The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Lady Michèle Renouf, Part 1 of 2

July 19, 2010

Lady Michèle Renouf

Topics include:

  • The trial of David Irving, and some lessons learned
  • The psychology of religion: Judaism vs. Christianity & Islam
  • The importance of Fredrick Töben’s court victory for the case of Bishop Richard Williamson
  • And more

About Lady Michèle Renouf

Lady Michèle Renouf is an international advertising actress who became a human rights campaigner and filmmaker under her Telling Films label. She has become a controversial, internationally noted personality since 2000 due to her support of Holocaust revisionists such as David Irving and Fredrick Töben during their legal defenses. Her main Web site is

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Carolyn:


8 Responses to “The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Lady Michèle Renouf, Part 1 of 2”

  1. avid reader on July 20th, 2010 10:45 am

    This was a great show.
    It was quite evident the fervor in Lady Renouf’s voice is very strong!!
    Can’t wait till next week.

  2. Akira on July 21st, 2010 8:35 am

    This was really good, until Michelle R., who is usually very careful and logical in her speech, made this ridiculous assertion:

    “Bishop Williamson is the last Christian bishop!”

    As much as I like and admire Bishop Williamson, the SSPX is Masonic-founded and run. It’s controlled opposition to the Jew-Masonic-run Vatican (since 1962).

    Besides that, he is not in any sense “the last Christian bishop”.

  3. Spectator on July 21st, 2010 11:29 am


    Do you have a source that supports your claim that SSPX is “Masonic founded?

    BtW–I agree that Lady Renouf’s rash comment overlooks too much–any Orthodox bishops, for instance. Nor would I be willing to write off all RC bishops for that matter, although the current situation is grim. Possibly among traditionalist Anglicans there may be some.

  4. Akira on July 21st, 2010 6:04 pm

    I based that on having heard it from many RC’s, then having asked SSPX priest if it was true, only to be told that I was a “conspiracy-nut” and an “anti-Semite”. Ironic considering the Jews’ SPLC and ADL both say that the SSPX is crawling with “conspiracy nuts” and “anti-Semites”.

    Also, requests to various SSPX-related people regarding the Masonic connections (or not) of the SSPX founders went unanswered.

    However, I just came across an SSPX site that clearly lays out an argument that these are in fact just rumours. So, just as I expect Miss Renouf not to make silly assertions that there is only one Christian bishop in the world, I also have to confess that I may have been too rash in my judgement.

    Still, I don’t find their arguments convincing, so they’re still on my personal “Mason-Watch” list.


    One of their tactics has been aimed at the goal of obtaining a response to their attacks. During the life time of the Archbishop, they hoped that either the same Archbishop or his priests would answer their violent but ridiculous charges. During the lifetime of His Grace, they cried over and again: “Why doesn’t the Archbishop answer these charges? Why?”

    The idea was to lend an air of credibility to their deceitful words. But then every righteous man knows that the best way to deal with liars and detractors is to ignore them and let them drink the bitter juice of their ignored false judgments.

    Our Lord Jesus Christ gave the example when He stood silent before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. He knew the evil of their hearts and the intention of their minds. And because He knew, He refused to give an answer.

    Archbishop Lefebvre also knew that his detractors were moving in the hopes that if repeated often enough their falsities as unbelievable as they were would finally gain terrain, that their false statements would be believed to be true.

    Nothing would be gained by giving an answer to his detractors.


    Considering how many popes have condemned Masonry, I don’t think it’s good enough for a bishop to respond to the question “Are you a Mason” by huffing and sniffing and saying, “I won’t dignify that with a response!” It’s not as if he was asked for his medical records or something like that.

    The SSPX writer continues:


    Constant repetition of false rumors is an old trick, perhaps the oldest trick, to destroy the good name and reputation of an adversary.

    Was Cardinal Lienart a Mason? Nobody knows for sure.


    Because he refused to asnwer any questions about it!


    The attack of the detractors was aimed not at Cardinal Lienart but at Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    If one falsehood against His Grace failed, they would come with a new one, at their convenience. How far they will go? Will they dare to spread the rumor that His Excellency himself was a Mason?

    Were they ever aware that the same rumors could be spread against them?


    Am I a Mason? Have I ever been? — No and no. Problem solved


    What if someone let the world know that in fact the detractors themselves were not even Catholics because the priest who had baptized them was a secret member of a Masonic Lodge? And what about those married by the same priest? Were they living in sin?

    The cunningness of the Devil knows no boundaries! Catholics, true Catholics, must flee from rumors. Nonetheless, the accusers should come forward with concrete proof, if they had any: signed documents; veritable witnesses that might back their charges.


    Actually, on reflection, I have to say that this indicates the SSPX founders were in fact Masons, since it would have been a simple matter just to say, “No, I’m not.”

    Why should questioners have to have “proof”? Are we in a court of law? Are they “claiming the fifth!” ?

    Didn’t the Church condemn Masonry numerous times? Haven’t numerous clergy stated that Masonry is the Church’s main temporal enemy? Is it then to much to expect a bishop just to answer a simple “yes” or “no” regarding membership in that cult?

    How else can we tell if someone is a member of the cult? Should we expect the lodges to provide us with videos?

    And the argument regarding the validity of sacraments (the example of marriage given) is presented like a threat: “You’d better not dig too deep into the truth, or you might find out that you weren’t really baptised, married”, etc.

    In fact the Church has had to deal with these problems. For example, after the Communist takeover of Russia and the Ukraine, some people arrived in America claiming to have been priests in out-of-the-way parishes. Nobody could check because of lack of communications and the fact that other priests and bishops had been jailed or killed. Decades later it was proven that they had lied. I don’t know all the details about the response, and there is always a great debate about how to proceed, but the Church did hold services praying that the sacraments would be valid in spite of the circumstances, and similar measures. Regardless of all that, it strikes me as a very weasely argument to hint that people had better not try to find out if so-and-so is a Mason, because “you might find out you’ve been living in sin.”

    Anyway, the response of SSPX to the attacks on Bishop Williamson show what they are really all about.

    The whole SSPX setup strikes me as phony. What exactly is the essence of their dissent from Rome? That God only likes prayers in Latin? As an Orthodox Christian, I’m all for honoring tradition, as long as it is in accord with dogma, and I always think it’s better to preserve traditions instead of blindly following innovations. It would have been better for the RCC to maintain worship in Latin rather than having all these blasphemous “clown masses” “trannie masses” and “vampire / new age / buddhist / goddess etc masses”. But the SSPX is now in communion with all those bizarre cultists posing as Christians anyway. So what was the point of their dissent?

    It also reminds me of a movie I saw with Martin Sheen, set in Ireland, with him as an inquisitor sent to observe the “mad Irish” on a remote Island who refuse to stop holding services in Latin. More propaganda — giving the idea that only loons care about the language of the mass. It seems plausible to me that the SSPX movement was set up to play a similar role, as a foil or straw man, or to control/neutralize/marginalize dissent t masonic maneuvering in the Vatican.

    SSPX: “his detractors would also cite canon law and conveniently quote theology and philosophy too, appointing themselves experts in these fields. Thus, their own words put them in jeopardy. Their lack of a basic knowledge of these challenging, difficult subjects came to light.”

    Oh, excuse me! How dare I, a simple Christian, how dare I presume to try to understand theology!? How dare I presume to judge whether my “superiors” [actually, I'm not even an RC] are speaking or acting in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the Saints and the Fathers of the Church!?

    So the Bishop of Rome says that Jews are “our elder brothers in the Faith”? Who are we to say whether he s right or not. Apparently only the pope can judge himself … By the same logic, an RC should have shun the SSPX when the Vatican excommunicated them. But what do I know about ogic? I don’t have a PhD in Philosophy from Harvard or Yale.

  5. Akira on July 21st, 2010 7:46 pm

    A Fish Rots from The Head

    As far as I’m concerned:

    – The Jesuit Order is very suspect, but most individual Jesuits seem sincere.

    - The SSPX is illogical. “We believe in papal rule, but we don’t, bt we do, except when we don’t.”

    – It seems to me that the Papacy has been Jew-Masonic since John XXIII, except fro John Paul I, who I believe was murdered.

    – Besides all the various arguments, connections, suspicians, etc, The main proofs are their actions. It’s a fact that the most senior RC clergy are Jewed in their words and deeds. And no Christian would have established diplomatic relations with a Jew-state calling itself “Israel” [The Church always taught that The Church is Israel.]

    – Opus Dei is Masonic

    – John Paul II — Mr “The Jews are our elder brothers in the Faith” — was a Jew. “Our elder brothers”? In what faith? I don’t believe that a person with Jewish background can’t be a sincere and devout Christian, but JPII’s actions indicate otherwise. I’m sure he was also a Communist. Yes, I know, the great “Anti-Communist”. Sure. The whole “collapse of Communism” was also a racket, to draw the USSR, EU US etc more closely into world government. The Gulf War was used to unite the Soviet and American militaries. The “collapse” was a way for Jews to plunder Russia again. “Christian” [US protestant] missionaries were mostly masonic plants or tools. Putin threw a spanner into Jew-scam.

    When I first heard arguments that JPII was Jew, I just thought it was an interesting detail, and had no direct bearing on his beliefs. But then the fact that the Vatican officially responded by saying that they didn’t know if was true or not — that was the clincher. How on Earth could the Vatican, with its global intelligence networks anf tens of thousands of academics not find out in hours if JPII’s mother was a Jew or not? That is not credible. Therefore it seems to me it must be a cover-up. If she wasn’t a Jewess, then the Vatican would have just said so straight out. So why the cover-up?

    He’s definitely quite Yiddish/German.

    JPII’s maternal line:

    Nikolaj Kaczorowski [i.e Katz] m Urszula Malinsnowska

    – Son: Feliks Kaczorowski

    Jan Scholz m Zuzanna Rybicka

    – Daughter: Maria Anna Scholz

    Feliks Kaczorowski [pack saddler] m Maria Anna Scholz

    – Daughter: Emilia Kaczorowski [JPII's mommy]

    Tell me she’s not a Jew:

    [nb Ryszard Kaczorowski replaced Sabbat as the last Polish President-in-Exile]

    If anyone just rolls their eyes at talk of Crypto-Jews, Freemasons, Sabbateans, Frankists, etc, just consider the careers of the Jew John Kerry, the Jewess Madelaine Albright, the Jew Wesley Clark, the Jew Richard Holbrooke [we have almost all of the planners of the Wars Against The Serbs right there] the Masonic Bishop Talleyrand, etc etc etc

    Typical Jew-F@ckery:

    The Jew Moses Dobruška was a nephew of Jacob Frank, yet another Jew “messiah”. Dobruška was an alchemist. In 1773 he pretended to become a Roman Catholic and took the name Franz Thomas Schönfeld. In 1778 he was elevated to nobility in Vienna, becoming Franz Thomas Edler von Schönfeld. Together with his fellow Jew Ephraim Joseph Hirschfeld, he became one of the main conspirators of the “Knights of St. John the Evangelists for Asia in Europe,” the first German-speaking Masonic order to accept Jews. In 1792, in the wake of the French Revolution, he traveled via Strasbourg to Paris and became a Jacobin, changing his name, once again, to Junius Frey. He was arrested for treason and espionage and executed by guillotine in 1794 in connection with an East India Company scam involving his brother-in-law François Chabot, a former Capuchin monk.

  6. kelvinator on July 22nd, 2010 7:55 pm

    WOW she’s a beautiful Aryan Woman with something inteligent to say and fighting for a worthy cause.My kind of woman.

  7. Inquisition on July 23rd, 2010 9:24 pm

    This was such an intelligent interview. It was a full forty minutes before some of the details of the Holocaust fallacy itself were even discussed. So much specificity on the history, reasoning and propaganda regarding this area of study. I really admire both of these articulate, well-informed women.

  8. Morten on July 24th, 2010 3:18 pm

    Listening for the second time. A woman of great knowledge and integrity. Looking forward to part 2!