Most Underrated Rolex Replica

modern Rolex

Over the past few years, the level of hype surrounding the Rolex sports model has increased significantly, both old and new. Some are taken for granted, while others are more controversial. This creates a huge shadow under which references that are easier to obtain or phase out will be forced to disappear. Take a closer look at these forgotten models and you’ll find some really underrated references that are likely to be rather cheap and, in the coming years, likely to be the center of attention. Let’s see more details below. Rolex sports model
When Rolex launched the newest Explorer II ref. 216570 in 2011, there was much fanfare around the return of the orange 24-hour hand, itself a nod to the reference 1655 “Freccione” Explorer II of the 1970s. The new Explorer II replaced the outgoing reference 16570, a replica watch that had the small hour markers, smaller case, no orange 24-hour hand, and a suddenly dated appearance. But, on the wrist, a different story is taking shape. The 16570 may not have much in the way of throwback design, but it does have throwback charm in how it wears, in other words, slim on the wrist in both diameter and case thickness. This is because of the 16750’s long production period, which began in the ’80s, well before all the “big watch” nonsense took hold in the mid-2000s. Yep, you can even find examples with tritium dials.
The white or “Polar” dial is a fan favorite with its contrasting black house surrounds and hands, and happens to look good on pretty much any style of strap you dare throw on it. There’s a lot more history there than we’ve gone into here, but if you’re interested in learning more about these watches, read Philipp Stahl’s article. Before the fake rolex actually owned any tool table, the corner chart was a reference to the rotating border with the time limit, making it an ideal tool table. It was even used by Thunderbirds, the US air force, to make the brand’s first military watches.
The Rolex Air-King is an often misunderstood model, but the latest addition to the family, the ref. 116900, is unique in some ways. The Air-King has traditionally been the entry-level Rolex, offered in time-only configurations with a chronometer movement and a bit of water resistance thrown in for good measure. It’s basically Rolex hallmarks boiled down to its simplest form.  
There’s also the green seconds hand and Rolex signage, and the retro “Air-King” label at 6 o’clock—this isn’t your average Rolex. That funky personality may take a while to sink in, but it’s also what makes this a truly special watch from a brand not known for their progressive nature.
Being a modern replica Rolex, you’ll find many of the amenities that come with it, such as the 3131 movement inside, the magnetic resistance, Chromalight on the dial—all the usual suspects. Will these ever be future classics? In addition, they are a great way to stand out in a room full of Submarines and Daytona

{ Add a Comment }

Importance of Luxury Watches and Insurance

In the world of luxury acquisitions, nothing is more painful for a passionate collector than the thought that their prized possessions could be harmed. Yes, nothing in the world can match the health or happiness of your loved ones, but these little darlings, often rare or unique, have a special place in the heart of someone who has devoted time and effort to make them their own. Luxury Watches
I am often asked whether it is crucial to insure a used luxury watch. As a matter of fact, I’m often asked this question, and it makes sense to me, because the answer is simple: yes, yes, you should. And more to the point, if you own a luxury watch like a Rolex Submariner and you’re asking that question, you should save your breath for the insurance provider on the other end of the phone.
This is the best place to start. In this digital age, we all seem a little shy about interacting, but in a complex and potentially serious situation, like an insurance claim, it’s best to talk directly to another person — an expert in their field — about your policy..
Some things are easier in some places, and some things are harder, but the three things you should focus on first when looking into insuring your collection is the total value of your collection, how many “declarable” models you will need to put on your policy, and how all of this can affect your remaining contents insurance.
Let’s start with the first point. This is rather simple. Add up the retail value of your replica watches collection. When doing so, be sure to organize invoices and receipts into a physical and digital folder. Scan everything, stick it in a PDF and email a copy to yourself instead of keeping it on your hard-drive alone.
Another suggestion I got was to take a picture of each of my fake watches and stick it next to my driver’s license as further proof that they were in your hand. With an honest and reliable insurance company, there is no need to do so; But when dealing with large amounts of equity, it is worth the time to do a thorough analysis. The fewer problems you are forced to endure after a traumatic event such as a robbery or fire, the better.
Consider the insurance implications of your next luxury replica watches purchase. Treat the cost of insuring a luxury watch as a mandatory expense — even more than regular maintenance. Incorporate it into your budget. Even if you only have an expensive watch, you will always wear it thinking it will never be stolen from your home, but accidents can happen. This is not pessimistic, but wise. With the right cover, your collection will be more fun.

{ Add a Comment }

Men’s Durable Rolex Replicas

There are several aspects of durability to consider when trying to get the survivalist star of the fake Rolex series. Different types of watches suit different environments. Of all the watches, no one can claim to be the most durable Rolex. Men's Rolex Replicas
The problem of durability arises when considering the activities that the watch may be subjected to and the environment in which these activities may occur. Around the turn of the century, the brand began making a full line of Rolex watches for men and women, made of 904L stainless steel instead of 316L. Both types of steel are hypoallergenic and incredibly durable, able to be reprocessed multiple times without losing shape or integrity, but 904L is more resistant to corrosion and is said to hold a brighter sheen when polished due to its slightly greater hardness.
While, however, the Rolex customer is an extreme sportsperson, experimental scientist, adventurer, or involved in some other challenging pursuit that might place extra requirements on their timepiece, it may be necessary to go the extra mile. Here are my top three Rolex watches designed to survive in the most brutal conditions, and all for different reasons.
This popular replica Rolex Explorer II is a solid and rugged watch, designed to take a beating. With a name that conjures images of the bravest men and women the human race has ever known, the thought that this watch could be anything but the last ticker ticking seems preposterous.
But what is it about the Explorer that makes it more durable than some of its counterparts? Well, to me, it comes down to its exterior robustness and its dimensions. To begin with, and quite simply, the fixed bezel of the Rolex Explorer II means that there are less moving parts than you would find on many of the sportier Rolex watches. Not only is the bezel fixed, but also the 24-hour scale is engraved, which adds a very charming feature to the Explorer family without sacrificing the tough-guy image of the model.
Secondly, the dimensions are quite interesting for a Rolex Professional model. At 42mm with, the Explorer is wider than most of its mainstream competition. Coupled with this additional width is the fact that the Explorer II is the thinnest of the bunch. This means the fake watch can be worn in a very different way. While other professional models tend to stand on their wrists, often sticking out into the danger zone, Rolex explorer II sits down and snuggles up to the skin.
It is still capable of withstanding huge magnetic fields and is therefore a popular choice for scientists, engineers and military personnel who are more likely than the rest of us to be exposed to these forces.
Actually, in much the same way the Explorer’s increased width makes it feel smaller on the wrist thanks to a dimensional balancing act, so too does the replica Sea-Dweller benefit from a bit more real estate to play with. While the rotating ring helps record dive times, this hasn’t stopped Rolex from making some super luxurious submarines with precious gem set rings, abandoning the model’s tool watch nature.

{ Add a Comment }

Defending the Canadian Free Speech League by Arthur Topham

[Editor’s Note: The following article is part of the ongoing exchange of letters, motions, etc. between the parties involved in the Section 13(1) “hate crimes” complaint against RadicalPress.com. It takes the form of a letter to B’nai Brith Canada’s head counsel Marvin Kurz and is my response to his ongoing efforts, on the part of the Complainants in this case, Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, to disqualify lawyer Douglas Christie from gaining intervenor status with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Mr. Christie and the organization which he represents, the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL), have been applying for intervenor status since February of 2009 in order to partake in the upcoming Tribunal hearing. Thus far the Tribunal has turned down one request and at this date we are awaiting their ruling on the CFSL’s second application.

The information contained in this article is important for all Canadians concerned about free speech. Please move it around as far as you can. Thanks. Arthur Topham, Editor, RadicalPress.com]

—————-

Defending the Canadian Free Speech League
By Arthur Topham
May 30, 2009

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered”

– Thomas Paine, The Crisis Papers, 1776

TO:
Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

RE:

Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com

File Number: T1360/9008

I am writing to express once again my position with regard to the ongoing attempt by the Complainants, via their counsel, Mr. Marvin Kurz, to prevent Mr. Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League (hereafter referred to as the CFSL) from gaining intervenor status on behalf of myself and RadicalPress.com.

Kurzpic

Marvin Kurz – B’nai Brith Counsel

________________________

As the Respondent in this “hate crime” complaint case, forced by circumstance to act in a pro se capacity, and a Canadian citizen born and raised in a country that I have always believed to be one whose system of jurisprudence was based upon the democratic principles of rule of law and justice for all, I find this whole sordid, collusive effort on the part of the Complainants and the Commission to prevent Mr. Douglas Christie from partaking in this process most disturbing.

The effort with which Mr. Kurz has doggedly pursued this issue of doing his utmost to prevent the appearance of Mr. Christie at the destined Tribunal hearing by continuous denigration of Mr. Christie’s lifelong work in the field of free speech is a sad reminder of just how far this nation has removed itself from its founding principles.

While Mr. Kurz undoubtedly will deny that his position on this matter is anything but simple legal procedure and precedent I cannot help but question his motives in doing so.

Mr. Kurz would have the Tribunal believe that Douglas Christie, because he is the spokesperson, legal counsel and one of the founding members of the CFSL, is therefore the sole representative of the organization in question and then, to add insult to injury, he enlists as further assumed corroborative evidence, Freudian psychobabble i.e. “alter ego” from another of his B’nai Brith secret covenant members, Sigmund Freud, the notorious cocaine addict of late 19th Century Europe.

FreudCocainecov

One has to question this method of Mr. Kurz’s. Obviously he must feel that interjecting more Jewish-created “psychological jargon” into the equation somehow lends additional credence to his argument but I would beg to differ with that assumption.

While Mr. Kurz, in his own ignorance, might assume that by quoting Freud his words would automatically project an image of authenticity and scientific certitude upon an otherwise groundless position, that is not the case. So-called “Freudian Psychology” is about as exact a science as teacup reading or past-life regression or communication with “Ascended Masters” or a whole host of other pseudo-scientific/psychic adventures sold to the public as official science. No different than the repetitive lie of the 6 million Holocaust myth that the world has been endlessly subjected to for the past 65 years by the Zionist media, the last century of similar brainwashing of Freudian “psychology,” for all its inuring duration, still doesn’t make it anything close to an exact science.

Therefore, to say that the Canadian Free Speech League is but the “alter ego” of Mr. Doug Christie, is meaningless and futile as a legal argument and should not be given any consideration by the Tribunal in its decision as to whether or not to grant intervenor status to the CFSL.

In his May 8, 2009 letter to the Tribunal Mr. Kurz once again regurgitates former arguments contained in his April 1, 2009 letter wherein he tries to convince members that Mr. Christie cannot possibly have anything of value to offer to the hearing which would add “a unique perspective to issues before the Tribunal.” In that April 1, 2009 letter Mr. Kurz conveyed the concerns of the Complainants that Mr. Christie didn’t “clearly spell out just what he intended to do if granted intervenor status.”

As a result of these concerns by the Complainants, and the Tribunal’s decision to honour their arguments and thereby refuse the CFSL’s initial request for intervention, Mr. Christie submitted a renewed application to the Tribunal on April 23, 2009 wherein, I feel, he satisfied the aforementioned concerns voiced by Mr. Kurz. In his letter Mr. Christie stated:

“Dear Ms. LaFontant:

I wish this letter to constitute my renewed application for intervenor status in the above case. I wish to have exactly the same status as was accorded the Canadian Free Speech League in the case of Warmouse v. Lemire, whose member Hadjis allowed the CFSL the following:

The right to cross-examine witnesses.

The right to make final submissions on the constitutional issues.

I did not in that case have the right to call evidence. I would not seek that right in the Abrams case.

The Canadian Free Speech League was founded by letters patent issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on February 20, 1986. According to its founding document, its objects are, inter alia:

To inform the public in regard to matters of freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion, and the dangers of state control of expression.

To educate the public on the dangers of tyranny and government control of the right to speak and think.

To work for the public awareness of the danger of laws which destroy or otherwise limit freedom of speech to those utterances which are socially unacceptable in the eyes of Judges.

To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.

The Canadian Free Speech League has many supporters. It publishes the Friends of Freedom newsletter and distributes it worldwide. Since 1987, it has awarded the George Orwell Free Speech Award annually to a person persecuted for his opinion. As general counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, I have represented James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor and Malcolm Ross before the Supreme Court of Canada, David Ahenakew before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Lady Jane Birdwood before the Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in London, England, and numerous other persons in cases involving free speech.

Therefore, Mr. Kurz’s remarks about the League “simply being” my “alter ego” are insulting, unbecoming and untrue. The purpose of my representation would be to assist in representing the free speech argument, which is a perspective different from those of the parties. It is a purpose which is in the public interest. Mr. Topham and Mr. Kurz are clearly adversaries with particular axes to grind. The Canadian Free Speech League, on the other hand, would point to areas of common interest in the widest range of discourse on public matters and the areas of law which support this contention.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas H. Christie
General Counsel
Canadian Free Speech League”

Christiephotosm1

LAWYER DOUGLAS CHRISTIE – FREE SPEECH DEFENDER AND

SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
____________________________________________________________

In his letter to the Tribunal of May 8, 2009 Mr. Kurz, obviously still not satisfied with the information supplied to the Tribunal by Mr. Christie, proceeds to set forth further citations and rulings to show that the CFSL hasn’t passed the Sec. 50 test for qualification as an intervenor by going on and on in a vain effort to somehow prove that the CFSL is just Doug Christie and no one else, (the “alter ego” card) as if this fatuous argument on his clients’ behalf somehow is the crucial, determining factor and ought to be received by the Tribunal with open arms.

Such a wanton display of incredulous assertions and vacuous demands made on behalf of a recognized secret society (B’nai Brith International) whose primary, existential purpose is to support the foreign, racist, apartheid state of Israel and its nefarious, delusional political ideology known as Zionism, must be looked upon by the Tribunal as grave reason to doubt all that Mr. Kurz is attempting to accomplish for the Complainants and his foreign-dominated organization of which he is himself a member and its lead counsel.

What I see happening here, and it is as clear and as close to sedition as anything I’ve ever encountered in Canadian jurisprudence, is a foreign lobby group, one hiding behind a Zionist Jew, media-created mask of supposed respectability using its powerful, behind the scenes influence to gain not only the undeserved attention and servitude of Canada’s leading politicians but also, over time and via the salami technique of incremental insinuation, that of all other government organizations and quasi-judicial bodies, to subsequently exert undue, unwarranted influence and control over them for the vested, selfish interest of their own heinous agenda.

As a result organizations such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission (I’ll reserve judgment on the Tribunal at this time) and others of a provincial nature have been exploited and manipulated in order to create the very type of undemocratic legislation, i.e. Sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act under which I, and many others, have been unjustly herded into the barbed-wire enclosure, euphemistically labeled the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, to be publicly displayed, vilified and then auctioned off like cattle to the highest Jewish foreign-lobbyist bidder, which, in this case, just happens to be the League for “Human Rights” of B’nai Brith Canada. It could just as easily have been the Canadian Jewish Congress or, if needs be, even a case of entrapment by the Zionist front man Ricardo Warmouse but regardless of which foreign entity it was the modus operandi is identical, be it of Jewish or crypto-Jewish origins.

That said, let me return again to the statements contained in Mr. Christie’s letter of April 23, 2009 wherein he lays out in a clear, unambiguous manner the reasons for why the CFSL ought to be granted intervenor status in this complaint case. Let us look at the four objects of this organization which relate to the issue at hand:

“To inform the public in regard to matters of freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion, and the dangers of state control of expression.”

If ever there was a need for organizations in Canada willing to stand up to, expose and challenge the growing, imminent danger to freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion now emanating from state-sponsored bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as its provincial counterparts, it is now.

The very fact that for decades we have had embedded within our country organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and other foreign Jewish lobbyist groups whose agendas are NOT in the best interests of the vast majority of Canadian citizens ought to, at this pivotal stage of discussions surrounding freedom of speech, be a wake-up call for all Canadians concerned about their fundamental rights, especially in light of all the recent cases surrounding the draconian, fanatical “hate crimes” legislation based upon Section 13(1) of the CHR Act. Such anti-freedom legislation, I contend, was seeded into our former legislation by these very organizations and fostered by them from the start to ensure that eventually they would result in legal precedents useful to their own alien, self-interests and not to the nation as a whole.

Given the fact, which Mr. Kurz and his Zionist compatriots would rather not admit to acknowledging, that most, of not all of these cases transpiring over the past quarter century or longer, have involved the dedicated, patriotic and honourable involvement of the current spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League, Mr. Doug Christie, it therefore appears to me to be rather disingenuous and a pointless exercise on the part of Mr. Kurz to suggest, as he does in such vociferous, rhetorical, and repetitive terms, that Mr. Christie and the CFSL would have little to offer in the way of new information regarding our coveted right to freedom of speech.

“To educate the public on the dangers of tyranny and government control of the right to speak and think.”

Knowing, as I do, the Commission’s disdain for all things “American” I will dispense with quoting from the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights and instead offer the Tribunal the famed words of an Englishman whose efforts in the cause of universal freedom and democracy are recognized throughout Western civilization.

In a small pamphlet (The Crisis Papers), composed during the American Revolution of 1776, the great British thinker, inventor, author and political philosopher, Thomas Paine, wrote:

“These are times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

ThomasPaine

Thomas Paine – English Man of Letters
______________________________

I would humbly suggest to the Tribunal that today, right here in Canada, we are facing a similar crisis of equal, if not greater, importance; that of losing our fundamental right to freedom of speech and self-expression and thus having to live on bent knees in abject, slavish fear of a tyrannical government that imposes the will, not of the majority, but of special interest groups like B’nai Brith Canada, upon all of its citizens.

To lose the right to free expression is akin to losing the right to think for oneself. And that fundamental, God-given right to personal, reflective cognition is something men and women have died for in order to retain since the beginning of independent thought and if it’s ever seriously threatened again, as I’m suggesting that it now is, they will undoubtedly die for it again, for without this freedom we might just as well be dead for spiritually, mentally and emotionally that is what such repression represents to a free and independent people.

Mr. Christie is not a “summer soldier” in this battle for free expression nor is he a “sunshine patriot” who only comes out to a skirmish with the forces of repression when the weather is fine. Every day, in every way possible, for years upon decades, Mr. Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League have battled with the enemies of freedom come hell or high water; be it in the courtrooms of the nation or in the published efforts both hard copy and on the internet of their newsletter Friends of Freedom or other pamphlets and publications.

That is why Marvin Kurz and Harvey Smarba and Anita Bromberg fear his presence at their little contrived “hate crimes” Show Trial. They know that he is a formidable foe of censorship and injustice; they’ve met him before on the legal battlefields across this glorious nation; they know that his sword never sleeps and his valour and his faith in God never wanes in the face of oppression and so they are trying every trick in their shoddy little bag of chicanery to convince the Tribunal that this “David” ought not to be allowed in the field when Goliath goes after Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com.

Mr. Paine was right. What we obtain in the way of legal freedoms (such as freedom of speech and opinion) without pain or effort we tend to esteem too lightly and in doing so lay ourselves open to the treachery of subversive elements within our society who would, via stealth and the power of their purse, usurp those cherished freedoms from under us and impose their own egregious, self-serving will upon everyone else. This, I humbly suggest to you, is the current crisis that Canadians now face whether or not the Jewish-controlled media will admit to it or not and as it stands today by example they are doing their utmost to keep this growing crisis under their control by censoring and manipulating the news surrounding the vital issue of free speech in Canada.

For decades Canadians have been lulled into a false sense of freedom by the siren songs of the Zionist-controlled media thus succumbing to the notion that nothing would ever endanger the rights and privileges which our forefathers and mothers fought and died for. Therein lies the danger we now face.

DissentISpatriotic

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of any democracy. Without it all else is for naught and for that reason alone it behooves the Tribunal to pause and consider exactly who its enemies are and who its friends are in this conflict over basic human rights. Who are the real haters in this drama? Those of us who love their country, their families, their communities, their land, their freedoms, their God and who are willing to risk all they cherish in order to expose the foreign agents that are undermining the foundations upon which our way of life depends? Or those who threaten our freedoms; who trivialize and downplay our rights in the interest of their own specious, suspect agendas; agendas that only serve small, special-interest groups, foreign nations and foreign concepts of what a truly humanitarian and free society ought to look and be like?

“To work for the public awareness of the danger of laws which destroy or otherwise limit freedom of speech to those utterances which are socially unacceptable in the eyes of Judges.”

I have stated this before on a number of occasions and it is a fact which Mr. Kurz, the Complainants, the Commission and the Tribunal are fully aware of whether they wish to openly acknowledge it or not:- our judicial system, especially at the higher levels, is too heavily bodied and influenced by Jews who wield an inordinate amount of influence upon Canadian jurisprudence due to their elevated status to positions of political and judicial power. This is not a moot issue even though I’m sure Mr. Kurz will likely rise up in feigned outrage and indignation to argue and accuse me of being “anti-Semitic” and “racist” and so on for having stated the obvious.

The fact that some Canadians are able to clearly perceive the nakedness of the Emperor may be disturbing to his sycophantic consorts but Mr. Kurz’s feelings in this regard are not a direct concern of mine. What concerns me as a sincere, honest, patriotic Canadian is the undeniable fact that at least 50% or more of our federal Supreme Court Judges are Jews and, as such they are, by definition, dual citizens of both the racist, apartheid state of Israel and the democratic nation of Canada and that their divided allegiance to Canada, due to their Zionist and/or religious connections with Israel, makes any of their decisions respecting Canadian jurisprudence as it pertains to “hate crimes” law, highly suspect given the nature of political Zionism and belief system of Babylonian Talmudism which forms the underlying basis of Judaism.

Decisions, with respect to anything remotely connected to Jews in Canada, are heavily influenced by the attitudes, ambitions and beliefs of these members of our highest court in the nation and when it comes to issues related to the foreign state of Israel and/or issues related to discrimination and “hate crimes” (which in reality are only criticisms of Israel and political Zionism) and “Holocaust” denial and “gas chamber” doubts and anything else associated with Jews and their personal idiosyncrasies, it cannot be overlooked that this preponderance of Jewish Supreme Court Judges plays a vital role in the attitude and motivation of their decisions; ones which affect the vast majority of Canadians, not just their own small, circumscribed community here in Canada.

It’s for important reasons as these that organizations such as the CFSL are vitally necessary to challenge these hidden aspects of our nation’s judicial underpinnings. Decisions such as Section 13(1) of the CHR Act are relatively of such a high degree of importance to our nation that they should never have been left to the whims of individual judges who, for whatever reasons, might be influenced one way or another into framing such anti-democratic legislation.

“To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.”

Respecting the fact that Mr. Christie is the spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League should not, in my opinion, have a bearing on the Tribunal’s decision to grant intervenor status to the CFSL. All of Mr. Kurz’s vainglorious efforts to the contrary, every organization will have a spokesperson and considering the objects of the CFSL noted above plus the fact that Mr. Christie is one of the founding members of this laudable organization and a person extremely experienced in the issues at hand I cannot imagine anyone better suited to represent the CFSL in this complaint case.

Mr. Kurz’s attempts to discredit Mr. Christie notwithstanding plus his suggestions that the CFSL is not a legitimate organization and only representative of its spokesperson is but a feeble endeavour and in truth more a discredit to the Complainants and himself than anyone else.

Why would dedicated, patriotic Canadians concerned about issues of freedom (the building blocks of any democratic society) try to prevent someone like Mr. Christie from intervening in a case which involves allegations of wrongful use of freedom of speech? One would think that, for the Complainants and the Commission, any gains in the area of additional knowledge as it applies to the concept of freedom of speech would be welcome in nation that prides itself on its democratic ideals. By opposing such efforts it begs the question as to whether organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada actually believe in this worthy principle themselves or if, in fact, they believe that only they should be allowed to express their opinions on matters, political, religious, or otherwise, regardless of how repulsive or revolting their perspectives may happen to be to other Canadians.

One would like to think that minorities in Canada, such as the Jewish community is, would be at the forefront of the struggle for freedom of speech and open debate. Historically it’s a known fact that the Jews love to debate and argue. Their religion itself, Judaism, is based upon ancient oral traditions wherein their rabbis are known universally for their ability to argue and debate the most esoteric, abstruse ideas to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyone who has read the Babylonian Talmud can attest to the fact that the debating skills of the Jews are par excellent yet when it comes to debating issues such as the ideology of political Zionism or Israel’s domestic and foreign policies as they pertain to the Palestinian people of Gaza or the Middle East in general, suddenly their longstanding, touted abilities at sustained discourse abruptly cease and in place of debate we find them consistently resorting to Section 13(1) of the CHR Act and inevitable “complaints” of “hate crimes” against those whose views and opinions they cannot, for some strange reason, seem to find the requisite intellectual knowledge or information to either refute or even reach a stalemate over.
It’s for important reasons as these that organizations such as the CFSL are vitally necessary to challenge these hidden aspects of our nation’s judicial underpinnings. Decisions such as Section 13(1) of the CHR Act are relatively of such a high degree of importance to our nation that they should never have been left to the whims of individual judges who, for whatever reasons, might be influenced one way or another into framing such anti-democratic legislation.

“To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.”

Respecting the fact that Mr. Christie is the spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League should not, in my opinion, have a bearing on the Tribunal’s decision to grant intervenor status to the CFSL. All of Mr. Kurz’s vainglorious efforts to the contrary, every organization will have a spokesperson and considering the objects of the CFSL noted above plus the fact that Mr. Christie is one of the founding members of this laudable organization and a person extremely experienced in the issues at hand I cannot imagine anyone better suited to represent the CFSL in this complaint case.

Mr. Kurz’s attempts to discredit Mr. Christie notwithstanding plus his suggestions that the CFSL is not a legitimate organization and only representative of its spokesperson is but a feeble endeavour and in truth more a discredit to the Complainants and himself than anyone else.

Why would dedicated, patriotic Canadians concerned about issues of freedom (the building blocks of any democratic society) try to prevent someone like Mr. Christie from intervening in a case which involves allegations of wrongful use of freedom of speech? One would think that, for the Complainants and the Commission, any gains in the area of additional knowledge as it applies to the concept of freedom of speech would be welcome in nation that prides itself on its democratic ideals. By opposing such efforts it begs the question as to whether organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada actually believe in this worthy principle themselves or if, in fact, they believe that only they should be allowed to express their opinions on matters, political, religious, or otherwise, regardless of how repulsive or revolting their perspectives may happen to be to other Canadians.

One would like to think that minorities in Canada, such as the Jewish community is, would be at the forefront of the struggle for freedom of speech and open debate. Historically it’s a known fact that the Jews love to debate and argue. Their religion itself, Judaism, is based upon ancient oral traditions wherein their rabbis are known universally for their ability to argue and debate the most esoteric, abstruse ideas to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyone who has read the Babylonian Talmud can attest to the fact that the debating skills of the Jews are par excellent yet when it comes to debating issues such as the ideology of political Zionism or Israel’s domestic and foreign policies as they pertain to the Palestinian people of Gaza or the Middle East in general, suddenly their longstanding, touted abilities at sustained discourse abruptly cease and in place of debate we find them consistently resorting to Section 13(1) of the CHR Act and inevitable “complaints” of “hate crimes” against those whose views and opinions they cannot, for some strange reason, seem to find the requisite intellectual knowledge or information to either refute or even reach a stalemate over.

It’s therefore inconceivable that given all of Mr. Christie’s hard-earned knowledge and experience over the years in defending political prisoners such as Ernst Zundel and others, experience that only comes by research and study and the questioning of assumed “authorities” in whatever field of expertise, that Mr. Kurz would try to suggest to the Tribunal that Mr. Christie should be prevented from intervening in an upcoming, precedent-setting case that bodes of ill intent and greater curtailment of our freedoms should it ever reach the stage wherein the Complainants allegations are accepted as legally warranted and therefore justified in the eyes of our courts and our quasi-judicial bodies meant, supposedly, to preserve and protect our inherent rights.

It’s therefore inconceivable that given all of Mr. Christie’s hard-earned knowledge and experience over the years in defending political prisoners such as Ernst Zundel and others, experience that only comes by research and study and the questioning of assumed “authorities” in whatever field of expertise, that Mr. Kurz would try to suggest to the Tribunal that Mr. Christie should be prevented from intervening in an upcoming, precedent-setting case that bodes of ill intent and greater curtailment of our freedoms should it ever reach the stage wherein the Complainants allegations are accepted as legally warranted and therefore justified in the eyes of our courts and our quasi-judicial bodies meant, supposedly, to preserve and protect our inherent rights.

There is much more that needs to be said concerning this matter but I will forgo further comment and summarize by stating that this particular issue of intervenor status for the CFSL is basically the third strike which potentially could be alleged against the Tribunal in terms of its credibility as an impartial, unbiased, and independent body.

Already in this process leading up to a hearing the Tribunal has been faced with two other issues which await a ruling. I’m referring here to my two previous motions to the Commission wherein the Commission is blatantly attempting to deny evidence in the complaint case and furthermore, and of even greater concern, trying to change the actual wording of the original charges made against my person and my business known as RadicalPress.com.

Given these three indicators by the Commission and the Complainants I once again must ask of the Tribunal that they look at these matters in as great a detail as possible and try to see this situation from as clear a perspective as they are able.

Justice, to be conceived of and accepted as having been meted out in a fair and impartial manner as possible, must, above all else, have not only the appearance of truth to fortify itself but also the substantial backing of unblemished fact to maintain its alleged legitimacy.

If there is any further formality or motion that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com

Cc:
Daniel Poulin, CHRC counsel
Marvin Kurz, Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
Harvey Smarba, Complainant
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
Douglas Christie, General Counsel, Canadian Free Speech League

{ Add a Comment }

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 }

Ceaseless Smear Campaigns by B’nai Brith Lobby & Zionist Media Must End! by Arthur Topham

Ceaseless Smear Campaigns by B’nai Brith Lobby & Zionist Media Must End!

by Arthur Topham

Ruth, my Jewish mother-in-law, was always fond of saying “Enough already!” an expression most apt when it comes to the growing and ongoing smear campaigns by the Zionist Jew media in Canada and the bottom-feeding, serpentine, masonic deceivers the Jewish lobby organizations like the former Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), the ongoing run of blustering bigots and liars who compose B’nai Brith Canada and their League for ‘Human Rights’ of B’nai Brith Canada plus the latest snake in Canada’s political, cultural and media grasslands, the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) formed as the umbrella organization designed to carry on the nefarious work of the former CJC which, not coincidently was piloted by Bernie Farber the present writer of the latest libelling, lying, hate-filled screed aimed at University of Lethbridge Professor Dr. Anthony Hall.

farberpic

Farber has made a name for himself over the years by spreading his venomous, hate-filled lies throughout Canada’s Israeli-first media in an endless effort to keep their “6 Million Jews” holocaust LIE alive by attacking any writer who publishes the actual truth about the real history of the past century. He has absolutely no compunction when it comes to lying to the general public or a court of law and will do so without blinking an eye.

A recent and rather poignant personal example of Farber’s disingenuous actions came up during my “Hate” trial back in October/November of 2015 when the Crown, out of desperation to find someone who they could pawn off as an “Expert Witness” on the subject of “hate speech”, managed to gain Farber’s consent to appear on their behalf. When Farber was subsequently told that he would have to travel to Quesnel, B.C. and appear in person in Supreme Court (rather than appear via video) he refused to come but with a little wrangling and more deception he managed to get his former second in command at the Canadian Jewish Congress, Mr. Ed Rudner, to appear on his behalf.

As it turned out fast Eddy Rudner didn’t have the time to prepare his presentation to the jury so he conveniently borrowed Farber the fibber’s written submission and told the court, while under oath, that he had composed the bulk of it (with a little help from his buddy Bernie). In other words Rudner committed perjury. Had it not been for the sharp eye of Mr. Gilad Atzmon who was working with my team for the defence during the proceedings this criminal act on the part of these two fork-tongued vipers may never have been exposed. But then lying to the gullible goyim is all part of the Zionist modus operandi and I’m certain that neither Farber or Rudner lost any sleep over the fact they had deceived presiding Justice Butler, the jury and the BC Supreme Court.

len-rudner-copy

So these are the types of people who are spreading outright bold lies about real, honest, Canadian men and women of integrity, individuals like Professor Anthony Hall and Canadian-German citizens Monika Schaefer and Brian Ruhe.

Let’s now cut to the chase and take a more discerning look at Farber’s fatuous fabrication of libellous vilifications concerning Dr. Hall. 

Farber, himself a life-long member of the most Satanic and lunatic cult on the face of the planet, i.e. Zionism, begins his slander of Professor Hall by going directly to the source of his defamation which, inevitably in today’s digital world, means Facebook. It’s there where Bernie supposedly gleans his evidence to back up the blatant lies which he concocts about Professor Hall. He accuses Prof. Hall of posting “ravings” on his Facebook page and in the next breath attempts to incite his readers to believe that, “Hall gives every appearance of being both a conspiracy nutter and a classic anti-Semite. Like his late Eckville, Alberta, neighbour James Keegstra, Hall has found a comfortable home amongst Holocaust deniers.”

How Farber managed to make the quantum leap from what is posted on Prof. Hall’s Facebook page to the notion that Hall is a “conspiracy nutter” and a “classic anti-Semite” and, by extension to the now deceased Jim Keegstra, a “Holocaust denier” is anybody’s guess as Farber doesn’t bother to embellish his viperous hissings with any actual evidence.

Zionist hacks and Mossad sayan (voluntary agents for the Israeli propaganda network) like Farber always have their list of weaponized words and phrases at hand when they go into mind-control mode and attack truth tellers. After a shabby attempt to disparage the work of Jewish author Gerard Menuhin and his very popular book on the Holohoax LIE, Tell The Truth And Shame The Devil the fibber suddenly spews out the old “Jew-hater” epithet just to add a bit of kosher garnish to his plate of pernicious, poisoned platitudes offered to the Canadian reader.

Finally Farber gets to the core of what he thinks will permanently nail the tenured Lethbridge University Professor to the proverbial cross of “Jew-haters”, “anti-Semites” and “Holocaust deniers”. His statements in this regard warrant quoting:

“In late August, B’nai Brith exposed a hateful and genocidal anti-Jewish comment by one Glen Davidson that appeared on Hall’s Facebook page.

It was about as bad as it gets when it comes to graphic anti-Semitism: the image of a man assaulting what appears to be an Orthodox Jewish man. Next to that photo a screed that might have made Keegstra blush.

It claims that there was never a Holocaust but should have been, and rest assured, there will be, adding, “I will not rest until every single filthy, parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered. The greedy hook-nosed kikes know that their days are numbered” It ends with a call to “KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE.””

Allow me to begin dissecting this Zionist Jew slander by posting the aforementioned “hateful and genocidal anti-Jewish comment” (it was included in an actual graphic image and not in text format).

The very first thing to understand about this graphic image is that Professor Anthony Hall NEVER EVER SAW IT ON HIS FB “WALL” prior to FB eventually taking it down. It’s important that readers know this.

Next, it must also be very clearly understood that Farber states, “It was about as bad as it gets when it comes to graphic anti-Semitism”. Having been in the business of studying political Zionism for many years and all of the associated aspects of Zionism’s preoccupation with the weaponized term “anti-Semite” I would concur with Bernie on this aspect of the graphic. It definitely was a winner but not for the loser Farber as we will soon see.

Apart from the graphic image telling the truth about the Holocaust LIE Farber the Fibber goes on to quote further from the text:

“I will not rest until every single filthy, parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered. The greedy hook-nosed kikes know that their days are numbered” It ends with a call to “KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE.”

Again, I’m reminded of Ruth who likely would have remarked, “Oi vey! Such language!” So let’s face it the graphic that someone else posted on Professor Hall’s Facebook “Wall” which the good Professor had not seen was indeed a very “not nice” image by most community standards and, rightfully so, it ought to have been, and was, eventually removed by Facebook. But the burning question still remains: WHO in their right mind would create such a terrible image combined with such distasteful language and then post it on the Internet for all to see? What deluded, hate-filled neo-Nazi and Jew-hater would have the audacity and the chutzpah to come up with such a sick, despicable anti-Semitic graphic image? Could it have been the ghost of James Keegstra beaming it down from some Astral plane into Cyberspace? Or maybe it was the infamous “Holocaust denier” Ernst Zundel? Zundel is still alive and living somewhere in exile in Europe so you never know. Possibly it was Dr. David Duke or Professor Faurisson or David Irving or any of the more prominent “anti-Semites” that live on in Zion’s pathetic pantheon of Jew haters? Anything is possible, no? Why given my own propensity for creating graphic images for use on my website it could very well have been me who created this image. I’m certain that it wouldn’t surpise B’nai Brith and frankly I’m a bit surprised that they didn’t accuse me right off the bat! But for all of the concern about the image our over-zealous and diligent zio nazi-hunting dilettante Bernie Farber doesn’t delve into that aspect of the story but quickly moves on in an attempt to shame Facebook for taking so long to remove the image after B’nai Brith’s internet spies managed to spot it lurking there on Hall’s wall.

Well, for the sake of truth and transparency which are the necessary ingredients to a healthy and harmonious society, I now will share with Bernie and B’nai Brith and the rest of the readers the dreadful Truth of who it was that created such an abominable anti-Semitic image.

When I first saw the controversial image I though to myself, “Hmmm… I know that face.” Not the face of the squashed “Orthodox Jewish man” as Bernie stated it but the face of the culprit who was doing the squishing. At first I couldn’t place it but then subsequently I learned from an associate of mine that it was in fact the face of the Montana Internet cartoonist, Ben Garrison. I knew Ben because of an incident that had taken place a year or more ago when I had posted what I thought was one of his cartoons on Radicalpress.com. Sometime later I received an email from Ben informing me that the cartoon was a doctored up version of his original cartoon and not his and he politely asked me to remove it. I did so. Knowing the little I did know of Ben’s work I found it hard to conceive that he would have created such a vile image so I wrote to Ben and asked him about it. This was his reply to my question which I received on September 20th, 2016 and the key to realizing who the creator of the graphic was:

From: Benjamin Garrison <ben@grrrgraphics.com>

Subject: Re: The genuine copy of the fake original

Date: September 20, 2016 at 2:56:21 PM PDT

To: Radical Press <radical@radicalpress.com>

Hi Arthur,

Yes, I remember you and a lot has ‘gone down’ since that time. I learned a lot about free speech on the Internet and I suffered a lot of indignities and lost work because of my cartooning endeavors.

[snip]

I have no problem with the professor’s [he’s referring to Prof. Hall. A.T.] opinions-that’s his right of free speech. Unfortunately that Photoshopped image of me assaulting that Orthodox Jew man continues to circulate and be posted everywhere. Ironically, it was created by a 20 year-old Jewish kid named Joshua Goldberg. He was arrested by the FBI about a year ago for sending bomb making instructions to what he thought was a Muslim terrorist-instead it was an FBI undercover agent. Goldberg is now pleading mental illness, but for years he was allowed to stir up trouble from his parent’s basement in Florida. For some reason he enjoyed targeting me and he’s the one who created that image as well as many other hate screeds.

Regards,

Ben

So there you have it, plain and simple. Another deranged Jewish kid, most likely brainwashed by his Talmudic upbringing into hating the goyim, spreading his lies about the Internet so that other deranged Zionist fanatics might then pick up the image and use it to carry on their own hateful, libellous attacks upon good folks like Dr. Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge, Alberta who has never committed a hateful or anti-Semitic act in his life.

One final word on NOW Magazine. This publication, like most of the Zionist controlled media in Canada, has been carrying the LIES of Zionist Jews such as Bernie Farber for years now and, like Farber himself, it is just as guilty of defamation and libel as Farber is. Media that publishes lies and slanders and vilifies individuals out of pure spite and hatred do not deserve to get away with it. Were I a very rich man I would encourage anyone who has been vilified and and had their name and reputation dragged through the sewers of hate that are the Zionist mainstream media itself and their careers destroyed to file a legal suit for defamation and libel. NOW magazine and the Zionist National Post would be tops on the list of traitorous, foreign controlled propaganda outlets that are doing everything in their power to destroy Canada and its long-standing traditions of freedom of speech and expression and thought. It strikes me as obvious that people like Bernie Farber would also be eligible for such treatment as well.

As the title of this article stated, the ceaseless smear campaigns by B’nai Brith Lobby & Zionist Media must end!

{ Add a Comment }

The megalomania of the Zionist Jews: Robert Faurisson found “guilty of racial defamation for 2006 Tehran talk”

Robert Faurisson found guilty of racial defamation for 2006 Tehran talk
September 27th, 2016

On June 21, 2016 Professor Robert Faurisson was prosecuted, with regard to his 2006 talk in Tehran and his paper “The Victories of Revisionism” , for “disputing the existence of crimes against humanity”, and, because of his 60-word sentence alone, for “racial defamation”.
Here is the result of that trial as conveyed to us [Bocage] by the Professor’s barrister:
“On September 27, 2016, in the case of the talk given by Robert Faurisson in Tehran in 2006, the 17th chamber of the Paris correctional court ruled as follows:
Two charges of disputing the existence of crimes against humanity were declared null.
The third charge, that of racial defamation for the sentence of approximately 60 words [included in his talk], resulted in Robert Faurisson’s conviction and sentence to four months’ imprisonment (suspended) along with a fine of €4,000. The LICRA [Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme], plaintiff, obtained €3,000 in damages and €2,000 in legal costs. Thus, a judgment totalling €9,000.
Professor Faurisson immediately lodged an appeal against this decision.
Tomorrow, September 28, at 1.30 pm, Robert Faurisson will appear again before the same court for having spoken about the Nazi gas chambers on the website Meta TV

Damien Viguier
Barrister”

{ Add a Comment }

Do The Jews Own Hollywood And The Media? By Texe Marrs

The 6 Day War started by Israel on June 5th, 1967 was then embellished with Zionist propaganda in Zionist-controlled News Media such as LOOK magazine in this Front Page issue of Nov. 14, 1967
_____________________________________________________________________

Do The Jews Own Hollywood And The Media?

By Texe Marrs

May 9, 2009

Texe Marrs

Texe Marrs
______________

Do the Zionist Jews own Hollywood and the media? Are they using the media to mold and shape American opinion by constantly injecting Zionist propaganda and bias into news programs, movies, television shows, even children’s cartoons and entertainment?

Kidstv

The answer is so blatantly “Yes!” that you wouldn’t think these questions are even worth pursuing. But recently, the untoward comments of a patriot talk show host made me stop and rethink it. Are there people out there-even in the Patriot Movement-who really are that much in the dark, who deny Jewish influence in the media?

Recently, when a caller to a talk show on the Genesis Radio Network suggested that the Jews control the media, the host went wild. He raged on and on, playing the race card. He branded the surprised caller and others like him who are weary of Zionist influence “Nazis” and “anti-Semites.” Angrily, he denied Jewish involvement in any conspiracies and ridiculed those who had the audacity to suggest that Jews run Hollywood or the media. Then, in a real fit of spewed venom, the talk show host demanded that the caller and all others who believe like him should go out and hang themselves to promote population reduction.

As if that wasn’t hateful enough, the pro-Zionist host then stated that all the “Nazis and Anti-Semites” who opposed Zionism and the Jews should plug in an electric toaster, hold it to their naked bodies, jump into a bathtub filled with water, and have a party.” In other words, kill themselves.

Quite a rampage by the supposedly “patriot” talk show host. And all because the poor caller had dared to propose undue Jewish influence over the media.

Hearing the actual taped broadcast of this unbelievable tirade by a pro-Zionist advocate confirmed my resolve to inform good folks once again of the truly dictatorial grip that Zionist Jews have on the media. The best way to do this is not to rage and spew venom, but simply to present the facts, to document the truth of Jewish control of the media.

What Do Knowledgeable Jews Say?

How about going to top Jews in the media themselves and see what they say? Take Joel Stein, for example, columnist for the Los Angeles Times newspaper and regular contributor to Time magazine. In his column in the LA Times (Dec. 19, 2008), Stein says that Americans who think the Jews do not control Hollywood and the media are just plain “dumb.”

“Jews totally run Hollywood.” Stein proudly admits. He then goes on to provide a long, long list of Hollywood/media chieftains-all Jews!-to prove his point. On his list: Fox News President Peter Chernin; Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey; Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor; Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton; Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer; CBS CEO Leslie Moonves; MGM Chairman Harry Sloan; and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker.

NaziDaffy

That’s just the top brass at the studios. Then there are the actors and entertainers-predominantly Jews, from Barbara Streisand and Gwyneth Paltrow to Tom Hanks and Ben Afleck. JewJewand Jew again. As Stein wryly remarks, even the head of the Actors’ Union, the Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, is a Jew.

“The Jews are so dominant,” writes Stein, “I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies.” “But lo and behold,” Stein says, “even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew!”

“As a proud Jew,” says Joel Stein, “I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.”

ADL’s Foxman Admits Jewish Control

ADLagenda

Stein says he then called Abe Foxman, Chairman of the Jewish ADL, to ask him, why don’t more Jews just come out and boast at this great accomplishment? Foxman responded by admitting that yes, it’s true that most of the top execs “happen to be Jewish.” In fact, Foxman told Stein, “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

Ben Stein (no relation to Joel), the well-known Jewish actor, economic commentator and writer, when asked “Do Jews run Hollywood?” stared blankly at the questioner, then retorted, “You bet they do-and what of it?” Shahar Ilan, writing in www.haaretz.com, the internet division of Israel’s top daily newspaper, commented, “The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge.”

Neal Gabler, also a Jew and a noted media researcher, wrote an entire book outlining Jewish control of Hollywood. It was entitled, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. But to really see how the Jews, in their own publications and press, view the reality of Jewish control of the media, all one has to do is take a look at a recent issue of the Jewish Daily Forward, which featured an article entitled, “Billionaire Boychiks Battle for Media Empire.”

Billionaire Jews Battle for Media

This fascinating, look-see article discussed how the Jews had for decades owned the media and now were competing; that is, vying, to buy one of America’s most powerful media companies, Tribune Company, which owns 23 television stations, a baseball team, and many major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

“However, it turns out,” gloated the Jewish mag, “we’ll have a Jew in charge of the (LA) Times, which was once one of old Los Angeles’ most famous WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) institutions. What a great day for old LA Jews”

The publication noted that among the Jewish billionaires (“boychiks”) vying for the Tribune media empire is “Liberal, Jewish, media mogul David Geffen.”

And who, pray tell, is the current owner of the Tribune Company? Why, that would be Jewish billionaire Sam Zell. Zell is a major donor to Israeli, Zionist and Jewish causes. His own rabbi proudly reports that Zell is “a committed Zionist, a generous supporter of Israel, and a member in good standing of the synagogue.”

Asked who his own favorite newspaper columnists were, Zell quickly answered, “Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks.” Surprise! The trio are all ardent Zionist whack-jobs who clamor over each other demanding the U.S. attack Iran, provide billions more in foreign aid to favored nation Israel, and so forth.

Local Newspapers Owned by Foreign Agents

So powerful is the Jewish control over the media that Nathanael Kapner, a rare Jew who converted to Christianity and now is adept at reporting these things, asserts that no longer can we trust our local daily newspaper. “Zionist Jews have taken over the ‘local newspaper’ in America,” Kapner writes. Indeed he explains that there basically is no local newspaper anymore, because, “Most local newspapers are owned by companies controlled by Zionists whose offices are hundreds of miles away.”

Photobucket

Kapner provides manifold evidence of Zionists’ dominating control of the media at all levels. The Newhouse Empire of the Jewish brothers Samuel, Donald, and Theodore Newhouse, Kapner says, “illustrates the insatiable appetite for opinion control:”

“Today, the Newhouse Empire owns 40 local newspapers across the U.S.A. These include the Newark Star Ledger, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Portland Oregonian, and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.”

Then, there are the vast array of magazines run by the Jewish Newhouse family-including the New Yorker, Vogue, Golf Digest, Glamour, Gentleman’s Quarterly (GQ), and the massively circulated newspaper insert, Parade magazine.

Jewish Media Spew Out Pro-Zionist Propaganda

The fact that Zionists control virtually every media outlet in America is no doubt why the American citizenry hears only one version of events in the Middle East-the pro-Jew, pro-Israeli side. This led Dr. Kevin MacDonald, professor at California State University, to write:

“In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.”

This Zionist bias and propaganda spin by the Jewish-owned American media is not new. As far back as 1978, the noted Jewish political writer Alfred Lillienthal, in his revealing book, The Zionist Connection, stated:

“The most effective component of Jewish connection is probably that of media control. It is well known that American opinion molders have long been largely influenced by a handful of powerful newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the St. Louis-Post Dispatch (All Jewish Families).”

To further illustrate the breadth of Jewish media control, we note that Jewish magnate Arthur Sulzberger’s media empire today includes not only the New York Times (which, in Stalin’s day, systematically covered up the genocidal crimes of Jewish commissars in Communist U.S.S.R), but also the Boston Globe, the Lexington Dispatch (NC), the Gainesville Sun (FL), the Ocala Star Banner (FL), the Tuscaloosa News (AL), the Spartansburg Herald Journal (SC), and the Santa Barbara News Press (CA). Each of the newspapers Lillienthal mentioned back in 1978, in turn, owned and still owns dozens of others. So tainted is the news because of this that almost every newspaper in America endorsed President George Bush’s radically pro-Israel policies in the Middle East, including Israel’s savage butchery of Lebanon and Palestine.

There can be no doubt. It is easy for us to document the massive dominance over the media by evil Jewish shills who are continually hostile to pure American interests while, everyday, unabashedly spewing out reams of misleading Zionist propaganda. Time magazine, Newsweek, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX-and many, many more are all owned or run by Jews and operated solely to further the aims of the traitorous, anti-American, ever-growing Zionist World Empire.

Brainwashsm

All America is in the Grip of the Hidden, Red Iron Fist of Zionism

Of course, the media, even as important as it is to our culture, is only a bit piece of the whole that is now, regrettably, under the big thumbs of the Jewish Zionist elite. Our educational establishment, Wall Street, the banks, the Federal Reserve, our Congress, the White House (just consider Rahm Emanuel, the Zionist Israeli freak who is Obama’s White House Chief of Staff), and our judiciary-each and every one is infiltrated by Zionist radicals who put Israel and their own “Chosen People” first, to the detriment of everything sacred to honest, God-fearing, hard-working Americans.

DeeHooksm

So, the next time you hear some ignorant rube on talk radio or elsewhere shoving the race card in your face and ranting and raving about “Nazis” and “anti-Semites” who “claim” the Jews control the media, why don’t you just reach out and turn that radio dial to another place. And please, don’t forget to also let the radio network and station manager know of your displeasure.

The fact is that the dishonest Zionist shills out there promoting Zionist lies, drivel, and nonsense truly deserve our contempt.

The Truth is Precious

As for Texe Marrs and Power of Prophecy, we have long pledged ourselves to telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And part of that truth, simply put, is this: That yes, absolutely, Zionist Jews do own and control Hollywood and the media. So beware of their lies and deceit. The truth is precious. Let us work together to protect and nurture it.

{ Add a Comment }

BC’s Rivers: Is Anyone Listening? by Arthur Topham

May 1, 2009 by admin
SaveBCRivers

Photo credit: WCWC

BC’s Rivers: Is Anyone Listening?

by Arthur Topham

May 1, 2009

The Royal Canadian Legion in downtown Quesnel was likely the most popular spot in town on Thursday evening, April 30th and considering that the Canucks were playing at the same time it was little short of a miracle that so many local citizens would have taken the time to leave their homes.

What could possible draw a near full house of hockey enthusiasts away from the tube on a week day evening other than a national emergency? Well, as Joe Foy of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee so aptly put it, there„¢s another emergency happening right here in B.C. that may be as critical and important to all British Columbians as any other crisis that the nation as a whole has ever faced.

And what on earth could be so important? As Foy went on to explain to a rapt audience of concerned listeners, that biggest scam being pulled off on the people of the province; one engineered by the very people elected to represents the interests of electors of British Columbia, was what the Save Our Rivers Society was here to explain to people.

That â€Ŕscam, as former Social Credit Environment Minister, author and renowned Vancouver radio broadcaster Rafe Mair told the audience (in no uncertain terms), is the total selling off by the Liberal government of Premier Gordon Campbell of BC„¢s public ownership of the streams and rivers that are the lifeblood and, as Rafe summed up in his provocative talk, the â€Ŕsoul of this province„¢s geographic and ecological treasures; ones which make British Columbia the most beautiful and prized piece of real estate on the face of the planet and upon which all our other economic and social assets, as well as the free flowing vitality of the natural ecosystems, depend for their existence.

SaveOurRiversCrew

The Save Our Rivers crew from Left: Joe Foy – Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Melissa Davis – B.C. Citizens for Public Power, Rafe Mair – Save Our Rivers Society, Mike Bruce, Union Rep & MC
Photo credit: Radical Press
____________________________________________________________________________

Rafe Mair, now retired from politics and broadcasting and into the 78th year of his earthly sojourn, sporting a light beard, a jolly belly and a trusty cane, has been leading a a series of public awareness meetings throughout the province to try and drum up public awareness and interest in what he feels is an upcoming provincial election whose outcome could have a devastatingly negative impact on all future generations in the province should the Liberal Campbell government be returned to power and be given free reign to fulfill their self-chosen, hidden mandate to sell off BC„¢s rivers to foreign corporate interests.

Over a decade ago Mair published a book called Canada: Is Anyone Listening? in which he presented his views on the state of the country. Today, he could just as easily write another one, were there enough time, titled â€ŔBC: Is Anyone Listening? On this night in Quesnel there were people listening and to put it mildly they weren„¢t impressed with what they were hearing.

Representing a non-profit, publicly funded organization called the Save Our Rivers Society, see SaveOurRivers.org , the former politician and broadcaster and now elder environmentalist and contributing writer to the online news site thetyee.ca , has been traveling around the province with an entourage of other public figures in a somewhat desperate attempt to alert voters to the real situation that exists regarding the state of our publicly owned utility known as BC Hydro and how it„¢s being hijacked by corporate interests and aided and abetted by the Campbell Liberal government in Victoria.

Accompanying Rafe with his traveling salvation show in favour of the salmon, the streams and the environment was Joe Foy, spokesperson for the BC based Western Canada Wilderness Committee, BC„¢s longstanding, dedicated and trusted environmental organization noted for numerous accomplishments in the way of protecting British Columbia„¢s eco systems and wildlife habitat from the devastating effects of overly zealous industrial logging and mining interests who tend, at times, to put the dollar and the interests of the corporate boardroom above the natural environment.

Also included in the list of speakers was Melissa Davis from BC Citizens for Public Power see citizensforpublicpower.ca who began the evening„¢s discussion with an introduction to her organization„¢s efforts over the past few years to draw public attention to the urgency of what has been taking place behind closed doors in Victoria with respect to the Liberal agenda for privatizing BC„¢s publicly owned natural resources.

Of particular note were Melissa„¢s comments regarding the broken Liberal promise in 2001 to â€Ŕnot sell or privatize BC Hydro„¢s dams, transmission lines, water resources, or other core assets followed by a grim reminder that Bill 30 was brought in by the Liberals to usurp any democratic rights of local regional governments to enact rules for safeguarding their resources thus allowing foreign, corporate interests to prevail over indigenous decisions of local governments in their bid to gain control of all provincial rivers and streams.

Melissa Davis„¢s third point, one which the audience appeared to understand almost intuitively, was that the Liberal„¢s willing compromises to BC„¢s environment and its citizens by the relinquishment of the rights of public ownership of BC Hydro and introducing a private sector model of corporate control of public assets for stockholder„¢s profits over and above anything else, would automatically ensure that the price people are paying for their electrical needs would dramatically increase in the years ahead. Predictions went as high as a 25% increase in one„¢s power bill over the next 3 years, this on top of already substantial increases. Rather shocking to say the least! Melissa recommended going to the following website to view a map showing the rivers and proposed projects: ippwatch.com .

Rafe took to the podium after Melissa„¢s enlightening talk and opened his remarks with a rather choice anecdote. He had served as a cabinet minister in the Bill Bennett government of the 1970s, along with the Cariboo„¢s own Socred MLA of the time, the well respected Alex Fraser who had been Minister of Highways for many years and after whom the Alex Fraser bridge in the lower mainland is now named in fond remembrance.

Rafe told a little story about how when in cabinet meetings theywould try to guage public approval of their policies by media comments but that when Bill Bennett really wanted to know how the public were taking to their policies he„¢d always turn to Alex Fraser and say, â€ŔAlex, now what are the folks in â€ŔQueznelly saying about all of this? Alex would then inform them that they thought if was just a â€Ŕbunch of bs and that would settle the question then and there.

In some respects that is how Rafe proceeded in describing the selling out of the province„¢s rivers and streams and the people„¢s collective ownership of public utilities such as BC Hydro. He dispensed with all the bs that CanWest media, the Liberal government and the pseudo-green organizations are telling the people of the province and got down to the nuts and bolts of what is really taking place. It wasn„¢t a pretty picture.

â€ŔThe massive destruction of our environment and the slow but sure death of BC Hydro have been planned and are being implemented without any opportunity for the public to be heard.

â€ŔWhy the lack of real consultation?

â€ŔWhere’s the proof that we need more power and, if we do, are there alternatives?

â€ŔExperts tell us — so does BC Hydro, for that matter — that with conservation, upgrading present facilities and adding generators on existing dams plus taking back the power we’re entitled to under the Columbia River Treaty, we have no need for many years for more power. So why are going down the privatization route?

â€ŔWhy is BC Hydro not permitted to create any new power?

â€ŔWhy are we giving away to large corporations the hundreds of millions of dollars BC Hydro puts into the public purse every year to help with schools, hospitals and the like?

â€ŔWhy is BC Hydro forced by the government to enter contracts for energy with private producers which cost Hydro more than they can sell it for — buy high, sell low is a strange policy especially for a capitalist government!

â€ŔWhy are we approving intermittent power, which only can be produced during the spring run-off?

â€ŔWhat will be the effect of NAFTA? Will it mean that any American company with rights on a river has all rights, including the right to export it?

â€ŔWill it mean that as long as the American company uses the river, it can ignore the time limit in the lease? The answer to each is probably “yes.”

â€ŔWhy are we disabling BC Hydro so that it must go broke under the proposed policy?

All these explosive questions and more were given to the crowd of listeners who sat attentive throughout the whole presentation.

BCRiverWldPublic

Photo credit: WCWC

The final speaker was Joe Foy of WCWC and he proceeded to pull the plug on privatization plans of the Liberal government. Speaking clearly and forcefully and with extreme knowledge and awareness of the various projects already on the go throughout the province, Joe assured the audience that these so-called â€Ŕlittle mom and pop power projects as the government likes to label them are anything but little and anything but benign when it comes to the extreme destruction of the natural environment and the fish and wildlife that will result from their construction. Using examples such as the Pitt River Project in the lower mainland Foy went on to explain how this environmentally friendly little private power venture would entail constructing close to 40 kilometers of pipelines and river and stream diversions which would reduce the levels of the free flowing waterways by up to 90% and that coupled with power lines and roadways criss-crossing throughout what is now virtually pristine wilderness areas.

In graphic detail and in cogent, convincing arguments Joe went on to expose the absolute insanity and irresponsibility of the Liberal government in determining in secret, private discussions with corporate interests this monumental scheme to steal from under the nose of an otherwise ill- and mis-informed public, the fundamental sources of the province„¢s wealth and future. When he was finished speaking the audience acknowledged his efforts with a rousing round of sustained applause.

Following the speakers„¢ presentations there was ample time given over to questions from the audience. One of the first persons to speak was a Chief from the Chilcotin who used the occasion of the meeting to further enlighten listeners as to the problems the First Nations people of the Nemaiah Valley were facing with a similar project by Taseko Mines which was threatening to destroy Fish Lake one of the water bodies the water in their indigenous territories. While it was slightly off topic in terms of the purpose of the meeting the speakers listened attentively to what the Chief had to say and were in full support of his position. To the credit of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee Joe Foy publicly stated, â€ŔWe„¢d love to join you at Fish Lake. He told the Chief that all they had to do was invite WCWC to lend their support and the environmental group would be there within days fully committed to helping the Chilcotin people in any way possible.

Another inquisitive listen asked Rafe Mair why it was that so many of the public were unaware of the issue and how come the mainstream media wasn„¢t drawing more attention to the subject. That brought a rather grimaced grin to the face of the elder Mair and he proceeded to give the Asper-controlled CanWest corporation a well-deserved tongue lashing pointing out that they have done nothing in terms of bringing this issue to the public„¢s attention and in fact everything to keep it hush hush or else misinformed by only presenting the government and corporate propaganda and those so-called â€Ŕgreen environmental lobbyists who have sold out and are now capitalizing on the issue by giving their tacit consent to the Liberal„¢s scheme. With the Province, the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times-Colonist all mum on the subject of selling off BCs public resources there„¢s little way for the public to know what is truly being implemented. That said, Rafe went on to tell the audience that they should visit the websites of those non-profit groups who were giving the rest of the story on this issue and also that they should write letters to their editors and to their MLAs and send information out to whatever lists and groups that people might be connected to on the internet. If the mainstream wasn„¢t going to cover the whole story then the alternative media and the people themselves could spread the word via the net.

The meeting ended at 9 pm as scheduled and the audience gave the presenters a long and hearty round of applause for having empowered them with new and vital information with which to deal with the problem. The final bonus of course for all of those who had sacrificed their time and left their televisions to attend the meeting was the announcement that the Canucks had been victorious!

Such is life in the Cariboo!
————

Arthur Topham is the publisher and editor of radicalpress.com an alternative, online news site located in central BC and in operation since 1998. He can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

{ Add a Comment }

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater by Arthur Topham

COVER OF THE OCTOBER 1, 1966 EDITION OF MACLEANS MAGAZINE
___________________________________________________________

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater

by Arthur Topham

April 27, 2009

Not long after publishing my recent article, 911 & Sec. 13(1): Coincidence or Collusion linking the harassment of 9/11 Truth seekers to Section 13(1) of Canada’s “Human Rights” Act I received an email from a friend and supporter in New Brunswick who said, “Hi Arthur. A great essay. I think you ought to write the definitive book, “Zionism for Dummies” and have Amazon sell it.”

Well, I thought to myself, that would be a good idea considering the lack of real knowledge and understanding surrounding this subject and the fact that the mainstream media in Canada is owned and controlled by the Zionists so there’s not much chance they’re going to start educating the Canadian public on the nature of this rather controversial topic. Yes, a great idea indeed if…only I wasn’t in the very midst of a rather crucial legal battle with the very forces which my friend hopes that I might tell the reading public about so they could get a better picture of what’s really going on, not only in Canada but around the world.

And then, no sooner that I got to thinking about all the “dummies” who need to be told the truth about Zionism, along comes Ezra Levant’s article of April 27, 2009, “Why did the Jewish Congress build up the Nazi Party?”. After reading what he had to say about Bernie Farber and Rabbi Reuven Bulka of the CJC and how they conspired to create (or should I say, inflate?) the “Canadian Nazi Party” in the 1960s, it got me to thinking that maybe there was a way in which we could enlighten Canadians about the actual workings of this mysterious Babylonian cult which first emerged upon the world’s stage a little over a century ago as the World Zionist Organization and has since come to be the most influencial, dominant and dangerous force in the world today; one whose destiny is soon to be revealed to the mesmerized millions who’ve been held in mental and emotional bondage to its siren songs since the beginning of the 20th Century and especially since it took control of the movie industry, the newspaper and print and publishing industry and finally the television industry beginning in the late 1940s.

But this isn’t the place to begin Chapter One of “Zionism for Dummies”. Rather its the place to once again try and explain to Canadians the deceptive element that’s hidden within the political ideology known as Zionism and to show them how this deception is carried on by all proponents of Zionism, be they the zealous, yet elusive and subtle advocates of the type that Ezra Levant is or the more overt brand of Zionist like Mark Steyn who makes no bones about his love for this form of political philosophy.

Also included in this definition of course must be the many crypto-Zionist types, in particular those who fall within the camp known as “Christian” Zionists and who hide their overt love for the state of Israel and their hatred for Arabs and non-Zionist Christians and all other heathen behind veils of not so sophisticated sophistry and bellicose rhetoric.

All of these elements which make up the body of Zionist thinkers and advocates will inevitably expose their true selves via time-tested, tell-tale signs which tend to always mark the ideological territory claimed by the Talmudic high priests of Zion. One of the foremost of these signs will inevitably be the anti-German, anti-National Socialist rhetoric; one of the more prominent hallmarks of hatred that delineates both their pathology and their racist ideology.

If one is ever to get a firm grip on how Zionism operates the very first lesson to learn, over and above anything else, is that whatever the Zionist says it must be construed as both false and deceptive and the very opposite meaning has to be attached to any statements made by them. If one fails to do this automatically and tries to rationalize and think through their ideas then that person is bound to get lost and confused for the intent of any public utterance meant for non-Zionists is to obfuscate and lead astray or else support the Zionist “logic”.

There are many more guidelines to understanding how the Zionist deceives his gullible listeners but this one principle (thinking the opposite meaning to what they infer) must suffice for this article.

Now on the surface one would think from reading Levant’s article that he’s the knight in shining armour dashing into the armed camp of the influencial and censorial Canadian Jewish Congress on his great white steed and with one fell swoop lopping the heads off its leaders Farber and Bulka and claiming victory for free speech advocates while at the same time denouncing the Big Brother commissars from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. And that is precisely what the Zionists want Canadians to think and that is why both Levant and the Ottawa Citizen conspired to run his story and why Ezra is so “pleased” that the Citizen gave him “so much room to reply.”

There’s no doubt that Ricardo Warmouse, the former CHRC lawyer and investigator, has been leading the “hate crimes” brigade for some time now and that Levant and others such as Kathy Shaidle and Connie Fournier of FreeDominion.ca are all being sued by him and that they’re all fighting to stop Warmouse’s endless suits which the CJC obviously supports. But that, in itself, is not the whole story just as Levant’s attack on the CJC for their involvement in the former Canadian Nazi Party is not the whole story.

Beyond all of this is the relentless, ever-present and persistent push to denigrade Germany and reinforce the myth (Lie) that the National Socialist Party of Germany was responsible for both World Wars and foremost, for having murdered 6 million Jews in concentration camps in eastern Europe by the use of gas chambers and ovens. This, plus the screeching whine of endless “anti-Semitism” are the two pillars upon which political Zionism rests and the Zionists will do whatever is necessary in order to maintain this illusion in the minds of the public and that includes, if needs be, sacrificing some of their own in order to do so, including the CJC.

It wouldn’t be the first time either for records exist which show how the Zionists did their utmost during the 1930s and 40s to stop hundreds of thousands of Jews from leaving Germany and eastern European states prior to the Nazis ever engaging in military acts. All this was done in order to ensure that World Jewry would be granted their “homeland” in Palestine after the war ended and as is now known the Zionists were more than willing to sacrifice their fellow Jews in order to accomplish this deed.

In the case of the Canadian Jewish Congress the decision had already been made that this organization would be slated for sacrifice.  As I said in my article 911 & Sec. 13(1): Coincidence or Collusion, the CJC has lost its position as a major player in Jewish Canadian politics and has been swallowed up a bigger fish, the “New” Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), formed by the ultra Zionist Asper media cartel who own and control CanWest Global Communications Corporation.

In true Zionist style therefore we will likely see the CJC become Gefilte fish as CanWest’s hired word-butcher (Levant) working in CanWest’s butcher shop (the Ottawa Citizen), fillets it leaving only the head, skin and bones showing for temporary public viewing while Section 13(1) is being attacked. Then, thanks to Levant who suddenly “discovers” the old Macleans magazine article from October, 1966 on the “neo-Nazis” and the CJC, now begins the process of grinding down and boiling the remains in the CanWest’s corporate cauldron until just the right texture is achieved and before long they’ve got CJC “balls” so to speak, ready to be served up on a platter in sacrificial fashion to the voracious Asper/CIJA appetite.

And what of the word-butcher Levant? Why he’s supposed to come out smelling like a rose, the saviour of the Goyim and the hero of the free speech movement while the real heroes, Marc Lemire and Barbara Kalaszka are side-stepped and ignored in favour of a good kosher Zionist. Whether this scenario actually manifests or if he actually begins to smell like those fish balls do after a few days, remains to be seen.

The main point again, if I may, is that throughout this whole exercise in Zionist propaganda and mind-control, we are seeing, as is par for the course, Zionist Jews playing the lead roles in both sides of this seemingly controversial battle over Section 13(1). Levant is a Zionist. Asper is a Zionist. Bernie Farber is a Zionist. An unholy trinity of vipers out to bewitch the public with their sophistry and media magic, aided and abetted by their crypto-Zionist supporters (the “dummies”) who have no real idea what the Big Picture is all about.

At the end of the Levant rant we see the same old hatred spewed forth against the Germans just to remind those readers (again) who may have forgot their daily Zionist catechism of the Great Persecution and the Holocaust and “gas chambers” and Cotler’s “New anti-Semitism” creed now being slipped surreptiously into the Zionist culture we tend to think of as being truly “Canadian”.

Allow me to conclude with a challenge to Levant and the Asper media giant. Ezra, feigning slight disappointment over the Citizen’s headline: “Neo-Nazis are best simply ignored” boldly states that rather than ignoring those dastardly, evil Nazis or even charging them with “hate crimes”, we ought to rebut and debate them and prove the fallacy of their arguments so that Canadians will understand once and for all just how wrong the Germans were and how right the Zionists are.

Well, Ezra Levant, you now have a challenge of the same caliber coming from someone who is not a German or a member of any neo-Nazi organization but who will nonetheless debate the issues of National Socialism and political Zionism with you and prove to Canadians once and for all that whatever threat the Nazis may have posed to humanity pales in comparison to the destruction and infamy and death brought upon the world throughout the 20th Century by those who profess to be Zionists and who work to create a world where Zionist principles and values are held in high esteem over those of Christian and/or pagan values and democratic principles.

Let’s see if CanWest Global Communications Corporation will offer up a national debate between myself and you on the issue of political Zionism. I would think the National Post would be the most fitting of the Asper organs to run this debate seeing as how it is a Canada-wide publication. Each of us will be given Op-Ed space of 1500 words maximum per article and these sessions will run consecutively until a national poll determines who is the winner. You defend Zionism and its Talmudic values and I’ll defend Democracy and Christian/pagan values. In lieu of doing physical battle I propose this as the most civilized and reasonable manner in which to determine who of us is truly fighting for Canada and its sovereignty as a free and democratic nation.

The gauntlet has been thrown down Ezra. Will you and CanWest have the courage to pick it up?

—————-

{ Add a Comment }