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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

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

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

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

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

dchristie2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

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

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

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

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orwell1984BKCv

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

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

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

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

AliceinWonderland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Brainwashing: 911 & the Holohoax by Alfred Schaefer (Video)

911BrainwashingHoloHdr
9/11 Brainwashing part 1
9/11 Brainwashing part 2
ATSmlEdScreenshot
Editor’s Note: Brainwashing: 9/11 & the Holohoax – a two part video by German producer Alfred Schaefer – is, without a doubt, one of the best visual productions to date outlining the massive deceptions on the part of the Zionist Jew criminal cartel now in control of the majority of Western civilization. Via its powerful media control, its control of western political leaders, and the power of its purse to wreak havoc across the globe using whatever ruthless tactics it so desires in order to create chaos, confusion and fear in the minds and hearts of the common people, these two videos give the viewer a comprehensive overview of just how the masses have been brainwashed over the past seventy years.
Schaefer’s 2-part video is amazingly well done and packed full with extensive footage relating to 9/11 and to the evidence surrounding the Holohoax that was revealed to the world during the famous Ernst Zundel trial in Canada throughout the 1980’s and ’90’s.
Brainwashing: 9/11 & the Holohoax reveals the endless deceptions, the blatant lies of the Zionist Jew media and those who labour to maintain the deception surrounding both these two world-changing events – the false claims of 6 Million Jews purported to have been gassed and “holocausted” in ovens during WW2 and the subsequent attack upon the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.
Using footage related to the 9/11 false flag where those complicit attempt to divert attention from the skeptical public’s questioning by equating them with “Holocaust deniers” Schaefer is then able to show viewers the striking similarities between these two Zionist false flags and clearly outline why 1+1=2 and not 3.
These videos illuminate with increasing intensity the dark shroud of lies that the Zionist criminal cartel continually uses to cover up their own diabolic actions and one cannot watch them without coming away feeling that all which Schaefer has presented as further evidence of these two massive cover-ups makes perfect sense in light events that have transpired since 1945.
Viewers are urged to pass these videos on to friends and those who are still in doubt about both these cataclysmic events that are driving the world further and further to the brink of global disaster.
—–

The Myth of the Pogrom by Holodomorinfo.com

HolodomorinfoHdr

Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 7.56.38 PM

The Jewish Bolshevik regime had begun murdering their way through ethnic Europeans as early as the 1920’s. Initially these crimes were concealed behind the Jewish Bolshevik construct of the ‘Soviet Union’ but with a Jewish victory in 1945 a new paradigm was concocted with the German Nation as the scapegoat. The source of the Big Lie can be traced back to the Jewish architect of ethnic European Genocide Vladimir Leninwho pronounced that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth”. While the Jewish Bolshevik genocide of ethnic Europeans is concealed, for the 70 years since WWII ethnic Europe has been saturated with propaganda regarding a Jewish ‘Holocaust’.

Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.41.41 PM

Ethnic European peoples are particularly susceptible to Jewish propaganda with their nations so insular as opposed to the international nature of the Jewish tribe. Ethnic Europeans of the German Nation are not united with ethnic Europeans of the Russian Nation consequently international information becomes limited to that which the Jewish tribe allows to filter through their network. A specific example of networking between Jewish cells occurred during WWI. Jewish Zionist Leo Motzkin presided over the Copenhagen office of the Zionist organization and operated as liaison between Zionist organizations in all other European nations. Trust is also a significant issue. The ethnic European of a number of nations appears capable of trusting implicitly that their own racial brethren are perpetrating horrendous atrocities. Yet will self-censor the crimes and atrocities that another race has perpetrated against their own. Trust between fraternal nations is at its lowest ebb during territorial instability when pseudo-patriotism encourages ethnic Europeans to paint their racial brethren as a nation of beasts. Jewish propaganda operates at a premium during war when there is most unrest. It feeds and maintains ethnic division an example of which is ‘Holocaust’ propaganda that primarily demonises the German nation and in a wider context paralyses ethnic Europe with false guilt allowing Jewish interests priority throughout ethnic European territory.

Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.05.04 PM Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.05.16 PM Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.02.18 PM Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.03.39 PM

Curiously other occasions in European history have been most ‘opportune’ for Jewish interests. In the late 19th-century Europe’s Russia was plagued by riots alleged by Jewish voices to be ‘anti-Jewish’ in nature and classified by Jewish historians as ‘genocidal pogroms’. These riots had considerable demographic implications for the rest of ethnic Europe and European America for at least 80% of Jews in the West are descendants of Jewish immigrants from Russia and its environs during the period 1880–1910. Commissioned to write propaganda alleging so called ‘pogroms’ against Jews in Russia it was Jewish leader of the World Zionist Congress and numerous other Jewish Zionist organizations across Europe, Leo Motzkin that spearheaded a campaign against ethnic White Russians. Joined byFranz Oppenheimer and Adolf Friedemann he invented a ‘German Committee for Freeing of Russian Jews’, apparently condoned by the German Government of the time, which attests to the Jewish ability to splinter relationships between fraternal nations. Also intriguing is that Jewish sources openly discouraged historical enquiry by non-Jewish historians into the subject of alleged ‘pogroms’ in Russia. For example, when Ukrainian historians exposed evidence proving that contemporary media reports of Jewish casualties in that nation were wildly exaggerated, the Jewish genealogy website ‘JewishGen,’responded by stating: “We believe that [these facts] are more than irrelevant because it redirects public attention from the major topic: the genocidal essence of pogroms.” Yet of the genocide by Jewish Bolsheviksof 16.5 million ethnic Europeans in Ukraine there still remains hardly a murmur.

 16.5MillionVideo

View video HERE

“In 1881 the ‘Russo-Jewish Committee,’ (RJC) an arm of Britain’s Jewish elite, mass-produced a pamphlet entitled “The Persecution of the Jews in Russia,” the 1899 edition including a lengthy letter written to the London Times by Nathan Joseph, Secretary of the RJC, dated November 5th, 1890 claiming that in the present circumstances “hundreds of thousands [of Jews] could be exterminated,” and began disseminating it through the press, the churches, and numerous other channels. By 1899, it was embellished and published as a short book, and today digitized copies are freely available online. By the early 20th century, the pamphlet had even spawned a four-page journal called Darkest Russia – A Weekly Record of the Struggle for Freedom, ensuring that the average [ethnic Briton] did not go long without being reminded of the ‘horrors’ facing [Jews in Russia]. The fact that these publications were mass produced should provide an indication as to their purpose: It is clear that these publications represented one of the most ambitious propaganda campaign in Jewish history, and combined with similar efforts in the United States, they were aimed at gaining the attention of…Western nations and ensuring the primacy of the ‘Jewish…story.’ Implicit in this was not only a desire to provoke anti-Russian attitudes, but also copious amounts of sympathy for the victimized Jews —sympathy necessary to ensure that  mass Jewish chain migration to the West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists.” A complete transposition of historical relations between White Russian and Jew, the propaganda contended that the Jews of Eastern Europe had been oppressed for centuries, their whole lives “hampered, from cradle to grave, by restrictive laws.” They claimed that White Russians had an unwritten law “that no Russian Jew shall earn a living,” even though, according to the Russo-Jewish Committee, Jews in Russia wanted nothing more than to participate in Russian society.The Jewish narrative also contended that the ‘pogroms’ were genocidal in nature and perpetrated by groups seeking the extermination of the Jews. Yet the most horrific of the charges laid against the Russian Empire was that they had committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. Jews had allegedly been murdered ruthlessly, infants dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes.

Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.08.11 PM

A common theme in most contemporary atrocity stories was the brutal rape of Jewish women, with most reports including mention of breasts being hacked off. The similarity between such atrocities and those concocted by ‘Holocaust survivors’ cannot be denied, furthermore it was Jewish Bolsheviks that instigated a horrific cycle of crucifixions, scalpings and other bestial tortures against ethnic Europeans in which eyes were poked out, tongues cut off, and victims buried alive.

xxxbestialTorture

Click HERE to view

Indeed letters home from German soldiers attest to Jewish Bolshevik brutality:

NCO K. Suffner, Military Post Number 08 070 to his work mates

…The Bolshevists and Jews bestially murdered 12,000 Germans and Ukrainians. I saw pregnant women hanging by their feet in the GPU’s prison. They had slit the noses, ears, eyes, fingers, hands and arms and legs of other women. Some even had their hearts cut out. 300 orphans between the ages of 2 and 17 had been nailed to the wall and butchered. After they were done with the torture, they threw the people, most of whom were still alive, into a 3 meter deep pile in the basement, doused them with gasoline, and lit them on fire. It was terrible! We could not believe that shave suffered if Bolshevismhad reached us. The complainers and know-it-alls that we still have in the Reich should see this. Then they would know what pure Bolshevism looks like. They would fall to their knees and thank the Führer for saving Germany from such things. I and many other German soldiers have seen this. We all thank the Führer that he let us see the Bolshevist “paradise.” We swear to extirpate this plague root and branch.

Soldier Fred Fallnbigl to his Parents in Salzburg, 17.7.41

…a bit more from the Soviet Paradise. I’ll especially tell you about things that happened in Lemberg-Tarnopol and Tromborla. Tromborla is due south of Tarnopol. I saw the prisons in Lemberg, and saw things that struck me deeply. There were men with their ears and noses cut off, etc. They had nailed children alive by their hands and feet to the wall, butchering them. The blood was ankle deep. It didn’t make any difference if they were alive or dead. They doused the piles of bodies with gasoline and set them on fire…I always think how fortunate we are that this scourge of humanity never made it to our country. I don’t think that even years of preparation would make Germans capable of such atrocities.

Given the evidence of long-term murderous Jewish Bolshevik atrocities against ethnic Europeans and the failing construct that is the ‘Holocaust’, Jewish claims of horrific brutality by white Russia begins to sound decidedly hollow.

Screen Shot 2014-05-04 at 8.09.58 PM

Even more so when one discovers that Alexander II set into motion a Jewish emancipation in Russia. He made education fully open to Jews, Jews could sit on the juries of Russian courts and efforts to change the economic profile of Jews were relaxed. However, while the Jews in Russia took advantage beginning to swamp higher education establishments they stubbornly persisted in the unproductive trades, continued in their antipathy to Russian culture, and refused to make any meaningful contribution to Russian society. In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were “driving Christians from the school benches,” and “filling up the schools.” Jewish propaganda proposed that when the riots began, the government was “not altogether sorry to let the excitement of the people vent itself on the Jews.” However, John Doyle Klier, in his 2005 work, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–2, stated that “contemporary research has dispelled the myth that Russian officials were responsible for instigating, permitting, or approving the pogroms.” It was largely Klier’s work in the late 1980s which began to truly shed light on the origins of Russian-Jewish relations prior to 1914. Jews overwhelmingly “served in a variety of middleman roles.” In many cities, “the Jewish mercantile element was numerically superior to the [White Russian] Christian,” and there was a gradual move towards the reacquisition of the liquor trade. According to Klier, by 1830 Jews in Belarus were found to be “totally dominating trade”, which closely reflects the Jewish fuel monopolies of Wittgenstein and Rothschild occurring in Central Europe during the same period, and are to coincidental not to be a coordinated requisition of ethnic European wealth. A large number of wealthy Jews were also found to have funded some of the rebels in the nationalist revolt of Poles in 1863 casting fresh doubts on Jewish loyalty to Russia. Breaking out at a moment when general quiet prevailed in Europe, there was a public outcry in support of the Poles. Again this provides the necessary conditions for the transmission of Jewish propaganda as periods of inter-ethnic strife are highly conducive for demonization of a nation to the outside world. It also mirrors the Jewish financing of ‘revolution’ in Europe throughout history.

Rape

Click HERE to watch video

Meanwhile with the close of WWII Jewish ‘citizens’ in Berlin daubed the door frames with lambs blood so theJewish Bolshevik Red army would ‘Passover‘ to rape and murder only ethnic Germanshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254521/German-victim-break-silence-Red-Army-rapists-65-years.html . The Jewish case against ethnic Europe is so contrived that were it not so genocidal it would be comic. What is patently clear is that Jewish historians greatly exaggerated the death toll during periods of rioting in Russia. People may well have died but in general; Jews were not specifically targeted. Reports of Jewish rape victims and violent atrocities against Jews are a fiction. One must reiterate with evidence of long-term murderous Jewish Bolshevik atrocities against ethnic Europeans and the failing construct that is the ‘Holocaust’, Jewish claims of horrific brutality by white Russia is as hollow as their 70 year big lie.

—–

Follow us on twitter – https://twitter.com/HolodomorInfo

 

What Are Values? by Odinia

OdiniaHdr700 copy

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.16.53 PM

Using one’s Gods-given reason, intellect and common sense, embracing one’s own perspective, and working for the good of one’s own people is sanity, not hatred. In fact, in a society where one is not allowed to reason, and even the feeling of certain natural basic emotions is legislated against, as with “hate crimes”, one is no longer a human being, but a slave. A free human being is allowed to think, speak and to experience emotion… to hate, love or be indifferent… as he or she chooses. Emotions are given us for a reason, and sometimes even hatred is appropriate, and necessary for survival.

I do not apologize for telling the truth in regard to history, or anything else. When facts have been hidden, it is often for no good purpose. Any argument that cannot weather open debate is no argument at all. In the case of the historical facts presented here, the truth is especially important. This is information each one of our people desperately needs to know. Truth, to Odinists, is a virtue, not a “crime”. It is one of many good qualities that we value. Here is a brief video about Odinist virtues:

 View Video: About the Noble Virtues

For example, we stand against the recent onslaught of arrests, and the jailing,  under Zionist-made “hate” laws (laws which actually are meant to suppress free speech), of historians for the “crime” of writing verifiable facts in books. We do not agree with Galileo Galilei being forced to recant the Heliocentric Theory, on pain of death, either. These are much the same sort of thing.

Cowards who want to “fit in”, who look after their own advantage first, last and always, and who collaborate with such things as indefinite detention without trial are not our people. Anyone who thinks nothing of arresting authors for writing books is the enemy of all free humankind. If a European person is so far gone, so brainwashed, that he or she no longer has the inclination, or the courage, to face reality, or deal with it, there is nothing I, or anyone else, can do to help.  For those who still do have the blood, spirit and courage of our ancestors, read on…

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.17.16 PM

The date of this Paper is the September 2nd, 1939. If you look carefully you will see, just above the title of the article, the words “Britain First”..Strangely enough, before I ever saw this newspaper, when I knew only a fraction of the truth, I made a Facebook group called “America First”.

In it, I used to talk about “Israel Firsters”, referring to people who wanted to callously use America, its resources, and the very lives of its people as cannon fodder in order to advance Israel. How little I knew then, about just how serious the problem really is and has been, and how much more I have to learn…

I created this group, America First, after an incident in which several hundred “Americans” attacked me online on Independence Day, and some even gave me death threats. They did this simply because I had said that invading the sovereign Kingdom of Jordan so Israel could expand its borders was not only morally wrong, but not in the interests of the United States of America.

A man I know, or used to know, used this name, “America First” in a video interview and sent me the video afterwards to show me and say thank you. This man is now dead, murdered and demonized by Zionist Jews and their collaborators. He said he feared they would kill him, and he was right.

His name was J.T. Ready and he was an intelligent, motivated man who certainly did not kill himself. He had once worked for the Zionists,  but when he saw what they really were he decided to work against them instead. J.T.Ready changed his dogtags shortly before he was killed to read “Odinist”. Here is the video he sent me.

View Video: J.T. Ready

The last time I spoke to him, J.T. Ready gave me to understand that those of us “domestic terrorists” who spoke out against the unconstitutional, criminal Zionist take-over of our country and media, and who were against such things as placing foreign dual Israeli citizens in our government, for example, had been identified and put on a list, especially those who were considered leaders. If I am ever accused of being a deranged Nazi murder-suicide killer and cannot say anything because I am dead, bear this in mind. 🙂 According to J.T. Ready, I am on the list too.

How very strange that English people wrote those words, “Britain First” in the face of Jewish tyranny, so long ago… but it is not a coincidence. They knew. If only people had seen, and had listened, then I would not have had to write the words “America First” these many years later and we would not be in this predicament. Now not just Germany, Russia, England, Palestine and America have the same problem… but the entire world. If no one listens soon, and if we all do not take strong action in every way we can to reverse what has happened, soon there will be no one left to write.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.17.33 PMView Video: The Leadership of the Red Army was overwhelmingly Jewish, not “Russian”

I can walk into my living room right now and pick up a “historical” timeline that says Marx was “German”. This is not the case.

Marx, otherwise known as Moses Moredecai Levy was descended from a long line of rabbis.. Trotsky, real name, Lev David Bronstein, was also Jewish..Lenin (also not his real name) was Jewish too. 75% of the Bolsheviks (regular men not leaders) were Jewish.. The international bankers who funded the rise of Communism in Russia? All Jewish. Stalin’s real name? Iosif Dzhugashvili..Dzhugashvili means Jew-son. He was part Jewish and all three of his wives and mistresses were Jewish.

Then there is Lazar Kaganovitch, a Jew who killed as many as 15 MILLION Europeans, but you have never heard of him I imagine. You have heard of Hitler though, I would guess. Here is a video about perspective.

 View Video: Learning about the “Holocaust”

 The KGB leadership…75 percent Jewish, the gulags? You guessed it, and there is a lot more, including mass murderers such as Genrikh Yagoda. Who *wasn’t* Jewish? The Russian royal family, nobility and farmers who were killed and their land taken. Communist Jews killed tens of millions of Europeans out of racist hate..and no one even knows…

 The Hidden Holocaust

 Of the 90,000 German men who surrendered at Stalingrad alone, only 5,000 ever returned to their homeland. Overall, approx. 3 MILLION German soldiers – who had surrendered – died after the war… 1 million at the hands of the Judeo-Bolsheviks and 1.7 MILLION at the hand of Eisenhower.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.17.57 PM

“Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight; nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring men clad in dirty gray uniforms, and standing ankle deep in mud … water was a major problem, yet only 200 yards away the River Rhine was running bank-full.“
Col.Charles Beasley

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.18.09 PM

“When they caught me throwing C- Rations over the fence, they threatened me with imprisonment. One Captain told me that he would shoot me if he saw me again tossing food to the Germans … Some of the men were really only boys 13 years of age…Some of the prisoners were old men drafted by Hitler in his last ditch stand … I understand that average weight of the prisoners at Andernach was 90 pounds…I have received threats … Nevertheless, this has liberated me, for I may now be heard when I relate the horrible atrocity I witnessed as a prison guard for one of ‘Ike’s death camps’ along the Rhine.”

Col. James Mason

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.18.39 PM

“Ike” Eisenhower, who killed 1.7 million German servicemen who had surrendered *after* the war. He directed that “prison enclosures are to provide no shelter or other comforts.” Eisenhower wrote in a letter to his wife “God I hate the Germans” and this was the one thing he said that was true. He is referred to in his school yearbook as “the terrible Swedish Jew”. Funny how there is the word “anti-Semitic”, but we do not even have a word for those who hate Europeans.

So extreme is the media bias that many people have not the barest conception of the truth… One good example is Lazar Kaganovitch, an atheist Jew, who was in charge of an operation that killed as many was 15 million European people, a third of them children, and no one has ever even heard of it. Think about why.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.19.06 PM

This picture shows starved Ukrainian children at Holodomor…They were  starved to death for their land. Everyone has heard of Hitler and of the “Jewish” holocaust, just not the real facts about it. When a historian tells these facts, he or she is arrested… 44 so far that I have looked into so far, and there are many more. The reason is that when any rational person looks at it, he or she sees the truth.

Ilya Ehrenberg..the war propagandist and war provocateur who invented the “6 million” number, the bars of soap, the lampshades…all admitted hoaxes…. His words are quoted below .. it is hard to believe that anyone could be filled with such monstrous hate. Our course all of this is in accordance with the Talmud. In fact, he left his memoirs to Israel.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.19.16 PM

These words were written in a booklet meant to encourage the Judeo-Bolsheviks to savage European civilians and he was successful…it led to the gang rape, and often torture and murder as well, of 2 million European women and little girls as young as 6.

“Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! …Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.”

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.19.32 PM

The tiny little girl above on the right has had her pants pulled up for the picture. She was raped to death. Just a small part of one account of what happened to helpless, unarmed women and children at the hands of the Judeo-Bolsheviks… (paraphrased from Berlin Downfall 1945 by ANTONY BEEVOR). I know it is hard to believe, but some of the stories are even worse in their own way…

Half-drunk Red Army… soldiers, armed with rifles and machine guns, made unarmed Germans stand in rows. Other Judeo-Bolsheviks forced women and girls to lie on the ground, tore off their clothes and began raping them. ..U.S. soldiers from their truck looked on at all this with eyes wide open. It seemed that they were simply paralyzed by the spectacle. When two young German girls, stripped naked, shouting all the time rushed to the truck and in desperation began to climb on it the American guards pulled them up. The Judeo-Bolsheviks did not like this. Firing wildly into the air and shouting, they rushed to the American truck. The U.S. soldiers quickly readied their guns, and the truck raced away across the road. When it had disappeared, the Judeo-Bolshevik soldiers attacked the German women again.

A young German woman, a little over thirty, mother of a 12-year-old girl, knelt at the feet of a Judeo-Bolshevik corporal and prayed to God that the soldiers take her, and not the girl. But her prayers went unanswered. Tears streamed down her cheeks as she kept praying. The corporal walked away from the woman, his face contorted into a mocking grin. One of the soldiers hit the woman on the face with his boot. “Damned fascist pig!”, he yelled. The young mother fell on her back. The soldier who had hit her, shot her in the head and killed her.

The Judeo-Bolsheviks seized all the German women who were visible. The little daughter of the murdered woman was dragged behind a tank by the killer of her mother. He was joined by other Judeo-Bolsheviks. For half an hour rang out wild screams and moans. Then, completely naked, the girl, unable to stand on his feet, crept back. However, in the overall picture of the atrocities, the suffering of the girl was not unusual. The helpless German men tried to persuade the guards to allow them to help the girl. Rifle at the ready, the Judeo-Bolshevik allowed a German medic to attend to the girl. An hour later she died, and her last sobs burned the hearts of Hartmann and his soldiers. 8 and 9-year-old girls were being repeatedly raped mercilessly by a brutalized Judeo-Bolshevik military. They showed no other feelings other than hatred and lust…. Those who were dragged away from the truck, nobody saw them again.

2 million women and little girls…Little boys who tried to save their female relatives were shot. Many of the victims, who were almost always gang- raped, died. The victims included little girls as young as 6 and women in their 80’s, and also many catholic nuns were assaulted. There was even an assault in a church. The women were led to believe that they would be safe there and then the doors were locked and organ music played by laughing Judeo-Bolsheviks who then assaulted them.

We have ALL heard the name of Anne Frank…Anne Frank who wrote her memoirs in ball point pen (which had not been invented yet) and who actually died of typhus. Why is she considered more important and more worthy of public consideration than these little girls who really were assaulted and butchered?  It is because she is Jewish and these European children are considered to be “goyim” or “human cattle” by the Jewish religion. This is not ancient history either. The IDF rabbi in Israel recently publicly stated that rape in war with non-Jewish victims and Jewish rapists is acceptable because the wars of Israel are, in his words, “not like the wars of other nations”.  According to him, they are “Mitzvah”, or “holy” wars.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.19.52 PM
Victims of the strategically unnecessary bombing attack upon Dresden..a city of unarmed civilian refugees, mostly women and children. More of Ilya Ehrenberg’s words…

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime … If you have already killed a German, then kill another one – there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! …  – Kill the Germans! Kill!”

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.20.08 PM

The Israeli government is always demanding apologies, such as when the Swedish government allowed free speech by not stopping a courageous reporter from printing the truth about an international Israeli organ stealing ring. One wonders if the Israeli government is sorry for the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages, as in the massacre of helpless unarmed villagers at Deir Yassin or for …the torture, starvation, rape and murder of TENS OF MILLIONS of Europeans, also to steal their land?  My answer would be no. You must decide for yourself. This is a computer generated image of the monument Israel is building to commemorate the Red Army, no doubt using US tax dollars. They are celebrating the atrocities committed by the Red Army and doing it on land obtained by committing other atrocities.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.20.20 PM

Why are they doing this? Because 75 percent of the regular Judeo-Bolsheviks and every single leader of the Red Army was Jewish. According to the Talmud, none of these things are actually morally wrong. In the Talmud (which takes precedence over the part of the Torah you are probably familiar with) it is permissible to break every one of the ten commandments, and this includes murder, theft and child rape, as long as the victim is not Jewish and the perpetrator is.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.20.29 PM

Some words from Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardic rabbi.. “The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews…The Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they would have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel…The lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews. Death has no dominion over us…… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi (masters) and eat. That is why gentiles were created.”

Now does everyone understand his or her purpose in the world?

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.20.59 PM

Shortly after entering Poland, the Judeo-Bolsheviks rounded up 22,000  unarmed European civilian and military leaders, and intellectuals and took them to camps where they disappeared and were never heard from again. This was not a regular war after all…the idea was to destroy the European race, nobility first. … In one case the Europeans were taken to Katyn Forest where the Judeo-Bolsheviks shot them in the back of the head and threw them in mass graves. Later the graves were filled in and pines planted over them. We know the details because some of the people who did this, who later went to Israel, were interviewed about it.

The Germans discovered the graves  of approx. 4,000 people in Katyn Forest and reported them to the Red Cross. It was investigated and various governments were given reports about the evidence of who the victims were and who the perpetrators were, this was undeniable. There was not even any contention about it. Despite FULL KNOWLEDGE of what had happened, this  cowardly, racist massacre of European nobility was blamed upon the Germans. The Jewish media- all over the world- portrayed it as a “Nazi crime” and Americans were actually encouraged to go to war to “save” Poland from “the Nazis”.

The Poles were thereby subjected to the Judeo-Bolsheviks, who had killed thousands of their people already, again. It was not until the 1980’s that Gorbachev finally officially admitted that the Judeo-Bolsheviks were responsible for this terrible crime.

The Sinking of the “Wilhelm Gustloff”

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 5.21.25 PM

Apathy and willful ignorance…in a way, they are much the same thing. There is a willingness in many to see *only* what we are directed to see, to be led, and not consider the source…Sometimes we even lose sight of titanic ships…ships that carried European women and children… people like us.

Here are civilian refugees fleeing torture, slavery and slaughter, but unless things are drastically changed by us, their story will never be told and will lie forever, silently, on the sea floor.   Many do not want to know the truth, or know anything 🙂 , Often this is because they feel they have better things to do, such as arranging their hair or playing a video game.

And yet, I understand how the man in this video feels. Like him, I hear the voices of the dead calling out for justice. How can it be that some of us have become so self- centered and lost that they cannot hear the voices of our own people? They also cry out in warning,  from a society that was so much more true than ours it is hard to contemplate how far we have fallen. Even dead, they are not as far gone as most of us are at this moment. If we do not hear them, we too will soon be gone. Here is a video about the sinking of the refugee Ship, “The Wilhelm Gustloff”

View Video: The Sinking of the “Wilhelm Gustloff”

_____________________________________________________________________________________
A Word about the Holohoax

But what about “the Holocaust”? Ok, if you are not referring to the real holocausts at Dresden, for example, or the Holodomor Holocaust or the current ongoing Palestinian genocide, all Jewish led, let us examine “THE” Holocaust for a moment…remembering that there were not even 6 million Jews in Europe at the time and that, scientifically, it is impossible to gas anyone and not leave Zyklon B traces. There is no record of a planned genocide by the Germans anywhere, even though we had broken their code…not a single  fly-over revealed any such activity. Also there is the little problem that it would have taken until the 1980’s to cremate that many people, even by modern methods. The Jewish “holocaust” is a monstrous lie.

Some videos about the overwhelming  evidence against “the Holocaust”.

Jews who tell the Truth about the Holohoax

Holocaust, Hate Speech &were the Germans really so stupid?

Undeniable Evidence. Expert Testimony of Fred Leuchter

David Irving, a Historian who was arrested for writing provable Truth

The scientific conclusions of a jewish researcher…

Ernst Zundel. Pacifist historian jailed for 7 years for telling verifiable facts

Holocaust Liar

Zionists Jailing Authors for telling the Truth under Zionist made “hate” laws (which are actually anti- Free Speech Laws) in 14 Countries

——–

For further information on the Odinism and the works of Odinia see the following:

http://odinist.org/

http://odinist.org/cultural-destruction-assault-death-extinction-us-preservation-people-national-character/
 
Foxfire Journal:  https://odinia.org/current-issue/
 
Several Facebook Pages, the main one here:  https://www.facebook.com/Odinia.International
 
The broadcasts (Most important):  https://www.youtube.com/user/odinistpodcast/videos

 

The Hitler test by John Kaminksi

HitlerTestHdr

The Hitler test

CAN YOU PERCEIVE THE JEWISH POLLUTION OF YOUR OWN MIND?

By John Kaminski
pseudoskylax@gmail.com
https://therebel.org/kaminski

 

The Hitler test is the same as the 9/11 test.

The same as the Iraq test, the Afghanistan test, the Libya test, the Syria test.

The same as the “domestic terrorist” test, the “anybody can be president” test, the “your vote counts” test, the “government is on your side” test.

If you believe what the government says, you’re part of the problem. If you believe what big media tells you, well, then you’re just an idiot, incapable of discernment and a total failure at critical thinking.

There’s a reason I keep saying 90 percent of the opposition to Jewish America’s pathological practices are false.

Such popular “opposition” commentators as Jim Stone, Alex Jones, Mike Rivero, Ryan Dawson, Chris Hedges, Dave Hodges, Mike Adams (to name only a few) . . . they all fail the Hitler test. They all fall for the Jewish propaganda that “Hitlerian” is the worst adjective you can apply to any person, any program, any social movement. They and hundreds of others have all fallen for the popular media lie that World War II was “the good war”, when in reality it was, at the time, the biggest lie ever told.

Whether these writers are merely naive or totally corrupt and paid off is for you to decide.

In either case, they pretend not to know that Adolf Hitler has been vilified in perpetuity by Jewish media to cover up some very important facts that are critical to your continued survival. These facts have been concealed for more than a half century.

Objective facts prove that Holocaust hysteria is a cynical hoax, meant to create new ways of scamming the public ($13.5 billion in Holocaust reparations, at last count; plus laws in almost all European countries mandating jail for anybody who wishes to even discuss the matter).

The two main facts that have been covered up are these.

Germany was destroyed in the 1940s because it was the most serious threat to Jewish worldwide financial hegemony the world has ever seen. While the rest of the world was mired in a Jewish-imposed worldwide depression — and people were starving in the streets everywhere, including the United States — Germany under Adolf Hitler was thriving, because it had freed itself from the shackles of the international bankers and their devastating criminal formula of fractional reserve lending, which is the exact thing that is strangling societies all over the world today.

And the second most important fact that has been covered up is that all this ceaseless and maudlin hoopla about 6 million Jews gassed and burned in German concentration camps obscures the real mass murder crime by Jewish allies America, Britain and the Soviet Union, who terminated with extreme prejudice 12 million innocent German citizens, most of them after the war had supposedly ended.

So the most important lessons to be learned from this massive coverup and social engineering program concocted and reinforced ad nauseum by Jewish media hypocrites is that anybody who escapes the toxic tentacles of the kosher world bankers guarantees themselves financial independence and domestic harmony, but runs the risk of being annihilated by the criminals who control the world financial system.

Which is why I’m fond of saying your choices under this current system of government are either life in prison or instant death. Do not try to sugar coat this. This is what everyone in the world is facing right now.

This unceasing drivel about Jewish Holocaust victims is best counterbalanced by reading the Thomas Goodrich book, Hellstorm, which details in the goriest of detail what the Americans, Brits and Russians did to innocent German civilians AFTER World War II had ended. Pay close attention to the horrific details, because these things are about to happen in the United States and elsewhere to most of you.

This is what the future has in store for you, for not really paying attention, for believing Jewish media lies, for concentrating on your toys and your highly paying jobs, and refusing to see where these lies were taking us. Have taken us.

 

Maintaining the slander

 

Even after two decades of false flag atrocities (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, WTC1 & 2, and the string of phony wars that followed), a majority of the American people still believes what it hears on TV, which is why the recent string of choreographed faux massacres has failed to stir the population to revolt — even as it is being slowly exterminated by an endless panoply of malicious methods.

Even as consciousness of our government’s criminal nature has grown in the minds of many — thanks to the Internet — still only a precious few are willing to recognize the nature of the disease that has turned the country into a terminal cancer patient, even though this sickness has been present since the founding of the republic.

Most people — especially the younger generations — have no clue that Holocaust hysteria didn’t really get going until after the JFK assassination in 1963, although the rabid hate crimes against the German people have been conducted by American Jews throughout the 20th century, principally in the creation of the Federal Reserve which started World War I, and also the worldwide declaration of war against the Germans by the Jews in 1933.

One of the bizarre aspects of this unceasing kosher propaganda blitz is that the Jews have been using this 6 million dead figure since well before World War II. Not only has the credibility of this tale been demolished in the minds of attentive observers, the shibboleth serves as a telling indicator that the tale, and the cynical public relations onslaught that has followed, have sickened the entire world with its maudlin falsehoods like dead Jews made into soap and lampshades and thrown into lakes of fire. None of these stories can be proved, but many people still believe them.

So, the point being that anybody using “Hitlerian” as a relevant adjective to describe some incomprehensibly dastardly deed is actually revealing to the world that their minds are clogged with demented Jewish fairy tales, nightmare sagas concocted by sobbing hypocrites like Elie Wiesel whose works have been disseminated throughout the world only because rich Jews control of the publishing industry, the TV networks, most governments and the Nobel Prize nominating committee.

People from Putin to Obama are still reinforcing this false stereotype. But the story didn’t happen that way. That’s just the way the Jews told that story, and because of their control of the media, that’s what most of the world now believes.

Hitler never wanted to take over the world like the Jews say he did. He only wanted to reclaim what was stolen from Germany in World War I. There were no gas chambers in the work camps. Most of those who died were Poles and other ethnic groups. And that number is nothing in comparison to the number of people murdered by the three Jewish allies — the Soviets, and Brits and the United States — who sought to stamp out the biggest threat to Jewish worldwide financial hegemony ever seen.

So all those writers who use Hitler as an example of the greatest arch villain of all time are merely displaying their own brainwashing, or their own contemptible corruption, to all who have eyes to see.

And now we see this process repeating itself endlessly in the killings of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, two leaders who were put in power by the world financial ogre, but who tried to break away and do what was best for their people, only to be obliterated by the same Jewish monster that is now obliterating us.

 

Solzhenitsyn’s words

 

Today we are experiencing unprecedented encroachments on our personal freedom. The TSA has announced it will demand our tax information if we wish to fly on an airplane. The police have usurped the right to enter our homes if we have been determined to be politically incorrect. Our children are poisoned from birth by vaccinations proven to cause permanent brain damage. And still most people deny that America has become a snake eating its own tail, driven all the while by Jewish interests who have no interest in working for the public good, but only in fleecing victims their rabbis have labeled as barnyard animals, or, as Menachem Begin once famously said, “beasts walking on two legs”.

More and more people have begun to figure out that the same monster that devoured the Russian people when the Soviet Union was brought into being by Jewish bankers from New York has now spread its poisoned attitudes across the United States, and like a colossal vampire, has sunk its fangs into every fiber of American life, strangling the life out of everything that is good and decent.

From Einstein to Feinstein, writers, scientists and politicians today seek to get ahead by reinforcing these same stereotypes that are killing us, and foremost among these techniques is summoning up their nightmare vision of Adolf Hitler as a symbol of dark depravity that fills us with fear. But like everything the Jews have told us during their takeover of the world, it is a lie.

What happened to the Russian people is now happening to Americans, because the same super rich and soulless Jewish bankers are running the world’s show. Because what happened to Russia is now happening to America, there is no better place to examine these deadly and tragic parallels than in the work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose last book — “Two Hundred Years Together” — the story of the Russians and the Jews — has been prevented from being published in the English language by the Jews who control the publishing industry, and by the paid off politicians who condone such censorship. It is all to the benefit of the Jews who bribe them, who blackmail them, to betray the people they are supposed to serve.

What happened in the Soviet Union is now happening here, with Jews occupying all the choke points of power, writing laws that benefit only themselves, and above all, killing non Jews as fast as they possibly can.

“Relentless terror” is what Stalin ordered for the Russian people, and what the American people are experiencing now. Listen to Solzhenitsyn’s words (culled from
http://archive.org/stream/RussianAndJews/WALENDYsolje_djvu.txt)

On August 26, 1918 Lenin instructed by telegram: “Dubious persons are to be locked up in concentration camps outside of the city. Relentless mass terror is to be carried out.”

Tens of thousands of hostages were killed “for deterrence” during the 1917-1922 civil war, with hundreds drowned at a time by sinking them on barges in the White Sea in the Arctic.

‘Vermin’ were naturally the small- and medium-sized farmers, the tradesmen and all homeowners. It was ‘vermin’ who were singing in the church choirs.

By resolution of the Defense Council of February 15, 1919 the Cheka and the NKVD were instructed to seize hostages from the farmers of those areas “wherever the clearing of snowdrifts off the railroad tracks is not progressing satisfactorily; in this case, if the work is not done, they can be shot.”

People were also shot recklessly on the basis of arbitrary lists — particularly academics, artists, authors and engineers. With the regulation on forced food-collection of January 1919, the farmers were also targeted.

Later, in the 1930s, the mass “collectivization of agriculture” in Ukraine led to the death by starvation of about 6 million humans.

What you read here is a preview of what is coming to America, in fact, what is already here.

Any man who has not yet been flung into the sewage channel and whoever has not yet been pumped himself through the pipes into the GULAG archipelago, should march about, joyfully above-ground, with flags flying and bands playing, praising the courts, and expressing ecstasy over his acquittal.

The general expropriation of the entire population in favor of an illusory “people’s property,” the system of general terror, the pervasive vulnerability of every unprivileged citizen — and as their consequence, arrests without
measure, deportations into faraway hard labor camp-regions and liquidations — were an integrated and mandatory part of the state ideology of “Marxism-Leninism.” These historical facts must be acknowledged.

As early as January 1918 there were already mass executions under martial law without any procedures or court hearings. These were followed by hundreds and later thousands of innocent hostages being seized, executed in mass nighttime shootings or loaded on ships and sunk with them [aboard].

Lazar Kaganovich, Genrikh Yagoda and Vyacheslav Molotov pushed their requisition commandos out into the countryside. Soon thereafter, in 1932-33, 5 or 6 million humans died like animals of hunger in Russia and Ukraine, right on the edge of Europe. “But the free press of the free world maintained its perfect silence!”

Solzhenitsyn’s description of the gulags are an accurate description of what is about to take place in the already-built U.S. FEMA camps.

Make no mistake about the gulags: they were not “work forever” camps. They were “work to death” camps, designed to liquidate the occupants. Millions were sent to die in them.

Solzhenitsyn tells us, however, ‘”by the computations of the emigrated statistics professor Kurganov, this ‘relatively light’ suppression that ran from the beginning of the October Revolution through 1950 cost us [Russians] about 66 million human lives.” [GULAG Archipelago, p. 37]

This is why Adolf Hitler was so intent on stopping the Red Jewish Menace from Russia from invading his own country. What has been stripped from our history books was that Hitler admired the United States and Britain, because he didn’t realize they had already been taken over by Jews and turned into monsters.

This is the Hitler test that most Americans have utterly failed. They have obediently swallowed the Jewish propaganda and lost their country to people with no conscience, no sense of compassion, and a bloodlust that has drenched the world in tragedy for longer than anybody can really remember.

In Russia, 1.7 percent of the population took over the whole government. In America, the percentage is about the same. The same Soviet Jews, run by New York bankers, have spawned both the neocons and the progressives. Each new law they conspire to pass is aimed at population reduction.

Foreigners with no allegiance to anything except their own insanity are in control of everything now. Since the time of Alexander Hamilton, they never have been Americans — only predators intent on controlling, robbing and killing.

Failing the Hitler test guarantees you either life in prison or an early grave. Those are the choices all Americans now face for failing the Hitler test,

All those writers who misuse the false term Nazi — consciously or not — are on the side of those now turning the world into a giant prison, in which the dead will outnumber the living.

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

Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 4.38.09 PM copy 3

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 9.00.04 PM

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people. Also contained herein is a map illustrating the possible territorial dissection of Germany and the apportionment of her lands.”

~Theodore  N. Kaufmann, Germany Must Perish!

AdolfQuote&Image

How tedious, onerous, and evil it all is having to observe Jews like Karen Selick posing as loyal Canadians and lying their face off about Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany in Jewry’s incessant and brazen bid to exploit to the max the cumulative hatred they’ve spent the past eighty years spreading throughout the world.

Selick and her ilk of pseudo-Left ‘Canadian’ Jews and their ceaseless, vituperative hate-fest against the German people as a whole knows no bounds. Glutted beyond excess with all their depraved Talmudic teachings, brains drenched beyond the point of saturation with vile, satanic enmity toward the German nation, constantly dripping lie upon lie, they’re more than willing to resort to every devious method and venue imaginable in order to perpetuate their venomous bile toward Germany, the German people as a whole and Adolf Hitler’s former government.

One such venue being used to mask their execrable intentions appears to be the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) whose motto reads: Protecting the Constitutional Freedoms of Canadians Through Education, Communication & Litigation. Obviously the CCF’s covert mission, in so far as “educating” Canadians, also includes the ongoing denigration of the German nation through ceaseless vituperations such as those found in the writings of Karen Selick.

KSelickGermanophobe

Of course it’s all pure Zionist bullshit, subterfuge and window dressing, designed to hide the main purpose of pro-Zionist organizations like the CCF, that being the perpetuation of their two greatest LIES of the 20 Century: (1) the Mythical 6 Million Holocaust of Jews by the “Nazis” and (2) the nonstop, psychopathically-driven, mind-control propaganda designed to brainwash generations of people into believing that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany (coined “Nazis” by the Jew media during WWII), and, by extension, the German nation as a whole, are the greatest cumulative evil ever to have existed upon this planet.

As a patriotic Canadian nationalist (not of German descent) what’s so exasperating for me is to witness dual-citizen Canadian/Israeli Jews like Selick twisting, then connecting, every injustice ever to have occurred, with the “Nazis” in their eternally cursed attempt to buttress their own inevitable failure to keep the masses of goyim (non-Jew cattle or Gentiles) fixated on Hitler and WWII rather than focussing on the real criminals (both of yesterday and today), those being the terrorist, gangster Rothschild Zionist Jew cartel, the very same entity responsible for fomented WW I and WWII in order to establish their “Jews Only” spiritual “Homeland” in the heart of Arab/Muslim territory and all the subsequent horror and terrorism and genocide of the Palestinian people.

Typical of this specious Zionist Jew propaganda are Selick’s slanderous, libellous, ignorant remarks inserted throughout her recent article posted on the Canadian Constitution Foundation website titled, “You Don’t Fight Nazis by Becoming a Nazi Yourself.” Here are some of her maliciously maligning deceits contained in the German hate propaganda piece:

“One of the crimes that the Nazis committed against European Jews in the 1930s and ’40s was to legalize, or at least facilitate, the theft of Jewish property, merely because it was owned by people whom the Nazis despised for their religious beliefs.”

“Wikipedia describes the National Alliance as a “white nationalist, anti-semitic, and white separatist political organization.” In short, they are neo-Nazis. As a Jew, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the National Alliance. They sound vile and loathsome to me.”

“The Nazis reviled the Jews and their religion, and felt that their revulsion justified them in depriving Jews of their property.”

“Nazism was evil not merely because it was anti-semitic, but also because it did not respect private property rights. A state that does not respect private property rights is evil like the Nazi state was, even though it may not be motivated by anti-semitism.”

Contentious, convoluted statements such as these are standard Zionist Jew hate literature full of lies, distortions and misrepresentations and presented as if it they were as factual as the rising sun on a clear morning when in truth they resemble more the chemtrail haze that the Rothschild Jews are now spraying over the heads of the unwary goyim around the world in order to poison, weaken and kill off both the natural environment and its useless eaters.

The truth, when distilled from the overflowing vats of Zionist disinformation and out and out lies, is that when Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party (NSP) came to power in 1933 via the most open and internationally monitored election in history, World Jewry immediately declared a “holy war” on the Germany nation thus making it virtually impossible for the National Socialists to maintain relations with the various and disparate groups of Jews who at that time were living in Germany.

Setting aside Selick’s silly, scatterbrained sophistry and fallacious reasoning for the moment it’s necessary to point out to the brainwashed bovine masses that the Jewish question in Germany when Adolf Hitler and the NS party gained power was far from simple as Selick would have readers believe. Germany at that time was populated with a large percentage of westernized Jews who had dwelt in Germany for generations and who, for the most part, felt they were first and foremost German citizens over and above their religious beliefs. In other words they had accepted assimilation as a way of life and a large percentage of them were married to Germans of Aryan blood. On top of that many German Jews had fought for Germany during WW I, along side Adolf himself and he wasn’t about to now turn on them just because the Zionists outside of Germany decided to declare war on the German nation. The greatest problem for the NS government was the mass influx of eastern Ashkenazi Jews that had flocked to Germany to escape the Bolshevik Communist Soviet Union and were attempting to exit to either America, Canada of Great Britain.

Ultimately the German government of the day chose to work in cooperation with the Jewish Rabbinate and the Zionist Agency, an organization that was formed to assist in the peaceful migration of those Jews deemed by the German rabbinate to be the most closely aligned with Judaism and the Zionist ideology and thus prime candidates for filling the quotas necessary for the Rothschild scheme of establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine. From that point well into the beginning years of the war the Zionist Jews and their organizations worked in tandem with the German government in order to move as many Zionist Jews out of Germany as possible. If that peaceful migration of Jews was halted it certainly wasn’t the fault of the National Socialist government of Germany but more to do with the British government of the day that halted the said immigration in 1939 when it declared war on Germany.

It also must be clearly pointed out that those Jews who were deemed suitable for immigration to Palestine (chosen by the Jews themselves and not the Hitler government) were allowed to leave the country with their possessions and their wealth contrary to the simplistic assertions contained in Selick’s reckless and specious attempt to connect the government of Adolf Hitler with the machinations of what are in fact the Zionist influenced actions of the Harper government and its Zionist supporting cast comprised of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the Zionist hate rag the National Post and likely others such as B’nai Brith Canada, all the real bone fide censors existing in Canada today operating clandestinely as 5th columnist traitorous Jewish lobby groups and now, as shown in Selick’s article, involved in further attempts to stop the National Alliance from receiving its legally bequeathed gift from a Canadian supporter.

YoungHitlerAdmirer 700

Selick’s attempt to equate Adolf Hitler and the German nation with all the present subterfuge emanating from the Zionist Jews here in Canada is a cogent example of how the Zionist Jew mindset operates. They distort everything out of proportion; turn the facts 180 degrees upside down in order to force events to match their long list of lies that must be publicized on a regular basis so as to prevent the stupid goy from realizing what is really going on behind the scenes. It’s the Zionist way and Selick is living proof of just how clandestine and contorted and dangerous the Zionist ideology is when it comes to discerning truth from the fiction of lies that political Zionism is predicated upon.

If I might paraphrase the precise words of Selick, who, in her maligning slurs and aspersions aimed at the National Alliance, had the gall to state, “As a Jew, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the National Alliance. They sound vile and loathsome to me” I would unhesitatingly state that as a Gentile Christian I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever with the Zionist Jews. They not only sound vile and loathsome to me but their actions over the past century and longer have convinced me that they ARE vile and loathsome and that they pose the greatest danger to world peace and harmony that this world has ever experienced.
——-

Bolshevism and Zionism Are Ideologically Indistinguishable by Jonas E. Alexis

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/24/bolshevism-and-zionism-are-ideologically-indistinguishable/

alexis

Wednesday, July 24th, 2013

VTAlexisArt

Bolshevism and Zionism Are Ideologically Indistinguishable

“Our way must be: never knowingly support lies!

Having understood where the lies begin—step back from that gangrenous edge!”

—Alexander Solzhenitsyn[1]

 
…by Jonas E. Alexis

winston-churchill-238x320
                   Winston Churchill

In his 1920 essay “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Winston Churchill made the statement that Bolshevism both ideologically and politically “gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads”[2] and slowly led them to the slaughter house, where more than ten million innocent peasants eventually lost their precious lives in less than five years.[3]

Zionism ideologically and politically seeks to complete the work that Bolshevism had started. Bolshevism quickly spread like wildfire in places like China and other major Asian countries such as Vietnam.

Even Victor Serge, the revolutionary anarchist who was convicted of terrorism in 1912, declared at the time that “The influence of Bolshevism over Asia is very great.”[4]

As a communist revolutionary, Serge thought that “International Communism — dialectical materialism and the theory of action of the proletariat — opens up today the highest possibilities of the European civilisation compromised and threatened by the capitalist regime.”[5]

The “highest possibilities of the European civilization” ended up being the highest crime probably in human history: Bolshevism in both its metaphysical and ideological form carried out the greatest mass murder, with more than ninety million deaths to its credit.[6]

By the time that Bolshevism was done wiping out people by the millions, Western nations suddenly had an epiphany in the 1980s. By 1983 in Orlando, Florida, Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as “an evil empire” that repeatedly preached “the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth. They are the focus of evil in the modern world…”[7]

ronald-250x320
                           Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan could never have been a good cop. What do police officers do when they are investigating a crime? They find out all that can be found about the crime itself and the people behind it. They also get deeper into the suspect’s origin, their background, and sometimes even their ethnicity and religion.

Reagan was right in saying that the Soviet Union was “the focus of evil in the modern world,” that it sought to dominate all peoples of the Earth, and that it was “an evil empire.”

Yet in his entire speech, Reagan never told his audience that the Soviet Union at the time was ideologically governed by Bolshevism, which is another Jewish revolutionary movement, and which ultimately sought to destroy Western civilization. Reagan should have consulted Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who emphatically declared:

“There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else—the most common case—only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin).

solzhenitsyn-226x320
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

“In 1918 Trotsky, with the aid of Sklianski and Yakov Sverdlov, created the Red Army. Jewish soldiers were numerous in its ranks. Several units of the Red Army were composed entirely of Jews, as, e.g., the brigade commanded by Joseph Forman. Among the officers of the Red Army, the share of Jews grew in number and importance for many years after the Civil War.”[8]

Solzhenitsyn, as a sober and seasoned scholar, made the point that,

“I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”[9]

Yet in his book Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, neoconservative hawk Daniel Pipes insinuates without a shred of evidence that those who believed that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely Jewish got their sources mainly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion![10]

It got even more hilarious when Pipes accused Henry Hamilton of anti-Semitism for saying that “Bolshevism was Judaism.”[11] But Pipes does not tell his readers that The Jewish Encyclopedia, Jewish revolutionaries and newspapers and magazines made similar assertions.[12]

In a nutshell, Reagan, a politician, got a wake-up call, and the Soviet Union eventually collapsed.

But Bolshevism in its ideological form did not die out then. It has been reincarnated in two identical and Jewish revolutionary movements: Zionism and neoconservatism. Both are almost politically indistinguishable and, like Bolshevism, both seek to implicitly destroy Western civilization in all of its manifestations.

[Read more…]

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

 

Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada by Prof. Kevin MacDonald

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/paul-fromm-on-the-demise-of-free-speech-in-canada/
Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada

Paul Fromm CAFE copy

By Kevin MacDonald
April 13, 2013

Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies “The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech“). The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings.

WhatcottImage1

Some excerpts and comments:

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the *Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the *Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion. There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

· Truth is no defence;?

· Intent is no defence;?

· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;

· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;

· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”

The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate homosexuals. The reality is far different:

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same-sex marriage.

Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence  that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.

Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique:

Despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way:

The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in 1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of  universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.

The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.)

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. …

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:

Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.

abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4

The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”

RothsteinHater
At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

It is certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong  voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:

In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada [dedicated to a  Jewish ethnostate] when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).

Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official that summed up Canadian policy.

Thus we have Jewish activists involved in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly, Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in action.

—–

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches by Jim Goad

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Currently there’s some serious cyber fistacuffin’ going on in the alternative media ring between proponents who, as this poignant piece below points out, see everything as being a direct result of Jewish malfeasance and every “Jew” equally culpable when it comes to the multi-faceted query known historically as “The Jewish Question” and those who tend to discriminate (oi!) and assign guilt or responsibility only to the ones (and their sycophants) directly responsible for the woes that befall the self-chosen.

The article below is one of the best interpretations of this problem that I’ve come across. Please take the time to read and share it with others.

Oh yes, and lest I forget… This particular post is also for Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who arrested me, traumatized my dear wife, put me in jail and then illegally entered my home and stole all of my computers and firearms back on May 16, 2012. Ever since his shameful, ignoble performance he faithfully reads all of the posts on www.radicalpress.com each day (when he’s not reading all of my thousands of personal emails that were on my computers) in order to scrape together “evidence” that he then sends along like a good little school boy tattle tale to Crown council Jennifer Johnston in Quesnel, B.C. who further flaps pages of all of my posts before the eyes of the Judges so as to reinforce the Queen of England’s (Regina) false sec. 319(2) CC charge of willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.”

On occasion I like to reinforce this person’s traitorous behaviour with a graphic showing the evidence covering his face. I know how important it is for Terry to have his mugshot in the media as it helps him and his accomplices to justify in their own petty little minds not only their existence but also that fat pay cheque they get for acting as Orwellian thought police for the foreign lobbyists who currently control Canada’s Prime Minister and all of the opposition parties. I am, of course, referring to B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ the Israeli lobby 5th Column Mossad agency that is responsible for attacking me in the courts for the past six years.

WilsonFramedFinal-copy-2

http://takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad#axzz2GSd5taZI

Notes From the Edge

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches

by Jim Goad

November 19, 2012

I woke up this morning with a bit of a chest cold and decided not to blame the Jews for it. Some mystical yearning deep inside my heart—I believe it’s called “common sense”—led me to surmise that I am probably not afflicted with the Jew Flu.

It’s not that I hold Jews blameless, because they are human beings, too, Shylock, and are therefore not to be trusted. I hold other groups—blacks, feminists, and homosexual sausage-gobbling rump-wranglers—to the same standard. Merely because they find it fashionable to hide behind a shield of historic persecution to further their group interests and seemingly insatiable hunger for power doesn’t mean they are presumed innocent in all situations. I see Jews as human and therefore likely to be up to no good at any given moment.

Then again, neither do I blame the Jews for everything. But there is a tiny, bitter, and relentless subset of individuals who tend to do this reflexively. I call them “The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches.” They also taste Jews in the soup they slurp and in the apple pie they eat for dessert.

Merely by stating this, I’m certain I’ll be accused of being afraid to admit that Jews control the sandwich industry.

These types inevitably turn any conversation toward Jews, no matter how little the topic at hand has to do with Jews. If Godwin’s Law predicts that every Internet discussion will inevitably lead to Nazi and Hitler comparisons, these creeps who eagerly leap across the line from logical to pathological are apparently bound by the inexorable forces of Goldman’s Law…or Goldstein’s Law…or Goldberg’s Law. In their diseased brains, all neurons lead to Jews. Perhaps one day this psychological disorder will be diagnosed and a book written about it called The Man Who Mistook His Hat for a Jew.

What’s ironic is the fact that although I don’t personally taste Jews in my sandwiches unless I’m eating a Reuben with kosher pickles, I likely ask some of the same questions as do the schmucks who even taste Jews in a slice of Wonder Bread with mayonnaise. I’m drawn to the Jewish Question merely because it’s such an untouchable topic. I realize that the mere act of questioning Jewish power and influence is a career-killer in much of the West, and that in certain countries asking certain questions about the Holocaust is enough to get you jailed. It’s one topic about which most “irreverent” and “non-PC” people are extremely reverent and effusively PC. I’ve also noticed that it’s a topic that many people are eager to talk about off the record but terrified to mention in public.

So here’s where I stand on Jews…OK, wait, roll back the tape…I don’t literally stand on Jews, because that would clearly be anti-Semitic. Here are some ancillary questions I have concerning the Jewish Question, and if it makes me anti-Semitic merely to ask them, I suppose I won’t be invited to your son’s Bar Mitzvah. If you want to crucify me merely for asking questions, well, I guess you’re one of The Men Who Tastes Nazis in Your Sandwiches.

The Jewish Question always seemed to lead to more questions than answers, so here goes:

• Are Jews members of an ethnic tribe or members of a religion? If the latter, how do you explain Jewish atheists? What exactly is a “Semite,” and why does the term “anti-Semitism” seem to embrace people who appear to be of Eastern European derivation while it tends to exclude Arabs and other indigenous Middle Easterners?

• If you’re so secure that the evidence surrounding the Holocaust is irrefutable, then why jail people who question the evidence? Why does the Western media feel compelled to mention the Holocaust almost daily while it routinely ignores the 30-50 million non-Jewish civilians—not soldiers, but civilians—who were killed in World War II? Were their lives not nearly as important?

• Why are certain “right-wing” writers brave enough to criticize communism, open immigration, the liberal media, and political correctness while they’re mortified to even consider that Jews were often the primary architects behind such movements—or at least disproportionately represented?

• Isn’t the idea of “God’s Chosen People” cosmically racist and supremacist? Is the Talmud not hostile to goyim? Haven’t the Jews historically been racially separatist, all while accusing other groups of “racism”?

• Is it even remotely possible that Jewish behavior, rather than a murkily mystical and ultimately unprovable notion such as “anti-Semitism,” sometimes led to negative perceptions about Jews? Even once throughout history?

• In a European Union document calling for “equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,” why does it urge that we should focus “in particular” on “anti-Semitism” if everyone is to be treated equally?

• Why does our current cultural climate allow one to decry “white privilege” but never “Jewish privilege,” especially since Jews are undeniably overrepresented statistically when it comes to wealth and power?

• At the moment, Israel and some of its enemies are lobbing missiles at one another. Why should I care about Israel? Why should I deem this dubiously founded and eternally disruptive nation so important that it’s worth starting World War III, shoveling out tax dollars, and enduring much of the world’s wrath to protect it? What do I get out of the deal?

So those are my questions. I won’t hold my goyishe breath waiting for you to answer them. But dismissing them outright as “paranoid” or “anti-Semitic” is either dishonest or naïve.

My questions are honest and sincere rather than “hateful,” and calling me all the nasty names in the Torah won’t budge my feelings or cause me to relent. And I believe that a huge quotient of the population has similar questions but have been terrorized into silence at the mere thought of asking them. As a truth-seeker rather than a team-joiner, I find this troublesome. So sue me!

And this is the main reason why The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches are such a pain in my tuchis. They live up to the crude stereotype of rabid, delusional anti-Semites, and by so doing, they tend to allow all criticism of Jews to be painted with the same broad Jew Brush. They’re the ones who tend to give so-called “anti-Semites” a bad name. It almost makes me suspect that some of them may be Mossad agents.

Making EVERYTHING about Jews gives Jews far too much credit. So ease up, fellas. There are no Jews in your sandwiches. There are no Jews in your soup. If you have a chest cold, you likely didn’t get it from shaking hands with a Jew…or maybe you did, but that’s what you get for being friendly to Jews.

——–

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad/print#ixzz2GSfhBxgg

 

Watch Human Rights Watch – A Tribute to Prof Richard Falk By Gilad Atzmon

[EDITOR’S NOTE: NGO’s around the world tend to be front organizations from the get go or else orgs arising from honest beginnings that were later infiltrated by Zionists and taken over in order to confuse and misdirect the energies of the masses who are truly interested in a world of peace and harmony where no one group (tribe) or organization has any more power than the people themselves.  Thanks to former Jewish tribal members like Gilad Atzmon, who has successfully shifted his consciousness up and away from the ghetto consciousness of those who are transfixed by the Zionist ideology, we see how liberating one’s mind and spirit from the confines of the Talmudic matrix-trap can be advantageous to all of  humanity in that now he can view the machinations of the Zionist zealots from a perspective that truly makes sense and pass along his viewpoint to all of humanity.]

_________________________

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/watch-human-rights-watch-a-tribute-to-prof-richard-falk.html

Watch Human Rights Watch – A Tribute to Prof Richard Falk

By Gilad Atzmon

Saturday, December 22, 2012

This week we learned that Human Rights Watch (HRW) has expelled from its ranks top U.N. official Professor Richard Falk.

The juicy details have been kindly supplied by Israeli Hasbara outlet UN Watch blog.“We commend Human Rights Watch and its director Kenneth Roth for doing the right thing, and finally removing this enemy of human rights from their important organization,” said Hillel Neuer, a rabid Israeli supporter as well as Executive Director of UN Watch. “A man who supports the Hamas terrorist organization, and who was just condemned by the British Foreign Office for his cover endorsement of a virulently antisemitic book, has no place in an organization dedicated to human rights,”

Hasbara stooge that he is, Neuer, using every Zionist trick in the book, misinforms and misleads his readers. First of all, Hamas is not a ‘terrorist organisation’, it is a democratically elected government and the book to which Neuer refers is obviously mine – ‘The Wandering Who’ – which, was endorsed by Richard Falk and some of the most important humanists and scholars of our time– a book which has been a best-seller for six months in both Britain and the USA, has been translated into 10 languages and is available in seven editions in countries that all strictly legislate against any form of racial incitement as well Holocaust denial. The fact is that the Zionists and their ‘Progressive’ twins will have to accept that The Wandering Who is, after all, strictly kosher.

So, Professor Falk did indeed endorse my book and, like all my other endorsers, did not cave into pressure. This should indeed concern all Zionists and their agents.

“A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.” Professor Richard Falk on The Wandering Who

But the problem is not the tribally oriented UN Watch and its Zionist Executive Director. After all, they only do what we expect Zionists to do – lie, harass, abuse, and, if necessary, fabricate evidence. No, far more interesting is the behaviour of the allegedly ‘progressive’ ‘Human Rights Watch’ and its director Kenneth Roth.

On the face of it, HRW is an independent, Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) ‘dedicated to defending and protecting human rights’. But it takes no more than a few seconds of research to find out that the primary donor of the HRW is liberal-Zionist George Soros and his Open Society Foundation – the same Soros and ‘Open’ society that supports most Palestinian NGOs including BDS which may perhaps explain why the BDS in Ramallah was so eager to compromise on that most precious Palestinian right i.e. The Right of Return. Nor will it surprise you to learn that the same Soros funded HRW has been dedicated to the ‘exposing’ of Hamas’ failures on human rights issues? Is this not what you would expect from a liberal Zionist spin meister?

In my new satirical work, A Glossary of Zionist Power which I am now completing, I include entries for Soros and his Open Society. In the book, Soros is a ‘Jew who supports a lot of good causes that are also very good for the Jews’ and The Open Society Foundation ‘is dedicated to the transformation of deprived people into Guardian readers’. Surely I will now have to add an entry for the HRW and Roth. Both are nothing short of ‘Zionist fig-leaves’ and, like all Jewish progressive outlets that are dedicated to Jewish tribal and ethno centric campaigning, HRW is there to monitor, control and even stifle any criticism of Israel if it should ever get too close to the bone, i.e. touching on the Jewish character of the Jewish state,

Prof’ Falk had little chance of surviving within such a tribal milieu and the reason is pretty simple. Unlike Zionist Neuer, Liberal Zionist Soros, and ‘Anti-Zionist Zionist’ Roth, Professor Falk actually represents the ultimate success of the Zionist project. Early Zionism promised to transform the Jews into ‘people like all other people’. Zionism vowed to bring to life a Jew who transcends the tribal, a Jew who thinks universally and ethically. Early Zionists also believed that such a transformation could be achieved only in Palestine. Of course, they were wrong but no one can ignore the fact that the greatest and most prolific Jewish universalists are actually Israelis (Professor Yishayahu Leibovitch, Professor Israel Shahak, Nurit & Miko Peled, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, Uri Avneri, Ilan Pappe, Israel Shamir and many, many more). But Professor Falk and a few others have managed to achieve a similar goal in the Diaspora. Those Jews whom we most admire and whose integrity we most trust such as Professor Norton Mezvinsky, Professor Norman Finkelstein, Professor Falk  – all have something in common – they do not operate within Jews-only political cells. Unlike JVP, IJAN, HRW and Mondweiss, all of whom are dedicated primarily to promoting Jewish interests, they are dedicated to universal values.

So I argue that Professor Falk provides us with a glimpse into the possibility of true Jewish emancipation – the capacity to break out of the mental, intellectual and non-ethical ghetto. Moreover, this latest tale of HRW’s Herem (Kosher expulsion) of one of the greatest humanists of our generation is actually an educational event.

For many years, many of us saw Zionism and Israel as the mother and father of contemporary evil, but now, many of us have come to realise that Jewish progressive politics is every bit as sinister but, unlike Zionism that is only tainted with deception, the Jewish progressive discourse is inherently dishonest – it speaks universal but it thinks tribal.

While our disagreements with Israel and Zionism are clear, the Modus operandi adopted by AZZs and their relentless attempt to dominate the progressive discourse while, at the same time, stifling freedom of expression leaves more and more humanists suspicious of any form of Jewish politics – be it right, left or centre.

I like to think that my Wandering Who was the first attempt to discuss these issues openly. I wrote it because I, too, am a wanderer who decided, instead of dwelling on someone else’s land, to leave my homeland. Perhaps Professor Falk endorsed my work, because, like myself, he too is a wanderer. He self-reflects, examining his identity and his notion of justice from a transcendental point of view. Like myself, he is an artist, a poet, a man who searches, against all the odds, for beauty, peace and truth. On the other hand, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation  contributed $100 million to HRW just to silence ethically and aesthetically driven souls such as Professor Falk and others.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics in general and Jewish progressive spin in particular Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk

 

 

Radical Press Legal Update #6

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

Dear Supporters of a Free Internet and Freedom of Speech,

Please bear with me as this update will be a bit longer than normal but I think highly informative as well.
It’s been two weeks since I last gave an update on my court case involving B’nai Brith Canada (aka Regina) versus Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com, a pivotal, precedent-setting legal case that will ultimately determine whether Canada will succumb to the likes of all those other so-called “democratic” countries like Germany, France, Spain, Australia, etc. who have been co-opted by the Rothschild criminal cartel and now have their freedom of speech curtailed by “HATE CRIME” laws that don’t permit any questioning of either the rogue and racist state of Israel or any other aspect of the Zionist Jew agenda to turn the world into a giant gulag ruled over by the Star of David.

To say the least this session was particularly crazy in a number of ways.

First off we awoke in the early morning to find ourselves in the midst of a major snow storm! That meant getting the driveway cleared so we could get into town to attend court and as there was no time for me to shovel the 300 foot swath to the Barkerville Hwy we had to call the neighbour and get him to come over with his snow-clearing machine.

Meanwhile I tried to call my lawyer Doug Christie to check on things but I was unable to reach him on his cell phone. The court time for the bail hearing was set for 1:30 p.m. I called the local airport to see if Doug’s flight was still on schedule only to find that it wasn’t happening. As it turned out the plane made it from Vancouver International airport as far as Williams Lake (the next city about 90 km south of Quesnel), circled for awhile and then due to poor visibility was forced to return to Vancouver.

Realizing this of course created a number of questions in terms of what might occur when we got to the courthouse in Quesnel.

Upon reaching town over roads that were in dire need of plowing we went into the government building where the courts are located around 1 p.m. only to find the place basically empty with the exception of some supporters who had come to view the session. I went upstairs to the court registry to see what was up and was told that it wouldn’t be happening until 2 p.m. and that Mr. Christie would be appearing via telephone instead of in person. I knew right then that we would be encountering some difficulties as my lawyer and I had already discussed the importance of him being there in the flesh in the courtroom due to the strident actions of Crown council during the last session on November 30th.

Having a few minutes to kill, my wife and I went for a quick bite before the court resumed.

There are normally a number of different cases on the docket during the afternoon but on this day my case was the only one so the gallery was empty except for one mysterious elderly woman who was in attendance. She was probably in her mid to late 70?s and appeared to be following my wife and I around as we awaited the opening of the doors leading into the court room. My immediate impression was that she was a local sayanim (Isreali supporter and operative) sent out by B’nai Brith to observe the session.

Crown council Jennifer Johnston was there raring to go as usual with her mountains of files and folders stacked up on the table below the Judge’s bench. While we sat quietly awaiting the Judge’s entrance into the room CC Johnston added a new prop to her planned submission to the Judge by setting up an additional little podium on the table that looked a bit like a soap box or a preacher’s pulpit where I assumed she would be placing her papers and her Criminal Code book as she commenced her flamboyant actions against me on behalf of Rothschild’s front organization B’nai Brith Canada.

Judge Morgan, the Judge who has been sitting in on this charade for the majority of the sessions of late, came in and court immediately commenced the clerk having already called Mr. Christie on his cell phone a few minutes prior to the Judge appearing.

Crown council Johnston immediately rattled off the case numbers and proceeded to get right into it but the Judge had to soon interrupt her and allow Mr. Christie to state some things regarding the defence’s side of the issue.

During the last session on November 30th Mr. Christie had reiterated, as he has been reiterating for the past 6 months now, that he is STILL awaiting Disclosure from the Crown. What that means for those unfamiliar with court room procedure is that he has not received from the Crown the documents which state what exactly it is that I am being charged with, what the sentencing is that the Crown is asking and what the contents or evidence is that the Crown is planning to use in their offensive efforts to convict me of this spurious “HATE CRIME” also known as sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This procedure of furnishing the defence with the Disclosure is standard practise in all litigation yet the Crown has been stalling and stalling and back-pedalling on the issue since I was first arrested on May 16th, 2012.

During the November 30th session Judge Morgan had asked Crown council to get the Disclosure documents to Mr. Christie by no later a date than December 11th, 2012 so that he would have (a very limited amount of) time to study the charges and prepare to address the proposed arguments of Crown as they pertained to the bail conditions which CC Johnston is hell-bent on imposing upon me. Well, as usual, this again didn’t happen and instead Mr. Christie got word at the last minute that instead of receiving the required information Crown council was now making an additional Application to the Judge wherein the Crown would be attempting to restrict Mr. Christie from divulging the contents of the Disclosure to his client, me!

Why you might reasonably ask? Allow me to explain. When the formal charge was handed down on November 5th, 2012 the Zionist controlled media in Canada were on it like a dog on a bone and all the major print media and Canada’s largest TV media, SunNews Network, were spreading their excremental slurs and the usual vilifying statements about me and my website around the country. In the case of the National Post aka the Zionist National Post as I prefer to call it, their intrepid reporter Stewart Bell had published some quotes from a document which another website, FreeDominion.ca had published on a thread on their forum. The quotes in question were extracts taken from what is called a “Warned Statement”. Allow me to explain what that is.

Prior to Det – Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM (the Zionist created police hit squad that orchestrated my arrest and that also works in tandem with Agents X and Y of B’nai Brith Canada – the two Zionist B’nai Brith agents who filed the sec. 319(2) charge against me) releasing me from jail on May 16, 2012 he and I went to a small interview room where he “interviewed” me in order to solicit further “evidence” to be used against me. I ought to have listened to my lawyer and told Wilson to stuff his interview up where the sun doesn’t shine but of course I didn’t and decided to humour him and gave him some facts to counter all the bullshit that he was spewing forth during our talk; bs that was pure Zionist disinformation most likely planted in Wilson’s lightning struck brain by Agent Y after decades of conspired with him back in Ontario (more on that in a subsequent post).

Anyhow, Wilson went back to his office in Surrey with his digital recording device in hand and proceeded over the next couple of months to transcribe it into text. Eventually (this is still not clear yet) he disclosed it to my lawyer Mr. Christie who, in turn, sent me a copy and unbeknownst to myself I didn’t realize that the document was confidential. Given that Crown Council has yet to disclose anything else it begs the question as to why Wilson would have given this document to Mr. Christie in the first place. After I read it through I sent it to the owner of the FreeDominion.ca website Connie Fournier in a private email to discuss some relevant issues to do with Det. Wilson in order to help me in my defence against these trumped up charges. My reason for doing this was quite simple. Agent Y has been filing charges against Connie and Mark Fournier for a number of years now and dragging them through court appearance after court appearance in order to stop them from publishing information related to his outrageous behaviour with respect to in the ongoing battle over the infamous sec. 13(1) provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act  that’s been taking place on the web for a number of years now. Agent Y is Canada’s #1 serial complainer working for B’nai Brith Canada and any other Jewish lobby group in the country always ready and willing to charge critics of Israel with “hate crime” offences and tie them up in endless litigation and then having obtained a conviction he reaps the financial rewards that come with the victim having to pay outrageous fines. Being a lawyer himself and having worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a number of years Agent Y’s reputation for infiltrating websites and forums using false aliases in order to post “hateful” and “racist” comments and then turning around and charging the website owner with a sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint are well documented and known internationally.  It’s all part of an ongoing program initiated by B’nai Brith International to censor the Internet via the creation and implantation of “hate crime” legislation in the law books of unsuspecting democracies.

Well, as it turns out our sleuth Det Wilson has been collaborating with this same serial sidewinder Agent Y for years now pulling off on others precisely what they pulled off in my case, that is, coming up with some phoney “evidence” furnished to them by B’nai Brith Canada via Agent X their BC sayanim agent and then arresting the person and stealing their computers and copying all the information off of their hard drive and subsequently using the Canadian court system and the Zionist controlled media to first vilify the person and afterwards strive to find them guilty in the “human rights” tribunals (modelled on the Stalinist show trials of the 1930’s) of “spreading ‘hatred’ toward Jews and citizens of Israel”. Once those steps have been taken they then proceed to fine the shit out of their victim and order them to take down their websites and also issue cease and desist orders preventing the victim from publishing any further truth about B’nai Brith’s sinister actions. Agent Y of course greedily collects his blood money, pockets it and then proceeds to look for another website to sucker in to his hate crime scam. This has been the modus operandi of the Jewish lobby groups here in Canada for decades and began as soon as they were able to surreptitiously configure their “hate crime” legislation into Canada’s statutes via their sayanim Jewish Supreme Court Justices (Irwin Cotler being the primary Zionist agent and former Liberal Attorney General of Canada) and all the rest of their pro-Zionist lawyers and sycophants working on “commissions” and behind the scenes.

Anyhow, getting back to the scene of the crime de jure and what happened as a result of Connie Fournier (also unaware of its confidential status) posting this document on her website in the form of a pdf. Crown council Jennifer Johnston is now attempting to use that as an argument against my lawyer and an excuse for her holding back on sending Mr. Christie the long awaited disclosure and second, to file an additional Application to stop Mr. Christie from sharing any additional information regarding the Crown’s charges with me, the accused.

Then, to add insult to injury, she held up documents before the Judge saying that she did have the necessary information sitting on her computer just waiting (at the click of a button as she remarked) to send to Mr. Christie but of course she had to have the new Application approved beforehand so she could sleep at night knowing that Mr. Topham wouldn’t be privy to it and go and post it on someone’s website!

Some of course might think it lame and some lame-brained on her part to expect that Mr. Christie be subjected to such an outrageous set of conditions given the fact that the Crown itself hasn’t disclosed a damn bit of information from the get go! But given all the antics on the part of CC Johnston thus far in this little mini-series nothing that she attempts comes as too great a surprise. Mr. Christie of course outright rejected Crown’s claims and also argued that there were mitigating circumstances regarding the “Warned Statement” that needed to be addressed when he could be in court in person.

Mr. Christie then asked the Judge to set another date for these matters to argued as obviously Crown was making it supremely difficult for him to do anything without first receiving disclosure.

Then something occurred which bears mentioning as it’s not the first time that Crown council Johnston has pulled this stunt. When she began stating to the Judge that the Crown needed to get additional bail conditions imposed on me asap she held up in her hand a booklet that Wilson had prepared of all the posts I had placed on my website since November 2, 2012 when I first learned that I was able to do so legally. I gather it is one of his prime sources of entertainment and a justification for his otherwise unearned pay cheque when he’s not busy snooping about in all my private emails that he stole from me back in May. One could see that to her way of thinking she had in hand all the solid evidence needed to prove that I was continuing to publish “willful hatred” toward Jews and Zionists and that because of all these posts (up to at least November 30) it was imperative that I be restricted from using my website and posting my articles, news reports, other articles, political cartoons and unrelated stories.

This business of trying to misinform the Judge while at the same time intimidate me into somehow feeling guilty for doing what I’ve been doing for the past fourteen years of publishing is as pathetic as it is laughable. She still hasn’t twigged on the fact that I run an alternative News Service and that posting articles is what one does when providing such a venue for readers. It’s as if I’m supposed to hang my head in shame because these Zionist psychopaths have alleged that I’m a hate mongering anti-Semite and tuck my tail between my legs and slink off into the underbrush somewhere to await my conviction! My God! Is that the degree of intelligence that our legal beagles are functioning at? If so, heaven help the nation.

It was then that Judge Morgan began to repeat early statements and false accusations by Crown council Johnston (in her zeal to convince the Judge of the dastardly deeds I supposedly was committing), that what I was writing and publishing might be comparable to a website that was publishing child pornography and therefore had to be stopped as soon as possible. Child pornography!!! I couldn’t at that point help but groan and Mr. Christie was quick to rebut such statements stating to Judge Morgan that this was an unfair and inapplicable comparison. (Again, I will address this issue further in a separate article). The Judge listened to Mr. Christie’s argument and tended to agree although Crown council Johnston must have got a chuckle out of having influenced him to the point where he was beginning to regurgitate the same standard Zionist double-talk and lies that CC Johnston was attempting to use.

Given all the disjointed and conflicting accusations and misinformation that were colliding in the court room Judge Morgan suggested that court adjourn for half an hour so that Crown and Defence could speak privately and try to come to some agreement over the contentious issues at hand and also so Mr. Christie could speak with me as well. This was around 2:30 p.m.  We took a half hour break and returned to the court room at 3:00 p.m.

There was no possibility of Mr. Christie agreeing to anything that Crown council Johnston was proposing and so when court resumed Mr. Christie and Crown council Johnston along with Judge Morgan began to look at future dates where Mr. Christie could be in court to argue the case. A date of Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. was agreed upon by all parties and Judge Morgan then ended the session.

Stay tuned folks! It can only get more interesting as this 2012 freedom of speech farce continues to unfold.

—–

NOTE: Again I would ask of readers that they try to assist me financially in my battle with the censors by sending donations to the cause. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses and while I have been receiving some assistance from a few kind souls who realize the importance of this case to all Canadians the amount of money thus sent comes nowhere near that necessary to pay for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges.

As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.

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

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

 

Two Gulags: A second warning to the West by Arthur Topham

 

Two Gulags: A second warning to the West

by Arthur Topham

December 11, 2012

“I understand that you love freedom, but in our crowded world you have to pay a tax for freedom.

You cannot love freedom for yourselves alone and quietly agree to a situation where the majority

of  humanity, spread over the greater part of the globe, is subjected to violence and oppression.

“The Communist ideology is to destroy your social order. This has been their aim for 125 years and

it has never changed; only the methods have changed a little….And what is ideological war? It is a

concentration of hatred, a continued repetition of the oath to destroy the Western world.”

~Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, from a Speech given in New York City to the AFL-CIO on July 9, 1975

and contained in his book, Warning to the West.

Permit me to begin this essay by stating that in comparing the case of Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com versus Regina (the ‘Crown’ aka B’nai Brith Canada) to that of the trials and sufferings of former Nobel Peace prize winner Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, I am fully aware that it will naturally be construed by some readers as little more than hyperbole on the part of the writer. Nonetheless there are a number of historic lay lines connecting the two situations which need identification in the hope that others will see and understand the systematic progression and transformation of this climacteric element of tyranny that’s been stalking the global landscape since the successful Bolshevik coup of 1917 in Russia.

First I would like to add to Solzhenitsyn’s words where he states that Communism’s ideology aim has not changed from the start, only the “methods” have. This simple statement, for those of my generation and later generations, is indispensable when attempting to comprehend how the ideology itself has managed to retain its essential character even after the downfall in 1989 of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

Key to visualizing the doctrinal strands of the Communist ideology and their continual ability to unobtrusively weave themselves in and out of the ever-changing warp and woof of day to day history is the possession of a fundamental awareness that today’s political ideology, Zionism, is precisely the same ideology that first gave birth to its historic pedigree – Marxism in the mid-19th Century its founding and funding has, from day one, flowed from the same source.

Today, those who have been paying attention to the details in the Zionist script for the creation of a one world totalitarian dictatorship understand that there is a direct connection between the House of Rothschild, the political ideology known Zionism and the premeditated, deliberate, illegal creation of the state of Israel by the United Nations back in 1948. These ideas thrash about like a load of dirty underwear in an automatic washer on most alternative blogs dealing with political issues as well as in a myriad number of posts on Facebook and other internet forums and venues. So many viewers have peered through that revolving window that now (as compared to even a decade ago when the Internet was in its nascent beginnings) the Rothschild = Zionism = Israel connection is a done deal and recognized as fact. But what is not fully understood yet by this vast number of viewers is the underlying, direct relationship between Communism and Zionism, without which the world will continue to disconnect the two apparently differing ideologies and fail to grasp the crucial historic continuity of this longstanding conspiracy; one meant to destroy the West and bring to fruition the ultimate goal of the Communist creed – world slavery under an all powerful Rothschild oligarchy.

The genius that was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn knew his enemy well enough that he was able, upon finally having his eleven year sentence in the Soviet gulag annulled in April of 1956, to actually have his first novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, published in Krushchev’s soviet union in 1962. His earlier works that included The First Circle and Cancer Ward were first published in English in 1968 and by 1970 had earned him the Nobel Prize for literature. It wasn’t until 1974 though that Solzhenitsyn was finally arrested again and expelled from the Soviet Union after a copy of his Gulag was seized by the KGB in December of 1973. He first moved to West Germany and then to Vermont in the USA where he remained until returning permanently to Russia in 1994.

Solzhenitsyn’s classic work The Gulag Archipelago was first published in English and French in June of 1974 and remains the literary lynchpin holding together the ultimate hidden knowledge regarding the cogent connection between Marxism, the supposed “Russian” Revolution, Communism, Bolshevism and Zionism and their direct tie to the Rothschild oligarchy alluded to earlier.

Solzhenitsyn was able to accomplish this monumental feat of delivering to the West the evidence merely by omission. His trilogy of terror (the Gulag), which outlines the subsequent premeditated, calculated mass genocide of approximately 66 million Russians, mostly of Christian denomination, from the coup of 1917 up until Krushchev was deposed in 1964, will stand forever as the single most important work ever written on the actualizing and unfolding of Zionism’s essential tenets in a real life situation where a vast nation fell under the full control and domination of its ideological proponents.

He was able to have it published and promoted in the West by simply omitting to identify the vast majority of all the key players in his epic drama of demonic destruction as being of Ashkenazi Jewish origins. In this way he avoided the West’s Zionist press that controls all the major publishing houses throughout Europe and North America who, had he pin-pointed the true ethnic identity of the rogues and criminals and sadistic, psychopathic killers who were directly responsible for this mass murder of the Russian people (including all of Tzar Nicholas II’s family and even the family dog!), would have outright shunned him and his work and in all likelihood initiated a smear campaign against him that would have included all the same tactics now being employed by the Zionist controlled media here in Canada to attack my own person and my website RadicalPress.com.

Upon his return to the Russian republic in the mid 1990’s Solzhenitsyn resumed work on another two volume set of books entitled Two Hundred Years Together, the history of the Jews in Russia. The first volume was called Russian Jewish History 1795-1916 and when published created such a stink within Zionist circles that when volume two, The Jews in the Soviet Union came out in Russia the West was then on to him and the book was never published in the English language and still remains censored by the Jewish media to this day, a prime example of the power of the Zionist media to cover up their endless crimes against humanity.

Fortunately the German Revisionist Udo Walendy was able to procure copies and translate the book into German and from there an English translation of segments of the overall work made it to the West and were published by the Barnes Review in their September-October 2008 edition of their magazine. While not a complete version of the text the edition in question covers the issue of the major players in the gulag drama and identifies all those who were of Jewish origin, more than sufficient to firmly establish that the ‘Russian Revolution’ was in truth little more than an incredible take-over of a nation by Zionist forces funded in full measure by the Rothschild banking cartel.

When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was travelling around the United States back in 1975 speaking to different groups about his experiences in the Soviet concentrations camps during the late 40’s and early 50’s he kept emphasizing the perennial problem of trying to convey to people the imminent danger that Communism (aka Zionism) posed to the Western democracies. During one such talk he asked, “Is it possible or impossible to transmit the experience of those who have suffered to those who have yet to suffer? Can one part of humanity learn from the bitter experience of another or can it not? Is it possible or impossible to warn someone of danger?” He then capped off his questings by firmly stating, “It can happen. It is possible. As a Russian proverb says: ‘When it happens to you, you’ll know it’s true.’

Speaking for myself as a writer and publisher here in Canada I too can say that when you attempt to expose the true identity of those who continually strive to remain hidden behind the outer show curtain of unfolding political events while at the same time are controlling the actions of politicians and the mainstream media and all levels of the legal system via their influential lobby groups and advisers and sayanim who have infiltrated every stratum of Canada’s cultural, social, legal, economic, governmental and corporate levels, then you will undoubtedly be attacked in their media and accused by their pressure groups such as B’nai Brith Canada of being an “anti-Semite” and a “hate monger” and “racist” and then, based upon said accusations, arrested by their complicit police agents working for the “Crown” (but another name for the representative of the City of London in England owned by the same Rothschild oligarchy that owns everything else of importance in the world today) and thrown into jail and your constitutional rights taken away from you before you even begin to approach a courtroom in order to challenge their illegal, immoral actions.

Such is the current state of affairs in Canada today whether those in denial of this fact and the complacent and lazy and otherwise too busy to notice portions of society are willing to admit this or not.

Solzhenitsyn once remarked that the very essence of Communism/Zionism was quite beyond the scope of human understanding and that for so many average, normal, moral, decent people living in the West it was just too much of a stretch of their imagination to picture the real and dreadful, vile and disgusting actions committed by these ideologically and spiritually crippled people who have plundered and pillaged and raped and destroyed untold millions of souls in their quest to gain total control of the world.

I could go on with quote after quote from Solzhenitsyn warning to those in the West of the subtle dangers that are working ceaselessly everywhere to drag down unsuspecting nations into the mire of atheistic perversions and immoral mental and spiritual torpor and confusion thus making them incapable of realizing that their rights and freedoms are being terminated until it is too late. Ultimately he says it becomes incumbent upon the individual to reject the Zionist ideology in favour of simply being a human being. In his words, “Such a rejection is more than a political act. It is a protest of our souls against those who would have us forget the concepts of good and evil.”

Thirty seven years have now passed since Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn travelled throughout the USA  warning the nation of the impending dangers of Communism/Zionism and imploring the people to wake up and take heed of what he was telling them based upon his own first hand experience. Did the American people hear his words and did they understand? Did they do anything to forestall what was then the beginning of the shift from Communism to what we now call Zionism? Judging from all appearances Solzhenitsyn’s words fell on deaf ears or at least ears already stopped up by the din and blare of the Zionist media that had, for decades, already been pumping their minds full of Zionist propaganda.

Today that same danger has grown even more powerful and openly threatening. It was first openly declared by Douglas Reed back in 1956 in his monumental classic The Controversy of Zion and then enunciated with greater emphasis and detail in 1975 by gulag survivor Solzhenitsyn in his equally eloquent 3-volume trilogy The Gulag Archipelago and still the mass of citizenry continue to think and act as if this threat to their very existence doesn’t exist other than in the imaginations and fantasies of “conspiracy theorists” and Internet fringe dwellers.

And so this very question arises once again with respect to my own trials and tribulations. For years now I have been researching and publishing information that corroborates all that these great forerunners like Reed and Solzhenitsyn have revealed to the world about the supreme danger that lies hidden within the Zionist ideology. Five years ago my website came up on the Zionist’s radar screen and they decided to do whatever it would take to demonize me and have my website removed from the Internet. That is why they created the so-called “HATE CRIME” laws which were insinuated over time into Canada’s legal system via their lobbyist influence, their infiltration of the Supreme Court of Canada (four out of nine SCC Justices are now Zionist Jews) and their behind the scenes control of all of Canada’s active political parties and their leaders via non-elected ‘advisers’.

Will my warning to Canada and the rest of the world also go unheeded like those before me who had the foresight and courage to risk their very lives to bring to light this dark and menacing evil that is slowly overshadowing the lives of people around the globe as well as the very planet upon which we all must live? Will Canadians listen and begin to stand up and speak out without fear? Will they lend their support to my struggle to defeat this sec. 319(2) “Hate” law and protest over the manner in which I am being treated as a Canadian citizen? Or will they stand by in silence, apathy and paranoia watching while the Zionist forces within their nation force yet another writer and researcher to take down his website and cease from telling the truth about what is happening to his country?

It is not just Arthur Topham who will be on trial in the days ahead but every Canadian who values their right to freedom of speech.

——–

 

Re: Who are the Human Rights heroes? by Arthur Topham

newRPlogo

December 7, 2012

PhotobucketPhotobucket

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Alex,

Thank you for sending out your message regarding “Who are the Human Rights heroes?”. It is both apt and timely that we continue to recognize those who are working hard in the trenches and the front lines doing their utmost to ensure that future generations will at some point be able to live in dignity, peace, freedom and justice.

And while I applaud your efforts to bring to the attention of people everywhere the sacrifices and plight of good, decent, dedicated people like Gao Zhisheng and Yolanda Oqueili who have given their blood and their courage in the struggle for human rights I also believe rather fervently that you should not at the same time overlook those within Canada who are also giving their all to ensure that these very same rights are not trampled into the dust of deception and tyranny.

Photobucket

 

Photobucket

While I am not one to normally toot my own horn in this sense I find it just a bit unsettling to see how Amnesty International invariably goes elsewhere in its quest for fine examples of activists who are fighting for human dignity, leaving those of us here at home who are doing their utmost to bring forth these same principles to stand alone upon the battlefield.

Without the freedom and ability to speak the truth regarding the decimation of human rights here in Canada, the USA and throughout the Western world, all of your efforts to save those outside the ken of these supposed bastions of freedom and democracy will surely be for naught.

Today Canadians are in the midst of a decisive battle to retain their right to freedom of speech on the Internet; a right that is critically fundamental if the western world is to address the root causes of those issues and concerns that are affecting the whole of the global community, including the rights of Gao Zhisheng and Yolanda Oqueili and countless others.

In this regard I would therefore propose that you also shine your well-deserved attention and light upon those activists within the boundaries of the west and accent and highlight for all to see, the urgency of upholding this one sacred, universal right that the world cannot do without if it is to ever regain a balance of peace, harmony and justice; the right to express without fear of government intervention and repression, the thoughts, ideas and opinions on the root causes of injustice; conceptions that will ultimately afford us all the freedom to live in peace and dignity.

I believe that my own case here in Canada is one that should be supported by your organization and I invite you to take a closer look at it by visiting my website www.radicalpress.com and also by contacting me for all the details surrounding my struggle in this regard.

If anyone here in Canada is an “Individual at Risk” it is surely I.

For human rights, justice and freedom of speech on the Internet I remain,

Sincerely,

 

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

RadicalPress.com

“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998?

 

Spingola/ZionCrimeFactory Interview: Discussions on ZFC’s New Book, Zionism & Arthur Topham

Photobucket

 

Photobucket

 

Click HERE to listen to Interview

[Editor’s Note: On behalf of RadicalPress.com I would like to take this opportunity to express my most sincere thanks to both Deanna Spingola and her Guest Zander C. Fuerza of ZionistCrimeFactory.com for adding my legal case with B’nai Brith Canada to their discussions on the Jewish Supremacist agenda for global destruction and world slavery.

Zander is an erudite speaker and dedicated researcher who is in the final stages of completing a book dealing with the very issues discussed in this interesting interview.

The fact that he has dedicated so much of the discussion to my battle with the Jewish lobbyists and their censorship plans for Canada is a genuine indication that the issue of  Freedom of Speech on the Internet is one that spans borders and is as vital a concern to citizens of the USA as well as Canada.

Please pass this interview on to other concerned citizens everywhere.]

———-

Hello,

I interviewed Zander C. Fuerza (ZCF) today, December 6, 2012. You may hear this interview by visiting this web site:

http://www.spingola.com/SpingolaSpecials.html

Thanks for your interest in my programs.

Kindest Regards,

Deanna

My radio program: Monday-Friday, 11 am to 1 pm (CT)

www.republicbroadcasting.org

My radio schedule: http://www.spingola.com/radio_schedule.html

Spingola Specials – commercial-free interviews

 My Books:

The Ruling Elite, a Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation 

The Ruling Elite, the Zionist Seizure of World Power 

(both available at Amazon, www.spingola.com and other retailers)

Israeli apostate Gilad Atzmon blamed for UK anti-Semitism

giladatzmon

 

Israbrit

[Editor Note: Gilad Atzmon is one of the more shining examples of the fact that the Zionist Jew cabal will do its damnedest to keep Truth suppressed regardless of who is speaking it. Being of Jewish parentage Gilad is therefore automatically labeled a “self-hating Jew” because of his honesty and sincerity in pointing out the vast discrepancies between what Zionism purports to be and what it really is.]

——

 

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/report-israeli-apostate-blamed-for-uk-anti-semitism.html

 Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following Hasbara piece crowns my book and myself as the ultimate exponents of  “a relatively new form of antisemitism injected into the anti-Zionist discourse”. The piece admits a Jewish political dedication to book burning and the author behind this piece is somehow desperate to silence me and my work. The Hasbara writer is also convinced that it is down to Jews to decide what Brits should read who should be featured in their media outlets.  

Needless to say that any of my critics have yet to point at a single drop of antisemitism, racism or an incitement of any kind of hatred in my entire work. I am indeed an opponent of Jewish politics and highly critical of Jewish power. However, I am clearly delighted to learn that Hasbara as well as a few Shabbath Goyim are devastated by my work.  It seems the Hasbara man didn’t find many followers in the BBC or in Manchester City Council. But he certainly regards Ali Abunimah as an ally.

——

Report: Israeli apostate blamed for UK anti-Semitism

http://defenseoftheisraelipeople.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/report-israeli-apostate-blamed-for-uk-anti-semitism/

An investigation into Judeophobia in Britain concludes that Jewish renegade and jazz saxophonist Gilad Atzmon is responsible for injecting a “relatively new form of antisemitism into anti-Zionist discourse” in the UK.

According to Antisemitic Discourse in Britain in 2011, published by the Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitism in the UK, the apostate Israeli’s rancorous views are contributing to a climate of mistrust and hostility.

Thankfully, explicit anti-Semitism in British public life is rare, says the report. Nevertheless, anti-Semitic themes alleging Jewish conspiracy and power still exist within mainstream discourse about Israel and Zionism. This, claims the CST, is partly due to the nefarious writings of Atzmon, whose recent book The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics is cited as an example of anti-Semitic discourse.

Atzmon, born in Tel Aviv and trained at the Rubin Academy of Music in Jerusalem, describes himself as a “proud self-hating Jew.” Now based in London, Atzmon has released over a dozen jazz albums.Atzmon is also a prolific opponent of Israel, Jews and Judaism. His conspiratorial articles have been published by a number of dubious media outlets, including Counterpunch, Al-Arab online, the Palestine Telegraph and Aljazeera.info.

The Wandering Who? was released in September 2011 by left-wing publisher Zero Books. It is packed with anti-Semitic rhetoric and is barely distinguishable from the worst Nazi propaganda (one of the chapter headings is “Swindler’s List”). The book is a litany of hatred and lies that blames Jewish bankers for two world wars and “one communist revolution.” Jews are also responsible, says Atzmon, for persuading the UK to attack Iraq in order to “erase one of the last pockets of Arab resistance to Zionism.” Jews, he asserts, have no origin in Palestine “whatsoever” and Israeli children who visit Auschwitz return home to “mimic SS barbarity.” And perhaps most shockingly, Atzmon states that one day people “may be bold enough” to argue that “Hitler was right after all.” This is just a small sample of the book’s outrageous claims.

A few months ago I tried to have all copies of The Wandering Who? removed from libraries in Manchester, which is home to Britain’s second-largest and fastest-growing Jewish community. But because the book “has not incurred penalties under the law,” the city council says “it should not be excluded from libraries on any moral, political, religious or racist ground alone to satisfy any sectional interest.” Apparently, Manchester city council believe that the book is a legitimate expression of “human experience and activity.” I will, of course, try again to have all copies removed from the city’s libraries on the grounds that such blatant anti-semitism does not serve the public interest and may actually incite hatred or violence against the Jewish community.

It troubles me a lot that Atzmon’s books are available in British public libraries (and elsewhere). His texts are useful fodder for far-right extremists, far-left radicals and Islamic fundamentalists. But I am cheered by the fact that many Palestinian activists and left-wingers have condemned Atzmon and want nothing to do with him. Indeed, Atzmon’s views are so repellent that even the Guardian newspaper has removed his book from its site(!)

Sabbath Goyim United:*

Following the publication of The Wandering Who? in 2011, ten anti-Zionist authors wrote to the publisher to complain that “the thrust of Atzmon’s work is to normalize and legitimize anti-Semitism.” Moreover, a number of Palestinian intellectuals wrote to Atzmon himself, saying: “We reaffirm that there is no room in this historic and foundational analysis of our struggle for any attacks on our Jewish allies, Jews, or Judaism; nor denying the Holocaust; nor allying in any way shape or form with any conspiracy theories, far-right, orientalist, and racist arguments, associations and entities.”

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Sabbatha Goyim within the Left

Wandering Who

Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wandering-Who-Jewish-Identity-Politics/dp/1846948754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317809176&sr=8-1

Of course, it is possible that some in the Palestinian camp have no choice but to distance themselves from Atzmon because such blatant anti-Semitism hurts their cause. Indeed,**  there have been “some factional splits” on the Left, with some people still defending him. This is to be expected, I suppose. The Left is always disintegrating and reforming behind some cultish personality. But I did not expect the BBC World Service to take Atzmon’s side.

A few weeks ago, Atzmon was invited by the World Service to take part in a discussion on music and politics. Julian Woricker, who presented the program, claimed to be familiar with Atzmon’s writings but did nothing to challenge Atzmon. In fact, Woricker seemed incredulous that anyone would think his guest was anti-Semitic! The fact that the broadcaster – a supposedly mainstream and impartial news organization, funded by the British taxpayer, – invited Atzmon into the heart of the BBC is a disgrace.

The reasons for Atzmon’s self-hatred are no doubt complex. Historian Bernard Lewis believes that Jewish self-hate is a neurotic reaction to gentile anti-Semitism, whereby the victim incorporates, articulates and amplifies the views of the dominant culture. Well, this is nothing new. The burning of the Talmud in the 13th century was at the behest of a Jewish apostate to Christianity. Karl Marx authored a work called A World Without Jews and asserted that usury was the “object of the Jew’s worship.” Among the most notable Jewish self-haters is American publisher and pornographer Samuel Roth (who died in 1974), whose 325-page anti-Semitic diatribe Jews Must Live: an Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on All Frontiers of Civilization, published in 1930, was quoted at Nazi rallies and is held in high esteem by modern-day white supremacist groups.

According to Rabbi Yisroel Cohen (Chabad Lubavitch, Manchester), Jewish self-hatred is as old as the Jewish people. Of course, there are various spiritual and psychological explanations for the phenomenon, he explained. Plus, there are midrashic sources which say that “no nation can gain an upper hand over the Jewish nation without having support from within.”

This chimes with the view of Netta Kohn Dor-Shav, a US-born clinical psychologist now at Bar Ilan University in Israel, who warns: “It is fair to say that the plague of Jewish self-hatred is more dangerous for the survival of the Jewish people than any outside threat.” In a report for the Ariel Center for Policy Research, she concludes that such self-hatred “fuels a vicious cycle that can lead to disaster and dissolution of the Jewish people and the Jewish State.”

The CST points out that “expressions of anti-Semitism in public discourse remain a serious issue of concern as they exacerbate hostile attitudes towards Jews.” The CST is absolutely correct. But I would also add that “such expressions of anti-Semitism” legitimizes extreme violence against the State of Israel and Israel individuals. Anti-Semitic language easily translates into Hamas rockets or Islamic suicide-bombers. If I had the money, I’d bet a million pounds that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has read The Wandering Who? and has absorbed the book’s claims into his own rhetoric against Israel. Today’s verbal bombast is tomorrow’s nuclear missile aimed at Tel Aviv.

Anyone who cares about ending anti-Semitism should urge the BBC and other broadcasters not to collaborate with Atzmon. Tell mainstream newspapers that it’s unacceptable to print Atzmon’s anti-Semitic articles. Write to publishers, libraries and booksellers, and encourage them not to publish or stock Atzmon’s hateful texts. Zionist or anti-Zionist, each of us has the ability to help push Atzmon’s obscene opinions into the gutter where they belong.

*Added by GA

** Or is it because they are funded by George Soros? (GA)

 

——

 

Mr. Bean champions Freedom of Speech in British video

 

Rowan Atkinson: “The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression but more speech.”

Edward Abbey: “The best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.”

 

Mr.BeanFreeSpeech

Click HERE to view video.

Zionist Terror Tactics – a political cartoon from RadicalPress.com

ChekaWilson

RadicalPress Legal Update #5

NewLegalUpdateLogo 700

notice4RP

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 my wife and I once again wended our way into Quesnel to attend what I thought was to be a meeting with a Justice of the Peace who was going to speak with my lawyer Douglas Christie via telephone at 1:30 pm and arrange dates for an arraignment and a preliminary hearing regarding the sec. 319(2) criminal charge of “Willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” brought against me by B’nai Brith Canada via their two agents X and Y. That was what the JP stated during the previous meeting held on November 20, 2012.

Just prior to 1:30 pm the Justice came and told us that the meeting would be held in Judge’s Court instead at the same time.

When I was called up before the Honourable Judge Morgan the court clerk called Mr. Christie on the phone and upon answering Judge Morgan began to discuss the dates for the two issue and it was agreed upon that the arraignment would take place on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm and that preliminary inquiry would be set for the week of June 3 – 6, 2013.

Initially my lawyer had requested five days for the preliminary inquiry but for some reason unbeknownst to anyone present it was set for only four. Mr. Christie stated that he didn’t feel four days might be enough and given the fact that he was still awaiting disclosure from Crown Council Johnston of the relevant documents supporting the Crown’s reasons for the charge after a delay of over six months he felt that it was unreasonable to expect him to be able to ascertain the amount of time that might be required. That said the Judge still left it at four days.

Then the issue of the application to address bail conditions came up again. Crown council Jennifer Johnston told the Judge in no uncertain terms that the Crown was going to be pressing to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated when the bail hearing took place citing the “fact” that Det. Wilson had informed her that I was still posting articles on my website that Wilson deemed to be of the same calibre as those complained of by Agents X and Y.

The previous undertaking given to a judge which I am presently bound by came into effect on October 13, 2012 and did not include the following two conditions which were originally given to me by Det-Cst Terry Wilson back on May 16, 2012 when I was released from the Quesnel jail. At the time of my release I did not sign the document but that didn’t matter to the Crown who insist that it still is in effect.

These two conditions (and possibly more planned) are:

1. “You shall not post any information on any internet website that can be read by members of the general public.”

2. “You shall not operate, post to or manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.”

It must of course be recognized that both of these Orwellian ultimatums fly in the face of my Charter of Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed by Canada’s so-called “Constitution.” This fact also appears not to have entered into the mind of Crown Council Jennifer Johnston.

Mr. Christie’s response to all this was that he finds it extremely difficult for him to argue against the Crown’s position when he is still waiting for the disclosure of the documents that would indicate the reasons why the Crown was taking such a hard line approach in defiance of my constitutional rights.

This of course brought up the subject of said disclosure materials which Crown Council had assured both Judge Morgan and Counsel Christie that she would be supplying Mr. Christie with when we last attended court on the 20th of November. That information, apparently on cd discs, never arrived at Mr. Christie’s office prior to November 27th.

Judge Morgan asked the Crown what the problem was stating that he thought the Crown had had sufficient time to get this matter together.

Crown Council Johnston then gave the Judge a swan song about how she really, really wanted to get it done but that she was just so busy and then launched into all the things that she had on her plate that prevented her from accomplishing what she had said she would do last time we met in court. She then added that the material on the cd’s had to be “vetted” prior to sending them to Mr. Christie and that there were so many pages that had to be gone over and examined and it was soooo important that the accused not be privy to these documents before they were vetted and so on and so forth.

When it came time for setting a date for the next bail application to be heard there was no agreement between either Crown Council or Mr. Christie as to when they would be able to meet and so Judge Morgan decided that he would set a date and that both parties would have to make sure they were in attendance. At this point Judge Morgan also told Mr. Christie that this would likely be the last time he would be permitted to attend via telephone and that after that he would need to appear in person. The date was then set for Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm and the allotted time for Mr. Christie to argue against the Crown’s proposed conditions would be 45 minutes.

That said Mr. Christie then asked the Judge if he would ensure that the Crown furnish him with all the documentation required so that he would have time to prepare his arguments and Crown Council immediately said that she would get the information to Mr. Christie well in advance of the 13th of December. Judge Morgan then stated that Crown would have to furnish Mr. Christie with the information by no later than December 11, 2012. Hardly sufficient time in which to prepare a proper argument especially in light of the fact that Crown most likely was going to argue that all of my posts on RadicalPress.com since November 2nd, 2012 were indicative of more “hatred” being published against the ‘victims’ of this alleged “hate” crime.

That ended the session.

Some final comments:

It has been over six months now since Det-Cst Terry Wilson and his “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” swooped down upon my wife and I while we were travelling up to Prince George, B.C. in order to arrest me on this bogus charge, outraging me and traumatizing my dear wife. All the drama and hoopla surrounding Hate Hunter Wilson’s premeditated assault upon my constitutional right to freedom of speech on the Internet was simply that – a staged performance designed to lend some form of legitimacy and authenticity to what was simply an attack by the state upon an otherwise law-abiding citizen; one who has been openly informing the public about the very foreign agents who were responsible for making the complaint to the RCMP that precipitated this subsequent ambush on my legal and human right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Yet, for all the hullabaloo and the gravity of this said “hate crime” – one based solely upon the contents of my website RadicalPress.com – the Crown still refuses to supply my defence lawyer Douglas Christie with the required disclosure documents that they apparently used to determine that such a charge was justified.

Instead, they used this bogus allegation to justify obtaining an illegal search warrant which was then used to invade my home and steal all of my computers and electronic files. And, in addition to that, they also stole my firearms (my only means of personal safety in the rural area where I live) and then had the audacity to add a further bogus charge of “unlawful storage of firearms” to the initial false charge. All this was of course done in order to furnish their controlled media with yet another juicy bit of misinformation that could then be used to smear and slander my person and give the impression that I was not only a vile hate-mongerer but also armed and dangerous!

The whole gist of this massive scam is to cover up the fact that the Jewish lobbies here in Canada have the judiciary and the RCMP and the media by the balls and whenever they wish to silence someone who is revealing this fact to the people of Canada all they have to do is put the squeeze on RCMP Hate Hunters like Det-Cst Wilson and Levas and the legal system suddenly kicks in to carry out the bidding of their task masters the Zionist lobby acting at the behest of its controlling arm B’nai Brith International. The perps in this charade then sit back and let the taxpayers of Canada pay all the expenses while I, a senior citizen on a very limited, fixed income, am forced to defend myself against this specious, anti-Charter of Rights charge.

Must be nice to have that sort of influence upon a nation that purports to be “free and democratic.”

One final note regarding my website.

Suspended

Readers were informed that my website host Netfirms.com has issued a decree at the behest of a complaint from Hate Hunter Wilson that my website would be “terminated” in 48 hours unless I removed all the supposed “hate” content alleged by Wilson to be on the site.

Upon receiving said notification I replied to the Corporate representative for Netfirms.com, a person going by the name of “Zach P”, requesting further information as to what exactly I was expected to remove in order to meet Netfirms.com policy rules. I also requested of my readership that they write to Zach P and let him know that they did not agree with Hate Hunter Wilson’s assessment of my website and that Netfirms.com ought to leave it alone. All of these efforts of course proved to be futile. Zach P never had the decency to even respond to anyone, a clear indication that he and his company Netfirms.com could give a shit about what Canadians think and feel about the issue of freedom of speech on the Internet.

Realizing that I had but 48 hours to save my site I had it moved to a different server and now it is still alive and functioning but for how long is anyone’s guess.

The fact that Hate Hunter Wilson has been sleuthing about behind the scenes doing his damnedest to destroy my website speaks volumes in terms of the underhanded tactics that these supposed ” ‘Royal Canadian’ peace officers” will resort to in order to due the bidding of their foreign controllers. My lawyer tells me that even though Hate Hunter Wilson’s tactics are unethical and immoral and deplorable they still are not illegal and so there’s nothing that I can do about it. I’ll leave readers to judge whether or not H.H. Wilson’s actions ought to be allowed.

And  so it goes as the wheels of justice here in Canuckistan slowly grind away and erode my rights and freedoms along with yours.

Again I would ask of readers that they assist me financially in my battle with the censors by sending donations to the cause. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses and while I have been receiving some assistance from a few kind souls who realize the importance of this case to all Canadians the amount of money thus sent comes nowhere near that necessary to pay for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges.

As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.

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

To access my PayPal button please go to my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page.

Thanks for all the support from those good folks who had the courage of their convictions to write a letter to Netfirms.com on my behalf. While these excellent letters may have had no effect upon the corporate heads at Netfirms.com they certainly provide a strong and positive endorsement for both myself and RadicalPress.com and for that reason alone they are gratefully received and acknowledged.

For Peace and Love and Truth and Justice for All,

I remain,

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

Ashkenazi European Zionist Jews don’t speak for ALL Jews – Shazer Everquar

Photobucket

http://shazereverquar.wordpress.com/antisemitic/antisemitism-card/

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  I received a copy of the following email from Shazer Everquar of Harrison, Arkansas USA yesterday. In his letter to Netfirm.com’s corporate axeman Zach P he not only tears a strip off ‘Det’ Terry Wilson of the ‘BC HATE CRIME TEAM’ but also includes a very interesting short video that highlights another aspect of the racist, supremacist mindset of those Zionist Jews who control not only Israel but the majority of Western governments via their behind-the-scenes ‘advisers’ and lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada.

In further communications with Shazer Everquar I learned a bit more about his side of the story when it comes to America’s Zionist attack dog, the ADL or Anti-Defamation League, which is but one more tentacle protruding forth from the main body known as B’nai Brith International which is the creation of the Rothschild criminal cartel now attacking freedom of speech globally through their implanted “hate laws”.
Do take the time to watch this video as it illustrates a good point; one that most of us have never contemplated.]
———————-
Dear NetFirms (Zach P),

I am a former customer and once had the site, thinkmasa.org which was hosted by you.

As an African-American, I am particularly outraged at the racist tactics of the bigot known as Det-Cst Terry Wilson.  It is a FACT that White Jews are responsible for the Atlantic SLAVE trade and are SO racist that they even call BLACK JEWS “anti-semites!”??

The fact that this so-called “detective” is supporting a PROVEN RACIST PROVOCATION ORGANIZATION reveals that such an “investigation” is highly suspect.

Click the above link and watch for yourself the video which PROVES these guys are quite corrupt.

If White Jews are allowed to attack Black Jews in the name of “anti-semitism” then where will it end ????  Surely a Gentile doesn’t stand a chance under those conditions.??Please be fair and take a good look at ALL the facts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Shazer Everquar

Harrison, Arkansas USA
——————————
Further comments from a subsequent communication with Shazer Everquar:

Dear Editor:

I had to write because, as you noticed, that video was tailor-made for your case.

About NetFirms.com:  I went with them because I wanted to be hosted outside of the US.  But as my email suggests, eventually I moved my blog to another company (Blue Host).  Suddenly, I was getting all sorts of tech help that I never got from NetFirms.com.  I didn’t realize how lousy they were until I left them.

So what you’re saying about them not responding is just a continuation of the fact that they don’t respond to ANYTHING.  They just collect your money.

If you’re not required to host in Canada, consider moving your blog to another country such as the Netherlands or better yet, the Isle of Man.  Then the Canadian ADL won’t be able to touch you.

I’m sympathetic to your cause.  January 13th, 2012 I was released from over 16 months of incarceration without a trial by Zionist Jews.  When I was set free they went through my wallet and took my social security card and my driver’s license.

While I was incarcerated all of my belongings were stolen.  I mean ALL.  Car, clothes, everything.  My best and only friend has been supporting me out of his own pocket for nearly a year because one cannot get a job without ID.

While I was incarcerated, a Zionist judge wrote an order that I was not to have access to the internet “for any purpose”!

I know from personal experience how the Jews terrorize those who oppose their quest for world domination.

I’m writing this to you at a library, which is my only source to the internet.  My last blog, “thinkmasa.org” went down while I was incarcerated.

The Zionists taught me that what they hated the most was my blog.  So until I’m able to get an ID and raise money, I’m hosted on wordpress.com.  If I’m arrested and jailed, the blog stays up.

The Jews blacklisted me and no lawyer would represent me.  It was actually a blessing in disguise.  I would help you but I don’t know how Canada works.  However you can find out and it will be well worth it.

My new blog is not very developed since it’s only been around since June of this year and I’m only able to work on it from libraries, (I.E. a max of 7 hours a day).

I’m amazed to see that most of the so-called anti-zionist websites are actually run by the Zionists.  The blatant anti-zionist sites are either run by Jews or racists bankrolled by Jews.  It’s very clever actually.  You gotta give these monsters credit.

The conscious and unconscious Christian Zionists are the lynchpin.  Unseat the Zionist hold on the Christian mentality and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

Keep Fighting, we’re winning!

Shazer Everquar

Letters sent to Netfirms.com in Support of RadicalPress.com

Objection!

Dear Reader,

Enclosed below are letters sent to Zach P at Netfirms.com requesting that they do not remove my website in 48 hours as they have threatened to do.

These letters are well written and heartfelt and I’m absolutely humbled by them.

Whether or not Zach P of Netfirms.com will get an opportunity to read them before they pull the pin on RadicalPress is anyone’s guess.

What a sorry state of affairs as gutless and weak-willed traitors to this nation like Det-Cst Terry Wilson begin to reveal their true colours.

Thanks again to ALL those fine and decent people who have committed to supporting my work.

Bless you one and all!

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

——————————————————–

LETTERS TO ZACH P REGARDING NETFIRMS.COM ULTIMATUM TO TERMINATE RADICALPRESS.COM WITHIN 48 HOURS

Dear Zach P:

I do not feel RadicalPress.com is promoting any “hatred propaganda,” at all.  What Arthur Topham is doing in his online newsletter is providing a rare news service, one you’re not likely to find on the usual TV programs available in Canada due to the fact Canada’s news programs are controlled by B’nai Brith and other Jewish interests.

I do want to see the RadicalPress.com website remain on the Internet since what it contains is verifiable and factual news.

Please do not listen to the vicious and biased propagandists who are seeking to destroy businesses, livelihoods, news, and political awareness for the sake of — nothing worthwhile, that is for damned sure.  Liberty to all Canadians and Americans!

Best regards,

Charles Steiner

————–

Dear Zach,

This short note is to let you know that I am a regular reader of Arthur Topham’s blog website radicalpress.com hosted by your company Netfirms, and link to it from my own blog mysteryworshipers.wordpress.com .

I do not consider for a moment that radicalpress.com promotes “hate propaganda”. At no time has radicalpress.com encouraged its readers to kill, maim, or destroy other peoples or countries, things governments do fairly frequently (Libya and Gaza come to mind).

I would ask that you continue to promote freedom of speech in Canada by allowing radicalpress.com to continue with its blog. I feel that pulling radicalpress.com off the internet would be no different than the actions taken by authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia. And Canada claims to be a bastion of freedom of speech. Let’s keep free speech alive with your help! Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

David Morgan

——————-

November 21, 2012

Dear Zach P,

For several years now I have been a regular reader at Arthur Topham’s site, Radical Press. Never did I find anything promoting hate. Indeed I found it to be a site full of interesting and educational material. Certainly there was never a word to promote violence or hatred in any way, shape, or form. Not even by innuendo!

While Arthur was away from his blog for the past months I found my reading to be missing something ~ the stimulation of Mr. Topham’s erudite and witty perspective which is about as peaceful as any I have come across over the years.

I certainly will not be impressed with Netfirms.com if they started censoring and pulling down legitimate websites merely on the accusations of special interest groups here in Canada in conjunction with the RCMP.

Consider the ramifications, Mr. P., and please do the right thing. Stand for freedom of speech in our great country.

Sincerely,

B. Lee

—————

Dear Zach P,

In your letter to Arthur Topham, you state:

“We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.”

The key word in this sentence is ‘alleged.’  In other words, according to your next two sentences, “Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website,” you would do harm to someone on an allegation.  How would you like to be treated as such?  I would guess you wouldn’t like it at all.

Please reconsider your ultimatum.  Fairness demands it.

Sincerely,

Steve Campbell

———————-

November 21, 2012

Att: Zach or whom it may concern

I am writing to express support for Arthur Topham and his website radicalpress.com

I have been informed that you have considered shutting down his site on mere accusations of material that. according to Det-Cst Terry Wilson is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature. May I ask what evidence he has given you in this matter? Is his “opinion” all you would need to even consider such an action? Do you always act on such “allegations” without any facts of matter? I am confident that I could surely find some or more of the websites that you host offensive to me; would that be all you need to shut them down? “Controversial in nature”? Please, gimme a break! Whose “opinion” is not controversial?

In that case, please provide me with a list of Netfirms hosted websites so that I may peruse them to find what I might deem controversial or  offensive so that I can immediately let you know what should be acceptable or not and I trust that you will take the necessary actions to give notice to each of them and shut them all down in due course. Or would I need to be a Det-Cst to have such a priveledge? Maybe I am.  Maybe I am a lawyer. Maybe I am a judge.

You state that you are not responsible for content or links posted by your customers. Then I fail to see how you can now deem yourself in such a position to ask Mr. Topham to “remove such content within 48 hours of this notice”. Are you now going to rely on “your opinion” on what is deemed acceptable? Would that allegedly put you in an unlawful position and a possible lawsuit against Netfirms Inc?

In closing, I feel that radicalpress.com is providing a service that is beneficial to freedom and I appreciate that you host his site. I harbor no hatred nor do I support any “hate-sites” but I DO support free speech in Canada and I will support Arthur’s free speech as well. Even yours. If I do not like the material on Arthur’s site I am free to not go to it. Please do not take that freedom away from open minded people like myself by judging what should or should not be available on the internet as a whole, unless it clearly is unlawful content such as advocating violence or provides unlawful information in order to cause harm to others. I see none of that in radicalpress.com.

Sincerely,

Mike Gould

—————-

Dear Zach P.

In regard to the letter you received from Terry Wilson it might interest you to know that propaganda is a neutral term… it merely means ‘to propagate’. Your RCMP ‘friend’ claims that Arthur is printing material Terry Wilson claims is hate. I hate (ooops) to tell you this but Terry Wilson is a paid agent of the crown which propagates more falsehoods than the Fraser River spawns salmon.  But be that as it may, to defend oneself from ‘hate’ when what one feels or thinks is personal, private and harms no one is not a position any man or woman should be put in, in a free society. It absolutely negates the freedom we supposedly enjoy in this nation. It certainly is not criminal regardless of how lawyers define it. You might do better to investigate the legal implications of Terry Wilson’s assertions as well as your instant compliance. Stultifying freedom of speech is a crime against the freedom of the people, especially if in so doing it causes damage by way of material and hours lost. It makes you and your associates complicit in slander and libel.

The very fact that such statutes exist in a free nation belies the assertion of all the politicians who wax eloquent about freedom and justice. This is especially hypocritical following as soon as it does after the recent memorial day commemoration. Did those men die for a lie? For your company to simply comply with a paid agent of the Crown in light of an assertion based on such dubious and dangerous legislation makes you culpable in this overt action of repression.

There are reams and reams of articles written in every newspaper and website in the land, and even more so on every television set in every home and much of it is lies, more lies and damn lies. Only fools with weak minds fall victim to such propaganda. Only fools who claim they have been hurt by words would confess to such a weakness of mind. Perhaps you might ask Terry Wilson to explain what authority he draws on to make the claims he does and furthermore, show cause for using his office to intimidate you and your associates? After all he does state: ‘If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at the above email or at 604-543-4903.’ Have you no questions to ask of him then?

Regards,

Rudi Weyrich
w/o prejudice

——————

[Read more…]

Arthur Topham charged with hate crime – QuesnelCaribooObserver

ObserverATChargedwithHateCrime

newRPlogo

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

Don’t ask me why my website is still up for I haven’t a clue at this point. It was, according to the ultimatum which I received from the corporate office of Netfirms.com, slated to be “terminated” at 12:11:12 on Saturday, November 23, 2012.

There are a number of reasons why it is still up but I won’t speculate on them at this point. My hunch is that Zach P the person who sent me the threatening email likely hasn’t returned to his office to carry out his threat. It may have something to do with all the excellent letters of support sent to him on my behalf (I would like to think so) but I just don’t have that much faith in any company that would do what it did to begin with.

On a positive note though I would like readers to know that the weekend edition of my local community newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer carried the following front page story about my being charged with a hate crime.

I wish to acknowledge the paper and its editor, Autumn MacDonald and thank them for being the only mainstream media in the world to actually contact me for my side of the story rather than just repeat the Zionist-controlled Reuters News Agency’s slanderous press release that appeared across Canada as well as in Israel and other foreign countries.

It’s heartening indeed to know that there remains at least one newspaper with the courage and the honesty to present both sides of this issue rather than automatically assume that I am guilty of said allegations before any trial has occurred.

I would ask readers to give some consideration to responding to the Letters to the Editor section of the paper and let the Editor know what you think of the story. If you do wish to write I would also suggest keeping the word count under the 250 word limit to ensure that your submission has a good chance of being printed.

Send any letters to Autumn Macdonald editor@quesnelobserver.com

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998?

Note: I have included the text of the article as one would otherwise have to  purchase a subscription to the QC Observer in order to read this story. Ed.
————————————————–
Arthur Topham charged with hate crime

http://www.quesnelobserver.com/news/180608751.html?c=n
By Autumn MacDonald – Quesnel Cariboo Observer
November 23, 2012

After waiting five months, Arthur Topham has now been officially charged with willful promotion of hatred.

RCMP searched and seized property of the Quesnel resident in late May of this year, after it was determined there were “reasonable grounds the offence of promotion of hatred was committed.”

Crown officially moved forward on the charge earlier this month.

Since then Topham has had to comply with certain conditions, including restricted Internet access and is prohibited from maintaining his websites (including the Radical Press domain.)

Crown continues to request the courts permission on further restrictions.

Topham, who adamantly denies the charge, says he’s hopeful having his day in court will raise awareness surrounding free speech and the definition of “hate crimes.”

“This is not to say that I have full confidence in Canada’s judicial system but it will hopefully give me an opportunity to present the facts and the truth before a judge and jury of my peers; something that would never have happened if the case had been decided by a tribunal,” he said.

“In that regard, therefore, I welcome the opportunity to challenge these Draconian “hate” laws that have been set up to protect vested interests here in Canada.”

Topham says ever since he was charged with a hate crime in 2007 he’s been forced to battle with the Canadian Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Back in 2008 the Quesnel Cariboo Observer published a story in which Topham had received a complaint from the Canadian Human Rights Commission stating he was promoting hatred towards Jews and citizens of Israel.

Topham maintains a site, RadicalPress.com with the tagline “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998.”

Currently Topham is permitted to continue posting to his site; Crown is seeking to prohibit posting.

“Of course my immediate concern is that the crown wants to assume that I have already been found guilty and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to write or post on my website in
order to defend myself against these spurious charges,” Topham said.

“Given how the msm is smearing me already I feel it would be highly unfair to take away my charter rights prior to this case being heard in a court of law.”

Topham’s next court appearance is slated for Nov. 27.

————

Radical Press Legal Update #4

NewLegalUpdateLogo 700

notice4RP

Here’s freedom to him who would speak,
Here’s freedom to him who would write;
For there’s none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!

ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)

November 23, 2012

 


Dear Freedom of Speech supporters,

This will most likely be my last email before Netfirms.com shuts down RadicalPress.com.

All efforts thus far to even CONTACT Zach P have proven futile. After sending out his ultimatum that I remove “content” from my website, content which he did not specify, Zach went off to celebrate “Thanksgiving Day” in the good ol’ US of A and will most likely not be back at his corporate desk until this morning. As of now, 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, I have still had no word back from Zach P even though he specifically asked me to reply to him if I had any concerns about Netfirms.com “terminating” my website.

Zach P’s letter to me was sent on November 21, 2012 at 12::11:12 PM PST. The 48 hour limit therefore ends in a couple of hours.

It may bear repeating his words contained in this ultimatum:

“We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.  The notice we received is below….

Should you have further questions, please contact us.

Regards,
Zach P
Corporate Support
———————-
As I said all of my efforts to write to Zach P have proven to be fruitless to date. I phoned the Netfirms.com in Toronto and they put me on to a woman in Arizona who was a “Supervisor”. She towed the same Corporate line that Zach P is following and played her game of sophistry with me as we went around and around the “all you gotta do is remove the offensive content but we won’t tell you what it is ha ha” bush for about fifteen minutes at which point I admonished her for her recalcitrant, illogical attitude and then hung up.

The fact remains that the culprit throughout all of these shenanigans is none other than our good Zionist toadie for the B’nai Brith Canada, Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.

The fact that he has been relentlessly pursuing his agenda of sabotaging my website even though he is fully aware that I have all the right in the world to own it and run it and post articles and news on it is clearly an act of criminal negligence and one of malicious intent and an issue which I will be discussing with my lawyer Douglas Christie.

Wilson, as well as the Crown, are absolutely aware of the FACT that this alleged sec. 319(2) “hate crime” is now before the Supreme Court of Canada yet they are purposely pretending that it doesn’t matter a damn and that they will continue to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying the very evidence that potentially has the force of truth necessary to blow their  “hate” case right out of the murky waters from wherein it first emerged. This makes both the RCMP and the Crown itself guilty of criminal negligence and blatant malfeasance on their part regarding this criminal matter.

Two important points beyond that are:

1. If and when my website is “terminated” I will most likely lose email contact via my normal address radical@radicalpress.com . If this situation does arise I would ask that anyone wishing to contact me via email please use the following address: editor@quesnelcariboosentinel.com . If that doesn’t work then try my third email address which is caribooplacers@gmail.com .

Also I can be reached at 1 250 992 3479 as well. Please leave a message if I don’t answer the phone.

2. Of course I’d be a bloody poor cyber warrior if I hadn’t already anticipated these moves on the part of RCMP cheka’s commissars and so I would just like to say here that I am working on remedying this deplorable situation and will do my utmost to be back up and running as soon as is humanly possible.

For Truth, Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone,

I remain,

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”