The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical and Scientific Level By Robert Faurisson

TotalVictory copy

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical 

and Scientific Level

By Robert Faurisson

R.Faurisson

December 31, 2015

“The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.”

~ Robert Faurisson

In France and in the rest of the world historians and specialists of “the Holocaust” no longer know what to answer to the revisionists’ arguments. And to speak only of my own case, which has been going on since 1978 (that is, for some thirty-seven years), never has my country’s justice system, despite the tireless requests by self-righteous associations to rule against me on the substance of my writings or statements, been able to note therein the least trace of any rashness, negligence, deliberate ignorance, falsehood, falsification or lying. My adversaries, rich and powerful though they may be, have never succeeded in getting our judges to convict me on the merits of the conclusions reached through my research work which, for over half a century, has focused on what is commonly called “the genocide of the Jews”, “the Nazi gas chambers” and “the six million (or nearly)” Jewish victims of the Third Reich. At most, at the end countless cases I have lost suits (whether as plaintiff or defendant) or been found guilty mainly 1) for a malevolence, supposed but not demonstrated, towards the Jews, 2) for breaking the gayssotine (the Fabius-Gayssot or Faurisson Act, legislation of convenience specifically targeting the findings of my research) or 3) by virtue of the “good faith” (sic) of individuals like Léon Poliakov or Robert Badinter, even though found to be at fault by the judges themselves.

For years Poliakov had well and truly manipulated the writings of SS officer Kurt Gerstein (who, having “repented” (?), then committed suicide (?)), when not fabricating outright fragments of text to attribute to him. But the judges granted the presumption of good faith to Poliakov. He had been, we were told, “animated by the passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and about facts of contemporary history that were particularly tragic”. It was therefore appropriate to forgive him for having “perhaps, on minor points [sic!!!], broken scientific standards of rigour without, however, it being permissible to state that he is a manipulator or fabricator of texts”. As for Badinter, in 2006 he claimed that in 1981, when he was still barrister for the LICRA and just before becoming Minister of Justice, he had got a court to rule against me “for being a falsifier of history”. A decision of 2007 restored the truth and held that Badinter had “failed in his evidence” to demonstrate my alleged dishonesty; but, the court hastened to add, he had been in good faith. For want of both money and a lawyer (Eric Delcroix having retired – not without being refused honorary membership of the bar), I did not appeal and was forced to pay the Socialist millionaire the sum of €5,000. But at least since then I have had the satisfaction of being able to speak of “Robert Badinter, my liar, my slanderer… in good faith”.

An astute observer will have noted that the more our opponents sense the game is getting away from them on the historical or scientific level, the more they feel the need to increase their propagandistic drum beating, and the repression as well. In France, at this very moment, they are putting all their hopes in having Parliament pass a supergayssotine. Good for them! A few weeks short of my 87th birthday, I have six cases pending, four against me and two others that I have had to instigate, albeit quite unwillingly. Will my judges finally decide, in 2016, to leave us, my wife and me, destitute? Or are they getting ready simply to throw me into a prison of the République? It is understood beforehand, is it not?, that if they were to carry things to such extremes it would only be on the grounds of the noblest républicain principles and in the name of human rights.

Let’s consider our current Prime Minister. One day, Manuel Valls, in full pomposity, his mouth, heart and left hand clenched, let fly: “I am, by my wife, eternally linked to the Jewish community and Israel”. He saw himself as “eternal”: a vast programme! But fervour was leading him astray. He ought to come back down to earth, reconnect with the ground, get treatment and stop deluding himself: the revisionists have, already as of now, won the match.

As early as in 1983-1985, Raul Hilberg, surrendering to the arguments of “Faurisson and others…” had to drop the pretension of explaining, on the basis of valid arguments and documents of his own, that the Third Reich had, with proper Germanic efficiency, designed, prepared, developed, organised and financed the killing of millions of European Jews. The eminent Jewish American historian ended up finding himself reduced to trying to have us believe that this gigantic massacre had come about by the operation of the Holy Spirit or, in his words, by “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading within a large bureaucracy” that had, on its own, spontaneously decided, it seemed, gradually to abandon written communication in favour of verbal or indeed telepathic exchange to such an extent that no written or material evidence bespoke the six million Jews’ (or, in Hilberg’s case, a bit fewer) had been systematically killed either on the Eastern Front or in the gas chambers, mainly at Auschwitz.

Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 11.16.23 AM

A number of historians or researchers, such as Arno Mayer, Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt, have also capitulated, in a more frank and direct manner. The first has had to admit, among other bitter observations, that “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”. The second, a protégé of the Klarsfeld couple, came to understand that the dossier of the official story of the Jews’ extermination, “rotten” with too many lies, was bound for “the rubbish bins of history”. The third has concluded that “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove”; despite this, millions of visitors there have been and continue to be shown a “gas chamber” said to be in its “original state”, as well as ruins of other alleged “gas chambers”. As for the figure of “six million”, never subjected to the least scientific verification, it is rooted in the most sordid of realities: an old American publicity slogan used already before 1900 and up to the end of the Second World War to collect a windfall of cash especially from the Jewish community. The searing words amounted to the cry “Six million of our brothers are dying in Europe [by the acts, according to circumstance, of Poland, the Balkan countries, Tsarist Russia, National-Socialist Germany…]; we await your money for the victims of this holocaust [sic already in 1919]!”

Manuel Valls, our Prime Minister, and François Hollande, President of our Republic, devote themselves to launching, in several foreign countries, warlike crusades of the kind that have backfired horribly for us French this year. To proceed as they do, contrary to the Constitution, they dispense with the approval of Parliament, either in advance or within forty days from the start of operations. On top of their foreign wars, conducted in the most cowardly as well as the most comfortable conditions, they instil an atmosphere of internecine war at home. They call “cowards” certain enemies who, after all, are inspired on a grand scale by the practices of our glorious Résistants: “Hey, killers with the bullet and the knife, kill quickly!” If François Hollande has the stature of a pedalo admiral, Mr Valls resembles Picrochole, that character in Rabelais whose Greek name means “bitter bile” and who regularly gets all excited at the prospect of going off to war. Mr Valls began with a crusade against the Saracens of today and against the real or supposed enemies of Israel but he is also on a campaign against the revisionists, against “Dieudonné in peace”, against Marine Le Pen – even though she has pushed her own father down the stairs – and even against his friends of the Socialist clan. A good suggestion for him would be to calm down, take care of himself, try to laugh with Dieudonné, reflect for a moment with the revisionists, allow historians or researchers to work as they wish and, at long last, spare us the flag-waving frenzy, the bugle-blowing, the verse and chorus of the Marseillaise on the “day of glory”, the “impure blood” and the “ferocious soldiers”. As we know, it is, unhappily, all too easy to take the French in with that sort of thing.

Such, today, are the modest New Year wishes for 2016 that I allow myself to make for that person, for his victims, for the French and for the rest of the world. But is it perhaps already asking too much?

For their part, the revisionists know what awaits them: the confirmation in the mainstream media, sooner or later, that they have already won a total victory on the historical and scientific level. The political and media powers will indeed have to resign themselves to the facts: persistence in gunboat policies abroad and in those of gagging and censorship at home will only dishonour them a bit more. For nothing.

The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.

The lies of “the Holocaust” are modelled on those of the First World War. All those “Nazi death-works”, like the ones at Auschwitz, are but a reprise of the myth of German “corpse factories” of 1914-1918. They were merely modernised by the adding of gas (Jewish-American version of November 1944) and sometimes of electricity (Jewish-Soviet version of February 1945). The good people, already generally not well disposed towards the practice of cremating the dead, were led to believe that Germany, a nation considered modern and known for having an abundance of engineers and chemists, had built structures containing, in addition to a cremation space, others called “gas chambers” (in reality, the “depositories”, Leichenhalle or Leichenkeller, technically designed to hold bodies awaiting cremation). Thus a certain propaganda has managed to persuade us that those Germans devils were dumb enough to house under the same roof, on one side, spaces full of a highly inflammable and explosive gas (the hydrocyanic acid or hydrogen cyanide contained in the pesticide Zyklon B, created in the 1920s) and, on the other side, crematory ovens that had to be laboriously brought to a temperature of 900° C.

Germar Rudolf

In 1943 some of the men in charge of British war propaganda deplored “this gas chambers story”. For his part, the revisionist Germar Rudolf sums up the subject rather well in his Lectures on the Holocaust (Chicago, Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005, 566 p., p. 82-85). Even Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of the Intelligence Service in London ready to believe just about any nonsense said against the Germans, was to write: “I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas chambers story” (p. 83). The trouble was that the British, undisputed champions of lying propaganda during the two world wars, needed those fables. On February 29, 1944 their Ministry of Information sent the BBC and the Church of England a circular letter of the greatest cynicism, requesting their respective cooperation for the spreading of propaganda on the basis of atrocity stories either already in circulation or currently being concocted. It was a matter of forestalling the disastrous effect that the Red Army, an ally, was inevitably to bring about in Central Europe by real atrocities (p. 84)! On these inventions, these fabrications and the wide-scale dissemination of enormous tall tales, two books remain of great interest: Edward J. Rozek’s Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, New York, Wiley, 1958 and, especially, by Walter Laqueur (a Jew born in Breslau in 1921): The Terrible Secret, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980, 262 p., wherein we see Cavendish-Bentinck, him again, “Chairman of the British Intelligence Committee”, writing in July 1943 that “The Poles and, to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up” (p. 83).

Fifteen months ago, referring to the crisis that the historians of “the Holocaust” were experiencing, I wrote that there was “more and more water in their gas, and slack in their knotted rope”. Since January 2015 and the anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz I have noted a sudden acceleration of the phenomenon. I have a whole file and a whole demonstration on the subject but the continuing judicial repression has not yet left me time to publish this information. In any case, for the historian, it has become captivating to observe the never-ending agony of the “magical gas chamber” (Céline in 1950). This agony is accompanied, as we have seen, by a redoubling of the repression of revisionism and a turning up of the volume of holocaustic propaganda. May our Picrochole refrain, then, from going on the stage and into a trance! He would have a stroke. He might even be cruelly snatched away from us. Who knows? He could precede in death a man who will be 87 years of age on January 25, 2016 and whom some have, thus far in vain, so often sought to kill, not for his ideas (he has hardly any) but for having wanted to publish the result of his research, which is summed up in a phrase of about sixty words. I repeat it here for memory, and to have done with it:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

Note: For sources or references especially regarding certain points of this text one may consult the indices of the seven volumes of my Ecrits révisionnistes thus far published. On the Internet, for “The Victories of Revisionism” (11 December 2006), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/victories-of-revisionism.html and for “The Victories of Revisionism (continued)” (September 11, 2011), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2011/09/victories-of-revisionism-continued.html.

Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.

In preparation: 1) an article about an embarrassing secret of Serge Klarsfeld; 2) a study of the highly inflammable and explosive nature of hydrogen cyanide.

—-

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

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

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

dchristie2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

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

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

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

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orwell1984BKCv

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

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

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

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

AliceinWonderland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

CanFlag1

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

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

By

Arthur Topham

January 19th, 2015

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

NatZJPost copy 7

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

Canada’s Disgraceful “Free Speech” Record

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

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

 MarcLemireFreedomsite

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

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

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

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

SteynLevantJNOMouthpieces800

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

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

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

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

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

DouglasHChristieFreedomFighter copy 3

SomeCanadianFreeSpeechVictims

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

Charlie Hebdo and the ongoing Lies of the Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dieudonne, Moi, Satire and Big Brother double standards

Je suis Dieudonne!! 1000 NEW

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

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

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

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

BBDieuTop1000

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

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

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

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

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

 

CharHebGod

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

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

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

SolzhenitsynGulagZioHatredquote 800

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

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

ChHebJesus

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

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

 

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 11.45.31 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HenryQuotesTemplate 600

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

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

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

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

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

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

NewWilsonPhoto

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 4.55.45 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob_Dylan_-_The_Times_They_Are_A-Changin'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the end Truth and Love and Peace WILL prevail.

—–

 

An Open Letter to all Truth Deniers & Holocaust Believers By Arthur Topham

OpenLet2TruthDeniers&HolocaustBelievers

An Open Letter to all Truth Deniers and Holocaust Believers

By

Arthur Topham

August 22nd, 2014

 

RPEditor400

[Editor’s Preface:

What sparked this open letter to those who still believe in what historical revisionist and author Arthur R. Butz called “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry” (the title of his 1976 book that demolished forever the mythological basis for what, in my estimation, was, and remains, the most colossal and earth-threatening lie ever to have been told to mankind) was a comment from a person (Nick Inglis) on a post that I had submitted to a local Quesnel, B.C. Facebook group of which I was a member at the time. It was the standard “guilty by association” ploy that both Jews and their deluded gentile lackeys in the west perpetually use whenever they don’t have anything intelligent to offer to a debate. In this case the fellow who posted it appeared to be a member of the science faculty at a B.C. university in the southern region of the province. Given that the author of comment represented what might be called a member of Canada’s intelligentsia I felt it was time to inform those of his mindset of a few things that they were unwittingly overlooking in their efforts to sustain this massive falsification that has plagued the world since 1945.]

_______

Dear Nick Inglis, Truth Deniers & Holocaust Believers:

While out getting firewood yesterday I got to thinking about your August 16th comment on the WTF Quesnel FB group where you had remarked on a post of mine, “I wonder what Councillor Thapar would think about being used as a reference to support a Holocaust denier.”

Apart from the fact that your words were obviously meant to imply “guilt by association” between myself and Quesnel City Councillor Sushil Thapar, thus reflecting badly on the councillor, that aspect of your comment wasn’t what I was meditating on while falling the beetle-killed pines along the Cariboo roadside.

It appears (from clicking on your FB profile) that you have begun a new job with the Biology Faculty at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, B.C.  It was this point that caught my attention and got me thinking further about your remark concerning the fact that I don’t believe in the 6 Million myth and therefore am a prime candidate for labelling as a “Holocaust denier” by the Zionist Jews and those like yourself who support their psychopathy.

As someone who appears to be involved in science it begs the question as to why you would be so quick to make such an accusation against me and also why you would be buying into the “Holocaust” fiction in the first place given that your profession rests, for the most part, upon reason, logic and provable facts rather than assertions, accusations, emotions and beliefs (as odd, inconceivable and incomprehensible as they may be).

As a scientist I’m certain you must be aware of the situation that the 16th Century Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher Galileo found himself in when he discovered (thanks to his newly designed telescope) that his predecessor Nicolaus Copernicus’ theory that the Earth and all of the planets actually revolved around the Sun rather than the opposite world view  – one that postulated the Earth was the center of our Universe – was, in fact, true.

You must also be aware of the persecution, ignominy and lifetime incarceration that Galileo underwent thanks to the machinations of the Roman Catholic Church when he refused to recant his position, all of which relates to this 20th century phenomenon that the Jews have, with wilful and intentional malice, forced upon the world via their monopolistic control of all major media sources coupled with their inordinate financial and political influence over western nations and politicians (as has now become so patently obvious during the latest round of genocide in Gaza wherein no western “leader” has shown the courage or fortitude to question and demand a stop to the needless slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and especially children).

It was the Renaissance Nick that first gave birth to what we now call the Scientific Method – a time, after centuries of darkness and ignorance, when man’s inquisitive and skeptical mind and spirit of inquiry finally burst forth in open opposition to the then accepted Authority of the day. Without this method of approaching any hypothetical question and proving it with verifiable facts the world would still be held in throng to superstition and religious speculation rather than actual truth. Given this new reality that the world adopted over four hundred years ago I fail to understand how you, as a scientist, can equate (and justify) making ILLEGAL the questioning of anything; be it a scientific theory, an accepted fact of nature or, even the fiction of “6 Million Jews” having been gassed to death and then cremated in ovens in German occupied territory during WW2?

Cannot you see that, in this particular case, i.e., the 6 Million myth, you are being confronted with the ONLY exception to the scientific methodology upon which your profession and all scientific professions rest? Why is it that, in this one instance, you are somehow able to suspend your understanding of the scientific method of discovery and suddenly accept, on hearsay and proven contrived “evidence”, that governments, under the influence of one small religious cult, can actually legislate laws that make it an indictable offence to question this fiction or anything else for that matter? Where does freedom of thought and inquiry play into this diabolical farce? Where does common sense and the basics of scientific research come in? Where, in truth, does anything logical or reasonable come into play when anyone, be they a government or a religious group (as in the case of the Jews) or an individual, is able to make it illegal to question any matter of history or any event or anything that may be theorized, ranging from the scientific up through the branches of philosophy and art to even the spiritual pinnacle of theological speculation?

One would think (reasonably and logically) that if any statement, of all the myriad questions that mankind has considered throughout history, ought to meet such a criterion and be prohibited by law it would be the denial of God rather than a purported historic event that has countless loopholes in it which would prevent it from becoming accepted by the whole world (scientific or otherwise) as an unquestionable fact. In other words are we to remain free to question the existence of the Creator Himself yet unable to question, based upon scientific evidence or otherwise, the fraudulent claims of the Zionist Jews who, through cunning and conspiracy, plus the heavily weighted influence of their purse and their control of all aspects of our major sources of communication, have not only successfully foisted this lie upon mankind and then exacerbated it by programming successive generations of people to accept it as the gospel truth but have now managed to actually elevate it to the apex of juridical absurdity through the manufacture of actual legislation in certain countries that make it ILLEGAL to question what is undoubtedly, as researcher Arthur R. Butz clearly proved back in 1976, the greatest hoax of the 20th century?

Of course I know why you made that comment just as I know why the Zionist Jews and the state of Israel have been slaughtering Palestinians and stealing their land for over a century. It is, as the Jews so often have stated in the past with respect to their 6 Million myth, “manifestly obvious” that your intent is to discourage others from any association with those who, like myself, refuse to accept the unacceptable and fraudulent premise of the 6 Million and thus segregate and isolate our thoughts and ideas and opinions and years of intensive research so that no one will be tempted to investigate further what I or numerous others have to say about any of the related problems that political Zionism has created throughout the 20th century and which now, are coming to a head, in the early beginnings of the 21st.

Here is your modus operandi and the scenario that you would have others believe:

The primary purpose of labelling a person an “anti-Semite” or a “Holocaust denier” or a “hate monger” or any number of other similar epithets is, pure and simple, outright vilification. In other words if you can first create labels like those just identified and then instil their circumscribed and false meanings in the minds of the general public through mass programming (via the mainstream media which the Jews control), then once this is established it precludes having to establish any further solid proof to support whatever allegations you may wish to make about a person, group, organization or even government for that matter, which you intend to destroy by first defaming them in order to discredit either their character and integrity or their work (i.e. opposing views).

To return to your original remark let us see how this program of vilification would work should it actually be followed through.

I have lived in Cariboo region of British Columbia, Canada since 1970 which amounts to forty-four years (with some brief absences). From 1975 on I have lived here steadily working and raising a family and contributing to the local community in a number of ways. 

The Quesnel area has a overall population of about 30,000 people which is not a large number to get to know  or become known to over the span of nearly half a century. Because of my propensity for writing and my interest in politics and history I have been a regular contributor to Quesnel’s community newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer where, according to statistics, I earned a reputation for having contributed more “Letters to the Editor” to that publication than anyone else in its 106 year history of publishing.  As well I have been a paid columnist for the same publication.

My civil commitments to the local region have also been  substantial and fulfilling with years of community service in my own local community of Cottonwood which lies approximately 20 miles east of the city of Quesnel. I’ve worked in a number of different professions ranging from school teaching to that of a Park Ranger and Supervisor to being a log builder, the owner of a registered carpentry business  as well as owning and running a registered publishing business known as The Radical Press along with placer mining and being the Secretary of the Cariboo Mining Association.

On top of these activities I’ve been actively participating in local politics at the regional, municipal and provincial levels of government having at different times ran for the position of Councillor for the city of Quesnel as well as for the provincial MLA’s position for the Cariboo North electoral district.

In other words I haven’t been sitting idle over the past forty years plus. It is this legacy of community contributions and effort that you are attempting to destroy by your calculated and malicious attempt to discredit my life’s work using worn-out tactics of slander and libel and defamation, all of which are meant to malign my character and denigrate all of my efforts over the past four decades. 

But that’s not the worst of it. You would have your mean-spirited accusations and spiteful assertions carry over to all those with whom I’ve established relations with throughout my lifetime here in the Cariboo. In other words all of my friends and associates and those within my community who I’ve had social or business dealings with for decades are all to suddenly void their association with me because now I am a “Holocaust denier” and no longer the person I’ve been all my life. Are you not capable of intellectually grasping the enormity of what you are attempting to do via your spurious, and, yes, hateful slander?

You mentioned Councillor Sushil Thapar in your comment but you have failed to mention the rest of the many councillors and mayors of the city of Quesnel who I have known and associated with and befriended over the past forty-four years. Are they also expected to treat me as if I were suddenly a pariah and a leper because someone of your mental measure has  inferred that I am a “Holocaust denier”?

Why it wasn’t that long ago that I was speaking with one of the former mayors of Quesnel and he remarked to me, upon hearing that I had been charged with a “hate crime”, “Why Arthur how can this be? I’ve always known you to be a “peace and love” sorta guy, one of the old Hippies who’s always strived to bring  social justice and brotherhood and sisterhood and environmental sanity back to the world.” Were he and all the other public figures who I know to take your ill-intentioned and evil advice they would all, needs be, have to see me in a totally different light and accept that they had been wrong about me all their lives and that in reality I’m just a no-good, worthless, hate-mongering, Jew-hating anti-Semite and, horror of horrors, a “Holocaust denier”!

And that, Nick Inglis, is the long and the short of your intentions and your sleazy tactics. Rather than have to defend your libellous accusations made against my person by offering up substantial evidence to prove what you are alleging is verifiable truth it’s much easier to merely resort to the Zionist Jew’s deceptive deck of shitty smear cards in the vain hope that whatever ones you pull out will somehow stick to me and save you having to actually offer credible sources to support your surreptitiously motivated intentions.

Like I mentioned earlier in this article the definitive proof that the so-called 6 Million Jewish Holocaust is nothing more than a fabricated fraud is all contained in Arthur R. Butz’s book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Once again I humbly suggest to you and all the rest of the truth-deniers and holocaust believers in the world that you obtain a copy of this book and read it carefully. Having done that and you are still convinced that you can disprove what Mr. Butz has shown to be the truth regarding this deception then please share your findings with the rest of the truth seekers of the world who have already determined the veracity of this indisputable document.

In Peace and Justice for All,

I remain,

Arthur Topham

___________

 

 

 

Politically Incorrect Truths About History, Current Events Surface in Sea of Information By Trevor LaBonte

TrevorLaBonteHistoryHdr

Politically Incorrect Truths About History, Current Events Surface in Sea of Information

By

Trevor LaBonte

July 28, 2014

As the internationalist Zionist banking cabal/world shadow government laments the recent developments with Putin’s Crimea referendum and also the establishment of the BRICS bank to circumvent the previously unipolar financial system, it must also be lamenting its loss of control of the popular historical narrative which was, until recently, effectively controlled by Zionist interests via their monopoly on publishing. The internet has evolved, people have fingers, and, well, millions of people worldwide seem to be reaching a solid consensus as to what a more accurate and unbiased account of history and current events might be, absent the propagandizing of said interests.

For starters, Benjamin Freedman’s 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel, is widely available online, and it blows the lid completely off of the fact that the aforementioned European Jewish banking cabal/shadow government made an illegal secret deal with the British government wherein Britain was enticed into promising Palestine to the Rothschilds, the head family of international banking, in return for the Zionists utilizing their media monopoly in the United States to, using made-up stories to demonize Germany, persuade Americans to jump into WW I. Imagine if everyone fully grasped that the fact that a few Zionists in a back-room deal managed to get millions of people killed under false pretenses, just so they could obtain Palestine, a country which did not even belong to Britain to begin with.

Freedman also details how the “Treaty of Versailles” was yet another product of pure bankster intrigue, wherein Germany, who entered WW I because of mutual defense treaties, was made to pay all reparations for the entire war, and was cut into pieces, having its appendages doled out to the surrounding countries, in an obvious attempt to destroy Germany’s ability to recover from the war. The shadow bankster government then had a real run for its money when the German people eventually responded by electing Adolf Hitler, who promptly set the German economy back on track, eradicated unemployment, and showed the world what was possible in absence of Rothschild debt slavery. Germans went from living in hovels and having to pay billions of marks for a loaf of bread, to having good jobs in production, the Autobahn, paid vacations, and Volkswagens (designed by Hitler and Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, complete with a genuine Tesla coil) for only five marks per week. Nevertheless, the zionist domination of media [http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=2334] and academia [http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/] managed to thoroughly propagandize the entire story and convince the entire world that Adolf Hitler was the most fearsome dictator in all history, when in reality he was only an elected populist leader who, by the way, enjoyed a 95% approval rating from his people.

Also the kosher narrative of WW II has fallen completely to pieces. It used to be that Hitler’s repeated, generous peace offers were never mentioned, but instead, people were relentlessly bombarded by mainstream media and academia with absurdly distorted propaganda blaming Hitler for starting the war. Meanwhile, internet sources such as [http://justice4germans.com] tell a totally different version which illustrates to truth seekers that mainstream sources are demonstrating a systematic concealment of a number of key factors, including an internationally supervised popular referendum with the people of Danzig voting nearly 99% in favor of rejoining the Reich, ignored by the Rothschild-influenced Polish government, which led to Germany’s invasion, and two days later, a British and French declaration of war on Germany. Throughout the mainstream narrative is woven a hollow and monotonous theme of “anti-Semitism,” with no mention of the fact that Germany was fighting a 100% defensive war against the international banking elite who, as it turns out, created and funded the Bolshevik “revolution” and populated its leadership ranks with 85% Jews, who, in turn, killed 60+ million mainly white Russian Christians, out of nothing but deep ethnic hatred combined with limitless funding and help from the B’nai B’rith Jewish-only Freemasonic headquarters in New York City. But remember, Hitler is the bad guy for fighting against this international jewish conspiracy.

The internet has also allowed some very interesting facts regarding the mainstream Holocaust narrative to rise to the surface. People are now learning of the works of historians such as Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolph, and many others who are making millions of people aware of the total lack of any physical evidence for the alleged “Nazi gassings” of “Six million Jews.” Also lacking is any documentary evidence of any policy, plan, budget, blueprints, autopsies of gassing victims, and it has been revealed that the entire Holocaust narrative is based only on a few paid “eyewitnesses” whose very testimonies prove that they had never even seen a gassing, being that they testified that the corpses turned blue, when with a little more effort on their part, they could have made their stories more believable by at least stating the correct color that would have resulted from cyanide gasses: bright cherry red. Combining the total lack of physical evidence with the evidence of phony witness testimony, the color of the lies becomes transparent. Sound crazy? It should! at first, but scratch the surface of the scholarly field know as “Holocaust Revisionism” (or perhaps it is more accurately called “history”) more closely and the lies evaporate before your eyes. But don’t take this author’s word for it. Try to find one shred of actual evidence that a single Jew was gassed. You can’t do it. Even Raul Hilberg, author of “The Destruction of the European Jew” 3-volume set, could not produce any evidence when called as an “expert witness” at the 1985 Ernst Zundel trial. (Insert record scratch sound effect here.) The general public has not figured this out yet, but internet truth-seekers have! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbBWIx1AhAU]

The lack of “gassings” evidence factored in with the preponderance of baseless Holocaust propaganda from the 8 Jewish-controlled Hollywood movie studios, Jewish publishing houses, and Jewish censored academic institutions have led truth seekers to universally conclude something which has shocked each discoverer: That the international banksters that founded these institutions  invented the extermination hoax as a brainwashing tool to discourage people from criticizing the inordinate amount of Jewish influence we see all around us, to extort billions from Germany, and to utilize as an essential myth in the founding of Israel in 1948.

Jumping ahead a bit, this shadow government cabal held a successful coup against the United States on Nov 22, 1963, when it assassinated JFK over a secret diplomatic battle he was having with “Israel” on their illegal nukes and for his efforts to force the Jewish lobby, then called The American Zionist Council, to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which would have ended its ability to control congress altogether. Undoubtedly, he was not a fan of the FED either. Yes, they killed JFK too. Read his letters to Ben-Gurion, archived here [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/FRUS5_18_63.html] and ask yourself why these motives have never been explored in the controlled media. Also recommended highly is Michael Collins Piper’s book, “Final Judgement,” the only book brave enough to trace connections from the Israeli Mossad through James Jesus Angleton to the CIA, Meyer Lansky, and the Jewish organized crime syndicate know as “Murder, Inc.”

Having assassinated Kennedy, and with America now totally under its control, Rothschild’s Israel then tried to draw America into its so-called “Six-Day War” of zionist expansionism by way of perpetrating a false-flag attack on the USS Liberty, intending to blame the attack on Egypt. They botched the operation by failing to sink the Liberty, and at this point, the war for Israeli expansionism was temporarily put on hold. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fFQrsdj7BLs]

The Israeli Defense Force did try and was defeated twice, at the hands of the Islamic Resistance of HizbAllah, to permanently occupy Lebanon, and it became clear that they could get nowhere in their plan to absorb their neighbors into “Greater Israel” without help from the US, but how could this be achieved?

Then, like someone un-pausing a video tape, the war for Israeli expansionism suddenly resumed on Sept. 11, 2001, when the Israelis collaborated with corrupt neocons in the US government, staging yet another in a long list of Israeli false-flags against the US to be blamed on Muslims.

This operation, like the USS Liberty attack, was badly botched when one of the planes did not reach its target, and WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall speed perfectly into its own footprint for apparently no reason, but in reality it was to prevent anyone from finding out that, like WTC 1 and 2, WTC 7 had been pre-rigged for demolition. We even have Larry Silverstein (not a Muslim with a box cutter) on a PBS documentary admitting that he brought WTC 7 down HIMSELF on 9/11, as well as Frank Mineta’s testimony of neo-Cohen Dick Cheney barking orders to maintain the NORAD stand-down which is what allowed the other planes to reach their targets. Just for fun, picture a terrorist coming at you with a box cutter. What would you do? I think I would laugh at him. It seems the architects of the 9/11 cover story received their training originally from watching Hollywood B, C, or D-movies. At any rate, the documented evidence of Israeli involvement was largely suppressed once again due to zionist control of the media, but not before reporters like Carl Cameron exposed the Israeli spies, the Mossad truck bombs, and other things that suspicion of anything other than Israel sound silly.

Muslims were framed and demonized as always, and full scale war was waged on the Middle East in perfect accord with Israeli foreign policy advisor Oded Yinon’s ambitious 1982 policy paper, which outlines the plan to balkanize the surrounding nations in the Middle East for expansionism of the Jewish State which would then rule the world in a Jewish NWO.

Vladimir Putin stymied the Greater Israel project when he exposed and countered a big part of the zionist plot against the Syrian government, and the false flag at Ghouta did not fly. Syria is an extremely important link in the chain, because not only is it openly slated to become part of “Greater Israel,” but it’s leadership in Bashar al Assad simultaneously provides arms to aid in the Palestinian resistance and connects Palestine with Iran which is then connected to Russia. The battle is not over yet to establish a New World Order where gentile nations are slaves to a “Jewish state” which regards gentiles as sub-humans as per the Jewish religion , and the jews use the Samson Option and blow up the planet with nuclear bombs if their openly racist, genocidal project somehow goes awry. Crimea and BRICS threaten the NWO, and a third prong consisting of the availability of “alternative” history sources which allow real truth seekers to circumvent attempts to conceal politically incorrect facts which are facts nonetheless, is rising, and it seems this “alternative” version is the only one that puts the whole puzzle together into a coherent picture, revealing starkly who has been cloaking themselves and running the show, creating world wars, manufacturing depressions and economic crashes with a phone call, the flick of a pen, or entering a few zeroes into a computer.

—–

The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax

jewish-gas-chamber-hoax-holocaust-medium

 

http://www.gaschamberhoax.com

Editor’s Note: One of the primary responsibilities of the alternative news media is to publish information that the mainstream media consistently conceals from the general public in order to keep the masses of listeners and viewers ignorant of historical events which, were the whole truth known, would radically alter peoples’ perception of world events. 

No greater hoax of the 20th century exists than that of the supposed “Jewish Holocaust of 6 Million Jews” in German labour camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka and numerous other camps where Jews and thousands of other non-Jews were sent to labour for the German war effort. 

This website, www.gaschamberhoax.com is one place where an impartial viewer can watch and listen to some of the accounts of supposed “survivors” of the “death camps” and what they purport to be evidence that Jews were actually gassed and burnt in ovens by the millions.

Behind the Holocaust, by JB Campbell

BehindHoloJBcampbell

Behind the Holocaust, by JB Campbell

Posted on October 12, 2013
Sourced from Veterans Today

What was Hitler’s Unforgivable Sin?

Hitler resisted Judaism. When you’re a little kid in school or at the movies, resisting Judaism can be made to seem a very wicked thing. As an adult, you can be made to think that to resist Judaism is the very worst, the most dangerous thing. When you see what has happened to people who have resisted Judaism, well – you certainly don’t want that to happen to you.

Adolf Hitler was, is and will always be the most dangerous character in history due to his resistance against Judaism, combined with his eloquence in explaining why Judaism must be resisted.

Some of us “Jew-fighters” have a personal motto, delenda est judaica, or Judaism must be destroyed. Or, Defense Against Jewish Aggression. When we have studied the history of whatever period you care to name, or just looked at the news, true humans react with the natural urge to remove this cancer from society. The most astonishing example of the Jewish mentality was last year’s murderous assault against the humanitarians attempting to bring food, medicine and building materials to the people of Gaza. Jewish ways are repellant to the human mind and are not examined overmuch for that reason.

Judaism can be simply described as very bad behavior.

Hitler never attempted to destroy Judaism but rather to isolate it and perhaps remove its adherents from Europe. This followed attempts to train Jews to be productive human beings in places such as Dachau and Theresienstadt. As Evelyn Kaye writes in The Hole in the Sheet, orthodox Jews do not work. They are allergic to work, preferring instead to occupy themselves by reading the Talmud and arguing endlessly with other Jews about what they read. So this is a big problem with Jews, their refusal to work and produce something that is not based on ripping off and confounding their victims.

Hitler’s attempt to re-train Jews, which didn’t work, and then to remove Jews from Europe was a work in progress. Since the Khazars had infiltrated Europe from the east, his plan for relocation was to put them back in the Pale whence they came. This scheme depended upon the success of Operation Barbarossa, the great assault against the Soviet Union which was always the ultimate and stated objective of the National Socialists. Communism had to be destroyed so that Judaism could be re-confined to its traditional home in the Pale of Settlement. Hitler’s basic plan for Jews was somehow to confine and isolate them in a place in which they could be prevented from doing humanity more harm. This is a very difficult thing to do because there are so many aspects to Judaism, the most dangerous of which is banking, which is the main point of this piece.

Because now I’m seeing that the main purpose of keeping alive the Holocaust is to protect Jewish banking practices.

Before we get to that, let’s examine the Holocaust briefly. It’s a big subject but the whole subject is demolished by the videotaped visit to Auschwitz by a young American Jew named David Cole, which took place back in 1992. For example, a dozen years ago I was visited by a reporter named Dave Hendrix from the Dallas Morning News. He was interviewing me for a big story he was writing on the militia and the general resistance movement in America. He would spend four days interviewing me at my home in Carmel, California. When we were first introduced, no doubt knowing my attitude, he made a disclosure: “I must tell you before we begin, that I am a believer in the Holocaust.” I immediately responded, “Not a problem.” And nothing more was said about it for a day or so. On the second day, before he retired to his hotel, I asked if he would be willing to look at a film? He agreed. I showed him David Cole’s Visit to Auschwitz and when it was over said, “Well, there’s another viewpoint.” Dave, however, was speechless. He finally said, “That was devastating to everything I’ve ever believed.”

By the fourth day, I had persuaded Dave to drop the militia/resistance project and instead write a big piece on Oklahoma City, since my good friend Cheri Seymour had so much primary  information on the subject in her files. Reluctant at first to attack that subject, he eventually requested and got the green light from Dallas. This nearly got him killed. Dave met with Cheri and me a week or so later in Hermosa Beach and received his first load of documents from Cheri. He went back to his apartment and was felled by a severe heart attack. His wife was fortunately and unusually at home and got the EMT people there in time to save him, which he would not have been able to do for himself. When he finally recovered, the OKC story was canceled and Dave was made a story editor, never again to investigate and write as he had been doing for many years. When we met again, he said simply, “They got me. It was not a natural heart attack.”

faurisson2

Faurisson: “Show me a gas chamber! Draw for me a gas chamber!”

As you will see in the Cole video, the holy gas chamber is a fake. Which makes the entire Holocaust story a fake. You can study it for a day or for a lifetime and your conclusion will be the same. There was never a plan for exterminating Jews and there was never an instrument. As Professor Robert Faurisson has asked for years, “Show me a gas chamber. Draw for me a gas chamber.” It can’t be done because there was never such a thing.

There is the matter of the Six Million. As we in the anti-Jewish movement well know, the Jews were claiming years before, during and after the First World War that six million Jews had been exterminated by the Germans. Of course, no one took this seriously. By 1943, American Jews were once again claiming that six million Jews were in danger of annihilation or had in fact been annihilated, years before the same wild claim would start up again around 1960. Now, why is this?

We now know that the insane Jewish liars are guided in this by a mystical attachment to the number six, as seen with their national symbol, the six-pointed star. Six, or six hundred, or six thousand, or six hundred thousand, or six million Jews must be removed before the messiah returns or Israel reappears or whatever. It’s not important to us, just that this is a magic number to them. And they should be wholly burnt in ovens. Hence, Holocaust (wholly burnt).  Read: Jewish History and the Scriptual Orgin of the 6 Million Dollar Number.

The six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis depended in large part (66%) on Auschwitz, where four million of them were infamously done to death. Thanks to Ernst Zundel and the International Red Cross, Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 released to the Red Cross the captured death records from Auschwitz. The forty-six volumes cover the period of 1941 to ’43 and record about 69,000 deaths, mainly from disease or natural causes. The IRC had investigated all the German and Polish camps during and after the war and estimated about 200,000 deaths, some of them Jewish. When the US Army liberated Dachau, for example, of the 32,000 inmates, about 1,200 were Jews. Jewish representation was so tiny during WWII as to be insignificant, except in their minds. In their minds, the 60 million actual deaths of real people were insignificant, not worthy of consideration.  Read:  Long-Hidden Death Certificates Discredit Extermination Claims.

We can read and read and the more we read the bigger the swindle is revealed. That’s why the main thing is to watch David Cole’s video and not get too wrapped up in the Holocaust, one way or the other. But we should understand the real purpose of Holocaust indoctrination, which I now believe is this: our money.

Our money is our lifeblood. Without money, of course, we die as individuals. Without a proper money system, society dies, which is pretty much what is happening to our society now. This is due to the Jewish money system imposed on us by the aliens who own the private money-making company they call the Federal Reserve System.

We are today witnessing the dangers of precious metals. The only metals that are precious to me are steel, lead and brass. Gold and silver, while intoxicating in their wonderfulness, are just as dangerous and volatile as liquid intoxicants and just as likely to make you lose your wits – and your fortune. There is nothing righteous or magical or even necessary about a nation’s currency being “backed” by gold or silver. This was proved by Adolf Hitler during the 1930s. It was proved so conclusively that the Jews want to make sure that it’s never tried again. The best way to ensure this is to associate debt-free currency with mass murder!

For some reason, the Jews of the world wanted to destroy Germany.

We can probably never understand their insane drive to do this but the facts cannot be denied. They also wanted to destroy the Russian ruling class and the Russian people, as we saw happen following their takeover of Russia in 1917. And we see that they apparently wanted to destroy the American people from an early time, dating at least since 1913.

The destruction of the Russians, Germans and Europeans in general depended on their takeover of the American banking system in 1913, because it was followed closely by the totalitarian devastation that began in 1914 with the assassination of the Austrian archduke by Gavrilo Princip.

Henry Ford Sr.  copy

World War I ended in 1918 and this began Germany’s great misery. They were blamed by the victors for starting the war and were forced to pay “reparations” that became so extreme by  the early 1920s that their money became worthless. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death because of the money and because of a blockade by England and America to prevent food from getting in. A food convoy was organized by Henry Ford, Herbert Hoover and Norway’s Vidkun Quisling to rescue the starving people of Germany and others in Europe. Quisling’s name has been turned into a dirty word by the Jews and is misused today by people who should know better. He was a great humanitarian and took Germany’s side against the forces of Judaism and Bolshevism for over twenty years.

Adolf Hitler, like Franklin Roosevelt, came to power democratically in January, 1933, in the depths of the world depression. Both Germany and America were starving because of the actions of the Federal Reserve System, now twenty years old. They were starving because the Fed had “deflated” the money supply, withdrew currency from circulation and refused to issue new currency. Credit to farmers and businesses and individuals was denied for no particular reason. Roosevelt outlawed gold and began its confiscation in April, with punishment of ten years in prison and ten thousand dollars in fines. Once he got all of our gold, which was then priced at about twenty dollars an ounce, he raised the price to thirty-two dollars. That made it the biggest, boldest swindle up until that time. Of course, the Federal Reserve System swindlers got the gold – and the massive increase in value.

Hitler came to power over a bankrupt and starving country with unemployment at roughly 50%! The Americans had stolen all Germany’s gold by the early ‘20s, so there was no basis for a monetary system other than to keep borrowing from the Jewish crooks on Wall Street that had given Germany the Young Plan and the Dawes Plan of perpetual indebtedness to private bankers masquerading as the “central bank.” What to do?

Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht issued debt-free currency based on Lincoln’s debt-free currency. What they did led to the swift regeneration of the German economy and the world’s greatest prosperity of the working class, while the rest of the world stayed mired in the Great Depression being run by the sadistic central bankers. This was the worst possible crime and had to be punished by the most terrible war in human history, including fire-bombings of entire cities and deliberate mass starvations of millions following the war. Our nuclear bombs would have dropped on Germans but they weren’t ready in time, so they were dropped on Germany’s allies who were trying to surrender.

GermanyMust PerishNewHeader 700 copy

In this nauseating little book, Kaufman suggested that every German male be castrated. Time Magazine’s response? — “A sensational idea!”

Please refer to Theodore Kaufman’s charming little book, Germany Must Perish, which was the basis of the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, executed mercilessly by Dwight David Eisenhower, which resulted in the starvation deaths of millions of Germans.

Ellen Brown and Bill Still have provided us with debt-free currency plans that will deliver us from the Federal Reserve racketeers and eliminate our indebtedness to the pinstriped scum-rats in less than one year, based on the Hitler model, which they don’t want to say. John F. Kennedy declared war on the Fed racketeers by issuing four billion dollars in debt-free US Notes in April of his last year on earth. Abraham Lincoln first issued debt-free currency when the bankers whom he’d approached for war loans wanted 34% in interest. He only survived a few days longer than his war for crimes against the bankers.

So let’s understand what’s behind the Holocaust. Why don’t Brown and Still, both monetary geniuses, want to credit Hitler and Schacht with the secret to economic prosperity in the face of total meltdown? Why, because of the Holocaust! The greatest economic miracle in history occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who ignored the central bankers intent on raping the world, seizing real property, through high interest and deflation. The Russians have recently confirmed suspicions that the American legend of the Depression (“As bad as it was – nobody starved.”) is a lie. Russian investigators have revealed that millions of Americans actually died of starvation and exposure during the years 1929 to 1941 but their deaths were written off to natural causes.

As Hitler remarked in his declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, he had delivered Germany from the doubly devastating conditions of the Versailles Treaty and the general world Depression by 1935 while Roosevelt kept mighty America in abject misery with his Federal Reserve starvation policies right to the present time (December, 1941). He stole all the people’s gold and then increased its value by 60%. And he refused to do what Lincoln had done before him and what Kennedy would do after him: he refused to issue debt-free currency  and rescue the American people from aggravated poverty, degradation and death by starvation.

How could that be? How could Hitler state such a thing? Because it was true. It was simple and it was true. The secret to general and permanent prosperity is for the government of any country to issue debt-free currency in amounts necessary for commerce and growth. That is what the founders had in mind with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. We should read that over from time to time. Clause 5 says that the “Congress shall have power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Clause 6 is even better: “Congress shall have the power To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”

FED_dees

AMERICA IN CHAINS

You can see where this puts the owners of the counterfeiting company called the Federal Reserve System.

The proposed punishment for counterfeiting was execution by hanging.

Anyway, let us recognize the Holocaust for what it is, a device to make the idea of debt-free currency repellent to our minds, because anyone who would do it really just wants to gas the Jews.

—–

Töben tells Zundel why he doubts the Holocaust: Video talk introduced by Lasha Darkmoon

http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/toben-tells-zundel-why-he-doubts-the-holocaust-video-talk-introduced-by-lasha-darkmoon/

cropped-mc

TobenHdr

Famous “Holocaust denier” Ernst Zundel is here seen interviewing his fellow revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben (left) in this 100-minute cult classic video. Zundel questions Dr Töben about his early life and the evolution of his ideas. The interview throws a fascinating light on the genesis of a “Holocaust denier” and raises the important question: how does one break free from the prevailing mass hypnosis practiced on the public through the Jew-owned mass media and finally come to realize the shocking truth—that what is now purported to be the central feature of WW2, the Holocaust, is in fact the most spectacular hoax of all time?

___________________________________

 

Before you listen to the video, I would like to set the scene and make some general observations of my own about the Holocaust in general and Dr Töben in particular.

Dr Fredrick Töben was born in northern Germany in June 1944, but emigrated to Australia when he was ten. He has lived most of his life in Australia and is an Australian citizen. Having studied at Melbourne University in Australia, he went on to attend the universities of Heidelberg and Tübingen for postgraduate studies, finally acquiring his doctorate in philosophy from Stuttgart university.

Töben specialized in the thought of German political philosopher, Karl Popper, whose doctrine of scientific falsifiability has now become a cornerstone of modern science. According to this theory, any hypothesis that is not empirically testable and “falsifiable” is not a scientifically valid hypothesis, i.e., it is mere metaphysics or “dogma”.

It seems to me that Töben, educated in the philosophy of science, decided at some point to apply the same idea of “falsifiability” to the Holocaust. He examined the historical data of World War II methodically, with the precision required of a philosopher of science, and found that the facts presented by the traditional Holocaust scholars simply did not add up. The Holocaust narrative, he concluded, amounted to no more than a religious dogma: a belief unsupported by solid evidence.

Having reached this momentous conclusion — that the traditional Holocaust narrative was essentially belief in a new religion which might be called “Holocaustianity” — Dr Töben was to bring down the wrath of the Jewish establishment on his head.

As a result of his politically incorrect views, Töben was systematically bullied, victimized and vilified as a “Holocaust denier” and anti-Semitic racist. He was to receive two prison sentences, one in Germany and one in Australia. He was also to receive crippling fines that amounted to the total confiscation of his property. All this was to demonstrate to the world what his supporters already knew: that the vindictice malice and cruelty of his persecutors knew no bounds.

Organized Jewry, having taken control of most of the Western world’s media and legislative institutes, has now succeeeded in making it a crime to question the Holocaust in 17 countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

Dr Töben has always shown himself a plucky and highly principled opponent who has refused to buckle and bend under Jewish intimidation, refusing on several occasions to apologize for his views when an apology might well  have diminished the severity of Jewish vengeance. To stand up to the Jewish power structure has now, as noted above, become a heinous crime in seventeen countries. Indeed,  even to draw attention to this disgraceful fact, as I do now, is a crime in the Jewish lexicon. Kowtowing to Jewry is now compulsory. De Iudaiis nil nisi bonum.

Töben, like Ernst Zundel and so many other revisionist historians, considers the Holocaust to be a barefaced lie: a myth perpetuated (in his own words) by “the Holocaust racketeers, the corpse peddlers, and the Shoah Business Merchants.” He has further asserted, to the accompaniment of howls of rage from the traditional enemies of free speech,  that “the current US government is influenced by world Zionist considerations to retain the survival of the European colonial, apartheid, Zionist, racist entity of Israel.” (See here)

Dr Töben clearly entertains  no love for the state of Israel, which is in itself regarded as a shocking crime nowadays, for any negative criticism of Israel is seen as a symptom of anti-Semitism.

In 2005, in an interview with Iranian state television, Töben made the controversial comment: “Israel is founded on the Holocaust lie.”

The fact that millions of educated people all over the world happen to believe that Dr Töben  is right does not detract from the controversial nature of the above statement that Israel is founded upon the Holocaust lie. If there were a way of throwing all these millions of Holocaust skeptics into prison, the state of Israel and its zealous supporters would not hesitate to do so. Unfortunately (or fortunately) they cannot consign so many millions of people to prison. It just isn’t practical. There are not enough prison cells in the world for so many potential prisoners.

How did Dr Töben end up in a German prison? Well, that’s simple: he went to Germany. And soon after he got there, the authorities nabbed him. In April, 1999, they put him in prison, without offering him bail, and kept him there for the next seven months while awaiting trial. He was then accused in court of inciting racial hatred, insulting the memory of the dead, and public denial of the genocide of six million Jews in gas chambers.

After three days of careful consideration by Judge Klaus Kern, in which neither Töben nor his lawyer Ludwig Bock was allowed to mount a defense—for any defense against “Holocaust denial” is itself regarded as a further crime!—Töben was found guilty and sentenced to 10 months in prison.

Taking into consideration the seven months he had already served in custody, Judge Kern ruled that Töben could be released on payment of a fine of 6,000 marks ($3,500) in lieu of the three months remaining of his prison sentence. German sympathizers raised the money at once, without difficulty, and Töben was a free man within 24 hours of the verdict.

“This is a victory for free speech,” Töben commented upon his release, and went on to add defiantly: “I will not be silenced! I intend to keep on using the Internet to promote discussion on these issues. I believe in seeking the truth. Why are they so afraid in Germany of allowing open discussion about the so-called Holocaust? It can only be because they are afraid of the truth.”

Afraid of the truth! Cutting words. But if this is the only way to coerce belief in the Holocaust—to punish people in seventeen countries for daring to doubt the word of the soap-and-lampshade propagandists—there is little hope that Holocaustianity will prevail for much longer as the world’s newest religion.

Even during Töben’s trial, his lawyer Ludwig Bock had compared the prosecution of Töben and other “Holocaust deniers” to the trials of witches in the Middle Ages. The judge had just sat there, rigid and stone-faced, unable to deny what was only too apparent: that Töben was to be just another innocent victim of a Jewish witch-hunt.

”I wanted the court to go with me to Auschwitz to see the evidence,” Töben pointed out reasonably. “In any case where murder is alleged, there has to be a murder weapon. I have been to Auschwitz and I know there is no mass murder weapon there. The so-called homicidal gas chambers do not exist.”

Screen Shot 2013-09-29 at 8.40.41 AM

French Revisionist historian Robert Faurission had said pretty much the same thing.

Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!” Faurisson had challenged his critics. “I’m still waiting!”

No one has been able to do so. Not a single gas chamber has ever been produced as evidence. What is more, the gullible public don’t even know this. It is universally assumed that there are dozens of gas chambers dotted all around Germany and Poland when in fact there are none.

It is sobering to reflect that British historian David Irving—who probably knows more about the Holocaust than anyone alive today—was fined 30,000 marks ($21,000) for publicly stating what is now openly and authoritatively conceded: that the extermination gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz was a mock-up or “dummy”. It had never gassed a single Jew. It had been built by the Russians after the war.

Screen Shot 2013-09-29 at 8.40.59 AM

For decades, the authorities had deliberately lied to the public by pretending that this  fake gas chamber was an authentic one.

How many Holocaust hoaxes have there been? Wikipedia, which has produced countless articles on every aspect of the Holocaust, has failed as yet to produce a single article giving us a comprehensive list of Holocaust hoaxes.

Anne Frank has been written about at great length, but the fact that her famous memoir is essentially a forgery concocted by her uncle and a Hollywood scriptwriter (who was asked to write the dialogue) has not been revealed. Elie Wiesel, at every opportunity, relates his Holocaust woes to the world, but is too shy to show us his Holocaust tattoo. Geysers spouting blood. Jewish girls being adopted by kindly wolves and nursed on wolf milk. Jewish couples falling in love with each other behind barbed wire, losing each other after the war, only to meet up again decades later for a whirlwind romance and matrimonial consummation. The schmaltz is only equaled by the brazen mendacity.

How many tears have been shed over Jewish skin turned into lampshades and Jewish bones made into soap?

It is impossible to say.

***

Let me end this brief introduction by relating what happened to me a few days ago. I was sitting in my favorite sidewalk café at my corner table and writing this essay on my laptop, as is my wont, when a man I knew approached my table and sat down opposite me. “Remember the story about the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter?” he said.

“Only too well,” I replied dryly. “What of it?”

For those of you who are unacquainted with the story of the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter, let me say that this story is a typical example of mass media fabrication and black propaganda. It is the way the Jews dish up our news: sensational stories designed to deceive the public and promote profit for the few and mass misery for the rest of us. This story was the work of a public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton. The central character was the teenage daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, having been first given the green light by America, the world was to be outraged by the sob story related by an unknown girl called  Nayirah—who was later on to be outed as the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter in disguise.  She was to testify tearfully, before the cameras, of atrocities committed by Iraqi soldiers in a Kuwaiti hospital: of scenes of horror which the wretched girl had witnessed with her own eyes.

She had seen these satanic soldiers rip babies out of incubators and toss them sadistically on the ground. I forget if she said they had trampled on the babies with their hobnailed boots, crushing their skulls to a bloody pulp on the hard stone floor. I can’t remember. I wouldn’t put it past her. After all, she had been schooled in her story by the best merchants of mendacity, the public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton, with a view to enraging the credulous masses of America—natural born saps who can always be relied upon to fall for the latest lie.

And fall for it they did. Leading to America’s subsequent intervention in Iraq in 1991 and the massacre of countless Iraqi soldiers in the cruelest circumstances: by burying them alive in huge open pits and burning them to cinders as they fled for their lives.

“Okay, so what’s your point?” I asked the young man who had interrupted me in my literary labors. “Why do you bring up the story of the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter?”

He threw a newspaper down on the table. “Read that,” he said. “Does it ring a bell? Doesn’t it remind you of the story of the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter?”

Screen Shot 2013-09-29 at 8.41.17 AM

I began to read the book review. As I read, I began to feel my blood boil. My pulse began to race and rattle and I had to pause several times in my reading, biting my lip in anger at the outrageous lies being marketed by this British tabloid rag, the Daily Mail. The book review was about the evil German women of the Third Reich, thirteen million of them apparently, all rampaging around in the “Nazi killing fields.” Written by Professor Wendy Lower, it was called Hitler’s Furies.

Let me give you an idea of this “chilling” and “sensational” new book by quoting from the review which I now have before me on my desk. I wonder what Dr Töben will make of these latest revelations of German iniquity, all of them concentrating on the female of the species, mulier Teutonica.

This is how the book review begins:

Blonde German housewife Erna Petri was returning home after a shopping trip in town when something caught her eye: six small, nearly naked boys huddled in terror by the side of the country road.

Married to a senior SS officer, the 23-year-old knew instantly who they were.

They must be the Jews she’d heard about — the ones who’d escaped from a train taking them to an extermination camp.

But she was a mother herself, with two children of her own. So she humanely took the starving, whimpering youngsters home, calmed them down and gave them food to eat.

Then she led the six of them — the youngest aged six, the oldest 12 — into the woods, lined them up on the edge of a pit and shot them methodically one by one with a pistol in the back of the neck.

This sets the tone. Cold, heartless Aryan murderesses. Every single one of them, Satan’s daughter, an emissary from hell. Let me add that the book reviewer is forced to admit in a reluctant memo, at the end of the article, that the evidence against these women was virtually non-existent.

Screen Shot 2013-09-29 at 8.41.34 AM

Apart from one woman, Erna Petri, “all the others mentioned here,” he admits candidly, “were tried and acquitted or released after questioning.”

They were tried and acquitted by the Americans, incidentally, not by the Germans. So they were actually acquitted by their own wartime enemies.

In spite of this acquittal, the Jewish (?) author of this blood-and-thunder Holocaust memoir  bizarrely suggests that the women were nevertheless guilty,  but managed to get off the hook only because they were too ashamed to admit their guilt.

“This fact has been suppressed and denied,” she sputters indignantly, “by the very women who were swept up in the regime and by those who perpetrated the violence with impunity. But genocide is also women’s business. When given the ‘opportunity’, women too will engage in it, even its bloodiest aspects.”

We’ll take your word for it, Professor.

After all, you’re a woman. And so you must know from personal experience what genocidal hellhags women can be.

***

The story of the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter springs to mind as one reads these sensational anecdotes, all from eyewitness accounts of dubious provenance and without a single source reference that can be accepted as reliable. Here’s another story that could have come straight from the public relations firm of Hill and Knowelton:

She [Johanna Altvater,  a 22-year-old secretary] marched into a building being used as a makeshift hospital and through the children’s ward, eyeing each bed-ridden child. Then she stopped, picked one up, took it to the balcony and threw the child to the pavement three floors below. She did the same with other children. Some died, and even those who survived were seriously injured.

Her speciality — or, as one survivor put it, her ‘nasty habit’ — was killing children. One observer noted that Altvater often lured children with sweets. When they came to her and opened their mouths, she shot them in the mouth with the small pistol that she kept at her side.

On another occasion, she beckoned a toddler over, then grabbed him tightly by the legs and slammed his head against a wall as if she were banging the dust out of a mat.

She threw the lifeless child at the feet of his father, who later testified: ‘Such sadism from a woman I have never seen. I will never forget this.’

True, it is hard to forget. It is even harder to believe. I have met German women. I have lived in Germany. German women are among the noblest I have met. Never forget that two  million of these women were raped, tortured, and put to death in the cruelest circumstances after WW2 by their Allied victors, especially by the Russians on the express orders of their bloodthirsty Bolshevik Jewish commandant Ilya Ehrenberg.

Even [German] nuns in habits were raped….182 Catholic nuns were raped by Red Army soldiers in the diocese of Kattowitz, the soldiers left behind 66 pregnant nuns. Some women lived for weeks on rooftops trying to escape the violence….

The Russians had gone as far as actually to crucify nearly all the [German] villagers whilst still alive, nailing a number of women and even babies to barn doors…. Every room contained bodies, the corpses of children and of women who had evidently suffered serial rape before their deaths….women who had been raped and mutilated one by one, each with an empty wine bottle in her vagina…. (See here)

And these German women, we are now told in this new Holocaust memoir, were no more than a bunch of sadistic serial killers. Thirteen million of them, all in the Nazi party, all goose-stepping vampire girls in jackboots wielding wicked whips like demented dominatrices!  The point being, I guess, that as German women they had it coming to them after WW2. Rape, torture and brutal murder—with their breasts hacked off and their babies ripped from their wombs—all this was no more than the horrid creatures deserved. It was retribution for being evil Nazis who had done away with six million Jews in gas chambers—in imaginary gas chambers, please note, since not a single authentic gas chamber has to date been found.

Remember the gas chamber at Auschwitz turned out to be a fake—just like the fake lampshades made of Jewish skin and the fake soap made of Jewish bones. (See here here, here, and here.)

***

The video you are about to see is cult memorabilia. The interview it features took place in 1997, ten years before Ernst Zundel’s conviction in February 2007 in a German court for “inciting hatred against an identifiable group“:  in short, for the crime of saying what millions now increasingly believe—that the Holocaust is a hoax calculated to legitimize the state of Israel and defame the German people.

The Holocaust narrative, unproven and unprovable, subjects the German people to endless obloquy and defamation. It makes extortionate demands for reparations payments, without an end in sight. It is, quite simply, legalized blackmail.

To see the video, click on

Ernst Zundel in Conversation with Dr fredrick Toben — Portrait of a Philosopher, 1997.
—-

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

GuenterDeckerHeader copy

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.”

Guenter Deckert1 copy

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.

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM

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.)

 

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM

CarloM300

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.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM

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.”

[Read more…]

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

Photobucket

 

Photobucket

 

Click HERE to listen to Interview

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

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

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

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

———-

Hello,

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

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

Thanks for your interest in my programs.

Kindest Regards,

Deanna

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

www.republicbroadcasting.org

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

Spingola Specials – commercial-free interviews

 My Books:

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

The Ruling Elite, the Zionist Seizure of World Power 

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

Reply to Mark Weber by Robert Faurisson

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF031222.html

Reply to Mark Weber

Robert Faurisson
January 12, 2009

I shall briefly sum up for you what, precisely, our recent exchange of correspondence has been. For greater clarity, I find myself obliged to emphasise certain words of this exchange, although I do not care for the practice. You will see that, contrary to what you venture to say, the letter that I sent you and made public on 17 December was neither “misleading” nor “unfair”. You will also see, at the end of this reply, that you have made a monumental muddle of a text of mine of which you quote a very brief fragment; by so doing, you have been “misleading” or “unfair” or both. In conclusion, I will show that this controversy may in the end lead to a heartening prospect for the future of revisionism.

My question of 17 December was: “Tell me whether or not you SAY, as I myself have so clearly STATED for so many years, that the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS and the alleged Nazi GAS VANS never EXISTED”. The question was clear: it focused 1) on what you SAY or STATE, 2) on the very EXISTENCE, 3) of the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS, 4) and of the alleged Nazi GAS VANS.

Instead of answering this question directly, you wrote back: “I don’t believe the claims about the alleged Nazi gas chambers”. That act of faith was not what I was looking for. Effectively, whereas I was waiting to see what you, as a historian, would SAY or STATE, you answered by what you DIDN’T BELIEVE. Then, you asserted that you did not BELIEVE in CLAIMS, a particularly vague word; the remark may mean that you refuse to believe certain statements concerning the said gas chambers, but not necessarily all such statements; the choice of the word “CLAIMS” may mean that you call into question certain aspects of the story of the Nazi gas chambers (their number, location, performance) but not necessarily the affirmation of their existence itself. Finally, with such a sentence you do not, as all may see, breathe a word of the “gas vans”.

[Read more…]