Anti-Semitism is doubleplusungood, Holocaust denial is crimethink

“Chutzpah of the chosenites” goes off the charts

By Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

Our Orwellian era just took a terrifying turn for the worse. Not content with mangling the English language to disguise victimizers (themselves) as victims, and their victims as “terrorists,” the chutzpah-bloated chosenites of the Zionist Power Establishments (ZIPES!) are demanding that the sacred scriptures of Islam and Christianity be rewritten to their own liking:

Jewish leaders call for new editions of the Bible and the Koran to carry trigger warnings highlighting anti-Semitic passages 

According to ZIPES, the Gospels and the Qur’an are…what else…hotbeds of anti-Semitism! The mind fairly boggles at the obscene hypocrisy of people whose scriptures condone lying and stealing, claim that prophets pimp their wives and screw their daughters, insist that Mary was a whore and that her bastard son the lying false prophet Jesus is boiling for eternity in a vat of human excrement, and repeatedly call for and celebrate genocidal exterminations of the chosenites’ supposed enemies (including people whose only crime is to inhabit the chosenites’ alleged “promised land”) have a problem with other people’s scriptures.

Let’s do some remedial Religious Studies 101 and compare the scriptures of Abrahamic monotheism. The first thing we notice is that Islam and Christianity are universal, ethical, and spiritual—while Judaism is tribal, often unethical, and overwhelmingly anti-spiritual. No wonder authentic scripture is “anti-Semitic”!


According to Christianity and Islam there is only one God, the universal creator. All human beings, regardless of ethnicity or ancestry, are basically equal before the one and only God, the God of all peoples and all beings, the God of everything.

Judaism, by contrast, revolves around a tribal god named Yahweh, who often seems a stand-in for the Jewish tribal elite. In the earlier sections of the Torah (Old Testament) Yahweh is just one tribal god among many. Gradually he seems to merge with (usurp the place of?) the one and only universal God; yet he still is tribal enough to preposterously hold that Jews are a genetically superior master race, a “chosen people.” This absurd, blasphemously demonic, narcissistic scam—”our tribal god is the God of everyone”—continues today under the rubric of Jewish Superiority and the chosenness complex. The Rothschilds foisted it onto tens of millions of gullible evangelical Christians by paying a two-bit swindler named Cyrus P. Scofield to lend his name to the Zionist “Scofield Bible” published by Oxford University Press and promoted with all the fanfare the Rothchilds’ fortune could muster; today the Scofield Bible is used by/on the brainwashed Protestant-fundamentalist legions who regularly vote for Bibi Netnayahu’s “chosen” candidates.


The Gospels and Qur’an are rigorously ethical. The Gospels sometimes carry ethics to a self-effacing extreme, insisting on loving thy enemy and turning the other cheek; while the Qur’an insists that all of life is God’s test to see who among us can best persist in holding rigorously to the truth and working to our utmost capacity for justice.

The Jewish Torah and Talmud, by contrast, repeatedly condone or even celebrate unethical behavior.  Consider sexual ethics: Abraham pimping his wife-sister Sarah, Noah being sodomized by his son (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a), Lot fornicating with his daughters, Judah with his daughter-in-law, Amnon raping his sister, Absalom seducing his father David’s wives…all of this and more makes it clear that by the standards of Jewish scripture, Woody Allen’s “keep it in the family” act is actually quite tame—as Woody’s rabbi, perhaps a frequenter of New Yorks pedophilia-infested Jewish “child rape assembly line”bathhouses, presumably assures him. The Talmud’s claims that “intercourse with a boy under nine years old is not considered a significant sexual act” and “not sodomy” (i.e. not a problem) presumably has something to do with what goes on in those NYC bathhouses. (Michael HoffmanJudaism’s Strange Gods, p. 358.)

The Torah, and even more so the Talmud, carry unethical precepts far beyond the sexual arena. The Torah suggest that God/Yahweh approves of Jacob (“the heel”) swindling his brother Esau out of his birthright—a “morality” tale with real-world implications, since in subsequent Jewish lore Jacob represents the clever Jew and Esau the stupid, hairy goy.

The Torah-given notion of Jews as “chosen people” also fosters bad ethics. Apart from the numerous God-approved scriptural genocides (including Esther whoring her way to the slaughter of 75,000 Persian men, women and children, which Jews still celebrate every Purim) there is the small matter of the Talmudic Halacha teaching as indisputable gospel that “the Judaic male is supreme above the gentile and that ‘the world was created for the Jewish nation.’” (Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, p.98).


The Gospels and Qur’an agree that the most important dimension of human life is the spiritual dimension: we are not merely our material bodies, our souls or spirits survive death; and what we do in life (notably our moral/ethical behavior) determines how we will experience the afterlife. In this, the scriptures of universal monotheism agree with many other great traditions, including Hinduism and Buddhism; The Tibetan Book of the Dead, for example, is an instruction manual to help a dying person through the process of leaving the material world and entering the spiritual one, where failure to overcome greed, lust, and egotism while alive can lead the dying person to experience “eternal hell” once dead.

The Torah and Talmud, by contrast, are relentlessly unspiritual, even antispiritual. As Laurent Guyénot writes in From Yahweh to Zion (p.95):


Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion may be the best book ever written on “the Jewish question”

Guyénot adds:

“The materialism inherent in Judaism has profound consequences in Jewish mentality. Among these consequences, Karl Marx identifies the immoderate pursuit of financial power: ‘Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities.'(Karl Marx, On the Jewish QuestionBy their perfection of usury, which has now resulted in the transformation of money into debt and its complete dematerialization, Jews have somehow endowed money with a virtually supernatural power. It is as if the spiritual world in which the Jew does not believe has been replaced by a spiritual world of his own making: a spiritualization of matter that is actually an inverted spiritual world, since instead of linking man to heaven, it chains him to earth.” (From Yahweh to Zion, p.113)

Christianity and Islam seek the salvation of the individual soul in the next world. In both traditions, that salvation is attained through faith (heart knowledge) and good works. For Judaism, in stark contrast, the only salvation is in this world, and it consists of money and (Jewish tribal) progeny: The only immortality is the Tribe’s. Guyénot writes: “The Hebrew Bible binds the individual to his collective racial origin rather than to his personal spiritual destiny. The immortality that is denied the individual is reinvested entirely on the collective: only the people is eternal.” (From Yahweh to Zion, p.114)

The “eternal” people’s materialistic, ethically-challenged, anti-spiritual pursuit of tribal wealth and power is a 2500 year old intergenerational project. Orchestrated by a self-replenishing eugenically-created tribal elite (smart poor boys marry rich men’s daughters)  who ruthlessly manipulate non-elite Jews as well as goyim, the project has succeeded spectacularly and may be, as Islamic scholar Imran Hosein argues, arriving at world domination via a pax Judaica that replaced the former pax Americana on September 11, 2001.

All religion, René Girard argues, is rooted in the ubiquity of scapegoating and human sacrifice. And just as Christianity revolves around the sacred story of the scapegoating and sacrifice of Christ, the new religion of Pax Judaica revolves around sacred stories of two monstrous human sacrifices: the Holocaust and 9/11. In both sacred stories, the demonized villain just happens to be the Jews’ enemy du jour: Hitler in the 1930s and 40s, Arabs and Muslims a few generations later.

Our Judeocentric belief in the sacred villainy of Hitler and Germany led us to perpetrate a holocaust of perhaps ten million Germans in the immediate aftermath of World War II. And our Judeocentric belief in the sacred villainy of Osama Bin Laden and “Islamic terrorism” has produced an even larger holocaust of 32 million Muslims murdered in the 9/11 wars.

Read Ron Unz’s “American Pravda: Holocaust Denial

Questioning the official sacred stories of the two great Judeocentric human sacrifice events (the Holocaust and 9/11) can ruin your career…and, in the case of the Holocaust, get you sentenced to maximum security prison. Here is my friend Monika Schaefer, recently released from almost a year in maximum-security lockup for the crime of producing a tender and moving video about her relationship with her mother.


The upshot of all of this is that today’s Pax Judaica dominated world is far beyond Orwell’s craziest nightmare. So if you want to stay out of trouble, you’d better pre-emptively apologize for even thinking any thoughts related to anything you just read.

And if the ADL or JDL or any other DL comes after you, you’d better get down on your knees and recite the following words of repentance:


Political show trials in Germany! A New Inquisition

Lady Michèle Renouf, REPORTS FROM MUNICH on the SCHAEFER TRIAL, July 2-5, 2018

My friend Monika Schaefer has been locked up in a German maximum security prison since December. Her crime? Making the above video. It is well into the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of views; but we’ll never know, since YouTube took down the counter and is doing everything possible to bury it.

Her brother Alfred is now also on trial…like attorney Silvia Stolz, prosecuted for the crime of defending her clients! Apparently any lawyer who defends a witch, indeed anyone who opposes a witch hunt, must also be a witch. After all, why else would they defend witches?

Every real American lives by the motto: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The Stalinist show trials underway in Germany are a disgrace.

Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf,


Please know I report only from the horse’s mouth i.e. from Alfred Schaefer and the legal team. I do not report hearsay or half grasped tidbits.

Subject: SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1+2, July 2-3, 2018 – Update

SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1,MORNING SESSION July 2, 2018 – From the Right End of the Horse

Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf writes:

Henry Hafenmayer, Alfred Schaefer, Michèle Renouf at Munich Courthouse moments before the Schaufer sibling’s trial for Volksverhetzung/populace incitement para 130, Day 1, July 2nd 2018.

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-born brother Alfred).

Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) advised me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom ) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika ( while she attended the former attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018).

This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery.

Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation, having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five-year custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser, our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe.

The parties provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings in any case if witnessing the process. I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmayer, as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker (though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “international affection for the Schaefer siblings”, she agrees that my making daily reports to include this advice, as given by my own attorney, in fact serves to strengthen the dramatic resonance of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this bewildering “Alice in Wonderland” anti-National, non-Sovereign German legalese-land where – ‘first we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence.

How else but bewildering can one assess the nonsensical norm for WW2 historical skeptics where lawyers risk prosecution themselves if they defend certain clients’ opinions and findings “too well”?

The late Ernst Zundel, when he was on trial

During trials conducted in Mannheim Court, personally I have witnessed the lawyers acting for artist and publicist Ernst Zündel, and Plank Institute graduate and chemist Germar Rudolf, finding themselves charged for “acting too well” for their historical revisionist clients.

Indeed, some of those German lawyers have been punished with either crippling fines or incarceration for defending their clients “too well”

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his political awakening via the suspect videos. I am only anxious that the judges may manage to forbid this exposé by him. The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these Processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings as provided to me from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by valiant former-attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay/Schöffe judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schaffe judges, but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules, whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate, since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the Land of Illogic, The Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland, always shouting “Off with her head!”

In the “curiouser and curiouser” Wonderland world of occupied-German law, the leading Judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water!

Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing, to which Alfred fittingly added that the court was but a “Muppet Show”. I concur for, in “The Great Muppet Caper” movie, I act as role model for Miss Piggy’s catwalk imposture!

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction willfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the Judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges, whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full.

The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the playing-card Queen’s in “Alice in Wonderland” wherein these “contrariwise” trials commence with “Sentence first – then the evidence”….unless one’s lawyer attempts to defend his/her historical revisionist client “too well” and then the lawyer also is prosecuted for “defending the client too well”.

The “Holocaust” exceptionalist law presumes not only a bottomline of “obviousness”, but also that any attempt by the lawyer to offer his/her client’s evidential exhibits to prove the case will be “criminalised” as a heretic and suffer incarceration. Attorney Nahrath and others are always dancing on the wire.

No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics, since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the “Holocaust” on page 11 determine that:


Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests, on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented (by Renouf, much loathed by Lipstadt) instead of the omnipotent Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws, there have been numerous attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. These ex-Constitutional Court Judges argued that the “Holocaust” denial law was in contrary to the Federal Constitution of the Bundesrepublik!

“NWO agents use ‘diversity’ and ‘free speech’ just to destroy Western civilization. Once you challenge their welstanschaung, they put you to jail.” (file photo of Ursula Haverbeck)

Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zündel, Dr. Herbert Schaller, RA Manfred Roeder, RA Jürgen Rieger, Gerd Honsik – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmayer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Günter Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Arnold Höf, Sven Lobeck and Christian Haeger to name but a few.

Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the global tidal wave for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed, and I await further news from the right end of the horse. Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 8-15 which included two reporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa whom they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild, the popular scandal sheet.

“No surrender”!

Michèle Renouf

left to right: Attorney Sylvia Stolz (Scientist of Law); Attorney Wolfram Nahrath (Monika Schaefer’s counsel); Attorney Frank Miksch (Alfred’s counsel); Alfred Schaufer (Defendant); Lady Renouf (press correspondent for The Barnes Review and American Free Press).


The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias against the Defendant Alfred Schaefer.

The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th, when the matter would be weighed. The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handing Alfred an arrest warrant, which meant he must be taken into police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the new case of para.86 against him.

Monika Schaefer achieved her commonsense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now already the day’s session was half over!

Alfred gave a four-hour, well-documented presentation on why the Federal Republic is illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77-page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his honourable sister.

At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his suspect gesture, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed (but not to the judge) that the Process was unbelievable:


After all, Alfred’s disdain of Federal Republic law was of the essence to his own defence! When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge (to whom she had not directed her outrage) about what, perhaps, she meant by inquisitional terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”… as were the stunned public gallery, who had never before witnessed such surreal “criminal” events.

By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe, since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings, rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end.

Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s perspicacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaefer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathically the moving pathos they would witness passing naturally between these truly loyal siblings. The trial continues at 12.30 on Tuesday 3rd July.

Michèle Renouf


Tuesday July 3rd, 2018.

This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on Day Two of the Schaefer sibling’s trial, we learn that the period of punishment for Alfred (under para 86a), who was taken yesterday into police custody, is over for the time being. After today’s session, he will be permitted to return home.

Alfred now has this further trivial case to face later in the lower court. Alfred, ever-feisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another ludicrous action taken against him for a suspect gesture! He also had to surrender his passports – quite as if he could ever be a ‘flight risk’ as a man completely determined to face down what he considers are his country’s traitors and those swindle-speakers responsible for the “contamination” of its citizens’ capacity for rational, healthy hatred of sociopathic depravity and corruption.

The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. Monika’s veteran attorney Wolfram Nahrath will be presenting his 22-page argument against Para 130 of the law Volksverhetzung/populace incitement, in which he will raise the precedent of the two ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem who, in 2006, called for the Repeal of this “Holocaust”-denial law based on heresy values versus scientific attitude (our Hellenic scientific attitude versus the “Holocaust” anti-rational argument Teaching Guidelines).

Tomorrow we shall learn whether the lead Judge Hofmann will have to step down because of his evident bias towards the defendants. The disdain of this Judge for withholding due microphone use so both defendants and the public gallery could hear the proceedings, and the ruling over the norm of a ready glass of water for defendants, is but two of the contrarian, obstructive aspects to the due basic rights of all citizenry.

These mocking obstructions give further surreality to the conditions under which Germans and foreigners must encounter under the Basic Laws in favour of prosecuting the expression of free opinion among citizens and right to discuss normal historical source criticism without legalese protected exceptionalism.

“No surrender.”

Michèle Renouf


The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH, Day 3, AFTERNOON SESSION Wednesday July 4th, 2018.

Alfred Schaefer and Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz see each freed after being taken from the courtroom overnight under police custody!

An update follows of yesterday afternoon’s session (Wednesday July 4th). Not so incidentally, today it has been an ordeal simply locating another venue with both electric outlet for my Mac plus WLAN (since yesterday, one of our legal team sensed I was being observed by a recognised police woman who might just decide to do the usual and seize my laptop – “so leave now!”). 

Conditions and situations for me to go on reporting from here are unpredictable. All reminiscent of when I was advised to leave swiftly after participating at a “holocaust” conference at the UN parliament building in Brussels … having informed the assembly that the document Netanyahu likes brandishing before the UN General Assembly is the one Professor Robert Faurisson discovered and published circa 1976, which is simply a diagram of a small WW2 clothing disinfection gas chamber.

The Schaefer Siblings are “out to break all the thought crime rules since the penalty is the same” they say! Their resonant question here is “Do we live, or are we lived?” Before court proceedings got underway, Alfred’s attorney Frank Miksche learned that Judge Hofmann was not to be removed for bias, for he was judged (from above) neutral, since all judges are presumed to uphold his attitude when serving this exceptionalistic law.

The question is: Is this law in accord with the Constitution? The case must go up to a higher court in hopes of addressing this. 

Even so, RA Miksche caught Judge Hofmann out, as the latter had made a wrong statement. That is, Alfred had not given him permission to accept a shorter version of his Defence presentation to a mere 20 pages from the original 77. Nor was Alfred prepared to permit cherry-picking from his videos rather than have the court watch his videos in full. Alfred is to have his videos duly viewed in full in the courtroom tomorrow (Thursday).

During the morning session, it was Monika’s turn to tell of their family dynamics. In the afternoon session, Alfred endorsed his sister’s closely shared upbringing and adventurous hang-gliding, near-death experiences which served, as such brushes do, to stir one to do or die the way one goes henceforth. The threat of blindness served to embolden him. A fertile civic-minded atmosphere in which the sibling’s sense of fairplay and loyalty thrived is indeed the prompt for their forthright approach conscientiously to live their lives.

The Process, as public gallery eyewitnesses remarked, had turned to matters emotional. And when the State Prosecutor criticised Monika’s attorney RA Nahrath for introducing an emotional tone, surprisingly the Judge chastenened her (whose name we are not told), not Nahrath.

Eyewitnesses in the public gallery say they felt the siblings spread an aura of uplift in the courtroom.

Alfred says he wished to convey this by his various telling of personal life-threatening experiences, for instance, how his doctor brothers acting to save his impending blindness in the left eye. From such frequent tests, Alfred believes he has “got guardian angels” which make him fearless in the face of all adversity, a formidable opponent to those who rely on their identity from a group sense of god-awesomeship. Alfred, the Siegfried who knows no fear! Just the chap Wagner had in mind when he said in 1871 that German unification already needed fearless emancipation from such god-awful influences.

For Alfred and Monika, nature and thoughts are to be explored, not tyrannised. He said his father had received the Order of Canada for his services as a medic to the welfare of the Arctic people in recognising the way they live their lives affects their health. One might say, Alfred and his community-spirited sister do the same in their way with the influences prevailing over what he calls “the gate keepers”. The Gate-keepers is the chief video he plans to screen for the court today. I have just this very moment received a call from Alfred alerting me to rendezvous at yesterday’s venue, where I shall find out for you, all that has transpired today!

Yesterday at end of the day’s session, separately Alfred and Sylvia set off to meet me in the Löhenbräukellerbeer garden to discover – to each other’s surprised delight – that each has been released! They had last seen one another being taking into police custody directly from the courtroom.

Suddenly, to their mutual satisfaction (see pic attached), they find out they had been unexpectedly freed. Having committed no actual harm whatsoever, (i.e., no crime which is an act not a thought!), why would they be treated as criminals at all? We all here hope this outcome today for civic-conscientious, harmlessly intelligent, good-natured Monika – release from Munich’s high security prison after six months’ abuse for a benign, videoed apology: “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust”.

As it happened, Sylvia and Monika had traveled in the same police transfer van to the prison, although they had little chance to speak, owing to the noise of the others surrounding them. However, Sylvia found, during the hour when inmates can make their walk, that fellow prisoners told her “how much they all love Monika.

At the close of today’s court session, I have arranged to record an important interview with Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz. I will be asking her to explain in a nutshell, why the Federal Republic itself is illegitimate.

Ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem are quoted in my 2006 “Ernst Zündel Unbowed” telling film that the “Holocaust” denial law is even contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic! This is surely the cornerstone of Alfred’s case and the world needs this chance to grasp it …before it can fall…. for he and Monika are intend on emboldening that day.

The 4 days of trial sessions held this week will pause and return for the concluding dates of 12, 13, and 16 of July. Beforehand I shall be making available the feisty interview with Alfred in his garden, and the interview I am about to make with Sylvia the Scientist of Law on the key to Germany’s sovereignty, a graspable cornerstone.

Michèle Renouf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.