GERMANY – Jews Furious At German Politician’s Call To End Nazi Guilt from Yahoo

GERMANY – Jews Furious At German Politician’s Call To End Nazi Guilt

Berlin (AFP) – A leading member of German right-wing populist party AfD sparked an outcry Wednesday by criticising the Holocaust memorial in Berlin and calling for the country to stop atoning for its Nazi past.

Bjoern Hoecke’s comments also exposed a damaging split in the anti-immigration party, just months before Germany heads to the polls.

“Up to now, our state of mind is still one of a totally defeated people… We Germans, our people, are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of the capital,” Hoecke told party faithful including youth members, according to a video of the speech circulated online.

“We need nothing less than a 180-degree shift in the politics of remembrance,” he said in the remarks on Tuesday to chants of “Germany, Germany”.

Instead of introducing younger generations to home-grown “internationally-acclaimed philosophers, musicians and ingenious inventors… German history has been made lousy and ridiculous,” he complained, winning a standing ovation from the crowd.

“There is no moral responsibility to make yourself disappear,” said Hoecke, who was a high school sports and history teacher, adding that Germany should instead “build up a positive relationship with our history”.

The comments were met with an instant uproar, with Social Democrat vice chief Ralf Stegner accusing Hoecke of making a “hate incitement speech” — which is illegal in Germany — that called for history to be rewritten.

Chairwoman of the Greens party Simone Peter said the comments were “unspeakable” and demanded an apology from the AfD to Jews.

“Germany’s Central Council of Jews also lashed out, accusing the politician of trampling on six million Jewish Holocaust victims murdered by the Nazis.”

“The AfD has shown its real face with these anti-Semitic and extremely hostile words,” said the council’s chairman Josef Schuster, adding that he “never thought that 70 years after the Holocaust, a politician in Germany could say such things”.

Council of Europe chief Thorbjorn Jagland also weighed in, saying that “calling our remembrance culture into question is outrageous and dangerous”.

The case also exposed a rift within the party.

AfD co-leader Frauke Petry told Young Freedom weekly that the episode showed that “Hoecke has become a burden on the party with his go-it-alone attitude and constant sniping”.

But deputy chief Alexander Gauland defended the politician, telling national news agency DPA that Hoecke had “in no manner criticised the remembrance of the Holocaust”.

In a post on Facebook on Wednesday, Hoecke also insisted that he had been misinterpreted and that he “described the Holocaust… as a shame for our people”.

The AfD had started out as an anti-euro party, but has since morphed into an anti-immigration outfit railing against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy that brought some 890,000 refugees to Germany in 2015 alone.

The party, which disputes the place of Islam in Germany, is polling nationwide at around 12 to 15 percent ahead of general elections.

Hoecke, who is a regional deputy in the eastern state of Thuringia, is viewed as one of the most right-leaning leaders of the populist party.

In December 2015, he sparked outrage when he said that the “reproductive behaviour of Africans” could be a threat for Germany.

Most recently, he was greeted by students chanting “Nazis out” as he tried to make a speech at a university in the eastern city of Magdeburg, and had to leave the hall under police escort.

SOURCE

Ben Gadd: Pea-brained Propagandist for Zion’s “6 Million” Holohoax Lie by Marcus

victoryinend-copy

“In the end Victory stands!”

Ben  Gadd: Pea-brained Propagandist for Zion’s “6 Million” Holohoax Lie  

by Marcus

atrpeditor300

[Editor’s Note: The following commentary by Marcus on on the post “A Reply and Challenge to Ben Gadd  By Monika Schaefer” was so on point that I decided to publish it as a stand alone article.]

“Are the police and courts “haters” when they accuse the Mafia of crimes?”  I suspect in Ben’s pea sized brain, the answer is no. It’s only a crime when Jews are accused of something.

This little rat doesn’t know his backside from his elbow, but goes on talking about the so-called holocaust as if he’s an expert.  Who knows what thoughts that little brain he has contains, but if he swallowed everything the Jews said, then he also believes the Germans made lampshades from Jews skin and soap from Jews fat and believes that the “NAZIS” killed four million Jews at Auschwitz.  Does he even know that the Jews and the allies have already been exposed as liars for all three of these accusations.  The soap and lampshades stories have been discarded by historians as false (that means the allies and Jews lied) and the authorities at Auschwitz reduced their atrocity claim from four million to one million.  That was obviously a lie too.  They had no evidence (still don’t) and they smeared the German people with that lie.

This double talking guttersnipe works to spread the most vile and hateful things about the German people and he calls others the “haters”.  The Jews and idiots like Ben (or perhaps he is one himself) have made doublespeak a centerpiece of their narrative.  Myself, Monika and all Germans must accept the lies peddled by this Jew or in their twisted minds we are the “haters”.

6milben

I wonder if this know nothing, commie looking draft dodger knows that Jews founded and ran (completely dominated the murderous USSR government by being 80 to 85 percent of it) the most murderous regime in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bSAB5OPkwQ

Does this liar know (or recognize) that this has been completely hidden from the public, with the media keeping it out of their reporting for almost 100 years now and that Jews were the leaders of the Soviet government that burned down Russian churches, raped nuns and murdered priests, oversaw the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians and mass murder of millions of politically suspect Russians. The German government knew it and that is why they called it Jewish Bolshevism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKOBWz0_4Y

And while world Jewry was making the strongest efforts possible to push the world into WW II by spreading hateful, atrocity propaganda, Germany was at peace before the war broke out in 1939 and Germany’s relatively small Jewish population was safe, with Jews from Poland actually trying to stay or get into Germany.

Yes, those poor, innocent Jews.  Don’t people know that “anti-semitism” has “resulted in the hate-sparked deaths of millions of people over many hundreds of years”?  Ben Gadd sounds like a sayanim and the worst form of propagandizing Jewish liar there is.  The kind that Polish ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki was speaking of when he reported back to Warsaw on his observations of the American political scene in 1938:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February 9) and then reported back to Warsaw again in January 1939:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people, who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy,’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere, and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_2/the_jewish_hand_in_the_world_wars_part_2.php

Meanwhile, in Britain “innocent” Jews (read “warmongering”) were bribing Winston Churchill to start a world war against Germany:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jc9ltEIwpo

And the “innocent” Jews continue to operate today, as they did in the 1930’s and I suspect as they always have.  Here is the “number one contributor to the Republican Party”, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.  In this speech he says Iran should have a nuclear bomb dropped on it if it doesn’t do what the US says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc

Adelson knows and met each Republican candidate who took the money he offered them and promised to carry out his wishes – every one of them.  Trump refused the money at first.  I’m not sure if he eventually accepted it.

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

The Jewish push for WW II began immediately upon Adolf Hitler taking office as chancellor of Germany.  They immediately began holding atrocity propaganda rallies in New York and international Jewry declared a worldwide boycott of German goods within two months.  Just as in the USSR, the Jews were leaders of the communist party in Germany.  They were violent and had overthrown the Bavarian gov’t shortly after WW I and these were the Jews that were arrested.  There was no terror.  That would come later, as the Jews continued to push for war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myh-dqvUgYA

In 1936 a Jew named David Frankfurter murdered the Swiss National Socialist politician Wilhelm Gustloff in cold blood.  Two years later the Jew Herschel Grynszpan murdered the young German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in cold blood.  Vom Rath left his wife and young children behind.  This murder kicked off what became known as “Kristallnacht” in which an estimated 91 Jews were killed (not six million or six trillion).  But of course the Jews made the most they could out of it, as they had been lying since Hitler took office.  Compare that to the number of Russians and Ukrainians Jews were murdering at the same time in the USSR.

In 1940 the Jew Theodore Kaufman published his book “Germany Must Perish!” in which he put forth a detailed plan to sterilize the entire German population to kill the Germans off.  His book received rave reviews in the top US media outlets, including Time Magazine.

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-7-41-32-pm

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-7-42-18-pm

http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.shtml

And this was in the US, a country thousands of miles from Europe that had no business in European affairs.   Charles Lindbergh pointed out the “innocent” Jews as one of three groups (the others being the FDR administration and Great Britain) pushing the US into WW II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI

Here is FDR, one of the biggest liars in history, making a speech based upon a phony map and making ridiculous accusations against Germany, claiming it wanted to take over South America and then presumably march on to Washington, D.C, all while the German army was already fighting for its life in the USSR.  FDR justifying the US entry into WW II.  This speech was made a month after Lindbergh’s speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak61DaD32Ww

How the phony map speech came about:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html

Meanwhile, in Poland and the USSR the Germans noticed that wherever Jews made up a significant part of a population, that is where atrocities against Germans would take place (Bromberg) or partisan attacks on German soldiers or European Nationalists from other countries would be carried out.  The partisan war had begun.  It would end with the Soviet Jew propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg calling for the mass rape of German women, which the Soviet army (and the Americans and British to a much smaller degree) carried out, gang raping two million German women, ranging in age from 8 to 80.  Today that Jewish animal Ehrenburg is honored and buried in Israel (while Germany continues to persecute 90 year old nurses or clerks that served Germany).

Hopefully the bigot Ben Gadd will read this.


In the interests of public justice and truth should anyone wish to contact Ben Rudd his email address is: Ben@bengadd.com

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

URGENT!! You must STAND up for Anthony Hall against B’nai B’rith!!! By Trevor Labonte for TUT

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/urgent-you-must-stand-up-for-anthony-hall-against-bnai-brith/

URGENT!! You must STAND up for Anthony Hall against B’nai B’rith!!!
By Trevor Labonte
 

holocxt?

Letter to Lethbridge University, written by Trevor LaBonte

Mr. Mahon,

I know that you have recently been a victim of strong-arming by the infamous jewish secret society/hate-cult known as B’nai B’rith.

I know their tactics, they left you no choice but to fire the good Dr. Hall. All of the jewish organizations threatened to withhold funding for Lethbridge unless demands were met. This is standard operating procedure for these gangsters.

I have been featured on Iranian national news and many other shows and I am just telling you the facts that millions or maybe billions of people already know. Anyone who has made any serious inquiry into 9/11 has been met with an enormous array of extremely damning evidence that 9/11 was a zionist operation designed to draw America and other countries into a series of genocidal wars for expansionist Israel.

“Apartheid” does not BEGIN to describe the atrocities the zionist entity commits against the innocent Palestinian people, who only want to live on their own land which has belonged to them for thousands of years.

This paradigm of zionist propaganda will not last much longer. We are in the midst of a great awakening.

I highly encourage you, brother, to reinstate Dr. Hall, and you will be met with cheers and support from all over the world. Let’s chalk up a victory for truth and justice. Don’t make an innocent, heroic man homeless and destitute. This is a crime against humanity that you are being forced to commit at the childish behest of the Jewish lobby, who marches your children into genocidal, illegal wars that nobody but said lobby wants.

Also it may shock you to learn that the holocaust story we have all been taught is fraught with fantastical, physically impossible claims that are 100% without real evidence. The entire source of the story is the Nuremberg trials, which were nothing but a show trial ginned up by the victorious “Allies,” hardly a fair or impartial affair. It was nothing but a farce and a big kangaroo court which only further proved the Allies’ criminality after they firebombed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, and killed millions of defenseless German prisoners AFTER the war was supposedly over. It was hardly a “good war” and is definitely nothing of which to be proud.

Interestingly, in the charter for the trial, in articles 19 and 20, it states that “the trial will not be bound by the rules of technical evidence.” Translated from legalese to English, this means they took the rules and threw them into the trash can. All this talk, for all these years, and all these articles, movies, etc…and here there has never been a single shred of evidence that a single jew was ever “gassed.” There was no “exermination” program, period. The emaciated bodies we see in Allied propaganda photographs are actually proof of Allied atrocities, namely the Allied bombings of supply lines that led directly to mass starvation and typhus outbreak. Yes, the jews that died in Germany’s camps were actually victims of Allied bombings.

 ?no-proof

These are all things that true intellectuals and researchers have known for certain for at least 40 years. It is so very sad that our educational institutions are being forced to peddle such a fraudulent narrative, deceiving, misleading, indoctrinating, and defrauding students of a true education based on facts and evidence. Students going into lifelong debt, just so they can be brainwashed and manipulated. What an epic catastrophe. And here you had ONE good professor, with the courage to investigate the truth, and you let yourself be bullied into throwing him onto the streets for the benefit of the world’s most dangerous gangsters.

This is your chance to be a hero. You will never find a finer example of a human than Dr. Hall. His work is famous around the world for its accurate revelations.

Do the right thing. Don’t martyr Dr. Hall. His blood will be on your hands for the rest of your life, and people around the world already bitterly resent this setback you have just dealt to the global truth community.

Our numbers are massive and we are growing exponentially everyday. We would love you forever if you can help us win this battle instead of capitulating to the tyrannical demands of Jews who believe they are the “Chosen people of God,” and who think they can do no wrong and are above the law. They are an ideological collective of moral relativists who believe that non-Jewish life has no sanctity or importance, and as such, they are hell-bound as well as dead wrong. Don’t do anything to support their racist, anti-gentile agenda.

This world is just a test. Your only job in this place is to do the right thing. Always remember that. Also it is only a matter of time until the truth emerges victorious, so NEVER lose faith, and NEVER be caught on the wrong side of truth.

Sincerely,

Trevor Labonte


trevor-labonte-copy

Jazz artist and peace/truth activist/journalist/blogger/international political commentator Trevor LaBonte

CBC Prince George Reporter-Editor Betsy Trumpener: Lying, Anti-free Speech Hack Agent for B’nai Brith Canada’s League for ‘Human Rights’ By Arthur Topham

screen-shot-2015-02-08-at-6-30-10-am-copy

CBC Prince George Reporter-Editor Betsy Trumpener: 

Lying, Anti-free Speech Hack Agent for B’nai Brith Canada’s League for ‘Human Rights’

By Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press

betsycbcziotroll

Betsy Trumpener CBC “reporter”Prince George, B.C.

As the Constitutional Charter challenge to Canada’s notoriously unjust, Zionist-created “Hate Propaganda” legislation contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code was due to commence in Quesnel, B.C.’s Supreme Court on Monday, October 3rd, CBC’s Prince George reporter-editor ran a hit piece on the hearing that was posted to the CBC website on September 30, 2016 under the title of B.C. man convicted of promoting hate on web to challenge law in court today.

Due to a court order imposed upon Topham prohibiting him from publishing the names of the traitorous scumbags who’ve been attacking him and his family and website for the past 10 years this article cannot post a direct link to the Trumpener article.

The slanderous excuse for an objective news story was pure Zionist vilification of Arthur Topham, Editor and Publisher of RadicalPress.com that consisted of lies, half-truths and mis- and dis-information.

Trumpener, who has been following the case of R vs Roy Arthur Topham since Topham’s trial back in Oct/Nov. of 2015, has been publishing lies and half-truths about the case in an attempt to portray the publisher of the alternative news site as an “anti-Semitic, Racist, Jew-hater” who’s been using his website to publish articles calling for the “sterilization” and “genocide” of all the Jewish population in order to resolve the “Jewish Problem” once and for all.

In her most recent repulsive screed aimed at defaming Topham’s motives and character, Trumpener, without speaking to Topham and getting his perspective on the case and the Charter challenge, interviewed the Zionist Jew scumbag B’nai Brith agent from Victoria, B.C. who had filed the Sec. 319(2) against Topham back in May of 2011 and prior to that had also filed a Sec. 13 complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission back as far as 2007 alleging that Topham was “promoting hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnicity and/or citizens of Israel”. No shit. Promoting “hatred” toward citizens of the foreign, racist, Jews-only state of Israel.

Trumpener then quotes the lying scumbag Mossad operative known as “Agent Z” and publishes all of his bullshit lies about Topham including the most insidious falsification of all – that Topham was calling “for the sterilization of all Jews” and that, in the scumbag’s demented mind meant “incitement to genocide”.

The same lying Israeli sayan Trumpener had sat through the trial back in 2015 and knew full well that the scumbag from Victoria was lying when he made these statements. She knew that this agent for the foreign racist, supremacist, criminal state of Israel was misquoting statements from a satire that Topham had posted on his website called Israel Must Perish!  This hack “journalist” also knew that Israel Must Perish! was a satirical response to a REAL BOOK published back in 1941 in the USA by a JEWISH writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman, titled Germany Must Perish! 

Trumpener was aware that Topham had merely chose some of the more juicey and outrageously hateful sections of the real book of Kaufman’s and then digitally reprinted them VERBATIM. The only alteration of the actual text of the real book was when Topham changed the words “Germany” and “German” and “Nazi” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Zionist” and “Netanyahu” in order to transform the original, lurid production of Kaufman’s into a satire or parody of the original work.

It was Kaufman in his book Germany Must Perish! who was calling for the total sterilization of the German population in order to wipe out the German race. It was Kaufman who actually wrote and published this book and when it was placed on the market for sale this heinous publication calling for the absolute genocide of the German population was endorsed on the back cover by some of the leading and most prestigious newspapers and magazines in the United States. Time Magazine and the Washington Post as well as the New York Times and the Philadelphia Record (as illustrated below in the graphic showing the actual front and back covers of the book) all added their voices to the Jewish call for the “total sterilization of the German population in order to wipe out the German race.”

“The lying hack “journalist” Trumpener from CBC Prince George also was cognizant of the fact that in creating the online, digital satire of Kaufman’s book Topham had explained to his readership why he had come up with idea of satirizing Germany Must Perish! and the bottom line rationale for doing so was that the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada had been falsely accusing and vilifying Topham in their Zionist controlled media (including CBC) for close to a decade and calling him a “hater” and a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” and Topham finally had had enough of these hypocrites and bigots calling the kettle black when, in truth, their own tribe of Jewish hate-mongers were the REAL HATERS and ADVOCATES OF GENOCIDING THE TOTAL GERMANIC RACE!”

actualcopyoffrbkcovergermmustper
The lying hack “journalist” Trumpener from CBC Prince George also was cognizant of the fact that in creating the online, digital satire of Kaufman’s book Topham had explained to his readership why he had come up with idea of satirizing Germany Must Perish! and the bottom line rationale for doing so was that the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada had been falsely accusing and vilifying Topham in their Zionist controlled media (including CBC) for close to a decade and calling him a “hater” and a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” and Topham finally had had enough of these hypocrites and bigots calling the kettle black when, in truth, their own tribe of Jewish hate-mongers were the REAL HATERS and ADVOCATES OF GENOCIDING THE TOTAL GERMANIC RACE!

So the satire appeared and when the scumbag Agent Z from Victoria, B.C. saw it he immediately saw his opportunity to twist it around 180 degrees and use it to accuse ME of wanting to genocide the “whole Jewish population”. He filed his complaint with the faggot Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Wilson swallowed Agent Z’s story hook, line and sinker (along with who knows what else) and proceeded to commence an investigation that eventually led to the arrest and incarceration of Topham on May 12th, 2012 and the Sec. 319(2) charge of “promoting hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnicity”.

It never seemed to have registered on the scumbag Agent Z or Det. Cst. Terry Wilson OR the BC Attorney General’s office who laid the charge that if Topham was calling for the “genocide of the total Jewish population” then he should have been charged under Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code NOT Sec. 319(2) because Sec. 318 deals with the promotion of genocide.

That folks is what the lying, hasbara Israeli reporter from CBC should have published in her story about Topham’s Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) for that is the TRUTH about what happened and why Topham was framed and exploited and incarcerated and dragged through over four years of endless litigation. But then of course that’s NOT what B’nai Brith Canada wants done and CBC, given that it, as well as all of Canada’s major mainstream media, are controlled by the Zionist Jew lobby, instead publishes the LIES that the Zionist Jews want published.

So the question remains – who are the real haters in this psycho-drama now unfolding throughout Western civilization and when are they going to be held accountable for their traitorous acts against Canadian citizens?

——

Canadian professor libelously targeted as “anti-semite” in coordinated attack by RAFIQ for the American Herald Tribune

amhertribune

http://ahtribune.com/world/americas/1225-canadian-professor-anti-semite.html

 

halllibelhdr

In his Now Magazine article “Facebook Removes Anti-Semitic Post after Online Blowback,” Bernie Farber explains that “the Facebook ravings on the social media site of Anthony Hall,” a tenured professor at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have been identified as anti-Semitic. This statement might lead readers to believe that there were anti-Semitic ravings by Dr. Hall on his Facebook page, but as the article makes clear, there are no examples of such ravings by Dr. Hall, only by “one Glen Davidson,” who we are told posted these ravings on Dr. Hall’s page.

Farber goes on to state that Dr. Hall “has publicly embraced the ridiculous and obnoxious notions of Gerard Menuhin, who has purported to have proof that the Holocaust is a myth.”

Farber does not attempt to dismiss any of this proof, as one might expect an objective journalist to do, but instead takes the position that such proof can be dismissed out of hand as false without any investigation.

By comparison, Dr. Hall sounds like the more reasonable person for having actually looked at Menuhin’s book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. Note, too, that when Hall says “I’m reading that text and having to reassess a lot of ideas,” he does not say that he has changed his ideas, only that he is reassessing his ideas. Again, Hall sounds like the more courageous thinker for his willingness to reassess his thinking on a narrative as seemingly sacrosanct as the Jewish holocaust.

Having not yet said anything that convinces me Dr. Hall is an anti-Semite, Farber adds, “Hall reportedly linked Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, with 9/11.” The role of Mossad, along with the CIA, in the 9/11 attacks is a fact well documented by credible journalists and scholars and widely disseminated online and in books. It is public knowledge and in the public domain. To admit the role of Mossad and the CIA in 9/11 is to admit the villainy of national governments and their foreign policies. Jewish identity and anti-Semitism have nothing to do with it.

Regarding  the anti-Semitic Facebook post that did not even originate with Dr. Hall, Farber writes, “To the best of my knowledge, Hall was never moved to delete this post himself.” An unbiased journalist would have contacted Dr. Hall and asked him about this matter. Well, I did contact Dr. Hall, and he informed me that he didn’t even know that the post was up on the “wall” of his Facebook page until after it had been taken down and after he had learned of the resulting controversy. So, here again, Farber offers no proof that Dr. Hall is even remotely anti-Semitic.

Not only that, but Dr. Hall’s award-winning two-volume book The Bowl with One Spoon, published by respected arbiter of scholarly history McGill-Queen’s University Press, gives every indication that Dr. Hall is the opposite of a racist, particularly in light of his deep commitment to exposing the plight of Indigenous peoples. Indeed, renowned Canadian scholar Naomi Klein, who happens to be Jewish, doesn’t seem to think that Dr. Hall is a racist either. On the cover of Dr. Hall’s book, she writes, “I cannot overstate the importance of this book. If used properly, it could change the world.”

Nonetheless, Farber goes on to bemoan that “the combined efforts of B’nai B’rith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs were unable to move the University of Lethbridge to take action against Hall.” I would like to believe that this unwillingness on the part of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the university’s professed commitment to liberal education and liberal values, even if Farber does portray Lethbridge as a racist backwater in conservative Alberta, where Hall is said to have “found a comfortable home amongst Holocaust deniers.”

I would like to believe that the unwillingness of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the fact that, as a nation, Canada has shown itself willing to reconsider history when there is good cause. Notably, Canadians have recently begun the hard process of re-evaluating our own history with respect to our nation’s cultural and physical genocide against our Indigenous peoples. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools has just published a six-volume final report on its findings, and in the tradition of scholars like Dr. Hall, this report shows fearlessness in confronting past lies so that history can better reflect the truth, however uncomfortable that truth may be.

I would like to believe that the unwillingness of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the university’s high ideals and Canadian bearing, but when I contacted Dr. Hall, he informed me that the University of Lethbridge has indeed asked him to step down from his tenured position after twenty-six years as a professor. It seems that the university is ready to bow to outside pressure and to sacrifice Dr. Hall. I’m sure that Farber’s biased account of the anti-Semitic posting on Dr. Hall’s Facebook page did little to help Dr. Hall’s chances of staving off B’nai B’rith’s attack.

Farber’s misrepresentation of Dr. Hall is no less offensive than the crime of which Dr. Hall is accused, namely misrepresentation of the Jewish holocaust. The difference between the two is that, in the case of Farber, his accusation that Dr. Hall is an anti-Semite is clearly baseless, whereas Dr. Hall’s willingness “to reassess a lot of ideas” about the history of the Second World War seems to be well thought out given his reputation as a respected historian.


rafiq

Prelude to Freedom of Speech or Zionist Hate Laws and Censorship? The Upcoming Charter challenge to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws By Arthur Topham

preludehdr1000

Prelude to Freedom of Speech or Zionist Hate Laws and Censorship?
The Upcoming Charter challenge to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” lawsBy
Arthur Topham“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

~ The Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.

There is a grave danger to any democracy when the laws of the land begin to shift from the concrete to abstract/emotional/ethereal planes of mental cognition. Such has been the case for many years now in Germany where freedom of speech has deteriorated to the point where, in reality, it no longer exists. A German citizen, if they so desire to question the authenticity of the purported “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” are automatically charged with “holocaust denial”, arrested and, when pronounced guilty, imprisoned, regardless of the fact that the state refuses to prove that the inquisitive thinker wrong in a court of law. All that was necessary was to create the “holocaust denial” legislation out of the shady realm of psychological cogitation; state that it was “manifestly obvious” that the event had occurred the way it was written (by the victors in WWII; and if anyone suggests otherwise then they are to be punished with a prison term up to 5 years in jail.

A similar reality existed here in Canada during the days when Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was being used by the Jewish lobby groups and their sycophant supporters to harass, intimidate, fine and even incarcerate Canadian citizens who were deemed “guilty” of having committed the offence of promoting “hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” If victims were publishing information on practically any topic related to either the state of Israel, Jews, or the political ideology of the Jews-only state known as Zionism they were considered fair game and Jewish lobby organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress (now defunct) and B’nai Brith Canada considered it open season on their critics and would scan the Internet in search of any sign of dissenting viewpoints which they could then attack via the Sec. 13 clause. While Sec. 13 existed in Canadian jurisprudence truth was not considered a defence against such accusations and if the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided to prosecute you it was commonly understood that you didn’t stand a snow’s chance in hell of ever winning. All you could look forward to was being forced through the quasi-judicial wringer then known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, for years, having your whole life turned upside down and then inevitably being found guilty of promoting “hate” and duly punished. The only difference between this process and that of the Stalinist Soviet Union’s Show Trials was that the Canadians at least attempted to defend themselves rather than simply admitting guilt and grovelling before their oppressors.

Fortunately for Canadians Sec. 13 was eventually repealed back in 2012. The story behind why it was repealed is a whole other can of worms that time and space won’t allow me to go into here. Suffice it to say that the law proved itself to be a “double-edged sword” and therefore was deemed unsuitable to the Zionist lobby here in Canada. The Zionist controlled media then consciously conspired to focus on it and before you could say “Bobs’ Your Uncle” it was gone from the statute books.

“A judiciary which functions as an auxiliary to Canada’s foreign, Zionist Jew lobbyists inevitably must produce absurd rulings for the simple reason that Hate Propaganda laws, in and of themselves, are the quintessential example of legal sophistry and not in any way reality based.”
~ Arthur Topham

What remained though and is currently enshrined in the Canadian Criminal Code and of much greater danger to our rights and freedoms is the section known as the “Hate Propaganda” laws which span Sections 318 to 320 of the Code. When it came time for the mainstream media to focus on that specious area of Canadian jurisprudence though their powerful and persuasive voice suddenly became muted.

The section under which I was charged in 2012 reads as follows:

• Wilful promotion of hatred
• (Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada
• 319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Having been found GUILTY on Count One of the crime of “Hate Propaganda” under Canada’s Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code and, simultaneously, found NOT GUILTY on Count Two of the exact same charge, by a jury of 12 Canadian citizens back on November 12th, 2015 I realized fully why it was that I had fought against this Orwellian section of the Canadian Criminal Code for over four years. What the legislation itself has now proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that the whole concept of supposed “hate crimes” are irrational in nature and illogical in practise. When attempts are made by the legal system to insert them into a structure of jurisprudence that is purported to be based upon logic, common sense, the principle of Truth and, in the case of criminal offences, a foundation upon which real victims who have suffered some type of overt, damaging injustice are either present in a court of law to testify or else 6 feet under, they only exacerbate the absurdity that we currently are witnessing in Germany. A judiciary which functions as an auxiliary to Canada’s foreign, Zionist Jew lobbyists inevitably must produce absurd rulings for the simple reason that Hate Propaganda laws, in and of themselves, are the quintessential example of legal sophistry and not in any way reality based.

When the verdict first came down I, like most of those present in the court room, was taken by surprise. When I heard the spokesperson for the jury state that I was guilty on Count One I automatically assumed (given that the charge was identical) that I would be found guilty of the second charge as well. When a Not Guilty verdict was then announced for Count Two it blew me away and immediately I began to question why the jury would have come to such a conclusion.

An answer to that seemingly contradictory verdict wouldn’t be easy to figure out as Supreme Court Justice Butler, who had overseen the proceedings, made it perfectly clear to the jury members that their decision (in either of the two Counts) was to remain hermetically sealed forever and that it was a very serious offence if any jury member were to divulge the rationale for why they had come to their two diametrically opposed decisions. The matter of this process will of course play out in the ensuing Charter challenge set to occur in the Quesnel Supreme Court during the week of August 3 to the 7th, 2016.

To Satire or Not to Satire
One of the alleged claims during the trial by the Crown and the arresting officer (former) Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit, was that I was promoting the genocide of the Jewish population by having published my satire Israel Must Perish! and it was a point that the Crown Prosecutor consistently alluded to in her attempt to convince the jury that I was promoting “hatred”.

In the case of my satire of an actual book written by Theodore N. Kaufmann titled Germany Must Perish! I composed it in order to show the blatant hypocrisy of the Jews who subscribed to and supported the actual genocide of the German people and the only simple way of doing that (for me) was to turn the tables on the original author and his supporters by changing a few simple words in the text and shooting the very same book at them.

In the eyes of non-Zionists and non-Jews the idea of doing this in order to show the glaring bigotry of the Zionist lobbyists who were instrumental in creating Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws was not only self-evident but also considered an act of brilliance on my part. What better way to expose the machinations of the serpent powers who control Canada’s judicial system and its media than to publish a satirical article depicting their own malfeasance and hubris while at the same time revealing who, in actual fact, are the real haters.

Another fundamental point is, had there been some solid evidence contained on my website that clearly showed I was promoting genocide of the Jewish race or population or ethnic group then, by such logic, I should have been charged under Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada not Sec. 319.2 for advocating genocide.

Section 318 reads as follows:

Advocating genocide
• 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
• Definition of “genocide”
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
• (a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

As in Germany so in Canada?
The example of present day Germany is but a foreshadowing of what the rest of the worlds’ democracies can expect should they allow the forces of Zionist dictatorship to invade and take control of their respective judiciaries.

Since my trial ended in November of 2015 we’ve witnessed more cases where the foreign Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ has been instrumental in attacking and vilifying and destroying or attempting to destroy the livelihoods of other Canadians who have shown the courage to speak out about the crimes of the Zionist state or the lies surrounding the now dismantled myth of the so-called “6 Million Jews” holocaust.

First we saw Buddhist teacher and videographer Brian Ruhe having his employment with various school districts in Vancouver, B.C. destroyed by the same individual agent of B’nai Brith who first charged me with a Sec. 13 “hate crime” back in 2007 and then lodged a Sec. 319(2) complaint with the BC Hate Crime Unit in 2011. This agent of a foreign, secret, Jews-only Masonic order (which is what B’nai Brith is) lives in Victoria, B.C. and has been responsible for numerous crimes against Canada’s Charter right to freedom of Expression. Were it not for a court order imposed upon me by B.C. provincial court Judge Morgan back in 2013 I would divulge the name of this traitor.

The more recent case is that of musician and activist Monika Schaefer of Jasper, B.C. who has also been attacked by the Jewish lobbyists for having produced a short video on the holocaust lie while holidaying in Germany this past summer. Ms. Schaefer’s vilification and slandering and the subsequent loss of her position as a music teacher in Jasper is just one more example of what Canadians will be seeing on a regular basis if these despicable and unjust “Hate Propaganda” laws are not speedily removed from Canada’s statutes.

As well as these two German Canadians we also are seeing the academic careers of university professors being threatened by these same cliques of power-crazed control freaks whose lust for dominance over the nation’s legal system has gone berserk. The case of tenured Professor Anthony Hall from Lethbridge University in Alberta comes to mind and his is but the latest not the last if we don’t curtail this madness within the legal system that’s making Canada look like a remake of Bolshevik Russia under Stalin.

On October 3rd of this year I will once again be appearing in B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel, B.C. to argue that Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code is an infringement of Sec. 2b of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which unequivocally states:

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

It’s my heartfelt hope that justice will prevail and that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler, who will be presiding over the hearing, will see the logic and the reasoning and the justice in defending this extremely important basic human right and free Canadians from these notorious dictatorial laws so that like former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker said, they will be once again “free to speak without fear, free to worship God in [their] own way, free to stand for what [they] think right,” and “free to oppose what [they] believe wrong”.

In closing, and on behalf of my loving and devoted wife Shasta and myself, I would like to thank the many friends and associates from Canada and around the world for their steadfast support over these past ten years of litigation. There’s absolutely no way that we could have carried on without your moral, spiritual and financial support. God bless you all!

May Truth and Justice prevail.
_____

Those wishing to help out with the additional costs of the upcoming Charter hearing can do so by going to the following website and making a donation.

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

THANK YOU!

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

The “six-million killed” lie—the hoax of the twentieth century By Jonas E. Alexis & Monika Schaefer

vt-logo2015b

alexis

The “six-million killed” lie—the hoax of the twentieth century
September 3, 2016
Screen Shot 2016-09-06 at 8.38.42 PM

 “The six-million lie is pernicious because it is the foundational lie for the rogue state of Israel, and it is also the foundational lie for how the occupied state of Germany is currently structured.”

~Monika Schaefer

…by Jonas E. Alexis & Monika Schaefer

Monika Schaefer started to play the violin at age 7, under the tutelage of Alexander Nicol, former concert master of the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra. Later she studied with Norman Nelson, co-founder of the renowned chamber group Academy of St. Martin in the Fields. While studying sciences at the University of Alberta, Monika played in the St. Cecilia Orchestra. All her life, she has played with various combinations of people and instruments, wherever she was living and working.

In 1982, Monika moved to Jasper, Alberta, to work for Parks Canada. While classical music remains the cornerstone of her musical endeavors, Monika has broadened her horizons in recent years, delving into old-time fiddle, bluegrass, swing, improvisation and “jamming” with all who like to play. Lately she has discovered the joy of composing and has a few tunes to her name. Schaefer has recently discovered that she has been lied to about the so-called Holocaust. Here we will discuss her story.

Alexis: You say that the so-called holocaust, “the six-million lie,” is “the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.” That indeed is an extraordinary statement which demands extraordinary backbone. Expand on that statement for us. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that it is indeed the most pernicious lie in all of history.

Schaefer: I will give a very brief answer to this right now. The six-million lie is pernicious because it is the foundational lie for the rogue state of Israel, and it is also the foundational lie for how the occupied state of Germany is currently structured. Because of the myth of the holocaust, Israel can do anything. The lies continue, in the form of false-flag terror attacks, and these give justification to the fraudulent War on Terror. The Islamic world and the Christian world are being set up to fight each other, the beneficiary being Israel.

Alexis: Great point. Israeli embassy spokeswoman Adi Farjon declared that the Israeli regime wants to maintain “German guilt about the Holocaust” because it “helps Israel.”[1] In other words, she was basically saying that the so-called Holocaust is as sacrosanct as the state of Israel itself. Let’s get to the heart of the issue. Tell us your story and how you have delved into the history of this critically important issue.

Schaefer: Let me begin by giving you a brief description of the video which we released just over 2 months ago on June 17th, 2016. I make an apology to my parents, my mother in particular for having berated her long ago for having “let all those bad things happen in WW2, like Hitler and the death camps.” This apology was in essence to their spirit, because my parents are deceased.

I believe my reproach dates all the way back to my teenage years. Of course I believed all the stories we were taught in school, why would I not believe them? It never occurred to me at that tender young age that teachers would lie to us, let alone anybody else. We were taught to tell the truth, and telling the truth is a natural thing to do. Lying is something that has to be learned. Truth-telling, in my opinion, is the natural instinct.

When I reproached my mother, I don’t think that I really believed that she personally was at fault. I think I was just so indignant about all the injustice that I needed to let out my feelings, and it is easiest and safest to blame those close to you. So that is what I did all those years ago, I held my mother to account for the horrors of WW2!

So now, in 2016, when I know better, and understand that the history we have been taught is wrong, I started feeling really badly about that reproach years ago. I mentioned that to my brother Alfred once, just in passing – I said I wish I could apologize to our parents for what I said all those years ago. He immediately recognized the significance of that story, and suggested we do something with that.

You see, we don’t think we are alone in those sentiments that I had then, and now. There is a whole generation or two of German people who felt this disdain, disgust, shame, all these negative emotions about their grandparents and parents. This constitutes psychological trauma, it causes a generation gap, it causes shame of one’s own heritage and culture.

Back to the short video, I thought it would be good to give it a tone of happiness because for me, waking up to the truth is a liberating experience. I am so glad to know the truth. So, I played a cheerful little tune on the violin, and that is how the video begins and ends. It sets a tone which reflects that truth is light.

I would like to add something here that I did not include in the video but would like to make it perfectly clear, that I never said No Jews Died. Many Jews died in the camps. And yes they were in the camps against their will. Most of the deaths occurred in the last months of the war. Disease and starvation took their toll, as Germany was being bombed by Allied Forces and food was not reaching the typhus-infested camps. And no doubt there were also brutalities.

We know through Ursula Haverbeck’s research that at least 2, if not more, SS officers were themselves executed for brutalizing prisoners. So that means that there were rules against abusing prisoners.

I started down this journey of my awakening in about 2011, 10 years post 9/11. 9/11 is the port-hole through which I began to understand the matrix of deception and illusions that we live in. It was actually a number of years earlier that I was visiting friends on an acreage in central Alberta, and this fellow told me there was this 9/11 truther movement.

I was very curious and interested, because I had this sense right from Day 1 that something was wrong with this picture the way the American government responded to 9/11 by making war in several countries, which made no sense to me. I kept saying to my friends, wow, it sure looks like someone handed that to them on a silver platter because look at the aftermath….look what they are doing with it.

So I listened carefully to this friend, and I wanted to know more. I didn’t say much, and I was pretty wide-eyed. At the end of the day, I went home, and life was busy for me. I didn’t even have a computer at home yet. Even though I was curious, the days and months and years slipped by and I didn’t do any research on the 9/11 question. But I never forgot that encounter. I wondered about it a lot.

So…. when in 2011, my brother Alfred, who lives in Germany, started sending stuff to our family members about 9/11, I immediately jumped on this – and by that time I did have a computer at home and was connected to the internet -I would fire back right away, how do you know this and that and where are you learning this from?

This curiosity about what that man had told me years earlier had been simmering in the back of my mind all along, and when I finally had some concrete information coming my way about this subject, the seeds that had been planted started to grow.

I was insatiable for more knowledge about what really happened on 9-11. I checked everything Alfred was telling us, especially when he was implicating Israel. There was a taboo about implicating Israel. I said, how do you know?

Anyway, I started learning everything I could. I checked sources, I dug into this, and I read, and I looked at videos and I maintained a healthy dose of skepticism, because I was going to make sure that I wasn’t just “falling” for something just because my brother said something. The rest of the family didn’t show much interest, and that is actually the way it has remained to this day.

Fast forward to late 2013, early 2014. At that point I was confronted with some statements about the holocaust not being true. I had heard about “holocaust deniers” before, every once in a while there would be a name in the news, like Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra, and I remember thinking, wow, that’s really weird.

Why would someone deny the holocaust? Really? Everyone knows the holocaust happened. It seemed as solid as the grass is green the sky is blue and I have a nose on my face. I mean, there was simply no questioning it. If someone says outright, that didn’t happen, well, maybe they are a bit crazy.  But I have to say, I never thought to myself that those people are hateful people, no-no, it just puzzled me.

So when I was being confronted with this, I resisted at first. I said, don’t be mixing this up with 9/11, you’re just going to undermine the 9/11 truth movement!

But okay, the questions started to pry their way into my brain. There were enough little doubts, and those little seeds began to grow. Finally, I dared to look. I remember opening the website holocaustdeprogrammingcourse. That opened my eyes! I saw immediately that there was a TON of material on there – you know that little scroll bar on the side – it was tiny.

I pulled on that scroll bar, and there was endless material – articles, videos, survivor stories (other kind of survivor stories). I only spent a few minutes the first time I dared go there, but it was like a lightning bolt for me, just to see that there existed so much material that was contrary to what we had been told all our lives.

Soon after that, I watched the 90 minute video about Ernst Zundel called “Off Your Knees, Germany!” That was huge for me. … My eyes were being opened. There wasn’t any going back. I looked at lots more material after that, but really, when I think about it, the Ernst Zundel case was and still is ground-breaking.

In those Toronto trials in 1985 and 1988 – evidence was brought into the courts! Actual forensic evidence. (Leuchter Report, Robert Faurisson was there, coaching Lawyer Doug Christie on cross-examination,…) This is not done anymore. Holocaust trials with evidence are avoided nowadays.

The process of awakening did not happen without discomfort. When I started learning about the false-flag nature of 9/11, I recall feeling semi-nauseous for days and weeks maybe even months at a time. There was that feeling that not all is well in the gut. That went on for a while.

Learning about the holocaust did not give me that same nauseous feeling, even though it is a deception on a much larger scale. In retrospect I think comprehending 9/11 is easy compared to the holocaust. And yet, when I think back on it, that nauseous feeling occurred primarily when I was discovering that “easier” deception.

I think that once a person has made that first step and understands that our governments, our institutions such as the media, the justice system, etc, are not acting in our best interest, and in fact are beholden to a hidden hand of power, it is then easier to understand the bigger deceptions.

Going through the first door is the hardest. The next door, even if it is a much more difficult subject, and much more deeply ingrained in our brain, and much older, that door is easier to go through.

So, what exactly is Our Problem?

We seem to be living in a Matrix of Deception. And the foundational Lie is the one that I apologize to my mother for having reproached her for. The singular so-called Holocaust. The Holohoax. The 6 Million Lie. Foundational, because the state of Israel is based on the fictional holocaust. Foundational, because Germany as it exists today (and it is not a sovereign country, it is an occupied country!), Germany in its current form is structured on this lie.

The Times of Israel quoted Angela Merkel in an August 9th, 2013 article:

“The heinous crime committed by Germany against the Jews, the betrayal of all civilized values that was the Shoah, will always be present and we can shape the future of the resulting special relationship between Germany and Israel in awareness of that.

“That means that we’ll never be neutral and that Israel can be sure of our support when it comes to ensuring its security. That’s why I also said that Germany’s support for Israel’s security is part of our national ethos, our raison d’être.”[2]

Angela Merkel had said much the same thing when she addressed the Knesset, the legislature of the Jewish state of Israel, on March 18th of 2008. How are these deceptions kept up? Much of it is through psychological warfare, together with endless false-flag events which are coming at an ever-increasing rate.

It seems to me that the primary tool in psychological warfare is the weaponization of language. This, coupled with the indoctrination of young minds through the school education system, through the film and television industries, through the incessant repetition of the lies in the mainstream media.

Weaponized language is designed to prevent us from looking. Certain control words put gates into our brains, and our brains become fragmented. Barriers have been engineered into our brains by the lies and indoctrination.

So what are some of those control words and expressions that cause these brain barriers, and stop us from thinking clearly?

Well, I think we are all familiar with the long-standing weaponized terms like Nazi, neo-Nazi, holocaust, holocaust denier, anti-Semite, or the name Hitler – if someone gets compared to Hitler, that is the worst you can say about them.

Other terms are 9/11 Truther, and Conspiracy theory. I am sure you can add to the list. Nowadays, there is this package of 4. If you are one, you are all 4:

•9-11 truther

•Anti-Semite

•Conspiracy theorist

•Holocaust denier

When I began my awakening to the 9/11 story, I was called an anti-Semite by a former friend before I even brought Israel into the conversation. I had only presented him with Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth materials, and they only deal with physical evidence, not with the “who did it?”

This friend also said – next thing, you’ll become a holocaust denier. At the time I retorted angrily – what are you talking about, no I am not, it is totally unrelated. … Little did I know. I should write to him and tell him thank you, you were right!

Alexis: Good start. We will pick up on that theme later this month.

_______

[1] “Israeli Diplomat in Berlin: Maintaining German Guilt About the Holocaust Helps Israel,” Haaretz, June 25, 2015.

[2] “Merkel: Germany can never be neutral on Israel,” Times of Israel, August 9, 2013.

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

“The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.”
~ Douglas Christie, Barrister & Solicitor from his Summation to the Jury
in the Ernst Zundel Trial, February 25, 1985

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

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

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

tazebook_dees-1-copy

Ernst Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly “published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good” when he began dispensing a small booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die? – one which he hadn’t written himself but felt expressed his views on the alleged Jewish Holocaust. It was Zundel’s trial that finally brought to a head the (then) forty years of Canadians wondering aimlessly through a cognitive “6 Million” wilderness of deception not knowing that all the while they were being psychically manipulated and conditioned to believe the greatest LIE ever told to humanity.

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

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

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

“The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war.

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

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

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

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

“Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has….”

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

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

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

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

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

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

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

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

______

Monika Schaefer’s Holohoax Video Causes “Uproar” in Jasper, Alberta By The Jasper fitzHUGH

MonikaJasperfitzhughstory

JASPER, ALBERTA:- A video shot by a local resident denying the Holocaust has been widely condemned by the community and at least one resident has filed a formal complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

On June 17, Monika Schaefer, a well-known Jasper resident and former Green Party candidate, appeared in a video on Youtube denying the Holocaust. The video was subsequently posted on her Facebook page.

MonikaSchaeferTruth

“This is the most persistent and pernicious lie in all of history,” said Schaefer, about the Holocaust.

In the video she described the Holocaust as the “the six-million lie” in reference to the six million Jews who lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis during the Second World War.

The six-minute video quickly went viral and garnered more than 30,000 views at the time of publishing.

At the end of the video Schaefer invited viewers to read several books published by Holocaust deniers, including Ernst Zündel, who lived in Canada for four decades before being deported to his native Germany where he was imprisoned for five years for denying the Holocaust.

ErnstZVictim copyKen Kuzminski, president of the Jasper Royal Canadian Legion, described the video as hate speech.

“Monika has a right to say whatever she wants to say, but once she’s published it I feel that’s moved on to hate speech,” said Kuzminski.

“She can stand up and say whatever she wants, but she has to accept the consequences of doing that.”

He said he has written a formal complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, contacted the local RCMP detachment and the German embassy.

“By her denying that this ever happened it perpetuates hatred, racism and discrimination,” said Kuzminski, adding he’s heard from several young people in town that they no longer feel safe.

“This is not the community we are and what we believe in.”

The Alberta Human Rights Commission neither confirmed nor denied it had received a formal complaint.

“All of the information that comes into the human rights commission with regards to complaints is confidential,” said Susan Coombes, with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

With that said, she said any complaint involving hate would fall under section three of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

“It’s really difficult to prove,” said Coombes, about whether someone is in violation of the act. “What you have to do is say that there was intent to incite hate.”

The Jasper RCMP confirmed it was aware of the video, but said no formal investigation has been launched.

“At this time what I can say is that I’m aware the video exists and it was brought to my attention,” said RCMP Sgt. Rick Bidaisee. “Discussions are ongoing.”

Schaefer said she stood by her comments in the video during a telephone interview July 11.

“Right now the issue for me is freedom of speech,” said Schaefer. “Last I checked I thought we had freedom of speech in Canada and suddenly I’m the criminal.”

She confirmed she shot the video in Germany, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust.

“If we don’t have the right to question a historical event then we don’t have freedom of speech,” said Schaefer.

Schaefer was slated to perform during Canada Day, but was pulled from the schedule after the Canada Day committee learned a group of residents were going to protest her performance.

“We had really reliable information that there was going to be a protest and in the interests of public safety and her safety for that matter, we decided it would just be in everybody’s best interests if she stood down for this year,” said Pattie Pavlov, general manager for the Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce.

Kuzminski confirmed she is also banned from the legion.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) quickly condemned the video after learning of its existence.

CIJABomb copy 2

“As a Holocaust denier, Ms. Schaefer, who appears in this absurd video, has earned her place on the very margins of society,” wrote Martin Sampson, director of communications for CIJA.

“Her comments would be laughable but for the intense pain they cause the survivor community and their descendants. Denying the Holocaust exposes her as an anti-Semitic ignoramus.”

“The truth is the Holocaust was industrialized, state-sponsored murder committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people. It is the most well documented genocide—by both perpetrator and victim—in history. To deny this fact is to spit in the face of truth.”

News that a formal complaint was lodged with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, comes after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, on July 10 in Poland, where one million people, mostly Jews, were killed in the Second World War.
——
Source Article

Paul Clarke
editor@fitzhugh.ca

When is this “6 Million” bullshit going to end? A Public Service Announcement from RadicalPress.com

6MilJustin

LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY REVISIONISTS – UNSUNG HEROES JOHN KAMINSKI & JIM RIZOLI by Diane King

CompassionHeroHdr

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

LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY REVISIONISTS – UNSUNG HEROES

Please Pass This onto Your Lists.  

Diane King

John Kaminski is a writer who has lived on the Gulf Coast of Florida for two decades, except for a few months of running from the poisons that were put in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back by madmen who are trying to rule the world by destroying it. A journalist who served as editor at no less than eight different small newspapers over a period of three decades, Kaminski more recently has distinguished himself on the Internet as one of the very few who wholeheartedly opposes this Jewish perversion of reality that now threatens the health of every living thing on Planet Earth. As a result of his forthright analyses implicating Jewish bankers in the most heinous plots ever perpetrated on humankind, Kaminski has been banned from many websites which depend on covert Jewish money for their continued existence, a satanic compromise which has polluted and diminished the quality most of the world’s businesses because of their dependence on a commodity which has been controlled by Jews for centuries — money.

There is no money in telling the truth, someone once said. Kaminski has no money, almost literally. But his words have resonated in the minds of many conscious listeners and readers, and his reputation for unflinching criticism of the worldwide Jewish criminal network has gained him the appreciation of many who also seek to live in a just world. Kaminski leaped into prominence with his relentless examination of the 9/11/2001 tragedy, about which he concluded that Muslims had nothing to do with these dastardly acts. 9/11 was wholly the work of the cynical people who managed to steal and control the American presidency and Congress at the beginning of the 20th century. These people are principally the so-called elite Jewish bankers who savaged England, France, Russia, and Germany by funding subversive attacks on decent people. Now they have just about destroyed the United States as well.  Jewish bankers have been the driving force behind all the wars in history, Kaminski insists, because of their skill in manipulating interest-bearing debt and the unsuspecting people who incur that debt.

Now it seems, the world is finally coming around to Kaminski’s way of thinking, motivated by the recent episode of Israelis shooting unarmed people in the head on the high seas when they attacked the Freedom Flotilla on its compassionate and humanitarian mission to assist the Palestinians in Gaza. “It’s typical Jewish behavior,” Kaminski says. “The guiding force of Judaism is the Talmud, and the Talmud is the heart of darkness in human history. Everything that is evil in the world can be traced to its teachings.” One look at the state of affairs in the world today reveals the correctness of this statement. Kaminski continues his quest to enlighten the world about the Jewish threat to everyone’s continued existence.

JIM RIZOLI, Cofounder, producer/interviewer (Fred Leuchter and Assistant, Diane King) of the Series, LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY REVISIONISTS.  This also entails seeking out UNSUNG HEROES and German survivors of Allied atrocities – The German Story, The German Way.  Hard core historical revisionist, Jim and, his brother, Joe moved from combating the illegal immigrant hordes in their cable shows to dealing with the fundamental and pervading issue of the holocaust. Their immigrant battles led them to the plight of Ernst Zundel in Canada, being prosecuted for having reprinted *Did 6 Million Really Die*! Thus Jim and Joe’s efforts and cable shows also turned toward the issue of the holocaust.  That’s when their troubles accelerated. In 2002 – 2003 they began producing numerous (1000s of videos) dealing with many issues and 100s of videos about the holocaust. Consequently, YouTube videos (700) under the name of Jim Rizoli were banned. His name was banned on Facebook. In 2010, their cable shows were suspended. They returned and then were permanently removed in 2014. We are back to provide a venue of/freedom of, telling the story for tried-and-true revisionists and Germans throughout North America, Europe and Australia.

 

League of Extraordinary Revisionists (LOER)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkhr7Ooo_lnt0NLW83Q2ovw

We are in the process of setting up paypal;

if you are interested in helping us defray costs in this effort,

send a check to:

Jim Rizoli (LOER)

94 Pond St.

Framingham, MA  01702

508-872-7292

Thank You!

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.

http://therebel.is/kaminski

Many of John Kaminski’s works can also be found on http://radicalpress.com

THE CLINCHER: Statement by Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau on Holohoax Remembrance Day by RadicalPress.com

TheClincherNew

ATEditorPic185 copy

Fellow Truth Revealers,

Canadians who may still be wondering about the new Liberal government’s position on the greatest hoax of the 20 century can  now rest assured that the Liberals will continue on promoting this ongoing LIE that has resulted in the promotion of Germanophobic hatred toward the German people over the past 71 years and is the root cause of the death and destruction which the world has been witnessing in the Middle East since the unjust and illegal creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Promotion of the vile deception that millions of Jews were “murdered” by the “Nazi regime” is absolutely 100% Zionist Jew propaganda and the fact that the Liberal government of Canada has chosen to perpetuate this massive LIE doesn’t bode well for historical truth, integrity or honesty by the Justin Trudeau Liberals or for any serious chance of significant and positive changes to occur within Canada’s judicial system.

Rest assured though that the struggle for truth will continue until this LIE is finally exposed for what it is.

For truth and justice,

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

Chosen By God: Jewish Religions and The Prospect of Dissent by Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/12/31/jewish-religions-and-the-prospect-of-dissent

Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 12.37.20 PM

Jewish Religions and the Prospect of Dissent
By Gilad Atzmon

December 31, 2015

“The Jewish religion is a religion of Mitzvoth (commandments) and without this religious idiom, the Jewish religion doesn’t exist at all.”
~ Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz

While Islam and Christianity can be easily understood as belief systems, Judaism actually defies the notion of belief all together. Judaism is an obedience regulative system. The Judaic universe is ruled by ‘mitzvoth’ (commandment), a set of 613 precepts and directives ordered by God. In opposition to Christianity and Islam that build from spiritual and heavenly precepts in worship to a transcendental God, the Judaic subject subscribes to strict earthly and material observance. While the Islamo-Christian is wrapped in God’s loving and the spirituality of the sublime and divinity, the follower of Judaism is judged by his or her ability to adhere to hundreds of rigorous earthly orders.

A brief look at the Judaic Sabbath common prayer reveals the nature of Judaism as an obedience regulatory system. As we can see below, in Judaism, even God-loving is not an involuntary act:

“You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart,?with all your soul, and with all your might.?Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.
…Thus you shall remember to observe all My commandments?and to be holy to your God.?I am Adonai, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God:?I am Adonai your God.”
(Common Prayers for Shabbat Evening From Deuteronomy and Numbers)

For the Jew, belief and God-loving are not subject to either rational discretion or spiritual impulse. God loving, as we read above, is a strict “charge”, an order. But if Judaism is not a belief system, what kind of system is it?  Does the Judaic subject believe in anything at all?

The answer is yes: the Jew believes in ‘The Jews’ and the Jews believe in ‘The Jew.’ This mode of mutual affirmation establishes a solid and forceful tribal continuum that serves the collective as well as the singular subject.  Accordingly, the subject adheres to the collective and vice versa. In pragmatic terms, the Jew sticks to the ‘chosen people’ and, together the ‘chosenites’ uphold a collective sense of choseness.

In Judaism, ‘choseness’ is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God.  For religious Jews, being chosen is realised as a duty. According to Judaic belief, the Jews have been placed on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. This purpose is bestowed upon the Jews and they pass it from father to son.[1]

In reality, the first Jews invented a God who chose them over all other people. For some reason this God is occasionally cruel, often non-ethical and as if this were not enough, not exactly a nice father. The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to call him by name. One may wonder what led the first Jews to invent such a horrid father figure. One may further question what led the Jews to sustain their ‘relationship’ with such an obnoxious father. The answer is surprisingly simple. They don’t.

The Jews don’t believe in God, they are observant of God. They believe in themselves- the Jews believe in ‘The Jew’ and vice versa. Within this peculiar troubled family affair, the Jew is free to dump God, as an author can freely re-write or at least re-shape his or her own narrative.  But the Jew can never dump the Jews as much as the Jews can’t allow ‘The Jew’ to go free. And what about God, can he be emancipated, can he choose another people? Certainly not. Unlike the Jew who is free to dump God while clinging to a Jewish identity, the Jewish God is merely a Jewish protagonist, he can’t go anywhere, he is stuck with ‘his’ chosen people forever.

Choseness, so it seems, is hardly a heavenly gift, it is in fact a curse. It confines the Jew in a realm of self-imposed commandment and materiality. Instead of beauty, holiness and the pursuit of the divine and the sublime, the rabbinical Jew is left with an earthly obedience scheme that is sustained by a rigid tribal setting. ‘The Jew’ and ‘The Jews’ are bound in a set of mutual affirmations in which God serves an instrumental role.

Some may rightly argue that this spectacular bond between the Jews and ‘The Jew’ is essential for an understanding of the dichotomy between Judaic tribalism and the universal appeal of Islamo-Christian beliefs.

The Judaic crude intolerance towards dissent serves as an example of the above. Throughout their history, Jews have proven themselves hostile toward their nonconformists; now we are ready to grasp why.  For the Islamo-Christian, secularization, for instance, entails a rejection of a transcendental affair. But for the rabbinical Judaic subject, failure to conform constitutes a rejection of the Jews. It interferes crudely with the fragile relationship between ‘The Jew’ and the Jews. It shatters the self-affirmation mechanism. While in the case of Christianity and Islam dumping God suggests turning one’s back on a remote supernatural entity, in the case of Judaism, such an act is interpreted as a disbelief in the tribe.

This interpretation may help illuminate Jesus’ plight. It may explain the reasoning behind the brutal Rabbinical Herem (excommunication) against Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa. And it also explains why the secular and the so-called ‘progressive’ Jew is equally obnoxious towards dissent or any form of criticism from within. If Judaism is not a belief system but rather a system of obedience regulation, then Jewish identity politics is merely an extension of the above regulatory philosophy.

Jews often drop their God, simply to invent a different God who ‘facilitates’   subscription to a new regulatory system. The new system, like the old outlines a new set of strict commandments, a manner of speech and rigorous boundaries of ‘kosher’ conduct.

In the beginning of the 20th century, for instance, Bolshevism appealed to many Eastern European Jews. It provided a sense of self-righteousness in addition to regulating a strict form of obedience. As we know, it didn’t take long for Bolshevism to mature into a genocidal doctrine that made Old Testament barbarism look like a juvenile fairytale. The Holocaust, that seems to be the most popular Jewish religion at present, may be the ultimate and final stage in Jewish historical development. According to the Holocaust religion, ‘God died in Auschwitz.’  Within the context of the Holocaust religion, ‘The Jew’ is the new Jewish God. The Holocaust religion has finally united ‘The Jew’ and the Jews into a self-sufficient comprehensive and independent ‘God-less’ religious narrative. Both were about to be eradicated. But, not only were they both saved: they have prevailed and each did so independently. In the Holocaust religion, Jews are both victims and oppressors – they have transformed slavery into empowerment and they did it all alone, in spite of being dumped by their treacherous God.   The Holocaust religion, like Judaism, prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially, like more traditional Judaism, it is totally and disgracefully intolerant toward dissent.

Due to the lack of a divine transcendental entity, Jewish religions have always regarded criticism as rejection of the tribe. Jewish religions, whether Judaism, Bolshevism or Holocaust, are equally intolerant towards criticism and dissent. Jewish religions treat opposition as a vile attempt at ‘delegitimization’ on the verge of genocidal inclination.

Jewish religions can be defined as different templates that facilitate a sense of choseness. They affirm a bond between an imaginary marginal ‘collective’ and a phantasmal ‘archetype’: the Bolshevists and ‘The Bolshevik’, the Survivours and ‘The Survivour’, the Jews and ‘The Jew,’ and so on.  The bond between the collective and the idea of an archetypical singularity is always maintained by a set of rigid commandments, a correct manner of speech, some strict regulatory guidelines for behavior and vile opposition to dissent.

Tragically enough, intolerance of dissent has become a universal Western political symptom. Incidentally, Christianity, Islam, religion and divinity in general are also under attack within the context of contemporary Western discourse. Is this a symptom of the Jerusalemification of our Western universe? Is the emergence of the tyranny of political correctness a coincidence? And if we are becoming Jews, is there any room for the hope that our universe may, at some stage, embrace a universal ethos once again? Can we once again believe in something?   Or do we have to wait for a new Jesus figure to resurrect our trust in the human spirit and humanity in general?  Or have we been re-designed to self-destruct as soon as we come close to such a lucid awareness?

—-

[1] As God himself suggests in the Book of Genesis: “And I (God) will establish My covenant between Me and you (the Jews) and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”  (Book of Genesis, Chapter 17).

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

AlfredVidPart3

 

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

BuddhaAttackHdr copy 2

 

BodhisattvaVow

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

by

Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FreeingtheBuddha copy

FreeingtheBuddha 1 copy

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

ShortWalkonÅncientPath copy

ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 6ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 4

ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you kindly,

Brian Ruhe

brianruhe.ca

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

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

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

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

Justice must and Will prevail.

——-

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

••••  ••••

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

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

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

Holocaustianity on the march By Brandon Martinez (Non-Aligned Media NAM)

HolocaustHdr4MartinezArtFin

Holocaustianity on the march

By Brandon Martinez

Non-Aligned Media (August 6, 2015)

Brandon MartinezImage

When perusing YouTube last night, I came across a curious episode of the BBC debate show “The Big Questions.” The topic of this one was “Is it time to lay the Holocaust to rest?” It featured a coterie of Zionist Jews on one end and a dilapidated kosher-opposition on the other who shuddered in fear of the aggressive, hubristic Judeo-Nazis arguing that the “Holocaust” should be memorialized and commemorated until the end of time. To those in-the-know on the Jewish question, this show will inevitably produce one of two effects: it will either make you vomit out of disgust at the insane narcissism of the Jewish participants, or it will cause you to seethe with anger that such obviously demented people are given such a prominent voice in the media to promote their toxic supremacist viewpoints.

The Jewish panelists on the show endeavored to convince everyone that the “Holocaust” is a “unique” and “exceptional” event in history that has no equivalents. This claim is erroneous because all major historical events have some unique elements to them, so the same could be said about the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian genocide, Soviet-Communist atrocities, the Israeli-sponsored slow motion genocide of the Palestinians and other outrages. Despite their protestations to the contrary, those Jews who advance the alleged uniqueness and exceptionality of the Holocaust do so not because it was such in practice, but because they view its victims as unique and exceptional; they are, in essence, Jewish supremacists who believe Jewish casualties carry more weight than others, that Jewish blood has more worth than the blood of non-Jews. They pathetically tried to eschew such allegations on the BBC show, but their ethno-supremacist inferences are plain and obvious to those who can decipher Talmudic doublespeak. The former head of the Zionist-oriented Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, perfectly encapsulated this Judeo-supremacist notion when he said:

“The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.”

AbeFoxmanImage

From the Jewish vantage point, it’s obvious why they wish to elevate the Holocaust narrative to sacrosanct, cult-like status, and to keep it there for all eternity. It supremely serves the Jewish-Zionist interest to have the Gentile masses genuflecting at the altar of Jewish victimology. As Norman Finkelstein argues in his book The Holocaust Industry, the Holocaust story serves to bolster Jewish economic and political privilege and works simultaneously to subdue forces opposed to that privilege. In other words, it is a weaponized mechanism of Jewish power and advancement, wielded like a sledgehammer against opponents of Zionism and Jewish ethnic supremacism in our world; it works to shame and stigmatize all criticism of Jews, Israel and their malevolent actions. A former Israeli minister once said that invoking the Holocaust as well as the “anti-Semite” canard are deceptive “tricks” designed to stifle debate about Jewish-Zionist atrocities in Palestine and their disproportionate power in the West. Who in their right mind can disagree?

1016856_336755729792690_6897076_n copy

Was that not the desired outcome of the Holocaust campaign all along, to weaken Gentile resolve in the face of Zionist domination as well as guilt-trip the world into fast-tracking the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine? It appears so, and is evidenced by many statements from Jewish leaders over the years, going back as far as the year 1900. That year seems to have been a coming out party for the Zionist clique hell-bent on conquering the world led by such tribalist fanatics as Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and Chaim Wiezmann, two ultra-dedicated Jewish supremacist activists who plotted for decades to bring about the creation of Israel. In 1919 Weizmann said that securing the Zionist dream would be achieved “through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people.” He then issued an ultimatum to the world:

“We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.”

WeizmannImage

Two decades earlier at a Zionist meeting in New York, Rabbi Wise spoke of “6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism,” a prescient remark that laid the foundation of what many have called the “Six Million Myth.” The propagation of that myth did not begin at the close of the Second World War, but evidently in 1900 and even before that, by Zionists attempting to garner sympathy for their cause of establishing a Jewish state in a land mostly populated by Arabs.

Dating from 1900 to 1945, there are hundreds of examples of individual Jews, Jewish-owned newspapers and pro-Zionist Christians invoking the story of “six million Jews” in grave danger of persecution or annihilation. I mentioned 13 glaring examples of this in my book Grand Deceptions, some of which are: the 1906 New York Times article reporting on the claims of Jewish activist Dr. Paul Nathan who alleged that six million Russian Jews were facing “murderous extermination” by the Czar; the 1911 presage by Max Nordau, a prominent Zionist leader, who told his co-religionists at the Zionist Congress in Switzerland that six million Jews would soon fall victim to a campaign of genocide by European regimes; the countless references to six million victimized Jews during World War I, particularly the 1919 American Hebrew article which told of “six million Jewish men and women” languishing in a “holocaust” of hunger and despair; the 1936 pronouncement of Chaim Weizmann before a British commission on Palestine, where he said that “six million Jews” were destined to death in Europe, and that their only refuge was “in the land of Israel”; another 1936 Zionist plea published in the New York Times which envisaged a harrowing “Holocaust” of Europe’s Jews, the only remedy for which was said to be “the restoration of the land of Israel to the children of Israel”; a 1940 warning from World Jewish Congress chairman Nahum Goldmann who alleged that a Nazi victory in Europe would spell “doom and destruction” for “6,000,000 Jews”; the December 1944 proclamation of Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg who floated the claim that “six million Jews” had fallen victim to Germany five months before the war would come to an end in May of 1945, long before any accurate statistical data on war deaths could have been ascertained. Even after the war, a precise calculation of Jewish deaths would be impossible considering the contentious issue of what constitutes a Jew to begin with. Yet by way of some miracle the Jewish leadership knew it was exactly “six million” before the last bombs and bullets of the war had reached their targets.

six-millions-1919-1 copy

The six million death figure is not rooted in any semblance of truth or fact, but rather in religious superstition stemming from the Kabbalah and gematria. The number six and variations of it is significant in that milieu. Mysticism and ‘magic’ is part and parcel of the Jewish religion, and manifests itself in the propaganda of the Holocaust narrative. The six million story was crafted by Jews transfixed with the Kabbalistic school of thought, which is why facts, evidence, logic and reason have no bearing on it – no matter what it remains a stagnant, unalterable story etched in stone, and anyone who attempts to revise it, even slightly, is villainized as a ‘Nazi-sympathizer.’

Regardless of the massive official reductions in the death totals at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Mauthausen and other wartime camps (more than four million “victims” have been excised from the official death total in recent decades), the six million figure is never altered, and is repeated again and again in schools and the media. Despite admissions from and exposé’s on prominent “Holocaust survivors” proving that their recollection of events was embellished, exaggerated and in some cases outright fabricated, skeptics are smeared as ‘hatemongers.’ Notwithstanding the scientific studies of chemists like Germar Rudolf, which have severally undermined claims about homicidal gas chambers, questioning the central tenets of the story (the six million number, the gas chambers, the “final solution” plan, etc.) is considered an unforgivable heresy and is stamped out with medieval fundamentalism. Does this not confirm that the doubters are on to something?

Jewish leaders seem to have an uncanny knack for foresight, unveiling a historical pattern of foreknowledge indicative of a conscious plan of intrigue coordinated over decades if not centuries. The aforementioned Rabbi Stephen Wise, who is described by the website of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum as “instrumental in obtaining President Woodrow Wilson’s support for the Balfour Declaration of 1917,” predicted the election of Woodrow Wilson as US President and later became his advisor; the Zionist leader Max Nordau predicted World War I in 1903; as mentioned above, Zionists routinely anticipated the demise of six million Jews, and then declared six million Jewish deaths months before World War II had even ended; in 1962, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, prophesied the establishment of a Jewish-led world government centered in Jerusalem where the United Nations “will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents”; in 1979 the founder of Israel’s spy agencies, Isser Harel, envisioned a terrorist attack upon New York City’s “tallest building.” Is all of this uncanny prescience merely coincidental, or are these Zionist Jews political magicians who “make” happen what they want to see in the world?

Screen Shot 2013-05-18 at 10.53.23 AM copy

The agenda behind the Holocaust promotion industry couldn’t be more transparent. Memorializing the Holocaust is “central to the new world order,” Ian J. Kagedan, a spokesman of the Jewish-Masonic B’nai B’rith organization, wrote in 1991, adding that “achieving our quest of a ‘new world order’ depends on our learning the Holocaust’s lessons.” Using coded-language, Kagedan spoke of Holocaust mythology as a sort of “new religion” to be instituted worldwide that will function as a platform to launch a project for global Jewish hegemony, although the Zionists will disguise the scheme as a humanitarian endeavor aimed at ridding the world of war and calamity. In 1940, the British politician Arthur Greenwood announced that Jews would be granted a leading role in the construction of a “New World Order” after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, a world in which alleged Jewish grievances would be alleviated by way of unrestricted access to power positions. We have seen many parts of that vision enacted according to plan.

If nothing else, the unsettling BBC program mentioned above should serve to motivate people to challenge the supremacist discourse of Holocaustianity. While doing so may jeopardize career prospects and social status, fighting this artificial, largely fabricated narrative is one of the principal liberation struggles of our time; one that will work to empower the dispossessed and perennially victimized Palestinians who continue to be slaughtered by Israel in droves (with the full support of Zionized Western powers), and also the peoples of the West who, for the last few centuries, have been used as tools for Zionist imperialism and whose own cultures have been degraded by these same forces.

Copyright 2015 Brandon Martinez

Video | URL: http://wp.me/p4UshE-Mx
http://nonalignedmedia.com/2015/08/holocaustianity-on-the-march/

Drawing inspiration from the Non-Aligned Movement, especially the organization’s rejection of illegitimate global power structures, Non-Aligned Media (NAM) exists to expose, in particular, the negative outgrowths of the global Zionist-American Empire. Founded by journalists Brandon Martinez and Joshua Blakeney, the aim of NAM is to cut through the spin and deception of mainstream media and uncover truth in history. Not shackled by the political correctness which permeates the mainstream, NAM seeks to tackle the “taboo” subjects that have been relegated to the fringes by the powers that be, emphasizing the real forces behind war and globalism. Reoccurring themes of NAM include: False-Flag Terrorism, The Israel Lobby, The Mainstream Media, Hollywood and Zionism, Historical Revisionism, Supposed “Just Wars” Historically and Contemporarily, Ethnic Exceptionalism: Who Can be Ethnocentric and Who Cannot?, Race & Cultural Relativism, The Globalization of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Thought-Crime Legislation and the State Regulation of History, Theology and Supremacism, The Geopolitical Battles Over the Middle East, Joshua Blakeney, Nationalism versus Internationalism.

Brandon Martinez can be contacted by email at: martinezperspective@hotmail.com

Joshua Blakeney can be contacted by email at: josh.vivelarevolucion@gmail.com

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

ZION'SZOMBIES 700

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

By
Arthur Topham

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TommyDouglasPoster1Red

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 6.57.36 PM

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

DryRotOffleyHdr-546x600

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

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

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

GallantFaceofHope 801

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WeisenfeldPhoto

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

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

Weidenfeld&Merkel&Kissinger copy

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

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

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

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

GoogleIdeas2

GoogleIdeas3

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

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

GenNextFoundation1 copy

GenNext2

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

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

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

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

GenNext3

 GenNext4

GenNext5

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

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

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

GenNext6 PM

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

RehabStudeo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham

ATPub+

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

News articles relating to Arthur Topham:

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

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

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

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

————

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

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

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

DOUG COLLINS PATRIOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignorance copy 2

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

Wells,BC

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-03-20 at 6.12.19 PM

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

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

Joey Onley
February 24 at 3:03pm

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

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

OnlyAccuser

Three days later, he posted the following:

Joey Onley
February 27 at 5:22pm

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

TranceformO'brienFinal 2

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

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

——

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

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

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

dchristie2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

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

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

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

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orwell1984BKCv

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

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

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

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

AliceinWonderland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

WellsCommentary

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.
—–

Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws by Arthur Topham

CanFlag1

Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws

Deconstructing the Zionist media’s hypocrisy surrounding Charlie Hebdo and the notion of “Freedom of Speech”

By

Arthur Topham

January 19th, 2015

 

“The National Post, perhaps Canada’s foremost advocate and practitioner of censorship, is the least qualified to condemn the alleged revenge massacre of 11 Charlie Hebdo workers, yet devoted several consecutive front pages and endless verbiage to the incident – far greater coverage than that allotted to the brutal massacre of 3000 innocent Palestinians several months earlier in Gaza, although the massacre was the more reprehensible for having been committed by a racist, occupier government already condemned by the United Nations for its barbarism.”

~ Ian V. Macdonald, letter to the National Post, Jan. 10, 2015

 

The latest Zionist false flag event in Paris, France on January 7th, 2015 that wiped out the staff of the pro-zionist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian Charlie Hebdo hate propaganda rag, immediately unleashed a massively orchestrated outcry of cacophonous proportions from the Beast’s Big Brother Zionist msm media calling for greater protection of people’s right to “Freedom of Speech”.

Apart from the aftermath of 9/11, never has this writer witnessed such a unified show of chimerical bigotry and deception, all of it wrapped in the gilded glitter of falsely misplaced emotional rhetoric, blatant lies and contrived television imagery specifically designed and pre-packaged to elicit a world-wide response from an unconscious audience of somnambulant innocents still too blurry-eyed and bewitched to recognize the reality of the Rothschild New World Order and its modus operandi.

Reacting with predictable clockwork precision to their own fabricated murderous crime; one bearing all the standard hallmarks of yet another Israeli Mossad covert operation designed to appear as a deliberate “terrorist act” by a fanatical group of “radical” Muslims, the Canada-wide Zionist-controlled media immediately cranked up its Islamophobic sirens to a deafening roar with broadcasts blaring forth from talking heads accompanied by what W. H. Auden once aptly styled, “the hum of the printing presses, turning forests into lies” with their broadsheets whirling like buzz saws 24/7, flashing out nonstop, monotonous anti-Islam hate messages to Canadians across the country.

This relentless verbal/visual assault by the Talmudic inspired Israeli/Rothschild media upon the abused psyche of Western civilization – ongoing since their hugely successful 9/11 coup of September 11th, 2001 – has now reached the stage where every facet of their global crime syndicate is being utilized to increase hatred and fear of Islam to a climactic point of no return, thus providing their needed justification for whatever pre-emptive mode of violent attack the Zionist Jew killing machine might wish to adopt in the near future.

No better example exists of this hypocritical, bigoted vilification of Islam by the Zionist-controlled media than that found in their premier flag ship hate generator the National Post, Tel Aviv’s direct propaganda line for funnelling into the unwary, dumbed down minds of Canadians, Israel’s racist, supremacist, apartheid mindset; one that constitutes the foundational basis of its twisted, psychopathic political ideology known as Zionism.

NatZJPost copy 7

Completely disregarding Canada’s horrific record of outright censorship, harassment, fines, jailings and ongoing suppression of its own citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech, the Zionist media now has the unmitigated chutzpah to sermonize to Canadians about how important it is to protect “FREE SPEECH” for the likes of Charlie Hebdo and co. all the while overlooking the stinking mess of free speech violations in Canada’s own backyard.

Canada’s Disgraceful “Free Speech” Record

The National Post, of all Canada’s zio-rags, is a veteran of the infamous and controversial Section 13 “hate speech” legislation wars that suddenly gained prominence across the nation around 2007 when the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filing a Section 13 “hate speech” complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine), based upon the reproduction of perceived anti-Islam writings by one of their pro-Zionist Jewish writers Mark Steyn.

Coinciding with Steyn’s case was also that of Ezra Levant, then owner of the Western Standard, an Alberta based tabloid that callously published the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the  Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) back in February of 2006. As a result of Levant’s insolent disregard for Islam’s holy Prophet both the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed complaints against Levant and his magazine with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission that resulted in a hearing in January of 2008.

 MarcLemireFreedomsite

Marc Lemire, one of Canada’s most distinguished Section 13 victims and staunch resister to this nasty piece of Zionist/Bolshevik-motivated legislation, gives us a compete, well documented history of the rise and fall of Section 13 which can be found on his website, FreedomSite Blog As well, for those interested in delving into the specifics surrounding this specious piece of draconian “hate speech” legislation that initially slithered its way into Canadian jurisprudence via the untiring efforts of Canada’s Jewish lobby organizations (predominantly the former Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada) beginning as far back as the 1950’s, I suggest reading the following article, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws.

In Part 3 of Lemire’s history, under sub-heading “Section 13: The Shit hits the fan”, he writes: “Keep in mind that the primary intent of Section 13 was to quietly keep it behind closed doors and censor individuals in a manner which “would not be attended by great publicity”.  While this was true with most Section 13 cases, it certainly was not true with Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine. The proverbial ‘hate speech earthquake’ hit the media, once it was revealed that one of Canada’s most respected magazines and the “one-man global content provider” Mark Steyn were under investigation for hate speech.  Editorials against censorship went viral from coast to coast in Canada and spread across the globe via the Internet.”

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

In the case of Canada and its Section 13 “hate crime” laws, which invariably include the same accusation of “anti-Semitism”, the punishment wasn’t quite as severe or immediate but metaphorically speaking, in term of survival, the victims stood no greater chance of gaining their freedom once accused.  Many, if not most of the victims, were unable to afford to hire counsel and even if they were able to the fact that Truth was not considered a viable defence against whatever they had written or spoken, it was virtually impossible to argue against the charge. As such the defendants were at the mercy of the tribunals and the commission’s commissars were able to maintain a 100% conviction rate right up until 2007 when, Allah be praised!, the Canadian Islamic Congress and other Muslim organizations finally decided to file similar Section 13 complaints against the two self-chosen writers mentioned above who were, by their Judaic birthmarks, both members of the same conniving covenant that initially bore responsibility for creating these very censorship laws in the first place. Not only that, they were the only two Jews in Canada ever to be charged with “hate speech” under Section 13 and, surprise! surprise! the only two individuals ever to escape the snares and traps that CHRC and the CHRT had used on hundreds of non-Jewish Canadians for decades prior to then.

SteynLevantJNOMouthpieces800

It has always been this writer’s contention, based upon my last eight years of personal experience in dealing with these Orwellian censors, that had the Canadian Islamic Congress not filed a complaint against Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine and had Ezra Levant also not been charged by a Muslim complainant over his publication of the infamous Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) cartoons, this Zionist-inspired legislation known as Section 13 that clung like a barnacle to the dark underside of Canada’s legal system for the past thirty years without the Zionist media challenging it, would, in all likelihood, have continued on unabated and still not have been repealed. It was only the final realization by the Jewish lobby that Section 13 was, in fact, a double-edged sword capable of being used against their own kind as well that spurred the Zionist media on to make a major issue out of an Orwellian, Zionist-driven law that had for decades been used against non-Jews with hardly a murmur of protest. Now that the perpetrators themselves were being held to account for the same crimes the whole dynamic changed and the war to rid the nation of Section 13 began in earnest.

It was around the same period (2007) when Steyn and Levant received their just deserts that I and my website RadicalPress.com were also caught up in the legally sticky Section 13 “hate speech” web and I suddenly found myself forcefully initiated into that elite, Zionist-created group of alleged “hate-mongers”,”anti-Semites”, “racists” and “neo-Nazis” who had come before me throughout the late 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. In my own case it was the secret, Jews-only Masonic society, B’nai Brith Canada who had filed a Section 13 complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission; one premised on the “contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” Please note the “citizens of Israel” portion. It was the first time in Canadian jurisprudence that the Jews, via their back-room manipulation of the CHRC, had arbitrarily introduced this novel addition to the Section 13 complaint; one which now included people of a foreign nation! [There are reasons why they attempted this but a thorough analysis of that particular subterfuge is beyond the scope of this article. A.T.]

While the Zionist news media, throughout its campaign to hasten the demise of Section 13, magnified its two pet Jewish “free speech” advocates to heroic proportions, the remaining hundreds of victims, once they had been tried and convicted, inevitably sank back into Zion’s media pit of silence and anonymity their identities liquidated and their unjust sufferings lost forever. Their names though are important, more important to the struggle for real freedom of speech than the media’s manufactured heroes, Steyn and Levant, for the nameless ones were the truly courageous Canadian heroes, those resisters whose who, on their own and motivated by their strong convictions, had stood up to Canada’s Marxist/Bolshevik commissars with little or no money and next to nil support from the general public while the Zio-media used all of its ill-gained media power to malign, vilify and crucify them in the public eye, just as they always do to anyone who stands in the way of their hate-filled agenda.  And so here I present the names of some of victims that I was able to find. God forgive me for the ones I’ve left off (if readers can provide me with additional names I’ll add them to my website as they emerge).

The list began with John Ross Taylor back in the late 70’s and carried on with Terry Long, Randy Johnston, William James Harcus, Wolfgang Droege, Kevin Lew, Derek J. Peterson, Tony McAleer, Charles Scott, Ernst Zundel, John Micka, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Alexan Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Tomasz Winnicki, Craig Harrison, Peter Kouba, Glen Bahr, Terry Tremaine, Alex Di Civita, Liz Lampman, Lubomyr Prytulak, Bobby Wilkinson, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, Ciaran Paul Donnelly, Jason Ouwendyk, Heather Fleming, Ronald Fleming, Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, Doug Collins, Marc Lemire, Arthur Topham, David Ahenakew, Bill Whatcott, Mark Merek, Dean Clifford….

It must also be mentioned here that those pictured below, as well as Bill Whatcott, were all assisted in great measure by Canada’s foremost defender of true freedom of speech, the late Douglas Christie, who acted in varying capacities for all of the accused, including myself, right up to the point of his tragic passing in March of 2013.

DouglasHChristieFreedomFighter copy 3

SomeCanadianFreeSpeechVictims

In previous writings I’ve delved further into the creation of Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws and in every case of ongoing persecution and prosecution it was always the Jewish lobby groups in Canada who were clambering and crying for the use and retention of these anti-democratic, unconstitutional “laws” that for some strange reason, in practically 99% of all cases, involved non-Jewish individuals who were being critical of the ideology of political Zionism or the illegal, terrorist actions of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or else exposing the mendacious Jewish Rothschild central banking cartel that controls much of the world’s monetary system or the Jewish media cartel that controls the vast proportion of the Western world’s media and source of information. Those who were publishing critical articles were doing so because they firmly believed that their country, its government, jurisprudence, culture and social mores were under direct attack by the foreign influences of these Zionist organizations plus the choke hold that the state of Israel was gaining over Canada’s federal leaders and their parties. In other words their criticisms in many cases were based upon their personal belief and knowledge that Canada was under attack from foreign agents and that it was their constitutional right and duty to express their views on this vital matter of national security.

Charlie Hebdo and the ongoing Lies of the Jews

Juxtaposed against this background gestalt of brutal, repressive anti-Free Speech legislation (easily traced back to and premised upon the foundational lie of the 20th Century by World Jewry that “6 Million Jews” had been “holocausted” by gas and ovens in the work camps of National Socialist Germany during the latter half of WWII, a deception now proven to have been a fabricated event of mythical and universal proportions perpetrated upon humanity), Canada’s anti-Free Speech laws tended, in practically every case, to always benefit only one small minority  – the nation’s Jewish community – who amount to less that 2% of the country’s population. Thus all the present hoopla emanating from the Jewish-controlled media about “Freedom of Speech”, “free expression” and the West’s longstanding “liberal” tradition of justifiable satire for the likes of Islamophobic and Christianophobic writers, artists and publishers like Charlie Hebdo, the repulsively loathsome Jew ‘comedian’ Sarah Silverman, et al, resonates with even greater magnitude the same hollow sounds of bigotry and deception here in Canada today.

When the news began to break via Twitter on June 26th, 2013 that the Canada’s Senate had finally given third and final reading to Bill C-304, an Act to repeal the censorship provision – Section 13 – contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act this didn’t automatically signal the end of ALL of Canada’s repressive “Free Speech” legislation. Far from it. All the repeal accomplished was to removed the provisions within the Act that formerly gave non-Jews the same legal right to point a fierce and accusing finger at those of “Jewish ethnicity” who were out to destroy Canada’s socio-cultural and democratic way of life and demand that they also be held accountable for their traitorous actions against the nation in this regard. The demise, therefore, of Section 13, as far as the Zionist media was concerned, was the end of their coverage on the issue of “Freedom of Speech”. Their job was done and their own media was now far less restricted in its ability to carry on with their Islamophobic agenda of vilifying Muslims everywhere. As for the even more threatening, draconian legislation still contained within Canada’s Criminal Code under Section 318 to 320, “Hate Propaganda”, those heinous laws are still very much alive and currently being used to the max to take down my website RadicalPress.com and myself and thus set a new precedent that will undoubtedly be used to coerce any other Canadian citizen who might think they still have the right of “Freedom of Speech” to self-censor their opinions and beliefs and whatever historic research they may have uncovered that might support their viewpoint.

When you are immersed in the thick of a battle, be it to retain your constitutional right to freedom of expression or your fundamental right to stay alive physically, you quickly learn who the enemy is and what type of tactics they employ to overpower you. After eight long years of being in the trenches of what metaphorically (and some say realistically) might appropriately be called World War III and witnessing the stratagems used by the Zionist forces, it becomes clear how their modus operandi works. In actual physical warfare the Zionist forces, be they Israel attacking Gaza with their superior military firepower or the USA attacking Iraq with its superior firepower, they always resort to what they coined their “Shock and Awe” bombing power on their perceived enemy. This same strategy though is also, first and foremost, used pre-emptively when it comes to their disinformation “bombing campaign”campaigns that always precede any actual on the ground operations. In esoteric terms it exhibits the old adage, “As above, so below”.

At this stage of writing, the Charlie Hebdo narrative, for those whose minds haven’t already succumbed to the current “Shock and Awe” propaganda ordinance emanating forth from Zion’s big media guns, more than sufficient evidence now exists to prove that we’ve being subjected once again to another Israeli Mossad false flag operation; one deliberately orchestrated in order to provide the necessary media grist to carry out their latest “Free Speech” disinfo blitzkrieg designed to fool the traumatized masses into believing their lie that the massacre was carried out by “Muslim Jihadists” incensed over the magazine’s ongoing slander and mockery of Islam’s Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW). Nothing could be further from the truth.

As many writers have already revealed, including the American writer Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: “The Charlie Hebdo Story Simply Doesn’t Wash“. There’s just too many similarities to all the previous false flag events, including the greatest of all thus far in the 21st Century – 9/11– all of which were carried out with precisely the same global mind-control objective – the obfuscation, via dissimulation and outright LIES projected through Zion’s global media cartel, of the true motives and actions of the state of Israel, first by transforming, then transposing their wilful and ongoing acts of terrorism against the Muslim people of the Middle East into a completely opposite, inverted and deceptive narrative; one that portrays Israel (again and again) as the woefully misunderstood victim of the former “Nazi-insprired Holocaust of 6 Million Jews”  plus interminable Islamic ill-will, anti-Semitic chicanery and racist hatred, all of which is presently being focalized in the Charlie Hebdo incident in order to then justify their ultimate purpose in pulling off this latest cabalistic caper; one intended to be a “shock and awe” strike against the very foundations of freedom itself, that is, the fundamental, God-given right and necessity for every single human being on the face of this planet to be allowed to speak their mind and criticize whomever they feel may be attempting to stand in the way of this core human characteristic and all it entails in terms of keeping the principles of truth, honesty and moral rectitude alive.

By their past fruits we are able to recognize the Zionist’s present plot to disenfranchise the West of its basic human right to free expression via their entrenched “Hate Speech” laws which they themselves were instrumental in setting in place over the decades following WWII and have steadfastly refused to abolish in Canada and France and Germany and Australia and numerous other EU nations. It also explains the Zionist media’s refusal to deal with Section 318 to 320 during the many years that Section 13 was a hot topic across the Zionist news wires. The big question remains though, why are they waxing so eloquent about “Freedom of Speech” for the likes of Charlie Hebdo yet refusing to face the reality of these current, draconian “Hate Propaganda”laws; ones that fly in the face of the very principles and liberties that they are now espousing with such zealous vigour and haughtiness?

Dieudonne, Moi, Satire and Big Brother double standards

Je suis Dieudonne!! 1000 NEW

The most inescapable act of hypocrisy regarding the Zionist media’s trumpeting of “Freedom of Speech” is France’s disingenuous and despicable treatment of that nation’s famed comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, without a doubt one of the finest and incisive minds, popular comedians and satirists alive today. The French officials’ two-faced approach of promoting Charlie Hebdo and the concept of “Freedom of Speech” and the right to satire anything satireable while at the same time going on a “Hate Speech” rampage around the country arresting anyone who so much as made a contrary peep about the manifestly obvious suspicious murders or didn’t append their “Je suis” to the proper name, not only showed the world what a bunch of hypocritical and dangerous clowns they were but also reinforced the fact that France’s government is totally under the control of seditious Zionist Jew forces.

Just recently, in a radio interview with Kevin Barrett where we were discussing the whole Dieudonne debacle, it was pointed out that what is happening to Dieudonne in France and myself here in Canada over the past eight years of ongoing harassment, arrests, libel suit threats and so on is indicative of a world-wide conspiracy to stop the flow of truthful information concerning the miserable machinations of World Jewry’s Zionist juggernaut whether it issues forth from writings on a blogsite or from out of the mouths of satirical comedians such as Dieudonne.

While it’s just fine for Charlie Hebdo to “satirize” whomever they like (but please don’t criticize Zionism or Israel) when I penned a satire on a hate-filled screed against the German people originally written by a Jewish writer, Theodore n. Kaufman, back in 1941 in his now infamous book, Germany Must Perish! and called it Israel Must Perish! the immediate reaction from the Jew lobby in Canada was to file a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint against me and my website alleging that I was calling for the genocide of the whole Jewish population! Did the satire aspect of the article elude their intellectual acumen or were they just grasping at straws in order to somehow get me arrested? Only time will tell.

Here in Canada it’s B’nai Brith International, one of Rothschild’s 19th century secret masonic brainchilds, who man Big Brother’s “hate speech” ghetto towers, sweeping the Cyberian landscape 24/7 with their search lights in an ongoing effort to spot a Truth Revealer lurking somewhere in the digital underbrush that they can then literally hunt down by simply filing a Section 319(2) “hate speech” complaint against them with whatever local “Hate Crime Team” may be available depending upon the province the patriot resides in.

BBDieuTop1000

In France they likely hide behind a different mask but regardless of the name their purpose is to spy on a nation’s citizens and rat out anyone who they think may be a danger to Zion’s ongoing subterfuge and then use that nation’s “Hate Speech” laws to prosecute the alleged “anti-Semitic” victim.

The notion of satire has to be the biggest joke of all when viewed within the context of the current feigned fuss over free expression and the Charlie Hebdo false flag. For the Zionist Jew media the right to be able to publish endless lies, hatred, pornography, Islamophobia, Christianophobia – all of which mock everything that humanity has held sacred for millennia – is foremost and nothing illustrates this fact more than the government/media’s full-scale promotion of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo that came out within practically a week following the demise of its former staff. Touting this deliberate act of further promoting a magazine whose contents supposedly were responsible for the deaths of around a dozen or more people as “Freedom of Speech” has to be one of the more provocative examples of Jewish chutzpah ever witnessed, yet, thanks to such sinister machinations this jaded, derelict crime syndicate comprised of interminable moral reprobates and serial killers were then able to utilize their widespread media sorcery to cast their evil spell over millions of French citizens thus manipulating them into believing their absurd lies while at the same time dashing about the country arresting others who were theoretically exercising these same, supposed “freedoms”.

As a Christian I’ve observed the artistic, literary and mimetic actions of the Jews when it comes to “satirizing” non-Jewish religions, their churches, their leaders or their saints and I’ve seen with my own eyes too many examples of what they consider to be “free expression” and “satire” disguised as “modern art” or “satire” yet, upon closer examination reveal themselves to be nothing more than lurid, depraved exhibitions of pornographic, scatological/sexual perversion and deviancy, reprehensible to the eye and an affront to one’s spiritual and moral sense of propriety. And when I witness such moral obscenity associated with their “artistic” creations I can only conclude and agree with those who state that the ideology of political Zionism is, at its root, immoral, atheistic and demonic in nature and cannot be connected to anything truly spiritual or holy in the traditional sense of those terms.

That said it behooves me to further add that, given all of the revulsion, disrespect, contempt and derision that much of what Zion vainly attempts to portray as “art” and “satire” entails, what is even more insulting, outrageous and unjust, is the fact that, after appointing themselves the arbiters of all things permissible, including the right to insult and denigrate anyone that they so wish to (for whatever purposes), they then turn around and create, promulgate and rigidly uphold so-called “Hate Speech” laws that exist only to prohibit, by the force of the state, anyone else from exercising these same identical freedoms which they sell to the gullible public as universal rights and freedoms!  Put in layman’s language there can never be such a thing as a level playing field when it comes to “Freedom of Speech” if, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some people are more free to say what they want than others.

Allow me to present some examples. As a Christian I’ll use two ‘cartoons’ from Charlie Hebdo that relate to spreading Christianophobia or anti-Christian, anti-God hate propaganda rather than adding to the already existing plethora of specious, Zionist hate-motivated Islamophobic “art”. To wit:

 

CharHebGod

The Babylonian Talmud, the “bible” of the Rabbinical cult we associate with “Judaism”, consists of massive tomes of Jewish “Law” purported (by the priesthood) to have been handed down orally to Moses by the Jewish “g-d” Jehovah in the self-chosen people’s hoary past. Then, with the addition of greater masses of written commentary on said law, finally set in print around the 5th century A.D. The Talmud considered to be the ultimate authority and reference when it comes to any and all questions dealing with the religious life of an orthodox Jew supersedes the Torah in all aspects of authority.

Hidden for centuries from the prying eyes of non-Jews the Talmud was eventually translated into English in the early part of the 20th Century. Not long afterward an American author and researcher, Elizabeth Dilling, began a comprehensive study of the Talmud after returning from a visit to the Soviet Union in 1931 where she had gone to observe what the Zio-Communists were then touting as their great “humanitarian experiment”. Being able to go behind the scenes Dilling was, “shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.” But even more so was she shocked by the “virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.”

Had Dilling been able, at the time, to penetrate further into the vast reaches of the Soviet wastelands she would have witnessed what, thanks to the heroic efforts of Russia’s Nobel Prize winning author and dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, he described as the greatest mass genocide of Gentile Russian Christians ever undertaken in the history of the world. According to Solzhenitsyn somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty-six million souls vanished into that frozen nightmare of terror and fear now known as the Gulag Archipelago.

SolzhenitsynGulagZioHatredquote 800

Dillings book, THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today is a wealth of factual information on the hidden side of Pharisiac Judaism. Chapter 3 in particular, “The Talmud and Bible Believers” examines in detail how the Rabbinical priesthood views the likes of Jesus Christ and Mother Mary; both of whom are treated with the utmost contempt and disrespect. When one realizes just how vile and hateful the passages are describing Jesus and his Mother it’s not too difficult to connect the dots when it comes to understanding why this book, which is posted on my website RadicalPress.com in digital format (and numerous other websites around the world), was one of the principal documents submitted by the “complainants” in my present case as “proof” that I am willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group”. Still, as the old saying goes, “The proof is in the pudding” and in the case of the Gulag Archipelago that pudding is stuffed to overflowing with the bloated and starved carcasses of countless millions of innocent people.

As such it beggars the mind to think that BC’s Attorney General, the Honourable Suzanne Anton, would have attached her name to such a sleazy and ill-conceived accusation; one that eventually led the thought police to proceed with their stalking and final arrest and jailing that then allowed them to illegally enter my home and steal all of my computers and electronic files and subsequently subject me to years of ongoing litigation in order to prove my innocence. This “law” we call Section 319(2) is a purely Bolshevik-inspired piece of Zionist double-talk and deception that allows the state to accuse me (or any other Canadian) of willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” for simply re-posting historical facts gleaned from the annals of the former Zionist Jew dominated Soviet dictatorship.

ChHebJesus

Upon reading what the Talmud has to say about Jesus Christ and Mother Mary it won’t take a whole lot of extrapolating to see why the Talmud-driven Zionist media commissars are still going out of their way to defend the likes of images such as these. Just like the New York Times, Charlie Hebdo’s messages appear to be  exactly what the Zionist media cartel deems content “fit to print”. I will leave it to viewers to decide whether they see these ‘cartoons’ as satire, humour or otherwise. They certainly aren’t the ones though that the Zionist media has been flashing about since the Charlie Hebdo incident.

One of the National Post’s well known Jewish writers, Andrew Coyne, in the comment section of its January 15, 2015 edition, penned an article entitled, “Humour busts taboos” (currently changed online to read: “Coyne: Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed”) wherein he labours to intellectually justify the “humour” associated with Charlie Hebdo and Jewish ‘comedians’ such as Sarah Silverman (Coyne finds her humour “indefensibly funny”) who get their jollies out of telling anti-Christian jokes such as the example below:

 

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 11.45.31 PM

British Internet writer and contributor to Veteran’s Today, Lasha Darkmoon, also has a few pertinent things to say about Silverman in her recent and popular article, “The Paris Massacre: they had it coming” where she writes,  “The Jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman, the nice young lady who likes humping dogs and licking their anuses in various video skits—see here—and who gets many a cheap laugh by insulting Christianity in America, would have been a great hit with these satirical French journalists. They would have loved her for saying, “I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again—in a second!”.

Coyne on the other hand, quoting François Cavanna, founder of Charlie Hebdo, who once stated, “Nothing is sacred” goes on to say, “I have been turning over those words in my mind ever since I saw them, shortly after the massacre. Can he really have meant it? Nothing is sacred? Why? Why was he so insistent, so absolute? …But I think it is more than that. I think it stems from an understanding that “offensive” humour is not an aberration, a warped version of the real thing, but rather that offensiveness of one kind or another is an intrinsic part of humour. Virtually all humour is offensive to someone; most humour is hurtful to some sensibility; much humour is rooted in pain and fear and the ugly reality of things.”

In his analysis of why people laugh, he tells us, “Nobody really knows why people laugh. They just do.” … “What one can say, however, is that it [laughter] emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.”

So I ask myself, why didn’t I laugh when I looked at the Charlie Hebdo image of God the Father being bum-phucked by my Lord Jesus Christ who, in turn, is having his own derriere desecrated by what is supposed to be a symbolic image of the Holy Spirit? The standard interpretation for Jews like Coyne would be that it’s apparently just a pun (satire) on the Catholic church’s opposition to gay marriage. No problem. Get over it guys. It’s all just “a joke”. Remember, “Nothing is sacred” and the laughter produced by such “satire” obviously “emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.”

But if you don’t find it funny at all and rather offensive then according to Coyne’s reasoning “…that’s also the moral answer. The first thing to ask about a joke is not, is it offensive, but: is it funny? If it is, if we laugh at it in spite of ourselves, chances are it is because there is something else to it than mere insult or grotesquerie: some larger truth, some point we resist acknowledging, because to do so would make us uncomfortable.” [Note: all emphasis throughout this article is by the author. A.T.]

Really now Andrew? Oi vey! I should truly like to know just what it is, what “larger truth” is hidden there that we, who don’t laugh at supposed ‘cartoons’ such as this, “resist acknowledging” because it would “make us uncomfortable”? How about the “larger truth” that the atheistic Zionist mindset could care less about what Christians or Muslims hold to be sacred? Is this not their standard operating procedure today just as it was after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas of Russia in 1917 when the Jew-led Bolsheviks systematically went about raping and murdering and torturing the Christian priests and nuns and destroying their houses of worship on a scale that, were it fully disclosed to the masses today on the Zionist media, would turn the stomachs of whole nations to the point where their present belief in your endless lies would suddenly cease to exist?

Commenting on Sarah Silverman’s career Coyne says, “If her routine were only about shock value, I don’t imagine she would have lasted as long as she has. Rather, she has thought long and hard about what makes us anxious — what we’re least willing to talk about.”

So, according to the atheistic Zionist mind-set of Jewish writers like Coyne, if someone has expended a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to make Christians “anxious” about homos marrying homos by forcing them to talk about it through portraying their Saviour screwing God the Father up the ass, then this is a good thing. A funny thing. A laughter producing mechanism that gets the desired result “by turning our anxieties and discomforts in on themselves, forcing us to confront them rather than bury them.” Sigmund, I’m certain, would have been proud of Andrew Coyne’s deeply analytical diagnosis of Sarah Silverman’s perverted, sick mind.

Then of course, as Coyne goes on to say, “There’s a world of meaning in this. When an “offensive” comic says nothing is unsayable, they mean that we do not have to be afraid of words. They are not our master: we are theirs. Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed.”

Now this is all fine and dandy for Andrew Coyne and his Jewish comedians and the National Post and its readership who subscribe to this type of psycho-babble purporting to be wisdom but, like all babble that arises in the Zionist media, it only caters to the self-chosen mindset, be it ethnic Jews or culturally and socially indoctrinated “mentally-cloned” chabez goy “Jews” who, because of their own life experiences growing up in a culture saturated with endless Zionist propaganda, have come to think and react and behave just like their Zionist counterparts.

But of course for all of Coyne’s sophisticated rhetoric and sophistry, specifically designed to make an ugly pile of dog shit look like a fruit cake, his arguments in favour of justifying what is nothing more than pure pornography, an “art” and an industry which the the Jews have developed to the point of perfection and now reap countless millions from its exploitation via their mass media, don’t impress me one iota.

But, and believe me when I say this is a BIG BUT (no pun or typo intended), there are the rest of us great unwashed goyim who amount to not millions but billions, who for numerous reasons don’t think at all like the Zionists would have us think. We have our own codes of moral conduct and our own spiritual views and perspectives on what we believe to be the holy and sacred side of life here on planet Earth. And yes, we also value justice and freedom of speech just like the Zionists purport to value it. Nonetheless, there is a vast and fundamental separation between the Zionist version of freedom of speech and that of the non-Zionist; a difference based upon the elemental fact that non-Zionists believe in freedom of speech for EVERYONE, not just for the Zionist Jews and their fawning sycophants who, for whatever reason, feel that Zion’s version of TRUTH and FREEDOM is somehow the only version permissible for the whole of humanity. Therein lies the rub and therein lies the one single factor that historically has made the “Jewish Question” one of continuing paramount importance for all of mankind and, as far back as a century ago, prompted the late Henry Ford, Sr. to describe this amazing occurrence with the Jews as “The world’s Foremost Problem”.

HenryQuotesTemplate 600

Given a level playing field in all the critical sectors of a nation that comprise government, banking, economics, industry, education, social and religious institutions and most important of all, openness and diversity within the most crucial area – its media/news/entertainment/communication systems – the majority of citizens in any democratic nation would have the wherewithal to manage their country for the good of all rather than be held hostage to a tiny deviant minority that now rules over us with greater and greater disregard for the essential values that do make life both sacred and worthwhile. This is a lesson that the Zionists and their obeisant sycophants are still in denial about. For the majority it’s but a matter of ignorance due to their brainwashing and were they to be told the whole truth would likely change their ways but for those in power who manage the levers of deception it’s not so much a matter of denial but one of cold, calculated, wilful, heartless premeditated criminal intent to perpetrate and perpetuate their execrable program to enslave the vast majority of humanity via the ongoing misuse of their media cartel and other control mechanisms.

Some final thoughts on Canada’s PM Stephen Harper and “Freedom of Speech”

Saving the worst for last and not wishing to subject readers to more obnoxious imagery I will forgo posting a photo of Canada’s No. 1 Zionist lackey and current Prime Minister of Canada, the Dishonourable Stephen Harper.

Before commenting on his recent reaction to the Charlie Hebdo affair I want to reiterate a fact that needs to be born in mind with respect to my legal proceedings now before the court. On April 27th, 2011, about one week prior to the last federal election, being fully conscious of the imminent threat that Harper posed to my country should his Conservative party gain a majority vote and be given the opportunity to exercise h/is-rael’s agenda via their controlled puppet, I penned an article titled, Hating Harper and posted it to my website. There you will find an image of the traitor who is now attempting to tell Canadians what a wonderful, free and democratic nation they live in; one that, were it not for those insanely envious ‘Mooslim’ terrorist Jihadists who hate our way of life, would have us all living just happy as a clam. When I wrote the article I knew full well what Canada would be facing should Stephen Harper and his Con-servative Party gain a majority of votes necessary to rule the country for next four years.

The very next day, Canada’s former No. 1 serial complainant in the vast majority of the now repealed Sec. 13 “Human Rights” cases (please note that I am under a court order NOT to publish his name anywhere on the net), filed a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team under the supervision of Det. Cst. Terry Wilson pictured below along with his partner in crime Cst. Normandie Levas. That was the first step taken in a long drawn-out clandestine process that eventually culminated in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012.

The BC Hate Crime Team’s website tells us that it “has two full-time police officers trained to recognize the specialized and multi-jurisdictional nature of hate propaganda offences.”  It was one of those “trained” police officers, Cst. Levas, who filed a report with BC Attorney General, Hon. Suzanne Anton, outlining her reasons why she felt I had committed the unforgivable crime of “willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” by, (quoting Det. Cst. Wilson’s words to me while I was in jail), “calling for the total genocide of the Jewish population”. Based on this “trained” police officer’s  “evidence” the Attorney General then gave their consent to have me formally charged. Later on, during the preliminary inquiry when I cross examined Cst. Levas in court about her “training” and what it was that qualified her to make such presumptive and false accusations about me, she revealed to the court that prior to joining the “Hate Crime Team” she had worked as a . . . dental assistant!

NewWilsonPhoto

Returning to the Charlie Hebdo hoax and that other hoax, the Zionist National Post, I want to make further reference to an article that appeared on the front page of the January 9, 2015 edition titled, “THIS IS WAR ON US ALL, HARPER SAYS: PM says terror law to be tabled soon.” (My apologies to readers but I’ve been unable to find a link to the article online)

Before the blood had dried on the two young Muslim brothers alleged to have carried out the shootings at the office of Charlie Hebdo then subsequently murdered by the French security forces in order to ensure that they would never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story, Canada’s Zionist-controlled puppet, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was already blabbering on in the media about how the “jihadists are at war with anyone who values openness and tolerance” and further stating that his government was already busy formulating new proposed legislation that would introduce “new arrest powers aimed at thwarting terrorist threats” in an upcoming bill destined to be tabled at the end of January when Parliament resumes.

He then went on to say, “They have declared war and are already executing it on a massive scale on a whole range of countries with which they are in contact, and they have declared war on any country, like ourselves(sic), that values freedom, openness and tolerance. We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it is not going to go away.

Yes, Stephen Harper, you can be damn sure that these false flag events such as we’ve just witnessed in Paris, France won’t “go away” so long as the wars which your government has plunged Canada into at the behest of Israel are slated to carry on and the necessity to manufacture greater and greater levels of fear remain a prerequisite to gaining approval for your heinous acts of genocide against defenceless people like the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, the Afghans and those still surviving in other Middle East nations where the Zionist forces are constantly committing their war crimes.

Making these hypocritically absurd pronouncements given the fact that there was still no definite proof as to who had committed the murders merely shows the insidiousness and transparent bigotry of those in power who, because they are puppets dangling on Zionist strings, will mouth their aggressive lies and threats to the world regardless of whatever the people may think to the contrary. This process of accusing either an individual or a nation of crimes yet unproven applies not only to the Islamic community as a whole but to my own “Freedom of Speech” case here at home in Canada and now before the Supreme court of British Columbia. The fact that I have yet to be tried for the alleged “crime” of “willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” certainly didn’t deter the Zionist media in Canada from making all sorts of false and defamatory accusations and slanderous remarks against my person when the Indictment was first handed down November 5, 2012. The same Zionist big mouth, Ezra Levant, was only too happy to interview my former counsel, Douglas Christie on his SunNews show “The Source” where he then proceeded to accuse me of all sorts of falsehoods just like Harper does when it comes to discussing issues to do with Islam and Israel’s false flag events all of which are designed to further enhance just such vitriolic rhetoric.

Within the short span of about six minutes good ol’ free speech advocate Ezra Levant managed to slander, defame and libel me as many times as possible, punctuating every comment or question to lawyer Doug Christie with at least one or more ad hominem slur,  in order to show the world just how grand and liberal the Zionist mainstream media truly is when it comes to freedom of expression.

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 4.55.45 PM

Yes, said Ezra, that Topham is an “anti-Semite.” He’s “offensive” and an “anti-Zionist [which is] code for anti-Semitic.” His website is “gross” and his comments “repulsive” and everything that he does is “motivated by a form of malice.” And on top of that Levant also shared freely his opinion that I was a “nobody” and an “anti-Semitic idiot and a right wing wacko” ending his “freedom of speech” soliloquy by emphatically pronouncing to all of Canada that when it came right down to it “I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!”

When I finished watched the interview I said to myself, oi vey! with “free speech” friends like this who needs enemies? Here he is, one of Canada’s most vocal advocates for “freedom of speech” on the Internet and he’s sitting there abusing me left, right and center telling the world blatant lies about me and making me out to be some sort of crazed Jew-hating anti-Semite! That folks is how “Freedom of Speech” works for those holding the mechanisms of mind-control in their nefarious little hands.

Getting back to Harper and his disingenuous statements to the media he goes on to say, “At the same time, we also encourage people to go about their lives and to exercise our rights and freedoms and our openness as a society as loudly and as clear as we can because that is the best way of defeating what is ultimately a movement of hatred and intolerance.” “No shit Batman” as a friend of mine used to say when confronted with such transparent posturing. That is precisely what I and many other Canadians have been doing for decades. And were we able to “exercise our rights and freedoms” without the Jewish lobbyists using their “Hate Propaganda” laws to attack and imprison us? No. Just more hypocritical smoke and mirrors and sententious sophistry that’s all.

Commenting on the Paris demonstrations that followed in the wake of the shootings Harper, monotonously mouthing the Zionist agenda rather than taking into consideration ALL Canadians, displayed his now usual chutzpah by stating, “Today, I know all Canadians…stand together with [Israel? A.T.] the people of France…our great friends and allies” culminating his bigoted remarks with his final fatuous remark that, “When a trio of [alleged. A.T.] hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles – freedom of expression,  freedom of the press – they assaulted democracy everywhere.”

Talk is obviously cheap and meaningless when a nation’s leader can make such blatantly deceptive statements to the press and the so-called “independent” media stands by unquestioningly allowing it to go on.

Conclusion

So what are we to make of this latest false flag event that occurred in Paris, France? Will the world fall for it like most people fell for the 9/11 false flag and continue on supporting those who are the perpetrators of the majority of mankind’s problems? How long will the pretense last before the mask of Zion finally falls from the face of evil, revealing forever the primary source of mankind’s collective woes and allowing for the final liberation of the millions of people still suffering from the ignorance that’s ultimately a result of having lived their lives in a trauma-induced trance of fear and insecurity; products of deliberate mind-control by a globally elite force of psychopaths who truly believe that they were given the right by their G_d to wield unlimited power and control over the majority of humanity? How long before the majority of Jews themselves will be healed of this devastating ghetto consciousness that’s plagued the world for over two millennia?

For most people today the realization that they are going about their lives unaware of the fact that there’s a war going on around them designed to eventually enslave them is beyond belief. They simply remain transfixed by Big Brother’s media, struggle on a daily basis to pay their credit card debts and keep food on the table and a roof over their heads all the while faithfully watching the sitcoms and television news and sports and a myriad number of channels all designed with the intent of diverting their attention away from the psycho/spiritual battles that are going on behind the scenes both in Cyberspace (the Internet) where the final battle is now well underway as well as in the courtrooms of the nation where the Zionist forces are surreptitiously at work both enacting new legislation and protecting old legislation like Section 318 to 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, laws overtly and covertly designed to  criminalize the Truth Revealers who are on to their scams and are doing their utmost with scant resources to strike the chimes of truth and freedom and connect the dots so that the majority of those still asleep might one day awaken.

Make no mistake about it. The Zionists KNOW their days are numbered and that time is fast running out for them to pull off their global coup. The fact that they know though is not something that will automatically tempt them to change their evil ways. That’s not how psychopaths operate. The stronger the resistance to their plotting and scheming the more they dig their heels in and resort to greater and greater subterfuges to prevent the tide of truth from rising. They understand better than anyone the power of their media and the power of their purse and they will not stop using either of these devices to achieve the end they’ve worked for so long and with such single-minded, albeit, malicious  intent.

It may be pointless at this juncture in the battle to remind people that this war has been going on since Lucifer first broke rank with the heavenly hosts and decided that he would rather be God and do his own thing instead of remaining a willing and loving participant in the grand scheme of Creation. God of course, having endowed all of his Creation, from the heavenly realms down to us mundane time-space mortal creatures of flesh and blood with free will wasn’t about to interfere with his design and so left his somewhat recalcitrant and sentient family to work it out on their own.

The debate over who the Zionists really are and why they’re motivated to act as they do would fill a thousand Alexandrian libraries. The origins of such primal urges to control others cannot help but lead serious thinkers to an eventual realization that such questions ultimately cannot be answered without delving into speculative philosophical, occult and spiritual realms that go far beyond the scope of this article.

The Internet at this early juncture in its nascent beginnings is already expanding at quantum speeds. The information age is gaining ground with every millisecond, exploding our preconceived notions of time and space and taking us on a transcendental journey that at this point in time is akin in terms of progress to our little toe projecting out upon the threshold of a dream that undoubtedly will continue to unfold throughout the remainder of the present Aquarian cycle, leading us onward and inward to greater and greater understanding, peace, harmony, and love.

Together humanity now faces the supreme trial of all ages past. We stand as a vast human species with one foot embedded in yesterday  and the other foot jutting forth into a future that all too often appears shrouded in grey, chemtrail-like clouds of self doubt brought forth daily through the interminable Big Brother’s flak of fear and loathing which constitute the hallmarks of the Zionist Information Media now permanently acting in collusion with its counterparts in every other phase of global involvement who are intent on breaking the will of the people to the point where they eventually give up and bow their heads to accept their chains of slavery and subservience to the satanic power  that now rules the world by default.

Bob_Dylan_-_The_Times_They_Are_A-Changin'

Bob Dylan, one of the leading American Jewish poets, songwriters and musicians of the 1960’s prophetically expressed best our current existential dilemma when, in 1964 he wrote his immortal song, “The Times They Are A-Changing”. I publish it here for readers to consider.

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’

The glorious sun of Truth and Justice is now rising upon an otherwise outwardly bleak, forlorn, terror-stricken Cyberian landscape according to divine plan, casting great shadows across the wreckage of thousands of years of endless war and strife and suffering. Its radiant rays of life-giving hope are bursting forth with new and brighter intensity than ever before, defying with the full intensity of its love-driven will and determination all of the Evil and Darkness emanating forth from the present Zio-Talmudic tyranny now so frantic with fear and desperately attempting to pull off its age-long plan for absolute control of planet Earth.

In the end Truth and Love and Peace WILL prevail.

—–

 

Ursula Haverbeck “The Greatest Problem of Our Time” w/ English Subtitles

Ursula HaverbeckVideoHdr

CLICK HERE TO VIEW VIDEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BvRvNZo5Gk

Editors Note: 86 year old German Ursula Haverbeck identifies the root source of much of the problems that the world faces with respect to history and truth and the greatest lie ever foisted upon humankind – a lie that is directly responsible for the creation of Canada’s so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws sec. 318 to 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code which ultimately led to my arrest and incarceration in May of 2012. This “Greatest Problem” is crucial to a proper understanding of Canada’s civil and human rights. The “Holocaust Lie” is now a proven fraud of massive proportions for which the Zionist Jews are directly responsible.

The Holocaust Narrative: Politics Trumps Science   by Jim Fetzer

Screen Shot 2014-11-27 at 11.09.04 PMScreen Shot 2014-11-28 at 12.13.38 AM

“The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps”—Nicholas Kollerstrom

Breaking-the-Spell-front-cover

For more on the book, click BREAKING THE SPELL

The author of this refreshing scientific study of the Holocaust, Nicholas Kollerstrom, may be the most honorable man whom I have ever had the pleasure to know.

In response to PM David Cameron’s denunciation of 7/7 and 9/11 skeptics as on a par with ISIS, he went to Scotland Yard with a copy of Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) and turned himself in.

Scotland Yard declined the honor, but this act–which symbolically castrated the PM’s outrageous stance–was a striking illustration of his ability to tackle a problem by going right at it.

A distinguished historian of science with multiple degrees, including from Cambridge, he has published on 9/11 and especially 7/7, about which he appears to be the world’s leading expert.

When his attention turned to research on the use of Zykon B as a delousing agent in the labor camps run by the Germans during World War II, however, he was treated as an outcast.

He lost his position at University College London, which he had held for 15 years, where university officials did not bother to extend the opportunity of a rebuttal before they sacked him.

He and I both spoke at the recent conference, “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, where this book reports the results of the research for which he was banned. The book, a stunning historic expose, has just appeared. I endorse it with my highest recommendation.

The Holocaust – Myth and Reality

The situation is completely absurd. No subject generates responses as extreme and irrational as what has come to be known as “the Holocaust”. Unlike any other event in human history, including even the most sacred religious beliefs, for anyone to question, dispute or deny its occurrence qualifies as “a hate crime,” where Holocaust denial is even a prosecutable offense in certain jurisdictions. Unlike any other, this crime involves the expression of forbidden thoughts about a subject that has become taboo.

236-references-before-Nuremberg

The underlying desideratum is whether history is supposed to be accurate and true or, as Voltaire has put it, be merely “a pack of lies the living play upon the dead”. Just so we know what we are talking about: In its broadest outlines, “the Holocaust” can be defined by means of its three primary elements, which I shall designate here as hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3):

(h1) that Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews and succeeded by putting around 6,000,000 to death;

(h2) that many of those deaths were brought about by the use of cyanide gas in chambers for that purpose; and,

(h3) that the chemical agent that brought about those deaths was Zykon B, to which the victims were subjected.

The science of the Holocaust does not leave any room for doubt about (h2) and (h3), since laws of biochemistry and of materials science—laws which cannot be violated and cannot be changed—entail that the bodies of those who are put to death using cyanide turn pink, while the walls of chambers used for that purpose would turn blue. But none of the bodies from those camps has been reported to have been pink; and examination of the “gas chambers” has determined that none of them turned blue. Which means that (h2) and (h3) are not simply false but have been scientifically refuted.

Holocaust science “cut and dried”

As Nicholas Kollerstrom documents in this astonishing and brilliant book, the science of the Holocaust is this “cut and dried”. To the extent to which the Holocaust narrative depends on (h2) and (h3), therefore, it cannot be sustained. The questions that remain about (h1) are a bit more complex but appear to be equally contrived. There are more than 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews who are either in acute distress or about to be assailed in the newspapers of the world prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal— the first of which appeared in 1890. The number seems to have no basis in fact but to have theological origins—from a disputed passage in Leviticus—as to how many Jews must perish before they can return to “The Promised Land”.

Recently-released-records-ICRC

To the extent to which the number of Jews who died in the camps can be objectively determined, the most reliable numbers appear to come from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which visited the camps and kept meticulous records of the identities of those who died and their cause of death. Not one is reported to have been put to death in gas chambers, and the total it reported in 1993 for all of the camps was 296,081 combined. Even rounding up to an even 600,000 victims—gypsies, Jews and the mentally and physically infirm—the empirical evidence thus contradicts the contention that 6,000,000 Jews were put to death and thereby falsifies hypothesis (h1).

Counting deaths attributed to the Holocaust—apart from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross—turns out to be an exercise in “fuzzy math”, because none of them add up. As Faurisson observed during an interview on 13 December 2006, the Yad Vashem database was built up by “simple unverified declarations emanating from unverified sources and processed in such a way that one and the same person can be recorded as having died several times, even, it seems, as many as ten times”.[1] And even the most complete archives are not collated to make total numbers accessible but only individual cases—which appears an obvious measure to preserve the untestability of (h1), the hypothesis that 6,000,000 Jews had perished.

Holocaust story falsified

So, insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained. The question that therefore arises is how the Nuremberg Tribunal—widely cited as a paragon of intellectual integrity and of the application of moral principles to historical events—could possibly have produced such a highly misleading account of crucial events at the conclusion of World War II. The answer to this, I believe, has been provided by Robert Faurisson in his paper “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,” who explains the daunting task confronting the Allies to conceal or justify war crimes that they had committed in winning the war.[2]

Effects-of-Allied-Bombing

The Allies’ systematic and massive destruction of German cities not only brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians but also interdicted the railroad lines that would have re-supplied those camps, which were located near major industrial plants and whose inmates were providing labor to run them. It would have been poor business practice to exterminate the work force, but the large number of deaths from starvation because the Third Reich could not re-supply them provided an opportunity to deflect responsibility from the Allies onto Germany, which the Allies seized. A Hollywood director was brought in and shot 80,000 feet of film at the camps, where 6,000 feet (7.5% of the total) was used to shift the blame for those deaths onto Nazi Germany, which was an easy sell, all things considered.

As Kollerstrom explains, Zyklon B was used at the labor camps, not as a method of extermination but for the sake of maintaining hygiene among the inmates. Typhus and dysentery were omnipresent problems, where Zyklon B was applied in copious quantities—but as a disinfestant, not as an agent for bringing about the deaths of millions of inmates. And in response to the color pink-and-blue findings, an alternative explanation has been given that they were killed using diesel exhaust fumes, but unlike carbon monoxide, diesel exhaust fumes bring about nausea and severe headaches but usually do not bring about death by asphyxiation.

Classified British documents

Among the most valuable contributions of this study derives from Nick’s use of classified records acquired by British authorities, who were skeptical of claims that mass gassings were being carried out and had reports in hand of the use of Zyklon for the purpose of delousing the inmates, where infestations had become alarming. Many tons of Zyklon were consumed at Auschwitz-Birkenau from the summer of 1942 on, as Kollerstrom reports, which is easy to confirm because it soaked into the walls of the disinfestation chambers and is still there. His essays on the subject—“The Walls of Auschwitz”, “Leuchter Twenty Years On” and “The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Illusion”[3]—would become the cause of his removal from a post-doctoral post he had held for 15 years!

Piles-of-bodies1

As a professional philosopher of science, I appreciate Nick’s references to Sir Karl Popper, who advocated the method of falsificationism, whereby the truth of theories in science and in history can be tested by attempts to falsify them. When they resist our best efforts to refute them, then we have good reason to believe they might be true. But equally applicable here are the reflections of Imre Lakatos, who discussed research programs with hard cores of claims,[4] such as Newton’s laws of motion or, in the case we are considering, the above-mentioned hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3). When the defenders of these hypotheses are confronted by the risk of refutation, they can appeal to auxiliary hypotheses in an attempt to deflect the refuting data and thereby preserve their theory.

A stellar example arises in the context of the attempt to explain away why the number of those who died as substantiated by the meticulous records of the Red Cross supports the inference that less than 10% of the 6,000,000 claimed actually died from all causes—and none from death in gas chambers. To cope with that finding, the claim has been made that the records are incomplete because large numbers of Jews were taken directly to the gas chambers and never registered—not even by name. Not only are contentions of this kind unfalsifiable, untestable and hence unscientific, but they reflect the degenerating character of the Holocaust paradigm, which has spawned no new data or research that could possibly overcome the mountain of evidence against it.

Excluding falsifying data

Another method for immunizing a hypothesis from refutation is by the exclusion of falsifying data.[5] The defenders of hypotheses (h1)-(h3) have committed a mind-boggling example of fallacious science, which further manifests their commitment to a degenerating research program. When the Auschwitz museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls—due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds—but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them.[6]

They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation—that Zyklon B was only used for delousing—which would have remedied their lack of comprehension.[7] As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.[8]

Origin-of-the-myth-of-the-6000000-320x246

That Nicholas Kollerstrom was booted from his post at University College, London—and without any hearing or opportunity to present his defense, where the truth of his observations, one might have thought, would have made a difference—is one of a large number of indications that even our best academic institutions and societies are not capable of dealing objectively with the history of World War II. Indeed, it struck me like a bolt of lightning out of the blue when, during a talk by Gilad Atzmon in Madison, Wisconsin, about Jewish identity politics, I realized that the Holocaust mythology benefits Zionism and the government of Israel by playing, in the promotion of its political agenda, upon a Western sense of guilt for the death of 6,000,000 Jews during World War II.

The claim that someone is “anti-Semitic” or a “Holocaust denier” is taken to be the most severe form of ethical damnation possible in this time and age. But distinctions must be drawn between criticism of the acts and policies of the Israeli government and discounting the worth or value of human beings on the basis of their ethnic origins or religious orientation. Condemning the Israeli government for its vicious and unwarranted onslaught of the people of Gaza, for example, is not “anti-Semitic”. And if exposing the Holocaust narrative as political propaganda makes one a “Holocaust denier,” all of us who put truth before politics ought to wear that label as a badge of honor.

The ISIS fiasco

As an illustration of the depths of depravity of those who would uphold the myth, consider that, as an historian of science, Kollerstrom was invited to contribute three entries—including that on Sir Isaac Newton, which is the most important—to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (2007), which has more than 1550 entries by some 400 authors from 40 countries. Yet Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, a reviewer for Isis, the journal of America’s History of Science Society, recommended that the book be sent back to the publisher and pulped because Kollerstrom had been involved in research on the Holocaust! This was such an outrage that I wrote to the editorial board of Isis, which allowed a Letter to the Editor to appear.

BEAcover

Something is terribly wrong, when the world’s leading society on the history of science does no more to correct a grotesque abuse by one of its reviewers on a book that involved so many contributors and an enormous investment in time and money, where the moral issues are so blatant and obvious. It is ironic that the Nuremberg Tribunal would declare “collective punishment” a war crime. The Allies were responsible for the collective punishment of German civilians by their systematic bombing of German cities. Isis has committed a comparable intellectual crime by tolerating collective punishment of 400 scholars for the purported offenses of one. By acquiescing to its reviewer’s abuse, Isis has committed the fallacy of guilt by association and has displayed an appalling lack of journalistic ethics.

Nick Kollerstrom is the only party here who has displayed a commitment to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. His defense is very simple: the hypotheses on which the Holocaust narrative has been based are provably false and not even scientifically possible. I have written about this in my articlesThe War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career,”[9] ISIS trips, stumbles and falls,”[10] and discussed it during my presentation at the 2014 conference Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust,” at which Nick and I both spoke.[11]

But far better than reviewing them, read this brilliant study by the world’s leading iconoclast, Nick Kollerstrom, my dear friend, whom I admire beyond words as a splendid example of what historians should be doing in their professional work by getting history straight—lest Voltaire’s admonition continue to apply—including about the atrocities of World War II. There were real atrocities committed by all sides, just not the ones about which we have been told.

References

[1] “Interview with Professor Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com, December 13, 2006.

[2] Ibid., February 3, 2012.

[3] See Nick’s online papers at www.codoh.com/library/authors/1580/

[4] Imre Lakatos, Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970.

[5] Sir Karl Popper systematically investigated the diverse methods of immunizing theories in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co., London 1968, pp. 82-97.

[6] Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy ?ab?d?, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Vol. XXX (1994) pp. 17-27 (www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).

[7] They quoted but ignored a book which had exposed their fallacious approach (Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993; Engl.: G. Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010).

[8] See Germar Rudolf, “Polish Pseudo-Scientists,” in: G. Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 45-67.

[9] Veterans Today, February 4, 2012; www.veteranstoday.com.

[10] On my blog at www.jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, June 13, 2011.

[11] April 26, 2014; for details see www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/05/

——

James-H.-Fetzer

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality. McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

 

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=332859