The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of “anti-Semitism” isn’t working. Firstly, the term “anti-Semitism” is a misnomer: “Semitic” defines a group of Middle Eastern languages including Arabic and Hebrew. Jewishness is neither an ethnicity, nor a religion. It is simply a mindset. Those whose mindset betrays adherence to the cult of Jewishness i.e. those Jews and non-Jews who consider “Jews” to be a race, are often the ones crying wolf when it comes to allegations of “anti-Semitism”.
During the years I spent teaching in Swiss secondary schools, in-training days were often orientated towards how to motivate a class of musically mixed-ability teenagers to sing together tunefully and with conviction. One of these training days I remember in particular, given by a male colleague who, during a football World Cup championship, had filmed all the participating teams singing their respective national anthems. The lesson was clear: more often than not, teams who sang with passion and heartfelt conviction went on to gain satisfactory results.
International sporting events have long been one of the subtle ways by which Globalists have been able to implement their agenda of mass non-white immigration into European countries. Most noticeable in football, cricket and athletics, multiracial “national” teams have in recent decades become increasingly present on track, field and pitch. Can a cricketer, for example of Pakistani origin born in England, truly harbour the same patriotism for his adoptive country than an Englishman born and bred in England whose northern European genetic makeup is an integral part of his origin and identity?
Sporting professionals who happen to be British citizens born of foreign parents have the choice whether they compete for Britain or for the country from which their parents originated. Is this fair? Does this not raise questions of possible conspiracy? Would this be one reason why English national teams in so many disciplines tend to produce disappointing results?
Shortly before his untimely death, Jonathan Bowden was being driven back from a Nationalist meeting by Jez Turner. On saying their goodbyes, Jonathan thanked Jez, telling him that he was ‘A fighter and a good man’. Jez later revealed in an interview that this is how he would like to be remembered.
Jonathan Bowden’s appraisal of Jez Turner was the inspiration for my latest song, dedicated to all our political prisoners. All proceeds shall go towards funding a new initiative, The Link, set up to assist prisoners of conscience via letter-writing and other fundamental aid.
If you would like to assist our political prisoners, please download the track via BandCamp (see link below). If you prefer, you can send a direct donation using the PayPal button on the right side bar, with mention ‘The Link’, and the money will be forwarded to those responsible. If you choose the latter option, I will send you an mp3 version of the song, which means less commission paid to BandCamp and, therefore, more for the Cause. Many thanks in advance.
Sing a Song of Freedom
For our prisoners of conscience
Turn the tide, bring back
Our love and honest pride
Cherish our belonging
To these islands once so strong
This must be our song
Song of Freedom – click to download
By Karl Radl, first published by Semitic Controversies. Reproduced with kind permission.
Alison Chabloz – the heroic lady who poked fun at the great shibboleth of modern times aka the so-called ‘Holocaust’ – was convicted of uploading ‘three grossly offensive’ songs on YouTube by a Magistrates Court presided over by Judge John Zani. (1) Zani is himself the descendant of Italian immigrants to the UK. (2)
Despite the assorted hype being used by jewish publications like Jewish News – the Times of Israel’s UK subsidiary – claiming that Zani’s verdict was damning. (3) The fact of the matter is that ‘Chabloz was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 after District Judge John Zani found the material to be “grossly offensive”. There is no law specifically against Holocaust denial in the UK.’ (4)
While the Jewish Chronicle buried the following important observation at the very end of their article: ‘Because District Judge Zani’s ruling was at a magistrates’ court, it does not set a binding precedent.’ (5)
Today, I watched Vincent Lapierre’s EetR report on last week’s hearing at the court of appeal in Paris where patriot and author, Hervé Ryssen, stated his case against a 17-month prison sentence demanded by the state procurator and usual anti-racist [sic] busybody organisations (LICRA, SOS Racisme, Jewish Students Union, etc.)
First off, a slight correction as to my speculations yesterday regards the Tommy Robinson affair. Apparently, Robinson was aware of reporting restrictions on the case. He simply did not understand why these restrictions were in place, namely to avoid jury contamination. Everyone has the right to fair trial. Similar restrictions are currently in place for several high-profile nationalist trials. We cannot complain about contempt rules only when it suits us. Readers will have decide for themselves whether or not Robinson’s actions were deliberately intended to a) jeopardise potential convictions and/or b) to deflect attention away from my case. The most relevant point is that it is indeed the issue of free speech which is the prime motivator of current support for Robinson. We now need to open his supporters’ eyes to those who are in fact behind the desire to further limit our most precious of freedoms.
Last Friday, same day as my guilty verdict was pronounced, founder of the EDL (English Defence League) Tommy Robinson was arrested outside a court in Leeds, reportedly for contempt of court.
Reporting restrictions are in place and therefore details are somewhat confused.