Fighting back and winning

 


Musical extracts ~ me playing keys over backing tracks of jazz standards, Taking a chance… and Gee, baby…

Please find links to my donation pages on the right hand side bar. Thanks to everyone for your ongoing support and encouragement.

Unfortunately, owing to tech issues, I am unable to upload the documents cited but will keep trying and update as necessary.

Alison. X x

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].

 

My reponse to Renouf, Rushton and Edmonds, Part 3

The 22 years I spent in relative isolation in the Swiss Alps where local traditions are cherished served me well. I speak perfect French, not-so-perfect German, earned myself a music degree from Lausanne’s Haute École de Musique and became a mother as well as a competent skier. On the other hand, this chocolate-box lifestyle didn’t quite prepare me for what I would find on returning to my birthplace: a land transformed by weaponised mass immigration, a deeply divided populace ingrained with ever-increasing levels of intolerance towards one another – the products of a political and social system corrupt to the core.

Nevertheless, my musical education provided me with plenty of opportunities; performing at the Edinburgh Fringe, in local folk bands, on cruise ships and as a solo artist. Indeed, my solo Songs of the Shoah earned worldwide acclaim – as well as a conviction for malicious communications. Is there any other western artist – folk, punk, rap or even Blood and Honour – who has suffered the same level of censorship and persecution for their music? Moreover, why would any self-respecting nationalist-revisionist residing in a country with no specific law banning historical revisionism also be seeking to cut out my tongue?

Alas, we do not live in a sane world. And those within the UK nationalist community who have declared a war of strategy against me seem to have lost their moral and intellectual compasses. Still, perhaps this debacle will result in a turnaround – eventually. Those who saw fit to sign and publish a scandalously untrue and unfair version of events following the sabotage of Prof Faurisson’s final conference in Shepperton have unwittingly declared their own hand and, thankfully, there are still enough sane people around able to recognise that there is something deeply amiss in the accusations laid against me.

One such decent person called round for a visit earlier. Perhaps unintentionally he provided what might be the very final piece of the Shepperton puzzle: a murder mystery now finally solved? Although I didn’t realise at the time, the actual puzzle piece had already been published in yesterday’s article: three photos (see below) from Hope Not Hate’s (HnH) most recent magazine. Publication of the magazine was delayed, as confirmed by the article mentioning me on page 38. I realised only after my friend had left and after publishing yesterday’s post that this HnH article might well be the key to the entire mystery.

 

 

Let me again cite the relevant passage from the article:

“Edmonds and Chabloz marching alongside each other was made the more interesting as he was at the time party to a soon to be released denouncement of Chabloz, decrying her a “traitor and saboteur.”

After my friend had gone home, I remembered that the only time I had seen this same incongruous assertion – that Richard Edmonds already knew before the NF Remembrance Day parade I was to be denounced – was in an email sent by Edmonds November 26th. This email was then forwarded to me by one of his correspondents December 2nd. The email begins :

“[…] Dear All,

Yes, a calamity and a very unpleasant business. Yes, I was proud to stand at the Cenotaph and Yes, I did know most of the facts which have now been revealed on the H.& D. web-site, but Remembrance Day is not the occasion to raise such matters. There has to be a proper time and a place for such.”

The forwarded version sent to me on December 2nd did not include Edmonds’ cc list. In order to narrow down the possibilities of how HnH came about this information, I needed this list. When it arrived, I was surprised to see only a dozen email addresses. One name in particular stood out. In the words of Kate Bush: I raise my hat to the strange phenomena.

In Matthew Collins’ HnH online article dated November 26th – the day after the H&D Shepperton sabotage statement – he claims that a female “reporter” travelled by train with a group of attendees from Waterloo to the conference venue. The segment also mentions Derek Beackon who was indeed part of that group, as was Edmonds along with several other male patriots. However, there was no pre-journey meet-up at any Waterloo pub and Beackon confirmed yesterday that neither Collins nor HnH were discussed at any point during the entire journey. As related in the first post of this series, HnH’s informant must have been an insider, with all trails leading back either to the organisers, to one of the guests, or to a combination of both.

190105 hope not hate

Collins gives us a clue to the identity of his informant: the number of women present at the conference can be counted on the fingers of one hand. We also learn that the female informant must have a strong dislike for Derek Beackon. As well, the alleged caller to HnH passing herself off as “Sophie” can realistically only be a woman – most likely the same person who also provided HnH with a photo of the venue and cars parked outside.

Whilst waiting for Edmonds’ cc list, I tried to find information on Twitter that might indicate when exactly the HnH magazine was published. There is no mention prior to December 19th. However, on Collins’ timeline, I came across the following tweet:

 

Now, I am not suggesting that Collins’ “bezzie – a lightweight and a Sloane” – is the same person whose name jumped out at me on Edmonds’ cc list, but coincidence is indeed a Strange Phenomenon: Collins’ physical and sociological descriptions fit Melinda Cordwell (aka Melissa Caldwell) to a tee; and Cordwell just happens to be one of the handful of women who attended the Shepperton conference. Cordwell and HnH are fully aware of the ongoing spat between Michele Renouf, Peter Rushton and myself. Mostly likely they also knew or at least suspected that I was banned from attending the conference.

As well as a marked lack of enthusiasm for WW2 historical revisionism, Cordwell is another woman who dislikes me intensely, even more than she dislikes Renouf. There’s also evidence to suggest that she is not particularly fond of either Derek Beackon or Richard Edmonds. In one group email forwarded to me by Fredrick Töben dated March 2018, Cordwell counter-attacks complaints made against David Irving whilst lobbying to have Renouf and I evicted from revisionist ranks. A further digital trail consisting of posts on VNN UK forum leaves little room for doubt: here is a woman scorned, intent on stirring up tensions between revisionists and above all determined to manoeuvre herself into a sphere of influence.

Like Renouf and Cordwell, Julie Lake is no fan of mine either. Lake’s long-winded, non-factual emails likewise testify to her desire to see me excluded from nationalist platforms. Along with Cordwell, both Renouf and Lake are included in Edmond’s cc list whereas, perhaps surprisingly, Rushton is not. Cordwell didn’t add her signature to the H&D statement. Neither did Lake. Maybe they were never asked, but it would be no surprise if they both endorsed and even encouraged publication from behind the scenes.

Despite emails and forum posts bitterly criticising Renouf, Edmonds, Beackon and yours truly, Cordwell’s attitude regards my detractors changed dramatically within just a couple of months. Following Jez Turner’s final court appearance, a few supporters gathered at a local Weatherspoons. Two distinct groups formed. No prizes for guessing where Cordwell chose to position herself. All past animosity was suddenly swept aside and from then on it was all smiles and compliments. Cordwell now best pals with Renouf, Edmonds, et al., – after lamenting having been treated so badly in the past by these same people..? It just doesn’t add up, unless perhaps sums of money were involved – or because Cordwell was persuaded of an opportunity to become part of the “inner circle” at long last?

Cordwell was contacted prior to publication of this article and asked if she was in any way involved with HnH. I also asked her if she owned a VNN Forum account and whether she still stood by her wish to “purge the egotists” from the UK revisionist “closed shop”. Cordwell did not respond.

[Update: events over the past twelve months since this article was first published would tend to confirm that the Hope Not Hate spy in Shepperton that day was in fact Julie Lake.]

One person I have never heard Rushton, Edmonds, Renouf, Lake, Cordwell, et al., complain about is Jez Turner. The world of the UK alt-right elite stopped turning when he was sent to prison and now, under strict licence conditions, he is unlikely – incapable even – to be able to smooth over what has become a gaping abyss within British nationalism-revisionism. But as far as I’m concerned and notwithstanding Turner’s imposed absence, the Judgment Day is nigh for those determined to discredit me (and who now seemingly want to see me sectioned for having the audacity to appeal my conviction and sentence).

 

Above: Jez Turner was sent to prison a week before I received my suspended sentence. Turner’s decision not to appeal was met with consternation from certain UK Revisionists. After organising a fundraiser in his honour from which I was excluded, these same individuals then ganged together to accuse me of sabotage, manslaughter and, when these allegations fell on deaf ears, they then tried to shame me into abandoning my own appeal.

To be fair, no one could have imagined that Prof Faurisson would succumb to a heart attack the next day. Despite the organisers’ wish to discredit me, it also seems highly unlikely that they would risk endangering their guests and the 89-year old Professor – not to mention their own (ahem) reputations – by organising the sabotage of their own meeting. Nevertheless, by way of their all-encompassing desire to see me banished from nationalist circles, my detractors usurped the name of Robert Faurisson in the most shameful and disgraceful manner in order to accuse me of working for the enemy and hold me responsible for the professor’s death. The bigger question, of course, is whether or not such machinations were also implemented in order to discredit and undermine the revisionist cause itself.

Are these self-proclaimed proponents of historical exactitude and free speech willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and face up to the fact that the abyss they themselves created has now become deeper and wider than ever?

Sadly, this damage is unlikely to be repaired any time soon; perhaps also partly due to sloppy inertia on the part of understandably disillusioned male patriots? Having seen very little achievement in practical terms over the course of their political lives and having witnessed never-ending infighting within nationalist ranks, many of them no longer have the will or desire to fight and instead simply prefer to be entertained whilst supping ale.

If I had not spent a substantial slice of life in Switzerland, then perhaps I too would have been subdued into inertia as a result of ever-increasing oppression imposed by successive UK governments. Perhaps the Alpine air and traditional lifestyle help to preserve authenticity and spirit – transient qualities so easily trampled under the jackboots of authoritarian police states.

It’s been an interesting winter so far and I am honoured to have received two New Year Awards from associations dedicated to defending freedom of speech, including the Hutten Award (Adelaide Institute). I am of course also immensely grateful to all those who continue to support me by way of donations and kind messages.

Finally, after this marathon writing session of 5,000 words and endless editing, methinks it will soon be the right time to start singing again. Meanwhile, all patriots, including those still bearing grudges, are welcome to come along and support my appeal which begins at Southwark Crown Court, February 11th, 10 am.

Hail victory!

 

 

My response to Rushton, Renouf and Edmonds, Part 1

This post is the first of a series of three articles addressing the ongoing internecine campaign to oust me from British nationalism-revisionism.

After having blamed me for sabotaging Professor Robert Faurisson’s final conference in Shepperton and then holding me responsible for the 89-year old professor’s death the following day, the pitch coming from my detractors has suddenly shifted into trying to shame me into abandoning my appeal. Spin now also includes mental health smears that I would be “insane”.

Firstly, a brief word about the three signatories of the original Shepperton sabotage statement:

Michele Renouf is the same age as my mother. One regular London Forum attendee, also female, describes Renouf as the “self-appointed Secretary General of the UK Revisionist Closed Shop Union” – an apt appraisal.

In a recent email, former BNP leader Nick Griffin had this to say about Renouf’s involvement in the smear campaign against me:

“I think that the motivation of Renouf is probably simple personal jealousy. She spent several years as the poster-girl of the clique of elderly single men who make up the most visible and noisy section of the ‘far-right’ in Britain, then you came along, younger and with much more ability. No more explanation needed.”

Not wishing to further embarrass Renouf, I shan’t be publishing similar views from other correspondents. However, more information on Renouf is included below.

Veteran nationalist Richard Edmonds is also the same age as my mother. When giving speeches, Edmonds likes to boast about having managed to survive in nationalist politics for so long a) because he’s never made a fool of himself over women and b) because he never mentions people’s names. (Ironically, when former BNP organiser Bob Gertner was also facing internal accusations of working for the enemy, Edmonds supported him on grounds of there being no evidence).

As Edmonds is the person (patsy?) to insist I should abandon my appeal – implying also that I should grovel to the opposition rather than fight back – he might like to take note of legal proceedings during the early 2000s against the late Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, whose appeal led to the Swiss Federal Tribunal reducing his prison sentence for historical revisionism from 15 months to just three.

(N.B. Guillaume/William Nichols was Prof Faurisson’s private secretary for many years. For unknown reasons he gave his approval to the published statement but didn’t actually go as far as signing his own name. Since then, he’s included me in several round-robin emails and even replied to Edmonds’ scaremongering, insisting that I am “sincere, albeit slightly insane”).

Peter Rushton is two years younger than me. Perhaps the fact that he spends most of his time in the company of seniors has caused him to look the same age as my mother? (NB My mother’s stylish dress sense and constant temperament gives her the edge over my detractors any day).

When Rushton was proscribed from the BNP in 2002 following multiple allegations of dubious activity, his written response included the following gem:

“As any fair-minded reader will realise, the issue is not whether I had a legal right to a tribunal. The issue is whether I had a moral right, and far more importantly whether the leadership was really interested in the truth.

If you are interested in finding out the truth of an allegation, the most obvious thing to do is to put the allegation to the person concerned. ‘Evidence’ is not really evidence at all until it has been rigorously tested.

“Griffin and Lecomber, characteristically, preferred not to test any of their ‘evidence’. I and many others were first told that there could be no mention, let alone discussion, of any of the charges, let alone the evidence!”

Crucially, it was Renouf herself who in 2017 told me that Rushton had first made contact with her after he had created two promotional websites: Telling Films and Jailing Opinions.

Like Griffin, historian and investigative journalist Larry O’Hara of Notes From The Borderland is convinced that Rushton, aka Captain Hook (aka Andy Ritchie aka Leo Clitheroe), is a state asset:

[…] Rushton is a long-term Searchlight/state mole, and as the former’s star is waning, it is entirely plausible he has hooked up with HNH [Hope Not Hate] too. In 2002 the Nick Griffin-led BNP expelled him because of cumulative evidence […]. To quote (for the first time anywhere) a contemporary (22/10/02) intelligence report by one of Rushton’s handlers:

“has been at the centre of an ongoing war between various factions within and outside of the BNP. He appears to have Tyndall on side and has set up a NWBNP site to put the case of his supporters. He has also on my advice gone down the Data Protection path to ask to see what they hold on him……He has some heavy people behind him. It could run and run”.

It certainly has ‘run and run’, but maybe has now finally run its course. […] Rather than embarrass Rushton further I merely say this: is it not time, honestly, that Captain slung his Hook?

The ridiculousness of the signatories’ claims against me speaks for itself, as does Edmonds’ latest scaremongering attempt to persuade me to abandon my appeal. Indeed, Rushton’s use of bold text in the H&D online edition of Edmonds’ piece further confirms that he – Rushton – was the instigator of the “strategy” angle all along (= my songs would be a disaster for “real” revisionists) and therefore also the main culprit behind the conspiracy to oust me from British nationalism-revisionism.

See also Rushton’s comment in the new H&D print edition: this fake nationalist doesn’t even have the cojones to mention my name. If Rushton and his editor Mark Cotterill think that intelligent people are likely to believe such garbage, then perhaps it’s worth noting the following “biography” written by Rushton on one of the websites he dedicated to Renouf just over a decade ago:

180505 jailing lies

The only verifiable facts of the above are Renouf’s Australian origins, her move to London in 1970, ballet classes (her mother ran a ballet school) and her marriages – although “happy” would seem to somewhat contradict Renouf’s decision to run off and marry a billionaire. Maybe “happy” simply wasn’t enough and she was in search of wealth and a title as well? Renouf’s only bonafide diploma is her teaching certificate from Australia. The rest is bogus, including claims of Russian nobility and most likely the ballerina pic too.

Despite hard evidence in black and white that both Rushton and Renouf have lied (see photos below) and are still lying through their teeth in order to discredit and defame me, a number of patriots still seem in awe of them. Oh, and before I forget, there is apparently no public record of Rushton ever having obtained a first class degree in History from Oxford. Again according to O’Hara, it was Gerry Gable’s Searchlight that originally published this story years ago. Furthermore, Rushton’s defence witness statement in my original trial was submitted without my prior knowledge. His offering – a few photocopied pages of Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry along with various links from The Guardian and elsewhere – arrived in my inbox as part of my lawyer’s submission to the court.

Above: Rushton’s and Renouf’s claims regards my Vichy 2017 performance were proven to be false after a video of the event was finally released May 2018. 

Returning to the Shepperton debacle, it is now almost impossible to reach any other conclusion: Rushton and Renouf wanted me removed from revisionist circles long before the Shepperton conference actually took place. Several sources who attended the conference have confirmed that Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hate taking credit for following a group of attendees from Waterloo is bunkum. HNH’s informant had to be one of the party and all trails lead back to the organisers themselves, to an invited guest, or to a combination of both.

Perhaps patriots reading this will now begin to understand why UK nationalist politics have repeatedly failed to achieve anything of consequence? As for my appeal, if Rushton, Renouf, Edmonds, et al., truly believe that I should forego my rights and grovel to the opposition, thanking them for the “leniency” of my sentence, then they are hugely mistaken.

More Jewish concern over my conviction as Anglicans flounder

As the old saying goes, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Tony Greenstein is something of a loose canon when it comes to talking about Jewish-ness and Zionism. Hated by my accusers, Greenstein’s petition to have Campaign Against Antisemitism investigated by the Charity Commission was quite a coup, although Greenstein himself was expelled from the Labour Party for – wait for it – “anti-Semitism”.

Greenstein’s latest post condemns my conviction on grounds of wishing to protect freedom of speech, at the same time covering his own back with the old obligatory mental health smear. The first of two notable quotations:

In my view Chabloz should not have been convicted. I also take the view of Raul Hilberg the most distinguished of all Holocaust historians that even holocaust deniers make us question our knowledge of the Holocaust.

Continue reading