A Song Is Not A Crime !

With just three weeks to go before my next appearance at Westminster Magistrates Court, have the authorities finally grasped the level of malice directed towards myself, my livelihood and my family?

Twice last November, I was arrested on charges of malicious communications and harassment, brought by the very same people whom I had previously reported to police for the exact same crimes committed against me. The difference being that I have lost my livelihood, have had my gigs cancelled and have been harassed in my own home with anonymous, threatening letters.

Rather than do their duty and bring the perpetrators of these crimes against me to justice, police closed their investigations and then arrested me for alleged crimes against these same perpetrators. Apologies for the bad language, but it’s fucking insane.

Continue reading

Infighting, like liars, in Zion…

Twitter troll Zionbat is upset after being accused by a fellow Jew of being associated with the Campaign Against Antisemitism :

 

Is CAA Director of Enforcement suggesting that the fellow Jew who wrote a blog in support of suspended Labour candidate Mike Sivier would be an antisemite? How confusing!

 

Zionbat certainly has a point. However, it’s doubtful CAA will attempt to make any such clarification regards its directors’ trolling activities, carelessly confessed to in papers submitted to court and backed up by screenshots.

Saving the best for last, here’s Amanda from Finchley, asking why I’ve still not been shackled and sent to solitary:

 

Oh dear!

And it gets worse :

 

Famous and a figurehead, eh? Maybe it’s high time Amanda decided to throw in the towel regards Israel advocacy and went back to giving online tarot readings instead.

Going for a Song with Full Spectrum Dominance

Here is the Wikipedia entry on Full Spectrum Dominance (FSD):

 

Full-spectrum dominance also known as full-spectrum superiority, is a military entity’s achievement of control over all dimensions of the battlespace, effectively possessing an overwhelming diversity of resources in such areas as terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare.

Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

[…]

As early as 2005, the credibility of full-spectrum dominance as a practical strategic doctrine was dismissed by Professor Philip Taylor of the University of Leeds[3] an expert consultant to the US and UK governments on psychological operations, propaganda and diplomacy.

“It’s true, though rarely recognized in the control-freakery world of the military, that full spectrum dominance is impossible in the global information environment.”

 

I first became aware of FSD when I noticed that a quote from a blog about me was being used by Google and other search engines to describe my Facebook page.

 

@AJCTmusic @google @antisemitism @facebook I think it’s called all-spectrum dominance. You’ve been marked. Keep going; badge of honor. 😉

— Paul David Mooney (@pdmoon8) October 6, 2016

 

Google reacted straight away to my feedback. However, Yahoo and Bing have so far failed to remove the rogue FSD description of my page:

 

161107-yahoo-facebook-search

 

The above descriptive of my Facebook page was written by Daniel Leons-Marder whose Twitter profile tells us that he is a soon-to-be lawyer and editor of Everyday Antisemitism – a blog set up by UK registered charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).

Let’s look at another example of FSD. In one of my recent posts, I quote two versions of a Wikipedia edit concerning my quenelle salute in Edinburgh last year. Now, as a description of this very blog, Google Search shows the original wiki insert which has since been edited for the following reasons:

 

“speculation, no prosecution of Chabloz” and “misleading comments, reporting someone to the police is not the same as claiming it is an investigation.”

 

Why is Google using a misleading, speculative Wikipedia insertion – edited no doubt to avoid potential legal consequences – to describe my personal blog? Because this is how FSD agencies operate online:

 

161107-google-antisemitism

 

Chabloz’ quenelle and her revisionist songs are a grave threat to society. Normies, music agencies and indeed the entire world must be forewarned before having anything to do with Chabloz and her terrorist tunes!

Online FSD is clearly intended to asphyxiate its targets, both financially and professionally. My music constitutes a Level 6 [million] threat to UK-Israeli business interests. Thus, any potential further support for my art must be hastily quashed.

As with the French CRIF’s legal request to Twitter to take down tweets of my oh so threateningly subversive song, Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe, I strongly suspect that CAA – with its ties to UK government, police and regulatory bodies – is somehow involved in this FSD manipulation of web search terms. Of course, CRIF and CAA share the same tribal objectives. It is my opinion that the legal request sent to Twitter was the lobby’s way of letting both CAFE Director, Paul Fromm, and I know that (((they))) are on to us.

Since when were charities set up in order to intimidate private citizens and try to suppress freedom of speech on certain socio-political issues?  CAA lobbies police to have people they disapprove of arrested and their computers and devices seized. These illegal raids occur with very little chance of prosecution – if any. They are intended to instil fear and stop political enemies of Zionism speaking out against Israel, Jewish ‘conspiracy theories’ and the obvious lies of the Holocaustᵀᴹ.

The possibility of suing police for false arrest is available for those with deep pockets. Bullies always target little people.

Twitter shines a clear light on the anonymous accounts working on behalf of CAA. One is Nemo – as featured in the above song: now @Sicaro72 – delicate flower who ran crying to Twitter and allegedly also to police when, after trolling and harassing me for more than a year, I tweeted about wanting to see a rope around his neck and was summarily suspended from Twitter. Another is Andrea Silva’s @RTingBot.

Both these accounts visit my blogs, Facebook, etc., regularly. They sometimes post screenshots of what they find here and there. This blog is monitored and therefore visitors’ IP addresses are visible. It’s fairly easy to keep track: time stamps of tweets correspond to blog hits, especially after posting a new article.

Careful analysis of IP addresses, phone / laptop models and Internet providers seems to show that both these anonymous troll accounts sometimes tweet from the exact same location just off Cheapside in the City of London. Mere coincidence? Or perhaps Shitfox and Sicko are in the throws of a forbidden, budding romance? There also seems to be a connect with Radlett in North London, affectionately known as The New Zion. If this information proves anything, it’s that our pair of Zio lovebirds can’t be that bright.

However, this is a serious issue. The role and function of lobbying organisations masquerading as charities must be called into question. CAA does not carry out charitable work. It is a fraudulent, pro-Zionist enterprise whose main purpose is to bait and entrap anti-Zionists online.

 

By way of deception and full spectrum dominance thou shalt do war. 

 

Next Saturday, November 12 at 4pm GMT, I’ll be the guest on Dennis Fetcho’s Inside the Eye – Live! when I’ll be talking about FSD, CAA, my suspension from Twitter and about my upcoming CD. Do tune in! In contrast to dishonest (((Survivors))) as described in my song, I’ll be sticking to plain facts. Even if, as stated in a recent comment from user My7HiCalD4Rk, my song manages to debunk the Holocaustᵀᴹ, the fact that I’m still here and fighting is proof that it’s entirely possible to survive – and indeed thrive – even after being subjected to Full Spectrum Dominance.

 

Nationalism is the only answer

Ethnic Europeans are being discriminated against in their own lands by minority groups. We only have to look at the recent disbarring of Ian Millard by the UK Bar Standards Board, as well as several high profile suspensions – including my own – from Twitter, to understand that there is no other explanation.

Time to wake up and to start fighting back. Today, it’s Millard, Vaughn, Yiannopoulos, Frith and Chabloz. Tomorrow, it’s you.

Blatant double standards of corporate social media groups are easily explained by looking at who owns these platforms and by observing which groups can use them to smear, threaten and abuse with impunity and which groups cannot. Can someone in London or Dublin please perform a quenelle outside Twitter‘s offices? If Twitter – and indeed the Solicitors Regulation Authority – are quite comfortable with Zionist lawyer Mark Lewis‘ public outbursts, then what harm in an anti-establishment comic salute ou deux?

160204-mark-lewis-lawyer

Why do abusive Zionists need protecting when, clearly, it’s us who need protecting from them?

Just as the illegal Israeli government continues to ethnically cleanse Palestine of native Arabs, so the international Zionist lobby aims to do the same to ethnic white Europeans in Europe and in every other part of the world inhabited by Europeans.

Progressive minds are not fooled by duplicitous, conniving, western mainstream media. Our parasitic controllers are very scared indeed. More and more people are waking up to the incontrovertible truth that they are the ones behind the immigrant invasion of Europe. In fact, more and more people are now realising that Jew-Zionists are pretty much responsible for all the evil that exists in the world today.

They have elevated themselves to positions of importance in finance, government, media and law. Laws are implemented in order to protect Zionist interests at the expense of our own nations, culture and heritage. Speaking or writing about these facts is not ‘hate speech’ or ‘persecution’. It’s the plain truth: it’s happening in front of our own eyes. ‘Diversity’ will eventually mean no diversity: white genes are recessive and white Brits are already a minority in the UK capital.

Being a white nationalist doesn’t mean other groups deserve to be hated. It’s the most natural thing in the world to want to protect and cherish one’s own kind. We need to start behaving in the same way ethnic minority groups behave in a foreign country and take back control.

161101 nationalism.JPG

Zionist-run media i.e. every title going – isn’t going to stick up for the interests of ethnic Brits. Neither are the treasonous hordes of SJW Shabbos Goy. If you’re still wringing your hands at any mention of the far right, just remember that Margaret Thatcher was elected after the Tories stole policies of the National Front. Theresa May has now done the exact same with UKIP policy. Remember, too, that 17.4m Brits voted for Brexit.

If you do not feel concerned about our basic freedoms being abused then perhaps the time has come to ask yourself why. Rather than pointing the finger at patriots, artists and academics and repeating ad nauseum the same Zionist buzzwords, isn’t it time you started defending your own origins, your own people and your own cultural and spiritual heritage, rather than those of a belligerent, hostile tribe?

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.

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