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?
A couple of comments on my recent YouTube videos have expressed dislike for the curtain – an Indian print – which I have been using as a backdrop. The print doesn’t belong to me and it certainly doesn’t belong to my mother who, I should say, has a more classical taste when it comes to interior design and soft furnishings. Personally, I think the issue has more to do with poor lighting rather than the print itself and I shall try to remedy the situation in the near future.
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.
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.
By and large, the general public accepts the given narrative of WW2. The victors get to write history, thereafter ensuring that their version of events is reinforced by way of education, media and, in particular, the funding of onside lawmakers who will eventually be persuaded to bring about legislation that will effectively silence dissenting views. Here in the UK, my court case proceedings show that we are teetering on the brink of a ‘Holocaust’ denial law, as it were, being ushered in through the back door. Nevertheless, if I am found guilty in January, the appeal process will be used, if necessary to the highest level. A brief update of Monday’s hearing can be found here.
Two days ago, Google alerted me to a recent request for deletion regards the Campaign Against Antisemitism Wikipedia article which contains a ‘Litigation’ section discussing the private prosecution brought against me by CAA Chairman, Gideon Falter.