates initially dealt with several other cases, lasting for almost another hour, before it was the turn of the world’s foremost ‘Holocaust’ revisionist to defend himself against three separate charges. There was no apology forthcoming from the court for this delay which of course had the negative effect of reducing valuable debating time as well as causing magistrates to rush the proceedings.

Two charges for contesting a crime against humanity (one of which brought by former Justice Minister, Pascal Clément) and a third for racial defamation brought by the LICRA – Ligue contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme.

All three complaints targeted a speech made by the professor in 2006 at a conference on the ‘Holocaust’ in Tehran, Iran. A star witness in the person of Lady Michele Renouf who had travelled from London for the hearing would testify after the initial debates. For once, the number of lawyers on the accused benches seemed to outnumber those of the prosecution by five to two (five to three, if we include the state prosecutor). In reality, however, Robert Faurisson’s defence was assured by Maître Damien Viguier alone. Three immense dossiers were produced and placed on the judge’s desk almost completely hiding the magistrate himself. Cue: hushed, slightly amused tittering from the public benches.

The defence’s principle argument rested on the fact that Faurisson’s speech in Tehran had been delivered in English and had lasted only ten minutes. As his speech had been given outside French territory, French law would not apply. In this case, however, it was the professor’s written essay The Victories of Revisionism, published in Tehran then distributed on the Internet, that had led to the three charges. The article details the major successes of Robert Faurisson’s revisionist career and, in particular, confessions of his adversaries which substantiate the professor’s outright technical and moral victory over his detractors. It is this same article which Maître Viguier uses consistently in defence of his client during the many trials brought by a judicial system which is plainly rotten to the core.

The judge, a man in his forties with curly, dark ginger hair and a beard, began by reading Faurisson’s article (see Part 1 and Part 2). The longer the reading went on, the more the judge seemed to be taking in Faurisson’s words. Towards the end, the judge’s face had completely disappeared behind the hand-held, stapled bundle of A4 sheets.

Faurisson’s counsel, Maître Vigiuer, asked that the two complaints for contesting crimes against humanity be nullified because of legal non-compliance. After a short break for deliberation, the court reserved its ruling in relation to this matter until September 27. Thus, only the third charge of ‘racial defamation’ would be deliberated on this humid afternoon in the centre of the French capital.

The charge of defamation brought by LICRA concerned the following passages of Faurisson’s article:

“President Ahmadinejad (then head of the Islamic Republic of Iran) used the right word when he said that the alleged Holocaust of the Jews is a myth: that is to say, a belief maintained by credulity or ignorance.

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of Jews form one and the same historical lie, which allowed a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

The accusation’s charge of defamation lay solely on the ‘argument’ that, by these statements, Faurisson was clearly targeting the Jewish community. The judge asked Faurisson to explain.

Faurisson’s retorts were confident and unrelenting: citing Israel and international Zionism is not the same as citing “the Jews”. The public as well as the officers of the court present were then treated to an hour and a half’s exposé by the man himself. Unlike orthodox historians who merely repeat the given narrative, he would actually go out on the job, tape measure in hand. The 60-word phrase, he explained, is the summary of his lifetime’s work in the field of revisionism. As he advised his students, the key to success when researching any subject is the ability to resume this work in a phrase of approximately 60 words. The enormous body of work he carried out began in the 1960s when he first asked:

“Show me a photo, an architect’s plan or even a drawing of a gas chamber.”

Faurisson continued his testimony with an explanation of Rudolf Höss’ witness statement at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, gained via torture, in particular sleep deprivation. Then, a brief lesson on the explosive quality of Zyklon-B with analysis of actual execution chambers which employ this same gas (no longer used) in the USA. In the 187 pages of court transcripts from Nuremberg concerning Auschwitz, practically nothing is dedicated to the subject of gassing.

The professor went on to expose the lies of Elie Wiesel in his book Night as well as other fabrications concerning execution by boiling water at Treblinka which also feature in the Nuremberg transcript. So many false witnesses: only last week we learned of yet another in the news.

The judge, at this point, interjects with “You’ve therefore not modified your proposals after all this time..?” The female magistrate present appears to have fallen asleep! Such is the contempt for Faurisson’s indisputable strength of character, as apparent and all the more humbling here and now, at the grand old age of 87, as when he started his research more than six decades ago. Faurisson’s conclusions are based on fact, documented evidence, repeatable scientific experiment and, above all, are the fruit of a lifetime’s study and research. What reason other than insanity would make him change his proposals “after all this time”?

Faurisson elaborates on the magical six million number. In August, 1944, Wilhelm Hötll, friend of Eichman, gave a witness statement purporting that the sensational sum could be reached by adding the four million in Auschwitz ‘extermination camp’ to another two million slain Soviets. This was the first time the phrase extermination camp was used in place of concentration camp. However, Hötll was never called to testify at Nuremberg.

The prosecution declines the opportunity to grill Faurisson; Maître Vigiuer invites the professor to talk about the conference in Iran.

Contrary to media reports, the 2006 conference was inclusive of all opinions concerning the ‘Holocaust’. The professor remembers one adversary challenging him to go to the National Archives in Washington where he would see the evidence that his findings were erroneous. The poor fellow hadn’t bargained on the professor already having been to these very same archives where, amongst other clues, he uncovered documents relating to the 32 RAF sorties over Auschwitz, none of which had succeeded in showing smoke billowing out from the crematoria chimneys.

Maître Viguier questions the professor further on the origin of all these lies surrounding the “Holocaust”. Faurisson replies that it’s impossible to say; the rumour runs and runs. The CICR had also heard rumours of gas chambers at Auschwitz, yet their investigation team was unable to find anyone confirming these rumours. Even Eric Conan in French weekly, L’Express, said of the gas chamber exhibit at Auschwitz “Tout y est faux” – everything is false. 1.7 million people visit Auschwitz annually.

At this point, the judge decides to call Lady Renouf to hear her witness statement. As this will be in English, the court has arranged for an accredited translator to be present. After giving her name and details, Lady Renouf first congratulates Maître Viguier for his bravery in accepting to defend the professor. Her witness statement follows in short phrases which are immediately translated for the benefit of the court. We hear confirmation that Faurisson’s speech was an impromptu affair which lasted only ten minutes and Lady Renouf makes reference to the professor’s English-spoken heritage, owed to his mother being a Scot. She repeats Faurisson’s anecdote, often used to introduce himself to an English-speaking audience, that his French ear should not listen to his Scottish ear because, whereas Scottish law permits inquiry and research into the “Holocaust”, French law does not.

Linguistic confusion arises when Lady Renouf speaks of guidelines (in French, “les consignes”) on how the “Holocaust” should be taught in schools, published in Stockholm in 2000. The translator is unable to translate the word for guidelines, using “guides” instead. Whether or not the greffière recorded a corrected version is uncertain; perhaps the court thought that Lady Renouf was talking about “tour guides”, at Auschwitz or elsewhere?

The Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust where the ‘Holocaust’ education guidelines were first announced was also the site of two physical attacks on Faurisson by Jewish terrorist organisation LDJ (Ligue de Défence Juive or Jewish Defence League). These guidelines instruct all public and private schools worldwide not to give a platform to revisionists. Lady Renouf summarises, stating that historical debate and rational argument do not seem to be part of educational guidelines on this subject. There are no questions from the court.

Maître Viguier promptly urges the professor to talk about a case dating back to 1983 when he was accused of “falsifying history”. Faurisson explains that this was the catalyst which led to creation of the 1990 Fabius-Gayssot Act. He also recalls the work of British historian and semi-revisionist David Irving, along with the fact that neither Churchill nor de Gaulle ever mention any gas chambers. In fact, during WW1 already, UK national the Daily Express had written about enemy gas chambers as early as 1914. An investigation after the war ended in 1918 proved that the story was a propaganda lie. Again, in 1943, the same story about gas chambers appears in the Daily Express. This time, however, there was no similar post-war investigation. Another piece of vital evidence is the documented case of Marinka in Russia where the local mayor was shot dead by the German army for killing a Jewish woman. Many such examples exist yet are suppressed from public knowledge.

The professor then relates his victories over Raul Hilberg and Jean-Claude Pressac; cites Valerie Igounet’s book of smears Histoire du négationnisme en France and tells us that Ariane Chemin didn’t know who Hilberg was when she interviewed the professor in Vichy for Le Monde newspaper. Faurisson also names the director of Yad Vashem 1953-1959, Ben-Zion Dinur, who resigned after coming to the realisation there were far too many false witnesses.

Change of tone as Mâitre Christian Charrière-Bournazel representing LICRA comes to the bar. He’s clearly unhappy about having been forced to listen to Faurisson for two hours (in reality Faurisson had only spoken for an hour and a half), although it’s doubtful Charrière-Bournazel will be complaining quite so much when he receives his fat fee. The only accusation is restricted to the same, tired refrain: when Faurisson mentions the state of Israel and international Zionism, Faurisson means Jews. Faurisson is a racist. Faurisson has already been prosecuted and convicted , etc., etc.

The state prosecutor raises even more eyebrows as she tries to stabilise her microphone (no working mic and a dodgy translator suggest the French judiciary can’t afford to run their courts properly?). Diabolical smears regards Faurisson’s personality as well as the obligatory jibe about using the court room as a platform from which, according to Madame la Procureure, Faurisson would take immense gratification. Perhaps the most telling phrase amongst all the outright lies and smears (paid for by the French tax payer, of course) is when the prosecutor states Faurisson should no longer be given the possibility of further court appearances.

Maître Viguier once again stands to contest the accusation’s claims. That the professor’s words in Tehran constitute ‘defamation’ is a fraudulent lie. The professor’s work is that of an historian. Viguier protests his colleague’s conflation of Israel and Jews, defiantly and correctly stating that conflict in the Middle East could be seen as one direct result of the lies of the Shoah. Faurisson’s work, he insists, will last as long as does this mensonge (“lie”). Viguier deplores the moral order inflicted upon revisionists in the name of war and war crimes, and which effectively prevents revisionists from doing their job.

The judge invites Faurisson to have the last word. Faurisson is finally able to respond to Charrière-Bournazel’s earlier attacks by comparing the lawyer’s attitude and manner to that of an enflure (in the sense of over-exaggerated, self-important, turgid). This warrants an admonishment of Faurisson by the judge, who then fails to chastise Charrière-Bournazel for leaving the court in a show of brazen pomposity whilst Faurisson is still speaking.

Faurisson finishes with another couple of examples of dubious witness statements and mistranslations which have been used by propagandists to bolster the case for a presumed genocide of countless Jews. We’re told of the wildly varying death toll estimates and asked why those who revised the official Auschwitz death toll – down from four to one-and-a-half million – were not punished in the same atrocious manner which Faurisson has been subjected to throughout his career.

The prosecution is demanding a month’s prison sentence and a 3,000 euro fine in the event of a guilty verdict. We shall now have to wait to September 27 to hear the court’s ruling.

Further reading:

The revisionists’ total victory on the historical and scientific level

Tommy Mair, Britain First and the Rise of Kosher Nationalism

Alison Chabloz6 Comments

So far, and as is usual practice, Zionist-run British mainstream media hasn’t failed to muddy the waters concerning the brutal murder last week of UK Labour MP, Jo Cox. Was this a black op false flag – an attempt to nip in the bud rising support for Britain’s exit of the EU ahead of Thursday’s referendum? There’s something not right about this story.

Since 9/11 and the phoney ‘war on terror’, Zionist-run global media has been demonising Islam and Muslims with ever-increasing fervour. Little wonder in my opinion that many Muslims, feeling unjustly targeted by the west, sought sanctuary in their faith and looked to reconnect with Islamic traditions such as preserving modesty by wearing the hijab.

At the same time, Asian grooming gangs (13 men jailed for a total of 150 years in Halifax, sentenced the day Jo Cox died) as well as reports of Syrian and other refugees’ public gang rapes of white European women are not helping to cleanse Muslims’ already much-tarnished image in the eyes of many Europeans. Such factors have undoubtedly led to an increase in support for right wing nationalist movements such as Britain First.

Before the Arab Spring, underprivileged citizens in the Middle East did not have access to the Internet. As Obama and Vodaphone pushed for further revolutionary zeal (since proven to have driven the Egyptians towards an even more desperate situation than they’d been subjected to under dictator Mubarak – sound familiar?), suddenly, the Arabs were able to discover the world wide web and, importantly, western pornography.

Imagine being a young man, who’d never before seen a woman’s bare ankle let alone her bare forearm, suddenly exposed to the full frontal groans and cum shots of silicone porn stars… This, of course, does not excuse grooming gangs or rapists. But porn does sadly give the impression that western women are up for it, in front of a camera and for the whole world to see.

In my opinion, it’s highly doubtful that the porn industry is run by Muslims, or indeed by Christians. We do know, however, that porn baron and former Daily Express mogul, Richard Desmond, funded the British Jewish lobby’s Mossad-linked spying organisation, CST, to the tune of tens of thousands of British pounds. Are most pornographers Jews? I wouldn’t be surprised. To repeat the words of French dissident Hervé Ryssen:

“Not all Jews are crooks. But the biggest crooks are all Jews”.

It’s such a shame. Thrown out of 109 countries – mostly European – Jews seem to want to continue to make themselves hated. It appears they’re incapable of learning lessons from the past. Or else, they’re only interested in themselves and determined to keep Jewish power and influence firmly in place at the expense of us Goyim as well as at the expense of world peace.

Hitler’s rise to power, of course, can be directly linked to a fervent rejection of Jews’ bad behaviour all over Europe. Yet we never hear these home truths on BBC Radio 4 where Jews and Jewish culture take pride of place over that of ethnic Brits. The ‘Holocaust’ is a multi-billion dollar indoctrination industry that has now replaced Christianity as our national religion. The only current saving grace of the UK is that it’s still ok to not believe in the alleged gas chambers and alleged genocide of the Jews. Europeans who live in states which were under German occupation aren’t so lucky. Italy is the latest country to have passed anti-revisionist laws – 70 years after the “event”, as yet unproven and never likely to be. Now, what on earth would be the point of that – one might well ask?

As a general rule put in place by the media – with the glaring exception of Israel – nationalist movements are frowned upon. They are invariably linked to German National Socialism and labelled as being “neo-Nazi”. Yet, once again, press and TV are duplicitous in their promotion (no such thing as bad publicity) of kosher nationalist movements like the EDL, Britain First and Pegida whose leaders have pledged support for Israel. At the same time, other British nationalist movements which refuse Zionist infiltration (as far as is humanly possible because they’re everywhere) and Zionist funding (as was the case of the BNP under the leadership of former MEP Nick Griffin) are largely ignored. When the press does actually report on, say, the White Man marches, these are shown in a negative light in comparison to Pegida. Non-kosher nationalism is dismissed as pure “racism” whereas kosher Freemason and follower of über-Zionist Islamophobe Pamela Geller, Anders Breivik, gets a full page spread for his fake Nazi salute at a recent court appearance – even as a prisoner serving a life sentence.

Likewise, we are told that Tommy Mair has connections to neo-Nazi extremist movements yet we are never informed of these movements’ links to Zionism. As far back as the mid 1980s, Mair subscribed to the Springbok Club, a racist South African organisation which denies Boers were put in concentration camps and whose leader, Alan Harvey, claims “We are 101% behind Israel”. As already stated above, Britain First leader, Paul Golding, says the same. If Mair was indeed connected to both groups, then it’s fair to assume he also supports Zionism and Israel.

Mair could be a Scottish Gaelic name. It could also be German and, indeed, Jewish. A Facebook search of the name Thomas Mair brings up a majority of German speakers. Cox’s maiden name is Leadbetter – also of Jewish origin. Despite Cox’s apparent support for the pro-Palestinian movement, she was also keen on US propaganda ‘humanitarian’ group in Syria, the White Helmets. It’s widely known that this group is working to try and bring about regime change, therefore attacking the Syrian people’s democratic rights, not to mention those of Palestinians.

Was Cox simply naïve or is something more sinister happening with less than a week to go before the EU referendum? Brendan Cox‘s behaviour since his wife’s murder has also been bizarre. Already, a fund set up by the new widower is approaching the million mark – meant to go towards regime change in Syria? It’s not as if the White Helmets actually need any more funding. Soros oblige… And what about the SPLC – far right anti-hate [sic] monitor – which even the FBI has distanced itself from and which is also funded by George Soros, not to mention the Cox’s links to yet another Soros-funded, Jewish-run “anti-Zionist” Zionist organisation Hope Not Hate – another beneficiary of the Jo Cox fund ?

Another factor in helping to undermine a possible UK exit from the EU, in my opinion, is support from the likes of media gobshite and paedophile associate, Louise Mensch. Mensch isn’t even a UK resident so why is she being given any air time at all? Presently, she is still doing her utmost to claim that Mair cannot possibly be a murderer given his reported mental health issues. She’ll stand up for him, apparently.

Mensch reckons Mair was not a Britain First supporter and never shouted pro Britain First slogans during his brutal attack on Jo Cox. To prop up her dubious claim, Mensch uses the witness statement of Clarke Rothwell who, it turns out, was (still is?) a BNP member. For Mensch, the evidence is clear: Rothwell is the real racist: a BNP member who would be jealous of Britain First! Rothwell, according to la Mensch, set up Mair by lying about the latter’s alleged cries of ‘Britain First’ or ‘Put Britain First’ as Mair stabbed then shot the 41-year old MP outside a public library in Kirklees. All this in the full glare of CCTV camera footage which we’ve yet to see.

To boot, after smearing me and attempting to harm my career in several newspaper articles last year, Mensch had the audacity to use my research of Rothwell’s Facebook page and claim it as her own on a blog piece she published the day after Cox’s death. On questioning, Mensch denied she’d used my work without permission, retorting smugly that I would be a “”Holocaust” denier on the run from police”.

Without doubt, support from an irrelevant idiot like Mensch is great for the Remain campaign. The EU – like the United Nations – is fundamentally a kosher project meant to further enslave citizens into doing the bankers’ bidding. In order to guarantee the European Union’s and the European Central Bank’s ongoing crimes against its ethnic populations, the UK must not be allowed to leave. Hence, let’s get an idiot like Mensch on board – she’s bound to put people off. The incoherence is extreme: Mensch – a sworn Zionist – campaigning for Brexit? How much has she been promised, I wonder?

Moreover, what exactly is the point of kosher nationalist groups also campaigning for Brexit when their sympathies clearly lie with Zionism and Israel rather than with Britain itself? Did they – along with Nigel Farage and the rest of UKIP’s leadership (including sole UKIP MP and Friend Of Israel, Douglas Carswell), believe a vote to remain in the EU was a foregone conclusion? Was the rise of UKIP simply a political manoeuvre meant to deepen divisions between communities whilst strengthening Zionism’s tawdry, evil grip on government, media and citizens?

Was Jo Cox’s death the last resort of kosher nationalists in order to ensure the UK stays part of the EU? Sadly, our nation is gripped in the throws of grief-stricken hysteria similar to when Princess Diana died. Yet Jo Cox was only an MP for just over a year. As well, it would seem Cox was unpopular with Jeremy Corbyn and reportedly scheduled to be deselected.

In the wake of Cox’s murder, a large majority of the British public is now suffering from cognitive dissonance of immeasurable proportions and would appear to lack any capacity for independent thought and reasoning.

A vote to Remain will render the UK the saddest country out of all the EU states. For crying out loud, we’re not even part of Schengen!

Brexit will see dancing in the streets.

Cynically and realistically, I fear it will be the former.

 

The Einsatzgruppen – an alternative approach

Alison Chabloz4 Comments

The information in this blog post is taken from the fourth in a series of videos by French revisionist, Vincent Reynouard, on the Einsatzgruppen – German action squads sent behind the Eastern front in 1941 to ‘clean up’ the threat posed to Hitler’s Third Reich by Bolshevists and Jewish Partisans.

In the first three episodes (as yet without English subtitles) Reynouard builds up to his grand finale with an exposé on the reasons why this most bloody and gruesome chapter of World War Two came about. With characteristic passion and aplomb, he details events which preceded the outbreak of war in 1939 and analyses Hitler’s decision to invade Russia. Using original documents, photographs and film footage, Reynouard then goes on to describe deployment of the Einsatzgruppen .

At the beginning of Part 4, Reynouard thanks contributors who, by their kind donations, have allowed him and Belgian revisionist colleague, Siegfried Verbeke, to buy copies of the official Einsatzgruppen reports (which are the result of collated Einsatzgruppen field reports) made at the Reich’s Berlin headquarters. Verbeke studied the 3,000 pages in order to calculate the number of executions carried out by these so-called ‘mobile death squads’.

Indeed, it seems that, to date, there has never been any study or research based on these original, official documents by conventional historians. Moreover, here you can see screenshots of court transcripts of the Nuremberg statutes concerning presentation of these same documents at the Einsatzgruppen trial. Only the accusation – the victorious Allies – was granted full access to the Einsatzgruppen reports. The defence – the losers – was kept in the dark and only shown extracts from 15 of the thousands of reports – extracts indicting them of ‘war crimes’. Verbeke and Reynouard’s work reveals not only the gaps left by historians, it shows us how the prosecution at Nuremberg managed to have the defence convicted by way of lies, fraud and deception.

The Einsatzgruppen were divided into four units of roughly 500 men each and were spread out from north to south along the Eastern occupied territories. We learn from the Nuremberg court transcripts that their mission – as well as ‘cleaning up’ Bolshevik enemies of the Reich – was to concentrate all Jews into cities and large towns, Jews being the natural allies of the Bolsheviks.

Squads would enter a town, find the local notables and officials who would then be interviewed by the Einsatzgruppen resident Gestapo – the German secret police. If the officials were found to be useful – say, as informants – their lives would be spared. If not, they would be shot and the execution would be duly reported, giving date, time, place as well as the reason for the killing.

It was a bloody war, without rules, without honour and without mercy. A war which would decide the future of the Reich, now fighting on two separate fronts. The German soldiers were constantly under threat from terror attacks by Jewish partisans who were also spreading anti-German propaganda amongst the eastern populations. If German soldiers were found to have been tortured and killed in an ambush, the Einsatzgruppen would then be ordered to retaliate by rounding up and executing civilians – mostly Jews. With strict German military formality, these mass executions would also be recorded in field reports which would then be sent to Berlin by the squad Kommandants to be collated into the official documents, as studied by Verbeke. These reports were copied 62 times before being circulated to party officials, suggesting that they must be authentic.

Verbeke’s research of the 3,000 pages found only a small fraction of reports relating to mass executions. At Nuremberg, the number of deaths 1941-1942 cited is 1,000,000. Verbeke’s calculations show a maximum total of 450,000 of which 357,000 were Jews. The greater part of the Einsatzgruppen reports relate to more banal matters of schools, hospitals, food supply, welfare, as well as ghettoisation of Jews, etc.

We learn that mass executions sometimes took place out of sheer necessity. Food sources were becoming increasingly scarce. Locals were starving which caused further unrest. Reports show that the worst-affected patients of at least two mental institutions were liquidated in order to relieve the situation and improve the lives of local residents. A mass execution took place in another town where Jews had been stealing food and then selling it on the black market.

Several reports inform us of the local population’s satisfaction over these killings. Jews were widely hated and seen as collaborators. They often held top positions in local administration because of their allegiance with the despotic Bolsheviks.

As with the magical six million figure and the fantastical gas chamber murder weapon, a shroud of deception has been placed over the verifiable functioning of the Einsatzgruppen. They were not sent out to systematically kill all Jews. If this were the case, then why bother to concentrate Jews in ghettos built specially for them, where they had their own officials and were generally left to their own devices?

Mass executions were not carried out indiscriminately, but were done for reasons of retaliation against Partisan terrorism or out of absolute necessity during a time of war. Horrific though this might seem, the official records confirm that there was no systematic extermination policy concerning Jews. Conventional spin on the Einsatzgruppen is yet another ruse intended to elevate Jewish suffering to a quasi-religious belief which cannot be equalled. How can a single crucifixion compare to six million souls being sent to their deaths just because they happen to be Jewish?

Times are changing, and at last the mist is dissipating and the full picture is about to be revealed. Jews suffered no more and no less than other groups during World War Two. Jews were not the only ones to be rounded-up, sent to camps or indeed shot and buried in mass graves by the Einsatzgruppen. We know that Jews also fought in the German army and gave orders as Sonderkommandos in the camps.

Vincent Reynouard is still alive, but the persecution he has suffered for what he describes as “the cause” is far from being imaginary. Like Siegfried Verbeke and other revisionists, he has even been imprisoned for his opinions in a so-called ‘democratic’ and ‘free’ Liberated Europe! Recently, Reynouard was forced to flee France and – like myself and so many other dissident voices – has lost work, been separated from his family and is obliged to be on constant guard vis-à-vis the immoral deception of our common enemy: Zionism. Please support him if you can.

Our enemy is also the enemy of humanity. It’s time to wake up, to open your eyes and resist Zionism’s evil oppression.

Free speech. Free access to information. Free Palestine.