Big-lies.org

 Police prosecution information — by Raeto Collin West — 22 February 2021

These notes may help fellow revisionists face the possibility of legal action—typically by organisations such as the 'Campaign Against AntiSemitism', a more-or-less fake charity by so-called Jews. This of course is an ordinary part of Jewish activity at present, and has been powerful in Britain since Cromwell—and long before in other parts of the world. (The 'Campaign Against Antisemitism' acted against Alison Chabloz, but is only a tiny fragment of all such groups). At the time of writing, 13 days after the initial contact, I don't know who started the action against me; it all seems amazingly amateurish, in fact, and I suspect the originator may be a loose cannon, a loner working outside Jewish channels.

Anyway; on Wed 13 Jan, 2021, an unmarked car turned up, the driver apparently a woman detective, and a male who seemed to be Moslem or a darkish Jew. I'll mention no areas, names, places. here. I was quizzed, at the front door, I think to see who I was (the name given was slightly wrong), and if I had, owned, or ran a website, which I named first, perhaps a mistake. Anyway, I agreed to turn up at 1 am on Wednesday 20th January, at a police station I'd noticed, for an 'interview under caution'. The caution is the form of words given in TV 'dramas'—"You are not obliged to say anything, but you may harm your defence if you fail to mention anything you may rely upon in your defence." Those are MY WORDS, to convey the idea; I haven't checked them, and remain unclear what exactly is implied.

So six days followed of controlled chaos, including wondering whether a paid solicitor would be worthwhile (and if so, how much), contacting a nearby solicitor who, when given the reference number, saw the evidence and was surprised how weak it was. (This person was an 'associate', keen to recommend a very good solicitor, free-to-me for the interview, who I contacted with some small difficulties.
      On 16th January at 3 pm I changed the home page of my site, not willingly since I thought it might count as tampering with evidence, and under some pressure; I won't say from whom, or what. I emailed a few people in Britain who'd been exposed to this sort of thing in the past, and collected a few remarks, including the 'no comment' advice.
      And I read Crown Prosecution material online; this included rather absurd stuff on what 'race' is, including such things as colour, race, ethnic origin, national origin; for obvious reasons, the 'racism' of so-called Jews—who maintain sometimes "there's no such thing as race" and some times that Jews are "the chosen people", presumably race—is not included. There's a lot on 'hate'; again, Talmudic hatred of 'goyim' is not mentioned. Nor are other possible emotions: intellectual curiosity, for example, and avoidance of laziness in pursuing it. There is some mention of 'public interest', though without allowance for different public interests of Jews from other members of the public. We have material on 'hate crime investigation' from the College of Policing. There's material about a 'reasonable person' which I take it refers to people with no knowledge of beliefs of Jews, Moslems, Freemasons, and others. And such phrases as 'grossly offensive'.

      Meta-topics on legal systems include deliberately badly-worded laws. These include incomprehensible laws, for example in the Jewish 'Soviet Union' where there seem to have been insurmountable obstacles to discovering what 'the law' was. In Europe, we have laws on war crime trials—these were well-drafted, but simply ignored. In quieter times, we have media laws on TV, radio, cinema, and the press: in practice, nearly any lies are allowed—in 'coronavirus' for example. Whistleblower legislation, family law, and evasion of auditing are issues I've encountered.
      I should add that in my view there's nothing new in this: for example, the legal position of heretics is analogous.

      Top-down hierarchies appear to be a Jewish traditional target. I quote here David Irving from fpp.co.uk: The Lord Chief Justice welcomes his new deputy, Sir Geoffrey Vos, as Master of the Rolls. He explains that the Master is today the president of the civil division of the U.K. Court of Appeal. At least since the court reforms in the late 19th century, the Master of the Rolls outranks the law lords and has been in pole position in the Court of Appeal to develop, adapt and interpret the law. Many distinguished lawyers and judges have occupied the office. Six of the seven since 1996 — Woolf, Phillips, Neuberger, Dyson, Etherton and now Vos — are Jewish, which may explain a lot.

On Wednesday 20th Jan 2021, some time before 1 pm, I turned up at the police station—wearing a suit and bookish tie and polished black shoes—and at about 1 pm my duty solicitor turned up, greeted me, and went to confabulate with the cop who'd appeared a week earlier at my door. After what might have been 15 minutes he returned, and we entered a room—interview room?—wherein he told me what he'd been told.
      The charge was 'aggravated racism' or perhaps 'racial aggravation'. Note that a lot of the online material is to do with policing of demonstrations, with such things as 'microaggressions' between participants. My lawyer said the relevant legislation is: S.19 Public Order Act 1986: investigation: insulting, threatening, racial hatred. This presumably excludes Jewish racism and hatred, and the racism and hatred of any temporary allies, for example Moslems in parts of the world, but not others.

My/the solicitor showed me a set of A4 pages, printed by computer printer, of cropped material from big-lies.org. I'll try to list them in sequence from my notes which I made at the time. As far as I know, none of this is sub judice or otherwise restricted:–

20th January 2021. What follows is a fairly complete list of the A4 pages of 'evidence' which the solicitor, then I, were shown.   I made notes at the time.   The same two police people were there, plus the duty solicitor.
It all seems curiously unimportant, and ignores most of my large site, much of which has been online for years. I've collected the evidence into Articles, Reviews, Memes, and a Video.

Three Articles (prose pieces, with dates of upload) on my website:

How the 'Master Race' of so-called 'Jews' Won WW2
Only the home page of the site, first uploaded April 2018, was shown. The topmost line is ‘The Second World War as Jewish-Scripted Mass Murder and Destruction: How the 'Master Race' of 'Jew' Supremacists Started and Won the Second World War.’
      It's a long article, wide-ranging and carefully sourced. Probably one of the most important articles on the site. Supported by the work of Hexzane527.

Free Speech, the Internet, and Holocaust Revisionism
First uploaded in 1997. Subsequent updates in line with official political events such as USA and UK leaders. I now think (following hexzane527) the whole 'Holocaust denial' movement may have been controlled by Jews from the start, with the ultimate aim of forcing Jews out of Europe, as in the lead-up to the Second World War.

Jews as Parasites
Short article on Jews as a parasitic group, based on modern biological theories of intra-species predators and prey, including the time aspects as of course human beings have some awareness of time, unlike most or all animals.

One Review

'Mein Kampf'
My review of three English translations of Mein Kampf and its author(s), but including new views of Hitler as part of world Jewry. I'd guess selected by the complainant for its title, not from intelligent or other examination of the contents.

One downloadable video

Auschwitz Virtual Tour
Copy of a video made by a US woman, nicknamed Silver Thoughts, including her voiceover. From photos from the 1930s and early 1940s. I'd guess selected from the Keyword 'Auschwitz', not from the contents.

Six Memes (cartoons, pictures, boxes with words) included in my site
I may put these at the end. They may take up a lot of space.

I handed over an A4 statement of mine, which was read out by the solicitor. Here it is The last line is missing; handwritten by the solicitor.

STATEMENT OF RAETO WEST 20th January 2021

My website, big-lies.org, has existed continually since March 2012. It had an earlier life from about 1997 to 2001, when Prestel discontinued websites.

My website is constantly evolving and, by January 2021, has grown to 38GB. I've followed consistent policies in building my site, based on concern for truth and examination of subjects of public interest. Some are my own work; some are others' work; some were joint efforts of small numbers of people, linked by Internet. Some were based on documents; some were uploaded verbatim; some were my own and/or others' audio and video uploads.

I have criticised many groups including Mensans, astronomers, women scientists, biochemical researchers, newsreaders, journalists, Americans, war criminals, Catholics, Protestants, people who don't understand evolution, secret societies, historians, philosophers, et al.

My website is an expression of revisionist views on many subjects including nuclear weapons and power, the moon landing, Princess Diana's death, Shakespeare and Jane Austen authorship, John Lennon's death, and very many other subjects. Also included on the website are references to other revisionist websites.

It is not my intention to incite racial hatred. My website is not inciting disorder or crime. The website is informational, and a basis for exchanging views allowing people to see others' points of view.

I do not believe that I have engaged in demeaning or offensive comments. My statements are not intended to be threatening towards any person or group. I believe that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence.

I believe the views in my website are reasonable and in alignment with freedom of speech. I sometimes use emphatic words when I think they are appropriate.

My target audience is other revisionists and educated members of the public worldwide who wish to read about and discuss various revisionist topics. They and I are not interested in inciting violence but are purely interested on concern for truth and examination of subjects of public interest.


I followed this by replying "no comment" to the questions put by the constable, based on his A4 evidence, checked against my statement. All this was recorded by a wall microphone, apparently simultaneously on three CDs, and apparently given an interview number.
      At the end, I handed over my account of the development of the site (handed over against the reluctance of the solicitor). All this of course seems standard procedure; so does getting a copy of the audio if further action is made.
      My solicitor then had two other conversations, first with the constable, and then with me, and also made a phone call, though I don't know to whom. He stressed the difference between intent and actual effects. He said probably the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) will look at the site information, and read my statement. They have to decide if they have a 'reasonable' chance of getting a prosecution (I think 'reasonable' was the word) but I was left not knowing whether they do in fact read or look at websites: it seems likely, since to assess the odds of a prosecution succeeding, they must compare prosecutions which failed, and which succeeded. I wanted to leave the site up, but was argued out of this for a few days).

3 February 2021   Letter from Solicitor (in two attached parts)

© Rae West - 22 Feb 2021