Over the past week we have learned from a study carried out by an Israeli think tank that Zionist leaders lie most of the time. Surely not?! Some would go even further, stating that Zionists in general lie most of the time. Despite Zionism’s original tenet of emancipation from religious Judaism by way of creating a homeland for Jews (Zionism = Jewish nationalism), the ideology of Zionism now relies heavily on the secular religious dogma of the ‘Holocaust’.
As well as being the principle reason behind the foundation of the state of Israel, the ‘Holocaust’ is now also the main identifier of Jewish-ness and, as most Jews are Zionists by default and seeing as our institutions are dominated by Zionists, Holocaustianity has become the main religion not only of Israel but of the western world in general. Zionists therefore have a quasi religious duty to lie, even to themselves.
Also over the past week or two, I have received numerous emails from The Jewish Chronicle (JC), partly explained in my recent posts. 90% of these emails are from editor, Stephen Pollard, whose role apparently also includes that of Data Protection Officer(!). In short, Mr Pollard refuses to comply with my Subject Access Request on the grounds that he is entitled to demand verified identification, in this case a ‘certified’ copy of my passport. More on this in my next post.
Other recent emails from the JC include one from the Head of News as well as several from reporter Ben Weich who has been following my case since earlier this year. Tuesday, Mr Weich asked for a statement explaining why I laid a wreath in honour of the 784 British soldiers killed during the Palestine Campaign at the Remembrance Day Parade organised by the National Front (NF). I duly complied and my statement is properly mentioned in an article in the online edition. Before publication late on Wednesday afternoon, Mr Weich asked if I would also like to respond to two comments made by the Community Security Trust (CST) and Hope Not Hate’s Jemma Levene. To paraphrase the angle taken by both organisations: Chabloz’ appearance alongside the ‘neo-fascist’ NF to lay a wreath in honour of British soldiers who served in Palestine must mean she’s an anti-Semite.
Better suited to my own website, here is my response…
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”.
Ben Weich in this week’s edition of the Jewish Chronicle confirms the gist of my previous post: police have received yet another vexatious complaint from the usual suspects and are therefore obliged to fulfil their duty and investigate my heretical comments regards Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. On and on it goes…
Today, I would like to comment on the atrocious double standards being applied by the English court system when it comes to so-called ‘hate crime’. I will return to foreign justice systems in a future article, specifically dealing with the current plights of Ursula Haverbeck and the Schaefer siblings in Germany (not forgetting Horst Mahler and Gerhard Ittner), as well as that of Canadian free speech advocate, Arthur Topham.
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)
Subjected to further censorship on YouTube, in this video I have translated a recent upload by Vincent Reynouard who helps us understand why revisionism is crucial to the struggles we face.
I re-uploaded the intro to my original video which has now been censored by YouTube, including in my home country the United Kingdom. In anticipation of my adversaries making a fraudulent complaint, I prepared a separate short clip, instructing viewers who want to continue watching to go to BitChute where the full version is now uploaded with revised subtitles in the French-spoken sections.
Link to full version also below. Please feel free to download, share, mirror and use on your platforms.