Ukraine crisis portends apocalypse, by Dr Paul Craig Roberts

Ukraine crisis portends apocalypse, by Dr Paul Craig

Roberts

Whither Ukraine? Will the attempt to steal Ukraine from Russia and incorporate it into Europe trigger World War Three?

Notes and Comments by Lasha Darkmoon

ukraine-protests-map-ks

Introductory note by Lasha Darkmoon

 

Ukraine has now fallen under the control of Right Sector, a group of violent “neo-Nazis” who hate Jews and Russians even more than they hate the US and Europe. The US has foolishly spent $5 billion helping to finance a coup d’état on behalf of people who essentially hate them. This is the sad and sober truth.

The Western media have presented a totally simplistic and distorted picture of the situation in Ukraine.

One half of the country (the east) is Russian-speaking and loyal to Putin’s Russia. This half of the country, as you might expect, is portrayed by Western media as the “bad half”. The other half of the country (the west) turns adoring eyes toward the US and Europe and longs to become part of the European community and have NATO defend them from Russia. Full of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young idealists, panting for the freedom and democracy purportedly enjoyed by all Americans and Europeans, this part of Ukraine is naturally presented as the “good half”.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the article below will make clear, Ukraine is now under the hegemony of armed thugs whose ideological roots go back to Hitler’s Germany. These were ordinary Ukrainians who had suffered horrendously under Stalin. Roughly 10 million of them had been starved to death in the Holodomor famine (1932-33), a premediated act of genocidal mass murder for which they rightly blamed the Soviet Union.

Since the Russian commissars who confiscated Ukrainian corn and presided over the deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian peasants were mostly Jewish — and since Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution itself  (1917) had the mark of international Jewry written all over them — it is only natural that these Ukrainian nationalists should regard Jews with utter abhorrence.

When World War II broke out, these Ukrainian Jew haters naturally joined forces with Hitler’s Germany.  Hitler would protect them, they thought, from the filthy bastards who had  tried to starve them to death in the man-made Holodomor famine.

Right Sector, who now control Ukraine thanks to American “regime change”, are the ideological descendants of the Ukrainian victims of the Holodomor famine. They hate the Jews for starving their forefathers to death. They hate the Russians for letting the Jews take over Russia. And they hate the US — because not only did the US defeat their ally Hitler, but the US was also allied to Russia in WWII and was itself a disgusting puppet of international Jewry.

The hidden hand of international Jewry must be seen behind recent events in Ukraine. It must not be forgotten that Yulia Tymoshenko, the blonde-plaited darling of so many Western Ukrainians and a former Prime Minister of Ukraine, was known to have close business ties with crime boss Semyon Moglievich, head of the Jewish Russian mafia. I have written about this shady character before, billed as “the world’s most dangerous man”.  (See here).

It needs to be asked: how come the former Prime Minister of Ukraine was in cahoots with the head of Jewish Russian mafia? Who has helped to finance Right Sector? Were those Israeli snipers by any chance who shot and killed both sides in the recent conflict in Kiev, the protesters as well as the Ukrainian police?

These questions need answering.

___________________________________________

Ukraine Crisis portends apocalypse

by Dr Paul Craig Roberts

Who’s in charge in Ukraine? Certainly not the bought-and-paid-for-moderates that Washington and the EU hoped to install as the new government of Ukraine. The agreement that the Washington and EU supported opposition concluded with President Yanukovich to end the crisis did not last an hour. Even the former boxing champion, Vitaly Klitschko, who was riding high as an opposition leader until a few hours ago has been booed by the rioters and shoved aside.

The newly appointed president by what is perhaps an irrelevant parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov, has no support base among those who overthrew the government. As the BBC reports, “like all of the mainstream opposition politicians, Mr. Turchynov is not entirely trusted or respected by the protesters in Kiev’s Independence Square.”

In western Ukraine the only organized and armed force is the ultra-nationalist Right Sector. From the way this group’s leaders speak, they assume that they are in charge. One of the group’s leaders, Aleksandr Muzychko, has pledged to fight against “Jews and Russians until I die.” Asserting the Right Sector’s authority over the situation, Muzychko declared that now that the democratically elected government has been overthrown, “there will be order and discipline” or “Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot.”

The bastards are any protesters who dare to protest the Right Sector’s control.

Muzychko declared, “The next president of Ukraine will be from Right Sector.”

Another Right Sector leader, Dmitry Yarosh, declared: “the Right Sector will not lay down its arms.” He declared the deal made between the opposition and the President to be “unacceptable” and demanded the liquidation of President Yanukovich’s political party.

The Right Sector’s roots go back to the Ukrainians who fought for Adolf Hitler against the Soviet Union during World War II. It was the Right Sector that introduced armed fighters and turned the tide of the protests in Kiev from peaceful protests in favor of joining the EU to violent attacks on police with the view of overthrowing the democratically elected government, which the Right Sector succeeded in doing.

The Right Sector did not overthrow the Ukraine government in order to deliver it into the hands of the Washington and EU paid “opposition.”

There is a tendency to discount the Right Sector as a small fringe group, but the Right Sector not only took control of the protests away from the Western supported moderates, as moderate leaders themselves admitted, but also the Right Sector has enough public support to destroy the national monument to the Red Army soldiers who died liberating Ukraine from Nazi Germany.

Unlike the US orchestrated toppling of the stature of Saddam Hussein, which was a PR event for the presstitutes in which Iraqis themselves were not involved, Ukrainian rightists’ destruction of the monument commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of the Ukraine had public support.

If the Right Sector hates Russians for defeating the Nazis, the Right Sector also hates the US, France, and England for the same reason. The Right Sector is an unlikely political party to take Ukraine into the EU.

Lasha Darkmoon comments:

As I indicated earlier, Right Sector has not forgotten the Holodomor genocide of 1932-33  and the savage cruelties inflicted on Ukrainian peasants by Stalin and his Jewish commissars.

Right Sector also remembers that the Red Army,  at the instigation of Russian Jew Ilya Ehrenberg, not only raped over 2 million German women in 1945 but also raped, tortured and killed thousands of women in Ukraine.

So these Ukrainian nationalists, portrayed by Western media as “neo-Nazi scum”,  have very good reason to be angry with Jews and Russians — especially Russian Jews like Ilya Ehrenberg and Trotsky who made the lives of their forefathers such a living hell.

It is highly significant that all over western Ukraine statues of Lenin, whose grandfather was Jewish, have been torn down and reduced to rubble.

It is also significant that “the chief rabbi of Ukraine has just  declared the country unsafe for Jews and is urging them to emigrate: he says the Israeli embassy is telling them not to leave their homes because Jews are not safe in the streets.” (See here)

The Russian parts of Ukraine clearly understand that the Right Sector’s destruction of the monument commemorating the stand of the Red Army against the German troops is a threat against the Russian population of Ukraine. Provincial governments in eastern and southern Ukraine that formerly were part of Russia are organizing militias against the ultra-nationalist threat unleashed by Washington’s stupidity and incompetence and by the naive and gullible Kiev protesters.

Having interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and lost control, Washington is now issuing ultimatums to Russia not to interfere in Ukraine.

Does the idiot Susan Rice, Obama’s neoconservative National Security Advisor, think Putin is going to pay any attention to her ultimatums or to any instruction from a government so militarily incompetent that it was unable to successfully occupy Baghdad after 8 years or to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban after 12 years?

In only took a few hours for Russian troops to destroy the American and Israeli trained and armed Georgian army that Washington sent to invade South Ossetia.

Where does Obama find morons like Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland? These two belong in a kindergarten for mentally handicapped children, not in the government of a superpower where their ignorance and arrogance can start World War III.

Lasha Darkmoon comments:

Obama has lost it. His appointees to important political posts often appear to be are as clueless as himself.  His ambassador to Sweden was recently found lying dead drunk in the snow. His current hotel chain owner nominee for Norway was unaware that Norway was a constitutional monarchy.  His TV soap opera producer pick for Hungary had no idea what the US was doing in Hungary or what its interests there were. “One Obama appointee,” we are told, “Seattle investor Cynthia Stroum, was forced to resign after running her embassy in Luxembourg into the ground, verbally abusing her staff and spending embassy funds on personal travel and alcohol.” (See here)

Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is to the US or EU. If the situation in Ukraine spirals out of control and right-wing extremists seize control, Russian intervention is certain. The arrogant and stupid Obama regime has carelessly and recklessly created a direct strategic threat to the existence of Russia.

According to the Moscow Times, this is what a senior Russian official has to say: “If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war.” Ukraine “will lose Crimera first,” because Russia “will go in just as we did in Georgia.” Another Russian official said: “ We will not allow Europe and the US to take Ukraine from us. The states of the former Soviet Union, we are one family. They think Russia is still as weak as in the early 1990s but we are not.”

The Ukrainian right-wing is in a stronger position than Washington’s paid Ukrainian puppets, essentially weak and irrelevant persons who sold out their country for Washington’s money. The Right Sector is organized. It is armed. It is indigenous. It is not dependent on money funneled in from Washington and EU financed NGOs. It has an ideology, and it is focused. The Right Sector doesn’t have to pay its protesters to take to the streets like Washington had to do.

Most importantly, well-meaning but stupid protesters–especially the Kiev students–and an Ukrainian parliament playing to the protesters destroyed Ukrainian democracy. The opposition controlled parliament removed an elected president from office without an election, an obvious illegal and undemocratic action. The opposition controlled parliament issued illegal arrest warrants for members of the president’s government. The opposition controlled parliament illegally released criminals from prison. As the opposition has created a regime of illegality in place of law and constitutional procedures, the field is wide open for the Right Sector. Expect everything the opposition did to Yanukovich to be done to them by the Right Sector. By their own illegal and unconstitutional actions, the opposition has set the precedent for their own demise.

Just as the February 1917 revolution against the Russian Tsar set the stage for the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, surprising the stupid “reformers,” the overthrow of the Ukrainian political order has set the stage for the Right Sector. We can only hope that the Right Sector blows its chance.

The American media is a useless news source. It serves as a Ministry for Government Lies. The corrupt propagandists are portraying the undemocratic removal of Yanukovich as a victory for freedom and democracy. When it begins to leak out that everything has gone wrong, the presstitutes will blame it all on Russia and Putin. The Western media is a plague upon humanity.

———

Americans have no idea that the neoconservative regime of the White House Fool is leading them into a Great Power Confrontation that could end in destruction of life on earth.

Ironic, isn’t it. America’s “first black president,” the person liberals thought would restore justice, morality, and reason to Western civilization, is instead now positioned as the person who will have to accept humiliating defeat or risk the destruction of life on earth.

Eighty Years of Infamy by Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 5.31.19 PM

This dynamic volume [Germany Must Perish!] outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

“It is a definite obligation which the world owes to those who struggled and died against the German yesterday, and to those who are fighting him again today, as it is the bounden duty of the present generation to those yet unborn, to make certain that the vicious fangs of the German serpent shall never strike again. And since the venom of those fangs derives its fatal poison not from within the body, but from the war-soul of the German, nothing else would assure humanity safety and security but that that war-soul be forever expunged, and the diseased carcass which harbors it forever removed from this world. There is no longer any alternative: Germany Must Perish!”
~ Theodore N. Kaufman, Germany Must Perish!, Argyle Press, Newark, New Jersey, 1941

On Thursday, March 23rd, 1933 the newly democratically elected Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, in a vote taken in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin by the Reichstag on proposed legislation known as the Enabling Act – the “Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich,” were given a four year mandate to rule Germany, unrestrained by Parliament. The vote, when taken, was: 441 for and 84 against.

On Friday, March 24th, 1933 one day after this historic event, world Jewry openly declared war on Germany.

JudeaDeclaresWarGermany 700

Thus was set the stage upon which Germany and the world at large would be continually forced to bear witness to world Jewry’s endless and psychopathic vengeful obsession with their ongoing campaign of vitriolic lies, racism and HATRED toward the German people and the German nation.

2013 marks the 80th anniversary of this planned strategy of intentional conditioning of generation upon generation of western civilization’s citizens to fear, loathe and despise first and foremost the National Socialist Party of Germany (termed “NAZI” by the Jew media), its leader Adolf Hitler and then, by extrapolation, the German people as a whole.

After eight decades of defamation and endless slurring it begs the question as to why world Jewry would continue to, as the saying goes, flog a dead horse over and over and over again? To what (or whose) advantage is is to constantly harken back nearly a century in order to reinforce what is now, thanks to the tireless efforts of historical revisionists, evidently the most profoundly provocative and colossal LIE ever foisted upon the world?

A day never passes when the so-called “mainstream media (msm)” doesn’t make mention of either Adolf Hitler or the Nazi’s or the purported “Jewish Holocaust”. Relentless and hard-hearted as the tax man or the bill collector the Jew-controlled msm, like the ancient Mariner in Coleridge’s famed poem, holds the general pubic’s attention hostage with its “glittering (tv) eye” while spinning out its slanderous tales of endless misery and woe and persecution, all of which is maliciously and willfully designed to shore up a deceit that is now unravelling before the world thanks to the miracle of the Internet.

Only those born before 1933 could honestly say that they lived in a period of history when libel of Germany wasn’t an all-pervasive reality and the numbers of people living today who are of that age and still conscious of their former world are few and far between.

Those of us born after world Jewry’s 1933 declaration have all been subjected to the unceasing assault on the German nation that still persists today.

It was writers like Theodore N. Kaufmann, quoted above, who spear-headed the intentional promotion of HATRED toward Germany prior to America’s involvement in a war that Hitler and the German nation never wanted and never were guilty of causing. Kaufmann and world Jewry’s aim was to change the attitude of the American people; one that was then either neutral or pro-German rather than anti and twist the truth about Hitler and the National Socialist government and their amazing accomplishments from 1933 until 1939. And so his hate-filled screed titled German Must Perish! was promoted by the most prestigious msm publications in the USA when it appeared in 1941 prior to America’s entry into the conflict. Magazines like Time and newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post lauded the idea of absolutely destroying the German nation and the German race as a whole referring to the grotesquely contemptible concept as a “SENSATIONAL IDEA!”

GermanyPerishF&BCovers copy 3

Once world Jewry was successful in dragging the USA into the war via their choreographed “Pearl Harbour” maneuver all stops were pulled out and the vicious denigration of Hitler and Germany began in earnest never to abate even to this day.

Canadian children growing up during the war years were subjected to all the anti-German hatred propaganda that was carried in the media. Images of Hitler and the “Nazis” were ever-present and for all the German Canadian citizens throughout the nation the devastating effect of such vile and systematic psychic abuse worked its way into the minds and subconscious of those who, prior to world Jewry’s intensions, had been respected members of Canadian society.

HitlerSnowball 2

HitlerDartboard

When the war finally culminated in a victory for Soviet Communism, world Jewry and so-called western “democracy” in 1945 one would think that soon thereafter the hatred and vilification of the German people would have slowly wound down but that was not to be the case.

In February of 1945 the Allied powers met to sign the Protocol of the Yalta Conference.It was then that U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt first articulated the policy of “Unconditional Surrender”, a demand that the Axis powers yield to the Allies without concessions or negotiations. It was Douglas Reed in his 1956 book The Controversy of Zion, who stated in  Chapter 42 of his book aptly titled ‘The Talmudic Vengeance’, that it was an act of “blind vengeance” which meant that “the enemy would not be granted peace at any price whatever, and this was the absolute reversal of all “principles” previously proclaimed by the Western leaders….

“Thus at Casablanca in 1943 the decision to wreak vengeance was first taken. This was the background to the “Morgenthau Plan” of September 1944 (obviously first devised in Moscow, then drafted by Mr. Harry Dexter White for his superior, then forwarded by Mr. Morgenthau to Mr. Roosevelt, who with Mr. Churchill initialed it), the spirit of which pervaded the Yalta Conference and its Protocol. Mr. Roosevelt’s later expression of astonishment (“he had no idea how he could have initialed this”) and Mr. Churchill’s words of regret (“I had not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail … I am sorry I put my initials to it”) are both voided by the fact that both then signed the Yalta document, its child and the charter of vengeance.”

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 2.35.32 PM

No sooner had the Yalta Protocol been signed than the propaganda machines in Canada started churning out their deceptive misinformation regarding what this Protoc0l truly meant for the German nation.

After world Jewry achieved their “unconditional surrender” of Germany (thanks to Roosevelt and Churchill), and the Bolshevik Communists were victorious in gaining full hegemony over all of eastern Europe including Poland and half of Germany then came the next phase of hate animosity toward the German people as the Jews, aided and abetted by their Marxist/Communist compatriots, began to reveal their quintessential ‘ace-up-the-sleeve’ scheme of  blaming Hitler and the National Socialists and Germany itself with having “holocausted” 6 million Jews during the three year period when anti-German collaborators had been placed in work camps throughout eastern Europe.

crucifixion-

It was an old ruse that had been attempted numerous time before throughout the early part of the 20 century but now that world Jewry was able to conspire with Stalin and their Communist counterpart and fabricate false and incriminating “evidence” of such a deed the picture changed dramatically. Using the moral abomination called the Nuremberg Trials, a pseudo-legal process not unlike that of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its attendant Tribunal, where truth is no defence, the victors, via torture, terror and trauma, were able to force “confessions” out of former German military leaders that was then cultivated into fields of propaganda which yielded an endless supply of an adulterated diet of falsehoods for generations to come.

Nuremberg1

Reed also tells us that by 1945 world Jewry’s U.S. propaganda “hate” wing, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith was already carrying out “a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child” in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, “churches” and trade unions. This program included “219 broadcasts a day”, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertising in 130 cities, and “persuasions” subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (“1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation”) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, “and used”, its material in the form of “news, background material, cartoons and comic strips”. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed “more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions”, furnished authors with “material and complete ideas”, and circulated nine million pamphlets “all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed”. It found “comic books” to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated “millions of copies” of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and “2,000 key men in 1,000 cities”.

Constantly beating and pushing their hate-filled anti-Semitic drums, world Jewry’s unremitting mind control operations have carried on right up to the present with book after book and magazine article after magazine article and newspaper clipping after newspaper clipping eulogizing the “6 Million” and lying through their teeth about mythical “Nazi” atrocities in Germany’s “death camps”.

Pulp fiction propaganda such as that depicted in the graphics below are typical of the Jewish publishing houses and reflect their psychotic obsession with publishing HATRED toward the German people.

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 3.43.23 PM

EichmannPropaganda copy

HolocautBook copy

Recently I was in a book shop perusing the shelves when I spotted the following title “Hitler’s Daughter.” I couldn’t believe my eyes. Upon looking at the book I realized that it had been published by Scholastic Books the famed publisher of children’s literature.

When the Jew say there’s “no business like Shoah [holocaust. Ed.] business,” the lesson truly sinks home when one considers the depth of depravity that they will sink to in order to brainwash future generations into believing their insane paradigm of opprobrium against the German people.

Hitler'sDaughter copy

The Final Solution

The triumph of world Jewry over the past eighty years is something to behold. Since 1933 they have worked overtime in an all out effort to flush Germany down the shit hole of history. In the process millions of otherwise sincere and honest individuals have been slowly and steadily insidiously conditioned into believing lies of such a magnitude that only now, after ten decades of deception are they finally beginning to lose their grip over the minds of the masses as the Internet and dedicated historical revisionists continue to make headway in their dismantling of the myths of the 20th century that have perpetuated a degree of HATRED never before witnessed on such a global scale.

Any such force willing and capable of deceiving the world on such a gargantuan scale is obviously not unaware of what has been taking place since the advent of the net, email and social media sites such as Facebook where these topics are slowly permeating and drawing more and more attention. The sense of desperation and panic on the part of world Jewry is palpable. If a person has been studying these events over the past quarter century or longer they can taste it in the rarefied air of cyberspace with each passing day. The pillars are beginning to shake and the deceivers are in a mode of defence that they’ve never had to contend with for a very long time. What to do? How do we stop the sheeple from becoming informed of our Great Deception and becoming aware and concerned people?

Those who have been controlling the historic dialogue since 1933 have always displayed one trait – the fervent need to CONTROL the non-Jewish gentiles (or goyim/cattle as they are wont to refer to the rest of the world’s population). Laws must be enacted to prevent the Truth from getting out and the overall population eventually realizing to what degree they have been lied to all their lives. Laws? What sort of laws could possibly prevent the people from debriefing themselves at this advanced stage of the game? Why HATE LAWS! Laws that will penalize and imprison those who are exposing our planned program of global deception. Laws that will make Truth an invalid, useless reason to speak out against the infamy. Laws that will make any factual evidence irrelevant. Laws that will make it a crime just to DENY that world Jewry’s interpretation of history might possibly be skewed and biased in favour of their own New World Order agenda for global dominance. Laws that will prevent the population from coming to the only plausible and reasonable conclusion that makes common sense, that being, the creators of the HATE LAWS are the very same folks who have been spreading universal HATRED toward the German people for the past eighty years. In other words Hate Laws for the haters and prison and fines and censorship for the Truth seekers of the world who are now on to their scam. Oi veh! what can you say?

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 5.22.38 PM

Well, given my own predicament and the fact that I have been under extreme attack by world Jewry myself for over six years now, I have pondered this question again and again and finally a solution that appears to be almost self-evident now that it came to my mind has arisen.

When the Jewish lobby groups here in Canada who have been instigating and pushing their “HATE LAWS” realized some years ago that sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was actually a double-edged sword and some Muslim groups had the unmitigated audacity to turn these same laws upon the Jews they quickly began an all out effort to have sec. 13 of the Act removed from the statutes*. What that exercise illustrated was that any such “HATE” law, be it in the domain of the Human Rights Commissions or the Criminal Code of Canada is amenable to all Canadians, not just the Jewish lobbies. Thus the obvious answer to the goyim’s woes.

It’s time for Canadians of Germanic descent to stand up and take the bull by the horns and stop simply accepting their fate as victims of world Jewry’s program of hatred and instead become pro-active and utilize these same laws in their own defence. It’s time to stop retreating and time to go on the offensive. Time to reach out and grasp the sword of Truth, pick it up and begin to wield it, challenging the haters by applying the same hate crime laws to the actual perpetrators.

Let us fill our courtrooms around the nation with Section 319(2) “HATE CRIME” complaints against every Jewish person and Jewish media conglomerate and Jewish publishing house that has been spewing forth their vitriolic hatred against the German people for the past eighty years. Let us see how they like it when THEIR freedoms and their “rights” to defame and slander the German people are suddenly challenged from every quarter. Let us see how our federal government likes it when they have to investigate and act upon each and every legitimate grievance that the German people of Canada have to offer them in the way of injustice, prejudice and discrimination to their ethnic community. And let us see how the Jewish-controlled msm reacts to this unprecedented move by ethnic German Canadians who finally say to the government and to the world ENOUGH!

Prologue

I am certain that somewhere beyond this third rock from the Sun there must be a place of peace and truth where honesty and love prevail and children grow up free of mental conditioning so they can spend their productive adult lives doing positive and life-enhancing things that make them happy and joyful and fill their hearts with laughter. In such a place I imagine is where Adolf Hitler now resides watching over his people awaiting the day when their great sacrifices of 1939 to 1945 will eventually be vindicated and along with that vindication will come the release of the rest of the world from the restraints and the deception that have been imposed upon us all.

God be with us all.

———–

* At the moment it is sitting in the Senate awaiting final reading and approval by the Conservative government of Canada.

The Radical Press would like to pay a special thank you to Mr. Ian V. Macdonald for granting permission to use three of the Star Weekly front page illustrations from his superb book “Star Weekly at War” in this article.

StarWkly@War700

 

About Robin Mathews. Adolf Hitler. Stephen Harper. The Big Lie. By Hans Krampe

RADLOGOLATEST

E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.”

~Dante’s Inferno

Editor’s Preface: Ten years ago I could not have imagined that a day would come when I would find myself in the unenviable position of having to openly criticize someone who, throughout the vicissitudes of the last decade, has been a friend, a colleague, a supporter and a contributor to RadicalPress.com albeit, at times, tested and tried due to changing times and the availability of new information that, back at the turn of the century, was virtually unknown.

Both Hans Krampe and Robin Mathews were two of my most prized contributing writers during the period when The Radical was being published in hard copy on a monthly basis. These were the years 1998 to 2002.

The truth be known both myself and Hans Krampe were quite ignorant of the ideology known as Political Zionism when we undertook the publishing of an alternative newspaper in June of 1998. Like the vast majority of people who had grown up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, we were basically products of a cultural milieu that for all intents of purposes was Zionist Jewish in essence. We were, like most folks, truth seekers who for different reasons found the status quo wanting in terms of answers to the big questions of the day. Why the endless wars, corruption, poverty, pollution, environmental degradation and so on? Who was responsible for these perennial crops of evil and injustice? How were we to address the questions and more importantly still, how were we to deal with problems when answers were forthcoming? These were the driving forces that kept us motivated and willing to undergo the assorted challenges that researchers and writers experience when they undertake to explore the hidden dimensions behind what the world perceives as historic truth.

During those early years of publishing we had yet to learn about who the real movers and shakers were that controlled the levers of power and along with our innocence we also were ignorant of the facts behind the causes of the two major wars of the 20th Century. Steeped, as we were, in the Zionist literature of the day that portrayed itself as mainstream, western history, we grew up believing that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists who ruled Germany from 1933 until 1945, represented the supreme zenith of earthly evil and terror. That, combined with the “Jewish Holocaust” myth that eventually took form in the mid-1950s and continued to grow with the furor of a unchecked cancer thanks to the Jewish controlled media we were still under the spell cast upon us when we decided to “dig to the root of the issues” in search of answers to lingering questions.

With respect to Robin Mathews’ views therefore I was more or less in synch on all the major issues even though early in our relationship I detected a bias in his work that leaned toward a Marxist perspective on global issues and was reflected in Robin’s essays that inevitably aligned themselves with the political left.

It wasn’t until around 2005 that I seriously began to question the historical perspective of the west and its basis and only in earnest after a friend was kind enough to lend me a copy of Douglas Reed’s classic work on Political Zionism known as The Controversy of Zion. Upon completion of Reed’s opus an epiphany of sorts occurred in my soul/mind and I could no longer view the world through the rose-coloured, Zionist-tinted lenses that had hitherto been my standard mode of perception and upon laying them down and fashioning a new perspective I eventually came to the realization that what I and millions of other westerners had taken as political and historic truth throughout our lives was, tragically, one big lie, so monumental in scope and depth that it was for many people beyond comprehension.

It was at that point or juncture when Robin Mathews’ perspective and my perspective on world history began to diverge. It was also then that I sensed his gentle, yet grave disapproval of my new-found perspective on political issues and his cautionary words to not attempt to introduce the term “Jew” into anything political for fear of being tarnished with accusations of “anti-Semitism” and so on and thus losing any credibility that I may have gained over previous years.

I tried my best to persuade Robin that to overlook the Zionist Jew issue in politics could only lead to ill-conceived conclusions that would ultimately be of benefit only to the Zionists and their agenda for global governance but all attempts were met with adamantine resistance that usually resulted in long periods of silence where communications ceased.

When I was eventually accused by Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada of violating the infamous Section 13 “hate crimes” section of the Canadian Human Rights Act back in November of 2007, Robin, beyond expressing a faint semblance of sympathy, was more inclined to take the viewpoint that I had it coming because I had not heeded his cautionary words about stepping on the toes of the Jews. I didn’t hold this against him as by then I was well aware that a great divide existed between those who could see through the Jew’s Big Lie and those who could not.

Since 2007, thanks to the increasingly malevolent machinations of the state of Israel, the world has taken some rather dramatic leaps forward in terms of coming to terms with the Zionist Elephant that tramples and destroys economies and nations and environments and lives in the great living room we call planet Earth. Things that appeared but in vague form and outline back in 2007 today stand in stark relief as the world suddenly is forced to come to grips with the ultimate lie of the 20th Century – that of the Jewish controlled media’s ongoing propaganda against Germany and Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party that guided the German nation from 1933 to 1945.

Both myself and Hans Krampe continued to question the historic roots of Zionism and along with that the lies brought forth against the German people. In doing so we have uncovered growing volumes of evidence that clearly vindicate the German nation of any guilt associated with a war that was purposely created in order to destroy the one nation that had the courage and will to stand up to the Jewish banking consortium of the 1930s. We now know that it was World Jewry who first declared war on Germany and then used their power of the “purse” and their media monopoly to bewitch the west into believing that it was Adolf Hitler and the German people who wanted to take over the world and turn it into a global concentration camp ruled by fear and terror.

Today, the world is finally coming to the realization that those who truly wanted to gain control of the world were the very ones who vilified the German people and made them out to be cruel, heartless monsters. By their fruits are they now known to the world and a bitter fruit indeed it is that now attempts to rule our planet by fear and terror and it’s name is Zionism and its ownership is restricted to those Jews who subscribe to the political ideology that supports its existence.

Unfortunately Robin Mathews is still labouring under the illusions that Marx’s dialectic provided to the world and his inability to come to terms with the reality of Zionism has somehow caused him to revert to the old Zionist ploy of dredging up the name of Hitler and the German people to justify his otherwise credible critique of Stephen Harper and the Conservative party of Canada.

Bearing this all in mind I would therefore highly recommend that readers take a close look at what Hans Krampe has to say about Robin’s recent article. The vital question, as always, is to discern what the “Big Lie” is actually about. I believe that Hans Krampe furnishes us with solid evidence that cannot be dismissed without serious consideration and subsequent proof.

*** Please bear in mind that Robin’s article is posted below Hans’ reply and should be read prior to reading Hans’ response.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

RadicalPress.com

“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

____________________________________

About Robin Mathews. Adolf Hitler. Stephen Harper. The Big Lie.

By Hans Krampe

March 17, 2011

AH monument
Our Fuehrer
________________________

I have been following almost every article of yours on the Vive le Canada website about the Basi-Virk-Basi case, the corruption of the B.C. judiciary and “Premier” Gordon Campbell’s — and his cronies — involvement in it and was struck by your meticulous — almost pedantic — attention to detail in your tenacious in-depth investigation. You have produced a complete record for present and future generations to be able to review the facts which are currently being suppressed in the mainstream.

But not so with your April 14, 2011 article “Adolf Hitler. Stephen Harper. The Big Lie.” [see below. Ed.] There your meticulousness, let alone your professed love for the truth and abhorrence of the Big Lie went poof, out the window.

Your comparison of Harper with Hitler is a cowardly, though politically correct, insult of the latter who can’t answer your ignorant attack on his good name. In this you’ve just joined the same mob that goes under what you ignorantly call neonazis.

In case you don’t know, neonazis have nothing in common with either Adolf Hitler or the National Socialists, but they have a lot in common with today’s Jews, as the entire world has ample opportunity to observe daily. By applying, in your hair raising ignorance, the fraudulent images and allegations which you are so fond of, to the German National Socialists, you have become indistinguishable from a Zionist fascist mouthpiece, i.e. a true fascist, that is; though you coyly call yourself a democrat.

I don’t think you know the difference between National Socialism and Fascism. In fact, hordes of Ph.D.s have bent over backwards to stick the label of fascism on Adolf Hitler, and failed miserably, because Hitler and the National Socialist movement were just what the name says. They were not run by, nor controlled by, nor in cahoots with corporate interests.

It was the other way around. Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist government put not only strict controls on corporate activities, allowing them just enough lee-way to operate profitably to the benefit of the German nation, but also controlled Germany’s money supply, an insignificant detail which apparently you’ve got not the slightest inkling about.

The result was, that Germany, under Adolf Hitler’s leadership emerged within four years from abject destitution and national bankruptcy in 1932 — thanks to the Weimar Republic’s spineless, corrupt, incompetent, yet democratic malfeasance — as the most prosperous nation on earth with the highest standard of living, which hasn’t been surpassed by any other nation to date, while the rest of the world, including “democratic” Canada, remained in a deep depression; even though Germany had no natural resources to speak of. Adolf Hitler was more popular, and not just in Germany, than any person dead or alive, on this globe since then, your ignorant and biased frothing at the mouth notwithstanding.

It may be news to you, but Hitler governed by referenda (six within four years). How many referenda have there been within Canada’s entire history, pray tell? And were they internationally supervised, as was the case in all six “nazi” referenda??

Compared with AH’s leadership method of government, Canada’s democracy has been a quisling and bungling basket case forever, despite rubber stamping votes every four years, whose parliaments serve no other function than as troughs for a never ending line-up of criminal swine, like Harper, to feed at. Compared to Hitler’s and National Socialism’s accomplishments, Canada’s so-called democracy is a disgrace and an utter failure, considering that it’s been sitting on a treasure trove of unlimited resources, unsurpassed in the world, for two centuries.

Here is a classical example of evil for you, a real genocidal and sadistic champion of sociopathy. Just take a closer look at your Commonwealth hero: the Jew Winston Churchill. A homosexual pederast with a genocidal record, having successfully starved millions of Bengalis to death with nary a twinge of conscience. He never had to tie his own shoelaces, having always had “his man” doing this job. He also was fond of welcoming diplomats in his bathroom, in the nude, a practice nick-named “the order of the bath”. Being soused out of his gourd was his normal everyday condition and the Canadian military, inspired by his booze soaked schemes on how to more effectively roast German women and children alive under a hail of phosphorous bombs — the more the merrier — were never in the least ashamed to participate in and enhance Churchill’s menace with a menace of their own. Canadians like you are blessed with a convenient tunnel vision and honor Churchill’s memory since the war with a bizarre sense of ignorant and self-satisfied approval that can only be described as criminally insane. In your historical version of the war, all responsibility for allied atrocities has been assigned to Adolf Hitler, allegedly because he didn’t want to unconditionally surrender. It’s like me saying, after I murdered you, it’s all your fault because you refused to surrender to me all your money, unconditionally.

As the photographic and documentary record shows, his refusal to unconditionally surrender was more than justified, judging by the demented and sadistic horrors allied ghouls then commenced to perpetrate on a defenseless and vulnerable German population after war’s end for years. Your unreasonable and vindictive malice shows me that you haven’t a clue of what really happened there.

This, in a nutshell was, and still is, real and manifestly obvious evil, no fabrications, fictions and unsubstantiated allegations necessary. The evidence is undeniable that this was what the allies indulged in with orgiastic glee, not Hitler.

Now let’s look at another hero of yours, Joseph Djugashvili Stalin, a paranoid and malicious psychopath, a megalomaniac and deadly enemy of not just Germany but all of Europe, undeniably the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world, having presided over the brutal, gratuitous and sadistic torturing to death of over 60 million of his own people, executed under the leadership and personal participation of Jewish Marxist fanatics, according to Alexander Solzhenitzyn, one of his more prominent victims, who survived and the testimonies of many others. To compare this guy with Harper would’ve been a much more fitting choice for you.

Compare this with Adolf Hitler, a highly decorated WW I veteran, EK1, a decoration normally only awarded to officers; who spent the entire first world war as a runner in the trenches, the most dangerous job there was; a non-smoking vegetarian and a teetotaler, who became a millionaire from the royalties of “Mein Kampf”. Contrary to your vitriolic allegations, he never broke a promise he made to the German people, in fact he exceeded their wildest expectations, which earned him the undying love and loyalty of especially the workers and farmers.

The image of Hitler you entertain, is your own biased embellishment of the fabrications of historical nitwits, a pathological case of Germanophobia. Hitler never shied away from his responsibilities. Taking responsibility and being accountable was a cornerstone of the National Socialist idea and he promoted it by example. He didn’t lie, nor did he avoid problems, he solved them. The evidence to this is overwhelming, but only visible to those who aren’t deafened, dumbed down and blinded by prejudice. It speaks for itself. But you keep shying away from the obvious because it exposes your ignorant malice.

This is a manifest obviousness you, brave Robin, wouldn’t be found dead acknowledging. You were just old enough to absorb your full measure of anti-German hate propaganda at the time, which seems to have unalteringly calcified within your brain since then.

Did you ever ask yourself what business Canadians had killing Germans, half way around the earth, who had never done them any harm, let alone being a threat?

To anyone knowledgeable about what you keep ignorantly mangling beyond recognition, it becomes immediately obvious that you haven’t done any — Zilch — research worth the name on National Socialism and Adolf Hitler; but you have swallowed, wholesale, the Big Lie you profess to deplore, as if it was candy, i.e. wartime anti-German hate propaganda, conveniently formatted by lynch mobs after the war and made available in literally billions of tons of vitriolic incitement to hate, disguised as historical literature, which you now chuck up and trumpet about as if it was divine gospel.

When Goebbels — and Hitler, et al — were talking about the Big Lie, they meant the common practice of Jews and not, as you suggest, a nifty proprietary method of theirs to deceive the German masses. It becomes immediately apparent when read in the context of transcripts and documents, which you apparently don’t even know exist. I have, but then again, I’m not a Ph.D., suffering from delusions of grandeur. Uncritically parroting other people’s regurgitated Big Lies as if they were established fact, does not make one a credible authority on history, only an ignorant parrot.

In your little anecdote of Winifred Wagner, spelled with one “n” — offered to illustrate your historical astuteness, no doubt — you allege that she complained about Nazi brutality; one among many fictitious allegations and distortions put into the mouths of countless prominent NS personalities, ex post facto, for the sake of emphasis and entrenchment of the Nazis’ “evil reputation”. It’s only a fact in your biased mind, Robin. For anyone who, like myself and unlike you, has diligently researched the period in question, it’s hackneyed and irrelevant nonsense.

That the National Socialist’s movement had to organize a volunteer guard (yes, the SA) to defend themselves against the constant and very real brutal attacks of well organized communist shock troops, led by Bolshevik Jews, fomenting strife and division among Germans at a time when Germany was in terrible distress, is in your mind Nazi brutality. Since Winifred is alleged to have said so, it must be true, eh?

Besides, Hitler would have to have been a Saint not to have had any enemies busily subverting, undermining and spreading rumors and venom about him, welcome fare now to feed your bias with.

As to Hitler’s alleged avoidance of truth, his alleged lying, or his alleged blaming of others, or any other offal you’re fond of splashing on his character, name your sources and provide the proof. When and on what occasions did he behave in that way? The traits you’re talking about are primarily Harper’s, not Hitler’s, and those of Soviet, Canadian, British and lately also of quisling politicians of the FRG who, after 75 years of relentless “denazification” (your kind) are now celebrating the total destruction of Germany by the allies and the mass murder of over 13 million POWs, old men, women and children AFTER THE WAR, as LIBERATION. The unmitigated insanity of it all!! There is no comparison whatsoever possible between Hitler and any despots, contemporary or otherwise, least of all Harper.

In fact, yours is the cowardly denigration of the memory of an honorable man who was not only an outstanding genius but probably the greatest statesman and leader of any nation that ever lived. Little backwoods Ph.D.s, such as yourself, couldn’t hold a candle to his unsurpassed accomplishments, his integrity and his unfailing commitment to Germany’s well being.

To think, that you once stood in front of students, teaching them your uncritically accepted baloney, laced with your own invented associations, is downright scary. It’s people like you who perpetuate the Big Lie, complete with all the malice you’re capable of loading it with.

Finally, for me, as an ethnic German, you’re an offensive and malicious hate monger who welcomes and celebrates his irrational hate of Germany with equally irrational satisfaction; broadcasting undigested rumors, unproven hearsay and personal invention, while ignoring any and all historical fact.

You’re also a coward, who only gets “brave” within the approved perimeters of political correctness, but lacks any and all civic courage outside of it, where it counts.

Maybe it’s an old age thing, like dementia setting in.

—————-

Hans Krampe is a former feature writer for The Radical. He lives in the Cariboo region of central B.C.

Contact Hans at hjk@quesnelbc.com

_________________________________

Adolf Hitler.  Stephen Harper.  The Big Lie.

By Robin Mathews

April 14, 2011

RobinMathews
Robin Mathews
__________________________

A column like this one opens a question that can’t be answered immediately – perhaps not for a long time.

Fifteen years from now an observer may say this column shows how far from reality a commentator could go in the contentious days of 2011 in Canada.

Or, the commentator may ask why only the writer of this column saw the inevitable coming … what became obvious to everyone else … but only when it was too late?

A clue that the second case might be true is the repeated  summing-up of the leaders debate on Tuesday, April 12 by Chris Hall (CBC parliamentary reporter).

Over and over he reported that the leaders of the NDP, the bloc quebecois, and the Liberals attacked Stephen Harper – and that he answered them.  Not once did Chris Hall – or any of the other (‘mainstream’) commentators I have observed say that very many of Stephen Harper’s replies were manipulations of fact to convey falsehoods … when they were not outright lies.

Stephen Harper repeatedly said there was no tax cut for corporations in the latest budget (before Parliament closed for the election).  That was not the point.  A six billion dollar tax cut for the large corporations will come into effect if the Harperites win government.

Those cuts need not come into effect.  And so, in fact, the Harperites are giving large corporations a six billion dollar tax cut.

Lying flagrantly, Stephen Harper insisted his Party is not in contempt of Parliament when it is so without question.

On the matter of the Harperites refusing to provide spending information  (one of the bases of the contempt ruling) Harper said his agents gave all information – a statement which is simply not true.

Perhaps most important of all, he denied the fundamental facts of parliamentary government, insisting that “Canadians” believe the Party with the most votes must govern.  What he argued, in fact, is a denial of the democratic parliamentary system.  In short, he lied.

This morning on an open line show a caller claimed his statement that the Canadian Labour Congress endorses his budget is an outright lie.

Those are five random examples.  Random, I say, because one would need a script of the debate to count up the number of times Stephen Harper lied outright or manipulated facts to convey falsehoods.

He didn’t disable his opponents by superior argument.  He disabled the whole debate by using persistent falsehood and near falsehood.

The latest, mid-election flurry of revelations of misdoing concerns expenditures on the G20 Summit. Allegations are of misleading Parliament by the Harperites (words for ‘lying to Parliament’?), misallocation of huge amounts of money, insider indulgences of Roman proportions.  All that through “leaks” of a forthcoming Report by the Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

In Ottawa, Harperite insider John Baird has spoken with apparent confident authority about what is contained in the confidential Report.  How can he do so?  Who gave him copies of the Report? Did Sheila Fraser? Stephen Harper (characteristically) is avoiding responsibility … for as long as he can. Canadians must ask how many such seamy revelations are waiting for an opening of the secrecy-bound activities of the Harperites?  They must ask the question.

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed, it has been revealed the Harperites took words of praise Sheila Fraser wrote about Liberal financial activities and quoted them about Harperite “work”.  Sheila Fraser is apparently upset!  Stockwell Day apologized profusely.  But the question remains – who did that piece of chicanery?  Did Stephen Harper order it? Can the Harperites be trusted on any matter whatever?

The conclusions which I have come to are quite clear.  I believe Stephen Harper is more comfortable lying than telling the truth.  I believe he is a psychopathic liar – which means I believe he will lie (and follow up his lies) in any way he can to gain his ends and aggrandize his position.

To take the logic of that position to its conclusion, I believe that – if Stephen Harper were to gain enough power – he would murder his political opponents, would have innocent Canadians shot down in the streets. [Remember the Toronto G20 violations of free assembly.]

If what I write is fair comment on observed public affairs, then Stephen Harper may properly be described as a neo-Fascist.

Historians of Nazism sometimes suggest the architect of “the Big Lie” in Nazi politics was Josef Goebbels, the only Ph. D in the inner circle and an early Party member.  But the ultimate author of all Nazi strategies of falsehood in that brutal despotism was Adolf Hitler himself.

He was a friend of Winnifred Wagner, manager – preceding and during the Second World War – of the famous Bayreuth (Wagner) Festivals. Early in Hitler’s time of growing power Winnifred Wagner would express dismay to him about Nazi street brutality against political opponents and others. Like Stephen Harper when faced with evidence of undeniable wrong-doing by the Party, Hitler would say he knew nothing about it, or someone else did it without his orders.  Or he would belittle the evidence or … change the subject or … lie outright.

When faced with inescapable need to act with courage and honesty, Hitler, like Stephen Harper, would take the coward’s way out.

In a moment of brazen bravado, for instance, Harper suggested a one-on-one election debate with Michael Ignatieff – who agreed immediately.  On April Fool’s day, the press announced Stephen Harper’s retreat, babbling nonsense and, again, repeating a simple lie – that a coalition exists and is led by Michael Ignatieff.

Harper’s campaign is built and based upon that and worse kinds of lying.  As the Encyclopedia Brittanica writes in relation to Fascism, Stephen Harper makes a “proud sacrifice of all ethical scruples to success”.  What Canadians must realize is that Stephen Harper employs a complex strategy of lies that are well thought out and employed in no accidental way.

To say Harper is fairly called a neo-Fascist may seem harsh.  But people in democracies must be clear-eyed if they wish to protect democratic freedoms. Even Plato – 2500 years ago – observed that Tyranny develops most naturally out of Democracy.

The characteristics of Fascism across Europe in the first half of the twentieth century were plain:  the sharing of State power with private corporations to pursue common goals.  Using the police to destroy civil freedoms.  Operating all activities under ‘the Big Lie”. Enrolling the Mainstream Press and Media as accomplices in political gangsterism.  Persecuting, starving, torturing, murdering any number of people opposed to the Fascists.

Hitler was determined to take power by constitutional means after having failed in a violent attempt at a coup in Munich in 1923.  Twisting, perverting, exploiting, debasing constitutional practice (like Stephen Harper), Hitler managed to bully and coerce his way to supreme power in Germany – with results we know too well.

Stephen Harper’s wholly perverse manipulation of prorogation to avoid votes in Parliament might have been learned directly from Adolf Hitler.

Harper’s actions to deny Parliament rightful information  and to support the alleged lies of a cabinet minister might, also, have been learned from the earlier “drive to power” of a dictator-in-waiting.

Like Adolf Hitler, Stephen Harper is, I have no doubt, the author of all his Party’s ‘strategies of falsehood”, all its attempts to destroy the democracy in which it presently works. Harper’s use of the RCMP to eject the unwanted from “democratic” election campaign meetings matches Hitler’s “strong-arm squads” created to protect Nazi meetings from  attendance by “the unwanted”.

Indeed, before the present election was announced, I wrote a column on the RCMP and its growing corruption.  In that column I guessed that the dismissal of the top man at the RCMP, William Elliott, was post-dated by Harper because the Mounties would be needed for dirty work in the election.

As happened, RCMP officers have been used as thug “security” in the Harper meetings.  Did those RCMP officers wear the brown shirts of the Nazis?  We know nothing about them.  Who are they?  What are their names?  Why have they not been identified? Who ordered them to act at those meetings?  Was it Stephen Harper?  We must know – before the election.

Nor is it accidental, I believe, that William Elliott – the recently fired top RCMP officer – was, earlier, a key actor in the Prime Minister’s Office undertaking the approval of much-charged Bruce Carson to become a top advisor to Stephen Harper.

Carson is presently under investigation by the RCMP for alleged improper behaviour in attempts to get contracts awarded.  He has a record of misdeeds and dubious connections.  Stephen Harper alleges he knew almost nothing of Bruce Carson’s past.

One may guess that for his good and faithful service first in the PMO, and then in Stockwell Day’s Public Safety Department, and then as head of the RCMP, William Elliot will fall from grace onto a very carefully prepared, soft, luxurious bed.

Under Guiliano Zaccardelli, the RCMP used its “investigation” of Ralph Goodale and the Department of Finance in 2006 to help defeat the Liberals.  Now the RCMP makes clear it can say nothing about the tale of Stephen Harper’s senior henchman Bruce Carson, involved, it is alleged, in a dirtier piece of business than any Ralph Goodale has ever been remotely connected to.

Having very recently discovered ethics, “ethics” is apparently the basis upon which the William Elliott RCMP refuses to report about Bruce Carson.

Carson’s close relation to Stephen Harper and the PMO has, we may be sure, nothing to do with the RCMP’s newfound “ethics” and “discretion”.

The same slippery dishonesty, I believe, is involved in the case of Elizabeth May’s exclusion from the leaders debate.  The key force rejecting her has been, I believe, Stephen Harper.  When the decision of the “media consortium” was announced, both Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff said she should be included in the debate.

Characteristically shifting responsibility, Stephen Harper said he would accept the decision of the “media consortium” – which, of course – consulted the Parties.  Only when it became plain that public sentiment wanted Elizabeth May in the debate – only then did Harper change his tune and say he supported her presence.

If truth is ever told by members of the media consortium, I am almost certain they will report that Harper publicly supported May’s presence while privately telling the consortium he would withdraw if she was allowed in. Harper knows she threatens his nondescript candidate Gary Lunn.  And so I believe Harper – in typical covert fashion – acted to keep her out.

Consider the next minority government.  I believe the Mainstream Press and Media are doing what they can to secure a Harper victory.  If they were being genuinely impartial, they would have to be reporting simple, factual things they are not reporting.  1.  Minority governments occur commonly in parliamentary systems.  2.  Such governments often do excellent work.  3. Coalitions may form – and, if they do, they can govern effectively. 4.  If they don’t form, ‘agreements to govern’ (as has, in fact, been the case in Canada since 2006) can be effective.  5.  And so Stephen Harper’s attack on those possibilities is a sham.  It is a hoax which he is attempting to perpetrate on the Canadian public.

But … more!  The Mainstream Press and Media should expose Stephen Harper’s real goal … the one he is trying to use a pattern of lies to achieve.

Having gone Right to the point of having ‘nut case Yankee policies”, Harper knows they won’t be supported by a minority government.  $30 billions (plus) for fighter planes.  A $6 billion gift to large corporations.  Multi billions to build [who will get the contracts?] new nineteenth century jails to pack with people who shouldn’t be in jail.  And more….

Harper has set up a situation that is so obscene no minority parliament could accept it.

That means the minority parliament will vote him down and will seek from the Governor General the right to rule.  Stephen Harper has, I believe, anticipated that (as I believe he anticipated he would need William Elliott as head of the RCMP during the election).  And so he appointed a Harperite Hack as Governor General.  That opens huge and dangerous possibilities. If the Governor General attempts to work politically for Stephen Harper, instead of constitutionally for Canada, he will create a crisis in Canadian democracy.

In that situation a Harper attempted coup d’etat will be used to prevent a Liberal-led minority government.

If that happens, the Opposition parties will be forced into some kind of coalition.  To save Canadian democracy, the matter may demand an all-party Opposition coalition.  Stephen Harper knows that, I am sure.  He is trying to lie enough to make Canadians believe (in advance) that a coalition is undemocratic and illegitimate.  That is why he lies about it consistently…on and on and on.

Stephen Harper has never let the truth stand in the way of his ambition to rule as what Plato called a Tyrant.

The Mainsteam Press and Media – which opens up none of the facts on this matter, supports, I believe, what is in fact Stephen Harper’s baldfaced lying.  Even the CBC does.  In the face, for instance, of what the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting insist is an outright lie by the Prime Minister’s Office, by Stephen Harper, and by the arts and culture minister James Moore about cuts to CBC funding … the CBC remains mute.

Complicity with lies and wrongdoing can’t go much farther than that.

It is plain that Canadians are going to have to figure out the pattern of lying laid out by Stephen Harper and what it is intended to produce.  They are going to have to figure it out in the face of the failure of the Mainstream Press and Media to do their job. Canadians would be wise to be ready for a major attempt to hi-jack democracy in Canada and to have set up in its place a Harper Tyranny.

Canadians are going to have to realize they’re facing what I believe is a neo-Fascist leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.  And Canadians are going to have to reject him with all the energy they have.
———–

Contact Robin Mathews at rmathews@telus.net

Doenitz and the American Brass by Hans Krampe

Photobucket

Doenitz and the American Brass

by Hans Krampe

March 3, 2011

The Nuremberg Trials Show, a grand standing, self righteous performance launched under the name of “International Military Tribunal” (IMT) — none of its members, except for the Russians, having actually fought in the war — was a politically motivated orgy of revenge, malice, hypocrisy, humiliation and lies; the icing on the cake of the simultaneously ongoing allied mass murder of the German populace, then very much in progress.

It was a copy-cat Stalinist show trial, stage managed by Jewish controlled media hacks, whose principle contribution to the war had been the fabrication of anti-German hate propaganda throughout, performed by mean spirited lawyers, oozing with malice, principal among them high ranking Soviet war criminals; zealously assisted by largely Jewish torturers (interrogators) and sadistic murderers (executioners), often in brand new uniforms.

Ten years later, in response to invitations from U.S. Rear Admiral Dan V. Gallery, over 400 written and signed statements, made by hundreds of U.S. and international Flag Officers, congressmen, Supreme Court judges and diplomats, including the future U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, and prominent personalities of the time condemned the Nuremberg Trials as a disgraceful act of revenge by the victors over the vanquished; as a step back into the dark ages as well as a stain on civilization and a shameful slander of professional soldiers; because the German Flag Officers had done what all Flag Officers in the world do, namely, nothing but their jobs they had sworn an oath to do in case of war for their country.

This expression of belated public outrage happened on the occasion of the release of Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz in 1956 from ten years of incarceration.

Photobucket
To be able to incarcerate or sentence to death the German leadership, military as well as civilian, the Nuremberg “judges” had to break international law by inventing ex post facto crimes, had to suppress the evidence of the defense, produce forged copies of “confessions”, permit bizarre and fraudulent testimonies and ignore their own constitutional principle of habeas corpus by the American lawyers. That the Germans were guilty was a foregone conclusion, as casually accepted as the American’s indoctrinated Germanophobia and hate. No forensic investigation was necessary, neither then nor to this day.

Most bizarre was the presence of Soviet officers, the worst war criminals of WW II, presiding as judges over their German victims, on which they were guilty of having perpetrated unspeakably more heinous war crimes, on a humongous scale, than the horror stories that they had fabricated about the “Nazi Regime”. Their Katyn massacre of 20,000 Polish officers and members of the Polish intelligentsia, discovered and exposed to the international media in 1943 by the German Wehrmacht, they now accused the Germans of, using expertly forged documents and witness statements.

Photobucket

In Admiral Gallery’s opinion the Nuremberg Trials were a kangaroo court by the misnomer of “International Military Tribunal” and that this name was a libel on the military profession. He felt relieved that there was nothing military about it, that it was in fact a lawyers’ tribunal and sarcastically observed how the American Bar had kept bashfully silent on that topic since, not wanting its role in this disgraceful and macabre theater to be widely known. He was “glad that our military men had nothing to do with it”. Hundreds of U.S. Admirals and Generals not only agreed with Admiral Gallery, but some also spoke highly and with respect of Admiral Doenitz.

Doenitz, Raeder, Jodl and many others were being charged with 1) having conspired to wage aggressive war, 2) having waged aggressive war and 3) violated the laws of war at sea; all this applied especially to German submarine warfare. Referring to these charges Admiral Gallery exclaimed in exasperation: “How in the name of common sense a military officer can wage any kind of war except an aggressive one without being a traitor to his country, I’ll never know.”

Hitler,Keitel,Jodl
Doenitz requested U.S. Admiral Nimitz to be summoned as witness for the defense, to explain his style of submarine warfare in the Pacific. Nimitz was unable to appear in person, but declared in a sworn statement that U.S. submarine warfare was just as aggressive in the Pacific as the German submarine warfare in the Atlantic, that in fact no other mode of submarine warfare was possible in this day and age and that the outdated laws of war at sea were impossible to adhere to since they applied to the era of tall ships, which was long gone. This resulted in an awkward back-paddling by the kangaroos.

Admiral Doenitz was acquitted of the first charge but found guilty of the other two. To find fault with his impeccable and capable conduct of the war they accused him of having deliberately prolonged it, ignoring the fact that in 1945 Doenitz had to evacuate from East Prussia ten times more refugees than the British had evacuated from Dunkirk. As soon as he had brought as many refugees as possible to safety he surrendered. It seemed to be of no consequence to the kangaroos that it was in fact the allied demand of unconditional surrender which prolonged the war. The German leadership was fully aware what they would be facing in such an event and rather chose to fight to the last bullet than to submit themselves voluntarily to certain ignominy and horror. As it turned out, what followed proved them right, in spades.

Raeder was sentenced to life, Doenitz to ten years, while many others were sentenced to be executed and summarily strangled to death.

While all these high ranking allied officers commiserated with their enemy colleagues, none of them seemed to have known clearly, nor cared, why the war was fought. It was enough for them to get the order to fight, whipped into the mood by relentless hate propaganda. It sufficed for them to “know” that the German government was evil; just as General Colin Powell, presiding over the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, “knew” that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Ten years too late, they remembered that they owed a debt of chivalry and an apology to Admiral Doenitz, et al, not to mention justice.

They couldn’t find it in their hearts to extend the same sentiments to Rudolf Hess, who languished in Spandau, a prison built for 600 prisoners, the only one there, kept in solitary confinement until 1987, when he was murdered at age of 93, strangled to death.

Such sentiments were also absent when they “merely did their sworn duty”, bombing the German civilian population to smithereens. And even in 1956, as they expressed regret for the treatment of German flag officers, they couldn’t have cared less what they had done to the German nation at large. Not one of them expressed any regret about what they had done to German women and children, by the millions; to the German POWs — AFTER THE WAR — by the millions; or the flattening of the beautiful towns and cities that had taken more than a millennium to build; not to mention the theft of trillions of dollars worth of German patents and industrial hardware. They had just followed their orders, as they had sworn an oath to do. What was a virtue for them had to be, of course, a vice for the Germans, rooted in evil Bismarck’s Prussia. It was the pin-point rationale of the kangaroos sitting in judgment, tailoring crimes to fit the anti-German war propaganda.

According to Admiral Gallery, however, just that is the proper conduct of flag officers, “after all, one thing the much maligned military brass must do, in a democracy as well as a dictatorship, is swallow their convictions, if any, and do as they are told by their politicians…” In other words, for a flag officer it doesn’t matter what kind of political creep gives the orders, it’s best not to have an opinion about anything, to avoid unnecessary problems with indigestion. By this rationale, Flag Officers are capable of ordering the shooting on their own unarmed people, if ordered to do so, as they did in 1970 at Kent state university, or as they are currently doing to innocent peoples all over the world.

It doesn’t seem to occur to any of them that they also swore an oath to defend the United States and its constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Yet, they are blind to the enemy within — their own government — and keep following the orders, with a few notable exceptions, of presidential morons with blatantly genocidal intentions, to wage aggressive war without there being ever a hint of a threat, other than manufactured ones. The American brass seems to have been oblivious that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were the only ones who had made every effort to avoid WW II, while their own government did the opposite.

The 400 expressions of regret about Admiral Karl Doenitz’s incarceration and their condemnation of the IMT were edited and published in book form in 1976 by H.K. Thompson, a Yale graduate of naval science and history; and Henry Strutz, a teacher of foreign languages and history. The title: Donitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, War Crimes and the Military Professional.

Needless to say, it never became a bestseller.

________________

Hans Krampe lives in central B.C. and was a feature writer for The Radical 1998 – 2002. He was born in Germany during WWII and spent his early years in East Germany. After a stint in the German navy he immigrated to Canada back in the 1970s.

Hans can be reached at Hans Krampe hjk@quesnelbc.com

Terrorism Defined by S.H. Pearson

protocZion

 http://shpearson.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/terrorism-defined/

Terrorism Defined

by S.H. Pearson

Terrorism is violence and intimidation used to get people to do what you want.  For example, if you want college students to go along with invasive video cameras placed everywhere on campus, just get “a crazy gunman” to shoot a few of them.  Like the man wrote in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, all you have to do is show people some blood and they will do anything you want.

After the Virginia Tech “gunman” sprayed bullets into a classroom, suddenly our campus turned into a video surveillance police state.  It was like they were at the ready to slap everything into place as soon as young Mr. Cho shot his classmates.  My campus changed over night.  To me there seemed a strong correlation between the Cho killings at Virginia Tech and sudden video surveillance at college campuses.

Notice how rapidly a similar thing occurred after 9/11.  A sudden upsurge of surround-sound surveillance of every technology.  Video, audio, database, cyber-space, in-your-face…  Everywhere at every angle.  And of course the panted-after wars for Israel.

This was further proven by how corporate wage-slaves were herded into briefings about how to only “give out” their first names.  No more proper identification required from those who are supposed to serve you, but they now demand a dossier on every Joe Citizen.

Speaking of Joe’s — Joe McCarthy was right.  Get up the guts to look around.  Who can deny it?  Terrorism, usury, 360-degree surveillance, torture, Guantanamo Bay Gulags — that’s Trotskyite communism.  And we got it, Daddio, like a case of lice.

Remember Point Lookout, Maryland?  How different is that from the prison on Key West?  Only one road in and out of the place.  A tight bottleneck of control.  In Maryland it was a freezing, burning spit of land that jutted into the water.  Chesapeake Bay on one side and Potomac River’s wide mouth on the other.  A place where they tortured Confederate prisoners of war by exposure to the elements, disease and deprivation.  Key West is surrounded by bull-sharks just like Cuba.  Their potential for hell on earth is staggering.  Don’t let your government get too big.  If they can pull a Point Lookout in the 1860’s, what can they pull today?  And yes, “honest” Abe Lincoln was no such thing.  That’s why his statue is the biggest one in Washington DC, the City of Truth.

Terrorism is a tool of politics.   Politics is power.  A nation/country/state has power only so long as it is able to wage war against other powers. War is when two opposing forces set about killing each other.  The winner then takes from the loser whatever he wants.  One of the papers from the war college stated casually, “There will always be war as long as one guy wants another guy’s stuff.”

Once a State loses the ability to wage war, it is usurped and dominated by another State who can.  Case in Point.  Germany.  Since Germany’s defeat by the allied forces of WWII, it has been occupied, enslaved, slandered, lampooned and calumniated.  It’s culture and people have been under siege since 1945.

What’s going on in the Middle East is very much similar.  Israel, backed by world Jewry and their money-power, uses the armies of other nations as their attack dogs.  The counterfeit State of Israel whose plinth is a lie, wages unprovoked wars against weaker States like a school-yard bully.  The bully extracts money from other States via usury, “hollow-cost” reparations and taxes, taxes, taxes.  Their financial rape of the world is almost as bad as their terrorism.

The “War on Terrorism” is yet another elaborate Jewish hoax begging for exposure.  A great thinker once wrote that if you tell a big enough lie, most people will believe it.  Simply because nobody believes that someone would tell that big a lie.  The “War on Terrorism” is that big a lie.

There is no Al Qaeda anymore than there is an Easter Bunny.  There is no Islamic culprit for the “kick-off” that started our 9/11 mess.  Anymore than there was a systematic killing of Jews by Nazi Germany.  One tall tale is as big of a lie as the next one for which there stands not a jot of forensic evidence.  Here I have to quote CSI MIAMI, “People sometimes lie — but the evidence never does.”

Terrorism, thy name is Israel.  The Whore of Babylon who sits on many waters.  She who purchases the souls of men and leads them to the abyss.  The corrupt governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, USA, India, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the ridiculous European Union and many others all fit the bill and set the stage for the course we are on today.

Let’s name the dirty dogs.  Based in Afghanistan are shady characters who fund, support and train mercenary terror.  These Joe Shady’s cultivate terrorism like fish in a trout farm.  They sneak around Pakistan, running weapons.  Then when they are caught red-handed, the U.S. Embassy plays dumb and anybody else involved gives them the old “deny it” routine.

Mercenary terrorism is being injected into Pakistan today by our Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Israeli Mossad.  The so-called terrorists are simply a fabrication.  Just find yourself some low-life thugs, the starving unscrupulous, secular mercenary scum and half-hearted dullards.  Unfortunately the world has no shortage of these.  For money they’ll do just about anything.  What have they to lose?  By the looks of some of these campers — not much.  I have seen footage of Pakistani soldiers unveiling them from women’s clothes.  They were hiding under burka’s.

The CIA drone-bombs sleeping children in back-country Pakistan whilst protecting their terrorist assets in the region at the same time.  That is, unless any of them try to strike a peace deal with the locals — then the CIA picks them off.  Awe, don’t you wish that I didn’t read so much “real news?”  Like how our Joe Shady’s send unsuspecting Middle Eastern boys on errands to drop off U.S. vehicles that blow up when they reach a crowded destination.  You inglorious bastards are so busted.

The underhanded money-power knows that there is always a soldier of fortune to be found.  A pit-bull who knows nothing but a fight.  Problem is with these attack dogs, most haven’t a clue what they are fighting for.  If they did they would die of shame and regret.

As for the young soldier who is drafted into warfare, given a weapon and pushed into the field — his is another story.  For him, there is only kill or be killed.  Cock fight.  Dog fight.  A game of dodge-ball.  Like two years ago in Iraq.  American war planners stormed in and tried to “deputize” the Iraqis into killing their own countrymen.  Today they are pulling the same schtick in Pakistan, trying to bamboozle Pakistanis into picking fights with their virtuous Muslim brothers, the Taliban.   Now smeared and calumniated by the Jewish press world-wide, the Taliban was the best thing that ever happened to Afghanistan.  There’s an American soldier who died with these words on his lips, “Why am I guarding the poppy fields?”  He was not killed by Al Qaeda the Easter Bunny.  He was picked off by our crooked government.  You may have heard of him.  His name was Pat Tillman.

One thing the boys from the war college don’t seem to understand is how Muslims don’t live and think like garden variety Americans.  They are not dumbed-down and hypnotized by TV.  Nor romanced by smut and junk food. They don’t pop pills and worship at the temple of Mammon.  And they don’t give a damn about what’s in style.

Muslims fear God.  And God alone.  Hence, there are few cowards among them.  And hence the hounds of war are getting their asses handed to them in Afghanistan as I write.  It is never an easy fight — besieging God’s people.  Ask the men in blue at the First Battle of Bull Run.  They said it would be over in one afternoon.  They spoke too soon.  An invading mercenary cannot fight like a man who is defending all he has and loves.  I don’t care how much money you pay him.

Let us not forget the secular Marxist grumblers in Baluchistan who lend themselves fortuitously to CIA’s “make a terrorist” drive.  Exploiting sectarian unrest for one’s own agenda has ever been the hallmark of CIA.  So they stir up all the divisive hate and discontent they can in Baluchistan between Marxist and Muslim — and have a field day.

Add to such wheelings and dealings any installations of grinning poser puppets like the ones presently holding office in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in our White House — then you have the rest of the story.

—————-

The Heretics’ Hour Interview with RadicalPress.com publisher Arthur Topham

Voice of Reason Radio Network.com
VoReasonRadiologo

http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=6792

The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Arthur Topham

March 29, 2010

ATMugCarolyn Yeager
Arthur Topham &  Carolyn Yeager

Carolyn Yeager interviews Arthur Topham, a Canadian publisher & editor fighting a legal battle against B’nai Brith Canada, which filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007. Topics include:

• How the CHRC and Section 13 came into being
• Agent Z and the power of B’nai Brith Canada
• Importance of the Marc Lemire case in saving fundamental freedoms
• Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a blueprint
• and more


About Arthur Topham

Arthur Topham is the publisher and editor of Canada’s alternative news network, RadicalPress.com, founded in 1998. Since November of 2007, he has been involved in a legal battle with B’nai Brith Canada, which filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission under the controversial Section 13 legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging that he and his website were contriving to promote hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel. The case has been ongoing now for over two years and is currently being processes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Arthur Topham’s website is located at RadicalPress.com; extensive documentation related to his fight for freedom of speech in Canada can be found here.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

http://reasonradionetwork.com/_archive/VoR_The_Heretics_Hour_20100329.mp3

Contact Carolyn:
carolyn@reasonradionetwork.com

© 2008-2010 The Voice of Reason Broadcast Network · All rights reserved · XHTML · Log in

1001 Quotes By and About Jews – Part One (1 to 100)


http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/13texan/1001ndx.htm

1001 Quotes By and About Jews

Compiled By: Willie Martin

001

VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer:

“Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race…”

“The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous – cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.” (Essai sur le Moeurs)

“You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’ Examen des Quelques Objections…dans L’Essai sur le Moeurs.)

002

“You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them.” (“Juif,” Dictionnaire Philosophique)

003

“I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made…But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.” (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)

004

“They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)

005

CANNOT, E. 19th century French reformer. In La Renovation,journal of the socialist school of CHARLES FOURIER: “Jews! To the heights of your Sinai…I humbly lift myself. I stand erect and cry out to you, in behalf of all my humble equals, of all those whom your spoliation has brought to grief, who died in misery through you and whose trembling shades accuse you:  Jews! for Cain and Iscariot, leave us, leave us! Ah, cross the Red Sea again, and go down there to the desert, to the promised land which is waiting for you, the only country fit for you; o you wicked, rude and dishonest people, go there!!! (“Israel”)

006

“I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. ‘We may expect important developments in the world.’ These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities.” (The Judisk Tidskrift, No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929, written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden).

007

“Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later…” (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

008

“Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur’s men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: ‘The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler’s anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany.'” (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).

009

“Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged! Kill every German — wipe them out!” (Llya Ehrenburg, Glaser, p. 111).

010

“The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end.” (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)

011

“Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child.” (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)

012

“Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war. But we, (England), declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans'(Jews) around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentless pursued now, only under a different label.” (Ashamed and Humiliated The British Attorney General, Sir Hartle Shawcross, said in a speech at Stourbridge, March 16/84 (AP)).

013

“Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us.” (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)

014

“Judea declares War on Germany.” (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)

015

“Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War.” (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).

016

“The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…” (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

[Read more…]

AND THERE THE JEWS! from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5 by Douglas Reed. 1941


Famous English war painting ‘Merry-go-round’ by Mark Gertler painted after the Somme, 1916

___________________________________________________________________________


AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941

Editor’s Preface: It was my intention to have this chapter from Douglas Reed’s 1941 book, A Prophet At Home typed up and published online for November 11th to coincide with Remembrance Day. It didn’t happen but readers will still benefit from what the author has to say about conditions in Britain in 1939-40 as they relate to those of today in Canada and the USA as well as elsewhere in Europe, etc.

Reed returned to England in 1939 from the Continent after spending a number of years in Berlin, Vienna and Prague working as Chief correspondent for the London Times. In that capacity he was privy to a panoramic view of the political landscape in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia leading up to the resumption of the World War in 1939.

This particular chapter from his final book of a three-part series that began in 1938 with Insanity Fair followed in ’39 by Disgrace Abounding is extremely relevant to our own times and bears close reading. Seventy years have passed yet the information contained in this chapter appears to be in a time-warp as if the conditions which precipitated it somehow were frozen in time. As such it now stands as a striking historical record, clearly illustrating the degree of power and influence which the Zionist Jews of his day wielded over the British parliament and the British press.

Concomitant with this fact and more important in terms of today is the evidence which Reed provides that shows how the Jews of the 1930s were already consummate masters of the immigration game.

It has been a contention of mine for a number of years that the Zionist Jews who control Canada’s PM, House of Parliament and Judiciary are using their illegitimate influence over government to manipulate and control immigration policies; ones which have been having a detrimental effect upon Canadian society for decades and which also dovetail fully with the Zionist agenda of destroying all nation states in the world in order to facilitate the implementation of their Zionist one world government.

Immigration, like the control of the media, banking, pharmaceutical conglomerates, major corporations including oil and gas and water and cultural and educational institutions, is a vital part of the program to destroy the democratic framework upon which sovereign nations are built and the Zionist Jews have been working this tool here in Canada and elsewhere with deftness and surgical precision for many, many decades. This thesis that immigration policies are being exploited for partisan Zionist purposes should become obvious to any reader who takes the time to study what Reed has to say about the invasion of England by the Jews of Eastern Europe, or as the Jewish media of the day was wont to call them, ‘friendly aliens’; an endearing term to describe the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who flooded into Great Britain during the years leading up to the second act of the World War to take advantage of the precarious political conditions then existing in the British Isles.

There is much more though in this chapter that helps to explain some of the current behaviour on the part of today’s extremist Zionist Jews who are going to great lengths to deflect the growing criticism of their doctrine of supremacist discrimination and racism that is now becoming almost rampant on the one venue for free information still not entirely controlled by their excessive and pervasive power – the Internet.

Reed explains how the Jews of his day used their “anti-Semitism” card to full effect whenever anyone challenged the government’s and the media’s blatant discrimination aimed at the English and the Arabs while all the while consistently favouring the ‘friendly alien’.

Given the fact that today, seven decades later, Canadians in the majority still haven’t grasped the fact that their “mainstream” media and their government are absolutely controlled and manipulated to suit this extremist Zionist Jew agenda, Reed’s prophetic warning of 1941 stands forth in even greater relief as a hallmark to be heeded by anyone concerned with knowing the truth about who is really pulling the strings of our Members of Parliament in Ottawa.

The parallels between Reed’s description of the behaviour of the Members of the British Parliament respecting the ‘friendly aliens’ during a period of critical danger to the nation as a whole and that of our own parliament today is as uncanny as it is frightening to contemplate. It begs the question as to whether the term “change” is in fact a reality or merely a ruse to soothe the ignorant citizenry who still are brainwashed by the Zionist Jew tube.

Read Reed and you will discover why censorship and draconian legislation like sec. 13 today are of such paramount importance to the Zionist Jews and why the extremist Zionist Jew must continually re-create this false illusion now being coined as the “new anti-Semitism” by such Zionist Jew zealots as our former federal Liberal Attorney-General Mr. Irwin Cotler and being flogged upon an unsuspecting public by the likes of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and even committees formed from our Members of Parliament.

Anyone wishing to access what remains of Reed’s works is encouraged to go to http://www.abebooks.com where you will still find a few of his works available. His most highly recommended work of course is the 1956 edition of The Controversy of Zion which readers will find online at RadicalPress.com.
—————-


AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941


DOUGLAS REED

A provoking thought: if Rupert Brooke, whose poetry, as Lord Halifax said in his ‘This is a conflict of youth against youth’ speech, so inspired the generation of 1914, if this Rupert Brooke had not died, with about a million other Britishers, in the 1914-1918 section of the war which has now been resumed, he would have needed to revise the poem he wrote in the Cafe des Westens, in the Kurfurstendamm in Berlin, in 1912. He wrote that poem sitting at the same table with a friend of mine, Rothay Reynolds, who in the years between the two sections of the World War struggled hard to fulfill the difficult task of being Berlin Correspondent of Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail, and when Rupert Brooke had finished he turned to Rothay Reynolds and said, ‘I have made this cafe famous’, which was true.

I well remember how that song of England wrung an Englishman’s heart, that is, the heart of a very young and fervent Englishman, who took on trust nearly everything he was told about his native country, of which he had seen but little, in the 1914-1918 war. But if Rupert Brooke had lived in 1939, or thereabouts, he would have found himself out of touch with the taste of the times. For his poem, ‘Grantchester,’ begins:

Du lieber Gott!
Here am I, sweating, sick and hot,
And there the shadowed waters fresh
Lean up to embrace the naked flesh.
Temperamentvoll German jews
Drink beer around – and there the dews…

Well, well, well. How times have changed. Rupert Brooke is dead; the war-to-end-war has gone and the war-to-continue-war is simmering nicely; but the relative position of Jews and dews seems to have been reversed, or have we now both? Rupert Brooke, the singer of the generation of 1914, seemed to find the Jews in Berlin a thought unsympathetic and none took it amiss of him that he said so; indeed, the thought of those temperamental beer-drinking Jews in Berlin helped to fortify the faith of the young Englishman of 1914 in ‘the things he was fighting for’. Now we, he thought, have dews, and we are going to keep them.

But if Rupert Brooke had written twenty-five years later he would have known that those two lines must come out, or else he would have had to find a fresh rhyme for dews, for by the time the World War in which he died was resumed no Englishman of his class and kind would have thought of writing anything which would set the critics yelping the dread name ‘anti-Semite’.


             RUPERT BROOKE – BRITISH POET

By the time the World War was resumed, indeed, the general understanding had come to be that the Jews of Berlin were the most valuable citizens of that town and that we were very lucky indeed to have them, because they were so much cleverer than ourselves. By some further process of reasoning which was a little outside my comprehension, the general understanding seemed also to be that we should fight Germany to enable these people, whom we had been fortunate enough to obtain, to return there as soon as possible; this, as far as I could gather, was among ‘the things’ we were about to fight for.

When I returned to England, on the eve of the new war which had become almost inevitable, I brought back with me a particular interest in this question, because for many years, since 1933, I had noticed, with growing misgiving, that, chiefly through the very great influence which the Jews in all countries exercised in the interest of their co-religionists, this relatively small aspect of an enormous problem was being set out of all proportion to the whole, that the entire wood was disappearing behind one tree.

[Read more…]

Thought Makes You Free In the EU [and Canada] by Bernhard Schaub

Thought Makes You Free In the EU [and Canada]
by Bernhard Schaub

The world is in flux. The financial crisis has shattered our too-blind faith in the regnant economic and political system. The good in this crisis: it makes you think. Many realize that the remedies proposed by government are no remedies at all, but merely measures intended to keep the existing system alive. The idea is spreading that the whole thing in reality is a giant redistribution intended to concentrate money and power into even fewer hands than before. It is high time to end our unquestioning ways with some serious thought.

The present economic system-like all systems-rests on certain axioms, certain underpinnings, that cannot be disturbed without putting the entire edifice into danger of collapse. Such underpinnings are for that reason always sacrosanct.

He who wishes to be accepted, or even merely tolerated in our society does well to acknowledge, or at least not to openly dispute, certain core beliefs: To these belong devotion to the free market, including debt financing and the independence of the banking system, to so-called parliamentary democracy, including the attendant two-party system, devotion to philo-semitism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, and abortion together with the highest praises for the civil rights to which one considers oneself entitled.

It is even permitted to belong to whatever religion or philosophy one might wish to-but subject to the unstated condition that one doesn’t really take it seriously. Otherwise, one acquires very quickly the odor of fundamentalism.

In today’s political and cultural landscape, a fundamentalist is anyone who holds his Catholic, or Evangelical, or Islamic, or national-or whatever feelings of any kind-above those highest of values enumerated above. Therefore, fundamentalists cannot be tolerated under the global New World Order that is the central theme of American politics. It is only a very slight distance that separates the fundamentalist from the charge of  being a terrorist. And it is not necessary here to spell out what sort of treatment awaits terrorists. That has been ordained by 9/11.

The thoughtful European notes with puzzlement that the proscriptions set forth by Political Correctness and monitored by the culture and the law grow more numerous every day. The citizen is condemned to silence by all manner of gag laws and cowed by the looming threat of the EU criminal code because he no longer knows what is punishable, nor why, nor where. Lately, we’re told, nearly 14,000 “rights violations”-whatever those might be-were committed in Germany in 2008, of which fully 700 were violent. Therefore, there remain from these numbers about 13,000 nonviolent “rights violations.” This is notable, especially in light of the incessant reminders by self-righteous German politicians to China and other countries to “uphold civil rights.” Obviously, the sacred rights of freedom of expression, academic freedom, religious or philosophical belief, etc., are valid only so long as they don’t oppose any of the listed Canons of Western Values.

Catch-22

Here is a Catch-22. It is profoundly disingenuous, not to say outright mendacious: an easily seen-through maneuver for the benefit of the ruling elites of the West.

The greatest taboo of Western propriety, however, is of a historical nature. That is, where the matter has to do with Nazism or the so-called Third Reich, contemporary thought abdicates completely. The brain is relieved of its function, and quasi-religious reflexes take over. All powers of discernment cease, any inquiry into the Holy Writ is thought inappropriate, even malign. Here there is only one viewpoint allowed: the Nazis-read, the Germans-are perpetrators, and exclusively that, and the Jews are victims, and innately and eternally, no less. The uproar about Erika Steinbach, Eva Herrmann, Martin Hohmann, and General Gunzel serves to illustrate. Whoever doubts these supreme tenets of belief is no longer a discussion partner, but instead a leper and a heretic rolled into one, subjected instantly to inquisitorial judgment, ostracism, and economic destruction. And everyone who has anything to do with such a person must immediately distance himself.

This goes double for questions concerning the Holocaust, the inner circle of this minefield. The never-ending rumble of the media concerning Bishop Richard Williamson has brought this taboo to the fore once again. Mrs. Merkel feels called upon to instruct the Pope; the Pope feels called upon to call Bishop Williamson to account; the attorney general of Regensburg proposes, and the Justice Department considers issuing, an international arrest warrant for the churchman-and why? Because he judges a historical matter differently from the way it is usually and permitted to do. This constitutes heresy. This means nothing else than that a historical event has been removed from the domain of scholarship and with that, of reasoned discussion, and elevated into the domain of religion, and indeed a kind of world religion that in Germany has unbeknownst acquired the standing of a half-official state religion.


Bishop Richard Williamson

As the media campaign against Bishop Williamson rose to a fever pitch, the revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler was sentenced in Munich to six years imprisonment and at the same time in Potsdam to four more years, because he questioned details of the Holocaust. In 2007, Mahler’s partner, lawyer Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced to 3 1/2 years’ imprisonment and escorted directly to jail from the courtroom. The reason: she defended the German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zundel in court in Mannheim and took the position that the accused was right, or at least that he was exercising his right to a dissenting opinion. Zundel himself got five years. Two years’ investigatory detention under the most dubious circumstances in Canada didn’t count. So Zundel does seven years because he published arguments over his Internet site concerning the historical thesis of the “mass gassing” of Jews.


Lawyer Sylvia Stolz and Revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler

Shortly after Zundel, the chemist and multi-book author Germar Rudolf, originally a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, received a sentence of 2 1/2 years because it was possible to arrive at the same conclusions from his neutral, scientific investigations in forensic chemistry as had been arrived at by other routes by earlier researchers.


   Scientist Germar Rudolf

The Frenchman Robert Faurisson, university professor for documentary research and textual analysis at the Sorbonne in Paris has been subjected to multiple fines of astronomic amounts, and has sustained bodily injuries from a beating administered by unidentified assailants.


Robert Faurisson-French Revisionist

One of the best-known revisionist researchers and writers is the Swiss Romanist and Scandinavist Jurgen Graf, sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment by a Swiss court for questioning the holocaust hypothesis. He was able to avoid this imprisonment only by flight into exile.

Also in exile is the Belgian father of seven Vincent Reynouard. In Austria, court-expert-witness-engineer Wolfgang Fruhlich is in jail for the second time because he does not accept the official version of the holocaust.

Where is Amnesty International?

Where is Amnesty International? Where the European Court of Human Rights? Where the hue and cry of the media? Where the student protests? Where the Church?

All these men and women and many others, such as Ursula Haverbeck, Dr. Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Dr. Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz, have committed no offense other than to have arrived at conclusions from their research and analysis that diverge from the official account-and that they then addressed pointed questions to those who have promulgated the putative falsehoods around the world.

It is the pride of western science, since the Renaissance, and in particular since the Enlightenment, to allow nothing to be sacrosanct, and to accept nothing short of absolute objectivity. Revisionism – that is, discernment, confirmation, questioning – is a basic principle of science. All else is dogmatism. Science cannot admit of religious, political, or other social exceptions. In the sense of the natural sciences, there is no Christian reality nor Unchristian reality, no moral nor immoral fact. The scientist has the right to err, since no one is in possession of the absolute truth. Natural science has banished the medieval age of superstition with the age of reason.

As applied to research into the Holocaust, this means: it may not be clouded by philo-Semitic nor by anti-Semitic inclinations, any more than it may be by Germanophilic or Germanophobic. Whether one likes the Jews or the Germans, or dislikes them is no factor in research, and may not affect it in any way.

Ms Merkel said in her message to Pope Benedict XVI, “There may be no denial of the Holocaust.” What does this mean, there may not be? Does it mean that “denial” presupposes that someone advances lies while knowing better? This certainly doesn’t apply to the revisionists, who are convinced of their interpretations. Or does it mean that here, after all – trumping all factual inquiry – global political forces are in play to which both the German head of state as well as the leader of Christianity must bow?

There is commentary that implies something pretty close to these conjectures. As early as May 1979, Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in the Nation Review, “Were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the Number One weapon in Israel’s propaganda armory disappears.”

And after the lecturer and revisonist Gunther Deckert was sentenced to years in jail, the Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote on August 15, 1994, “If Deckert’s account of the Holocaust were correct, the Federal Republic of Germany would be founded upon a lie.” Every presidential address, every “moment of silence,” every history book would have lied. In that he denies the murder of the Jews, he contests the very legitimacy of the German Federal Republic.

The Canadian B’nai B’rith

But it seems that there are even higher matters at stake: the memory of the Holocaust is central to the erection of the new world order. So wrote Ian J. Kagedan, the Director of the Canadian B’nai B’rith in the Toronto Star for November 26, 1991.

These unseemly newspaper announcements enable us to understand why finally the effort to exhume the claimed victims and properly to account for them has not been undertaken; why Ms Merkel has not called an international Holocaust conference in Berlin and subjected the assertions of the revisionists to a public discussion and critique. With that, the sorry matter would once and for all be placed on the table and the “pseudoscientific bumbling” of the Holocaust deniers would be laid bare for all to see – and indeed by scientists, not just journalists. But therein, of course, argument and counter-argument would have to be heard.

Why can’t this be? Is it feared that such a discussion might produce results other than those that are politically desired? Is this why the revisionists languish in jail? Is this why their books are banned? Is the public to be denied the means of evaluating the state of the revisionist arguments?

The reason for this remarkable scientific regression appears to be the same as the reason for the judicial regression in the courtroom. Here also the established practice – which ashamedly is never admitted in public – that there is never inquiry into whether the accused might be right. Evidence is not taken, and if the accused should try to explain his position, he subjects himself to still further charges, and his attorney as well! A judicial monstrosity. The factuality of genocide of millions in gas chambers is simply declared “given,” and the court has merely to decide whether the defendant has contradicted this given – and then to arrive at a sentence. A historical assumption is thereby peremptorily raised to the status of a universally known and proven law of nature – and at the same time, factual confirmation of it is forbidden!

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Truth?

Is somebody afraid of the truth here?

The voices are becoming more numerous that advocate breaking the silence over this: in 2007, Professor Karl Albert Schachtschneider, professor of public inquiry at the University of Erlangen, spoke on the Constitution of the European Union. He took a question from the audience, “Do we have freedom of speech here?” He answered: “A country in which free speech is constrained by severe punishments is not a free country. The immortal Kant said about freedom of speech that one must be free to say anything, whether it is true or untrue. With the Holocaust, anything might be true or not true; I wasn’t there. But another reason I don’t discuss it, is that it is forbidden. One is not allowed to dispute it, not even scientifically. The prohibition on “agitation” prevents it. This is not a free country.”

If the “new world order” that the Canadian gentleman from B’nai B’rith mentioned might be in some way identical with that financial system that currently has thrown the world into the grips of an unprecedented crisis, it might in any case be appropriate to examine the central historical and philosophical foundations of that new order somewhat more closely.

“Where everyone condemns, one must prove. Where everyone praises, as well.” Thought makes you free!

=====
The publicist and lecturer Bernhard Schaub (Dornach bei Basel), publisher of this newsletter, is Swiss. He was a teacher of German and history at Waldorf Schools until he was dismissed in 1993 for publishing a book in which he cited objective research into the Holocaust. He also lost a later position as academic dean of an adult-education school for similar reasons. In 2006 he participated in the Holocaust Conference called in Tehran by President Ahmedinejad.

STUNNING VICTORY FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH by Merv Ritchie


September 5, 2009

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK:


RADICAL EDITOR & PUBLISHER ARTHUR TOPHAM
_______________________________________

Dear Radical Reader,

The recent and still very provocative ruling by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Athanasios Hadjis on September 2, 2009, (the Lemire Decision) – one that holds great promise of finally bringing down the massive house of cards better known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission – has finally freed up at least one of countless mainstream media online news service agencies, allowing them the much needed freedom to give some long sought coverage to the CHRC’s “hate crime” complaint case involving Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com.

As the Editor and Publisher of RadicalPress.com I must gratefully and gleefully take off my hat to Merv Richie, publisher and owner of the Terrace Daily.ca, an online news service located in the northwestern community of Terrace, British Columbia, Canada and extend a firm handshake to him and say thank you for having both the wisdom and the courage to do what the rest of Canada’s supposedly independent and objective news media should have done two years ago when this controversial case first became public.

I had long hoped that my own community newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, would have been the one to have broke the story but after initially covering the issue back in early 2008 they were immediately silenced by a false threat of a law suit from the very personage who now appears to have lost his case against against Marc Lemire in this outstanding ruling – none other than Ricardo Warmouse, good friend of Agent Z, the Complainant who laid the infamous sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charge against myself and my website back in July of 2007.

While this important ruling is the first major step in the eventual dismantling of this quasi-judicial internal censorship syndicate created by the Zionist lobby groups currently permeating all aspects of Canadian government, industry, media and academia it isn’t the final end for this vile, draconian sec. 13(1) anti-free speech law. As I recently wrote to one email correspondent regarding this issue, “When one is dealing with a deadly serpent it’s best not to take your attention off it until its head is severed from its body. In my case the head of this viper is still very much intact.”

Mr. Merv Richie has done a great service for everyone who believes in our Charter rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press and he deserves a round of applause and encouragement for his willingness to put his shoulder to wheel at a time when this vehicle of expression is only just beginning to budge out from the Stalinist rut it’s been stuck in for the past twenty odd years. Please do write to him and thank him and pass this article to all you can.

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
——————————

http://www.terracedaily.ca/show4688a/STUNNING_VICTORY_FOR_FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH

STUNNING VICTORY FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH
by Merv Ritchie

2nd September 2009

This morning a new light shines across Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) has had its fangs trimmed. Section 13, the law that prohibits speaking openly about uncomfortable truths has finally been defeated. Commonly referred to as the anti hate law it has been used to stifle criticism of policy and ideology on almost every medium. The first use of the law was to force a man, John Ross Taylor, to stop using his own personal telephone answering machine to leave messages for people that wanted to call in and hear what he had to say. Generally his thoughts were against Canada’s immigration laws. The latest use of the law was to charge a man, Marc Lemire, who ran an internet chat forum. Although he did not approve postings to the message board (it was an open message forum) he was held to account for what others posted.

A BC website (operated by a former Kitimat native) is also currently under indictment by the CHRT for criticizing an ultra right wing faction of Israeli/Jewish politics called Zionists. Many do not like Arthur Topham’s blunt, unorthodox, politically incorrect writings on his website, Radicalpress.com, however he provides evidence and background to back up everything he writes. Truth is not a defence against the CHRT as every person and organization that has come under their radar has discovered, as they all were convicted. That is a 100 percent prosecutorial success rate, a rate unheard of anywhere in the world except in this secretive organization that has recently been investigated by the RCMP.

In his decision Athanasios D. Hadjis set a very high bar for new prosecutions under this act. Only the most vile and alarmist writings should be considered for prosecutions and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians, allows Canadians, to discuss issues that are not politically correct. The conclusion is as follows;

V. CONCLUSION
I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warmouse, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

His comments on the AIDS Secret article in part are as follows;

In my view, the material found in the AIDS Secrets article expresses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation and vilification towards homosexuals in particular. The article is rife with hyperbole and moral condemnation. Homosexuals, and Blacks to a lesser extent, are denigrated as purveyors of a “killer” that is on the loose, agonizingly destroying the lives of American children and adults alike. Extreme language is used to vilify them and their lifestyles. They are portrayed as a powerful force that is conspiring to bring harm to others. Rather than using the statistics and studies in a dispassionately scientific manner, the article adopts an alarmist, almost hysteric tone, which along the above mentioned characterizations, is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt.

This is a very dramatic shift in the manner in which Canadians might discuss issues. It allows for a much greater freedom to engage in discussions. It also has very profound impacts on internet websites and forums.

Although Mr. Lemire did not compose the AIDS Secrets article he allowed it to be posted on his website and therefore was found responsible for distributing this material.

The conclusion found Section 13 to be at odds with the Charter of Rights. The next few weeks and months will determine the future of the CHRT. It has caused much grief for many individuals who wanted to expose some knowledge they discovered to the general public. Today a fresh wind of freedom to speak out has blown across Canada.
———–

Also see the following: Two of your articles are posted on our site here. Merv.

http://www.terracedaily.ca/show13s/PROVOCATIVE

—————–

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that Sec. 13 “Hate Law” is Unconstitutional


Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that Sec. 13 “Hate Law” is Unconstitutional

September 2, 2009
RadicalNewsNetwork

Dear Radical Reader,

Prior to my comments I first want to take the time to say thank you to Mr. Marc Lemire, the man who has been at the forefront of the battle for Internet Freedom in Canada over the past six years. Persevering and remaining steadfast in his convictions through thick and thin and suffering endless slings and arrows of accusative epithets and accusations of every conceivable nature. Along with him was his steadfast and cool lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and his comrades in arms Mr. Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) and of course Canada’s and the world’s No. 1 Freedom of Speech fighting lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie all pictured together in their famous INTERNET FREEDOM DEFENCE TEAM photo below. Every freedom loving Canadian who values their basic right to express themselves on paper or on the Internet owes this magnificent and dedicated crew of conscientious, responsible citizens a debt of gratitude.


In terms of Canada’s struggle to retain its Constitutional rights as contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, September 2, 2009, may go down in Canadian history as the day that the citizens who believe in freedom of speech finally managed to throw a monkey-wrench into the gears of the Zionist Censorship Juggernaut that has been rolling relentlessly over our rights and freedoms for the past half a century.

At 9:30 EST the Decision in the long-awaited section 13 “hate crimes” complaint Warman v. Lemire finally appeared on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s website http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0 . The gist of the ruling by Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis respecting the manner in which this controversial law was used in the six year long trial of Marc Lemire for allegedly posting “hate” materials is contained in my Motion to the Tribunal (see below) which I sent off today after receiving word of the Decision.

But lest readers jump to the conclusion that this means the end of this draconian law designed to silence any and all criticism of Israel or political Zionism please be advised that while it is truly a decisive victory in terms of the battle being waged to rid this country of sec. 13(1) it doesn’t automatically mean that the war itself has been won.

[Read more…]

Green Eggs and TopHam with a side of kosher FreeDominion.com

August 28, 2009

Dear Radical Reader,

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted any articles. My apologies to those who wait with great anticipation for more information on either the Agent Z v. Topham complaint or materials on the Zionist Beast.

Apart from having to be away from home for awhile I’ve also been spending a lot of time over at http://www.FreeDominion.com enjoying all the lively discussions taking place since Agent Z finally registered on their forum and has been fielding all sorts of questions from FDers related to sec. 13(1).

Of course I am only an observer there as I’ve been banished from the forum for quite some time but even though I cannot speak, thanks to regular FD member fourhorses, who posts my legal documents for FDers to study and comment on, the Agent Z v. Topham complaint is getting a lot of free coverage. For that alone I owe the owner, Connie Fournier, a debt of gratitude for allowing such discussion to proceed. Considering that FD considers itself to be the number one website in Canada in terms of support for the Zionist state of Israel and for all things Jewish this is indeed a generous and open-minded position for her to take.

This is the main reason for this post. I wanted to alert readers to the discussions taking place there and also encourage those willing, to possible register and join in the debate. The least that would happen would be to get banished like I did but a reading of the threads should illustrate the fact that they aren’t as narrow-minded as one might think and their humour is also something to be appreciated. Some of the recent cartoons depicting Agent Z as the Kosher Saviour of Hate Speech legislation are quite funny. Whether Agent Z eventually retaliates against them is of course another story. 🙂 But even if you don’t join in, just reading the various threads and studying the positions taken is, in itself, guaranteed to be an eye-opener in terms of gaining a broader perspective on how other Canadians perceive both sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the actions of Agent Z and B’nai Brith Canada. Most questions are cogent and the issues are wide-ranging.

Here are the current threads where section 13(1) and the CHRC and CHRT are being given a thorough working over:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121507
Free Dominion – battleground in Agent Z v Topham case

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121449&sid=a3aced58daa797751d8702300312bd2e
FD thread: Ricardo Warmouse attempting to seize elderly couple’s home

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121889
FD thread: Ezra bitch-slaps B’nai Brith

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122021&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
FD thread: Agent Z, Classical Liberalism vs. Human Rights

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122246
Innuendo: A Hairy Proposition

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122393
FD thread: Agent Z v Topham – the next novel approach

I would encourage all readers to check out these discussions. Also, please try to pass this message along to your associates.

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
——————————-

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

Is Your Government Breeding Bolsheviks? by Arthur Topham

BreedingBolsheviks?

Is Your Government Breeding Bolsheviks?
B’nai Brith’s brazen attempt to hardwire Hatred and Censorship into the Canadian Psyche

By Arthur Topham

August 8, 2009

In his 2006 book, The Synagogue of Satan, the British writer Andrew C. Hitchcock has a lot to say about the house of Rothschild. In fact his book is a revelation of our times; the chronology of a crime syndicate that began in 1760 when Mayer Amschel Bauer took over his father’s money lending business in Frankfurt, Germany and changed his name from Bauer to Rothschild, a German word meaning “Red Shield” and hung the symbolic hexagram that now adorns the Israeli flag above his door.

The last 250 years is basically a record of the Rothschild’s devastating effects upon the people and the planet; one that has now brought our 20th Century civilization to the brink of either global disaster, or, should we awake in time to this imminent end and act accordingly, the final dismantling and dissolution of this infamous house of hell that’s been the root cause of humanity’s discontent for the past two and a half centuries.

Andrew Hitchcock’s book[1] in some respects parallel’s the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in that it too is a road map like the Protocols only one that can lead us out of the wasteland of the present times rather than further into a gloomy and foreboding Big Brother future such as the Protocols reveal.

While Hitchcock’s first and foremost purpose is to document the accomplished deeds of this Rothschild house of horror as they pertain to global finance, politics and media, his particular expose of the secret masonic society of B’nai Brith, one of the many Rothschild enterprises designed to assist in its agenda for world domination, should be of special interest to Canadians; especially those Canadians who have managed to break free to some degree from the mind-numbing influence of the Rothschild controlled mainstream media and are relatively able to view, somewhat objectively, the ongoing machinations of this organization; one initially set up and funded in order to present to the world a viewpoint fundamentally Talmudic, cabalistic and atheistic in scope, nature and purpose.

In the USA when Americans think of B’nai Brith they automatically think of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) the now powerful, aggressive arm of B’nai Brith International originally formed in 1913 by the Rothschild Jews in reaction to a Jewish business man who was convicted of raping and murdering one of his young employees and actually put in jail for his crime.* This was considered an outrage by the then nascent Zionists and so they conspired to come up with an organization that would eventually become the Goliath of gutter journalism, spewing forth volumes of vituperative slander and malignant lies upon any individual, group or organization that ever dared to challenge the tendentious tenets of the Rothschild empire.

I believe Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it rather succinctly when he once described the ADL as “…one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S…. Its primary commitment is to use any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State (‘Israel’).”

[Read more…]

The Managers, The Messiahs and the Masses by Douglas Reed

Photobucket

DUST COVER FROM ELIZABETH DILLING’S 1936 BOOK EXPOSING ROOSEVELT
__________________________________________________________________________

The Managers, The Messiahs and the Masses

By Douglas Reed

From: The Controversy of Zion, Chapter 37

Amid jubilant scenes in Washington and Berlin on two successive days (March 4 and 5, 1933) the two twelve-year reigns began which were to end at almost the same instant in 1945. Today an impartial historian could hardly compute which reign produced the greater sum of human suffering. At the start the two men who appeared on the central scene were both hailed as Messiahs. In America a Rabbi Rosenblum described President Roosevelt as “a Godlike messenger, the darling of destiny, the Messiah of America’s tomorrow”; there spoke a political flatterer in words intended to “persuade the multitude”. In 1937, in Prague menaced by Hitler, a Jewish acquaintance told me his rabbi was preaching in the synagogue that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah” (a pious elder who sought to interpret events in terms of Levitical prophecy). All through these years the masses in both countries (and for that matter in Russia too) had their particular “premier-dictator” depicted to them in such terms, or in those of “Big Brother”, “Papa”, “Uncle”, “Beloved Leader” or the fireside-loving “Friend”. The apparent antagonists, Mr. Roosevelt and Herr Hitler, both in different ways promoted “the destructive principle” in its three recognizable forms: revolutionary-Communism, revolutionary-Zionism and the ensuing “world government to enforce peace”.

Mr. Roosevelt’s reign began with a significant deception. He used a wheeled chair but the public masses were never allowed to see him, in flesh or picture, until he had been helped to an upright position. His infirmity was known; nevertheless, some directing intelligence decreed that the false picture of a robust man must to his last day be presented to the multitude (and even afterwards, for the sculptor who later made his London monument had to depict him in this sturdy pose).

Mr. Roosevelt created precedent by having his cabinet sworn in the hand of a distinguished Jew, Mr. Justice Cardozo, who was a committed Zionist, having yielded in 1918 to Mr. Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise, with the despondent-sounding words, “Do what you please with my name”; he then received his Supreme Court judgeships, Rabbi Wise requesting them for him, first from Governor Al Smith of New York State and then from President Herbert Hoover. Thus the shadow of “dual allegiance” fell on Mr. Roosevelt’s administration at its start (as on Mr. Wilson’s, from the figure of Mr. Brandeis).

[Read more…]

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

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

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

dchristie2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

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

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

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

tazebook_dees-1 copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TruthHolocaustDees

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.

ZunDees2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AuschwitzDeesNo.s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZyklonCampDees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence of Gary Botting is that of an English professor who desired to put forward another view of the Holocaust story. He was presented, or attempted to present, in consideration of the need to tell both side, 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-à-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.

UkraineFamineDees

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.

Louis Riel
            LOUIS RIEL
___________________________

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.”

JAMacDscandal
JOHN A. MACDONALD CAUGHT RED HANDED ACCEPTING A $350,000 BRIBE IN 1872 PROROGUED PARLIAMENT LIKE HARPER DID IN 2008
________________________________________________________________________

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 Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview: The Hidden Tyranny (1976) Part 2

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/tyranny2.htm#The%20Hidden%20Tyranny

The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview: The Hidden Tyranny (1976) Part 2
MediaControl

UNPLUG, TURN OFF, TUNE OUT – USE THE INTERNET & START THINKING!
__________________________________________________________________________

The Hidden Tyranny
Part Two

“Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer.”

The above is an exact quote of Harold Wallace Rosenthal, former top Administrative Aide to the then Senator Jacob Jayits, who was since defeated in the 1980 election.

I, Walter White, Jr., for the past 17 years Director and Editor of the monthly conservative publication WESTERN FRONT, was told about Mr. Rosenthal’s boastings around Washington, D.C., and I was encouraged to meet with him and to interview him (for a fee).

Mr. Rosenthal had stated publicly that the Jews will completely dominate throughout the entire world — and that they control every facet of political life in America and every aspect of the communication media. (Mr. R’s emphasis).

Eventually Mr. Rosenthal and l were brought together, at which time I interviewed him privately and taped said interview with Mr. Rosenthal’s knowledge and consent. During the lengthy meeting Mr. Rosenthal became impatient, rude and vulgar (all of which is recorded on the tape) and he sought the balance of his fee before I had concluded my questioning.

Since the entire interview was so lengthy, in 1977 we released and published only the first portion under the same title as above “THE HIDDEN TYRANNY.” Copies of this manuscript (Part I) have been sought by people from all around the globe. We now release the balance of the taped interview as Part Two. Although I do not wish to digress, an Eastern analyst has told me that “The Hidden Tyranny” manuscript (Part I) has had a pass-on readership of 3.5%. Thus, if true, the manuscript (Part I) has been read by more than 7 MILLION people. When this final portion (Part Two) begins circulating, its impact may be even greater. It depends upon you, the reader.

Before any agreement was reached between us, I had established with Mr. Rosenthal that he would answer an unlimited number of questions with complete honesty and to the best of his ability. It was because of this understanding that I took issue with Mr. Rosenthal during the final stages of the interview and accused him of not being honest with me as it related to his response to my question: “Do you have knowledge of WHEN and WHY the story began about the Jews being God’s chosen people?” That is when he said in part: “Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer — so I wasn’t lying — and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive.”

As this goes to press, we still seek a governmental body to investigate Harold Rosenthal’s allegations. My dictionary conveys such allegations as “TREASON.”

We now pick up after a dispute during which the tape recorder has been turned off.

[Read more…]

The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview: The Hidden Tyranny (1976) Part 1

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/tyranny1.htm#The%20Hidden%20Tyranny
The Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview: The Hidden Tyranny (1976) Part 1
MediaControl

UNPLUG, TURN OFF, TUNE OUT – USE THE INTERNET & START THINKING!

___________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

This article contains the text of a most revealing and shocking interview of a Jew by the name of Harold Rosenthal, which was conducted in 1976, by a concerned patriot, a Walter White, Jr.. Mr. Rosenthal, an influential Jew learned in the Jewish ways and involved in the workings of government in Washington, D.C., explained the Jewish involvement and cause of the major problems we face today.

Rosenthal, in exposing certain aspects of the ‘inner invisible world of Jewry’, revealed the modes and tactics Jews have used in destroying Christian civilization and covertly attaining control over our lives and governments. The result has been a ‘hidden tyranny’ upon us like the tyranny waged against the Saints by the red beast system of Revelation referred to as ‘Mystery Babylon’.

But how could such a small number of Jews enslave so many people and gain such an overwhelming control over their governments, especially without their being aware of it? The answer to this may be found in Christ’s parable of the unjust steward, which represents Jewry. They are able to prevail in the world despite their ungodly ways because of their cunning and shrewd ways. As Christ said “For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Luke 16:8)

In other words, the Jew, with his worldly mind set, is wiser than God’s Christian people. When you read the words of Mr. Rosenthal the reality of this statement will come to light. This problem was so prevalent and important for us to overcome that Christ had instructed us to “be wise as serpents“. (Matthew 10:16)

America and the world is now covered in political, economic, moral and social problems which need to be acted upon by Christian people. As Edmund Burke stated: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” But before we can properly act we need a proper (not just a superficial) understanding of the problem. This article will help provide the reader with that understanding.

[Read more…]

B’NAI BRITH & THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – CENSORING FOR ZION

CobbCensorssm2
B’NAI BRITH & THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – CENSORING FOR ZION

 

Do The Jews Own Hollywood And The Media? By Texe Marrs

LookMag6MillionJews

The 6 Day War started by Israel on June 5th, 1967 was then embellished with Zionist propaganda in Zionist-controlled News Media such as LOOK magazine in this Front Page issue of Nov. 14, 1967
_____________________________________________________________________

http://www.powerofprophecy.com
Do The Jews Own Hollywood And The Media?

By Texe Marrs

May 9, 2009

Texe Marrs

Texe Marrs
______________

Do the Zionist Jews own Hollywood and the media? Are they using the media to mold and shape American opinion by constantly injecting Zionist propaganda and bias into news programs, movies, television shows, even children’s cartoons and entertainment?

Kidstv

The answer is so blatantly “Yes!” that you wouldn’t think these questions are even worth pursuing. But recently, the untoward comments of a patriot talk show host made me stop and rethink it. Are there people out there-even in the Patriot Movement-who really are that much in the dark, who deny Jewish influence in the media?

Recently, when a caller to a talk show on the Genesis Radio Network suggested that the Jews control the media, the host went wild. He raged on and on, playing the race card. He branded the surprised caller and others like him who are weary of Zionist influence “Nazis” and “anti-Semites.” Angrily, he denied Jewish involvement in any conspiracies and ridiculed those who had the audacity to suggest that Jews run Hollywood or the media. Then, in a real fit of spewed venom, the talk show host demanded that the caller and all others who believe like him should go out and hang themselves to promote population reduction.

As if that wasn’t hateful enough, the pro-Zionist host then stated that all the “Nazis and Anti-Semites” who opposed Zionism and the Jews should plug in an electric toaster, hold it to their naked bodies, jump into a bathtub filled with water, and have a party.” In other words, kill themselves.

Quite a rampage by the supposedly “patriot” talk show host. And all because the poor caller had dared to propose undue Jewish influence over the media.

Hearing the actual taped broadcast of this unbelievable tirade by a pro-Zionist advocate confirmed my resolve to inform good folks once again of the truly dictatorial grip that Zionist Jews have on the media. The best way to do this is not to rage and spew venom, but simply to present the facts, to document the truth of Jewish control of the media.

What Do Knowledgeable Jews Say?

How about going to top Jews in the media themselves and see what they say? Take Joel Stein, for example, columnist for the Los Angeles Times newspaper and regular contributor to Time magazine. In his column in the LA Times (Dec. 19, 2008), Stein says that Americans who think the Jews do not control Hollywood and the media are just plain “dumb.”

“Jews totally run Hollywood.” Stein proudly admits. He then goes on to provide a long, long list of Hollywood/media chieftains-all Jews!-to prove his point. On his list: Fox News President Peter Chernin; Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey; Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor; Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton; Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer; CBS CEO Leslie Moonves; MGM Chairman Harry Sloan; and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker.

NaziDaffy

That’s just the top brass at the studios. Then there are the actors and entertainers-predominantly Jews, from Barbara Streisand and Gwyneth Paltrow to Tom Hanks and Ben Afleck. JewJewand Jew again. As Stein wryly remarks, even the head of the Actors’ Union, the Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, is a Jew.

“The Jews are so dominant,” writes Stein, “I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies.” “But lo and behold,” Stein says, “even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew!”

“As a proud Jew,” says Joel Stein, “I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.”

ADL’s Foxman Admits Jewish Control

ADLagenda

Stein says he then called Abe Foxman, Chairman of the Jewish ADL, to ask him, why don’t more Jews just come out and boast at this great accomplishment? Foxman responded by admitting that yes, it’s true that most of the top execs “happen to be Jewish.” In fact, Foxman told Stein, “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

Ben Stein (no relation to Joel), the well-known Jewish actor, economic commentator and writer, when asked “Do Jews run Hollywood?” stared blankly at the questioner, then retorted, “You bet they do-and what of it?” Shahar Ilan, writing in www.haaretz.com, the internet division of Israel’s top daily newspaper, commented, “The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge.”

Neal Gabler, also a Jew and a noted media researcher, wrote an entire book outlining Jewish control of Hollywood. It was entitled, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. But to really see how the Jews, in their own publications and press, view the reality of Jewish control of the media, all one has to do is take a look at a recent issue of the Jewish Daily Forward, which featured an article entitled, “Billionaire Boychiks Battle for Media Empire.”

Billionaire Jews Battle for Media

This fascinating, look-see article discussed how the Jews had for decades owned the media and now were competing; that is, vying, to buy one of America’s most powerful media companies, Tribune Company, which owns 23 television stations, a baseball team, and many major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

“However, it turns out,” gloated the Jewish mag, “we’ll have a Jew in charge of the (LA) Times, which was once one of old Los Angeles’ most famous WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) institutions. What a great day for old LA Jews”

The publication noted that among the Jewish billionaires (“boychiks”) vying for the Tribune media empire is “Liberal, Jewish, media mogul David Geffen.”

And who, pray tell, is the current owner of the Tribune Company? Why, that would be Jewish billionaire Sam Zell. Zell is a major donor to Israeli, Zionist and Jewish causes. His own rabbi proudly reports that Zell is “a committed Zionist, a generous supporter of Israel, and a member in good standing of the synagogue.”

Asked who his own favorite newspaper columnists were, Zell quickly answered, “Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks.” Surprise! The trio are all ardent Zionist whack-jobs who clamor over each other demanding the U.S. attack Iran, provide billions more in foreign aid to favored nation Israel, and so forth.

Local Newspapers Owned by Foreign Agents

So powerful is the Jewish control over the media that Nathanael Kapner, a rare Jew who converted to Christianity and now is adept at reporting these things, asserts that no longer can we trust our local daily newspaper. “Zionist Jews have taken over the ‘local newspaper’ in America,” Kapner writes. Indeed he explains that there basically is no local newspaper anymore, because, “Most local newspapers are owned by companies controlled by Zionists whose offices are hundreds of miles away.”

Photobucket

Please visit: http://www.realzionistnews.com

Kapner provides manifold evidence of Zionists’ dominating control of the media at all levels. The Newhouse Empire of the Jewish brothers Samuel, Donald, and Theodore Newhouse, Kapner says, “illustrates the insatiable appetite for opinion control:”

“Today, the Newhouse Empire owns 40 local newspapers across the U.S.A. These include the Newark Star Ledger, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Portland Oregonian, and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.”

Then, there are the vast array of magazines run by the Jewish Newhouse family-including the New Yorker, Vogue, Golf Digest, Glamour, Gentleman’s Quarterly (GQ), and the massively circulated newspaper insert, Parade magazine.

Jewish Media Spew Out Pro-Zionist Propaganda

The fact that Zionists control virtually every media outlet in America is no doubt why the American citizenry hears only one version of events in the Middle East-the pro-Jew, pro-Israeli side. This led Dr. Kevin MacDonald, professor at California State University, to write:

“In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.”

This Zionist bias and propaganda spin by the Jewish-owned American media is not new. As far back as 1978, the noted Jewish political writer Alfred Lillienthal, in his revealing book, The Zionist Connection, stated:

“The most effective component of Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Louis-Post Dispatch (All Jewish Families).”

To further illustrate the breadth of Jewish media control, we note that Jewish magnate Arthur Sulzberger’s media empire today includes not only the New York Times (which, in Stalin’s day, systematically covered up the genocidal crimes of Jewish commissars in Communist U.S.S.R), but also the Boston Globe, the Lexington Dispatch (NC), the Gainesville Sun (FL), the Ocala Star Banner (FL), the Tuscaloosa News (AL), the Spartansburg Herald Journal (SC), and the Santa Barbara News Press (CA). Each of the newspapers Lillienthal mentioned back in 1978, in turn, owned and still owns dozens of others. So tainted is the news because of this that almost every newspaper in America endorsed President George Bush’s radically pro-Israel policies in the Middle East, including Israel’s savage butchery of Lebanon and Palestine.

There can be no doubt. It is easy for us to document the massive dominance over the media by evil Jewish shills who are continually hostile to pure American interests while, everyday, unabashedly spewing out reams of misleading Zionist propaganda. Time magazine, Newsweek, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX-and many, many more are all owned or run by Jews and operated solely to further the aims of the traitorous, anti-American, ever-growing Zionist World Empire.

Brainwashsm

All America is in the Grip of the Hidden, Red Iron Fist of Zionism

Of course, the media, even as important as it is to our culture, is only a bit piece of the whole that is now, regrettably, under the big thumbs of the Jewish Zionist elite. Our educational establishment, Wall Street, the banks, the Federal Reserve, our Congress, the White House (just consider Rahm Emanuel, the Zionist Israeli freak who is Obama’s White House Chief of Staff), and our judiciary-each and every one is infiltrated by Zionist radicals who put Israel and their own “Chosen People” first, to the detriment of everything sacred to honest, God-fearing, hard-working Americans.

DeeHooksm

So, the next time you hear some ignorant rube on talk radio or elsewhere shoving the race card in your face and ranting and raving about “Nazis” and “anti-Semites” who “claim” the Jews control the media, why don’t you just reach out and turn that radio dial to another place. And please, don’t forget to also let the radio network and station manager know of your displeasure.

The fact is that the dishonest Zionist shills out there promoting Zionist lies, drivel, and nonsense truly deserve our contempt.

The Truth is Precious

As for Texe Marrs and Power of Prophecy, we have long pledged ourselves to telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And part of that truth, simply put, is this: That yes, absolutely, Zionist Jews do own and control Hollywood and the media. So beware of their lies and deceit. The truth is precious. Let us work together to protect and nurture it.

————–
Texe Marrs, Author and Researcher may be contacted at http://www.powerofprophecy.com

Henry Makow never forgets by Hans Krampe

Karl'sChurch/AH

Watercolor painting of Karls Church in Winter by Adolf Hitler 1912

___________________________________________________________________________

[Editor’s Note:

Henry Makow’s recent articles are showing strong signs of an underlying, not-too-subtle attempt at continuing the longstanding Zionist propaganda campaign of extreme hatred toward the German people plus endless vituperation toward the National Socialist party of former Nazi Germany.

It seems that no matter how hard some Jews try to overcome their own brainwashing regarding the holy hoax commonly known as the “Jewish Holocaust” (and it is harder for Jews than for any other group I believe) there are some who, like Mr. Makow, just cannot bring themselves to the point where accepting such a truth is possible. Instead, as in Henry’s case, he continues to expound upon and support the lie of that event and in doing so paints himself into an unenviable corner; that of yet another agents provocateur coloring his otherwise token samplings of injustice with the usual, ongoing disinformation campaign against the German nation and the German people; a process that first began in earnest in 1933 has never ceased to this day.

Blending strong portions of Illuminati and Freemasonry information with a dab of Zionism and a touch of Rothschild and a sprinkle or two of Satanism to come up with the standard recipe for global hegemony on the part of these assorted groups Henry weaves a fine and captivating tale of intrigue but, alas, one which ultimately exposes him as a double-agent when he throws into his potpourri of conspiracy theories the two ingredients that inevitably separate the wheat of truth from the chaff-leaven of Talmudic Zionist falsehood – those being the standard, ongoing denigration of the German people and Adolf Hitler as the Empire of Evil and the tacit, sanctimonious support for the holocaust lie – the two pillars upon which the faulty Zionist edifice rests.

As Hans Krampe states in his title, “Henry Makow never forgets” – he never forgets to always add more layers of deception to the two lies of the 20th Century that are absolutely necessary for the Zionist Jew Conspiracy to carry on its program for complete world control.

It’s unfortunate that Henry must kowtow in this manner to the Zionists by unwittingly (or wittingly) supporting their heinous program of hatred toward the one nation that had the balls to stand up to the Bolshevik/Zionist/Communist threat to the world. When we consider that he is supposedly under attack by these very same Zionist lobbyists (the Canadian Jewish Congress) who are using the infamous Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to charge him with hate crimes against Jews it becomes almost too incongruous to imagine that he would allow himself to fall into the trap of emulating his oppressors and their insidious propaganda.

He was so close to breaking free of their mind-control programs; so close to ridding himself of an unnecessary lie bequeathed to all Canadians by the Zionist-controlled media; so close to discovering the truth behind the Zionist lie. So close –but not close enough Henry. And so, with a sad heart, and as the old saying goes, “Sorry Henry, close… but no cigar.”]

Henry Makow never forgets
A Response to Henry Makow’s recent article, “Bormann Ran Hitler for the Illuminati”

http://www.henrymakow.com/002026.html

By Hans Krampe

May 7, 2009

 

In the photo with Hitler, isn’t that Henry Makow in profile?

Makowsm
Henry Makow – a Bormann agent?
_____________________________________

I think Henry Makow is an agent of Bormann, whose purpose it is to keep the memory of a devoted Bolshevik Nazi head and shoulders above that of Adi Hitler. Bormann must still be hanging in there, in South America somewhere, pulling Henry’s strings. How old would he be now? 109 or so?!

Hitler must’ve been not only an evil illuminati toy, but a successful “guinea” pig of a soviet style MKULTRA treatment (a “fact” still classified and buried in the Kremlin, but Henry has an inkling anyway), programmed and remote controlled. . . by Bormann. . . according to Makow’s instructive ruminations. Didn’t the Nazis invent brainwashing? Or may be they were all guinea pigs too and the illuminati made them invent it for themselves!

jfksmallest

       John F. Kennedy

_____________________________

“Hitler… one of the most significant figures who ever lived”

~ President J.F. Kennedy

“Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived…
He had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him.
He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”

~ John F. Kennedy,
President of the
United States of America

Jewess Gertrude Stein, Nobel Peace Laureate, recommended that Adolf Hitler be given the Nobel Peace prize. A self-hating Jew?
___________________________________________________________________________

Apparently, the illuminati seem to have paid for everything the Nazis did; like: from national bankruptcy and over 6 million unemployed to full employment and a booming economy in three years, free medicare, free education right thru university, over 1.2 million affordable and extremely attractive family homes (coddling their favorite mass murderers), the 8 hour workday, Sundays off, 21 days paid holidays a year for workers, paid maternity leave for pregnant women and young mothers, maternity spas, over 4000 new kindergartens, holiday resorts for children, luxury liners on which workers could go on two week cruises for less than 170 marks, regular symphony orchestra performances in factories, vivisection outlawed, environmental standards Henry can only dream of, even today, the Autobahn, the Volkswagen, a low cost and high standard of living etc., when the rest of the world could only think of war as a measure of ending the depression. . . and all this with no natural resources to speak of, no gold reserves and nothing but hostility surrounding the country. . . except for the illuminati. Oh, and the Zionists; mustn’t forget those.

 

Hitler’s Volkswagen
_________________________

It had to be a short state of grace, granted to the condemned before their execution by the illuminati, who kept the cost of living low and the standard of living high in the Third Reich out of sheer cynical malice. How else could the Nazis have managed, led by clueless and treacherous Adolf?? It’s all nice and evil, no doubt! Slave labour, plain as day, has been their key to success. Henry will be sure to unearth the necessary data and interconnect things for us, you know, cross the Ts and dot the Is.

We mustn’t forget the holocaust! It happened, as Henry would no doubt agree. We just can’t prove it, because the stupid Russians won’t release the files that would. They sure hung the right guys for Katyn, though, unless anyone wants to deny that too.

Auschwitz! A sheer horror show of swimming pools, soccer fields, a 40,000 volume library, a theatre, 12 different orchestras, a state of the art hospital and dental clinic run by Jewish doctors, a maternity ward, a kindergarten, university education classes, a state of the art community kitchen, brick dormitories, a post-office, an inmate run police, a jail, a brothel; and work, lots of it, WITH PAY. And let’s not forget INVISIBLE GAS CHAMBERS. And thousands of babies burned alive in massive ditches filled to the brim with ground water. Elie Wiesel saw it all himself and – doing Louis Kilzer one better – he got a Nobel Peace Prize for writing the book “Night” about it. That should qualify it as an astute first hand account. I mean, it won the top poobah of a prize, right? They even made it into a movie. So it’s got to be true, even more so than Kilzer’s. Only problem is, nobody who knows anything about Auschwitz believes a word in it. But at least he makes the Nazis look agreeably bad, which should compensate amply for zero truth. Perhaps Henry can help us here to debunk Wiesel’s detractors.

AuschwitzPool
Auschwitz – still stands complete with brick housing facilities and swimming pool.
___________________________________________________________________________

Today, thanks to guys like Henry, we “know”, the fancy stuff in Auschwitz (typical German deviousness) was just camouflage, you understand, to make the horror look normal for the International Red Cross and the catholic priests who were there from beginning to end but aren’t allowed to sing.

You don’t believe it? Ask Henry, he will find a way to prove it. . . sort of. And if he can’t, guys like Louis Kilzer will jump into the breech. You can trust old Louis, he’s got it all figured out. The main thing is that the Nazis were bad, bad, BAD. . . and getting worse by the minute.

Henry, we’ve got the message! You can relax now; and just tell the Canadian Jewish Congress to lay off. It’s obvious that you’re going to behave from now on.

MenachemBegin
Menachem Begin
_____________________

“Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” Prime Minister of Israel, Menachim Begin (above), in a speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, Begin and the “Beasts”, New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
Noam Chomsky
___________________

“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged” -Professor Noam Chomsky

AHitler&YoungFriends

Adolf Hitler & Young Friends
______________________________________________________

Hitler’s proposals for a European pacification plan for Europe were delivered to the Geneva League of Nations. His proposals included:

•  prohibition of the dropping of gas, poisonous or incendiary bombs
•  prohibition of dropping any bombs outside fighting fronts
•  prohibition of artillery weapons over 12 miles from battle zones

“Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness. Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention. Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security” ~ Adolf Hitler
——–

Hans Krampe is a former feature writer for The Radical, a monthly tabloid pubished by The Radical Press from 1998 to 2002. He can be reached at Hans Krampe hjk@quesnelbc.com

Chapter 27 of The Controversy of Zion, THE “PROTOCOLS” by Douglas Reed

CoverConofZionsm

Original dustcover from 1st ed of Douglas Reed’s 1978 classic

_______________________________________________

[Editor’s Note: There is currently a furious battle over freedom of speech going on in Canada brought on by the infamous Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Due to its subsequent misuse by pro-Zionist lobbyists such as B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress to stifle and stop all publication within Canada of any information relating to either Israeli foreign and domestic policies or information informing Canadians as to the real agenda of Political Zionism and its direct threat to Canadian institutions and laws, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal have been hijacked into fulfilling the role of police censor and judge and jury.

This is the dilemma in which I and my website www.RadicalPress.com are caught up in. We have been subjected to continuous harassment since November of 2007 when Agent Z and the League for “Human Rights” of B’nai Brith Canada filed a “complaint” with the Canadian Human Rights Commission contending that I and my website are “spreading hatred toward Jews and/or citizens of Israel”.  This situation has reached the “Show Trial” stage wherein the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is attempting to fulfill its mandate to satisfy these foreign Zionist lobbyists by holding a “hearing” in which they will supposedly listen to arguments from both sides and then come to a decision as to whether or not I am guilty of said charges.

In the original complaint filed with the CHRC the complainants Agent Z and B’nai Brith Canada cited the fact that I had published the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” on my website and thus, obviously must be guilty of “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” toward Jews and “racism” and whatever other enduring Zionist epithet might be used to slander anyone who dares to challenge the authority of Zionist Jews. 

But now the tables appear to have been turned and both the Complainants and the Commission are trying to deny that this document was submitted as evidence and are doing their damnedest to dismiss my demand that this particular document, of all those complained of, be entered into the official file of the Commission. Their reasons and logic for attempting to do so are as curious as they are ludicrous.

For that reason I am republishing some very important information on these so-called “vicious” “anti-Semitic” Protocols which was written by the famed British journalist Douglas Reed in 1956 in his world classic, The Controversy of Zion. No writer anywhere has ever mastered the abilities of Reed to decipher the hidden agenda of the Zionists and their insidious plan to control the world and turn its peoples into slaves of a one world government known as the New World Order. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission gets its way this vital information, extremely relevant to the world today, will be dismissed outright as the Zionists have attempted to do since the first English edition of the Protocols appeared in 1920. But while the internet remains a free exchange of ideas and information it WILL appear here at RadicalPress.com. I would ask anyone and everyone reading this article to save it and post it and pass the url to it along to their readers. Douglas Reed’s interpretation of the Protocols is as vital to the overall understanding of today’s political turmoil as fresh oxygen is to a living breathing human.]

Chapter 27 of The Controversy of Zion, THE “PROTOCOLS”
(circa 1956) published in 1978

by Douglas Reed

DReedsm

DOUGLAS REED

__________________________

“The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfilment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the denouement comes.”

~ Douglas Reed, from Chapter 27, THE “PROTOCOLS”

While Zionism thus took shape in the Eastern ghettoes during the last century and at the start of this one emerged as a new force in international affairs (when the British Government offered it Uganda), the world-revolution, in those same Talmudic areas, prepared its third “eruption”. The two forces moved forward together in synchronization (for Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial demand outside Europe). It was as if twin turbines began to revolve, generating what was in effect one force, from which the new century was to receive galvanic shocks.

According to Disraeli and Bakunin the world-revolution had come under Jewish leadership around the middle of the century, and its aims then changed. Bakunin’s followers, who sought to abolish the State as such because they foresaw that the revolutionary State might become more despotic than any earlier despotism, were ousted and forgotten. The world-revolution therewith took the shape of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which aimed at the super-State founded in slave-labour and in “the confiscation of human liberty” (as de Tocqueville wrote in 1848).

This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th Century. However, the methods by which the existing order was to be destroyed did not change; they continued to be those revealed by Weishaupt’s papers published in 1787. Many publications of the 19th Century showed that the original Illuminist plan continued through the generations to be the textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps, as to method.

[Read more…]

Introduction to the Protocols

Photobucket

Introduction to the Protocols

Since it was first published more than a century ago, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has shocked and fascinated the world. It has appeared in countless editions in every major language, flourishing in spite of ceaseless efforts to dismiss, ridicule and suppress it.

What is this remarkable and enduring work?

Apparently a secret guide or handbook for achieving world domination, it explains how a small group of initiated Jews, the “Elders,” can gain power over the world’s non-Jewish peoples, the “goyim.”

Organized into 24 chapters or “protocols,” possibly based on notes from lectures, the work is in the form of instructions to a new member of the inner circle of conspirators. It lays out a plan by which the Elders can undermine and destroy stable societies, and impose their own monopolistic rule over humanity. To hasten the collapse of the societies not yet under their control, the conspirators will promote corruption, immorality and social strife in all countries, especially Christian ones, while working to obliterate the national, ethnic and religious character of all non-Jewish peoples.

The Jewish conspirators are instructed to work patiently toward their goal using deceit and guile, hiding their true intentions, and exploiting the naïve nature of the “goyim.” The Elders seek to replace the traditional social order with a “one world” government run by Jews that will cynically manipulate the public through control of finance and the media.

Freemasons figure in The Protocols as a secretive and well-organized group of non-Jews that is allied with the Jewish Elders, a sort of conspiracy within a conspiracy. While Freemasons and other liberals are considered helpful in destroying the traditional social order, eventually they will be shoved aside as the Jewish theocracy takes full control. The work describes a forthcoming “kingdom,” although even in this final stage of Jewish global rule, the Elders will avoid direct or open control, preferring instead to run things through devious manipulation of money, the media and cultural life. Even the “King of the Jews” will be a figurehead.

The Protocols was first published in an abridged edition, in Russian, in 1903 in the Saint Petersburg newspaper Znamya. In 1905 the full text was published in Russia by the orthodox priest Sergei Nilus, as an appendix to his work, “The Great in the Small.”

Nilus

In an introduction to a 1911 edition, Nilus explained how he obtained the manuscript:

“In 1901 a now-deceased acquaintance, Court Marshal Alexei Sukhotin of Tchernigov, gave into my possession a hand-written manuscript that detailed completely and clearly the secret Jewish-Freemason conspiracy that will surely lead to the end of our vile world. The person who gave me this manuscript assured me that it was a faithful translation of the original document. It had been stolen by a lady from one of the highest  and most influential leaders of the Freemasons following a secret meeting somewhere in France, that hot-bed of Masonic conspiracy.”

In an edition issued in 1917 Nilus wrote:

“…Now for the first time I have learned from authoritative Jewish sources that the Protocols is nothing less than the strategic plan of world conquest whereby the world will be brought under Israel’s yoke, the enemy of God. The plan, worked out by the leaders of the Jewish people during the many centuries of the Diaspora, was finally disclosed to the Elders by the Prince in Exile, Theodor Herzl, at the time of the first Zionist congress in Basel (August 1897).”

Theodor Herzl is sometimes credited as the author of The Protocols, or as the person who gave the lectures upon which the work seems to be based. He was the founder of the modern Zionist movement, and the author of The Jewish State, a highly influential booklet that was the movement’s seminal work. Just half a century after the First Zionist Congress, the Jewish state of Israel was established in Palestine, a remarkable achievement that attests to Jewish determination, power and organizational skill.

Herzl
Russia’s emperor, Tsar Nicholas II, read The Protocols with interest. In the margins of his personal copy, his handwritten notes express his first reaction: “What precise execution of their program!”; “Our [Russian] 1905 [uprising] was clearly orchestrated by the Zion Elders!”; “The Jews’ guiding and destroying had is visible everywhere.”

The November 1917 Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia seems to give shocking validation to the conspiracy laid out in The Protocols, and greatly boosted interest in the work. Bolshevism was indeed a secretive, conspiratorial movement whose ultimate goal was world domination. Along with other Communists, the Bolsheviks were fanatic followers of the German Jewish philosopher Karl Marx. They openly proclaimed that their goal was the imposition of a worldwide Communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Jews were prominent among the revolutionary activists who took control of Russia in 1917 and established the Soviet regime. The two most important Bolshevik leaders were Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov), who was one-quarter Jewish by ancestry, and Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), who was entirely of Jewish descent. Trotsky headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Other leading Jewish Bolsheviks included Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon), who was both Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and chairman of the Soviet state’s Centrao Executive Committee; Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), who headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries; press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn); foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach); Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld); and Moisei Uritsky.

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

In England, Winston Churchill warned in an article published in the London Illustrated Sunday Herald (February 8, 1920) that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.”

Churchill

                       Winston Churchill

The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power come from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.”

In 1920 editions of The Protocols began to appear in all the major European languages. The work was widely distributed throughout the 1920s and 1930s, with especially brisk sales in Britain, Germany and the United States.

The English-language text that appears in this edition was translated by Victor E. Marsden, a British journalist who was the correspondent in Russia for The Morning Post, an important London daily newspaper. After the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, he was arrested and held prisoner for a time. Upon his release and return to England, he translated Nilus’ version into English. Marsden’s translation, first published in 1920 or 1921, has since remained the “standard” English-language text.

In the United States, an unsigned article headed “The International Jew: The World’s Problem,” appeared in the May 1920 issue of a Michigan weekly newspaper owned and controlled by the great American automobile pioneer and manufacturer Henry Ford. This was the first of dozens of articles in The Dearborn Independent that examined “the Jewish question” in detail.

HenryFordSr.

Several of the articles sympathetically discussed The Protocols. In the issue of July 10, 1920, for example, an item titled “The Jewish Political Program,” explained:

“Whosoever was the mind that conceived them [The Protocols] possessed a knowledge of human nature, of history and statecraft which is dazzling in its brilliant completeness, and terrible in the objects to which it turns its powers. Neither a madman nor an international criminal, but more likely a super-mind mastered by devotion to a people and a faith could be the author, if indeed one mind alone conceived them. It is too terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery…

“The internal evidence makes it clear that the Protocols were not written by a Russian, nor originally in the Russian language, nor under the influence of Russian conditions. But they found their way to Russia and were first published there…

“The progress of the Protocols in the United States can only be explained on the ground that they supply light and give meaning to certain previously observed facts, and that this light and meaning is so startling as to give a certain standing and importance to these otherwise unaccredited documents. Sheer lies do not live long, their power soon dies. These Protocols are more alive than ever.

Two weeks later The Dearborn Independent again dealt with The Protocols. In an article entitled “An Introduction to the ‘Jewish Protocols’,” readers were told:

“The Protocols as we have them are apparently the notes of lectures which were made by someone who heard them. Some of them are lengthy; some of them are brief. The assertion which has always been made in connection with the Protocols since they have become known is that they are notes of lectures delivered to Jewish students presumably somewhere in France or Switzerland. The attempt to make them appear to be of Russian origin is absolutely forestalled by the point of view, the reference to the times and certain grammatical indications.

“…Whether the Protocols are judged as proving anything concerning the Jews or not, they constitute an education in the way the masses are turned about like sheep by influences which they do not understand. It is almost certain that once the principles of the Protocols are known widely and understood by the people, the criticism which they now rightly make of the Gentile mind will no longer hold good.”

The many Dearborn Independent articles dealing with “the Jewish question” were reprinted in four book-length volumes, known collectively as The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. During the next five years, hundreds of thousands of copies of The International Jew were distributed in the United States, and abridged editions, often with Henry Ford’s name on the cover, appeared in a range of languages and countries. These publications greatly boosted the fame and notoriety of The Protocols.

“The only statement I care to make about The Protocols,” said Ford in a February 1921 interview, “is that they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.”

The first German-language edition of The Protocols was published in 1920, and numerous printings and editions appeared in the following years. Alfred Rosenberg, an associate of Adolf Hitler, prepared a German edition that appeared in 1923 under the title of Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die judische Weltpolitik. (After the end of World War II, Rosenberg was condemned to death by a tribunal in Nuremberg organized by the victorious Allied [Zionist-controlled] powers.)

Hitler himself remarked on The Protocols in his book Mein Kampf, which he wrote in 1924-25:

“…To what extent the whole existence of this [Jewish] people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung [an important Jewish-owned liberal daily] moans repeatedly to the world, which is the best evidence that they are authentic. What many Jews may do unconsciously is revealed here consciously. It does not really matter from which Jewish brain these disclosures originate. What is significant is that they reveal with rather terrifying precision the character and the activities of the Jewish nation and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate goals. The best critique of it, though, is reality. Anyone who examines the historical development of the last one hundred years from the perspective of this book will immediately understand the cries of the Jewish press. For when this book becomes the common property of a nation, the Jewish danger may be regarded as broken.”

AHitler

                                   Adolf Hitler

Similar comments were made by other public figures. In 1934 a widely-read Irish priest, the Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., B.A., D.D., wrote:

“These Protocols are said to be the rough notes of a series of conferences delivered to a select body of Jewish leaders assembled in secret conclave about the end of the nineteenth century. They purport to give an outline of Jewish plans for the preparation of the Messias to come. On the one hand, the authenticity of this document cannot be proved; on the other, the efforts made by some writers, principally Jewish, to show it to be a forgery do not carry conviction to many serious minds…

“What must be kept in clearly in mind and emphasized, throughout any discussion concerning the Protocols, is the very grave fact that the program outlined in them is being fulfilled… Anyone who reads the Protocols carefully will be obliged to confess that a more skillful plan could hardly be devised for the destruction of belief in our Lord and the preparation of the advent of the new Messias. In addition, if the reader is acquainted with the world, he will see that the plan is being carried out, and that, as a result, Jewish power is increasing.”

In Canada, Member of Parliament Norman Jaques declared in the House of Commons on July 9, 1943: “Those who feel libeled by the Protocols have the most obvious remedy in the world; all they have to do is rise and denounce the policy of them, instead of denying the authorship… But when you come to read them how can any reasonable man deny the truth of what is contained in them?”

Over the years numerous efforts have been made to “expose” The Protocols as a malevolent fraud. The first was a series of articles published in August 1921 in The Times of London, which told readers that the work was a plagiarized forgery. A few weeks later these articles were reprinted in The New York Times. In the years since, countless books and articles meant to discredit The Protocols have appeared.

Many governments have banned the work outright. The first was the Soviet regime that seized power in Russia in 1917. The country’s new Bolshevik rulers severely punished anyone caught distributing or even possessing a copy. Following the victory of the Soviet Union and the United States in World War II, The Protocols was banned in most of Europe, including in all Soviet-controlled countries. More than 60 years after the end of the war, publication and distribution of the work is still prohibited in Germany, Austria, and a number of other European countries that forbid writings that might encourage anti-Jewish sentiment.

In countries where The Protocols has not been suppressed, such as in South America an Asia, the work has remained popular. In Japan, books that echo the theme of The Protocols have been bestsellers. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the end of Soviet hegemony over central Europe, new editions have appeared in Russia and other formerly Soviet-controlled countries. The work has remained especially popular in Arab and Muslim countries, where numerous editions have been issued.

In January 2006 voters in occupied Palestine elected a new government headed by Hamas, the militantly anti-Zionist “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Article 32 of the Hamas Covenant states: “…The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

In addition to the many published editions, the internet makes The Protocols instantly available everywhere in a range of languages.

Much of the reason for the work’s enduring popularity and impact is that the conspiracy it outlines seems to be more dangerous than ever. Even many who might not accept The Protocols as an authentic document nonetheless regard it as a fascinating validation of Jewish methods and goals.

The awesome power and influence of organized Jewry is undeniable. Especially in the United States, Jews wield tremendous power, above all through their hold on television and motion pictures, and their prominent role in political life. The Jewish-run “Israel lobby” insures that U.S. Foreign policy steadfastly supports the Zionist state and its policies of brutal occupation  and aggressive war. It is this reality that moved Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed to boldly declare in October 2003 that “today the Jews rule this world by proxy.”
——–

Read The Protocols on the RadicalPress site. Go to the following page:
http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=601

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater by Arthur Topham

MacleansGaritFrPg copy 4

COVER OF THE OCTOBER 1, 1966 EDITION OF MACLEANS MAGAZINE
___________________________________________________________

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater

by Arthur Topham

April 27, 2009

Not long after publishing my recent article, 911 & Sec. 13(1): Coincidence or Collusion linking the harassment of 9/11 Truth seekers to Section 13(1) of Canada’s “Human Rights” Act I received an email from a friend and supporter in New Brunswick who said, “Hi Arthur. A great essay. I think you ought to write the definitive book, “Zionism for Dummies” and have Amazon sell it.”

Well, I thought to myself, that would be a good idea considering the lack of real knowledge and understanding surrounding this subject and the fact that the mainstream media in Canada is owned and controlled by the Zionists so there’s not much chance they’re going to start educating the Canadian public on the nature of this rather controversial topic. Yes, a great idea indeed if…only I wasn’t in the very midst of a rather crucial legal battle with the very forces which my friend hopes that I might tell the reading public about so they could get a better picture of what’s really going on, not only in Canada but around the world.

And then, no sooner that I got to thinking about all the “dummies” who need to be told the truth about Zionism, along comes Ezra Levant’s article of April 27, 2009, “Why did the Jewish Congress build up the Nazi Party?”. After reading what he had to say about Bernie Farber and Rabbi Reuven Bulka of the CJC and how they conspired to create (or should I say, inflate?) the “Canadian Nazi Party” in the 1960s, it got me to thinking that maybe there was a way in which we could enlighten Canadians about the actual workings of this mysterious Babylonian cult which first emerged upon the world’s stage a little over a century ago as the World Zionist Organization and has since come to be the most influencial, dominant and dangerous force in the world today; one whose destiny is soon to be revealed to the mesmerized millions who’ve been held in mental and emotional bondage to its siren songs since the beginning of the 20th Century and especially since it took control of the movie industry, the newspaper and print and publishing industry and finally the television industry beginning in the late 1940s.

But this isn’t the place to begin Chapter One of “Zionism for Dummies”. Rather its the place to once again try and explain to Canadians the deceptive element that’s hidden within the political ideology known as Zionism and to show them how this deception is carried on by all proponents of Zionism, be they the zealous, yet elusive and subtle advocates of the type that Ezra Levant is or the more overt brand of Zionist like Mark Steyn who makes no bones about his love for this form of political philosophy.

Also included in this definition of course must be the many crypto-Zionist types, in particular those who fall within the camp known as “Christian” Zionists and who hide their overt love for the state of Israel and their hatred for Arabs and non-Zionist Christians and all other heathen behind veils of not so sophisticated sophistry and bellicose rhetoric.

All of these elements which make up the body of Zionist thinkers and advocates will inevitably expose their true selves via time-tested, tell-tale signs which tend to always mark the ideological territory claimed by the Talmudic high priests of Zion. One of the foremost of these signs will inevitably be the anti-German, anti-National Socialist rhetoric; one of the more prominent hallmarks of hatred that delineates both their pathology and their racist ideology.

If one is ever to get a firm grip on how Zionism operates the very first lesson to learn, over and above anything else, is that whatever the Zionist says it must be construed as both false and deceptive and the very opposite meaning has to be attached to any statements made by them. If one fails to do this automatically and tries to rationalize and think through their ideas then that person is bound to get lost and confused for the intent of any public utterance meant for non-Zionists is to obfuscate and lead astray or else support the Zionist “logic”.

There are many more guidelines to understanding how the Zionist deceives his gullible listeners but this one principle (thinking the opposite meaning to what they infer) must suffice for this article.

Now on the surface one would think from reading Levant’s article that he’s the knight in shining armour dashing into the armed camp of the influencial and censorial Canadian Jewish Congress on his great white steed and with one fell swoop lopping the heads off its leaders Farber and Bulka and claiming victory for free speech advocates while at the same time denouncing the Big Brother commissars from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. And that is precisely what the Zionists want Canadians to think and that is why both Levant and the Ottawa Citizen conspired to run his story and why Ezra is so “pleased” that the Citizen gave him “so much room to reply.”

There’s no doubt that Ricardo Warmouse, the former CHRC lawyer and investigator, has been leading the “hate crimes” brigade for some time now and that Levant and others such as Kathy Shaidle and Connie Fournier of FreeDominion.ca are all being sued by him and that they’re all fighting to stop Warmouse’s endless suits which the CJC obviously supports. But that, in itself, is not the whole story just as Levant’s attack on the CJC for their involvement in the former Canadian Nazi Party is not the whole story.

Beyond all of this is the relentless, ever-present and persistent push to denigrade Germany and reinforce the myth (Lie) that the National Socialist Party of Germany was responsible for both World Wars and foremost, for having murdered 6 million Jews in concentration camps in eastern Europe by the use of gas chambers and ovens. This, plus the screeching whine of endless “anti-Semitism” are the two pillars upon which political Zionism rests and the Zionists will do whatever is necessary in order to maintain this illusion in the minds of the public and that includes, if needs be, sacrificing some of their own in order to do so, including the CJC.

It wouldn’t be the first time either for records exist which show how the Zionists did their utmost during the 1930s and 40s to stop hundreds of thousands of Jews from leaving Germany and eastern European states prior to the Nazis ever engaging in military acts. All this was done in order to ensure that World Jewry would be granted their “homeland” in Palestine after the war ended and as is now known the Zionists were more than willing to sacrifice their fellow Jews in order to accomplish this deed.

In the case of the Canadian Jewish Congress the decision had already been made that this organization would be slated for sacrifice.  As I said in my article 911 & Sec. 13(1): Coincidence or Collusion, the CJC has lost its position as a major player in Jewish Canadian politics and has been swallowed up a bigger fish, the “New” Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), formed by the ultra Zionist Asper media cartel who own and control CanWest Global Communications Corporation.

In true Zionist style therefore we will likely see the CJC become Gefilte fish as CanWest’s hired word-butcher (Levant) working in CanWest’s butcher shop (the Ottawa Citizen), fillets it leaving only the head, skin and bones showing for temporary public viewing while Section 13(1) is being attacked. Then, thanks to Levant who suddenly “discovers” the old Macleans magazine article from October, 1966 on the “neo-Nazis” and the CJC, now begins the process of grinding down and boiling the remains in the CanWest’s corporate cauldron until just the right texture is achieved and before long they’ve got CJC “balls” so to speak, ready to be served up on a platter in sacrificial fashion to the voracious Asper/CIJA appetite.

And what of the word-butcher Levant? Why he’s supposed to come out smelling like a rose, the saviour of the Goyim and the hero of the free speech movement while the real heroes, Marc Lemire and Barbara Kalaszka are side-stepped and ignored in favour of a good kosher Zionist. Whether this scenario actually manifests or if he actually begins to smell like those fish balls do after a few days, remains to be seen.

The main point again, if I may, is that throughout this whole exercise in Zionist propaganda and mind-control, we are seeing, as is par for the course, Zionist Jews playing the lead roles in both sides of this seemingly controversial battle over Section 13(1). Levant is a Zionist. Asper is a Zionist. Bernie Farber is a Zionist. An unholy trinity of vipers out to bewitch the public with their sophistry and media magic, aided and abetted by their crypto-Zionist supporters (the “dummies”) who have no real idea what the Big Picture is all about.

At the end of the Levant rant we see the same old hatred spewed forth against the Germans just to remind those readers (again) who may have forgot their daily Zionist catechism of the Great Persecution and the Holocaust and “gas chambers” and Cotler’s “New anti-Semitism” creed now being slipped surreptiously into the Zionist culture we tend to think of as being truly “Canadian”.

Allow me to conclude with a challenge to Levant and the Asper media giant. Ezra, feigning slight disappointment over the Citizen’s headline: “Neo-Nazis are best simply ignored” boldly states that rather than ignoring those dastardly, evil Nazis or even charging them with “hate crimes”, we ought to rebut and debate them and prove the fallacy of their arguments so that Canadians will understand once and for all just how wrong the Germans were and how right the Zionists are.

Well, Ezra Levant, you now have a challenge of the same caliber coming from someone who is not a German or a member of any neo-Nazi organization but who will nonetheless debate the issues of National Socialism and political Zionism with you and prove to Canadians once and for all that whatever threat the Nazis may have posed to humanity pales in comparison to the destruction and infamy and death brought upon the world throughout the 20th Century by those who profess to be Zionists and who work to create a world where Zionist principles and values are held in high esteem over those of Christian and/or pagan values and democratic principles.

Let’s see if CanWest Global Communications Corporation will offer up a national debate between myself and you on the issue of political Zionism. I would think the National Post would be the most fitting of the Asper organs to run this debate seeing as how it is a Canada-wide publication. Each of us will be given Op-Ed space of 1500 words maximum per article and these sessions will run consecutively until a national poll determines who is the winner. You defend Zionism and its Talmudic values and I’ll defend Democracy and Christian/pagan values. In lieu of doing physical battle I propose this as the most civilized and reasonable manner in which to determine who of us is truly fighting for Canada and its sovereignty as a free and democratic nation.

The gauntlet has been thrown down Ezra. Will you and CanWest have the courage to pick it up?

—————-

 

Toben Down. Who’s Next? By Arthur Topham

Toben/Reneuf

Dr. Fredrick Toben with Lady Michelle Renouf in London after
escaping the clutches of the Talmudic Zio-bloodhounds in the fall of 2008
______________________________________________________

Toben Down. Who’s Next?

By Arthur Topham


April 16, 2009

This is one of those articles that I find SO difficult to write and remain civil while doing so. Being in the midst of a legal battle myself with these Talmudic Tyrants of Tyranny out to control every aspect of human life and consciousness in their mad attempt to take over the world I find the usual protocol of being courteous to these maniacal, mind-controllers practically, as well as esthetically, impossible to adhere to. So if you’re not up to a bit of cussin’ and politically incorrect pronouncements then best you switch back to FOX or CNN.

When I see a fellow Truth Warrior like Dr. Toben, trapped by their perfidious web of “legal” lies and deceit and knowing only too damn well their mendacious motives for silencing men and women who have the courage of their own knowledge and convictions to stand up to these savage, pseudo-savants of sophistry and deception, a primal sense of outrage, so deep and so strong, wells up from within me and all I want to do is search the keyboard for the button that reads SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAM!!!! and press on it with all my might until the intensity of the anger and the utter disgust finally abates.

True to form the Zionist media dogs lap up all the usual Zionese/Legaleese language of their masters and vomit it forth via their newspapers and out from their Ziovision screens around the world as if it is going to reinforce the obvious, blatant lies of which they are so desperately attempting to sustain. Dr. Toben ““Holocaust denier” ““guilty” of “criminal contempt” and ““defying orders”  to stop publishing ““racist material” on his website ad nauseum.

The Zionist owned and controlled ““Jewdiciary” of Australia have “held” that Fredrick doesn’t accept the Zionist version of what the Talmudic Jews have mandated as ““freedom of speech” and ““history” so they have found him ““guilty” of ““28 counts of contempt”. Thus Jeremy Jones (a good kosher Jewish handle if ever I saw one), former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Orwellian weasel who first launched the complaint against Mr. Toben back in 1996, is now smirking to his Talmudic brethren and telling them how Australia is now firmly in the grasp of the infamous Noahide ““Laws” of the Talmudic Lubavichers once and for all.

Desperate to establish as historic fact, and thus reinforce their crumbling foundation of lies and deception that they’ve been foisting upon the world’s media watchers for the past sixty years and more, that the so-called ““Jewish Holocaust” did in fact happen and that (of course) 6 million Jews were shoved into Ô“gas chambers” and then ““ovens” to rid the world of the evidence, they continue to go on and on in their nauseating, enervating chorus of “virulent anti-semitic” pronouncements, vainly hoping that by endless, in your face lying, the world is going to swallow all this hogwash that they’ve created in order to mask the reality of their true agenda for global hegemony, world slavery and death and destruction as per the dictates of their Talmudic, psychopathic rabbis.

So much for Australia as an outpost of true freedom and democracy in a world tainted to the core with tinctures of Talmudic lies and half-truths. Like Germany and Austria and France and Canuckistan another once proud member of the former British commonwealth succumbs to the evil vampires of darkness giving in to their sick, twisted, psychotic belief in their own presumptuous, pompous, egregious sense of self-worth and unique importance, over and above everyone else.

Such is the fate of all nations who fail to get a grip on the reality of what the hell is happening in their own nations and how all of these phoney baloney “Human Rights Commissions” and “Human Rights Tribunals” and “Human Rights” whatevers, beginning with the Zionist/Jew/Bolshevik creation of the United Nations, are nothing but Talmudic Trojan Horses that were rolled into unsuspecting nations under the guise of equality and democracy but are now being used against the people to keep them from criticizing and questioning any aspect of life that may happen to be influenced by these Talmudic monsters who (obviously) give no quarter to anyone who doesn’t obey their assumed authority and rule.

We’ve forgotten one of the golden rules of life and that is to be able to challenge any authority that assumes to dictate what is truth and what isn’t. In the case of the Talmudic Zionist Jews who now “legally” have the world by the short curlies thanks to their lies and doggedly determined efforts to control all avenues to understanding by owning and manipulating the media, government leaders around the world and nations’ legal systems, the options being left to dissidents are growing slimmer and slimmer as the prison-gates of the Talmudic mind-controlling gulags continue to close tighter and tighter upon a world only now dimly awaking to the realization that it has been had in terms of all what it formerly held to be historical reality, rights and freedoms.

Dr. Fredrick Toben’s website www.adelaideinstitute.org * is now silent and inaccessible and the abundance of untold wealth of research and knowledge remains unavailable for any new student of history who might wish to compare Mr. Toben’s views with those of the Talmudic Jews who reign supreme over all the other avenues to supposed truth and understanding. One more trooper bites the dust leaving Australia another conquered, vanquished country, another pin in the lapel of the Rothschild criminal syndicate.

As Dr Toben said after being found ““guilty” he does not regret his actions. ““If you believe in something and you want to have that freedom to express your opinions then you should be prepared for sacrifices.”

A simple truth but who is listening? When are the people going to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee? This same shit is coming down big time in the last bastion of free speech in the world, the USA as I write. Here in Canada I and others are fighting these Talmudic blowhards with all of our strength. Think about it. Where are you going to go to get some un-zionized news when Jeff Rense www.rense.com has his site shut down and Michael Rivero’s www.WhatReallyHappened.com suddenly goes off the screen because the Jews who own and control the President and House and Congress of the USA have decided to throw the Constitution and the Bill of Rights down the shithole of history and substitute their Noahide Talmud “laws” instead? What are you going to do and say when anything critical of Jews or Zionism or the state of ““Israel” is no longer acceptable as “free speech”? If these two icons of the alternative news media go down you can bet your bottom dollar (if you still have one that is) that any other sites of a similar nature will also disappear into that Talmudic black hole of censored news leaving people only the Zionist media as their source of “unbiased” information.

God help us all when that day comes!

——

* Please note that Dr. Toben is still maintaining a home page at his website address. All archives are inaccessible but check his site for recent announcements. Ed.

________________________________________

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He lives with his wife and assorted critters in central British Columbia, Canada. He can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

Visit the website at http://www.radicalpress.com

War of the words By Lisa Gregoire

STOPSec.13

http://wwwStopSection13.com