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
TimesSupreme 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.”
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.
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
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.
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
June 29, 2014
issue has been forwarded to Daniel Roth/AllVoices.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
least one Revisionist has been murdered, François Duprat was
assassinated in March 1978, ironically in France. He was 38 years
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?
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
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.
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”.
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.
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
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?
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 can’t take off their clothes for whom they wish without the
explicit permission of the sisterhood.
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.