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.
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.
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…
Of the many moving tributes following the recent death of Robert Faurisson, the video below is one of the most pertinent I have seen so far. Using today’s technology – featuring a mise en scène and dresscode worthy of note and which would certainly have met with Robert Faurisson’s approval – Alain Soral regales viewers with his in-a-nutshell analysis of the crucial importance of historical revisionism and the inestimable contribution made by Robert Faurisson.
Alain Soral is the founder of Égalité et Réconciliation, the leading dissident publication in France with seven million monthly clicks. He is also head of the publishing house Kontre Kulture. Mr Soral kindly granted me permission to translate his incisive impromptu text and redistribute the video below with voiceover in English. You can find the original here.
Many thanks to all who continue to support the revisionist cause.