Lady Michele Renouf in Kevin Barrett podcast

[yankeedoodle]

On November 5th German prosecutors and a district court judge in Dresden suddenly ended their 32-month criminal case against Lady Michèle Renouf just days before the trial was to begin. Lady Renouf was charged with "incitement" under the §130 Volksverhetzung law, which has been used for the wholesale imprisonment of German dissidents, including scientists, authors and even the lawyers who defend them.

What speech crime was she charged with? Expressing grief, sympathy, and repentance for the crimes her (British) government committed against German civilians during World War II, including the firebombing of Dresden. Lady Renouf's impromptu remarks during the 2018 anniversary commemoration of the Dresden Holocaust were heartfelt and utterly reasonable. Yet the German government wanted to imprison her for, as she says in this interview, "stating the bleeding obvious."

I am providing a lightly edited transcript of this interview for two reasons: First, I want to provide full and easy access to Lady Renouf's ideas as my way of pushing back against censorship. Second, this interview was marred by audio glitches, so listeners who find them annoying can just read the transcript.

70-minute audio here:  https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_lady-michele-renouf-i-risked-5-years-in-prison-and-won-first-ever-acquittal-in-german-wwii-heresy-prosecution/

Links to her websites:
https://modeltrial.blogspot.com/
- about Birobidjan: http://jewishrepublic.com/
- about Birobidjan: http://www.birobidjan.co.uk/


TRANSCRIPT
https://www.patreon.com/posts/44045922

Recorded November 16, 2020

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Radio, Kevin Barrett here looking for the most interesting people telling important truths rarely heard in the mainstream. World War II revisionism is one of the most interesting topics out there, because, of course, the myth of World War II persists: the heroic good war that justifies all other rounds of mass killing in today's world, especially the genocide of Palestine. But was World War II such a clear good-guys-versus-bad-guys thing, and was it a triumph for the good? Was the only Holocaust the famous six million gas chamber thing, or were there other atrocities that have been covered up? Well, anybody who's actually studied the situation knows a fair bit about the answer to that. So how should we react? Should we feel bad about the atrocities committed by our side? I would think so. We want the Germans to feel bad about their atrocities. We want everybody elsewhere to feel bad about their atrocities. So maybe we should feel bad about the firebombing of Dresden, the holocaust of a beautiful historic city, perhaps 100,000-plus people burned to death almost instantly. Just an absolutely horrific atrocity—and one of the many, many intentional holocausts of civilians imposed by the Allies during World War II. Well, my guest today, Lady Michelle Renouf, was actually threatened with prison for speaking on the anniversary of the Dresden firebombing as a British person who mourns and repents of that horrific crime. And they wanted to throw her in prison for that! The world is topsy turvy, upside down, completely insane. But there are a few sane voices left, including Lady Michele Renouf. So, hey, welcome, Michele. It's good to have you.

Michele Renouf: Well, it's very nice to be invited. Thank you very much Dr. Barrett.

Kevin Barrett: So my mind still sort of reels at the thought that they were threatening to throw you in prison for saying the things you said at Dresden. It's kind of mind boggling.

Michele Renouf: It would have been a five year prison sentence possibly for both counts of the accusations, which is very difficult for especially Americans to comprehend.

I know that you were in contact or have sympathy with Ernst Zundel, our great revisionist. And during the time when he was in prison in Mannheim in Germany, I used to visit him. And before my visit, I would call his wife, Ingrid Rimland, to ask if there was anything that she would like me to convey to him. Because obviously she could not visit Germany. Otherwise she would certainly be imprisoned.

And Ernst would say to me, "when I get off the telephone with her, I feel like a coward," he said, "because she's in America, and despite the fact that she understands the predicament of what one can say in Germany, yet she still doesn't really grasp that I cannot say the things that she would wish me to say. And it makes me feel like a coward." And considering how much Ingrid Rimland would have understood of Ernst Zundel's case, it really is very telling how we in countries that have some free speech simply can hardly believe what is happening in 18 different European countries—that's including Israel—where you can be imprisoned for five years or more for heresy.

Very often in my Telling Films, I quote the International Guidelines for Teaching about The Holocaust. And on page 11, it says, "Care must  be taken not to give a platform for deniers", i.e., sceptics, "or seek to disprove their position through", get this, Kevin, "normal debate and rational argument." That is a very clear statement that we are not teaching history objectively (if it was ever taught objectively). But we are out and out told thereby that this is teaching Holocaustianity, not history.  And for this reason I have spent the last 20 years covering these trials in which people are prosecuted (for speech offenses) and so are their lawyers. "If those lawyers are seen to defend their revisionist clients too well," said the judge in Manheim, "they will be prosecuted." And attorney Sylvia Stolz is in prison again—shortly to be released, one hopes—because she defended Ernst Zundel "too well" in Mannheim. And it was said by the judge that she was defending her client "too well" and had to be, in the first instance, dismissed from one trial, and then actually imprisoned for three and a half years for defending her client too well. And as we know, Dr. Barrett, in America, or anywhere in the world, you could sue your attorney if he failed to defend you too well.

So the same law that is causing these people to be imprisoned would have imprisoned me, but for the enormously gifted skill of my German attorney—and I'm very happy to explain that in due course—I, too, would be sitting in prison right now for what the British might call stating the bleeding obvious.

Kevin Barrett: That's almost as bad a crime as using normal debate and rational argument.

Michele Renouf: Yes. And because I know that you are a highly qualified geopolitical analyst, Dr. Barrett, that you could not be a better qualified person to conduct this interview, because my case is very geopolitical. And I'm very happy that our very witty and very pithy friend David Pidcock has put us together to discuss this matter. Because my case really does reveal the non-ended Allied victors' occupation for the last 71 years. And this would have come out in my trial. And that is why in the end, the Germans decided two days before my trial, which was due to begin on October 16th, to back down. They actually backed down! And it was an extraordinary decision to actually acquit me without trial.

Kevin Barrett: That is  very unusual. Have there been other acquittals of people accused of such things?

Michele Renouf: It's a first. It is absolutely a first. I can only quote, for instance, Gerard Menuhin, the son of the great violinist Yehudi Menuhin and the author of Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. (Of course, I think that's an unfortunate title because there's no shaming psychopaths. But the German title is Tell the Truth and Hunt the Devil which is possible.) Actually he wrote to me when I was arrested, and he said, "Michele, your fearless and direct utterances in Dresden, unfortunately forbidden to all Germans, blew open the window of truth in one blast."

And I said to him, "I'd be very happy for that to be my epitaph." But more recently, the very brilliant author Tom Goodrich, a good chum of mine who wrote the Hellstorm, the book about Dresden and so on, was rather enthusiastic when he said "you have given Germany a great victory, perhaps the greatest in 75 years." Well, that is a rather enthusiastic remark from Mr. Goodrich. But in a sense, it's true, from the point of view that it's the first time that the prosecutors in Germany have actually backed away from prosecuting someone for Holocaust-related speech. And I understand it's a very uplifting thing for many Germans to have someone British speak up for them and to be able to quote from the British archive the actual deliberate targeting of civilians that was planned and rehearsed.

It was even rehearsed on US soil before they attacked the 60 German cities deliberately to target and burn (civilians) alive. Thatis a Holocaust, burning alive. A Holocaust is not a cremation. It is burning alive. And that is what happened, and what was intended, planned, by British policy and their Allies, to do to those German civilians. And the relevance of  my speech is that, as I said in Dresden at the commemoration in 2018, the relevance is that since the Allies got away with this so-called "moral bombing," as they wanted to call it, at the Nuremberg trials the following year, 1946. I mean, even a five years' old child will tell you that that's not natural justice, to have the judge-and-prosecutor-in-one conducting the trial. And so this was a swindle, this Nuremberg trial. And in consequence of getting away with what they call moral bombing, considering these people themselves who were adjudicating against Germans, had, in fact conducted a war crime on 60 German towns and cities targeting civilians, all wars ever since have been targeting civilians. And that certainly includes what you raised in the very beginning when you were introducing me—the Palestinians, the Gazans.

And just to tell you that in Britain, there is no question that the BBC and Sky News are entirely biased. As if people didn't know that; certainly your listeners probably well know that. But because when there was the Gazan Humanitarian Appeal in 2008, the BBC and Sky News refused to broadcast it. They refused no other. And that's because they do not want people to understand that Churchill's cronies deliberately decided to throw phosphorus on the German civilians to burn them alive, as phosphorous was thrown on the Gazans to burn them alive. And the horror of phosphorus is that once it burns you, you cannot stop it from burning you. You can't extinguish it. And so we know that in so many of these wars that have occurred ever since the Allies got away with lying and injustice in Nuremberg, this is the consequence and the significance and relevance today of the Dresden Holocaust.

And that was the point that I was trying to make at the commemoration. I was just standing in the crowd there. I had made a documentary about Dresden two years or more before that. And so I thought, I've never really been to a commemoration. Since the subtitle of my film was An Apology to Germany is Due, I thought I should turn up there at some stage and at least stand there with the others. And while I was standing there, a German woman overhearing me speaking in English to someone standing nearby said, "you British have no right to be here." While other people tried to sort of apologize for her, I understood and was in sympathy with what she said. And so when the microphone was handed to me to make a response to this woman, I took the opportunity to read out, from the British war archive, the facts that I'm stating now—that the wartime policy was to target civilians. And that is the aspect of my speech that was partly considered criminal.

Kevin Barrett: Really?! That's not really under dispute. Even mainstream historians essentially admit it, but it's downplayed. It's odd how any compassion for the victims at Dresden and in Palestine, the people in both cases being deliberately burnt to death, is basically verboten. It's illegal. You're not allowed to feel any compassion. And it's kind of shocking, the officially-imposed lack of compassion in Israel.The Israelis go up on hilltops to watch people being burned alive and barbecue. It's kind of a disgusting, the image of the Israelis eating barbecued meat, watching human beings being deliberately burned alive. And that kind of lack of compassion seems to be there with Dresden, too. Officially, nobody is supposed to actually feel just how horrific and wrong this was. And it's a very, very strange kind of psychological phenomenon: this civilization, dominated by people who claim that they're humanists, in a culture that systematically seeks out victims for identity politics purposes. And, of course, the dominant group, the group that started all of it and does it the best for the most profit is, of course, ethnically Jewish people. But now we have compassion for all of the other supposed minority and disadvantaged groups. So this civilization pretends to be very compassionate. And yet the victims at Dresden and the victims in Gaza are not allowed any compassion.

Michele Renouf: Well, because it interferes with the trademark "The Holocaust," and that is illegal. It's even illegal in Israel, and in 60 other European cities. It is illegal to what is called diminish, in any sense, THE Holocaust, the trademarked Hollywood version of what took place, or otherwise, during World War II.

And it was Professor Lindemann, a scientific adviser to Churchill during the war (a sort of British equivalent of Henry Morgenthau) who admits that the whole idea (of firebombing German civilians) was his proposal, which was taken up by Churchill, that they should concentrate on bombing the houses of the working class people because they were closer together: their gardens, were smaller, so they could kill more people. And in consequence, this terror bombing—which, of course, is totally illegal, because no soldier is allowed to target civilians up until this point—this was kept secret, a very guarded secret. And it was only disclosed much later in a little book called Science and and Government by CP Snow.

And that's the same principle, of course, for the Palestinians. The Palestinians fight at the front lines for historical truth, and of course, without that, you cannot have international justice. So I've often said that the Palestinians fight at the front line for all of us.

And in fact it was a concern for Palestine that first awakened me to these things. I went to Palestine with a Palestinian before the year 2000. I can't remember the date. I was non-political at that stage, and was as asleep as were most other people at that time. And he pointed out to me that if anybody (Palestinian) goes away for a weekend or vacates their house for a holiday, the Israeli state can seize your property, which I found extraordinary. Little by little, I was seeing first-hand on the ground what I had imagined was the very opposite, as we are, of course, told in the mainstream media and in Hollywood movies. So in 2001, I put a little private announcement in the Times and in The Daily Telegraph, something that I had never heard of anybody else having done before on this particular issue. And I said "On (the first) Holocaust Day," which began in 2001 in England, "remember their four million Palestinian refugees." And I put a post office box, because I didn't want it to be anonymous. Yet I wasn't trying to draw attention to myself, nor did I expect any reply. I just felt the need to say something. And the extraordinary thing was that a chap called Eric Lowe answered my advertisement. He happened to have served as a young man in Palestine in 1945 to 48 in the ordinance section. He had been keeping a Palestine Scrapbook of what had been going on there, which, of course, was the very opposite to the Paul Newman version of the Exodus film. And so he invited me to Eden camp, where many of those Palestine policemen were united every year. And I got to understand first-hand the sort of things that he had seen. For instance, he said that his officers told them that that "European Jews going to Palestine after two millennia and claiming it for themselves would be like Romans today, after two millennia, coming back to Britain to claim Britain for themselves." The concept was absurd. And so I began to make what I call Telling Films, because I couldn't get the BBC, in my ignorance at that time, to capture these eyewitnesses. And so that is the film I made called Palestine Scrapbook, which I screened in the House of Lords and the House of Commons in 2004, to great cries of "anti-Semitism." And the reason given for the so-called anti-Semitism was that I had quoted the late, great professor Robert Faurisson, and his comments about that period. He's a person who takes a very forensic approach to historical revisionism.

Professor Faurisson wrote about the "moral bombing," quote: "Anxious, and that is understandable, to spare the lives of their own soldiers, US 'Defence' chiefs are inclined to opt more often than not for a particularly cowardly style of combat. Dropping bombs at high altitude, launching missiles from great distance, spreading terror amongst unarmed civilian populations, they have for some years been searching for the 'zero death war,' which as French revisionist Vincent Reynouard puts it, amounts to waging wars in which on one side the death count is nought or close to it whilst, on the other side, the death count counts for nought."

And that was a quote from Robert Faurisson, the one who actually instigated the Tehran Conference in 2006 with Ahmadinejad, the very great Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who gave us freedom of speech and debate in the (Islamic Republic) of Iran, which we don't have in our so-called democracies in the West.

Kevin Barrett: I've been going to conferences in Iran since 2013. I haven't been to any Holocaust-related conferences. But there is free speech there on that issue and all other issues as well. And it's kind of shocking to Western dissidents to find that the only place they can speak freely is Iran.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Lady Michele, we're having we're having some difficulties with the transmission, so I'm going to hang up and call you back. And so we'll take an involuntary midpoint break in the show, and I'll be calling right back and we'll resume then.

Part 2

Kevin Barrett: Ok, we're back and hopefully with a better line this time. So Lady Michele Renouf, we were just talking about the fact that in Tehran, Iran, dissidents from all over the world can get together and speak with complete freedom, while in the Western world, with its "dedication to free speech," people are being imprisoned. And you were threatened with five years in prison for essentially saying that you were sorry about the firebombing of Dresden and the burning of tens or more thousands of people to death. So go ahead and pick up where you left off.

Michele Renouf: We must be grateful for the former president of Iran, (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, because he was the one who gave us this magnificent opportunity for real, true open debate in Iran. And of course, this was very much to the credit of Professor Robert Faurisson, who negotiated this magnificent groundbreaking conference. Also Robert Faurisson was the man behind the ground-breaking trials in Toronto, Canada, in 1985 and 1988, in which the great German publicist (Ernst Zundel), with the help of Douglas Christie, managed to actually question and put on the stand in a trial for the first and probably the last time, the doyen of Holocaust history, the Jewish historian Dr. Raül Hilberg. And on the stand he was asked, where is the evidence? Where is the documentation for these allegations of this mass murder weapon? (i.e. hydrogen cyanide gas chambers. -KB) And he said he was "at a loss"!

And also the key eyewitness to the alleged mass murder weapon, this industrial mass murder weapon, was cross-examined, and admitted he had used poetic license in his testimony,, which means that he had invented it.

And I learned (something interesting) at the Tehran conference. (I was) elected onto the Tehran Committee, proposed by Robert Faurisson. Of the five of us, only two of us remain alive. But one of the people whom I met at that conference was Dr. Christian Lintner, who died just last week, as it happens. He was the one who alerted me to the Jewish concept of Middot or Middoth, in which Jewish authorities are able to argue a case not with truth in mind, but to win a debate. You can alter, you can change, you can manipulate what would normally be called truth into an argument to  suit your case. And this is quite satisfactory from the point of view of Judaic rabbinical ideas. Quite revealing to me! If you think of that rather famous liar, the person who said that he and his wife, the person that he later married, threw apples across the fence in the concentration camps and so on, and told all these sort of incredible stories, he said when he was caught out: "It was a lie, but it wasn't a lie to me..."

Kevin Barrett: Yes, we've heard that a number of times from people like Jerzy Kosiński, that countless "Holocaust survivors" were children who escaped and were raised by wolves. Jerzy Kosinski is just the most famous. And it turned out that he was a psychopathic liar. So, yeah, we've heard that before.

Michele Renouf: You can understand, given Middot...I have very often said that the Judaic authors were psychopathic. And so a psychopath, like a wolf, has no interest—like Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, the Grimms' cautionary tale—the psychopath has no interest in telling you the truth. That would be rather foolish from the point of view of a psychopath. Middot is a very predatory idea of the truth. And in the case of David Irving in 2006, when he was he was put on trial in Austria and given three years because of 10 words he had uttered 16 years ago – that was  when a Communist journalist who had sidled up to him like a little honey trap had asked him about the eyewitnesses to the mass gas chambers. In German Irving had replied, "I think they are psychiatric cases." That's all he said. These were the 10 words he uttered 16 years before. And when he went back to Austria thinking he was safe after all those years, he was arrested and put on trial and given three years for having said that the eyewitnesses were psychiatric cases. And as you say, time and again these so-called eyewitnesses have proved to have been, well, liars.

Kevin Barrett: And we can't say that necessarily all purported eyewitnesses to this or other broad scale events are necessarily liars. But what we can say is that a very large number of them have been proven to have been liars.

Michele Renouf: Well, I suppose what I mean is that the ones who have been picked out and challenged have been found to have been using what you might call poetic license and Middot. And I think it is to the credit of Iran (that) when unfortunately, the West went into sort of what we would call the Dark Ages, abandoning the Hellenic forensic tradition, in Persia they continued with that Hellenic tradition. I think that is the reason why Iran is such a potent state.

Kevin Barrett: Yes, I agree, absolutely. People who want to explore this in more detail should read Roy Mottadeh's book (The Mantle of the Prophet) on the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. It describes how the academies for religious scholars in Iran are using a classical educational method based on Hellenic Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. That's how they train their religious scholars there. And as a result, they have some of the most highly educated religious scholars in the world. And that's why they were able to succeed with their Islamic revolution, whereas most other Muslim countries, unfortunately, have not been able to produce that caliber of scholarship.

Michele Renouf: When I was in Tehran, I learned that because of the revolution in 1979, - as you were referring there - that the two points the Ayatollah (Khomeini) said were the reason for their success were, "a) unity, no divide between the two ideas of Islam; and b) "never trust a Jew". That is what they said that this man, who had that success in 1979 against great odds, said... And in fact, I was really very honored in 2008 when I went back to Iran, having been invited to participate in the Teheran Conference 2006 and having given a speech there on the Psychology of Holocaustianity. I was invited back in 2008 and to my astonishment, I found myself standing on the podium with President Ahmadinejad sitting lower before me in the audience, listening to my experiences with the Palestine servicemen in 1945 to 48. Afterwards, he said to me in English "you and me, we see it the same." And I thought that was an extraordinary thing to realize, how much Iran and the more Hellenic minded of the West had in common and still have in common to this day.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed. And President Ahmadinejad is famously a very humble man who always took the bus to work, and still takes the bus to work. And it reminds me a bit of Jeremy Corbyn, who also always took the bus to work. But the difference is that Jeremy Corbyn never really stood up to these forces of evil and stood his ground. And, of course, he lost. Whereas President Ahmadinejad, despite his humility and basic meekness and kindness, did stand his ground and he succeeded.

Michele Renouf: Well, yes, of course. And Ahmadinejad pointed out that (the Iranian policy) is to wipe the concept of Israel off the map, not wipe the people off the map. He is a humanitarian. And of course, as for  Corbyn, he was querying the official New Definition of Anti-Semitism, which means one cannot criticize anything Jewish. You can, of course, refer to the British, the American, the Eskimos or anything else. But you cannot refer to the Jews. Nowthis is a crime.

Kevin Barrett: And getting back to (the issue of) criminalization of speech, it's extraordinary to me that you had the courage to face potentially five years in a German prison, in a situation where in every comparable previous case, there had never been anything but convictions. So I'm curious about what was going on inside you as  you made this decision that you were going to put yourself in a situation where in the past, everybody in that situation had been unjustly convicted.

Michele Renouf: Well, it was only spontaneous for a start. I was really only wanting to explain to that German woman who said, "you British shouldn't be here," that I wanted her to understand that not all the British were evil, that there were many people who stood up against this, including Neville Chamberlain, who stood up against this bombing war. In fact, my matrimonial home in London happened to be the former home of Neville Chamberlain. But that's yet another story! I am an open book with too many footnotes! Returning to Corbyn: He's got momentum now (to say things) which many, many people would like to hear. Many, many people, despite the mainstream media, really understand who's the culprit and who's the victim in the Middle East. You can stop people in the street. You can wear a badge and say Free Palestine and you can have people quietly come up to you and say "I agree" and so on. The public really understands a good deal more about who's the victim and who's the culprit in the criminal state of Israel. But Corbyn doesn't realize that he ought to stand up and say, "you are persecuting me because I've stood up for the humanitarian rights of the Palestinians." That is why he's being persecuted.

There are many people who would probably vote for the Labor Party simply because he states the humanitarian mindset that most people do have. Psychopaths are the minority. Humanity has empathy for others.

Kevin Barrett: The media takes a very different position.

Michele Renouf: Yes. I cannot really understand how is it that we speak of democracy, yet we will allow a monopoly on the press. And we will allow elections to be paid for by special lobby groups that can promote those whom they would like to promote, and sideline people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan and David Duke and all of these kinder people who have a much fairer idea of what is going on in the world. How can monopoly possibly be aligned with the freedom of speech which the Americans certainly celebrate, yet they will not argue out the idea that allowing lobby groups to pay for the electioneering of people is counterproductive to any democratic fantasy that we live under. And this, to me, is the nub of the whole problem, both in England and, of course, in the US. And we're seeing it right now. Why do we have on offer only parties which are pro-Zionist in their policy-making? How can this possibly give the electors any democracy, any choice?

Kevin Barrett: These things have been famously discussed by American leaders in the past. President Nixon and Billy Graham did famously talk about who dominates American media. And, of course, that became a scandal in the aftermath of Nixon's presidency. And then James Baker, I believe he was working for Bush the Elder when he said "bleep the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." But of course, today, money coming from ethnically Jewish Zionists accounts for roughly half of the Democratic Party's campaign money and probably more than a third of the Republican Party's. And so we had Haim Saban dominating the funding for the Democrats and Sheldon Adelson dominating the funding for  Republicans. And even mentioning this, much less deploring it, gets you tarred and feathered. So it's quite a strange situation.

Michele Renouf: Well, Horst Mahler, the German attorney, has just been released from prison after 10 years. He's had both legs amputated because of his diabetes. And still, when they report, they never mention that. When they say he fled to Hungary, they give the impression that he might flee again. Yet they don't even mention that he has no legs. No, they don't report anything fairly.

But I'm raising the point of Horst Mahler because he and I, quite independently of each other, interpret similarly the Grimms' fairy story Rumplestiltskin. You remember, Rumplestiltskin is the person who helps the princess spin straw into gold. But if you name him, he loses all of his power. Well, Horst and I both see him as Rothschild, since Rothschild is able to spin fiat money paper into gold, and decide the inflation and deflation of its value. But and my point is, if you name him, he loses his power. And so there is now this incredible definition of so-called anti-Semitism where you cannot name anything Jewish for fear of being cast down and destroyed, personality wise, and even put in prison for lengthy prison sentences, for challenging anything that any Jew does. And of course, when you speak of the British, the Americans, the Jews, you don't mean every single one of them. Everybody understands that. You mean certain persons among that particular group of people. But the anti-Semitism definition now does not permit you to criticize absolutely any Jew. Before Corbyn, there was the problem with Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London. Once when a Jewish journalist challenged him, he said to him, "you are behaving like a German prison guard." Well, this man said, "you must apologize to me." And Livingstone said, "I will apologize to every Jew in the world, but I will not apologize to that man." Livingston lost his job for several months due to the Jewish Board of Deputies. So that rather tells you who is in charge of what in England.

And since Disraeli ushered in Rothschild to represent Britons in parliament in 1858, we have been an occupied country. He, Edward de Rothschild, could not swear an oath, Judaism's Kol Nidre prayer, recited on every Yom Kippur states that oaths and vows made a year ago can be broken. This is a concept that is unknown to Christianity and Islam, completely unknown. The concept that you can make (an oath with the intent to) be able to break it in a year's time is anathema. And therefore, the concept of Christianity and Islam, the two brother religions, as I would call them, the two dolphin religions—a dolphin being human friendly—religions cannot possibly be hyphenated with Judaism, which is what I would call a shark dressed as a dolphin because it is anti-gentile in its policies.

Fortunately, there are many Jews who will say they are ex-Jews. I believe one can be an ex-Jew and just as one can be an ex-Christian or ex-Muslim or an ex-pagan or any other belief. It is an imposition. The term anti-Semitism intends to try to give a racial idea to something that is not racial. Anybody can be a Jew. Well, I would say anybody can be Jew hyphen ish. You don't have to be Jewish to think in a Jewish manner. Trump thinks Jewish-ly and so do very many of our statesmen around the world. So it's not a genetic thing. It's not a racial thing. It is a low sort of primitive, predatory way of dealing with the world, a predatory world view. And I have no trouble in stating my abhorrence to Judaic ideas. That is not to say that I have an abhorrence to persons who are Hebrew. I just will insist that Judaism is a very, very bad influence in the world and on people, and there are many Jews who would agree with me.

Kevin Barrett: I personally wouldn't entirely agree with that. And of course, I'm a Muslim. I came to Islam after critically inquiring into different worldviews. And it seems to me that the people we call Jews today are the Abrahamic Middle Eastern monotheists who rejected the universal prophets, Jesus and Mohammed, peace upon both of them, and substituted a kind of tribalism. That is, they never overcame henotheism, the belief in their tribal God who they saw as just one among many gods. And so they basically became partisans of their tribal god, Yahweh, in his battles against other peoples. And the Qur'an, speaking of Abraham, the founder of these religions, says that God told Abraham "I'll make you an imam or a guide (or leader) to the people." And Abraham said, pleading, "and my offspring, my descendants?" And God said, "no, my covenant is not for the oppressors." (2:124). So the implication of that is that this process that we see in the history of so-called Judaism, of rejecting the truth, and then some accepting the truth, and others, perhaps the tribally dominant faction, rejecting the truth, has continued. And so the people who believe they have a special covenant with God and they're a chosen people and their tribe is better than others and they can pursue their tribal interests and that's OK, and they can lie, cheat and steal and propagandize and embellish the truth and so on and so forth in their tribal interest, because they're special and they're chosen—those people are the Dhaalimin, the oppressors, and they have not inherited the covenant, which is only for the pure and truthful, the people of taqwa or Godfearingness andimanor faith, heart-knowledge. So that's how I see it. But among the Jewish people, the ethnically Jewish, today, the majority does not believe in God. Even the Zionists don't believe in God. They think God gave them the Holy Land, but they don't believe in the God that gave them the Holy Land. And among all of these people that are labeled Jewish, there are all kinds of people. And the ethnically Jewish people have become very talented, very intelligent, good at professions that bring them to higher social positions. And among those people, there are many people who've turned to good and turned to justice and truth. But the dominant tribal faction has this tendency to engage in tribal psychopathy. So that's how I see the overall situation myself.

Michele Renouf: Well, as you know, Theodore Herzl, the founder of the Jewish state, was secular himself. I think actually that there were many Jews before the founding of the criminal state of Israel who were very opposed to its founding, because the founding of the state would undermine the first tenet of the Talmud: never to show your hand to the Gentile. And we see the Old Testament played out in Occupied Palestine to this day. I have recorded many interviews with the Neturei Karta rabbis, who have given me very powerful interviews. They are very deeply embarassed to the behavior of the Zionists in Palestine.

I have taken a very great interest in religion, because I read for an MA [Master of Arts] in the Psychology of Religion at Heythrop, the Jesuit College, part of the University of London. So I'm particularly interested in the psychology of religion, though I myself don't adhere to any of the Abrahamic religions. Of course, I have many Muslim friends, many Christian friends, many Jewish friends, despite my vehement critique of Judaism. But we do see such things that are in the Torah and the Talmud played out upon the Palestinians, in what can only be called  an illegal state. It has never declared its borders. And of course, on its flag, it denotes from the Nile to the Euphrates, which is its fantasy promised land. Yet, as I say, it was founded, as you mentioned, by secular people such as Herzl.

So there is a great deal of misunderstanding and mumbo jumbo, mystique, mystification. And of course, it was Disraeli who was the one that really told us. He told us very well, actually, in his novels. There is a quote I often used to cite, but now I can only remember the beginning of it. He wrote: "Most events have been distorted. Some of the principal characters never appear." And he ends with it, and it is intended to create mystification.

So Disraeli has given us quite a lot of information that we can see and understand today, ever since he  ushered in Rothschild to represent, or misrepresent, Britons in parliament. We have ourselves, in England, been living in an occupied country ever since. In his novel Coningsby he portrays Rothschild under the name of Sidonia. You can see a very clear description of the masters of the money market world as he describes. And the secret history of the world is hidden just as Disraeli described it: "The events have been distorted and some of the principal characters never appear."

One ought to examine religions from the point of view of whether they're beneficial to humanity or whether they're detrimental. And there is no doubt that Judaism, by its own definition, is anti-gentile. And how can one trust something that is anti-gentile swimming in dolphin-disguise in our gentile waters? And that is why I began the campaign for the first Jewish homeland called Birobidzjan. It's situated on the South-East border of Russia, it's been in existence since1928, a peaceful Soviet Oblast for Jews to live, all Jews from all over the world, then praised by American Jewry. Of course they need a peaceful place to live like every race needs a peaceful place to thrive and exist. And I don't think there's "only one human race" as popularised. I think we are many races, and that is the beauty of the planet. But globalization is removing these ideas. My campaign website JewishRepublic.com (documents the) history of the fact that Jews have a first peaceful homeland and they still do. There was no need post WW2 to pirate Palestine. They had and still have Birobidzjan, an autonomous region of thirty-two thousand square kilometers, much larger than Palestine. And it's been there ever peacefully. And that to me is a peaceful solution to the issue of this criminal state that is currently bamboozling the world with its psychopathic-addled notion of God-appointed criminals. And I dearly wish that the U.N., which of course is an Israeli prompted organization just as the one before, the League of Nations...nevertheless, it's possible for a UN Resolution to be brought, and I dearly wish it could be, to recommend this first Jewish homeland option with which Colonel Gaddafi promised to help me one month before his barbaric murder.

Kevin Barrett: I'm sorry, we were breaking up a little bit, and I didn't get the name of the website for your campaign. What is that website?

Michele Renouf: JewishRepublic.com. My remarks were criticized by Netanyahu's PR agent on a Press TV program that I took part. But it was not "anti-Semitism" on the part of Stalin that accorded the Jews—the Jews of the world, actually, because it was very popular with the American Jews who supported it—since each ethnicity that comprised the Soviet Union was given their own ethnic region or oblast. And the Jews were given Birobidzjan, on the southeast border between Russia and China. And there was nothing "anti-Semitic"about their being given this peaceful autonomous region as a Jewish homeland.  They have not had any problem there. And it was supported by European and American Jews during its inception. But it was never referred to when secular World Zionists duped Jewry into "returning".  After WW2 there was no impediment to stop European Jews, and other Jews, from going to their welcoming first homeland. And it's still an option. And in fact, when I went to Libya and spoke with the late Colonel Gaddafi, he was going to help me reach the represented nations that comprise the UN to propose this Resolution. Unfortunately a month later he was murdered as we all know, very, very brutally. Gaddafi was a man who had done a great deal for Africa, and would have done a great deal more for his fellow Arabs, had his fellow Arabs truly appreciated his worth and anti-Riba dinar.

Kevin Barrett: I agree. He was very much in the mainstream of the best Muslim thought about economics, in terms of wanting to get out of the usury Rothschild petrodollar and get into real commodity currency. And that's why they killed him.

Michele Renouf: Yes, that's what Germany wanted to do last century. And that's what we wish for Iran. I know that our friend David Pidcock is a little bit sceptical. Yet one assumes the Islamic Republic of Iran is very strongly against riba (usury) and so on. Am I sort of a little bit meandering off topic?!...

Kevin Barrett: There is always so much to talk about, and we've pretty much reached the end of this one hour show. But we should do another one sometime and try and get a better connection, because you've been breaking up a little bit. But I think this show will be OK. I think I'll try and get it transcribed as well, because you've been saying a lot of really interesting things. And, you know, I certainly don't support forcing anybody to go off to any particular ethnic homeland. But I do support the right of people to do that (voluntarily). The Nation of Islam here in the United States would like to have a black Islamic homeland. That's not a bad idea at all. But I wouldn't force all black people to go there. And I certainly wouldn't want to force my ethnically Jewish American friends, people like Alan Sabrosky and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, or my British ethnically-Jewish friends like (ex-Jew) Gilad Atzmon and so many others, to go anywhere they didn't want to go. But there's so much to talk about. We're going to have to pick all that up on a later show because we've hit the end of this one. Thank you so much. Lady Michele Renouf. I appreciate your courage in standing up to a potential five years in prison to stand by the utterly reasonable things that you said in Germany. And the fact that you were able to prevail over these crazy people who wanted to lock you up. That's a rare but a bit of good news. So thank you and God bless you. And I look forward to talking again.

Michele Renouf: Well, I honor those who have stood up for very much longer than I have Dr. Barrett.

Kevin Barrett: Ok, well, take care. God bless and goodbye.