Thinking about the “Holocaust” is a crime—interview with Alfred Schaefer By Jonas E. Alexis VeteransToday

 

screen-shot-2016-12-13-at-6-18-49-pm

Thinking about the “Holocaust” is a crime—interview with Alfred Schaefer
By Jonas E. Alexis on December 9, 2016
The awakening masses understand the facts and will not tolerate the lies or those who protect the lies.
?
Alfred and Monika Schaefer

…by Jonas E. Alexis and Alfred Schaefer

Alfred Schaefer: I was born Jan 30 1955, and grew up in Canada, thinking that there could not possibly be anything in all the world that could ever threaten us. We were 5 children, my older brother who is a doctor but a complete zombie, my younger sister who pretends not to understand that this is important, then Monika, who understood immediately and you know her, and my youngest sister who died aged 26 in a mountaineering accident.

Only recently did I figure out that the strife, that the “easy go lucky” hippy movement created for us in the family, came from the “demoralization” that was happening to our entire western society.

We thought that this was all a natural development, never ever suspecting that the entire rock and roll and hippy scene in that era was manufactured by the same forces that are now trying to enslave us. This was all part of the subversion, driving a wedge between the disciplined and cultured older people, and ourselves. We thought they were just old fashioned, and we were so cool.

But, the discipline from our parents did save us from completely failing, and we did have a lot of fun with them doing a lot of hiking and camping and stuff like that. After high school I tried university, but quit that after a couple of months. The next year I attended a technical college. I took a two year “Electronics Engineering Technology Course” in the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

After graduating from that, in Edmonton Alberta, in 1977, I went to work for IBM as a “repair man”, fixing photo copiers and typewriters and small computer systems. I did that for three years, with the intention of saving enough money to go on a big bicycle trip.

I spent one year on a bicycle circling the USA, going down the west coast in the autumn of 1980, then across to Florida in the winter months, dipping into Mexico on the way across. Then, up the east coast and across to Edmonton.

The following year I went to Europe, and spent the next 4 years riding and jobbing and helping some Germans that I met, take trucks and busses down from Germany through the Sahara, to Burkina Faso, Togo, Niger, and Mali, to sell them. I did this 5 times with these people, until I realised that if I don’t settle down in a normal life soon, that it may never be possible and I may end up in sorry shape.

So, in 1985, I applied to work as a technician for IBM in Munich. It was a supremely lucky break for me that this effort succeeded, and the two years that I intended to work in Munich turned into a “lifer”. I got a job that I did not even dare to apply for, namely working on the large systems as a technician.

As the technology evolved and the technical skills were less and less in demand, I changed my line of work within the company, which also meant moving several times. I spent 3 years in Boulder Colorado on an assignment for the European countries in the IBM printing systems development lab.

All of these experiences gave me the necessary base for doing what I am now doing for the “truth movement.”

Then, this summer, a series of amazing coincidences once again set the stage. Monika and Tony Hall came for a visit, and that visit resulted in the “sorry mom” video, as well as the CODOH video and so much more. It was a life changing visit for all of us. I am not superstitious, but I do feel that this much good fortune obligates, otherwise, it is all wasted.

My last video summarises my “truther” career, more or less, as I had taken a short scene from my very first video which was the “9/11 Gatekeepers and Controlled Opposition”. This video resulted from me becoming uncontrollably enraged after seeing the video posted by Kevin Barrett on Veterans Today where Noam Chomsky dismisses that student in Florida with his question on WTC7. Remember, Chomsky was like an ikon for us, a guru. When I saw that video, it blew out all my fuses.

It was information that I gleaned from Kevin Barrett’s dialog with Chomsky that enabled me to get though to Chomsky. That idiot Chomsky replied to me, after I wrote him what I thought of his treasonous behaviour. He probably could not stand the fact that some little shit can be so outright brazen and challenge him on this, and he wrote back to me. This went back and forth several times.

Jonas E. Alexis: You have argued that people can face numerous consequences if they “commit the crime of thinking” in Germany. Whatever happens to the German intellectual tradition? What would thinkers like Kant and Hegel say of Germany’s thought police today? Explain those issues for us.

Alfred Schaefer: Our forefathers would turn over in their graves if they were to witness what we are living today, not only in Germany but throughout the European and “western” countries.

The “re-education” that was imposed upon what was left of the German people after the genocidal wars against Europe, what we call “WWI and WWII”, continued the destruction of independent thinking.

The suppression of independent thinking was already well advanced in those countries that were tricked into fighting these totally senseless wars which only the perpetrator of this conflict benefitted from. That winner was international Jewry.

The entire official narrative of those wars, is nothing more than the interpretation that the perpetrators have presented us. They gloat about their ability to do this in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. See Protocol #7 under the subtitle “Universal War.”

This power, their control over the media, gives these people the ability to channel and mould our thinking to serve their interests. Without the hatred incited against Germany well before the start of these genocidal wars, they never would have taken place. They resulted in the extermination of countless millions of the best people, the flower of the European people, a genetic degradation, as well as the wholesale destruction of irreplaceable historical culture. Dresden comes to mind here.

This follows the instructions in the Protocols that calls for the total and utter destruction of those who do not subordinate themselves, including any memory of them. The destruction of cities like Dresden was intended to help erase the memory of the Germanic people as it was perhaps the most beautiful city in the world for its cultural heritage. It was overflowing with refugees fleeing the onslaught of the Jewish Bolsheviks from the east, when it was firebombed in a true holocaust.

Dresden had no military value targets whatsoever. For a description of this barbarity, the book by Thomas Goodrich titled “Hellstorm”, is a sobering account.  Producer Kyle Hunt has also made this into a film, which the Jews unsuccessfully tried to sensor from the German people.

Our world today would be very different indeed had we not been tricked into these suicidal struggles, going back to even before the French Revolution in 1789.

A good contemporary example of how the interpretation of events creates a narrative that has very little to do with reality, is the official version of 9/11, and how 19 Muslims with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners to pull that off. Since this event took place in our lifetime, it is easier to understand. It can be used as a blueprint to illustrate how these lies are implanted into our collective psyche, even though any human being with a functioning brain, knows that this official story is totally false.

After that event took place, only the false narrative is ever repeated, over and over again. Any and all people who are dependent on the Jewish money system lose their ability to survive if they utter one word about what happened on 9/11 that deviates from the official lies.

This process, imposed on a population over a span of several decades or generations, makes any other narrative appear wrong or even insane, simply because everyone is repeating the same lies.

For the “party line” to succeed in becoming the “truth”, all dissenting “opinions” must be subdued.  To accomplish this, both carrots and sticks are employed. Carrots may come in the form of promotions, payoffs, or being puffed up and glorified in the media. Sticks may come in the form simple censorship, deleting data from the internet, or hysterical attacks of denunciation or death.

These include the ultimate: “holocaust denier”, “anti-Semite”, “conspiracy theorist” or any of the other meaningless control trigger words. These control trigger words activate a carefully engineered program that has been installed in our minds over a long period of time.

The ability for an “enemy within the gates” to trigger programs residing within our minds, would vindicate Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who singlehandedly set the stage for German philosophy in the nineteenth century, in his understanding of the human mind. Kant held that any object given to the human mind is subject to the means by which the mind receives it.

All of our lives our minds have been subjected to a barrage of messages that have been “interpreted” for us, as “reality”. In other words, the mind receives certain messages over and over and over again, from all directions, imbedding the Jewish fantasies into our minds until we believe them to be reality. Whether it is “Anna Frank’s” phony dairies, or the fiction “Schindler’s List” turned into fact by presenting it as such, to the children in our schools.

Just recently a friend of mine, a woman from Kenya, dropped by to discuss politics with me. Naomi worked as an Au Pair for the neighbours before studying in Munich. She watched my “Police Raid” video and was delighted that it really told the truth. Then she confessed that she was warned by her friends in Kenya about 8 years ago, before coming to Europe, to be on her guard so as not to get “brainwashed” when in Europe. Her friends expressed concern that she may also get “brainwashed” during her stay in Europe if she is not careful.

She explained the extreme frustration that her German boyfriend and herself are experiencing now with fellow Germans who seem not to be able to understand that the imposed beliefs of the “Holocaust”, and many other beliefs are “brainwashing”.   When a woman from Kenya laments about the “saturation brainwashing” throughout the “western” countries, this gives us an alarming indication about the condition of our “intellectual tradition”.

In your question you mention Hegel. We often talk about the Hegelian dialectic, where two contradictory ideas or entities are mixed together resulting in something different from either of the two initial starting points.

In today’s world of fear and lies, with the perpetrators protected behind a shield that the incessant application of trigger control words provides them, they are now setting up numerous Hegelian dialectic’s that will destroy us, and we are not able to recognise or resist this process because of the condition of our compartmentalised and fragmented minds. Any recognition of the Hegelian dialectics is instantly countered with the application of control trigger words.

For example, if a European notices that most of the “refugees” are tough looking military aged fighting men, this observation is silenced with the simple term “Racist”, or “Neo-Nazi Racist”, and the military aged fighting men can go about destroying and raping without too much interference.

Those foreigners who came here years ago understand the lethal situation that this represents. Another example that Naomi, the woman from Kenya, gave me makes this clear. A fellow Kenyan who has also been in Germany for many years told her the following story.

He observed how two African “refugees” stole a telephone from an unsuspecting European. He confronted these two “refugee” men, and lectured them about how harmful this behaviour will be for them. They should give it back and claim that they saw it fall to the ground. So what did they do? Rather than take his advice, they beat him up for trying to discipline them.

Obviously those people who understand what civilization is all about, and still have a functioning brain, are very alarmed about the Hegelian Dialectics they see being set up.

Here are several of the Hegelian Dialectics:

1 – ) The “ruling elite” pretends that the lies are truth. Their decisions are based on pretending that the lies are truth.
1 + ) The awakening masses understand the facts and will not tolerate the lies or those who protect the lies.
2 – ) Third world “refugees” flooding into our European countries expecting to enjoy all the fruits of the civilisation we have built and inherited from our forefathers.
2 + ) European citizens who worked all their lives understand the injustice of having the invaders take it away from them.  Their sense of justice has been utterly betrayed. The invaders are immune to prosecution while indigenous Europeans are held to account for the smallest of infractions.
3 – ) Jewish financial criminals stand well above the law for multi billion dollar theft and mass murder.
3 + ) Normal working people can no longer get by with regular work and pay.
4 – ) People speak one “language” in public or at work. (the lies, ignorance)
4 + ) People speak another “language” at home or with friends whom they trust.  (the truth)
5 – )  Intellectually weak minded people unable to discern fact from fiction. Easily directed like controlled and programmed laboratory rats. Many feminized men and gender confused people in this category.
5 + )  The exploding numbers of people decontaminating themselves from the lies. Initial confusion turns to rage.
6 – )  Our money is a fiat money based on a foundation of lies and deceit.  Promissory notes based on lies.
6 + )  All fiat money collapses eventually, there are no exceptions to this rule.   Our survival depends on our ability to migrate from the present expired and toxic system to a new system for exchanging real value for real value.

To prevent a catastrophic explosion destroying our civilisation we need to understand these processes and reverse them before they implode in a “Supernova”.

In my video titled “Police Raid and my Confession by Alfred Schaefer” I tried to deconstruct the trigger control words, as this is an essential first step in regaining the ability to think independently. The trigger control words separate the compartments of the fragmented mind that no longer communicate with each other.

The compartmentalisation of the mind produces results similar to a physical lobotomy. In my video I refer to this condition as “induced mental illness”, which can be treated by careful exposure to truth and reason.

The purpose of these trigger control words is to prevent us from understanding and stopping the Hegelian Dialectics that will explode on us, unless they are reversed and dismantled.

Kant and Hegel would be alarmed to see that the descendants of their beloved society have unlearned how to think at all.

Jonas E. Alexis: You said that “The German ministry of forbidden thought” sent their agents to search your house and steal things you had in your computer. Describe this for us in detail. In the process, tell us whether they had any legal right to do so. In your opinion, was there any organization behind this?

Alfred Schaefer: The actual trigger for the “Kriminal Polizei” to come to raid our house, was the video that I had uploaded on the 17th of June 2016 with the title “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”. B’nai Brith sent out clear messages that “this guy needs to be taken down”.

In the search warrant they stated that my offence was the “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust” video. What is astounding is that they did not seem to have a problem framing an apology to one’s own Mom, as “incitement to racial hatred”.  This logic would certainly have had Hegel and Kant very alarmed about the state of mind of our people.

It makes no sense.  Actually, they then go on stating that the person in this video claims that there were no gas chambers and that the holocaust is the biggest lie in history. That is the simple truth. This is now common knowledge, so obviously we are now dealing with a religious tribunal determined to weed out all heretics. So again, philosophers of the past would be astounded at how far we have regressed to in the year 2016.

The main purpose of this raid was to try to silence me. Ironically, this raid and its aftermath actually provided me with useful data for my latest video. As I stated in this video, “Police Raid and my Confession by Alfred Schaefer”, I think the physical loss of these devises was well worth the price for having an interesting story to tell. Their intention was obviously to make it more difficult for me to work, or to silence me, but it has had the opposite effect.

You ask, if this was legal and what is the organisation behind it?

Allow me to respond with a question of my own: Was 9/11 legal, and what is the organisation behind that?  The answer is the same in both cases.

The paragraph 130 in German “law” that forbids stating that the fake holocaust consists of lies, is a law that allows the totally arbitrary punishment of any and all dissent. If a law was enacted that forbade breathing, then those in power could use the “anti-breathing” law to arbitrarily silence or punish any dissent, no matter what it was. Everyone with a functioning brain and the courage to ask to most basic questions, knows that the Jewish holocaust is nothing more than a fraud on an unprecedented scale.

But the law can now be arbitrarily applied to anyone that they want removed from the scene, which gives them truly god-like power over all of us. For me, I would rather be physically locked up or die, than to submit to this pathetic tyranny that reduces human beings to programmed rats.

Jonas E. Alexis: Describe how people in Germany and Canada can legally and effectively fight against the thought police.

Alfred Schaefer: Fighting the thought police legally and effectively is like trying to fight the inquisition with logic and reason.

It is not possible to fight an oppressor who labels “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”, which is an apology to one’s own mother, as “incitement to hatred”, in a system where “law” is arbitrary and one-sided.

Thought laws as we have them now, in what was once our civilisation, are pure tyranny. You cannot fight this tyranny with logic or laws that negate free speech and justice.

To fight “legally and effectively” with a “lawmaker” who is a Talmudic psychopath is like a sparrow asking the cat to negotiate.

A regime that imposes thought laws will not relinquish the power that thought laws represent. Our oppressors will never voluntarily relinquish power. This is psychopathic behaviour, and it will continue on the same peak and crash trajectory that it has always experienced in the past. Peak and crash, peak and crash, peak and crash.

The past crashes were characterised by the expulsion of the Jews from either cities or regions. This is the fist time that the magnitude of the crash can be seen as a life threatening event that may put us back to something that more resembles the Stone Age than our present day technological society and civilisation.

Our best hope is for very large numbers of people to stand up and ignore thought laws by publicly announcing their defiance. A law becomes unsustainable when the productive people of the society openly defy these destructive and suicidal thought laws.

Any thinking person with the smallest amount of self-respect would not blindly subordinate himself to these bizarre thought laws. They are not accidental, harmless or irrelevant laws.  They are the shield behind which the Jewish mega criminals bring us death and destruction on a global scale.

Maybe the fear of being seen as too cowardly or too stupid to speak up needs to become greater than the fear of possible consequences for actually speaking up, before the lemmings join those who are now already speaking up. In any case, fear is the overwhelming force that is determining the outcome.

The danger of our present situation is, that the perpetrators have always seen this moment in time as the timeframe reserved for their long planned “WWIII”. Their hope is that the traumatised remnants of this conflict will be in no more a position to resist the imposition of their long planned “Jew World Order”, than were the Germans able to resist the imposition, by stealth, of the imaginary “Holocaust” as we have witnessed over the past decades.

SOURCE ARTICLE

 

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

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

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

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

dchristie2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

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

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

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

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orwell1984BKCv

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

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

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

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

AliceinWonderland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

WellsCommentary

Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws by Arthur Topham

BadMoonRisingHeader 800 copy 4

 

Bad Moon Rising: 

How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws

By 

Arthur Topham

“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
Shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
Beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”
~ Jesus Christ, St. Matthew Ch. 7, vs 24 -27

 

My assertion, as stated in the title to this article, that Canada’s judicial system has been infiltrated and co-opted by foreign Zionist Jew lobby groups operating in Canada since 1919, will automatically be met with a loud hue and cry of “preposterous! outrageous!” followed immediately by much hand-wringing and declamations of “anti-Semitism”,”hate”,”racism” and further punctuated, dramatized and broadcast across the nation via the the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.

So be it. It doesn’t detract one iota from the facts. All such reactionary responses only reinforce the premise of my argument that Canada’s Zionist Jew media cartel is, and always has been, an integral part of their overall plan to formulate and establish Orwellian laws inimical to the rights and freedoms of the people. Frankly stated it’s the modus operandi of these foreign-controlled Jewish lobbies to react precisely in this fashion for that is how they mendaciously twist and stifle debate on any issue of national importance to Canadians; be it our Charter rights or our fundamental right (and responsibility as patriotic protectors of our country) to question the direction of the nation’s foreign policies which, under the current Harper regime, are deliberately replacing the nation’s longstanding principles of common sense and aligning our once relatively respected political ideals with the present agenda of the Zionist Jewish state of Israel, considered by most intelligent people to be the most rogue, racist, supremacist, violent, atheistic and apartheid nation on the face of the planet.

It’s my fervent contention that the template for Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation was, from the start, designed in such a way as to function as a legal shield; a mechanism which the Zionist lobbyists use to defend themselves against any allegations aimed at exposing their covert actions; all of which are meant to benefit their inordinate influence over Canadian politics and the criminal actions of the foreign state of Israel; Harper, of course, being their current Trojan Horse, front man in this deliberate, ongoing, slow motion coup to capture the nation’s political and legal systems.

When we go back in history and retrace the steps that these legal interlopers have taken since the end of World War 2 it’s clearly evident what they’ve been up to, especially in light of the now increasing displeasure that more and more Canadians are showing toward the actions of the Jewish lobbies when it comes to their relentless, telling attacks upon our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which include our fundamental right to freedom of expression as stated in Sec. 2b of the Charter.

For those still unfamiliar with this fundamental right it states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

All that’s required in order to verify this war against our rights and freedoms, including our most basic right of speaking out and expressing our views on issues vital to our national well being, is to delve into any and all of the legal cases over the past forty four years associated with the issue of freedom of expression and one will see immediately that in practically every instance the first special interest lobby group lining up and vying for intervenor status is inevitably a Jewish one. And furthermore, concomitant with their zealousness to intervene is usually the underlying fact that it is they themselves who were instrumental in bringing forth the charges. And if that isn’t the norm then they’re undoubtedly there to make sure that the complainant (usually an agent in one form or another) gets the maximum support of their power and influence in the courts and the media.

The foundation for all of this pretense and deceit was laid at the end of the last world war when the Zionist-controlled U.K. and USA began cranking up their deliberately orchestrated accusations that Hitler and the German military were guilty of having attempted to wipe out the Jews in Europe by gassing millions of them and then cremating the innocent souls in ovens to cover up their horrendously heinous crime. The Nuremberg Trials at the war’s end were the focus of these fantastic claims of willful genocide by gas and fire and the West, still mesmerized by the massive amounts of anti-German hate propaganda which they had been saturated with for the past six years, as well as being shell-shocked from all the fighting, killing, bombing and destruction, fell prey to this massive deception and was unwilling or unable to garner the moral fortitude or financial resources necessary to counter these outrageous lies of the powerful Zionist lobby.

Little did it matter that every confession by the captured German military commanders had been gained by torture. Little did it matter that the majority of those running the trials were of Jewish ethnicity. Little did it matter that laws which had been followed by nations for decades were suddenly revised in secrecy just prior to the war’s end and the former International Geneva protocols cast aside and new standards of jurisprudence abruptly introduced into the equation by Jewish judges and the Zionist forces who had gained firm control of the whole charade. This was the hour that they’d planned for and were awaiting since first declaring war on Germany in 1933 when Hitler and the National Socialist Party gained power through legal, democratic means.

Now that the Allies had gained their victory, the Zionists via subterfuge, deception, political pressure and the willing assistance of their controlled media and Hollywood, were finally in a position to have their long sought “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” footings poured, thus assuring themselves of a firm propaganda foundation for the erection of their fabricated phantasy; one that would then allowing for the rest of the subsequent monkey business of taking over and manipulating national and international laws, all of which was based upon their cunningly crafted pretext for tyranny known as the “Holocaust”.

After that landmark lie was accomplished it was merely a matter of time, patient plodding, and endless, inordinate propaganda and pressure placed upon the rest of the population of the world who had still to accept the “Holocaust” hoax and be subsequently convinced of the dire and urgent necessity for enacting legislation that would make it illegal to promote either “genocide” or “hatred” toward any identifiable group.

In principle (and of course based upon the lie of the “6 Million”) these proposals might have appeared laudable and worthy had the mythical “Holocaust” actually occurred and in that context they would most definitely have been noble pursuits to accomplish but that, unfortunately, wasn’t the reality. Only now that the real history of the last eighty years is finally coming to light, thanks to the free and open Internet, are we finally getting to see the original, unadulterated script as it was so cleverly designed by the Zionist forces of the day; a program of diabolic, Machiavellian political pragmatism designed to destroy democratic institutions and replace them with a Zionist-based illuminist, occult vision of a macabre New World Order where they, and only they, would hold all the power and control over the world’s people along with all the resources of the planet.

Such was the set and setting here in Canada when the Jewish lobbies started their underhanded campaign to create “Hate Propaganda” laws that would be and are being used against Canadian citizens today.

One might legitimately say that these deceptive measures to control freedom of speech actually began even before the commencement of WW2. After Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933 the Jews in Canada were already growing fearful that Canadians might begin to believe what Germany was saying about the International financiers and the Jewish control of their own beleaguered nation and so in the province of Manitoba, (of all places) the government passed a statute to combat what was apparently perceived to be a “rise in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda”. The premise of which (The Libel Act, R.S.M. 1913, c. 113, s. 13A (added S.M. 1934, c. 23, s. 1) was later to become The Defamation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. D20, s. 19(1) and was in all likelihood the first volley launched against freedom of expression.

Up until 1970 Section 181 of the Criminal Code, which reads: “Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” was the only provision in the Code even remotely connected to the offence of group defamation but it didn’t, at the time, specifically make mention of “hate propaganda”.

As stated above, when WW2 ended the work of the Zionist lobbyists began in earnest when their “Holocaust” card began appearing as the foundational pretext to any and all discussions surrounding “human rights” and “discrimination”. The first step in the direction of censorship was the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 with its references to “hate propaganda” and by 1953 we find that the Canadian Jewish Congress was already diligently pursuing efforts toward this end with their attempt to insert anti-hate propaganda provisions into the Criminal Code which was being revised in that same year.

Their deceptive labours eventually bore fruit when the lobby was finally able to convince Canada’s federal Justice Minister Guy Favreau in 1965 to appoint a special (interest) committee to look into the purported “problems” connected with the dissemination of “hate propaganda” in Canada.

Surprisingly (not) what became known as “The Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada” and later abbreviated (for propaganda purposes) to the “Cohen Committee” was headed by a Jewish lawyer, Dean Maxwell Cohen, Q.C., Dean of the Faculty of Law, McGill University. While not all members of the committee were Jewish there was one other notable lawyer instrumental in aiding the Jewish lobby in their relentless quest for censorship laws. This was none other than Professor Pierre E. Trudeau, Associate Professor of Law, University of Montreal, soon to become Canada’s Prime Minister.

The committee studied the alleged “problem” from January 29th to November 10th, 1965 and their conclusions called for new legislation that ultimately affected the Post Office Act, the Customs Act, and most critically in today’s context, what is now Section 319 of the Criminal Code, the very same section that’s being used to shut down RadicalPress.com and threaten its Publisher and Editor (me) with a possible two year jail sentence for having expressed opinions and facts on Zionism, Jews and the state of Israel.

My case is designed to be the test case for the Jewish lobbyists working in Canada. Should they win and find me guilty under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada then that precedent will undoubtedly unleash a flood of subsequent attacks upon the rest of the bloggers and publishers and writers and artists living in Canada who also see an imminent threat to their freedom of expression encapsulated in this draconian, Marxist legislation designed with malicious forethought to censor truth and stymie any and all attempts to achieve and maintain justice and freedom of speech in Canada.

Conclusion:

Just as the great parable of Jesus Christ regarding the foolish man who built his house upon the sand has come down through history so too has the foolish attempt by those who call themselves Jews to build an occult house of invisible governance upon the sands of deception, usury and an insatiable lust for power and control over their fellow mortals.

Now that the rains of the peoples’ outrageous indignation and the floods of perceived injustice and repression of personal freedoms and the winds of Truth and Freedom are beginning to beat with greater and greater intensity upon the once mighty and powerful House of Zion (thanks to the miracle of the Internet), the underpinnings of this deceptive, age-old hoax are giving way and, should the people continue to unite and persevere in their staunch resistance to and abolition of all the “Hate Propaganda” laws now being used against them then soon, and with great relief and thankfulness, will come the fall of this House of Horrors and a new beginning for those who want only peace and love and justice and brotherhood to reign supreme.

—-

 

Arthur Topham puts Zionist double-standards & hypocrisy on trial! Interview with Kevin Barrett of TruthJihad Radio

Screen Shot 2013-12-16 at 3.51.45 PM

Screen Shot 2013-12-18 at 7.29.30 AM

This show was broadcast on December 17, 2013.
It is now archived HERE for everyone — Use Player

Or here: http://noliesradio.org/archives/73783

 

http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.ca/2013/12/arthur-topham-puts-zionist-double.html

Broadcast Tues., Dec. 17th 10-11 a.m. Central (1500 GMT) on NoLiesRadio.org, archived here. Note: TruthJihad.com subscribers can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of TruthJihad.com and go to the “Private Blog” to get early access to the shows.

Screen Shot 2013-12-16 at 3.51.11 PM

Arthur Topham, publisher of the Canadian-based Radical Press website, is facing criminal charges. His crime: Parodying Zionist Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish!” by changing “Germany” to “Israel” throughout the text.  This tiny change produced the satirical masterpiece “Israel Must Perish!” – and led Canada’s Zionist Power Configuration to have him jailed on “hate crime” charges!

The 1941 Zionist genocide manifesto Germany Must Perish! makes Mein Kampf look like a Mother Theresa homily by comparison. The mass murder of every German advocated by Kaufman was hailed by Time Magazine as “a sensational idea!” The annihilation of the women, children, and men of Germany was termed “a plan for permanent peace among civilized nations” by the Zionist flagship publication The New York Times.

The Zionist call for the genocidal murder of every German, exemplified by Kaufman’s book, led to the mass murder of German civilians in the militarily useless firebombings of German cities (such as the Dresden holocaust described by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. in Slaughterhouse Five.) It also led to the US military’s mass murder of as many as a million German POWs, who were penned up behind barbed wire without food, water, or shelter and left to die of hunger, thirst, and exposure. And it led to the postwar genocide in which at least three million German civilians (some estimates say closer to ten million) were starved in a brutal ethnic cleansing carried out by the US and Soviet occupations. These killings of millions were not accidental; they were the outcome of the partial implementation of the Morgenthau Plan – the official US government version of Theodore Kaufman’s call for the annihilation of Germans.

David Irving may be controversial, but no competent historian would dispute his assessment: “The Morgenthau Plan would have led to the death by starvation and pestilence of ten million Germans in the first two years after the war, in addition to the one million who had been killed in the saturation bombing and the three million killed in the enforced expulsion from Germany’s eastern territories.”

These historical facts do not excuse German war crimes. But they do raise the question of whether the victors’ version of history, including the (very likely exaggerated) sacred story of the gas-chamber holocaust, may be a classic case of the psychological defense mechanism known as “projection” – i.e. absolving oneself of one’s own evils by projecting them upon the Other.

Posted by Kevin Barrett at 8:07 AM
——-

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

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

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 9.00.04 PM

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

~Theodore  N. Kaufmann, Germany Must Perish!

AdolfQuote&Image

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

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

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

KSelickGermanophobe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YoungHitlerAdmirer 700

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

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

Eighty Years of Infamy by Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 5.31.19 PM

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

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

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

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

JudeaDeclaresWarGermany 700

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GermanyPerishF&BCovers copy 3

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

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

HitlerSnowball 2

HitlerDartboard

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 2.35.32 PM

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

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

crucifixion-

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

Nuremberg1

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 3.43.23 PM

EichmannPropaganda copy

HolocautBook copy

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

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

Hitler'sDaughter copy

The Final Solution

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 5.22.38 PM

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

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

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

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

Prologue

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

God be with us all.

———–

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

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

StarWkly@War700

 

Simon Wiesenthal Center’s 2012 Top Ten Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel Slurs by Simon Says….

 

Editor’s Note:

An associate of mine sent me the following email admonishing me for having missed the Top 10 Anti-Semites of the year! 🙂 What could I say but hey, I guess I’ll have to try harder in 2013!

It is quite an array of people who have had the courage to stand up and speak out about a problem that has plagued the planet for a good century or longer on a massive scale. My best regards go out to all of them and the thousands upon thousands more like myself who also are doing our utmost to expose the lies and deception of the Zionist juggernaut.

Power to the Truth and Courage to the Truth seekers!

Arthur Topham

___________

MG writes:

Arthur, you didnt make the list….
All I can say is…
You`re not trying hard enough LOL!!!

http://www.wiesenthal.com/atf/cf/%7B54d385e6-f1b9-4e9f-8e94-890c3e6dd277%7D/TT_2012_3.PDF

SCWAd

 

SWC1

SWC2

 

SWC3

SWC4

"SWC5</a

"SWC6</a

 

http:///s88.photobucket.com/albums/k188/ArthurTopham/?action=view&current=ScreenShot2013-01-07at61342PM.png” target=”_blank”>"SWC7</a

"SWC8</a

"SWC9</a

"SWC10</a

"SWC10A</a