The thin line between sanity and savagery By John Kaminski

kaminskithinlinehdr

The thin line between sanity and savagery

Once you cross it you can’t come back

Disturbing similarities of heroes and psychos

This is the reward anybody who joins the American military can expect from following orders without consulting their consciences, to be murdered by your superiors for some crime they are trying to cover up.

By John Kaminski
pseudoskylax@gmail.com
http://therebel.is/news/kaminski

They make beating up the world sound like a fun event.

This is the world turned upside down. There’s this ad for the U.S. Navy on TV, with the rich resonant voice of actor Keith David exhorts young men to serve in “a global force for good.”

menwewant

Millions of faces of murdered innocents forever serve as a silent rejection of this lie.

In a furnished room far from home, the memory of raping and killing terrified women and children confronts the former recruit and now battle-hardened veteran . . . now reduced to unquenchable tears. The excuse of “just following orders” has always been the last refuge of a soldier who knows he’s guilty.

So many kids who were tricked into killing got rewarded for it, but no reward is big enough to anesthetize the gaping sense of horror at the thought you murdered innocent people.

These thoughts come back at night and all too often kill the recipient of them.

Unless you’re a politician who doesn’t give these things a second thought.

We’ve lost our way

Who was it we are trying to defeat? What was it we are trying to accomplish? What do we do when we know our government deliberately creates the enemies it pretends to fight?

And the most wrenching question of all: What does an act of genuine heroism in service to criminal aggression actually mean? Actually, it means nothing, except for the futile waste of the precious gift of life.

130314222444-68-iraq-war-horizontal-large-gallery

I wonder what was on the minds of Seal Team 6 when their helicopter was going down for the last time. I wonder if they knew they were being eliminated because they couldn’t be trusted to maintain the fraudulent story told by Barack Obama about how these Seals murdered Osama bin Laden and dumped his body in the Indian Ocean.

This is the reward anybody who joins the American military can expect from following orders without consulting their consciences, to be murdered by your superiors for some crime they are trying to cover up.

Around the world America is known as the world’s leading killer, a force known not only for killing without reason and always lying about what it does, but also killing its own operatives when they no longer fit into the plan. Google Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods for further details.

It’s a new twist on the curdled Vietnam legend that we had to destroy the village in order to save it. Now that it’s the operating philosophy of Jade Helm, the NDAA Act and the American military, the theorem has evolved into ‘we must kill them in order to protect them.’

the_vietnam_war_by_uspoloassen

Journalism has never reached the goal it professes to aspire to, but it has never been further away from the goal of editorial objectivity because it remains a smug slave to the financial compromises it must endure to survive. This deal with the devil makes it an unreliable source in most situations.

Jewish-inspired American crimes are camouflaged by compliant media that dare not challenge the lies they are told for fear they will lose their access to the politicians who mislead us. Such is the demented condition of the world today. Vampires feeding on corruption.

We invent our enemies

war-on-terror

When the United States ran out of national enemies in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it began to invent its own terrorists, first by mobilizing Arabs in Afghanistan into the mujaheddin, then turning them into Al-Qaeda to be impossibly blamed for 9/11, and lately turning this well-funded group into ISIS and the “moderate rebels” of Syria who are indirectly supported by Washington through the stooge states of Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

All this political prattle inevitably leads to Russia, one of two major white nation combatants scheduled for annihilation by the Jewish masterminds who seek the destruction of all nations, to the creation of a permanent worldwide prison they will call Jewish Peace.

putins_urgent_warning_to_america_ww3_world_war_is_coming_obama_pushing_for_war

It will be the ultimate abnegation of humanity, which in its former state used to value conscience and morality, but by now has devolved into a kind of pragmatic treason in all relationships, meaning the chances for cultural cohesion in a society are greatly reduced. Lack of friends makes it easier to turn to Big Brother for help.

Generated by the Jewish psychopaths who run the publishing industry, the lockstep newspaper version is that Russia is always evil and this unfortunate condition may be rectified by bombing them.

Somehow all the newspapers in the country have the same opinion. All news is skewed against Russia, much in the way it was skewed against Germany prior to both World Wars.

It’s amazing. But it is no longer a mystery when you realize one or two people own all the newspapers. Same with TV stations. They all have the same opinion — bomb Russia. And now you know why. All these mainstream media outlets are owned by the same rich white criminals. Well, not exactly white. Jewish. There’s a big difference.

And then there are these heroes we venerate for their bravery and for throwing away their lives after the lies that led them to their deaths. The unctuous words of the people who sent them to hell resonate at the funerals of those who followed orders and gave their lives while murdering people who never needed to die.

associated-press-war-is-hell-vietnam-war

War is our default mechanism

We raped Qaddafi in the street and stole his oil and gold, then destroyed his Miracle in the Desert water system. He provided free housing and college to Libyan children, and like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, what benefits these dictators provided to their people put to shame how little the governments of the West actually provide for their own citizens.

The powers that be don’t like this kind of news getting around, that people outside the control of the Jewish banks live better quality lives than those who pay most of their earnings to shysters who don’t lift a finger. Hitler proved that point before he was destroyed by the Jews that plague all countries with their usury.

The new war that we never hear about is going on in Yemen. Like the U.S. invasion of Syria, it’s all about the Saudis trying to reinstall their puppet who was ousted in the last election. The death toll keeps climbing, Yemeni civil society has been destroyed, and the Saudis use American weapons to resubjugate this geographically strategic country.

I learned a long time ago that the core of America’s profitability has always been armaments. We always had the best weapons, and still do, maybe. But for more than a century now, the crown jewel of American industry has been the manufacture of the tools of war.

The entire economy hinges on ability to make war. The educational system is geared to discovering new military applications. America defends dictatorships, and destroys countries that try to be free and independent.

cold-war

Warmongers trumpet the virtues of war with no consciousness that most of the victims of war are mothers and their children. Smedley Butler outlined our basic problem 80 years ago. Stifled by corrupt newspapers, the message never reached the general public, or if it did, it was ignored and eventually overwhelmed by the Jewish quest for vengeance that started World War II.

Thinking people all over the world had many hours of their attention consumed by the recent U.S. presidential election. History shows their focus was misplaced, because judging by history it doesn’t really matter who is president or who is not. America the machine keeps rolling on no matter who is president. Presidents who disagree with the powerbrokers who own him are efficiently eliminated by a lone nut with a bonafide mental health history.

The border of madness

Skewered by the conceptual daggers of Jewry, America has crossed the line into madness. No longer do we hear the cherished words freedom and liberty. The powers that be are flooding the civilized world with savages from the wilds of the world to further degrade systems that worked well before this concerted attack on the stability of white nations.

The wars, you know, these are not exhibitions of our bravery or defenses of our liberty. They are brutal onslaughts on victims who are given the bleak choice of obey or die.

The Jews, you must remember, are sworn to kill or enslave everyone in the world, a goal toward which they have made tremendous progress.

You can’t believe what the U.S. government says. One hundred and three treaties signed with the American Indians. The U.S. never kept a single one. The whole world knows this, but America just keeps lying and the world continues to accept those lies because the U.S. has the muscle and the money to castrate any other country.

A country that has that reputation deserves to be destroyed.

20131018-afghan-war

It’s the outright lying that gets me the most. The celebrated bloodbaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, all for lies, all for nothing except oil and heroin, the two biggest cash crops in the world. The obliteration of Syria is about an oil pipeline that Israel wants to build. The U.S. policy is to make all of Israel’s neighbors disaster areas, people living in rubble with no hope for freedom.

The deluded populace has yet to realize this is the Jewish plan for the whole world.

Our government would rather kill you than tell you the truth. Just ask an oncologist, or someone who tried to tell you the truth about your government and was forced to leave the country to save his own life.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.
http://therebel.is/news/kaminski
http://johnkaminski.info/
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html
http://www.serendipity.li/john_kaminski_articles.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040323232319/http://johnkaminski.com/

 

Thinking about the “Holocaust” is a crime—interview with Alfred Schaefer By Jonas E. Alexis VeteransToday

 

screen-shot-2016-12-13-at-6-18-49-pm

Thinking about the “Holocaust” is a crime—interview with Alfred Schaefer
By Jonas E. Alexis on December 9, 2016
The awakening masses understand the facts and will not tolerate the lies or those who protect the lies.
?
Alfred and Monika Schaefer

…by Jonas E. Alexis and Alfred Schaefer

Alfred Schaefer: I was born Jan 30 1955, and grew up in Canada, thinking that there could not possibly be anything in all the world that could ever threaten us. We were 5 children, my older brother who is a doctor but a complete zombie, my younger sister who pretends not to understand that this is important, then Monika, who understood immediately and you know her, and my youngest sister who died aged 26 in a mountaineering accident.

Only recently did I figure out that the strife, that the “easy go lucky” hippy movement created for us in the family, came from the “demoralization” that was happening to our entire western society.

We thought that this was all a natural development, never ever suspecting that the entire rock and roll and hippy scene in that era was manufactured by the same forces that are now trying to enslave us. This was all part of the subversion, driving a wedge between the disciplined and cultured older people, and ourselves. We thought they were just old fashioned, and we were so cool.

But, the discipline from our parents did save us from completely failing, and we did have a lot of fun with them doing a lot of hiking and camping and stuff like that. After high school I tried university, but quit that after a couple of months. The next year I attended a technical college. I took a two year “Electronics Engineering Technology Course” in the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

After graduating from that, in Edmonton Alberta, in 1977, I went to work for IBM as a “repair man”, fixing photo copiers and typewriters and small computer systems. I did that for three years, with the intention of saving enough money to go on a big bicycle trip.

I spent one year on a bicycle circling the USA, going down the west coast in the autumn of 1980, then across to Florida in the winter months, dipping into Mexico on the way across. Then, up the east coast and across to Edmonton.

The following year I went to Europe, and spent the next 4 years riding and jobbing and helping some Germans that I met, take trucks and busses down from Germany through the Sahara, to Burkina Faso, Togo, Niger, and Mali, to sell them. I did this 5 times with these people, until I realised that if I don’t settle down in a normal life soon, that it may never be possible and I may end up in sorry shape.

So, in 1985, I applied to work as a technician for IBM in Munich. It was a supremely lucky break for me that this effort succeeded, and the two years that I intended to work in Munich turned into a “lifer”. I got a job that I did not even dare to apply for, namely working on the large systems as a technician.

As the technology evolved and the technical skills were less and less in demand, I changed my line of work within the company, which also meant moving several times. I spent 3 years in Boulder Colorado on an assignment for the European countries in the IBM printing systems development lab.

All of these experiences gave me the necessary base for doing what I am now doing for the “truth movement.”

Then, this summer, a series of amazing coincidences once again set the stage. Monika and Tony Hall came for a visit, and that visit resulted in the “sorry mom” video, as well as the CODOH video and so much more. It was a life changing visit for all of us. I am not superstitious, but I do feel that this much good fortune obligates, otherwise, it is all wasted.

My last video summarises my “truther” career, more or less, as I had taken a short scene from my very first video which was the “9/11 Gatekeepers and Controlled Opposition”. This video resulted from me becoming uncontrollably enraged after seeing the video posted by Kevin Barrett on Veterans Today where Noam Chomsky dismisses that student in Florida with his question on WTC7. Remember, Chomsky was like an ikon for us, a guru. When I saw that video, it blew out all my fuses.

It was information that I gleaned from Kevin Barrett’s dialog with Chomsky that enabled me to get though to Chomsky. That idiot Chomsky replied to me, after I wrote him what I thought of his treasonous behaviour. He probably could not stand the fact that some little shit can be so outright brazen and challenge him on this, and he wrote back to me. This went back and forth several times.

Jonas E. Alexis: You have argued that people can face numerous consequences if they “commit the crime of thinking” in Germany. Whatever happens to the German intellectual tradition? What would thinkers like Kant and Hegel say of Germany’s thought police today? Explain those issues for us.

Alfred Schaefer: Our forefathers would turn over in their graves if they were to witness what we are living today, not only in Germany but throughout the European and “western” countries.

The “re-education” that was imposed upon what was left of the German people after the genocidal wars against Europe, what we call “WWI and WWII”, continued the destruction of independent thinking.

The suppression of independent thinking was already well advanced in those countries that were tricked into fighting these totally senseless wars which only the perpetrator of this conflict benefitted from. That winner was international Jewry.

The entire official narrative of those wars, is nothing more than the interpretation that the perpetrators have presented us. They gloat about their ability to do this in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. See Protocol #7 under the subtitle “Universal War.”

This power, their control over the media, gives these people the ability to channel and mould our thinking to serve their interests. Without the hatred incited against Germany well before the start of these genocidal wars, they never would have taken place. They resulted in the extermination of countless millions of the best people, the flower of the European people, a genetic degradation, as well as the wholesale destruction of irreplaceable historical culture. Dresden comes to mind here.

This follows the instructions in the Protocols that calls for the total and utter destruction of those who do not subordinate themselves, including any memory of them. The destruction of cities like Dresden was intended to help erase the memory of the Germanic people as it was perhaps the most beautiful city in the world for its cultural heritage. It was overflowing with refugees fleeing the onslaught of the Jewish Bolsheviks from the east, when it was firebombed in a true holocaust.

Dresden had no military value targets whatsoever. For a description of this barbarity, the book by Thomas Goodrich titled “Hellstorm”, is a sobering account.  Producer Kyle Hunt has also made this into a film, which the Jews unsuccessfully tried to sensor from the German people.

Our world today would be very different indeed had we not been tricked into these suicidal struggles, going back to even before the French Revolution in 1789.

A good contemporary example of how the interpretation of events creates a narrative that has very little to do with reality, is the official version of 9/11, and how 19 Muslims with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners to pull that off. Since this event took place in our lifetime, it is easier to understand. It can be used as a blueprint to illustrate how these lies are implanted into our collective psyche, even though any human being with a functioning brain, knows that this official story is totally false.

After that event took place, only the false narrative is ever repeated, over and over again. Any and all people who are dependent on the Jewish money system lose their ability to survive if they utter one word about what happened on 9/11 that deviates from the official lies.

This process, imposed on a population over a span of several decades or generations, makes any other narrative appear wrong or even insane, simply because everyone is repeating the same lies.

For the “party line” to succeed in becoming the “truth”, all dissenting “opinions” must be subdued.  To accomplish this, both carrots and sticks are employed. Carrots may come in the form of promotions, payoffs, or being puffed up and glorified in the media. Sticks may come in the form simple censorship, deleting data from the internet, or hysterical attacks of denunciation or death.

These include the ultimate: “holocaust denier”, “anti-Semite”, “conspiracy theorist” or any of the other meaningless control trigger words. These control trigger words activate a carefully engineered program that has been installed in our minds over a long period of time.

The ability for an “enemy within the gates” to trigger programs residing within our minds, would vindicate Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who singlehandedly set the stage for German philosophy in the nineteenth century, in his understanding of the human mind. Kant held that any object given to the human mind is subject to the means by which the mind receives it.

All of our lives our minds have been subjected to a barrage of messages that have been “interpreted” for us, as “reality”. In other words, the mind receives certain messages over and over and over again, from all directions, imbedding the Jewish fantasies into our minds until we believe them to be reality. Whether it is “Anna Frank’s” phony dairies, or the fiction “Schindler’s List” turned into fact by presenting it as such, to the children in our schools.

Just recently a friend of mine, a woman from Kenya, dropped by to discuss politics with me. Naomi worked as an Au Pair for the neighbours before studying in Munich. She watched my “Police Raid” video and was delighted that it really told the truth. Then she confessed that she was warned by her friends in Kenya about 8 years ago, before coming to Europe, to be on her guard so as not to get “brainwashed” when in Europe. Her friends expressed concern that she may also get “brainwashed” during her stay in Europe if she is not careful.

She explained the extreme frustration that her German boyfriend and herself are experiencing now with fellow Germans who seem not to be able to understand that the imposed beliefs of the “Holocaust”, and many other beliefs are “brainwashing”.   When a woman from Kenya laments about the “saturation brainwashing” throughout the “western” countries, this gives us an alarming indication about the condition of our “intellectual tradition”.

In your question you mention Hegel. We often talk about the Hegelian dialectic, where two contradictory ideas or entities are mixed together resulting in something different from either of the two initial starting points.

In today’s world of fear and lies, with the perpetrators protected behind a shield that the incessant application of trigger control words provides them, they are now setting up numerous Hegelian dialectic’s that will destroy us, and we are not able to recognise or resist this process because of the condition of our compartmentalised and fragmented minds. Any recognition of the Hegelian dialectics is instantly countered with the application of control trigger words.

For example, if a European notices that most of the “refugees” are tough looking military aged fighting men, this observation is silenced with the simple term “Racist”, or “Neo-Nazi Racist”, and the military aged fighting men can go about destroying and raping without too much interference.

Those foreigners who came here years ago understand the lethal situation that this represents. Another example that Naomi, the woman from Kenya, gave me makes this clear. A fellow Kenyan who has also been in Germany for many years told her the following story.

He observed how two African “refugees” stole a telephone from an unsuspecting European. He confronted these two “refugee” men, and lectured them about how harmful this behaviour will be for them. They should give it back and claim that they saw it fall to the ground. So what did they do? Rather than take his advice, they beat him up for trying to discipline them.

Obviously those people who understand what civilization is all about, and still have a functioning brain, are very alarmed about the Hegelian Dialectics they see being set up.

Here are several of the Hegelian Dialectics:

1 – ) The “ruling elite” pretends that the lies are truth. Their decisions are based on pretending that the lies are truth.
1 + ) The awakening masses understand the facts and will not tolerate the lies or those who protect the lies.
2 – ) Third world “refugees” flooding into our European countries expecting to enjoy all the fruits of the civilisation we have built and inherited from our forefathers.
2 + ) European citizens who worked all their lives understand the injustice of having the invaders take it away from them.  Their sense of justice has been utterly betrayed. The invaders are immune to prosecution while indigenous Europeans are held to account for the smallest of infractions.
3 – ) Jewish financial criminals stand well above the law for multi billion dollar theft and mass murder.
3 + ) Normal working people can no longer get by with regular work and pay.
4 – ) People speak one “language” in public or at work. (the lies, ignorance)
4 + ) People speak another “language” at home or with friends whom they trust.  (the truth)
5 – )  Intellectually weak minded people unable to discern fact from fiction. Easily directed like controlled and programmed laboratory rats. Many feminized men and gender confused people in this category.
5 + )  The exploding numbers of people decontaminating themselves from the lies. Initial confusion turns to rage.
6 – )  Our money is a fiat money based on a foundation of lies and deceit.  Promissory notes based on lies.
6 + )  All fiat money collapses eventually, there are no exceptions to this rule.   Our survival depends on our ability to migrate from the present expired and toxic system to a new system for exchanging real value for real value.

To prevent a catastrophic explosion destroying our civilisation we need to understand these processes and reverse them before they implode in a “Supernova”.

In my video titled “Police Raid and my Confession by Alfred Schaefer” I tried to deconstruct the trigger control words, as this is an essential first step in regaining the ability to think independently. The trigger control words separate the compartments of the fragmented mind that no longer communicate with each other.

The compartmentalisation of the mind produces results similar to a physical lobotomy. In my video I refer to this condition as “induced mental illness”, which can be treated by careful exposure to truth and reason.

The purpose of these trigger control words is to prevent us from understanding and stopping the Hegelian Dialectics that will explode on us, unless they are reversed and dismantled.

Kant and Hegel would be alarmed to see that the descendants of their beloved society have unlearned how to think at all.

Jonas E. Alexis: You said that “The German ministry of forbidden thought” sent their agents to search your house and steal things you had in your computer. Describe this for us in detail. In the process, tell us whether they had any legal right to do so. In your opinion, was there any organization behind this?

Alfred Schaefer: The actual trigger for the “Kriminal Polizei” to come to raid our house, was the video that I had uploaded on the 17th of June 2016 with the title “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”. B’nai Brith sent out clear messages that “this guy needs to be taken down”.

In the search warrant they stated that my offence was the “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust” video. What is astounding is that they did not seem to have a problem framing an apology to one’s own Mom, as “incitement to racial hatred”.  This logic would certainly have had Hegel and Kant very alarmed about the state of mind of our people.

It makes no sense.  Actually, they then go on stating that the person in this video claims that there were no gas chambers and that the holocaust is the biggest lie in history. That is the simple truth. This is now common knowledge, so obviously we are now dealing with a religious tribunal determined to weed out all heretics. So again, philosophers of the past would be astounded at how far we have regressed to in the year 2016.

The main purpose of this raid was to try to silence me. Ironically, this raid and its aftermath actually provided me with useful data for my latest video. As I stated in this video, “Police Raid and my Confession by Alfred Schaefer”, I think the physical loss of these devises was well worth the price for having an interesting story to tell. Their intention was obviously to make it more difficult for me to work, or to silence me, but it has had the opposite effect.

You ask, if this was legal and what is the organisation behind it?

Allow me to respond with a question of my own: Was 9/11 legal, and what is the organisation behind that?  The answer is the same in both cases.

The paragraph 130 in German “law” that forbids stating that the fake holocaust consists of lies, is a law that allows the totally arbitrary punishment of any and all dissent. If a law was enacted that forbade breathing, then those in power could use the “anti-breathing” law to arbitrarily silence or punish any dissent, no matter what it was. Everyone with a functioning brain and the courage to ask to most basic questions, knows that the Jewish holocaust is nothing more than a fraud on an unprecedented scale.

But the law can now be arbitrarily applied to anyone that they want removed from the scene, which gives them truly god-like power over all of us. For me, I would rather be physically locked up or die, than to submit to this pathetic tyranny that reduces human beings to programmed rats.

Jonas E. Alexis: Describe how people in Germany and Canada can legally and effectively fight against the thought police.

Alfred Schaefer: Fighting the thought police legally and effectively is like trying to fight the inquisition with logic and reason.

It is not possible to fight an oppressor who labels “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”, which is an apology to one’s own mother, as “incitement to hatred”, in a system where “law” is arbitrary and one-sided.

Thought laws as we have them now, in what was once our civilisation, are pure tyranny. You cannot fight this tyranny with logic or laws that negate free speech and justice.

To fight “legally and effectively” with a “lawmaker” who is a Talmudic psychopath is like a sparrow asking the cat to negotiate.

A regime that imposes thought laws will not relinquish the power that thought laws represent. Our oppressors will never voluntarily relinquish power. This is psychopathic behaviour, and it will continue on the same peak and crash trajectory that it has always experienced in the past. Peak and crash, peak and crash, peak and crash.

The past crashes were characterised by the expulsion of the Jews from either cities or regions. This is the fist time that the magnitude of the crash can be seen as a life threatening event that may put us back to something that more resembles the Stone Age than our present day technological society and civilisation.

Our best hope is for very large numbers of people to stand up and ignore thought laws by publicly announcing their defiance. A law becomes unsustainable when the productive people of the society openly defy these destructive and suicidal thought laws.

Any thinking person with the smallest amount of self-respect would not blindly subordinate himself to these bizarre thought laws. They are not accidental, harmless or irrelevant laws.  They are the shield behind which the Jewish mega criminals bring us death and destruction on a global scale.

Maybe the fear of being seen as too cowardly or too stupid to speak up needs to become greater than the fear of possible consequences for actually speaking up, before the lemmings join those who are now already speaking up. In any case, fear is the overwhelming force that is determining the outcome.

The danger of our present situation is, that the perpetrators have always seen this moment in time as the timeframe reserved for their long planned “WWIII”. Their hope is that the traumatised remnants of this conflict will be in no more a position to resist the imposition of their long planned “Jew World Order”, than were the Germans able to resist the imposition, by stealth, of the imaginary “Holocaust” as we have witnessed over the past decades.

SOURCE ARTICLE

 

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-00-06-am

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-01-29-am

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-02-04-am

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

First, allow me to extend my sincere apologies to all of those who have been waiting so long for this legal update. It has been delayed for over a year now primarily due to the snail’s pace at which the R v Roy Arthur Topham Charter challenge has been crawling through the BC Supreme Court legal system. Delay after delay meant postponement of an overview that might provide a useful picture of all the salient events. As a result coverage of all that’s gone down demands a somewhat lengthy update.

To recap the issue for readers – Constitutional notice was first served to the Crown on March 23rd, 2015 and and the process, such as it was, did not conclude until November 8th and 9th, 2016 in Victoria, B.C. where the final two days of argument took place. That amounts to a little over 19 months this aspect of the case has been ongoing.

From the onset it was Crown’s position that they wanted the Constitutional Charter challenge put off until after the end of the trial. Following the pre-trial hearing on the matter that began in Vancouver, BC’s SC on June 22nd, 2015 – in his Reasons for Judgment handed down July 8, 2015 – SC Justice Butler, citing case law, ruled that it would be better to hold off on the Charter argument until after the trial so as to not “fragment” the criminal proceedings. He also decided that in the case of constitutional challenges it’s better to wait until after the trial to adjudicate such issues because by then a “factual foundation” would be in place.

Arthur and the Three Hookers
As well, prior to Justice Butler’s decision of July 8th, during a June 10th, 2015 appearance, he ruled that in order for the Constitutional Charter challenge to proceed it would first be necessary for the Defence to provide sound reasons which would satisfy the Justice the “Bedford Test” had been met in order for the proceedings to move to the stage where the actual challenge to the legislation would take place.

In a nutshell the Bedford “Test” or “Threshold”, as it’s often called, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford handed down on December 20, 2013, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that some of Canada’s prostitution laws were unconstitutional. Bedford was the surname of one of the three prostitutes who challenged the legislation.

One of the principal issues that the S.C. of Canada deliberated in that case was whether a trial judge could consider Charter arguments not raised in a previous case about the same law. Legal tradition has always held that a lower court (in my case the BC S.C.) is ‘bound’ by decisions made by the SC of Canada. It’s this particular principle and precedent (in Latin called stare decisis) which Crown has been arguing over-rides my arguments as presented in my Memorandum of Argument Regarding the Threshold Issue where I state that the decision in Keegstra is no longer binding upon my case due to similarities with the Bedford case where the Supreme Court of Canada found that lower courts may revisit binding authorities from higher courts in cases where new legal issues are raised, or where a change in the evidence or circumstances fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate.

As a result of Justice Butler’s ruling my challenge was therefore postponed until the trial was completed. The trial ran from October 26, 2015 to November 12, 2015 (a period of 14 days) and when it concluded I was found guilty on Count 1 of the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code”. At the same time the jury also acquitted me on Count 2 which was the same identical charge.***

Fixing a date with the Queen of England no easy task
After the trial ended I appeared again in Quesnel SC on December 7th, 2015 to “fix a date” for the Charter hearing to take place. During this appearance Rodney G. Garson, a special Crown Prosecutor out of the Prosecution Support Unit within the Crown Law Division of the Ministry of Justice filed a requisition with the court to appear on behalf of the Crown to argue the Charter matter.

It was also then that a new date of January 25th, 2016 was set to fix another date to argue the question of who it was, Crown or Defence, that bears the onus of having to prove that Sec. 2(b) of the Charter is infringed upon by s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and is therefore open to challenge, regardless of the former landmark Keegstra decision.

The January 25th, 2016 appearance came and went. During court my legal counsel Barclay Johnson informed the Justice and Crown that the Defence would be calling Expert Witnesses to testify during the Charter hearing. In that instance Dr. Michael Persinger’s name was given to the court. Once again we didn’t get to “fixing a date” and the issue was put over to March 29th, 2016.

On March 29th, 2016 we met again to “fix a date” but, alas, it didn’t happen. My counsel, Barclay Johnson did notify the court at that time that we would also be calling Dr. Timothy Jay as an Expert Witness. He also brought up the issue of the double verdicts, i.e. one Guilty count and one Not Guilty count for the same identical charge. A new date was set for April 4th, 2016 to “fix a date” for the Charter hearing.

Like all the others dates April 4th, 2016 came and went and still no date was fixed. A new date of May 2nd, 2016 was set.

On May 2nd, 2016 I again attended court. Murphy’s Law still being in effect this time there were computer problems in the court room and so Quesnel Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston appeared on behalf of Crown Prosecutor Rodney Garson and a new date of June 6th, 2016 was set to “fix a date” for the Charter hearing.

On June 6th, 2016 the “fix a date” phenomenon was getting so bad that my own counsel’s computer went on the blink and we had to set another date! This time it was for July 11th, 2016.

When July 11th, 2016 rolled around and a miracle occurred. We finally were able to “fix a date” for the commencement of the Charter hearing. The week of October 3rd, 2016 to October 7th, 2016 was SET! During this time Crown chose the date of October 31st, 2016 for “sentencing” in the event that I lost my Charter argument.

The Hearing (Part 1)
One day prior to the commencement of the hearing on October 3rd I was informed by my legal counsel that the scheduled week would not see the completion of the Charter argument. Crown Prosecutor Rodney Garson informed the court that he would require additional time in order to cross-examine the two Expert Witnesses that Defence was planning to call and he didn’t feel there would be enough time to also argue the issue of the Bedford Threshold.

Along with Dr. Persinger and Dr. Jay there was a third witness present in court on October 3rd. Jeremy Maddock, who was my former lawyer Doug Christie’s legal assistant and is currently assisting my counsel Barclay Johnson, appeared in order to testify to the various websites online where the materials that were posted on RadicalPress.com could also be found. This was one of our principal arguments – that all of the online books that I have posted on my website are also readily available on numerous other websites around the world as well as being openly sold on major book-selling sites like Amazon.com and Amazon.ca. Jeremy Maddock presented to the court 22 screenshots of other websites that he had researched which clearly showed that the impugned books and articles were freely available elsewhere on the net.

In cross-examination Crown Prosecutor Garson attempted to dismiss the screen shots of the various websites that Mr. Maddock presented suggesting that they weren’t reliable and also that the numbers shown in the Google searches were also irrelevant. Defence lawyer Barclay Johnson responded by referring to the hundreds of pages of screen shots that Crown had introduced into evidence during the trial and suggesting that if they weren’t relevant then Crown should not have presented them to the jury. Justice Butler, having sat through the trial, was well aware of this fact and didn’t buy into Crown’s argument and accepted Maddock’s testimony as both relevant and admissible.

The Defence’s first Expert Witness was Dr. Timothy Jay. (It should be noted here, prior to discussing Dr. Jay’s testimony, that throughout the trial Crown consistently made reference to my satire Israel Must Perish! , an article created by me in order to show the glaring hypocrisy of Jewish lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada – one of the two complainants who had filed the Sec. 319(2) charge against me and my website – who were accusing me of spreading “hate” when one of their own kind, Theodore N. Kaufman, had unquestionably written one of the most vile, hate-filled books titled Germany Must Perish! back in 1941 that basically called for the absolute genocide of the German nation and all of its people.)

Dr. Jay, a full professor with the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, is considered to be an expert in the field of cognitive and linguistic psychology and has extensive experience interpreting allegedly obscene speech in the context of U.S. radio and television regulation. He’s also written numerous books and articles dealing with the issue of controversial language and for purposes of the Charter hearing had written a paper in my defence called “Opinion Regarding Arthur Topham’s Israel Must Perish” the gist of which was:

“It is my opinion as a cognitive psychologist that a satirical reading of Israel Must Perish! by an average adult reader would not result in the satire being considered hate speech. There are several mitigating factors which must be taken into account regarding how people read and comprehend literature, for example, what frame of mind the reader brings to the literature, what the reader thinks the literature is “about” or “means”, what impact a satirical reading might have on a reader, and what a reader would ultimately remember about the literature. I also consider the context in which the reader encounters the literature.”

My legal counsel Barclay Johnson presented Dr. Jay’s curriculum vitae [a fancy Latin term for a resume. A.T.] to the court and Dr. Jay appeared via telephone to answer any questions that the Defence or Crown or Justice Butler might have.

From the onset Crown Prosecutor Rodney Garson was quick to respond to Defence’s introduction of Dr. Jay and began citing a number of case law examples regarding “expert opinion” in order to challenge Dr. Jay’s qualifications. He went on about how an expert witness should be “impartial”, “independent”, “unbiased”, “fair”, “objective” and “non-partisan”, all the while overlooking the fact that during the trial itself the Crown’s own “Expert Witness”, former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Len Rudner, had outright proven to the court that he was anything but impartial and independent and unbiased and objective and, to top it all off, had unabashedly committed perjury during his testimony, a fact which SC Justice Butler was made aware of but chose to ignore. Garson of course wasn’t present during the trial but given these facts all his feigned and overtly aggressive protestations against Dr. Jay’s credentials and his ability to offer expert opinion appeared rather disingenuous, especially when he exclaimed to the court that he had a “realistic concern” about Dr. Jay’s qualifications.

The thrust of the Crown’s argument was that Dr. Jay’s opinions on my satire Israel Must Perish! was biased and would “undermine” the decision of the jury and “the administration of justice” and put SC Justice Butler in an “invidious” position. Going further, Crown Prosecutor Garson told the court that the jurors’ decision cannot be questioned or “further evidence” be added by an expert witness. It was clearly evident that the Crown didn’t want any expert opinion on my satire to be considered or even an acknowledgment that it was a satire and not a “book” as the Crown consistently referred to it as during the trial.

On Tuesday, October 8th at 2 p.m. SC Justice Butler gave his oral decision regarding Dr. Timothy Jay’s qualifications and ruled that Dr. Jay’s evidence impinged upon the question of my guilt or innocence and was therefore a “collateral attack” on the jury’s “guilty” verdict and wasn’t permissible.

In a recent article published in the Friends of Freedom newsletter (A private newsletter for the supporters of the Canadian Free Speech League, dealing in cases of the censorship and persecution of political, religious, and historical opinion.) titled “Topham Embarks on Long-Awaited Challenge of Hate Speech Law” by Jeremy Maddock he has the following to say about Justice Butler’s decision to disallow Dr. Jay’s evidence:

“Justice Butler’s decision leaves the defence in a very difficult position. On one hand, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Whatcott decision provides that hate speech laws must be narrowly construed, and are only constitutional to the extent that they ‘prohibit expression that is likely to cause … discrimination and the other societal harms of hate speech.’

At trial, defence counsel was told in no uncertain terms that he was not permitted to call evidence on the constitutional question, which is an issue for the judge alone to decide, and cannot be put to the jury. By limiting the trial evidence in this way, then subsequently ruling that evidence about the effects of the impugned material is inadmissible on the constitutional application, the Court has made it exceedingly difficult for the defence to meet the test in Whatcott.”

A Bloody Disgrace
What ought to be of immediate concern to readers and especially supporters of this Charter hearing is the fact that I had worked hard to raise funds via my GoGetFunding site to hire Dr. Jay to write his report. It was an endeavour which cost the Defence $2,000.00 in US funds the money ultimately coming from numerous supporters around the world who donated their hard-earned cash to make it happen. Justice Butler’s decision to not allow Dr. Jay to testify meant all that money had been wasted yet in the case of Crown’s “Expert Witness” Len Rudner during trial, hardly a second thought was given to granting him the same official status. Then, on top of that, I recently received, via my legal counsel, another invoice from Dr. Jay requesting an additional $1,700.00 US funds for his time spent in court on the 3rd and 4th of October, an amount which still must be raised in order to fulfill Defence’s commitments. In total that amounts to $3,700.00 US which translates into $5,112.29 Canadian dollars all raised in vain. The matter is blithely brushed aside as being just a part of the process of doing the legal dance but from my perspective it’s nothing short of being a bloody disgrace and an insult to all who have given their financial support to this ongoing “hate speech” trial.

Dr. Persinger takes the stand Day 3 of the hearing began on Wednesday, October 5th with Defence counsel Barclay Johnson introducing our second Expert Witness Dr. Michael Persinger who also was able to appear via telephone.

Dr. Michael A. Persinger is a Full Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Biology Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular Sciences and Human Studies Programs at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario and his curriculum vitae is, like Dr. Jay’s, also long and distinguished.

Dr. Persinger had written a paper titled, The Anachronism of Policies and Laws for Hate Speech in Modern Canada: The Current Negative Cultural Impact of Legal Punishment upon Extreme Verbal Behaviour, the focus of which was a review of an earlier related document published back in 1966 titled Report to the Minister of Justice of theSpecial Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada [Also referred to as the Cohen Committee Report. A.T.]. It was this paper which the Defence introduced as part of the reasons for having Dr. Persinger testify.

The report had been commissioned by The Honourable Lucien Cardin, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada in 1965 during the time when the Cohen Committee was laying the groundwork for the implementation of Canada’s current Hate Propaganda legislation. (Background information on that period is contained in an article I published on RadicalPress.com in March of 2014 titled, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws).

As Dr. Persinger states in his paper, “Although the document (the Cohen Committee Report) was primarily a legal text, it contained a review of social psychological analysis of hate propaganda by Dr. Harry Kaufmann, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. The mass of this literature was not empirical but based upon theories that are now almost fifty or more years old. There were almost no experimental data, not surprisingly because social psychology was in its infancy and neurocognitive psychology with the powerful tools of brain imaging, did not exist.”

Further, Dr. Persinger also stated that, “The policies upon which contemporary laws for hate propaganda and hate speech have been based in Canada appear to be primarily derived from” Dr. Harry Kaufmann’s Report to the Minister of Justice of theSpecial Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. He then goes on to say that, “Today’s environment is dominated by the Internet, the multiple variants of cell phone media, and the requirement for the average person to be more evaluative with respect to what is read and what is said within chat rooms, bulletin boards, and other electronic forms of information exchange. The world of Google and of search engines has shaped a generation with premature sagacity for challenge and resistance to gullibility that did not exist in the population of the 1950s and 1960s. Those individuals would have constituted the focus of concern at the time the document was published.”

One additional statement in Dr. Persinger’s paper claimed that “The assertion by the Cohen Committee that ‘individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological stress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger, and outrage’ is confounded by archaic concepts of psychological processes.” Basically put Persinger’s position was that the psychological methods used back in the mid-1960’s to determine whether or not “hate propaganda” was dangerous and in need of criminal protection are now completely out of date and irrelevant.

Having stated his position Crown then responded by going on the same attack used in cross-examining Dr. Jay. Prosecutor Rodney Garson did all he could to down play and dismiss Dr. Persinger’s expertise, focussing primarily on the fact that Dr. Persinger had not, in his estimation, read or written scholarly articles on “hate speech”. Garson then quoted a number of reviews written in legal journals that focussed on the subject of “hate speech”. As he referenced them it became quite apparent to myself that all of the authors of the articles were Jewish and their arguments were specifically designed to buttress the whole concept of “hate speech” in order to lend a fabricated sense of authenticity to it.

Earlier in his presentation Dr. Persinger had already stated that he doesn’t use the term “hate speech” in his work for the simple reason that it’s too vague, unscientific and open to multiply shades of interpretation. He didn’t go so far as to state that the term itself is actually a cognitive construct coined by the Jews for their own propaganda purposes but it was evident that the whole notion of “Hate Propaganda” is one that was created by Jewish lobbyists in order to justify their implementation of “Hate Propaganda” laws into Canada’s Criminal Code. Dr. Persinger also made a point of stating at the start of his testimony that he doesn’t read legal documents as they are generally out of his sphere of expertise yet Crown kept on doggedly asking Dr. Persinger if he’d read this book or that book or any of the plethora of materials on “hate speech” (the vast majority written by Jews) and eventually the good Dr. responded to Garson’s incessant questioning by stating, “No, I’m not familiar with that book. I usually read detective books.”

By Thursday, October 6th the arguments still continued back and forth as to whether or not Dr. Persinger was qualified to give expert testimony related to the issues surrounding the Charter challenge. Prior to the morning recess S.C. Justice Butler told the court that after the break he would give his oral ruling on the matter. He returned at 11:59 a.m. and ruled that Dr. Persinger was qualified to testify.

Court did not resume until 2:35 that afternoon. Dr. Persinger’s health was such that he could only speak for certain lengths of time and then it was necessary for him to take a break. By 3:30 p.m. during Crown’s cross-examination Dr. Persinger’s energy was waining and Justice Butler decided that it would be better stop and set another date when Crown might be able to complete their portion of the cross-examination. A new date of October 19th, 2016 was set with the proceedings to take place in the Vancouver Supreme Court and following that the week of November 7th, 8th and 9th, 2016 was set for the completion of arguments on the Bedford Threshold.

The Hearing (Part 2)
The Vancouver SC portion of Crown’s final cross-examination of Dr. Persinger was over within a couple of hours in the afternoon. Due to the fact that I was already down on the coast on other personal matters I was able to attend in person.

The Hearing (Part 3)
In attendance for the final two days of arguments were SC Justice Bruce Butler, my lawyer Barclay Johnson, Crown Prosecutor Rodney G. Garson and Barclay’s legal assistant Jeremy Maddock. Due to a critical issue with Legal Aid over funding my counsel, Barclay Johnson, was unable to fly up to Quesnel and so the hearing was rescheduled to resume in Victoria, BC SC where Justice Butler was already scheduled to appear for those three days. The sudden change of venue meant I couldn’t attend in person but was able to listen in from my home in Cottonwood, BC via a telephone link.

Final arguments were exchanged and when the hearing concluded SC Justice Bruce Butler announced to both Defence and Crown and myself that he would not be handing down his decision on the Charter argument until March 11th, 2017. When that date arrives either a new sentencing date will be set if we lose the argument or Justice Butler will make a positive pronouncement on the defence’s argument that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Conclusion
The R v Roy Arthur Topham “hate speech” case essentially began February 14th, 2007 when I first was attacked by the foreign lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada and accused of posting anti-Semitic, hate articles on my website. This coming February 14th, 2017 will mark the 10 year anniversary of this assault upon my constitutional right to freedom of expression. Given that my next court appearance is not until March 11th, 2017 it’s basically a done deal that the trials and tribulations surrounding this decade long travesty of justice will have surpassed the 10 year mark.

When SC Justice Butler hands down his decision on March 11th, 2017 we will know what my options are for the future. Should Justice Butler see fit to find the circumstances surrounding this case do in fact warrant a constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code then the immediate result will be a stay of the charge against me but that, in all probability, will only continue until the BC Crown in all likelihood appeals the decision of Justice Butler and the whole proceeding then shifts from the BC Supreme Court level to the federal Supreme Court for further adjudication.

On the other hand, should Justice Butler find my argument doesn’t pass the Bedford Threshold test then I will be faced with Sentencing on the guilty verdict in Count 1 soon after his decision. At that time I will have to decide whether or not to appeal the verdict in Count 1 and begin all over again with a new trial or else accept the verdict and whatever legal repercussions it entails.

Barclay Johnson, my legal counsel throughout the trial and the Charter hearing, has informed me that should the case go to the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal that it would entail a very costly and lengthy process of litigation running into hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly a number of year of more court appearances which would occur not here in my home town of Quesnel but require my travelling to Ottawa, Ontario. Given the fact that I don’t fly this would be an additionally onerous undertaking that I’m not excited about. Therefore, speaking frankly, at this point in time I don’t find the prospect of years of more litigation a very attractive option for either myself or my wife who is dealing with serious medical issues that require urgent attention. This coming February I will turn 70 years old. That is also another factor which will affect whether or not I decide to enter into a further protracted legal battle which I can hardly afford to undertake considering the reasons given above. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride and I might be able to hand the reins over to a younger free speech warrior who could take up the torch and carry on to Ottawa with it but, unfortunately, wishes are not our four-footed friends.

The only thing that appears relatively certain at this point in time is that I and my wife will have close to four months off and a chance to rest up and consider our options for the future.

In final closing I would like to quote once again from Jeremy Maddock’s article in the Friends of Freedom newsletter with respect to funding. He writes, “As this complex process unfolds, Mr. Topham depends on donations to fund various expenses, including expert witnesses, transcripts, and ongoing legal research support. This is the first time since Keegstra (in 1990) that the Courts have entertained a constitutional challenge of the Criminal Code hate speech provision, and it could be the best opportunity in a generation to support internet free speech.”

There are still bills to pay and costs involved so if there is any chance supporters can afford to contribute toward these expenses I would be sincerely appreciative of any assistance. Please go the following website to making a donation or else send a donation to the mailing address shown below:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
THANK YOU!
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
–––––––– 88 ––––––––
*** (Note please that the full transcript of the trial can be found HERE for those interested in reading it and preserving it should my website eventually be taken down.)
 

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

Do you care to know about how the people you have trusted all your lives have lied to you?

If anything were to ever convince you of the terrible Jewish lies about World War II, this would be that document. You can’t possibly read this compilation of sources by hundreds of serious minded examiners and still believe the lies that mainstream accounts have forced upon you as “the truth” of World War II.

Many thanks to my friend “pdk” in France.
Please read as much as your mind can tolerate. You will never find as many courageous truth tellers represented in one place.
Best wishes,
John Kaminski

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

“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.”
~ Douglas Christie, Barrister & Solicitor from his Summation to the Jury
in the Ernst Zundel Trial, February 25, 1985

I chose the above quote from Douglas Christie, the greatest defender of freedom of speech Canada has ever produced. Doug, more than any other person I know (and I knew him personally for seven years right up to the time of his death in March of 2013), epitomized the spirit of Truth, intelligence of Heart, the noble Grace and indefatigable Courage and Integrity of a free man all combined with an adamantine faith in God.

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

It was due in great part to the efforts of Doug Christie during the trial of Ernst Zundel that he, like the biblical Moses of old, was able to lead the captured consciousness of Truth Seekers of the 20th Century out of their mentally-induced prisons into the fertile lands of freedom of speech and expression.

tazebook_dees-1-copy

Ernst 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” when he began dispensing a small booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die? – one which he hadn’t written himself but felt expressed his views on the alleged Jewish Holocaust. It was Zundel’s trial that finally brought to a head the (then) forty years of Canadians wondering aimlessly through a cognitive “6 Million” wilderness of deception not knowing that all the while they were being psychically manipulated and conditioned to believe the greatest LIE ever told to humanity.

Awhile ago I typed out and digitally recorded on RadicalPress.com Doug Christie’s Summation to the Jury which first appeared in booklet form not too long after the trial ended and I highly recommend that anyone in the least concerned about this massive experiment in mind control read it. If nothing else it will vividly show you the brilliance and logic (and levity) of the lawyer who honestly earned his handle “The Battling Barrister”.

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

Doug Christie put the issue of Ernst Zundel’s concerns before the jury in the following manner:

“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.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million.”

In Christie’s Summation to the Jury at the culmination of the trial he recapped much of what was revealed to the court through weeks of mind-bending cross-examination, regarding this one fundamental LIE that has superseded all other interpretations of what took place during WW 2 in German occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

During the Zundel Trial Christie literally demolished the illusions of the “gas chambers” and the “6 Million Jews” myth that the Crown and its Expert Witness Raul Hilberg had attempted to foist upon the Jury and, by extension, the nation and the world as a whole. The final results showed that the much-touted, world renowned “holocaust expert” Raul Hilberg’s testimony (the Jews considered Hilberg to be their No. 1 man) ultimately proved to be nothing more than unsubstantiated bluff.

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

“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….”

“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.”

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

Now, seventy-one years later (thirty-one years after Doug’s summation) we’re still witnessing the relentless, malicious efforts of the Zionist Jews (and their sycophant zombie clones) to brow-beat, bludgeon, bedazzle and intimidate Canadians into accepting as FACT everything that the Ernst Zundel trial legally established as mere FICTION.

I am specifically referring to the current mainstream media uproar of feigned sound and fury that’s overtaken not only the local media in Jasper, Alberta The Jasper Local, and the Canadian Edmonton, Alberta media but has even extended itself to the state of Israel’s Haaretz newspaper since one of Jasper’s better known residents and peace activists, Monika Schaefer, published a short video denouncing the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust”. The video in question was titled, Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust.

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

No ifs ands or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA.

No ifs and or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA. Canadians, like people everywhere, have been unwittingly under the hypnotic, sorcerer’s spell of Jewish controlled “mainstream media” since the end of World War 2. They have surreptitiously endured a lifetime of brainwashing and mendaciously motivated mind control and for many today they still have little or no clue that the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” was and is the BIGGEST and most pervasive LIE ever foisted upon the world.

Of course that’s how it was intentionally designed to be when the perpetrators of this fantastic fiction first formulated, then forecast for use on such a massive scale, their serpentine “6 Million” siren song purposely meant to entrap the masses into subconsciously entering a Zionist-induced cognitive gulag or concentration camp strikingly similar to their own Talmudic Rabbi’s historically induced ghetto consciousness that forms the superstructure upon which Zionism’s atheistic ideological edifice rests.

Back in 2009 I wrote an article titled Israel’s Wall: For Palestinians or Jews? where I try to show the similitude between the wall that the Israeli government constructed on stolen Palestinian land and the mental/emotional wall that the Talmudic Rabbis built around their own tribe in order to control the minds of each successive generation of Jews and keep them trapped in the Talmudic oral “law”; an alleged law that purported made them especially chosen by God to rule over the world and because of that exclusiveness therefore separate and a step above the rest of humanity. It was a thesis first put forward by the British author and journalist Douglas Reed in his monumental classic, The Controversy of Zion.

The final point thought that needs to be restated again and again is the fact that down through history and right up until the 20th Century the most astute observers of civilized development in the West continually questioned and criticized the actions and motives of the Babylonian Talmudic tribe of Pharisees whenever they began to meddle too deeply in the affairs of other nation states but beginning with the take-over of the majority of the media in the West around the turn of the 20th century this practise began to cease and in its place there began renewed efforts on the part of the Zionist Jews to attack any and all critics of their ideology and their actions with the endless epithets of “anti-Semite” and “racist” and “Jew Hater”, an enterprise that has today reached such epidemic proportions that critics of present day Zionism lay wasting away in dungeons and website owners, university professors, researchers and writers everywhere are being accused of “hate crimes” throughout most, if not all, western nations.

Monika Schaefer’s case is the latest in that long and disgusting list of Truth Revealers who Jewish lobby organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the new viper on the holohoax block The Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) along with all their trance-induced toady followers are attempting to smear and degrade and destroy in order to keep the BIG LIE from being questioned.

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

The longer this travesty of injustice goes on the more insanely vile and blood-thirsty the Zionists are becoming. Their desperation has grown almost exponentially over the past decade as they wend their way through the corridors of Canada’s justice system plying their rag-tag “hate crime” laws in order to safeguard the collusion they’ve made with the Devil.

No better example of just how demented it’s becoming was the latest attack upon Monika Schaefer that occurred but a day or so ago in Jasper. When Monika Schaefer moved to Jasper, Alberta busking (i.e. the playing of an instrument on the public streets) was illegal. Bearing that in mind, in communication with Monika over this matter  she told me the following:

“The irony of the fact is that it was me who brought the issue of busking to town council already a few years ago, made a presentation (at least on one occasion, and have raised it a few times since…) to support busking in town. You see, it has always been illegal to busk in Jasper. Yes, you read correctly Arthur. Anyway, so you see the irony – I have been pushing for busking for a long time. This summer is the first time it is legal. So when I went yesterday to get my busking license, my senses already went up. Dave wasn’t there, but the woman who was there (whom I have also known for decades – it’s a small town) was behaving very cagy. Then I left a phone message, text message, and email message with the person who was supposedly in charge (someone else, not even Dave). Today my gut feeling of yesterday was proven correct when I received Dave’s message.”

And here’s the rub for those who haven’t read the article. Dave’s message read: “We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.”

“publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs” !!!???

As one commenter on RadicalPress. com wrote in reply to the article, Surely you guys are making this up! because no one can possibly be dumb enough to actually write and publish that sentence – NOT, in Canada, no f’n way!”

Unfortunately for Canada someone in an official position with the municipal government of Jasper, Alberta DID write that sentence and sent it to Monika Schaefer.

Since my own arrest, incarceration and criminal case began back in May of 2012 after I was charged with “communicating statements” that did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code” I’ve been doing my damnedest to warn Canadians of the extreme danger of these so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws that the Zionist Jew lobbyists created and are using with increasing fervour and zeal to censor any and all criticism of their deeds both here at home and abroad in the state of Israel. And of course the kicker is the fact that they used the “6 Million” holocaust lie in order to justify the inclusion of these Orwellian anti-free speech laws into Canadian jurisprudence.

Given the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau’s, longstanding indoctrination on the holocaust deception and his unabashed public display of obeisance to the perpetrators of this hoax there’s little chance that we will see him do what Conservative PM Stephen Harper did with the equally nefarious Sec. 13(1) legislation formerly contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act; that is, repeal the law. But that is the only and final solution to this “hate speech” madness that’s slithered like a snake from out of that den of vipers known as the Canadian “Jewish Lobby”.

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

The issue must be taken from Cybespace’s Facebook and the Alternative media and transposed down onto the streets and turned into a public spectacle that the mainstream media cannot refuse to cover. Instead of focussing their attention on Gay Pride festivities it’s time that the Jewish-controlled media was forced to recognize that the fundamental rights of ALL Canadians are being jeopardized by these draconian “hate speech” laws and the only way this is going to happen is if normal, law-abiding citizens of Canada get their act together and begin to openly PROTEST this blatant act of sedition by these foreign lobbyists against Canadians’ lawful right to freedom of expression both on and off the Internet.

The time to organize this is NOW. Their game plan is so in our face obvious and the people know it. All that remains is for concerned Canadians to stand up, take to the streets and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

If we want our basic freedoms we’re going to have to fight to hang on to them one way or another.

______

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah? By Arthur Topham

 

CANADASODOM?

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah?

By
Arthur Topham

On May 17th, 2016, a day recognized by the federal government as “International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia”, an edict emanated forth from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office (PMO) stating that the Liberal government was planning to make additional changes to the “Hate Propaganda” laws (Sections 318 to 320) of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to “protect” the nation’s sexually deviant members.

UpYoursTrudeauJr

The unabashed and strident manner in which the federal government is pushing forward with its controversial agenda of planned perversion and subversion of Canadian society (under the guise of supposed “human rights” for sexual aberrants) is an issue fraught with deep and troubling concern, not only those Canadians of the Christian faith who prefer to rely upon the eternal wisdom of God and Nature but also for millions of other citizens whose moral standards won’t permit them to accept the subversive and sinister hidden aim within the government’s mandate to criminalize public dissent and discussion on moral, ethical and health standards affecting the nation as a whole.

In the words of the PM, “To do its part, the Government of Canada today will introduce legislation that will help ensure transgender and other gender-diverse people can live according to their gender identity, free from discrimination, and protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes.”

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 4

The reality that the federal government intends to expand rather than repeal Section 318 – 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code is disconcerting  in itself given the excessively subjective nature of this draconian section of the Code. The concept of “Hate Propaganda” as a “criminal offence” is nothing less than a blatant example of government mind control; one that, here in Canada, has proven itself over the last half century of contentious litigation, to be extremely controversial, provocative and unjust and a clear and present danger to freedom of expression or “free speech” as defined by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The alarm bells ought to be ringing across the country at the thought of this new “Liberal” government of Justin Trudeau pulling the Orwellian zipper of censorship even tighter over the mouths of Canada’s citizens than his predecessor Harper. It appears to be a new day but still the same old shit – of increasingly repressive laws and greater restrictions on individual freedoms theoretically guaranteed by our Charter.

5FeetFury copy

In fact the threat of expanding Canada’s “hate” laws to include ‘Tranny’(i.e. transvestite) protection has already angered and incensed Canadian bloggers as we see in the following reaction by Kathy Shaidle, one of the veterans of the previous “Section 13” wars that were ongoing during Harper’s reign.

As I’ve stated numerous times and especially in my essay Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws, these Communist-inspired laws were surreptitiously and deliberately put in place through the mendacious actions of various Jewish lobby organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and, more recently, the newly-formed Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs, all of whom have worked in tandem for decades to ensure that issues to do with Israel and its Zionist ideological political system would ultimately fall within this section of the Code and therefore make any truthful and factual statements about important civil and national issues indictable offences.

What must be clearly understood from the start when discussing the issue of  “Hate Propaganda” laws is that the notion of elevating the natural emotional feeling of hatred into a pseudo-legal category wherein it becomes an indictable offence is purely an invention of the Zionist Jews and in certain respects an historical concomitant of the Bolshevik era’s Leninist/Stalinist totalitarian terror regimes. One could rightly state that its essential character is embodied in such classics of “hate” literature as Germany Must Perish!, a book written back in 1941 by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman with the sole purpose of inciting America to hate Germany and then translate that hatred into the USA joining the Allies in their unjust war against the National Socialist government of Germany.

EyeOnFreeSpeech600

In a previous article entitled Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws I had the following to say about these despicable, sham legal subterfuges disguised as legitimate jurisprudence:

“The war to silence Canadians and stymie any public speech that the Jewish lobby felt might negatively impact them or Israel in any way (either on or off the internet), gained its foothold back in 1977 when the federal government first implemented the so-called Canadian Human Rights Act and created its attendant enforcement agencies, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). Both the commission and the tribunal were quasi-judicial, i.e. “crazy” judicial in that they basically set their own rules and guidelines and consistently changed the “legal” goal posts depending upon whatever case they were dealing with, in order to ensure a conviction. If fact, of the hundreds of Canadians dragged before these Stalinist style “Show Trial” tribunals, EVERYONE was found guilty for the simple reason that all it took was for someone to register a complain against them and that, in itself, sealed their fate. When I describe Section 13 as a “Bolshevik” type law I do so with the full knowledge that under the former Soviet system, Lenin, in one of the regime’s very first acts upon gaining absolute power, was to make “anti-Semitism” a crime punishable by death. Death, that is, without so much as a trial even. All it would take, (just as with the Section 13 “complaints”) was for someone to accuse another of said crime and the Cheka (soviet secret police) had the excuse to liquidate the victim.”

Reporting on this issue in Christian News Heather Clark remarks that apart from the criminal aspects of this proposed legislation there are those like Charles McVety, president of the Institute for Canadian Values and others who consider the bill to be “nebulous and reckless.”

Clark’s article goes on, “Bill C-16 is so vague, it is unenforceable,” he [McVety] said in a statement. “The fluid nature of gender identity is so nebulous that people can change their gender identity moment by moment. In that the bill seeks to change the Criminal Code of Canada, people may be sent to prison for two years over something that is ill-defined, and indeterminable.”

“It is also reckless as the proposed law will establish universal protection for any man who wishes to access women’s bathrooms or girls’ showers with momentary gender fluidity,” McVety continued. “Every Member of Parliament should examine their conscience over the potential of their vote exposing women and girls to male genitalia.”

JewShitter

In the context of our Charter rights Clark says, “There is also uncertainty as to how the law will be applied to free speech. As previously reported, in 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001 and 2002.”

Bill-Whatcott-Image

As Charles McVety rightfully stated the proposed Bill C-16 is definitely “nebulous and reckless” but as past convictions in both the cases of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code show, simply because it’s “vague” doesn’t mean that it isn’t “enforceable”. All it takes are judges and justices within the Canadian judicial system who will interpret and lend credence to subjective definitions of nebulous terms such as “hatred” so that they may then shapeshift into whatever meaning the Crown wishes in order to fit the charge. No better example currently exists than the latest and most severe case of Whatcott.

Conclusion: What’s coming next?

During the heated Sec. 13 Campaign here in Canada when the Canadian Human Rights Act was being wielded like a club by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and bloggers around the country were being bludgeoned and jailed, fined and nailed to the “hate crime” cross the Zionist element within the Conservative Right finally realized that the Sec. 13 legislation no longer was serving just their purposes but was being turned against them as well. As a result they garnered the support of Canada’s Zionist media monopoly and the lobbying to repeal the specious section of the Act was eventually accomplished back in June of 2012. Unfortunately they weren’t smart enough to realize that the “Hate Propaganda” laws within the Criminal Code were even more insidious than Sec. 13. They figured that as long as Sec. 319(2) of the ccc was there and could be used against critics of Israel and anyone else accused of “anti-Semitism” then that was just fine with them. To hell (or jail) with “freedom of speech” if it meant allowing bloggers to speak openly and frankly about the Jews or the Zionist empire builders.

But the tables appear to be turning once again as the new Liberal government of Justin Trudeau begins forcing their faggot philosophy down the throats of unwilling Canadians and then, on top of that monumental insult, threatens the nation with increased criminal penalties of up to two years in jail for anyone who doesn’t want to go happily and gayly along down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah carrying their little rainbow flag in hand.

Will they eventually start campaigning to repeal these anti-free speech laws contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code and get rid of the last vestiges of Orwellian censorship in Canada?

Time will soon tell.

——

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

The upcoming challenge to this Zionist-created false flag legislation will determine once and for all whether or not Canada will adhere to the spirit and intent of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms or continue to bow down to foreign interests and sacrificing its citizen’s fundamental rights.
Please try to assist in this process by making a small donation to the cause. My GoGetFunding site can be found here: http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/
Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Irwin Cotler’s genocide rankings: Letter to National Zionist Jew Post from Ian V Macdonald

Let2NatPostIanVM copy 3

HP – like most con-artists, the Professor is a smooth talker. He talks the talk but, as with the Jewish neo-cons in Washington, makes sure that if there is any personal risk, it’s Whitey who has to walk the walk. We should have sent him to Rwanda to settle the genocide instead of Gen. Dallaire. Being singularly unappetizing, he would have been relatively safe from the cannibals! IV

From: ianvmacdonald@aol.com
To: letters@nationalpost.com
Sent: 2016-04-10 
Subject: Irwin Cotler’s genocide rankings

April 9, 2016

Editor
NATIONAL POST
Toronto

Dear Sir,

Re:Rwandan genocide

Professor Irwin Cotler (“Never again”, again and again ” NP Apr. 9, 2016) deplores genocides, and condemns in even stronger terms the failure of the rest of the world to intervene. With breathless sophistry and Jewish hypocrisy he reminds us of the fact that seven years ago he had as Justice Minister introduced a Bill in Parliament inviting “reflection” on the horrors of genocide, giving special reference to the “unprecedented horrors of the Holocaust of the Jews” in Europe by Germany, now exposed unequivocally as a gigantic hoax. Even if the wildest version of the Holocaust legend were true, Jewish losses would have been minuscule compared with Stalin’s Jewish-implemented slaughter of 80 million Christians plus tens of millions more casualties of war.

Professor Cotler claims also that preventing incitement (“hate speech”) is the answer to forestalling race and religion-based genocide but ignores the Jewish torrent of hate toward their Palestinian victims, which accompanied the mass killing and cruel dispossession of the “cockroaches” and “two-legged animals” and the infamous statement by Golda Meir that Palestinians don’t exist. Palestinians’ lives were worthless in Israeli eyes, especially those of children, thousands of whom were killed or disabled by IDF “soldiers,” almost as a form of sport during the Intifada. There are many cases of innocent Palestinians killed by Israelis in cold blood, with impunity.

Unlike Rwanda, buried in Darkest Africa where violent death is a way of life, Israel is a “civilized” country in full view and easily constrained from uncivilized practices by its vulnerability to trade and financial sanctions. Mr Cotler fails to mention the glaring criminality of the UN-condemned Jewish state, nor does he explain his omission of this prime offender from his criticism of genocide, His hypocrisy is paramount however in his failure to recognize the Jewish-contrived Second World War as a form of genocide of Whites, now proceeding in its aftermath, as planned, with seemingly irreversible momentum, especially in Germany, the epitome of modern Western culture and industry that dared to challenge Jewish hegemony and parasitism.

Although Prof. Cotler’s article consists of useless oversimplifications and platitudes in his attempt to distract readers from reality, it does offer a priceless turn of phrase on the Rwandan Genocide worth pondering: “which occurred not only because of the vulnerability of the powerless, but also because of the powerlessness of the vulnerable”.

As ever,

Ian V. Macdonald
Ottawa ON

NEW WORLD ORDER: Communism Through the Back Door – video by Dennis Wise

Screen Shot 2016-04-10 at 9.53.07 PM

Four hours, 16 segments.  Amazing, fast-moving explanation for the plight of our world.

Same producer of THE GREATEST STORY NEVER TOLD.

U.S. leaders capitulate to Zionist Jew lobby group AIPAC – PRESS TV UK interview with Gilad Atzmon & Hafsa Kara Mustapha

GiladPressTVAIPAC

Press TV: Telling The Truth About AIPAC, Jewish Political Lobbying And The Fate Of The West

with Roshan Muhammed Salih (Moderator), Hafsa Kara Mustapha and Gilad Atzmon

https://youtu.be/23TJwROwifY

Roshan Muhammed Salih (Moderator), Hafsa Kara Mustapha and Gilad Atzmon

Toxic Beef: Sacred Cows & Left Gatekeepers Joe Giambrone

toxic-beef copy

ATEDITOR0216

Edito’s Note: Like many in the Alternative News Media I initially began my career in publishing lauding the work of Professor Noam Chomsky. Some of his earlier works on events in Guatemala and Nicaragua as well as his books on the Palestinian/Israeli problem were most helpful to me in getting a start in trying to untangle the massive web of lies, half-truths and outright deceptions that the msm kept dispensing to the general public surrounding these historic events. These were years well in advance of 9/11. After the attack on the Twin Towers and Building 7 by the Israeli/Mossad/CIA/FBI matrix forces Noam Chomsky’s reactions to this paradigm event began to reveal his own true motives and as writer Joe Giambrone clearly illustrates in his article, Professor Chomsky’s ongoing denial of the “who’s who” in this classic false flag has torn his once impeccable status as historic researcher to tatters. Truth always prevails in the end.]

Toxic Beef: Sacred Cows & Left Gatekeepers

Joe Giambrone

Some may be following my ongoing challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky and his clearly misleading spin regarding the September 11th controversy. Or perhaps not, since none of the outlets which publish his every utterance, like clockwork, will dare publish criticism of the deified thought leader. No rebuttals may appear. My previous pieces established how Chomsky transforms matters of vital public interest, crimes, facts, glaring cover-ups of Congressional reports, into matters of his own personal opinion, which he dismisses and disregards to set an example for others.

My challenge is as much with the deception from Left so-called “alternative” media as it is with Chomsky personally. The demonstrable bias and deliberate misleading of readers (see below) motivates my pieces, such as this one. Many readers, whom I come across, are clearly misled, deluded, and yet proudly ignorant for some odd reason. More on that later, too.

How can an editor look himself in the mirror after being shown to be a serial liar? And a liar not on some trivial gibberish—this isn’t Kardashians—but on the “new American Century,” mass murder, and wars into the foreseeable future?

Media censorship has aided and abetted the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks after the fact. The solution to that editorial guilt is simple self-deception. Censor out the problem (evidence, logic), and so there is no problem; voilà.

Noam Chomsky helps to manufacture conformity. The Professor’s great expertise in media itself is problematic, as so-called “alternative” media looked to him personally for marching orders. It thus empowered Professor Chomsky to define the limits of permissible discourse post-September 11th of 2001.

Chomsky participates in the same Manufactured Consent he once seemed to oppose. The Left foundation-funded press is a different beast than corporate news media, which he and Edward S. Herman wrote about, but its uniformity and its unwillingness to correct itself when shown to be demonstrably wrong is dangerous and a massive institutional failure. The disinformation put out regularly by the Left “alternative” media brings real-world catastrophic implications. War propaganda, in its myriad forms, entails consequences.

Early in the 2000s, Noam Chomsky told the world to ignore the September 11th cover-up.

Result: The entire American Left turned off its critical faculties and let Deep State domestic terrorists get away with their “new Pearl Harbor” and their “Project for a New American Century.” Public opposition to them died out. We became a bi-partisan, unrestrained empire that wages unlimited war around the world with impunity. This is sold to the public every day in the name of “defense.” Never forget 9/11, and the bombing can commence on the next target.

Professor Chomsky and the deciders in so-called “progressive” media helped erase the 9/11 controversy from history. They did the bidding of the imperialists, either intentionally or as useful dupes. Probably it was a combination.

The 9/11 cover-up, an undeniable reality, became a censored topic as it is today. This piece will most certainly NOT be published at The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, Truthdig, Alternet, Fair, Z-Magazine, et al., just as over a decade’s revelations about the 9/11 attacks have been conspicuously omitted from those same journals. The public was marshalled to look elsewhere and to ignore the greatest Treason in the history of this country. The natural enemies of such a crime, the watchdog press, the 4th estate, were transformed into dulled-down head bobbers, stenographers, who like obedient lapdogs pointed elsewhere on command.

That is why it is my well-considered view today that Professor Noam Chomsky is probably the most dangerous propagandist in the Western World. He has directed numerous adherents toward ignorance rather than knowledge, toward opinion and speculation, rather than toward verifiable facts.

This should not be a surprise to people who have challenged Chomsky previously, as when the JFK assassination controversy became the focus of his ire. Chomsky went to work selling his trademark catch phrase: “Who cares?”

Yes, “who cares?” If the CIA blew the President of the United States’ head off in broad daylight, erased reality from history, and created a false reality for the next century? Who could possibly find that problematic? Certainly not Professor Chomsky.

“Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make?”

Professor Noam Chomsky

Chomsky cannot find a reason to “care” about any of that, and neither should you. Chomsky similarly came to a pointed lack of empathy regarding the September 11th attacks:

“I mean even if it [a September 11th government conspiracy] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn’t have any significance.”

Professor Noam Chomsky

Sound familiar? He doesn’t “care” about that either, and neither should his many followers. And guess what? They don’t. The magic spell worked. Proud champions of the most grotesque ignorance imaginable they are bolstered by the marching orders of their idol, and little else. One might wonder what it is Professor Chomsky actually does “care” about?

The JFK hit determined who was actually going to be in charge of the American empire: a democratically elected President or Deep State, unaccountable murderers.

Chomsky also had no basis whatsoever for claiming it “extremely unlikely.” The 9/11 cover-up is not only likely, but real and challenged by many in Congress, even today. Chomsky’s reckless and speculative opinions have substituted for hard facts. He pointedly avoids the facts of the cover-up, and that should be a red flag. Many on the Left have behaved like gullible children accepting his vague speculation while ignoring facts from the FBI and the Congress.

An odd position, Professor Chomsky claims time and again not to “care” about subjects that he writes entire books about. His books have come at the Kennedy and at the 9/11 issues from some strangely oblique angles, avoiding the actual evidence of cover-up and complicity. His books are carefully crafted to establish a general uncaring. Don’t care about John F. Kennedy and his “Camelot” presidency; he was a jerk unworthy of your sympathy. The point is dismissal, not enlightenment about the crime. Chomsky flatly refuses to explore the many glaring anomalies, discrepancies, and suspicious facts involved with those two ongoing cover-ups.

Professor Noam Chomsky plays a role, and it is akin to Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein. He is a supposed leader of the opposition, but it turns out—for Winston Smith anyway—to be not the case.

If Professor Noam Chomsky didn’t exist, the Deep State would have to invent him. He has misdirected a significant portion of the American and global public. They have accepted his flawed logic and rhetoric in place of hard facts. Fanciful talk has substituted for evidence regarding the crime of September 11th, the crime of the century. Minds have closed to any alternative sources of information whatsoever, a state of insular ignorance among his tribe that is staggering to behold. Talking to these people one-on-one—his many defenders—is an exercise in psychological extremism, something very much like the Helsinki Syndrome. That is not meant to be an exaggeration.

“What you say to the people collectively in that receptive state of fanatical abandonment remains in their mind like an order given to someone under hypnosis, which can not be wiped out and resists all logical argument.”

-Adolf Hitler

As an exclamation point to the Left Gatekeeper phenomenon, the last time those 28 redacted pages seem to have appeared at The Nation (online), was in July of 2003. There, Robert Scheer, currently of Truthdig (sic) fame, wrote a piece of propaganda that appears to say one thing, but actually says quite a few others instead.

Said Scheer:

“Yet even in its sanitized version, the bipartisan report, long delayed by an embarrassed White House, makes clear that the United States should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq…”

“Embarrassed?” A curious word indeed. Not complicit? Treasonous? Felonious? Not a crime, apparently to give “aid and comfort” to the Saudi sponsors of the September 11th attacks, according to Scheer and The Nation propaganda organ. No plain stating of the facts of criminal complicity ever made it into print. An opinion about Bush’s alleged embarrassment was all that was said.

Scheer continued:

“…Bush diverted the war against terror.”

There is no “war against terror.” That is accepting the ridiculous neocon framing of the discussion. Scheer just sold the concept that a “war against terror” was a real thing. More propaganda.

In a shocking bit of hammering home his dubious message, Robert Scheer repeated the previous silliness:

“Quite an embarrassment if the censored pages reveal that the Bush Administration covered up the Saudi connection to the terrorist attacks.”

No, Robert Scheer. That’s high Treason, as defined in our Constitution, Article 3.

While Scheer attempted to spin away these shockers as inconsequential matters of saving face (echoes of Chomsky?), apparently The Nation found even that line of social engineering a bit too risky. This unresolved controversy disappeared from its pages in 2003 and has now been absent for almost 13 years since.

The Perfect Storm of Ignorance

This is not to imply that the Left has been unique in its willful blindness. It seems every niche that you can name has an angle to play regarding the September 11th attacks, spinning them one way or another, and usually for (assumed) partisan political gain.

The Deep State, however, is bi-partisan and persists across administrations, obviously. The two political parties have similar goals, if different game plans to achieve global dominance. Beyond Republican “neocons,” one can merely recall Democratic Party stalwart, and Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright lamenting: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

It seems quite clear to me that the bi-partisan nature of the 9/11 Treason is the number one reason they got away with it. It was never just Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and that assumption is as erroneous as most others.

The San Diego hijacker cell arrived in America during Bill Clinton/George Tenet’s reign. Tenet’s CIA hid the known Al Qaeda members from the FBI. George Tenet was then kept on as CIA Director by Bush, after the stolen election of 2000. While Tenet made claims of his “hair on fire” in the summer of 2001, because of so many glaring warnings of impending attacks, the truth was more of a ‘pants on fire’ scenario. The San Diego Al Qaeda cell was protected from exposure right up until the 9/11 attacks actually occurred.

In addition to the complaints of FBI Agents involved in trying to stop 9/11, even the Counter-Terrorism Adviser to the White House, “Czar” Richard Clarke has flat out accused Tenet and “fifty” CIA officers of hiding the hijackers from him and thus allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. That’s corroboration, but that’s not the version we see repeated ad nauseum whenever the September 11th attacks appear in print.

Where is the call to arrest George Tenet for aiding and abetting the September 11th terrorist attacks? Why are these life and death matters of actual “national security” brushed aside and ignored? Tenet was given a shiny medal for his efforts, and every CIA officer who helped mislead the FBI was promoted.

By the way, where’s Chomsky when you need him? Fact after fact, but old Noam can’t bring himself to “care.”

News media repeats the watered-down, official 9/11 for dummies story without any qualification to inform readers about ongoing and criminal cover-ups of the Congressional Joint Inquiry report, and the rest of it. Most media fail to note the sham nature of the 9/11 Commission, which was “set up to fail” as admitted to by two of its so-called Chairmen. It was in fact rigged behind the scenes by Bush operative Philip Zelikow, who censored it and fired staff who wouldn’t go along with the sham. Senator Max Cleland resigned so as not to be a part of another “Warren Commission.” None of this information is particularly difficult to locate, and so there is no excuse for its curious absence in any discussions of the September 11th attacks throughout the media, left, right and centrist.

Some editors have made clear mistakes in judgment, which they refuse to correct for, ignoring all the evidence that has since emerged after their initial opinions were formed. Others simply rejected the disinformation and half-truths floating around out there among the amateur sleuths of the 9/11 Movement, the FUD that seeded the debate with false leads. Many issues turned out to be simply out-of-context mistakes. Much is currently unknown, owing to multiple cover-ups, including the criminal destruction of World Trade Center evidence.

All these factors combine in a perfect storm of American ignorance. The Swiss cheese media biases the discussion against fighting to uncover the truth. Truth has been downgraded, myths elevated.

This climate of ignorance is dangerous to us all. Without truth we live in a world of myths and lies. Be they official lies, ideologically based speculation, or knee-jerk rejectionism, the dismissal of true facts is antithetical to democracy. It is a strategy to disempower all of us, and to shift power toward those who maintain secrets. Rule by myths and cover-up represents the complete collapse of the democratic model of governance. It is no trivial matter.

“Who cares?” Mr. Chomsky. I do.

Take everything you hear from your pet sources of political news with several grains of salt. Left and “progressive” media have been just as reckless and false as any other news sources you might name. Challenge their assumptions, especially when you can prove them wrong, no matter who is making the false claim.

(P.S.

No one has disproven a God damned thing I’ve said in this entire series so far…)

http://www.joegiambrone.us/

Canadian Roundtable – The Trial of Arthur Topham & The Jewish Lobby in Canada by Red Ice Radio

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2016/02/RIR-160210.php

CanRound Final

 

BEING EUROPEAN! By ILIADE

BEING EUROPEAN! copy

Open Letter from Dr. James Sears: Financial support for Arthur Topham’s legal battle for Freedom of Speech in Canada

Open Letter from Dr. James Sears: Financial support for Arthur Topham’s legal battle for Freedom of Speech in Canada

Dec. 10th, 2015

Dr. James SearsPic

Dec. 10/15

Arthur:

Firstly, thank you for having the courage to stand up to the powerful ZioMarxist lobby.  If you ever lose faith in your ultimate victory, please keep in mind that Jesus survived it, and so will you!  Secondly, thank you for publishing my satirical story on your court case.  I will be writing more stories on your saga very soon.

I am writing you today because I understand from a mutual acquaintance that you are about to incur substantial legal costs, including over $4,000 to order trial transcripts, and that these costs may be prohibitive, potentially jeopardizing your appeal.  I love Canada, so I refuse to allow ZioFascists to take down a good man, because for all I know, any one of us could be next!

Therefore, I have email transferred you a token $5,000 to relieve some of your immediate financial stress.  I have set aside a substantial sum of money that you may tap into at any time, with just one call or email to me.  However, further donations are contingent upon the freedom-loving, patriotic internet community matching my initial donation. In other words, as I give you each tranche of money, I expect the community to match what I have given you before my next tranche comes in. In essence, I will pre-match every dollar you collect.

All I ask in return is that you fight these parasites to the bitter end.  Do not give up until you have achieved victory or you have taken your dying breath.

EXPEL THE PARASITE!

Dr. James Sears
Founder and Leader
New Constitution Party of Canada

 

 

New Video from Alfred Schaefer: 911 Brainwashing Part 3 Pavlov’s Dog

AlfredVidPart3

 

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 3
by Eve Mykytyn / November 29th, 2015

On November 12, 2015 Arthur Topham was convicted of inciting hatred against a racial group, the Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.

Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.

Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)

Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.

“The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.”

Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.

I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.

The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.

In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. “Jews,” the Crown said, “could write anti-Semitic things too.” Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.

If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.

Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

Article Source

Report on week two of  Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham    by  Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the news concerning this important trial further afield.

To date only the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, and CBC Prince George have given coverage to the story so it’s now firmly established that Canada’s major news networks (all of which are either controlled or heavily influenced by the foreign Zionist lobby) have no intention of informing the general public on this matter.

As I previously stated in the first report it’s up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers around the world.

The original time period allotted for the trial indicated that it would conclude by Friday, November 6th but such is not the case. It will now carry on into week three and likely conclude on Tuesday, November 10th one day prior to Canada’s federal holiday known as Remembrance Day.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

To Alternative Media Sources
Report on week two of
Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham

by
Arthur Topham

The second week of Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial R v Roy Arthur Topham got underway Monday morning, November 2nd, 2015.

Witness #1 former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team

During the fourth day of the first week of testimony (October 29, 2015) Defence attorney Barclay Johnson had cross examined former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator involved in the current Sec. 319(2) charge, arrest and incarceration of Mr. Topham back in May of 2012. Throughout his questioning of Wilson it was clearly shown that the former detective was not an “expert” on what constituted “hate” and that Wilson was solely relying upon only one definition of “hatred” which appeared in the Keegstra case from back in the 1980’s. It was also evident from the former Hate Crime Unit investigator’s statements that after the second complainant had filed his complaint to the BC Hate Crime Team back in May of 2011 Wilson traveled over to Victoria, B.C. to interview the complainant who, during the course of the taped conversation, told Wilson that he’d also been involved in laying an earlier complaint against Topham back in 2007 as a representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. That earlier Sec. 13(1) complaint on the part of B’nai Brith Canada, fortunately for Topham, was stayed in 2010 pending the outcome of a Constitutional challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Act (where the legislation existed); one that ultimately resulted in the repeal of Sec. 13(1) in June of 2012.

In the course of their interview the complainant told Wilson that his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, didn’t think they had any evidence strong enough to gain a conviction under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada until Topham published his “book” Israel Must Perish! on his website May 28th, 2011. The complainant, upon reading what was in actuality a satire that Topham had written of the actual book Germany Must Perish! concluded that he now had sufficient evidence to prove to a court of law that Topham was proposing the total annihilation of the Jewish population and would therefore qualify as a candidate for a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team.

Under cross examination Defence attorney Johnson suggested to Wilson that it wasn’t until the complainant had told him about the “book” that he made his decision to charge Topham.

Topham’s attorney also brought forth evidence clearly showing Wilson to have abused his police powers during the course of his investigation when he wrote a personal letter to Topham’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) Netfirms.ca back on November 21, 2012 informing them that Topham had been charged on November 5, 2012 with a Sec. 319(2) CCC offence of “Wilfully Promoting Hatred”. Defence pointed out to the court that Wilson had taken it upon himself to go to Netfirms.ca, read through their policy and then suggested to the company that Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal charge “may in fact contravene” said policy under section 4(b)(i). The result of Wilson’s letter to Netfirms.ca was that the ISP wrote to Topham the same day issuing what was basically an ultimatum stating, “We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” It was signed by “Zach P Corporate Support”.

Given such short notice and not having the technical expertise to shift his website to a new (and more secure) server in the USA Topham had to rely upon an associate of his who also wasn’t fully proficient in downloading and uploading websites. The end result was that all the content on Topham’s website prior to November 21, 2012 ended up infected with computer code script that required hundreds of hours of labour to correct and to this day still hasn’t been fully repaired.

Defence also pointed out to the court that when Wilson wrote to Netfirms.ca on November 21, 2012 there had already been one attempt on the part of Crown to have Topham’s bail conditions changed so that he wouldn’t be able to carry on publishing until after the trial (should he be found not guilty). That attempt had failed and Crown was attempting a second time to change his conditions and a hearing on Crown’s application had already been set for January 2, 2013 but Wilson disregarded the court and proceeded on his own to try and remove RadicalPress.com before that date. Because of these independent actions on the part of former Det. Wilson, Defence suggested to the court that Wilson had acted in an extra-judicial manner and in doing so had attempted to circumvent whatever decision the court may have come to regarding Topham’s bail conditions (Crown’s application was unsuccessful). In other words Wilson had acted as judge and jury and concluded, prior to Crown’s application being heard, that Topham was guilty of the crime before having been tried. In other words, according to Defence counsel Johnson, Wilson’s testimony could not be taken seriously and ought to be disregarded by the jury.

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

The first week’s proceedings concluded Friday, October 30th, 2015 with Crown’s Expert Witness, Mr. Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, completing his testimony. Week two commenced with Defence attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross examination of Mr. Rudner testimony.

Len Rudner copy

As noted in the first report the focus of Crown’s evidence was contained in four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books posted on RadicalPress.com:

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins
5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text (580 pages) of Douglas Reed’s historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion. Binders #3 and #4 were basically screen shots of all of Topham’s monthly postings on his website which Wilson had “captured” during the course of the Hate Crime Team’s investigation once the initial complaint was laid against Topham and his website on April 28th, 2011. As well, a number of Topham’s personal writings contained in the sidebar on the home page under the heading Arthur’s Court were also included.

Over the course of Len Rudner’s testimony Crown’s Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Johnston led Rudner through all of the above online books and portions of the articles, most of which contained Topham’s “Editor’s Note” prefaces. It was mainly these prefaces to other writer’s work that Crown zeroed in on as they apparently were having great difficulty in finding anything in Topham’s own personal articles on the site that they felt would meet the stringent standards that the law required in order to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Topham was “wilfully” promoting hatred toward “people of Jewish ethnicity or religion”.

Fortunately, for the defence, Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner provided the court with some extremely revealing evidence while under cross examination which, ultimately, led to some damning conclusions.

Given that Rudner had told the court that during the period of his tenure as a Director for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which spanned the years in which Mr. Topham had been harassed and dragged through the whole of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13(1) complaint process from 2007 until 2012, Defence counsel Johnson began questioning Rudner on statements he’d made under oath regarding his personal involvement in the laying of these Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charges against Canadian citizens. What Rudner told the court, was most revealing and in some instances totally unexpected. As it turned out, in his capacity as a director of this foreign Israeli lobbyist organization, Rudner stated that as far back as 2007 he had been personally involved in an attempt on the part of the CJC to file a Sec. 319(2) “hate” complaint against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com with the British Columbia Hate Crimes Team (BCHCT). This was the very same RCMP unit that on May 16th, 2012 arrested Topham and charged him under the same Sec. 319(2) criminal code section. Rudner’s statements were corroborated by the evident from Crown’s disclosure which contained the following document shown below.

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

While the document itself hadn’t indicated who, in particular, was responsible for filing the complaint, Rudner having sworn that he was personally involved in drafting a number of such complaints, admitted to having signed off on that one as well.

During the course of his testimony before the court Rudner also admitted to having had contact with Topham’s former Internet Service Provider (ISP) MagNet.com (now defunct) back as far as 2005 wherein he had complained to said company that Topham was publishing “anti-Semitic” materials on his website RadicalPress.com. He admitted under oath that at the time he complained to the ISP he realized that it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that Topham’s site would be removed from the Internet but that it would at least be an “inconvenience” for Topham! What Rudner and the court, including Defence attorney Barclay Johnson, didn’t realize was that the complaint by the CJC to Topham’s then ISP resulted in Topham losing all of the contents of his website, including a long and lively forum, that dated back to and included the period from 1999 to 2005 and constituted a valuable historic record of a section of history that has since dominated much of the narrative concerning the nascent period of the 21st Century and its reaction to the defining event now known as 911. At the time of the loss Topham had a strong suspicion that the person or persons responsible for filing the complaint to his ISP were most likely connected to either the Canadian Jewish Congress or B’nai Brith Canada (both of whom are admitted lobbyists for the foreign state of Israel), but his then server refused to divulge who had registered the complaint and had only given Topham 48 hours to find a new server. Now the truth regarding that premeditated event finally came to light ten years after the fact.

Given Rudner’s direct testimony that he had personally been involved in two previous attempts to have Topham’s website taken down, Defence attorney Barclay Johnson then questioned Rudner regarding the credentials used in determining his suitability to appear as an “Expert Witness” on behalf of the Crown. Johnson pointed out to the court that in order to qualify for such an esteemed position within the Canadian court system one had to be seen as impartial and unbiased and neutral in order for their “Expert” testimony to be considered credible. He then punctuated this scathing indictment of Rudner’s disingenuousness and confession of complicity by stating that Rudner had, in fact, “a horse in the race” all along and that his admission of these facts could only serve to discredit the worth of all of his testimony in the case before the court.

When Rudner attempted to justify his clandestine attempts to take down Topham’s website Johnson’s response was to suggest that it was nothing but “pure sophistry”.

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.

Mr. Atzmon had agreed to take the stand on behalf of Arthur Topham and testify as to why he felt that the charge of “hatred toward the Jews” was inappropriate and his decision to do so was based upon his strongly held conviction that the vast majority of criticism being directed toward the Jews was in fact political in nature rather than personal or aimed specifically at Jews based upon either their religion or their ethnicity.

While the Crown had made a big display before the court of the fact that their Expert Witness Len Rudner was being paid $195.00 an hour to appear to testify when Mr. Atzmon appeared on the morning of November 3, 2015 Defence Barclay Johnson pointed out to the jury that Atzmon had volunteered his expertise without pay and that only his airfare and hotel accommodations and food were being covered by Topham’s defence fund.

After much to do about having his status as an Expert Witness accepted by Justice Bruce Butler when Gilad Atzmon stepped up to the podium and began to speak it immediately became apparent to the court that here was an Expert Witness to be reckoned with. Being an internationally recognized lecturer and in possession of the academic credentials to back up his philosophical approach to the issues being discussed in the courtroom, Mr. Atzmon’s quickly took control of the narrative and over the remainder of his testimony spoke with an unabashed air of certainty and conviction. Unlike Rudner whose quiet, monotone presentation lacked any overt sense of passion in what he was saying, Gilad’s outspoken oratory coupled with his obvious depth of knowledge concerning what he talked about left little doubt in the minds of anyone in the courtroom that here was a man of scholarly quality who unquestionably knew his subject.

Defence counsel Barclay Johnson then led Atzmon through the various online publications that were the subject of Crown’s evidence and Atzmon framed each book and quotation cited within his own analysis of the overall question concerning the Jewish Question and what Atzmon referred to as “Jewish Identity” politics. He went on to explain by means of visual aids (a graphic of a triangle with the three points headed by “Religion”, “Ethnicity” and “Identity or Jewish-ness”), all of which formed the basis of his thesis as contained in his internationally renowned book, The Wandering Who? which has been a best seller since it first came out in 2011.

Of particular note were Atzmon’s comments on the controversial satire which Topham had written in response to his reading of the actual book titled Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann which Topham then satirically titled  Israel Must Perish! This was the already noted article on Topham’s website that the complainant in the case told former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team was sufficient evidence that Topham was promoting the total genocide of the whole of the Jewish population. When Gilad Atzmon addressed the issue he was adamant in his appraisal of the satire stating that it was an exceptionally important contribution to the overall discussion of Jewish identity in that it basically represented a mirror image of what Kaufmann’s book had said and that this mirror was now being held up before the Jewish people and in particular the Zionist state of Israel as a reminder for them to reflect upon their own actions and behaviour in todays political setting. He made reference to the plight of the Palestinians in his comments but Crown was quick to object (and Justice Butler was also quick to agree with Crown) that Atzmon wasn’t an expert on the Palestinian issue and therefore his testimony in that regard should be disregarded.

As Atzmon stated in his book, “As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson commenced her cross examination of Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th and it resumed the next morning of November 5th. It was basically on the second day of cross examination that the Prosecutor began her laborious efforts to try and get Atzmon to agree to the Crown’s position with respect to the term “Hatred” and also to many of the quotations cited throughout the trial that Crown felt showed evidence of Topham’s wilful promotion of hatred toward the Jews in general. Suffice it to say that every attempt at twisting Gilad’s words to conform to Crown’s preconceived mould of what “hatred” meant was met with not only dismissal but further testimony on Atzmon’s part as to what he actually was saying. This process continued on throughout his cross examination and it would not be unfair to say that the following exchange was typical of Crown’s approach and Gilad’s reaction:

Crown: Mr. Atzmon, I’m sure that you would agree that ….

Gilad Atzmon: No.

The jury and members of the public sitting in the gallery witnessed this scenario occurring over and over and the end result was that Crown was unable to refute any of Atzmon’s testimony nor discredit his presentation in any way.

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

Friday, November 6, 2015 was originally the final day scheduled for R v Roy Arthur Topham. But like most things the numerous delays throughout the past two week due to Crown’s own actions (which will be touched on at the end of this report) the only thing that happened on this day was that Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson was able to (after numerous interruptions by Crown and Justice Butler) finally sum up before the jury his arguments as to why they should find the defendant not guilty. That summation, in itself, was prolonged by the presiding Justice so that it wasn’t until 2:30 p.m. that Johnson finally was able to speak to the jurors. He ended at precisely 4:00 p.m.

The main thrust by defence was to speak to the jury about Crown’s two witnesses, former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner. Johnson outlined for the jury the many instances of bias displayed by both these two individuals while testifying. In addition to that he also (after much wrangling with Justice Butler) presented to the jury some of Arthur Topham’s writings taken from an article which had been included in Crown’s disclosure. That article, titled KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada was originally posted on the website back in 2008 and dealt with issues related to the first complaint laid against Topham by B’nai Brith Canada under the former Sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act in the article were references made to the character of Topham which the defence wanted the jury to hear.

Defence then read out the following to the jury: [please note that the defendant is restricted by his current bail conditions from naming his accuser online and therefore the individual in question is simply referred to as “Mr. Z”]

“I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 – 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as http://www.radicalpress.com . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.

In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, newsroom@quesnelobserver.com beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case….

There is one last, missing factor in this “hate” equation which Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.”

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

Given that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers to proceed with this trial is likely over one million dollars throughout the duration of this two week trial the court has been witness to endless problems dealing with Crown’s disclosure materials. Given the fact that Crown has now had over three and half years to put together the evidence in a format that would easily facilitate the normal reading habits of the jurors and Defence counsel what we have witnessed throughout the trial is a disgrace to the supreme court system in British Columbia.

From the onset of the case (beginning in May of 20120), defence had to fight tooth and nail to get disclosure from Crown and to try and have Crown particularize the evidence so it was clearly evident what would be used in the actual trial. Instead Crown insisted that the case was an “ongoing investigation” and therefore they couldn’t provide the full disclosure until final weeks preceding trial. When they did send Defence counsel their Disclosure much of it was unreadable. Defence had to redo pages and pages of Crown evidence in order that it could be read in court, not only by defence but also by the jurors who would be expected to follow along in their own Binders. This aspect of the trial consumed hours of time and even after the trial was well underway it became blatantly obvious that the last two binders would have to be republished so the jury might have a readable copy to refer to. Those final two binders didn’t enter into the court until the morning of Friday, November 6, 2015!

Typical of the quality of the documents is the image below taken from one page of KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada It would not be a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the jurors being each given a magnifying glass in order to try and read the evidence. Given that it cost the taxpayers an additional $2000.00 to have them reprinted twelve magnifying glasses might have been a more cost effective measure.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

Monday, November 9, 2015 will see Crown present its summation to the jury. On Friday Justice Butler asked the jury if they would be ready to have him charge them on Tuesday morning the 10th of November. He told them that if he charged them on Tuesday that in the event they couldn’t come to a decision by the end of the day that they would have to remain sequestered through to November 11th which is Canada’s Remembrance Day federal holiday. The jury went out and discussed this and returned to tell Justice Butler that they would prefer to be charged on the 10th. That meant they didn’t think it would take more than one day to make their minds up.

As it now stands Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 will conclude the trial and a verdict will be handed down on that day. Stay tuned folks!

•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Arthur & the Jews The controversy over freedom of speech By Arthur Topham, Publisher & Editor RadicalPress.com

Arthur&TheJewsFINAL

Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech

By

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

October 23, 2015

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

~ Jesus Christ, John, Ch. 8, Verse 32

“For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.”

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

“If this book has any sombre look, that is the native hue of the story it tells, not the reflection of my own cast of mind. I have written with feeling: the feeling of a contemporary, participant, eye-witness and of a journalist thwarted in his calling, which in my belief should serve truth without fear or favour, not special interests. I have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this experience that it was not all chance, but design. Therefore I have written a protest, but it is a protest against the suppression of truth, not against life.”

~ Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion (1956), Epilogue, P. 568

 

Two days from the time of this writing, on October 26th, 2015, a trial in B.C. Supreme Court involving the case of Regina v Roy Arthur Topham will commence in the small city of Quesnel, located in the central interior of the province of British Columbia in an area known as the Cariboo.

In essence this isn’t just the trial of Arthur Topham based upon a politically motivated and spurious Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge initiated by one of Canada’s largest Zionist Jew lobby organization, B’nai Brith Canada. It’s far more than that. What will be on trial from October 26th to November 6th is the legal entitlement of all Canadians to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, both on and off the Internet –  as written in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication“.

The outcome of the trial will determine whether or not Canada is, in fact, a truly open and free democracy or a nation whose sovereignty and freedom has been compromised by the wilful, premeditated actions of foreign lobbyists inimical to the country as a whole. In other words Freedom of Speech will be on trial.

The charge itself ought to be clearly understood by everyone concerned about their rights and freedoms as Canadians. Thus we see that the charge under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Butler will preside and a jury of twelve men and women will make the final determination of guilty or not guilty.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

Basically, to narrow it down to its core intent, I am being charged with willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin based upon the multitude of articles and online books which I have published on my website prior to and since April 28th, 2011 when the complaint was officially laid against me by Canada’s most controversial serial complainant in the history of the human rights industry. Within a month of the first complaint being laid a second individual, an agent working for the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also filed an identical charge.

Upon receiving the complaints, the head of the BC Hate Crime Team, former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson located in Surrey, B.C. along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas, initiated an investigation into the allegations. What was unknown to me at the time was that all three of these individuals knew each other and had known each other in some cases for as long as fifteen years and all three of them were in the “business” of hunting down and attacking individuals and website owners who were being critical of the foreign Zionist state of Israel and/or its ideology known as Zionism.

In fact the two complainants in the Sec. 319(2) complaint were known to be friends and associates as far back as 2007 when one of the same complainants, a Zionist Jew working for B’nai Brith Canada first laid a similar complaint against my person and my website RadicalPress.com using the now repealed Canadian Human Rights Act legislation known as Sec. 13. In other words I have been attacked by this foreign Zionist lobby organization now for the past nine years and have been in a constant battle with them to retain my basic human rights.

The whole of Crown’s case rests upon the key terms “willfully” and “hatred”, which, in the case of the latter term “hatred”, any person of common sense will realize, is a word that, like its opposite, “love”, is imbued with multiple meanings, all of which are based upon subjective emotions of one type or another.

Now there are some serious problems that accompany an allegation which accuses a person of “hating” a whole “identifiable group” such as the “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” based upon not only his own writings but also the written works of dozens of other writers, journalists, video producers, talk show hosts, artists, musicians and so on and these problems will undoubtedly come up during the course of the trial.

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

Without going into too much further detail surrounding the spurious nature of the charge of promoting “hatred” toward all the Jews of the world (an accusation arising from comments made to me by former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson during the time I was incarcerated after my arrest on May 16th, 2012) I would rather focus on letting readers know a bit about who I really am and what my life has been all about since at least the year 1967 when I first became involved in what is now commonly referred to as “political activism” or “social activism”.

I was twenty years old and in my second year of university at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. in 1967. For those who were too young to remember the Sixties or weren’t born yet, it was a period of history not that different from the world we’re now living in. Wars were rampant then as they are now. Protests and civil rights and civil liberties were still in their nascent stages of development relative to today’s scene but people were demanding their rights in the Sixties just as they still are today. Police brutality and corporate crime and political corruption were as widespread then as they are now and the mainstream media in 1967 was basically just as controlled by the Zionists as it is today. The only fundamental difference really was the sudden and unexpected appearance throughout Western society of what became known as the Hippie Movement. It was that previously unheard of phenomenon that attracted me and countless others and became the focus of my life; one which has never ceased or abated since I first became involved with it.

The watchwords of the Hippie Movement were “Love” and “Peace” and our collective efforts to manifest those two positive, life-enhancing moral qualities throughout the war-torn society of our day were what inspired millions of my generation to work toward a world where violence and war and terror and hatred would end forever to be replaced by the fundamental Christian values and precepts taught by Jesus Christ, values that included learning to love each other and respect each other as well as caring for the Earth Mother that sustained us all. These were my guiding principles throughout my life and remain so to this very day.

With that in mind the accusation of the Zionist lobbyists, when it comes to dealing with their own hatred of anything or anyone who doesn’t support their ideological objectives or the actions of the foreign state of Israel and its parallel objectives, that every critic of their political agenda “hates” all the Jews in the world is utterly preposterous and beyond all comprehension. Having fashioned the term “hatred” into a twisted, Talmudic talisman of loathing and contempt through generations of endless propaganda emanating from their own controlled media and then inserting the word into Canadian jurisprudence via legal subterfuge and political influence, they now feel that they have the judicial wherewithal to attack their perceived enemies and somehow stem the unstoppable tide of political and spiritual awareness that was birthed in the Sixties and then embellished beyond comprehension and control in Nineties with the advent of the World Wide Web.

The controversy surrounding the Jews throughout history has now reached the point of culmination. Their mission to stop the truth from being revealed. whenever it applies to their own culpable actions, by using the criminal court system to attack the truth revealers is doomed to end in failure just as their efforts to stop the Internet from exposing their heinous acts of terror and murder and destruction perpetrated upon the defenceless Semitic people of Palestine has proven to be unstoppable.

The Age of Orwellian Censorship is coming to an end and it behooves all people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities and colour including the Jews to recognize that no single group of people has the right or the power or the ability to stem the tide of evolutionary consciousness that’s now happening on this planet.

It’s for these basic reasons that I have fought against the Zionist efforts to control our basic human rights over the past nine years. Now we will see if the country is willing to protect its most precious of gift – the freedom to speak one’s mind and express one’s views on whatever issues they deem of value to sustain our God given right to live in peace and happiness without fear and war.

I pray that God will grant us the wisdom to choose freedom over censorship and love over hate.

•••0•••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

 

Interview with Joseph Hickey of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association by Ezra Levant on Arthur Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal case

ATEditorPic185

Editor’s Note: Only recently did I learn that Joseph Hickey, Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) had been interviewed by former SunNews television personality Ezra Levant on his show “The Source” after the OCLA came out in defence of my criminal charges brought forth by the actions of B’nai Brith Canada, Israel’s principal lobby group operating within our country.

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 10.58.56 AM

True to Zionist form Ezra Levant introduces the topic of discussion by making false, misleading pronouncements about myself (calling me “anti-Semitic” and implying that my website RadicalPress.com is guilty of publishing “Hatred” toward the Jews and then also suggests that Joseph Hickey undoubtedly would agree with him [he doesn’t]) but then moves into a discussion with Mr. Hickey about why his organization volunteered to come to my support.

Mr. Hickey’s position with respect to Canada’s so-called “Hate Speech” laws is clear and unequivocal: he doesn’t feel that such legislation is required in a free and democratic society.

Again, one other example of the Zionist media monopoly’s misfeasance and disinformation propaganda occurs in the video when Levant shows an image of the digital “book” cover that I created for my satire on Theodore Kaufman’s actual book “Germany Must Perish!” and portrays it to the viewing audience as if it were an actual book. Of course he conveniently overlooks mentioning the real book that was written by a real Jew back in 1941 and thus conveys a false image of my work and my website.

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 11.00.03 AM

This video is well worth viewing and sharing with others as it clearly shows how the Zionist media functions in order to suppress free expression and vilify those who exercise it but more importantly it also shows that there is a strong and growing support for the repeal of these Zionist created “hate crime” laws in the form of civil liberty associations such as the OCLA.

I wish to acknowledge Joseph Hickey’s stand on this vital issue and thank him (belatedly) for having presented his positive position in a clear and understandable fashion.

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

••••  ••••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial in October by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Zionist Jew Lobby B’nai Brith Canada Attacks Buddhist Truth Revealer Brian Ruhe by Arthur Topham

BuddhaAttackHdr copy 2

 

BodhisattvaVow

Zionist Jew Lobby B’nai Brith Canada Attacks Buddhist Truth Revealer Brian Ruhe

by

Arthur Topham

They say that the Devil never rests and in the case of Canada’s rabid Zionist Jew lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada truer words were never spoken.

Not wishing to await the outcome of the upcoming trial of R v Roy Arthur Topham set to commence on October 26th, 2015 –  the result of which will play heavily into whether or not the pro-Israeli, Zionist lobbyist will have been successful in using their Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” legislation, which they successfully embedded into Canadian jurisprudence in order to censor and suppress any and all legitimate criticism of their nefarious political ideology and their detestable terrorist, racist supremacist actions in Palestine and around the world – the Zionists are continually combing the Internet here in Canada trolling with vehement and fanatical Simon Wiesenthal “Nazi-hunting” fervour for more truth seekers who are courageously revealing the plethora of lies that the Zionist controlled msm has been mind-controlling the masses with for the past century.

There are more victims of Zionist misfeasance in former democratic Canada than the recent case of Buddhist author and teacher Brian Ruhe of Vancouver, B.C., the foremost being that of Vancouver’s Chinese artist and writer Joe Canuck whose two websites www.joecanuck.net and www.joecanuck.wix.com/justiceforchinese were both surreptitiously and summarily silenced and removed from the net by the server www.wix.com without explanation to the owner, but for now I will focus on Ruhe as his woes are well documented.

What is rather unique about this latest provocation by the Zionist Jew control freaks from B’nai Brith Canada is that they usually spend their time and taxpayer’s money attacking Christians who they feel they can accuse of spreading “hate” toward their self-chosen tribe of spiritual delinquents in order to have their victim’s tossed in the slammer for a couple of years and their websites either taken down and/or, as in the recent case of Canada’s coffee and donut franchise Tim Hortons, if nothing else, at least have their sites blocked from access by the general public.

These Talmudic Marxist Bolshevik Communist inspired censors from B’nai Brith Canada are relentless and deeply disturbed individuals – their insecurity and paranoia being paramount and the transparency of their actions blatantly obvious in every act they perform. Rather than openly debating those who criticize aspects of their own ideological foundations and proving them wrong they prefer to use their “power of the purse” and their undue political, legal and media influence to simply vilify and slander their intellectual opponents and in the process do anything they can to discriminate against and harass them and destroy their financial means of survival.

In the case of Vancouver based Buddhist teacher Brian Ruhe, rather than attempt to have him charged with a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” Criminal Code of Canada offence, they’ve decided to do everything in their power to both discredit his good name amongst his employers and destroy his livelihood at all costs. This is the first instance that I’ve heard of where they are working their vile black sorcery behind the scenes in order to destroy the reputation and good will of a recognized and practising Buddhist. Once again living proof that their Talmudic mindset has absolutely no regard for any other religions or beliefs besides its own supremacist, racist ideology.

Readers who have been following my own case in the courts over the past 9 years of litigation brought on by this same notorious group of self-deluded sycophants for the state of Israel will know that recently I was interviewed on video by Brian Ruhe while in Vancouver early this year while looking after my dying brother. The purpose of the interview was to assist me in raising awareness about Canada’s disgusting, unjust “Hate Crime” legislation (Sec. 318 to 320 CCC) which the Zionist Jew lobby was directly responsible for creating for their own self-serving purposes as well as helping me to raise funds for my upcoming trial this October.

Meeting Brian for the first time in the flesh it was easily discernible to me that here was another individual who had finally, through his own researching and seeking, come to the full realization that all we had been told and taught about world history over the past century was twisted and warped beyond comprehension by the Zionist Jew media acting in and through all of its shape-shifting aspects, be they academia, Hollywood movies, books, magazines, radio stations, tv news and the Zionist newspaper monopoly.

Brian Ruhe is the author of two well-known and loved books on Buddhism. His first work, Freeing the Buddha, pictured below was published in March of 1998.

FreeingtheBuddha copy

FreeingtheBuddha 1 copy

Brian’s second work, A Short Walk On An Ancient Path, came out in 2010 accompanied, as in his first work, with many positive reviews.

ShortWalkonÅncientPath copy

ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 6ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 4

ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 5

Upon reading the book reviews and accolades it was quite apparent that Brian Ruhe was/is a well loved and respected Buddhist meditation instructor. He had moved to Vancouver back in 1980 from Ontario where he’d studied business and philosophy at Brock University. Following a few years stint as a financial planner Brian’s inner quest for greater spiritual understanding finally moved him to begin his search for a deeper understanding of life. Like many of his generation he was drawn to Buddhism because of its focus upon the mind and the age-old practise of seeking within one’s own being for the truths that the soul eternally strives to attain.

Brian’s path led him to a Tibetan Buddhist centre in Vermont, USA that had been founded by the world reknowned Buddhist teacher Chögyam Trungpa. From there he traveled to Thailand where he continued his spiritual efforts for the next four years and was trained to be a meditation instructor. Brian eventually returned to Canada in order to begin sharing his teachings with others.

It wasn’t coincidental nor did it require any amount of foresight to realize that while in conversation with Brian at his Kitsilano apartment in Vancouver during the course of our interview we openly discussed the prospect that it was merely a matter of time before he would, in all likelihood, like myself, soon show up on B’nai Brith Canada’s radar screen and the attack upon his name and work would commence. In fact, it wasn’t long after doing the video with Brian I learned from him that he was being attacked front, left and center by the Zionist forces embedded throughout our pro-Israel, Jewish-influenced cultural institutions.

Of course, as per usual, it began with a Zionist Jew “Lama” (try wrapping your mind around that one!) by the name of “Tsewang” who phoned Brian at his home and threatened to call B’nai Brith Canada (BBC) and report him. Once he did that B’nai Brith’s Victoria based sayan operative* wrote to the Vancouver Parks Board and had Brian fired from teaching at (four) community centres.

On Sept. 14th Mr. Ruhe did get fired from the Roundhouse Community and Arts Centre. When this despicable act occurred Brian Ruhe phoned the sayan agent in Victoria, B.C. and spoke to him.  The BBC operative told Brian “I don’t think you’re qualified to teach.” He then threatened to contact the Vancouver Police force and register a complaint of harassment against Mr. Ruhe for actually having the chutzpah to call him on the telephone to discuss his rash and hateful behaviour!

Following word of his dismissal Brian also wrote a letter to Craig Giles – President of the Roundhouse Community and Arts Centre stating in part,

“As the president of the association you are in a leadership position in our community and it doesn’t make sense that someone in Victoria should tell you how to do your job. Were you under pressure from any quarters to fire me? Did City Manager Penny Ballem have anything to do with this?

I have taught meditation for 16 years at the Roundhouse since 1999 with over 1000 people taking my classes there in groups from 5 to 25. This has helped a lot of people and I have a good reputation with these students. I’ve always enjoyed working with the staff and have had a very good relationship with them all these years. I have booked Tuesday nights here and now it’s too late to work somewhere else for the fall term.

This is a larger issue of freedom of speech in Canada. I was fired for using my freedom of speech in my YouTube videos where I discuss truth search themes about geopolitical power in the world and 20th century history. I didn’t discuss these views in my meditation classes, I was not accused of doing so and there were no complaints from the students in my classes. I feel that I am showing a high moral standard by speaking out for the benefit of humanity. Our country was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom of speech and our forefathers fought for the freedoms that you and I have today. You are in a leadership position so I ask you to consider this and write back to me with your thoughts on this please.

Thank you kindly,

Brian Ruhe

brianruhe.ca

So that in a nutshell is what is now happening here in Canada when anyone decides to question the Zionist Jewish narrative whether it be their “Holocaust Hoax” of the 20th Century, their actions in Gaza against the indigenous true Semitic people of Palestine, their media control over Canada and the West,  or any number of other facets of the Zionist paradigm that the Jews subject their host societies to in order to maintain their power base throughout the Western world.

Brian Ruhe’s experience is not new. Je Suis Brian Ruhe! There have been dozens of other Canadians before him (including yours truly) who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous falsehood by the political machinations of this tribe of psychopathic deviants willing to go to any length to prevent the world from knowing the truth about their dark and sinister agenda for total global control of the world’s resources, both natural and human.

In a very real sense this is the essence of all that I have fought against over the past nine years of ongoing litigation brought on by this power-crazed Rothschild Freemasonic organization known as B’nai Brith Canada. It began on Valentine’s Day February 14th, 2007 when this same deluded maniacal sayan first sent me an unsolicited email using a phoney alias “Brian Esker” accusing me of being an “anti-Semite” and demanding that I stop publishing articles on the Zionist Jews and remove the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion from my website.

Come October 26th, 2015 here in Quesnel’s Supreme Court we will see whether or not these past nine years of harassment, intimidation, arrest, incarceration and theft of my personal computers, files and firearms will end with a victory for freedom of speech in Canada and a loss for the likes of this traitorous foreign lobby group B’nai Brith Canada and their sleazy serpentine zombie trolls. If it doesn’t then we will all be held hostage to these alien enemy interlopers who’ve been destroying our nation and culture for the past century and the country will be torn further and further apart as they once again destroy another gentile nation in their heinous game of power and control over humanity.

Justice must and Will prevail.

——-

* [Editors Note: I am restricted by a court order from publishing the name of this B’nai Brith agent.]

••••  ••••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial in October by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

NDP purge of pro-Palestine candidates plays into Harper’s hands By Justin Podur

DNP purge

https://ricochet.media/en/562/ndp-purge-of-pro-palestine-candidates-plays-into-harpers-hands

NDP purge of pro-Palestine candidates plays into Harper’s hands

By

Justin Podur

[Editor’s Note: All graphics furnished by RadicalPress.com] 

The Conservative Party is on the hunt, and with the help of the NDP and Liberals, they are cleansing Canadian politics of anyone who might think of Palestinians as human beings.

In the first weeks of the election campaign, two NDP politicians have had to distance themselves from statements about facts that are utterly obvious to anyone who knows Israel/Palestine, one nominated candidate has had to resign, and many more NDP members have been blocked by the party from seeking nominations to run for office.

Quebec NDP candidate Hans Marotte expressed past support for the first Palestinian intifada, a mass movement against Israel’s occupation to which Israel responded with the “broken bones” policy of violent repression. When the Conservatives dug up his comments, Marotte said it was proof they couldn’t find anything more recent. He didn’t recant, but he was effectively silenced.

Ontario NDP candidate Matthew Rowlinson had to issue a statement apologizing for signing an “incendiary and inaccurate” letter that included the documented and provable claim that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is ongoing in Jerusalem. The “inaccurate” part of the letter said that Israel seeks a Jerusalem free of Palestinians. As for “incendiary,” we would do better to look at some of the weapons Israel deploys against Palestinians — more on that to come.

The tortured language of this reply to disgruntled supporters is a consequence of muddled thinking.
Screen Shot 2014-07-28 at 11.06.52 AM copy

Then there are those who have been dumped by the party. Nova Scotia NDP candidate Morgan Wheeldon had to resign for calling Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza, which killed more than 2,200 people including more than 500 children, a war crime. NDP member Syed Hyder Ali, who had wanted to run in Edmonton, was told to withdraw his name — because he also said that Israel was guilty of war crimes. Jerry Natanine of Nunavut, the mayor of Clyde River, was tossed because, in his words, “I often side with the Palestinians because of all the hardship they are facing and because nothing is being re-built over there.”

Out of date, out of touch

Those who wrote to the party about Morgan Wheeldon’s forced resignation were treated to an incredibly out-of-date, out-of-touch email response, in which Wheeldon was accused of “minimiz[ing] the horror of violence targeting civilians,” which is “unacceptable and contrary to NDP policy, which condemns terrorism.” The party reply also repeats that the NDP supports “a two-state solution that would see Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in independent states.”

The tortured language of this reply to disgruntled supporters is a consequence of muddled thinking. In 2014, it was very clear that the monstrously outmatched Palestinian fighters were focused on military targets. Of 72 Israeli casualties, 66 were soldiers. The “horror of violence targeting civilians” was experienced mainly by Palestinians. Is the NDP saying that what Israel is doing to Palestinian civilians can be justified by “terrorism,” which presumably refers to the use of rockets by Palestinians (and not the use of heavy artillery and bombs by Israel)?

He should be clear that these circumstances include the high-tech slaughter of children.

NDP policy is at least a decade out of date. No one in Israel is interested in a two-state solution or a peace process. Israel took a decision just over a decade ago to “freeze” the peace process. Since then, Israel’s war against the Palestinians has continuously expanded, with attacks on Gaza’s trapped, defenceless population in 2006, 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014.

To be fair, Wheeldon’s Facebook posts, which mentioned the bombings of buses by Hamas, were also a decade out of date. The last bus bombing by Hamas was around 2005, and in the ten years since, the organization — labeled “terrorist” by all parties in Canada — has focused increasingly on confronting the vastly more powerful Israeli military, while that military has focused its incredible firepower on Palestinian civilians. It may also be worth mentioning that Hamas has been fighting against ISIS in Gaza, and has lost lives doing so, while there is de facto collaboration between Israel and al-Qaeda in Syria, as Asa Winstanley and others have reported.

Infanticide

The NDP’s response reveals that it does not understand Israel/Palestine today. How might the NDP go about gaining such an understanding?

There is Amnesty International and Forensic Architecture’s Gaza Platform, which has data on every bomb and shell that Israel launched into Gaza in its 2014 attack. It reveals a pattern of attack that is hard to explain in any way except as the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was built as an accountability tool, in the hopes that justice will eventually be done, and that those responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians, the destruction of thousands of homes, and the deliberate targeting of hospitals, schools, medical personnel, and UN facilities will face some kind of legal consequences.

Don'tKilltheChildren copy 8

There are statistics, like the fact that infant mortality in Gaza has risen for the first time in 50 years, thanks to Israel’s siege on the territory it has attacked three times in the past six years. Or the fact that life expectancy for Palestinians is 10 years shorter than for Israelis. Or the fact that Israel decided almost a decade ago, explicitly, to limit the number of calories available to people in Gaza — to “put them on a diet.”

Only one side, the Israeli side, controls every detail of every Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank.

There is Mads Gilbert’s new book, Night in Gaza, in which the Norwegian doctor who has spent many years visiting Gaza describes the 2014 attack as the worst he’s seen. The book shows pictures of the heroic medics and doctors who try to save lives and treat injuries as Israel tests new kinds of shrapnel on Gaza’s children. Gilbert describes what he saw as “infanticide.” He notes that, with a median age of 18, more than half of Gaza’s 1.5 million people are children. Those children are not allowed to leave — they are sealed in behind a wall on three sides and a navy patrolling the sea on the other. Israel has imprisoned them. Gaza, notes Gilbert, is not just a prison, but a child prison.

When Mulcair says, as he did in 2008, that he is “an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances,” he should be clear that these circumstances include the high-tech slaughter of children, the imprisonment of children, the imposition of of caloric intake formulas for children, and increased infant mortality and reduced life expectancy. By a matter of simple logic, these are all things that Thomas Mulcair supports.

Destruction

There is Max Blumenthal’s book, The 51 Day War, with its harrowing tales of Palestinians people herded by Israeli soldiers at gunpoint into a house and forced to stay there in the house at gunpoint until the house is bombed and dozens of people are killed.

There is also Harvard economist Sara Roy’s article, which includes a quote summarizing Israel’s approach to Gaza: “No development, no prosperity, no humanitarian crisis.”

Then there is the Israeli side, for which the required reading is Breaking the Silence’s report, “This is How We Fought in Gaza.” It includes testimonies from Israeli soldiers about what they did in Gaza last year. Every single one of them — and there are 111 — is shocking in some way. Choose a few at random. Maybe read about the soldiers’ songs, like “Palestinians only sing the chorus as they have no verses (houses) left” (testimony 1). Or read about the targeting protocols, about how decisions to fire on buildings were made (testimony 51):

“Throughout the entire operation there was a sort of building far away near the coastline… it wasn’t a threat to us, it had nothing to do with anybody, it wasn’t part of the operation… but that building was painted orange, and that orange drove my eyes crazy the entire time. I’m the tank gunner, I control all the weapons systems … So I told my platoon commander ‘I want to fire at that orange house’, and he told me: ‘Cool, whatever you feel like’, and we fired.”

It is playing the right’s game, which it can’t win.

After a few testimonies, readers can take a break and watch a video of Israeli protesters chanting another song outside the hospital of a Palestinian hunger striker: “Why is there no studying in Gaza? Because they have no children left!” Spend some time looking at some terrifying tweets from last year by teenagers taking selfies with captions including “Death to the Arabs.”

Remember that Israeli newspapers are running columns with headlines like “When Genocide is Permissible,” and Israeli politicians call Palestinian children “little snakes.” And anyone thinking that indifference to civilian lives or hateful, racist, and genocidal beliefs are common to both sides might remember that only one side, the Israeli side, controls every detail of every Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank, from where they can and can’t go to their very caloric intake.

Playing the right’s game

Israel is heading in an ever-more genocidal direction towards the Palestinians. Support for this move is only possible for those who give up any pretence of anti-racism, universal human rights, anti-militarism, and democracy. It is only possible, in other words, on the right side of the political spectrum.

1_boycott-israel-campaign_2006_50_70_amer-shomali-basel-nasr1 copy 2

On the other side of the spectrum, the pro-Palestine movement and Palestinian civil society are working on a rights-based, not a solutions-based, framework, and are working towards boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS). Many Canadian politicians have heard of the BDS movement, at least for long enough to denounce it. Mulcair, for example, has said that he finds BDS “grossly unacceptable,” as one might expect of someone who ardently supports Israel in every situation and circumstance.

If the progressive position supporting BDS is grossly unacceptable, perhaps Mulcair might find more acceptable Hamas’s conditions for a 10-year truce with Israel: an end to the siege of Gaza and the opening of a seaport, an airport, and the land crossing into Egypt. This is actually far short of the NDP’s quaint espousal of a two-state solution, since the occupation would continue. But all the same, for the NDP to call for the opening of Gaza and the freeing of 750,000 children from prison in today’s context would be politically significant indeed. It won’t happen for exactly that reason.

These may be the evil political calculations that have to be made in order to succeed electorally. But here is something to consider. If the NDP purges the progressive, pro-Palestine voices from its party out of fear of supporters of Israel’s ever-escalating violence against the Palestinians, it is playing the right’s game, which it can’t win. Israel’s national politics, which has drifted so far to the right that to call someone a leftist is an insult (and “punch a lefty, save the homeland” and “good night, left side” are slogans chanted at pro-war demonstrations), could teach the NDP something about how this works. There, too, left and liberal parties spent the past few elections trying to pander to centre-right sentiment, and have basically disappeared as a political force.

The NDP’s purge of pro-Palestine candidates can only help Stephen Harper, who doesn’t talk nonsense about a two-state solution but simply and openly supports whatever Israel wants and is doing. Those who want that will vote for Harper, not the NDP.

GazaUprising copy 3

Meanwhile, if voters want to cast their ballot this October for a major Canadian party that believes that Palestinians are human beings too, they can’t.

——

About the author

Justin Podur is an activist and writer based in Toronto, and the author of Haiti’s New Dictatorship.

 

BC HATE CRIME TEAM Det.Cst. Terry Wilson Pulls Disappearing Act By Arthur Topham

WilsonResignsHdr

BC HATE CRIME TEAM Det.Cst. Terry Wilson Pulls Disappearing Act  

By Arthur Topham

I recently learned from an associate that Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, Chief Investigator for the BRITISH COLUMBIA HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. has suddenly “retired” from the RCMP.

Former Det. Wilson was the head cop responsible for flying his Hate Crime Team up to Quesnel, B.C. and then, with the assistance of the local RCMP, stopping me and my wife on the Barkerville Hwy while traveling to Prince George on business on the morning of May 16th, 2012 and then arresting me on a trumped up Sec. 319(2) “Hate Crime” charge and tossing me in the Quesnel jail.

TOOMUCHTOTHINK!

While I was locked up he and his partner Cst. Normandie Levas then proceeded to gain an illegal search warrant from some flunky judge down on the coast and then entered my home and stole all of my computers and electronic files.

BBTRAITORS

When I was released just before midnight from confinement I was given an order not to post anything on the internet. Since that infamous day, 1181 more days have passed, first battling with the B.C. provincial court system and now with the BC Supreme Court in order to defend my name and my Constitutional right to publish news and opinions on my legitimate sole proprietor business website RadicalPress.com as well as stop the legal system from possibly sentencing me to two more years in jail should I be found guilty of this spurious, politically motived “crime” initiated by the Jewish lobby group B’nai Brith Canada a secretive, Jews-only Freemason society.

The first question that sprung to my mind when I heard of Det. Wilson’s disappearance from the force was did he leave intentionally in order to somehow avoid having to appear in court when the trial commences this October 26th here in Quesnel and thus escape being cross-examined for his part in this whole disgusting charade that has been ongoing since November of 2007?

Or could it have been due to the fact that Wilson and his “HATE CRIME TEAM” have been wasting HUGE amounts of taxpayer’s money for years trying to catch Canadians who are merely exercising the constitutional right to free expression on  the internet and NEVER gaining a conviction over the time and money spent on this frivolous and malicious enterprise of censorship on the part of the Zionist Jew lobby in Canada?

terry-loves-donuts-2 copy

Whatever the reason this traitor to Canada and sycophant for the Zionist lobby is a disgrace to the country. Having stole years and years of private email communications when they removed all of my computers Wilson then proceeded to snoop about through the hundreds of thousands of private communications like some voyeur trying to find out who I’ve been exchanging my private thought and ideas with since 2006 at the earliest. Whenever I think about this sonofasatan going through all of my private email it burns my ass knowing that what he was doing was unethical, immoral and down right criminal. In fact there is a 5-year jail sentence for people like Wilson and Levas who pull this sort of shit on citizens that still awaits redress.

So this is how our justice system works in Canada these days. The Zionist lobby creates these phoney Commie style spy organizations and portrays them to the public as defenders of human rights and commissars of “hate speech” and then wastes millions of dollars of taxpayer’s hard-earned money threatening, abusing, arresting and charging people like myself for publishing news articles and opinions that the Jewish media intentionally hides and/or distorts from the public in order to cover their own asses and their own obnoxious and nefarious agenda.

Wilson will appear at my trial to justify his actions come hell or high water and justice WILL prevail.

 

The “Jewish Problem” in a nutshell by Ian V. MacDonald

Let2NatPostIanVM

ATEditorPic185

[Editor’s Note: The indefatigable defender of historic truth Ian V. MacDonald once again sets the historic record straight and exposes the sham and shame of the Zionist National Post’s endless propaganda designed to protect its tribe from legitimate criticism. Enjoy and pass along.]

HP – this is a response to a long article flogging the Zionist propaganda canard that dislike and occasional retaliation against Jews stems from some Gentile character flaw, not from their own genetic compulsion to defraud, dispossess and kill, spiritually, if not physically, non-Jews whom they can exploit and subjugate.  White Western civilization is certainly in decline but by now would be flourishing into an earthly paradise had it not been for Jewish-contrived fraternal wars and corruption of the Western “democratic” political process, the diabolical zenith of  which was Churchill’s traitorous secret rejection of generous German peace offers in 1940 – a betrayal of apocalyptic significance, serving solely Jewish interests.  IV

June 15, 2015

Editor

NATIONAL POST

Toronto

Dear Sir,

Re: “Anti-Semitism and the decline of the West”

Prof. Julian Bauer, (NP 15.6.15). perhaps because he is a “Jewish man”, (the term oddly used in your photo caption to denote a Jew) has a totally biased, hence invalid, perspective on the history of what knowledgeable Gentile victim communities call the “Jewish Problem”.

Throughout history, the Jews have been notorious for their avarice and obsessive predatory activities in the countries in which they have settled, to the point that they invariably have been isolated or expelled.  On the occasion of their expulsion from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1777, Queen Maria-Theresa typically described them as a “plague which impoverished people by their fraud, usury, and money lending while committing all deeds which an honourable man despises”.  Benjamin Franklin, a U.S. Founding Father, warned that allowing Jews into the new American Republic would cause descendants of the new Congressmen “to curse you in your graves”. Thousands of current examples of well-founded complaints of Jewish criminality in virtually every form, including catastrophic warmongering and territorial aggression, could be cited.

Professor Bauer’s claim that antipathy and revulsion towards Jews stem solely from unprovoked, mindless prejudice or jealousy on the part of their Gentile victims, is groundless.

As ever,

 

Ian V. Macdonald

455 Wilbrod Sstreet

Ottawa ON K1N 6M7

613 241 5389

Email: IanVMacdonald IanVMacdonald@aol.com

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.

——

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 booklet, 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 end 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 shouldn’t 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 have 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 the 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 maybe the basis of the Crown’s attack, is 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 flames 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 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 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 has 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 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

 

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

FrankFrostYokeofLawHdr copy 2

VideoWarning