Criminalisation of revisionism ~ a bullet in Shoah lobby’s foot

During my three-day appeal last February, the prosecution’s main argument regards the facts – i.e are my songs “grossly offensive” under S. 127 of the 2003 Communications Act – relied on Judge Charles Gray’s 2000 ruling in the Irving vs Lipstadt case. According to both James Mulholland QC and Judge Chris Hehir, Judge Gray’s ruling provided the appropriate benchmark by which to (a) define “Holocaust denial” and (b) prove that the Holocaust happened according to the standard narrative (six million Jews killed mostly in gas chambers as part of a pre-planned mass-extermination of Jews by the Nazis).

In response to the court’s decision to uphold my appeal, I wish to cite a passage from the end of Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust – A New Look At Both Sides that deals with Cambridge historian Richard Evans’s 2001 book Lying About Hitler. Evans acted as Lipstadt’s expert witness; his book describes his impressions of the case.

Dalton’s scathing treatment of Evans’s chapter on the Irving vs Lipstadt trial raises serious concerns not only regards Evans’s intellectual capabilities; Dalton’s appraisal also calls into question Judge Gray’s ruling and its consequences for further revisionist witch trials here in England. The passage comes at the very end of the book, in the Epilogue, on pages 293 to 294.

Dalton’s work is highly recommended reading. It can be found here where you can also download a free PDF “peek” preview. Here’s the relevant passage:

6. The anti-revisionist response is highly revealing

Since the year 2000, there have been only a few attempts by orthodox historians to respond directly to revisionist challenges. […]

Continue reading

In response to cries for my SURGICAL REMOVAL from movement circles


This video is an experiment. I still need to improve my audio editing skills – noticeable in the rather irregular quality of the sound. Probably not a good idea to prepare for two-track recording (vocals / guitar) when most of the video is just me talking. Anyway, I did what I could and hopefully will be better next time.

As promised, references to various items cited can be found here: Right of Reply – In response to my emotionally-challenged in-house critics and their demands for my SURGICAL REMOVAL from nationalist circles.

Many thanks to Philip, Paul, Ali, Ruby, Mary and John for their recent donations. Apologies for being behind with my correspondence and personal notes of thanks. I will get round to tackling my inbox later this week.

Branded “insane” for questioning lack of evidence and laughing at lies

Interested readers can now view PDF documents of both last Monday’s Preliminary Ruling (regards “sending”, etc.) and Wednesday’s Judgement.

For those less inclined to wade through pages of text and case law quotations, certain paragraphs have been selected and reproduced below, with emphasis added.

Continue reading

Holocaust trials – another harsh but predictable ruling

Yesterday, February 13th, was the 74th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in which over 100,000 men, women and children were burned alive in a holocaust delivered by the British and American air forces. There were more German civilian deaths during just a few days’ bombing raids over Dresden and Frankfurt than there were British victims of German bombs throughout the entire Second World War.

They fought for our freedoms – or so we were told.

Continue reading

Chabloz retrial tomorrow Southwark Crown Court in London

Legal arguments today went in favour of the Crown, with Judge Christopher Hehir inferring that the complex issues of law raised regards statutes of S. 127 of the Communications Act (sending / causing to be sent via a public communications network) were somewhat ‘above his paygrade’. Whatever the outcome of deliberations tomorrow and Wednesday, a further appeal on these points of law will be made to the Divisional Court.

Apologies to my supporters who were unaware of today’s proceedings. My schedule has been hectic. Two and a half years of legal hassle over a song or three takes its toll, not to mention wild allegations of sabotage and manslaughter coming from those who are supposed to be on the same side and who should know better.

Everyone is of course welcome to come along tomorrow and again watch the videos of my “grossly offensive” songs as they were originally performed. My accusers from Campaign Against Antisemitism will also be there, no doubt tightly sticking to the usual script, and I shall again be giving evidence.

As expected, the recent case of Bishop Richard Williamson losing his appeal in the ECHR has been added to the prosecution file against me. Odd perhaps that there have been no gasps of disapproval sent in the good bishop’s direction from certain quarters – those mentioned above who are supposed to be on the same side; and no frowning either regards Dieudonné vs ECHR when the French comic lost his 2015 appeal after having had the audacity to invite the late Robert Faurisson on stage to accept the Prize for Insolence and Infrequentability.

Satire must be prosecuted! We can’t be having any of it! To the gallows with these heretics!

Wednesday is reserved for summing up and the verdict. In such situations, it’s always wise to expect the worst whilst hoping for the best and in today’s climate of political correctness it would be foolish to be too optimistic. But please do try to come along and show your support for the right to freedom of speech – it really does concern every one of us.

Southwark Crown Court
1 English Grounds
(off Battlebridge Lane)
Southwark
SE1 2HU

Court N° 8, 10 am. (Nearest tube London Bridge).

Featured image by Poshfruit.

Soral on the Strategy of Self-Sacrifice

190131soral1“Take my most recent conviction; people can see what’s happening. As well, the opposition aren’t very clever, systematically boasting about winning with typical arrogance – which means they’re poor strategists. They are too full of contempt to have a proper strategy; but they will crush and humiliate…

Yet if we read comments online, many will talk about double standards and how they’re sick of not being able to say anything in France. The hits we take show who is getting hit and who is doing the hitting, which increases the feeling of anger and also raises awareness

As well as individual heroism there is also a collective advantage in what might be considered as self-sacrifice.

THIS IS OUR STRATEGY.

We take the hits so that people can see who’s behind all this. Of course there is a huge army of liars against us: if the media suddenly started reporting with transparency and neutrality, we’d already have won ages ago.

People would get very angry indeed if they were to discover certain truths and that’s why we’ve also been organising, using the Internet, creating websites and producing videos, etc.

We are engaged in a sacrificial but also exemplary combat to make people understand who are the baddies and who are the goodies.

Sometimes I go to court dressed in a T-Shirt which says in large letters:
‘Gentile’ and underneath – ‘If we are Gentile men, then who are the Un-Gentile men’?
[Si nous sommes les Gentils, qui sont les Méchants?].

And I’m asked to remove it and I say no, I’m bare-chested underneath and I see no reason to take it off. A “Goy” T-Shirt – this is the kind of thing I do.

And yes, it’s a kind of self-sacrifice, but it’s political and we score points from it.

There’s even a great quote from Mao who said ‘Fight, fail, fight again… until victory,’ – and that’s how it is.”

~ Alain Soral, Gilets Jaunes public meeting. Paris, January 19th 2019.

 
[Coming soon: extracts from the video with English voiceover. British patriots would do well to take a lesson from their French counterparts].

 

Protected:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: