Censorship and Denial: end of the Shoah

I’d like to come back briefly to a couple of points I made in my previous post. Thanks to everyone for reading and especially for all the comments:

Troll strangler banned from Twitter

Firstly, regards the legal request sent to Twitter by the CRIF (French Jewish lobby), part of the email reads:

“We are notifying you of this request about your account so that you may decide whether or how you will respond. Please let us know by replying to this email whether you will remove the reported content. Please note that we may be obligated to take action regarding the content identified in the complaint in the future.”

TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE CONTENT IDENTIFIED…

What action would Twitter take? The tweet is still up. My video is still up on YouTube – although YouTube won’t let me monetise my revisionist songs as they’re not advertiser friendly. Nearly six thousand views of (((Survivors))) – no adverts allowed.

That’s three times more views than my song about Nemo. Is my little ditty being targeted because it mentions the dreaded Robert Faurisson? Do French tax payers approve of their funds being used by the Jewish lobby to trawl the Internet looking for stuff they can claim to feel offended by? It’s fair to assume that the CRIF will not be inviting me along to its annual dinner for a rendering. At least not the musical kind.

*

In my last blog I also spoke of David Cole, David Irving, Mark Weber and the film, Denial. In a blog written for TakiMag last month, Cole slyly makes his case for semi-revisionism, still managing to smear Irving as an evil and wicked Jew hater for having had the audacity to try and sue Cole’s fellow Jew, Deborah Lipstadt.
Jew-Zionists still cling to their fairy tales and, more importantly, to the revenue generated by these fairy tales. Determined to guard their interests, they know that censorship is key, along with disinformation. Welcome to Democracy.

The Daily Mail will no doubt keep churning out Auschwitz monthly press releases, although in one recent report,  the “gas chambers” were strangely conspicuous by their absence. “Death camp” – yes, that is obligatory. But is the Auschwitz gas chamber now finally and forever relegated to the dustbins of history – even in the eyes of mainstream media?

Rather than being a box-office success, which seems unlikely, will the film Denial serve as an historic watershed ? Will the two Davids be invited on TV to gently break the news to audiences worldwide? All those school trips; endless Holocaust Memorial weeping pageants; Auschwitz, where everything is fake and even when something is real, they’ll try and tell you a fake story about what it was used for, e.g. women’s hair.

“Oh, but we’re not sure about the Ostland and the Aktion Reinhard camps. We *think* gassing took place there because, you see, that’s where the Holocaustᵀᴹ really happened. Everything’s ok. Keep the paycheck coming. No, I really don’t think it’s a good idea to publish those photos. Yes, Master, of course, Master, three bags full, Master.”

Coincidentally, I used to work with Taki at GstaadLife. We once met on the slopes of the Wasserngrat and shook hands. Soon after I left my job as editor, the English-speaking Swiss newspaper seemed to go somewhat downhill. Skiing down the Wasserngrat can also be a little bumpy at times – especially the top part of the black run – but it’s definitely much more fun than writing for a flagging brand. During my time there I did, however, learn a lot about blogging.

Back to Denial the film. First echoes from revisionists are positive. Despite his own revisionist ambiguity, David Irving is a wonderful military historian and a fine writer. The film reportedly pays robust tribute to these qualities. The verdict at the Lipstadt trial constitutes simply more evidence of the total power and control of the Jewish lobby over every organisation and institution out there. The only part of the verdict we hear is the one favourable to the lobby: Lipstadt did not defame David Irving by calling him a “Holocaust denier”. By this same verdict and indeed by his own reasoning and as the creator of a legendary video, David Cole is a “Holocaust denier” too. Cole agrees with Irving. The star of the Shoah we once all knew, Auschwitz, is well and truly over, passé, finished.

*

Regarding my Twitter suspension, it’s going to take more than appeals to make Support robots wake up and listen. I fought both suspensions. Support told me I could choose which account I wanted to keep. Of course, I opted for my main account which has 3,500 followers. They wrote back and said that account was SUSPENDED FOR A VIOLENT THREAT AGAINST A NAUSEATING ANONYMOUS ZIOTROLL*- and that they wouldn’t be reinstating my back up account – 200 followers – either. Anonymous trolls rule Twitter! Hurrah for the trolls! Death to free speech!

One would think that the Jewish press would have a field day over my suspension. After all, there was a whole array of articles when one rather delicate Jewish lady took offence to my quenelle and reported me to police. That was literally the headline and substance of every story: “Jewish woman reports UK artist to police for being offended.” Perhaps the censorship angle of my Twitter ban doesn’t really do much to help the lobby’s image – hence the silence even from the avidly vexatious hacks at the Campaign Against Antisemitism – the UK Jewish lobby’s online Shomrim division.

*

Finally, a word about the first reactions to my blog. I received notification from WordPress that a comment from a certain “Alison Mental” was waiting to be moderated. The comment said simply “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You’ve been suspended HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”

Well, some people can be rather careless. Perhaps many aren’t aware that WordPress always provides the IP address of comments? My blog stats show that this comment was posted from Spain by a BT customer.

No!! It couldn’t possibly be..? Could it?

* Thanks to one of my correspondents who reminds me to say here that ‘Sicaro’ is likely a corrupted version of the Italian ‘sicario’ meaning ‘hired killer’ – no “i”. Being scared of a few words on Twitter and immediately running to Twitter Support and, allegedly, to police indicates that our hit man is, in reality, just another delicate flower. Bless.

Troll strangler banned from Twitter

Following last month’s successful London Forum appearance at the Grosvenor Hotel, I am now the centre of attention as far as Twitter is concerned because I have once again been banned.

It’s getting to be a habit. In one way, I’m glad. I was spending too much time
on Twitter much to the detriment of other, more purposeful activities – like
writing. Proper writing.

I doubt there’ll be any press commentary, but at least the trolls seem happy, in
their own sweet way.

My suspension was the result of stating that I’d pay good money to see a rope
around Nemo’s neck. I indulged myself, it’s true and his reaction was, as usual,
predicatable and a source of great merriment.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/99982815

They’re such sensitive little souls, aren’t they, poor maggots. They wouldn’t
dare harm a fly. Of course not!

Flies – and indeed maggots – can move easily from the UK to the continent or even farther afield, by plane or boat…

Last week, I received an email from a friend in Canada with a copy of a letter
from Twitter, informing him that the French CRIF Jew lobby was threatening
Twitter with legal action, because of one of his tweets hosting a link to my
song: “Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe“. Quelle coincidence!

A week earlier, I received a rather strange email from Eric Hunt who apparently
now falls into the Cole/Irving/Weber camp of semi-revisionism which adheres to the belief that that the Holocaustᵀᴹ happened, but just not at Auschwitz. Even Vanessa Fuery agrees, which – considering our tweet history – is quite a confession.

Certainly, the schnaps will be flowing this evening in Barnet ! Jubliation
and much gloating shall ensue till the early hours, all in the name of
censorship.

161022-hilary

Of course, I’m also angry and sad. Who wouldn’t be? But this is no time for
defeatism. There’s a fight ahead for those of us who treasure our national
interest and who want to protect our European culture and heritage from parasitical gangs and their money-printing overlords.

We must be strong and we must unite. Our bond with Europe must not be weakened by too much plaintive wallowing in the quagmire of Brexit and the EU. The next General Election will likely be fought on this very issue, despite Theresa May’s promises. Till then, groundwork is of the essence.

As an artist (my detractors can say what the f*ck they like, I don’t care)
it’s truly a great honour to be targeted in this way. Reaction to my work as well as repeated bannings suggest that my (((enemies))) know the true value of their “prize”. Maggots would much rather be abused than have scorn poured over them by means of satirical songs – especially performed by a strong female.

Death threat? Ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Nemo – what a legend !

Police know exactly where I am. In fact, I dropped off the latest anonymous
postal deliveries at Glossop police station this afternoon. Not sure there’s much point: if there’s no record of anyone’s fingerprints in the police data bank, it seems they can’t investigate further. Hmmm. Well, we’ll see what my MP has to say about that.

My barrister friend warned me to be careful after my rope tweet. One of my biggest
problems is disliking being told what to do. He was right, of course, but a change is long overdue. If Twitter doesn’t reinstate me, then Twitter can go f*ck itself. 50 or so accounts won’t have much to do with me gone, so it’s really not my loss – with the exception of my dear followers, of course. I’ve lost one platform, but I will find others and several alternatives have already been suggested.

For nationalists (non-kosher, if you please) and others who may be reading this
post, among the first people to offer their support were a Pakistani and a Black British gay Jew. Something to chew on:

A Mob of Ziotrolls & Feminazis Swarm On @AJCTMusic

It seems attacks on Gentiles are kosher, whereas if an anonymous Jew-Zionist
troll is attacked by a Gentile, then the Gentile will be suspended. Jew-Zionist trolls can literally get away with murder, even when a tweet also contains blatant racism:

Equality? Free speech? Or is it discrimination? At the very least it’s a clear
case of double standards.

During the first 22 days of October, Nemo aka Sicaro has incessantly stalked my
Twitter account. This has been the case daily since August 2015 after my #quenelle in Edinburgh. Nemo is a snooper. Nemo uses his own search terms to smear me publicly from the safe-space of his cloak of anonymity. Nemo is a parasitic maggot.

This suspension occurred in almost the exact same way as the one dating back to March 2015. Also a Friday evening – I remember I was at a gig. There was no breach of Twitter rules there either, simply another case of targeted and coordinated mass reporting. Twitter’s automated report system was swung into action. No amount of appeals were effective. I simply had to start again from scratch.

This time, I made sure I had a back-up account with locked tweets which I
sometimes updated with new followers but which had lain dormant since July 2015.
However, maggots soon performed their tribal duty and whoosh! this morning that account had gone too.

What can I do? Probably nothing. Twitter Support must know who I am – even the
CRIF wants my songs removed – again showing how effective humour and satire
can be when dealing with maggots. Repeated suspensions, the banning of my Edinburgh show and from Glossop Labour Club all merely go to prove yet again that the ‘antisemitism’ argument is being used as a political weapon to insure and protect Zionist control of, well, everything.

Free thinkers are the last thing our enemies want. Are you a sensible conformist
who goes along with the idea that the Jooz are under no circumstances to be
scrutinised, let alone criticised? Then you’ll fit it nicely.

If you want some advice from Twitter, then why not ask any user featured
below: there’s a short descriptive to help you decide who might be the most useful. They’ll tell you what to believe, whom you can hate and abuse with impunity (that’d be people like me) and they’ll also let you know what will happen if you stray from the kosher path they’ve decreed everyone else must live by – ((( theirs ))).

@sicaro72 < professional troll, works for (((lobby)))
@TimGStevens < morbidly dull psychiatrist
@JCAinfo < screeching loon
@dubdanu < Antifa’s answer to Katie Hopkins, but uglier and chronically foul-
mouthed.
@liberalisland < Virtuous Twitter (((troll))), formely cheap Holocaust sales
woman – now a semi-Revisionist
@WomenDefyUKIP < sock account belonging to @liberalisland
@BedlamJones < On bail, reportedly.
@nick070473 < Silly sausage
@Dora_Chance < Self-loving hasbarista
@Caroline101061 < Professional troll
@SLATfascists < Moron
@RTingBot < Professional troll to the power of six million. Sock account of Andrea Urban Fox (see below)
@_AndreaUrbanFox < Butthurt in Shoreditch.
@cominskeynathan < Seething parasitic supremacist, hosted by unlucky Edinburgh.
Pelts those he dislikes with out-of-copyright Anne Frank Diaries.
@bored_rose < LOL
@JasnaBadzak < convicted fraudster.
@GB0nd < kosher nationalist
@mendelpol < delicate flower
@GarySpedding < Shabbos Goy or Israeli agent
@isupportisrael_ < name is self explanatory
@eonantisemitism < semi-literate fanatic extremist (Middle East Monitor)
@JRocker44 < some bloke from Bury
@Chirpys_Agent < (((idiot)))
@GemmaSheridan2 < (((foulmouthed idiot and JDL member)))
@nottsyossarian < irrelevant
@Never_Again_UK_ < Cheap Holocaust salesperson
@suzanneshine < professional victim, shill
@new_bluehand < comedy Zio “anti-hate” org
@BMouthPR < idiot
@mghots < thug
@ozzyalan < aussie thug
@Opensout < professional troll
@GillianLazarus < yiddische mama with large chip on her shoulder
@ShimonLevit < avid Zionist
@DrGabsEvans < cheap Holocaust saleswoman
@ravki12344 < supremacist
@engrugger < failed human being
@Just1Luca < parasite
@markoah < whiny delicate flower
@israellycool < idiot
@neshika_ < idiot
@realbobknot < some idiot bloke
@frankiescar < Zionist who’s always drunk
@ArfurZTowcrate < Zionist abuser
@simbarnett < Jew
@benmyers19 < Jew
@HilaryK777 < Jew
@BeaumontBee < Jew
@MomentumGod2 < professional troll
@gallowayexposed < professional troll
@corbynsnap < professional troll
@BHTech_Support < idiot
@Lifeonacanal < lame duck
@kravitzjonny < idiot
@muscledito < professional troll
@CommonSPaine < irrelevant
@denisbolton2 < irrelevant idiot
@thehugheslady < idiot
@inthesoupagain < spends its time promoting the very accounts it purports to
want to ban. Seems rather incoherent to me – it must want people to read VT, etc. No
surprise there then, seeing as the CEO of Veterans Today is a Zionist shill,
allegedly. Is Soup’s function to stir up hatred of Jews in the name of Zionism?

If anyone has any suggestions for further additions to the above list do drop me a line in the comments below.

Love and blessings to all. Free Palestine. Xx

Holocaustianity, the New Religion

Reblogged from source.

– by Monika Schaefer, 08 Sept 2016.

~ Exercising My Human Right to Speak Freely!

There is one event in our history which appears to be off-limits to discuss, debate, ask questions, investigate, or ask for evidence. That event is the so-called “Holocaustᵀᴹ”. It has become a belief system, and if you dare to speak something contrary to this belief system, beware! You may encounter “ritual defamation”. You may be viewed as a heretic. Facts become irrelevant; the main objective is that you are punished severely for going against the stream. I have been experiencing ritual defamation in my home town of Jasper, Canada, population 5000. I am the perfect candidate for defamation, in that I have lived here most of my life and have been an active community member, which makes me locally well-known. Some of the elements of ritual defamation are shunning, ostrasizing, shaming, cutting off income, and character assassination.

Free Speech Monika

A strange type of response that I get from many people, is that this topic of #Holocaustᵀᴹ is “off limits” for them, even if they tell me they respect my right to freedom of speech. They tell me outright that they will not discuss or debate this issue, end of story. They refuse to look at any evidence, book, video, or hear any argument from me about why and how I have reached my conclusions. Is this reasonable? Is there any other part of our history which is treated in this way? The unique hold of the #Holocaustᵀᴹ narrative on people’s psyche is what causes me to view it as the new religion of the masses.

Recently I was invited by the Canadian Association for Free Expression to go to Toronto to speak about my experience – how I came to my conclusions on the #Holocaustᵀᴹ , and the aftermath of posting my “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the #Holocaustᵀᴹ” video. There I met many people with interesting stories of their own, for example, there were several expellees from the eastern former territories of Germany.

Millions of Germans were expelled from those eastern European lands at the end of the war in 1945 in the largest forced migration in all of recorded history. Many were put into camps. It is estimated that 3 million died along the way, either of exposure, starvation, or outright murder. Many were raped and tortured. Where are the monuments to those victims? And why is this part of our history omitted or barely mentioned in school? I certainly never knew about it until very recently. But I do remember learning in school about the evil Germans making soap, lampshades and shrunken heads out of the bodies of Jews, all admitted and proven lies. It has become perfectly acceptable in our society to denigrate the religions of Christianity or Islam, but going against “the #Holocaustᵀᴹ ” has severe consequences, including incarceration. Many European countries have laws which make peaceful expression against the official narrative of the #Holocaustᵀᴹ illegal. Canada does not have explicit laws against “#Holocaustᵀᴹ denial”, but Ernst Zundel was jailed for just that under the notorious hate-speech laws, so in effect, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Canada. Only lies need to be protected by laws. The truth stands on its own. Is it not possible to have open debate on the #Holocaustᵀᴹ ? What are they hiding?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS UNDER ATTACK! CANADIAN PUBLISHER FACING JAIL FOR POLITICAL WRITINGS NOW PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CANADA’S NOTORIOUS “HATE PROPAGANDA” LEGISLATION!

An extremely important court case is coming up soon. Arthur Topham, publisher of radicalpress.com “digging to the root of the issues since 1998”, will be in the Quesnel Court during the week of October 3 to 7, 2016. This case to repeal the Orwellian hate-speech laws is important for all of us, for our freedom of speech. Who decides what is “hate” speech? If we are only free to express politically correct views, then we do not have freedom of speech, period. Without freedom of speech, we do not have a functioning democracy. Instead, we have tyranny.

Why do so many believe in the absurd Holocaustᵀᴹ myth?

Holocaust or Hoax by Jurgen Graf p.149-51

A question to which revisionists would like a convincing answer: What is the explanation for the irrational behaviour of an entire people which apparently believes in an absurd (Holocaust) legend (myth)?

The Holocaust – with its gas chambers which constantly change location; its millions of victims who disappear without a trace into blue vapour at Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka, after being murdered by Hitler’s SS butchers, either with Zyklon B insecticide or Diesel exhaust, not to mention mass shootings Babi Yar-style (where the victims also disappear without a trace) – is, and remains, first and foremost a unique proof of the monumental stupidity of our age. In the early 1980s – when the major absurdities of the Holocaust swindle had already been exploded, with the exception of a few details – most revisionist researchers thought it inconceivable that the legend could persist more than a few more years. Since then, more than fifteen years have elapsed, and the Lie continues to drag out its existence, filthier and more luxuriant than ever! Cracks are appearing in the edifice of lies, doubts are appearing – here and there, in the press, in a few articles, in many private conversations – as to the truth of the Establishment version of the fate of the Jews under the Third Reich.

People mention the possibility of minor errors or exaggerations; but almost everyone continues to accept the story as basically correct. It is precisely this general acceptance which is the biggest puzzle to revisionists – and to any reasonable person with a minimum knowledge of history. Really, how can anyone of normal intelligence, for example, view the room which is shown to millions of tourists on the grounds of the former camp of Auschwitz as the “only Nazi gas chamber remaining in original condition”, without immediately realising that the physical capacity of the room – not to mention its immediate surroundings, for example, its proximity to the hospital located nearby – would make any mass execution using a highly dangerous poison gas impossible? The unspeakable atrocity stories spewed forth to visitors by officials of the Auschwitz Museum, deserve only ridicule. But the very opposite occurs: in these shrines dedicated to the Holocaust religion, people become intellectual cripples: awe-struck, their senses paralysed, they gape at everything as if it were plausible, and solemnly swallow nonsensical fairy tales! Even the generation of Germans which lived through the war – i.e., the “generation of criminals”, those who supported the National Socialist system which is now slandered all over the world, who remained true to that system and fought for it to the bitter end, with unprecedented self-sacrifice and devotion of spirit – that generation no longer knows what to believe after half a century of filth and lies.

They confuse their personal firsthand experience, that which they saw and experienced themselves, with that which they think they should have seen or experienced (according to the official version of history). Faced with the accusations and ignorance of succeeding generations, the generation of the war years joins in with the chorus of self-incrimination or takes refuge in resigned silence. And yet, – if the gas chambers were technically impossible and the whole story is therefore a lie; – if no material evidence of the crime remains, since the Nazis “destroyed all traces of their crimes at the last moment”; – if millions of bodies simply disappeared into blue vapour, so that not a single body of a single gassing victim has ever been found; – if the official version of history is based on nothing but contradictory “eyewitness testimonies” of witnesses who were never subjected to cross-examination, and confessions extorted from “criminals”; – if a forensic report, including a reconstruction as is ordinary practice in an ordinary murder case, has never even been attempted; – if expert reports on the technical feasibility of the mass gassings are never performed by the courts, but only on behalf of private parties, and if no technical refutation of these reports can be produced. Then how is it then possible for the world to believe this series of grotesque hallucinations?

If you ask these questions, most people are either surprised or shocked. But some people, particularly, young people – who often react spontaneously and emotionally – immediately and spontaneously declare their conviction that the Holocaust is absurd. One hears remarks like the following: “How could I have believed such nonsense for all those years?” The revisionist may perhaps be pleased in the belief that he has won a new adherent. But in most cases, this is a great mistake. When the shock wears off – the shock which sets in following the discovery of a new truth – the new convert returns to his old environment, where it is almost impossible to find any information on the subject other than all-pervading Holocaust propaganda. The average person lacks the courage to deviate from his environment; the mass media, of course, are all around us. Upon the slightest expression of doubts, the inevitable reply will be that he has spoken with a horrid, lying Nazi, that he has heard a load of lies, and that he had better forget everything he heard. This is particularly true, unless the convert is a hero willing to jeopardise his social and professional position for historical truth. Since even the crudest lie can be obfuscated and explained away, the heretic falls away from his new belief and returns to the shrine of the incredible. Credo quia absurdum est. What at first seemed absurd – in comparison to reasonable information about the absurdity of the Holocaust religion – once again seems convincing. In a society in which propagandists control the media, those who stray from the fold are quick to permit themselves to be persuaded once again that the unanimous opinion (Vox Populi, Vox Dei) which confirmed the reality of the mass extermination of the Jews for over a half a century, bears incomparably more weight than the statements of a single “Nazi”.

This abandonment of the elementary duty to seek the truth can, however, have unexpectedly unpleasant results. Today, even re-educated Germans – despite their anti-fascist fanaticism – are regarded with mistrust, even hostility, by many people in all parts of the world.

The Zionists and their stooges are skilful at ensuring the perpetuation of this hostility, for example, through hundreds of films, largely produced by Jews, which depict German soldiers either as simple fools or sadistic beasts.

The passivity and cowardice of the majority of the German people today is their decisive contribution to the perpetuation endless hatred. All of German contemporary history has been turned into a sort of crime sheet by the Allied victors. The Germans swallow everything in complete passivity.

A person who refuses to defend himself, ought not to wonder if he is found guilty. He deserves no respect, and should expect none. Germans compete with each other in vomiting upon their own people and themselves at the same time. Do they really expect to gain any sympathy abroad in this way?

Let us nevertheless attempt to understand the reasons for this apparently illogical behaviour on the part of the German people.

Perhaps the main reason for it is the knowledge, or instinctive sense, that any critical discussion of the so-called Holocaust is dangerous; it can cost the victim his job, his position in society, and even destroy his family. In addition, many people don’t want to know much about the Holocaust, which is the principal accusation against the German people, since they intuitively feel that many things about it simply cannot be true. They are afraid to know whether the Holocaust is a pack of lies, or just a lie or two; anyone doubting the details of the official version of history runs the risk of being compelled to question the story as a whole.

And that is just what our contemporaries, set on their peace and quiet and comfort at any price, do not want. On the other hand, it is not easy to live with a lie which one should long ago have recognised as such, and, at the same time, to act as if it were no lie at all. For example, how should the mother of a family, who knows to a certainty that the gas chamber yarn is a lie, answer a child who asks, eyes wide-open with wonder: “Mama, teacher told us that German soldiers gassed the Jews. Did Grandpa gas the Jews, too?” The best way to evade a question like that, which is complex and painful, is simply to know nothing. So the mother simply tells the over-curious child, “I don’t know, ask your teacher.”

Holocaust or Hoax?

By Jürgen Graf.

The Holocaust is not just a lie, it is a crime. It is a crime because it not only justifies innumerable other crimes, but because it create a huge mass of hatred, which in turn contains the potential for new crimes.

People whose souls have been drenched in the hatred of the Holocaust Lie must be counted among its victims. This includes the millions of twelve to fifteen-year old school children dragged through the memorials of former concentration camps, often weeping uncontrollably at the atrocity stories and lies vomited up at them.

How much suffering, how much heartbreak, how many tragedies are due to the so-called “Holocaust”, this hair-raising Lie of the Century, which the Jews invented, crammed down our throats, and have defended tooth and nail, with fines, with abuse, with imprisonment, for over half a century?

It is painful to think of the thousands, indeed tens of thousands, of people who have been humiliated, persecuted, imprisoned, or even executed in the name of this shameless swindle. It is pathetic to see the once-great German people, having lost its pride, its sense of direction, its self-respect, to such an extent that it no longer dares to defend itself against a flood of slander and is too ashamed to look itself in the face. One single mention of the “gas chambers”, the extermination of the Jews, was enough to justify purging entire cities and provinces of their German population. Almost 17 million people were driven from their homes between 1944 and 1948 in an unbroken series of atrocities during which over two million died.

“After what they did to the Jews, they had it coming to them”, is the classical justification.

It is truly disgusting to think of the millions of people all over the world watching Marvin Chomsky, Claude Lanzmann, Steven Spielberg and all the others – Holocaust, Shoah, Schindler’s List, etc. – in the cinemas, on television – and taking it all seriously. The Jews – or more exactly, those who claim to speak for the Jews – invented a story which they’ve called the Shoah or the Holocaust, and which they now claim is the history of their people.

The Holocaust money-making machine has brought them such tremendous advantages, that they can no longer live without it. But they made one fatal error: the Holocaust swindle is so endlessly absurd that its inventors can only take refuge in a suicide charge; having lost all sense of proportion, they have gone too far and will soon come crashing down.

To suppress all open debate on the subject appears an impossibility in the long run, despite all manner of repression. From minor explanations to wholesale re-writing, including whole new “Revised Versions”, the profiteers of the myth continue to entangle themselves in increasingly greater numbers of contradictions; the fables of today contradict the fables told yesterday; the defenders of the official version of history are being compelled to make so many concessions that more and more people are starting to wonder about it all.

Doubts expressed in private conversation no longer shock as much as they did a few years ago; it is getting easier for revisionists to gain a hearing. In brief: for the exterminationists, the time is running out. Increasingly hysterical repression is an unmistakable sign of growing panic. It is also a sign of weakness.

Instead of listening to the discussion, they simply grab for a truncheon. But how long can they get away with it? The revisionists must not hope for quick victory; it will not come overnight. They should remember the wisdom expressed in the phrase from the Czech philosopher, Karel Capek, who said: “Truth must be smuggled. It must be distributed in small doses. A drop here, a drop there — until people get used to it. Not all at once.

At a time when the Lie appears to be triumphing without hindrance, we would like to close with an optimistic message. We wish to make the following appeal:

All of you, all friends of the truth, both known and unknown, from many European countries, those who, like Günter Deckert and Gottfried Kuessel, Ernst Zundel, have sat in German and Austrian prisons for “denying the existence of the gas chambers”, or who have been compelled to go into exile like Remer and Rudolf, all persecuted revisionists and nationalists – do not lose your courage, since your struggle against state-ordained lies is not in vain. Your courage, the sacrifice of a few, will help to free entire nations and peoples, including the German and Russian peoples – from the darkness which has so long covered them.

Tell Mama advisory board member facing legal action

I first became aware of the work of Tell Mama UK in 2013. Back then, with several ongoing and costly court cases (notably against The Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan), Tell Mama’s director, Fiyaz Mughal, was understandably happy to have support from ethnic white Brits like myself. Mughal sent me a Facebook message to this effect and even used my Storify blogs as evidence of the smear campaign against his organisation. He also offered his assistance in 2014 when I was sacked from my job with AIDA cruises following a defamatory letter sent by one of Tell Mama’s principal detractors who Mughal had also threatened to sue.

Since my quenelle in Edinburgh last year, Mughal has been obliged to distance himself (although this process had begun as early as summer 2014 when he withdrew his promised support regards my professional situation). Moreover, Mughal along with another of his collaborators, Suzanne Fernandes of Ealing, have now embarked on a smear campaign against me.

On her Twitter profile, Fernandes claims to be on the advisory board of Tell Mama. Why is her name not on the official list?

Professor Neil Chakraborti
Paul Giannasi OBE
Professor Francis Davis
Baroness Uddin
Maqsood Ahmad OBE
Sayed Yousif al-Khoei
Dr Irene Zempi
Dr Tariq Abbasi MBE
Zoe
Varinder Singh
Dr. Imam Mamadou Bocoum
Julian Bond
Muhbeen Hussain
Tehmina Kazi
Vidhya Ramalingam
Dr Chris Allen
Dr Musharraf Hussain
Iqbal Bhana OBE, DL
Nathan Lean
Dr Imran Awan
Mark Wilson
Kim Sadique
Tufyal Choudhury
Dave Rich

According to her Twitter feed, Fernandes has reported me to police at least twice (her face is apparently a regular fixture at Ealing police station). Already last year, it would seem that Fernandes was being manipulated by my main abusers (both described as Islamophobes on Tell Mama’s blog, here and here) as seen from tweets by the troll account RTingBot, run by these same abusers :
160802 suzanne 2015.JPG
No longer an activist, no. But for two years a firm supporter as shown in over 100 blog posts by me, as well as in emails sent to me by Mughal offering his assistance when I was stranded in Germany.

Earlier this year, Fernandes took exception to my revisionist songs. Nobody was forcing her to listen but she decided I should be reported to police for my musical mischief. To boot, Fernandes then decided to tweet Zionist extremist Dave Lange (aka Israellycool) who’d written yet another hate blog about me, with copies sent to Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London and Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK asking them both to assist in putting me behind bars!

Really? An advisory board member (but not according to the official list) of a pro-Muslim organisation tweeting a hard-line, pro-Israel propagandist – not to mention the abominable Regev – in order to score a few points? Clearly upset that I had the audacity to respond, Fernandes then changed tack, deciding to lump me in together with convicted Internet troll, John Nimmo, currently in custody and awaiting trial for having sent death threats to Labour MP, Luciana Berger.

As well as all the usual labels attached to pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist commentators, Fernandes is now claiming publicly that I have harassed her family – an outright lie – and that she has again reported me to police.

 

160802 suzanne harassment

160802 suzanne police

 

Oddly, Tell Mama’s unlisted advisory board member Fernandes seems to tweet regularly with pro-Israel extremists including über-Zionist ‘top lawyer’ Mark Lewis :

 

160213 lewis die.JPG

The above is a fairly typical overview of the way Lewis sometimes handles himself on Twitter. Unsurprisingly, our ‘top lawyer’ is now under investigation by the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority.

 

Maybe Fernandes needs to check a few facts before engaging with such types?

However, like Lewis, Fernandes supports Israel:

 

160802 suzanne lange

 

Does Fiyaz Mughal also support Israel? I’ve yet to see him criticise Israel. Indeed, former CST director Richard Benson was drafted on to the board of Tell Mama to assist Mughal run his org, presumably in light of astronomical costs of the aforementioned legal cases which were threatening Tell Mama’s continued existence.

My research of Mughal revealed several further worrying factors. Mughal’s wife claims to be a survivor of the London 7/7 tube bombings and, like her husband, runs an organisation for victims. An electoral roll search brought up Mrs Mughal’s address along with four other inhabitants all with the same surname. Three of the names are as follows:

Faiz A Mughal
Fayez Mughal
Fiyaz Mughal

Three different people or three different spellings?

Mughal’s business credentials can also be researched on CompanyCheck.co.uk. There are two active inscriptions under the name Fiyaz Mughal. The main page details his organisations as well as property and investment companies. More interesting is Mughal’s second page, seemingly set up to divert unnecessary attention from another of his appointments?

160802 mughal HMD$

 

So, dear reader, there you have it. Tell Mama UK director is a Muslim who believes in and actively collaborates with holohoax fairy tales.

That Facebook message I mentioned above said something along the lines of ‘You’re amazing’.

What a creep!

No wonder so many British Muslims feel disappointed with Tell Mama and what it stands for.  Its association with arch-Islamophobe elements such as Harry’s Place and indeed Quilliam F does little to reassure the Muslim community. Worse still – attacks against Muslims have increased ten-fold since Tell Mama came on the scene. Are anti-hate orgs actually spreading more hate, rather than trying to combat it?

Oh, and if you’re reading this, Suzanne, my advice would be to check out what’s happening to Mark Lewis. I’m sick of your lies and smears and if you wish to carry on defaming me and accusing me of harassing your family then please rest assured that there will be further consequences.

Wishing everyone a pleasant day.

 

 

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