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.
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.
*Updated and revised, April 9 2018.
Support for my right to freedom of expression was never going to strongly manifest itself in mainstream press reports. Social media provides a more balanced outlook, although most alt-lite personalities dare not broach the subject of my prosecution. It was interesting to note some tentative mainstream support for Markus Meecham aka Count Dankula, found guilty last month in Scotland of causing gross offence after teaching his girlfriend’s pug to lift its paw on the command ‘Gas the Jews!’.
Meecham now has over 90,000 Twitter followers and 170,000 YouTube subscribers: being found guilty certainly hasn’t put a spanner in his works. Contrary to my songs, it seems Count Dankula’s mischief-making is not considered to be that much of an effective weapon against New World Order orthodoxy. Indeed, Meecham has since been compensated for his sins with a media career. Even Tommy Robinson turned out to report on the recovering communist’s trial. Doubtful that Israel-loving Yaxley-Lennon will be doing the same when the time comes for my verdict to be pronounced. Also unlikely that Ricky Gervais, David Baddiel and Jonathan Pie will be voicing their concerns – as they did regards Meecham – if I, too, am found guilty.
Continue reading
Thanks to everyone who sent messages of support and donations following my trial part one last month in London. Part two is scheduled for March 7th, same time, same place. All support welcome.
In just nine days’ time, I will once again be in court, on this occasion for my long-awaited trial. Of course, there is no guarantee that proceedings will be over there and then: the enemies of freedom and justice have a nasty habit of trying to drag things out for as long as possible, in the hope of extracting a guilty plea from those they take sadistic pleasure in persecuting. As my father would say: they can whistle!
On the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s website, there is a fairly recent article written in typically gloating fashion concerning my prosecution (for singing songs) which states that Alison Chabloz is not ‘an important person’. Those at the CAA helm, on the other hand, clearly do consider themselves to be important, a fact outlined in numerous articles brimming with over-inflated rhetoric and self-praise. No holds barred when it comes to CAA’s own admissions to meddling with the authorities, producing yet more anti-white ‘Holocaust’ propaganda, currying favour with high-ranking government officials via social invitations and meetings during which the obvious aim is to influence chief constables, police and crime commissioners, judges and anyone else they can manipulate.
As far as I am aware, I am the only artist in modern British history to have been jailed for the heinous crime of composing and singing satirical songs which I uploaded to the Internet.
In four weeks time, my trial will take place in London and the three songs concerned will be screened in court. Two clips will show songs from my appearance at The London Forum in September 2016 in front of an audience of roughly 100 people who, considering the standing ovation I received at the end, clearly enjoyed my performance. The third clip is of a song which contains the word SATIRE in the title, which leads me to the point of this blog post.
Continuing from my previous post, as well as from the main topic of my recent videos, i.e. YouTube censorship, I feel it is necessary at this point to dwell somewhat on the double standards imposed by certain countries regards freedom of expression, especially when it comes to one particular historical event, namely, the ‘Holocaust’.
According to Wikipedia, 22 nations have laws which forbid either explicit denial of the ‘Holocaust’ or else denial of genocides in general. Although the list in part mirrors YouTube’s censored list, there are several notable exceptions: Russia, Spain, Portugal, Liechtenstein and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why are these nations resistant to YouTube’s legal complaints? And how come Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia and the United Kingdom figure on the list when these countries do not have any anti-revisionist laws?
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.
Update:
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.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6Ycc718PAm8g/
Asides attempting to secure a conviction by arguing that a hyperlink posted to a blog page constitutes sending grossly offensive material, the prosecution will also have to persuade the judge that the content of my songs is indeed grossly offensive.
A difficult task, when there exists no legal definition of grossly offensive, not to mention an array of examples which would suggest that it is I, myself, who is being targeted rather than my songs.
Alison Chabloz 
You must be logged in to post a comment.