Frank Frost Video: “For the greater good” by RadicalPress.com

ForTheGreaterGoodHdr

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: https://youtu.be/Kk_p1odUdcY

This video by Frank Frost highlights Canada’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms focussing in on Sec. 7 of the Charter which covers Legal Rights Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Frank shows viewers how the concept “For the greater good” has been bastardized and co-oped by the corrupt power of state in order to permit the types of criminal activities outlined by Frank to occur.

—–

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 23

NEWERESTLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

RPEdNew300 copy

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update #23

April 17th, 2015

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

The previous Legal Update #22 took place on September 30th, 2014 and six months have now transpired since I appeared in Quesnel’s Supreme Court.

The latest court appearance was originally set to be a pre-trial conference but it ended up being adjourned in order to give the defence an opportunity to serve constitutional notice on the Crown. Constitutional notice was served on March 23rd, 2015 and was dealt with by my new legal council Mr. Barclay Johnson from Victoria, B.C. who appeared via telephone to represent me while I and my wife Shastah appeared in the Quesnel courthouse. The judge appeared via telephone but I wasn’t able to determine where he was located but presumably on the lover mainland somewhere.

Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston spoke to the judge concerning the case, her position being that Crown wanted to put off the constitutional Charter applications until the end of the trial. In turn, defense counsel Barclay Johnson argued that he had been hired on a temporary retainer basis to put forward the Charter applications and at this time I lacked the resources to retain counsel for a trial and therefore putting off the argument until after the trial would make it impossible for me to properly put my constitutional challenge forward.

Crown then persisted in its position but the judge was more inclined to consider Barclay Johnson’s position and the discussion ended up unresolved as Crown’s time was limited due to another case that was awaiting address. As a result another date was set for April 28th, 2015 when Crown and the defence would once again connect via telephone at which time my counsel will once again address the timing of the constitutional argument.

As for Crown wanting to have my Charter arguments addressed after the trial this appeared to me to be rather like putting the cart before the horse as the whole intent of the Charter application is to challenge the validity of the charge in order to forestall the need for the case actually going to trial which will be a much more time consuming and expensive procedure.

One other thing arose at this time and that was the possibility that the Attorney General’s office may appoint a special prosecutor to take over from Crown counsel Johnston should the case proceed to trial as scheduled.

So we left the courthouse once again with more unresolved questions and further delays in what is now nearing the three year mark since this politically motivated “Hate” crime charge was first laid against me and RadicalPress.com.

I should have another update around the beginning of May.

 

News Release: Nicola Valley Chiefs and Supporters Occupy Premier Clark’s Constituency Office in West Kelowna

Nicola Valley Homeland SecurityHdr.

From: Don Bain donb@ubcic.bc.ca
Sent: April-15-15 1:34 PM
Subject: News Release: Nicola Valley Chiefs and Supporters Occupy Premier Clark’s Office
Importance: High

Good afternoon,

For your review, action and/or further distribution please see the attached news release from Chiefs and supporters currently occupying Premier Clark’s constituency office in West Kelowna.

=====

For Immediate Release:

The five Nicola Valley Chiefs and their representatives (Chief Harvey McLeod of Upper Nicola, Chief Marcel Shackelly of Nooaitch, Chief Aaron Sam of Lower Nicola, Chief Percy Joe of Shackan and Chief Lee Spahan of Coldwater) and supporters of Friends of the Nicola Valley, faced with inaction from the Provincial Government and its Ministries on the grave issue of importing sewer sludge into the Nicola Valley, have together decided to occupy the office of the Honourable Premier Christy Clark in West Kelowna.

“The Nicola Valley First Nations hold and exercise Aboriginal Title and Rights over areas where biowaste operations are currently being carried out, and where future biowaste operations have been proposed. The biowaste operations affect our Aboriginal Title and Rights. The Province of British Columbia is obligated to consult and accommodate us in relation to the impacts of biowaste operations on our Rights and Title”, says Chief Aaron Sam

We are unified in our mission to stop this toxic waste coming into the Nicola Valley area. We take care of our own sewage and expect other municipalities to do the same. Trucking thousands of tons of sewage treatment waste to be spread onto our farms, ranches and forests is not healthy for our lands. We stand together to safeguard the environment for future generations. The traditional practices of harvesting from our lands and waterways, has been jeopardized by this risky practice. We believe in applying the “precautionary principle” in matters such as these, where cultural ways of life are threatened and ecosystems compromised. We are requesting an immediate moratorium on all importation of these so-called “biosolids” into the Nicola Valley.

Memorial Service for the late Hans J. Krampe Monday, April 20th, 2015

HJK'sFuneralNotice

PLEASE SHARE THIS NOTICE WITH ANYONE WHO YOU FEEL KNEW HANS J. KRAMPE.

“More than any other person, Hans Krampe demonstrated to me the difference between honest non Jewish Germans and the Jewish purveyors of false history who have totally warped the facts of World War II and led the world into a prison of poison thought from which it might never emerge. Hans once told me we were a lot alike, which is one of the greatest honors I ever received. I always marveled, not only at the precision with which he wielded his second language of English, but of the lofty standards of logic and principle that infused his every statement that provided for me a standard of behavior to constantly shoot for. In fact, it was my observations of Hans that completely convinced me of the tragedy of World War II, in which the finest people in the world were incomprehensibly savaged by this heartless Jewish war machine now running rampant in the world today. The world desperately needs more people with the lofty standards and unflinching honesty of Hans Krampe.”

 ~ John Kaminski, Writer & Social Critic & friend of Hans Krampe
Dear Reader,
 
On April 20th, 2015 friends of the late Hans J. Krampe will be gathering at the Quesnel municipal cemetery in an area known as Tranquility Gardens to celebrate Hans’ life and work. Unfortunately, most of Hans’ friends and associates that he grew to know and respect in his latter years live thousands of miles away from the area in which Hans lived and worked as a writer and an historical revisionist.
 
It is hoped that those who knew Hans and wish to share their thoughts on his life and work will write something and send it to me (Arthur Topham) at my address above so that I can then read it out to those in attendance on April 20th.
 
As John Kaminski so rightly observed Hans was an exceptional personality and a stalwart defender of his nation and individual freedom and one of the few writers during these times who had the ability and fortitude to dissect all of the disinformation and lies that have emerged regarding Germany since 1933 when Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany were first elected to govern that ill-fated nation. 
 
It was Hans’ work that convinced many people who suffered mental confusion due to the historical perspective perpetuated by the Jewish press, that history as we were taught to believe was heavily biased against Germany and especially the National Socialist Party that came to office in in 1933 and ended in 1945. 
 
May God bless and keep Hans and may he rest in the peace which he so deserves.
 
Anyone wishing to attend who is not familiar with the local area can contact me about any details they may be concerned about.
 
Mehr Licht!
 

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed

The Radical Press
radical@radicalpress.com
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

RCMP Murder Exposed Again! Frank Frost interview with Lonnie Landrud by RadicalPress.com

https://youtu.be/1hAOKi6eh3MMurderofDeenaLynBraemHdr

CLICK HERE TO VIEW OR

HERE: https://youtu.be/1hAOKi6eh3M

“FOR THE GREATER GOOD” OF CANADA PLEASE SHARE THIS VIDEO  

SEE ALSO RELATED VIDEOS AND ARTICLES:

http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=2113

RCMP CORRUPTION:The Lonnie Landrud Story

LandrudHdrNew

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=4100

LLHdr-1

LonnieGabrielLandrud

Pianist Valentina Lisitsa: latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws By Arthur Topham

VLHeader

Pianist Valentina Lisitsa:

latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws  

By

Arthur Topham

“We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.”

Editorial, Toronto Star, April 7, 2015

“It’s really hard to come up with words to praise her highly enough because this is someone the world needs to hear.”

Michael Fine, Producer, Valentina Lisitsa’s Rachmaninoff Project at London’s Abbey Road Studio with the London Philharmonic Orchestra

Preliminary remarks

Back on April 27th, 2011, just days prior to Canada’s May 2nd federal election that saw the Stephen Harper Conservative government ascend to power, I penned and published an article titled, Hating Harper. The purpose of the piece was two-fold; first, to highlight my own battle with the then despicable Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” legislation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and B’nai Brith Canada had been using against me since 2007 and second, to warn the Canadian electorate of the potentially dire consequences for the nation should the Conservative win a majority government.

The essay outlined what I felt were the root reasons why Canadians shouldn’t vote for this particular party. In part it contained the following:

Plainly stated Canada is a Zionist Jew-controlled colony of the state of Israel. . . While hidden for over six decades from the majority of Canadians by the Zionist-controlled media’s ‘Iron Curtain’ of deception it is nonetheless an established fact and a reality that must be faced if the nation is to ever recover its former independence and sovereignty.

Anyone who desires to dispute this assertion has to explain and justify to the people of Canada why there is not a single federal political party in the country willing to stand up to the Zionist Jew lobby that now wields such a sinister political influence upon the nation. To attempt a negation of the argument without speaking to this issue can only be construed as evasion and denial.

In the thick of yet another federal election, with Harper and his Conservative party striving with utmost intent to gain a majority government, this pseudo-Semitic elephant in the midst of Canada’s political/judicial/cultural/social living room blithely goes about its business of knocking over, crushing and destroying the country’s constitutional rights along with trammeling upon its domestic and foreign policies, all the while aided and abetted in its traitorous actions by a colluding, fifth column ‘mainstream’ media; itself but another monopoly controlled weapon within the Zionist’s plethoric armory of subterfuge and deception. . .

Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 11.17.33 AM

. . .The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is a contemptible Trojan Horse. Like previous governments it was dragged into Ottawa under the pretense of being the best option for Canadians to preserve not only their integrity as a free and democratic nation but to set a good example for the rest of the world; one that other nations might look up to and aspire after in the hope that someday they would also reap the benefits that a free society and sovereign democracy can offer to its people. This has not been the case. As we can see from the graphic immediately above there is a specific, self-chosen group of zealots who, through subterfuge and the power of their usurious ‘purse’ plus their Babylonian Talmud-inspired ideology known as Zionism, have a totally different agenda in store for the nation.

Voters, who for the most part have been deceived by the pundits and the Zionist-controlled talking heads within their media, remain unaware of this insidious threat to our sovereignty. Were Canadians fully apprised of the seditious nature of the Zionist Jews within their nation’s walls they would likely vote en masse to rid the country of this omnipresent danger. But they aren’t and so the country once again teeters on the brink of the unknowing. Should the false saviour of Canada, Stephen Harper, achieve his mandate to rule over us with his Zionist rod then maybe that will be the time for a new movement to arise and a new federal party to germinate; one that will address the issues I’ve delineated in this essay plus all the others not covered. The key to our future as a sovereign nation is to understand how the Zionist agenda operates, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Without that key we will continue to remain prisoners of Zion.”

On April 28, 2011, the day after my article appeared on the net Canada’s #1 serial “hate crime” complainant working for the Canadian Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name), filed a Sec. 319(2) CCC complaint against myself and my website RadicalPress.com alleging that I was “promoting hatred toward Jews”.

On May 30, 2011, less than a month after the Harper Conservative government won the election, a second Sec. 319(2) CCC “hate propaganda” complaint was filed against me and my website by a representative of B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name as well) also accusing me of “promoting hatred toward Jews”.

Both of these complaints were received by the BC Hate Crime Team in Surrey, B.C. and an investigation was undertaken by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. A year later on May 16th, 2012 I was arrested by the BC Hate Crime Team while traveling to work and placed in a jail cell while the RCMP illegally entered my premises using a trumped up “search warrant” and stole all of my computers and electronic files containing well over a hundred thousand private emails.

I have been fighting this second, specious criminal charge that could result in a two year jail sentence ever since. The case is now in BC Supreme Court with a trial date set for October 26th, 2015.

With the one exception of my home town community newspaper the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and its illustrious editor Autumn Macdonald, ever since 2012 my story has been virtually blacked out by Canada’s mainstream media. Nothing, other than the usual smear and slander that appeared back in the msm in November of 2012 when the Indictment was formally handed down by the BC Attorney General’s office, has come out in the press since relating to the mis-use of these so-called  “Hate Propaganda” laws.

The Discordant Case of Valentina Lisitsa

lisitsa

The recent case of world renowned pianist Valentina Lisitsa has once again highlighted the hypocrisy, bigotry and outright malfeasance that pervades Canada’s judiciary and the nation’s cultural and social media environment when it comes to using the “hate” card, aka Sections 318 – 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, to harass, intimidate and slander anyone whose opinions and political viewpoints don’t fall in line with the expected (and calculated) agenda of the Zionist interlopers who now control the Prime Minister’s office, his cabinet and, thus far, the leaders of all the other federal parties.

In an article published April 7th, 2015 in the Globe & Mail, reporter Robert Everett-Green writes: “On March 13, Ms. Lisitsa said, the TSO [Toronto Symphany Orchestra] forwarded to Ms. Dorn an e-mail from Toronto lawyer Michael C. Smith that cited section 319 of the Criminal Code concerning “wilful promotion of hatred,” and said “there is a possibility that Ms. Lisitsa could be stopped at the border … and deemed ‘unacceptable’ to Canada.” An attached note from Mr. Melanson, who is not a lawyer, went further, stating that Ms Lisitsa’s social media posts “would likely breach or come close to breaching the Criminal Code of Canada.” Ms. Lisitsa replied with her lawyer’s opinion rejecting that of Mr. Smith. [All emphasis added.]

So what exactly does Canada’s Criminal Code say about “hate” – this oft used and ever abused term that the Zionist lobbyist has managed to inject, via subterfuge, into the country’s legal system and their media tool kit? The Code reads:

Wilful promotion of hatred

319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Judging from the wording of the text we find that just like the term “terrorist” there’s no actual definition given as to what the word “hatred” means. In other words it is subjective and means whatever a person or lawyer or judge decides it means to them. This fact renders it useless in terms of trying to argue against it or debate it once the word has been inserted into jurisprudence thus making it merely a tool for intimidation and control in the same way that the term “anti-Semite” has been used for the last century to browbeat and demonize anyone who so much as issues a dissenting sigh in hearing distance of a Zionist Jew or one of their sycophantic lackeys.

The same has now become true for the “6 million” holocaust debate wherein an accusation of being a “holocaust denier” has taken on the same legal authority in certain countries and is being used to censor proven historical facts and jail anyone who so much as questions whether the alleged event ever occurred in real time or disputes the purported numbers.

As an editorial in the Toronto Star on April 7 put it the Ukrainian-born pianist shouldn’t have been prevented from performing with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, adding that, “In a particularly weak explanation of why the orchestra was dropping her, TSO president Jeff Melanson said Lisitsa was bounced over “ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets.” And, he added: “As one of Canada’s most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world’s great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive.”

This misses the point on at least two counts. First, Lisitsa was not invited to Toronto to discuss her provocative political views. She was scheduled to play the piano. And second, banning a musician for expressing “opinions that some believe to be offensive” shows an utter failure to grasp the concept of free speech.

We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.

Again, in a subsequent article on April 9 in the same publication writer  Vinay Menon adds, “It’s a good thing Jeff Melanson isn’t running our public library system. Or the city would need to hire 2,000 firefighters to keep up with all the book burnings this summer. . . Am I being unfair to Melanson, chief executive of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra? Perhaps! But this is my opinion and, here in Canada, we are allowed to express opinions, even ones that may seem unfair and offensive.”

Menon further states, “The spiritual charter of any cultural institution, important or otherwise, must have certain words etched between the operational lines, including ‘freedom of expression‘ and ‘don’t cave to special interests.‘”

Valentina Quote graphic800

It’s a well established fact that those who accuse others of “promoting hatred” are, themselves, the ones who hate to hear the truth and therefore resort to Canada’s infamous “Hate Propaganda” laws in order to stifle any discussion related to their own questionable actions. Such has been my own experience in dealing with my accusers and, as we can see from Valentina’s encounter with the bureaucrats who run the Toronto Symphony Orchestra she ran into this this same mindset; one that invariably displays both a lack of integrity and the inability to talk openly and honestly about their intentions or their ultimate agenda.

Are we finally seeing a change in attitude on the part of Canada’s mainstream media when it comes to actually challenging Canada’s ill-conceived “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Section 318 – 320 of the Criminal Code?

Is Canada’s media, the same organ that trumpeted the call for the repeal of Sec. 13(1) now going to tackle the final citadel of censorship, Section 319 of the Criminal Code? If so then they’ll also have to start considering lending a positive voice to organizations like the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, the one and only civil liberties group in Canada to date that is openly supporting my legal case and the repeal of these Orwellian “Hate” laws that reap nothing but repression, opprobrium and the loss of free expression for all Canadians and others like pianist Valentina Lisitsa.

The time is long past for Canada to resume its former role as a free and democratic nation and nothing will ensure that this happens more than the country ridding itself of all its Zionist-induced “Hate” legislation.

—–

 

Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel by British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) with commentary by Arthur Topham

https://bccla.org/2015/04/freedom-of-expression-and-criticism-of-israel/

BCCLA Hdr

Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel
April 1, 2015

by BCCLA

The BC Civil Liberties Association is deeply concerned about the effects on freedom of expression of recent changes to hate speech laws and the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel regarding Public Diplomacy Cooperation.

Section 318 of the Criminal Code prohibits advocating or promoting “genocide.” Genocide is defined as intending to destroy, in whole or in part, any “identifiable group” by killing members of the group or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. The “identifiable groups” covered by this provision were expanded in 2014 in the misnamed “cyber-bullying bill.” Identifiable groups now include sections of the public not only distinguishable by ethnic origin, but also by national origin.

Whatever other subjects the government intended to capture by expanding the hate speech laws to include “national origin,” it surely had a view to Israel, given that shortly after the passing of the Bill, the government issued an MOU with Israel in which it claims “that the selective targeting of Israel reflects the new face of anti-Semitism.”

The BC Civil Liberties Association has had long-standing concerns about the use of hate speech laws, and in particular, about the ability of hate speech laws to chill legitimate political speech. Our association is unequivocal in denouncing anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. We believe that the goals of fighting racism and defending civil liberties can and must be advanced together and that censorship weakens Canadians’ freedom without reducing racism. We best defeat racism by actively promoting arguments in favour of racial amity, not by enlisting the state to silence people.

 canadian_charter_of_rights_and_freedoms_ext

All decent people will agree on the noxiousness of anti-Semitism. But reasonable and decent people can and do differ about what the law should do to address racism. The BCCLA has long argued against “hate speech” laws, which do more damage to democratic debate than they do to protect those vulnerable to acts of bigots. The expansion of the hate speech laws and the language of the recent MOU clearly suggest that strong speech criticizing the state of Israel or its policies could be construed as illegal. Yet this is speech clearly protected by the Charter.

This situation constitutes a two-fold threat. The Charter rights of Canadians whose speech criticizes Israel are threatened. In addition, failing to meaningfully support Canadians’ right to political speech in this context, threatens the legitimacy of Canada’s work to combat anti-Semitism.

The BCCLA joins many organizations in calling on the Canadian government to ensure that citizens’ Charter rights are protected in the context of political speech and legitimate political actions, such as boycotts, with respect to criticism of the state of Israel.

——

 Commentary by RadicalPress.com Publisher & Editor  Arthur Topham

ATEditorPic185

[Editor's Note: These comments were posted on the BCCLA website] Tentatively this post is encouraging but the BCCLA must go beyond section 318 and address the more meaningful and dangerous aspects of section 319(2) of the Criminal Code which deal with so-called “Hate Propaganda”. It’s there that “Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel” is being challenged and it’s there that the BCCLA must take a stand in order to ensure that any Canadian who criticizes either the state of Israel or its political ideology Zionism, is fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Currently this is NOT the case and it is exemplified by my own situation wherein the Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada has been harassing and legally attacking me and my website http://www.radicalpress.com since November of 2007. They began their assault on my Charter right to freedom of expression by first laying a sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint against myself and my website in November of 2007. That quasi-legal procedure lasted right up to the day when the specious section of the Canadian Human Rights Code was finally repealed in June of 2012.

Knowing full well that sec. 13(1)’s shelf life was over and that they wouldn’t be able to use it any longer to try and censor my writings and publications B’nai Brith Canada then turned to sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code and charged me with the very same “crime” of “promoting hatred toward Jews” (only this time they left out the words “and citizens of Israel” which were included in the original sec. 13(1) complaint).

As a result I’m now facing a possible 2 year jail term for publishing material (not even written by myself and freely available on numerous other websites) critical of the state of Israel and its Zionist ideology. I was arrested in May of 2012 and all my computers and electronic files stolen by the BC Hate Crime Unit and my case is currently before the BC Supreme Court.

Should the Crown win and a precedent be set with regard to the issue of criticism of Israel then that precedent will undoubtedly be used against any other Canadian publisher, writer, blogger to stifle debate and shut down websites.

I highly recommend that the BCCLA issue a public statement regarding the use of Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code to thwart freedom of expression and criticism of Israel and make it perfectly clear that Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation is not acceptable in a free and democratic nation.

For further information on Regina v. Radicalpress.com please see here: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=2553

——

Conspiracy Theorists Are The New Nazis by B’Man’sRevolt

ConspiracyTheoristsB'Man copy

Conspiracy Theorists Are The New Nazis
by BMan

alex_jones_nazi_king

That damned Alex Jones is going to shit his pants. The Nazi king (he is in a close race with Sweetie Zuesse for the kingship) is also the king conspiracy theorist of the alternative media whores. So, what is he going to do now that the French President François Hollande is now calling conspiracy theorists “Nazis”?

The meme has been building as of late and is highlighted by various Marxist outfits and has been a heavy feature on Reddit. Raw Story featured the folks at Stormfront who made it known that they were using the Reddit media to attract “Alex Jones-reading kosher retards”:

Why bother trying to enlighten a bunch of Alex Jones-reading kosher retards who think that the ‘Illuminati lizard people’ run the world? Well, I’ll tell you why: conspiracy-minded people are the most open to considering the reality, which is that international Jewry, in fact, runs our societies.”

I know there are a few people that visit here and also visit StormFront. I know there is a mix of various types of people that frequent that site. However, I generally stay away, because the fact is that quite a few of the commenters are obviously simply in it for the hate.

stormfront

But that doesn’t mean that I disagree with Slay’s sentiments above, but I do think the overall hateful demeanor of many of the commenters is detrimental to our mutual cause of awakening everyone, including Alex Jones types. I don’t dislike those people, but I stay away because I don’t see the hate as helpful in any way. At the same time, it would be foolish for me to discount the many folks who use the site, but don’t necessarily find hate in everyone but white people. From the perspective of white pride, I agree fully, just as I support other races for having pride in their race.

The fact is that there are many wonderful people that contribute to that site (which is quite large). And I appreciate their vigor and stamina when it comes to illuminating this message of hope. And the message of hope is to stop the Jewish control of the world (at least in my estimation). Perhaps there are a variety of ways to accomplish this, so each and every proposition needs to be offered for debate and evaluation. This is what StormFront does by and large.

The problem I see with StormFront is that it ends up being perceived as a white supremacy site, when the fact is that all the goyim need to fight the scourge that rules us (which includes the few decent Jews that are willing to fight with us, aka “self-hating Jews). This is why I say the hate is detrimental. It breaks down all the races into opposing forces (the divide and conquer scheme of the Jews). It PLAYS right into the Jews’ hands.

So, this hatred will be used against the entire movement. France will begin and others will follow. This is why Hollande said the following as he was kissing the Jew ass at the Shoah Memorial on Jan 27:

hollande

French Jew President Francois Hollande

“[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst “(…)” [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks. Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce

All of us who use the internet to fight the scourge will be “held to account” by controlling the social media outlets (as if some aren’t already totally controlled by the Jews). DC Dave and I have both pointed out the connections of their control of Google and YouTube. But some of the other social media sites are much harder for them to censor, so legislation after duly demonizing us “conspiracy theorists” as Nazis will be necessary to control the outlets that cannot censor themselves.

After all, us conspiracy theorists are fermenters of hate and disintegrators of society for offering what is obvious to any thinking, unowned, subservient useful idiot that carries the Jews’ water.

conspiracy-theory

The Voltaire.net article also has a quote from the Jean-Jaurès Foundation which tells us exactly what a Conspiracy Theorist is (Thanks for the lead, Dave… everyone should read that article):

“[It’s] a heterogeneous movement, heavily entangled with the Holocaust denial movement, and which combines admirers of Hugo Chavez and fans of Vladimir Putin. An underworld that consist of former left-wing activists or extreme leftists, former “malcontents”, sovereignists, revolutionary nationalists, ultra-nationalists, nostalgists of the Third Reich, anti-vaccination activists, supporters of drawing straws, September 11th revisionists, anti-Zionists, Afrocentricists, survivalists, followers of “alternative medicine”, agents of influence of the Iranian regime, Bacharists, Catholic or Islamic fundamentalists “(p. 8).

Seriously, I fit into several of those categories, so I know I will be in the cross-hairs (it is evident that I already am because of the YouTube censorship I recently wrote about and has plagued me for years).

I hope it backfires and more people wake up to the Jewish onslaught because of it.

But I doubt it.
——–

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Nights in White Satin by the Moody Blues

MoodyBlues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr6qr1AWRko

Canada PM’s anti-Iran remarks illogical, spiteful: Tehran from PressTV

Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 2.59.08 AM

Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 2.58.05 AM

Iran has dismissed as “repetitious, illogical and tedious” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s allegations that Iranians live under “tyranny.”  

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Marzieh Afkham, said on Monday that the Canadian prime minister made very superficial and unrealistic remarks about Iran, adding that Canada’s conservative government is in fact an “extremist” administration.

“It is most probable that the freedom-seeking gesture of Mr. prime minister is aimed at mustering the votes of Canada-based Iranian community in the upcoming parliamentary elections,” Afkham added.

She emphasized that such an approach to Iranian nationals living in Canada indicates that the Canadian officials are suffering from “egotism” and have an “incorrect assessment” of the Iranian community.

Speaking in a ceremony to mark the Iranian new year, Nowruz, in Vancouver on Saturday, Harper harshly criticized Iran’s policies.

Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 2.58.29 AM

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks at a ceremony to mark Nowruz in Vancouver on March 21, 2015.

He claimed that the Canadian government would ensure that Iranians who are seeking refuge from Iran “can access freedom, democracy and justice here in Canada as Canadians.”

SF/KA/SS

——–

Source: PressTV

It’s “cool” to call Canadian Senator Cools a “nigger cunt” if you have B’nai Brith backing you, just don’t criticize Israel or Zionism. RadicalPress poster ad

Sen.CoolsRacistAttack copy 4

Zion’s Zombie Army: Neo-Zionist zealots attack RadicalPress.com by Arthur Topham

ZION'SZOMBIES 700

Zion’s Zombie Army: Neo-Zionist zealots attack RadicalPress.com

By
Arthur Topham

“The problem is, The Radical, like D&D, has connections and it has influence.”
- Will Offley, DRY ROT: The Far Right Targets the Left,
Canadian Dimension magazine, Jan/Feb/2001

“It’s the same old story
Everywhere I go,
I get slandered, libelled
I hear words I never heard in the Bible”
Paul Simon, “Keep The Customer Satisfied

Intro

Being a longstanding member of the alternative new media one expects to be subjected to an endless array of vituperation, slander, hate, maligning, slurs, false accusations, etc. It comes with the territory; that being the vast, uncharted landscape known as Truth-revealing.

In the case of RadicalPress.com the assaults upon my then hard copy, bimonthly tabloid known as The Radical (June 1998 to June 2002) began in earnest around the turn of the century approximately two years after I began publishing. By that point in time I had established myself as a rather unique specimen in the then fledgling alternative press.

Here in Canada, as elsewhere within the world’s democracies, the yin/yang nature of the present system of governance inevitably affords the Canadian citizen, taxpayer and voter a “choice” between either a left wing or a right wing style government with either of these variations taking on additional names and identities. The “left”, historically, has been the Liberal Party of Canada and the “right” has operated under the guise of the Conservative Party of Canada throughout its history.

Following the general pattern set around the Western world, by the beginning of the 20th century a new kid suddenly appeared on the political block whose outward appearance and purpose was aimed at garnering the support of the great unwashed masses, the “Proletariat”, many of whom had only recently achieved suffrage. As they became known within the literature of the day this new kid’s schtick was basically the political ideology we understand today as “socialism” although throughout much of its genesis it quickly became co-oped by the Marxist strain that preferred to be known as “communism”.

Those socialist/communist ideals and precepts then became firmly embodied in Canadian politics during the 1930′s when the Western world was being held in thrall to a devastating economic “depression” euphemistically known as the “Dirty Thirties”; a deliberate event brought on by the machinations of the private money lenders (all Jews) who, in 1913, had successfully pulled off the greatest financial coup in world history when they were given a license by the United States government to manufacture fiat currency out of thin air and then lend it out at usurious cost to borrowers.

Concomitant with the surreptitiously gained, carte blanche freedom to create untold wealth (embodied under the false flag tag of the “U.S. Federal Reserve” and later aptly referred to as the Creature from Jekyll Island by the American writer G. Edward Griffin), the “fed” was able to use its ill-gained power to manipulate the stock markets and influence the overall wealth of the nation for good or bad, all dependent upon agenda which this Rothschild cartel clandestinely conspired to author for their own benefit and that of their tribe.

And so out of all this financial intrigue-wreaking economic havoc around the Western world emerged a new “Made in Canada” “left” political party known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), led by a man who justifiably may be called the nation’s most truthful, honest and honourable Statesman, Thomas “Tommy” Clement Douglas.

First elected to office in Saskatchewan in 1935 as a CCF member of the House of Commons Tommy then resigned to run for the leadership of the provincial CCF and in 1944 they won an overwhelming majority and his party became the first-ever socialist government in North America. In 1961, the CCF formed the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada under Tommy’s leadership and, as they say, the rest is history.

It must be borne in mind though that the Tommy Douglas version of socialism was fundamentally different from that of Canada’s Communist Party which never was able to align its own Marxist-Leninist (Zionist) policies with those of the democratic socialism of either the CCF or, later, the NDP. Douglas had little use for any form of socialism involving people who did little else but sit around talking about Marx or Lenin or Trotsky waited patiently for the next “revolution” to start that would usher in the type of totalitarian Bolshevik government that formed the former Soviet system. Tommy’s socialism was based on Christian principles of brotherhood and helping others less fortunate than oneself rather than following a rigid, dogmatic Marxist/Leninist doctrine.

TommyDouglasPoster1Red

As a result Canada has never had to endure any serious growth of Marxist-style politics (although shades of things to come can be seen in the behaviour of the current Zionist-controlled Harper Conservatives) and what little did develop tended to be isolated pockets of communist ideologues located within fringe areas of cities across the country.

As the interest in The Radical grew, so did the concern of the minority section of the “left” who, up until that point had basically held a monopoly over the type of information being disseminated to the alternative community around the province and the nation. The group fretting over the information being disseminated via The Radical (and believe me it was as broad in scope as humanly possible, covering as many topics as I could squeeze into 24 pages) turned out to be the Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Zionist section of Vancouver’s East Side, an anomalous collective of atheistic, diehard doctrinaire, commissar throwbacks heavily influenced by all the Jewish writers and activists of the past century.

It was this shadowy, serpentine sub-group of Canada’s socialist “left” who were not impressed at all with the new upstart from Quesnel, B.C. who was suddenly cutting a swath, like anarchist Nestor Mahkno’s raiders did through Lenin’s Bolshevik forces after 1917, through their formerly held media territory. The Radical was covering so many different topics that their Leninized heads began spinning with each new edition that hit the streets giving the term “revolution” a whole new meaning; one that was plainly undermining their traditionally calcified, narcissistic and nihilistic world of Marxist mediocrity.

By the end of the year 2000 things came to a head with the zio-Marxists launching their first full-scale attack upon my newspaper and that of a sister publication from out in Nova Scotia known as Discourse and Disclosure run by Sue Potvin and hosting an array of writers and activists who were then aligning themselves with either of our newspapers.

The vehicle for launching their hostile assault was Canadian Dimension (CD) magazine, also a bimonthly “Left” publication that had been in business for around 6 years and displayed strong ties to the old Marxist-Leninist/Zionist left as well as trade unions. From what I could tell it was heavily influenced by Jewish/Zionist writers and staff.

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 6.57.36 PM

Their trigger man for the first volley was a Vancouver-based “researcher and writer” by the name of Will Offley who penned an all-encompassing screed called “DRY ROT: The Far Right Targets the Left”. Its appearance in the January/February 2001 edition of CD set the tone for the future in terms of this Marxist group’s attitude toward Radical Press and their ongoing efforts to marginalize my publication by the use of standard Zionist Jew smear tactics. The article itself is no longer available on the Canadian Dimension website but it is available on RadicalPress.com here.

DryRotOffleyHdr-546x600

As one will note Radical Press is still operating fourteen years later regardless of the relentless attacks by the Zionist forces who continue doing their utmost to control all the political discourse, be on the net or in hard copy alternative publications. Their mask is Zion and their game is always censorship of any anti-Zionist opposing perspectives by any foul means deemed expedient..

HATE IN THE NORTH: Gaily bedight, a not so Gallant knight

Okay, now let’s fast forward to the year 2012. The zionist brainwashed lefties who I’ve coined “neo-Zionists” basically went off my radar screen (with the occasional exception of the Anti-RacistCanada blogsite) after their taskmaster and benefactor, the Jewish masonic B’nai Brith Canada, figured it would be a lot easier to use legislation (contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act which they played a major role in creating after the end of WW2 using the holocaust lie as pretext) to charge me with a sec. 13 “Hate crime”. This allow them to download the responsibility and cost on to the state (and the Canadian taxpayer) who would subsequently take over the harassment and persecution just as they did in all other cases where they didn’t have the courage or integrity to enter into any formal debate on the issues but would rather just label all opposing viewpoints as “hate speech” and have the courts do the dirty work for them. The classic example of this was the Canada’s Jewish lobby’s vile, despicable, traitorous and vicious attacks upon truth revealer Ernst Zundel. One can view his case here to find out the real story about how these hordes of Zion’s Zombies behave when programmed to act as attack dogs for the truth-hating Jews.

GallantFaceofHope 801

Bringing it all down to a local focus, on December 1, 2012 a young man by the name of Daniel Gallant, then completing his Master’s degree in Social Work at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) in Prince George, B.C. (a city about 100 km north of the Quesnel area where I reside), published a short 5-Part series of articles on his website entitled “Hate in the North”. In Part I Gallant introduced himself with the following short statement:

“I am an example of hope, diversity and compassion that can be seen through my work as an anti-racist activist, and a re-formed violent right wing extremist. As a right-wing-skinhead who has committed hundreds of assaults during my time in the white supremacist movement, I believe that my experiences can benefit society by offering insight into hate crimes, and the patterns that surround these violent acts. Over ten years ago I was awakened to a path of redemption and social change through epiphanies at the height of my extremist action.”

Gallant, as he goes to great (one might even say “extreme”) lengths to outline in his autobiographical writings on his websites, tells his readers that he was born into a very dysfunctional family setting and grew up under excruciatingly painful circumstances that resulted in his having to endure all sorts of horrific physical, mental, emotional and spiritual abuse and trauma. The end result of it all landed him in Vancouver, B.C. at the young age of 14 in the very same neighbourhood populated by the fringe lefties who now play a role in this article.

After joining his “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” “violent right wing extremist” groups and beating and torturing hundreds of victims this flawed piece of human machinery, either through the grace of God or possibly some other force, finally was able to break free from his bondage to human despair and violence around the time that Israel was destroying the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

Upon escaping his former fate his road to recovery brought him into contact with a number of remedial groups and agencies and individuals who all had varying degrees of influence on his healing. Foremost was his family connection with First Nations culture stemming from his early childhood out in Alberta. But, as is the case in so many instances of individuals who have suffered extreme trauma in their lives, Daniel Gallant’s road to recovery was fraught with new obstacles and challenges which, as one can see from reviewing his path to the present day, have led him into a new world paradigm that poses as great a challenge as his former incarnation as a “violent right wing extremist neo-Nazi skinhead white supremacist”.

Today Daniel Gallant is on a crusade to make amends for all of his past sins and in doing so he is now being encouraged and supported by yet another group of even more dangerous, fanatical zealots than his former associates, these being the Zionist criminal cartel itself, the world’s foremost problem and threat to global peace and security and the front organization for the Devil himself.

Following his heartfelt confessions (somewhat reminiscent, for those familiar with the Bible, of St. Paul himself), the remainder of Part I focusses on his connections to and interpretations of supposed “violent right wing extremists” and the “white supremacist movement”, both of which are the focus of “a unique and powerful new global force” called the “Against Violent Extremism (AVE) Network” which, as Gallant states, “is managed by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and is a unique private sector partnership between ISD, Google Ideas, the Gen Next Foundation and Rehab Studio.”and which he is now associated with as well. [all emphasis throughout this article is mine. A.T.]

There is an old saying that one can usually find out a lot about a person by the company they keep so, with that in mind, let’s have a look at some of Daniel Gallant’s new-found “friends” who have been so helpful in supporting and promoting his current mission in life as the new Simon Wiesenthal “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist”, “violent right wing extremist”, “hate” hunter.

For starters the “Against Violent Extremism Network” offers readers some revealing glimpses into those who are organizing and financing the initiatives that the young Daniel Gallant is involved with.

WeisenfeldPhoto

In the above photo (from Bloomberg) we sees the “rebel” oligarch Lord Arthur George Weidenfeld, President of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and head of the brain trust that’s designing and financing “philanthropic” organizations like the “Against Violent Extremism Network”. As Bloomberg states, “Lord Arthur George Weidenfeld, also known as Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea, is the Founder and serves as Chairman of Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., a book publisher, since 1948 [subsidiary of The Orion Publishing Group, Ltd. A.T.]. Lord Weidenfeld is the President of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Lord Weidenfeld serves as Director of Hollinger International Publishing Inc. He serves as director of Jerusalem Post. Lord Weidenfeld is also the Member of Advisory Board of the Telegraph Group Limited and Member of European Advisory Board at Investcorp Bank BSC, Private Equity. He served as a director of Hollinger Inc. from September 1993 to 1995.”

Plainly folks there’s obviously no hidden agenda here. No conspiracy. Just a man of the people dedicating his resources to the endless struggle for truth and social justice; a veritable Gandhi of the Rothschild International banking consortium.

Weidenfeld&Merkel&Kissinger copy

This photo also reveals many more of Daniel Gallant’s benefactors. Unfortunately the picture wasn’t accompanied by a caption so I was unable to identify most of them but as one can see we do have German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Stasi agent from communist east Berlin, standing with a number of apparently highly influential personages including Lord Weidenfeld (behind her) and the infamous war criminal Henry Kissinger to the right of Weidenfeld. Again, just another group of everyday Joes and a Jane deeply concerned about the state of the world and giving of themselves to improve the plight of humanity.

[Editor's Note: Since publication of this article I have been furnished with the names of the rest of the people in the photo above. This is a picture taken when Kissinger celebrated his 90th birthday. They are, from left to right, the following German politicians and media bosses: former Minister for Economics and Technology and former Vice-chancellor Philipp Roesler, former Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, former Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher, Merkel, Weinfeld, in wheelchair former chancellor Helmut Schmidt, former President von Weizsaecker, Kissinger, former Minister of Finance Peer Steinbrueck, wheelchair Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble, Chief Executive Officer of German media group Axel Springer SE Mathias Döpfner and Chairman of the supervisory board German media group Axel Springer SE Giuseppe Vita]

Next on Daniel Gallant’s friends list we find Google Ideas. Now everyone knows of course that Google is the most powerful Jewish-owned outfit on the cyber block when it comes to the control and dispensation of information and spyware and, being the overlord of the world’s ability to access truthful information, is also vital to the availability of much of the content now processable on the Internet.

Again, nothing unusual here to be concerned with when it comes to open access and freedom of speech and so on. This fact is easily discerned just from viewing the graphic headers on the Google Ideas website and knowing that Google Ideas “explores how technology can enable people to confront threats in the face of conflict, instability and repression. We connect users, experts and engineers to conduct research and seed new technology-driven initiatives.” Most reassuring indeed for individuals and organizations who may wish to avail themselves of such powerful tools in order to search out all those nasty “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” and “violent right wing extremists” who are causing so much “conflict, instability and repression” within Google’s domain.

GoogleIdeas2

GoogleIdeas3

Another “unique and powerful new global” friend of Daniel Gallant’s is Gen Next Foundation. Now here’s a group of rebel anarchists if you ever saw one! All smiles and clean-cut, one can rest assured that they would have only the best of philanthropic intentions for the great unwashed masses.

As their Mission states, “The Gen Next Foundation works to create opportunities and confront challenges that face future generations in the areas of education, economic opportunity, and global security.  We aspire to solve the greatest generational challenges of our time using a unique hybrid of private sector and non-profit business models – called a venture philanthropy model.”

GenNextFoundation1 copy

GenNext2

Here, pictured in the photo above, is yet another radical group of bad-assed, Gen Next Generation “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” bounty hunters ready to rock ‘n roll and provide all the necessary backup for young, born-again neo-Zionist “hate” detectives like Daniel Gallant and company. I mean a little Saudi (Jew) money doesn’t hurt the cause now does it? As they state on their site, “When private sector and thought leaders turn their attention, time, and revenue towards supporting game-changing, socially impactful projects, the results can shape the future for millions around the world.

In terms of Gen Next Foundation’s issues they focus on the three that “drive prosperity for future generations: Education, Economic Opportunity, and Global Security.” Get it? “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. And, speaking of Global Security, the Gen Next Foundation has this to say: “Without a stable, safe environment to grow up in, future generations have far less of a chance to achieve their dreams. Overcoming 21st century challenges demand that our nation’s defense apparatus is the most funded, versatile, well trained, respected, and effective in the world.

We must prioritize diplomacy, and present a positive image of the US in the world. By observing trends in instability, violence, and extremism, both in our own neighborhoods and around the globe, we can better understand the roots of these problems, and develop solutions to solve them through community, technology, and other innovative methods.”

And where do we find the sources for their grand ideas? Let’s see. The World Economic Forum, 2014, the Council on Foreign Relations, 2012, and the Pew Research Center, three outstanding, revolutionary organizations all designed to enhance the quality of life for freedom-living working folks everywhere.

GenNext3

 GenNext4

GenNext5

In terms of their Ventures “Gen Next Foundation incubates and grows ventures that are often high risk, forward looking, and high impact ideas. Our network guides and effectuates each venture with action groups capable of creative ideation, McKinsey style consulting, and world class execution [no doubt along the lines of Israel's Mossad. A.T.]. We align private sector leaders, government officials, and NGOs in a Venture Philanthropy model to ensure our ventures have the greatest impact.”

Wikipedia tells us, “McKinsey & Company is a multinational management consulting firm with 108 global offices headquartered in New York City in the United States. It conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis in order to evaluate management decisions. Eighty percent of the world’s largest corporations are consulted by the firm and it is considered the most prestigious management consultancy. McKinsey publishes the McKinsey Quarterly, funds the McKinsey Global Institute research organization, publishes reports on management topics and has authored many influential books on management. Its practices of confidentiality, influence on business practices and corporate culture have experienced a polarizing reception.”

Pretty high-falutin language and projects we’re seeing here coming from all of these international orgs and “management consulting firms”who intend to “engineer” our lives for our own good regardless of what we might think. Why it just send shivers of excitement up one’s spine contemplating all the possibilities in store for the lumpen Proles in the days ahead.

GenNext6 PM

And finally, to conclude this brief look at Daniel Gallant’s allies in the hate-hunting, neo-Nazi, white supremacist business, we best take a quick peek at Rehab Studeo.

RehabStudeo

This is yet another “creative technology company” that provides “digital brand experiences that live online, mobile and in the real world, employing a unique creative process based on the principles of hacking to help clients solve business and communication problems using creativity and technology.” Oi veh! Such a deal for all the Daniel’s of the world who just might want to “hack” into all those “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” websites or anyone else who they decide is a threat to their global security interests.

Anyway, so much for some of Daniel Gallant’s benefactors. Now let’s take a look at what he’s saying about yours truly and other truth revealers who have dedicated their lives to outing the ongoing machinations of the globalist elites and see what we might find. Then, I’ll try and summarize my thoughts on why this “example of hope, diversity and compassion” behaves as he does and also analyze why his efforts are both misplaced and detrimental to a truthful understanding of how the world operates and ultimately just a cover up and another false flag designed solely to protect the people that are now manufacturing the “reality” which is leading us all further and further into the realm of a one world global dictatorship so lucidly outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion over a century ago.

Following Part I of Gallant’s general comments on “Hate in the North” he zeroes in on me in Parts II to V by writing the following piece of pro-Zionist propaganda and titling it “Wells, BC, A Home for Hate: Arthur Topham’s Hate and Fear“. Why he chose to include the words “Wells, BC” is open to speculation as I haven’t lived in the town of Wells for forty years and anyone living in the Cariboo who knows me knows that I live in the community of Cottonwood where I’ve resided full time since 1978. The fact that he did use that title came back eventually to bite him in the ass on Facebook and when it did he changed it to Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham.

As well as screwing up on the title he also did the same thing with the url to my website. That, I believe, was intentional on Gallant’s part as he likely didn’t want to give my website any attention other than to provide a pretext for his slander and vilification that it provides to his readership (assuming of course that he has readers. Judging from the number of comments at the end of each of these 5-Part diatribes it doesn’t appear to be many). The addition of “/blog/” to the url to radicalpress.com was an easy way to throw readers off.

Also, it ought to be noted that I had to remove the urls to the three news articles that Gallant posts on his site. Why? Because there is a court order prohibiting me from publishing anything that contains the names of the two traitorous Zionist sycophant sayanim who filed the complaints against me and this included even links to other publications that reveal their names. It’s all justified of course by saying that they are being somehow put “in danger” if I should mention them. It could be misconstrued as a “threat” even. Heaven forbid! Doesn’t matter that all the court documents display their names and either of these entities are known across the country for all their other devious deeds over the past decade and longer and if anyone was to google my name and the charges brought against me that they could easily find out who they are. It’s called Zionese and is a perverse form of legalese.

Here, then, is Gallant’s assessment of myself:

Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham

ATPub+

Quesnel BC’s own white supremacist Arthur Topham:
http://www.radicalpress.com/blog/ real link is: http://www.radicalpress.com/

News articles relating to Arthur Topham:

http://news.nationalpost.com/.… [court order prohibiting publication]
http://www.torontosun.com/.… [court order prohibiting publication]
http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/.… [court order prohibiting publication]

This local arrest is a very important event. It provides the north with the opportunity to say that we will not tolerate violent extremism in northern BC. No assaults, whether verbal or physical should be encouraged or even permitted. Since I have moved to Prince George four years ago, I have linked the promotion of hate, youth recruitment into hate groups, racist vandalism, and violent extremism that includes explosives/bombs. This is an opportunity for Prince George and the northern region to state the claim that violent extremism is not welcome in our communities.

The online white supremacist chatter is currently running wild. Quesnel, BC, is now on the map as a white supremacist location. Arthur Topham is reported to have been arrested and his house searched by RCMP while hate crimes charges have reportedly been laid. White supremacist websites and discussion forums are expressing support and outrage about Topham’s arrest. Already the defense of free speech is being advocated by Paul Fromm and of course lawyer Doug Christie. This is not the first time Arthur Topham has been the center of online white supremacist discourse. In 2009, Human Rights complaints were lodged against him. The complaints were dismissed due to complex legal issues. However, Topham has now been caught with his ‘cyber-pants down’. It is claimed by Paul Fromm that Doug Christie will be representing Arthur Topham.

If asked, most people would not think that violent extremism is present in the northern part of British Columbia. However, with the actions of several racist-right-wing skinheads and white supremacists the north is seemingly becoming plagued by extremists, just like anywhere else in Canada.

————

So, apart from his first two faux pas, our “example of hope, diversity and compassion” Mr. Daniel Gallant then violates the very foundation of justice as it exists in both natural law and the laws of Canada by automatically assuming I am somehow guilty of the alleged crime of “promoting hate” and goes off on his own ramblings about all the hateful things he’s discovered in the north after living here for the past four years. In Daniel’s guilt-ridden fantasy world where demons run rampant, suddenly the “online white supremacist chatter is currently running wild. Quesnel (formerly Wells), BC, is now on the map as a white supremacist location . . . White supremacist websites and discussion forums are expressing support and outrage about Topham’s arrest” (although none of them are referenced in the article). Paul Fromm and Doug Christie are immediately highlighted and, by association, linked to the alleged “White supremacist websites and discussion forums.”

Next, Gallant, missing his target by only three years, tells readers that I had already been “caught with [my] ‘cyber-pants down’” back in 2009 when a Human Rights complaint was filed against me but that it had been “dismissed due to complex legal issues.” The truth of course is that the Section 13 complaint was filed back in 2007 and wasn’t stayed until June 26th, 2014 when Section 13 was officially repealed by the federal government a year and a half after Gallant wrote his little hate propaganda piece. So much for referencing his work with factual information.

Part III of Gallant’s pentagon of pathetic Zionist propaganda, titled “Ideological Glance” is another feeble and fruitless attempt to vilify the likes of former columnist for the North Shore News in Vancouver, B.C. Doug Collins; to refute the truth found in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; to malign James Keegstra and and Ernst Zundel; and to defend the greatest hoax of the 20th century, i.e., the lie that 6 million Jews were gassed and fried in ovens in German work camps during WWII.

DOUG COLLINS PATRIOT

Part IV of Gallant’s mini-series on Machiavellian methods for maligning the enemies of Zion titled “Perversion of Rights” consists of another five paragraphs of slurs, half-truths, outright lies and defamation of both Paul Fromm and Douglas Christie that culminate in accusations of pre-meditated intent on the part of these two Canadian patriots to promote “genocide, atrocity and harm to those who are implicated in the ‘Zionist conspiracy’; which includes ‘race-mixers’, ‘race-traitors’ and most citizens.”

Part V titled “White Lies” is, like all of the other parts, a scrambled, incoherent, convoluted and pathetic attempt to present a hodge podge of lies, assumptions and worn-out Zionist cliches as an intelligent appraisal of Gallant’s misguided belief that anyone who disagrees with the Jewish interpretation of history must, automatically, be labeled either a “neo-Nazi” or a “white supremacist” and a “hater”. I will quote in full the two paragraphs that comprise this final segment of Gallant’s smear campaign against myself and my associates so that readers can see for themselves how transparent, ridiculous, puerile and psychotic this individual’s reasoning truly is. Pay particular attention to the sentence in bold where the writer attempts to wax eloquent on the subject of eugenics.

“In addition to the conspiracy oriented backbone of the white supremacist worldview there is another likewise problematic misconception. This is the notion of racial purity and the links biology has to culture. Eugenics based science/theory, which is archaic in its development, and the belief that biological determinism is one of the crux of white supremacist idealism speaks to the lens of these pseudo-intellectual lenses. We as a collective society now understand that race and biology do not determine socialization. Socio-cultural dynamics which include intelligence, deviance and criminality are referenced throughout much of the right-wing doctrine as being linked directly to physiology and biology. This biologically determined belief structure is not only archaic, but de-bunked as a science. As indicated by UNBC professor and scholar Michelle Bouchard race is a social construct and what people typically refer to as ‘race’ does not actually exist genetically in a solidified and quantitative manner.

Loose connections are the root of white supremacist doctrine and propaganda. Extremists from the right wing agenda, like Arthur Topham, regurgitate distasteful, hurtful and violent messages, which are rooted in half-baked pseudo-intellectualism. These individuals are not tucked away into the corners of society and hidden away. They work in your schools, courtrooms, universities and construction sites. It is my goal to include, in this blog, insight into who some of these people are; and what they are up to. It is my hope to inform those from the extreme-far-right, that there is a way out of the misconceptions of their indoctrination; all while promoting compassion and solidarity amongst our collective human experience in order to decrease the amount of abuse and oppression that occurs in our country, our cities, our streets, our institutions, our homes and most importantly in our minds.”

Okay. That more or less summarizes my comments on Gallant’s little 5-pack attack piece on myself, RadicalPress.com and friends and associates of freedom. It’s so redundant and oh so reminiscent for truth revealers everywhere of the stereotypical, nauseating ADL hit pieces that gush forth incessantly from the dark and dank underground recesses of B’nai Brith’s cesspool of slander and calumny, the Anti-Defamation League.

What my research of Gallant’s sites tells me (coupled with a few written exchanges on Facebook back in 2013) is that his behaviour, in light of his past trauma, explains to a great degree how the outcome of such a life provides the perfect breeding ground for New World Order psychopaths like the Zionist Jews who are always vigilant when it comes to seeking out traumatized individuals who can then be mind-controlled into performing the type of tasks that Daniel Gallant is now undertaking and who can then provide the necessary feigned sympathy and empathy followed by encouragement and training and public exposure and positive attention in order to gain a recruit who will then serve their interests and be a willing, goyim spokesperson for their NWO agenda.

Enter Joey Only – rebel anarchist and purveyor of Zionist Jew myths

Ignorance copy 2

Now like many minds shaped by trauma and pain Daniel Gallant is persistent in his efforts to expose those who his “demons” tell him are “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” and through such persistence he eventually was able to capture the attention of another young and foolish lad and a newcomer to the small town of Wells which has been an integral part of the local Cariboo social and cultural network for decades.

Wells,BC

Joey Only might properly be called a reluctant musician and singer/songwriter if one was to take to heart his autobiographical writings found at https://joeyonly.wordpress.com/. An easterner who eventually migrated out west in the fall of 2002 Joey, like his newly acquired friend and protege Daniel Gallant, also spend time in East Vancouver, Daniel beating up drunks and people of colour and Joey playing gigs in and around Vancouver’s “Left” music scene trying to build up a reputation as a ‘the radical folk singer’.

Eventually, after a number of years working with the Marxist-Leninist crowd in Vancouver, Joey became disenchanted and decided to head north to the Yukon where he set up shop in the local bars of Whitehorse there forming his “Outlaw Band” in the spring of 2006. Joey and his band worked hard to establish a reputation and earn a living and in the process he eventually morphed into a more western-style, frontier-type, back to the country (punk?) image. After a few years on the road Joey quit the music scene and in 2009, as he says, “due to personal disillusionment, moved to Wells took it easy, started a family and soon got a brand new ass kicking band together.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-20 at 6.12.19 PM

Like his newly acquired side-kick Daniel Gallant, Joey appears to be a rather introspective type; a poet and songwriter; one of the common folk and, professedly, a fierce opponent of any and all forms of injustice. Politically he espouses what he believes to be an anarchist perspective. In his younger years it appears he was also active in the Christian church. All fine and good.

Now around the end of February, Joey began suffering from a northern malady that we in the area refer to as “cabin fever blues”which is common throughout the Cariboo and other wintery type regions of the world where the short days and minimal sunlight tend to bring a person down. It was around this same period of darkness and depression that Daniel Gallant’s serpentine efforts on behalf of his Zionist taskmasters to work his venom into Joey’s mind finally had the desired effect. The result was Joey Only decided that he too had to do something about that “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” Arthur Topham, the “racist, hate-mongering anti-Semitic Jew-hater” who was giving Joey’s new town of Wells, a bad reputation as “A Home for Hate” and so on February 24th, 2015 he posted the following hit piece on his Facebook page:

Joey Onley
February 24 at 3:03pm

“So I gotta open up this can of worms…a friend of mine told me today they were scared to come to Wells because they read this article posted below some time ago and then shared it with me. I have to say I love this town so much that I can’t stand to see something like this. So I appreciate what Daniel Gallant, the author, is trying to do in exposing a neo-Nazi peice[sic] of alcoholic trash like Arthur Topham but I can’t approve of it as it’s unfactual and unfair. I want the article removed!
Arthur Topham doesn’t live in Wells and I don’t think anyone in this town would have any use for the pro-Hitler crap that spews from his rotten head. He lives the better part of an hour west of us and most people here have never heard of his name. I love this town and I believe we are a very progressive artistic, sensible and inclusive community, probably the shining light in the north. It hurts me to think that someone I care about would be afraid to visit me because they got the impression we are some kind of neo-nazi flag waving town.
If you feel so moved to help defend our towns reputation against such spurious accusations please do two things. Read this article and post a comment to Daniel explaining why you don’t believe it’s fair to muddy our little mountain towns name…and secondly when you see Arthur Topham in the liqour store remind him he’s a peice[sic] of shit nazi scumbag who our grandfathers would have shot…so not to bother visiting Wells. When insane neo-nazi rantings from someone we don’t even know come back to shame our town I get a different kind of angry as we are nothing like this. I never met this Arthur guy but if I recognize him in town I promise I won’t mence[sic] words in expressing my dissaproval[sic]!
Now let me post in the comments some of Arthur Tophams horrific works. This stuff makes me want to puke.”

Apart from the sudden realization that I was an “alcoholic” the rest of Joey’s gush of slanderous disparagement was typical of the anti-racist, brain-dead zombies who the Zionists manage to sway in one way or another to perform their malicious smear campaigns for them.

OnlyAccuser

Three days later, he posted the following:

Joey Onley
February 27 at 5:22pm

“Receiving threats and harrassment from Arthur Tophams camp this afternoon. It is to be expected. I’m aware my physical safety is at risk for speaking out against local white supremacists.”

More lies. Having thus made his initial false accusations Only then proceeded to cried wolf about me making threats to him in order to give the impression to his friends (many of whom were my “friends” and my wife’s “friends” as well) that on top of being all those terrible things that Daniel Gallant had stated about me I was also a dangerous man who was now threatening him (he didn’t elaborate on what type of threat it was) with some form of violence in retaliation for Only having “outed” me.

The immediate effect of course was that my family was deeply incensed by his slanderous actions and crude, foul-mouthed insults and that he would have the chutzpah to pull off such a cheap stunt before people in our own local community who we had known and respected for decades.

As for all of our Facebook “friends” who were privy to Only’s remarks none of them (to my knowledge) displayed the courage or strength of character to speak up on my behalf or my wife’s behalf in the comment section below his post and chastise him for his callous and uncalled for behaviour. In that sense, I suppose, Joey’s outburst of lies about me was a good thing in that it exposed to the Facebook world of make-believe “friends” the depth of sincerity of those who had previously feigned a cordial countenance toward us in the past and once again reconfirmed the old adage “with friends like that who needs enemies”.

Summary

Thus one sees how the effect of the Daniel Gallants of the world serve the power elite who depend upon their Zionized zombies to do their dirty work for them by spreading lies and gossip that in turn facilitate greater and greater dissension among those who are already mentally taxed by the volume and magnitude of deception that has permeated the mindset of the younger generations.

The Daniel Gallants and the Joey Onlys of the world are, in many ways, caught between two worlds. Having been subjected all their lives to endless Zionist propaganda promulgated by the Jew-controlled media since 1933 their mental hard drive or database has been so thoroughly infected by the duplicitous virus of Zionist “Left” chicanery that it becomes virtually impossible (or inconceivable) for them to understand how their cultural and intellectual mindset has been so saturated with meme after meme of Germanophobic hate-mongering that by the time they’ve reached adulthood their minds are already captive making them ripe for further mind-control and manipulation as soon as they dare venture into that great arena for social change – politics and political activism.

The case of Daniel Gallant is rather unique in some respects. His early life of trauma is a classic example of the type of MK-Ultra tactics that former victim of the CIA’s “Project Monarch” mind-control operation, Kathy O’Brien describes in her 1995 book TRANCE FORMATION of AMERICA. Gallant, now that he’s fallen into the hands of the same manipulators his work becomes all the more relevant in terms of its planned objectives which are to dispense deception for the greater good of Israel and the Zionist agenda.

TranceformO'brienFinal 2

As I was finishing off this article I revisited Joey Only’s Facebook page to see if anything had changed and while scrolling down his page realized that he had deleted his February 24 post. Fortunately I had copied and saved all the relevant information. Was it remorse that moved him to take it down? Was it the fact that others had approached him off Facebook and told him that he was way off track in making such outlandish statements about someone they had know for years? Was it because Only actually took the time to investigate further who I really was? Or was it for some other unknown reason? Possibly he realized what a fool he’d made of himself and didn’t want the post to stand as reminder. Only Only knows why and thus far he hasn’t had the honesty or integrity to speak about it. It needs to be noted though that he still has the post up where he accuses me of harassing and threatening him so whatever his motives were in removing the post they remain suspect.

In a second article related to Daniel Gallant I will focus more directly on his accusations that I’m a “neo-Nazi” and a “white supremacist”. There I hope to be able to provide sufficient evidence to show that his deliberate smear campaign has no substance whatsoever and all he is doing is the acting as a sayan for the state of Israel and the Rothschild Zionist criminal cartel.

——

NATIONHOOD INTERRUPTED: REVITALIZING nehiyaw LEGAL SYSTEMS by Sylvia McAdam (Saysewahum)

NationhoodInterrupted

Nationhood Interrupted: Revitalizing nêhiyaw Legal Systems

Sylvia McAdam (Saysewahum)

Traditionally and through custom, nêhiyaw (Cree) laws are shared and passed down through the generations in the oral tradition, utilizing stories, songs, ceremonies, lands, waters, animals, land markings and other sacred rites. The loss of the languages, customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples as a direct result of colonization has necessitated this departure from the oral tradition to record the physical laws of the nêhiyaw, for the spiritual laws can never be written down. As a result, this book is the first of its kind.

McAdam, a co-founder of the international movement Idle No More, shares nêhiyaw laws so that future generations, both nêhiyaw and non-Indigenous people, may understand and live by them to revitalize Indigenous nationhood. Nationhood is about land, language, and culture. Understanding and gaining an awareness of Indigenous laws will provide insight into the thoughts and worldview of Indigenous people before and during the numbered Treaty making process, and help create a harmonious society for all. Hopefully, then, the pain of the poverty, incarceration, suicide, without hope for the future, of nêhiyaw will become a distant memory.

Sylvia McAdam (Saysewahum) is a nêhiyaw woman, a citizen of the nêhiyaw Nation, who holds a Juris Doctorate (LL.B) from the University of Saskatchewan and a Bachelor’s of Human Justice (B.H.J) from the University of Regina.

www.purichpublishing.com
Call us: 306-373-5311
Fax us: 306-373-5315
Email us: purich@sasktel.net

Nationhood2

Canadian Publisher Faces Jail for Criticizing Israel and the Zionist Ideology

GoGetFund

http://gogetfunding.com/project/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

RiveroWRHFundingAd

BIG THANK YOU TO MICHAEL RIVERO OF WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM FOR RUNNING MY FUNDING AD!

FARRAKHAN: NETANYAHU’S PLOT TO HAVE U.S. GO TO WAR WITH IRAN -NOI

FarrakhanHDR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NlpZ8u2AB84

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH
By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.
February 25, 1985

dchristie2

DOUGLAS CHRISTIE, B.A., L.L.B.
__________________________________________________________

[EDITOR'S NOTE: In the Introduction to this small booklet published by C-FAR back in 1985, then President of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Daryl Reside, wrote:

"In this booket, C-FAR's Canadian Issues Series is publishing excerpts from defence lawyer Doug Christie's spirited summation to the jury at the Ernst Zundel trial. This summation was delivered February 25, 1985.

Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good. In his ringing defence, Christie seeks to establish: 1) that credible reasons existed for much of what Zundel published; that is, he had justification and arguments for his point of view; 2) that he sincerely believed what he wrote and, therefore, did not knowingly publish falsehoods; and 3) that  a diversity of opinions, however controversial they may be, is vital to a democracy and in no way harms the public good. Threading its way throughout the entire summation is Christie's passionate view that, right or wrong, a man must be permitted to search for the truth and express his point of view.

It is this fierce commitment to principle and to liberty that makes this summation an important historical document.... It should also be noted that Zundel nowhere advocated illegal or violent actions in the two pamphlets in which he was accused of violating Section 177."

It is now going on 25 years, a quarter of a century, since Doug Christie gave this summation to the jury in February of 1985. In the interim period the forces of censorship and repression have been successful in punishing Ernst Zundel to the max and he now sits in a dungeon in Zionist-occupied Germany and has been jailed for over six years already for having committed the gravest crime of the 20th Century: Speaking the truth.

Obviously the battle to end censorship is far from over. In my own case with these same Zionist Jew forces working through B'nai Brith Canada's League for "Human Rights", we see their relentless and calculated designs continuing to unfold before the public's now awakening eyes. The war for freedom of speech continues.]

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it’s my role as counsel, to address you now and speak to you about the position of the defence. My first observation is that probably never before in the history of your country, have twelve people had to grapple with a more all-encompassing and serious issue than you will have to deal with. When you have finished your deliberations, in all probability your country will be made different, for as long as you and I will live, by the decision that you will make here about the most serious issues that confront any citizen in a free society.

You have spent seven weeks examining the evidence in one of the most wide-scoped cases in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. I said at the beginning, and I repeat to you now, that this is a case that should never have been before a court of law in a free society because it is an issue upon which courts will have no of difficulty in addressing and dealing with. If you have a clear understanding of the role of freedom in a free society, this may never have to happen again, because a clear indication that we permit and tolerate debate and points of view we may not agree with from a jury of twelve ordinary citizens will be the strongest indication to every politician in this country that we are not subject to the pressures of groups dictating ideas and determining how other people will think, act, and speak.

I suggest to you now that what you have heard in these seven weeks is a lot more information on the subject of the book, Did Six Million Really Die?, than you or I might ever have thought at first was likely to occur. I suggest that we have all learned something in this process. Tolerance, is indeed, one of the things that you have learned by hearing another side to a point that we always thought was so clear and so simple. But to everything we know in life, there are two sides, and many more quite often, and nobody, no matter how well informed or how expert, has all the truth, or ever will.

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

It should be for the law to determine the extent of debate in a free society. It shouldn’t be forced upon judges and courts to decide what is the truth about some historical belief. It’s nobody’s fault in this room that we are here. It is the duty of every one of us to do our duty as we are, lawyers, judges, jurors, but really it was a wrong political decision to bring before you and me the duty to examine history 40 years old to determine where the truth lies. It is a question that never should have been here. But having been placed in this position, we must deal with it, and we must deal with it to preserve important values in our society.

The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.” Even though our society says, as it always has, in this and every other charge, the burden’s on the Crown, the burden to prove every ingredient is on the Crown, the burden to prove that the thing is false is on the Crown, where does the accused stand? He’s here. He’s been here like you, at his own expense for seven weeks and whatever may become of this case, he’s already paid a very high price for the belief that he had the right to speak what he believed to be the truth.

Who could deny that he believed it to be the truth? In fact, who can prove it wasn’t the truth? If this society cherishes freedom, as men and women in the past have, then you and I must very clearly state that truth can stand on its own. In a free society we no better protection, for my opinion and yours, than that you should be free to express yourself and I should be free to express myself, and no court need decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

Is that going to be a danger to you and me? Error, if there is such, in my opinion or yours is best determined when you and I talk freely to one another, and you and I can then debate and hear from each other many sources of information which couldn’t be produced in a court of law. How many of our opinions could stand up to seven weeks of scrutiny? How much of anything you have ever written or I’ve ever written could be analyzed line by line for seven weeks, phrase by phrase, with experts from all over the world, and found to be true? There will be errors in anything you or I believe, and thank God for it. We are, none of us, perfect. But in the thesis Did Six Million Really Die? there is a substantial point of view, a reasonable argument found upon fact, that many will reject, but many are free to reject. Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has.

I’d like to refer to something Dr. Hilberg said in his book, and I asked him about it. He said, “Basically, we are dealing with two of Hitler’s decisions. One order was given in the spring of 1941, during the planning of the invasion of the U.S.S.R.; it provided that small units of the S.S. and police be dispatched to Soviet territory, where they were to move from town to town to kill all Jewish inhabitants on the spot. This method may be called the “mobile killing operations.” Shortly after the mobile operations had begun in the occupied Soviet territories, Hitler handed down his second order. That decision doomed the rest of European Jewry. Unlike the Russian Jews, who were overtaken by mobile units, the Jewish population of Central, Western, and South Eastern Europe was transported to killing centres.”

Through all the trial and all the arguments and all the discussion, I have yet to see one single piece of evidence of either of those two Hitler orders. If they exist, why can’t we see them? No footnote, no identification of source. We have a statement of very significant fact, without a single supporting document here in that book, or there on that stand from a learned and distinguished author.

Am I saying he has no right to his views? Of course not. Am I saying that I should be able to debate his views and disagree with his views? I certainly suggest that ought to be your right, my right, and the right of every thinking person. You see, there is an example. If I were to put Dr. Hilberg or any other person in the position of the accused and say, “All right, justify that,” how would he? We all hold opinions that at times we would have a difficult job justifying. But, so what? Is it not possible for people to disagree and be free to disagree when they themselves are not absolutely certain they’re right? Have we come to the stage in society where tolerance is so limited that we must prosecute those whose views we find disagreeable?

In this trial, I often wondered and I suggest, so should you, why all this. Why? For a little booklet that published a point of view which some people reject and other people believe? Why? Well, only in the last few hours of this trial did I really begin to see the reason why. It had nothing to do with Did Six Million Really Die?; very little to do with The West, War and Islam, a lot to do with Mr. Zundel and his views. Was he a racist? Was he a lover of Hitler? Was he perhaps a neo-Nazi, as so often we’ve been told? What difference would that really make anyway? If it was alleged that he had some views of a Communist nature, so what? We tolerate those views. In a newsletter complaining about what had happened to 2,000 friends and supporters and subscribers of his newsletter, many of them old, when their homes were entered in West Germany, with warrants in the middle of the night, he was angry. So, out of 25 years of his writing letters, they found a sentence which implied some deep anger and the resort to violence. Never once has there been a suggestion of any violence from Mr. Zundel at all. No suggestion he ever owned or had or would have had a gun. None of what is suggested. But you know who he actually quoted and paraphrased? You know it was the man who said, “All legal power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” That was – if you know history – Mao Tse-tung, a man who was eulogized in the Parliament of Canada upon his death. And yet, Mr. Zundel used it, and is cross-examined as to its deep-seated significance, as if he had some sinister intent.

I began to see, as I suggest you should, that the real reason for this prosecution was his views. If any of us is subjected to that kind of scrutiny, it will mean that freedom really ceases to have any meaning. You will be free to agree but not free to disagree. That’s the kind of society which will result if a conviction can be founded upon a prosecution of this kind.

I suggest that you don’t have to believe what it says in Did Six Million Really Die?, but you probably have good reason to. There’s a lot of truth in that pamphlet which deserves to be considered by rational men and women all over the world, not because they’re academics, but because they’re thinking human beings and they want to hear different points of view. What are we, lobotomized idiots, that we only have to accept the point of view of the “majority”? Or are we free, should we be free, to think of views that are not majority views?

How do you think change occurs in society? Do you think the whole of society decides, “Oh, we were wrong about the world being flat,” and all of a sudden, bang, the whole world decides, “Oh, it’s round now.”? Ask Galileo how difficult that was. In his time, he was a heretic, his views were totally contrary to 99% of the population. But, who was right?

Now, change has to occur in everybody’s thinking from time to time. Everybody grows. I’ve learned something here; you’ve learned something here; we’re all growing. And it’s in the process of hearing other points of view that we grow. But if we decide that somebody’s point of view ought not to be heard because someone else says it’s false, we’ve terminated all significant discussion, because significant points of view are always regarded as false by somebody, and if they’re controversial, my goodness, they create lots of heat, more heat often than light. So, if we are going to keep our children and grandchildren, and for the future of our country the possibility of progress and the possibility of exchanging ideas in a free society, we’d better respect the rights of others who honestly believe that they are right, even though we many think they’re wrong.

I don’t suggest for one moment that you or I have any right to determine from the evidence before you that Mr. Zundel is wrong. I would say to you that the case is unproven as to falsehood. Unproven. In Scottish law there is guilty, not guilty, or unproven. Well, you don’t have that verdict here, but it’s an interesting point by analogy, because in the case at bar it hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there’s anything false about Did Six Million Really Die?, not a word. It’s opinion.

Dr. Hilberg says: “Oh, I think it’s all misquotes and half truth and misconceptions.” That’s his view. I respect his right to his view. But he hasn’t proven any of that. He says, “I’ve read documents for years.” What documents did he produce? I didn’t see any. Who produced documents? Who produced books? Who produced maps? Who produced photographs? The defendant. He comes before you because he believes what he says is the truth and he wants to prove it to you. Why else would he waste a hundred thousand of his dollars and seven weeks of his life? Why do you think that he does all of this? Because he believes in the truth of what he says. He believes in it so passionately because he loves his nation. Is that a sin? He didn’t say he hated anybody. He didn’t say a word against anybody when he was on the stand. He was attacked. He said that he loved his race. He said, “I love my children, but that doesn’t mean I hate other people’s children.” Is there something wrong with that? If our society is to be scrupulous about what other people’s opinions are, who among us will be safe? If I or you were to have to reveal all our opinions on the stand, how many of them could withstand public scrutiny? If the right decision is made here, seven weeks will have been well spent in that never again will someone have to defend his position in a court of law on a statement of opinion.

You don’t have to share all of Mr. Zundel’s opinions. He has a right to his; you have a right to yours. He’s not questioning your right to yours. But there is a power that is questioning his right to his, and you are the only hope for the freedom of citizens to hold views that disagree with others. And if you can’t hold views that disagree in a free society, what is there? There are two things. If you can’t have freedom to disagree, then there’s either violence, or there is silence, neither of which is traditional in our country, neither of which is necessary in the future. Our country has been a peaceful country because we have tolerated points of view with which you and I might not agree, not because we have some hygienic method of extracting and eliminating bad views. That’s never been done before, and it should not be done now, and it should never be done again.

But there is a force in our society that wants that to happen. If there’s a means to stop it from carrying on and creating a situation where everybody has to stand before courts and justify themselves to their neighbours, we must find it.

You twelve people have more power in your hands for good or evil than any other twelve people I have ever met, and thank God for the right that you should be free today to defend freedom tomorrow, to make freedom a real thing. You or I have never really known that kind of power before, because we’ve never been put in this position before. A clear answer from you, without doubt, without fear, without malice, will put an end to a process which, if it continues, will lead us to the destruction of all freedom in society.

In his brochure Did Six Million Really Die?, Ernst Zundel presents a thesis, a thesis that men have paid a very high price for believing. No witness for the Crown needs fear for his job, for his security, for his family, but is that true for the defence? Then, why are the defence witnesses here? They are here because they love the truth and believe in what they say, and already I can tell you that the prices are being paid. So much for freedom in society, that men and women have to fight to get into courtrooms to give their evidence, to testify under fear. Well, with the right decision from you, that fear will be diminished. What little we know as ordinary citizens about communist societies indicates that where there is an official truth, where there is a state religion or belief, people become more and more afraid to speak. That should not happen here. There is what Orwell referred to as an official truth in some societies. Is that what you wish for your society? You will have more power to answer that question today than any other twelve people in our society so far. With a clear answer to that question, you will do some service to your descendants in the preservation of their rights.

I don’t know how many of you have controversial views. Maybe none. But will your children have none? Would you like to have the right to their opinions? That’s a question you too will answer.

The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? Is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war. You know most of us are from a background on the Allied side, I think, and so when we have Veteran’s Days, we love our country, we love our people who sacrificed for it. But what of the Germans? Are they always to bear the label of the villains? You see, they had an interest in looking into this question. There are so many people in our society who come from that background who desire to know the truth and don’t believe everything they have been told. They inquire. They have a motive. They indeed have a reason, more than you and I perhaps, to inquire, and their views may be in diametric opposition to yours. But if they have some truth let them tell it. Let them reason. Let the public decide whether they are right or wrong. Let not the courts make a decision. Let not people be forced to justify themselves in this way, but let the public decide. That’s all Mr. Zundel has asked for and that’s all anyone has a right to I suggest and it isn’t too much of a right for anyone to desire.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million. Oh, I’m aware that in this case there were repeated efforts to distinguish between Germans and Nazis, but is that really the way they’re portrayed? Is that distinction always kept? Is it justified to believe what we have been told so often? You have heard some reasons which prove that the story of the six million is not correct. Those reasons are given to you by sincere, honest individuals who have done diligent research.

You have heard the evidence of many witnesses and I’d like to briefly capsulize some of the significant things about their evidence. You remember Arnold Freedman. He was transported in cattle cars. He constantly smelled the smoke in Birkenau and saw it belching from chimneys. I want you to consider a very significant question which has troubled me. To create belching chimneys, day in and day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for weeks on end, one needs coal or coke, large quantities of coal or coke. I’ve heard all the evidence, as you have, of the process of unloading the people into the concentration camps. Why would all those people be unloaded by the helpless prisoners like Dr. Vrba, and the coal be unloaded by the S.S.? Keep in mind, in the days of 1940 to 44, we didn’t have backhoes, right? We didn’t have caterpillars unloading these trucks, coal cars. Everything was apparently done by hand. Well, you know, it makes me very, very interested, to put it mildly, that all this smoke and burning chimneys and flames shooting forth should occur with nobody unloading coke trains. Did you hear anybody talk of unloading coke trains? I didn’t?

To question should never be anti-anything. Why should it be? To think is not against anybody. To reason, to question, is the free right of a thinking human being. So I wonder, where does all this right to think go, if we can’t ask the question: where were the coke trains? Where was the coal?

The evidence of Mr. Zundel was that 80 pounds of coal is necessary to cremate a human body. The amount of coal to turn a human body into ashes is a morbid subject, of course, but it doesn’t change. The laws of physics don’t change for the Germans, for the Nazis, for the Jews, or anybody; they’re all the same, the laws of physics. Now, 80 pounds of coal or coke for 1,765,000 people is nearly a hundred and sixty million pounds of coke. Where does all this come from? Nobody bothers to answer that, but they say that Did Six Million Really Die? is false.

How is that question false? How is questioning anything false? Why should the editorial opinions of our writers be any different than Mr. Zundel’s? How many editorials contain false news every day? How many newspaper stories, how many books, how many movies? What are we doing here? We’re crucifying one man’s opinion because they say he is not a nice man, when every day in all of our society there’s a thousand misquotes, misstatements. Well, what’s the difference? I’ll tell you what the difference is. This man has no political power and big newspapers and big television stations and big radio stations and big politicians do. That’s the difference.

When John Turner quotes Brian Mulroney, do you think he does it to approve of him? Do you think they quote each other out of context because they wish to point out the inconsistencies of their opponent? The Crown, in his analysis, will no doubt say there are statements in Did Six Million Really Die? that are out of context, that the Red Cross did not say there was no extermination when they wrote their report, but it is true they said there was no extermination during the war, when they were in the camps. They don’t even produce for you a shred of evidence of a gas chamber, but they say 1,765,000 people died by going between two buildings. Remember Dr. Vrba’s evidence? Well, how do you accomplish that without a gas chamber? What, do they disappear and they’re all shot? No, you have to justify the claim that millions died; you have to have gas chambers and there’s no evidence to support them.

Now the defence has tried to show that the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz seen today, are impossibilities, scientific impossibilities. We have called evidence, witness after witness, to show they have tried to find the bottom of this story, and they have found nothing that makes sense to their experience. That’s pretty significant stuff. That’s pretty important analysis. Look what Dr. Faurisson has paid for his inquiries. He’s been beaten; he’s been beaten while he talked; he’s been subjected to quite a bit of ridicule; but does anyone deny the sincerity or honesty of his inquiry or his intelligence or his detailed analysis of what documents there are? I suggest not.

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

People want the right to ask these questions, and there are some people who don’t want anyone to have the right to broadcast what they find, and I would consider that, I suggest you should, a very suspicious situation. When any group of people wants to silence an individual, you’d better ask why. Maybe it’s a good thing, maybe it’s beneficial to social tolerance that we should ask these questions. Maybe it’s time to do that now. Maybe the way to peace is not through silence and coercion on these matters but through open discussion. How will that change the world? Maybe it will be a better world when we can look at ourselves more honestly in the cold light of reason rather than the heated passions of a war just ended.

That’s what revisionism is all about. After the First World War, there were many revisionists, many people who said: “Well, we really don’t have all the answers on our side.” We used propaganda. We told people that Germans killed Belgian babies and boiled cadavers to make soap. That’s not a Second World War story at all. If we want peace there must be freedom to discuss whether or not the morality was all on one side. That’s really the social effect of the booklet Did Six Million Really Die?. You don’t have to accept it. To see even that it puts some of the things that happened after the Second World War in a different context, would be a redeeming value in itself, but the booklet has a great deal more. It has truth, a lot of truth. It’s for you to decide, for the public, indeed, too, to decide how much truth, measured, as they ought to, with their right to read everybody else’s opinion.

Error needs the support of government; truth stands on its own. In fact, what is occurring here, is the endeavor to silence one opinion, one side of the argument. “But the world is no more justified in silencing the opinion of one man than that one man would be if he had the power to in silencing all the world,” these words of John Stuart Mill are as true today as when he spoke them. Do we have to learn the same lessons all over again, every generation? Do we never entrench and understand from one generation to the next the right to differ? Do we always have to re-fight these battles time and again? I guess we do. I guess it’s always going to be a struggle to have a different point of view, but I’ll tell you, it has always been the history of Man that good men and women have valued freedom, sometimes to the extent that they would risk their lives to save it, and if anything could be done to honour the memory of men and women who died in war for the sake of freedom, it would be to recognize that freedom now, for someone whose opinions they might not have agreed with. If we have a duty to admit a fact about ourselves, it’s that we don’t have all the answers.

Let our society, from the date of your verdict, be known for the safety with which we tolerate divergent views and opinions, when truth is left free to combat error in the open arena of a free society unfettered by the heavy hand of the state. That is a simple statement of principle. I guess it is necessary for you and I once again to make the little sacrifice that you and I have to be here and fight for that principle all over again. Thank God no one was really hurt. Thank God that we can do this in a rational context with respect for each other, with understanding, with charity for our many errors, without having to go to war, to discuss controversies. Maybe there’s progress, but there won’t be if everybody who wishes to bring forward a controversial view will have to do so in a court at their own expense. If you convict, that process will have only just begun, because in society there will always be people who would like to put their enemy right there in the defendant’s chair. That’s where a lot of people would like to see somebody they disagree with, right there. If you convict, I can say to you that’s a very likely situation. There are some rather nasty politicians who would like to put their opponents right there, and if we follow down the road that this prosecution will lead, if there is a conviction, there will be no stopping those types of politicians who wish to put their opponents right there. Then where will we be? Don’t think that they wouldn’t have the power, because they can find it. There are pressure groups today who can find that power.

The book-burnings by the Nazis were wrong, but what’s going on here? A book’s on trial, two books, if you like, pamphlets, tracts, if like. But every day in our society people say a lot more controversial dubious things than are written there. Why are these people so afraid of such a little book? If it was false, would they be afraid?

You’ve heard a witness, Doug Collins. He’s been a journalist for 35 years, and he says there’s power of Zionists in the media. Do you really need some proof of that? How many publications today criticize Israel very strenuously? Is that the kind of society you want, where one view is the only legitimate view? The smear word of anti-Semitism is so easy to put upon anyone and so difficult to disabuse oneself of once you are labeled. Is criticism of Israel or the point of view of Jews any more evil than the criticism of Americans or the criticism of British or the criticism of French points of view? Why should it be?

It’s my submission to you, that may be the basis of the Crown’s attack, that the accused has chosen to criticize a very obviously Jewish belief. Now, I don’t question the right of any group, Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, whomever, to hold whatever views, but why deny Ernst Zundel the same right? And then let the public decide, as every time they will, between whom they believe and whom they don’t believe.

The future of the right to hold beliefs is at stake because the truth is never self-evident. There’s always going to be a debate about the truth especially in history. How many believed, as I did when I grew up, that Christopher Columbus discovered America? Well, they don’t always agree on that today. But what’s wrong with changes of view? They happen all the time. History is controversy. Today is controversy. Yesterday is controversy and tomorrow will be controversy. But so what? Nobody is going to be able to write the history of the world until God does. I’d suggest that what it amounts to, when you come down to the bottom line of this question, is that people will always differ. The danger is that if silence one point of view, you won’t get a balanced argument.

Has Dr. Hilberg proved a single thing here to be false? No, he hasn’t. He says he had documents. He produces none. He talks about the train tickets and schedules. What train tickets and schedules? If we’re talking about a criminal case we should have evidence. There isn’t enough evidence here today to convict one person for murdering one other person. But they want you to believe that six million died, or millions died, and that this question mark is false. Where is the evidence to support one murder by one person? There is no Hitler order; there is an alleged order somewhere by somebody alleged to have heard it from somebody else. There’s no evidence.

Let’s look at the evidence. Dr. Vrba says he’s an eye-witness. Dr. Vrba had a little problem here. You have plans, you know, submitted by the defence, of crematoria. Now, let’s make sure we understand each other. There certainly were crematoria. But that doesn’t mean there were gas chambers to gas people. But the issue is were 1,765,000 or millions gassed, killed by a systematic plan to do so? There’s no evidence of that. Dr. Vrba gave evidence of burning pits. Well, we know these places were no Sunday picnic. We know these places were unjust. Deprivation is unjust. The Jews suffered terribly, unjustifiably. The Jews were in concentration camps for war reasons and war is not justified, really. We had people in concentration camps here too. They lost a lot. Thank God we didn’t lose the war and couldn’t feed the people in our concentration camps. What would have happened in our country if the Eastern half had collapsed, the governments had collapsed, the railroads had collapsed, the food system had collapsed, the Western half had collapsed, and we had people, Japanese, for example, in concentration camps around Ottawa? Whom would we feed first, our troops or our prisoners? Thank God we didn’t have to answer that question. The Germans did. And they were hanged for answering it the wrong way.

Have you any idea what Germany looked like in 1945? It sure didn’t look like Toronto. And when the Russians came from the east, do you think they were a nice group of fellows as we are told the Allies were? I suggest to you that there is a great deal to be grateful for in this country and one of the greatest things to be grateful for is that we have never faced that kind of desolation, when everything you know, everything you trusted, everyone you believed in, your ideals, your neighbours, your friends, your country, your home, was ruined. I hope you’ll never know a situation like that. But if we are to understand what happened in Germany we cannot ignore these facts.

Did Dr. Hilberg know that? Was he there? No. Who was? Thies Christopherson was there. It’s obvious that this is a question that could only be understood really, by someone who was there. Dr. Barton was in a camp shortly after liberation, and, like many of us who saw the film Nazi Concentration Camps, he no doubt was as horrified as you and I had every right to be, by that scene. That picture Nazi Concentration Camps was put to you for a reason. It was to persuade you that there were millions of dead people. Well, you saw thousands of bodies, thousands of people who died from privation in war. Only once was there a deliberate suggestion of gassing. That was at Dachau, and I have gone into this with detail as much as you could hope to get, I suggest, in a court, to show that now people don’t say that there were gassings at Dachau. So what happened in that situation? Why did the Allies say there were gassings and now they don’t? Well, because of the same hysteria with which we have regarded Auschwitz for 40 years; Auschwitz, where no Allied soldier could go; Auschwitz where the Russians were; Auschwitz where 4 million or 3 million or 2.5 million or 1,765,000 or 1.1 million according to Hilberg or 900,000 according to Reitlinger, were killed? Cremated? Were what?

There are many reasons to say that this book has not been proven false, that’s all. It’s never been our burden to have to prove that it was true because our law has always allowed the reasonable doubt to go to the accused. He’s presumed innocent. This is presumed to be true until they prove the contrary, and I don’t think they’ve proved the contrary. How have they? Ninety percent of the quotations in the book are proven and accepted. Ten percent are unproven. That’s all.

The Malmedy trial took place in Germany shortly after the war. It may not technically be a Nuremberg trial. But do you really think that there is no substance to the suggestion that what took place there by the same allies against the same accused, is going to be different than what they did at Nuremberg?

You also have in evidence that, at Nuremberg, they didn’t even allow the press to talk to the lawyers of the accused, let alone the accused. So, how do we know what happened to them? Well, we know because some of them said so, and when they said so, like Streicher, they struck it out of the record. Don’t want the world to hear somebody complain about us, and we sure don’t want the press to hear what the accused says unless we say the accused can say it. Do you call that freedom? I don’t. I call that the attitude of war and victor’s justice. It works, obviously. The world believes in your cause, but is it necessary that for all eternity nobody should ever think to differ? Can we now look back with a little less passion, a little less contempt for our adversaries? Could we now maybe look at whether they might have had a point or do we have to believe forever they should be damned to silence?

We’ve heard from Dr. Barton that, in 1945, there was no cure for typhus. So, here’s some of those horrible Nazis telling these people in the concentration camps, “If you don’t delouse and typhus breaks out, you are going to be cremated.” That’s the way he interpreted that. There’s a lot of truth to it. If you get typhus, you are liable to die, especially there, in close confines. That is not to say I don’t believe the Jewish people didn’t suffer. I certainly do and so does my client, and so does this booklet. That’s not to say we lack compassion for the suffering of these people. It is to say we are prepared to examine whether there was a plan of deliberate extermination. There’s quite a difference.

If people died from typhus, disease, privation of war, you don’t have a situation that much different than you had in the Boer War, except on a larger scale, or in the American Civil War, where concentration camps for prisoners of war were hell on earth. And that becomes a significant question: why, if there was a plan to exterminate the Jews, was there a delousing program at all? Why were they told that they should delouse, and why were steps taken to provide the means that they could be protected from that disease?

You remember Arnold Friedman’s evidence. He could tell the difference between skinny people and fat people from the colour of the flames. Honest to goodness! Arnold Friedman is the kind of person you would like to know. Nothing do I say against Arnold Friedman, except that it’s a little bit far-fetched to say that you could tell from the colour of the flames, the people being cremated.

I could understand, as a young boy, how the stories would go around the camp, and I could well imagine how terrifying it must have been for a young boy in camp like that. I could understand how, being separated from his parents would be frightening. It would be horrible, beyond our imagination. But I suggest that when people say things like this, we have to understand that when people suffer, they want to communicate their suffering. They justifiably tend to exaggerate a little bit because they want us to understand how horrible it was. There are other reasons to look at the question, not to hurt the survivor’s feelings, but to look at it realistically and say, as this book says, it’s not correct to believe that six million people were exterminated in this way. It’s not correct to believe that you can tell the nationality of a cremated person by flame shooting from a chimney. That is not correct.

I am not wishing to accuses anybody of being a little bit loose with the facts. Let’s realistically consider that that doesn’t make sense. Let’s not make it a crime, anyway, to disbelieve it. All right? Let’s suggest that Mr. Zundel has at least very good reasons for his belief, common sense ones that he wants to believe in. He wants to understand that his people are not guilty of this crime. He has a motive to look at this. He is interested for the sake of his people, but realistically, is he far off the mark when he says, “I doubt that.”?

I am not saying that if even one Jewish person died that that wasn’t a crime. Of course it was, but we are dealing with an accusation of genocide, a book that questions it and the right to question it. That’s all. I am not suggesting for one moment that that minimizes the suffering, justifies the concentration camps, or anything else, but it allows us, I suggest, the right to question even Dr. Vrba, for after all, he too, is not God. If he’s going to tell us these things, under oath, I want to know why. Don’t you? If somebody tells you the whole population of Toronto went between two buildings, and disappeared, are you going to say, “Yes, I believe that. I don’t question that. I must accept that because he is a survivor”? I have reverence for their pain and suffering. I am not beyond understanding for that, but if we are dealing with a factual question, why not ask the question? And when you do ask the question, what do you get for answers? Hysteria, emotion, and appeals to emotions, too, justified as they are. But we are dealing with facts, let’s stick to facts.

Arnold Friedman also said that sick, older people came into his barracks after the selection, and, therefore, were not killed. And then we come to the question of selection. He describes the selection process in referring to selecting professions even among the older people. Now, why would they select professions? To kill the people? What do you care, if you are just killing people? You don’t care whether they are doctors, lawyers, tailors, whatever. You don’t select people by profession for the purpose of killing them, unless it’s lawyers, and then there’s lots of reasons for doing that.

I remember Dennis Urstein. He said, – and this is really, I suggest, where you’ve got to look a little bit skeptically – he said he lost 154 members of his family in the “Holocaust”. I said, “Could you name even 20?” I suggest to you that if any of us say we lost 154 members of our family, it tends to be a little dubious. How many members of your family do you know and how many generations do you go back? I asked him to name 20. He didn’t get there and ended up naming someone who died in the U.S.A. six or seven years ago. What it means is that people, because they suffer, tend to want you to understand their suffering and they sometimes exaggerate, that’s all.

Dennis Urstein was another volunteer witness who spoke of the colour of bodies hauled out of the gas chambers. Now, Dennis Urstein says he hauled the bodies out of Leichenkeller I, which is an underground mortuary, in Krema II. Now, you can see on the plan where that is. It may have been Krema III, he said, but I’ll tell you something. The two, Krema II and Krema III, are identical. No one will deny that. The plans are there. The two, Krema II and Krema III, in Birkenau are identical. They are long underground areas known as Leichenkellers. They are underground, because when typhus broke out, bodies, sometimes three or four hundred bodies, would be there, so that they would not infect the rest of the camp. The colour of those bodies, he described as grayish or green, but you heard Dr. Lindsay say that if someone is asphyxiated with Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide, his body is brick red. Now, if they were gassed with Zyklon B, why would that not be so?

There is another question that arises out of Urstein’s evidence. The bodies, he said, had no rigor mortis. No rigor mortis. Now, if the bodies were gassed, and then, he seemed to imply, they were washed and thereby were safe. But if hydrogen cyanide is, as I suggested, water soluble, then touching water associated with the bodies means hydrogen-cyanic poisoning. Yet, he survived hauling those many bodies. He alleged the gas chamber was on ground level. Now, if you look at the plans, he is referring to other than the crematoria and he is referring to the Leichenkeller. He says that it’s a closed-in area. That’s underground. If you are hauling bodies, you are not going to forget hauling them upstairs, but he says it was on ground level. I asked him about that several times and he repeated it several times. This is no minor error, because if he could remember hauling bodies upstairs, it would be hard to forget.

Furthermore, he said there were no pillars. Well, look at the plans. If he is talking about Crematorium II or III, and if he is talking about what he says he was talking about, a flat-roofed building, well the crematoria is not flat-roofed. The Leichenkeller is, and it is underground with a very small protuberance above the ground. This is where Vrba got himself into a real problem. This is a man who says he was an eye-witness. We are supposed to examine the evidence and look at what we know of the facts, and see if it conforms. If it doesn’t, there are reasons to doubt it. He says there were no pillars. If you’ll look in the plans, you’ll see in the Leichenkeller massive pillars. He said the ground adjacent to the crematorium was very beautiful, like a retreat. No collection of piles of coke or other fuel to burn large numbers of bodies which allegedly were burned in the crematoria.

Now, the story of the exterminations is that two to three thousand or more bodies a day were handled in these facilities. There has to be an explanation for the figure of 1,765,000 in two years mentioned by Vrba. If there are 80 pounds of coke required for each body, for two thousand bodies (that’s what half of what Krema II is supposed to be handling a day), that’s 160,000 pounds of coke a day.

Let me deal with Dr. Barton for a moment. He presents the truth to the best of his knowledge. He agrees that what’s in this pamphlet was accurate, and that it quoted his article. He was there. He was an eye-witness. In 1945, he was there and he was as brainwashed as everybody else at the time, saying the Germans deliberately intended the killing of these people shown in the movie. He believed all that. And gradually he began to think about it, looked into the the kitchen and saw the preparation records for food, and changed his mind. The war involved a little bit more than most people comprehended would be possible in the way of destruction.

It’s my suggestion to you that he treated the subject more scientifically than most people of his time. Just look what happened to him. He dared to say that the Germans didn’t mean to kill all those people, and you know they accuse him of now, on public television, as you’ve heard, of killing 15,000 Jews.

What I suggest to you is that when people disagree with the widely held views of their time, they are attacked viciously. He was attacked in the media, in the press and everywhere. Why? What did he do wrong? Well, he dared to say that the Germans were not all bad and the Allies were not all good, and that war itself was the cause of the problem. That’s what he dared to say. He dared to say that the Allies were not all good; the Germans were not all bad; and that war killed people, but not gassing. So, what’s the difference? I suppose the difference is that Dr. Barton was a witness and the accused is the accused. He said there was no treatment for typhus at that time. He thinks essentially, that views should be challenged. He agreed that the average age persons, under conditions of being subject to massive public propaganda, coupled with fears for their families, destruction of their homes, their property, their value system and the desolation of their country, may be brainwashed and make confessions. They would not be able to respond independently of their captors.

Dr. William Brian Lindsay testified that the interpretations of World War II should be looked at by a scientist. The basic problem is the vast number of charges in the readings about the Holocaust. Also, the various authorities have different answers. He said some of the primary sources of information about the Holocaust had been silent for 30 years, during which time history as been written. He looked at all the so-called murder camps in his research. He went to Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Birkenau, Monowitz. He put himself in the position of knowing what the accusations are, and, as a chemist, decided how reasonable the charges are.

In describing the properties of Zyklon B, he discussed the container it came in, the special opener that had to be used, the fact that the gas is lighter than air when it vaporizes, and that the best air would be at the bottom. Now, the Crown said that, well, it’s not very much lighter than air and it would rise slowly and the crystals might have fallen on the ground, enabling people to believe that the gas would come from the ground first. But that wouldn’t explain the fact that the people would stay where the gas crystals were and stay there so they could climb above each other. They were scattered in other areas, but that wasn’t asked by the Crown and that’s why, when Griffiths asked him his questions, and I asked him mine, in the end he said he did not think his opinion had changed.

He refers to the necessity of a venting system. No such thing exists in any of the plans. Look at the plans. That’s because it is a Leichenkeller, a mortuary, not a gas chamber. They want to call it a gas chamber? Then, produce the evidence. Where is it? He concluded that it’s impossible that gassings happened as alleged. For millions to have been gassed in four crematoria, by the method described, 2000 persons crammed into a space of the size alleged, is impossible.

He refers to these spaces that are put forward as gas chambers as unsealed rooms. The difficulties of unsealed rooms in comparison to the American gas chamber, become obvious. A small container of gas is necessary due to the quality of the gas itself. If it were otherwise, chemistry would change from time to time, and from place to place, but it doesn’t. The fact is, that if there is an allegation of this kind, there has to be a real possibility of it having occurred. Otherwise, we are engaged in fantasy.

He has examined the alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz I. There are no doors between gas chamber and the crematoria. Vents are not air-tight. The doors are very very small. The whole thing wouldn’t work. And he comes to that conclusion himself.

Now, he communicated this information to Zundel. So, why shouldn’t Zundel believe him? Why shouldn’t it be credible? Who has done more research into the subject? Who has actually made a study into these gas chambers? I suppose the Crown will answer that by saying, it doesn’t matter. If there are no gas chambers, we will find some other explanation for the six million. What? What was it – shooting, Einstazgruppen, the Stroop report? It doesn’t come to five million, especially when one considers the evidence in reference to the Einsatzgruppen. But we are supposed to believe anyway.

Dr. Lindsay examined the Gerstein statement. He discussed how carbon-monoxide poisoning from a diesel engine is not possible. Yet, that is said to be the method used in Sobibor, Treblinka and others – gas from diesel tank engines, from Russian tank engines. That is the story. Well, if carbon-monoxide is not produced by diesel engines, how is it supposed to be the cause of death? Then, we have the stories of prisoners eating and drinking after handling the dead bodies. It would be suicidal. Shower baths would be abysmal to gas people. What story are we dealing with? The same story we had in Dachau. The gas chambers are not showers and the gas comes from the shower heads. Yet, Dachau now has a sign that nobody was ever gassed there. Lindsay fought for the Allies during the war, and I suggest that he is not really to be regarded as one with an axe to grind.

James Keegstra testified primarily to show what happens if you try to question the Holocaust. He is where he is today, not because of his attitude on anything else, but primarily because he dared to say that there’s another view on the Holocaust. That’s when it got picked up by the media. That’s when the ball got rolling. That is when everybody got up in arms. If somebody has an opinion on politics, that’s no problem. But if somebody says anything about the Holocaust, that implies they don’t believe in it, hook, line and sinker, then they are in big trouble.

It’s bad for people who want to discuss it. It is also bad because it denies the possibility to find the truth for everybody. So, there’s a man who’s been a teacher for 21 years, who has been the victim, I suggest, of a massive campaign of vilification because he dared to question.

What a surprising thing! Anybody could be accused of rape, murder, theft or fraud. I’ll bet they wouldn’t suffer the animosity, the hate that occurs to anybody who questions the Holocaust or anybody who is accused of a war crime in the media. Tell me how many murderers have received the publicity against them that Frank Walus got? He hadn’t been tried yet. He was accused of a hideous crime, but it was ridiculous. The man wasn’t even in Poland during the war. He was seventeen years old and he was accused of being an Obergruppenfuhrer during the war, murdering Jews. And eleven witnesses came forward, and said, yes he was, and seven of those said they weren’t even in Poland during the war. That’s justice? Well, that’¢s not very much different than the atmosphere that prevailed in 1945 and that’s why it is relevant to the issue today, because in this booklet it says Nuremberg was probably rife with prejudice. If the hatred and the prejudice is so great today that that type of thing can happen right now, in Chicago and in the U.S.A., how much greater do you think the pressure was in 1945 for the same result?

This is 40 years later. And who gives Frank Walus anything for what he suffered? Or this man? Even if he is acquitted, who will take care to see that he gets justice, other than maybe an acquittal?

The evidence of Gary Botting is that of an English professor who desired to put forward another view of the Holocaust story. He was presented, or attempted to present, in consideration of the need to tell both sides, the book Hoax of the Twentieth Century [by Arthur Butz]. The Government of Canada decided nobody should read it in Canada. Why? Is it obscene? Take a look at it and ask yourselves this question. Is this society free for people to think, to analyze this question, if a book like that is supposed to be banned and was prevented from being read by students at college level? These are some poor timid human beings in high school as we were told some are, who could be influenced deleteriously by this book. This is college level. They aren’t allowed to have this. Why is that?

It points in another direction than the thesis of the exterminationists. What kind of a country does not permit people to read a book like that? Have a look at it. There’s really nothing abusive in it about anybody. The truth is very clear, that there is a power in this land that doesn’t want you to think about it, doesn’t want anybody out here to think about it, and has made up the mind of somebody in power that anyone who questions this belief will be prosecuted and publicly humiliated. That’s not the kind of country I want nor should any free man or woman want to live in.

Our forefathers fought for the right to be free to think and free to speak. Now, what are we doing here? The sacrifices of those who died for freedom are not respected by this legal proceeding. Gary Botting and others have paid their price for coming here. You can bet on that. Those same forces that will make this man spend seven weeks in that box will make every witness who comes here pay for having done so. You can be sure of that. Anyone who even dares to support this man’s thesis will be labeled. And that’s supposed to be a free society? It’s all very very sad. It may be, if some of those people who are dead, who thought they defended freedom, were alive, we might not be here today.

Gary Botting said it’s a dangerous precedent to do what’s going on here. You know where his father is? He’s buried at Belsen. That’s what he told you. His father. Well, it’s dangerous alright. He dared to write to the Attorney-General to question why he couldn’t read this book or have the students read it. He has no sympathy for the Nazis. His attitude was that people should be free to hear both sides of an issue. No, not in Canada. We are not smart enough even to be able to read that book. We are not supposed to be able to read this book. We are not intelligent enough to decide whether we want to believe this or not.

Is this the way we are supposed to use our brains? The measure of a person’s honest inquiry is whether a person wants to examine alternative sources. Nobody asks them to be government-funded sources, sponsored by anybody. I remember at one point somebody said the research of Dr. Fourisson was not government-funded. So what? You mean to tell me that no one should be believed unless he is on a government subsidy? If Dr. Fourisson pays through his own efforts for his research, is that an indication he is insincere? Or, if someone publishes a book, like Udo Walendy, being a publisher himself, is this to discredit it too? Have we come to the stage of 1984 where, unless it’s published by Big Brother, it isn’t to be believed?

Orwell1984BKCv

I remember the dramatic gesture performed by the Crown when he asked the accused: “Well, who published this? Institute of Historical Review?” Bang. So what? If they are all published by the Institute of Historical Review, so what? Have we come to the point where there is an official sanction on certain publishers? Is it the old argument of don’t look at the contents of the book, just see who publishes it. Well, if that is the case, I suppose the official view of history is already established.

Doug Collins was a soldier during the war. He was captured at Dunkirk. He was in German prisoner of war camps during the war, escaped, was recaptured, escaped and was interned again as far away as Rumania, and went to Bergen-Belsen even before Dr. Barton. One of the things he said about his own experience is, that when he saw the troops coming back, the S.S. released by the Russians, they reminded him of the prisoners in Bergen-Belsen, for their condition. He says Did Six Million Really Die? should be available. There isn’t an abusive line in it. “I have been more abusive in my columns.” He said politicians aren’t entitled to suppress views. This is endemic to all dictatorships.

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

He talked about Alice in Wonderland being banned in China. I wonder where we are. I remember when the Crown was cross-examining my client on the stand, I almost had to pinch myself to find out if I was really in the country I grew up in, because he was asking him: “Do you believe this? Are you a fascist? Did you write this?” What are we doing here? Is he on trial for his beliefs? Or is he on trial for this being false? Are we living in a free society, or are we not? He said, in the end, I guess, this country likes censorship. I wonder. If you do anything in this world, you will answer that question here. And, indeed, this might be the most powerful thing you will do in your life, certainly the most significant thing. It is a great privilege to practice law, but I don’t think there can be a greater privilege than to do what you are going to do – decide whether we like censorship or not. That’s a decision you will make. There is not, he said, an expert on the Holocaust. There are many versions. If one died, that’s important. If one died, that’s a crime. If one Jewish person died, it’s a crime. If one person, no matter whether he was Jewish or not died, it’s a crime. But that is not the issue.

AliceinWonderland

If we are dealing with the issue of genocide, mass murder by gassing, not by work or privation, or war, but this specific crime with the specific weapon of gas chambers; if that’s the issue, then we have to give freedom to others to put forward their views. That’s what Doug Collins said. He said Zundel’s pamphlet is a point of view. He doesn’t agree with it, but he upholds its right to be said.

When Hilberg was asked whether Zundel was being honest, he said what I think we all have to answer in the way of a question: “Can you read his mind? Can you look into his brain?” All you can do is look at the printed word. You had a chance to hear him. You’ve had a chance to see him cross-examined about his beliefs and whether he is this, and whether he is that. He’s not perfect. He is not a perfect human being and neither am I, neither are most people I know. So, why should he be on the stand for having views that maybe you don’t agree with? Why?

Considering The West, War and Islam, I’d like to draw your attention to a significant part of that publication. It says, for the cost of one plane, one rocket, one bullet, we can make a film, a book, or send a letter. That’s what Zundel tried to do, change the Arab response to Zionism, from violence to communication. Is that a crime? Is that an intent dangerous to the social or racial harmony of Canada, when the pamphlet was sent in a sealed envelope to people in the Middle East? Whether he said things that were right or wrong, being quite aside for the moment, would that itself be a crime – would it affect the social and racial harmony of Canada deleteriously? It would seem to me that all it would ever accomplish, if it could accomplish what it sought to do, would be to convert Arab responses of violence and terrorism into Arab responses of communication with the hope that somebody might bring influence in a political sense to bear on the whole problem of the Middle East. It would seem a fairly responsible, albeit somewhat grandiose hope, maybe a pious hope, at a time when Mr. Zundel perceived, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, that problems in the Middle East were about to erupt in a world war. Most of us would sit back and watch it on television, do nothing about it and hope that somebody else would act. Well, Mr. Zundel is not that kind of man. He desired a solution. He thought he could offer one. Now, if that’s a crime, we’d better forget about communicating. It would seem to me to communicate the alternative to planes, rockets and bullets of films, books and letters, is a pretty good solution to the problem. It sure brings us a lot closer to a solution than silence or violence. I don’t, with the greatest of respect, understand how the Crown can allege that my client is supposed to have upset racial or social tolerance in Canada by sending such letters, as he did to people in the Middle East, thousands of miles away.

The only two publications in which Mr. Zundel is alleged to have done anything wrong are The West, War and Islam, and this one. Is this wrong? And when he wasn’t sure, he took the chance, and published, and sent it to whom? Hiding something here? No, he sent it to the Attorney-General of Ontario, sent it to all the Attorneys-General, sent it to the Members of Parliament, and school teachers. He even wrote to the Attorney-General and said: “If you don’t think I’m entitled to publish this, please give me some guidelines.”

If this country is going to involve itself in censorship through official channels like the Attorney-General of Ontario, then I suggest it owes it to the citizens to tell them where the legal limits to freedom lie. If it was a suggestion made by the Crown that the accused deliberately provoked a situation damaging to racial and social tolerance, then why did he ask for an answer as to what he’s entitled to publish? Why didn’t someone give him an answer? I’ll tell you why; because it’s politically embarrassing for an Attorney-General to identify the real censorship that he’s seeking to introduce through fear. It’s easier to prosecute somebody and scare the whole world into keeping quiet, because they don’t want to be where he is. It works very well, but it’s rather insidious, and I suggest the best answer to that kind of censorship through fear, is to throw out these types of charges.

If they’re going to invoke censorship, they’d better write it down and say so and take responsibility for it in the House of Commons. Then, the public will know we don’t live in a free country anymore and can vote against them; but if they’re going to play this kind of political game with censorship by scaring people, by not answering their letters, as to what they’re entitled to write, the result is self-censorship. It’s called, “everybody keep their mouth shut,” That’s something Doug Collins mentioned. The result of the controversy surrounding the Holocaust and the danger of questioning it and the fact that you always get a visit from some particular group if you write on it, results in self-censorship. It’s not official censorship and so we can tell the world that we don’t censor people, but you just watch it. You don’t write about this and you don’t write about that and you keep your mouth shut about this because it’s safer.

I suggest that if you have any doubt about that, you take a good look at the Soviet constitution. They have glowing phrases about freedom of speech, but it’s often limited by some qualifying words about security of the State, and, suddenly, people know better than to say certain things. They know better than to criticize the government, they know better than to raise questions about certain issues, and they know better than to talk about the Helsinki Accord, or a few other subjects in the Soviet Union. What’s the difference with this question? It seems that political power has some influence in what you’re entitled to say and what you’re entitled to do, without it ever being responsible for censoring publicly through the legal process.

Section 177 is a very vague way of defining what you publish. If you’re talking about history, what’s false? There are so many views and so many issues. How can you be sure what you’re entitled to say? I suppose the best solution is, as Doug Collins said, on a subject like the Holocaust, to check with the Canadian Jewish Congress or the B’nai Brith as to what you can publish.

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

But I suggest that you could and should send a message to the world and to the rest of society. It’s not a message that’s intolerant; it is a message of decency, tolerance and understanding, a message to all the sincere young Jewish men and women around the world that perhaps they need not feel more persecuted nor the subject of more hate than any other group; that the war was not all that it is said to be vis-a-vis themselves; that they might no longer say, “Never forgive and never forget,” those types of comments; that they may feel no more the victims of suffering than others in war who have also suffered. Maybe that would be a healthy thing to say, beneficial to all. Perhaps. Just perhaps, they too should put behind them the story of the six million slaughter which they are being imbued and embittered with. Perhaps their suffering is no worse nor any greater than many, many others. So, for the sake of love, peace and understanding, we may not view Jews as extraordinary sufferers, and Nazis, which is a thin disguise, in much of our media, for Germans, as some inherently evil beasts. This stereotyping is intolerance. This evil exultation of hate can only be exorcized in the fresh air of free debate. That can only come through freedom to examine truth freely and throw off unnecessary guilt. If the guilt is necessary, it should be accepted. If it is unnecessary, it should be dispensed with, dropping the disproportionate lies of a mass hysteria which certain political forces daily feed upon. Stop seeing Nazis in every criticism of Judaism, or you will suffer from lack of true criticism. No one is absolutely right, not even the Jews; and no one is absolutely wrong, not even the Germans.

It should be at least open for people to discuss the Holocaust, and, if it isn’t, how healthy a society do we have? We should never suspend our critical faculties of reason and skepticism even to the suffering of the Jews on the issue of the Holocaust. Other groups of people are freely criticized every day. You know, when I was thinking about the context of this whole question, it occurred to me, that there are other atrocity stories, two of which are very famous. One is the Ukrainian Holocaust, or some people dare to call it that, where it is alleged in the thirties, Stalin starved to death five or six million Ukrainian people.

Now, if I was to put together all the evidence that contradicted that, that said it was a false belief, and published that, would that be false news? Or the Armenians say that a million or more of their people were slaughtered by the Turks in 1915 and they hold this as a very important part of their belief. If I were to dispute that and publish my views, would that be false news? And yet, whatever the truth or falsity of those beliefs may be, they stand on their own. No government sanctions say you must believe this. They are not taught in schools as history. In fact, I recently heard that you can’t teach the Ukrainian Holocaust in Manitoba in schools. But, this belief in the Holocaust has become so sacred that nobody can even question it. That is not right. In a free society, no group should have its beliefs imposed by law. We don’t have a state religion. We shouldn’t have one. We don’t have an official history. We shouldn’t have one. If this booklet is right, as the accused says it is, it should be freely heard and freely thought about and freely criticized. If it is not, why fear it? If it is false, there is easy access to a million more resources of public persuasion than this booklet ever had. It does not need the government’s help as some official repository of truth, however sanctimonious its bureaucratic officials may be. Let freedom solve the problem of any hatred or intolerance, else by suppression the human spirit, which seeks truth and seeks the ultimate truth of God, will become crippled by its fears to speak its deepest feelings. Only by our meeting fact to face, by our being as we really are with all our personal prejudices and suspicions, can we accept our faults and by airing our views without fear, learn to love each other with a true and deeper love than if we never disagreed in the first place.

Now, if my client has a wrong belief, he honestly does not believe his beliefs are wrong. He believes they are right. Then, let there be a debate. He invites debate. To the extent a free society allows debate, health and understanding will result. Let a few people decide, let the powerful decide, let some bureaucrat decide, or even, with the greatest of respect, force the duty upon a judge to decide what are true and false beliefs, and the State will inevitably have the power to define truth and become an absolute power. Violence is the end of the road for official truth. In a society where people aren’t free to have their own views, and official truth prevails, they will eventually resort to violence. You see that in many dictatorships throughout the world. If you can’t express views freely in words, in writing, in print, how do people express them? You can see in the world today how they generally do, and that’s very unfortunate.

I said in the beginning, this place, this court, is far too expensive, far too important, to be involved in debates about history. This court and the courts throughout Canada have rules of evidence which are there to determine disputes of fact, but here we haven’t dealt with fact, we’ve dealt with opinion about history. Free access to the marketplace of ideas does not and cannot take place here. This court was not designed to be a place where the affairs of the world are debated, but rather where individual conduct is inquired into.

Whoever is responsible for pursuing these kinds of prosecutions, and it is indeed, I suggest, a decision for which somebody is responsible, he should consider what is at stake, and what occurs in the court, and consider that it shouldn’t happen again. If by acquitting the accused, you make it clear that this is an improper type of thing to do to a citizen in a free society, we won’t have these sorts of trials again, I suggest. It would be less likely that those who made this decision in the first place will repeat it. But I can assure you that there are many people who would love to have the power to silence different points of view, and it’s very easy when you can put people through the kind of thing the accused has been through. I suggest the false news section may have been intended to deal with a specific allegation of false news like a publication of a sort which briefly stated a fact to be true that was false, but it surely can’t be usefully employed to deal with a matter of controversy involving history. The court should not deal with trials of historical issues. This place is too expensive and over-regulated by legal rules to permit an adequate discussion of history. For the sake of freedom, I ask you never to forget what is at stake here. You must remember that we have fought for your freedom as well as for that of the accused; that is, the accused stands in the place of anyone who desires to speak his mind. Even if you don’t approve or agree with what he says, you must take it as a sacred responsibility not to allow the suppression of someone’s honest beliefs.

I want to finish by reading you a little letter that I got once. It explains what I mean when I say history is a very complex thing and it changes from time to time and it should be free to do so. It says, “What is truth? As a child I was taught that the Indians were savages. Later on in life I found out that it was the white man who had initiated scalping and the killing of women and children. I was taught in school that Louis Riel was a traitor to his country and therefore executed and that John A. MacDonald was a hero.

Later on in life I was to discover that Louis Riel is regarded by some as a hero defending his people’s rights to their land and the famous Sir John A. had been caught taking bribes from the CPR, and resigned in disgrace. He also died an alcoholic. During the Second World War, I was told that Stalin was a good leader who fought on the good side. When I was older I found out that he was responsible for the government-imposed starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1933. In 1941 I was told that Germany was our enemy and Russia was our ally. In 1951 I was told that Germany was our ally and Russia was our enemy. In 1956 I was told that China slaughtered millions of its own people. It was our enemy and today I’m told that China is our friend and ally, in a way.”

Therefore, when an individual has the integrity to question the credibility of a government-imposed view of history, we should listen with an open mind and search for the truth. It would seem to me that the truth will be in debate for a long time. But if we silence one side of any dispute or anyone’s view of truth because we think he is wrong then society as a whole will suffer. An individual will suffer. And you will suffer.

Patrick Henry said: “Give me liberty or give me death.” If you don’t have liberty you have a kind of spiritual death, the death that comes from people who never use their minds. That’s a real spiritual death. If we are to live in a free society where people are alive and have hope in their lives then we must have liberty.

With the right verdict people who brought this prosecution into being will not do it again. It will take a lot of courage. But you are the repository of the trust of your country and in the moment you decide to acquit and stick to that principle you will give history the best gift your descendants could ever ask for: A free country.

—–
For further information on relevant cases, articles, letters, bio, videos and more please see: http://www.douglaschristie.com/

To obtain a copy of this document please contact Paul Fromm at CAFE, PO Box 332 Station “B”, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 9Z9 or write to Paul at paul@paulfromm.com

 

Rothstein’s World: Where Intent & Truth No Longer Exist by Bill Whatcott

 

Rothstein's WorldHdr

ATEditorPic185

[Editor's Note: The following article is an excerpt from a longer posting of Bill Whatcott's on March 10th, 2015 which is titled, "Whatcott ministry to Canada comes to an end". Bill has been one Canadian who has displayed the intestinal fortitude that so many Canadians today lack when it comes to standing up for Canada rather than tossing their principles and their integrity into the Zionist ring and only standing up for Israel instead.

Bill's efforts,  when it comes to defending the right to freedom of speech for ALL Canadians have proven effective in other ways. What he has accomplished through his actions is that he exposed the hidden agenda of satanic forces that now control the hidden agenda of Canada's Supreme Court and he did so by refusing to back down to the endless attacks by the homosexual lobbyists and their willing accomplices the courts themselves. This process of unveiling the agenda of the dark side might not  have occurred had Bill Whatcott simply idly stood by like most Canadian "Christians" and kept silent in the face of the obvious injustice and degradation that's occurring within our legal system and society at large.

Bill's ministry may have come to an end here in Canada but his legacy of love for Canada and his efforts to save as many children as possible from the hidden scalpel of the abortionists will continue to inspire others just as his Lord and Master Jesus Christ's example has lived on for over two thousand years.

May God bless  him and his family with peace and happiness. He's sacrificed enough for any man.]

 

Bill Whatcott Image

Dear Friends,

My ministry to Canada has come to an end, at least for the foreseeable future. My ministry wrapped up about the way I would have wanted it to. Two days before leaving for Philippines my friend Rev. Gerhard Wilch and I had coffee with a reporter for a large homosexual publication. The reporter prefers to remain unidentified. I shared the Gospel and some apologetics with the reporter, but he was not particularly open to mine and Gerhard’s worldview. Anyways, I gave the reporter my book “Born in a Graveyard” and requested that he share it with other folks who work at his media outlet.

My Dad and I spent some quality time together and I visited a few family members. My Dad and I also had coffee with one of my faithful ex-gay friends, who is also a loyal supporter of my ministry. Me and my ex-gay friend who was redeemed from the transgender and lesbian lifestyle many years ago certainly had an interesting conversation. My dad who is a little more mainstream Canadian than us just sat quietly and listened as we covered our favourite topics about Jesus and the destructive aspects of the homosexual agenda. It is possible as my Dad sat there and listened to us that he just figured me and my choice of friends is nuts.

I spent my final day in Canada putting out the last of my flyers “Imagine Defunding the CBC” around the east end of Vancouver. I was not particularly surprised that most of the responses were negative, however Vancouver’s recipients of my truthful message have been far less vitriolic than the recipients in Kamloops a few days earlier.

After my final truth assault my Dad and I went to Gerhard’s church for a Lenten supper and service. From there my Dad drove me to the airport. Now, I am in the Philippines with my wife.

I have pretty much given the last quarter century of my life to fighting for a Judeo Christian vision for Canada, especially in the areas of life, sexuality and family. I also fought very hard for free speech and religious freedom for social conservative Christians.

While the path I chose was somewhat controversial , devastating to my secular career prospects in Canada, and indeed a path that rendered me a pariah in the eyes of many, I am quite happy with some of what I accomplished. On the abortion front I am very happy there are a number of children alive as a direct result of my graphic abortion sign and sidewalk counseling ministries.

….My efforts in defending Canada against the homosexual onslaught has been less successful in my view, perhaps more costly on a personal level, though these efforts have not been completely in vain.

My fights with the various university campuses that have tried to have me arrested and banned for preaching against homosexuality and abortion have been very successful. I won multiple court cases against the University of Regina and University of Calgary and made my presence known on many other campuses across the country, challenging attempts at censorship on the University of Alberta, University of Saskatchewan, Carlton University and University of British Columbia campuses. As far as I can tell, the courts have affirmed the right to preach, protest and hand out literature on politically incorrect topics such as abortion and homosexuality on university campuses, even if the university administrations are hostile to the message.

On a nationwide level I have certainly had an impact on the course of free speech in Canada, though I can’t really trumpet my contribution as the success I wanted it to be. In October 2011 I appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on charges that I was guilty of “hate speech” for distributing four pamphlets criticizing the promotion of sodomy in our public schools and for criticizing an ad advertising “man seeking boys… for friendship, exchanging video and pics and more….age, race, nationality not so relevant.”

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal imposed a $17,500 fine and lifetime speech ban on me for distributing flyers criticizing the homosexual agenda and the potential pedophile ad. I broke the ruling right away with a new flyer entitled “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission” and appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench for relief.

My lawyer Tom Schuck and I were hoping to have the hate speech provisions of the human rights tribunals ruled unconstitutional. The Court of Queen’s Bench ruled against us, and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in our favour. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and a record number of intervenors, 22 in total, applied to make submissions before the Court. One of the intervenors, my favourite one, Association for Reformed Political Action was rejected.

My lawyer Tom was quite confident we were going to win but in the end the loss was appalling. The ruling from Canada’s Supreme Court was 6-0 in favour of upholding Canada’s hate speech code, and also my conviction for so-called hate speech on two of the four counts. What was most distressing to me was the logic used to uphold my conviction for so-called hate speech. Justice Rothstein wrote for the unanimous court that defendants in hate speech cases could not use intent or truth as a defense. While accurate medical and social statistics on homosexuality were not enough to get me the defendant acquitted, Rothstein and the court decided they didn’t even need truth on their side to render a guilty verdict. Rothstein wrote a “reasonable person” should be able to conclude my speech would prevent sodomites from expressing themselves, prevent them from participating in society, and my speech if not censored would ultimately lead to discrimination and even genocide. Rothstein also falsely asserted that I called all homosexuals pedophiles.

Of course in Rothstein’s world I would not be a reasonable person, but from my vantage point it seemed in the more than 10 years that I delivered my flyers, sodomites did nothing else but express themselves, whether it was marching naked on parade routes, demonizing and destroying the careers and businesses of Christians who disagreed with them, advocating for a lower age of consent, successfully advocating for same sex marriage, or through mostly unchallenged homosexual propaganda in our children’s classrooms and on our televisions.

From 2002 to 2013, I put out more than 500,000 flyers and as far as I could tell I failed spectacularly in preventing sodomites from expressing themselves. As for Rothstein’s worries about my flyers leading to genocide? Aside from the fact I never called for genocide in any of my flyers, the reality is most of secular Canada never heeded my warnings on homosexuality. The reactions to my flyers were (with a few exceptions were I found supporters) mostly indifference or hostility towards me. In my view Rothstein’s fantasies of anti-gay pogroms and genocides starting as a result of my flyers were delusional and it appalls me this reasoning formed the basis of Canada’s law on what Canadians are allowed and not allowed to say.

The Supreme Court attached my flyers to the bottom of their judgment. You can read my flyers (and the entire ruling if you wish) to see that I never called all homosexuals pedophiles, you can see I never called for the genocide of anyone, and you can see for yourself Rothstein’s reasoning that my (and your) speech could be silenced even if there is no evidence of harm, simply because he and his cronies believe they are “reasonable” and they can discern (even without evidence) my speech might lead to harm: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c … 6/index.do

My lawyer Tom pointed out the errors of fact to the Supreme Court (that I called homosexuals pedophiles) after they released their judgment. However, while truth is no defense for defendants like me in hate speech cases, making statements that are demonstrably untrue is no hindrance for Supreme Court judges.

In my view rulings like this one should be grounds for removal from the bench.

In any event, given the Whatcott ruling was based on blatant falsehoods and politically correct fantasies, I did what a “reasonable” Canadian should do. For two years I ignored the ruling, refused to pay the malicious penalties imposed on me and continued to put out truthful flyers on homosexuality just as I did before the ruling.

The Supreme Court made me liable for all the costs incurred by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission even though I had a partial victory. This was a departure from the judicial norm in partial victories where both parties are generally liable for their own costs. A lawyer writing for the National Post commented that the imposition of costs on me was malicious and said had I not appealed the human rights ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have had the opportunity to review the “man seeking boys ads” flyer and find me innocent of so-called hate speech for my flyer exposing those ads.

Having two years of hindsight, I don’t think I would have done anything different in picking my fight with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. I do believe the truth was on my side and way back in 2001 I was correctly concerned the church was losing its ability to express its moral teachings on the homosexual lifestyle in the public square. My flyers were deliberately provocative and in some cases graphic and disturbing. This approach while not overly pastoral was a legitimate approach in my view to challenge increasing censorship and apathy that I perceived was gripping my beloved Canada.

My flyers did succeed in starting debate. Over the years I have even been blessed with developing a few relationships with homosexual activists and their allies. While the flyers were not pastoral and were not intended to be pastoral, I was able to have a number of pastoral conversations with lost souls over the years as a result of my flyers and was even blessed to play a role in leading a few folks to the risen Christ. None of the above was in vain. However, I have to concede defeat in my primary objectives of securing a robust level of free speech for my social conservative brethren and in activating large numbers of Christians to take a public stand against the homosexual agenda.

Anyways, I did the best I could with what I had. As a legacy I have a book published, “Born in a Graveyard” though I am not making any money off it in Canada, it might take off in Poland thanks to the efforts of my friend Pastor Art Pawlowski. The book is a good history of my life and activism, and in my view is a good educational resource on the effects of the culture of death and homosexual activism on true freedom in the west.

It is nice to be in the Philippines with my wife. I really have no idea what I will be doing here. I am heading to a trade school right now to see if I can learn some mechanics. My wife and I are poor as I left Canada with very little. However we have family and God.

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

My new contact info is:

Phone: 63-927-769-6769
e-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com

Address: Block 12, Lot 5
St. Margaret St, Adelina Homes,
Lipa City, Batangas, Philippines
4217

“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
1 Peter 3:15

 

 

The Yoke of Law: Stopping the Homosexual Lobby Assault on our School Children Frank Frost Videos

FrankFrostYokeofLawHdr copy 2

VideoWarning

Dr. Dawg licks his wounds: Court rules that defamation of Ottawa blogger was ‘fair comment’

Dr. Dawg licks his wounds: Court rules that defamation of Ottawa blogger was ‘fair comment’

ANDREW DUFFY, OTTAWA CITIZEN

March 4, 2015

BaglowDrDawg

A Superior Court judge has ruled that although Ottawa blogger Dr. Dawg was defamed on a conservative message board, the hurtful words fell within the bounds of fair comment in the rough and tumble blogosphere.

“Political debate in the Internet blogosphere can be, and often is, rude, aggressive, sarcastic, hyperbolic, insulting caustic and/or vulgar. It is not for the faint of heart,” Madam Justice Heidi Polowin noted in dismissing the legal claim.

The decision is among the first to establish the legal boundaries in Canada’s blogosphere, where the battle between left and right often devolves into flame wars.

The ruling concludes that the political blogosphere must be governed by existing laws, but it also recognizes that the Internet is a place of strongly worded opinion and hyperbole, where fair comment should be given a broad interpretation.

Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, an intervener in the case, said the ruling does not significantly depart from the established principles of defamation law. Although no new legal exceptions have been carved out for political blogs, she said, it does acknowledge that “the way expression happens in some of these forums is different.”

In her ruling, Polowin found that John Baglow, an Ottawa blogger known as Dr. Dawg, had been defamed by an August 2010 chat room post that referred to him as “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters.”

The statement was made on the Free Dominion website by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., in the course of an acrimonious debate about federal politics and the treatment of Canadian Omar Khadr, then a Guantanamo inmate.

In finding the words to be defamatory, Polowin rejected the argument of Free Dominion’s founders, Mark and Connie Fournier, who said they should not be held legally responsible for the messages that other people post on an open Internet platform. That position was supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which argued that holding website administrators liable for the content of message board postings would impair the free exchange of ideas on the Internet.

Polowin, however, said defamation law must balance two fundamental values: the worth of an individual’s reputation and freedom of expression. “To adopt the position of the defendants would leave potential plaintiffs with little ability to correct reputational damage and would impair that delicate balance,” she wrote.

The Fourniers also argued that the statement was not defamatory in the context of the political blogosphere, where profanity, insults and invective run wild. But Polowin rejected the notion that the Internet is too unruly to be governed by conventional defamation law.

“Implicit in their submissions is that based on the rough and tumble nature of these media platforms there would be little, if anything, that would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable reader. However, there is nothing in the law of defamation to suggest that that is the case.”

Polowin concluded that Baglow’s reputation was damaged by the suggestion that he was a Taliban supporter. The judge, however, accepted the Fourniers’ argument that the defamatory words could be defended as fair comment in the blogosphere.

Fair comment can be used as a defence when the words at issue are based on fact and honestly expressed on a matter of public interest.

Baglow argued that Smith’s words were expressed, not as comment, but as a statement of fact. Polowin, however, said the impugned words appeared in the course a political diatribe. “The post itself was rambling, if not incoherent, touching on a number of different topics. It was in essence a rant, with Mr. Smith giving his views and opinions on any number of issues, none too clearly.”

The judge said Smith was commenting on a matter of public interest — the Khadr case — and honestly held the belief that anyone who supported the teenager, an enemy combatant in Afghanistan, supported the Taliban.

Polowin decided against awarding costs to either side in the bitterly fought case.

Baglow, a left-wing political blogger and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, called the ruling a split decision. “If one has to lose a lawsuit, this is probably the way to lose it,” he said.

Baglow said the judge found that he was defamed and endorsed many of the principles for which he was fighting. “The fact the blogosphere is not a place where rules are suspended — that the same law applies to them as to any other media — I think that’s a good thing to establish,” he said. “It means it’s not the wild west out there.”

Connie Fournier, a computer programmer who lives in Kingston, said she was pleased with the outcome of the case. “I hope people will calm down when it comes to trying to sue each other over things said online,” she said. “Because you are not going to change the culture: The culture is what it is.”

Online commenters, Fournier said, are likely to write things they would not say in person since “they’re sitting at their computers, they’re uninhibited — and they’re probably having a beer while they do it.”

Neither side has any plan to appeal the judgment.

——-

Source: 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/dr-dawg-licks-his-wounds-court-rules-that-defamation-of-ottawa-blogger-was-fair-comment

Commentary on the Current Hate-Fest Against Arthur Topham & Radical Press in Wells, B.C. from a Facebook user

WellsCommentary

WE the People Hereby Fire our Corrupt Government by John Best (Video)

WeThePeopel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8dZI_LnZaA&feature=youtu.be

Triple F Video – Frank Freddie Frost: Presents Frank Frost “Hight Test” & Frank Frost “Light”

[Editor's  Note: When it comes to government corruption, pedophilia, child abuse or the shady, illegal workings of the RCMP and the deviancy of the Ministry of Children & Family Development (MCFD) or any other level and government ministry from municipal to federal, Mr.  Frank Freddie Frost is the man to tackle the issues and lay it out for all to see in no uncertain terms. A fearless defender of the victims of government bureaucracy and the criminal activities of the RCMP Frank Frost's message will hold you captive and help you to understand just how deeply flawed our government and legal system has become. Please share these videos with anyone you can who may be in need of the knowledge and information that Mr. Frost has to offer. 

TripleFVidHdrHghTest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clh8b1IXvvQ

TripleFVidFFLightHdr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mk8G4QbTbc

To view all of Frank Freddie Frost’s Videos please go HERE

Epistle to Paul by Arthur Topham (revised & updated)

Epistle2Paul

[Author’s Note: This letter was originally written for and sent to Paul LeBaron, a 95 year old ‘light-worker’ living in southern British Columbia, Canada back in August of 2006. Paul and the author had been communicating for a number of years and this letter was the latest in their ongoing series of discussions surrounding the nature and purpose of that spiritual quality or condition which we often designate by the term “Light”. In this instance we were debating the whys and wherefores of how such spiritual knowledge or awareness fits into or sheds further understanding upon what is, in certain metaphysical circles, referred to as the Ascension process. It wasn't too long afterwards that my friend Paul ascended from this earthly sphere.

I've added some editing to the original text and embellished it with additional graphics but the main purpose in republishing it here and now is to give those who were born during or after the 60's Hippie era an idea of how that period of our collective history might be interpreted and has been interpreted by someone who was there, lived through it and, possibly even more importantly, benefitted from all that transpired during those amazing and transformative years.]

Epistle to Paul

A Dissertation on the Origin, Nature and Purpose of Political Zionism with Additional Commentary on Ascension, Light & Darkness, Hippies, the Internet & the Nature of the Anti-Christ

By

Arthur Topham

“Well I’ve got no hate
And I’ve got no pride
I’ve got so much love
that I cannot hide”
- from the song All the Best, by John Prine

Dear Paul,

It appears at this juncture that our respective positions regarding Light and Darkness are meant to juxtapose for a purpose. I therefore thank you again for graciously responding to my last reply.

I found your simile of a burning match cast down a darkened well (representing the futility of individual, egoic efforts to awaken consciousness) to be a suitable one for your position as a proponent of the Ascension process but inapplicable to my own stance on this issue.

I do grant to you the fact that my voice at this point in the earthly drama is as one crying in the wilderness but I would qualify that by stating further that I know from intuition, observation, research and a general gut sense of certainty that it is definitely a voice whose resonance is increasing as the vibration of truth waxes, both in volume and intensity, for others besides myself.

Rather than compare my efforts at dispensing the forbidden knowledge that I’ve discovered to a match spent in vain I would hope that you might see it more in the manner explained in the following dissertation.

Our respective generations, which needsbe, must include yours and those between you and I plus the ones coming after, were and are deeply and negatively affected on all levels – mentally, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually – by our unconscious, involuntary exposure to a cultural, social environment specifically designed to pervert our natural emotions, thwart and inhibit our reason and nullify our intellectual ability to discern and analyze the obvious paradoxes that our man-made world presents to us. This was, as I will suggest, purposefully undertaken by select groups of human beings via a system of deliberate, false education coupled with a complicit, all-encompasing information/news media, both of which wilfully instilled in our minds pre-selected data calculated to produce specific behavioural results in terms of generalized, conditioned responses.

In other words Paul it wasn’t simply generations of individuals growing up in a hodge podge world of organic social change that, of itself, had evolved from other organic past events displaying novel and natural patterns. It wasn’t that at all. It was, in fact, a monumental social experiment on the part of certain forces in a position of power and influence to design and engineer, en masse, the direction of future generations via mind-control techniques and psychological conditioning, in order to manipulate them into viewing themselves (their inner world of consciousness and their external reality), through perceptive lenses ground to produce an illusionary world of false underlying mental constructs. In other words Paul it was a deliberate plot, an actual, real-life conspiracy –the greatest ever undertaken in the history of our world to date – to circumvent, no, further than that even, to sabotage human evolution and natural social change for calculated, selfish, nefarious reasons; ones which I hope to outline in this letter. All of this effort, as I say, I firmly believe, was premeditated and meant to radically change the course of both history and life on this planet.

As such every generation of humankind within the sphere of what we understand as western civilization has been thus affected by this great experiment in human social, cultural and genetic engineering. In order to forestall its ultimate objectives it behooves us to understand its composition and aim.

In most respects we have physically developed through the various stages of human biological growth but due to the fact that our collective minds were tampered with from the earliest periods of growth, we all, for the greater part, entered into adulthood in varying stages of mental retardation, euphemistically labeled as “ignorance”. It is a handicap which the majority of people still have not overcome.

For those of us who, for whatever reasons, were able to remember or recall our past lives of conscious awareness or retained some “intimations of immortality” from our youth prior to the prison gates closing around us or were blessed to be born into a family with one or two unaffected or awakened parents, we eventually progressed to the realization that we were in fact existing in chains and held in thralldom to a cultural, intellectual mindset or paradigm not of our own making. The Matrix from which we had been birthed proved to be an artificial mother devoid of the power of love and the ability to nurture in a wholesome, healthy manner.

Being close to three decades ahead of me in your present sojourn Paul you have the added advantage of having lived through some of the more trying experimental times which occurred throughout the first half of the 20th Century. You were around when the Rothschild syndicate pulled off the US “Federal” Reserve caper in 1913. You were cognizant of the days when the Bolsheviks, headed mainly by expatriate Ashkenazi Jews from the USA and financed again by the Rothschild consortium of fine banks, murdered Czar Nicholas II and his family and then proceeded to establish the worse totalitarian dictatorship that the world has ever known; one which by conservative estimates was responsible for something like the death of sixty-six million Russian people, mostly Christians. Not a mythical 6 million like the Bolshevik/Zionists claimed the Germans had murdered during WW2 but 66 million! And that wasn’t counting the additional twenty million sacrificed during the second world war to ensure that the National Socialists of Germany were defeated and the Communist/Zionist/Marxist forces of the Soviet Union would be victorious in claiming half of former democratic Europe and the Zionist Jews of Great Britain and the USA would secure for themselves their long coveted “spiritual” homeland in Palestine.

You were a grown man and raising a family when these same forces decided to unleash the nuclear terror upon humankind with some of their early experiments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not satisfied with holocausting a half a million innocent Germans and fleeing refugees from eastern Europe in the infamous Dresden fire bombing they had to up the anti even more with additional examples of grotesque horror and mass carnage.

As for my generation, born after the destruction and death of WW2, we basically inherited a world still in the throes of shell-shocked trauma and struggling to come to terms with the horror of the preceding decade of inestimable violence and suffering. For those born immediately following the end of WW2 we were to be granted a short window of peace only to be followed by a new war in Korea come 1953 and following that endless numbers of smaller wars that have never ceased up to the present.

Space won’t allow me to elaborate in any detail about the first half of this experiment that I allege began around the turn of the 20th Century beyond what I’ve recounted thus far. It will have to suffice to say that all of what preceded my own birth in 1947 had laid the groundwork for Act Two, one in which I and others of my generation, are now deeply involved in.

Growing up in the 50′s was kind of like taking a breather for people who had really not enjoyed much peace since the start of the first World War in 1914. We benefited materially as the victors and the financial system, owned and controlled by the Zionist Jew Banking syndicate of the Rothschilds, which had managed to stay intact throughout the challenges brought on by the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy and Japan, was again in full control of the economic system of the West. Besides that it had aided and abetted the Bolsheviks and set the stage for two new scenes which were to affect those of my generation and generations to come. The UN had been created by Communist/Zionist spies working within the US state department and this organization was then used to rubber stamp the Zionist theft of Palestinian lands to create their “Jews only” state of “Israel”. That ensured that peace would not come to the middle east. Next was the fabricated “Cold War” between what appeared to be two ostensibly different ideologies but in fact, behind their respective curtains of propaganda created by the Zionist-controlled media, the creators of this global melodrama were one and the same Directors and Producers – the Zionist/Marxist/Communists headed by the very same Illuminati/Zionist/Masonic consortium that had created all the preceding crises since the turn of the 20th Century.

And who knew Paul? Who of us younger generation could possibly know the inner workings of this vast network of scheming scoundrels who had decided that humanity was little more than a pack of rats to be experimented with in order to breed a race of slaves that would furnish both the labour and the products to ensure this elite group of pirates and psychopaths would stay in their ivory towers and direct the scenes below and never be either exposed or replaced? We didn’t really begin to take notice of the obvious discrepancies until the 1960s and by then a whole host of new experiments were being prepared for our generation. It would prove to be mind expanding indeed.

Sargeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band strikes up a new tune.

Sgt.Pepper800

It was forty years ago today (more or less) that many of my generation, disgruntled with our upbringing and lost amid a phoney world of fake consumerism, fabricated cultural values and haunted by a sense of meaninglessness and boredom that accompanied the great experiment which we were unconsciously a part of, finally reacted to the pressures exerted by the hidden grip of these invisible bonds and joined Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The manner of our reaction, unbeknownst to ourselves, had already been planned out by the social engineers who had designed every other phenomenon in the preceding six generations, only this time the outcome of their hypothetical designs would result in reactions no one had planned.

It was the beginning of a whole new game as a large number of my generation (the Sixties) turned to psychedelic drugs as a means of escaping what was in truth the clutches of the Prince(iple) of Evil; one that had willfully nurtured us into a semi-comatose state of mental twilight throughout our childhood and youth.

In this respect the drugs were a legitimate and divine route to a whole new world of revelatory experience and an antidote to the negative effects of our external, man-made, mental prison-environment.

The irony of course, surrounding the whole Hippie phenomenon, was that those who first began disseminating LSD and other psychedelic drugs throughout our western culture i.e. the CIA-Zionist matrix, did so because they assumed these drugs would make it that much easier to facilitate and sustain the mass mind-control which had been developed over the preceding six decades. It was their deliberate intention therefore to handicap the population by dispensing mind-altering chemicals which, in their bungling and short-sighted ignorance, they figured would further exacerbate the already prevalent and growing sense of alienation that the malleable minds of the youth of the day were then feeling.

OrangeSunshine700

In some respects Paul their efforts at obfuscation and alienation proved fruitful and a percentage of those who turned to drugs as an avenue of escape from the overwhelming presence of the artificial environment from which the youth were fleeing in droves were in fact disabled psychologically even further due to whatever individual karma they were carrying, but as a general observation I would have to state that the vast majority of the Hippie Generation passed through the Indole ring of fire and emerged out the other side with an increased awareness of their own spiritual essence and individual identity; one that, by comparison to anything beforehand in history, was essentially a quantum leap forward in terms of an evolving human consciousness.

At the same time the Hippies found themselves with new tools in hand to begin re-designing their own lives for the benefit of themselves and their new sense of community rather than for the dark and nebulous agenda which had held them in its grasp throughout their somewhat torpid and passive developmental stages leading to adulthood.

A Missing Factor

My generation then was the first one Paul, since the beginning of the 20th Century, to en masse liberate ourselves from the immediate and direct threat that the society and culture of the period posed to the general populace. It had been tried in Germany and Europe at a much earlier period but due to the lack of necessary stimulus, i.e. the psychedelic factor, it never spread throughout society to the degree that it did following the Summer of Love in 1967. In saying this I must, needs be, qualify it somewhat.

Summer of Love 1967 800

Prior to the Sixties our shackles were firmly in place but by the decade’s close our society was suddenly overrun to the max with a seemingly new species of humanity. It was as if God had suddenly turned upside down a huge, cosmic box filled with dissident, ardent souls and simply dumped them into the nations of the world helter skelter embedding them throughout the status quo so that the slow, yet steady, process of what I now understand as the Great Awakening could begin to unfold. You, on the other hand Paul, may conceive this to be the process of Ascension per se.

Those of us who had burst our bonds and were now free spirits found ourselves at long last upon a path of regeneration and saw that it was a golden opportunity to assist in the great rebirthing of what, at the time, was referred to as dawning of the Age of Aquarius. It was a giant step for so many of us to have taken but it didn’t necessarily imply that once free to act all those who had been released from the imposed prison of a designed social milieu would automatically know what to do or how to go about doing it.

Reviewing it now after forty years I can see that a crucial factor in the overall equation of freedom had been overlooked. It was the debriefing stage; one that would have assisted tremendously in helping my generation of mind-controlled youth to fully realize why we had all ended up in that massive existential dilemma in the first place.

In individual cases, such as that of Kathy O’Brian in the U.S.A. (see her book, Trance-formation of America) and illustrated in the documentation surrounding the CIA/FBI/ZIONIST MKULTRA mind-control experiments of the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s, coming to terms with the who and why of what had transpired was essential to the victim’s eventual return to a healthy, happy, productive life. In the case of a whole generation thus affected this wasn’t able to occur for the obvious reason that it was the surrounding socio-political-cultural matrix itself that had perpetrated the grand fraud in the first place and outside of that actual medium there existed only a tumultuous and somewhat chaotic set of disparate circumstances and reactions, newly born, that disallowed any formal cohesiveness, meaning and structure and therefore couldn’t act as a vehicle or medium for such a requisite, vital purpose.

That factor though, while unbeknownst to the re-born generation of turned-on freaks, was instantly perceived by the manipulators as an imminent and mitigating reality – one requiring immediate redress in order to regain its former foothold on the mass of the deceived.

It was as if the great experimentors in human conditioning had accidentally screwed up their formula and birthed a new species when it had anticipated but a further development of the Frankenstein entity it had created decades, if not centuries before. Now, suddenly, something unknown had sprang forth from the machinations of the think tanks that had been totally overlooked. Rather than simply creating more psychotic and neurotic citizens, all of a sudden there was a being wandering about the lab that defied definition and apparently alluded further conditioning, refused to play the old games of fear, control and power.

A bastard flower child had emerged from out of the chrysalis of the criminal conspiracy surrounding the CIA’s experiments that must have thrown the technicians into a panic. In no time flat LSD was declared dangerous and illegal and stringent punishments brought in to put a stop to its spreading use. Instead of revelation and love and peace the upcoming generations had to be re-fitted and re-conditioned back into the old status quo social “reality” by attacking them again with every conceivable influence within the laboratory’s arsenal of destabilizing, mind-control weaponry. By the mid-70s this process was well underway with the introduction of cocaine/crack and other assorted non-psychotropic drugs and it has not stopped since.

A Net to Capture a Beast

Notwithstanding all of the heavy legislation and brutality and increased efforts on the part of the global Zionist conspiracy to break the spirit of the new breed of creative warriors all their efforts at suppressing the spirit of the 60′s failed. By the late 70′s a new weapon of our own was being created, one of both defensive and offensive capability, that finally manifested in pragmatic form in the 1990′s.

This new sword of Truth, undoubtedly, was the Internet; an electro-linking together of a world wide web of past and present events, information and visionary ideas that finally offered the possibility of exposing, ensnaring and eventually disabling the debilitating negativity of the powers of darkness who had created such mayhem and destruction for the last century.

cybermansml copy

Some might ask why it took so long to assemble a cohesive response but measured in terms of the time that the vast majority of humans have been suffering in economic misery and enslaved to an elite group of financial power brokers bent on virtual global control of the masses, it was relatively short indeed.

When the explosion of energy that occurred in the Sixties took place and re-birthed literally millions of spiritually awakened beings around the world, the infrastructure of our present-day tyranny was then firmly in place. The cat of course was now out of the bag but in order for the rest of the world to realize it a medium was still required (a channel if you will), some techno-body necessary to carry this renewed, transcendental revelation to the slumbering, dumbed-down, conditioned minds of the general public in order that they might know the truth about themselves and the circumstances surrounding their collective condition(ing).

When the new spiritual awakening happened in the Sixties all western media – TV, Movies, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Book Publishers and Distribution Networks were firmly held in the grip of the forces of oppression and exploitation – and that force was Zionism albeit unrecognized as such by the newly awakened. The only alternative at that point was to utilize the existing institutions via rebellion in order to bring this new awareness to the attention of the general mass of people. Thus was born the period of campus and street revolt and protest marching, a period met in turn with billy clubs, tear-gas and overwhelming police brutality, all of which occurred within a background gestalt of full and complicit Zionist-controlled media sanctioning of the repressing agents of the state. Orwell’s Big Brother was alive and well and Jack London’s Iron Heel was being ground into the faces of all who resisted the agenda of the New World Order.

A Whiter Shade of Pale

And so, Paul, we weren’t “skipping the light fandangle” or “turning cartwheels across the floor” for no reason. We were jubilant and we were HIGH because we were finally FREE; liberated from the lockstep conformity of our fellow passengers on Space Ship Earth and those who had constructed the mental prison from which we had escaped; released from a constraining, paralyzing sense of confusing futility that permeated the bulk of humanity up to that point, leaving only the archetypal ideal of the Automaton and slave as a future role model. Within this context we were proud to grab the torch of freedom and confident in our courage that we would pass it on to coming generations.

The Disclosure

In the Forties George Orwell had outlined the problem in fictional form and by the mid Fifties Douglas Reed, famed British war correspondent during World War Two, had connected up the dots to show the world the graphic details of the Beast’s visage. We may count our blessings that at least Orwell survived into the literature of the Sixties.

Reed though had to be wiped clean off the slate of recorded history for he had committed the unforgivable crime. Through his consummate skill as a professional journalist and author and his unequivocal discernment in the presence of those players then on the stage with whom he had been in intimate contact, he was finally able to slide a wedge beneath the veil and get a firm enough grasp on it that he was then able to raise it up for all the world to see what lay beyond. What he exposed to the clear light of day was the viscera of the Beast and how it functioned as the decisive factor in the subversion of western civilization to alien influences. No small task and one that the world still has to recognize and honour him for accomplishing.

DouglasReedFramedPhoto500

As Reed discovered, the body of the Beast had a name and that name was Political Zionism. But as for the core of minds who acted through this agency of evil such knowledge for the most part was to remain unnamed, for Reed rarely indulged in conjecture. Beyond revealing those who publicly pursued the Zionist objectives, his only reference to the occult center was to quote Theodor Hertzl’s oft used turn of phrase, the dreadful, “power of the purse”. This, to me, was an obvious allusion to the Rothschild/Rockefeller crime syndicate.

For having rent the veil behind which the Zionists had operated clandestinely for so long, the fury of the Beast was unleashed upon Reed and all his works. Its controlling eye and mouth – the mainstream mind-control media (M3) – turned an evil gaze upon him and with one movement of its claw-like finger deleted Reed from the screen of public consciousness along with his opus magnum, The Controversy of Zion!

The Dark Well

This expanded summation Paul brings me full circle to the point in this letter where I began and to your comparison of my personal efforts to help reveal the face of the Beast to someone throwing a lighted match down a darkened well.

Within the context of all that I’ve just written, allow me to focus in further and extrapolate on your statement, “human darkness, being entirely a product of ego/intellectualism, has its own way of gobbling up and incorporating into itself any kind of intellectualism concept, no matter how much light it is thought to contain.”

Whereas you perceive “human darkness” as a product of “ego/intellectualism” I, on the other hand, understand mental darkness to be more in the nature of a psychic ossification of the human will/mind/emotions due to their immersion and subsequent adversely-affected influence and growth within a socio-political and cultural environment not of one’s own making that has been purposely engineered to create an illusion, or possibly more precisely, an underlying socio-cultural dogma which will have specific effects upon the person developing within it’s parameters.

By the time a child has emerged from this developmental process their mindset has been more or less determined and the general outcome is a homogeneous group of ‘bone-headed’ citizens conditioned to view the world and the events happening around and to them through the artificial filters of an imposed ideological template that has been embedded in their minds from virtual birth.

In a specific context though you are correct in suggesting that the “ego/intellectualism” aspect of the human being creates “human darkness”. In the case of the Beast’s program for world control i.e. Political Zionism, I would have to concur with that definition, as it is a product of specific human endeavor designed purposefully and strategically to produce a planned set of objectives.

But if it was truly so Paul for all human beings that “human darkness” was a sort of self-perpetuating black hole that absorbed anything and everything intellectual into its own vacuum and stopped the mind from accepting new revelations then it appears obvious to me that the world would not have progressed at all over the eons of time and we would also not be facing the paradoxical situation we’re currently discussing.

You initially stated that you honour the passion and honesty contained in my efforts to inform others of the various aspects of darkness. So let us therefore return to my basic premise and see how it ties in with all that has been said thus far.

When Reed lifted the veil and exposed the face of the Beast he did so not only as an investigative journalist but also as a Christian. All his research, from the beginnings of the tribe of Judah, the origins of the Levitical priesthood and the Pharisees, the distinction between the tribes of Israel and Judah and the origins of both Judaism and Christianity, confirms that two primary, underlying paradigms compose the whole of Judeo-Christian thought over the past 2500 years.

Basically these two branches of thought are the following:

1.) Judaism:- a doctrine first conceived by the Levitical priesthood that held their god – the ‘god’ of Moses – Jehovah, was the only god and that he had chosen the tribe of Judah to rule over all other nations of the world. The manner in which this was to be accomplished is contained within the Judaic Old Testament of the Christian Bible in the first actual book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy. Tersely put the Judaic ‘god’ demands absolute authority over all his subjects and for those nations outside the fold their fate is to be met with genocide and destruction and abject slavery for whatever remnant might remain after the final onslaught.

2.) Christianity:- the doctrine that the one God is the God of all nations, the Judaic as well, and that this God manifests His essence through Love and Compassion for all humanity and that foremost, His essence is contained within all His creation and, with respect to humanity, is found in that which we designate as the I AM presence or God or Christ Consciousness which we equate, rightly so, with its physical and metaphysical aspect – Light.

And so down through the ages has come this ongoing struggle between two forces – one, the Judaic/Talmudic, which has an agenda of world domination and one, the Christian, which has as its objective the liberation of the human spirit in all God’s creation and freedom for all individuals and nations to live in peace and harmony and brother/sisterhood.

The anti-Christ

Metaphorically speaking Paul, these are the two forces that we are currently discussing under the heading of light and darkness. Yet another symbolic aspect of the darkness is of course the term “anti-Christ” and it is in this connection that I have consistently denoted the word “Beast” with its synonym “darkness”.

ZIONISM FALSE MESSIAH800 3

When Reed was finally able to show us the essential features of this dark entity it was suddenly obvious beyond a doubt (for me) that here, in form and feature, was the proverbial arch-enemy of the light, duly draped in sheep’s clothing yet manifesting all the quintessential qualities of darkness in the metaphysical and physical sense of that term. Here it was, before us finally, and its name was Political Zionism.

Now, embodied in the ‘state of Israel’, was the manifested spirit of darkness itself – the anti-Christ – transforming and working its evil ways via the doctrine of the Deuteronomic deity which had now shape-shifted into Political Zionism at the start of the 20th Century and under the guise of a supposed sovereign and democratic state, was hell-bent on wreaking untold death, destruction and misery throughout both the Arab and Christian worlds.

Allow me Paul one further point in regard to the notion of the anti-Christ. Most people assume that the spirit of darkness, as also in the opposite case of the Christ or Christos – the spirit of light, will appear in the form of a single human personage. This, to my way of perceiving, is both false and misleading and a point that I have argued for many years with some Christians. The light, as you well know Paul, is immanent in every particle of Creation and shows itself through acts of love, benevolence and peaceful intercourse amongst nations.

The same cannot be said of darkness beyond the fact that what we call such is but the absence of light due to the disguising of it by the actions of the human Will. In other words the natural quality of darkness as found in Nature is not inherently evil but the subversion of the light by the human Will for selfish purposes is. And so it is in this manner and context that all human evil must be viewed or else one ultimately falls prey to the erroneous notion that it is God the Creator of All who is directly responsible for the woes of the world and thus is not worthy of our supreme adoration, faith and affection.

Throughout the Middle East, as I write these words in early August, 2006, the anti-Christ is hard at work manifesting its agenda for world destruction and control. Those human beings wielding this diabolical power through the focal point of the ‘Israeli state’ are the living emissaries of this wrathful, false deity of the ancient Levitical god of the Judahites. Their attitude toward the Arabs and the rest of the world is identical to that found in Deuteronomy and the teachings of the Talmud. The results, as witnessed around the world wherever the Zionists aren’t controlling the free flow of images and information, are stark testimony to Zionism’s diabolical nature and intent.

To finally conclude this letter Paul, allow me to say the following about the present darkness, which I see as enveloping the minds of so many human beings at this time in history.

Comparing the image of an individual crying forth in the midst of a fabricated wilderness of mind-controlling, Zionist-induced darkness to that of a lone rebel casting a lit match down a dark well is, to my way of understanding, a premature and misleading analogy.

The darkness (ignorance of what is truly occurring due to human actions) now surrounding and pervading the lives of everyone on the face of the planet, whether they’re privy to its origins or not, is as palpable as a raven’s claw on the skin. But still we sit huddled together within the confines of the dark well, like Plato’s philosophical contemplates within the cave of illusion, debating the merits of every sundry, flickering, image (designed by Zionism) in the vain hope that somehow such efforts will enlighten us as to our existential predicament.

The only way out of this man-made, darkened hell is for each individual who is aware of the problem to strike their individual match of truth and apply its flame to their neighbour’s, as of yet, unlit, awaiting wick of awareness. With every new wick igited by the flame of illumined truth will come increased light and along with that light a greater understanding of who is controlling and destroying this potential paradise we call the divine Earth Mother.

When enough individual souls have lit their match the inner walls of this darkened and cavernous well of mind-control will finally be illuminated for all to see and at that point Paul the world will have accomplished true self-awareness on the scale of social, economic and political justice and freedom. If this first step is not accomplished and we neglect our duty to truth and to our fellow man due to our personal ignorance of how the drama is being directed and produced we will very soon witness the collapse of all that once was good in this world.

We need to first know the truth about Political Zionism in order to then end its willful agenda of global dominance. From that point we can sail into the mystic with the full knowledge that we’re leaving behind a world safe for future generations and one primed for a new beginning with new hope and a renewed love for all of God’s creation.

I remain,

In Peace, Love & Light,

Arthur Topham

—————

QuesnelCaribooObserver: Topham grateful for legal ally by Autumn MacDonald, Observer Reporter

 CaribObserverTophamGrateful

Topham grateful for legal ally

By

Autumn MacDonald

Observer Reporter

 

He says if controversial speech is prohibited then no speech is safe.

Jeremy Maddock is studying law at UVIC and is currently helping Arthur Topham, charged with “promotion of hatred” navigate the judicial system.

And after the death of his lawyer Doug Christie in March of 2013, Topham said he’s even more grateful.

“He’s been so dedicated since Doug passed away,” Topham said.

“I’m so grateful, otherwise I’m sure I’d be hooped.”

Maddock, who was working under Christie for three years, said Topham’s case and the issue of freedom of expression are his motivating factors for offering his time and expertise.

“If you’re having a political discussion – I would hope you would have the right to agree or disagree with foreign government,” he said.

Topham was arrested and his house searched in May 16 of 2012 after it was determined there were “reasonable grounds the offence of promotion of hatred was committed.”

At the time a number of items were seized, including:

• Computer, laptop, smartphone, or device that accesses the Internet and is capable of uploading and downloading information, and all their peripheral equipment, computer discs, drives or storage devices which could be used to store information; and

• Billing records, receipts and correspondence with ABC Communications and Netfirms and correspondence in the form of mail or physical documents directed to Radical Press.

The alleged offence falls under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code: willful promotion of hatred. The search warrant and arrest were executed by the New Westminster Police Services, British Columbia Hate Crime Team.

At the time Topham was prohibited from accessing the Internet and operating his websites, including the Radical Press, but those restrictions were reinstated in early November of 2012.

Anyone wishing to contribute to Topham’s “freedom of expression fund” check out, http://gogetfunding.com/project/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

——