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

For the Record: UK ‘patriots’ distinguish themselves by emulating enemy tactics

It was bound to happen again sooner or later. The fact that so-called ‘patriots’ waited until my Appeal was just a fortnight away already indicates the level of chicanery that abounds within certain sections of British nationalism.

181127 hnh
Above: ‘High profile’ Chabloz needed to denounced and ‘surgically removed’ from movement circles. But why? 

As organiser of a conference on ‘historical exactitude’, why would any self-respecting free-speech advocate behave in the exact same way as Holo-believers when faced with rational debate and when asked to produce evidence? Smears, ad hominem and accusatory inversion is all they have? Moreover, why would any White nationalist engage in such disgraceful and delusional behaviour against kith and kin?

Another early Channukah gift for the usual suspects who, in the same manner as my ‘nationalist’ detractors, wish to see me silenced, censored, deplatformed and my means of earning a crust via donations for my work removed.

Oh, but –

“I’ve been in nationalist politics for x years, blah, blah…”

– Oh really? Pray tell, WHAT exactly have you achieved?

Critically-minded individuals who uphold western values of moral integrity, decency and free speech will understand that this latest infantile attack amounts to little more than a pile of conjectural hogwash from people who either should know better, or whose motive involves malice.

Fence-sitters are politely informed that their non-involvement sums up all that is wrong with British nationalism today.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Further reading:

For the Record: Tall Poppy Syndrome and The Plight of British Nationalism

Brexit resisted? The Henshaw/Hope Not Hate ITV documentary on ‘Britains’ New Far Right’