Sunday, 11 January 2015

The Odious Chelsea Hoffman

The first time I happened across Chelsea Hoffman was in connection with convicted murderess Linda Carty. At the time, that arch-liar and champion of lost causes Clive Stafford Smith was peddling all manner of lies to the UK media on Carty’s behalf, lies that were by and large being lapped up. With the notable exception of the New York Times Supreme Court correspondent, the US media hasn’t given this old witch the time of day. Hoffman penned a notable line about Carty’s execution - which unfortunately has still not taken place: “The world will not miss this woman.”

I was so impressed by that phrase that I wrote a poem based on it. As things turned out, that was the only thing about Chelsea Hoffman that has ever impressed me.

After I signed up with AllVoices I exchanged some banter with her over something, I can’t remember what, but it may have been over the Madeleine McCann case, which is likely now to remain ever unsolved and thus controversial. Like a lot of know-alls who know fuck all, Miss Hoffman believes she has the solution to this murder - as it almost certainly was: the parents did it, and she is not shy with her innuendos.

Self-styled criminal profiler Chelsea seems to think this is a startlingly original hypothesis; criminal profiling is garbage, but if she knew anything at all about how the police really work she would have realised that parents, family and friends are always suspects in any murder or missing person case, however peripherally.

At any rate, I made a point or two to Miss Hoffman at some point, to which she took objection, and next thing threatened - if that is the right word - to report me to the AllVoices abuse team, or whatever, boasting that she was a supermoderator. Wow. I was impressed not. When I responded with a single sentence, I received the following message:

June 29, 2014
Re: Madeleine McCann

To ALEXANDER BARON

This issue has been forwarded to Daniel Roth/AllVoices.

Wow again! Shortly I received a message from Danny Roth asking me politely to refrain from contacting her. AllVoices was a bitter disappointment for me for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and after the site revamp I did not try too hard for readmission. I suspect Miss Hoffman did though, but clearly her pleas fell on deaf ears, very likely because of those who had been lobbying to remove her.

Her last message reminded me of the old saying that all bullies are cowards; this is not necessarily true but I couldn’t help but note that it was and is in her case. This is something I’ve noticed in the real world with (especially) women who are even more odious than Chelsea Hoffman. People who have big mouths should also have thick skins. Miss Hoffman is still peddling her wares elsewhere - including her phony academic qualifications - but with American universities continuing to offer degrees in such garbage as gender studies, they are probably no more worthless than many real ones.

Not everyone you meet on-line is as nasty as they sound; the political blogger Claire Khaw doesn’t understand the meaning of the word tact, a quality for which I have found little use myself, including in the real world. Khaw on the other hand means well, and I think most people realise I do, but Chelsea Hoffman is just plain nasty. And spineless with it.










Thursday, 8 January 2015

Cameron’s Hypocrisy On The Charlie Hebdo Massacre

With France and Europe reeling in shock from this outrage, there was naturally widespread condemnation, including from our own Great Leader. While all such condemnation is to be welcomed, we should not allow either spin doctors or just plain idiots to use it to promote other agendas. Although he has been known to show backbone on occasion, David Cameron falls squarely into this latter camp, especially with his claim that this mass murder was an attack on freedom of the press and on free speech in general. Any Frenchman, any Englishman, indeed any European with nous would surely ask what free speech might that be?

The reality is that it is not only free speech but freedom in general that has been under unremitting attack in Europe this past half century and more, an attack which has had absolutely nothing to do with Islamism. If France is such a bastion of free speech, why more than thirty years ago did it drag a professor of literature into court for having the temerity to challenge the perceived (and erroneous) wisdom about the Nazi gas chambers?

In Germany and elsewhere, many Revisionist Historians have been subjected to legal persecution. To list them all would be tiresome, but they include Udo Walendy, whose crimes included possessing copies of Mein Kampf; Germar Rudolf - whom I have met - who was forced into exile; while fifteen years ago in Switzerland, Gaston-Armand Amaudruz was sentenced to a year in prison. And, perhaps most notoriously, in Canada, Ernst Zündel was subjected to horrendous persecution, but his trials ended with a bloody nose for his persecutors.

At least one Revisionist has been murdered, François Duprat was assassinated in March 1978, ironically in France. He was 38 years old.

If France is such a bastion of democracy, why over the past 13 years has it dragged the comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala into court time and time again on the most specious of charges and sought to ban his quenelle gesture?

In December 2006, an international conference on the Holocaust was held at Tehran; this could not have been held in “democratic” Germany on purely legal grounds, and in France it would have been impossible to hold due to organised left wing thuggery if not an outright ban by the authorities. How is it there is more freedom of intellectual debate and discussion on this issue in the Islamic theocracy of Iran than anywhere in “democratic” Europe? The usual specious response to such questions is that such discussions fall outside the remit of free speech and constitute hate, which is precisely the same argument used by those behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other such outrages, like those that followed the Danish blasphemous cartoon controversy.

This is a purely subjective view but having lived 58 years without drawing a blasphemous cartoon of the Prophet, I would gladly live another 58 years without doing so, but while I have no desire to add this gratuitous blasphemy to my bucket list, I cannot help but challenge orthodoxy when it is so clearly specious, and when such lies are backed up by the full coercive power of the state.

In the UK, there have been numerous contrived prosecutions under race relations legislation (so-called) including of then BNP leader Nick Griffin (twice), of geriatric Nazi the late Colin Jordan over a virtually unreadable satirical pamphlet, of many others, and on occasion of blacks and Moslems for similar “offences”.

Let us be clear about this, our freedoms are under attack not simply in relation to the Holocaust, the Jewish Question, racism or those other recently invented chimeras sexism and homophobia, in the UK, France, Europe and everywhere throughout the “civilised” (read white) world, but in respect of everything we do. You think not? Have you tried smoking a cigarette lately? Smoking is now as good as banned in most public places, small traders - who include many Moslems - are no longer permitted to smoke in their own shops.

Have you ever been arrested? Did you realise you can be arrested at the drop of a hat, if for example some demented person accuses you of a minor indecent assault that is said to have occurred ten, twenty or more years ago? Did you know that in the UK you can be arrested without warrant for practically anything, and that often as a matter of routine the police will seize your computer, back it up and lie about destroying the backups even after the case against you has been dropped?

Did you realise that on arrest the police will take your fingerprints “and” a DNA sample, both of which will be retained covertly even if you are acquitted? Or that you can be convicted even of sexual assault or murder on no evidence at all, on merely the words of a demented accuser, or on the strength of a fabricated cell confession from a self-confessed drug addict?

Did you realise that in the UK and almost certainly every other country in Europe and the “civilised” (read white) world the authorities trawl your e-mails and Internet activity? After all, if you’re not with us, you’re with the paedophiles, or the terrorists? Yes, they really do believe they should have the power to read everything you read, everything you write, and to tell you where the boundaries are drawn.

In his essay The Facts About Rebellion, Charley Rees makes a startling observation about the then situation in Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein: “...like any other dictator, Saddam treats his political opponents harshly, but it’s also true that if you stay out of politics, you could live as freely in Baghdad as you can in New York City. Unlike a communist-style dictator, Saddam doesn’t give a damn what Iraqis think or do unless it involves a threat to his hold on power. There are two categories of dictators: totalitarians who want to control every aspect of a person’s life, and gangsters who just want to stay in power. Saddam is in the gangster category. Iraqi women, for example, are entitled to free education, just the same as men, and are free to choose any vocation they wish.”

Did you get that? Saddam Hussein was a gangster. No one could accuse either our leaders or the vested interests that whisper in their ears (Organised Jewry, the “wimmin’s” movement, the increasingly powerful and nasty gay lobby...) of being mere gangsters, rather they are tyrants who want to control everything we read, hear and see. More than that, they want to tell us not just what to think but what we are not allowed to think.


Lest it be forgotten, Charlie Hebdo was actually banned more than once in France, that same bastion of democracy that dragged the aforementioned academic - Robert Faurisson - into court on spurious hate crime charges.  

Nor has the UK been entirely free from the censorship of anti-religious bigotry, as is evinced by the notorious Gay News blasphemous libel trial of 1977. Ironically, today it is Christians who are more likely to face prosecution for daring to express their views on homosexuals rather than vice versa.

Sexual censorship in the UK was always more widespread than censorship on religious grounds; this led to the actor David Webb founding the pressure group NCROPA, which was extremely active in the 1980s.

Even today there are those who attempt to impose sexual censorship on newspapers and magazines, such as the ludicrous Lose The Lads Mags campaign and the equally ludicrous No More Page 3. The feminazis who run these campaigns do not of course claim they are attempting to censor the media, instead they use the specious rhetoric of combatting sexism - whatever that is - and have even tried to claim that such publications constitute a form of sexual harassment. Unsurprisingly, the attractive young women who pose for these magazines are not quite the bimbos they are made out to be, and most object strenuously to being told they cant take off their clothes for whom they wish without the explicit permission of the sisterhood.

True, there is free speech in Britain after a fashion, for the housewife to her circle of intimates, for the factory worker on his lunch break, for the bricklayer in his local watering hole of a night time, but let us not kid ourselves this extends to the real world where power and influence are exerted. If David Cameron really believes there is free speech in France, in the UK or anywhere else in Europe, then he is a bigger fool than even those who think the murder of a bunch of anarchic cartoonists will make the world a better place.