By and large, the general public accepts the given narrative of WW2. The victors get to write history, thereafter ensuring that their version of events is reinforced by way of education, media and, in particular, the funding of onside lawmakers who will eventually be persuaded to bring about legislation that will effectively silence dissenting views. Here in the UK, my court case proceedings show that we are teetering on the brink of a ‘Holocaust’ denial law, as it were, being ushered in through the back door. Nevertheless, if I am found guilty in January, the appeal process will be used, if necessary to the highest level. A brief update of Monday’s hearing can be found here.
Broomfield did not have the courage to publish my comment below his article which appeared late last Sunday. Suspecting this might be the case, I made a copy. Firstly, here’s Broomfield’s section about me:
My unpublished comment:
As Matt Broomfield would appear to have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, it seems rather strange that he omits to mention references I made about Palestine in my songs and in my talk.
In fact, no doubt relying on memory, Broomfield also manages to misquote, misinterpret and mislead in regard to what I actually said that day. My performance was scripted and was filmed – although not uploaded to YouTube for reasons of jurisprudence.
I most certainly did not say I was in trouble “just for writing a few songs offensive to Jews”, nor did I add any “Come on!” following my remark about Professor Faurisson’s 88th birthday in Vichy.
Most perplexing of all is that this meeting took place three months ago in February, which perhaps partly explains Broomfield’s misquotes and omissions. The judge mentioned recused herself over a month ago and although I am certainly still on bail, this is not the same as being ‘out’ on bail.
Rather than play Kosher Brother, perhaps Broomfield could have investigated why British police closed their investigation into the online harassment and death threats I’ve received since 2015 – investigation closed just two weeks before I was arrested by the same police force for writing a couple of songs? Now that would have been some proper journalism – rather than the poisonous garbage he chooses to spread here.
Then again, Broomfield perhaps believes my grandfather, great-grandfather and countless others who died fighting for this country were fighting so that Brits would face prosecution in their own land for writing satirical songs which upset Jews? Would the author also argue that these men fought and died in order to give queer men the right to marry and adopt children?
And for all those on this thread rambling on and on about the ‘Holocaust’, why not show some proof – or at least accept an honourable debate – rather than trying to criminalise opinions.
Update: will Tommy ‘none of my friends and family are white’ Robinson be turning up at Broomfield’s house with a video camera?
Holocaust or Hoax by Jurgen Graf p.149-51
A question to which revisionists would like a convincing answer: What is the explanation for the irrational behaviour of an entire people which apparently believes in an absurd (Holocaust) legend (myth)?
The Holocaust – with its gas chambers which constantly change location; its millions of victims who disappear without a trace into blue vapour at Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka, after being murdered by Hitler’s SS butchers, either with Zyklon B insecticide or Diesel exhaust, not to mention mass shootings Babi Yar-style (where the victims also disappear without a trace) – is, and remains, first and foremost a unique proof of the monumental stupidity of our age. In the early 1980s – when the major absurdities of the Holocaust swindle had already been exploded, with the exception of a few details – most revisionist researchers thought it inconceivable that the legend could persist more than a few more years. Since then, more than fifteen years have elapsed, and the Lie continues to drag out its existence, filthier and more luxuriant than ever! Cracks are appearing in the edifice of lies, doubts are appearing – here and there, in the press, in a few articles, in many private conversations – as to the truth of the Establishment version of the fate of the Jews under the Third Reich.
People mention the possibility of minor errors or exaggerations; but almost everyone continues to accept the story as basically correct. It is precisely this general acceptance which is the biggest puzzle to revisionists – and to any reasonable person with a minimum knowledge of history. Really, how can anyone of normal intelligence, for example, view the room which is shown to millions of tourists on the grounds of the former camp of Auschwitz as the “only Nazi gas chamber remaining in original condition”, without immediately realising that the physical capacity of the room – not to mention its immediate surroundings, for example, its proximity to the hospital located nearby – would make any mass execution using a highly dangerous poison gas impossible? The unspeakable atrocity stories spewed forth to visitors by officials of the Auschwitz Museum, deserve only ridicule. But the very opposite occurs: in these shrines dedicated to the Holocaust religion, people become intellectual cripples: awe-struck, their senses paralysed, they gape at everything as if it were plausible, and solemnly swallow nonsensical fairy tales! Even the generation of Germans which lived through the war – i.e., the “generation of criminals”, those who supported the National Socialist system which is now slandered all over the world, who remained true to that system and fought for it to the bitter end, with unprecedented self-sacrifice and devotion of spirit – that generation no longer knows what to believe after half a century of filth and lies.
They confuse their personal firsthand experience, that which they saw and experienced themselves, with that which they think they should have seen or experienced (according to the official version of history). Faced with the accusations and ignorance of succeeding generations, the generation of the war years joins in with the chorus of self-incrimination or takes refuge in resigned silence. And yet, – if the gas chambers were technically impossible and the whole story is therefore a lie; – if no material evidence of the crime remains, since the Nazis “destroyed all traces of their crimes at the last moment”; – if millions of bodies simply disappeared into blue vapour, so that not a single body of a single gassing victim has ever been found; – if the official version of history is based on nothing but contradictory “eyewitness testimonies” of witnesses who were never subjected to cross-examination, and confessions extorted from “criminals”; – if a forensic report, including a reconstruction as is ordinary practice in an ordinary murder case, has never even been attempted; – if expert reports on the technical feasibility of the mass gassings are never performed by the courts, but only on behalf of private parties, and if no technical refutation of these reports can be produced. Then how is it then possible for the world to believe this series of grotesque hallucinations?
If you ask these questions, most people are either surprised or shocked. But some people, particularly, young people – who often react spontaneously and emotionally – immediately and spontaneously declare their conviction that the Holocaust is absurd. One hears remarks like the following: “How could I have believed such nonsense for all those years?” The revisionist may perhaps be pleased in the belief that he has won a new adherent. But in most cases, this is a great mistake. When the shock wears off – the shock which sets in following the discovery of a new truth – the new convert returns to his old environment, where it is almost impossible to find any information on the subject other than all-pervading Holocaust propaganda. The average person lacks the courage to deviate from his environment; the mass media, of course, are all around us. Upon the slightest expression of doubts, the inevitable reply will be that he has spoken with a horrid, lying Nazi, that he has heard a load of lies, and that he had better forget everything he heard. This is particularly true, unless the convert is a hero willing to jeopardise his social and professional position for historical truth. Since even the crudest lie can be obfuscated and explained away, the heretic falls away from his new belief and returns to the shrine of the incredible. Credo quia absurdum est. What at first seemed absurd – in comparison to reasonable information about the absurdity of the Holocaust religion – once again seems convincing. In a society in which propagandists control the media, those who stray from the fold are quick to permit themselves to be persuaded once again that the unanimous opinion (Vox Populi, Vox Dei) which confirmed the reality of the mass extermination of the Jews for over a half a century, bears incomparably more weight than the statements of a single “Nazi”.
This abandonment of the elementary duty to seek the truth can, however, have unexpectedly unpleasant results. Today, even re-educated Germans – despite their anti-fascist fanaticism – are regarded with mistrust, even hostility, by many people in all parts of the world.
The Zionists and their stooges are skilful at ensuring the perpetuation of this hostility, for example, through hundreds of films, largely produced by Jews, which depict German soldiers either as simple fools or sadistic beasts.
The passivity and cowardice of the majority of the German people today is their decisive contribution to the perpetuation endless hatred. All of German contemporary history has been turned into a sort of crime sheet by the Allied victors. The Germans swallow everything in complete passivity.
A person who refuses to defend himself, ought not to wonder if he is found guilty. He deserves no respect, and should expect none. Germans compete with each other in vomiting upon their own people and themselves at the same time. Do they really expect to gain any sympathy abroad in this way?
Let us nevertheless attempt to understand the reasons for this apparently illogical behaviour on the part of the German people.
Perhaps the main reason for it is the knowledge, or instinctive sense, that any critical discussion of the so-called Holocaust is dangerous; it can cost the victim his job, his position in society, and even destroy his family. In addition, many people don’t want to know much about the Holocaust, which is the principal accusation against the German people, since they intuitively feel that many things about it simply cannot be true. They are afraid to know whether the Holocaust is a pack of lies, or just a lie or two; anyone doubting the details of the official version of history runs the risk of being compelled to question the story as a whole.
And that is just what our contemporaries, set on their peace and quiet and comfort at any price, do not want. On the other hand, it is not easy to live with a lie which one should long ago have recognised as such, and, at the same time, to act as if it were no lie at all. For example, how should the mother of a family, who knows to a certainty that the gas chamber yarn is a lie, answer a child who asks, eyes wide-open with wonder: “Mama, teacher told us that German soldiers gassed the Jews. Did Grandpa gas the Jews, too?” The best way to evade a question like that, which is complex and painful, is simply to know nothing. So the mother simply tells the over-curious child, “I don’t know, ask your teacher.”
By Jürgen Graf.
The Holocaust is not just a lie, it is a crime. It is a crime because it not only justifies innumerable other crimes, but because it create a huge mass of hatred, which in turn contains the potential for new crimes.
People whose souls have been drenched in the hatred of the Holocaust Lie must be counted among its victims. This includes the millions of twelve to fifteen-year old school children dragged through the memorials of former concentration camps, often weeping uncontrollably at the atrocity stories and lies vomited up at them.
How much suffering, how much heartbreak, how many tragedies are due to the so-called “Holocaust”, this hair-raising Lie of the Century, which the Jews invented, crammed down our throats, and have defended tooth and nail, with fines, with abuse, with imprisonment, for over half a century?
It is painful to think of the thousands, indeed tens of thousands, of people who have been humiliated, persecuted, imprisoned, or even executed in the name of this shameless swindle. It is pathetic to see the once-great German people, having lost its pride, its sense of direction, its self-respect, to such an extent that it no longer dares to defend itself against a flood of slander and is too ashamed to look itself in the face. One single mention of the “gas chambers”, the extermination of the Jews, was enough to justify purging entire cities and provinces of their German population. Almost 17 million people were driven from their homes between 1944 and 1948 in an unbroken series of atrocities during which over two million died.
“After what they did to the Jews, they had it coming to them”, is the classical justification.
It is truly disgusting to think of the millions of people all over the world watching Marvin Chomsky, Claude Lanzmann, Steven Spielberg and all the others – Holocaust, Shoah, Schindler’s List, etc. – in the cinemas, on television – and taking it all seriously. The Jews – or more exactly, those who claim to speak for the Jews – invented a story which they’ve called the Shoah or the Holocaust, and which they now claim is the history of their people.
The Holocaust money-making machine has brought them such tremendous advantages, that they can no longer live without it. But they made one fatal error: the Holocaust swindle is so endlessly absurd that its inventors can only take refuge in a suicide charge; having lost all sense of proportion, they have gone too far and will soon come crashing down.
To suppress all open debate on the subject appears an impossibility in the long run, despite all manner of repression. From minor explanations to wholesale re-writing, including whole new “Revised Versions”, the profiteers of the myth continue to entangle themselves in increasingly greater numbers of contradictions; the fables of today contradict the fables told yesterday; the defenders of the official version of history are being compelled to make so many concessions that more and more people are starting to wonder about it all.
Doubts expressed in private conversation no longer shock as much as they did a few years ago; it is getting easier for revisionists to gain a hearing. In brief: for the exterminationists, the time is running out. Increasingly hysterical repression is an unmistakable sign of growing panic. It is also a sign of weakness.
Instead of listening to the discussion, they simply grab for a truncheon. But how long can they get away with it? The revisionists must not hope for quick victory; it will not come overnight. They should remember the wisdom expressed in the phrase from the Czech philosopher, Karel Capek, who said: “Truth must be smuggled. It must be distributed in small doses. A drop here, a drop there — until people get used to it. Not all at once.
At a time when the Lie appears to be triumphing without hindrance, we would like to close with an optimistic message. We wish to make the following appeal:
All of you, all friends of the truth, both known and unknown, from many European countries, those who, like Günter Deckert and Gottfried Kuessel, Ernst Zundel, have sat in German and Austrian prisons for “denying the existence of the gas chambers”, or who have been compelled to go into exile like Remer and Rudolf, all persecuted revisionists and nationalists – do not lose your courage, since your struggle against state-ordained lies is not in vain. Your courage, the sacrifice of a few, will help to free entire nations and peoples, including the German and Russian peoples – from the darkness which has so long covered them.
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.
Creation of the state of Israel came about in part via the Haavara Agreement. Will this same pact also be partly responsible for the Jewish state’s demise?
Thirty-two years have passed since Edwin Black published his authoritative work on the 1933 pact between Hitler and Zionist Jews known as Haavara or The Transfer Agreement. For the past two years, I have been tweeting and sharing a YouTube video of the only interview Black ever gave about his book. For a Zionist Jew like Black, the pain of revisiting this episode has meant that, since publication, he has remained mostly silent on the subject.
Last week, British veteran politician and former Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was set up and harangued by arch-Zionist colleague – the despicable John Mann MP – concerning the Labour party’s suspension a day or two earlier of novice MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah. In fact, Zionists had been trawling Shah’s Facebook posts of the past two years and had found an ancient post where she suggests Israeli Jews should be relocated to the United States.
(Of course, all this is part of a bigger plot on the part of Zionists – both Labour and Tory – to discredit and smear the Labour leader and veteran left-winger, Jeremy Corbyn. More on that later).
Livingstone, faced with Mann’s brutal verbal assault concerning Shah’s suspension, decided to air the topic of Haavara in Shah’s defence. Yes, there was indeed a pact between Hitler and Zionist Jews in the 1930s. Livingstone was merely stating historical fact.
Cue a tsunami of embittered outrage from Zionists of the Left, Right and Centre including, amusingly, a raft of Haavara Denial from the usual culprits whose prime motive is their own supremacist outlook at the expense of freedom of expression and, indeed, of humanity itself. Whatever happened to Jew suis Charlie..?
Haavara brings into question everything that the mainstream has taught us about Hitler and the Jews. Not only do we have Black’s book on the subject, we have original documents of the agreement which can be researched in any public library. There is even a publication which groups these 51 documents (yes! 51!) available on Amazon. Unlike the alleged genocide of the Jews and Hitler’s gas chambers, we have actual, concrete proof in the form of original documents which cannot be denied. Thus, Ken Livingstone’s moment of dis-glory (like Shah now also suspended from the Labour Party) lifts the lid on the whole ‘Holocaust’ narrative.
No official documents relating to any extermination order have ever been found. Idem for the alleged homicidal gas chambers. There are no photos, no plans, not even a drawing or sketch. Not that this prevented the victors of WW2 from finding the whole of Germany guilty of mass murder – without proof – at Nuremberg. How would you like to be tried and found guilty of murder on the word of eye-witnesses only, without forensics? That’s effectively what happened and the German people as well as the Palestinians (and, for that matter, the entire planet) have been paying the price ever since.
Since Livingstone and Shah’s suspensions, several more Labour members have been suspended for Facebook posts about Hitler. Note, it’s perfectly acceptable for right wing Tory racists and even for Israeli PM Netanyahu to revise history and mention old Adolf. Just not for Labour; nor bien sûr for ‘Holocaust’ revisionists.
Corbyn is playing the game. Labour MPs, councillors and other supporters are dropping like flies for supposed antisemtisim and there will be more suspensions to come as Zionists comb every Facebook post that anyone connected with Labour has ever published. These people have too much time and money on their hands: a modern-day Stasi with the moral compass of a flock of vultures.
Nevertheless, Corbyn has one remaining positive factor in all this: he still refuses to say whether or not he supports and recognises Israel. I say Corbyn shouldn’t worry too much: voters have already made their stance clear on his leadership and he seems cunning enough to know how to react without betraying his own, long-held values and belief in freedom for the Palestinian people.
Zionists know how to make a lot of noise when it suits them, but they are relatively few and we are many. It’s clear that Ken Livingstone’s faux pas in the eyes of our Zionist-controlled media and government has already had huge repercussions in stirring people’s interest. Yes, we’ve been lied to. Once full realisation hits home for good, Zionism’s days will be numbered and the rogue state Israel will self-destruct.
It’s been a long time coming. Let us relish the demise of this cancer on society and look forward to a brighter day when all of us can enjoy our natural rights, equally and without prejudice.
(in realty by the late Pierre Moreau (of Brussels) and Robert Faurisson: article published in the Revue d’histoire révisionniste, no. 6, May 1992, p. 131-140)
It is known that in March 1933 worldwide Jewish organisations declared economic war on Germany. In September 1939 Chaim Weizmann declared armed warfare. In Europe during the war years Jewish resistance – especially in association with the communists – was active. To take just one example, on May 13, 1942 eleven Jewish communists belonging to the Herbert Baum group and the Werner Steinbrinck group (also called “Franka Group”) carried out an arson attack on the exhibition “The Soviet Paradise” at Berlin’s Lustgarten. Five German civilians were killed in the fire. 
The Germans considered the Jews as a whole to be representatives of a hostile belligerent power, all the more formidable since, internationally, it disposed of considerable resources in the field of finance (money, the sinew of war) and in those of the communications media and propaganda. Physical attacks engendered reprisals, which in turn gave rise to new attacks. Just as the Americans or the Canadians, considering persons of Japanese descent dangerous or hostile, decided – notwithstanding the absence of attacks or sabotage on their part – to place them in concentration camps, the Germans proceeded to evacuate large numbers of German Jews, putting them in concentration, labour or transit camps. However, a certain Jewish life subsisted openly in Germany all through the war. The three documents below make it possible to provide a sketch of that daily life: a newspaper, an excerpt from the telephone directory, a ration card. Obviously, the longer the war went on the further that daily life deteriorated, as did, for that matter, the lives of other Germans.
The first is the weekly Jüdisches Nachrichtenblatt [“Jewish Information Bulletin”], which was published altogether legally during the Second World War for German Jewish religious communities. It must be stressed that this newspaper was perfectly official, with its title, address and telephone number included in the telephone directory. Its offices were in Berlin N4, Oranienburger Straße 40/41. One gets the impression of a well-structured organisation and of social autonomy, a community suffering vexations but not finding itself in a tragic situation: things often seem even peaceful, considering the period and the taxing disruptions endured by the rest of the German population. Because of the shortage of paper, all German newspapers saw their dimensions shrink. Such was the case of the Jüdisches Nachrichtenblatt in January 1943, and its last issue appeared in December of the same year.
Let us analyse issue number 23 of 1942, dated June 5.
There are announcements of services to be held in nine synagogues in Berlin for the week of June 5-12. Also, the Jewish religious calendar for the corresponding week, running from the next sabbath day, i.e. “Siwan 21 to 28, 5702”. Also, a notice concerning the providing of Jewish funeral services, with the hours of availability of different telephone numbers. Worship activities in two other cities, Frankfurt am Main and Hamburg, are announced.
The death in Berlin, at the age of 86, of a well-known figure from Dessau is the subject of a special feature: it is the former banker Paul (Israel) Märker. “Mr Märker,” it reads, “was for several decades treasurer of the Cohn-Oppenheim foundation and a member of the governing committee of the Dessau community. He rendered great services to the Jewish community”.
For the town of Rheydt we have news of the golden wedding anniversary of a couple “highly esteemed amongst the Jews of the region. In particular, Mr Spier has distinguished himself by graciously fulfilling the function of cantor, thus enabling religious ceremonies to be maintained”.
The main article of Jüdisches Nachrichtenblatt consists of a purely technical presentation of the new legal provisions on the voluntary resignation of members of Jewish communities, which could take place only within narrow limits. Another piece announces the obligation for Jews to use only Jewish hairdressers.
For the rest, there are notices and advertisements, which shed light on the daily life of Jews in 1942 Germany.
Family announcements first. A wedding to be held on June 7. Newlyweds respond to their well-wishers. A young boy thanks those who congratulated him on the occasion of his barmitzva. Silver wedding, golden wedding anniversaries. Birthday celebrations of persons ranging in age from sixty to ninety. Then the obituaries of individuals, most often of an advanced age, others younger, “after a long and harrowing illness”. One lady and another “have gone peacefully to sleep” [sanft entschlafen].
In short, in the midst of war, the joys and sorrows of normal life.
There are other more prosaic advertisements. A Jewish bookshop [Jüdischer Buchvertrieb] publicises several titles: a biography of Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism; another of Moses Hess, founder of modern socialism; yet another of Chaim Arlosoroff, Zionist activist assassinated in 1933 (in Tel Aviv). It also sells second-hand books, over the counter or by post. Payment is to be made either on collection or with the order, but delivery by return post is not guaranteed.
A lady, “qualified teacher”, offers private lessons in English and French. A music teacher who gives his lessons only in people’s homes.
Persons looking for a guesthouse run by a Jewish family. Advertisements of premises to let, furnished or unfurnished, and others placed by individuals seeking to rent.
Practitioners of the art of healing – doctors, dentists, physiotherapists – are required to specify that they are authorised to treat Jewish patients alone, but they are able to publicise their practice. They have an advertising section reserved for them called “Health Care”, wherein each gives, along with days and hours for consultations, an address and telephone number. Dr Jacob Wilmersdorf, Badensche Str. 21, II (corner of Kaiserallee), tel. 87 70 28, receives visits from 10 am to 12 pm and from 4 pm to 7 pm except Mondays and Wednesday afternoons; Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings by appointment only. Dr Berthold Alexander, radiologist, receives patients at such and such hours at Augsburger Straße 19, mornings and afternoons (even on Sundays, if one understands correctly), but on Saturdays only in the morning. Dr Leopold Berendt, Friedrichstraße 3, also receives patients on Wednesday and Sunday mornings and Saturday afternoons, but only by appointment. Similarly, Dr Herbert Rittler offers consultations by appointment at Markgrafenstraße 20, except on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings. Sally Rosenthal is a physiotherapist and dispenses medical massages and localised light-baths, by appointment and on Saturdays from 10 am to 2 pm, in Neuen Roßstraße. And she is accredited by all the health care funds reserved for Jews [Zu allen Krankenkassen visible to zugelassen Juden]. “I have re-opened my practice,” announces Dr Max Brandenstein (Hamburg, Bundesstraße 35a, ground floor), who may be reached on the telephone at 55 71 50 care of Siegmund Elias (this advertiser had had some difficulties – of what kind no one knows – but his situation was, it seems, finally returning to normal).
“Conscientious and affectionate” care is offered for convalescence holidays for two or three children aged up to six, who will be collected and returned home.
Such was Jewish existence, seen in real-life snippets, in the capital and in some other big cities of the Reich in the middle of the war. There existed an information bulletin whose readers took advantage of it to communicate with one another. Whatever its importance or however derisory its content, one must be allowed to take note of it, without making any assertions, without forcing conclusions.
A telephone directory
Another interesting piece comes from a telephone book with the full title: AMTLICHES FERNSPRECHBUCH für den Bezirk der Reichspostdirection BERLIN –Herausgegeben von der Reichspostdirektion Berlin / Ausgabe Juni 1941 / Stand vom 1. Februar 1941 [Official Telephone Directory for the Berlin postal sector – published by the Berlin directorate of the Reich post office / June 1941 edition / Information as at February 1, 1941].
On pages 581 and 582 appear the numbers to dial for the capital’s Jewish associations. There are two and a half columns of dense print, listing the various centres, their addresses, activities performed, services available to members. Below are the contents of the first part of the first section, that of the Jewish religious Federation: Jewish Communities of Berlin, registered firm [Jüdische Kultusvereinigung: Jüdische Gemeinde zu Berlin eV. (eingetragener Verein)]:
– Administrative buildings N4 Oranienburger Str 28, 29 and 31 –
*42 59 21.
At that number the following offices may be reached:
Archives – Construction – Receipts – Financial Management – Property Management – General Management – General accounting – Central fund – Land registry – Religious services and weddings – Equipment – Personnel – Press – Legal department – Revision service – Schools department – Bureau of statistics – Winter relief – Housing support – Central service of homes for the aged.
Evening and night:
Plörin, Oranienburger Str 29 (42 94 27).
Council Chamber of the Presidency (42 94 30).
– Administrative buildings N4 Oranienburger Str 31 –
*42 51 31.
At that number the following offices may be reached:
Office of emigration – Change of trade and social service – Arbitration and legal advice – Aid to the homeless – Aid to businesses (money).
Employment and services for foreigners (42 51 31).
*42 63 96.
The foregoing lines amount to only a bit more than 13% of the space in the directory reserved for Jewish associations connected to the Berlin telephone network in 1941, thus in the middle of the war.
Let us draw up a list of these entries, showing the complexity of the Jewish social structure at the time in the Reich’s capital alone. The list is not exhaustive because some entries are repeated in the various sections:
Schools administration – Aid to businesses (fund) – Housing aid – Aid to prisoners and to the homeless – Children’s aid – Arbitration and legal advice – Archives – Aid to the sick – Association for Jewish culture in Germany – Administrative buildings – Charity and protection of youth – Bureau of statistics – Construction office – Office of religious services and weddings – Land registry – Central fund – Clothing – Cemeteries (inspection of) – Private Jewish clinic – General accounting – Community kitchens – Housekeeping school – Primary school (boys) – Primary school (girls) –Private tertiary school – School of commerce – Vocational school for fashion design and decoration – Chemistry school – Housekeeping school – Middle school – Primary schools (eight addresses) – Employment and services for foreigners – Receipts – Gravediggers – Jewish National Fund (registered firm) – Home for nurses – Home for Jewish schoolteachers – Home for girls – Financial management – Property management – Home for ladies and girls – Home for Jewish youths – Old people’s care home – Home for Jewish infants and small children – Home for the sick – Home for children and adolescents – Children’s homes (three addresses) – Hospital at Auguststr. 16 – Hospital at Elsasser Str. 85 – Hospital at Iranische Str. 2 – Hospital at Schulstr. 78 – House of education – Stylz home for the blind – Home for deaf-mutes and the hard of hearing – Employment and services for foreigners – Nationalfonds (registered firm) – Office of emigration – Old men’s boarding house – Welfare service [Bereitschaftsfürsorge] – Resident population [Insasse] – Protection of youth – Professional reclassification and social service – South residence – North residence – Weißensee residence – Central residence – Children’s reading room – Winter relief – Jewish seminary for kindergartens and nurseries – Press – Revision – Schools – Equipment – Health – Press – Immigration – Schools – Central service of homes for the elderly – Dues/Contributions – Legal department – Personnel – Equipment.
There can be little doubt that the Jewish population established in Germany possessed its own legally recognised institutions. Their official status reflects the authorities’ position regarding them, but it was also perfectly consistent with the state of mind of the German population, as witnessed in late 1941 by the American Jewish journalist George Axelsson. While on a working visit to Germany he cabled a report to his newspaper, The New York Times (published on November 10, 1941 – page 31), about the Reich and the more than 200,000 Jews who were still there. He concluded it in these terms: “In public places or in contacts as a fellow-worker in factories the German working man seem to treat the Jew as an equal.”  All this is hardly compatible with the usually presented image of Jews in Germany at that time. We see something quite removed from a hunted horde, uprooted, with no recourse of any kind, no possessions, no rights. Such a lot was not that of the Jews in general, but was indeed one which millions of Germans were to have to endure from 1945 onwards. In the public mind a propaganda-induced substitution has been quite easily effected: the often fictitious destitution of the Jews under the Reich for the destitution, all too real, inflicted on the Germans, especially the deportees driven from their homes in the East in 1945 and afterwards. Some will surely retort that the directory in question here dates from 1941 and that all the organisation reflected therein was to be reduced to naught soon afterwards. That seems not to have been the case. The International Committee of the Red Cross published just after the war a book on the German concentration camps: L’Activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne (1939-1945) [3rd edition, Geneva 1947]. On page 103 appears one of its delegates’ report, dated April 16, 1945, on his talks with SS-Obergruppenführer Müller of the SS-Führungshauptamt. It contains this sentence:
On the other hand [Müller] allowed me to place the Jewish assembly camp at Schulstrasse 78 in Berlin, as well as the Jewish hospital at Iranische Strasse 2, also in Berlin, under ICRC protection. 
Both addresses appear in the list that we gave above and are, effectively, those of two hospitals that still stood as Jewish property at the end of the conflict. One would like to know what became of the other two, along with the rest of the Jewish community’s properties. It is not rash to think that a good part of them, like thousands of other buildings, lay in ruins in heavily bombed Berlin. 
A ration card
But is it at all likely that something of a Jewish administration and, for that matter, some Jewish civilians still survived in Germany at war’s end? An element of response is provided on page 324 of Gérard Silvain’s book, La Question Juive en Europe, 1933-1945 . Under the facsimile of a document the author put this caption:
Adult’s food ration card (prime necessities).
The word “JUDE” has been set not only on the card but also on the coupon.
Between February 5 and March 4, 1945 were there still Jews living in freedom in German territory?
This card, from which the coupons have been detached, proves that it has been used and thus allows one to answer in the affirmative.
[*See example below]
In fact, the period of validity of the card shown ran from February 5 to March 4, 1945, and the supplies office having issued it was that of Munich. It is indeed the case that not only the card but also the coupons bore the word “JUDE”, applied not by means of a stamp but printed, which means that the number of addressees of these cards was large enough to justify printing. Such printing therefore had to be planned. The ration cards were not handed out right and left but, as one will hardly doubt, dispensed on the basis of carefully drafted name lists. Have those lists all disappeared from all the German cities’ archives? That is difficult to believe. Thus the question arises: why are they not produced?
Besides, the Jews are above all city-dwellers and, as such, were particularly vulnerable since the Allies were, in the main, bombing only the cities. How many of them died as a consequence, burned in their houses? Unless we are mistaken, that has never been disclosed but, here again, confirmed figures must have survived.
In some cases Jewish children were sent to the countryside to escape the bombing; so it was with Lea Rosch, today a major German television personality.
The period from February 5 to March 4, 1945 was that of the bombing of Dresden (February 13-14). The Allies were killing German civilians by fire. The Germans, as we see, were feeding Jewish civilians.
In May 1945 the Soviets installed Dr Werner as head of the municipality of Berlin. They asked him to create, within the city council, a religious services body made up of a Catholic priest, two Protestant pastors and a rabbi representing, for his part, the 6,000 Jews of the city (Georges Soria, L’Allemagne a-t-elle perdu la guerre ?, Paris, Bibliothèque française, 1947, p. 23).
 See Eliyahu Maoz, “Une Résistance juive en Allemagne”, Commemoration of the ghetto revolt, Jerusalem, March 1965, 15 pages produced in photocopy by the organisation department of the World Zionist Organisation; see also the article “Berlin” in the Encyclopedia Judaica (1971).
 Quoted by James J. Martin, The Man Who Invented Genocide / The Public Career And Consequences of Raphael Lemkin, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, Calif., 1984, p. 35. On the exact condition of the Jews working alongside German workers at Fürstengrube, one of the 39 auxiliary camps of Auschwitz, one may read the astounding document NI-10847 translated, rather poorly, in La Persécution des juifs dans les pays de l’Est presentée à Nuremberg, a compendium of documents published under the direction of Henri Monneray, Editions du Centre [de documentation juive contemporaine], Paris, 1949, p. 201.
 “The Jewish hospital, directed by Dr Walter Lustig, was in operation up to the end of the war. […] The Jewish cemetery in Weissensee was also functioning” (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 1990, p. 202).
 On November 24, 1943, a British aerial bombardment destroyed the “New Synagogue” of Oranienburgstrasse 30. The photograph of that synagogue in flames has, since 1945, circulated throughout the world with the following explanation: the synagogue was destroyed by arson, imputable to the Nazis, during the Kristallnacht of November 8-9, 1938. Not long ago the German post office published a postage stamp presenting that version of the facts, also repeated recently in the French daily Le Monde (Frédéric Edelmann, “Le Souvenir d’une négation”, February 8, 1992, p. 17). However, in 1987, a publication of the Berlin Jewish community, prefaced by its head Heinz Galinski, had admitted the truth (see the brochure Wegweiser durch das jüdische Berlin – “Guide to Jewish Berlin”).
 Paris, Editions Jean-Claude Lattès, 1985.*
[*Example of printed ration card
Above: screenshot, German militaria web site Weitze with an unused 1943 ration card for Jews from Berlin. Click to enlarge.]