Political Zionism

Statement of Roy Arthur Topham regarding his Arrest on May 16th, 2012 on the charge of “Willful promotion of hatred CC 319(2)”

May 16, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

ARREST STATEMENT OF ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM
REGARDING HIS ARREST AND INCARCERATION BY THE RCMP ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16TH, 2012 IN QUESNEL, B.C. ON THE CHARGE OF:

“Willful Promotion of Hatred CC 319(2)”

Posted May 16th, 2013 on 1st Anniversary of this Event

Arthur Topham

[Editor's Note: In the interests of freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet I am posting my "Arrest Statement" which my former lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie advised me to write soon after my arrest on May 16th, 2012. His wise counsel was that this case would likely drag on in the courts for years and by the time it came to trial (should such an event arise) that many of the details of my recollection of that fateful day would by then be hazy and doubtful. Acting on Mr. Christie's advice I wrote out a detailed description of what took place that May morning last year. It's an interesting picture of what can happen to you here in Canada should the Jewish lobby decide they don't like being criticized. Read. Heed. And please pass it on to your friends and associates. ~Arthur Topham]

On Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 I started out my work day travelling out to my mining property on the 2400 Rd off the Barkerville Hwy to meet up with the Petro Canada fuel truck at 9:30 a.m. I was having the company fuel truck filled with 1200 gallons of diesel fuel for use during the upcoming placer mining operations for this season. When that was completed I returned home to my residence at 4633 Barkerville Hwy and prepared for a trip up to Prince George where I had to go to the Richie Bros. Auctioneers site to pick up some mining equipment that my business associate had recently purchased at an auction on May 10th. My business partner and wife, Shastah Topham, came along with me and we left our home at approximately 11:00 a.m. heading west toward Quesnel.

Plans had also been made ahead of time to meet another mining associate at Princess Auto in Prince George at 1 p.m. and between the two of us we would haul equipment back to my placer claims on the 2400 Road.

Due to the fact that the Petro Canada fuel truck was a bit late in arriving at the site plus the additional time necessary to fuel the 1200 gallon truck I was running behind schedule by about half an hour.

We were travelling in a 2009 Chev pickup owned by my mining associate with whom I am presently in a Joint Venture Agreement.

When one leaves my property at 4633 Barkerville Hwy you must turn right on to the Barkerville Hwy in order to travel toward Quesnel and Hwy 97 the route necessary to travel in order to get to Prince George. The section of Hwy 26 (Barkerville Hwy) that runs past my residence stretches in a straight line for approximately 1 km. As soon as I pulled out on to the road I immediately saw that there was a white pickup truck sitting adjacent to the eastbound lane of highway just before the road descended down a small dip and passes Cottonwood Historic Site.

As we drove toward it I remarked to my wife, “There’s the cops sitting there. Looks like they’re either waiting to catch Willie again or maybe they’re doing surveillance on Don Carter’s property. Don Carter has been experiencing ongoing harassment by the Canadian Revenue Agency over the past few years and has also had numerous encounters with the RCMP in conjunction with the CRA.

As we approached the white pickup we could see two men in dark clothing sitting in it trying to look as unobtrusive as possible. Again I said to my wife, “If we weren’t running so damn late I’d stop and asked them if they were lost or needed any assistance.”

As we crested the dip and passed Cottonwood Historic Site I noted that within a minute or so the white pickup was now following us. I asked my wife is she was buckled up (she was) and then I set my vehicle on cruise control at about 95 cpm. The limit was 90 kph so I knew that at least if the cops were going to stop me they wouldn’t have the excuse that I was speeding.

As we proceeded on toward Quesnel Shastah was spoon-feeding me my breakfast as I drove because we were too late for me to sit down at home and eat before leaving. I remarked to my wife that the cops were likely watching us through their binoculars and wondering what she was doing. We also were discussing the vehicle that was now so obviously tailing us. It’s always a joke for the locals around Cottonwood when the police come and try to set up either a surveillance vehicle or radar to catch unwary speeders. The cops never seem to understand that when you live in a very small, tight-knit community that everyone in the area is very aware of who drives what type of vehicle and when they see a vehicle parked on the side of the highway with people sitting in it they know right away that they’re either broke down or else cops.

We continued along the highway talking about cops and related issues until we reached the top of 11 Mile Hill. When one begins to descend you are overlooking the Fraser Valley viewshed and can see westward for over a hundred kilometres. About half way down I noted that a regular white coloured RCMP van with the usual bells and whistles was now directly behind the white pickup. At the same time, due to the steep grade of the hill, I was also watching my own speedometer to make sure I didn’t begin coasting beyond the 100 km speed limit. As we neared the bottom of the hill the RCMP van’s lights came on. I told Shastah and proceeded to slow down and pull over on the right hand side of the highway just where the road levelled off.

Who are the original creators of “Hate Crimes” and Hate Crime laws? by Arthur Topham

May 15, 2013 by admin 1 Comment

Dear Readers and Free Speech Advocates,

I’m writing on the eve of the first anniversary of my arrest and incarceration last May 16th, 2012 by the B.C. “Hate Crime Team” when I was charged under sec. 319(2) of the criminal code of Canada with the crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’”

The two complaints that led to my being charged under this specious act were laid against me by Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith Canada and Richard Warman, the serial complainant in numerous other cases involving “hate crimes” and the sycophantic toadie of the Jewish lobby here in Canada

Since that time I’ve been immersed in a legal battle with the B.C. courts because of this trumped-up charge.

On May 16th I must again appear in court to deal with more matters related to my current attempts to find myself a new legal counsel to assist me in having this spurious charge tossed out and the case dismissed. I will be providing a further legal update following tomorrow’s events but for now I wish to remind readers once again of just who the real purveyors of so-called “hate” truly are and how long they’ve been carrying on this charade in order to cover up their own actions over the past century and longer.

One of the biggest beefs that both these two charlatans had with my website, which subsequently became perfectly clear to me when the arresting officer Det. Cpl. Terry Wilson was talking to me while I was in jail, (and which I subsequently noted in my Arrest Statement to my former lawyer, Doug Christie) was the issue of an article that I had posted on my site dealing with the 1941 book Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann.

I had written a satirical parody of Kaufmann’s book back in May of 2011 and titled it “Israel Must Perish!” and took some of the more juicy, hate-filled quotations out of it and substituted the words “Nazi” and “Germany” and “Hitler” and a few other German words with synonymous Jewish words like “Jews” and “Israel” and “Netanyahu”, etc. in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the Jews in daring to accuse the western world of being eternal haters of the poor, downtrodden Jews throughout history.

Somewhere, in the shallowness of their conniving, degenerate minds, they figured that this parody/satire would somehow stand up in a court of law and prove to the world that I, rather than them, was the real disseminator of so-called “hatred” and ought to be treated like a common criminal, found guilty, tossed into jail, and to have my rights and freedoms as a Canadian citizen removed from me.

For the record I want readers to know about this classic of Jewish hate literature and thus I’m republishing here my Introduction to the original article plus the url to the original book of Kaufmann’s so that people can go and look at the abhorrent mind that first created this ugly and obscene proposal for the complete and total annihilation of the German people.

What readers must also realize is what is printed on the back cover of Kaufmann’s book as shown in the graphic below. Three of most revered U.S. publications still operating today, and all Jewish owned, were promoting Kaufmann’s book back in 1941 in order to turn the American public away from decency, justice and truth and twist their perceptions of Germany and Adolf Hitler into the same grotesque mindset that conjured up this classic demonic-inspired book; one openly advocating the total extinction of the German people.

And these are the same folks who are desperately trying to subvert every democratic nation in the world into obeying their “hate crime” legislation that they’ve surreptitiously slipped into the statutes of former free nations via lobbying and pressuring and intimidating politicians of every stripe.

Now that folks is what I call chutzpah.

Please try to pass this article on to every free speech lover that you can. The Canadian public and the world at large needs to know just who the real, originators of these “hate crime” laws are.

Arthur Topham

Publisher/Editor

The Radical Press.

———————-

The Book that Hitler Fears

Germany Must Perish!

by Theodore N. Kaufman

Newark, N.J., Argyle press

RadicalPress Editor’s Introduction [from original post]:

Seventy-two years have now passed since Theodore N. Kaufman published his infamous, hate-infused book, Germany Must Perish! Over the course of these last seven decades the Zionist Jews have been working relentlessly to create in every democratic nation so-called “Human Rights” legislation that would contain special sections dealing with “hate crimes,” the type of which they themselves obviously had perfected back before the USA had even entered WWII.

Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )

According to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.” This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.”

In 1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate messages” was Section 13 which read:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As Lemire goes on to state:

“Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as the complainants.

Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13. These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views.

The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000. On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’

According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.”

The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.]

This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat terrorism.’”

It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience.

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It probably remains to this day the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

As the reader will surmise from viewing the image of the back page of Kaufman’s book (see above) some of America’s most prestigious newspapers and magazines were in full support of the objectives set down in this classic book of Jewish hate literature.

I firmly believe that all of what the Zionist Jews write about others is actually but a reflection of their own inner, perverse, dislocated self. By projecting outward on to others their innate paranoid and deep-seated hatred for the rest of the world they’re able to meet the requirements of the Israeli state’s motto which reads, “By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War” and feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness in doing so.
—————-

Germany Must Perish! Please take the time to look at this book.

Filed Under: Adolf Hitler, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Germany Must Perish!, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Hate Crimes Bills, Hate laws, HOLODOMOR, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Hatred toward Germany, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jewish Terrorists, Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada

World Jewish Congress approves resolution calling for criminalizing Holocaust denial

May 8, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/world-jewish-congress-approves-resolution-calling-for-criminalizing-holocaust-denial/

The resolution on anti-Semitism also calls countries where appropriate constitutional provisions exist to consider banning neo-Nazi parties.

[TUT Editor's Note: so, in other words, these same Jewish interests CONSTANTLY lecturing others on ‘free speech’ and CONSTANTLY warning of the dangers of ‘Islamic Shariah Law’ where people are punished for holding/voicing opinions contrary to the precepts of a certain religion are now calling for laws to be made criminalizing free speech/free thought as pertains the ‘holy of holies’–meaning the Holocaust.

As one famous philosopher stated over and over when warning of Jewish power, ‘beware the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy and lying’]

Haaretz

The World Jewish Congress approved on Tuesday a resolution that calls on countries around the world, “in particular those whose Jewish populations were decimated in the Shoah,” to outlaw the public denial of the Holocaust, and where appropriate constitutional provisions exist, to consider banning neo-Nazi parties.

The resolution also urges Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and other national leaders and legislators in Europe to join the 125 legislators from more than 40 countries in signing the 2009 London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism.

The WJC decided to hold its Plenary Assembly in the Hungarian capital as an expression of solidarity with the local Jewish community in the city, who have been under threat of rising anti-Semitism ever since the extreme right-wing Jobbik Party won a relatively large share of the vote in the last election.

The WJC resolution, supported by hundreds of delegates from Jewish communities around the world, urges the Hungarian authorities “to take effective measures including by enacting and enforcing legislation, for the protection of all citizens and residents of this country, in particular vulnerable minorities such as the Roma and the Jews, against threats of violence, racist hate and insults and the denial of the Holocaust.”

On Sunday night, the Hungarian prime minister opened the Plenary Assembly promising to act more forcefully against anti-Semitism, although he did not specifically mention the Jobbik Party, which captured 17 percent of the vote in the 2010 election. WJC officials expressed disappointment with his speech, which to their minds lacked substance.

In the resolution, the WJC calls on Hungary “to recognize that the ideology and the actions of the Jobbik movement and its subsidiaries, including the New Hungarian Guard, pose a fundamental threat to Hungary’s democracy, and that decisive action by all democratic forces against these contemporary expressions of extremism must now be taken.”

The resolution also expresses concern about recent signs of rising anti-Semitism in Ukraine.

Earlier today, the Plenary Assembly heard about a new legislative initiative in Greece, which promises a radical crackdown on anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the country. David Saltiel, the head of the country’s Jewish community, who reported on the development, said the legislation will be submitted to parliament in the coming days, following the Easter holiday break.

According to the legislation, any individual or group that incites against or acts violently toward other individuals or groups “because of their racial origin, the color of their skin, their religion and/or their sexual preferences” could be punished with three months to six years in jail and be fined up to 20,000 euros. The same punishments would apply to Holocaust denial and the National Socialist salute. The legislation also stipulates that if a parliamentary party chief is found to be in violation, public funding for his or her party would be suspended.

———

Filed Under: "Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semiti, "hate speech", "Jewish" holocaust, 6 Million Myth, Aboriginal Issues Can/U.S., Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, Adolf Hitler, Editor's Zone, Haaretz, Holocaust denial, HOLODOMOR, Hungarian Jobbik Party, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Terrorists, Jews, London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism., National Socialism, Nazis, Neo-Nazi parties, Occupy Movement, Palestine, Political Prisoners, Political Zionism, World Jewish Congress (WJC), World Zionist Organization

Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC by Amena Saleem

May 3, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/apologists-for-israel-take-top-posts-at-bbc.html

Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC

Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The Zionification of Britain is completed. However, the piece below is also a tragic glimpse into UK PSC’s impotence.

It is far from being a secret that the PSC has been Zionised. However, Considering PSC colossal failure in representing Palestinian interests within British media, PSC unprecedented success in expelling Palestinians from its ranks is pretty remarkable indeed.

Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC

by Amena Saleem / April 28th 2013

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/

The American poet T.S. Eliot wrote that ‘April is the cruelest month’. The phrase springs to mind in April 2013, the month that a new director-general took up his post at the BBC and, within two weeks, had installed a line-up of hardline Zionists at the top of the world’s largest publicly-funded news organization.

Tony Hall, whose role as director-general commenced on 2 April, is a former BBC director of news and can boast a total of nearly 30 years working at the corporation. As such, he is well-versed in the BBC’s values — he knows what the BBC wants.

Soon after his own appointment, Hall named James Harding as the BBC’s new director of news and current affairs. Until December, Harding was editor of The Times, an avowedly right-wing, pro-Israeli paper owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International group.

In 2011, Harding spoke at a media event organized by The Jewish Chronicle, telling his audience: “I am pro-Israel. I believe in the State of Israel. I would have had a real problem if I had been coming to a paper [The Times] with a history of being anti-Israel. And, of course, Rupert Murdoch is pro-Israel.”

Glee

The strongly Zionist Jewish Chronicle reprinted those words with glee as news of Harding’s BBC appointment broke. And it also took the opportunity to remind its readers that, during the Israeli massacre in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, when more than 1,400 Palestinians were slaughtered, Harding wrote a Times editorial titled, ‘In defense of Israel’.

Now bringing his pro-Israel biases into the top ranks of the BBC, Harding will be in charge of its flagship news and current affairs programs including Today, Newsnight, Panorama and Question Time. He will also be responsible for daily news bulletins on the BBC’s main television channels and radio stations.

According to the Guardian, Harding now holds “arguably the most important editorial job in Britain”.

The news of his appointment to the £340,000 ($518,000) per year post comes just a fortnight after the former Labour Party minister James Purnell took up his new position at the BBC as director of strategy and digital.

Purnell, who was one of Hall’s first appointments, served for two years while in Parliament as chairman of the Westminster lobby group Labour Friends of Israel. Hugely influential, Labour Friends of Israel has drawn support from senior figures within the party, including the former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Unsurprisingly, Purnell subscribes to the Zionist view, often taken in BBC news reporting, that Israel can do no wrong. Rather than as an aggressive occupier, Purnell portrays Israel as a victim of hostile, terrorist Arab neighbors. In a letter to Prospect magazine in 2004, Purnell wrote of the comparison made by campaigners between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, saying: “I find it hard to reconcile that image to the reality on the ground. Israel is a democracy, suffering terrorist attacks, surrounded by countries that don’t recognize its existence, the victim of well-funded terrorist organizations that preach anti-Semitic hate”.

Fact-free propaganda

Israel, with more than 60 laws discriminating against its Palestinian citizens in all areas of life, including political and civil rights, can hardly be called a democracy if a democracy is a state for all its people. And two of its closest geographical neighbors, Jordan and Egypt, have long-standing peace treaties with Israel, something which would scarcely be possible if they didn’t recognize its existence.

However, Purnell’s fact-free, propagandized view of Israel will not be out of place at the BBC. The irony of course is that, under the terms of its Royal Charter, the BBC is meant to be committed to impartiality in its broadcasting.

That it is not can be evidenced in Hall’s third appointment — the promotion of former Today editor Ceri Thomas to the post of BBC head of programming. In his last full year as editor of Today, Thomas presided over a program that interviewed a senior Israeli politician or ambassador on average once every two months. Interviewees included Danny Ayalon, then Israel’s deputy foreign minister, and Tzipi Livni, an architect of the 2008-‘09 Gaza massacre.

Airbrushed

During the same period, not a single Palestinian leader or spokesperson was accorded a similar honor. There was no serious recognition, under Thomas’ reign at Today, of the Palestinian viewpoint.

Thomas may well have felt that a Palestinian viewpoint was unnecessary on Today — widely seen in British media circles as the morning program which sets the news agenda for the rest of the day. After all, Palestine itself did not register in any of the aforementioned interviews, which were conducted by the BBC’s heavyweight journalists, including James Naughtie and John Humphrys.

Every single interview focused on a BBC obsession, embodied in Harding and Purnell, and practiced by Thomas at Today, of the ‘threat’ to Israel from its Arab neighbors and Iran. There was no grilling of any interviewee on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, its violence against Palestinian civilians, or its arsenal of nuclear weapons which threaten the whole of the Middle East.

After each interview, the UK-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign wrote to the Today program to ask why Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, in the face of international condemnation, had been airbrushed from the conversation.

Each time, this reply was received: “It simply wouldn’t be possible to discuss the complexities of the Middle East conflict during such a brief interview.”

So, over the course of six interviews in 12 months, each one about five or six minutes long, the Today program under Thomas couldn’t find a moment to bring up the Israeli occupation with the Israeli top brass it was interviewing. All of that airtime was needed to discuss not Israel’s aggression, but its own perceived victimhood.

One other moment from that year, 2011, stands out. On 23 March, Israel had carried out air and tank bombardments on Gaza, killing eight Palestinians, including two children and their grandfather. This was followed late at night by two rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel, which resulted in no injuries or deaths.

The next morning’s news bulletins on the Today program reported on the rockets which had hit Israel, but there was absolutely no mention of the death and destruction wreaked on Gaza by Israeli forces.

As ‘journalism’, it was beyond disgraceful. However, the presentation of some facts and the complete omission of others which resulted in the portrayal of Israel as a country under attack, while trying to live peacefully, was entirely consistent with BBC news reporting.

The BBC’s response to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign when questioned on why it hadn’t felt the deaths of eight Palestinians — two of them children — newsworthy, while giving coverage to non-fatal rocket attacks which took place in the same time period, was this: “Choosing the stories to include in our bulletins; the order in which they appear and the length of time devoted to them is a subjective matter and one which we know not every viewer and listener will feel we get right every time.”

This, then, is the history that Thomas brings with him to his new role as head of programming. Harding and Purnell carry with them their dedicated commitment to the Zionist cause. What hope now for Palestine at the BBC? April is indeed a cruel month.
———

Filed Under: Amena Saleem, BBC, Ceri Thomas, Gilad Atzmon, Guardian, James Harding, James Purnell, Jewish Chronicle, Palestine, Political Zionism, T.S. Eliot, The Times, Tony Hall

How Many Jews? by Douglas Reed

April 30, 2013 by admin 1 Comment

How Many Jews?

Douglas Reed

[Editor's Note: The issue involving the "6 Million Jews" purported to have been gassed and roasted (holocausted) in German concentration camps during WWII continues to be hotly debated within the alternative media sixty-eight years after the war's end. In the case of the Jewish media aka the msm, their ongoing insistence on repeatedly reinforcing their own self-chosen figure of 6 million well after being proven to be historically inaccurate has created greater and greater skepticism on the part of truth-seekers everywhere who, now thanks to the Internet and the freeing up of the facts and the hidden information surrounding this controversy, are realizing that the 6 million lies of the Jews is nothing but Zionist Jew propaganda designed to buttress their failed attempt at mesmerizing and brainwashing the world into believing the greatest lie ever told throughout recorded history.

One of the earliest debunkers of the 6 million myth was British war correspondent and author Douglas Reed. Having lived through WWI and covered WWII in depth Reed was well aware of the historic context in which he lived and wrote. His comments below on the impossibility of ascertaining with any accuracy the actual number of Jews supposedly living in Europe from 1939 until 1945 are taken from Chapter 42 of his 1956 classic, The Controversy of Zion and give the reader a much needed reference point from which to judge just who is more correct when it comes to this ongoing clash over how many Jews died during WWII.]

from
Chapter 42
The Talmudic Vengeance

The trials of “war criminals” formed the peaks of the vengeance and the Everest of them all was reached in the Nuremberg trial of the chief Nazi leaders….

By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews.” The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. “Crimes against Jews” were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case” against the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart’s words) and was based on the assertion that “six million Jews” had been killed (as time went by the word “perished” was substituted for “killed”). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.

I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish sources, the process by means of which, over the years, the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of Hitler’s victims and their number inflated at will from day to day (Hitler’s book-bonfire became “the burning of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became concentration camps for Jews; a wartime report about the killing of” 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews”; and so on interminably).

The statement about the “six million Jews,” allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over.

The figure would not even deserve scrutiny if it had not been used to give the Second War the brand of “a Jewish war” and if that, again, did not foreshadow the shape of any third war. Because of that, it may be examined here.

At no time in history, from antiquity to this day, can the number of Judahites, Judeans or Jews, living at any given time, be determined; for that reason the number afflicted in any calamity also cannot be determined, and there are many more reasons why the number of Jewish victims in the Second World War cannot be fixed. The process of mystification begins in Genesis and continues through the Torah (the seventy people taken by Jacob to Egypt, for instance, apparently increased to two or three million within 150 years). At all periods large, and sometimes huge variations occur in the “estimates,” and only estimates are possible, as the present term, “Jew,” is legally indefinable and statistically elusive.

An eminent Jewish authority, Dr. Hans Kohn, in his article on “the distribution of Jews” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1942, writes:

“In view of the fact that in several of the countries where the largest number of Jews were living in 1941 the census did not contain any questions regarding religion … the exact number of Jews in the world in 1941 could not be ascertained. The definition of persons falling under the classification of ‘Jewish race’ is in no way agreed upon … In countries where the census included questions of religious origins, even this religious criterion of Jewish faith is difficult to define exactly. Thus the assumption which generally varied around the figure of 16 million” (for the entire world) “cannot claim any foundation on exact ‘figures. To this uncertainty about the number of Jews in the world was added in recent years a growing uncertainty about their numerical distribution in the different countries and continents. Probably more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and the U.S.S.R.”

A weaker basis than that even for “estimates” (not to speak of “statistics”) can hardly be imagined, yet in the ensuing period, when all the additional confusions of war and occupation were piled on this infirm foundation, precise numbers of Jewish casualties were produced day by day, circulated by thousands of assiduous propagandists, and at the end declared to amount to six millions!

Dr. Kohn says that “probably” more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and U.S.S.R. in 1941. In respect of the U.S.S.R. this might corroborate another Jewish authority (Prof. H.M.T. Loewe), who said in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 that 2,700,000 Jews then lived there. Similarly, four years earlier (1933) the Jewish journal Opinion had stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was under 3,000,000; and the Soviet official Encyclopaedia in 1953 stated that “the Jewish population of the Soviet Union in 1939 was 3,020,000.”

This near agreement among four authorities in respect of the period 1933-1941 might lead the reader to think that the number of Jews in one country at least (the U.S.S.R.) was established with reasonable accuracy at a given time. On the contrary, this is a statistical jungle where nothing is ever established. In 1943 the Jewish Commissar Mikhoels said in London (according to the Johannesburg Jewish Times of 1952), “Today we have in the Soviet Union 5,000,000 Jews.” That is two million more than two years before, and if it was true presumably meant that most of the Jews in Poland, after Hitler and Stalin fell out, moved into Soviet territory. However, in the same issue of the Jewish Times a leading Jewish writer, Mr. Joseph Leftwich, stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. in 1952 was 2,500,000, “a loss since 1943 of 2,500,000.” He asked, “where and how did they disappear?”; the answer, in my judgment, is that most of them disappeared into the statistics.

That is not the end of the confusion in this one section of the question. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 (in giving the above-cited figure of 2,700,000 Jews in Russia on Jewish authority) said they formed about six percent of the total population. The total population was elsewhere given in the same encyclopaedia as 145,000,000 and six percent of that would be 8,700,000!

The encyclopaedias, statistical yearbooks and almanacs are in this one question all at odds with each other and untrustworthy. I could multiply examples (for instance, the Jewish World Congress in 1953 announced that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 1,500,000) but wandering in a maze without an outlet is profitless. All published figures are “estimates” made at the estimators’ pleasure, and are without value. A professional accountant might write a book on the efforts of the encyclopaedists to make the post-war figure of Jewish population in the world conform with the pre-war “estimates,” minus six million. Figures are tricky things: a few examples:

The leading American reference yearbook, the World Almanac, in 1947 gave the 1939 Jewish world-population as 15,688,259. In later editions up to 1952 it increased this prewar estimate (without explanation) by a million, to 16,643,120. It gave the 1950 population as 11,940,000, which, if subtracted from the first figure given for 1939, gives a reduction of nearly four millions (though not of six). However, it based even this “estimate” on another estimate, namely, that in 1950 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 2,000,000. This still left unanswered Mr. Leftwich’s question in respect of Commissar Mikhoels’s statement, that in 1943 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 5,000,000.

In England Whitaker’s Almanac, of similar eminence, struggled with the same problem. In its 1949 and 1950 issues it gave the 1939 “estimated” Jewish world population as 16,838,000 and that of 1949 as 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly 5,500,000. However, the figures given for Jewish population in separate countries added up to 13,120,000 (not 11,385,200). Incidentally, Whitaker’s in 1950 gave the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. as 5,300,000, against the World Almanac’s figure for the same year, of 2,000,000.

Both these publications are of the highest repute for painstaking accuracy and the fault is not theirs; in this one matter alone only Jewish “estimates” are available, and for obvious reasons no dependence can be placed on these. I pointed out the discrepancies in a book of 1951 and observed that Whitaker’s in 1952 no longer contained these “estimates of Jewish populations”; apparently it had abandoned the statistical quest as hopeless, and was right to do so. Another encyclopaedia in its 1950 edition also dropped the subject.

Finally, the New York Times, which may be described as the world’s leading Jewish newspaper (it is Jewish-owned and New York is today primarily a Jewish city) in 1948 published what claimed to be an authoritative statistical article, computing the Jewish population of the world (three years after the war’s end) between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000. If either figure was near truth this meant that the Jewish world-population had remained stationary or increased during the war years.

Newspaper articles are soon forgotten (unless some diligent student preserves them) but the great propagandist fabrications are handed on. Thus the historians, those men of precision in other questions, passed on the legend of “mass-extermination” to posterity. At the war’s end Professor Arnold J. Toynbee was producing his monumental Study of History and in its eighth volume (1954) said that “the Nazis … reduced the Jewish population of Continental Europe, west of the Soviet Union, from about 6,5 million to about l,5 million by a process of mass-extermination.” He called this “a bare statistical statement” and then added a footnote showing that it was not a statistical statement: “it is not possible to give exact figures based on accurate statistics and it seemed improbable in 1952 that the necessary information would ever be obtainable.” Professor Toynbee explains that his figure was based on Jewish “calculations, in which there were several possible sources of error.” He concludes that “it might be estimated” that five million Continental Jews had been done to death by the Nazis.

The estimate is historically valueless. The starting-point for consideration of this question is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that number, cannot possibly have been “done to death” or caused to “perish,” for the reasons given at the start of this discussion; the very assertion, made before the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 825,000 fighting-men, sailors and civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this century would have been capable.

The number of Jews who were killed or perished will never be known, for the reasons already stated and partly discovered by Professor Toynbee in his footnote to history. The very term “Jew” is indefinable; Jews are often not isolated in statistics; and at no time can the number of living Jews in the world be ascertained with any approach to accuracy. Indeed, any attempt to reach statistical clarity through census or immigration data is attacked as “discrimination” and “anti-semitism.” For instance:

“Immigrants seeking to settle in Australia will from now on not be asked on application forms if they are Jewish, it was made known in Sydney by the executive committee of Australian Jewry, which protested against this practice to the immigration authorities” (the Jewish Times, Johannesburg). In England, “it is impossible, in the absence of official statistics, to do more than make an intelligent guess … the exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery” (the Zionist Record, Johannesburg). In America, President Roosevelt was brought under unremitting pressure to abolish the requirement to state “Jewish” on immigration forms, and in 1952 a major campaign was waged by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee against the McCarran-Walter Act because it sought to restore this requirement. This act was in the event passed over President Truman’s veto, but even a rigorous application of the reinstated requirement would not lead to clarification, as applicants, if they wish, may insert “British” or any similar description, instead of “Jewish.”

This state of statistical affairs is now well-nigh universal, so that the whole question is a mystery and has deliberately been made one. None can even guess the number of Jews whose deaths, during the war, were not natural or the result of bombing and the like, but who were done to death by the Nazis. My opinion is that, whatever was the number of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler, the number of their victims was in roughly that proportion to the total population stricken, Polish, Czech and other. I have found this to be the opinion of all persons known to me who survived the concentration camps and occupations. Having suffered themselves, their feeling for Jewish victims was as strong as for all others, but they could not understand why the one case of the Jews was singled out and the number of Jewish victims monstrously exaggerated.
——-

Filed Under: "Jewish" holocaust, 6 Million Myth, Douglas Reed, Editor's Zone, HOLODOMOR, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jews, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, National Socialism, Nazis, Nuremberg Trial, Political Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, The Gulag Archipelago, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

April 26, 2013 by admin 1 Comment

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition. … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”, Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012 was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide. At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung, a Jew, by someone or another (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag 12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court” the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court” I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken. I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged. The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not

My motion of January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct. I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia from Jim Townsend

April 24, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

Office of the Chief Judge of British Columbia

Mr. Chief Judge,

I am in receipt of the response penned by your boy Gene Jamieson.

He does not appear to have understood my complaint or who I complained about. He mentions ‘the Honourable Judge M. McKimm’. Never met the guy. I am complaining about the black robed dead beat Mayland McKimm who used his position of authority to knowingly and with absolute malice of forethought aid and abet crimes against me with his court.

The fairy tale is that we go to court for Justice. The poster of Justice Blindfolded, deaf and mute as a post in the lobby shows how laughable that contention is.

It is not that everyone in your court conspired to pervert the course of justice. The Right Honourable Judge Klinger put the kybosh on the plans to send me to prison for being the victim of RCMP grow operators committing crimes against me to protect their grow operations out past my mining claim on North Fork Road. But Judges Takahashi and Burdett also happily jumped on the band wagon to try to railroad me and between them and McKimm had me serve a sentence without trial or conviction.

After a protracted harassment campaign to drive me from my mining claim, RCMP Henry Proce had his informant Bruce Prebushewski try to murder my family in a drive by shooting. My wife and I know this because Henry mocked us about it and told us no one would ever do anything about it. He even mocked me as I was lead out of the court in chains and asked how the system was working for me. Bruce’s uncle Arne Gatzke also showed up the next day and told me his nephew Bruce did it.

Bruce Prebushewski has shot through another disabled persons home a few months ago and then a few weeks ago was arrested for being over twice the legal limit with a loaded rifle making death threats to his uncle. Being as how his grandfather is the local alderman who fully supports the grow operations being overseen by Henry Proce, needless to say Brucey is walking around free. Good work fellas. Yeah that’s what we pay you for.

After the attempt to murder us my disability worker cut off my disability cheque saying he was investigating the drive by shooting. I wanted to know how he even knew about it since it hadn’t even made the papers yet at that time. When he instead turned around and made phoney accusations about us, I wrote a letter of complaint about him to the Ombudsman about his suspicious knowledge of the drive by shooting. In short, I wrote a petition to my government for redress. For my pains, Sgt. Wendland had me arrested and charged with uttering threats because he ‘had his panties in a knot’. Seriously, check the transcripts where the arresting officer admits this on the stand in front of the Right Honourable Judge Klinger. The charges were laid to cover up my complaint. The Ombudsman said they would not investigate because the RCMP had charged me. Convenient.

When I then complained to the RCMP Complaints Commission about Wendland and Proce, Wendland and Proce simply turned around and laid more charges of uttering threats against me USING THE SAME EVIDENCE THEY USED IN THE FIRST CHARGE that was supposed to be evidence that I uttered threats to Pat Clemens and was somehow now two years later evidence that I had uttered threats to the police officers that were trying to cover up their informants attempt to murder us. Since that was the second set of charges and I was already charged of course I had to go to jail. The RCMP are well aware of how to manipulate the system to get away with their crimes.

Your Vernon court officers are crooked as Hell and readily aid and abet RCMP crimes and lies about the victims they drag into court. I was arrested the first time in order to prevent me from attending Supreme court to get my mining claims back. Since I was in jail, I sent my wife to represent me but they would not allow her to speak to the case saying it had been adjourned indefinitely by mutual consent. Whose consent? Neither I, nor my wife consented to it. I was not given a bail hearing. Duty Counsel Bill Furman appointed himself my counsel against my wishes and had a private ex parte hearing with JP Dalene Krenz instead. They sent my wife and daughter upstairs to sit and wait in court all day for my hearing and left me in a prison cell. My wife and daughter left at the end of the day wondering why I did not have a hearing.

After nearly a month I finally managed to get a bail hearing. Ever heard of the JIR? Ask Gene about it and he will tell you that I am supposed to have a bail hearing within three days. Unfortunately a friend put up some money for a lawyer who was a dead beat and I believe decided to conspire with the Crown. She grabbed two thousand dollars of my funds for a bail hearing in which she did nothing to defend me or protest the allegations against me. I should never have had to put up any money for bail, should never have been under house arrest and above all, should never had my charter right to freedom of speech limited, especially without the benefit of a trial or conviction. Of such despotism rebellions are made. Judge McKimm simply granted everything the Crown Prosecutor Pontius, who did nothing but lie his face off, asked for.

While I was under house arrest, CRA seized my disability cheque. That is not legal and is outright theft, a criminal code violation against us that left myself and my disabled wife in the high alpine fifty miles from our nearest neighbour without even the basic necessities of life. I believe this attack was initiated by Proce. CRA files obtained under FOIA show that while he had me in jail and court under phoney charges that he was telling CRA lies about us. They did give us our money back when public outrage and many phone calls to them forced them to give it back. But I went to jail for making the video about the crimes being committed against us.

Palestine: Jewish Settlers Occupy Christian Monastery, Raise Israeli Flag

April 22, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Israeli Settlers Vandalize MonasteryLatrun Trappetist Monastery West Bank

http://nsnbc.me/2013/04/22/palestine-settlers-occupy-monastery-raise-israeli-flag/

Palestine: Settlers Occupy Monastery, Raise Israeli Flag
April 22, 2013

IMEMC, - On Friday, April 19, a group of extremist Israeli settlers occupied a Christian Monastery in a Palestinian village, near the central West Bank city of Ramallah, and raised an Israeli flag over it.

Speaking to the Maan News Agency, Father Aziz Ra’ey stated that the setters forced their way into the monastery and the chapel in the Palestinian village of Taybeh, near Ramallah, and raised an Israeli flag.

The latest attack is part of what became repeated incidents of assaults and acts of desecration carried out by extremist Israeli settlers against Islamic and Christian holy sites, and graveyards, in different parts of occupied Palestine.

On December 12 2012, a number of extremist Israeli settlers wrote, on Wednesday at dawn, racist graffiti attacking Christianity and Jesus Christ on the walls of a monastery in occupied Jerusalem.

The graffiti written on the walls of the monastery included “Price Tag”, (a reference to the idea that Palestinians must all ‘pay a price’ for the dismantling of illegal settlement outposts by the Israeli military), and several insults against Jesus Christ.

The settlers also punctured the tires of three vehicles parked near the monastery.

In September of 2012, extremist Israeli settlers burnt the main gate of the c west of Jerusalem, and wrote racist graffiti against Jesus Christ and against Christianity.

On Tuesday at dawn, June 19: A number of extremist Israeli settlers burnt a local mosque in Jaba’ Palestinian village, in occupied East Jerusalem, and defaced some of its walls.

Local sources reported that the settlers wrote racist graffiti on some of the walls of the mosque, including the “Price Tag” graffiti.

On February 20, 2012, settlers spray-painted racist graffiti on a church in occupied East Jerusalem in the third such incident since January 2012.

The graffiti also included “Death to Christians” and the phrase “price tag” was found on the walls of the Baptist Narkis Street Congregation. Furthermore, residents of the area found their car tires slashed.

Wednesday January 4th 2012, settlers set fire to two Palestinian trucks and spray-painted anti-Arab, racist graffiti.

In February, the bilingual school Hand In Hand and the Monastery of the Cross were vandalized, and graffiti promoting violence against Christians was found on its wall.

On December of 2011, the settlers carried out four attacks against mosques in several parts of the occupied West Bank, and set ablaze five Palestinian cars near the central West Bank city of Ramallah.

In an attack targeting several mosques, the settlers spray-painted slogans including ‘Price Tag’. They also burnt copies of the Quran.

In mid-December of 2010, a group of fanatic Israeli settlers burnt a mosque in Borqa village, east of the central West Bank city of Ramallah, and wrote racist graffiti on its walls.

The attack came only one day after a similar arson attempt targeted the historic mosque of Okasha in Jerusalem. Before setting parts of the mosque ablaze, the settlers spray-painted racist graffiti targeting the Palestinians and the Muslim prophet.

Via International Middle East Media Center IMEMC
———-
About the Author

Saed Bannoura – Saed Bannoura, born 1973 in Palestine, is a prolific Palestinian journalist, who is working for the International Middle East Media Center IMEMC. After having been shot multiple times by an Israeli death squad, Saed Bannoura is confined to using a wheelchair. Saed Bannoura is a tireless activist for Palestinians rights. His work and the work of his colleagues at the independent Palestinian news agency IMEMC are setting today´s standards in independent reporting and media ethics, to a degree that most major “purportedly independent” news agencies have problems following the standards set by IMEMC. Saed Bannoura´s articles are published in media worldwide, including on nsnbc ìnternational. IMEMC´s website is located at www.imemc.org

Filed Under: Christianity, Christians, International Middle East Media Center, Islam, Israel, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jesus Christ, Jewish Crime, Jewish Israeli Settlers, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Terrorists, Jews, Latrun Christian Monastery, Muslims, Palestine, Political Zionism, Ramallah, Saed Bannoura

Radical Press: Legal Update #11 by Arthur Topham

April 19, 2013 by admin 2 Comments

April 19, 2013

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It’s been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what’s been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada.

A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting “bug” that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.

Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn’t slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada.

As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present.

Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 – 6, 2013.

Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time.

When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court – a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren’t in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.

Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.

Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as “particularization” of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.

When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win ). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through.

Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I’d ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn’t that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.

On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: “Particularization of Information” and I based my reasons on the following statement:

“The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes “willful promotion of hatred” within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence.”

Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.

Judge Morgan wasn’t present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013.

Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the “particularization” application and for the preliminary trial.

As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a “Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue” to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia.

By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.

Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future posts.

Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an
opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of
which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be
true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters
producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in
Canada.

When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she’d told me earlier in the morning. I’m presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the AG’s office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding “Particularization of Information”.

I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now.

I’ll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn’t like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.

So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous “hate crime laws” in our judicial system so as to cover up their own misfeasance and seditious actions against Canada.

Stay tuned folks!

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

———

PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on.

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.

Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses.

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.

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

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

Thank you!

Filed Under: "hate speech", Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Canada, Constitutional Question Act, Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie, Editor's Zone, Free Speech on the Internet, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Legal Update, Political Zionism, Quesnel BC, Radical Press Legal Update, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rowbotham application, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Statement of Particulars

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

April 18, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

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

By Kevin MacDonald
April 13, 2013

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

Some excerpts and comments:

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

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

· Truth is no defence;?

· Intent is no defence;?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—–

Filed Under: "hate speech", "Jewish" holocaust, Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Bill C-304, Bill Whatcott, C.B.C./Canadian Broadcasting Corp., CAFE - Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada's Queer Community, Canadian Catholic News, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Catholic Activists, Catholic Insight magazine, Chabad Lubavich Cult, Conservative Party of Canada, Editor's Zone, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Globe and Mail, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Hate laws, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Crime, Jewish Freemasons, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jews, Justice Marshall Rothstein SCC, Kevin MacDonald, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Marxism, Marxist Frankfurt School, Paul Fromm (CAFE), PM Stephen Harper, Political Zionism, Roman Catholics, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", The Controversy of Zion, The Holy Bible, The Occidental Observer, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ukrainian Holocaust

Controlled Opposition – From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond by Gilad Atzmon

April 13, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Controlled Opposition – From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond

Saturday,
April 13, 2013
By Gilad Atzmon

http://www.counterpunch.org

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinians were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.

—-

Filed Under: "Left" Journalists, 1984, Alan Dershowitz, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B'nai Brith Canada, Democracy Now, Editor's Zone, George Orwell, George Soros-Zionist, Gilad Atzmon, Palestine, Political Zionism, Shlomo Sand, World Zionist Organization

Honoring Doug Christie by James Holbeyfield, Counter-Currents Publishing

March 28, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/honoring-doug-christie/

Honoring Doug Christie

James Holbeyfield

Douglas Hewson Christie died on March 11th, 2013 at the age of 66. He was among the greatest defense lawyers of his generation, in Canada or any other country, and his greatness was founded on two piers: courage and honor.

In his eulogy for his father, Doug’s son Cadeyrn has said that his father was meant for the battlefield, and in another age would have fought with sword and shield, but in our age, his battlefield was the courtroom.

This identification of warriors with the best lawyers helps us to understand a major lesson of the way Doug Christie lived his life. It is this: the courage to speak freely and publicly against the powerful, the courage to defend those the powerful deem indefensible, and the courage to face threats to career, home, and family from the tolerated minions of the powerful for the sake of principle; all these are first founded on physical courage.

Doug retained tremendous physical courage right up to the end. Incredibly, less than three weeks before he died, his liver riddled with metastatic cancer and refusing pain-killers, so that his brain and his examinations, would be as famously sharp and focused as ever, he had been in court arguing on behalf of a client. There, he collapsed and was brought to hospital. Even then, his chief desire was to be released so that he could finish that case and get back to another, his ongoing defense of Arthur Topham, who has been charged with promoting hate on the internet.

Sadly, that could not be, and Doug’s final regret was that he was unable to carry on for Mr. Topham, just as his greatest concern since he was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 was that once he was gone, there would be no Canadian lawyer to take his place of prominence in battling the endless attacks on freedom of speech in that fallen dominion. Canada is an Anglosphere country that’s particularly vulnerable to the bizarre new ‘tyranny of tolerance’ because it was founded as a nation, not of rebels so much as of men self-selected for conformity, because those men faced a subsequent requirement for an endless, uneasy truce with the pre-existing French population, and because breakdowns in that truce eventually led, under Pierre Trudeau, to a method for reducing its importance by transforming British Canada into multicultural Canada. Unfortunately, Canada shows every sign of needing more lawyers like Doug Christie going forward. Instead, it has lost the only one it had.

If a successor to Doug is waiting in Canada’s future, he will have large shoes to fill. “Very large shoes indeed,” Father Lucien Larré reminded hundreds of mourners at St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Victoria in officiating at Doug’s funeral, “but we must never stop trying to fill them anyway.”

The reason for the magnitude of the task is straightforward: working as a solo lawyer with a staff of one or two assistants, over the course of three decades Doug Christie defined the legal defense of free speech in Canada. When Doug took on his first free speech case in 1983, that of Alberta high-school teacher James Keegstra when he was fired from his job and charged with willfully promoting hatred by discussing Jewish conspiracies with his students, Canada had had criminal hate laws on the books since the 1960s, but they were dormant. “It was a novel proposition to prosecute people for what they said,” Doug reminded the world. But since Keegstra, it has been used scores of times, and Doug Christie was the backbone of the defense in every landmark case. He argued more free speech cases before the Supreme Court of Canada than anyone. All of this from a tiny, sole proprietorship law practice of a type that has now virtually disappeared.

Doug’s widow, Keltie Zubko, has said that his proudest case, which they worked on so hard together, she as legal assistant, was that of Imre Finta. It remains Canada’s only war crimes trial. Following a two-year investigation, the trial took place in three countries, Canada, Hungary. and Israel, over the course of nine months. The prosecution spent millions. It all resulted in Mr. Finta’s acquittal, without needing to call evidence, principally on the basis of Doug’s cross-examination. The prosecution appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Doug argued against it so effectively that Canada has never attempted to prosecute a war crimes case since.

But the enemies of our race and of our heritage of freedom are legion; in hyperborean Canada, perhaps white enemies especially. They have power, and they have time. They are hydra-headed, and when one begins to tire, thoughts turning to sinecure, he is easily replaced by many more, as the unquestioning graduates of the academies multiply. Even the youngest have none of the fire in Doug Christie’s soul, but the whole corpus can afford to watch as the tiny band of defenders withers. Worse, a single hydra increasingly sprawls across many countries, in the form of international law.

This is underlined by the fate of Doug’s best-known client, Ernst Zündel. Doug had guided him through the ups and downs of a welter of trials, tribunals and appeals in the 1980s, leading to eventual success in R. v. Zundel before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992. But the global enemies of freedom were not to give up. In 2003, the twisted arm of international law reached in among the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in America and plucked Mr. Zündel out of Tennessee for overstaying his legal visa, tore him from his American wife, and brought him back to Canada for two years in solitary confinement while it bided its time. Eventually, Ernst Zündel was deported to Germany, where he was ultimately convicted of holocaust denial in a trial filled with legal misadventures that smacked of the inevitability of religious ritual far more than it resembled anything within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Mr. Zündel spent five more years in prison in Germany, despite everything Doug had tried to do for him in the Canadian phase of this horror.

In such ways as this, the truly heroic war of our time, the war of a tiny number of outcasts to awaken a dispossessed majority, has been transformed. Doug Christie was too busy fighting the battles he could see all around him, one after another in a seemingly endless procession, to devote his great mental incisiveness and physical energy to strategy alone. That is necessarily the way of the hero, of the man who acts. Doug’s great role was in law, not in politics. That was not for lack of trying, and Doug struggled hard within the shrinking opportunities of electoral politics. He never overtly gave up on the political project as a potential solution, but the diminution of his efforts in that direction tells us a lot about the metapolitical nature of our fight today. Actions like his legal battles, and the cultural battle reflected here at Counter-Currents, are the ones we need now.

There is another side to Cadeyrn Christie’s metaphorical tribute to his father as warrior. Doug Christie was a man of principles and a man of honor. That was the yardstick by which he measured every proposal that came to him, whether from others or from within his own creative mind. His whole life was a duel over honor, but not the ferocious intensity of single combat on the Trojan plain; rather tireless, patient resistance.

But the principles are the same. Some men cannot be bought off into slavery, and Doug Christie was the most obvious such man in all the Canada of his generation. All who knew Doug knew he was a man who could have attained early what is considered great success in our world. He was tall, he was good-looking, and he had the manners and blue-eyed charisma of the born leaders of the old American and Canadian West. He was gregarious. People liked him right away and were motivated by him. He had a great legal mind, an appetite and flair for courtroom drama, and the courage to stick out every courtroom battle.

Instead Doug gave of himself unstintingly over many decades to the downtrodden and outcast. He did pro bono work. His friends struggled endlessly to raise money for his cases. He ran his tiny law office on a shoestring.

He lived his whole life the way he had been raised: “we always had enough to eat, but there was never anything left on the table.” He was proud of his Scottish roots in that regard. He drove an old pick-up truck, wore a cowboy hat, and throughout his whole legal career, he earned considerably less each year than can readily be made by skilled tradesmen throughout Western Canada, so long as it remains the prosperous corner of Western civilization that it now is.

Today, the pursuit of money, political approval, and comfort are indeed the chief ways in which a man throws his sword and shield down into the dust. It all happens so gradually that it is vastly more difficult for us to recognize our enslavement than it was for our ancestors. Most men never do, and die with the conceit of freedom.

But even today, some men seem to grasp the real message of our ancestors, almost from earliest youth. Doug Christie was such a man, a true man of honor.

——–

Filed Under: B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Caderyn Christie, Canadian Association for Freedom of Speech (CAFE), Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Counter-Currents, Doug Christie, Doug Collins, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Douglas Hewson Christie, Editor's Zone, Ernst Zundel, Father Lucien Larré, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Imre Finta, James Holbeyfield, James Keegstra, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Supremacism, Jim Keegsra, Judaism, Keltie Zubko, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Leo M. Frank, Paul Fromm (CAFE), Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Supreme Court of Canada, Sylvia Stoltz, The Controversy of Zion, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Radical Press, THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH, Western Canada Concept, World Zionist Organization

The Tyee: Zionist Collaborator and Hate-monger promotes Fear and Smear campaign against Doug Christie

March 13, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

[Editor's Note: I was alerted to this vicious smear of Doug Christie, penned by Tyee contributor Tom Hawthorn, by a good friend and associate only this morning.

In their email regarding the Tyee's hate-filled screed against Doug the writer said, "I am SO TICKED off at the slanderous article in the FUCKING TYEE I could spit right now. OH I am so FURIOUS at the Tyee for printing this crap! It is like the author waited for just the right time to loose his venom.... and his readers all agree. DEAR GOD ARTHUR! sick fucks... pardon me ..."

Sick fucks indeed! Yet does it come as a surprise to me? No, not at all.

I've been monitoring the Tyee since its inception and have been fully cognizant of its editorial position with respect to the machinations of the Jews and their deadly, nefarious ideology known as Zionism. They are but another of the "left", "liberal", "progressive", "yuppie", "pseudo-alternative", "mainstream", "anti-racist", "marxist" media outlets that wouldn't say "shit" about the actions of the Jews even if their mouth was full of it (which it is).

By their actions here in posting this vile, hate-filled diatribe against a man who has given his life to fighting against the very forces that these bigoted bastards now have shown themselves to be a part of, it is but another fine example of how Lady Justice always tends to out those who would deceive the general public, sooner or later. Now we know for sure the true intent and focus of "The Tyee" and who they owe their allegiance to.

As my friend pointed out in their email, even the comments (for the most part) by Tyee readers to the malicious and callous denigrating of the recently dead Mr. Christie tended to reflect the type of online community of Zionist sycophants that congregate around its malignant and odious effusions of hate and calumny. The Tyee, in granting this Zionist grunt their headline space to further the lies of the Jews with respect to the righteous and honorable actions of Douglas Christie, has shown its true colours and they just happen to be blue and white, the same as the flag of the state of Israel.

As previously stated I've always known there was something fishy smelling about this online blog and one can only hope that after three or more days of exposing this article to the sunshine of truth that the whole of the Tyee's reputation for being a disseminator of truth and freedom will stink to high heaven and online readers will approach it with a firm grasp of their nose and the caution it clearly deserves.]

—–

I refuse to adorn my site with this pathetic zio bullshit hit piece and would ask of readers to go to the url provided if they wish to get a good whiff of what truth seekers and lovers of freedom of speech are truly up against.

http://thetyee.ca/Life/2013/03/13/The-Unauthorized-Obituary-of-Doug-Christie/

Filed Under: B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, BC Justice Minister Shirley Bond, Canadian Association for Freedom of Speech (CAFE), Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Doug Christie, Douglas H. Christie, Ernst Zundel, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Porn Industry, Jewish Racism, Jewish Ritual Murder, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Terrorists, Jews, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, Jim Keegsra, Political Zionism, The Tyee, Zionism, Zionist Atrocities, Zionist National Post

Brave Anti-Zionist & Defender of Human Rights, Doug Christie, Passes at 66

March 12, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Mar 12, 2013 |

It greatly saddens my heart to tell you who have not yet heard the news, that my long time friend and legal defender, and friend, Doug Christie, died on March 11, 2013.

Attorney Douglas Christie was truly a great man because he stood up courageously against a powerful, unscrupulous foe. At great cost to himself, his family and his career, he fought to the very end of his life for true human rights and human freedom.

I first met him in the mid-seventies when he fought hard for my right to speak in Canada, and since that time he has defended many anti-Zionist patriots from attempts by the Jewish extremists to imprison them for their non-violent opinions and conscience. Over the years, Ernst Zundel and many others relied on his untiring efforts for true freedom. Many times he worked tirelessly, facing harassment, and even physical threats and attacks to help secure the freedom for those who dared to expose the greatest threat to the freedom of Canadians and all mankind: the Zio supremacists.

I must tell you that my visits with Doug will always remain in my memory as some the high points of my life. He was a man gracious, unselfish, humorous, kind, and absolutely fearless in the face of bestial foe.

He pointed out eloquently that the government officials who seek to kidnap men and women from their families and imprison them for years simply for expressing their non-violent opinions — are the true violators of human rights. It is they who should be in prison not the man who simply speaks his conscience.

The fact that in the European world men and women are being sent to prison, often for years for exercising their inherent human right of free speech and free conscience, is a stain on all of the European people. Doug Christie sacrificed much of his own time and freedom and money to fight for those who had no means to defend themselves before the tyrannical foe.

I am sad to think that he is no longer with us.

But he will remain in our memories and our hearts. He will live on in the work we will do and he will always be an inspiration to those of us devoted to this struggle.

I know that he rests in peace, for no man has given more of his himself, of his life to his people!

May the memory of Doug Christie inspire you for all your days as he inspires me.

Christie stood strong at the sharpest peaks fighting for Human Rights

He faced the tempest, the demons of repression and hate

Their lightning bolts could not deter him

And his words of truth rang out like thunder in return

They shook the enemy, and shook many of our kindred from their sleep

His work is done and now he passes on to Valhalla’s rest

But his spirit with us we shall always keep!

– Dr. David Duke

Filed Under: Canadian Free Speech League, Christianity, David Duke, Doug Christie, Douglas H. Christie, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Political Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH, Zionism

[VIDEO] Keep Fighting for Internet Free Speech – Repeal Section 13!

March 11, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

[VIDEO] Keep Fighting for Internet Free Speech – Repeal Section 13!

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/03/video-keep-fighting-for-internet-free.html

From video: We are not defeated! We can still win the battle for free speech, but we have to send a strong message that we expect our government to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act!

Filed Under: Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, FreeDominion.ca, Freedomsite.org, Internet, Internet Freedom, Israeli Apartheid Week, Jewish Lobby, Marc Lemire, Political Zionism

Jason Kenney’s censorship problem by Nora Loreto

March 10, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

[Editor's Note: Well said Nora. One more example and proof that the Harper government is little more than a cheerleader for Israel and its apartheid policies toward the Arab people.

As the poster before me correctly said she is not anti-Semitic but anti-murder and that is the point of the vast majority of criticism of not only Israeli policies but any policies that stem from the dark pit we've come to know as the ideology of Zionism.

I don't agree with your denigrating of your own efforts at exposing the hypocrisy of the Kenneys and the Harpers and anyone else who promotes the racist, apartheid and supremacist actions of the state of Israel (I firmly believe that every brick of truth and criticism helps to build and support the ramparts upon which the freedom of speech advocates take their stand) and I say this because I've been at the forefront of this battle for too many years now and I bear the scars that result from taking a position diametrically opposed to that of Harper and Kenney. Were out outspoken criticisms of little or no effect then the state itself would not be persecuting those of us at the behest of the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada who work in tandem with the likes of the Kenneys and the Harpers to keep any and all criticism of their taskmasters suppressed.

Keep on keepin' on Nora. You're young, you're aware. You can and will make a difference if you just keep shouting your message of freedom of speech and freedom for Palestinians loudly and clearly from the ramparts of truth.]

———
Jason Kenney’s censorship problem

By
Nora Loreto
March 6, 2013

There’s something about the free speech debate that makes everyone act as if they have one of those long white body worms in their brains, writhing to get out through the thinnest pore possible.

It makes people state things as fact that would normally only be appropriate in a George Orwell novel.

Take, for example, the statement made by Jason Kenney on Israeli Apartheid Week.

Kenney, a member of cabinet and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, issued a statement warning the public about university activists who were trying to censor supporters of Israel on campus during IAW events.

Did you catch the supreme, face-melting irony there?

Jason Kenney — nearly as high-ranking as the Prime Minister himself, the posterboy for playing nice with “ethnic groups” while imposing racist policies on Canada’s immigration and refugee systems — claims that a bunch of undergrads at a bunch of Canadian campuses are engaging in censorship.

Jason Kenney – Israel’s ‘Canadian’ Apartheid Agent

Jason Kenney, the man who has been able to rip apart families, detain men and women in jails who are simply seeking to immigrate to Canada (or seek refugee status) is claiming that IAW somehow is the censoring agent.

Jason Kenney, the man who has dreamed up a situation where you can force kids into jail as if jail is an appropriate place for them to wait out their parents’ deportation order, is claiming that critics of Israel for its racist and apartheid policies against Palestinians are censoring people.

Kenney isn’t an idiot. He knows what he’s doing.

Kenney is using claims of anti-Semitism laced with freedom of speech drivel to dole out a double dose of right-wing-loving-double speak. He’s doing this to turn the lens on student activists who are rightfully condemning Israel’s actions toward Palestinians. This dribble is the same kind that Ezra Levant purchases from his conservative overlords and spews out on Sun TV.

Ezra Levant – A real anti-Semite and pro-Zionist

And it’s the same brand of Freedom of Speech that the (very) few friends of Tom Flanagan are relying upon to protect his bizarre and perverted defense of people who like to look at child porn.

Tom Flanagan and Jason Kenney, as part of Canada’s elite, cannot have their freedom of speech censored by nearly anyone. None of us plebes have the money, resources, power, access to mainstream press, access to the courts or control of the police required to censor them.

Me calling them idiots, me calling Kenney’s attempt to interfere into campus politics absurd, me calling Tom Flanagan a pathetic old coot: none of this is censorship. None of this inhibits their freedom of speech. I just simply don’t have the power that they have.

So I find it rich (to use a euphemism for what I would rather use: a thousand swear words in a hundred languages) that Jason Kenney issues a communiqué from his official Citizenship and Immigration website (paid for by my taxes and yours) to announce to the world that he supports freedom of speech and, in a single sentence, immediately qualifies it: except when people criticize Israel. In that case, he condemns freedom of speech.

But he has the power to do more than condemn it, and this is where the question of power becomes pretty muddy. What does it mean for a federal minister to “condemn” the totally legitimate political activity of students? What does it mean when a federal minister paints an entire campaign as being anti-Semitic, despite his racist ad-campaign that has placed billboards across the Czech Republic telling persecuted Roma to not bother applying for refugee status in Canada because he’ll make sure its denied?

What does it mean when a zealous Catholic announces that the activities undertaken by thousands of activists, including many who are Jewish, are anti-Semitic?

Those of us who aren’t members of cabinet can’t censor anyone. Those of us who don’t have platforms on national news stations can’t censor anyone. Those of us who gather to talk about how fucked up it is that Israel is introducing a segregated bus system, to ensure that Israelis don’t have to take public transportation with Palestinians, can’t censor anyone.

We can’t censor anyone because it is only the powerful who can. And in a boxing match between me and Jason Kenney, where our strength is measured by our power, he’d come to my house to kick my ass before I even got dressed for the fight, we’re so unbalanced.

Kenney’s decree is an attempt at censorship regardless of what some of the words say on the page and luckily, IAW events will happen regardless of what that man decrees from his office in Ottawa.

Of course, Kenney’s communiqué is particularly ironic considering the legacy that his own party has in doing exactly what Israel is criticized for doing, though over a longer period of time: Residential Schools, forced sterilization, race-based legislation, reserves, government-defined status, murdered and missing Indigenous women, the Sixties Scoop, Child and Family Services and, today, Idle No More. Our own story is one of genocide, apartheid and resistance.

And Kenney is on the wrong side.

So too is Tom Flanagan, who was masterfully taken down by a young Indigenous activist this past week.

Both men are implicated in the continued internal colonization and apartheid of Canada. Maybe this creates a weird anxiety that forces them both to act out in ways that the average person can’t explain.
——-

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/nora-loreto/2013/03/jason-kenney%E2%80%99s-censorship-problem
Nora Loreto’s blog

Nora Loreto is a writer, musician and activist based in Québec City. She is mid-way through a Master’s in Education Foundations at the University of Saskatchewan. She is formerly the Editor-in-Chief of the Ryerson Free Press and the Communications and Government Relations Coordinator for the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario. Nora’s music can be heard here: https://soundcloud.com/nora-loreto and her blog is at www.noraloreto.ca.

Filed Under: "hate speech", Conservative Party of Canada, George Orwell, Israeli Apartheid Week, Jason Kenney, Nora Loreto, Palestine, Political Prisoners, Political Zionism, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Free Speech fall prey to Zionist misfeasance by Arthur Topham

March 6, 2013 by admin 4 Comments

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Charter of Rights fall prey to Zionist misfeasance

By Arthur Topham

March 3, 2013

The recent, decision handed down on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by six of Canada’s Supreme Court justices, in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott case, was indeed a ‘supreme’ blow to Christians, to freedom of religion and to every individual’s right to freedom of speech in Canada. At the same time, it also was a remarkably clandestine victory for the foreign Zionist-Jew lobby groups such as B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA); all of whom reflect, represent and condone, in unabashed fashion, the principles and policies of the Zionist state of Israel, over and above the traditional rule of law that has been the hallmark of Canadian jurisprudence from its earliest beginnings.

On top of this victorious legal coup that the vast majority of Canadians remain either ignorant of or in denial of, there are the added collaborating players in this long-range agenda to subvert and mould Canada’s judiciary into a type more in keeping with that of the U.S.A’s; one which, in recent years, has become permeated by their Jewish lobby groups to such an extent that they’ve effectively emasculated the US legal system by introducing their own brand of Jewish Noahide laws into American jurisprudence. These Noahide laws are, in fact, ones that stem from the ancient writings of the Jewish Talmud; a horrendously hoary and convoluted compilation of endless sophistry and intellectual meanderings that attempt to cover the full gamut of possible mental masterbation on any conceivable topic capable of debate, all of which boggles the mind and taxes the heart and soul of anyone who is able to locate and delve into the bottomless pit of arcane, abstruse, macabre deliberations found therein.

It is my contention, based upon all recent research and extrapolation, that this same clandestine, Fifth Column Zionist-instigated seditious process is, and has been, occurring here in Canada since the inception of our nation’s “hate speech laws” that, coincidentally, began to gain ascendency in Canada’s house of justice back in the late 1960′s when the major Jewish lobby groups first began to amalgamate and initiate this calculated, step by step, surreptitious program of incremental changes to Canada’s legal system; one that would eventually see the switch over from former Christian democratic principles of freedom of speech to those of the Talmudic Jewish Noahide laws under which Jewry has operated over the past two millennia. It is also my added contention that these subtle changes have been, and are being, spearheaded by those very justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who hold duel citizenship with the state of Israel and whose ultimate allegiance, I strongly allege, is first and foremost to that foreign nation.

Compounding and exacerbating this traitorous intent to corrupt and debase Canada’s legal system via “hate crime legislation” is the growing realization by many Canadians that our so-called “independent” media is, in fact, totally controlled, editorially and otherwise, by this same self-serving Zionist Jew consortium and that these media monopolists, along with their line of sycophantic, sayanim journalists and talking heads, are the major propaganda force behind this plot to subvert the Canadian justice system.

Most Canadians who have not been asleep at the wheel politically are now fully cognizant of the fact that the Harper Conservative government is the key to the success of these Zionist “hate crime” operatives and their eventual triumph in binding the mouths and minds of Canadians so that any and all criticism of their planned take-over of the country will not be openly discussed, either in the print media, television or on the Internet. Their arsenal of epithets stands ready 24/7 to support any smear & fear campaign necessary to belittle and slander and denigrate those who show any indication of not bowing down in obeisance to their treasonous scheme to dismantle and re-create our former legal system so as to have it fit harmoniously with all the other nations that have also been infiltrated by these same self-chosen zealots.

The whole of the homosexual agenda is but one of the ruses that these lobbyists use in order to divide, confuse and conquer their opponents and justify, via their human rights commissions, tribunals and their Supreme Court double-agents, the introduction of more and more repressive anti-democratic “hate speech” laws. These tactics, for those who have studied the Zionist’s modus operandi to any degree, are par for the course. The crucial thing for them is to use others rather than come straight out and say we’re bringing in all these repressive, Orwellian laws because we don’t want Canadians discussing and debating our ideology, our motives or our agenda; one that includes enslaving and punishing anyone who steps out of line and beyond that the total destruction of the Christian religion as we now know it.

There is, on top of all these seemingly inexplicable occurrences, a vital question that needs to asked and addressed with respect to the inordinate number of Zionist, duel-citizenship Jewish justices who have somehow wended their way upwards to the apex of Canada’s judicial system and are now literally in positions of supreme power and control with respect to influencing both our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given that Canada is noted world wide for being a proactive, multicultural nation; one that welcomes immigrants from around the world to its shores and touts itself as being an open, free and culturally diverse society, the blatant imbalance that we are witnessing today in the ethnic composition of our Supreme Court justices is beyond question a problem in dire need of explanation.

Were we, as a nation, to give equal opportunity and consideration to the various visible minorities that make up our country’s population then this ought to be reflected in the composition of those who sit in judgement at the top of our federal judicial system.

Knowing that our First Nations population is the largest minority group in Canada it behooves all Canadians to ask the obvious: why do we not have a First Nations justice sitting in on our supreme court? Given that this nation was formed, literally, from the soil of the original people’s land and also given that the First Nations people constitute the largest group in the Canadian population matrix does it not make sense that when it comes to representing their interests that someone from their ranks ought to be a member of this august group of supreme court justices?

Next in line is our Chinese-Canadian population topping the list as the largest visible minority in Canada and again the obvious question is: why do we not have a Chinese-Canadian justice sitting in the SCC?

Next in line we have a very large South Asian population followed by an equally large black population. Where are the South Asian and the Black supreme court justices?

Finally, getting to the crux of this perplexing situation, as we go down the scale of relative population demographics we come to the ethnic Jewish population in Canada which, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 2010 numbered 375,000 in population, ranking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25th in terms of group size and comprising, out of a total population of 33,890,000 Canadians, 1.1% of Canada’s total population. Yet, for their relatively small numbers in terms of percentages they now hold 4 out of 9 positions on Canada’s Supreme Court. That works out to 44.4% of Canada’s supreme court justices somehow stemming from 1.1 % of the country’s total population. If common sense cannot tell people that there is a glaring discrepancy here then something surely is wrong in the way that Canadians view the make-up of their nation’s highest court. No amount of intellectual verbiage can explain why this is so without getting into the fundamental question of what the real reasons are for this most obvious of imbalances wherein we have a preponderance of duel-citizen Jewish justices sitting and deliberating the vital questions currently being discussed in this brief essay.

Of course the immediate reaction from the Zionist lobbies is to reach up their proverbial sleeve and pull out their “anti-Semitic” and “hate speech” cards and flash them across the nation via their controlled media in typical fashion whenever their power base is questioned or threatened. Then will follow their sophistry and rhetoric emanating from the academics and talking heads arguing that this blatant discrepancy is simply due to the fact that Jewish lawyers are the most intelligent, experienced and therefore qualified of all of Canada’s lawyers and, like the cream atop the cow’s milk, they naturally rise up to those positions of eminence and power.

As the kids would say, “Yah, sure.”

To conclude, it cannot be stressed or repeated enough that we either have free speech or we have controlled speech where Big Brother takes control of our conscience and our mind and leaves us as automatons and slaves to do their bidding and those who now sit in judgement over our collective rights , due to their recent actions in the Whatcott case, must be treated with the utmost suspicion and their motives fully analyzed.

The time to act on these concerns is yesterday. Tomorrow may be too late.

The SCC Puppets

I present below the figures of the three Ashkenazi Zionists who have, along with their controllers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, and the other three Shabbez Goi justices, perpetrated this seditious act of attempting to twist the truth and our human right to freedom of speech into some form of kosher, Zionist fritter all the better to fragment and confuse the people of Canada so as to lure our nation further astray into the nightmare that awaits the world should Zionism ever gain full control over independent nation states.

It must also be adamantly born in mind as well that the fact that I am presenting and focusing on these three individuals is absolutely not to be misconstrued as having excused the other three protagonists in this deceptive legal drama. The primary purpose here is accent the Jewish lobby in Canad and its unsavory effect upon Canada’s legal system. It goes without saying that the other three justices have, for whatever reasons, also consented to this agenda and ought to be removed from their positions along with the three Zionist duel-citizen justices in question here.

With respect to Canada’s current Madam Chief Justice McLachlin it is also relevant and fitting that the following quote by Jason Moscovitz of the CBC be mentioned here as it is most relevant to an understanding of the mindset of these six judicial side-kicks when it comes to our right to freedom of speech. Jason Moscovitz states: “Of all the attributes she brings to the high court, there is one that sticks out. Many legal experts say she does not consider the Charter of Rights to be necessarily sacred.” [Jason Moscovitz CBC Date: 991103 Time: 22:00:00 ET - 22:26:00 ET]

While still in her twenties SCC Abella was appointed a member of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. Her husband, Irving Abella, is the J. Richard Shiff Professor of Canadian Jewish Studies at York University in Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, one of the leading “hate speech law” lobby groups in Canada.

SCC Justice Abella is on the International Board of the Hebrew University, a member of the United States Holocaust Museum’s Committee on Conscience (again, pushing the 6 million lies of the Zionists that have become since WWII one of the principal pillars supporting all of their criminal actions since that time).

The president (Canadian Section) of the International Commission of Jurists, cited her as one whose “entire life has revolved around the cause of human rights… She has shaped Canadian policy in equality rights, and…has also had a profound impact on human rights law and policy outside Canada.” The precise manner in HOW SCC has “shaped Canadian policy in equality rights” is now fairly apparent given her complicity in this recent and deplorable attack upon Canada’s unquestionable right to freedom of speech.

SCC Justice Abella also served as a commissioner on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Again, those who have been complicit in the actions of the human “rights” commissions here in Canada have revealed their motives clearly enough over the past decade and longer and have lost credibility in the eyes of the rest of the 98% of Canada who do not want to have their rights tampered with to satisfy the spurious and fraudulent false front arguments of special minority groups.

True to his name there’s definitely something “fishy” about this lastest SCC decision.

SCC Justice Rothstein has served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992. He has also held many other offices or appointments connected to the Manitoba Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

So what have people like Marshall Rothstein learned from all of their involvement in harassing and vilifying and criminalizing Canadians for having exercised their God-given right to freedom of expression and speech? By all appearances he’s learned that the manipulation of the law,when it is being supported by a Fifth Column media and a host of complicit, compromised politicians under the sway of the Zionist lobby, is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually a fait accompli.

———

Filed Under: Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, B'nai Brith, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, Canada's Queer Community, Canadian "Just-Us" System, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), Canadian Catholic News, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch, Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Defense League, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Canadian Rights and Freedom Bulletin, Christianity, Christians, Editor's Zone, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Homosexuals, Political Zionism, Supreme Court of Canada, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Radical Press

Masters of Deception: Zionism, 9/11 and the War on Terror Hoax by Zander C. Fuerza

March 6, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Download it here If that hyperlink doesn’t work try here: http://archive.org/details/MastersOfDeception

or here: http://archive.org/details/MastersOfDeception

[Editor's Note: Zander C. Fuerza's newly released online book is a valuable addition to the already massive volume of evidence that clearly delineates the outlines of the face of Zionism and the crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated against the world by this mad ideology of murder and lies. Please help to pass the book as far afield as you can.]

Filed Under: 9/11 Truth, 911, 911/WorldTradeCenter, Masters of Deception, Political Zionism, Zander C. Fuerza, Zionism

Canada’s Israel Lobby by Peyton Vaughn Lyon

March 3, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Canada’s Israel Lobby

Peyton Vaughan Lyon

Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Carleton University

D. Phil., Oxford

This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.

March 2010

Dr. Lyon is Professor Emeritus Political Science, Carleton University. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and obtained his D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served in the RCAF from 1940 to 1945.

He held posts as Foreign Service Officer, Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, Canada and in Bonn, Germany. He is the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy, trade and defence.

Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.

Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader(1) This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.

Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at

compared to 5.40 for each of the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs. The Canadian/Arab Community at 1.80 was ranked sixteenth out of the eighteen estimated influence inputs. (2) Although the Arab Community has become better organized in recent years, interviews with senior officials and case studies suggest that there has been little change in this ranking.

There is of course nothing illegal or immoral about lobbies, even those operating in the interest of foreign entities. A significant number of ethnic groups do in fact lobby for their countries of origin. (3) Canada’s Israel lobby is simply by far the most powerful and effective. It has become customary to refer to it as “the Lobby”, and I shall follow that practice. The Lobby claims to act on all Canada-Israel matters on behalf of an estimated two- thirds of the three hundred and fifteen thousand Canadians of Jewish origin.(4)

For obvious reasons, the American-Israel lobby is far larger, more powerful, and better known than its Canadian counterpart. (5) There are further significant differences and I shall begin with them. American Jews number about three percent of the population whereas the Canadian equivalent is a more modest one percent. American Jews, having arrived earlier in North America, are more integrated into the general population and less united in support of their government’s Mid-East policy. Canadian Jews, in the words of Professors Taras and Weinfeld, “are more Jewish.” Other authorities have said they are more conservative. (6) “Is there,” asked Gerald Caplan, another prominent Jew, “any act of Israel that will shame the leaders of Canadian Jewry into saying enough is enough?” (7)

The biggest difference in the tactics followed by the two lobbies lies in their degrees of openness and use of threats. Because the role of Congress in making foreign policy is much greater than that of Parliament, and party discipline is weaker, the American lobby focuses on individual members of Congress, none of whom can take refuge behind a party line. Because cabinet solidarity matters more in Ottawa, the Canadian Lobby makes a greater effort to focus on every minister. Lobbying, moreover, is more acceptable in the American political culture and can be more open and hard hitting. A reputation for wealth, ruthlessness and success is in fact an asset whereas in Canada lobbies operate more discreetly and soft- pedal their influence. American elections are more frequent than in Canada; this makes raising funds more difficult, thus increasing the vulnerability of candidates to lobby pressure. Lobbying in the United States, however, is subject to greater legal restriction than in Canada. One authority goes so far as to say that, because of tighter organization, it is more effective in Canada. (6)

All in all, lobbying in each country is probably about equal in effectiveness. Elections afford each Lobby the greatest opportunity to exercise influence. Although most Jewish Americans have voted Democratic, and Canadian Jews Liberal, neither are formally aligned and votes can be swung if a party adopts what might appear to many Jews to be an anti-Israel approach. Jimmy Carter, in making an exceptional effort to bring peace to the Middle East, angered Israel and its American Lobby. As a result, Carter lost almost half his Jewish vote between 1976 and 1980, a loss which contributed to his defeat in the 1980 election. Sydney Spivak, chairman of the Canadian Lobby’s 1998 policy conference, threatened a similar outcome when Joe Clark, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, criticized Israel’s suppression of Palestinian rights.

A particular triumph for the American lobby was the defeat in 1984 of Charles Percy, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs committee) — the predominant US-Israel lobby — boasted to a Toronto audience, “All the Jews in America … gathered to defeat Percy. And the American politicians got the message.” (8)

A comparable Canadian case was that of Dr. Frank Epp, an outstanding scholar and President of Waterloo University. In 1979, Epp ran as a Liberal in what was considered the safe Liberal seat in Waterloo. However, his desire for a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict was falsely depicted by the Lobby as “anti-Semitic” – a charge the Lobby frequently uses to discredit critics of Israeli government policies. In Epp’s case, the attack culminated in a full-page advertisement on election eve. In a constituency containing several thousand Jews, Epp was defeated by a mere 155 votes.

In the Toronto riding of Saint-Paul’s, with about 20,000 Jewish voters, the 1979 election featured a Conservative promise to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Conservative candidate, Ron Atkey, won. In the election the following year –after Prime Minister Clark had abandoned his promise to move the embassy– the seat swung back to John Roberts of the Liberals.

In 1984 a Manitoba court ruled that unfair lobbying could have caused the defeat of Conservative candidate Luba Fedorkiw in Winnipeg North. Fedorkiw accused the Jewish advocacy group, B’nai Brith, of having defeated her by suggesting she was anti-Semitic and levelling the false charge of “Jew-baiting” against her. She was awarded $400,000 in damages.

The Lobby concentrates on the ten constituencies where most of the Jewish and Arab/Muslim populations are located. Proportionally more Jews, however, go to the polls and are more likely to make a difference. It should also be noted that a substantial minority of the Arabs are Maronite Christians who are indifferent to the fate of the majority of Arabs.

Patmos, The Emperor Worship Cultus, and The American Sniper by Pastor Mark Dankof

March 2, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Mark Dankof’s America

Patmos, The Emperor Worship Cultus, and The American Sniper

March 1, 2013

Pastor Mark Dankof

“I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering, and kingdom, and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.”

Revelation 1:9

“I [Jesus] know your afflictions and your poverty–yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not [ref. Romans 2: 28-29], but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

Revelation 2:9-10 [To the Church at Smyrna]

“I [Jesus] know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not [ref. Romans 2: 28-29; cf. John 8: 31-58], but are all liars–I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.”

Revelation 3: 8-9 [To the Church at Philadelphia]

“The whole world was astonished and followed the Beast. Men worshiped the Dragon because he had given authority to the Beast, and they also worshiped the Beast and asked, ‘Who is like the Beast? Who can make war with him?’ . . . Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the First Beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the First Beast . . . And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the First Beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. . . . He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. . . . His number is 666.”

Revelation 13: 3-4; 11-14; 16-18

“For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.”

Matthew 24: 21-25 [Jesus in the Olivet Discourse]

“When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar [Jewish revolt against Roman administration in Palestine] was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said, ‘It is your [Jewish mob's] responsibility!’ All the people [Jewish mob] answered, ‘Let his blood be upon us and on our children!’ Then Pilate released Barabbas [Zionist Jewish political revolutionary and capital crimes convict] to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.”

Matthew 27: 24-26

The Empire’s next phase in deception and destruction both foreign and domestic unfolds next week in Washington with the latest American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conclave. Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden will pinch hit for El Presidente as the main podium attraction for the Synagogue of Satan’s pep rally for an American-Israeli pogram of mass murder directed at the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Biden’s presence at this sinister event is superseded in ominous overtone only by the presence of Mr. Obama in the Zionist State itself during the Vice President’s appearance at The Tribe’s lovefest in the Capitol, an event The Times of Israel emphasizes will concentrate on the achievement of two objectives with the American Congress. Objective One is to extract from Congress the enactment of legislation that will designate Israel a “strategic ally” of the United States, a status enjoyed by no other country. Objective Two is to “. . . facilitate a U. S. green light should Israel decide to strike Iran.”

This agenda is right on with John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and Christians United for Israel. Hagee’s $150 million dollar empire is entirely devoted to the Empire, and the Empire’s strategic alliance with the Zionist State, Talmudic racial supremacy, and a Jewish driven International Banking System fueling the advent of the global New World Order. One may be forgiven for seeing Hagee as a version of the second beast with two horns in the Apocalypse, providing religious legitimacy to the Dragon and The First Beast with his satellite television audience of 100 million awesomely mesmerized. ‘Who is like the Beast? Who can make war with him?’ seems to be making its way to the forefront of Evangelical and Pentecostal Television in a nightly paroxysm of moral and political obscenity differing from the ancient offerings of Al Goldstein’s Midnight Blue only in Mr. Hagee’s insistence on thankfully covering his rotund temple with tailored clothes, and in his avoidance of the ‘F’ word. Paradoxically, in terms of absolute and ultimate evil, he may have trumped Goldstein in spades.

Perhaps the most absurd of Hagee’s intellectual deficiencies and theological assertions contradicted by history is his insistence on the application of an absolutely toxic brand of exegetical quackery when it comes to half of Genesis 12: 3, which states that ” I [God] will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” Ignoring the 7 fold structure of God’s promise in Genesis 12: 2-3; the Old Testament’s account of the specific reasons for the judgment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 B. C. at the hands of the Assyrians; the Old Testament’s account of the specific reasons for the judgment of the Southern Kingdom of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians in 586 B. C.; the entirety of the New Testament teaching on the nature of the Kingdom of God in Christ; the specific condemnations of National Israel for its rejection of Jesus Christ chronicled in the New Testament (Matthew 21-24 as merely one example); the New Testament’s use of the 7th aspect of God’s promise in Genesis 12: 3 (Acts 3: 25; Galatians 3:8); and most importantly, the eschatological evidence in the New Testament that the evil World System and its Beast have their roots in False Israel and “signs and wonders” of demonic source and origin, the Christian Zionist juggernaut led by Hagee seems determined to provide redemptive history with the ultimate fulfillment of 2 Corinthians 11: 13-14. There, in Paul’s conflict with the Judaizing infiltrators of the Church of Corinth in the first century, the Apostle observes that, “Such men [Judaizers] are false apostles, deceitful, workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” The Ugly Truth’s re-post today on “Israel Wields Bible’s Soft Power as Far as Brazil,” seems grimly suggestive of what is developing. Global deception is well underway, courtesy of The Hidden Hand.

If Hagee believes the United States has been especially blessed of God since the establishment of the modern Zionist State in 1948, he must be looking at a different America than that observed by an increasing number of his countrymen and countrywomen. Economically, the United States has seen the evaporation of its once awesome manufacturing capability; the accumulation of a national debt approaching $17 trillion dollars; the eclipse of what was the strongest middle class of any country on the planet; and a binge of Fiat Money creation by the Federal Reserve matched only by the intoxicating resort to perpetual borrowing from foreign Central Banks and the postponement of the day of reckoning.

Militarily, the tie-one-for-the Gipper outcome in the Korean War and the military disaster of Vietnam, have now paled in comparison to the eroding cancer of America’s Israeli-driven War on Terror in the Middle East and Central Asia. The final tally for the invasions and losing wars of counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan in lost lives and casualties remains to be tabulated, as do the final economic numbers for these miserable ventures. Steiglitz of the World Bank speaks of a $3-5 trillion dollar expenditure on these quixotic efforts, even apart from new ventures in Syria and the threatened war with Iran. Add the eventual tally for the Empire’s military competition with China in Africa for raw materials and minerals, and the larger picture emerges. Paul Craig Roberts wryly observes that dying Empires run out of both men and money before the life support plug is pulled.

Politically, the United States continues to be downgraded in the eyes of the global community, even as its adoption of Israeli police state philosophy and methodologies connect the War on Terror to a War on the American Constitution.

And culturally, a Zionist-run America has produced the full blown acceptance of abortion-on-demand, homosexuality and every other form of sexual perversion, and the replacement of a lawful society with one soaked in lawless and violence. The questions I thought Ron Paul should have asked Ralph Reed and the denizens of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary sweepstakes, may be asked of John Hagee and the advocates of an American Empire wedded to Israel at this very moment. How would he and they respond to the following presentation and analysis?:

“The truth of the present crisis is that every advocate of American Empire and its marriage to the Zionist Beast, is an avowed advocate of supporting–and being financed–by the very people who have given us every one of the maladies we decry: a fiat American currency, a direct Federal income tax, usurious interest rates, endless foreign wars, a morally polluted American culture, an economic globalism which has destroyed the once-vaunted American manufacturing economy, and the imposition of a domestic technological surveillance structure that threatens to replace the freedoms of our beloved Old Republic with a repristinated Stalinism.

“To all Ladies and Gentlemen of genuine Christian faith and commitment and all American patriots of any religious persuasion, I simply ask a few simple questions of you, and of the American people who are listening. First, why is the domestic and foreign policy of the modern American conservative movement and the Republican party being defined by a view of Biblical prophecy unheard of until the 19th century, and largely promoted worldwide by the House of Rothschild’s distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible through its Oxford University Press? Secondly, why are we in an alliance with a nation that has repeatedly committed crimes against the United States, including the Lavon Affair, Mossad involvement in the Kennedy assassination, the premeditated attack on the USS Liberty in June of 1967, the Pollard spy case, participation with Communist China in the theft of American nuclear secrets at Los Alamos through the PROMIS affair, and the more recent Ben Ami Kadish and AIPAC/Rosen/Weissman spy cases?

“Why are we in an alliance as American conservatives with a domestic Jewish lobby which has militantly supported and financed the radical feminist, abortion, and homosexual lobbies most of us are sworn to oppose?

“Why are we, as a pro-life movement, committed to policies of genocide against the Palestinians and the advocacy of the mass murder of Iranians, at the behest of an ‘ally’ which is the chief nuclear, biological, and chemical military power in the Middle East, and a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed, however, by Iran?

“And why, pray tell, are people presently in Washington, talking about recovering American Constitutional Principles, in the context of ongoing obeisance to the chief players in a central banking cabal which has handed to us the direct Federal income tax, the Federal Reserve Board, $17 trillion in national debt, and every globalist trade treaty that has destroyed both American sovereignty and our economic vitality?

“And why are American Christians and patriotic Americans across-the-board not concerned that Israeli intelligence is promoting agitation-propaganda through the Rupert Murdoch News Corp chain designed to begin a Third World War? Why are these people silent about the Israeli infiltration of our intelligence agencies, our Homeland Security Department, our Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), and our telecommunications industry? Who is the real perpetrator of what happened on September 11th, 2001, and why?

Additional recent news stories simply and finally underscore the Beastly character of what Matthias Chang terms the Zionist-Banking-U. S. Military Industrial Complex.

John on Patmos: Exiled Because of Resistance to the Emperor Worship Cultus. What Did He Learn of the Beast?

Several of these recent stories will suffice to illustrate the Beast’s stranglehold on the Empire. The first is Keith Johnson’s February 11th, 2013 essay for the American Free Press entitled, “Wall Street Vultures Drive Up Food Prices Even as Billions Across the Globe Starve.” Johnson chronicles how the poster boy of Jewish Global Finance and Power, Goldman Sachs, made $400 million dollars in profits last year by betting on the prices of food staples like wheat, corn, and soy. The pouring of billions of dollars into the commodity derivatives markets, and the financialization of the commodities market with products like the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), has enabled food speculators like Goldman Sachs to control 61% of the market for basic foods, up from 12% in 1996. This in turn has facilitated the doubling of global prices for food since 2003, with an estimated 868 million undernourished people the victims. Trace who and what Goldman Sachs is funding politically in the United States and globally. Can you say, “He [the Beast] also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. . . . His number is 666. . . .?”

The second story relates to the American military, the accompanying Warrior Cultus, and the untold story of what serving the Empire does to the Warriors. Victor Thorn unfolds this metastasizing evil for the same edition of the American Free Press. Citing the work of journalists Kelly Patricia O’Meara for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and Clay Dillow for Popular Science, Thorn takes the uninitiated into the bizarre world of the utilization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Ultrasonic Mind Control for American military personnel. Google these terms with the names of the journalists in question. We may well ask, “What is the Empire’s real position on the value of innocent human life?” Its position on the innocent lives in Palestine, the Middle East, and Central Asia has already been established. But what is it doing to its own flesh and blood? And what mythology sells its soul-devouring agenda to the comatose subjects of Caesar?

Thorn proceeds to the most ugly fact haunting the Warrior Cultus. In 2012, the number of American soldiers who committed suicide surpassed those killed on battlefields. He cites Kelly O’Meara’s research, which tells us that from 2001-2009 the United States Army suicide rate increased more than 150%, even as military orders for psychiatric drugs for troops rose 76% over the same period. Put differently, what happens when, as Michel Lonsdale asks Robert De Niro in the movie Ronin, True Belief for the Warrior has died? Who does the Warrior subsequently decide that he is? What life is left when Belief in an Empire Served has Died?

In terms of the last 12 years, these lies of the American Empire woven as mythology began with the lie of what really happened on September 11th, 2001 and who was behind the attack. That was compounded with the lies regarding why the Empire was invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tillman Had Honor, Courage, and Integrity: The Empire Doesn’t

Pat Tillman as Poster Boy: War and Football Merge for the Empire

That then led to the pack of lies surrounding the tragic death in Afghanistan of NFL star Pat Tillman. Read the complete Wikipedia account to refresh historical memory. The official story was that Tillman was killed by “enemy fire.” After an extensive official cover-up of the truth, the United States Government finally acknowledged that the official story, used ongoingly in television ads and football stadium halftime ceremonies around the country to drive the American public to greater ongoing support for the War on Terror, was a lie. The new version said that he was killed by “friendly fire.” Or not so friendly fire. . . . read the Wikipedia account thoroughly for the troubling circumstantial evidence, never properly investigated, that Tillman came to oppose American military involvement in Afghanistan, and was subsequently murdered by some of his own uniformed colleagues for that opposition. The point is simply this: the Government that lied about 9-11, lied about the reasons for the invasions and occupations of two foreign countries, and lied about Pat Tillman, is the same Government being used by the Zionist Beast that controls it to justify illegal interventions in Libya and Syria among others, as a prelude to a mass murder in Iran being sold by Netanyahu and his American apologists as “self defense.”

“Enemy Fire,” “Friendly Fire,” “Al-Qaeda,” “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq,” “Bin Laden,” “Democracy,” “Freedom,” and “Self Defense” . . . Has George Orwell risen from the dead to write American, Israeli, and NATO press releases? And what Beast is being served by the American, Israeli, and NATO press secretaries? Put differently, how do people like John McCain keep effectively spinning these Red, White, and Blue whoppers for a new set of coming victims and their families? Even as McCain’s father, Admiral McCain, wove myths to protect Israel after the USS Liberty attack in 1967? Whose script are these mannequins reading from?

Israel Asset and Warmonger John McCain Spins Mythology on the Pat Tillman Death

This then leads to the recent tragic death of Chris Kyle, the American Sniper. Kyle holds the all-time record for kills for an American military sniper. He also holds a distance record for a kill notched at some 2,100 yards removed from the targeted victim. Unlike what is now known about Pat Tillman, Kyle remained a Warrior For Whom Belief in Empire Lived, until his tragic and ironic death at the hands of an American Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) victim and Marine Corps denizen, who shot Kyle to death on a Texas gun range. The American Sniper’s undeniable prowess with a high-powered rifle and scope is unquestioned and formidable. His ability to think theologically, morally, and philosophically about what it was he was actually serving is the issue in question, not simply for him, but for the thousands who flocked to Texas Stadium for his funeral adorned in American Flags and carrying placards of support for every long since discredited canard used to support the War on Terror and the War on Civilizations. Michel Lonsdale might ask these well meaning folks also, “Where do You go, and what do You do when Belief has died? Who are You, really?”

The Christian Cross was strongly in evidence in Texas Stadium, albeit as a supplemental secondary symbol for the more prominently evidenced Old Glory. But did the faithful really believe their fallen hero was a defender of a culture informed by the morality of the New Testament and the Lord Jesus Christ? How sustainable is that in the wake of the Roe v Wade decision, the societal and legal imprimatur now placed on homosexuality and the legitimacy of sexual perversion of every brand, and the Economic Darwinism that divides a predatory Elite from the vulnerable? How sustainable is that given the foundational falsehoods undergirding the War on Terror and unswerving American support for a Zionist ideology that empowered the first century mob that called for the release of Barabbas and the death of Christ, even as it now seeks the eradication of Palestinians and Iranians in the name of an Eretz Yisrael in continued disobedience to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and mere human decency itself?

The February 28th New York Times, the American Jewish Power Elite’s print daily of record, informs us in Matt Haber’s piece for the Thursday Styles section, “A Hush-Hush Topic No More,” that the latest trend in the Empire’s evolving mores in matters sexual involves the move toward the eventual mainstreaming of “sex play involving bondage and domination.” The reader is treated to the inside scoop on the Big Apple’s Paddles nightclub on West 26th Street; a report on the “blockbuster success” of E. L. James’s “Fifty Shades of Grey” trilogy (65 million copies sold worldwide according to Publishers Weekly); and the February premiere of the movie “Kink” at the Sundance Film Festival, a documentary directed by Christina Voros and produced by James Franco, tabbed by The Hollywood Reporter as a “friendly film” to the world of “bondage/discipline, domination/submission, and sadism/masochism.”

This is the wave of the Empire’s present and future. It is Emperor Domitian’s Rome all over again. Does the Christian or denizen of the Old American Empire die and kill for it, as the members of the Cult of the American Sniper apparently believe? This remains the compelling question of the day, and during the increasing onset of nightfall.

The American Sniper Funeral at Texas Stadium: Flag, Football, Cross, Cowboys, Coliseum, and 7000 True Believers

The American Sniper at Rest on the 50 yard line at Texas Stadium

A Bereaved American Witnesses the Chris Kyle Funeral Motorcade

The argumentation for a suspense of Belief in Empire and its War on Terror has already been made. The pictures of the Kyle funeral introduced into evidence simply chronicle the record of that day for those who cling unknowingly to the Beast as the Lamb. The symbolism of the funeral and its venue, suggest that someone was indeed disguised that day as an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11: 13-14). The light was extinguished, enshrouded in an impenetrable darkness.

The American Sniper Receives the “Grateful Nation” award from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Jewish Air Force Chief of Staff Norman Schwartz presenting. But what “Grateful Nation” is referenced at this event?

Which leads us to the last question of this particular day headed toward an impending night soon to overtake it. What will be the fate of those who openly question the American Empire, its marriage to the Zionist Beast, and the unmistakable Emperor Worship Cultus that accompanies it?

Chapter 1, verse 9 of the Apostle John’s Apocalypse is here most instructive and concurrently proleptic in suggesting the probable answer. John begins his own story and that of all of history by telling us under the influence of the Spirit of God that he is writing from an island called Patmos.

Not a Bad View for an Exile on Patmos: An Aegean Sunset.

Patmos is a small, rocky island of 50 square miles in that part of the Aegean known as the Icarian Sea. The barren nature of the island made it a logical choice for the Roman government and Emperor Domitian (81-96 A. D.) as a place of banishment for criminals. In physical appearance, the island was a striking first century paradox, with the island’s desolate countenance in absolute contradiction to the magnificent scenery posited by the white crags of the shoreline and the beauty of the open ocean beyond.

The Apostle was exiled there by Emperor Domitian for a simple reason. John was in staunch resistance to the demands of the Emperor that the Cult of Emperor Worship be enforced and its practices observed by its subjects. Christians who recognized that Christ was Lord, not Caesar, were facing increasing hostility and the targeting of the central Roman government.

John does not acquiesce to the demands of the first century Beast in any way. From Patmos, at the approximate age of 100 and after the death of all of his earliest and closest colleagues, he writes his Apocalypse to encourage the faithful to engage in the identical resistance to the machinations and deceptions of Beast and Empire. Their Souls in Eternity depend on this resistance and this faithfulness. The resistance requires suffering and faithful endurance (1:9). For those who persevere, the endgame is the Crown of Life. There can be no synthesis of the agendas of the Christ and the Beast. The lines of demarcation must be understood in the Spirit’s provided discernment, and observed faithfully even to the point of death (2:10). For those who understand the meaning of Eternity and the Crown of Life, they are assured that they will avoid the “Second Death” (2:11). Those who follow the Beast will be the only ones to experience the Second Death and the Lake of Fire.

John’s Apocalypse alternates between the first century Beast and the prophecies pertaining to the Beast of the twenty first. Both Beasts are wedded to the Synagogue of Satan (2:9/3:9). Both Beasts deceive with both the wielding of the secular sword and the performance of false signs and wonders (chapter 13). Both Beasts demand deification and the trappings of deity. Both Beasts desire the death and destruction of all who fail to take their mark and swear ultimate allegiance to them. Take heed, those who confuse the Kingdom of God in Christ with the Emperor Worship Cultus, the Synagogue of Satan, and the Warrior Cultus attached to them. The clock is running out.

As for those who pretend to be serving Jesus and the American Republic while working for The Tribe, we know who you are, Alex Jones and Michael Savage, among the many. We understand how well The Tribe pays, how easy life at present is, compared to a trip to exile on a modern day Patmos somewhere with its mandate of “suffering and patient endurance” (1:9).

But that life of ease is as illusory as the power of the Beast. His end shall come. So shall yours. And Act II for you and your followers, and the followers of John Hagee and The American Sniper, is an Act Without End. It gets rather hot in the Lake of Fire. But you will get every primetime interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, John Hagee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, General Stanley McChrystal, General Norman Schwartz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Joseph Lieberman that your heart desires. The studio bookings are great. But no studio ice water allowed.

——-

Filed Under: 'state' of Israel, 911, Abe Foxman, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Anti-Christ, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Ashkenazi Jews, B'nai Brith Canada, Babylonian Talmud, Editor's Zone, Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), Jesus Christ, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, John Hagee, John of Patmos, Pastor Mark Dankof, Political Zionism, Revelation, The Babylonian Talmud, The Beast, The Bible, The Times of Israel, Zionism

Anti-Semite. Moi? by Mark Glenn

February 28, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

[Editor's Note: Next to or along side the six million lies of the Zionist Jews stands their additional theft and usurpation of the term "anti-Semitism"; nothing less than a diabolical plot to turn the true meaning of who are the REAL SEMITIC PEOPLES of the Middle East to their own advantage in their endless quest to destroy the Arab people and steal their lands and their resources. Listening to this cogent presentation of the UGLY TRUTH about how B'nai Brith International's hate-commissars (the Anti-Defamation League) have twisted the facts in order to deceive unwary westerners into believing that they are the true representatives of the ancient Hebrew and Arabic peoples is a startling and eye-opening experience than no one concerned with the dangers of Zionism should miss hearing. Please pass this video on to all of your associates and website contacts.]

VIEW VIDEO HERE or click on url here: http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2013/02/anti-semite-moi/

Big thanks to Snordelhans for posting this on:

Filed Under: Abe Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), anti-Semitism, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, Harry Abrams, Hate laws, Mark Glenn, Political Zionism, Snordelhans, THE UGLY TRUTH

Mark Dankof’s America: Interview with Radical Press publisher Arthur Topham Wed. Feb. 27

February 27, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

CLICK HERE

Filed Under: B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, Campaign to Silence Arthur Topham, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Judicial System, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Harry Abrams, Interviews, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Mark Dankof, Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Section 13/CHR Act, Section 319(2) CC, THE UGLY TRUTH

Radical Press Interview with Mark Glenn on The Ugly Truth BlogRadio Show

February 22, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Here is the Url to the show: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/445/show_4445021.mp3

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech everywhere,

On Thursday, February 21st, 2012 I was privileged to be able to go on Mark Glenn’s BlogRadio show hosted by his site The Ugly Truth.

Mark is an excellent host and speaker and is extremely well versed in the Zionist issues of today and yesterday. As such his preliminary commentary on a number of issues that precedes my actual interview is well worth listening to.

The show lasted for an hour and forty-eight minutes so it will take some time to listen to but I highly recommend that you do.

The one thing that struck me most deeply as I listened to Mark speaking was the fact that in the United States the founding fathers had the forethought to insure that the people of that nation would take their freedoms seriously and therefore guaranteed that the foremost freedom, that of freedom of speech, would be enshrined in their Constitution. Were it so in Canada.

Here we are facing the pernicious machinations of the foreign state of Israel and its B’nai Brith lobbyists, compounded by the fact that these same inimical enemies of freedom also control our country’s media and have gained an extremely critical foothold both within the office of the Prime Minster of Canada Mr. Stephen Harper and within our judiciary. Their dangerous influence upon our government and our democratic institutions, exemplified by the self-created “hate crime” laws which they surreptitiously slipped into our legal system over time, stands as the most clear example of seditious actions aimed at undermining and subverting our government.

Hiding behind their mask of “mainstream” media propaganda they are in full attack mode and out to repress and control Canadian’s right to free expression and freedom of speech on the internet. Without our ability to talk freely about Israel and its sayanim, Fifth column organizations like B’nai Brith and its ideology of Zionism and to offer our perspectives and our criticisms on this most dangerous and diabolic political device ever known to humankind we are severely handicapped in our efforts to educate people as to its true design and motives and thus initiate measures to protect our own Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Thus the need for further and greater education on these matters. Please take the time to listen to this broadcast and remember that feedback to me is always welcome and necessary. I can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

Here is the Url to the show: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/445/show_4445021.mp3

Filed Under: "hate speech", Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, America, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Anti-terrorism Act, Arthur Topham, B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Judicial System, Conservative Party of Canada, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Editor's Zone, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Gaza, Germany Must Perish!, Harry Abrams, Hasbara, Hate Crime laws, Hate laws, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish power, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Mainstream Mindcontrol Media (M3), Mainstream News Media (msm), Marc Lemire, Mark Glenn, National Zionist Jew Post, New World Order, Palestine, PM Stephen Harper, Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, sayanim, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Radical Press, World Zionist Organization

Canada’s Controlled News Media and the Vilification of the Idle No More movement by Arthur Topham

January 28, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Canada’s Controlled News Media and the Vilification of the Idle No More movement

Arthur Topham

January 28, 2013

For those writers, publishers and artists working in the alternative news media in Canada it comes as no surprise that the mainstream media (msm) would eventually begin attacking the grassroots movement known as Idle No More. It was a foregone conclusion.

For decades past this same media has been attacking any and all individuals and movements who dared to espouse or act upon views be they on the ground, in publications or on the Internet. Examples abound but in the case of First Nations and the current Idle No More movement two prime illustrations of this predictable reaction on the part of the msm are the Oka Crisis of 1990 in Quebec and in BC the Gustafsen Lake stand off in 1995. As well are numerous other examples of environmentalists and natives battling with multinational forest and mining companies over clear-cutting and protection of habitat be it air, water or otherwise. In all of these instances it has always been the case that when push came to shove the government of the day could always count on their number one ally, the mainstream media, to come to their defence with their usual phalanx of sycophantic journalist shills and pundits (talking heads) leading the charge all in the name of a prevalent mindset that had already been instilled in the minds of the average Canadian by their very own news media. In term of attitude the msm always presumes that its interpretation of events is the only gospel in town.

I ought to know. Having been on the receiving end of their media smear campaigns for the past fifteen years for publishing articles and opinions related to crimes against First Nations and for having committed the unpardonable sin of criticizing the Zionist Jewish state of Israel for its racist ideology and its supremacist, apartheid terrorist attacks upon the indigenous Arab people of Palestine I’ve been dragged through the Canadian court systems, both quasi and Crown, again and again in a vain effort to silence their planned agenda of global governance and the destruction of all democratically elected nation states.

Most recent of course (in my case), was my May, 2012 arrest and imprisonment while on my way to work where I was charged by the RCMP’s “B.C. HATE CRIME TEAM” for willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” Using Canada’s sec. 319(2) of the criminal code these same Zionists, hiding within their lobby front groups like B’nai Brith Canada, are now testing out the waters of Canada’s criminal court system to see whether or not it will serve them in their personal vendetta to relentlessly censor free expression on the Internet and thus allow their own mega-corporate media monopoly free rein to vilify whomever they so choose with impunity. Yesterday it was me. Today it’s Canada’s First Nations. New day, same old horse feathers as the saying goes.

Even the msm’s foot soldiers are the same. After six months of being relieved of all of my computers, firearms and my fundamental right to post my writings on the Internet or operate my website, a formal indictment was finally handed down by the assistant deputy minister for BC’s Attorney General on November 5, 2012. When I made my first appearance in court in Quesnel, B.C. on the 8th the Zionist run msm was Johnny on the spot with their smear and fear campaign vilifying my name, my website and my motives for printing the truth about Israel across the country’s news media, both print and television. No sooner was I out of the courtroom than Ezra Levant was beaking off on the Sun News media’s “The Source” with his belittling epithets and lies accusing me of endless misdeeds all of course in the interests of freedom of speech. Finally, unable to restrain himself (again, in the interests of free expression) he blurted out to the world “I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!”

Years of litigation and battling with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its attendant Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over the issue of freedom of speech on the Internet has only reinforced the fact that Canada’s so-called mainstream media is in truth a cold-blooded, lying, mendacious mechanism of mind control whose sole purpose is to keep the vast sea of Canadian viewers and listeners misinformed and prejudiced against any individual or any group who might at some point attempt to assert their sovereignty, be it over their basic human rights or, as in the case of First Nations, their legally instituted treaty rights, signed, sealed and delivered to them by the federal government of Canada.

Now that First Nations across Canada have finally been backed up against a brick wall of prejudice, deception and endless legal wrangling in the federal courts over their treaty rights (for what appears to be the last time), who but the Custer-style msm mercenaries should come riding to the rescue to reinforce the Harper government’s sleazy, disingenuous political agenda, one that would see their fundamental, inherent human and treaty rights cast aside in favour of a corporate, free-for-all land and resource grab. After all, to allow such open and honest refusal to this “business as usual” approach to First Nations issues by the people thus affected to go beyond their acceptable norm not only poses a direct threat to the Harper government as a tool of the corporate elite but also to their own decades long complicity in colluding with each and every former federal party that has prolonged and perpetuated any final resolution to the age-old treaty problem.

Too many Canadians today still suffer under the misconception that the msm is somehow an independent, unbiased, and as SunNews media would have you believe, a “free enterprise” communications corporation that presents only the facts and both sides of any issue of importance. This sort of myth-information being passed on to Canadians via the msm’s radio, tv and newsprint media is as far from the actual truth as First Nations treaty rights are from being resolved.

Sun News network, with their flagship “CanadianTvFirst.ca” which they are currently pushing like hell to get implanted into every living room across the nation so they can continue to misinform and brainwash Canadians into believing all the Zionist propaganda that comes to them straight from Israel and the Mossad is a prime example of how deliberately deceptive Canada’s msm truly is. More to the point would be the spoof ads below adapted from their own propaganda site which would show their honest agenda if they were in the least truthful to their viewers and listeners.

Fortunately those within the movement were quick to twig on this media approach and are already going on the counter attack. The must. They literally have no choice left if change is come in a peaceful, meaningful way. Like all the other underhanded, surreptitious, slight-of-hand gestures and broken promises that the Harper Conservatives have been meting out to First Nations the time has come when these fabrications and falsehoods need to be exposed and those who are perpetrating them via their media cartel need to be call to task for their glaring, prejudicial approach to resolving First Nations issues.

With the likes of all the Ezra Levants and the National Post and the Sun News media and the CBC talking heads coupled with Zionist lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada spearheading the “hate crime legislation” that penalizes open and honest debate it doesn’t take too much head scratching to realize that the issue of the controlled mainstream media along with its pro-Harper propaganda campaign of hate against First Nations is one that is bound to grow bigger and longer and hairier legs as the days go by.

What the alternative news media has been attempting to alert mainstream Canadians to for decades has now suddenly, with the advent of the Idle No More movement, been given an incredible boost. Let’s hope that we can all learn to work together for the betterment of the nation as a whole and for our common right to speak our our minds and defend our common ground, common air and water and our common principles, values and rights that will allow us all to live in peace and harmony with each other and the Earth Mother.

——–

Filed Under: Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, Alternative Media, anti-Semitism, Anti-terrorism Act, Anti-Zionist Canada, B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Bill C-38, Bill C-45, C.B.C./Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Conservative Party of Canada, Delgamuukw decision 1997, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Editor's Zone, Ezra Levant, First Nations, First Nations Issues in Canada, First Nations of Turtle Island, Fish Lake/Teztan Biny, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Protest, Gaza, Gaza Flotilla Massacre, Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en people, Gustafsen Lake Standoff, Harper Omnibus Bill, Idle No More Movement, Indigenous Nations, Internet Freedom, Jewish Lobby Groups, Mainstream Mindcontrol Media (M3), Mainstream News Media (msm), Mohawk Nation, Mohawk Nation News, National Post, National(Zionist)Post, Native Land Claims, Oka Crisis, Palestine, PM Stephen Harper, Political Prisoners, Political Zionism, Radical Press, RadicalPress.com, RCMP Corruption, Section 13 of CHRA, Section 319(2) CC, Sun Media Corp, Sun News Network, SunTVNews Network

Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism by Professor A. K. Ramakrishnan

January 25, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Mahatma Gandhi Rejected Zionism

by Professor A. K. Ramakrishnan

Gandhi’s major statement on the Palestine and the Jewish question came forth in his widely circulated editorial in the Harijan of 11 November 1938, a time when intense struggle between the Palestinian Arabs and the immigrant Jews had been on the anvil in Palestine. His views came in the context of severe pressure on him, especially from the Zionist quarters, to issue a statement on the problem. Therefore, he started his piece by saying that his sympathies are all with the Jews, who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long time.

“But”, Gandhi asserted, “My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?”

He thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the “Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract.” The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews,” tried to elicit maximum international support. The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi’s Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine. The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs… Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.”

Gandhi’s response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists.

What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense.

The history of Palestine in the first half of this century has been characterized by the contention between two kinds of nationalism: Zionism and Palestinian Arab nationalism-the former striving for creating a Jewish nation in Palestine by colonizing its land through massive Jewish immigration and the latter struggling for freedom of the inhabitants of the land of Palestine from colonial and imperialist control.

Gandhi, in his role as leader of the national struggle and the Indian National Congress (the organization embodying that struggle), had been actively engaged during the 1930s and 1940s in moulding the perception of the people of India to the nationalist and anti-imperialist struggles in the Arab world. The 1937 Calcutta meeting of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) “emphatically protested against the reign of terror as well as the partition proposals relating to Palestine” and expressed the solidarity of the Indian people with the Arab peoples’ struggle for national freedom. The Delhi AICC of September 1938 said in its resolution that Britain should leave the Jews and the Arabs to amicably settle the issues between the two parties, and it urged the Jews “not to take shelter behind British Imperialism.” Gandhi wanted the Jews in Palestine to seek the goodwill of the Arabs by discarding “the help of the British bayonet.”

Gandhi and the Congress thus openly supported Palestinian Arab nationalism, and Gandhi was more emphatic in the rejection of Zionist nationalism. The major political driving force in such a position was the common legacy of anti-imperialist struggle of the Indians and the Palestinians. Gandhi’s views on the Zionist doctrine and his firm commitment to the Palestinian cause starting from the 1930s obviously influenced the design of independent India’s position on the Palestine issue.

Gandhi’s prescription for the Jews in Germany and the Arabs in Palestine was non-violent resistance. With regard to the Jewish problem in Germany, Gandhi noted, “I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can, in the twinkling of an eye, be turned into the summer of hope.” His views on Zionism and his prescription of non-violent action and self-sacrifice to the Jews in Germany generated reactions ranging from anger to despair. Famous Jewish pacifists, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Hayim Greenberg, who otherwise admired Gandhi, felt “highly offended by Gandhi’s anti-Zionism” and criticized him for his lack of understanding of the spirit of Zionism. Martin Buber, in a long reply to Gandhi’s Harijan editorial, remarked, “You are only concerned, Mahatma, with the “right of possession” on the one side; you do not consider the right to a piece of free land on the other side – for those who are hungering for it.”

As mentioned earlier, Gandhi refused to view the Zionist “hunger” for land in Palestine as a right. Gandhi wrote on 7 January 1939 the following in response to an editorial in the Statesman, “I hold that non-violence is not merely a personal virtue. It is also a social virtue to be cultivated like the other virtues. Surely society is largely regulated by the expression of non-violence in its mutual dealing. What I ask for is an extension of it on a larger, national and international scale.”

Also, it is significant to note that, as far as Gandhi was concerned, non-violent action was not pacifism or a defensive activity but a way of waging war. This war without violence also requires discipline, training and the assessment of the strength and weakness of the enemy.

According to Paul Power, four factors influenced Gandhi’s position on Zionism:

“First, he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistent with his way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine.”

Gandhi withstood almost all Zionist attempts at extracting a pro-Zionist stance from him. G.H. Jansen wrote about the failure of Zionist lobbying with Gandhi:

“His opposition [to Zionism] remained consistent over a period of nearly 20 years and remained firm despite skilful and varied applications to him of that combination of pressure and persuasion known as lobbying, of which the Zionists are past masters.”

Apart from responses to Gandhi’s anti-Zionism from Jewish pacifists such as Buber, Magnes and Greenberg, Jansen points out at least four separate instances of Zionist attempts to get a favourable statement from Gandhi. At first, Hermann Kallenbach, Gandhi’s Jewish friend in South Africa, came to India in 1937 and stayed for weeks with Gandhi trying to convince him of the merits of the Zionist cause. Then, in the 1930s, as requested by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the American pacifist John Haynes Holmes, tried “to obtain from Gandhi a declaration favourable to Zionism”. In March 1946, a British MP from the Labour Party, Sydney Silverman, an advocate of Indian independence in Britain, attempted to change Gandhi’s mind. At the end of their heated conversation, Gandhi stated that “after all our talk, I am unable to revise the opinion I gave you in the beginning.” The fourth Zionist attempt to change Gandhi’s mind was by Louis Fischer, Gandhi’s famous biographer, to whom Gandhi reported to have said that “the Jews have a good case.”

Later, Gandhi clarified in one of his final pieces on Zionism and the Palestine question on 14 July 1946 that “I did say some such thing in the course of a conversation with Mr. Louis Fischer on the subject.” He added, “I do believe that the Jews have been cruelly wronged by the world.”

Gandhi went back to his initial position by categorically stating that “But in my opinion, they [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism… Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?”

There were an influential number of Jews who thought that force, only force, could ensure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. They adopted terrorism as the method to achieve their national goal. This policy of subjugation of the Palestinians by Zionist terror was totally rejected by Gandhi in no uncertain terms.

A few months before his assassination, Gandhi answered the question “What is the solution to the Palestine problem?” raised by Doon Campbell of Reuters:

“It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: ‘Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism…’ The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah.”

—
Dr. Ramakrishnan is a senior lecturer, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala, India. He presented this paper on June 13, 1998 at a seminar organized by the Institute of Islamic and Arab Studies. The seminar was inaugurated by the chairman of India’s National Minorities Commission, Prof. Tahir Mahmoud, who highlighted the traditional Indian support for the Palestinian struggle against Zionist Occupation.

The United States walked out of the September 2001 World Conference Against Racism because it included two contentious issues: Zionism as racism, and reparations for slavery and colonialism.

Filed Under: All India Congress Committee (AICC), Editor's Zone, Gaza, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Israel, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jewish Racism, Jewish Terrorists, Jews, Louis Fischer, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Buber, Palestine, Political Zionism, Professor A. K. Ramakrishnan, Zionism, Zionist Atrocities