The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Sunday, 17 May 2020

Piles Of Corpses At Dachau And Buchenwald Were Dead German Soldiers Staged There For Propaganda Purposes

Christians for Truth - MAY 1, 2020

We are all familiar with the pictures and film footage of piles of dead “Jews” discovered at the liberated “death camps” Dachau and Buchenwald at the end of World War II, but what we were never told is that most of those corpses were actually dead German soldiers that were dumped there as part of an elaborate psy-op by British Intelligence, and many of those ghastly images were filmed by none other than horror film master, Alfred Hitchcock.

The following is an excerpt from the corroborated eye witness testimony of a captured German soldier:

In 1977, during a visit to New York and Cape May, I recounted the story of the trainload of dying German prisoners to two former US officers. They had both been stationed in Heidelberg shortly after the war and they knew all about it. They agreed that the cattle cars were filled with captured German soldiers who were infected with typhus and dysentery.

…On a sunny day in mid-June 1945, I hopped on a freight train and went to Erfurt. The train stopped about a kilometer and a half before the station, so I shouldered my rucksack and began walking toward the station. I soon noticed a freight train of about 20 cattle cars sitting on a side track. A bad odor was coming from that direction. As I came closer I saw hands protruding from ventilation holes and heard sounds of moaning, so I crossed several tracks and approached the cattle cars. The people inside noticed me and began crying “Water, comrade, water!” Then I reached the train and recognized the terrible stench of feces and rotting corpses. The sliding doors and ventilation holes were crisscrossed with barbed wire securely nailed. Urine and partially dried feces oozed from under the sliding doors and between the boards.

…They were in fact unwitting extras in a movie being made by Alfred Hitchcock, the Hollywood horror-film specialist. He had been awarded a contract to make a movie about concentration camps for the Nuremberg tribunal.

At night the dead prisoners would be unloaded at Buchenwald, Dachau and other concentration camps by those who were still alive. Hitchcock would then film them, depicting the heaps of corpses as victims of German atrocities. A large number of corpses were dumped at Buchenwald at night, and next day the citizens of Weimar were forced to walk past the heaps of rotting corpses and smell the sickening stench.

Some of them actually believed the American propaganda, that the corpses had been concentration-camp inmates. It was all filmed as part of Hitchcock’s movie. Afterwards the corpses were shoved into mass graves in the vicinity. That too was part of the script. This is the explanation that the two former officers of the US Army gave me concerning the trainload of dying German prisoners that I witnessed on June 16, 1945.

I certify that my testimony is a true account of what I myself have personally seen and experienced.

[Note: Alfred Hitchcock was persuaded by his friend and movie producer the British Jew, Sidney Bernstein, to leave Hollywood to assist on project “F3080.” F3080 was the name British Intelligence gave to a project to compile a documentary film on German atrocities.

The project originated in February 1945 in the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force). Hitchcock was recorded expressing his primary concern that “we should try to prevent people thinking that any of this was faked.”]

The testimony of the German soldier can be verified by multiple other witnesses, including British Ministry Of Information, which admitted that the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) would be involved in an ongoing anti-German propaganda campaign to distract the public from the horrifying atrocities committed by the Soviet army.

And Victor Cavendish-Bentick, the Head of British Psychological Warfare Executive (Propaganda), in a handwritten note, written on Aug 27th, 1943, confirmed that the alleged mass murder of Jews in the so-called ‘death camps’ was indeed a psy-op:

We have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about, but don’t we run the risk eventually we are going to be found out and when we are found out the collapse of that lie is going to bring the whole of our psychological warfare down with it? So isn’t it rather time now to let it drift off by itself and concentrate on other lines that we are running.” [Public Record Office Document F0371/34551 revealed by Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the South African Reserve Bank]

Of course, it would be very easy to confirm the ethnicity of the bodies in the mass graves at Dachau and Buchenwald simply by exhuming some of the bodies and running DNA tests on them. Any simple DNA test could confirm that the remains were Jewish or German. But as we know from all over Europe, Jewish groups have absolutely forbidden any of these “Jewish mass graves” to be disturbed because to do so would allegedly violate their “religious” beliefs, except where it’s convenient to them.

And now governments in America and Europe are spending tens of millions of dollars every year to make sure each and every impressionable school-age child is shown these faked images for one simple purpose: to transform the victimizers of World War II into the victims, to essentially illicit sympathy for the devil.

And here’s Hitchcock’s infamous fake-u-mentary:


Saturday, 21 March 2020

Fears of being accused of racism slowed the Italian government’s initial response to the coronavirus epidemic.

An Italian virologist has said that fears of being accused of racism slowed the Italian government’s initial response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic:-

Dr. Giorgio Palù is a Professor of Virology and Microbiology at the University of Padova, and he was formerly the President of the European and Italian Society for Virology. In an interview with CNN, he said that the reason the disease has struck Italy so fiercely is because the government delayed imposing travel restrictions on people coming from China until it was too late. He said the country’s response was “lazy in the beginning” because of “too much politics.”

“There was a proposal to isolate people coming from the epicenter, coming from China,” Palù told CNN. “Then it became seen as racist, but they were people coming from the outbreak.”

Since then, Italy has become the hardest-hit country in the world after China, and has had the most victims in Europe by far. The first confirmed cases of the infection in Italy were found in two Chinese tourists in January. As of now there have been nearly 36,000 confirmed cases, and nearly 4,000 people have died from the disease.

The shortsightedness of Italy’s government regarding the virus as a result of political correctness has not been limited to the national government. Dario Nardella, the Mayor of Florence, who is from the Left-wing Democratic Party, was urging Italians to “hug a Chinese” in early February out of concerns that coronavirus fears were leading to racism against the Chinese. Nardella even tweeted a video of himself hugging a Chinese man.

Other videos from February show Chinese people getting hugs from Italian passersby.

Thursday, 6 February 2020

Shrewsbury MP criticised by Jewish leaders for appearance with far-right politicians

First Published 4 February 2020

Speakers at a National Conservatism conference in Rome included Hungary’s far-right prime minister Viktor Orban - Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski speaking.

Jewish leaders have condemned Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski for speaking at a conference alongside “some of Europe’s most notorious far-right politicians”.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews called on the Conservatives to discipline the backbencher, and struck out his defence of his appearance on Tuesday as “specious”.

The MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham was to speak on Tuesday afternoon at a National Conservatism conference in Rome, where speakers included Hungary’s far-right prime minister Viktor Orban.

Mr Kawczynski had sought to defend appearing alongside Mr Orban, and Italy’s Matteo Salvini, by arguing they “represent serious ideas and concerns, some of which are shared by many citizens of the UK”.

If the Conservative Party fails to discipline Mr Kawczynski, it runs the serious risk of the public assuming that they share his views on association with such people Board president Marie van der Zyl. The group representing Jews in Britain joined veteran Labour MP and leading anti-Semitism critic Dame Margaret Hodge in criticising him, while the Muslim Council of Britain said his behaviour was “unacceptable”.

Board president Marie van der Zyl said: “We condemn the decision by Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski to speak at a conference alongside some of Europe’s most notorious far-right politicians.

“Mr Kawczynski’s defence, that ‘it is only common sense to talk with parties and politicians that are either leading their respective countries, or will perhaps take power in the next few years’, is a specious one, for the simple reason that the MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham is not any sort of Government representative.

“If the Conservative Party fails to discipline Mr Kawczynski, it runs the serious risk of the public assuming that they share his views on association with such people.”

Mr Salvini is an anti-immigration hardliner while fellow speaker Ryszard Legutko is a Polish Law and Justice MEP who has reportedly described homophobia as a “totally fictitious problem”.

Also on the line-up was Marion Marechal, the niece of far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Ms Marechal has described France as becoming “the little niece of Islam”.

Mr Kawczynski, a Polish-born Brexiteer, had written to the Shropshire Star saying he would defy those who had “deplored” him by speaking at the conference regardless.

“Clearly, Messrs Orban and Salvini are not to everyone’s tastes,” he wrote.

“But they represent serious ideas and concerns, some of which are shared by many citizens of the UK.

“They have certainly proved electorally attractive in their own countries and have every right to speak at a conference on the subject of national sovereignty, the very thing they have pledged to defend and which accounts for their popularity with voters.”

Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Miqdaad Versi said: “It is unacceptable that anyone holding the position of MP speaks at a nationalist conference alongside Islamophobes and anti-Semites.

“It is even more disturbing that the Conservative chief whip appears to have known that Daniel Kawczynski MP was going to speak at a nationalist conference alongside far-right, racist politicians, and yet chose to take no action.”

Dame Margaret and the Jewish Labour Movement wrote to Tory chief whip Mark Spencer calling for the party to withdraw the whip from Mr Kawczynski.

In a letter alongside Labour MP Alex Sobel, she said Mr Kawczynski was “sharing a platform with a number of far-right European politicians who have made deeply offensive and dangerous comments”.

“The Conservative Party now has a choice. It can demonstrate that there are lines that should not be crossed by Conservative MPs,” they wrote.

Andrew Gwynne MP, Labour’s Shadow Communities Secretary, said: “It’s disgraceful that just one week after Holocaust Memorial Day Daniel Kawczynski has shared a platform with anti-Semites, Islamophobes and homophobes.

“He should be immediately suspended from the Conservative Party and Boris Johnson must answer questions about whether or not he was given permission by the Tories to attend.”

I guessed the Tory wasn't of 'Anglo-Saxon origin' - there are none with any courage or respect for free speech left in the House of Commons - or if there are one two left they are deep under cover. - Ed.

Source: Shropshire Star - Tory MP criticised by Jewish Leaders

Friday, 3 January 2020

Jewish groups praise and decry Trump’s executive order to protect Jewish college students

December 11, 2019

Immediately after President Donald Trump signed an executive order today meant to safeguard Jewish college students against discrimination, controversy ensued.

The order mandates the inclusion of Jewish college students among groups protected from discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Some Jewish community leaders said it was a bold step in fighting anti-Semitism, while others viewed it as a cynical ploy that could backfire.

Until now, Title VI has addressed discrimination based on race, ethnicity and country of origin, but not religion. A day before the signing, the New York Times and other outlets reported that the executive order would redefine Judaism as a nationality, which ostensibly would protect Jewish students under Title VI.

Those reports were inaccurate, but spread across the internet and opinion pages. Once the signed order was released, it showed that the main change was defining anti-Semitism as discrimination under the Title VI umbrella. It uses language from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, whose definition of anti-Semitism includes denying Jews the right to self-determination, claiming the State of Israel is “a racist endeavor” and “drawing comparisons with contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Reaction from Jewish community leaders came swiftly.

Some focused on the rise in anti-Semitic speech and hate crimes on American campuses, lauding the president’s initiative for attempting to stem that tide. Others, even as they welcomed the added protection for Jewish students, expressed concerns about the possible suppression of free speech on campus. Still others criticized the timing of the executive order, coming on the same day as the White House Hanukkah parties, and criticized Trump for ignoring the very real anti-Semitism of the extreme right.

Here is a sampling of Jewish reaction:

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations came out solidly in favor of the initiative:

“We welcome the historic executive order… With a dramatic rise in antisemitism at home and abroad in recent years, particularly on college campuses, the Jewish community has persistently advocated for the protections this measure provides against Jew-hatred. Jewish students are now included in the groups protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, meaning US institutions of higher education risk federal funding if they fail to act against antisemitic discrimination on their campuses. We hope this will abate the increasingly virulent Jew-hatred on display at some colleges and universities across the country. The Anti-Defamation League also praised the order, writing that “today’s announcement that the U.S. will adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism is an important step acknowledging the growing concern about anti-Semitism on American college campuses. In a climate of rising anti-Semitism, this Executive Order provides valuable guidance on anti-Semitism, giving law enforcement and campus officials an important additional tool to help identify and fight this pernicious hate. It also reaffirms protection of Jews under Title VI without infringing on First Amendment rights. These are all important steps forward.”

The Republican Jewish Council called the signing “a truly historic and important moment for Jewish Americans. President Trump has extended to Jewish students very strong, meaningful legal protection from anti-Semitic discrimination. Sadly, every day, Jewish students on college campuses face outrageous attacks on their Jewish identity and beliefs. The rapid increase in such incidents in recent years is of great concern.”

The American Jewish Committee also welcomed the executive order, writing in a statement, “To date, responses to antisemitism on many campuses have often fallen short, leaving Jewish students vulnerable. Existing federal policy has not been fully enforced and today’s order merely gives Jews what other groups have long enjoyed—the right not to be subject to a hostile environment on campus. There is nothing inconsistent with protecting freedom of expression and providing Jews the same protections accorded other minorities.”

The group added a cautionary tone, however: “AJC does not consider the EO, or longstanding Department of Education guidance, to be designed to suppress rational criticism of Israel or its policies, and we will speak out against any attempt to do so. AJC also recognizes that there will be hard cases where it will be necessary to decide whether the speech in question is constitutionally protected or not.”

J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami led the opposition: “This executive order, like the stalled congressional legislation it is based on, appears designed less to combat anti-Semitism than to have a chilling effect on free speech and to crack down on campus critics of Israel. We feel it is misguided and harmful for the White House to unilaterally declare a broad range of nonviolent campus criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic, especially at a time when the prime driver of anti-Semitism in this country is the xenophobic, white nationalist far-right.

“Kenneth S. Stern, the expert who drafted the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by this executive order, has publicly opposed its application to college campuses. In opposing the legislation that forms the basis for this executive order, Stern wrote in the New York Times that ‘If this bill becomes law…students and faculty members will be scared into silence, and administrators will err on the side of suppressing or censuring speech.’”

The Jewish Democratic Council of America also focused on the danger to free speech represented by the executive order, but had harsher words for Trump himself: “The day after yet another attack on Jewish Americans, and just days after President Trump characterized Jews as money-hungry ‘killers,’ President Trump has zero credibility to take meaningful action to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism for which he is partially responsible.

“If President Trump truly wanted to combat anti-Semitism, he would accept responsibility for his role in perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories, and emboldening white nationalism. … we’d prefer Trump stop inciting the flames of hatred against Jews as opposed to feigning his concern with a political stunt timed to correspond with the White House Hanukkah party.”

Comment: It's never enough for some of these groups, but looks like 'holocaust denial' legislation will be next. If Trump has not managed to start a war in the meantime - Ed


Monday, 16 December 2019

Boris Johnson to pass anti-BDS - [Boycott, Divest, Sanctions] -Law

By Lahav Harkov December 16, 2019

"Official says "Antisemitism is an attack on the British way of life and British identity," he said. "Without our Jewish citizens we would be a lesser nation."

The new Conservative government in the UK will pass a law making it illegal for public bodies to engage with BDS, UK Special Envoy for post-Holocaust issues Eric Pickles said at the International Institute for Strategic Dialogue’s conference in Jerusalem on Sunday night.

Queen Elizabeth will read the traditional "Queen's Speech" – prepared for her by the prime minister and his cabinet, which outlines the government's agenda for the next year – at the opening of the new parliament on Thursday. A UK news website called "i" reported that Johnson will write the anti-boycott law into the speech.

The Conservative Party’s platform in the UKs general election last week included a commitment to "ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion."

The move is meant to bloc local councils controlled by the Labour Party from using taxpayer funds to boycott foreign countries, including Israel.

Pickles, who is also the chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel, said that Labour's historic defeat in last week's election showed that the British people reject antisemitism.

"Antisemitism is an attack on the British way of life and British identity," he said. "Without our Jewish citizens, we would be a lesser nation."


Ed: At least it's clear who is running this government, and they still insist on calling 'anti-Zionism' anti 'Antisemitism'


Thursday, 28 November 2019

I fear that Labour's abortion law plans could lead us to a very dark place

26 November 2019

Amid all the eye-catching largesse of Labour’s manifesto — free broadband for all, the council house-building programme, and renationalisations — its radical proposals on abortion seem to have slipped through unnoticed.

However, it is vital we examine the party’s declaration that ‘we will uphold women’s reproductive rights and decriminalise abortions’. Decriminalising abortion would mean you could have one for any reason; you wouldn’t even be asked why you wanted it.

Right To Life campaigners say the plan has the potential to allow unlimited abortions right up to birth, well beyond the present 24-week limit, which is already around twice the average time limit on abortions in Europe.

Labour says there would be ‘wide public consultation on the detail of new laws and regulations’. Legislatively, it would mean scrapping the existing 1967 Abortion Act, which says you have to give a reason for an abortion and that two doctors have to sign it off.

It would involve repealing the relevant sections of the 1861 Offences Against The Person Act, which currently bans abortion. (The 1967 Abortion Act was brought in to allow wide-ranging exceptions, which is why it would become redundant.)

These are seismic changes concerning deeply important ethical issues — and they simply cannot go unremarked.


They could mean that abortion happens without constraints. If you don’t have to get the procedure signed off by two doctors independently, you could even choose to have one because you did not like the sex of the baby.

How deeply ironic that the party that makes a big deal about being pro-women would make it possible to abort girl foetuses on the basis of gender.

I do realise that, by comparison with Brexit, the economy, jobs and policing, decriminalising abortions may not be first among voters’ concerns. Fair enough.

But the character of a party can be determined by just these sorts of issues, which aren’t mainstream, but still matter.

Abortion is, whatever your view, a desperately serious moral question. It is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. And many people who, for pragmatic reasons, are pro-choice and think it best that abortion be legal in order to be safe will draw the line at what is tantamount to infanticide: late abortions up to birth.

Labour says there would be ‘wide public consultation on the detail of new laws and regulations’. Legislatively, it would mean scrapping the existing 1967 Abortion Act, which says you have to give a reason for an abortion and that two doctors have to sign it off, writes MELANIE MCDONAGH

I accept that the present abortion law doesn’t count for very much. That’s why there are more than 200,000 a year, most relatively early in pregnancy.

I can’t think of anyone who has ever been turned down for an abortion, even though they don’t come anywhere near qualifying for one under the existing legal criterion that continuing with the pregnancy would involve a serious risk to physical or mental health.

Two years ago, a Daily Mail investigation revealed that Marie Stopes, which has 60 clinics across England, signed off abortions for women they had never even met.

Undercover reporters were approved for abortions based on a brief phone conversation with a call centre worker and told there was no need to meet a doctor because they filled out the necessary forms ‘behind the scenes’, based on reasons given to staff over the phone. The discussions could be as short as 22 seconds.

At the time, Marie Stopes said: ‘We would like to reassure women our services comply fully with UK abortion law.’

If the proposal does mean doing away with the upper time limit, that would mean aborting foetuses at the same age as much-wanted premature babies, which we go out of our way, quite rightly, to keep alive. We can keep a baby alive at 23 weeks, which is already less than the existing limit. It is abhorrent to be countenancing increasing the limit — we should surely be thinking of decreasing it.

There is a real danger that Labour’s plans would make Britain’s abortion law one of the most radical in the world.

As I say, most EU countries have laws that restrict abortion to the first 12 weeks of life, the first trimester, which is when most British abortions happen. This isn’t to say that the foetus becomes human only then — ask any woman who’s been for her first pregnancy scan at 12 weeks — but it acknowledges that the foetus becomes more palpably human from that point.

More fundamentally, making abortion easier risks treating it as if it’s just another form of birth control — no more problematic than contraception — which means that we wouldn’t any longer acknowledge that it’s morally on a different level. To my mind, abortion means taking away a life.

And that’s where the British Medical Association seems morally astigmatic in backing the move. It has argued that ‘abortion law is out of step with the emphasis on patient autonomy found elsewhere in medicine’.

Likewise, Labour MP Stella Creasy, who has long campaigned for decriminalisation, remarks: ‘At the heart of this is: do we want women to have the same equal rights over their bodies that men have?’

Except that it’s not just about autonomy, and equal rights with men, is it? There are two lives here: abortion isn’t like having your tonsils out. It’s not just another medical procedure.


It is this insistence on choice and equality that seems to override every other concern. Labour and the medical establishment may claim the procedures will be regulated and ethical, but the pressure from pro-choicers is to make them increasingly accessible to more and more women.

Abortion is a sensitive, highly charged issue, which divides people of all parties.

This move by Labour to decriminalise the procedure takes us into a very dark place where the humanity of the foetus isn’t acknowledged and prenatal human rights count for nothing. It’s also at odds with developments in neonatal care that make it possible to keep premature babies alive at younger ages.

And it is not supported by most women: a poll by Survation in 2017 suggested that 70 per cent of women favoured reducing the time limit on abortion; only 1 per cent were in favour of extending it.

That’s the rational approach, not this extremist, dogmatic policy. For me, it’s a reason not to vote Labour.

Tuesday, 29 October 2019

The Great Hate Crime Hoax

By Douglas Murray For The Mail On Sunday
26 October 2019

Do you feel ten per cent more hateful than you did this time last year? Do you think the British public as a whole are ten per cent more unpleasant in 2019 as compared to 2018?

If you believe the latest ‘hate crimes’ stats, then you may come to such a ludicrous conclusion.

Figures compiled by the Home Office claim that there were 103,379 hate crimes committed last year. A record number, and up ten per cent on the year before. Various campaign groups disguised as charities insist that this is merely ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

To which one might say simply: ‘Of course they do.’ For if you are sane and reasonable you will realise that all of this is nonsense – nonsense, in fact, of the purest, most disgraceful kind: professional nonsense, cooked up to serve a political purpose.

It is time that purpose was identified and named.

The foundations of the hate crime hoax started 20 years ago with the Macpherson Report on the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence. As well as its good effects, that inquiry had a number of negative consequences. Two stand out. The first was that an offence against a person of sexual or ethnic minority became a crime of greater seriousness than a crime against someone of no minority group.

So if an old woman was hit over the head for her purse, that was just a crime. But if someone who was gay or black was hit over the head then that was not just a crime but a hate crime. A two-tier system of offence was created in which some crimes (with an identical effect upon the victim) were deemed worse than others.

But the second development was more damaging, still: Macpherson stated that a crime was a hate crime if it was ‘perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by malice or ill-will towards a social group’.

So if I get hit over the head I might be the victim of a bog-standard crime. But if I am hit over the head and think, or pretend to think, that it is because of my homosexuality, then we are in the realm not just of crime but of hate crime. And that means the sirens of the modern police force can really go off.

In the years since the Macpherson Report, the British police have done everything they can to prove that they are on the beat with this new orthodoxy.

They don’t just want to find hate crimes. They need to find hate crimes. Some years ago a friend of mine was accosted on a train late at night by a couple of rowdy drunks. Reporting the matter to police at the next station, the officers positively begged him to report it (once they found out he was gay) as a ‘hate crime’. He insisted that there was no such element to their abuse. The police seemed desperate to persuade him otherwise.

That is just one of the reasons why the statistics on hate crimes keep going up and up. The police want them. They want to be able to report them. They positively advertise for them.

In case anyone thinks that is an exaggeration, consider the pathetic video released by DCC Julie Cooke of Cheshire Constabulary. It took the form of an online message for ‘pronoun day’, which she described as ‘a day which is particularly important to people who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming’. Cooke wittered on: ‘Being misgendered can have a huge impact on somebody and their personal well-being. It can also be used as a form of abuse.’

And here is one of the problems of this form of touting for business. The Home Office’s statistics claim that, in the past year, ‘transphobic hate crimes’ rose by 37 per cent. That is a pretty horrific number – like all the other rising hate crimes numbers. Until you dig one centimetre beneath the surface. What exactly constitutes a transphobic hate crime? Murder? Mugging? Burglary? Well, once again we have to remember that these crimes are in the eye of the beholder. And consider just one such beholder from only a few days ago.

Ria Cooper is a glamour model based in Hull, who ten years ago (at the age of 15) became Britain’s youngest transgender woman. Other than that, there is no reason why the nation at large should have heard of her. Except that earlier this month it emerged that Ms Cooper recently contacted Humberside Police to tell them of a set of WhatsApp messages she had received she was reporting as ‘transphobic’. What were these messages? Well, they were from a photographer whom Cooper accuses of trying to scupper her modelling career.

The photographer reportedly pointed out that Cooper has a penis, which was not the sort of lady he was after. Cooper calls this ‘f****** disgusting behaviour’ and deemed it ‘transphobic’. So there is another ‘hate crime’ just there.

Of course, campaigning groups long-ago cottoned on to the fact that all of this suits their interests. I suspect that sometimes that interest is commercial.

The remaining LGBT organisations in Britain have relatively little to do with their time. Their battles are largely won, and presumably their careers and pension plans are at risk from this success.

So ‘rising hate crimes’ must provide a massive business opportunity for these groups. Other groups also benefit from this marketplace of grievance.

Last month, when Parliament returned to spend a couple more days bickering about Brexit, Labour MPs used the opportunity to attack the Prime Minister. On what? Why hate crimes of course. The ridiculous, fulminating MPs kept pretending that Britain is in the midst of a hate crimewave and that the PM himself is responsible.

Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and others insisted that Boris’s column last year defending the right of Muslim women to wear the burka (a column his opponents deliberately misrepresented) in fact caused a ‘spike’ in anti-Muslim hate crimes. They claim that such hate crimes rose 375 per cent in the week after his column.

Which sounds impressive until you realise this is a rise from eight reported incidents in a week to 38 reported incidents. Scepticism has been poured on these figures.

Labour MPs who were attacking the Prime Minister with these bogus statistics were only using the favoured tactic of recent years.

For the fact is that since the Brexit vote there has been a huge number of ways in which people opposed to the result have assailed the British public.

We have been called stupid, ignorant, gullible and more. But perhaps the favourite claim of all has been the claim that the Brexit vote unleashed a tidal wave of hate in the British public. Anti-Brexit campaigners repeatedly pretended that the tragic murder of a Polish man called Arek Jozwik in Harlow in August 2016 was a result of the referendum. The resulting trial found that the murder was a squalid and mundane event with no link whatsoever to Brexit. But that is par for the course.

In the wake of the referendum there have been claims that British voters celebrated the result by a wave of hate crimes against ethnic and sexual minorities. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no country in the world more tolerant than this one. Yet time and again in the past 20 years – and never more so than since the referendum – we have been slandered and smeared.

Political campaigners have used bogus statistics to push their own political and sectarian interests. It is time that people named and shamed the smear-merchants. There are bigots out there, as there are in every country. But this is not a bigoted country. And we have the right to vote how we want to vote without being defamed as such.

If there was one wave all sensible people should wish for in the near future it should be a wave of scepticism about the claims of campaigners whose only interest is in doing down this country.

A country which has justifiable pride in our tolerance and should exercise a healthy dose of scepticism towards our critics.

Source: The Great Hate Crime Hoax