Update: five months on and still no charge

Derbyshire police have dropped the three possible pending charges relating to my arrest on suspicion of harassment and incitement last November (see my previous posts). All that’s left now are two malicious communications charges, for sharing the London Forum video of September’s Grosvenor Hotel performance, which the CPS thus far has failed to serve on me properly by (conveniently?) not paying postage.

Several of my contacts with knowledge of English law and court proceedings have told me that costs so far would already amount to tens of thousands of pounds. If I go to trial in July and lose, I will appeal which will carry the total into the hundreds of thousands – all at the expense of UK taxpayers.

As well as the police and CPS investigations, there have already been three hearings at Westminster Magistrates Court in front of three different judges. Chief Magistrate Baroness Arbuthnot was obliged to quietly recuse herself after it was revealed she’d been on an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel as part of a delegation with the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Now that my case has been taken over from foreign lobbying group Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) by the Crown, the CPS have their top counter-terrorism lawyer on board as well as a big-shot barrister and we mustn’t forget the cost of police protection necessary to fend off  Jewish Defence League (JDL) thug protests outside court.

Asides a straggle of limpet-like gang-stalkers whose lives would no doubt be completely empty if they weren’t intent on trolling my every post on Gab or YouTube, the usual culprits are all uncharacteristically subdued. News of Derbyshire police having dropped all charges won’t be music to fishwives‘ ears, nor to those down at CAA head office.

After my trial was adjourned last month, I was supposed to receive a new charge sheet by first class post on March 25. When I opened the letter, it was a simple bail sheet and the above-mentioned charges are described as ‘cases’. April 3, I received notification from the local post office that they had an undelivered item which I could collect after paying £2. The next day, I went to the delivery office and saw that the item was in fact the charge sheet. The lady behind the desk said I was entitled to refuse because the sender had failed to stamp or frank the letter. Maybe my gang-stalkers need to have a whip-round in aid of CPS postal charges?

Therefore, I have still not been formally charged with any crime. The charges of malicious communications for sharing a video (not uploaded by me to YouTube) are confusing to say the least. No one is being forced to visit my blog and watch the video.  For the past five months, I have been effectively gagged, unable to share my thoughts on social media and unable to look for work: my computer is still with police and I have no idea when it will be returned. My trial is now adjourned and, depending on legal arguments to be heard in front of District Judge John Zani on June 23, is provisionally rescheduled for July 17.

Despite these inconveniences, I can count 12 successful performances this year so far.  In January, I was invited to perform with Italian tenor, Giuseppe Fallisi in Vichy on the occasion of Professor Faurisson’s 88th birthday. I appeared again at the London Forum in February in the illustrious company of David Irving, David Shayler and Vincent Reynouard. A week later, I flew to Toronto for a nine-day, eight-city tour of Canada sponsored by Paul Fromm’s Canadian Association For Freedom of Expression (CAFE) and last month I was a speaker at the Forum de la Nation in Lyon, France where Fallisi and I again gave a performance of his compositions based on poems by Rimbaud, Verlaine and Baudelaire.

My gagging order prevented me from speaking openly about these events, but it did not prevent the Canadian press from appeasing various Jewish organisations which had the gall to associate my tour with a series of bomb threats sent to synagogues, later found to have been the work of an Israeli Jew. My parents also received unwelcome attention from the press when BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent, Martin Bashir, tried and failed to doorstep me. I had already declined to make any comment to the past interviewer of Princess Diana and Michael Jackson: it’s not as if the BBC is suddenly going to start reporting fairly about ‘Holocaust’ revisionism.

Following last month’s adjournment, I did however accept several alternative media broadcasts which you can find on YouTube. I will leave links below as well as to my PayPal account and where to purchase a copy of my EP. Thanks to all my readers and supporters. Long live free speech.

 

Alison Chabloz “I’m Being Prosecuted & Persecuted For My Satirical Anti-Zionist Songs.”

Antisemitism Harassment Campaign and The Law with Alison Chabloz

Radio Aryan Alison Chabloz Court Case Update – March 23rd 2017

Canadian Jewish groups troubled by UK blogger’s visit

PayPal – For those wishing to support me. Many thanks

Songs of the Shoah

 

 

 

Faurisson risks jail for 60-word summary of his research during Tehran conference

A brief resumé of the hearing held last week in Paris, by Alison Chabloz.

In contrast to the Court of Appeal hearing given last March, this latest bout of Ziocon persecution of revisionist, Robert Faurisson, was held in the 17° Chambre Correctionelle of the High Court at the Palais de Justice in Paris, ensuring that numerous members of the public who’d gathered there to support the professor were able to witness the proceedings from the court room’s spacious gallery.

Starting an hour late owing to the morning session having overrun the allocated time-slot, magistrates initially dealt with several other cases, lasting for almost another hour, before it was the turn of the world’s foremost ‘Holocaust’ revisionist to defend himself against three separate charges. There was no apology forthcoming from the court for this delay which of course had the negative effect of reducing valuable debating time as well as causing magistrates to rush the proceedings.

Two charges for contesting a crime against humanity (one of which brought by former Justice Minister, Pascal Clément) and a third for racial defamation brought by the LICRA – Ligue contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme.

All three complaints targeted a speech made by the professor in 2006 at a conference on the ‘Holocaust’ in Tehran, Iran. A star witness in the person of Lady Michele Renouf who had travelled from London for the hearing would testify after the initial debates. For once, the number of lawyers on the accused benches seemed to outnumber those of the prosecution by five to two (five to three, if we include the state prosecutor). In reality, however, Robert Faurisson’s defence was assured by Maître Damien Viguier alone. Three immense dossiers were produced and placed on the judge’s desk almost completely hiding the magistrate himself. Cue: hushed, slightly amused tittering from the public benches.

The defence’s principle argument rested on the fact that Faurisson’s speech in Tehran had been delivered in English and had lasted only ten minutes. As his speech had been given outside French territory, French law would not apply. In this case, however, it was the professor’s written essay The Victories of Revisionism, published in Tehran then distributed on the Internet, that had led to the three charges. The article details the major successes of Robert Faurisson’s revisionist career and, in particular, confessions of his adversaries which substantiate the professor’s outright technical and moral victory over his detractors. It is this same article which Maître Viguier uses consistently in defence of his client during the many trials brought by a judicial system which is plainly rotten to the core.

The judge, a man in his forties with curly, dark ginger hair and a beard, began by reading Faurisson’s article (see Part 1 and Part 2). The longer the reading went on, the more the judge seemed to be taking in Faurisson’s words. Towards the end, the judge’s face had completely disappeared behind the hand-held, stapled bundle of A4 sheets.

Faurisson’s counsel, Maître Vigiuer, asked that the two complaints for contesting crimes against humanity be nullified because of legal non-compliance. After a short break for deliberation, the court reserved its ruling in relation to this matter until September 27. Thus, only the third charge of ‘racial defamation’ would be deliberated on this humid afternoon in the centre of the French capital.

The charge of defamation brought by LICRA concerned the following passages of Faurisson’s article:

“President Ahmadinejad (then head of the Islamic Republic of Iran) used the right word when he said that the alleged Holocaust of the Jews is a myth: that is to say, a belief maintained by credulity or ignorance.

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of Jews form one and the same historical lie, which allowed a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

The accusation’s charge of defamation lay solely on the ‘argument’ that, by these statements, Faurisson was clearly targeting the Jewish community. The judge asked Faurisson to explain.

Faurisson’s retorts were confident and unrelenting: citing Israel and international Zionism is not the same as citing “the Jews”. The public as well as the officers of the court present were then treated to an hour and a half’s exposé by the man himself. Unlike orthodox historians who merely repeat the given narrative, he would actually go out on the job, tape measure in hand. The 60-word phrase, he explained, is the summary of his lifetime’s work in the field of revisionism. As he advised his students, the key to success when researching any subject is the ability to resume this work in a phrase of approximately 60 words. The enormous body of work he carried out began in the 1960s when he first asked:

“Show me a photo, an architect’s plan or even a drawing of a gas chamber.”

Faurisson continued his testimony with an explanation of Rudolf Höss’ witness statement at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, gained via torture, in particular sleep deprivation. Then, a brief lesson on the explosive quality of Zyklon-B with analysis of actual execution chambers which employ this same gas (no longer used) in the USA. In the 187 pages of court transcripts from Nuremberg concerning Auschwitz, practically nothing is dedicated to the subject of gassing.

The professor went on to expose the lies of Elie Wiesel in his book Night as well as other fabrications concerning execution by boiling water at Treblinka which also feature in the Nuremberg transcript. So many false witnesses: only last week we learned of yet another in the news.

The judge, at this point, interjects with “You’ve therefore not modified your proposals after all this time..?” The female magistrate present appears to have fallen asleep! Such is the contempt for Faurisson’s indisputable strength of character, as apparent and all the more humbling here and now, at the grand old age of 87, as when he started his research more than six decades ago. Faurisson’s conclusions are based on fact, documented evidence, repeatable scientific experiment and, above all, are the fruit of a lifetime’s study and research. What reason other than insanity would make him change his proposals “after all this time”?

Faurisson elaborates on the magical six million number. In August, 1944, Wilhelm Hötll, friend of Eichman, gave a witness statement purporting that the sensational sum could be reached by adding the four million in Auschwitz ‘extermination camp’ to another two million slain Soviets. This was the first time the phrase extermination camp was used in place of concentration camp. However, Hötll was never called to testify at Nuremberg.

The prosecution declines the opportunity to grill Faurisson; Maître Vigiuer invites the professor to talk about the conference in Iran.

Contrary to media reports, the 2006 conference was inclusive of all opinions concerning the ‘Holocaust’. The professor remembers one adversary challenging him to go to the National Archives in Washington where he would see the evidence that his findings were erroneous. The poor fellow hadn’t bargained on the professor already having been to these very same archives where, amongst other clues, he uncovered documents relating to the 32 RAF sorties over Auschwitz, none of which had succeeded in showing smoke billowing out from the crematoria chimneys.

Maître Viguier questions the professor further on the origin of all these lies surrounding the “Holocaust”. Faurisson replies that it’s impossible to say; the rumour runs and runs. The CICR had also heard rumours of gas chambers at Auschwitz, yet their investigation team was unable to find anyone confirming these rumours. Even Eric Conan in French weekly, L’Express, said of the gas chamber exhibit at Auschwitz “Tout y est faux” – everything is false. 1.7 million people visit Auschwitz annually.

At this point, the judge decides to call Lady Renouf to hear her witness statement. As this will be in English, the court has arranged for an accredited translator to be present. After giving her name and details, Lady Renouf first congratulates Maître Viguier for his bravery in accepting to defend the professor. Her witness statement follows in short phrases which are immediately translated for the benefit of the court. We hear confirmation that Faurisson’s speech was an impromptu affair which lasted only ten minutes and Lady Renouf makes reference to the professor’s English-spoken heritage, owed to his mother being a Scot. She repeats Faurisson’s anecdote, often used to introduce himself to an English-speaking audience, that his French ear should not listen to his Scottish ear because, whereas Scottish law permits inquiry and research into the “Holocaust”, French law does not.

Linguistic confusion arises when Lady Renouf speaks of guidelines (in French, “les consignes”) on how the “Holocaust” should be taught in schools, published in Stockholm in 2000. The translator is unable to translate the word for guidelines, using “guides” instead. Whether or not the greffière recorded a corrected version is uncertain; perhaps the court thought that Lady Renouf was talking about “tour guides”, at Auschwitz or elsewhere?

The Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust where the ‘Holocaust’ education guidelines were first announced was also the site of two physical attacks on Faurisson by Jewish terrorist organisation LDJ (Ligue de Défence Juive or Jewish Defence League). These guidelines instruct all public and private schools worldwide not to give a platform to revisionists. Lady Renouf summarises, stating that historical debate and rational argument do not seem to be part of educational guidelines on this subject. There are no questions from the court.

Maître Viguier promptly urges the professor to talk about a case dating back to 1983 when he was accused of “falsifying history”. Faurisson explains that this was the catalyst which led to creation of the 1990 Fabius-Gayssot Act. He also recalls the work of British historian and semi-revisionist David Irving, along with the fact that neither Churchill nor de Gaulle ever mention any gas chambers. In fact, during WW1 already, UK national the Daily Express had written about enemy gas chambers as early as 1914. An investigation after the war ended in 1918 proved that the story was a propaganda lie. Again, in 1943, the same story about gas chambers appears in the Daily Express. This time, however, there was no similar post-war investigation. Another piece of vital evidence is the documented case of Marinka in Russia where the local mayor was shot dead by the German army for killing a Jewish woman. Many such examples exist yet are suppressed from public knowledge.

The professor then relates his victories over Raul Hilberg and Jean-Claude Pressac; cites Valerie Igounet’s book of smears Histoire du négationnisme en France and tells us that Ariane Chemin didn’t know who Hilberg was when she interviewed the professor in Vichy for Le Monde newspaper. Faurisson also names the director of Yad Vashem 1953-1959, Ben-Zion Dinur, who resigned after coming to the realisation there were far too many false witnesses.

Change of tone as Mâitre Christian Charrière-Bournazel representing LICRA comes to the bar. He’s clearly unhappy about having been forced to listen to Faurisson for two hours (in reality Faurisson had only spoken for an hour and a half), although it’s doubtful Charrière-Bournazel will be complaining quite so much when he receives his fat fee. The only accusation is restricted to the same, tired refrain: when Faurisson mentions the state of Israel and international Zionism, Faurisson means Jews. Faurisson is a racist. Faurisson has already been prosecuted and convicted , etc., etc.

The state prosecutor raises even more eyebrows as she tries to stabilise her microphone (no working mic and a dodgy translator suggest the French judiciary can’t afford to run their courts properly?). Diabolical smears regards Faurisson’s personality as well as the obligatory jibe about using the court room as a platform from which, according to Madame la Procureure, Faurisson would take immense gratification. Perhaps the most telling phrase amongst all the outright lies and smears (paid for by the French tax payer, of course) is when the prosecutor states Faurisson should no longer be given the possibility of further court appearances.

Maître Viguier once again stands to contest the accusation’s claims. That the professor’s words in Tehran constitute ‘defamation’ is a fraudulent lie. The professor’s work is that of an historian. Viguier protests his colleague’s conflation of Israel and Jews, defiantly and correctly stating that conflict in the Middle East could be seen as one direct result of the lies of the Shoah. Faurisson’s work, he insists, will last as long as does this mensonge (“lie”). Viguier deplores the moral order inflicted upon revisionists in the name of war and war crimes, and which effectively prevents revisionists from doing their job.

The judge invites Faurisson to have the last word. Faurisson is finally able to respond to Charrière-Bournazel’s earlier attacks by comparing the lawyer’s attitude and manner to that of an enflure (in the sense of over-exaggerated, self-important, turgid). This warrants an admonishment of Faurisson by the judge, who then fails to chastise Charrière-Bournazel for leaving the court in a show of brazen pomposity whilst Faurisson is still speaking.

Faurisson finishes with another couple of examples of dubious witness statements and mistranslations which have been used by propagandists to bolster the case for a presumed genocide of countless Jews. We’re told of the wildly varying death toll estimates and asked why those who revised the official Auschwitz death toll – down from four to one-and-a-half million – were not punished in the same atrocious manner which Faurisson has been subjected to throughout his career.

The prosecution is demanding a month’s prison sentence and a 3,000 euro fine in the event of a guilty verdict. We shall now have to wait to September 27 to hear the court’s ruling.

Further reading:

The revisionists’ total victory on the historical and scientific level

An English Revisionist in Paris

March 18 2016

Yesterday, March 17, I was present at the Court of Appeal in Paris for what was announced as The Trial of the Century. The trial was centred around a 2011 documentary film by Paul-Eric Blanrue, Un homme, based on the life and work of the world’s foremost “Holocaust” revisionist, Professor Robert Faurisson. The original case against both men was instigated after yet another contrived complaint by French Jewish ‘anti-racism’ association, LICRA (Ligue contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme). Following the discovery of a judicial error by the men’s legal team, the original ‘guilty’ verdict was thrown out, hence this appeal brought by the French state prosecution.

Well over 100 fans of Professor Faurisson were in attendance to support this most honourable man. Despite the importance of the case with regards to freedom of expression and brutal censorship brought about by the promulgation of the 1990 Fabius-Gayssot Act ‘anti-denial’ law, the Parquet de Paris made sure that the audience was held in the tiniest room of the Palais de Justice with just 15 public seats which were given to independent journalists.

The proceedings lasted over two hours. Spontaneous applause broke out several times as the professor and his lawyer, Damien Viguier, entered and left the minuscule chambre 7. Afterwards, in the more spacious corridor outside the chambre, the 87-year old professor gave another lesson in humility and determination and I was able to present myself and sit next to him whilst he signed copies of his books in the most elegant handwriting.

The day before, I had been lucky enough to travel to Zürich to meet Gerard Menuhin, son of famous musician Yehudi and grandson of Moshe (who spent his youth in Palestine in the early 1900s). More about that in another blog; just to say that meeting two of the world’s most respected and important revisionists meant that this has been quite a week.

As well as having the chance to shake hands with these gentlemen, I also met several other notable, like-minded souls. As I explained to one man, the fact that I can speak French was certainly an important factor in my conversion to revisionism. And, as I explained in my recent Information Underground radio interview, before I came to be a revisionist, I was already active in the pro-Palestinian movement. It was Nicolas Anelka‘s quenelle after scoring for West Bromwich Albion in December 2013 which was the turning point, leading me to discover the work of Dieudonné, Alain Soral and, most importantly, Robert Faurisson. And it was my own quenelle gesture at last year’s Edinburgh Fringe Festival which put me firmly on the revisionist map.

*

Needless to say, mainstream media outlets haven’t even mentioned yesterday’s appeal. The press is more interested in giving a voice and a platform to terrorist Anders Breivik, guilty of murdering 77 white, Norwegian youngsters and who appeared this week in court to contest his ongoing solitary confinement: cue the obligatory photos of Breivik’s ‘Nazi’ salute as the proceedings began.

Breivik was reportedly ‘inspired’ to carry out his evil attack by arch-Islamophobe and über-Zionist Jew, Pamela Geller. It seems Breivik is being used to further smear National Socialism and, for the press, his voice and fake ‘Nazi’ salute would be more newsworthy than the academic, scientific, factual, historical findings of revisionists.

Although the general public is as yet unaware of revisionism’s total victory on all counts, revisionism’s enemies know that, for them, the battle is lost. Indeed, in January, the World Jewish Congress published a piece on its website proclaiming the world to be ‘full of Holocaust deniers’. Revisionism is flourishing all over the world, mainly thanks to the Internet, but not forgetting the counter-productive effect of repressive laws which attack our most precious freedom: the right to think for ourselves and be able to express our opinions without fear of censorship.

For over 50 years, Robert Faurisson has waged intellectual warfare on those determined to silence him. His enemies are, of course, enraged. European leaders in the style of David Cameron and Manuel Valls have recently moved to outlaw the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the rogue state of Israel. The UK Jewish lobby has been desperately trying to force the UK justice system to set a precedent with regard to anti-Zionist comment online and several people have been arrested and their computers seized. It is doubtful, however, that any charges will be brought as these would need to be approved by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) as well as by the Attorney General.

My own case of being institutionally harassed by elements within the UK Zionist lobby is finally being treated by police – one reason why I have refrained from blogging for the past three months – and, hopefully, a charge of malicious communications will be brought against my abusers who, like Breivik, are staunch supporters of Jewish supremacist Geller.

In the northern hemisphere as winter turns to spring, I feel more able to speak freely about revisionism, even with total strangers. Weary of political and media gangsters who feign disgust whilst shouting Zionist keyword phrases such as antisemitic “Holocaust” denier and far-right, Nazi extremist, I find it’s best to ignore their whining and concentrate instead on spreading the primordial message of revisionism as elucidated by Robert Faurisson in his 60-word (French) phrase, uttered in 1980 and still as true as ever today:

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

Thanks to Robert Faurisson, the new Jewish religion of the “Holocaust” with its Zyklon B-filled Holy Grail has been exposed as a load of gaseous nonsense. The court of appeal is due to announce its ruling on May 19. Whatever the verdict, revisionism has already won the day.

Long live revisionism! Long live Faurisson!

Thought crime trials reveal state-sponsored discrimination

November has been a dark month for freedom. Indeed, the recent deadly attacks in Paris have served to overshadow several ever-more ghastly attempts by Zionist organisations to stifle freedom of expression. Worst of all, this assault on our most precious of human rights – to be allowed to think for ourselves – is supported by nation states defined as secular western liberal democracies.

Freedom of expression is the well-spring of democracy yet this month we’ve seen state prosecutions lead to jail sentences in three of the world’s supposedly most-developed countries :  Ursula Haverbeck in Germany, Arthur Topham in Canada and now a Belgian court has sentenced French comedian Dieudonné to two months in prison for ‘anti-Semitic’ jokes he made during a show in 2012.

Le trophée Faurisson

I’ve been following Dieudonné since the Anelka incident. In January, just after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I went to see his show ‘La bête immonde’ in Lausanne. There is no doubt in my mind that the man is a genius. No amateur of French language and culture could deny the immensity of his writing talent.  Despite a notable lack of any balanced commentary from French and global mainstream media, his greatness is what makes him France’s most successful comedian.  He is indisputably the best by miles.

Twice in the space of a fortnight, world Jewry’s public enemy n° 1 stand-up comedian has been again the subject of rigid press releases citing past convictions meant to impress the reader after the ECHR’s decision not to accept Dieudonné’s appeal concerning Professor Robert Faurisson’s fictive Prize for Infrequentability and Insolence.

By claiming that Faurisson’s appearance was not part of the show itself, the ECHR has effectively validated Faurisson’s prize – making it a reality rather than just a provocative ending to a comedy show in a theatre. The prize should become an annual event, Le Trophée Faurisson, pourquoi pas?

 

Gerard Menuhin is tired of ‘Jewish lies’

Less grey and sinister than thought crime trails – although some would disagree – is a new book by Gerald Menuhin, son of Yehudi Menuhin, ‘Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil‘.  Like his father and grandfather, Moshe, Gerard Menuhin has always been an outspoken critic of Israel and global networks of ‘Jewish power’.

In 2005, following pressure from Jewish ‘anti-racist’ organisations, Menuhin was forced to resign his seat on the board of Germany’s Menuhin Foundation. Similarly, since 2009, there is no indication to be found of Menuhin’s continuing administrative position with the Menuhin Festival Gstaad. During my years in Switzerland I reviewed Menuhin Festival concerts for GstaadLife. Was the festival’s decision to distance itself from Gerard Menuhin ‘aided’ by a lucrative sponsorship offer? Indeed, the 2015 edition entitled Musique & Ironie heralds a new partnership with Edmond de Rothschild.

Citizens all over the world are waking up to the fact that these nominally ‘anti-racist’ organisations along with their lackeys in media and government simply want to suppress information and silence their detractors, if necessary by enforcing ridiculous ‘hate speech’ laws which belong in the Middle Ages. These same fascists are also the ones accusing Islam and Muslims of being backward, simultaneously shouting ‘Je suis free speech’ !

Trying to limit or tailor freedom of expression in favour of one or several ethnic groups to the detriment of others is discrimination, pure and simple. Mainstream outlets are awash with hypocrisy and evidence of the extent and nefariousness of anti-Muslim rhetoric being spread by Zionists identifying as Jews along with their right wing Christian and atheist ‘Libertarian’ allies who make up the mainstream – in both senses of the phrase.

Unpatriotic leaders

Turning a blind eye to the unending atrocities in occupied Palestine, our leaders and their obedient media attack dogs are equally negligent of the urgent needs of their own country. Horror stories of homelessness and DWP-linked suicides are brushed aside in favour of deploying troops in cities and towns – presumably as an answer to government cuts in the police force – as well as urging the bombing of another ME state, Syria, already in turmoil.

British voters and taxpayers won’t put up with another pointless war. Perpetrators of genocide-denial will go on shouting and screaming; mental health smears and aggressive retweeting in abundance, along with predictable cries of ‘Jew-baiting’ and ‘anti-Semite’ thanks to a vociferous, parasitic (and mostly fake) online army of Hasbara propagandists.

Efforts to silence me resulted in my views and thoughts being shared with a maximum number of people. Media coverage of my quenelle was, as expected, less than flattering.  However, it also meant thousands more visits to my blog than any review of my show could have achieved. And considering the company I now share here, on Twitter and elsewhere online, I’ll take the whining and grumbling as a compliment.