Hungarian Nationalist Hero’s Sister Speaks Out Against Non-White Invasion


Below is an interview with Edda Budaházy, sister of the famous Hungarian patriot, György Budaházy.

He made a name for himself when he contested the results of the 2002 parliamentary elections in Hungary, resulting in a police crackdown down on the protest. They beat up many people and György himself was covered in blood.

In 2006 he called for the congestion of the main roads around Budapest to bring down the traitors in government.

The prime minister was caught admitting that he had falsified data in order to win the elections, which caused a huge uproar with protests nationwide.


The protests did not succeed though and an order for György’s arrest was made.

He managed to elude the police for a year, but they finally caught up with him and he had to spend 2 years in prison, on charges of incitement to bring down the government.

Luckily, he had good nationalist lawyers that pointed out several inconsistencies in the charges.

He got out 2 years ago but was under house arrest for a year, now he can walk around freely but he still has several indictments in motion against him.

This is an interview with his sister, who organizes conferences and nationalist meetings in Hungary.

She was his official mouth piece while he was in prison.

The video has been translated into English by members of the Radio Stormer chatroom.

(Daily Stormer)


In Ann Coulter’s (White Slut, White Feminist) Speech Battle, Signs That Conservatives Are Emboldened

Without uttering a word to students at the University of California, Berkeley, Ann Coulter on Wednesday made herself the latest cause célèbre in the rapidly escalating effort by conservatives to fight liberals on what was once the left’s moral high ground over free speech on campus.

Ms. Coulter, the acid-penned conservative writer, canceled a planned appearance on Thursday after the political organizations that invited her rescinded their support over fears of violence. “It’s a sad day for free speech,” she said.

But across the country, conservatives like her are eagerly throwing themselves into volatile situations like the one in Berkeley, emboldened by a backlash over what many Americans see as excessive political correctness, a president who has gleefully taken up their fight, and liberals they accuse of trying to censor any idea they disagree with.

The situation adds up to a striking reversal in the culture wars, with the left now often demanding that offensive content be excised from public discourse and those who promote it boycotted and shunned.


Berkeley has again become a symbolic flash point. The university was not just the cradle of the Free Speech Movement but also the site of a violent 1969 crackdown that delighted many protest-weary Americans when Ronald Reagan, then California’s governor, ordered the National Guard to move in on student demonstrators.

The broader point that conservatives now say they are making resonates far beyond academia, and in many ways echoes some of the most bitter undercurrents of the 2016 presidential election.

President Trump’s victory was, to many of his supporters, a defiant uprising against what they saw as a cultural and political elite that told them their values were wrong and their beliefs bigoted. And Mr. Trump, who has routinely used racially charged controversies and social movements like Black Lives Matter to his political benefit, has leapt to their defense, ready to fan the flames.

When Berkeley administrators canceled an appearance by the professional right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in February after riots broke out, Mr. Trump questioned on Twitter whether the university should have its federal funding revoked.

Even some liberals say the heavy-handedness by university administrators and students is only reinforcing conservatives’ suspicions, which the left insists are overblown for maximum political potency.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described democratic socialist, this week scolded anyone who would shut out Ms. Coulter. “What are you afraid of — her ideas?” he asked.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, argued that the controversy only handed Ms. Coulter the big platform she craved. “If you don’t like it, don’t show up,” she said. Even The Onion weighed in with a satirical blurb about Berkeley being on police lockdown after loose pages of The Wall Street Journal were abandoned on a park bench.

“Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance,” said Robert B. Reich, a former Labor secretary under President Bill Clinton who is now a professor of public policy at Berkeley. “The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media — every facet of the establishment — is organized against them.”

Mr. Reich, noting the parallels to Mr. Trump’s message, added, “That’s a narrative Trump used to get into the White House.”

The university breathed a sigh of relief on Wednesday, but it criticized Ms. Coulter, who has a knack for provocation and a history of inviting disruption wherever she speaks, for being wanton and reckless given that it had offered to accommodate her at a later date after canceling her originally scheduled speech. The Berkeley chancellor, Nicholas B. Dirks, said in a note to the campus, “This is a university, not a battlefield.”

Berkeley has become a meeting ground for what the city’s chief of police, Andrew Greenwood, has described as politically motivated groups “armed and prepared to fight.”

Outside groups representing the far left and far right have clashed in the city several times over the past few months in a fight club atmosphere that university administrators say they have not seen in many years, if ever. During the most recent clash, on April 15, the police arrested 20 people. But Chief Greenwood warned of the difficulties and dangers of intervening in future clashes.
The university had prepared to call up hundreds of police officers for Ms. Coulter’s visit, at a significant cost. Still, the groups that organized her visit sued the university after it moved the timing of her speech, saying that conservative speakers were being treated differently from left-leaning ones on the famously liberal campus.

In his note, Mr. Dirks said the school must “make every effort to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chances that First Amendment rights can be successfully exercised and that community members can be protected.”

But many on the right see a new and insidious form of thought policing. And they argue that it is only spreading now that the debate over which ideas can be expressed publicly is becoming a catchall that can include almost anyone right of center, and has extended to corporate America, where liberal-led boycotts have targeted socially conservative chief executives.

In some high schools, universities and businesses where liberal ideas dominate, said Ben Domenech, the publisher of The Federalist, a conservative website, “speech has become something they could not only object to but that needed to be stamped out — that was hate and had no place in the public square.”
And coupled with a realization by many conservatives that the culture wars on issues like same-sex marriage may have forever turned against them, the belief that their right of expression is under assault is acutely threatening. “The First Amendment,” Mr. Domenech added, “is their last line of defense.”

Assuming the role of oppressed majority is something conservatives have, of course, long done. And they have certainly not abandoned all efforts to stifle expression they deem morally indefensible or offensive.

Public universities remain favorite targets of socially conservative state legislators who want to cut funding for classes that teach issues like homosexuality and gender. And some Republican lawmakers are moving to stamp out demonstrations they find to be a nuisance, as in North Dakota, where a new law aims to make it easier for law enforcement to control protests like the one that tried to block construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

But liberals and conservatives agree that the situation on campuses is something far more corrosive than mere hypersensitivity by 18-year-olds. At Middlebury College in Vermont last month, a crowd attacked the political scientist Charles Murray, the author of “The Bell Curve,” which makes a data-based argument that differences in average I.Q. scores among races may have genetic as well as environmental causes. A professor accompanying Mr. Murray had her neck injured and went to the hospital.

Heather Mac Donald, a Manhattan Institute scholar who has defended police tactics in the face of criticism by groups like Black Lives Matter, has been mobbed at colleges like Claremont McKenna and the University of California, Los Angeles. At the U.C.L.A. event, demonstrators shouted over her as she took questions from the crowd. “You have no right to speak!” one man yelled.

Many liberals denounce what they see as a growing tolerance of aggressive and intolerant speech against minorities and immigrants. That has only grown worse now that Mr. Trump is president, and people like Ms. Coulter feed on that, they argue.

The result has been such toxicity on college campuses that even conservatives acknowledge it is causing their side to dig in irrationally, growing intractable even when the speaker is someone like Mr. Yiannopoulos, who has defended pederasty, or Richard Spencer, a white supremacist and self-appointed leader of the fringe alt-right movement.

“Because the hard-core campus left has conflated any political speech with the worst kind of speech, the response has become, ‘All speech is fine,’” said Ben Shapiro, a conservative writer and speaker who has sometimes found himself the target of angry eruptions at universities. Last year at California State’s Los Angeles campus, Mr. Shapiro faced a similar situation when the university said it would no longer accommodate him because of security concerns; he spoke anyway, under police guard.

Lumping Ms. Coulter in with someone more extreme like Mr. Spencer, Mr. Shapiro said, creates a situation in which practically no conservative viewpoint is welcome. “All these lines become arbitrary, and then it’s easier to allow nothing.”

What some conservatives see as even more damaging to their cause is how figures like Mr. Spencer, who was seen on video this year being punched in the head while he gave an interview, as somehow sympathetic.

“I’m not interested in making martyrs of people I disagree with,” said Cliff Maloney Jr., the president of Young Americans for Liberty, which works to remove speech restrictions like “safe zones,” areas on some campuses where political speech is kept confined. “But when emotions get so wrapped up, you end up propping up people who don’t stand for the principles we believe in.”

US envoy Haley: ‘It’s a new day for Israel at the UN’

“It’s a new day for Israel at the UN,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told delegates at the World Jewish Congress Plenary Assembly in New York on Tuesday.

In front of a crowd of some 600 Jewish activists and leaders from 90 different countries, Haley emphasized that the US will not remain silent when Israel is attacked at the UN.

“Silence is not my thing anyway,” she said, “but that’s especially true when it comes to standing up for America’s friends. And we have no better friend in the Middle East than Israel.”

Last month, Israel announced it would reduce its annual membership payment to the United Nations by $2 million following recent “anti-Israel” votes in the organization’s bodies.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said the decision was taken following votes critical of Israel at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, and condemned the “obsessive discrimination against Israel on the part of the United Nations and its agencies.”

Israel is the only country in the world that is the subject of a permanent agenda item at the HRC, a fact that former US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power also took issue with in a speech similar to Haley’s in December 2015. Power blasted the “absurdity” that Israel, “not Syria, which gasses its citizens,” was singled out at the UNHRC.

Members of the UN Security Council vote in favor of condemning Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem on Friday, Dec. 23, 2016 at United Nations Headquarters. (Manuel Elias/United Nations via AP)

In her Tuesday speech, Haley urged UN member states to accept the US view that Iran’s influence in the region deserves the attention wrongly directed at Israel.

“The truth is that Iran is the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism. The truth is that Iran is the number one source of instability in the Middle East,” she said.

On Monday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told WJC delegates that he too would stand up against anti-Israel bias at the international organization, vowing to stand “on the front lines in the fight against anti-Semitism.”

Trump expected in Israel last week of May; Nikki Haley to visit in June

A Trump administration delegation is expected to arrive in Israel on Thursday to oversee technical arrangements for a visit by President Donald Trump to Israel in the last week of May.

Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely confirmed on Wednesday afternoon that preparations for Trump’s visit were at the advanced stage, although it has not yet been finalized, and told Army Radio, “There’s a feeling that we have a real friend in the White House.”

The visit will be Trump’s first ever trip to Israel. Channel 2 said he is expected to stay for one night only, and that it is not yet clear whether he will visit the Palestinian areas. The president hosted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in February and is set to host Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on May 3.

The advance delegation will hold talks at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, and visit possible sites for the president’s itinerary.

On the eve of May 23 and on May 24, Israel will mark Jerusalem Day, celebrating 50 years since the reunification of the city under Israeli control in the 1967 Six Day War. Israel extended sovereignty to East Jerusalem and the Old City and claims the entire city as its capital; the Palestinians seek East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state. The Channel 2 report, noting the resonance of the date for Israelis and Palestinians, said Trump’s visit would not be on Jerusalem Day itself.

The TV report also said that Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, will visit Israel in June. Haley has become a particularly popular member of the Trump administration in Israel and in the pro-Israel community in the US for her repeated castigations of anti-Israel bias at the UN.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley acknowledges the applause as she arrives to speak at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington, DC, March 27, 2017 (AIPAC screenshot)

Israel Radio said the talks on Trump’s visit had been going on for several weeks. A senior diplomatic official told the radio that the chances of Trump coming to Israel were at 80 percent.

No US president has visited Israel in the first months of his term. Richard Nixon was the first serving president to visit, in 1974. Jimmy Carter came in 1979, after brokering the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt. Bill Clinton visited a record four times, and George W. Bush came twice.

The last serving US president to visit Israel was Barack Obama, who came to Jerusalem for just a few hours to attend the funeral of former president and prime minister Shimon Peres last September. He previously made an official visit to Israel in March 2013. Obama did not visit Israel, however, on his first trip to the Middle East in 2009, which included a landmark outreach speech to the Muslim world delivered in Cairo.

Trump, whose first scheduled foreign trip as president is a visit to Brussels on May 25, is looking to expand on that trip by arriving in Israel on May 21 or in the days after, other Hebrew media reports said.

His trip to Israel will also coincide with an important decision Trump will have to make on whether to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as he promised in his election campaign.

During his election campaign Trump vowed that if victorious he would relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem, a highly symbolic move valued by Israel as confirmation of the city as its capital, but strongly opposed by Palestinians and the Arab world which want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

However, following meetings with Arab leaders, Trump has appeared to back away from the move, saying only that he was still considering it.

A Jewish man covers himself with a prayer shawl while praying near the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City during the Passover priestly blessing on April 13, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

At the end of last year, Obama signed a waiver to prevent moving the embassy to Jerusalem. It was the eighth time that Obama signed the waiver, which must be renewed every six months. This latest waiver expires at the end of May.

Congress passed a law in 1995 mandating the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, but allowed the president to exercise a waiver, citing the national security interests of the United States. Obama’s predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton also signed such waivers.

David Friedman, Trump’s designated US ambassador to Israel, is also a strong supporter of the move, saying in December following the announcement of his nomination that he was eager to begin working from “the US Embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

US President Donald Trump, right, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington DC, February 15, 2017. (AFP/Saul Loeb)

Numerous members of Israel’s governing coalition have hailed the planned embassy move, with Netanyahu saying in December that it would be “great.”

However, the Palestinians have come out sharply against it. Abbas said that moving the embassy would “destroy the prospects of any political process,” and a spokesman for his Fatah party said it would “open the gates of hell in the region and in the whole world.”

In March, Representative Ron DeSantis, a Republican from Florida who led a small fact-finding mission to investigate the logistics of moving the embassy, speculated that Trump could make the announcement of the move on Jerusalem Day.

“Knowing the president — he’s been a man of his word — I don’t think that he’s going to, in the same month that people here in Jerusalem are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem Day, sign the waiver. I would bet that he would not do that and that he would announce that the embassy is going to be moving,” DeSantis said during his visit.

Trump has never visited Israel before.

Last May, during his election campaign, Trump said he planned to visit Israel before the November 18 elections, but the visit never happened.

The then-presumptive GOP nominee backed out of a visit to Israel in December 2016.

At the time of the cancellation, Trump was under heavy criticism for rolling out his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US, following deadly terror attacks in Paris and California.

Marine Le Pen: Ban halal and all ritual slaughter

Marine Le Pen

(JTA) – Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate in the French presidential elections, said she would ban halal slaughter of animals if she is elected, along with any other method of ritual slaughter without stunning.

Le Pen, who finished second with 21.5 percent of the vote in the first round of the elections Sunday, made the statement Tuesday on halal slaughter during a campaign visit at a meat market near Paris. She did not mention shechitah, the kosher slaughter of animals, but did say she wanted to outlaw any slaughter of animals without stunning.

“Slaughter without stunning, I’m sorry, it should have special labels,” Le Pen said. “Furthermore, I think that slaughter without stunning should be prohibited.”

Her National Front party’s showing on Sunday was the best electoral result in its history and the second time it made it to the second and final round, which will be held May 7.

Both halal and shechitah require animals be conscious when their throats are slit — a practice that critics say is cruel but which advocates insist is more humane than mechanized methods used in non-kosher abattoirs. Muslims slaughter animals in a similar method to shechitah, albeit with fewer restrictions, to produce halal meat.

In her statement Le Pen, who has called for a shutdown of immigration from Muslim countries, a ban on public prayer and the wearing of Muslim religious symbols, referenced halal slaughter specifically.

“I would say that I think that 90 percent of abattoirs are halal” in the Paris region, Le Pen said.

In Europe, the Jewish and Muslim customs have united opponents both from liberal circles who cite animal welfare as their main concern and right-wing nationalists who view the custom as foreign to their countries’ cultures.

Le Pen in the past has said she would impose limitations on expressions of Judaism in France not because she regards them as a threat, but to preserve the principle of equality in order to implement similar steps against the spread of Islam in France, which she and her party often describe as a ”threat.”

She has said during the current campaign that she would ban the wearing of kippahs in public in France in order to facilitate a ban on Muslim clothes. She has also said that she would make it illegal for French citizens to have an Israeli passport.

Le Pen has called on French Jews to make these “sacrifices” to curb radical Islam and has promised to be French Jewry’s “shield” against Islam.

French Jewish leaders have called Le Pen a “candidate of hate” and urged voters to support the leading candidate, centrist Emmanuel Macron, to keep Le Pen from winning. He won the first round with 23.7 percent of the vote. Polls from Tuesday predict he would win the second round by more than 20 points.

French Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia accused Le Pen of “fomenting hatred and war between the government and religions, as well as interreligious animosity” with her statement.

“It undermines the foundations on which France was built,” he said in a statement.

Ivanka Trump visits Berlin Holocaust memorial

Ivanka Trump visited the Holocaust memorial in the German capital on Tuesday, meeting with the director at the information center before walking slowly through the downtown Berlin monument.

Crowds of people snapped cellphone photos and yelled out, “Hi, how are you?” as Trump entered the center to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe for a short visit.

The US president’s daughter, a convert to Judaism, walked slowly through the undulating grounds filled with concrete slabs, along with US Embassy personnel. She was flanked by a strong police guard keeping tourists and others at a distance.

She paused occasionally to look at the slabs, meant to symbolize the chaos of the Holocaust, and donned sunglasses before emerging on the other side of the monument to a crush of cameras and onlookers.

Ivanka Trump (center) is surrounded by police and security while visiting the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, Tuesday, April 25, 2017. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

Earlier in the day, Trump visited a training center in Berlin run by German industrial conglomerate Siemens.

She was greeted at the facility by Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser— one of three German business leaders who took part in a discussion event organized by Trump in Washington in March on how companies can better train workers. That event was also attended by President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Ivanka Trump has been a vocal advocate for policies benefiting working women and vocational training.

Ivanka Trump, daughter and adviser of US President Donald Trump, talks to a trainee when visiting the Siemens Technik Akademie after she participated in the W20 Summit in Berlin Tuesday, April 25, 2017. (AP Photo/Michael Sohn, pool)

During the Holocaust, Siemens operated factories next to concentration camps, most notably one adjacent to Auschwitz, which used Jewish forced labor. The company also made equipment and parts for the concentration camps and death camps.

Men removing condoms during sex in disturbing online trend ‘stealthing’


Civil and criminal justice experts are expressing concern over “stealthing,” in which straight and gay men are removing their condoms during sex without their partners’ consent.

A new study published this month in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law explores the disturbing new trend, which involves online communities of men — straight and gay — encouraging one another to carry out the “rape-adjacent” act.


For the study, author Alexandra Brodsky interviewed victims of stealthing, as well as those online communities, where men promote their peers to “spread their seed” and “root their support [for the practice] in an ideology of male supremacy in which violence is a man’s natural right,” Brodsky told The Huffington Post. Brodsky is a legal fellow for National Women’s Law Center but wrote the paper independently from her job.

The Huffington Post reported that Brodsky’s study cites comment strings from such forums, in which men exchange tips, best practices, advice and support for tactfully removing a condom during sex without a partner’s knowledge.


Though stealthing hasn’t been legally defined as rape in the United States, Switzerland’s high court recently saw such a case, and a man who carried out this very act was convicted of rape, Broadly reported.

Indeed, Brodsky writes in her paper, stealthing can expose victims to similar consequences as rape, including feelings of shame, violation, loss of dignity and autonomy after the act, as well as an increased risk of pregnancy, and exposure to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV and AIDS.

In her study, she encourages victims of stealthing to come forward and seek justice in the absence of a legal statute that officially defines stealthing as sexual assault. Yet, she argued to the Huffington Post that there’s still room for improvement in the justice system, as “many of the myths and assumptions and forms of skepticism that we see from judges approaching rape victims and other kinds of sexual assault victims are likely to be present in stealthing cases.”

“The law isn’t the answer for everyone, and it can’t fix every problem every time,” Brodsky continued. “One of my goals with the article, and in proposing a new statute, is to provide a vocabulary and create ways for people to talk about what is a really common experience that just is too often dismissed as just ‘bad sex’ instead of ‘violence.’”

French Jews worried over Le Pen’s success in presidential vote’s 1st round

JTA — Leaders of French Jewry had mixed reactions to the success of Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron in the first round of the French presidential elections.

“Satisfaction and concern,” Francis Kalifat, president of the CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish communities, wrote on Twitter Sunday after exit polls showed that Macron, a centrist independent candidate, won the first round with 23.8 percent of the vote, followed by Le Pen, the far-right leader of the National Front, with 21.7 percent.

Kalifat has called Le Pen, who will run against Macron in the final round on May 7, a “candidate of hate.” He called on voters to elect Macron regardless of their opinion of his policies just to make sure Le Pen does not become president, in a pattern known in France as a “republican front,” which has been used to keep the National Front out of power.

Such a vote is “indispensable” in the second round, Kalifat wrote.

Kalifat said he was “worried to see National Front making it to the main event of French democracy,” but “satisfied to see a republican in the lead” — a term which means a person who is attached to the French nation’s founding values.

CRIF President Francis Kalifat poses in Paris, France, on May 29, 2016. (AFP/Francois Guillot)

National Front won the first presidential round in France only once before in 2002 with 18 percent of the vote, and was squarely defeated in the second round.

National Front has made considerable electoral gains since Le Pen became its leader in 2011, succeeding her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a Holocaust revisionist and openly anti-Semitic nationalist. The party advocates pulling out of the European Union, stopping immigration from Muslim countries and imposing limitations on religious freedoms, as well as harsh punishments for violence and incitement.

Marine Le Pen kicked out her father from the party in 2015 following his conviction for inciting racial hatred against Jews. (He suggested a Jewish singer critical of the party be “put in the oven.”) She has kicked out several party members for anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Earlier this month, however, she said France was not responsible for its authorities’ rounding up for Jews for the Nazis.

Marine Le Pen recently called for banning the wearing of the kippah in public and for making it illegal for French nationals to also have an Israeli passport — steps she said were necessary because of the principle of equality in order to facilitate similar limitations on Muslims.

Le Pen has said radical Islam is a “threat on French culture” and has called on Jews to make certain “sacrifices” in order to fight jihadism.

French presidential election candidate for the En Marche ! movement Emmanuel Macron celebrates at the Parc des Expositions in Paris, on April 23, 2017, after the first round of the Presidential election.  (Eric FEFERBERG / AFP)

Macron, 39, is a former banker who is 18 years younger than the average age of past presidents in France.

Fears over growing radicalization in society and recent upsets within the political establishment have made Macron the best bet among centrists, including many Jews.

Macron has never held elected office, but served as a Cabinet minister under Francois Hollande, a Socialist. He also served as a senior finance official under Nicolas Sarkozy of the Republicans.

Macron’s good looks, profound understanding of the economy, social media skills and unassuming style have helped his campaign despite the fact that no independent candidate has been elected president in France in decades. He has won over many voters with concerns over radical Islam by vowing to act tough whenever it conflicts with French laws — but has courted liberals by promising not to harass Muslims who abide by those laws.

He also supports closer cooperation with Germany and a deepening of France’s role in the European Union.

Blasting Le Pen, Rivlin calls for ‘war’ on new kind of Holocaust denial

President Reuven Rivlin on Monday called for a “war” against a new kind of Holocaust denial taking root across Europe today, and bitterly criticized far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the end of Holocaust Remembrance Day, Rivlin said an attempt by some in Europe to universalize the Shoah is more dangerous than the mere refusal to acknowledge that the mass murder of Jews had taken place.

While traditional Holocaust denial was a fringe phenomenon that convinced few, turning all Europeans into victims undermines the core message of Holocaust commemorations for decades to come and subsumes the unique targeted destruction of the Jewish community by the Nazi regime, he argued.

Without mentioning names, Rivlin criticized Le Pen and other European politicians for shirking their respective countries’ responsibility in having collaborated with the Nazi regime.

In the same vein, Rivlin warned Israel against cooperating with extremist parties on the continent, again clearly referring to Le Pen, who in Sunday’s French presidential elections came in second with 21.5 percent. Le Pen will face off against her centrist rival, Emmanuel Macron, in a second round next month.

“Some two weeks ago a French presidential candidate denied France’s responsibility for the deportation of its Jewish citizens to the Nazi concentration and death camps,” Rivlin said at an event marking the close of Holocaust Remembrance Day at Kibbutz Lohamei HaGeta’ot.

Earlier this month, Le Pen said that “if there are people responsible” for the deportation of French Jews, “it’s those who were in power at the time. It’s not France.”

Le Pen, who has advanced to the second round of the French presidential race, said on April 9 she did not “think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv,” the 1942 round-up of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.

Far-right leader and candidate for the 2017 French presidential election, Marine Le Pen, cheers supporters on stage after exit poll results of the first round of the presidential election were announced, at her election day headquarters in Henin-Beaumont, northern France, Sunday, April 23, 2017. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

The Israeli government condemned her remark as “contrary to the historical truth, which has been expressed by French presidents who have recognized the country’s responsibility for the fate of French Jews who died in the Holocaust.”

“As a sovereign state that has gained national independence, we have a duty to demand from other nations and states not to evade responsibility,” Rivlin said.

“We must wage a war against the current and dangerous wave of Holocaust denial. We must resist the renunciation of national responsibility in the name of alleged victimhood.”

The event was also attended by former German president Joachim Gauck.

Rivlin said he was uneasy about recent attempts to undermine proper Holocaust remembrance. The responsibility for the systematic murder of Jews Nazi Germany and its allies has recently changed from being a matter of academic study to a “burning political issue,” he said.

Holocaust scholars and others have pointed with increasing alarm to attempts by some in Europe to place the Holocaust in the context of Soviet atrocities, with nationalists in some countries viewing themselves as victims of Communism and honoring anti-Communist fighters who collaborated with the Nazis while downplaying Jewish victimhood.

“The prevalent message arising from recent political statements is uniquely disturbing. And in every place that message is the same: we are not responsible for the Holocaust. We are not responsible for the extermination of the Jewish people which occurred within our borders,” he said.

Denying one’s collaboration with the Nazis attempts to turn all of Europe into victims, the president argued. “This is a denial that seeks to annul the political and moral responsibility that must stand at the heart of memory of the Holocaust for generations to come. Victimization is the most comprehensive and effective note of exemption from responsibility,” he said.

If the Europeans continue to victimize themselves and refuse to accept their responsibility for the atrocities committed on their soil they will be unwilling to assume responsibility to fight modern-day anti-Semitism, xenophobia and increasing nationalist violence, Rivlin said.

Israel “must resist unholy alliances with extreme right-wing elements,” he said.

Some might think that populist parties such as Le Pen’s National Front, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party and other groups said to be xenophobic and especially Islamophobic, are natural allies with Israel, but “we must recall that there was and will be nothing in common with anti-Semites in any shape or form,” the president said.

Israel’s official stance of avoiding contact with Le Pen’s National Front, which is accused of anti-Semitism, was reaffirmed during the January visit of the party’s secretary general Nicolas Bay.

Le Pen received 3.7% of the votes cast by French nationals in Israel on the first round of the presidential election on Sunday, far behind Francois Fillon (60.4%) and Emmanuel Macron (30.9%).

Rivlin cited similar efforts to shirk responsibility for having collaborated with the Nazis in Poland, Ukraine and the UK. Not all nations are equally guilty, he allowed, adding that Israel demands only of Germany to take full responsibility for the systematic planning and the implementation of the Final Solution.

“But we do call for moral internal reflection from all those who assisted carrying out of the systematic annihilation,” he said. “The denial of responsibility of the crimes committed in the days of the Second World War is Holocaust denial of a new, more destructive and dangerous kind from that we have known until now.”

Traditional Holocaust deniers belonged to the fringes and relied on “quasi-scientific work of so-called historians.” These old-school Holocaust deniers disputed reputable historians’ findings about the Final Solution and its anti-Semitic goals, Rivlin said.

“Their success was minimal,” he added. “Conversely, the denial of the Holocaust which is growing before our very eyes strives towards a more sophisticated goal, and is much more dangerous. This is not a denial of the very existence of the Holocaust, but a denial of the distinction between a victim and a criminal.”

Germans won’t have an identity unblemished by Auschwitz

Gauck, taking the podium after Rivlin, said he was moved to spend Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel and vowed to continue fighting Holocaust denial.

The 77-year-old Gauck, who served as Germany’s president until last month, said he used to be ashamed of being German due to the country’s dark past. “I was unable to like my country. I hated it even. My generation viewed our parents with disgust. They disclaimed all culpability, they allegedly knew nothing. The majority of them still maintained this silence in the 1950s and 60s and refused to accept responsibility for what had happened,” he recalled.

But even future generations of Germans will “not have an identity unblemished by Auschwitz,” he added. “The special and lasting connection between our peoples and Germany’s particular solidarity with the democratic State of Israel will remain part of their identity.”

Why Marine Le Pen (White Feminist, White Freemason, Zionist) is confident she will be France’s next president

Supporters of Emmanuel Macron were not alone in cheering his victory Sunday in the first round of France’s presidential elections.

Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, who finished second in the voting, saw it as excellent news. The two will face off in the final round next month after the centrist Macron won 23 percent of the vote, 2 points ahead of Le Pen.

She has called Macron her “ideal” adversary — Macron is relatively inexperienced and without the infrastructure of an established party, and despite running as an independent is nonetheless widely seen as a continuity candidate of the deeply unpopular government of President Francois Hollande.

“A runoff between a patriot such as myself and a caricature of a diehard globalist like him is ideal,” Le Pen, the leader of the Eurosceptic and anti-establishment National Front party, told the AFP news agency on Jan. 17. “It’s a gift.“

To be sure, the sharp-tongued and gravel-voiced Le Pen has also spoken dismissively of other candidates.

But when it comes to Macron, she is not alone in assessing his perceived weaknesses as a candidate. Nor is she alone in believing that her anti-Muslim party, with its rich record of anti-Semitism, raw nationalism and xenophobia, is closer to the presidency than at any point in its history.

Macron, 39, a youthful-looking former banker who has never held elected office, has generated a huge following among professionals in France’s more affluent cities and regions. A supporter of corporate tax cuts and competitiveness in the job market, he has appealed to voters with a cosmopolitan worldview. He backs the European Union and promotes tolerance toward minorities while acting against radicalization.

But these very characteristics, as well as Macron’s image as an aloof wunderkind who owes his success to a corrupt establishment, make him deeply unpopular to a class, largely low-income, that feels disenfranchised by immigration, globalization and the European Union. Politically this is a perilous position, as witnessed in the 2016 vote in Britain to leave the European bloc and Donald Trump’s election in the United States.

Conservative writer Guy Millière is a Trump supporter who opposes Le Pen, but says Macron is an “inflatable doll” who, if elected, will guarantee “five more years of Hollande” and a continuation of the rule of a “clique that knows nothing about the difficulties of ordinary Frenchmen,” he wrote Monday on the rightist news site Dreuz. “He’s a candidate made up by billionaires.”

Macron’s supporters say that although he served two years as a Cabinet minister under Hollande, a Socialist, Macron is in fact an outsider to the political establishment and the only candidate who stands a chance to transcend bipartisan divisions in a deeply polarized society. Macron also was inspector of finances in the French Ministry of Economy under Jaques Chirac, a center-right president.

Yet that, too, could be an Achilles heel in a country where no independent candidate has won a presidential election since the 1970s.

Relatively inexperienced in politics and lacking the support of established party mechanisms, Macron is now up against one of France’s shrewdest and most seasoned politicians in Le Pen, a career lawmaker who heads one of her country’s most dynamic and hierarchical parties, and whose life partner and father both have devoted their adult lives to politics.

French presidential election candidate Emmanuel Macron rat the Parc des Expositions in Paris, on April 23, 2017. (AFP Photo/Eric Feferberg)

Le Pen’s family legacy, however, may play in Macron’s favor.

The daughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, a Holocaust denier and open anti-Semite who she succeeded as party leader in 2011, she and her party are widely regarded as extremist and borderline neo-fascist despite her efforts to rehabilitate its image.

Francis Kalifat, the president of the CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish communities, has called Le Pen “a candidate of hate.” On Sunday, he called on voters to vote for Macron in the second round, just to keep Le Pen out of power.

Known in France as a “republican front,” such mobilizations, in which voters set aside their differences and vote for the candidate likeliest to keep National Front out of power, have cost the party many elections. In 2002, the only time National Front participated in the second round of a presidential elections, the republican front resulted in Chirac beating Jean-Marie Le Pen with 82 percent of the vote.

Since then, Marine Le Pen has kicked out of the party dozens of members who were caught making anti-Semitic statements – including her father in 2015 after he said a Jewish singer should be put “in an oven.”

But in a remark that critics said echoed her father’s revisionism, she earlier this month said France was not responsible for how its police rounded up Jewish Holocaust victims for the Nazis.

Marine Le Pen has also vowed to outlaw the wearing of the kippah in public, explaining she does not regard it as a threat but will ban it nonetheless to facilitate imposing similar limitations on headgear worn by Muslims, whom she flagged as a “threat to French culture.”

Kalifat said she was a “threat to French democracy” and Moshe Kantor, the president of the European Jewish Congress, wrote in a statement Monday that the younger Le Pen is “no less dangerous than her Holocaust-denying father.”

Many in the French political establishment concur, and most of the losing candidates in Sunday’s voting urged their supporters to vote for Macron. On Sunday, both Benoit Hamon of the Socialist Party and Francois Fillon of The Republicans of former President Nicolas Sarkozy urged a united front against Le Pen.

But this year, that front has at least one major gap: Jean-Luc Melenchon, the communist candidate, who is also a Eurosceptic, did not call on his supporters to vote for Macron, whose economic and foreign policies are diametrically opposed to Melenchon’s.

Meanwhile, Le Pen is already attacking Macron on points that resonate with many of her voters. In a speech she made to supporters following the first round, she called Macron “Hollande’s extension,” saying he was guaranteed to continue the president’s policy of “mass immigration.” In Macron’s world, she added, “the rich man reigns.”

In light of the challenges facing Macron, even some of his ardent supporters spoke openly of their concern ahead of the final round.

“I don’t consider today as a victory,” Michael Amsellem, one of Macron’s many Jewish supporters, wrote on Facebook. “Having Le Pen in the second round is a tragedy.”

Citing the abstention of Melenchon and his supporters from the republican front, as well as polarization between “protectionists and internationalists, “we are in a major danger zone from Le Pen,” Amsellem wrote.

“The French people are full of surprises,” he added. “This is not going to be so simple.”

%d bloggers like this: