Shoahism, Censorship and the Liberal Left

Yesterday, I received 50 legal request takedown notices from YouTube, informing me that my entire library of uploads spanning the past ten years has been removed in Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Israel, Italy, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Poland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Reunion, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte.

That’s approximately 260 million potential viewers who, if they’re not computer-savvy, are now deliberately deprived of my audio-visual output, whether it’s a subtitled translation of news from other revisionists, almost forgotten songs or short gardening tips. Account managers at the legal firm which issued the requests will be no doubt be satisfied, along with (((whoever))) ordered them to do the dirty on my entire channel. Or perhaps YouTube simply became fed up receiving multiple requests from whining lobbyists and just banned the whole lot in one go?

It’s hard to feel pleased about losing so many potential viewers in this way. At least, it can be said that this new dose of mass censorship of my work once again shows I must be doing something right.

Perhaps the legal action came about following my recent ban from Facebook during which I uploaded several videos on the plight of German revisionist and hero of our times, Horst Mahler. Sentenced to ten years and two months in prison, Mahler was freed under caution in 2015 after an untreated wound on his left foot became infected, meaning he had to undergo amputation below the knee. Always the rebel, Mahler gave a speech last January which is truly inspiring. You can find the subtitled version here and my shorter uploads on the same subject here. My first upload is now approaching 12,000 views in just 12 days which won’t have pleased lobbying organisations. Alfred Schaefer’s voiceover version of the same video was shared on platforms such as Renegade Tribune, further helping to raise awareness of Mahler’s situation and the utter hypocrisy of draconian thought crime laws which exist in so-called free, democratic nations. It just goes to show how desperate our traditional enemies are when the wheels of justice are set in motion in order to silence an 81-year old amputee: in these same countries, rapists and murders get off with far lighter sentences.

Censorship of this kind – initiated as ever by the same traditional enemy – is only to be expected and should be taken as a shining badge of honour. It costs them both time and money. Regards Mahler’s message, the banning of my videos also came too late as Mahler has managed to flee Germany and is now in a safe place from where he intends to seek political asylum.

However, should censorship – and indeed self-censorship – coming from those on the Liberal Left be taken equally seriously? I’ve tweeted (when I still had a Twitter), written and sung about Ken Livingstone and the Haavara Agreement. I also supported, among others, Jackie Walker when she became a target of the Israel lobby for pointing out the major role played by Jews in the Transatlantic slave trade as well as asking why the Holocaustᵀᴹ was privileged in comparison to other [verifiable] genocides. However, my sympathy for the Left stops short when, in return for my words of support, I am treated with even more contempt by these Liberal Leftists than I am by our traditional enemy lobbyists.

Hailing from mid-Wales, Mike Sivier is a Labour candidate in next week’s local elections. He also writes a blog Vox Political. Sivier is the latest victim of the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s all-out dastardly scheme to silence anyone they dislike. Alongside the lesser sins of criticising Israel and Zionism as well as voicing support for Livingstone, Sivier had had the gall to quote Gilad Atzmon. Worse still: yesterday in response to a typical CAA smear op, Sivier posted a blog in which he was misguided to the point of including a quote from yours truly.  As if citing far right Holocaust denier Atzmon wasn’t bad enough, Sivier now collaborates with a genuine Nazi!

170427 genuine Nazi

To be fair, Sivier did have the guts to publish my comment and he even replied. However, to all intents and purposes, Sivier must have quickly begun to reflect on what was more important: truth or his own fledgling political career. His final answer to my second comment says it all: Sivier is a Shoahist who believes Jews should be treated differently from the rest of us. My further replies are still awaiting moderation

170427 sivier blog

As Canadian free speech advocate Paul Fromm recently said: if you can’t name the problem, then the problem can’t be solved. The enemies of free speech grow evermore desperate to suppress the truth and the more they try, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. Revisionism and the truth about what really happened during World War Two can no longer be suppressed. In terms of advertising and marketing, society will soon reach tipping point and the true, verifiable version of history will be adopted by the masses.

Using smear tactics to silence political enemies and the law to replace the concept of true or false with the concept of what is acceptable or unacceptable to Jews – Shoahism or antisemitism – has had the opposite effect to the one originally intended. Sooner rather than later, more people will start to seek the truth and speak out. As always, our traditional enemy could have avoided all this happening. Alas, they never learn.

Holocaustianity, the New Religion

Reblogged from source.

– by Monika Schaefer, 08 Sept 2016.

~ Exercising My Human Right to Speak Freely!

There is one event in our history which appears to be off-limits to discuss, debate, ask questions, investigate, or ask for evidence. That event is the so-called “Holocaustᵀᴹ”. It has become a belief system, and if you dare to speak something contrary to this belief system, beware! You may encounter “ritual defamation”. You may be viewed as a heretic. Facts become irrelevant; the main objective is that you are punished severely for going against the stream. I have been experiencing ritual defamation in my home town of Jasper, Canada, population 5000. I am the perfect candidate for defamation, in that I have lived here most of my life and have been an active community member, which makes me locally well-known. Some of the elements of ritual defamation are shunning, ostrasizing, shaming, cutting off income, and character assassination.

Free Speech Monika

A strange type of response that I get from many people, is that this topic of #Holocaustᵀᴹ is “off limits” for them, even if they tell me they respect my right to freedom of speech. They tell me outright that they will not discuss or debate this issue, end of story. They refuse to look at any evidence, book, video, or hear any argument from me about why and how I have reached my conclusions. Is this reasonable? Is there any other part of our history which is treated in this way? The unique hold of the #Holocaustᵀᴹ narrative on people’s psyche is what causes me to view it as the new religion of the masses.

Recently I was invited by the Canadian Association for Free Expression to go to Toronto to speak about my experience – how I came to my conclusions on the #Holocaustᵀᴹ , and the aftermath of posting my “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the #Holocaustᵀᴹ” video. There I met many people with interesting stories of their own, for example, there were several expellees from the eastern former territories of Germany.

Millions of Germans were expelled from those eastern European lands at the end of the war in 1945 in the largest forced migration in all of recorded history. Many were put into camps. It is estimated that 3 million died along the way, either of exposure, starvation, or outright murder. Many were raped and tortured. Where are the monuments to those victims? And why is this part of our history omitted or barely mentioned in school? I certainly never knew about it until very recently. But I do remember learning in school about the evil Germans making soap, lampshades and shrunken heads out of the bodies of Jews, all admitted and proven lies. It has become perfectly acceptable in our society to denigrate the religions of Christianity or Islam, but going against “the #Holocaustᵀᴹ ” has severe consequences, including incarceration. Many European countries have laws which make peaceful expression against the official narrative of the #Holocaustᵀᴹ illegal. Canada does not have explicit laws against “#Holocaustᵀᴹ denial”, but Ernst Zundel was jailed for just that under the notorious hate-speech laws, so in effect, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Canada. Only lies need to be protected by laws. The truth stands on its own. Is it not possible to have open debate on the #Holocaustᵀᴹ ? What are they hiding?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS UNDER ATTACK! CANADIAN PUBLISHER FACING JAIL FOR POLITICAL WRITINGS NOW PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CANADA’S NOTORIOUS “HATE PROPAGANDA” LEGISLATION!

An extremely important court case is coming up soon. Arthur Topham, publisher of radicalpress.com “digging to the root of the issues since 1998”, will be in the Quesnel Court during the week of October 3 to 7, 2016. This case to repeal the Orwellian hate-speech laws is important for all of us, for our freedom of speech. Who decides what is “hate” speech? If we are only free to express politically correct views, then we do not have freedom of speech, period. Without freedom of speech, we do not have a functioning democracy. Instead, we have tyranny.

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

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