Scrapbookpages Blog

October 29, 2015

Irish Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 months in jail

This man was sentenced to 5 months in jail for

Dermot Mulqueen was sentenced to 5 months in jail for “performance art” related to the Holocaust

The following quote is from a news article which you can read in full here.

Sentencing Mr Mulqueen, Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “may have a view and an interpretation of history, but it is an historical fact that the Holocaust was the greatest crime perpetrated against a section of mankind in the history of mankind”.

Does Ireland have a law against Holocaust denial?  Not that I know of, but what difference does that make?  Judge Durcan has decreed that the Holocaust is a historical fact.

The news article continues with this quote:

[Dermot Mulqueen’s attorney] Mr Moylan said that his client “was taken aback” to be arrested in the first place. He said that his client is single with no children, has no previous convictions and is currently on social welfare after previously working in Dublin as a taxi-driver.

In his statement to Gardai, Mr Mulqueen said: “I found out that the Holocaust was a hoax in August 2013 after coming across a video by David Cole on Auschwitz on YouTube.”

[David Cole is a famous Jewish Holocaust denier who had to go into hiding after he did his famous video.]

Mr Mulqueen told Gardai: “I am not a racist but I have found out that the Holocaust was a hoax and I wanted to highlight this so that other people would realise this.”

He said that “people are not aware that Jews declared war first on Germany in 1933” and that putting the axe through the TV was an act against “Zionist Holocaust brainwashing”.

He said: “I had no intention to harm any member of the public.” He confirmed to Gardai that he was not on any medication or suffering from any mental illness.

Mr Mulqueen said that the Nazis had no plans to exterminate the Jews but had a territorial final solution to move the Jews from German held territory “and I have problems with this Holocaust religion”.

In evidence, Mr Mulqueen told Judge Durcan: “I never realised you could get arrested for swinging any axe into your own TV.”

Mr Mulqueen said that the YouTube video he watched shows that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were actually a bomb shelter converted into a gas chamber after WWII.

[The Nazis converted a crematorium at Auschwitz into a bomb shelter, and after the war, the Holocaustians converted the bomb shelter into a fake gas chamber. ]

Under cross examination from Insp Tom Kennedy, Mr Mulqueen said: “I wasn’t breaking the law – I was breaking a taboo. There was nothing threatening about what I did.”

End quote

The news article continues with this quote:

Begin quote:
Asked by Insp Kennedy did he realise how his ‘performance’ would be so offensive in his claim that the Holocaust was a hoax, Mr Mulqueen replied: “There is a whole industry out there that have made a fortune out of putting forward the Holocaust hoax. The legal profession has made a fortune and it it offensive to all the people on the gravy train. The Germans never had a extermination final solution – they had a territorial final solution.”

In response to a plea by Mr Moylan to suspend the jail term, Judge Durcan refused by virtue of Mr Mulqueen’s behaviour.

End quote

In my humble opinion, this is a dangerous precedent.  A country that has no law against Holocaust denial is now preparing to send a man to jail for 5 months for expressing an opinion through performance art.

I previously blogged about what people will be required, by law, to believe if there is ever a Holocaust denial law passed in the USA:


  1. Someone needs to remind the Judge about the eradication of the American Indians. Because by comparison, the holocaust was a small think. What about the Spanish conquistadors decimating the southern American population? How about slavery? None of these things in your “opinion” are worse than what happened in Germany on the 40s huh. Did you know the American Indians were slaughtered over a 75 year period, and that roughly 10 times the innocent people died? But your fucking interpretation of the law is solid huh? I hope you get an incurable disease for unduly weilding your power as a judge to force your personal opinion and interpretation of history on others.
    Sincerely, Get fucked.

    Comment by David martin — November 21, 2015 @ 6:27 am

    • You Irish are the dumbest lot of people in the history of the universe.
      The Holocaust is a historical fact. This geezer should have had a life sentence, for his stupidity and hatred and pus filled brain of an assault on nature. The judge was kind.
      Don’t any of you go to college in that desolate place? Read some books. Do you also deny slavery existed? That there was an Armenian genocide? Or is it just Jews you Irish idiots hate? You are such a hopeless, loser of a bunch of people I suppose you feel you have to blame someone for your desperate, meaningless lives.

      Comment by rachel — September 25, 2016 @ 7:10 pm

      • We are approaching a time when being a Jew with a brainwashed victim complex will not serve as an excuse for believing things that are provably false.
        Inform yourself of the PHYSICAL FACTS relating to supposed ‘human gas chambers’. No credible narrative can contradict these facts. No propaganda, no storytelling, no “confession” extracted under torture, no wishful thinking can do it either.

        Believing the great lie, you are the last person who should be calling anyone stupid, you idiot.

        I can understand why the establishment created and continually support this great deception … it is so they can hide behind the Jewish people and commit their gross crimes of theft and war-mongering from behind their human shield. It is a lie that works alongside the “anti-Semite” curse and prohibits ordinary people from stating the obvious about our the global ‘deep state’, the cabal of international financiers … in short, our Satanic masters.

        Why ordinary Jews should wish to believe that their ancestors were industrially exterminated in this vile manner is much harder to fathom.

        Cultural history? For the perceived benefits? Because to imagine this very tall tale might be a lie is just unthinkable? Who knows?

        But a lie it is. The greatest most enslaving lie in human history.

        Dermot Mulqueen is an honest and honorable man, a warrior for truth.

        Begone with your bullshit, you foolish turd.

        Comment by physicsandmathsrevision — September 26, 2016 @ 1:04 am


    Comment by Dominic Ó Ceallaigh — November 6, 2015 @ 11:19 pm

    • You are like most other people in our sad society. So brainwashed that you are in a coma. When Ernst Zundel was prosecuted for Holocaust denial in Canada the prosecution brought in the world’s leading “authority” on ‘The Holocaust, Raul Hilberg to give evidence. Zundels lawyer put to him the question, “Can you give me one scientific report that shows the existence of gas chambers anywhere on Nazi-occupied territory?”. Hilberg replied, “I am at a loss”. “You are at a loss because you can’t”, said Zundel’s lawyer.
      There is ZERO physical evidence in support of human gas chambers. In fact all the physical evidence (which still exists) disproves their existence. The most convincing evidence for their existence comes from (1) a confession by the Commandant of Auschwitz extracted under testicle-crushing torture, as was admitted by the torturer to a British historian, All the other guards completely denied their existence.Rupert Butler. (2) The confession of franz Stangl, of Treblinka who was Appealing his conviction for ‘Crimes against humanity’ when he supposedly confessed and who died in prison before it was published, giving him no chance to call it out as lies (which, again, the pure physical evidence that still exists proves that this confession was. There was a gas chamber in Auschwitz. It was built after the outbreaks of typhoid in 1941 and 42 that killed about twenty thousand inmates. It was used for DISINFECTING clothes by killing the lice that transmitted disease. It was built to save workers’ lives. This gas chamber is still there. It’s walls are turquoise from ferrocyanide. This building is NOT SHOWN to Holocaust tourists.
      Stories about human gas chambers were in the Jewish press and many people believed in them although these were just stories. Neither Churchill, Eisenhower nor De Gaulle mentioned ‘gas chambers’ in their autobiographies.
      A Hollywood film is not real evidence. Neither are hysterical and pitiful stories about what survivors tell about the experiences of OTHER PEOPLE.

      Educate yourself before condemning a truthful, brave and admirable man from your moral high horse. This greatest of all great lies has enabled all the great crimes that have occurred since WW2. The Germans have handed over Billions to ‘holocaust survivors’. America and the rest of us have engaged in endless middle-Eastern wars that serve nobody’s interests but Israel’s. Germany, having lost all sef-belief are currently committing cultural suicide….the consequences go on and on.

      Wickedness needs falsehood to thrive. Watch the documentary (made by a young Jew) that got McQueen going. YouTube search “David Cole Auschwitz”. Watch the film. Watch “One Third of a Holocaust”. Discover some real facts. If you can’t be bothered please desist from advertising your ignorance because these lies will destroy Ireland in time, the same as everywhere else…..who owns the banks anyway?

      Comment by Kevin Boyle — November 7, 2015 @ 1:16 am

      • the irish deny their own holocaust of 1840s.biggest holocaust deniers in history are the irish who peddlethe big lie of potato famine. thousands of brit troops xported food out of this country during that deacade UNDER ARMED GUARD. poppy wearing gobshites now.

        Comment by rua — November 7, 2015 @ 7:40 am

  3. Does anybody know to which jail Mulqueen was sent?

    Comment by Kevin Boyle — November 3, 2015 @ 4:41 pm

  4. Mr Mulqueen’s actions only qualifies as a public order mis-demeanor and not a criminal offense. And thus he doesn’t deserve anything like a 5-month custodial sentence. All that should happen in his case – as a first time offender – is to be Bound Over to Keep the Peace, and maybe given a small fine with costs.

    But we can see what’s really going on here. The governments and their establishments all over the western world (not just in those countries which have “Holocaust Denial / Hate Laws” ) are in a blind panic about vast numbers of young people rapidly waking up to the fact that the “Holocaust” – as the official historians and educators claim – is not really true. They are desperately trying to put the lid on this controversial topic by getting the courts to impose draconian laws and sentences in the hope that this will deter others from taking a public stand on this issue and demanding the truth.

    The “Powers That Be” will enjoy short-term success in their endeavours, but in due course the official holocaust narrative will simply have to be revised, because as it stands the entire edifice is shockingly full of holes, to the point of being a complete and utter absurdity.

    Comment by Talbot — October 31, 2015 @ 7:58 am

    • Hi, do you have links to the statutes with sentencing guidelines? Thanks. The judge would have discretion within certain dictated bounds for different types of acts, and from the quote, which applied to the sentencing, not the conviction, this would mean that (as long as it was within the sentencing bounds) a message that would be particularly threatening to certain groups of people, accompanying a criminal justice public order conviction (which I had read the conviction was for), could be considered in determining a sentence, even if the message itself is perfectly legal to say under freedom of speech and expression laws.

      Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 7:08 pm

      • I looked up the “The Public Order Act of 1986″ which applies to England and Wales ( not Ireland – but its probably much the same ).

        It says;- ” A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a personal harassment, alarm or distress, he; a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or; b) displays any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, thereby causing that person or another person harassment alarm or distress “.

        ” This is a summary offence. It is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine… ,or both “.

        So are quite right Halli ( and I’m wrong!) – a judge does have discretion of how to proceed in such a case, and can indeed impose a sentence of 5 months imprisonment on Mr Mulqueen.

        But I suspect that the legal authorities in the western world are under great pressure from governments to come down harshly on any public displays of “holocaust denial”. But it will be interesting to see the result of his appeal.

        Comment by Talbot — November 2, 2015 @ 5:15 am

  5. This judge definitely needs to get familiarised with history

    Comment by Hansel — October 30, 2015 @ 11:53 am

  6. Reblogged this on News For The Blind.

    Comment by apocalypse29 — October 30, 2015 @ 3:31 am

  7. Dermot mulqueen is a HERO a brother in truth and a martyr to the cause of freedom of opinion .The truth needs no laws to protect it .The truth is like a lion SET IT FREE and it looks after itself ..Only a tyranical LIE needs LAWS to protect it . The same people who ENFORCE this lie are the money changers who jesus threw out of the temple.They print money out of thin air which steals its value from the wealth of our nations.. Then rent this fake money to our (their) puppet governments (at interest ) If the puppet governments printed and issued our own interest free money ther would be No taxation ,No inflation , in other words your 25 year mortgage would be paid off in around 8 years saving you 16 (of your life) years hard sweat and labour .Now the world is waking up to money puzzle slavery. As Herr Adolf Hitler did in the 1930’s He kicked out the rothchilds banks and used a system of social credit unburdened by the world parasite he created 6.5 million jobs in only 2 years a record which no government has ever been able to match of course the self chosenite money changers didnt like that because other countries would have followed germanys lead. So with the wheels coming off their money puzzle slavery scam, on the 24/march 1933 the jews declared war on germany . After they had succeeded in smashing germany using both arms of the beast of zion communism and capitalism russia and america .Oh yes’ they control both .They had to make germany and hitler look like demonic murderers. so the holocast lie was invented .The truth about these scum is that they have murdered countless millions of our people ,in russia alone its estimated that between 60 and 120 million white christian souls were murderd by the beast of zion their farms and property stolen .No wonder that they want to deflect the glare of attention onto the innocent germans .Herr Hitler was a genius and a very extraordinary human being who possesed a great love for his people and compassion for all beings he let the failed british expeditionary force retreat after ZIONIST britain had attacked germany ,my own farther was among the troops who were evacuated from DUNKIRK. If you can as i have and our HERO Dermot Mulqueen has, and countless millions of others around the world have , look at this fake with an open mind you too will see through the mist of lies these devils have woven around us with their TOTAL control of the worlds media .

    Comment by terence foley — October 29, 2015 @ 6:36 pm

    • Wow, Hermie, here is someone who could give you a real run for your money.

      Comment by HCW — October 29, 2015 @ 7:49 pm

    • Disgustingly inaccurate and prejudiced, blatant lies. To focus on the portion most related to this post, the conviction was for the violent and threatening public act, NOT for “expressing his opinion.” The writer here has grievously misled his readers claiming that the charges were for “expressing his opinion,” and not for the violent and threatening behavior.
      To touch on some of your other repulsive allegations, how on earth are Jews benefiting from inflation and taxes? How does every Jewish American I know, including myself, have a 30-year mortgage, if anything you claim is even remotely plausible? In Germany, how on earth could a fractionated religion of people “declare war” on a country? Even if there ever was a group who plotted some sort of coup, for which you offer no evidence whatsoever, how could this ever allow for the systematic murder of civilians, women, and children? Jobs created by systematic murder of innocent people – this you see as a positive thing? Once the danger to innocent lives began to be known, Jews did anything they could to leave the country – and were not allowed. They were instead rounded up to be murdered in cold blood. How on earth could Jews have murdered the “60 to 120 million” Russians instead of Stalin? What shred of evidence to you have to support a claim that the Russians’ farms and property were stolen by Jews? To probably the least offensive disgusting statement in your post, letting the British force retreat once it was clear the allied forces had the upper hand, to you, overcomes Hitler’s demonic acts throughout his rule to make him a person with “compassion for all beings?” You are the “scum,” to use your word.

      Comment by Halli — October 29, 2015 @ 8:47 pm

      • The writer here has grievously misled his readers

        You protest too much, which shows you and the judge in this case think alike.

        Question: Do believe publicly smashing an axe into a TV deserves a 5 month jail term?

        The title of this blog post could be regarded as mildly misleading — a casual reader who does not go on to read the entire post — which consists mainly of quoting the linked news story — could conclude he was jailed for denying the ‘Holocaust’ — which as you (shrilly) point out is not literally true.

        No one who reads the entire blog post and the linked news story could reasonably conclude that — because it’s clear he was formally sentenced to time behind bars under public order statutes having nothing specific to do with the ‘Holocaust’.

        However it’s just as clear that per his statements the judge viewed this specific offence against public order to be serious and deserving of harsh punishment due to the offensive reason behind it/offensive views of the accused.

        So to answer my own question: No, publicly smashing a TV with an axe does not warrant a 5 month jail sentence.

        Lastly, your comments are often r a t h e r l o n g compared to the blog post — this violates general commenting etiquette — if you have s o m u c h t o s a y perhaps you ought to consider your own blog.

        Comment by eah — October 29, 2015 @ 11:49 pm

        • Even Putin says 80-85% of Bolsheviks were Jews, the Encyclopedia of Judaica admits Communism was Jewish in origin, and you must know that the Richest Bankers in the world with trillions of dollars in assets are Jewish right? Ever hear of Lord Rothschild? The holocaust was a Hoax, its time to admit this FACT.

          Comment by Daniel Scott Lahner — October 29, 2015 @ 11:59 pm

          • Yeah, OK, but how is that relevant to this blog post? Stop spamming the thread with long and/or irrelevant comments.

            Comment by eah — October 30, 2015 @ 12:31 am

            • You asked for proof I gave it to you, Jews are responsible for the death of 65 Million ethnic russians mainly Christians. Jews have a deep seeded anti-Christendom flowing through their vains ever since Jesus Christ took a whip to the money changers, scolded the pharisees and told them they are of the Devil, and are contrary to all men, which they are.

              Comment by Daniel Scott Lahner — October 30, 2015 @ 12:45 am

              • ?

                I didn’t ask for anything from you — where did I ask for “proof” of anything from you?

                Comment by eah — October 30, 2015 @ 1:09 am

        • Since you don’t seem to understand the difference between discussing the actual charges versus discussing whether you feel that the sentence was appropriate for the actual charges, I discussed what the charges were for. This does not in any way pertain to the sentence, nor whether I personally feel it was appropriate for the actual charges. I don’t like to see false accusations, and accusing the judge of convicting him of something that is not true is a false accusation. I am also sure that there are extenuating circumstances in the act of “throwing an ax at a TV” in public, and for all other legislated criminal acts, that a judge must consider in determining the length within legislated maximum and minimum sentences for convictions. Was the judge within the legislated maximum and minimum sentencing? We have certainly not been told he was not, while if he was not within these bounds, yes, obviously, he would have been overstepping his authority.

          To you, the title is the only part that is misleading, and only “mildly” so? Through to and including the very end of the blog post, the author consistently claims that the conviction was for “expressing his opinions.”

          Um, “commenting etiquette?” If there are important points to be made on the blog posted, why would the length “violate commenting etiquette?” Sheesh.

          Comment by Halli — October 30, 2015 @ 11:21 am

          • You didn’t answer the question:

            >Question: Do (you) believe publicly smashing an axe into a TV deserves a 5 month jail term?

            What is your answer?

            Your comment is full of nonense; just one example:

            there are extenuating circumstances

            Like what? Were they more or less important than the ostensible motive behind what he did? — which the judge seemed to spend a lot of time addressing, even going so far as to declare the ‘Holocaust’ is established fact — why is that in any way relevant?

            Comment by eah — October 30, 2015 @ 12:14 pm

            • What does it matter to you whether I personally think 5 months was an appropriate sentence? I’d like to know whether it was within the criminal code bounds for an act of that sort.

              The judge may have been incorrect to address his message in his decision, though as it is out of context, it seems likely that this threatening message, along with the violent act, could be a cause for imposing more than a minimum penalty once convicted; but this was NOT what the conviction was for. Regarding the sentencing, do you have examples of other convictions for similar acts in those courts to compare this one too?

              Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 6:41 pm

              • *to

                Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 6:42 pm


        “Contrary to what so many good people – out of sheer terror of ‘Communism’ – think, Capitalism is not ‘free enterprise,’ an incentive for success, ‘a chance for all.’ Capitalism is trusts, speculation, parasitical usury. Capitalism is J. P. Morgan, Rothschild’s bank, ripping apart the nations like maddened swine. Capitalism is the Jewish frying pan in which culture is rendered down to the grease of money. Following it, as the night to day, is the thrice hotter Jewish fire of ‘Communism.’” William Striker

        Jews and Bolshevism

        Amongst themselves, the Jews are quite candid about their sympathy for and involvement in Bolshevism.

        On 4 April 1919 the Jewish Chronicle: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”

        (Perhaps this explains why the Red Army uses a Jewish star as its symbol?)

        Probably the best-known exposé of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik coup d’état was by Sir Winston Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of 8 February 1920. Churchill wrote “With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures are Jews. Moreover the principal inspiration and the driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”

        Communism was of course founded by Karl Marx whose grandfather was a rabbi by the name of Mordeccai. Marx was given his initial encouragement by a Communist-Zionist by the name of Moses Hess. As founder and editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, the main organ of leftist thought in Germany, he provided Karl Marx with his first important platform. Later, in Brussels, he collaborated with Marx on The German Ideology. It was Hess too who converted to Communism Friedrich Engels, the wealthy textiles magnate who later subsidised Marx from the profits of sweated labour in Britain and Germany.

        When the Bolsheviks overthrew the short-lived democratic government in Moscow and St. Petersburg in October 1917, it was a virtual Jewish coup d’état. The most prominent Jewish Commissar was Trotsky, real name Bronstein. He had been married by a rabbi in 1900, and whilst in exile in New York he had worked for Novy Mir, described in the Church Times (23 January 1925) as a “Yiddish newspaper.”

        The various reporters and diplomats who were there at the time of the “Revolution” have given evidence as to its Jewish nature.

        The widow of the Guardian’s correspondent Mrs. Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams wrote: “In the Soviet Republic all the committees and commissaries were filled with Jews.”

        The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925. He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

        Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
        Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
        Lourie (Larine) Jew
        Ouritski Jew
        Volodarski Jew
        Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
        Smidovitch Jew
        Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
        Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
        Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
        Krylenko Russian
        Lounatcharski Russian

        “The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

        President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
        Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
        Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
        Agriculture Protian Armenian
        Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
        Food Schlichter Jew
        Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
        State Control Lander Jew
        State Lands Kauffman Jew
        Works V. Schmidt Jew
        Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
        Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
        Religions Spitzberg Jew
        Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
        Hygiene Anvelt Jew
        Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
        Press Volodarski Jew
        Elections Ouritski Jew
        Justice I. Steinberg Jew
        Refugees Fenigstein Jew
        Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
        Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

        “The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

        Sverdlov (president) Jew
        Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
        Bruno Lett
        Babtchinski Jew
        Bukharin Russian
        Weinberg Jew
        Gailiss Jew
        Ganzburg Jew
        Danichevski Jew
        Starck German
        Sachs Jew
        Scheinmann Jew
        Erdling Jew
        Landauer Jew
        Linder Jew
        Wolach Czech
        Dimanstein Jew
        Encukidze Georgian
        Ermann Jew
        Joffe Jew
        Karkline Jew
        Knigissen Jew
        Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
        Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
        Krylenko Russian
        KrassikofSachs Jew
        Kaprik Jew
        Kaoul Lett
        Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
        Latsis Jew
        Lander Jew
        Lounatcharski Russian
        Peterson Lett
        Peters Lett
        Roudzoutas Jew
        Rosine Jew
        Smidovitch Jew
        Stoutchka Lett
        Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
        Sosnovski Jew
        Skrytnik Jew
        Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
        Teodorovitch Jew
        Terian Armenian
        Ouritski Jew
        Telechkine Russian
        Feldmann Jew
        Froumkine Jew
        Souriupa Ukranian
        Tchavtchevadze Georgian
        Scheikmann Jew
        Rosental Jew
        Achkinazi Imeretian
        Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
        Rose Jew
        Sobelson (Radek) Jew
        Sclichter Jew
        Schikolini Jew
        Chklianski Jew
        Levine (Pravdine) Jew

        “The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

        Dzerjinski (president) Pole
        Peters (vice-president) Lett
        Chklovski Jew
        Kheifiss Jew
        Zeistine Jew
        Razmirovitch Jew
        Kronberg Jew
        Khaikina Jewess
        Karlson Lett
        Schaumann Jew
        Leontovitch Jew
        Jacob Goldine Jew
        Glaperstein Jew
        Kniggisen Jew
        Latzis Lett
        Schillenkuss Jew
        Janson Lett
        Rivkine Jew
        Antonof Russian
        Delafabre Jew
        Tsitkine Jew
        Roskirovitch Jew
        G. Sverdlof Jew
        Biesenski Jew
        Blioumkine Jew
        Alexandrevitch Russian
        I. Model Jew
        Routenberg Jew
        Pines Jew
        Sachs Jew
        Daybol Lett
        Saissoune Armenian
        Deylkenen Lett
        Liebert Jew
        Vogel German
        Zakiss Lett

        Although Lenin is described as a “Russian,” in fact he was a mixture of various nationalities. It is likely that he was one-quarter Russian, one-quarter German, one-quarter Jewish and at least one-quarter Kalmuck (Mongol), which accounts for his Mongol appearance. Various authorities allege that his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya was a Jewess and that her family spoke Yiddish in the home.

        A report sent to the British government in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke, the Dutch consul in St. Petersburg, said that “Bolshevism is organised and worked by Jews.” The report was included in a pamphlet published as a government White Paper in April 1919 entitled Russia No. 1 (1919) A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. However, the pamphlet was quickly withdrawn and reissued with various excisions and alterations made.

        In the War Records Division of the United States National Archives there is filed a report from an American Intelligence operative in St. Petersburg. Under Record Group 20; Records of the American Expeditionary Forces Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, G2 Intelligence wrote, “The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type.”

        Also in the U.S. National Archives are two telegrams sent by American diplomats in Russia. State Department document 861.00/1757 sent on 2 May 1918 by U.S. Consul Summers in Moscow relates, “Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population.” Document 861.00/2205 from Consul Caldwell in Vladivostock on 5 July 1918 describes, “Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type.”

        In January, 1924, Lenin died from causes variously described as ‘a heart attack,’ brain hemorrhage’ and ‘syphilis.’ His comrades immediately began fighting amongst themselves to see who was to become his successor.

        A relative outsider, Joseph Stalin, came to the fore and purged all competition either by exiling or executing them. Since Stalin was not Jewish, yet nearly all his opponents were, it is often suggested that Stalin was anti-Semitic. This is far from the truth.

        Stalin had three wives, all of them Jewesses. The first was Ekaterina Svanidze who bore him one son, Jacob. His second wife was Kadya Allevijah. She bore him a son Vassili and a daughter Svetlana. His second wife died in mysterious circumstances, either by committing suicide or murdered by Stalin. His third wife was Rosa Kaganovich, the sister of Lazar Kaganovich, the head of Soviet industry. Stalin’s daughter (who in 1967 fled to the USA) then married Lazar’s son Mihail i.e. her step-mother’s nephew. Svetlana Stalin had a total of four husbands, three of them Jewish.

        Stalin’s vice-president Molotov was also married to a Jewess, whose brother, Sam Karp, runs an export business in Connecticut. Just to complicate things even more, the Molotov’s (half-Jewish) daughter also called Svetlana was engaged to be married to Stalin’s son Vassili.

        After the death of Stalin, his successors kept up the tradition, for a report in the B’nai B’rith Messenger relates: “To show that Russia treats its Jews well, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev this week remarked at a reception at the Polish Embassy that not only he himself and Soviet President Klementi Voroshilov, but also half the members of the Praesidium have Jewish wives. Mr. Kruschev made this remark to Israeli Ambassador Joseph Avidar, who was amongst the guests.” (Kruschev’s wife was yet another Kaganovitch.)

        According to a report in The Canadian Jewish News of 13 November 1964 the present Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev is married to a Jewess, and his children are brought up as Jews. There are a number of prominent Jews in the Soviet government, including Dimitri Dymshits in charge of industry, Lev Shapiro regional secretary of Birobidjan, and Yuri Andropov in charge of the secret police, the KGB. In fact, every secret police chief in Soviet history has been a Jew, from the first Uritsky to the most recent, the murderous Beria. A Jew is also in charge of the Soviet economy – Leonid Kantorovich.

        It is a well-known fact that the Bolsheviks were and are financed by Jewish interests in the West.

        At a Bolshevik celebration rally in New York’s Carnegie Hall on the night of 23 March 1917, a telegram of support from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was read out. The telegram was reprinted in the next morning’s New York Times. Schiff later tried to deny his involvement, but thirty years later his grandson John admitted in the New York Journal-American (3 February 1949) that the old man had sunk twenty million dollars into the Bolshevik cause.

        Another Western bankers who poured funds into Bolshevik Russia was Olaf Ashberg of the Stockholm Nia Banken. He remained the Soviets’ paymaster until the late 1940s. The London Evening Standard of 6 September 1948 reported a visit by Ashberg to Switzerland “for secret meetings with Swiss government officials and banking executives. Diplomatic circles describe Mr. Ashberg as the ‘Soviet banker’ who advanced large sums to Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. At the time of the revolution, Mr. Ashberg gave Trotsky money to form and equip the first unit of the Red Army.”

        The Bolsheviks also received assistance from Armand Hammer, who still commutes back and forward between New York and Moscow to take care of his business interests in both communities. Hammer’s Occidental Oil Company is at the moment building a 1600 mile chemicals pipeline in southern Russia. He is also on such good terms with the Soviets that he personally arranges for Soviet art galleries to lend paintings to America.

        Another American-based businessman to help out the Soviet economy is Michael Fribourg, who owns the massive Continental Grain Company. Together with the Louis Dreyfus Corporation, these Jewish speculators were able to buy up vast quantities of cheap American grain in 1972, sell it to the Soviets at a vast profit, and collect an export subsidy from the U.S. taxpayer.

        In every other East European country, it is exactly the same story:

        In Hungary a Communist revolution was staged in 1919, instigated by the Jew Bela Kun (Cohen). During the three month regime, the country was turned upside down in a reign of murder and terror. Here again, the government was composed almost entirely of Jews. And it was this factor which brought about the regime’s downfall, as the ordinary Hungarians detested Jewish dictatorship. Kun was deposed and fled to the Soviet Union, where he became chief of the secret police, the Cheka, in southern Russia.

        It was not until 1945 that the Jews were able to regain control. Three Russian Jews were installed as the ruling triumvirate, Matyas Rakosi (Rosencranz), Erno Gero (Singer) and Zoltan Vas. Both Rakosi and Gero had been members of Kun’s bloody government.

        In Germany, the Jews also tried to take over there in the chaos that followed the First World War. Aided by funds from the Soviet Ambassador Joffe, Rosa Luxemburg’s Spartacus Bund attempted to overthrow the government. The revolt was quelled and its leaders Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht executed.

        The post-war dictator of Roumania, Anna Pauker, was the daughter of a Bucharest kosher butcher. For a time she earned her living teaching Hebrew. Her father and brother now live in Israel.

        Although Tito was the only non-Jewish dictator behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1940s, he was tutored by the Jew Mosa Pijade. According to John Gunther in Behind the Iron Curtain, “He is Tito’s mentor… Whatever ideological structure Tito may have, he got it from the shrewd old man.”

        Moscow’s puppet government in Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s was run by another Jew, Rudolph Slansky.

        In Poland too, Jews occupied virtually every position of authority in the post-war Communist regime. Prominent among these were Minc, Skryesewski, Modzelewski and Berman. Jacob Berman gradually eclipsed the others until he became supreme dictator by himself. Also, Gomulka’s wife was a Jewess.

        Even in China, Soviet Jews were at work helping Mao Tse Tung. High up in the Political Department of the Red Army in China were W. N. Levitschev and J. B. Gamarnik.

        Comment by Daniel Scott Lahner — October 29, 2015 @ 11:52 pm

        • (Yet I was the one accused of long posts?) How does your list of Jewish Bolshevicks provide any support for assuming that they, or most, Jewish Bolshevicks supported, approved, or took part in the murders? Not only do you give no citations whatsoever, but the only “murderous regime” you attribute to a Jewish leader was not even in Russia, but in Hungary, again with no citation, and with no suggestion that when he came to Russia he continued a murderous regime.

          Regarding the high numbers of Jews in the Bolshevick party (again, HOW is this relevant to the post?? I mentioned it in response to post that inexplicably did so), I’ll also note that this came on the heels of decades of pograms, in which Jewish men, women, children, and the elderly were routinely savagely murdered and homes ransacked because of their historical faith. Any party that would instead treat the Jews as equals and stop murderous pograms and torture would surely have looked pretty good to many Jews. Non-Jewish Russians surely had far less incentive to join the party.

          This does not change the fact that you have in no way shown that any majority of Jewish Bolshevicks supported murder. Your entire post also has literally nothing to do either the blog post, or the Holocaust at all. (Even if you were to prove that x number of Russians were murdered by Jews, how would this in any imaginable way excuse the killing of civilian Jews in Germany and the surrounding nations, or anywhere for that matter??) Obviously any wanton murder by people of any religion is wrong and morally repugnant, as I hope you are in agreement with as well. However, to blame a religion of people for acts by a few, or by a party even if comprised primarily of that religion, is also morally repugnant and inexcusable.

          Comment by Halli — October 30, 2015 @ 11:44 am

          • You can read a list of places, from which the Jews were expelled, at

            Why were the Jews expelled so many times from so many countries? Regarding the Jews, what’s not to like?

            Comment by furtherglory — October 30, 2015 @ 1:20 pm

            • You’ve done much research; surely you can find many reasons on why Jews have been historically shunned and expelled. These expulsions were often in the name of religious “purity” laws and statutes that required them to convert to Christianity or leave. (Clearly even in these cases, the ruling parties did not find anything wrong with the people themselves, if their “problems” could be absolved by converting.) In addition and combined with religious “purity” campaigns in Christian and other theocratic countries, the Jews were “different,” and especially in pre-scientific societies, anything and anyone “different” was often viewed as evil and frightening. They wore different clothes; sometimes spoke a different language; had different dietary requirements; celebrated the Sabbath on a different day. Even when forced to live outside of cities in separate towns or villages, this itself sometimes bred additional fear and distrust – such as when the Jews outside of some cities appeared to have lower levels of the black plague – possibly due to less contact with the city inhabitants (though in most places, evidence shows that they suffered and died at the same or similar rates) – and they were instead accused of poisoning the water, due to their forced “outsider” status. By the 20th century, high numbers of Jews were completely assimilated into European society and led largely secular lives. However, economic depression and civil woes left people eager to pin their problems on a scapegoat – and it was obviously not difficult to convince those being told they were a “superior” race that the cause of their difficulties could be eliminated by eliminating another, “inferior,” race. According to their leaders brandishing messages of “hope,” the Jews were the cause of all their problems, and they were eager to listen and to take orders to astonishing degrees once they were convinced that Jews were less than human, just as millions of people involved in the slave trade had been convinced of Africans and other blacks. How were so many people so malleable in their views toward human life due to nothing but historical faith and religion? This remains a frightening question, and the basis for the need to ensure “never again.”

              Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 6:57 pm

              • “Never again,” carried far enough, can (and has) trigger “again,” only worse than before. There’s an analogy in artillery bombardment. If your target enemy is trapped (can’t escape) and you bombard them too intensely, they’ll come swarming out of their trap heedless of the death they’d face if they stayed put, and overrun your artillery positions, along possibly with your other positions as well.

                Prevention of criminal activities, if conducted forcefully (as is in fact “Holocaust prevention”) is a formula for despotism. Despotism in turn, if sufficiently intense or prolonged, sparks the same kind of blowback as the aforementioned artillery barrage. I fear “never again” may sooner or later redound against Jews, including, like last time, an innocent majority among the victims.

                Comment by Jett Rucker — November 1, 2015 @ 7:12 pm

              • I’ve made this point myself. Religious and other minorities are often either expelled, persecuted or murdered. You can look at the examples of the Moriscos of Spain, the Hugeunots in Spain, the Catholics in England, etc. to see this happening.
                The people that reply here are particularly fixated on Jews so this is what they discuss, ignoring other examples throughout history that don’t fit their ideology.

                Comment by HCW — November 1, 2015 @ 9:00 pm

              • You wrote: “surely you can find many reasons on why Jews have been historically shunned and expelled”

                I have blogged about why Jews were expelled in several blog posts, including these two posts:



                Comment by furtherglory — November 2, 2015 @ 5:18 am

          • (Yet I was the one accused of long posts?)

            His are worse — I grant you that. However I did say to him above:

            >Stop spamming the thread with long and/or irrelevant comments.

            Just so it is apparent: I did not single you out.

            Comment by eah — October 30, 2015 @ 1:56 pm

      • You wrote: “Jews did anything they could to leave the country – and were not allowed. They were instead rounded up to be murdered in cold blood.”

        Apparently, you are not aware of the true story: The Jews were allowed to leave Germany, but no country would take them. America would only allow a few Jews to enter. Anne Frank’s father was not allowed in, although his brother did enter the United States. Anne’s father then sneaked into the Netherlands where he had to go into hiding because the Dutch didn’t want Jews either.

        The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC has a section which explains this. This exhibit is titled “No hope, no haven.”

        Read about the St. Louis, the ship on which the Jews tried to come to America, but were turned away.

        Hitler offered to send the German Jews on “luxury liners” to any country that would take them.

        Comment by furtherglory — October 30, 2015 @ 7:42 am

        • Yes, this was part of the problem for Jews attempting to emigrate; however, once the German borders were closed, they could not even leave if or when they were able to arrange a place to go. Yes, I mentioned the situation of the St. Louis in another post, maybe not on this article.

          Oh gee, yay, Hitler offered “luxury liners” to any country that would take them, so what’s that supposed to mean? It was ok to kill them then?

          Comment by Halli — October 30, 2015 @ 11:48 am

      • You wrote: “In Germany, how on earth could a fractionated religion of people “declare war” on a country?”

        It was reported in the news, on March 24, 1933, that the Jews declared war on Germany.

        What does fractionated mean. This word did not go through the automatic spell check.

        Comment by furtherglory — October 30, 2015 @ 8:21 am

        • “Fractionated” as in obviously there were many different groups, political alignments, and schools of thought among Jewish Germans. They were obviously not all of one party, movement, or an otherwise cohesive unit.

          Your link mainly sites to Untermeyer, with few other Jews actually quoted, mainly “calling for” war, not “declaring” war, which is quite a big difference (was there a Jewish army or sovereign state? Obviously not) and regarding the “declare” statements, again, how could a religion “declare war?” And how would this ever excuse the murder of civilians? Clearly, Jabotinsky was very accurate in stating that Germany was a threat to the Jews. I have not looked up Lord Beaverbrook, but from this he does not appear to be Jewish. Once Hitler did begin his “Final Solution” decimating Jewish businesses and civil rights, seizing property, and confining Jews to inhumane conditions in crowds and squalor of the ghettos that could never be made acceptable in those conditions, wouldn’t calling for war on this disgusting regime have been very appropriate? The quotes then jump to the late 30s, when systematic murder of civilians had already begun. If that doesn’t provide a good reason to call for war to you, then nothing should. Fear and hatred of the Nazi regime did not occur in a vacuum. Obliterating civil rights and personal property of people of one religion is certainly worthy of calls for “war” or other upheaval. Even in 1938, Lecache only stated “It is our object to declare war.” I remain baffled by your apparent absence of a point. What does “declare war” mean to you if it is announced by groups that cannot and do not represent all people or a religion, and who have no sovereign state or army, and how do any of the sentiments expressed in the quotes result in an actual “war,” and how could this ever be used as a supposed excuse for rounding up and murdering civilians, young and old, men, women, and children?

          Comment by Halli — October 30, 2015 @ 12:03 pm

          • @Halli: “Declaring war” here means, i.a., infiltrating and then mobilizing the societies into which your innocuous “fractions” have insinuated themselves. The mobilization of (non-Jewish) Judge Durcan in favor of their sturdiest mythology is but the least incidence of this process. Jewish “fractions” in the UK and the US, among other countries, certainly did mobilize the armies of their respective societies against Nazi Germany, by many means of which direct appeal (“Germany Must Perish”) was a rare and subsidiary component (personal participation in combat and paying the taxes for the effort also ranked very low among tactics employed). Hitler knew this, said so, and may even have indulged some of his pique against the Jews who fell under his control despite their own relative noninvolvement in the processes I point out.

            German Jews, immersed, if not assimilated, among great majorities of non-Jewish Germans, not only abstained from this multifarious war-making, but in fact fell direct victims to it in a million ways in which Nazis played no more part than being the target of the malefaction. Traced back to its roots, the misfortunes and mistreatment suffered by European Jews under Nazi control may be seen to be the direct consequence of this evil war launched in 1933 by world Jewry (outside Germany).

            Comment by Jett Rucker — October 30, 2015 @ 12:52 pm

            • Excellent! I wish that I could write like that.

              Comment by furtherglory — October 30, 2015 @ 1:25 pm

            • I wish I could understand what he’s talking about.

              A lot of sound and fury signifying……nothing.

              The assumption that Jews are some sort of amorphous whole is utter nonsense. There were tensions amongst the assimilated Jews in Europe who wanted nothing to with the radical Zionists, the Zionists who despised the atheist Jewish Communists and the Palestinian Jews who were suspicious of everyone. There were the Western Jews who felt the Eastern Jews were a barbaric mob.

              The Jews, then and now, are separated by region, politics, faith, etc., etc.

              All anti-Semetic nonsense in the world doesn’t change this.

              Comment by HCW — October 30, 2015 @ 6:30 pm

            • You’re both claiming that these groups openly “declared war” but that they were “infiltrating societies?” Claiming both doesn’t even make sense, and moreover you still appear to be attributing the “declarations” to “all” Jews, when in reality many were secular, uninvolved in any of the above “fractions.” Sure, there were obviously groups calling for mobilization AGAINST A REGIME CLEARLY SCHEMING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE OF THEIR RELIGION – do you fault them for this?

              How were the immersed and assimilated Jews in German society to you “not assimilated,” and how on earth are you remotely attempting to “blame” the blatant mass murder of millions of civilians on ANY previous war “launched” by anyone of any religion??

              Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 5:56 pm

          • Halli: “Clearly, Jabotinsky was very accurate in stating that Germany was a threat to the Jews.”

            Or his followers and heirs of the “Bergson Group” were just very good at selling Jabotinsky Israel-founding atrocity propaganda in America at war. Vladimir Jabotinsky and Peter H. Bergson (Hillel Kook) were both publicists after all. Even if dramatical full-page ads in numerous newspapers and ridiculously theatrical pageants are not what I would call a very sophisticated and fine propaganda, that was terribly effective.

            Comment by hermie — November 1, 2015 @ 6:46 pm

      • You argument is facetious in claiming that we are wrong to hold Jews responsible for crimes , since “individual” Jews cannot possibly be held culpable for the ruin that has been brought to Europe by Jews living in our lands. It’s the aggregate, the composition over generations that matters.

        Comment by ionwhite — October 31, 2015 @ 6:00 pm

        • Uh, no, hold the individual Jews who have performed crimes responsible for their crimes, just like individuals of any other religion, rather than “Jews” as a whole responsible for crimes of some Jews. It’s the aggregate of people like you blaming all people of a religion for ills brought on both by some Jews and many non-Jews, as well as many non-human factors, that results in disgusting and inexcusable prejudices and hate.

          Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

          • Sorry, but I’m not buying your rationale. I never have, not even when I was a kid. Cultural Marxist arguments fall on deaf ears when directed at me. The “aggregate” German people, as well as the rest of the world, are still paying (some 70 years on!) for a “holocaust” of some 1.2-2.4 million jews during the Second World War. Turns out that the grand-children and even the great-grandchildren of these victims of war (more than 50 million people were killed in this war, but, unlike jews, they don’t expect to be paid for merely existing and carrying on.) . When do we get to stop paying jews for being alive? No, I have no white, Christian guilt. I’m a very poor candidate for that indocrination.

            Comment by ionwhite — November 11, 2015 @ 4:01 pm

  8. furtherglory – have you seen this article from the Veterans Today website? It is called The Holocaust is a Racket –

    Comment by Les — October 29, 2015 @ 6:18 pm

    • I had not read this article until now. Thanks for the link.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 30, 2015 @ 7:48 am

  9. furtherglory wrote: “Mr Mulqueen said that the Nazis had no plans to exterminate the Jews but had a territorial final solution to move the Jews from German held territory “”

    Sounds like something Infamous Bibi would say. Only the Mufti is missing… 😉

    Comment by hermie — October 29, 2015 @ 4:02 pm

  10. That judge deserves to be lynched by the balls. He needs to remember whom he’s fucking with. The Irish haven’t been gelded like the Germans.

    Comment by David Christie — October 29, 2015 @ 12:49 pm

    • That’s funny considering: Ireland just voted to approve gay marriage, and Ireland has very high net immigration, the vast majority no doubt non-white and non-Christian.

      Yeah, the Irish are tough.

      Comment by eah — October 29, 2015 @ 7:57 pm

    • The writer here has completely misled his readers by claiming that the conviction is for “expressing his opinions through performance art,” while the conviction is instead for the violent, threatening public acts performed. Alleging that the judge entered a conviction for a law that does not exist is not only false, but slander.

      Comment by Halli — October 29, 2015 @ 8:52 pm

      • Regardless its still part of freedom of speech and is protected here in America. Smashing a axe into your own TV in protest is PROTECTED SPEECH.

        Comment by Daniel Scott Lahner — October 30, 2015 @ 12:00 am

        • Smashing an axe into a TV in public is restricted under laws involving violent acts, NOT speech. Laws restricting violent acts in public are not infringing on “speech.” In a country with freedom of speech, all speech, and expression of ideas through art, must be allowed, though with “time, place, and manner” restrictions that are applied evenly to ALL speech, no matter of its message. In America, for example, time, place, and manner restrictions are certainly Constitutional, as long as they are applied equally to all messages and speech. No matter what he was supposedly getting across by “smashing a[n] axe into [his] own TV,” this was in public, and especially combined with his message, can reasonably be expected to have been extremely threatening to any survivors, their descendants, and any people of any group targeted by the Nazis in the Holocaust, as well as surely people who have no connection to the Holocaust whatsoever. The illegality of his actions had NOTHING to do with his message. The judge may have been incorrect to address his message in his decision, though as it is out of context, it seems likely that this threatening message, along with the violent act, could be a cause for imposing more than a minimum penalty once convicted; but this was NOT what the conviction was for. Again, the violent act of “smashing a[n] axe” was the act for which he was charged and convicted, NOT his “message,” and the act of smashing the axe itself was NOT the “speech.”

          Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 6:13 pm

    • im irish, a republican and sad to inform u that we have been gelded beyond recognition, this place is the most slave minded, conservative, tv obsessed, money obsessed cowboy culture u could imagine. if kim kardashian ran for election here she wud be voted president, sorry to burst ur bubble bro, people like dermot mulqueen are rare as hens teeth and he will get fuck all support from the ‘fighting irish’.

      Comment by rua — October 30, 2015 @ 3:37 am

  11. What is the purpose of this blog?? You seem so enamored by Mulqueen’s claims – do you share the same beliefs and this is the purpose of your blog??

    To begin with, why don’t you CHECK Ireland’s laws, or the actual charges, before literally slandering the prosecutor and judge for convicting someone of a charge that you seem to think does not exist in Ireland?? If you don’t know of a law in Ireland about Holocaust denial, have you looked? I don’t know their laws either, but I am not claiming on a public website that a prosecutor or judge sentenced someone for a charge that does not exist! If there is no specific law related to Holocaust denial, was the actual charge for threatening behavior, or a related charge? Certainly putting an axe through anything other than wood in a public place can be reasonably seen as threatening, and if his “purpose” was to express his believe that the Holocaust did not happen (because of one video that he saw online?? In contrast to the multitudes of survivors’ stories who lost all family members, who have numbers tattooed on their arms, and who have relayed stories of unspeakable horrors – coinciding with the Nazi propaganda that still exists, countless photographs and videos of death and torture of civilians, and actual records listing the plans to murder Jews, and records of names and personal information of those sought, registered, and killed?), a threatening act like “putting an axe through a TV” in a public place while simultaneously expressing disbelief of a genocide would be even more threatening to any survivors, children of survivors, or anyone in the groups delineated by the Nazis as targets for murder!

    Why don’t you confirm Ireland’s laws or the actual charges before preemptively slandering the prosecutor and judge as convicting a person for a charge that doesn’t exist?

    If their laws are like America’s, threats can and should be taken very seriously – unrelated to the expression of an idea that is illegal to communicate public in other countries, such as Holocaust denial. A violent act like throwing an axe through a household item in a public place, while specifically aiming to express an idea that the murder of millions of innocent people less than a century ago did not occur, is a VERY threatening act, especially to anyone in the targeted group.

    You have provided NO evidence that the conviction was simply for “expressing an opinion through performance art” as you claim. His “art” involved a very violent, disturbing act, while simultaneously accusing survivors and their descendants of bearing false witness and of not having endured the horrors that they did. This is certainly worthy of prosecution for putting others in reasonable fear of bodily harm – without in any way prosecuting someone just for “expressing an opinion through performance art.”

    Your opinion is faulty and harmful. If you believe that he should still not have been convicted or jailed, discuss the ACTUAL CHARGES and how you feel they should have been handled. Throwing axes into items in a public space with the apparent intention – and at least the effect – of terrifying people targeted in the genocide he claims did not occur of bodily harm and extreme emotional disturbance CANNOT be equated with simply “expressing an opinion through performance art.” Your suggestion as such is breathtakingly off base.

    Comment by Lauryn Halli Slotnick — October 29, 2015 @ 10:23 am

    • He was not arrested for Holocaust Denial, he was arrested for violating a firearms violation (I don’t understand that, he used an axe) and for something like disturbing the peace.
      Sounds like he forgot to request or pay for a permit for his performance.
      He is also sadly confused. The Jews did not declare war on Germany, they wanted to boycott German goods. A boycott is not a declaration of war. Also, how does a religion declare war? An act of war is between two or more sovereign states.

      Comment by HCW — October 29, 2015 @ 11:25 am

    • You wrote: “What is the purpose of this blog? You seem so enamored by Mulqueen’s claims – do you share the same beliefs and this is the purpose of your blog??”

      The word “blog” is short for “weblog.” It is a log which a person writes each day, or almost every day, about their thoughts or opinions, or just about their daily life. Frequently a web log is about a vacation trip.

      I started my blog 5 years ago after having a stroke. The purpose was to exercise my brain in order to recover from brain damage due to the stroke. I wrote about many subjects, but the only subject that people read was my blog posts about the Holocaust. I have now written close to 1600 blog posts over a period of 5 years.

      You wrote: “why don’t you CHECK Ireland’s laws…”

      I did not have to check Ireland’s laws because I know, by heart, the 19 countries that have Holocaust denial laws.

      You wrote: “… before literally slandering the prosecutor and judge for convicting someone of a charge that you seem to think does not exist in Ireland?? If you don’t know of a law in Ireland about Holocaust denial, have you looked? I don’t know their laws either, but I am not claiming on a public website that a prosecutor or judge sentenced someone for a charge that does not exist!”

      Once again, this is not a “public website.” It is a blog that is also public and can be read in countries that have Holocaust denial laws. I also have a public website which I first put up in 1997 at My website can be read in the 19 countries that have Holocaust denial laws.

      If this offends you, you don’t have to read my blog, nor my website. No one has put a gun to your head and forced you to read what I write.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 29, 2015 @ 11:28 am

    • You need to find a blog that puts forth the kosher version of the Holocaust. I suggest this blog for you:

      Comment by furtherglory — October 29, 2015 @ 12:07 pm

    • I googled your name and learned that you are a New York lawyer. I find it hard to believe that a New York lawyer would not know which 19 countries have a Holocaust denial law.

      Since you are completely ignorant about the Holocaust, I recommend that you start your education by reading the 828 page book entitled Holocaust, written by British writer Martin Gilbert. This is a Holocaust True Believer book.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 29, 2015 @ 4:24 pm

      • Then you’re also aware that I do not practice in anything remotely related to the Holocaust, nor foreign laws related to it. You clearly stated “Does Ireland have a law against Holocaust denial? Not that I know of…” As I stated, I am not the one defaming a foreign prosecutor and judge for convicting a person for a law that does not exist, so researching the country’s laws is not a responsibility of mine – however, you are saying such, which means that this IS a responsibility of yours. You still make no mention of the actual charges, which certainly appear to be related to the violent public acts. While these threatening, violent acts coincided with his expressing of his opinion, the behavior with the axe certainly appears to be the cause of the charges, as is appropriate; and there is NO indication that he would ever have been prosecuted for “expressing his opinion by performance art” if the performance art was not violent and threatening. Again, NOTHING you have said has refuted this. Therefore, your claims that he was prosecuted and convicted for merely “expressing an opinion through performance art” are literally and utterly false, and your accusations that he was convicted of violating a law that does not exist is not only false, but also slander. Do you know what’s a dangerous precedent? Ignoring the actual charges that a person was convicted of, and instead claiming that “expressing his opinion” was the issue, rather than the violent public acts.

        How many books by Holocaust survivors have you read, or how many survivors have you met, spoken to, or conversed with, or how many items of those murdered have you seen in person and been witness to? Do you really think that ships full of desperate Jews and trains of Jewish children would have been leaving the country under threat of death if “all” Hitler wanted to was relocate the Jews elsewhere? How do you explain the ghettos? Kristallnacht? The well documented incidents of elderly citizens made to grovel for their lives while naked or scrubbing the street? The emaciated survivors and corpses the American soldiers found in the camps? Yet you instead believe “deniers” who clearly were not there and have no first hand experience of the horrors millions upon millions of people experienced and died from?

        Yes, a “public blog” is a blog open for the public to read, as you stated. Likewise, “no one is putting a gun to your head” and telling you what to believe. However, your allegations that this conviction in Ireland was for “expressing opinions through performance art” are shockingly uninformed, though that would be putting it lightly, as you appear to be deliberately misleading your readers. Just because “expressing his opinions” coincided with a violent, threatening act does not by ANY stretch of the imagination make the conviction for “expressing his opinions” rather than for the violent public act.

        Comment by Halli — October 29, 2015 @ 6:38 pm

        • Jewish lawyer from NYC by the name Lauryn Halli Slotnick.

          Comment by Gasan — October 29, 2015 @ 8:09 pm

        • In defense of FG allows a Holocaust survivor to post essays on this blog. I find that a very honorable act considering FG is a Holocaust Denier.
          The survivor’s name is Wolf Murmelstein.

          Comment by HCW — October 29, 2015 @ 8:09 pm

        • I didn’t know that he was arrested for “the violent public act.” I didn’t know that it was against the law in Ireland to smash your own TV set in public. Why do the newspapers mention the Holocaust in connection with act of smashing his TV set?

          If I go outside right now and smash my TV set with an ax, will this be reported in the news world wide?

          Comment by furtherglory — October 30, 2015 @ 7:56 am

          • Clearly there aren’t laws for every conceivable violent act, and prosecutors must act under the most relevant statutes applicable. In my first comment, I noted that rather than accuse the judge of convicting him under a law that does not exist, you should determine what the conviction was actually for. This appears to have been a “Criminal Justice Public Order” charge. The link you included above is grayed out for the actual article, but here is another article noting this.

            There obviously does not have to be specific laws against every imaginable public act for them to be illegal; hence the existence of public order laws and the like.

            The man made his message clear, so why wouldn’t it be reported in news noting his conviction? Also, as I mentioned in another response, the judge may have been incorrect to address his message in his decision, though as it is out of context, it seems likely that this threatening message, along with the violent act, could be a cause for imposing more than a minimum penalty once convicted; but this was NOT what the conviction was for.

            Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 6:36 pm

  12. Dangerous indeed, this is very bad news. Maybe we can raise some money to help this poor man. Ireland and democratic virtues are under threat.

    Comment by Ian Burgess — October 29, 2015 @ 9:42 am

    • Please review the actual charges that this culpable, not “poor,” man, was convicted under. The writer here has completely misled his readers by obfuscating the actual charges for the violent public acts performed by instead claiming that the conviction is for “expressing his opinions through performance art,” which is not at all true.

      Comment by Halli — October 29, 2015 @ 6:53 pm

  13. “There is a whole industry out there that have made a fortune out of putting forward the Holocaust hoax…The legal profession has made a fortune…”


    Comment by eah — October 29, 2015 @ 9:40 am

    • I GUESS you (eah) deny/don’t know about fortunes made putting forward the Holocaust hoax. A truly classic book, “The Holocaust Industry” was written in 2000 by Norman Finkelstein. It details – devastatingly – the particulars of what poor Mulqueen in telling everyone.

      Finkelstein does not call it a hoax – in fact, he claims that both of his parents were veterans of the concentration camps. They – and he – are Jewish, of course.

      Comment by Jett Rucker — October 29, 2015 @ 11:30 am

      • Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry was the first book that I ever read about the Holocaust. I couldn’t understand it at all. I was a Holocaust believer at that time — but not for long. I had to read more books in order to understand what he was saying.

        Comment by furtherglory — October 29, 2015 @ 11:35 am

        • So you had no prior information to compare Finkelstein’s book to, and thereafter sought out other books expressing the same opinions, yet consider yourself well informed?

          Comment by Halli — October 29, 2015 @ 6:41 pm

      • putting forward the Holocaust hoax

        I know about Finkelstein’s book — where he tells how there is an entire “industry” built around putting forward the Holocaust — as I would put it.

        I guess for me the English usage here is weird — what he seems to mean is putting forward the Holocaust, which is a hoax — then it would be 100% clear.

        Comment by eah — October 29, 2015 @ 11:55 am

      • HERE’S something IRONIC for you to PONDER Mr. Rucker. WHEN David Irving SUED Deborah Lipstadt FOR LIBEL the book “Denying the Holocaust” HAD only sold 2,000 copies IN England. I GUESS she WASN’T making A fortune AFTER ALL on the “Holohoax.”

        Comment by HCW — October 29, 2015 @ 3:40 pm

      • I did find a free PDF of Lipstadt’s book on line so she’s not making any money off me. I’ll read it and give you my thoughts.

        Comment by HCW — October 29, 2015 @ 4:09 pm

      • Anything that there is money to be made from will be turned into an industry; this is why most charities are not as reputable as they claim, and why we must always do our research before donating or spending our dollars. However, this does not make the original intent of the groups a “hoax.” Publishers, museum staff, and others earning profits from the “Holocaust industry” are no more putting forth a “hoax” than are charities to help needy children or abused animals, or cancer awareness groups, which have grown away from their initial noble causes to allow for disproportionate profits to individuals involved. Certainly Normal Finkelstein has some earnest and justifiable opinions regarding how he would like to see the memory of the Holocaust preserved, and how he feels that the “industry” portion of some current organizations or companies are unjustly enriched by their commercialization of this tragic period in recent history that sometimes occurs. However, this in NO way makes the Holocaust and its suffering a “hoax.” How many survivors have you met or spoken to, or read their memoirs, or how many depictions of the devastation of Kristallnacht have you seen, or of elderly Jews tortured, or of the bodies and skeletal survivors found by American soldiers upon the liberation of the camps? There is a huge difference between imploring that there should not be “fortunes made” on the backs of tragedy, and claiming that the human tragedy and suffering was a “hoax.”

        Comment by Halli — October 29, 2015 @ 7:03 pm

        • Nicely said.
          I am not a fan of first person accounts myself, I prefer general history.
          If you like to read and are interested in the Holocaust, here are some titles to check out:
          Laurence Rees’s Auschwitz, A New History
          Arad’s Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, the Operation Reinhard Camps
          There are others, if I can think of some more I’ll let you know.

          Comment by HCW — October 29, 2015 @ 7:58 pm

        • claiming that the human tragedy and suffering was a “hoax.”

          Your comment is basically one long appeal to emotion — but one part is worth a reply:

          Actually, I don’t think anyone includes “human tragedy and suffering” when talking about a “hoax” (not a word I use myself) — in that sense, your statement is dishonest. Believe it or not, the vast majority of revisionists are responsible, intellectually honest people who fully acknowledge there was plenty of “human tragedy and suffering” during the war, and the Nazis were responsible for a lot of it.

          I think what people who use “hoax” are referring to is the claims of a deliberate attempt by the Germans to exterminate Jews — especially via gas chambers utilizing Zyklon-B. Other claims about organized wholesale murder are also disputed — but key to the ‘Holocaust’ is the organized murder of Jews at Auschwitz — some people who dispute this happened use the word “hoax” — perhaps most famously Arthur Butz.

          Comment by eah — October 31, 2015 @ 10:42 am

          • Some of the comments here have attempted to use Finklestein’s book as evidence that the Holocaust was a “hoax,” while one at least noted that he himself never calls it this, and is the child of Holocaust survivors. Obviously anyone who claims to believe that the Holocaust was a “hoax” would not speak of human tragedy and suffering. This would admit that it actually occurred. I was responding to the several comments, one of them yours, specifically on Finklestein’s book.

            Comment by Halli — November 1, 2015 @ 7:23 pm

            • Obviously

              Why is that ‘obvious’?

              I did not say anything about Finkelstein’s book specifically — I was confused about some of the language used in a comment, that’s all — to me it makes no sense to speak about his book and a “hoax” — it’s not about that.

              Comment by eah — November 8, 2015 @ 6:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: