Search results for: "trial"

Zionist-controlled Calgary Court shuts down Splitting the Sky v. War Criminal G.W. Bush proceedings in day two of trial

Calgary Police “taking down” Splitting the Sky while attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush in Calgary, Alberta on September 17, 2009.
________________________________________________________________________________
Arthur Topham RP Publisher
March 10, 2010
Editor’s Note:
It’s fairly evident from the manner in which this case was handled that the Zionist-controlled media in Canada and elsewhere doesn’t want the issue of Bush the Barbarous brought to the attention of the general public. A protracted trial in which credible authorities might offer evidence in the defense of the accused and, God forbid, Splitting the Sky is given an opportunity to actually voice his convictions, is not the Zionist way of doing business. Better to just quash the whole damn thing and once the issue has filtered out of the public’s mind then bring in a ruling further down the road to tyranny and censorship.
Splitting the Sky
It’s my humble, yet considered opinion, that Canada’s judiciary, like the msm, is so infiltrated, permeated and manipulated by these Zionist/Jew lobbyists and their lawyer henchmen and women, that our courts today are as likely to spawn honest and just decisions as the Zionist-controlled msm is likely to present information that hasn’t first been run through the Orwellian Double Speak wringer prior to general publication.
Both these institutions (and others) bear witness to the fact that our civil and legal infrastructures are firmly in the hands of foreign, seditious entities who are using them for power and control and manipulation of the collective mindset of the Canadian public while their subsidiary organs of control, i.e. the multinational corporations, be they oil or ag or pharma or cult or whatever, drain this country of its natural resource wealth and human potential.
Due to the Zionist’s inordinate and immoral power via their financial and media influences men like Anthony J. Hall are forced to equate the machinations of the courts and the police and media to secondary and tertiary linguistic labels such as “oil conglomerates” all in order to escape the deadly-poisoned arrows of the Zionists who let fly their “anti-Semitic,” “racist,” and “hate”-tipped barbs at anyone who comes near to calling a spade a spade or a Zionist a Zionist.
War Criminal psychopath G.W. Bush, like his War Criminal psychopathic partner in crime, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, are mere puppets to the Israeli Jew lobby; flunkies and lackeys and cretins of the most despicable type who, under their false pretense of being “Christians,” carry out the dirty work of slaughtering the sons and daughters of American and Canadian citizens in imperialist wars of aggression against innocent foreign nations all for the benefit of these Zionist interlopers who haunt and invade our very lives via their omnipresence throughout the media and Canada’s judiciary.
More than just a touch of levity as War Criminal Harper reaches out to G.W. Bush
_________________________________________________________________________
Well, these traitorous intruders have been releasing their bolts of vituperative lightning at me, my family and my publishing business for over two years in a relentless attempt to silence my voice and the voices of countless others whose opinions and views I carry via RadicalPress.com and the Yahoo group site known as Anti-Zionist Canada. For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995 . They literally hate to see views and opinions and ideas and truths that conflict with their own morbid, draconian and hate-filled mission of destroying every nation state on the face of this globe in order to replace them with their “International” aka Zionist New World Order template of global governance.
What should have been a media bonus for the 911 Truth movement and the supporters of Palestinian sovereignty and a solid, direct hit on the forces of darkness that now control the global political and financial marketplace of ideas and opinion has once again been nullified and thwarted thanks to the machinations of those within the system as it now exists.
If we are ever to gain ground in this protracted battle with the Zionist forces we’re going to have to sooner than later face the fact that we must call these misfits by their real name and publicly identify them and the organizations through whom they operate in order to infiltrate our governmental, civic and social/cultural structures. Pussy-footing around this salient and critical factor because of fear and doubt will only prolong the time when the shyte must inevitably hit the proverbial fan and all fecal hell breaks loose.
Let us try our best in the interim time period to keep Splitting the Sky’s courageous efforts alive.
Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
http://www.radicalpress.com
[email protected]
—————————-
BE SURE TO WATCH THESE VIDEOS OF CYNTHIA MCKINNEY & STS SPEAKING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium (Part 1)

Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium (Part 2)

_____________________________________
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/splitting-sky-case-shut-down-interview.html
Catch my live interview with Splitting-the-Sky, Cynthia McKinney, and Anthony Hall coming up at 2 pm Central! http://www.noliesradio.org
Kevin Barrett
http://www.truthjihad.com
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com
Bush League Justice in Judge Manfred Delong’s Calgary Court
Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge
10 March, 2010
Judge Manfred Delong shut down the trial of Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush on the second day of proceedings. The court denied STS his frequently emphasized request to have two witnesses give evidence in his defense. Those witnesses were myself and Cynthia McKinney. The trial came to an end just as Ms. McKinney arrived in Calgary from London. The US-based oil conglomerates active throughout Alberta form the core business constituency of the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who represents a Calgary riding in Parliament.
The court accepted two documents as evidence for the defense. One is Gail Davidson’s widely disseminated legal opinion for Lawyer’s Against the War. STS and I studied this document closely in the days leading up to my friend being arrested for his arrest attempt. LAW’s legal opinion highlighted some of the evidence, statutes and treaties to brand Bush as a “credibly accused war criminal” that should not be allowed into Canada. Prior to Bush’s touching down in Calgary to address an audience of oil executives, Davidson’s documentation was distributed widely to officials of the Harper government and Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The other exhibit for the defense was my own paper that I originally presented at an invited academic venue at the University of Winnipeg. It has been published under a variety of titles on the Internet, including at Global Research.ca, 911 Blogger.com, 9/11 Truth.org and Voltairenet in both French and English. My initial title for it is “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta and Tried for International Crimes?”
Delong will deliver his ruling on June 7. The case for the prosecution both revealed and obscured much about the new police strategies being employed throughout North America to monitor, manage, divide and spin doctor demonstrators seeking to call attention to their political dissent. In my opinion the Crown’s chief agent of prosecution, Tracy Davis, acted more as an advocate and defender of the police rather than as a representative of the Canadian people through Her Majesty as she is required to do according the constitutional tradition of the British Commonwealth.
————-
Anthony J. Hall can be contacted at [email protected]
————-
Arthur Topham is a writer and the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com living in the wilds of central British Columbia, Canada. He is currently involved in a sec. 13(1) free speech battle with Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.
Due to the nature of these sec. 13 “hate crime” complaints Arthur is under constant pressure to produce legal documents and maintain a livelihood at the same time. As such he is always in need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship involving both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.
Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at [email protected] or via telephone at (250) 992-3479.

{ Add a Comment }

A Mockery of Justice: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944

 [Editor’s Note: While the focus of the article below is not primarily upon one of the greatest of American heroes in the battle for freedom of speech and the exposure of those within the US government who have turned the White House into a Zionist fortress for the exclusive execution of their one world government agenda nonetheless I would like to dedicate this article to Senator Joe McCarthy. He, of most Americans, suffered some of the worst vilification in US history at the hands of the Zionists and I would like to commemorate his courageous bravery in this small way.  
This article is one of the best examples I have yet read that brings into focus and corroborates all I have written over the past few years regarding the very secretive and, yes, seditious machinations of the organization known as B’nai Brith International; one whose Canadian counterpart, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, is carrying on the longstanding traditions of the Anti Defamation League in the USA in slandering, vilifying and viciously persecuting via the court system, individuals such as myself who have been striving over the years to alert the Canadian public to the nefarious actions and motives of the World Zionist Organization and its deceptive, destructive ideology known as political Zionism.
There is no fundamental difference between the work that I have been doing and that of many of the principal characters contained in this article and the parallels between the treatment of my case with that of the protagonists in this, the Great Sedition Trial of 1944, are as uncanny as they are revealing and synchronous.
The fact that one of the more famous of the group falsely accused of “sedition” in that infamous “show trial” of 1944, Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling, is now still one of the main writers who Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have listed in their sec. 13(1) “hate crimes” complaint made against myself and RadicalPress.com, is a striking illustration of just how deep, pervasive and virulent are the machinations of this supposed “service organization” in whose Preamble to their founding Constitution they once declared that B’nai Brith’s mission would be to “promote [the] highest interest” of those of “Jewish faith” and “those of humanity”; of “developing and elevating the mental and moral character of the people of our faith; of inculcating the purest principles of philanthropy, honour and patriotism”; “alleviating the wants of the poor and needy”; and “providing for, protecting and assisting the aged, the widow and orphan on the broadest principles of humanity.” Just how far they’ve strayed from this laudable position taken back on the 13th of October, 1843 is clearly revealed in the article below. My deep appreciation and thanks to Daryl – Bradford Smith of for this revealing article.]

A Mockery of Justice: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944

According to historian Harry Elmer Barnes who was one of FDRs leading critics from the academic arena, the purpose of the Great Sedition Trial was to make the Roosevelt administration seem opposed to fascism when, in fact, the administration was pursuing totalitarian policies. Too few Americans today know of this travesty, a shameful blot on U.S. history.
Judges and lawyers alike will tell you the mass sedition trial of World War II will go down in legal history as one of the blackest marks on the record of American jurisprudence. In the legal world, none can recall a case where so many Americans were brought to trial for political persecution and were so arrogantly denied the rights granted [guaranteed Ed.] an American citizen under the Constitution.1
This is how the Chicago Tribune, then a voice for America First in a media world already brimming with internationalism, described the infamous war time show trial and its aftermath.
The Great Sedition Trial formally came to an unexpected halt on November 30, 1944, having been declared a mistrial upon the death of the presiding judge. Yet, the case continued to hang in limbo with Justice Department prosecutors angling for a retrial.
However, on November 22, 1946, Judge Bolitha Laws of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the charges against the defendants, saying that to allow the case to continue would be a travesty on justice.2
Although the Justice Department prosecutors appealed the dismissal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Judge Laws ruling and, as a consequence, the saga of the Great Sedition Trial at long last came to a close. This brought to an end five years of harassment that the defendants had suffered, including for some periods of imprisonment.
Judge Laws had thus called a halt to this Soviet-style attack on American liberty. Sanity had prevailed and the case was shelved forever. The war was over and the one individual who was the prime mover behind the trial Franklin D. Roosevelt was dead.
According to historian Ronald Ra dosh, a self-styled progressive who has written somewhat sympathetically of the pre-World War II critics of the Roosevelt administration, FDR had prodded Attorney General Francis Biddle for months, asking him when he would indict the seditionists.3 Biddle himself later pointed out that FDR was not much interested . . . in the constitutional right to criticize the government in wartime.4
However, as we shall see, there were powerful forces at work behind the scenes prodding FDR. And they, more than FDR, played a major role in pushing the actual investigation Biddle was not enthusiastic to undertake.
Although there was a grand total of 42 people (and one newspaper) indicted over the course of three separate indictments, beginning with the first indictment, which was handed down on July 21, 1942, the number of those who actually went on trial was 30, and several of them were severed from the trial as it proceeded.
Roosevelts biographer, James McGregor Burns, waggishly called the trial a grand rally of all the fanatic Roosevelt haters.5 But theres much more to the story than that.
In fact, there were a handful of influential figures among the indictees. Among them included:
Noted German-American poet, essayist and social critic, George Sylvester Viereck (a well-known foreign publicist for the German government as far back as World War I);
Former American diplomat and economist Lawrence Dennis, an informal behind-the-scenes advisor to some of the more prominent congressional critics of the Roosevelt administration;
Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling of Chicago, an outspoken and highly articulate author and lecturer who was well regarded and widely known nationally as a leader of the anti-communist movement and a fierce opponent of the ad ministration;
Rev. Gerald Winrod of Kansas. With a national following and wide-ranging connections among Christian ministers and lay leaders throughout the country, Winrod had emerged as a force to be reckoned with. In 1938 he ran a strong race for the U.S. Senate. (One of Winrods prot s was none other than evangelist Billy Graham, who is said to have learned much but kept quiet publicly about what he learned privately6 as a young man traveling with Winrod.) And:
William Griffin, a New York-based publisher with strong connections in the Roman Catholic Church. Many American Catholics were strongly anti-communist, and Irish-American Catholics, in particular, were generally skeptical of FDRs war policies at a time when, it will be remembered, the government of Ireland remained neutral in the war being waged against Germany by the United States and England, Irelands traditional enemy.
However, most of those who finally went to trial were little known and hardly influential on a national level, other than the few exceptions just noted. Among the defendants were: a sign painter who was 80 percent deaf, a Detroit factory worker, a waiter and a maid.
In short, they were at best average Americans, without the means or the opportunity to be able to conduct the kind of seditious and internationally connected conspiracy that the government had charged, nor were they in any position to defend themselves against the unlimited resources of the central government. In many cases, the defendants were paupers, virtually penniless. Many of them were one-man publishers, reaching small audiences hardly a threat to the mighty forces that controlled the New Deal. Several were very elderly. Few of the indictees even knew each other before the trial, despite the fact that the indictments charged them with being part of a grand conspiracy, orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, to undermine the morale of the American military during wartime.
Lawrence Dennis commented later that: One of the most significant features of the trial was the utter insignificance of the defendants in relation to the great importance which the government sought to give to the trial by all sorts of publicity-seeking devices.7
Unfortunately, in this brief study of the tangled circumstances surrounding the great sedition trial, we will be unable to provide all of the defendants the recognition they deserve. But by virtue of having been targeted for destruction by the Roosevelt administration and its behind-the-scenes allies for their patriotic anti-war stand, this handful of otherwise insignificant Americans became folk heroes.
Thanks to their more vocal compatriots, such as, perhaps most notably, Lawrence Dennis, we are able to commemorate the details of their plight today.
According to Dennis, it was the design of the sedition trial to target not the big-name critics of the Roosevelt war policies, but instead to use the publicity surrounding the trial to frighten the vast numbers of potential grass-roots critics of the intervention in the Eurasian war into silence, essentially showing them that, they, too, could end up in the dock if they were to dare to speak out as the defendants had in opposition to the administrations policies.
Wrote Dennis:
“The crackpots, so-called, or the agitators, are never intimidated by sedition trials. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
The people who are intimidated by sedition trials are the people who have not enough courage or enough indiscretion ever to say or do anything that would get them involved in a sedition trial. And it is mainly for the purpose of intimidating these more prudent citizens that sedition trials are held . . .
A government seeking to suppress certain dangerous ideas and tendencies and certain types of feared opposition will not, if its leaders are smart, indict men like Col. [Charles] Lindbergh or senators [Burton] Wheeler [D-Mont.], [Robert] Taft [R-Ohio] and Gerald Nye [R-N.D.], who did far more along the line of helping the Nazis by opposing Roosevelts foreign policy as charged against the defendants than any of the defendants.
The chances of conviction would be nil, and the cry of persecution would resound throughout the land.
It is the weak, obscure and indiscreet who are singled out by an astute politician for a legalized witch-hunt. The political purpose of intimidating the more cautious and respectable is best served in this country by picking for a trick indictment and a propaganda mass trial the most vulnerable rather than the most dangerous critics; the poorest rather than the richest; the least popular rather than the most popular; the least rather than the most important and influential.
This is the smart way to get at the more influential and the more dangerous. The latter see what is done to the less influential and less important, and they govern themselves accordingly. The chances of convicting the weaker are better than of convicting the stronger . . .8
One of the defendants one of the weaker, less influential and less important, insignificant Americans targeted by FDR was Elmer J. Garner of Wichita, Kansas. This elderly American patriot died three weeks after the trial began.
Sen. William Langer (R-N.D.), an angry critic of the trial, described the victim in a speech on the floor of the Senate. Garner, he said, was:
A little old gentleman of 83, almost stone deaf, with three great-grandchildren. After he lost the mailing permit for his little weekly paper, he lived with his aged wife through small donations, keeping a goat and a few chickens and raising vegetables on his small home plot.
Held in the [Washington, D.C.] jail for several weeks, for lack of bond fees, and finally impoverished by three indictments and forced trips and stays in Washington, he died alone in a Washington rooming house early in this trial, with 40 cents in his pocket. His body was shipped naked in a wooden box to his ailing, impoverished widow, his two suits and typewriter being held, so that clothing had to be purchased for his funeral. That is one of the dangerous men about whom we have been hearing so much.9
According to attorney Henry Klein, an American Jew who defied the ADL by boldly serving as defense counsel for another of the defendants, Garner who was a first cousin of FDRs first vice president (1933-1941), John Nance Garner died at his typewriter in a tiny room in a Washington flophouse, typing out his defense.10
Who was it, then, that brought about the series of events that led to the indictment of Elmer Garner and his both more distinguished and perhaps even less distinguished fellow seditionists?
It was, of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt who ordered the Justice Department investigation. Attorney General Francis Biddle (who opposed this blatantly political prosecution), followed the presidents orders. And Assistant Attorney General William Power Maloney handled the day-to-day details of the investigation that won the indictments before a federal grand jury in Washington. But behind the scenes there were other forces at work: the power brokers who dictated the overall grand design of the Roosevelt administration and its foreign and domestic policies.
In A Trial on Trial, his sharply written critique of the trial, which is a veritable dissection of the fraud that the trial represented, Lawrence Dennis and his co-author, Maximilian St. George (who was Dennis counsel during the trial, although Dennis not an attorney did most of the legal work himself), concluded based upon very readily available evidence in the public record that the three prime movers behind the trial were in his words extreme leftists, organized Jewish groups, and internationalists in general, all of whom were loud and persistent advocates of the trial, editorializing in favor of the investigation and indictments in their newspapers and through media voices such as radio personality Walter Winchell.
However, Dennis pointed out, the internationalists behind the trial are not as easy to link with definite agitation for this prosecution as are the leftists and the Jewish groups.11 Dennis stated unequivocally: One of the most important Jewish organizations behind the sedition trial was the [referring, specifically, to the adjunct known as the Anti-Defamation League or ADL].12
According to Dennis: Getting the federal government to stage such a trial, like getting America into the war, was a must on the agenda of the fighters against isolationism and anti-Semitism.13
What the people behind the trial wanted to have judicially certified to the world was that anti-Semitism is a Nazi idea and that anyone holding this idea is a Nazi, who is thereby violating the law in this instance, by causing insubordination in the armed forces through his belief in or advocacy of this idea.14
This was not just Denniss conclusion, by any means. One of the other defendants, David Baxter, later pointed out that a United Press report published in 1943 said:
Under pressure from Jewish organizations, to judge from articles appearing in publications put out by Jews for Jews, the [indictment] . . . was drawn to include criticisms of Jews as sedition.
It appeared that a main purpose of the whole procedure, along with outlawing unfavorable comments on the administration, was to set a legal precedent of judicial interpretations and severe penalties which would serve to exempt Jews in America from all public mention except praise, in contrast to the traditional American viewpoint which holds that all who take part in public affairs must be ready to accept full free public discussion, either pro or con.15
In a word, commented Dennis, the sedition trial as politics was smart. It was good politics.16
Baxter himself determined in later years that certain Jewish groups, specifically the ADL, had been prime movers behind the Justice Department investigation that resulted in the indictments of the defendants in the sedition trial. According to Baxter, commenting many years later:
I demanded, through the Freedom of Information Act, that the FBI turn over to me its investigation records of my activities during the early 1940s leading up to the Sedition Trial. I learned that the investigation had extended over several years and covered hundreds of pages . . . The FBI blocked out the names of those who had given information about me, much of it as false as anything could be. I was never given a chance to face these people and make them prove their accusations. Yet everything they said went into the investigation records.
Oddly enough, in a great many cases, it wasnt the FBI that conducted the investigation, but the Anti-Defamation League, with the FBI merely receiving the reports of the ADL investigators. One can hard ly tell from the reports whether a given person was an FBI or an ADL agent. But at the time all this was so hush-hush that I didnt even suspect the web-spinning going on around me. I hadnt considered myself that important.17
For his own part, commenting on the way that the FBI had been used by the ADL, for example, Lawrence Dennis pointed out: The FBI, like the atomic bomb and so many other useful and dangerous tools, is an instrument around the use of which new safeguards against abuse by unscrupulous interests must soon be created.18
[To our shame, Americans did not learn that lesson, in light of FBI intrigue alongside the ADL, later exposed in the course of such controversies as the holocaust at Waco, the slaughter of the Weaver family members at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and the mysterious Oklahoma City bombing. Ed.]
Writing in his 1999 book, Montanas Lost Cause (see review on page 27), a study of Sen. Burton Wheeler and other members of Montanas congressional delegation who opposed the Roosevelt administrations war in Europe, historian Roger Roots also points out another fascinating cog in the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the sedition trial:
The Jewish-owned Washington Post assisted in the detective work of the Justice Department from the beginning. Dillard Stokes, the [Post] columnist who was most conspicuous in his insider reporting of the sedition grand jury proceedings, actually became part of the Justice Departments case against the isolationists when he wrote requests to numerous of the defendants to send their literature to him under an assumed name. It was this that allowed defendants to be brought from the farthest reaches of the country into the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.19
David Baxter elaborated on the role played by the Post columnist Stokes, who used the pseudonym Jefferson Breem, in order to obtain some of the allegedly seditious literature that had been published by some of the defendants:
In order to try us in Washington as a group, it was necessary to establish that a crime had been committed in the District of Columbia, thus giving jurisdiction to the federal courts there. So the grand jury, which was obviously controlled by the prosecutor, charged us with the crime of sedition, and then established District of Columbia jurisdiction to try us on the grounds that a District of Columbia resident, Jefferson Breem, had received the allegedly seditious literature. Thus was the alleged crime committed in the capital. The defendants were charged with having conspired in the District of Columbia, despite the fact that I had never been in Washington in my life until ordered there by the grand jury.20
Kirkpatrick Dilling, now an attorney in Chicago but then a young man in uniform and the son of one of the more prominent defendants, Elizabeth Dilling, pointed out in a letter to TBR publisher Willis Carto that: My mother was indicted with many others, most of whom she had never had any contact with whatsoever. For example, some of such co-indictees were members of the German-American Bund. My mother said they were included to give the case a sauerkraut flavor. 21
Later, during the trial itself, the aforementioned Sen. Langer, scored what he described as: the idea of bringing together for one trial in Washington 30 people who never saw each other, who never wrote to each other, some of whom did not know that the others existed, with some of them allegedly insane and the majority of them unable to hire a lawyer.
And remember, Langer pointed out, [the defendants] were brought to Washington from California and [Illinois] and other states a long way from Washington, placed in one room and all tried at the same time, with the 29 sitting idly by while the testimony against one of them may go on for weeks and weeks and weeks, the testimony of a man or woman [whom the] other defendants never saw before in their lives. That is what is taking place in Washington [the District of Columbia] here today.22
As mentioned previously, there were actually three indictments handed down. The first indictment came on July 21, 1942. The indictments came as a surprise to more than a few people, including the defendants. As David Baxter said: Actually, at that time I was simply a New Deal Democrat interested in what was going on in the country politically.23 But as a consequence of the indictment, he was being accused of sedition by the very regime he had once supported.
Elizabeth Dilling learned of her indictment on the radio. The nature of one of the charges against Mrs. Dilling exposes precisely how trumped up the sedition trial was from the start. The indictment charged that Mrs. Dilling had committed sedition by reprinting, in the pages of her newsletter, a speech in Congress by Rep. Clare Hoffman (R-Mich.), an administration critic, in which the congressman quoted an American soldier in the Philippines who complained his outfit lacked bombers because the planes had been given to Britain.24 This ostensibly was dangerous to military morale.
But Mrs. Dillings many supporters around the country rose to her defense, raising money through dances, dinners and bake sales. Mrs. Dilling, ever courageous, would not let even a federal criminal indictment silence her. She still continued to speak out.
On August 17, 1942 Sen. Robert A. Taft spoke out against the indictment:25 I am deeply alarmed by the growing tendency to smear loyal citizens who are critical of the national administration and of the conduct of the war . . .
Something very close to fanaticism exists in certain circles. I cannot understand it cannot grasp it. But I am sure of this: Freedom of speech itself is at stake, unless the general methods pursued by the Department of Justice are changed.26
Taft noted that the indictment, in his words, was adroitly drawn27 and said it claimed that groups such as the Coalition of Patriotic Societies were linked to the accused conspirators. The coalition, Taft noted, included among its member organizations such groups as the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and the Sons of the American Revolution, among others.
On the basis of the way in which the indictment was written, Taft said, a considerable number of members of both the House and the Senate could also be indicted, along with a considerable number of the nations newspaper editors.
The second indictment came on January 4, 1943. Lawrence Dennis summarized the nature of the indictments: The first indictment charged conspiracy to violate the seditious propaganda sections of both the wartime Espionage Act of 1917 and the peacetime Smith Act of 1940, sometimes called the Alien Registration Act. This indictment . . . was that the defendants had conspired to spread Nazi propaganda for the purpose of violating the just mentioned laws. The government case consisted of showing the similarity between the propaganda themes of the Nazis and the defendants.28
However, as Dennis pointed out, for a conviction on such an indictment to stand under the law, it is necessary to prove similarity of intent of the persons accused rather than similarity of content of what they said.
The weaknesses of these first two indictments were that they fitted neither the law nor the evidence. The governments difficulty was that, to please the people behind the trial, it had had to indict persons whose only crime was isolationism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism when there was no law on the statute books against these isms. The two laws chosen for the first two indictments penalized advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force and of insubordination in the armed forces.29
Several new defendants were added with the second indictment. Among them was Frank Clark. Considering the charge that Clark (and the others) had been conspiring to undermine the morale of the American military, it is worth noting that Clark was a highly decorated veteran of World War I, who was wounded eight times in action. Clark had been an organizer of the famous Bonus March of World War I veterans to Washington in the 1920s. He had lobbied for early payment of veterans bonuses that had been promised to the wars veterans, returning home a hero. When arrested, he lacked enough money to hire a lawyer.30
All of this, however, meant nothing in the course of the ongoing effort by the Roosevelt administration to silence its critics and to prevent more and more Americans from speaking out.
Throughout this period, the major media was rife with reports of how a group of Americans, in league with Hitler and the German National Socialists, were trying to destroy America from within and how the Roosevelt administration was bravely taking on this conspiracy. However, the Justice Department had made a misstep and the second indictment, like the first, was thrown out.
As Roger Roots notes, The indictment was unlawful. It was discarded due to the obvious absence of evidence for conviction, among other flaws. Past Supreme Court decisions clearly showed that a conviction for advocating the overthrow of the government by violent force must include some evidence of actual plans to use violence, not just political literature. Again, the indictment was never dismissed formally but simply retired.31
Sen. Burton Wheeler, in particular, was a harsh critic of the Justice Department and publicly made clear his intention, as new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee following the 1942 elections, to keep a close watch on the affair as it unfolded. As far as the legal procedures used in the first two indictments, he declared: If it happened in most jurisdictions of this country, the prosecuting attorneys would be held for contempt of court.32
Thus, despite all the determined efforts of the Justice Department and its allies in the Anti-Defamation League and at The Washington Post, the first two indictments were indeed thrown out as defective.
On March 5, 1943 Judge Jesse C. Adkins dismissed the count in the indictment that accused the defendants of conspiring together on or about the first day of January 1933, and continuously thereafter up to and including the date of the filing of the indictment since, as the judge held, the law which the defendants were accused of conspiring to violate had not been enacted until 1940.33 At this juncture, under pressure from Sen. Wheeler, Attorney General Biddle agreed to remove prosecutor William Power Maloney as the chief Nazi-hunter.
Thus, a new Justice Department prosecutor entered into the case, O. John Rogge. As defendant David Baxter pointed out, Rogge was a fitting choice for the administrations chief point man in this Soviet-style show trial:
“It later turned out that Rogge had been a good friend of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, was involved in numerous communist front groups, and had visited Russia, where he spoke in the Kremlin and laid a wreath at the grave of American Communist Party co-founder John Reed in Red Square. His wreath was inscribed: In loving memory from grateful Americans. . . . Rogge was an American delegate to a world communist peace conference in Paris and was a lawyer for many communists in trouble with the law. He was the attorney for David Greenglass, the atomic spy who saved his own life by turning states evidence against his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg [who] went to the electric chair for turning over U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviets. [Rogge] was thus eventually exposed for what he was. No wonder he was so fanatical in his hatred against the Sedition Trial defendants, all of whom were anti-communists.34
Rogge was an ideal choice for the Roosevelt administration and its allies, who were determined to pursue the prosecution, one way or the other. He moved forward relentlessly.
As Roger Roots points out: Not wishing to waste momentum, the government reconvened another grand jury, resubmitted the same pamphlets, publications, and materials that the previous grand jury had already seen, re-called the same testimony of the witnesses, and once again pleaded the grand jury to return yet another indictment.35
The third (and final) indictment was handed down on January 3, 1944. In fact, Rogge and his Justice Department allies had decided to take a new tack and added eight new names (including Lawrence Dennis, who had not been named in the first indictments) and dismissed 12 defendants who had been named.
Among those whose names were dismissed were influential New York Catholic lay leader William Griffin and his newspaper, The New York Evening Enquirer (the only publication indicted) former American diplomat Ralph Town send of San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and Paquita ( Mady) de Shishmareff, the well-to-do American-born widow of a former Russian czarist military figure.
Townsend, who had enraged the Roosevelt administration by opposing its anti-Japanese policies in the Pacific, had written an explosive book, Ways That Are Dark, highly critical of imperial China.* But although he was now free, he and his family had been broken financially by the indictment, and, according to his late wife, Janet, many of their close friends deserted them in this time of crisis.
It was a very difficult period in our lives, she later recalled. But it didnt prevent Ralph from continuing to speak out.36 Townsend did continue to speak out, and in later years he became a friend of Willis A. Carto, publisher of The Barnes Review, and, today, portions of Townsends personal library are a part of TBRs archives.
Tony Blizzard, who is now research director for Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution, was a prot in the early 1960s of Paquita de Shishmareff (who wrote as L. Fry) and he recently commented on the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the indictment against her along with some fascinating, little-known details about this remarkable woman. In Blizzards informed estimation:
One of the reasons they dropped the indictment against Mady was precisely because they knew they were dealing with a very sharp lady with a great deal of brain power. A woman of the old school, Mady would never put herself in the forefront, but she knew how to use the strengths of the men around her. She also was a woman of some means unlike most of the other defendants and was a formidable opponent.
The government clearly decided that it was in their best interests to dismiss the case against her. There was no way they could ever make Nazis out of all of these defendants, whose only real crime was exposing Jewish power as long as Mady was on the dock with the rest of them.
The prosecutors knew quite well, although it was not widely known then nor is it widely known today, that it was Mady who had supplied Henry Ford virtually all of the information that Ford had published in his controversial series about Jewish power in The Dearborn Independent. With her wide-ranging, high-level connections, Mady was an encyclopedic storehouse of inside in formation about the power elite.
The last thing the prosecution wanted was for Mady to take the stand. By releasing her as a defendant, they eliminated, to them, what was a very frightening possibility.37
But there were 30 others who were not so lucky as Paquita de Shishmareff, Ralph Townsend and the others who had been released, and their trial commenced on April 17, 1944 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Kirkpatrick Dilling, son of defendant Elizabeth Dilling, captured the essence of the indictment. According to Dilling, The indictment was premised on an alleged conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces. Thus criticizing President Roosevelt, who was armed forces commander in chief was an alleged overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Denouncing our ally, communist Soviet Russia, was a further alleged overt act. Opposing communism was an alleged overt act because our enemy Hitler had also opposed communists.38
Ironically, while his mother was on trial for her alleged participation in this conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces, Kirkpatrick Dilling was promoted from corporal to second lieutenant in the U.S. Army.39
Other defendants, including George Sylvester Viereck, George Deatherage, Robert Noble and Rev. Gerald Winrod, also had sons in the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.40 Vierecks son died in combat while his father was on trial and in prison (see the memorial poem on these pages).
Presiding as judge at the trial was ex-Iowa Democratic Congressman Edward C. Eicher, a New Deal stalwart who had served a brief period as chairman of FDRs Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after being defeated for re-election to Congress. After Eichers term at the SEC, FDR then appointed Eicher to the judgeship. And serving as prosecutor was Eichers former legal counsel at the SEC, the aforementioned O. John Rogge. 41
It seemed that the case was fixed from top to bottom.
Albert Dilling, the attorney, who represented his wife Elizabeth Dilling, called for a congressional investigation of the trial on the grounds that it was impossible for such a trial to be fair during wartime.42 But that was not enough to stop the trial juggernaut.
Although proving sedition was the ostensible purpose of the prosecution, Lawrence Dennis reached other conclusions about the actual political basis for the trial: The trial was conceived and staged as a political instrument of propaganda and intimidation against certain ideas and tendencies which are popularly spoken of as isolationism, anti-communism and anti-Semitism. The biggest single idea of the trial was that of linking Nazism with isolationism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism.43 However, as Dennis pointed out:
American isolationism was born with George Washingtons Farewell Address, not with anything the Nazis ever penned. As for anti-Semitism, it has flourished since the dawn of Jewish history. It is as old and widespread as the Jews . . . As for anti-communism, while it was one of Hitlers two or three biggest ideas, it is in no way peculiar to Hitler or the Nazis, any more than anti-capitalism is peculiar to the Russian communists.44
To add shock value to the indictment, the government in an accompanying bill of particulars, which was basically a rehash of the history of the Nazi Party in Germany named German Chancellor Adolf Hitler as a co-conspirator.
During the trial, the prosecutor, Rogge, charged that Hitler had picked the defendants to head a Nazi occupation government in the United States once Germany won the war.45
What the prosecutor was essentially trying to do, according to Lawrence Dennis, was to perfect a formula to convict people for doing what was against no law. It boiled down to choosing a crime which the Department of Justice would undertake to prove equaled anti-Semitism, anti-communism and isolationism. The crime chosen was causing insubordination in the armed forces. The law was the Smith Act,46 which had been enacted in 1940.
As Dennis pointed out: One of the many ironies of the mass sedition trial was that the defendants were charged with conspiring to violate a law aimed at the communists and [of using] a communist tactic that of trying to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces. What makes this so ironic is the fact that many of the defendants, being fanatical anti-communists, had openly supported the enactment of this law.48
Defendant David Baxter later re called:
After Hitler and Stalin concluded a treaty, American communists enthusiastically endorsed those of us who opposed getting into the European war between Germany and the British-French alliance. The communists even stomached the Jewish issue that some of us raised, and many Jewish communists, who wanted the United States to join the war against Hitler, left their party. All that changed overnight, however, when war broke out between Germany and Russia. The communists then turned against us with a vengeance and eagerly backed FDR and American participation in the war to save the Soviets.48
Lawrence Denniss assessment of the governments case is reminiscent of that of Kirkpatrick Dilling: The pattern of the prosecution gradually emerged something like this: Our country is at war; Russia is our ally; the Russian government is communist; these defendants fight communism; they are therefore weakening the ties between the two countries; this is interfering with the war efforts; this in turn is injuring the morale of the armed forces. The indictees should therefore be sent to prison.49
Henry H. Klein, an outspoken Jewish anti-communist, was the attorney who represented defendant Eugene Sanctuary, and he took issue with the very constitutionality of the trial.
This alleged indictment, thundered Klein in his opening address to the jury, is under the peace-time statute, not under the wartime act, and the writings and speeches of these defendants were made when this nation was at peace, and under a Constitution which guarantees free press and free speech at all times, including during wartime, until the Constitution is suspended, and it has not yet been suspended. These people believed in the guarantees set forth in the Constitution, and they criticized various acts of the administration.50
About his own client, Klein noted: He is 73 years old and devoutly religious. He and his wife ran the Presbyterian foreign mission office in New York City for many years, and he has written and published several hundred sacred and patriotic songs.51 One of those songs, Klein noted, was Uncle Sam We Are Standing by You and was published in June of 1942, well after the war had begun hardly the actions of the dangerous seditionist that the prosecution and the sympathetic press painted Sanctuary to be.
As far as Lawrence Denniss purported sedition was concerned, the prosecution had attempted to prove its case exclusively by placing in evidence seven excerpts from his public writings, reprinted in the publication of the German-American Bund rather than as originally published.52 In other words, the evidence that Dennis had committed sedition was because he had written something (published and freely available to the public) that was later reprinted by a group sympathetic to Nazi Germany not that Dennis himself had actively done anything to stir dissension among the American armed forces. According to Dennis:
The governments prosecution theory said, in effect: We postulate a world conspiracy, the members of which all conspired to Nazify the entire world by using the unlawful means of undermining the loyalty of the armed forces. We ask the jury to infer the existence of such a conspiracy from such evidence as we shall submit about the Nazis. We shall then ask the jury to infer that the defendants joined this conspiracy from the nature of the things they said and did. We do not need to show that the defendants ever did or said anything that directly constituted the crime of impairing the morale or loyalty of the armed forces. Our thesis is that Nazism was a world movement, which, by definition, was also a conspiracy to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces and that the defendants were members of the Nazi world movement.53
There was no more reason to bring out in a charge of conspiracy to cause military insubordination the facts that most of the defendants were anti-Semites, isolationists or anti-communists than there would have been in a trial of a group of New York City contractors on a charge of conspiring to defraud the city to bring out the facts that the defendants were all Irish or Jews and had always voted the Democratic ticket.54
Eugene Sanctuarys attorney, Henry Klein, pulled no punches when he laid out the defense, declaring:
We will prove that this persecution and prosecution was undertaken to cover the crimes of government remember that.
We will prove that it was undertaken by order of the president, in spite of the opposition of Attorney General Biddle.
We will prove that Mr. Rogge was selected for this job of punishing these defendants because no one else in the Department of Justice felt that he could find sufficient grounds in to spell out a crime against these defendants.
We will prove that the communists control not only our government but our politics, our labor organizations, our agriculture, our mines, our industries, our war plants and our armed encampments.
We will prove that the law under which these defendants are being tried was enacted at the repeated demands of the heads of our armed forces to prevent communists from destroying the morale of our soldiers, sailors, marine and air forces [and that this prosecution] was undertaken to protect communists who were and are guilty of the very crimes charged against these defendants who are utterly innocent and have been made the victims of this law.55
Klein minced no words when he told the jury that Jewish organizations were using the trial for their own ends:
We will prove that this persecution was instigated by so-called professional Jews who make a business of preying on other Jews by scaring them into the belief that their lives and their property are in danger through threatened pogroms in the United States [and that] anti-Semitism charged in this so-called indictment, is a racket, that is being run by racketeers for graft purposes.56
Klein also forcefully made the allegation that FBI agents had been acting as agents provocateurs, attempting to stir up acts of sedition:
We will show that the most vicious written attack on Jews and on the Roosevelt administration emanated from the office of the FBI by one of its agents, and that the purpose of this attack was to provoke others to do likewise. We will show that this agent also drilled his underlings in New York with broom sticks preparatory to killing Jews.57
Klein also put forth a rather interesting allegation about the source of certain funds purportedly supplied by Nazi Germany to no less than Franklin D. Roosevelt himself. According to Klein: We will show that large sums of Hitler money helped finance Mr. Roosevelts campaign for re-election in 1936 and that right at this moment, British, American and German capital and industry are cooperating together in South America and other parts of the world.58
What Klein alleged about international collaboration of high-finance capitalism has been part of the lore of the populist right and the populist left for over a century and is a theme that has been analyzed in scores of books, monographs and other literature, but largely ignored in the so-called academic mainstream.
According to Lawrence Reillys account of the sedition trial, Kleins speech was a critical turning point in the defense: Klein did much in his brief speech to torpedo Rogges case by bringing to light the hidden agencies responsible for its existence.59
However, noted Reilly, even many of the daily newspapers which opposed the trial editorially were afraid to discuss this hidden aspect of the case that Klein had dared bring forth in open court. Reilly said that readers were often left confused60 because the papers never touched on the real factors involved. Some of these friendly papers, Reilly noted, insisted on referring to the defendants as crackpots.
But the fact is that, as a direct consequence of his offensive against the ADL and the other Jewish groups that had played a part in orchestrating the trial, Klein was targeted, specifically because he was Jewish, by organized Jewish groups that resented Kleins defense of the purported anti-Semites and seditionists.
For his own part, Lawrence Dennis stood up in court to take on his own defense and delivered what even liberal writer Charles Higham was inclined to acknowledge was a high-powered address61 calling Rogges outline of the government case, corny, false, fantastic, untrue, unproveable and unsound [and describing the trial as] a Roosevelt administration fourth-term conspiracy [and] another Dreyfus case [in which the government was] trying to write history in the heat of battle.62 To the loud applause of his fellow defendants, Dennis declared: Pearl Harbor did not suspend the Bill of Rights.63
A critical juncture in the case came when one of the defense attorneys, James Laughlin (a public defender representing Ernest Elmhurst) said in open court that it would be impossible for the trial to continue unless the private files of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of could be impounded and introduced as evidence.
It was clear that much of the prosecution was based on the ADLs fact finding and Laughlin concluded that it would be necessary to determine precisely what the ADL had provided the government if the defendants would be able to put on an effective defense.
The judge seemed prepared to ignore Laughlins motion, but the clever attorney had already prepared copies of his motion in advance and distributed copies of the motion to the press. As a direct consequence, Washington newspapers reported that the ADL files had been made an issue in the case. As Reilly summarized the situation: Laughlin had placed the spotlight upon the big secret of the case.64 This, according to Reilly, was a bomb, which, some have said, had more to do with demoralizing [the prosecutions] case than any other single [factor].65
At that point, there seemed to be a strange turnabout in the way that the press supporting the trial began looking at the case. Even The Washington Post (which had played a part in orchestrating the trial by lending the services of its reporter, Dillard Stokes, to the joint ADL-FBI investigation) completely reversed itself, according to Reilly, and started demanding that the case be brought to a quick conclusion.66
In short, The Post wanted to keep the big secret of the case behind-the-scenes orchestration of the case by the ADL under wraps and now seemed to be calling to bring the trial to a rapid conclusion before the truth came out.
The Post even commented editorially that: We fear that, whatever may be the outcome of this trial, it will stand as a black mark against American justice for many years to come.67 As David Baxter later remarked: Such were the remarkable words of the very paper whose own reporter had plotted with the original prosecutor to entrap the defendants and bring them to trial in Washington.69
Despite these concerns, Rogge seemed to intensify his efforts. There was clearly a great deal of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the prosecutor and his backers as to how to deal with the challenge that had been presented. Since the judge never ordered the ADLs files impounded, Rogge was free to move forward. He was determined to carry the trial through to conclusion, and he had many more witnesses to present.
Author Roger Roots describes the course of events as follows:
Day after day, the trial wore on. Page after page of publications authored by the defendants was introduced into evidence, giving rise [among] all in attendance to the idea that it was their writings which were really on trial. The government announced that it intended to introduce 32,000 exhibits. It became obvious that what the defendants were really being prosecuted for was Jew-baiting which gave an indication of one principal source of the prosecutions support. It became one of the longest and most expensive trials in U.S. history. In essence, the trial was little more than an assault against free speech.69
As the trial proceeded, outspoken trial critic Sen. William Langer visited defendants in jail and defied the media and its allies in the prosecution by publicly escorting defendant Elizabeth Dilling in and out of court and around Washington while she was on bail.70
Said Roots: The government worked with unlimited funds, unlimited personnel, and unlimited access to intelligence information. The defense had to work with mostly court-appointed lawyers who were unacquainted with the defendants and the arguments of the case.71
What is particularly interesting, as pointed out by liberal historian Glenn Jeansonne, is that: Many of the defense attorneys were liberals unsympathetic with the clients beliefs. But they came to see the defendants side on a human basis, and instead of conducting a perfunctory defense, as many observers had expected, they put up a vigorous defense.72
Even Charles Higham, who, writing retrospectively, was an enthusiastic advocate of the trial, pointed out that after two and a half months, neither defendants nor prosecution had managed to present a satisfactory case,73 and, ultimately, both press and public were beginning to lose interest in the case.74
At the same time, according to Paquita de Shishmareff, the defendants had managed to survive and develop their own way of dealing with their predicament: Their physical lives were made almost impossible. They got little to eat and were hamstrung in every way possible. But when they got into court, it was such a farce they really just enjoyed themselves.75
At one point, when the prosecutor was solemnly reading off a list of names of individuals allies of the Roosevelt administration who had been attacked in some way by the defendants defendant Edward James Smythe shouted out, and Eleanor Roosevelt, resulting in laughter from the courtroom.76 Smythe didnt want Mrs. Roosevelts name to go unrecorded in the pantheon of villainy.
This, by the way, was only one of many amusing events that took place during this circus. In many respects, the sedition trial could be the basis for a Hollywood comedy, the serious and scandalous violation of the rights of the defendants notwithstanding.
But this is not to suggest that the sedition trial was all a lot of merriment for the attorneys or for the defendants. Far from it. Two of the attorneys had a shot fired at them as they drove in their car. One of those attorneys lost a 12-year law association. Another was beaten by five thugs and hospitalized for five days.
Henry Klein was harassed relentlessly, held in contempt of court for his defense of his client, and, then, ultimately, driven from the case altogether (although the contempt of court charges were eventually overturned).
In addition, strenuous efforts were made to keep the defendants who were out on bail from holding jobs during the course of the trial, a particular problem for those who were not of independent means (and that was most of them).
One defendant, Ernest Elmhurst, got a job as a headwaiter in a Washington hotel in order to make ends meet during the trial, but the ADLs leading broadcasting voice, Walter Winchell, learned of Elmhursts employment and agitated on his widely heard radio show for Elmhursts firing, resulting in Elmhursts dismissal.77
As the trial dragged on, however, the government began to realize that its efforts were going nowhere. Roger Roots points out: The prosecution had undoubtedly expected one or more of the defendants to break and testify against the others . . . [Yet] not one defendant gave any indication of such an inclination. Though they disagreed and some even disliked each other, they came together as a cohesive unit.78
David Baxter had the pleasure to learn that he was going to be severed from the trial and the charges dismissed. His increasing deafness made it impossible for Baxter to have a fair trial. Baxter recalls that Judge Eicher called Baxter into his chamber, smiled, held out his hand, and said: Go back to California and forget about it, Dave.79
The judge reportedly told Baxter that if Baxter and his wife wanted to buy a car to return to California, he would help and handed Baxter a roll of gasoline coupons (which, during wartime, were severely rationed). Despite everything, it seems, even the judge realized what a farce the trial really was.
It was something totally unexpected that brought the trial to a halt: Judge Eichers sudden death on November 29, 1944. The judges demise came at a point where Rogge was not even halfway through the prosecutions case. At this point he had brought 39 witnesses to the stand, and expected to present 67 more. The defense had not even yet begun.80
Defendant David Baxter later commented (reflecting on his own friendly personal experience with the judge): That trial could have killed any judge with a Christian conscience and any semblance of fairness. I felt genuinely sorry about Judge Eichers death.81 Rogge accused the defense of having effectively killed the judge by having put up such a defense that it made the judges life (and that of the prosecutor) uncomfortable. Under the circumstances, it was apparent that there was no way that the case could continue on a fair basis.
As a consequence, after a period of legal haggling on both sides (with one defendant, Prescott Dennett, actually asking for the trial to continue, determined to present his defense after having been tried and convicted in the media), a mistrial was declared.
Prodded primarily by Jewish groups, Prosecutor Rogge hoped to be able to keep the case alive and set a new trial in motion. But by the spring of 1945, the trials chief instigator, President Roosvelt, was dead, and the war had come to a close. Rogge, however, continued to ask for delays in setting a new trial date. Since Germany had fallen, Rogge claimed, he was confident that he could find evidence in the German archives that the sedition trial defendants had been Nazi collaborators. However, according to historian Glen Jeansonne, no friend of the purported seditionists, nothing Rogge found proved the existence of a conspiracy82 between the German government and the defendants.
Undaunted, Rogge launched a nationwide lecture tour that was, not surprisingly, conducted under the auspices of . The combative and loquacious Rogge, prodded by his sponsors, could not contain himself in his enthusiastic recounting of the events of the trial and of the personalities involved and, in the end, was fired by the Justice Department on October 25, 1946, for leaking information to the press.83 At that time Rogge was ordered to hand over all Justice Department and FBI documents in his possession. The Justice Department had apparently decided that Rogge had outlived his usefulness.
Less than a month later, District Judge Bolitha Laws dismissed the charges altogether, declaring that the defendants had not received a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. Although the Justice Department ap pealed, the dismissal was upheld on June 30, 1947 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Great Sedition Trial thus came to a close.
As even defendant Lawrence Dennis was moved to comment:
Some or all may even have been guilty of conspiring to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces, but not as charged by the [government] . . . Nothing in the evidence brought out during the trial proved or even suggested that any one of the defendants was ever guilty of any such conspiracy, except on the prosecution theory. And on that theory, opponents of President Roosevelts pre-Pearl Harbor foreign policy and steps in foreign affairs, such as Col. Lindbergh, Sen. Taft, Sen. Nye or Sen. Wheeler, and Col. McCormick, publisher of The Chicago Tribune, would be equally guilty.
Indeed, the prosecution case, according to the prosecution theory, would have been much stronger against these prominent isolationists than it ever could be against the less important defendants in the Sedition Trial.84
Many years later it is grimly amusing to note that organized Jewish groups and Jewish newspapers attacked the attorney general, Francis Biddle, for having failed to see the sedition trial through to the bitter end and achieve the conviction of the defendants. Lawrence Dennis wryly commented that all of this showed a great deal of ingratitude on their part.
According to Dennis: It shows what a public servant gets for attempting to do dirty work to the satisfaction of minority pressure groups. Biddle did the best anyone in his position could do to carry out the wishes of the people behind the trial. They simply did not appreciate the difficulties of railroading to jail their political enemies without evidence of any acts in violation of the law.85
Dennis added a further warning for those who would allow themselves to be caught up in promoting show trials such as that which was effected in the Great Sedition Trial of 1944: What the government does today to a crackpot, so-called, Dennis said, it may do to an elder statesman of the opposition the day after tomorrow.86
The trial made history, Dennis said, but not as the government had planned. It made history as a government experiment, which went wrong. It was a Department of Justice experiment in imitation of a Moscow political propaganda trial.87
There are at least five definitive conclusions which can be drawn about this trial, based upon all that is in the historical record:
1.The defendants charged were largely on trial for having expressed views that were either anti-Jewish or anti-communist or both. The actions of the defendants had little or nothing to do with encouragement of dissension or insurrection within the U.S. armed forces. In short, the sedition trial was a fraud from the start.
2.The prime movers behind the prosecution were private special interest groups representing powerful Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of that were closely allied with the Roosevelt regime in power.
3.As a consequence, high-level politicians (including the U.S. president) and bureaucrats beholden to those private interests used their influence to ensure that the police powers of the government were used to advance the demands of those private pressure groups agitating for the sedition trial.
4.Major media voices (such as The Washington Post), working with the ADL and allied with the ruling regime, were prime players in promoting and facilitating the events that led to the trial.
5.The police powers of government can easily be abused, and innocent citizens, despite Constitutional guarantees of protection, can be persecuted under color of law, their innocence notwithstanding.
About a decade after The Great Sedition Trial had come to a close, the major media in America began devoting much energy to denouncing so-called anti-communist witch-hunts by Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and others, the media (not to mention mainstream historians) never drew the obvious parallel with the precedent for such witch-hunting that had been set by the activities of the ADL and its allies in the Roosevelt administration who had orchestrated the sedition trial.
The events of The Great Sedition Trial are a black page of American history (and little known at that). Civil libertarians should take note: It can happen here, and it did.

{ Add a Comment }

THE TRIAL: REGINA V ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM

Editor’s Note: With the exception of the final Charge to the Jury by B.C.S.C. Justice Butler the full transcript of the trial proceedings in the case of R V ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM from October 26, 2015 to November 12, 2015 are contained in the following pdf files.

It is suggested that these files be downloaded for future reference and in the interest of securing a permanent record of this important free speech trial in Canada.

Sincerely,

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

{ Comments are closed }

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

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 booket, 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

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 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 should 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 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.

TruthHolocaustDees

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.

ZunDees2

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 a good thing, maybe it beneficial to social tolerance that we should ask these questions. Maybe it 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 chair. That where a lot of people would like to see somebody they disagree with, right there. If you convict, I can say to you that 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 going on here? A book 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 been a journalist for 35 years, and he says there 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 my submission to you, that may be the basis of the Crown attack, 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 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 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 no evidence.

Let look at the evidence. Dr. Vrba says he an eye-witness. Dr. Vrba had a little problem here. You have plans, you know, submitted by the defence, of crematoria. Now, let 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 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 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?

AuschwitzDeesNo.s

There are many reasons to say that this book has not been proven false, that all. It 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 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 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 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 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 the way he interpreted that. There 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 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 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 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 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 feelings, but to look at it realistically and say, as this book says, it not correct to believe that six million people were exterminated in this way. It not correct to believe that you can tell the nationality of a cremated person by flame 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 realistically consider that that doesn’t make sense. Let not make it a crime, anyway, to disbelieve it. All right? Let 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 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 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 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 lawyers, and then there lots of reasons for doing that.

I remember Dennis Urstein. He said, €€œ and this is really, I suggest, where you’ve got to look a little bit skeptically €€œ 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 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 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 a closed-in area. That 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 what half of what Krema II is supposed to be handling a day), that 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 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 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 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 of 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 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 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 as 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 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 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.

ZyklonCampDees

He refers to the necessity of a venting system. No such thing exists in any of the plans. Look at the plans. That 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 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 €€œ 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 €€œ 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 not 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 another view on the Holocaust. That when it got picked up by the media. That when the ball got rolling. That is when everybody got up in arms. If somebody has an opinion on politics, that 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 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 a man who 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 justice? Well, that not very much different than the atmosphere that prevailed in 1945 and that 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 side, 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 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 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 thesis will be labeled. And that supposed to be a free society? It 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 a dangerous precedent to do what going on here. You know where his father is? He buried at Belsen. That what he told you. His father. Well, it 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 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 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 €€œ decide whether we like censorship or not. That a decision you will make. There is not, he said, an expert on the Holocaust. There are many versions. If one died, that important. If one died, that a crime. If one Jewish person died, it a crime. If one person, no matter whether he was Jewish or not died, it 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 the issue, then we have to give freedom to others to put forward their views. That what Doug Collins said. He said Zundel 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 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 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 €€œ 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 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 entitled to publish? Why didn’t someone give him an answer? I’ll tell you why; because it politically embarrassing for an Attorney-General to identify the real censorship that he seeking to introduce through fear. It 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 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 called, everybody keep their mouth shut, That 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 not a message that 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-Ã -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.

UkraineFamineDees

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 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 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 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 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.

Louis Riel
LOUIS RIEL
___________________________

Later on in life I was to discover that Louis Riel is regarded by some as a hero defending his people 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.

JAMacDscandal
JOHN A. MACDONALD CAUGHT RED HANDED ACCEPTING A $350,000 BRIBE IN 1872 PROROGUED PARLIAMENT LIKE HARPER DID IN 2008
________________________________________________________________________

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 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 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.

{ Add a Comment }

Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday By Denis G. Rancourt

 


In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.

The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

January 13, 2016
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler, Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]
“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.”[Emphasis added.]
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression:[3]
“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]
“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.][6]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6] Ibid., at para. 35.
[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

{ Add a Comment }

The Unveiling of B’nai Brith by William Cooper Part 8 of 8 (Final)

Photobucket

[Editor„¢s Note: William Cooper was murdered by police on November 5th, 2001 at the age of 58. He was an American writer, shortwave broadcaster who came into public awareness in the late 1980s. William was also a radio host, author and political activist known for his best-selling underground book titled Behold A Pale Horse and his worldwide shortwave radio show Hour of the Time. Cooper was also known for his court battle with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the recorded attempts to dissuade him from pursuing his case.
William Cooper founded Harvest Trust, the CAJI News Service, Veritas newspaper, The Intelligence Service, and Harvest Publications. Under his leadership Harvest Trust ventured into publishing. The first book under the Harvest Trust imprint was Oklahoma City: Day One (ISBN 0-9653307-1-0), by Michele Marie Moore about the Oklahoma City bombing.
An advocate for free radio, Cooper operated the unlicensed Independence Foundation Trust at 101.1 FM in Eagar, Arizona. Cooper claimed to have helped over 700 low power FM affiliate stations get equipped and on the air.
My belief is that Cooper was murdered by the Illuminati because of his work to expose the Beast to the public. This series of talks on B„¢nai Brith and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was part of his work to enlighten the public on who„¢s who behind the veil. Right at the beginning of this series he makes a comment about just such a scenario arising for many who did what he did. God willing he„¢ll be the last one to die for such efforts. Bless his soul.
The title of the series on RadicalPress.com is mine. Seeing as the ADL is but an offshoot of B„¢nai Brith and many people here in Canada think of this organization as B„¢nai Brith I„¢ve decided to use it in the title.]
—————————
ADLlogo#8
THE HOUR OF THE TIME
Tape No. 483: ‘ADL #8’
Tuesday, November 15, 1994
This broadcast was taken in whole or in part from investigations conducted by the CAJI News Service, and the Intelligence Service, and from reports published by The Executive Intelligence Review entitled ‘The Ugly Truth About The ADL’, and ‘Dope Inc.’.
The information in tonight’s broadcast comes from ‘The Ugly Truth About the ADL’, a report published by the ‘Executive Intelligence Review’; from ‘Dope, Incorporated’, published by the editors of the ‘Executive Intelligence Review’; from the research of the Citizens Agency for Joint Intelligence; and of course, the premiere organization, the Intelligence Service.
Recently, the ‘San Francisco Chronicle’, ladies and gentlemen, shocked the nation with the revelation that the office of the Anti-Defamation League in San Francisco was at the center of a scandal involving a San Francisco police officer and a Bay Area art dealerself-described private eyewho were suspected of selling illegally-obtained information to agents of the South African government.
This scandal quickly spread across the nation as it became evident that this was not the only, nor the first, nor does it appear that it will be the last incident of the ADL spying upon American citizens, groups, organizations, churches, and as you will see, many others.

The two men, Sergeant Tom Girard of the San Francisco Police Department, and Roy Bullock, a long-time paid undercover operative for the local office of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, had been under Federal Bureau of Investigation scrutiny since 1990 when federal agents discovered that secret Bureau records on American Black Muslims had been obtained by South African spies.
The trail pointed to Bullock who, in addition to his full-time paid work for the ADL, had been moon-lighting as an undercover snitch for the Bureau. And on at least one occasion, Bullock received a $500 cash payment from the FBI for infiltrating meetings of two Bay Area groups.
Bullock, you see, had access to confidential Bureau files and became a suspect when FBI files showed up in the hands of the South African government at the very same time he was regularly meeting with two South African spies and passing confidential data to them. Bullock received cash payments that eventually totalled over $16,000.
The early meetings between Bullock and the two South African agents, identified as ‘Humphries’ and ‘Louie’, included policeman Girard. Later, Bullock would meet with the South Africans alone.
According to one version of the Bullock/South Africa story, it was Anti-Defamation League officials who put him in touch with the foreign agents.
Nearly three years later, the FBI probe of South African spying mushroomed into one of the biggest espionage scandals in many years. And the center of the scandal shifted from cops and art dealers to an alleged command center. The central target became the Anti-Defamation League.
On April 1st, 1993, San Francisco Assistant District Attorney John Dwyer told reporters, and I quote:
‘The ADL is the target.– Their involvement is just so great. People have called this ‘The Girard Case’. Now, it’s ‘The ADL Case’. Girard is just their guy in San Francisco. The ADL is doing the same thing all over the country. There is evidence that the ADL had police agents in other cities. The case just gets bigger every day. The more we look, the more we find people involved.’
End quote. The San Francisco probe soon proved that the profile of the ADL contained in this broadcast is right on the mark. Far from living up to its thoroughly undeserved and self-promoted reputation, the Anti-Defamation League has been caught by San Francisco police investigators:
1. illegally spying on at least 950 political organizations, including:
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
the Rainbow Coalition,
Green Peace,
the Simon Wiesenthal Center,
the United Auto Workers,
the Christic Institute,
New Jewish Agenda,
Operation Rescue,
the Liberty Lobby,
the Nation of Islam,
the United Farm Workers,
Act Up,
the American Civil Liberties Union,
the National Lawyers Guild,
the Bo Gritz Presidential Campaign,
the political movement led by Lyndon LaRouche, and
the Citizens Agency for Joint Intelligence;
2. infiltrating countless police and sheriff departments across the country, bribing police officers, and illegally obtaining classified government data on at least 20,000 American citizens;
3. selling information on anti-apartheid groups to agents of the South African government;
4. passing surveillance and classified police data on Arab Americans to Israeli authorities, who then used the ADL data to illegally detain American citizens visiting Israel; and
5. passing off Israeli intelligence propaganda as Anti-Defamation League-generated research in an effort to sway American public opinion and government policy, while never being forced to register as foreign agents, and while even enjoying tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The San Francisco District Attorney and police investigators, ladies and gentlemen, have concluded that the pattern of illegal spying that they unearthed in California is but a small part of a large nation-wide spy operation run centrally out of the Anti-Defamation League’s national headquarters in New York City under the direction of its Fact-Finding Director, Irwin Sewell, who is a member of the Marxist Socialist Internationale.
In the San Francisco probe alone, police uncovered evidence that the ADL had illegally penetrated 20 different police agencies in California alone, and had also gained access to classified police files in Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, and a half-dozen other cities across the nation.
On April 8th, 1993, San Francisco police released nearly 800 pages of documents providing previously classified details of the Anti-Defamation League’s nation-wide criminal operations. Those documents were released as attachments to a search warrant affidavit which police executed the same day.
In raids on the San Francisco and Los Angeles offices of the Anti-Defamation League, police obtained a mountain of new evidence of the spying and agent provocateur operations of the League.
The April 8th search warrant actions, which garnered financial records and internal ADL correspondence between Sewell and West Coast Regional ADL officials, were the second raids on Anti-Defamation League offices in but four months.
On December 10th, 1992, San Francisco police raided the San Francisco and Los Angeles ADL offices, as well as the residences of Bullock and Girard.
Now, shortly after the April raids and document disclosures, the Anti-Defamation League launched what local San Francisco newspapers labeled ‘a massive damage-control effort’. They sent out several delegations of national officials from New York and Washington, D.C. To try to derail the probe. Leading these delegations were:
Anti-Defamation League National Chairman Melvin Salberg, ADL Executive Director Abraham Foxman, who is now the head of the ADL, and ADL General Counsel Barbara Wahl of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Errit Fox.
In San Francisco, Richard Goldman, the city’s Chief of Protocol and a long-time Anti-Defamation League ally, was caught arm-twisting Chief of Police Tony Rabara into bringing the investigation to a halt.
Now, although the city’s Police Commission did bend to the ADL pressure and dropped its own probe of the League’s interference in local police operations, District Attorney Arlo Smith vowed to continue his criminal investigation, despite the pressure, and subsequently identified the ADL’s National Fact-Finding Director Sewell as a prime target.
In behind-closed-door meetings with publishers, editors, and reporters from the ‘Los Angeles Times’, the Anti-Defamation League tried to silence the press through cajoling, arm-twisting, and not-so-very-subtle allegations of anti-semitismtheir old, fall-back, main-battery weapon.
But the ADL-run Jewish weekly, called the ‘Heritage Southwest Jewish Press’, more openly expressed the ADL’s true feelings about the probe.
Publisher Herb Brinn, just returned from a trip to Belgrade, Serbiawhere he gave his unabashed editorial endorsement to the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Moslems and Croatswrote on April 16th:
Lyndon LaRouche, from his federal prison cell, must be gloating. Calypso Jean Farrakhan is singing away at the chagrin of Anti-Defamation League. These, among a host of skin-heads, pinkos, and nuts, are dancing because San Francisco cops are on a vicious hunt to embarrass the Anti-Defamation League for doing what ADL has always done and must do to serve mankind after Hitler. And the bastard decision by some idiotic editors of the ‘Los Angeles Times’ to play into the game€and ‘Heritage’ will find out what prompted the malicious hunt into the fact-finding efforts of ADL, better believe itspeaks for itself as the ‘Times’ played the trumped-up ADL-investigated story on page 1 on Good Friday.
Hardly a week passes that I don’t supply Jewish Defense material to David Lehrer, head of ADL in this region. A people must have the will and moxie to defend themselves. And that, to me, is what ADL is all about. The San Francisco police charged that ADL maintains political intelligent operations in some seven U.S. cities, in which case I say: ‘Hooray for ADL!’
It also, ladies and gentlemen, says an awful lot about the Jewish motto: ‘Holocaust: Never Again!’ Remember, this manthis man, ladies and gentlemenwas in Serbia to give his endorsement to the slaughter of Bosnian Moslems and Croats. And he continued here.
Brinn, a promoter of the terrorist Jewish Defense League and gutter-level Anti-Defamation League snitch for 40 years, was openly threatening revenge. Now, soon after Brinn’s diatribe, some local news outlets experienced nastier treatment than the name-calling directed against the ‘Los Angeles Times’.
KPOO-FM, a local, black community radio station in the Bay Area, began receiving threatening calls after they aired a series of interviews with victims of Anti-Defamation League spying. The calls left a message or flatly stated to those who answered the phones the following remarks. Quote:
‘Jews-hating nigger!’
End quote. Quote:
‘Nigger Nazi!’
End quote. And other similar epithets bombarded the station’s phone lines.
In the past, these kinds of Anti-Defamation League hooligan tactics never failed to work. This time, however, the sheer weight of evidence has made this one scandal too big to bury.
And every time they’ve tried it with William Cooper, the Citizens Agency for Joint Intelligence, the Intelligence Service, or ‘The Hour of the Time’, it has never worked and never will. These kinds of hooligan tactics have destroyed honorable, good citizens of this country in the past.
By late April, after police publicly released the inventory of documents seized from the Anti-Defamation League, the League’s Fact-Finding Directorand also, as I have stated in the past, member of the Marxist Socialist InternationaleIrwin Sewell hired a top criminal defense lawyer in San Francisco, the clearest signal yet that the ADL is shaking over the idea that at long last they got caught in the act of just being themselves.
David Gervitz was a man who was very unhappy about his pay from the ADL, as the League’s Chief Fact-Finder in their Los Angeles office. The 35-year-old Gervitz was married with one child. He had a second one on the way. His full-time job at the ADL paid him slightly more than $20,000 a year, barely enough to live on in a high-cost town like Los Angeles.
So, in June 1992, Gervitz went to the Los Angeles Simon Wiesenthal Center, another Jewish group involved in monitoring the activities of so-called ‘hate groups’, to ask them for a better paying job. Unfortunately, the Wiesenthal Center already had a full-time staff researcher, Rick Eaton, and Gervitz was given the brush-off by Wiesenthal Center Director, Rabbi Cooperno relation.
Gervitz’s response to the job rejection was typical Anti-Defamation League. He staked-out the Wiesenthal Center to get Eaton’s car license plate number and passed the plate number to his ADL counterpart in San Francisco, Roy Bullock. Gervitz would later tell San Francisco Police and FBI investigators that Bullock was his mentor. Bullock contacted Sergeant Tom Girard and had Girard get Eaton’s California Department of Motor Vehicles record.
The State of California has very strict laws, ladies and gentlemen, prohibiting private citizens from possessing DMV records. Those records contain photographs, addresses, Social Security numbers, fingerprints, and other sensitive, personal data. Unauthorized possession of even one DMV record is a felony, punishable by a stiff fine and a five-year term in a California state prison.
When Gervitz got Bullock and Girard to obtain Eaton’s DMV record, all three were committing a serious state crime. But that has never bothered the ADL.
When police raided the home office of Roy Bullock on December the 10th, they found far more than the Eaton records. They found DMV records on more than 1,300 Californians in a computer spy base which included data on 12,000 individuals and 950 political groups.
Among the files in the Bullock computer were the DMV records of nearly one-third of the membership of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, called AADC. It’s a nation-wide Arab American organization involved in legitimate political activities, and for years, leaders and officers of the AADC had been the targets of threats of violence.
In 1985, Jewish Defense League terroriststhat’s right, folks, terroristscarried out bomb attacks against AADC offices in Santa Ana, California; Washington, D.C.; and Boston, Massachusetts.
In the Santa Ana attack, Regional Director Alex Oda was killed. Anti-Defamation League agent Bullock has admitted to police interviewers that he had infiltrated the AADC and personally had a key to its Santa Ana office at the time of the Oda murder.
The Gervitz/Bullock efforts against Eaton did not stop with the illegal spying. Next, to intimidate Eaton, Gervitz asked Bullock to contact a leading member of the White Aryan Resistance, known as WAR, a west coast-based, white supremist organization. The WAR leader, whose ADL code name was appropriately ‘Scumbag’, is a convicted felon and an undercover agent provocateur on the payroll of the Anti-Defamation League and the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, known as the BATFthe perpetrators of the Waco Massacre.
Scumbag had been regularly meeting with Bullock and San Francisco BATF agents, providing inside information about WAR. Through this channel, Bullock and the ADL apparently maintained wiretaps on the WAR phone, code naming the effort ‘Operation Eavesdrop’.
You see, the ADL has people around the country who listen to radio talk shows, and whenever they hear anything about the ADL, or any other organization that they don’t want known to the public, they begin calling. And if you answer the phone, they begin screaming: ‘Anti-semite Nazi!’ ‘Jew hater!’ And all this other kind of stuff, which is not true at all.
This isn’t about Jews. It’s about the Anti-Defamation League, a criminal organization which manipulates Jews and everybody else. That’s what it’s about.
The Case of Scumbag, folks, opens questions on another level of criminal activity: receipt of federal confidential records. You see, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had offered to share the infiltrator Scumbag if the ADL would pay informant feessome several hundred dollars a week. The money for Scumbag was approved by the ADL’s Chief Fact-Finder Irwin Sewell from the League’s National Headquarters in New York City.
So, when in the fall of 1992 Bullock contacted Scumbag and gave him details about Rick Eaton’s efforts to infiltrate and spy on WAR, it was a textbook dirty trick. Bullock hoped to enhance Scumbag’s position within the WAR group by having him expose the infiltrator Eaton.
You see how they double-cross their own people?
The ADL would gain greater hands-on control over the group through its own informant. Bullock also hoped that WAR might take some kind of action against Eaton that would scare him into leaving his job with the Wiesenthal Center, opening the position for Gervitz. There was only one problem.
You see, apparently, unbeknownst to Bullock, the FBI was tapping his phone as part of the South Africa espionage probe. His conversations with Girard Gervitz and Scumbag were all being recorded.
The FBI had no choice but to warn Eaton at the Wiesenthal Center about a possible physical attack against him by WAR. According to documents released by the San Francisco Police, the FBI could not rule out an actual assassination attempt against Eaton.
FBI agents also went to the Los Angeles ADL office in October 1992 to alert them to the Gervitz/Bullock dirty trick. The ADL response was striking. Gervitz was fired upon the spot, despite his family financial problems and pregnant wife. Only employed by the ADL for four years, Gervitz, you see, was expendable. They have no loyalties whatsoever. Bullock, however, a 40-year employee of the ADL was too valuable to fire. He knew too much. Otherwise, he would have been gone with the boot just as quickly. At that very moment, Bullock, just caught running a possible assassination through White Aryan Resistance, was in Germany as part of a high-level ADL delegation meeting with the government officials and top German law enforcement to peddle their credentials as experts on extremist groups.
You see how they manipulated their own people?an organization that says it exists to protect Jews from slander and libel and hate groups sacrifices Jews in the process of committing illegal and criminal acts, and in the process of spying on American citizens and groups for foreign nations. And they manipulated the White Aryan Resistance to do their bidding.
And you all think you’re so secure and so smart in what you do. You’re manipulated by so many groups, organizations, governments and people on a daily basis. You have no idea the extent of it.
One of the ways that you serve their bidding is to hate each other and fight amongst each other while they are busily going about the business of putting the chains upon the legs of all of us. Most of you aren’t smart enough to figure that out. Nope, you have to be better than everybody else.
You have to be the chosen people, or the superior race. Or because you’re in a secret society and someone has conned you with a bunch of bullshit, you think you have the only truly mature minds. Or your religion is better than everybody else’s. And I could go on and on and on.
The truth of the matter can be stated in one word: fools!
Bullock personally met with the head of the German Constitutional Protection Office, Germany’s equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to receive and pass on information about United States skin-head and Neo-Nazi activities. Needless to say, Bullock did not report on his own role in running agents provocateurs inside those very circles.
When Bullock did return to San Francisco, and the prospect of being dumped for his antics with WAR, he did not lose his job. Irwin Sewell, the chief dirty-trickster for the Anti-Defamation League; his Washington, D.C. aid, Myra Lansky Bolland; David Lehrer, the head of the ADL’s Los Angeles office; and Rick Hershott, the League’s San Francisco Director, all threatened to quit on the spot if any action were taken against Bullock.
You see, he knew too much. He could bring them all down. Sewell even wrote a memo which police uncovered in their searches of the San Francisco ADL office lauding Bullock as the ADL’s number one investigator.
The impromptu rally in support of Bullock by top ADL officials speaks volumes about the real nature of the Anti-Defamation League. Bullock’s dirty tricks with WAR were not restricted to the targeting of Eaton. Bullock regularly tried to recruit white supremists, KKK-ers, and others from the radical racist white to joint AADC and other Arab American groups in order to later expose those groups for their alleged anti-semitic ties, usually by submitting a plan to these groups through Jewish ADL agents to commit some atrocious violent actwhich these stupid people usually did.
Eaton wasn’t the only Jewish activist, ladies and gentlemen, targeted by the ADL. Stewart Alpert, a national leader of the New Jewish Agenda and other members of the group were ADL targets. Vera Katz, the Mayor of Portland, Oregon, who lived for years in a kibbutz in Israel, discovered that her Sister-City program was spied upon by the ADL.
You see, the ADL has no allegiance to Jews despite what they preach. They manipulate Jews and use them in their efforts to bring about the New World Order. The ADL, in reality, obeys only their British masters.
Shortly after the Eaton affair, ladies and gentlemen, the FBI asked the San Francisco Police to take charge of the probe of Bullock and Girard. Once the investigation had turned into a probe of the ADL, the Bureau ran up against a very embarrassing dilemma. The most serious was the record of FBI collusion with the Anti-Defamation League.
On February the 4th, 1985, then Director of the FBI, William Webster, wrote a priority cable to the Special Agents in charge of the FBI’s 25 largest field offices, ordering them to establish permanent local liaison to the ADL. The Webster order coincided with a major effort by the Anti-Defamation League to solicit a federal prosecution of Mr.Lyndon LaRouche, a long-standing target of ADL spying and dirty tricks.
Ironically, this FBI order came precisely when the Jewish Underground, which FBI Director Webster later identified as the number one terrorist threat in the United States was on a terrorist spree that covered NewYork, New Jersey, and California. Terrorist activities had left two people dead, including Alex Oda, the American Arab leader.
By December 10th, 1986, documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed Anti-Defamation League National Director Nathan Purlmutter writing to Webster to work out details for the ADL to give annual training lectures at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia on, and I quote directly from the FBI files: ‘hate crimes’. End quote.
On November 21st, 1989, Thomas F. Jones, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI in charge of the Criminal Investigations Division wrote to Irwin Sewell to invite Sewell and his ADL associates Allen Schwartz and Michael Liebermann to lecture the top 50 FBI agents on, quote: ‘civil rights law’. End quote.
The marriage between the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League since February 1985 raises many serious questions of legality.
Was the ADL handed authority to run a revised parallel co/intel/pro program after the United States Congress had essentially outlawed the FBI spying on non-criminal political groups in 1975?
That’s exactly what it was, ladies and gentlemen.
The ADL’s intimate ties to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms rang similar alarm bells when the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League office was caught in possession of dozens of police intelligence reports on skin-heads prepared by the Portland Police.
ADL Northwest Regional Director Marvin Stern told reporter Phil Stanford that perhaps the files show ADL’s, quote, ‘work for the government’. End quote.
Under the Reagan administration’s Executive Order 12333, which spelled out guidelines for domestic and foreign spying, the FBI was given broad latitude to use non-government personnel as, quote, ‘assets’. End quote.
No wonder the FBI dropped the probe of Bullock/Girard on the grounds that it might jeopardize FBI’s secrets, methods and procedures.
Can you imagine, ladies and gentlemen, if all of this dirt had come out in the court records? What a shock that would have been!
With the Bullock/Girard case in its hands, the San Francisco Police launched an ambitious investigation late last year under the supervision of Captain John Willett, head of the Special Investigations Division.
On November 1992, shortly after being interviewed by the FBI, Tom Girard fled to the Philippines, which has no extradition treaty with the United States. From his retreat on a remote Filipino island, Girard formally submitted his resignation from the San Francisco Police Department. Ironically, Girard’s very last assignment was in the Special Intelligence Division Offices. That’s the Division that was later broken up due to its own illegal and criminal activity.
You see, some people in this country have a feeling that there are more criminals in the police departments than there are on the streets, and occasionally that proves to be exactly the case.
On January the 22nd, 1993, Girard told the ‘San Francisco Examiner’ from the Philippines that he had first met Bullock at the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League Office in 1985. And he said this, quote:
‘He sat there one morning with everyone in the office, shook hands, and made friends.’
End quote. Girard freely admitted he funnelled classified police data to Bullock with the full understanding that it was for the ADL. And he said, quote:
‘The guy had no criminal record. It’s like we’re talking to someone in the neighborhood community watch organization.’
End quote. Girard had just returned to the San Francisco Police Department after a two-year leave of absence in which he worked for theCentral Intelligence Agency ostensibly as a bomb expert.
You see how these organizations interlock, exactly as I said they did over four years ago in my book entitled ‘Behold a Pale Horse’.
Many people said I was wrong. Folks, I’ve only been wrong once so far, and that’s when I said Manuel Noriega would not be found guilty in a court of law in the United States and would not spend any time in prison because we had no authority under international law to do so. He was the President of a foreign government. He was taken prisoner after we illegally invaded his nation. But I was wrong. I had no idea that the New World Order was so far in its advanced stages, and neither do you.
According to documents and interviews, Girard’s Central Intelligence Agency assignments included El Salvador, Afghanistan, and a covert operation targeted at the African nation of Ghana.
On his return to the police department, Girard frequently boasted to his colleagues that he was also working closely with the Israeli Mossad. In retrospect, the references to Mossad may have been based on his budding relationship with the Anti-Defamation League, which has done much work for the Israeli Mossad.
Girard’s work, ladies and gentlemen, did not go unrewarded. In May 1991, Girard was one of 11 police officials from across this nation who traveled to Israel on an all-expense paid ADL junket. The group’s escort was Myra Lansky Bolland, the ADL’s Washington, D.C. Fact-Finder, who personally put the delegation together.
Sergeant Tim Carroll, a detective with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department described the journey as a payment for services already rendered to the ADL, and that should tell you who and what he is. He says, quote:
A lot of it was for past work or relationship with the ADL, and kind of an emotional thing that we spread the word when we get back…
End quoteso that others can be ensnared in this web. Police officers from Boston, Washington, Mobile, Dallas, Maryland, Virginia and Georgia also went along on the junket, which featured meetings with senior Israeli police, military, and intelligence officials.
One junket participant, Donald Moore, was subsequently indicted on kidnapping conspiracy charges when, on behalf of the Cult Awareness Network, he joined in a plot to kidnap a DuPont family heir, Lewis DuPont Smith, a close associate of the LaRouche organization.
When Moore was arraigned in late September 1992, his attorney, Mark Rash, was from the ADL’s law firm. Myra Lansky Bolland was in court throughout most of the trial representing the Anti-Defamation League.
In taped conversations with the FBI’s undercover informant inside the kidnap conspiracy, Moore boasted that he had worked closely with the Anti-Defamation League against LaRouche, and that as a Deputy Sheriff in Luden County, Virginia, he had conducted illegal wire taps, break-ins and other crimes against the LaRouche group.
Though Moore was acquitted, his co-defendant, Gaylan Kelly, was convicted of federal kidnapping charges in May 1993.
Good night. Wake up, if you can do that, and have a good night. And God bless you all.
END!

{ Add a Comment }

The Unveiling of Bnai Brith by William Cooper Part 4 of 8

HarpMinorah

EDITORS PREFACE: The recent controversy surrounding the decision by Jason Kenney, Canadas Conservative Immigration minister to ban MP George Galloway from entering and speaking in Canada and the fact that the Harper Conservatives were influenced into taking this position by a terrorist organization known as the Jewish Defense League whose spokesperson Meir Weinstein accused Galloway of being a threat to national security has got to be one of the more grotesque examples of just how deeply embedded the occult forces of Bnai Brith Canada and its root organization Bnai Brith International have become in most, if not all levels of Canadian government and jurisprudence.
The following article by now deceased American writer and broadcaster Milton William Cooper hopefully will draw attention to the clear and present danger posed by this organization; one that has, over the past half a century and more, infiltrated practically all levels of Canadas political, religious and social infrastructures, to the detriment of everything honourable that this country once stood for in the way of democratic rights.
Our once cherished freedoms, the envy of many other nations, which we held as secure and sacrosanct and protected and guaranteed under our Bill of Rights, Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not to mention even our innate, God-given right to such liberties, have all deteriorated to the point where now we find that proven, YES, PROVEN terrorist groups, directly affiliated with Bnai Brith Canada, are dramatically influencing our federal government policies in ways which, prior to this infiltration, Canadians and their political leaders, would never have conceived possible nor desirable.
Coopers well-researched article, one of an 8-part series on the origins and agenda of this organization, will explain in great detail the connections between the Jewish Defense League, Bnai Brith International, the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, the League for Human Rights of Bnai Brith Canada (the organization now in the process of trying to shut down RadicalPress based upon their vexatious charge of â€ődiscrimination under Section 13 of the CHR Act) the Freemasons and much much more. Be prepared to be shocked and disgusted and outraged at the depth of corruption now affecting not only the USA but Canada as well by alien forces both dark and inimical to our sovereignty as a free nation and to our rights to freedom of speech and Internet freedom to investigate and challenge these malign and sinister dangers.
Arthur Topham
Editor,
RadicalPress.com
——————–
THE AUTHOR
William Cooper
MILTON WILLIAM COOPER
May 6, 1943 – November 5, 2001
[Editors Note: William Cooper was murdered by police on November 5th, 2001 at the age of 58. He was an American writer, shortwave broadcaster who came into public awareness in the late 1980s. William was also a radio host, author and political activist known for his best-selling underground book titled Behold A Pale Horse and his worldwide shortwave radio show Hour of the Time. Cooper was also known for his court battle with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the recorded attempts to dissuade him from pursuing his case.
William Cooper founded Harvest Trust, the CAJI News Service, Veritas newspaper, The Intelligence Service, and Harvest Publications. Under his leadership Harvest Trust ventured into publishing. The first book under the Harvest Trust imprint was Oklahoma City: Day One (ISBN 0-9653307-1-0), by Michele Marie Moore about the Oklahoma City bombing.
An advocate for free radio, Cooper operated the unlicensed Independence Foundation Trust at 101.1 FM in Eagar, Arizona. Cooper claimed to have helped over 700 low power FM affiliate stations get equipped and on the air.
My belief is that Cooper was murdered by the Illuminati because of his work to expose the Beast to the public. This series of talks on Bnai Brith and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was part of his work to enlighten the public on whos who behind the veil. Right at the beginning of this series he makes a comment about just such a scenario arising for many who did what he did. God willing hell be the last one to die for such efforts. Bless his soul.
The title of the series on RadicalPress.com is mine. Seeing as the ADL is but an offshoot of Bnai Brith and many people here in Canada think of this organization as Bnai Brith Ive decided to use it in the title.]
The Unveiling of Bnai Brith by William Cooper Part 4
Anti-Defamation League #4
THE HOUR OF THE TIME
Tape No. 386 ‘ADL #4’
June 29, 1994
This broadcast was taken in whole or in part from investigations conducted by the CAJI News Service, and the Intelligence Service, and from reports published by The Executive Intelligence Review entitled ‘The Ugly Truth About The ADL’, and ‘Dope Inc.’.
In December 1985, then-FBI Director William Webster, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., admitted that a Jewish underground had emerged as a serious threat to the United States during the preceding twelve months.
Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, he was partially right. For, over the course of 1985, the Jewish Defense League, known as the JDL, had been responsible for a string of sophisticated bombings that left two people dead, a dozen others seriously wounded, and caused millions of dollars in property damage.

Alex Oda, the head of the California branch of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, or AADC, had been killed when a bomb went off at the group’s Santa Ana office. Seven other people had been hospitalized in the attack.
Shirem Subzukoff, a victim of the Justice Department’s Nazi-hunting Office of Special Investigations, or OSI, had also died when a booby-trap bomb blew up in his home in Patterson, New Jersey.
A Boston police officer, responding to a JDL bomb threat at the local office of AADC, was crippled for life when a pipe bomb blew up as he was attempting to defuse it.
Jewish underground? No.
Another terrorist arm of B’nai B’rith and the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League? Absolutely yes.
All controlled from the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
In each of these instances, the bomb attacks had been preceded by noisy public demonstrations and inflammatory press statements by Mordechai Levy, the leader of a JDL splinter group, the Jewish Defense Organization, or JDO.
Although FBI boss Webster left his National Press Club audience with the impression that the so-called Jewish underground was a mysterious and amorphous outfit about which the FBI had little information, in truth, the Bureau had an exhaustive profile of all of the key personnel and their mode of operation.
FBI agents on the scene of the Santa Ana, California murder of Alex Oda knew the identities of the three men who planted the bomb before Oda’s body was even removed from the murder scene.
You never knew any of this, did you?
The killers were long-time Jewish Defense League members Andy Green, Keith Fuchs, and Bob Manning. The American-born trio were residents of an Israeli kibbutz in the occupied territories called ‘Kiriat Arba’. Kiriat Arba was a training camp and safe-house for the JDL and its Israeli affiliate, the Kach Party.
The FBI, ladies and gentlemen, listed Fuchs, Green, and Manning as suspects in a total of 25 terrorist attacks inside the United States.
But you see, most of you sheeple never even knew that there had been terrorist attacks inside the United States until a bomb went off in the World Trade Center in New York City. And then you knew about it only because it furthered the cause of world-wide Zionism, and it was blamed upon a group of Arabs who had direct ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Fuchs had been jailed in Israel in 1983 for firing a Soviet-made AK-47 rifle at a busload of Arabs on the West Bank. Manning had served time in jail in the United States for bombing the home of an Arab-American activist.
When the three JDL-ers arrived in Los Angeles several days before the Oda murder, they were already under FBI surveillance. But as so often happens with the FBI, they didn’t prevent anything.
It’s no wonder that FBI Director Webster was not anxious to discuss details with the room full of reporters at the National Press Club for, unlike this reporter on ‘The Hour of the Time’, he was afraid. The Bureau had been in a position to prevent the bombing of the Santa Ana AADC Office. And as they have in many, many instances, they either flubbed it, or allowed it to happen, because it furthered their own aims. Or worse.
At the same time that the Jewish underground was conducting its bombing spree from coast to coast, the FBI was relying increasingly on the ADL for information about extremist groups inside the United States of America. This was the same ADL that would join with the KGB—the KGB–and the East German Stasse in covering the trail of the assassins of Sweden’s Head of State, Olaf Palm, which we’ll cover. You can bet your boots we’ll cover it.
Even more to the point, this was the same ADL that was instrumental in the creation and deployment of such diverse terrorist groups as the JDL and, yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Ku Klux Klan. For how can they keep the Jews together in their own created ghettos, to further the political aims of international socialism–also known as Zionism–if they don’t present the Jews with a common enemy: all the rest of us?–under the guise of the Ku Klux Klan, the skinheads, the White Aryan Nation, anti-semitism.
Oh, yes. You’re going to learn things tonight you never dreamed were happening in this country, the land of the free and the home of the brave. It turns out to be the Liars Club.
According to Robert Friedman, the biographer of JDL Founder Rabbi Mier Kahani, the militant Jewish group was controlled from its founding days by a secret three-person committee made up of future Israeli Prime Minister and Mossad Operations Chief Itsak Shmir and Israeli Parliamentarian Gala Cohen, and Brooklyn ADL Chairman, Bernard Duch, whom we’ve already discussed on earlier programs.
It was at a December 1969 meeting between Cohen and Kahani, arranged by Duch, that the JDL launched its campaign of terror and intimidation against Soviet diplomats in New York and Washington, aimed at forcing the Soviets to loosen up their immigration laws for Jews.
In the early days before JDL-head Kahani hooked up with mobster Joe Columbo and many JDL-ers began funding their terrorist operations by selling dope, or running syndicate shake-down operations, or performing hits through their Murder, Inc. branch, ADL man Duch had been the money bags behind the Jewish militants. Duch’s involvement with the JDL was such a well-kept secret that his Kahani-links remained virtually unknown until 1991.
Just as the secret society, the branch of the Illuminati known as B’nai B’rith had quietly steered other Jewish American groups to smuggle arms into Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik revolution, the ADL ran the Jewish underground from behind the scenes, often going through the motions of publicly denouncing the JDL violence, to make sure that no direct links were ever surfaced.
And these Jews were used the same as Ollie North was used–by making them think that they were performing acts of patriotism, to protect the Jewish community as a whole, to further the security of the State of Israel.
Well, I want to ask you if you are a Jew and you’re listening to this broadcast: if you put the State of Israel above the United States of America, go to Israel, and stay there. Live there. Fight there. And if you have to, die there. Make your dream come true there.
This is the United States of America. And if you’re an American, I don’t care what else you call yourself, you owe your allegiance to America, to the Constitution, and to the Bill of Rights.
You see, you’re being used to help this great nation–the only nation in your history that gave you sustenance, gave you protection, allowed you to prosper. You look around and you see anti-semitism everywhere where it is not. It does not exist here. Except within less than 1/1000th of one percent of the population, it is negligible. But if you continue in the path that you are going, you will create a wave of anti-semitism that will destroy you.
Mordechai Levy, the leader of the JDL splinter group that managed to show up on the doorsteps of Alex Oda and Shirem Subzukoff on the eves of their assassinations, maintained direct and frequent contact with the ADL’s Fact-Finding Division Head, Irwin Sewell.
Just two weeks before the AADC’s Washington, D.C. office was blown up on November 29th, 1985, Levy had appeared as the featured speaker at a press conference hosted by the Federation of Jewish Organizations of Greater Washington, an umbrella group led by both the ADL and B’nai B’rith, to present a list of enemies of the Jewish people. AADC was among the groups listed.
On more than one occasion, Levy’s provocateur antics nearly exposed the ADL’s hand in fomenting domestic violence, ladies and gentlemen.
And here’s the truth of how these people operate. And here’s the truth of anti-semitism in America. And here’s the truth of swastikas painted on synagogues and on the headstones in Jewish cemeteries. This is the truth, and you’d just better listen, and you’d better stop being afraid of these people. And you’d better stop being afraid of being called anti-semitic. And you’d better, you’d better point to these traitors, and these terrorists, and these scum, and call them what they are.
On February the 16th, 1979, Levy, using the pseudonym, James Gutman, filed an application with the United States Park Service in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to obtain permission to hold a rally.
Now remember, this is Levy using the pseudonym James Gutman–a German name. I wonder why he did that? Well, you’re going to find out.
The rally permit, ladies and gentlemen, sought by Levy–Levy: a member of the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, supposedly existing for the protection of Jews; the rally permit sought by Levy, also known as Gutman on this occasion–was not filed in the name of the JDL, which he was also a member of. Levy was posing as a leader of the American Nazi Party.
Levy was posing as a leader of the American Nazi Party!–seeking a permit for a Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Party rally at Independence Hall, the site of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Remember, I told you about the Hegelian Method of Political Conflict Resolution?
Remember, I told you there is no such thing as a Patriot Community?
Remember, I told you that these people who are bringing about the New World Order control both sides of every issue, indeed they create the issues?
According to the rally permit, Levy was planning a white power rally to show white masses unity of white race, and to show the world niggers and Jews are cowards. Among the paraphernalia Levy listed on the application were:
‘…swastikas, banners, Nazi uniforms, KKK paraphernalia, ‘will burn cross’, swastika picket signs saying: ‘Hitler was Right! Gas Commie Jews!’’
Verbatim quote.
Working out of the Philadelphia offices of the Jewish Defense League, Levy organized local chapters of the KKK–the Ku Klux Klan–and Neo-Nazi groups to attend the Independence Hall rally, and these racist fools–not knowing that he was a Jewish member of the ADL and the JDL–fell right into line and did his bidding, like the little puppet jerks that they are.
In the case of the Trenton, New Jersey Ku Klux Klan, Levy had an inside track. Listen to this: James Rosenberg–also known as Jimmy Mitchell and Jimmy Anderson, a full-time, paid employee of the Anti-Defamation League Fact-Finding Division–had successfully infiltrated the local chapter of the Klan. Rosenberg had recently attempted unsuccessfully to get some of the local KKK-ers to blow up the Trenton headquarters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP.
At the same time he was posing as James Gutman, Neo-Nazi, Levy was also mobilizing the Jewish community and every rag-tag, left-wing, socialist Nazi–and that’s exactly what they are, for Nazis are really a left-wing, ladies and gentlemen–radical group in the greater Philadelphia area to attend a mass demonstration to confront the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis at Independence Hall.
You see, if they all really knew the definition of these terms that they banter about, they’d join forces and they’d be a lot stronger.
[chuckle] Oh, the world is full of fools. I sit back and I watch all of this, and I alternately laugh and cry, laugh and cry.
All the ingredients, ladies and gentlemen, were there for a serious, very serious, riot–a riot brought about in its entirety by the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Defense League, organizing and manipulating both sides, filing for the permit, urging violence, attempting to get people to blow up a bridge.
But fortunately, ladies and gentlemen, this was one time, one time that word of Levy’s scam on the Park Service leaked out to the Philadelphia
Press.
After one Philadelphia newspaper ran a banner headline saying, quote: ‘Nazi Rally Rouser Really Jewish’ end quote–and you can check on it yourself, by the way–the Park Service yanked the permit.
Levy’s Anti-Defamation League handlers ordered him to lay low for a while. I wonder why? After all, there was no need to jeopardize Levy or even Rosenberg’s standing as professional agents provocateur inside the racist element of the 1/1000th of one percent of the population of this country who aren’t even half as dangerous as these ADL/JDL terrorist agents of a foreign nation, spying on American people, blowing up organizations and offices, and killing and maiming people in the United States of America. None of you even knew about it.
The ADL, of course, had plenty of other aces up their sleeves, and not all of them were Jewish infiltrators.
And remember, ladies and gentlemen, the ADL and the JDL and B’nai B’rith are not the Jews. It is a branch–the Jewish branch–of the ages-old Illuminati, controlled by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. And out of all the Jews in this country, only a handful belong.
One of the most shocking instances of racist violence during the civil rights battles in the south of the United States during the 1960s was the execution-style murders of three civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1964. And now, you’re going to hear what really happened.
The murders of Andrew Goodman, Robert Chaney, and Mitchell Schwerner sent shock waves across America and the world, as many people began to realize for the first time that the Confederacy, far from being dead, was very much alive and very much committed to rolling back the tide of equal rights for all races, at least in the deep south.
True to its historical roots in the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and in the original Confederate secessionist plot, the Anti-Defamation League, contrary to its own published propaganda–and that’s exactly what it is, propaganda—lined up squarely with the Klan, the Ku Klux Klan, where it counted the most: with its checkbook.
One particularly sordid instance of collusion between the Anti-Defamation League and the Ku Klux Klan came to light in a hail of bullets on the night of June 30th, 1968 in Meridian, Mississippi, outside the home of ADL official, Myer Davidson.
When the smoke cleared, a local school teacher named Kathy Ainsworth lay dead, and a second man, Thomas A. Terrence III lay dying after being hit with 70 bullets–70 bullets, ladies and gentlemen—fired by 22 local police and FBI agents.
Shades of Waco!
Miraculously, Terrence survived the attack. Terrence and Ainsworth, both local Ku Klux Klan members, had been set up. They went to Davidson’s home, ladies and gentlemen, that night to plant a bomb on his door step, not knowing that the leader of their own Ku Klux Klan chapter had betrayed them, and that a small army of police and FBI sharp-shooters was waiting in the bushes to ambush them.
The entire affair, ladies and gentlemen, had been staged by the Anti-Defamation League. That’s right. The entire affair had been staged by the Anti-Defamation League.
The agent provocateur inside the local Ku Klux Klan Chapter who set up Terrence and Ainsworth was one of the killers of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner.
Alton Wayne Roberts was out on bail awaiting his trial, along with six other members of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, for the Philadelphia, Mississippi murders, when in the early spring of 1968 he cut a deal with the Anti-Defamation League’s Regional Director, Adolf Botnick.
The New Orleans-based Botnick had been a long-standing friend of the late Guy Banister. Guy Bannister–Kennedy assassination–the former FBI Special Agent implicated by District Attorney Jim Garrison in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Botnick, with the blessings of Meridian-based FBI Special Agent Frank Watts and Meridian Police Detective Luke Scarborough, agreed to pay Alton Wayne Roberts and his brother, Raymond Roberts, $69,000 to become the League’s paid agents provocateur. Twenty-five thousand dollars in unmarked twenty-dollar bills was hand-delivered from New Orleans to the Roberts brothers just days before the Ainsworth/Terrence
ambush.
At the time the deal was struck, the White Knights, led by the two Roberts brothers, had been on a nine-month bombing spree–nine-month bombing spree. The brothers were prime suspects in ten separate acts of racist violence. In addition to the Philadelphia murders, three of these attacks were directed against synagogues and Jewish leaders in Mississippi.
Do you understand, folks, it’s not the Jews! The Jews are being lied to. They’re being manipulated just like all of you are. Are you beginning to understand how it works?
Three of these attacks were directed against synagogues and Jewish leaders in Mississippi. And they huddled in their little self-made ghettos, and pointed their fingers at the community–had nothing to do with it–and yelled, ‘Anti-semitism! The Nazis are coming to get us!’
And you’re so proud of your level of education. You should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
The Roberts brothers, as per their deal with Botnick, ordered two of their Klan underlings to deliver the bomb to Davidson’s home. They then tipped off the FBI and the local police about the exact time the attack would occur.
In return for their continuing services to the ADL after the Davidson incident, the brothers were given slap-on-the-wrist sentences and placed in the FBI’s Witness Protection Program.
And for his part in the Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner murders, Alton Wayne Roberts spent less than three years in jail, and is again very active with you-know-who.
The Meridian incident was classic Anti-Defamation League; classic Hegelian Conflict Method of Political Resolution. The League used the racist attack against Meyer Davidson as a scare tactic fund-raising ploy, and the Jews filled their coffers–emptied their pockets—and asked the same people who had attacked them to protect them, using their own money.
The money they raised more than covered the costs of buying up the two KKK-ers as their permanent agents provocateur inside the Klan.
The League parlayed their financing of the Roberts brothers into an ever-closer relationship with the FBI, which was delighted to have the ADL finance and deploy two of the Klan’s most violent terrorists.
When you begin, when you begin to study the Waco massacre, you will find that David Koresh spent time in Israel, that he and some of his followers were trained by the JDL in infantry tactics, that he attended classes on the Talmud, that he was surrounded by Mossad and ADL agents and JDL personnel.
You will find that original reports from the foreign source quoted in the first press report, that they were going to commit mass suicide, came from prominent ADL members in Australia.
You people better wake up, and you’d better do it fast.
‘Koresh’, in the Hebrew language, means ‘Cyrus’. ‘David’, of course… the House of David, the famous king of Israel. Cyrus was the one who freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity. David Koresh flew the star of David on the flag pole above what was called Mount Carmel. He claimed that he held the keys to the seven seals in the Book of Revelation.
Poor, brainwashed, mind-controlled, manipulated David Koresh.
On the day in November 1985 that Israel spy, Jonathan J. Pollard was arrested, things went haywire at the Anti-Defamation League’s headquarters near United Nations Plaza in New York City.
National Chairman Kenneth Bailken immediately flew off to Israel to assess the damage and to make arrangements for the appropriate American attorneys to be brought in to represent, not only the jailed spy, but the other more senior players in the nominally-Israeli spy ring.
Were you aware that the headquarters of B’nai B’rith and the ADL is in the same building occupied by the Trilateral Commission?
Among the most important of those senior players was Col. Aviam Sella, an Israeli Air Force war hero, who had been Pollard’s recruiter on behalf of the secret Israeli techno-spy unit–L’Akim.
Sella’s cover for his spy recruiting was that he was in the United States taking graduate courses at New York University. And Sella’s wife, Ruth, a practicing attorney, reportedly was working on the staff of the ADL’s Legal Department while the couple lived in New York.
Any published links between the ADL and the Pollard spy apparatus could naturally prove very, very damaging, especially in light of the cozy relationship the League was enjoying with the Reagan White House at the time.
You see, while still in Israel, Bailken telephoned fellow ADL man Leonard Garment of the politically powerful law firm of Dickstein Shapiro. Garment was then the personal lawyer for United States Attorney General Edwin Meese. He agreed, at Bailken’s urging, to represent Sella in the Pollard matter, despite the obvious severe conflict of interest.
What an understatement!
At the ADL’s Washington office, Myra Lansky-Bolland—Myra Lansky-Bolland–was also undoubtedly worried that her own links to Pollard might surface.
Lanksy-Bolland had been a classmate and pal of Pollard at the graduate school program and national security affairs at the Fletcher School of Diplomacy of Tufts University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Upon graduation in 1978, both Lansky and Pollard had been immediately placed into sensitive posts in the United States intelligence community. Pollard had gone into Naval Intelligence –my old alma mater–and had almost immediately begun funneling secrets to Israel.
Lansky-Bolland had gone to work for the Central Intelligence Agency, and after a two-year stint with the CIA, she had transferred to the Pentagon where she worked under Dr. Andrew Marshall at the Office of Net Assessments–a little-known but very, very powerful unit that prepared technical assessments of Soviet military capabilities.
In 1982, Lansky had left the government to work full-time for the ADL in Washington.
Now, don’t even believe that she ever left anything.
Shortly after her arrival at the ADL from the Pentagon, she was assigned as the case officer on the League’s multi-million dollar campaign to smear and jail Lyndon LaRouche and scores of his associates for naming the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, B’nai B’rith, and the ADL in the attempts to destroy the United States of America.
Now, don’t get me wrong, folks. I am not for Lyndon LaRouche. He is a screaming socialist himself, masquerading as a conservative. But nevertheless, he has brought out a lot of truth about a lot of things, and he was framed and wrongfully imprisoned–all brought about by the ADL.
Following the Pollard arrest, Andrew Marshall would be identified, ladies and gentlemen, as a suspected senior member of the Pollard spy ring, although no charges were ever brought against him, and he remains to this day in his post at the Defense Department.
To this day, Pentagon officials have never succeeded in pinning down the identity of the Mr. X who gave Pollard the code numbers of the classified documents that the Naval Intelligence analyst then stole and passed on to L’Akim.
Both Pollard and Lansky had gotten their government spy jobs courtesy of Fletcher School Professor Yuri Ra’anahn. Ra’anahn, an Oxford University-trained Middle East expert, had himself been an Israeli government intelligence operative of the Mossad, posted in New York City and Washington during the 1950s and ’60s, and also an operative of British intelligence. He was playing all ends against the middle.
While serving as a press attache at the Israeli embassy in Washington in the mid-1960s, Ra’anahn had helped set up a unit that would recruit Israeli spies from the ranks of American businessmen traveling frequently to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. That spy unit, which was unearthed in a series of civil suits beginning in 1967–all on record, was housed at the headquarters of the B’nai B’rith International.
Ra’anahn’s contact point inside the B’nai B’rith was Phillip Klutznick, an Honorary National Chairman of the ADL who would later serve as President Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Commerce.
Among the damage-control efforts launched by the ADL in the wake of the Pollard arrest was the planting of a string of news accounts and editorials portraying Pollard as a loyal American who was also committed to the security of the State of Israel.
No such thing, folks. A loyal American is devoted to the United States of America. Citizens of the State of Israel are devoted to the State of Israel, and stupid fools who are allowed to be manipulated, thinking that they owe allegiance to both.
I have nothing against Israel. But Israel needs to take off its diaper and stand on its own two feet.
‘Harmless, friendly espionage’ was the term coined by the League and its small army of paid-agents inside the news media.
Bullshit!
Unfortunately, Pollard’s spying was anything but harmless or friendly. The L’Akim unit, headed by the former Chief of European Operations for the Mossad, Raphael ‘Dirty Raffi’ Itan, was passing on the most sensitive of the American national security secrets heisted by Pollard to the Soviet KGB. In return, Moscow was opening up the pipeline of Soviet Jews to Israel.
It was treachery of the highest order.
And then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinburger was fully aware of the magnitude of Pollard’s crimes when he asked the judge to sentence Pollard to life in prison after the spy agreed to plead guilty.
He should have been executed.
In a 46-page affidavit submitted to the judge in the Pollard case, Weinburger showed that much of the Pollard material wound up in Soviet hands, and that it would cost the United States billions of dollars to repair the national security damage done by the Pollard spy ring.
The ADL is not a friend of the United States of America.
The JDL is not a friend of the United States of America.
B’nai B’rith is not a friend of the United States of America.
The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry is not a friend of the United States of America.
Israel is not a friend of the United States of America.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, the millions of pages of classified documents funneled by Pollard to the KGB, a majority were of no critical interest to Israel at all.
Did Kenneth Bailken, or Myra Lansky-Bolland, or any of the other ADL officials who abetted Pollard in his spy work know that the pilfered
material was going to the KGB?
The answer to that question has never been made public to this day. Only the players in the espionage operation know for sure. But I believe that they knew 100% what was happening and where it was going every single moment, that they were a part of it.
And remember, folks, they organized it. They put it together, and they controlled it.
It is unquestionably the case that, at the same time the ADL was knee-deep in the Pollard stew, top ADL officials were working hand-in-glove with the Soviet bloc intelligence services on several other projects that would have devastating consequences for the United States of America.
You see, the ADL are traitors, murderers, terrorists, and scum. It has nothing to do with Jews. They use Jews. And they use you because you’re so afraid of being called anti-semitic if you tell the truth about these scumbags. You quiver just thinking about somebody calling you anti-semitic.
Well, take it from me, folks, it don’t hurt at all. Not at all. I’ve never been anti-semitic in my life, but in their efforts to shut me up, they have tried on several occasions to brand me as an anti-semite, and it doesn’t work, and it doesn’t shut me up, and I’m not afraid of them.
And if I end up dead, I’ve already told you what to do. You take my dead cold body and you place it up on the steps of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite of the Southern Jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., and then you burn it to the ground. And then you do the same to B’nai B’rith and all the other lodges of these scumbag traitors in this country. If I turn up dead, you do that. It’s the only thing I’ll ever ask of you except to wake up.
One such ADL friend of Moscow was whisky baron Edgar Bronfman. Edgar Bronfman. Remember, we discussed him on an earlier episode of the ADL expose. The third-generation Bronfmans had successfully transformed their father’s Prohibition Era bootlegging business into a legitimate whisky empire called Seagrams.
And every time you take a drink of Seagrams, no matter what it is, you are furthering the goals of B’nai B’rith, the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and the ADL; and you’re helping to destroy this country. Don’t drink anything that Seagrams bottles ever.
This transformation, ladies and gentlemen, had been aided early on by the United States Treasury Department, which cut a deal with Sam and Abe Bronfman in the close of Prohibition, enabling them to pay several million dollars in back taxes in return for a white-washing of their decade of big-time crimes.
See, they used it as blackmail, just as they caused Elizabeth Claire Prophet and the Church Universal Triumphant to get down on their knees and beg for mercy and give up their guns. All their guns. Personal guns. Guns of all the members had to be given away. They sold out. They sold America down the tubes. They sold out the Second Amendment.
And the Treasury Department cut a deal and made sure the Sam and Abe Bronfman didn’t go to jail if they paid several million dollars in back taxes and made them legitimate crooks. The Bronfman family came out of the deal as multi-millionaires, with all their ties to the Lansky syndicate still intact, and their criminal record behind them, because they made a deal with the same people that were bowing down to the fire in Waco, Texas.
Abner Longee Zwilmann was not the only Prohibition Era gangster who profited from the old saw: ‘from rags to rackets to riches to respectability’. By the 1950s, the Bronfman’s image had been so cleaned up that Edgar could marry into the ‘Our Crowd’ Loeb family, and his sister Phyllis could marry Gene Lambert of the Belgian branch of the Rothschild clan.
The Lambert family was the European connection in Drexel Burnham Lambert. Ever hear of that? Drexel Burnham Lambert?
However, image polishing is one thing; reality is another. You see, as late as 1972, the Montreal Canada Crime Commission had issued a report naming Mitchell Bronfman as a crime partner of one of the city’s biggest gangsters, Willie Obrunt. The pair were implicated in dope smuggling. Willie and Mitchell owned a night spot in the middle of Meyer Lansky’s turf in North Miami called The Pagoda North, which was a favorite hangout for Vido Genovese and other big-time hoodlums.
Edgar Bronfman, for his part, sought out some very peculiar clientele for his family’s whisky business. In 1986, as the Pollard affair was playing out, one of Edgar Bronfman’s assistants at the World Jewish Congress–Bronfman had taken over the World Jewish Congress and turned it into an international arm of the ADL–that’s the ADL, on whose National Commission he sits–and established ties to the brutal Communist regime in East Germany. Bronfman Seagram was made the exclusive distributor of booze to East Germany’s ruling SED Communist Party.
In 1988, Edgar Bronfman himself traveled to East Berlin where he was the guest of honor of SED boss Erich Honecker and top party official Herman Axen.
It makes me sick. I don’t know about you.
On that trip, Bronfman vowed that he would personally arrange for the East German leader to make a state visit to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Ronald Reagan.
Even one year later, with the Berlin Wall and East German Communism about to collapse, Edgar Bronfman was back in East Germany again–this time promising to marshall the resources of the World Jewish Congress and the ADL to block the reunification of Germany which he dubbed a sell-out of socialism.
And that is the truth of the ADL, the B’nai B’rith, and the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Socialism. And that’s where this country is going on a roller coaster, unless you stupid sheeple stand up on your hind feet, take the wool off from in front of your eyes, and become real people.
In return for those efforts, Bronfman was given the highest civilian award offered by East Germany: the People’s Friendship Medal in Gold to this traitor.
Edgar’s brother and business partner, Charles, was also a true friend of the Honecker dictatorship as the head of the Canadian-East German Friendship Society. He was able to control all passports and visas between the two countries.
But there was much more to the Bronfman East Germany liaison than a lucrative whisky contract and a few medals, and we’ll talk about that tomorrow night.
Good night. And God bless you all.

{ Add a Comment }

Jasper’s Fitzhugh Newspaper Censors Monika Schaefer’s Reply to Editor’s Defamatory & Threatening News Article By Monika Schaefer

MonikaSchaeferTruth

From: Monika Schaefer [email protected]
Sent: July 19, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Paul Clarke
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Censorship of Monika Schaefer at Jasper’s Fitzhugh Newspaper
Paul Clarke, Editor of The Fitzhugh
Jasper Alberta
July 19th, 2016
[email protected]
Dear Paul,
Upon careful consideration I have decided that either you publish my whole letter, or not at all. If you cannot publish my entire response to your article of July 14th, 2016 ‘Video denying holocaust causes uproar’, then I will find other channels to do so. You may have noticed that this story is gathering attention around the world. Your refusal to publish more-than-half of my response to your smear piece will become part of the international story. Word is getting out that Canada is becoming a repressive society, and the Fitzhugh’s unfair censorship encapsulates this repression.
Here is how my friend and colleague in England sees it:
‘Paul Clarke’s article is exactly 800 words long, including propaganda-spreading photo caption (775 without). The full text of your letter is 680 words. That says it all. He can’t publish an 800-word article that makes youa de facto leper in your hometown of 35 years, and not give you at least equal space to respond as a means to defend yourself and your position. For him to limit you to 253 words is: 1) cowardly and 2) morally reprehensible.’
I agree with those words 100%.
Furthermore, the part of my letter you chose to cut provides evidence in support of my position. The part you were proposing to allow (the politically acceptable) is a lead-in to contextualize the evidence. You are demonstrating a technique of journalistic smear. You publish conclusions without allowing the supporting evidence to be presented.
This is not a game. Serious threats have been made against me. By censoring my response, you are contributing to the conditions that could make Jasper unsafe for me.
Sincerely,
Monika Schaefer
cc to: Robert Doull, President Aberdeen Publishing
Linda Bolton, Managing Director Aberdeen Publishing
Below is my unabridged letter to the editor. Clarke stated he would only run the first five paragraphs:
**********************************************
18 July 2016 noon Mountain Time
Paul Clarke’s hit piece on me in the July 14th 2016 edition of The Fitzhugh requires a response. First, what is the story? The Fitzhugh reports that the RCMP is not currently investigating the matter. It is also reported that the Alberta Human Rights Commission neither confirms nor denies receiving a complaint. What is the news?
It appears that the only real substance to Paul Clarke’s smear is his detailed account of Ken Kuzminski’s antagonism towards my video. On the basis of his political judgement, Kuzminski seeks to criminalize me and evict me from my home. He declared on social media that I am not welcome in Jasper. From my perspective, my peaceful expression of disagreement with official orthodoxy is being met with a publicized incitement to hatred against me. Who is most in danger here?
I invite my friend Ken to consider the authoritarian implications of his draconian interventions. Do we have freedom of speech in Canada or not? How far does Ken wish to go in criminalizing dissent?
Ken Kuzminski’s announcement that I am banned from the Jasper Legion, of which he is president, raises the most profound issues. We were always told that Canadian soldiers fought for our freedoms, including freedom of speech and association. Shutting me out of the Legion demeans the values that our veterans supposedly fought to protect.
Kuzminski contacted the German Embassy. Why? Is he trying to get Canada to follow Germany’s even more repressive police-state censorship on the issue of what actually happened in WW2?
[The remainder of the letter is the portion that The Fitzhugh refused to print MS]
The truth does not fear investigation. Only lies need protection by law.
I will exercise my freedom of speech here. I insist on some reckoning with facts and evidence.
After the Toronto ‘Holocaust trials’ of Ernst Zündel in 1985 and 1988, the curators of the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland reduced death statistics from 4 million to 1.5 million. Why did the 6 million number remain unchanged?
Evidence in those trials brought to light the fraud of the gas chamber story. The French Professor Robert Faurisson was a pioneer in this line of investigation. He has been repeatedly convicted in French courts and physically assaulted for persisting with his scientific inquiry. Faurisson was instrumental in bringing Fred Leuchter, America’s top gas chamber specialist, into the Toronto trials. Leuchter conducted a thorough scientific examination of the facilities at Auschwitz and concluded that there were no homicidal gas chambers.
Robert Faurisson’s trials and tribulations speak of the high stakes nature of genuine historical inquiry into the evidence of this subject. He has famously summarized, in a 60-word sentence, his conclusion from decades of research on the forbidden subject:
‘The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and international Zionism, whose principal victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.’
Many people, including Jews, died in WW2. Most of the concentration camp deaths occurred in the final months of war because food was not reaching the camps. The Allies carpet-bombed Germany, in particular transportation corridors. Camp inmates died of starvation and disease. The International Red Cross figure for total deaths in all the concentration camps was 271,301. Look it up.
According to Clarke’s article, Martin Sampson, director of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, claims ‘it is the most well-documented genocide’ and ‘the truth is the Holocaust was industrialized, state-sponsored murder committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people’. Yet, in the many thousands of government documents and archives that were seized by the Allies after the war, not a single item was found indicating a plan to exterminate the Jews. How could the mass murder of 6 million people take place without a plan?
I have always been a peace activist, and I am still a peace activist. What we have now is a world of war and turmoil, structured by lies and deception. I am standing up for a better world.

{ Add a Comment }

The Unveiling of B’nai Brith by William Cooper Part 1 of 8

THIS SERIES IS DEDICATED TO CANADIAN PM STEPHEN HARPER IN THE HOPE THAT HE WILL SEE THE LIGHT WITH REGARD TO B’NAI BRITH CANADA.
___________________________________________________________________________
ADL/HateCrimesLeg
ADL DEFENSE ARM OF B’NAI BRITH
——————-
THE AUTHOR
William Cooper
MILTON WILLIAM COOPER
May 6, 1943 November 5, 2001
[Editor’s Note: William Cooper was murdered by police on November 5th, 2001 at the age of 58. He was an American writer, shortwave broadcaster who came into public awareness in the late 1980s. William was also a radio host, author and political activist known for his best-selling underground book titled Behold A Pale Horse and his worldwide shortwave radio show Hour of the Time. Cooper was also known for his court battle with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the recorded attempts to dissuade him from pursuing his case.
William Cooper founded Harvest Trust, the CAJI News Service, Veritas newspaper, The Intelligence Service, and Harvest Publications. Under his leadership Harvest Trust ventured into publishing. The first book under the Harvest Trust imprint was Oklahoma City: Day One (ISBN 0-9653307-1-0), by Michele Marie Moore about the Oklahoma City bombing.
An advocate for free radio, Cooper operated the unlicensed Independence Foundation Trust at 101.1 FM in Eagar, Arizona. Cooper claimed to have helped over 700 low power FM affiliate stations get equipped and on the air.
My belief is that Cooper was murdered by the Illuminati because of his work to expose the Beast to the public. This series of talks on B’nai Brith and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was part of his work to enlighten the public on who’s who behind the veil. Right at the beginning of this series he makes a comment about just such a scenario arising for many who did what he did. God willing he’ll be the last one to die for such efforts. Bless his soul.
The title of the series on RadicalPress.com is mine. Seeing as the ADL is but an offshoot of B’nai Brith and many people here in Canada think of this organization as B’nai Brith I’ve decided to use it in the title.]
Anti-Defamation League #1
THE HOUR OF THE TIME
Tape No. 524:‘ADL No. 1’
Wednesday, January 11, 1995
This broadcast was taken in whole or in part from investigations conducted by the CAJI News Service, and the Intelligence Service, and from reports published by The Executive Intelligence Review entitled ‘The Ugly Truth About The ADL’, and ‘Dope Inc.’.
Folks, tonight I’m going to embark on a course from which there is no return.It is important that you learn the information that I’m going to begin to impart to you tonight; and yes, it is a part of the ‘Mind Control’ series.It is also a part of the history of the Illuminati in this nation.And it will explain an awful lot of things to you that have never been explainable before.It’s going to explain to you the link between the Lodges of the Illuminati, the intelligence community, and the underworld.
It is extremely dangerous what I am embarking upon, simply because so many people who have attempted to reveal this history previously have been killed in the process of doing it.I have no fear, and I will finish what I start, or someone will, because it needs to be done.
Tonight, I begin to narrate to you a special report of the ‘Executive Intelligence Review’ entitled ‘The Ugly Truth About the ADL’.
Now, I want you to understand something.I am not talking about Jews. I am talking about a branch of the Illuminati:the control structure that is bringing one-world government into fruition, destroying the sovereignty of nations, and many, many other things.
As you will see, ladies and gentlemen, the ADL does not represent the Jewish people; but instead, is using them, and is manipulating them so that they, innocentlyas many of you have done throughout your life innocentlyare helping to bring about the destruction of the sovereignty of individual nations, the destruction of individual, Creator-endowed, Constitutionally- guaranteed rights, and the formation of a one-world, totalitarian, socialist government.
I want it clearly understood that ‘The Hour of the Time’ has stated on many, many occasions that we oppose racism of any kind, in any form, by anyone.
What you’re going to discover is that the ADL, while calling many, many people anti-semitic, are themselves one of the most racist groups that has ever existed upon the face of this earth.

Ladies and gentlemen, the original research was done by the ‘Executive Intelligence Review’.CAJI has duplicated the research down to the T to make sure that this material is true.And it is absolutely, 100% legitimate and historical truth from beginning to end.And that’s why the ADL and B’nai B’rith has never sued the ‘Executive Intelligence Review’ over this report.
April 14, 1865, the day Abraham Lincoln was shot, will live forever, ladies and gentlemen, as a day of infamy for American patriots, and lovers of freedom all over the world.
But for the leadership of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and the Order of B’nai B’rith, and it’s twentieth-century police arm, the Anti-Defamation League, April 14th, 1865 is a day that will be long remembered for a very different reason.
The B’nai B’rith, a pivotal player in the British Freemasonic plot to destroy the Union, was implicated in Lincoln’s assassinationsomething that you’ve never been taught.
That fact does not square very well with its long-cultivatedbut totally unwarrantedreputation as a Jewish social service organization, and a champion of civil rights.For that reason, B’nai B’rith and the ADL have gone to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to bury that history and much, much more.
Simon Wolf , 1835-1923, was the Washington, D.C. lawyer for the Order of B’nai B’rith during the entire period of the United States Civil War.He would later head the International Order of B’nai B’rith for many years.
In 1862, Wolf was arrested by Lafayette C. Bakerthe Chief of Detectives for the City of Washington, D.C., and later, Lincoln’s Chief of the United States Secret Serviceon charges that Wolf was involved in spying and blockade running on behalf of the Confederacy.
Baker arrested Wolf, who was the attorney representing a number of Jews accused of spying for the South, on the grounds that he was part of a conspiratorial organization working on behalf of the secessionist cause behind the lines in the nation’s capitol.The conspiratorial organization named by Baker was the B’nai B’rith.
Both Baker and United States General Ulysses S. Grant targeted the Order of B’nai B’rith as a Confederate spy agency.Upon taking command of the western front in 1862, General Grant issued Order No. 11 which expelled all Jews from the military district within 24 hours of its implementation.
U.S. Grant was no anti-semite, ladies and gentlemen.He was reacting to the activities of B’nai B’rith and leading Confederates like Judah P. Benjamin.
Lincoln, however, cognizant of the need to avoid blanket attacks against religious or ethnic groups, rescinded the orderwhich was the proper thing to dofor all Jews are not members of B’nai B’rith; and B’nai B’rith was not solely at guilt.
The Civil War was actually engineered and brought about by British intelligence through their arm of the Illuminati in the United States headed by Albert Pike:the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, whose headquarters at that time was in Charleston, South Carolina.
A 1987 B’nai B’rith-authorized biography of Simon Wolf by Esther L. Panitz offered the following highly suggestivealbeit incompletedescription of Wolf’s personal relationship with President Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth.
Now, bear in mind, folks, that this biography, written on the basis of B’nai B’rith’s archiveswritten on the basis of B’nai B’rith’s own archivespaints Wolf in the most favorable of lights.
The mere fact that the author had to include Wolf’s links to Booth and Wolf’s earlier arrest as an alleged Confederate spy and blockade-runner implies that the actual story is far uglier.I quote from the history of the B’nai B’rith:
‘Wolf’s concern for culture first expressed itself in the formation of a private club devoted to the arts and humanities, and frequented by young men avid for learning.
‘Were pride and ambition his only motives in seeking the intellectual life?
‘Clearly, Wolf hoped that if he and his friends would devote themselves to the pursuit of learning, they would deflect the prejudicial statements of their Christian neighbors.
‘Wolf was upset that terms such as ‘money-changers’, ‘cotton-traders’, and ‘clothes-dealers’ had become words of reproach.
‘Locally, the groups theatrical productions received a good press. Wolf, who would often play the Ghost in ‘Hamlet’ or Shylock in ‘The Merchant of Venice’, bore an uncanny resemblance to John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s assassin. Earlier in Cleveland, Booth had joined Wolf and Peixoto in dramatic performances.
‘Years afterward, Wolf remembered that he had met Booth once again at the Willard Hotel on the morning of the day Lincoln was shot.
‘There at the bar, Booth explained that Senator John P. Hale’s daughter had just rejected his marriage proposal.Wolf attributed Lincoln’s murder to this personal tragedy in Booth’s own life.Wolf also recalled that once he sat for a picture entitled ‘The Assassination of President Lincoln’.’
End quote.In his own book, ladies and gentlemen, entitled ‘Presidents I Have Known’, Wolf says that he and his long-time acquaintance, John Wilkes Booth, did some drinking together at the Willard Hotel on the day Booth shot Lincoln.
Wolf’s, and a second leading B’nai B’rith figure, Benjamin Peixoto’s dealings with John Wilkes Booth, were hardly cultural.Nor could Wolf have possibly believed that Abraham Lincoln was killed because of John Wilkes Booth’s unrequited love affair.
Even John Hinkley, the would-be assassin of President Ronald Reagan, was declared insane when he tried to peddle the line that he had tried to kill Ronald Reagan due to an unfulfilled fantasy love affair with actress Jodie Foster.
To understand the circumstances under which B’nai B’rith’s Washington, D.C. leader and one of its founding members were circumstantially tied to the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, and explicitly linked to the secessionist insurrection against the Union, it is necessary to look briefly at the circumstances under which the Order of B’nai B’rith was founded in 1843.
Following the American Revolution, the British monarchy and its East India Company colonists’ apparatus never for a moment abandoned their commitment to reconquer the lost colonies in North America.
Although the military effort at reconquest in the War of 1812 failed, other efforts to seed the United States with British agents, some drawn from the ranks of anti-Republican Torieswho were permitted to retain their citizenship and property in America under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1783were more successful.
In 1801, the Tory faction of United States Freemasonrythe grouping of Freemasons who had sided with England during the American Revolutionopened up shop as the Grand Council of the Princes of Jerusalem of the Mother Supreme Council of the Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-Third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Order of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in the United States.
This United States-based British Freemasonic Lodge was chartered in Charleston, South Carolina.The members of this British-led secret society would direct the Confederate secessionist insurrection a half-century later; and other Scottish Rite members would be among the founders of the B’nai B’rith. They, too, would be leading Confederates.
Apart from the esoteric mission of spreading an explicitly anti-Christian form of Roman pagan worship and occultism among the early generations of American citizens, the Charleston Lodge also sought to build up a network of pro-British merchants, spies, and politicians in both the North and the South who would one day play a pivotal role in the reconquest.
Many of these early Masons became wealthy through their business dealings with the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Company in both the cotton and the slave trade.
Among the founding members of the Charleston Scottish Rite Lodge were many prominent Jews, including Isaac Dacosta , Moses Cohen , Israel Deleiben , Dr. Isaac Held , Moses Levy and Moses Peixoto.
Many of these men, ladies and gentlemen, were Sephardic Jews from North Africa or from Spain who had originally settled in the Caribbean and engaged in the early slave trade.
These Jewish Masons set up their organizations which also maintained active liaison to Great Britain’s powerful Jewish community.
The Hebrew Orphan Aid Society was one such nominally benign group that would produce one of the most rabid secessionist leaders: Judah P. Benjamin.
Although today any reports of the Freemasonic roots and structure of B’nai B’rith are usually greeted with a torrent of allegations of anti-semitism, back in the formative years, B’nai B’rith’s own magazine, ‘The Menorah’, offered the following information about the founders of the groupand listen to this very carefully.Quote:
‘Their reunions were frequent and several of them being members of existing benevolent societies, especially the Order of Freemasons and Odd-Fellows, they finally concluded that a somewhat similar organization, but based upon the Jewish idea, would best obtain their object.
‘The Jewish religion has many observances and customs corresponding to the secret societies known to us.The synagogue, for instance, might be compared to a Lodge room.It used to be open twice a day.For a Jew desiring to find a friend, they had but to go there and make themselves known by a certain sign and token.
‘The sign consisted of a grip with a full hand and the magical word ‘Shalom Alakim’ .The mezuzah on the doorpost was the countersign‘Shema Israel’.‘Hear O Israel’ was the password.’
End quote.Indeed, to this day, all local chapters of the B’nai B’rith are referred to as Lodges, a practice borrowed whole cloth from the Scottish Rite.
When Moses saw some Jews of this B’nai B’rith-type who tried to make the religion into a pagan secret society, he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it into powder.And Moses returned unto the Lord and said:O, this people have sinned a great sin and made them gods of gold.
The majority of Jews in America during the first generations following Independence were opposed to the idea of a Jewish Freemasonic secret society.
Most Jews are ordinary people, like all of you listening, and don’t know any more about what’s happening in the world than you do.They are lied to, just like you are lied to.They are deceived, just like you are deceived. And they are easily manipulated, because throughout the history of the world, they have been chosen as the scapegoat, as the enemy.And because of that, they can be easily led by organizations such as B’nai B’rith and the Anti-Defamation League.
Israel Joseph Benjamin, a noted European Jew, in his memoirs, ‘Three Years in America:1859-62’, wrote of the B’nai B’rith that, quote:
‘This is a secret society like the Freemasons with passwords and the like, and was quite a new phenomenon for me. Still, I think the existence of such a society not at all necessary.’
End quote.He was right, ladies and gentlemen.The secret agenda of the B’nai B’rith, like that of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, was to destroy the Union and pave the way for reconquest.
The ultimate goal:one-world, totalitarian, socialist government.
You see, B’nai B’rith is not the synagogue.B’nai B’rith is not Jews. B’nai B’rith is not Judaism.
B’nai B’rith is just another organ under a different name of the ages-old Illuminati, who practice the Ancient Mystery Religion of Babylon in secret.They call themselves the Great White Brotherhood, the Brotherhood of Man, the Illumined Ones.And if you’ve listened to our series on ‘Mystery Babylon’, you know the rest.
Two leading B’nai B’rith-allied figures would serve as exemplars of the strategy for permanently dividing the Union. One was Judah P. Benjamin, and the other August Belmont.
Benjamin, who lived from 1811 to 1884, was born in the British West Indies to Sephardic Jewish parents who moved to Charleston, South Carolina in 1827.
He was inducted into the Charleston Hebrew Orphan Aid Society, one of the precursors of the B’nai B’rith.
After attending Yale College in New Haven, Connecticut, he was forced to drop out under a cloud of scandal.
Benjamin surfaced in New Orleans where he quickly won the patronage of John SlidellSlidell, a United States Senator who would later play a pivotal role in the Confederacy and
sponsored the career of August Belmont who married Slidell’s daughter.
With Slidell’s assistance, Benjamin became a prominent attorney, even serving for a period of time as the United States Attorney for New Orleans.
Benjamin gained notoriety for covering up the growing terrorist activities of the Scottish-Rite-sponsored Knights of the Golden Circle while serving as the local federal prosecutor.
In 1852, Benjamin was elected United States Senator, a post he retained until the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 when he resigned to serve the Confederacy.
Benjamin was the first Confederate Attorney General.He later served as Secretary of War and Secretary of State, ultimately running the Confederate Secret Service on behalf of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
And as the Mossad does today, he used innocent Jews in the North who were opposed to the dissolution of the Union to furnish information to the intelligence arm of the Confederacy.
Judah Benjamin escaped to England following the defeat of the Confederate secessionist plot.
It was Benjamin’s Confederate Secret Service which organized and supervised such figures in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as John Wilkes Booth and his accomplice John Serrat .
Benjamin was charged with sedition for the Lincoln assassination, although he was never brought to trial due to his protected status in England.
With the help of a leading Rothschild political asset in England, Baron Pollock , Benjamin continued his legal career in London.He never abandoned his commitment to subvert and destroy the American republic.However, as a wealthy lawyer for the British merchant oligarchs, Judah Benjamin collaborated with other exiled Confederate and Masonic strategists in England such as James D. Bullock and Robert Tombs .
Benjamin’s continuing preoccupation with defeating Reconstruction is indicated in letters he wrote back to the United States with complaints such as these, quote:
‘I have always looked with the utmost dread and distrust on the experiment of emancipation so suddenly enforced on the South by the event of the war.God knows how it will all end.’
End quote.And then he went on to say, quote:
‘The South is kept crushed under Negro rule.I can never consent to go to New Orleans and break my heart witnessing the rule of Negroes and Carpetbaggers.Nothing is so abhorrent to me as radicalism which seeks to elevate the populace into the governing class.’
End quote.And that, indeed, is the sympathy of all of those who call themselves ‘illumined’.
You see, we are all nothing but cattle, stupid animals.And they are the only ones who have truly mature mindsand thus, are the only ones with the right to rule.
The Ku Klux Klanand none of you were ever taught this, but it’s the truththe Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was founded in Tennessee in the late 1860s by the Southern Scottish Rite leadership under Albert Pike.The KKK drew its membership from the pre-Civil War Knights of the Golden Circle.
Judah P. Benjamin’s early role in sponsoring and protecting both the Knights of the Golden Circle and the Ku Klux Klan offers a crucial insight into the B’nai B’rith-ADL’s later role in fostering the revival of the KKK and the post-World War II period.
We shall return to that sordid tale, ladies and gentlemen, later in this series of broadcasts.
Another Rothschild and B’nai B’rith ally who enjoyed the political patronage of arch-Confederate John Slidell, August Belmont, was Judah Benjamin’s Northern counterpart.
A private secretary to the British House of Rothschild who arrived in New York City from London in 1837, Belmont rose to the Chairmanship of the Democratic Party, a position he held for 20 years.Belmont was a leading advocate of free trade and states’ rights, both cornerstones of the British reconquest scheme.
Prior to his emergence as a leading figure in the National Democratic Party, Belmont worked closely with the Charleston, South Carolina B’nai B’rith in fomenting radicalism among America’s youth.The effort was, in this case, run directly by the Mother Lodge of the Scottish Rite in England, then under the command of Britain’s Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston.
At Belmont’s behest, Charleston’s B’nai B’rith leader, Edwin Deleon , wrote a pamphlet in the early 1850s entitled, ‘The Position and Duties of Young Americans’.Deleon, whose family were slave traders, B’nai B’rith founders, and later leading Confederates, peddled free trade and openly advocated a strong Anglo-American alliance. While by today’s standards the appeal for a strong Anglo-American alliance may seem palatable to some, back in the middle of the nineteenth century, this was borderline treason.
Belmont’s Young America members were among the draft rioters and radical abolitionists who disrupted Lincoln’s Union war mobilization to the benefit of the Confederacy and England.
During the early phase of the Civil War, England tried repeatedly to intervene into the conflict with cease-fire plans that would have insured the permanent dissolution of the Union.
During the Civil War itself, while the majority of American Jews sided with the Northmake sure you understand this, folks, so you know that this is not a racist or anti-semitic program or reportthe majority of American Jews sided with the North and fought valiantly to preserve the Union, the B’nai B’rith was predominantly pro-Confederate. Even in New York City, the Lodges preached secession.
The Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, founded by Dutch Jews who made their money in the slave trade, heard sermons by Rabbi Morris Raphel and the following.And he said this, quote:
‘Who can blame our brethren of the South for their being inclined to secede from a society under whose government their ends cannot be attained, and whose Union is kept together by heavy iron ties of violence and arbitrary force?
‘Who can blame our brethren of the South for seceding from a society whose government cannot and will not protect property rights and privileges of a great portion of the Union?’
End quote.Following the Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln, many of the Jewish slave and cotton traders from the south, typified by the Lehman Brothers, moved to New York City and became prominent in Wall Street banking and brokerages.
With the defeat of President Lincoln’s Reconstruction Program following his assassination, President Andrew Johnson pardoned the Scottish Rite insurrectionists….
Now, listen to this closely.
President Andrew Johnson pardoned the Scottish Rite insurrectionists, including General Albert Pike, and accepted a rank of 32nd Degree in the Southern Jurisdiction Freemasons.
That was his reward.
Suspected Lincoln assassination plotter, Simon Wolf, was also absolved of any criminal culpability for his wartime activities.
Only non-Freemasons and non-B’nai B’rith were prosecuted for the crimes they committed during the Civil War.
The legacy of British Freemasonic treachery against the Union survived intact, including the B’nai B’rith.
Although the slave trade nominally was banned in the United States as a result of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, a new form of slavery had already been launched by the British East India Company and its Scottish Rite Directors, including the same Lord Palmerston who had played so pivotal a role in the secessionist insurrection.
The new form of slavery was drugsopium.
Henry Carey , one of the architects of Abraham Lincoln’s Reconstruction Program and a leading proponent of the American System of Political Economy, warned about Britain’s opium war against China and India in his 1853 book, ‘The Slave Trade:Domestic and Foreign’.Get the book and read it.
He described the trade in, quote:
‘…that pernicious drug opium…’
end quote, as, quote:
‘…one of perfect free trade….’
End quote.Defeated in the secessionists’ insurrectionist plot, Britain and its fifth column of agents in both the North and the South would eventually regroup around a strategy for running an opium war against the United States.
As the reader will learn in later chapters, the B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League’s Secret Lodge played a central role in the drugging of America.
Let’s fast-forward to 1992, folks, in the nation’s capitol where B’nai B’rith lawyer Simon Wolf conspired on behalf of the Southern slave trade.
The streets in many parts of town are dominated now by drug traffickers whose deadly poison has inflicted both a subculture of addiction and violence and a spread of AIDS among the predominantly black population.
Community-based efforts led by the Nation of Islam have begun to roll back that new subculture of slavery and despair, restoring safety and dignity to some of the most desperately poor neighborhoods in the United States.
And as soon as they began to be successful, they came under attack by the ADL.
True to its history, the B’nai B’rith/ADL intercedes to turn back the clock to the days of slavery, for drug addiction is a form of euphemistic slavery, and those who are addicted are subject to the whims of those who have enslaved them.
They can even control which way society goes, ladies and gentlemen.You see, if they want to create more crime in order to take rights away from the peopleindeed, to make the people scream to have their rights taken away in order to take the fear away, get the crime and the drugs off our streetsthey just elevate the price of the drugs so that the poor addict cannot afford to pay for them.So, he has to go out and steal, and rob, and mug somebody and even kill to satisfy the terrible craving of his flesh.
You never thought of it that way, did you?But it’s true.
Want to make it look like the police are succeeding?Want to make a politician look good?Lower the price of drugs way down to almost nothing and crime disappears overnight.
One of these days, you’ll begin to understand how we’ve all been enslaved for most of our livesall of us:Caucasian, Jew, black, Indian, Oriental… it doesn’t make any difference.We’ve all been lied to.We’ve all been deceived.We’ve all been manipulated.And we’ve all been puppets on the end of somebody’s strings.It is the purpose of ‘The Hour of the Time’ to stop that.
I’m not so foolish as to think we’re going to be successful and stop it all, but we may be able to stop most of it.And we may be able to hang those that are responsible by their neck from a lamp-post until they’re dead, once they’ve been legally apprehended and tried by a jury of their peersonce the truth is known.
But the Illuminati, ladies and gentlemen, not the Jews, is in control of the judicial system.The Illuminati, Freemasons, sit on the benches of every court in this nation.
First, ladies and gentlemen, when this happened, the ADL set off a massive wave of anger and resentment in the African American community when in June 1992 it published ‘The Anti-Semitism of Black Demagogues and Extremists’.
The widely-circulated ADL report is a frontal attack on the Nation of Islam and its leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan. It openly threatens retribution against any elected officials or political activists who associate with or publicly commend the Nation of Islam.
I’ve commended them many times on ‘The Hour of the Time’, and will continue to do that.I condemn them for their racism, but I applaud them and admire them for what they have done for the black community.No one else has done so much to bring them up out of poverty and give them a sense of self-worth, and bring their families together and where they stay together.No one else has taken the drugs off the streets like the Nation of Islam.
In July 1992, a major uproar developed in Washington, D.C. when the ADL, ladies and gentlementhe ADL, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rithwas caught red-handed in an ugly attempt to shut down any government contact with what has been the only effective effort to clean up drug and crime-infested areas in the nation’s capitol: the Nation of Islam’s now famous ‘Dope Busters’.
If you’ve investigated what happened in Waco, Texas, ladies and gentlemen, you always run up against the ADL and B’nai B’rith.They instigated it.They brought it into being.They promoted it.They pressed it.And they are the ones who released the lies to the press around the country that kept the American people in the dark.
When Washington, D.C. Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly issued an official proclamation honoring Nation of Islam leader, Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad, for his leadership in the Dope Busters campaign, and for his ground-breaking work in treating AIDS patients with Immuno-virun , an African-developed anti-AIDS drug, the ADL went absolutely insane.
They had ignored these people until they began to take the drugs off the streets.Make sure you understand that.
Kelly was repeatedly hit with ADL-organized delegations demanding that the proclamation be rescinded lest she, too, be identified as an anti-semite.And this is how they blackmail leaders, and police chiefs, and mayors, and military officers into doing their bidding for fear of being labelled anti-semitic.
You’ve all learned you can call me whatever you want. It doesn’t make any difference.I’ll tell the truth no matter what.Always.Always.
When she refused, the ADL engaged in a national barrage of media attacks against the Nation of Islam.The attacks culminated in an article run in the ‘Washington Times’ co-authored by ADL National Director Abe Foxman and Fact-Finding Director Myra Lansky Bolland.
Ultimately, Kelly succumbed to ADL demands and issued an open letter to the community in which she continued to praise Dr. Muhammad’s work against drugs, violence, and AIDS, but condemned alleged anti-semitic statements attributed to him by the ADL.
You see how it works, folks?She caved in because she was afraid she wouldn’t be re-elected mayor in the next election.She lost my respect.She probably lost a lot of people’s respect.But she doesn’t care.Her political career is safe.
What was really at the heart of the ‘Washington Times’ articlewhich was otherwise a potpourri of outrageous and unsubstantiated charges against the Nation of Islamwas a demand that Congress defeat the major appropriations bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development over the question of whether HUD rules should permit a HUD contractor to hire the Dope Busters to provide security for a federally-subsidized housing project in Los Angeles.
The ADL was particularly upset about the national attention the successful Dope Busters drug eradication program was getting.
The Dope Busters were founded in Washington, D.C. in 1988.Since then, unarmed Dope Buster patrols have been able to eradicate drug trafficking at the street level in nine Washington ghetto neighborhoods and private housing projects, completely and totally disrupting the plans of the Illuminati to control those people.
They’ve done this with no deaths, and very, very little violence.
Exemplary of the success of the program is the Mayfair Mansions Housing Complex in northeast Washington. Mayfair Mansions went from an ugly, unsafe, open-air drug market in 1988 to being a handsomely restored, safe, vibrant community as a result of Dope Buster patrols.
When HUD Secretary Jack Kemp visited Mayfair Mansions earlier this year [1992], he admitted that the Nation of Islam’s Dope Busters deserved the credit, and indicated that he was open to granting the patrols federal government contracts.
Actually, it wasn’t this year, ladies and gentlemen.It was in 1992.
Tenants in public and private housing projects from New York to Baltimore to Los Angeles are demanding Dope Buster patrols.In most cases, the idea has the support of local police and government agencies who have failed to find any other effective way to curtail the intensifying pattern of drug trafficking and violence.
In almost every case, the ADL has attempted to block the tenants’ choice of security force.The tenant leaders who refuse to back down have been subjected to threats, harassments, break-ins, and other forms of intimidation.
This time, however, the ADL may have committed a fatal error in launching such an open and vicious attack on the Nation of Islam.
Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad is not only a leader of the Nation of Islam, he is one of the most respected community leaders in the Washington area, and his pioneering work against AIDS is gaining him international recognition.
The black and Hispanic communities in the United States are disproportionately infected by the deadly virus, but have had almost no access to the accepted treatment which consists of the prohibitively expensive and highly toxic AZT, DDI, or DDC.
And as we have revealed on this program, those drugs may really be the cause of death of AIDS patients.
Dr. Muhammad and New York City physician, Dr. Barbara Justice , have reported dramatic success in treating more than 600 patients who are HIV positive with Immuno-virun, the drug they brought back from Kenya.
The pair is also credited with bringing vital information concerning this new treatment modality to both the general public and the medical profession, taking the point in a courageous effort to avert what would otherwise be the worst holocaust to hit the human race.
Similarly, the ADL’s charges against the Dope Busters carry little credibility and leave the ADL completely exposed as nothing more than a protection racket for the drug carteland THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the truth.
The Dope Busters enjoy the intense support of the communities they serve, and have an unprecedented record of success.Wherever they go, the Dope Busters convey an unmistakable message of hope and inspiration to the community that the war on drugs can be won.
Interviews with the residents of the communities served by the Dope Busters make clear that they believe that it is that message, and nothing else, that has made the Nation of Islam and the Dope Busters a target of ADL attack.
In a community where the twin plagues of drug addiction and AIDS are the most visible vestiges of slavery, the ADL has shown that despite the passage of time, its true loyalties lie with the slave masters.
Now, in 1985, the ADL proudly gave its Torch of Liberty Award to Las Vegas businessman Morris Barney Dalitz .
You don’t know who that is, do you?
The award ceremonya strictly black tie affairwas given front-page attention in the League’s monthly bulletin which praised Delitz as a great philanthropist who had donated generously to the ADL over the years.
Delitz’s generosity was motivated by a lot more than an impulse to help out a favorite charity.As one of the most important figures in organized crime over a period of 60 years, and as a lifetime, right-hand man to organized crime’s twentieth century Chairman of the Board, Meyer Lansky, Mo Delitz was well aware of the fact that the Anti-Defamation League was, from its founding, a powerful, secret arm of the Illuminatithe go-between between the national crime syndicate and the respectable arms of the secret organization that is out to control the world.
Without the ADL’s undaunted public relations work on behalf of organized crime, the United States would have never been flooded with illegal drugs, and gangsters like Delitz, and Lansky would have long ago been carted off to the penitentiary.
Delitz was one of the kingpins of the Prohibition Era bootlegging business.And he, along with three other gangstersMorris Kleinman , Sam Tucker, and Louis Rothkoff ran the Cleveland underworld, their self-described ‘Jewish Navy’end quotesmuggled rot-gut whiskey across the Great Lakes from Canada into the midwest United States.
Now don’t get all carried away by the term ‘Jewish Navy’, because the Irish gangsters called themselves the ‘Irish whatever-they-were-called’.It’s human nature.
On the Canadian side of the lakes, the booze was manufactured by the Bronfman gang, led by Sam and Abe Bronfman, second generation Rumanian immigrants, whose father had been brought over to Canada by the B’nai B’rith-allied Baron de Herschfund and had set up a string of whore houses.
Sam and Abe used their Pure Drug Company, which was established with the help of the Hudson’s Bay Company, to manufacture illegal whisky during the Canadian Prohibitionwhich was 1915 to 1919.
When Canada legalized booze after learning their lesson, and the United States instituted its ban a year laternot having learned anythingthey were all ready to become the major suppliers to the gangsters south of the border.
United States government documentsthese are government documentsfrom the Prohibition Era claimed that over 34,000 Americans died of alcohol poisoning drinking the Bronfman brewnot from drinking alcohol, folks, but from drinking this specific brew.
It was poison.
Today, Sam Bronfman’s son, Edgar, is a National Commissioner of the ADL and the head of its powerful New York Appeal.And we’ll pick his trail up later, for he’s dirty, too.
Following Prohibition, Mo Delitz became the undisputed crime boss of Cleveland, expanding his criminal operations gambling, labor, racketeering, money laundering, tax evasionfrom Hollywood and Las Vegas to Miami.
One of his Miami investments, a night spot called the Frolic Club, was a joint-venture with Meyer Lansky.
When Lansky moved into Cuba to open his first off-shore gambling, narcotics, and money laundering haven, Dalitz was brought in as a privileged partner.
When Lansky and the other directors of the national crime syndicate decided that his long-time partner, Benjamin ‘Bugsy’ Segal , had become a liability and had to be assassinated, it was Dalitz who assumed the lion’s share of Segal’s Las Vegas casino interestsinterests he still holds, ladies and gentlemen, today.
Lansky and Segal had formed the original Murder, Inc.otherwise known as the Meyer and Bugsy Gangto enforce the creation of a national crime syndicate overseeing the Prohibition Era illegal liquor and narcotics traffic.
>From the very outset, Delitz had been a member of the national commission of the crime syndicate.
Up until Lansky’s death in 1983, Delitz was a regular visitor to the crime boss’s Miami Beach condo, and was widely presumed by law enforcement officials to be one of the primary heirs to Lansky’s crime empire.
Now, just two years after Lansky’s death, Delitz was publicly surfaced as an ADL philanthropist.It was a sign of the times.
By the beginning of the 1980’s Decade of Greed, drug moneynarco-dollarshad already replaced petro-dollars as the primary source of liquidity to fuel the stock market and real estate
speculative bubbles facilitated by the Carter and Reagan Administration’s deregulation of the banking, savings and loan, and brokerage industries.
As the power of drug money grew, so, too, did the political and financial clout of the ADL.
Junk bond swindlers like Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, and dope bankers like Edmond Saffra not to mention Mo Dalitzregularly poured millions into the ADL war chest.
In return for this largesse, the ADL publicly branded anyone who challenged the clout of organized crime as a died-in-the-wool anti-semite.
The lionizing of mobster Delitz was the ADL’s way of boasting that their public relations work over a 70-year period had paid off.
But things were not always so easy.
You see, the ADL had been founded shortly after the turn of the century as a Jewish defense arm of the B’nai B’rith, the nominally Jewish secret society sponsored and controlled by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, with its headquarters in the Temple of the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry just 13 blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C., and by some of the leading British and American white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant families, including the Bush family.
B’nai B’rith Washington, D.C. representative Simon Wolfthe man whom Lincoln’s Secret Service Chief Lafayette C. Baker had arrested as a Confederate spy and Union blockade runner during the Civil Warwas now working closely with President Theodore Roosevelt in mobilizing Jewish American support for the overthrow of the Russian Czar.
According to Wolf’s 1918 autobiography, he had met secretly with President Roosevelt at his Sagamore Hills estate in New York, and had launched an international drive to brand the Czarist regime as anti-semitic.
After a series of meetings and correspondence with Russia’s Prime Minster, Count Sergei Witt , arranged by Roosevelt, Wolf had denounced the Russian regime for reneging on its promises to curb anti-Jewish pogromsafter which American Jewish organizations, led from behind the scenes by the B’nai B’rith, began funneling guns to the anti-Czarist insurrectionists.
Thus, B’nai B’rith played an active role in the Russian Revolution of 1905 and the formation of the Soviet Union.
This activity would lead to widespread allegations that prominent American Jews were pro-Bolshevik.
The Warburg family of Kuhn-Loeb and Company did fundDID FUNDit’s a matter of recordV. I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky.
And father and son Bolshevik agents, Julius and Armand Hammer, who helped found the United States Communist Party, did actively spread the Bolshevik cause in America and spent a decade in the Soviet Union following the 1917 Revolution.
These allegations of pro-Communist sentiments, while grounded in well-publicized scandalous actions by prominent Jewish families, missed the mark.
In fact, the plot to bring down the Czar and install the Bolsheviks in power in Russia served long-standing Illuminati and geo-political interests of the sort advanced by the Scottish Rite.
And Britain feared the development of a Eurasian alliance among France, Germany, Russia, Japan and China, based on economic cooperation and facilitated by the building of a transcontinental system of railroads linking the east to the west.Such a transcontinental railroad system would render Britain’s domination over the seas relatively unimportant.
We’ll continue this on Monday.Good night, and God bless you all.

{ Add a Comment }

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

MonikaJasperfitzhughstory

JASPER, ALBERTA:- A video shot by a local resident denying the Holocaust has been widely condemned by the community and at least one resident has filed a formal complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
On June 17, Monika Schaefer, a well-known Jasper resident and former Green Party candidate, appeared in a video on Youtube denying the Holocaust. The video was subsequently posted on her Facebook page.
MonikaSchaeferTruth
‘This is the most persistent and pernicious lie in all of history,’ said Schaefer, about the Holocaust.
In the video she described the Holocaust as the ‘the six-million lie’ in reference to the six million Jews who lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis during the Second World War.
The six-minute video quickly went viral and garnered more than 30,000 views at the time of publishing.
At the end of the video Schaefer invited viewers to read several books published by Holocaust deniers, including Ernst Zündel, who lived in Canada for four decades before being deported to his native Germany where he was imprisoned for five years for denying the Holocaust.
ErnstZVictim copyKen Kuzminski, president of the Jasper Royal Canadian Legion, described the video as hate speech.
‘Monika has a right to say whatever she wants to say, but once she’s published it I feel that’s moved on to hate speech,’ said Kuzminski.
‘She can stand up and say whatever she wants, but she has to accept the consequences of doing that.’
He said he has written a formal complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, contacted the local RCMP detachment and the German embassy.
‘By her denying that this ever happened it perpetuates hatred, racism and discrimination,’ said Kuzminski, adding he’s heard from several young people in town that they no longer feel safe.
‘This is not the community we are and what we believe in.’
The Alberta Human Rights Commission neither confirmed nor denied it had received a formal complaint.
‘All of the information that comes into the human rights commission with regards to complaints is confidential,’ said Susan Coombes, with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
With that said, she said any complaint involving hate would fall under section three of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
‘It’s really difficult to prove,’ said Coombes, about whether someone is in violation of the act. ‘What you have to do is say that there was intent to incite hate.’
The Jasper RCMP confirmed it was aware of the video, but said no formal investigation has been launched.
‘At this time what I can say is that I’m aware the video exists and it was brought to my attention,’ said RCMP Sgt. Rick Bidaisee. ‘Discussions are ongoing.’
Schaefer said she stood by her comments in the video during a telephone interview July 11.
‘Right now the issue for me is freedom of speech,’ said Schaefer. ‘Last I checked I thought we had freedom of speech in Canada and suddenly I’m the criminal.’
She confirmed she shot the video in Germany, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust.
‘If we don’t have the right to question a historical event then we don’t have freedom of speech,’ said Schaefer.
Schaefer was slated to perform during Canada Day, but was pulled from the schedule after the Canada Day committee learned a group of residents were going to protest her performance.
‘We had really reliable information that there was going to be a protest and in the interests of public safety and her safety for that matter, we decided it would just be in everybody’s best interests if she stood down for this year,’ said Pattie Pavlov, general manager for the Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce.
Kuzminski confirmed she is also banned from the legion.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) quickly condemned the video after learning of its existence.
CIJABomb copy 2
‘As a Holocaust denier, Ms. Schaefer, who appears in this absurd video, has earned her place on the very margins of society,’ wrote Martin Sampson, director of communications for CIJA.
‘Her comments would be laughable but for the intense pain they cause the survivor community and their descendants. Denying the Holocaust exposes her as an anti-Semitic ignoramus.’
‘The truth is the Holocaust was industrialized, state-sponsored murder committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people. It is the most well documented genocide—by both perpetrator and victim—in history. To deny this fact is to spit in the face of truth.’
News that a formal complaint was lodged with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, comes after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, on July 10 in Poland, where one million people, mostly Jews, were killed in the Second World War.
——
Source Article
Paul Clarke
[email protected]

{ Add a Comment }