FSTDT

Holocaust denier David Irving spoke alongside other anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists at a secret meeting of the “neo-Nazi, white supremacist” London Forum, where it was claimed Auschwitz was “like Disneyland” and that the Holocaust was “gossip”, “propaganda” and a “rumour", The Independent can reveal.

Mr Irving, whose defeat in a libel trial is dramatised in 2017 blockbuster Denial, began by praising the organisers for ensuring there were “only white faces in the audience”.

Fellow speakers delivered anti-Semitic jokes and coded references to Adolf Hitler to a receptive crowd of around 100 at the meeting, which was attended by an undercover reporter.

One attendee told this reporter the murder of MP Jo Cox was “cheery news”. Another claimed there were Jews controlling “all 193 states” and a third said life for African-Americans was “better before the end of slavery”.

Far-right luminaries appearing alongside Mr Irving included Vincent Reynouard, a Frenchman who like Mr Irving has been imprisoned for Holocaust denial; Alison Chabloz, whose anti-Semitic songs have seen her banned from the Edinburgh Fringe; and David Shayler, an MI5 agent turned 9/11 truther who has claimed he is the Messiah.

Attendees rang a private phone number and were instructed to meet in Green Park, before being shepherded on the Underground to the Swedish Seamen’s Church in Rotherhithe for the meeting in February. The listed building closed to the public in 2012, and has since been sold to developers.

The security measures were put in place after a London Forum event in January this year was shut down by an anti-fascist demonstration. Speaking to The Independent at the time, London Anti-Fascists described the group as a “Neo-Nazi, white supremacist” organisation.

When asked at the time to respond to allegations of anti-Semitism, the London Forum said: “We abhor the criminalisation of opinions and defend the right of anyone to question the conventional narrative concerning any events that took place in any period of history; and we regard the nature of Zionism, the role of Israel in international affairs and the influence of the Jewish Diaspora upon culture and politics as being legitimate subjects for discussion.”

At the recent meeting, shaven-headed security guards stood by the heavy copper doors of the church, and an event organiser claimed a “group of Millwall fans” were waiting in a nearby pub as back-up in case of violence.

As people browsed bookstalls and drank coffee from polystyrene cups, discussion ranged from Jewish plots to take over the Houses of Parliament to defences of slavery and segregation.

One man showed The Independent a copy of the Evening Standard, saying a front-page story describing the rise of the far right was “cheery news”.

“A lot of people talk the talk but don’t actually do anything, but that’s starting to change,” he said. Asked what he meant, he pointed to a story inside the paper discussing the murder of MP Jo Cox by far-right extremist Thomas Mair.

Alongside Mr Irving’s self-published works, other books on sale included The Biology of the Race Problem, The Rise of Hitler, Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS and SS Man, Be Fruitful – a booklet originally published by the paramilitary fascists who served as Adolf Hitler’s personal bodyguards.

The event was compèred by London Forum chief, Jeremy “Jez” Bedford-Turner, Britain’s third-most influential right-wing extremist, according to campaign group Hope not Hate.

Clad in a tweed suit and speaking in a cut-glass upper-class accent, he said: “The West is degenerate, decaying and deracinated. This is the last home of free speech.”

He then pulled out a Donald Trump mask and performed an impersonation of the incumbent US President, sending good wishes to the organisation.

Mr Reynouard, who is wanted in France to serve a second sentence for Holocaust denial, was the first speaker.

He claimed the Allies “orchestrated propaganda in the Soviet style”, that gas chambers at Nazi death camps were in fact used to delouse prisoners, and that the Holocaust was simply “a rumour”.

He ended by telling the crowd that “defence is the best form of attack”, and urged them to block the construction of a planned Holocaust memorial in Westminster.

Next up was David Shayler. The former MI5 man has previously claimed he is the Messiah, and told the London Forum he was on a “divine mission” from God.

“I’ve survived 10 assassination attempts because someone up there likes me,” he said.

Similarly, Mr Irving told The Independent that “Hitler appointed me his biographer,” saying he felt a mystical connection with the Nazi leader and describing himself as “The Messiah".

Mr Shayler said the Holocaust was beneficial to Jews as they could “claim compensation”, and described the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund as “Zionist front organisations”.

He further claimed the 9/11 terror attacks were orchestrated by Zionist agents, and that MI5 embezzled money from drug stings to fund “false flag” terror attacks on British citizens.

Ms Chabloz is currently out on bail, accused of posting a song on YouTube including the lyric: “Did the Holocaust ever happen?”

She used her performance before the London Forum to defend herself, saying she was in trouble “just for writing a few offensive songs about Jews”.

When she suggested the judge hearing her case had Jewish ties, using the euphemistic term “one of our friends”, one audience member called out: “Could you tell by the size of his nose?”

Another shouted “there’s no business like Shoah business”, using the Hebrew word for the Holocaust.

She described performing at the 88th birthday party of Robert Faurisson, the pre-eminent French holocaust denier.

“An 88th? in Vichy? Come on,” she said, in a reference to the Nazi-collaborating Vichy government and a Neo-Nazi code number signifying Heil Hitler.

To close out her appearance she performed a parody of Edith Piaf’s “I Regret Nothing” on a malfunctioning keyboard, and said she was ready to be sent to jail for her beliefs. As the crowd applauded she performed an anti-Semitic quenelle salute.

Finally, Mr Irving took the stage. His rambling speech focused on his life story and complaints that Denial misrepresented details of the court case.

Discussing negative media coverage of his work, he used the Nazi term “Lügenpresse”, or “lying press”, and when criticising Denial he described the actress Rachel Weisz as “Jewish but good-looking".

Moving on to his hallmark claims that only 300,000 people of all religions died in the entirety of the Holocaust, he described Auschwitz as “small beer” and now “like Disneyland”.

In conclusion, he declared: “I am still standing, the fight goes on, and I will continue writing true history as I find it to be true.”

The crowd responded with a standing ovation.

The Mainstream Embrace Of #MeToo Puts Us One Step Closer Towards The Enslavement Of Men

Defining male agency during the collapse of the Sexual Revolution.

The progenitors of the #MeToo meme have been elevated to that dubious plinth of social endorsement, the cover of Time magazine.

image
#Iwouldnt

These women did not “launch a movement.” However, the current wreaths-to-laurels victimhood craze does bear out the completion of an important cultural cycle.

Free Love Wasn’t Free

A core premise of our sexual dystopia is:

‘My body my choice.’

Within the bounds of legality, we are supposed to believe that neither sex is more damaged by their coital decisions than the other. The retro-active outrage now mounted by women at men on account of mutually consensual sexual intercourse (and calls for the bounds of legality to be shifted accordingly), reiterates that this is not actually the case.

The struggle of many a post-prime girl for exclusivity with a series of increasingly inferior suitors, must be a brutal way to discover that it is still impossible to raise a joyridden car back to its factory-new price.

Men are checking out of monogamous commitment, leaving two generations of women wandering a widening bimbo-limbo between settled life either as a housewife or denizen of the increasingly cash-strapped welfare state (the overwhelmingly administrative sector jobs provided to ‘career women’ being a manifestation of the latter).

As an institution, marriage is only debased further by social and legal efforts to enforce commitment from men to polygamous women who spent their bloom years in promiscuity. Although such an iniquitous contract could be excused by a myriad of exceptional circumstances, the unprecedented glut of women beneath the male investment threshold turn the exceptions into clichés.

The Gynocentric Interpretation

A defining characteristic of corporate and clickbait discourse is the effort to sublimate readers’ frustration into outrage while bypassing the question of accountability. Time and others are now under huge pressure to find mythologies to both explain the dissatisfaction of their female readership and serve as the basis for corrective political action. Someone must be to blame for their problems; anyone but themselves.

What Time has produced is a fairy tail without a prince. It begins:

‘Movie stars are more like you and me than we ever knew.’

We are then introduced to a wide range of women who were:

‘brought together by a common experience.’

They were actually brought together by Time, at great expense, to confirm the biased premise of their leading article. Time then chews over each of these women’s testimonies, droning on and on and on in a tantric, mantric, incuntation of its utterly banal and predictable conclusion:

image
Time have revealed their straw man – and he’s called Donald Trump.

I suspect that the feminist Trump-tantrum is not caused by Trump per se, but by the part of American society which voted him into office. It’s an important distinction because it means that, as a political instrument, Trump is needed the most by the very people who like him least. Without Trump, the outrage would be revealed for what it truly is: a million personal vendettas against a million brash, powerful and wealthy American men who these women consentingly gave their bodies to.

Trump’s appeal to the free market and private capital (as well as the string of hot women who have let him ‘grab ‘em by the poosy’), is more than just a refusal to push the envelope on welfare policies which enable sexual liberation—it is an exposition of the gulf between what is conventionally true and what is actually true about modern female sexual opportunism.

The self-deception may be genuine, but was revealed nonetheless when #metoo was triggered by the loss of societal contingency plans to ensure female sexual freedom (alpha fucks and beta bucks), by constraining that of men. The fat child screams not while it is happily eating itself to death but when the cookies are taken away.

[Video titled "Satan leaves a woman's soul as Trump is sworn in"]

Feminism’s Finale

The premise of #metoo has now been twisted by various degrees to its own complete inversion. Nearly a year ago, I was told by a County Court in Britain that I owed money to a woman whose sexual advances I had gently rebuffed some years before. Neither I nor the court had any idea why I owed her money or what her claim was, but I still had to defend myself.

A case that would never have come to trial twenty years ago dragged out for months as she gradually patched together a claim (without evidence), which gradually escalated to an allegation of sexual abuse.

My trial was the direct result of her assumption that society would stand behind her in extracting resources from the man of her choosing. I was lucky that she had a legal history of ‘choosing’ other men before me, and the judge sent her howling from the courtroom.

But what if I had been her first shot? What if she’d gone to the Crown Prosecution Service?

I add, for the sake of completeness, that I am a strict adherent of pre-marital abstinence and, in the case of this particular woman, had never kissed, hit on, made a pass at, nor been in any form of romantic relationship with her. #Iwouldnt—and that is precisely what enraged her.

Let the irony of this case serve as an illustration of the extent to which feminine imperatives can now be exercised to strong-arm men into compliance. If you have earned a #metoo assertion like I did, you’re probably doing something right.

What for men in 2018?

The dregs of women will always preen their sexual worthiness in a sensational light by announcing that a man once made an unwanted pass at them, just as feminist Phrynes like Emma Watson will always lend a pretty face to their ugly cause (phoney outrage is her profession’s prerogative. I bear her no grudge).

Our toxic tributary of sexual realism to the mainstream discussion sees the feminist victimbragging for what it really is: another attempt to circumvent rational analysis and keep society plugging the feminist narrative. Soon, #metoo will become as passé as ‘Trump Bedroom Backlash,’ but these phenomena are mere symptoms of a deeper social condition.

As private debt piles up and resources cease to flow, society will have to find new ways of demanding that men judiciously restrain their own behaviour on behalf of the unfettered dualistic sexual strategy of women—sexy badboys and stable providers stepping up and down as and when women demand it. The contradictory messages that this sends to men are now compounded by the constant possibility of being criminalised for making a faux pas.

Today, as trials move from the courtroom to the press and to Twitter and Facebook, the degree of kafkaesque reassurance that I had—the basic certainty that I was on trial—is starting to ebb away. A lot of men who don’t grasp the underlying biomechanics behind the sexual victimhood phenomenon are doomed to be spirited on a windowless train of THOT thought from false premise to final solution: their enslavement to women, either directly or via the state.

The chaotic disconnect between the claim and the truth is not a means to an end but the end itself. This climate of fear is the West’s way of forcing the marriage of mankind to womankind, joylessly mandating social responsibilities without providing any privilege. The carrot has gone from the sexual contract and only the stick remains.

image
It can still be a beautiful life for men who don’t answer to society. Careful though, the beta version of this man is Smeagol Gollum.

The harder men try to opt out of commitment to women, the stronger the social effort will be to drive them back, until escape from women will turn into escape from society itself.