Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Lord Stoddart RIP

(above left) Lord Stoddart alongside Lady Michèle Renouf at the showing of her film Palestine Scrapbook in 2002, which he and Dr James Thring (second right) organised at the House of Lords.

One of Britain's most independent-minded politicians has died aged 94.

Lord Stoddart, the former Labour MP Richard Stoddart, was probably best known for his consistent opposition to Britain's membership of the European Union, which he campaigned against for more than half a century, living to see eventual victory in the Brexit referendum.

He was also a consistent supporter of the oppressed Palestinian people, and it was under Lord Stoddart's auspices in cooperation with Dr James Thring that Lady Michèle Renouf's first documentary film Palestine Scrapbook was shown at the House of Lords in 2002.

The film documents unique interviews with surviving British servicemen who fought against Zionist terrorism in Palestine during the forgotten war of 1945-48.

Today's Guardian obituary accurately and generously (given that today's Guardianistas would almost all be passionately opposed to Lord Stoddart's anti-EU stance) describes Stoddart as "a template for the sort of diligent decency found in the Labour party in his political generation" and "a singularly independent-minded politician".

Lord Stoddart remained active and dilegent in pursuit of that independent vision until the end: Hansard records that his last parliamentary votes were cast just five days before his death.


Biden's new Secretary of State and his well-connected stepfather

(above right) Tony Blinken, soon to take charge of US foreign policy as the third Jewish Secretary of State, seen here with President-elect Joe Biden

US President-elect Joe Biden is set to confirm his long-time aide Tony Blinken as the new Secretary of State. Blinken will take office in January 2021 at the helm of US foreign policy and will be the third Jewish holder of this office, after Henry Kissinger (1973-77) and Madeleine Albright (1997-2001),

Mrs Albright famously claimed that she hadn't known she was Jewish until the Washington Post reported it, shortly after she took over as Bill Clinton's second Secretary of State.

By contrast Tony Blinken will never have been in any doubt about his kosher heritage. His father Donald Blinken was a founding partner in the very Jewish investment bank Warburg Pincus, but his stepfather is even more interesting for readers of this blog.

Tony Blinken's stepfather was Samuel Pisar, one of the founding high priests of Holocaustianity. the cult that has taken the place of normal historical research and logical argument where one particular corner of history is concerned.

Blinken's stepfather Samuel Pisar and the new Secretary of State's mother Judith Pisar

Pisar miraculously survived a whole series of wartime camps including the alleged 'death camps' Majdanek and Auschwitz, before escaping from a "death march" at the end of the war. He eventually contributed to the endless literature of 'survivor memoirs' with a book whose French title translates as "The Blood of Hope" – perhaps a nod to the original sacrificial meaning of the word 'Holocaust'.

These canny survival skills didn't desert Pisar during a long postwar career as attorney for some of the shadiest characters in World Zionism.

Though the fact was magically removed from his Times obituary, Samuel Pisar was lifelong confidant and legal adviser to Robert Maxwell, a monstrous crook who stole from his own employees' pension funds, struck dodgy trade deals with the Soviet bloc, and betrayed Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu – kidnapped by Mossad and returned to jail in Israel.

Pisar was one of the last people to speak to Maxwell before his still mysterious death in 1991.

(above right) Robert Maxwell – Mossad agent, international crook, and Samuel Pisar's client and confidant for decades – seen here with his daughter Ghislaine, presently facing criminal charges in the USA for her alleged role in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal

Other long-term Pisar clients included Soviet agent and Zionist billionaire Armand Hammer, and the ruthless corporate raider Sir James Goldsmith.

But perhaps the most interesting was Bruce Rappaport, a crooked international banker with close ties to Israeli intelligence. During the mid-1980s Samuel Pisar helped Rappaport fix a US guarantee for an Iraqi pipeline – effectively an insurance guarantee that Israel would not attack the pipeline, and that if it did, the costs would be covered.

In return for this guarantee, Rappaport's front companies got Iraqi oil at a hefty discount, and the lawyer Pisar approached to fix things – a close associate of President Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese – received a fat commission.

After all the election hype settles down, there will be a new President in January, but with Samuel Pisar's stepson in charge of the State Department, we can be sure that the Washington-Jerusalem axis will remain unchanging as ever.



Monday, November 23, 2020

Sylvia Stolz to be released today

(left to right) Sylvia Stolz at the Schaefer trial in Munich in 2018 with Wolfram Nahrath (attorney for Monika Schaefer and later for Lady Renouf); Frank Miksch (attorney for Alfred Schaefer); Alfred Schaefer; and Lady Michèle Renouf.

Today the brave German attorney Sylvia Stolz is due for release after an 18 month prison sentence for the 'crime' of having made a speech about German history and the principles underlying the search for historical truth.

First jailed in 2008 (and banned from legal practice) for her words in defence of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz spoke at a conference of the Anti-Censorship Coalition, held in the Swiss town of Chur in 2012. (A video and transcript are online here.)

During this speech Sylvia Stolz took issue with the very concept of "Holocaust denial":

"I suggest it is not clear what is really denied, because it is not definitively defined. There should be at least one case, against a Holocaust denier, in which the relevant crime, the Holocaust itself, is exactly established in all necessary details. I know of no such verdict. There are no judicial findings of fact concerning crime scenes, methods of killing, numbers of victims, time-frame of killings, perpetrators, bodies, or physical traces of killing. There are no judicial findings of fact concerning testimonies, documents or similar kinds of evidence. There are no judicial findings of fact concerning the existence of an intention under National Socialist rule to destroy the Jewish people in whole or in part. There are no judicial findings of fact concerning the existence of relevant decisions, plans or orders. In the verdicts to date against Holocaust deniers there are no judicial findings of fact concerning these matters, not even – and this is an essential point – not even in the form of a reference to precedent decisions. If one wants to claim something, it is naturally the scientific thing to do to refer some other verdict in which the matter is established exactly.

Sylvia Stolz (above centre) on the day of her release in 2011 from an earlier prison sentence, with Günter Deckert and Lady Michèle Renouf.

"We don't even have that. This is the problem. As long as the court will not commit to certain specified crime scenes where these mass killings are supposed to have happened, as long as the court will not commit to at least one specified piece of evidence, then a conclusive finding of fact that a mass murder occurred is not possible. And no more possible is a conclusive judgment against denial of the relevant act. If the relevant underlying crime is not established by a binding, judicial finding of fact then the denial of that crime cannot be conclusively established either."

This speech itself became the subject of further criminal charges, and eventually led to Sylvia Stolz serving an 18 month prison sentence from May 2019 until today.

As with last week's release of Horst Mahler and Ursula Haverbeck, we must hope that this is a chance for Germany and Europe to end monstrously oppressive 'historical memory' laws. This should begin with the release of Alfred Schaefer, who has been jailed since 2018 for 'holocaust denial' in his online videos.

Sylvia Stolz with fellow attorney Jürgen Rieger (1946-2009) during the trial of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel (1939-2017)

The jury is still out – not only on the historicity of the 'Holocaust' but on whether the Federal Republic of Germany can be described as a free society based on the laws of reason.

As Sylvia Stolz said during her criminalised speech in Switzerland in 2012:

"When one builds on something untrue, when one builds on something false, it might stand for a while, but at some time it must, of itself, collapse. It is like trying to erect a building with a foundation of papier mâché rather than proper stone or proper concrete. An important notion in relation to the question of 'true thinking' or 'finding the truth' is: one must hear the other side."



Friday, November 20, 2020

Nuremberg anniversary should prompt shame not celebration

President Steinmeier at Nuremberg today

Earlier today Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President of the German Federal Republic, presided over a commemoration at Nuremberg's Palace of Justice, marking the 75th anniversary of the start of the infamous 'Nuremberg trials' on November 20th 1945.

As President Steinmeier put it today:
"Here, in this very room, while the rubble was being cleared away outside, the four victorious powers of World War II laid the foundation for the legal order of a new world."

Yet this anniversary should have been not an honoured occasion but a source of shame for all concerned, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson pointed out at the time of the 65th anniversary.

Right from the start, informed observers recognised that the Nuremberg trials were a travesty. Among many eminent critics was the veteran US Senator Robert Taft, who denounced the trial process as early as October 1946 in a comprehensive critique that included the point that trial of the "vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with forms of justice", and that the process was based on a "Russian idea of the purpose of trials, government policy and not justice, having little relation to our Anglo-Saxon heritage".

By Russian, Sen. Taft of course meant Soviet – and his use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" hinted at an underlying characteristic of many Soviet rulers that was neither Russian nor Anglo-Saxon.

Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone was equally contemptuous of the Nuremberg trials, which he described as a "high-grade lynching" and "a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas".

In fact high-level criticism of the Nuremberg charade began right from the moment in October 1941 when the Allies (which in practice at that time meant the British Empire and the Soviet Union, with diplomatic lip-service paid to others) first began discussing the notion of "war crimes trials".

Maurice Hankey (by this time Lord Hankey) was the effective founder of the modern Civil Service, having been Cabinet Secretary from 1916 to 1938 and forged Britain's war-winning government machine during the First World War.

Hankey had a key role in the Versailles peace conferences that followed that war, and during the autumn of 1941 he wrote to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden urging him not to repeat the mistakes of that foolishly vengeful 'peace'.

Eden replied that he agreed with much of Hankey's critique, but warned that Britain's allies (for which we must read the Soviets, Poles and others) were already planning to go ahead with a declaration on "war crimes" that "would go a good deal further than ours".

Therefore, Eden warned Hankey, he should accept the relatively "inoffensive" Foreign Office draft, otherwise "we are likely to find the Allies coming out with something far more embarrassing".

The embarrassment was to last more than 75 years, insofar as Eden and his successors were embarrassable. Despite his initial reluctance and Hankey's even franker opposition, Eden and his government were drawn into accepting a ludicrous catalogue of "war crimes" charges that have become set in stone as unchallengeable history. The Nuremberg judgment even asserted that Germany was responsible for the Katyn massacre of Polish officers and intellectuals – a charge that everyone now accepts as nonsense.

Lord Hankey (formerly Sir Maurice Hankey), one of the earliest critics of the 'war crimes' charade

Yet we are required in 2020 to celebrate and honour the sham justice of Nuremberg that incorporated this nonsense as truth.

Eden's warning about "embarrassing" judicial processes did have one echo almost eight decades later.

Just a few weeks before this 75th anniversary, German prosecutors in Dresden were due to bring Lady Michèle Renouf to court over a speech that she made on an earlier anniversary in February 2018 – the 73rd anniversary of the Allied terror bombing of Dresden.

Among the remarks in this speech – for which Lady Renouf was arrested, charged and faced a possible five-year prison sentence – was a quotation from Lord Hankey, who had opposed the terror bombing as well as the postwar Nuremberg trial travesty.

Eventually German prosecutors realised the embarrassment they would face in having a court (and accompanying press) hear the documented historical truth about Hankey and others quoted by Lady Renouf, regarding Nuremberg, Dresden and other aspects of the Second World War, including the alleged 'Holocaust' of European Jewry.

This was among the several reasons why charges against Lady Renouf were dropped at the eleventh hour.

Over coming weeks and months this blog and associated social media accounts will continue to examine reasons for the Federal Republic's judicial embarrassment.

This week Lady Renouf discussed aspects of her case with Dr Ed DeVries on the TBR History Hour – see link below.








Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Britain and Germany begin reckoning with historical truth

 

Horst Mahler and Ursula Haverbeck celebrate their release this week

This week two incarcerated Germans – 84-year-old Horst Mahler and 92-year-old Ursula Haverbeck – celebrated their release from jail. The outside world finds it incredible that people of this age should be jailed for anything – still more incredible that their 'crimes' were political: daring to question orthodox versions of mid-20th century European history.

Horst Mahler had been prosecuted for several political offences since 2003, and had been in a Brandenburg prison since June 2017, having earlier been jailed from 2009 to 2015. During his sentence he has suffered increasing ill health including the amputation of both legs.

Ursula Haverbeck had been imprisoned for two and a half years since May 2018 and has faced repeated trials after daring to ask questions of the German authorities about what she terms "the biggest and most persistent lie in history" – the alleged 'holocaust' of European Jewry.

Meanwhile a new era in Anglo-German relations was hailed this same week with the visit of the heir to the British throne – the Prince of Wales – to Germany, the first member of the British Royal Family to attend Germany's National Day of Mourning which began in 1919 to commemorate the dead of the First World War.

The Prince of Wales and German President Steinmeier lay wreaths to commemorate Germany's National Day of Mourning on November 15th

The Prince noted that Berlin "embodies so much of the history of our continent, and all that we have been through". His wish for reconciliation depends of course on a truthful and honest reckoning with the past – which would require Germany to abandon its notorious Volksverhetzung law 130. That law prohibits the normal historical argument and conflicting research that in every other field is regarded as essential to establish truth and falsehood.

Just a month earlier the German state averted severe embarrassment when prosecutors dropped their case against a British citizen who had been arrested while addressing a memorial event in Dresden in February 2018.

Lady Michèle Renouf had overheard a German lady at this event saying that Britons had no right to be in Dresden, because of the Royal Air Force's terror bombing of the city in February 1945.

Lady Renouf with the Prince of Wales at his family residence, Highgrove House

In a brief impromptu speech replying to these comments, Lady Renouf sought to explain why she and fellow Britons had come to Dresden to apologise for the real holocaust of German civilians there and in other German towns and cities during the Second World War.

For this and other comments Lady Renouf was arrested and charged under German laws that prohibit 'Holocaust denial' and generally end in prison sentences.

However for reasons that will be explored on this blog over the next few weeks, Dresden prosecutors eventually concluded (after two and a half years preparing their case) that a trial would be too embarrassing as it risked drawing attention to matters referred to in Lady Renouf's speech that the political establishment would rather forget. They dropped the charges just two days before the trial was to begin in October 2020.

Ursula Haverbeck faces fresh criminal charges this month but increasing numbers of legal and constitutional experts, as well as political and historical commentators, now believe that 'anti-revisionist' or 'historical memory' laws are untenable. As Britain marked the 100th anniversary last week of the burial of the Unknown Soldier at Westminster Abbey – the emblematic victim of 20th century European brothers' wars – is it too much to expect the Second World War and its legacy to be examined as history rather than distorted as theology?

Lady Renouf with Wolfgang Wagner – grandson of the composer – at the 1997 Bayreuth Festival.  As the son of a German father and English mother, Wolfgang Wagner was a symbol of our shared heritage.



Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Dresden Court Victory – Michèle, Lady Renouf Acquitted

Lady Renouf vindicated over Dresden speech

After 32 months German courts back down, Renouf acquitted




In a last minute reversal, German prosecutors and a district court judge in Dresden have ended their criminal case against Lady Michèle Renouf, terminating a 32-month process, days before it was to come to trial.

Having arrested and charged Lady Renouf in 2018 immediately after her impromptu speech at a commemoration in Dresden, German prosecutors opened proceedings a year later under Germany’s notorious §130 Volksverhetzung law alleging “public incitement”, but the case has now ended without Lady Renouf being found guilty of any offence. (She has had to pay only a modest fee for the costs of a translator.)

“This decision was extraordinary – almost sensational”, says Wolfram Nahrath (Lady Renouf’s German attorney) who points out that such an ACQUITTAL of the charges in a ‘Holocaust’-related trial is a first in Germany.  The German authorities did not want to take the risk of putting Lady Renouf on trial, given her background and the German constitutional issues that would inevitably be highlighted.

The §130 Volksverhetzung law has been used to jail German scientists, authors and even lawyers in recent years. ‘Holocaust’-related offences of ‘public incitement’ almost inevitably lead to long prison sentences.

Yet the unique circumstances of Lady Renouf and her 2018 Dresden speech led prosecutors to withdraw.

This blog and related social media accounts will examine the extraordinary fabric of the Renouf case and explain why the German state chose to throw in the towel.



Monday, October 12, 2020


In her speech at Dresden for which the German state now seeks to criminalise Lady Renouf, she referred to the mass terror bombing (driven by deliberate murderous policy of Allied governments) which burned alive countless numbers of German civilians in February 1945.  She pointed out the relevance today of the Dresden Holocaust – that this so-called "moral bombing" (having avoided being classed as a war crime), has licensed the targeting of civilians as standard policy ever since – borne out by the powers that ruled the post-1945 world order in their further terror bombings of civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere.

A similar "twistspeak" is employed via a compliant mainstream media to mislead the public on a range of issues – ranging from the "weapons of mass destruction" lie that led to the illegal war in Iraq, to lies about 20th century history, including the Second World War, that continue to addle the minds of Britons and fellow Europeans.

In a televised broadcast (above) recorded in December 2007 with sociologist Dr M. Saeed Bahmanpour of the Islamic College for Advanced Studies, Middlesex University, Lady Michèle Renouf alludes to the Iraq War WMD lie and discusses the "fraudulent freedoms" offered by Western "democracy". In particular she focuses on the "twistspeak" that exploits credulous consumers for the benefit of powerful vested interests.

Lady Renouf's analysis of "twistspeak" is informed by her decades of inside knowledge of the advertising industry, following her lifelong career as an international advertising actress and model (see a small sample of Lady Renouf's advertising work in video below).



 

Press enquiries

Press enquiries regarding Lady Renouf's Dresden trial should be sent to press@jailingopinions.com