Last week, Hope Not Hate (HNH) ‘Head of Intel’ Matthew Collins was forced to delete a series of five tweets about me after I complained to both his boss, Nick Lowles, and to Twitter:
Like many of us who champion the cause of historical revisionism, I am wedded to the idea of establishing the truth of what actually took place in Germany during World War Two. The official narrative of a past event, branded as a ‘holocaust’ of Jews living under the Third Reich – whilst no longer having credibility, historiographically speaking, – is now implemented, – i.e. shoved down our throats by ZOG at every possible opportunity, neatly assisted by Hollywood and the media, – as the latest imposed religion for the Goyim. You’d better believe in the six million, or else!
Like many who champion the revisionist cause, but not all, I am the victim of state-sponsored persecution, prosecution and a two year suspended prison sentence; not so much for my firm belief that the main posits of the official narrative simply do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but for having ridiculed and blasphemed, in song, this founding myth of Globalism that is the so-called ‘Holocaust’ and, worse still, for pouring scorn on those who strive to maintain the ‘Holocaust’ myth.
Merely questioning or indeed pointing out the lack of forensic evidence can lead to a spell behind bars, especially in German-speaking countries. Sylvia Stolz is once again in prison in Germany for a speech given in Switzerland. The list goes on: 90-year old Ursula Haverbeck jailed for posing difficult questions on the same subject; ditto for Horst Mahler, now in a secure medical wing after suffering a second leg amputation due to poor health care in prison; in Austria, meanwhile, Wolfgang Fröhlich has at last been freed after serving 15 years – for expressing an opinion. Surely Fröhlich must be the main contender for the 2020 Prix Robert Faurisson?
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. […]
No idea why YouTube sent me notification of the video captioned below. Tommy’s dual-citizen Zionist
handlers fans might ask themselves if they’re now having to reap what they’ve sown over the past decade and more…
Above: Brian of London reaps what he sows…
My grateful thanks to The Barnes Review for dedicating eight pages in their latest edition to an interview I gave to author Dave Gahary last year.
The magazine is the world’s leading revisionist periodical; its editorial team has staunchly resisted onslaughts by the anti free speech brigade since 1994, thanks to the philosophy of its founder and creator, the late Willis Carto.
It is an honour and privilege that my small contribution is recognised by leading revisionists.
Yesterday’s spin from Zionist-controlled mass media regards ‘Holocaust’ Memorial Day 2019 was slightly different than in preceding years. There were, of course, plenty of films and documentaries meant to reinforce the current state religion of Holocaustianity – the world’s newest foundation myth, created in order to control western society and prevent Europeans from attaining their full potential.
From The Guardian – whose founder’s motto, ironically, was Comment is free but facts are sacred:
Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, said: “As each year the number of Holocaust survivors able to share their personal testimony diminishes, our responsibility to honour their experience, to educate the uninitiated grows ever greater if we are to ensure that Jews can live as safely as all other European citizens.
“On 27 January, the world will unite to remember all the victims of the Holocaust – let their voices give us the call to action we need to work together, united, to ensure the future of the Europe we know.”
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.
[…] 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:
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.
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.
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.
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…