RadicalPress.com | AAA+ Replica Watches | Designer Replica Rolex Diamond Watches 2023

I shall briefly sum up for you what, precisely, our recent exchange of correspondence has been. For greater clarity, I find myself obliged to emphasise certain words of this exchange, although I do not care for the practice. You will see that, contrary to what you venture to say, the letter that I sent you and made public on 17 December was neither ‘misleading’ nor ‘unfair’. You will also see, at the end of this reply, that you have made a monumental muddle of a text of mine of which you quote a very brief fragment; by so doing, you have been ‘misleading’ or ‘unfair’ or both. In conclusion, I will show that this controversy may in the end lead to a heartening prospect for the future of revisionism.
My question of 17 December was: ‘Tell me whether or not you SAY, as I myself have so clearly STATED for so many years, that the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS and the alleged Nazi GAS VANS never EXISTED’. The question was clear: it focused 1) on what you SAY or STATE, 2) on the very EXISTENCE, 3) of the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS, 4) and of the alleged Nazi GAS VANS.
Instead of answering this question directly, you wrote back: ‘I don’t believe the claims about the alleged Nazi gas chambers’. That act of faith was not what I was looking for. Effectively, whereas I was waiting to see what you, as a historian, would SAY or STATE, you answered by what you DIDN’T BELIEVE. Then, you asserted that you did not BELIEVE in CLAIMS, a particularly vague word; the remark may mean that you refuse to believe certain statements concerning the said gas chambers, but not necessarily all such statements; the choice of the word ‘CLAIMS’ may mean that you call into question certain aspects of the story of the Nazi gas chambers (their number, location, performance) but not necessarily the affirmation of their existence itself. Finally, with such a sentence you do not, as all may see, breathe a word of the ‘gas vans’.
Noting that with so vague a sentence you had not gone into the subject, I did not feel the need to deal with it in my letter itself, but, in the accompanying message, addressed to Jean Plantin, Yvonne Schleiter and Arthur Butz at the same time as to you, I plainly told you: ‘I did not ask for your ‘beliefs’ (?) about ‘claims’ (?) and, moreover, you do not mention the Nazi gas vans’.
Nor did I deal with your prologue regarding at once Dachau, Mauthausen, Hartheim and your ‘limited’ knowledge of technical and chemical matters. As is my habit, I went straight to the heart of the matter and so it was that, leaving to one side everything of the order of more or less trifling preliminary remarks, I extracted from your response the lone sentence that constituted an answer, FINALLY, to the question put. And that answer was as follows: ‘I do not like to say that the ‘Nazi gas chambers never existed’, in part because I do not regard myself as any kind of specialist of ‘gas chambers’ and in part because I avoid making such categorical statements.’
I think it useless here to run once more through the remarks that such a pitiful answer inspires me to make. It is typical of what I call ‘spineless Revisionism’. At the 2002 conference, I protested against this form of revisionism and suggested that, in future, revisionists come out fighting. I find comical the insistence of some revisionist ‘researchers’ on still looking into ‘the problem of the gas chambers’. We are not about to carry on this way till the end of time killing what has already, on the commonsense level, been ‘overkilled’. But with our ‘researchers’ the corpse of the ‘Nazi gas chambers or vans’ is buried, then exhumed to be put in a coffin into which one more nail is driven. The role of an Institute like the IHR ought to be to come out with a formal assertion, one requiring neither technical nor chemical expertise but rather of the simplest kind: For more than half a century, Germany’s accusers have in the end revealed their inability to let us see a single specimen of the alleged weapons of mass destruction that the Nazis are said to have designed, built or used for ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’ (Raul Hilberg).
Whatever you do, don’t moan that ‘Given that you have not pressed me for my view on Nazi gas chambers during the past ten years or so, I don’t understand why you have been pressing me on this in recent weeks’. In reality, you know perfectly well that there has been this point of discord between us for quite a long time. I have reminded you of the instance at which you and I confronted one another on it ten years ago in Washington. There was also, though you seem not to remember, another instance, over the telephone, on the subject of a statement of yours during a talk-show on a Black radio station. And I am not the only one to deplore Mark Weber’s shilly-shallying with regard to the gas chambers. I can recall Fritz Berg rightly complaining of your dodging the question. Carlos Porter also seems to find you are dancing around. I myself have had to approach you more than once in order to get you to respond. And now, finally, that your response is known, it is understandable why you have tried to dodge an irksome question. But, is it normal, Mark Weber, to conceal from the IHR’s readers, members, dues-paying supporters that their editor perhaps refuses, to a certain degree, to BELIEVE a lie and a historic slander but DOES NOT LIKE to have to say so? How many people imagine that for the Editor of the Journal of Historical Review a proper reply to that slander is: ‘I do not like to say that ‘the Nazis gas chambers never existed’’?
During the above-mentioned talk-show, you stated: ‘I do not deny the Holocaust happened but ’ I immediately told you how deadly wrong it was to make such a CONCESSION to The Big Lie and Defamation. You retort now that in 1991 I myself declared: ‘Revisionists do not deny the genocide and the gas chambers’. There you make a fine muddle. I said then, on the contrary, that by the acceptance of the word ‘deny’ an untoward CONCESSION was made to the liars. I give you below the full text of my remark, that was published under the altogether unambiguous title ‘AFFIRMATION, NOT DENIAL’:
A reminder: Revisionists do not deny the genocide and the gas chambers. This is a MISCONCEPTION. Galileo didn’t deny that the earth was stationary; he AFFIRMED, at the conclusion of his research, that the earth was not stationary, but that it rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. In the same way, the revisionists, after concluding their own research, AFFIRM that there was no genocide and no gas chambers, and that the ’ final solution of the Jewish question ’ consisted of the removal of the Jews from Europe by emigration if possible, and by deportation if necessary. The revisionists strive to establish what happened ; they are positive while the exterminationists doggedly continue to tell us about things which didn’t happen : their work is negative. The Revisionists stand for the reconciliation of the antagonists in the recognition of what really happened. (Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, January-February 1999, p. 21).
In other words, I make with that remark the opposite of a CONCESSION. In a general way, not only do I expose the enthusiasts of the Big Lie for what they are, but I also refuse to borrow their least turn of phrase. The revisionists must show themselves to be candid, unbending and without CONCESSION. The time for CONCESSIONS is over.
I come now to the possibility, mentioned at the outset, of an interesting prospect for the future of revisionism. On 2 June 2003, I published the following short article.
Hitler’s and Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is it not wonderful to get the same lie from the same people and for the same purpose?
In January 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to create, at the request of the Jew Henry Morgenthau and his fellows, the so-called War Refugee Board (WRB). In November 1944, that official body published, under the heading ‘Executive Office of the President / War Refugee Board / Washington, DC’, a report entitled German Extermination Camps Auschwitz and Birkenau, falsely accusing Adolf Hitler of having weapons of mass destruction or WMD (called execution gas chambers).
In 2002, President George W. Bush decided to create, at the request of the Jew Paul Wolfowitz and his fellows, the so-called Office of Special Plans (OSP). That official body authored reports falsely accusing Saddam Hussein of having WMD.
The lie was the same: an accusation based on false evidence. The people were the same: powerful American Jews. The purpose was the same: war.
But there were also differences. First, the lie against Hitler was about impossible and inconceivable WMD (for physical and chemical reasons) while the lie against Saddam Hussein was about quite possible and conceivable WMD since his accusers themselves had the same kind of weapons. Secondly, the lie against Adolf Hitler was more than half a century old and stronger than ever while the lie against Saddam Hussein was a few months old and already not too strong. Thirdly, if someone disputed the accusation against Adolf Hitler, he might go to prison like Ernst Zundel while, if someone disputed the accusation against Saddam Hussein, he might, at least currently, be taking limited risks.
Observe how the lie was built against Saddam Hussein and you will see exactly how the lie against Adolf Hitler was forged by the same kind of people and for the same purpose: perpetual war.
When you, Mark Weber, recently held a conference with David Irving on current world events, I suppose that the two of you had a good laugh with the tale of Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. If so, did you also have a laugh with Adolf Hitler’s WMD’s? And, if you did not, may one ask why?
It is time for the end of this COMEDY that consists in demanding that the Allies show us those weapons that Saddam is said to have possessed whilst, on the subject of the far more fantastic weapons that Hitler is said to have possessed and used on a large scale, Mark Weber is as reserved as a shy young maiden. With Saddam’s WMD’s, our patience did not last even a year, whereas with Hitler’s we shall soon have shown sixty years of patience.
In the late 1970s I myself opened the way to material revisionist studies, looking into the technical, physical, chemical, topographical and architectural aspects of the matter of Hitler’s alleged WMD’s. On this level, the revisionists have attained results of such abundance and precision that, little by little, the LIARS have found themselves at a loss for any answer. Their museums of the ‘Holocaust’ have been unable to take up my final 1992 challenge: ‘Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber’. And what is true of the ‘Nazi gas chambers’ is equally true of the ‘Nazi gas vans’ or ‘Jewish soap’ or lampshades made of human skin or still other nonsense.
I therefore suggest that the revisionists today close the book on this physical, chemical and other material research, for it is in fact taking a progressively pedantic turn. It is becoming ‘art for art’s sake’. These redundant studies have, above all, the disastrous effect of making a problem appear complicated when it is actually altogether easy to solve.
It is pitiful when the head of an institute of revisionist studies is reduced to confessing: ‘I do not like to say that the Nazi gas chambers never existed’. It is regrettable that he should have concealed that attitude up to now and that only my insistence on getting an answer on the subject made him come out with it. It is a pity that, seeking to vindicate his position, he wrongly accused me of having been ‘misleading and unfair’. It is lamentable that in the dispute with me he should bring up a text of mine whose meaning he distorts to the point of turning it entirely around.
But it is heartening to see that I am now far from alone in denouncing a revisionism that has had its day and in advocating a new revisionism, more clear-cut, straightforward, vigorous and able, for a start, to put it to the upholders of the Big Lie that ‘The best proof that your Nazi gas chambers and your Nazi gas vans did not exist any more than your Jewish soap, your lampshades of human skin and so much other nonsense of a vile war propaganda is that, more than fifty years after that war, your ‘scientific experts’ are, more than ever, unable to show them to us’.
This new revisionism, which demands character, calls for young and spirited men.
Epilogue
‘Hitler’s gas chambers are like Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction: THEY’VE NEVER BEEN SEEN!’ Voiced by a woman, this radio-style watchword has for the past few weeks been making the rounds of a French revisionist news group. I recommend that it be taken up with insistence in all revisionist publications and correspondence for as long as the Allies have not found Saddam’s secret weapons. As for the Liars who, to display Nazi gas chambers, put on view for us a section of wall or a door with a small window or a showerhead or a spyhole or a pair of shoes with the inscription ‘We are the last witnesses’ (as seen at the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum), they make one think of General Colin Powell who, at the UN, showed photos of buildings or trucks supposed to represent Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. And no one will have forgotten the ‘phial of poison’ brandished there by the same general, himself raised, as his biographers tell us, in Yiddishtown (New York). The phial contained only a sort of sneezing powder. It was pure, unadulterated ‘Nuremberg trial’!
22 December 2003

The trial of Roy Arthur Topham by the government of Canada, aka ‘Regina’, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after his arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that Arthur Topham did ‘willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
There was a marked difference between the previous 24 court sessions where Arthur and his wife Shastah had attended court. In none of the earlier appearances was there any presence of RCMP officers yet now that the trial was actually beginning, there suddenly appeared an over abundance of police who commenced performing what turned out to be a very obvious, onerous, time-consuming and intimidating ‘security’ check system, not only for those attending the trial but also for anyone from the general public who had to enter the provincial government building on other business related matters. It was definitely an ‘over-kill’ approach obviously initiated by the Crown and the motives for doing so were suspected to be little more than an unabashed attempt at creating the illusion that this trial was of such supreme importance a high level of security was deemed necessary. Every person entering the building had to remove all their belongings from their person and then proceed through a body scanner. Following that they had to be additionally gone over with a special ‘wand’ by a police officer to detect any metal objects that might still be on them.
When Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler eventually arrived the bulk of the day was taken up with jury selection. A 12 member jury composed of eight women and four men were chosen from the local community. After that the trial commenced, running over the scheduled 10-day period to fourteen consecutive days and culminating on November 12th when the jury finally reached its verdict.
Twice charged
Of primary importance in understanding the nature and outcome of the trial is the fact that Roy Arthur Topham was charged TWICE with the same Sec. 319(2) criminal offence. The first time was the day of his arrest on May 16, 2012 and the second time was January 14, 2014. The wording of the second Indictment was identical to that of the first. The reason for the second charge, like that of the first, was so that Crown might try again to have Topham’s bail conditions altered in order to prevent him from publishing. These additional attempts (there were three in all) to increase the severity of the bail conditions were buttressed upon the questionable pretext by Crown that the police investigation was ‘ongoing’ and therefore the second Indictment (Count 2) was merely a result of additional evidence gleaned from posts Arthur Topham had added to his website after his initial bail conditions ended on October 9, 2012 (when Crown failed to hand down their initial Indictment within the prescribed time frame allotted them).
From the time of his arrest on May 16th, 2012 until October 9, 2012 Topham was not permitted to post anything to his site.
It’s fundamental to bear this in mind when attempting to understand why the jury concluded that Arthur Topham was guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on Count 2.
Weekly reports
Throughout the course of the trial weekly updates on what transpired in the courtroom were published on RadicalPress.com along with editorial commentary and photos. The ‘Report on first week of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham’ came out November 1, 2015 and can be found here. The second, ‘Report on week two of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham’ can be found here. Rather than repeat what was said in those articles it’s suggested that readers go to them further information.
GILAD&BARCLAY
Expert Witness for the defence
The defence was most fortunate in being able to solicit and obtain the expert testimony of Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli citizen, accomplished philosopher, scholar, writer and Jazz musician who graciously consented to appear on behalf of Arthur Topham free of charge. Gilad Atzmon’s testimony to the jury was covered on RadicalPress.com in a November 9, 2015 article titled, ‘The Expert Witness Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon‘. Mr. Atzmon’s intellectual/literary forte revolves around his best selling book The Wandering Who? which is a serious academic work in the relatively new field of Jewish Identity politics.
Cross-examination of former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner
[Editor’s Note: It must be stated here that until the actual transcripts of the proceedings are obtained the commentary below regarding cross-examination of these two Crown witnesses, in particular Crown’s Exert Witness Len Rudner, should be considered more anecdotal rather than precise and factual. Again, please refer to the two weekly reports mentioned above for greater detail on this portion of the trial.
Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross-examination of Crown’s two witnesses revealed to the court that both of these individuals had personal axes to grind when it came to their testimony against Topham or their actions (as in the case of Terry Wilson) while carrying out the investigation into Topham’s website.
Unfortunately, in the case of Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner, it wasn’t until after his testimony and cross-examination that the defence became aware of a very serious, glaring breach of legal protocol with respect to Rudner’s sworn statements to the court. The immediate result of this new-found evidence was a call by Defence for a mistrial based upon an accusation of perjury on the part of Rudner but that move on Johnson’s part was dismissed by Justice Butler as coming too late in the proceedings.
The Crown’s forte
Throughout the whole of the 14-day trial what stood out most for the defence (as well as many observers in the gallery) was the overwhelming volume of documentary evidence (all taken from the RadicalPress.com website) which the Crown downloaded on to the jury. Coupled with that fact was the additionally onerous presence of two bulky Binders which were of such poor quality they were virtually unreadable, thus making the task of comprehending the details of the evidence not only formidable but in all likelihood an impossibility for the jury to comprehend. In fact it wasn’t until the morning of Friday, November 6th, ten days into the trial, that new exhibits of Binders 3 & 4 were finally made available to jury members.
Charge to the jury
On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler read out his Charge to the jury. On top of the other thousands of pages of online books and articles the jury was now given an additional 62-page document instructing them on how to go about deliberating on all of the evidence presented over the previous 12 days of the trial. After reading out the document to the jury Justice Butler then instructed them to retire and seek a decision on the two counts.
The Decision
The decision was rendered on the morning of Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m.
Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Not Guilty
Immediately following the jury’s decision Justice Butler thanked the jury members for having done their civic duties then dismissed them. Next he told Crown and Defence that court would reconvene at 1:30 p.m. at which time any additional matters related to the trial would be dealt with.
New Bail Conditions Sought by Crown
When court reconvened at 1:40 p.m. Crown immediately brought up the issue of changing Topham’s bail conditions again. Defence objected as did Justice Butler and a new date was set for a bail hearing; one which was to take place on November 19th but was subsequently changed to November 20th, 2015.
The bail hearing began at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 20, 2015 with both Justice Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appearing via telephone. Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston and Arthur Topham were present in the Quesnel Supreme Court.

Justice Butler listened to Crown’s arguments for wanting severe restrictions on Topham’s ability to continue publishing on his website and then heard Defence’s arguments against such proposals.
It ended up being a very short session; one that culminated in Justice Butler’s decision to refuse Crown’s request pending the outcome of both Crown’s Sentencing position which was slated tentatively for January 25, 2016 plus the Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada which was also set to be heard before Justice Butler during the same week of January 25 29, 2016. Justice Butler did grant one small concession to Crown when they asked that a photo on RadicalPress.com, depicting from a distance the crowd of potential jurors lined up outside the courthouse on Monday, October 26, 2015, be removed from Topham’s website. Topham willingly consented to remove it and that concluded the bail hearing.
The Future and the Silver Lining: The Constitutional Challenge to Sec . 319(2)
Once the initial shock of the guilty verdict in Count 1 had subsided and time allowed for a reconsideration of all of the events surrounding the trial it became apparent that the verdict of ‘Guilty’ in Count 1 was, in reality, the key to opening the door for the Defence’s ultimate objective which was to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.
Back in the spring of 2015 on March 23rd Arthur Topham’s legal counsel Barclay Johnson had served a constitutional notice on the Crown. The purpose was to present before a Supreme Court Justice a Charter argument challenging the legitimacy of the now existing Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation. Eventually the date of June 22nd, 2015 was set to hear the Charter argument in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.
Topham’s Argument
The Issues that Arthur Topham wanted raised and which were included in his Memorandum of Argument were as follows:
• Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• The Crown bears the onus of justifying the infringement of Charter rights on a case-by-case basis.
• The present case is distinguishable from Keegstra on its facts.
• The infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter is not reasonably justified by Section 1 in the circumstances of this case, and specifically:
The ‘pressing and substantial objective’ of legislation must be defined narrowly for the purpose of a Section 1 analysis.
• The use of Section 319(2) in this case is not rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective of preventing harms associated with hate propaganda.
• Criminal prosecution by indictment is not a minimal impairment of the Applicant’s Charter rights.
• The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case.
• The appropriate remedy is to read into the law a constitutional exemption, to the effect that Section 319(2) is not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.
Arguments, Counter Arguments and Reasons for Judgment
For the full text of the Memorandum of Argument please go here and read it in pdf format.
The full text of the Respondent Crown’s Submissions concerning Charter S. 1 Justification and R v. Keegstra can be viewed here.
A copy of the Applicant’s Reply to Crown’s arguments can be found here.
Justice Butler’s Reasons for Judgment.
Conclusion
The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge now scheduled to take place during the week of January 25 29, 2016. In the interim period leading up to that challenge Topham will remain free to continue to publish and to carry on with his solicitations for funding in order to persevere with his efforts to have this unconstitutional section of Canada’s Criminal Code repealed.
Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then the next step will be an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1.
—
In order to support Arthur Topham’s ongoing efforts to protect Canada’s Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as contained in the Charter donations can be made online via his GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ . If one is unable or unwilling to use that mode of helping out they may also asset by sending either cash, a cheque or a Money Order to the following postal address. Please make sure that all cheques or Money Orders are made out to Arthur Topham and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Thank You!

Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.
Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.
Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)
Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.
‘The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.’
Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.
I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.
The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.
In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. ‘Jews,’ the Crown said, ‘could write anti-Semitic things too.’ Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.
If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.
Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

On Friday, November 20th, 2015 RadicalPress.com publisher Arthur Topham returned for the third time to the B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel to attend another bail hearing in the wake of the November 12th, 2015 guilty verdict in Count 1 of his two count indictment.
Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking what turned out to be a series of extremely harsh conditions that would have seen Topham charged with an additional criminal offence for allegedly publishing Crown disclosure documents as well as severe restrictions that would have prevented him from operating his website. In addition to those added Orwellian features Crown was also seeking unconstitutional conditions that would have prevented outside media from speculating on the reasons for the jury’s decision to find Topham guilty of Count 1. And finally, new conditions that were ostensibly meant to protect jury members from being subject to criticism or harassment.
Both Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appeared via telephone from Vancouver and Victoria while Topham attended in Quesnel along with Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson.
Crown made its presentation to Justice Butler followed by Defence counsel Johnson who countered all of Crown’s arguments with reasoned facts. When the smoke finally cleared it was apparent that Justice Butler wasn’t buying into Crown’s arguments and declined to impose any new conditions besides those already in effect with the exception of one small concession related to the safety of the jurors.
Crown, in its submission, argued that a photo of the potential jurors lined up in front of the courthouse on the snowy morning of October 26th (the first day of the trial) had been published on RadicalPress.com and it potentially posed a possible threat to the safety of the jury members (the photo, upon inspection didn’t show the faces of any of the people who were actually on the jury). Justice Butler was willing to concede to Crown’s request that it be removed and rather than have it written up in the new conditions Crown stated that if Mr. Topham would give the court his word that it would be remove then she would be happy with that. I assured Justice Butler that I would remove the photo as soon as I returned home and that was the end of it.
My wife and I and body guard Frank Frost left the courthouse feeling rather elated about the decision and knowing that RadicalPress.com had been victorious once again in retaining its right to carry on publishing until the Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) was heard. The date for the Charter application has been tentatively set for the week of January 25th, 2016.

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m. in the British Columbia Supreme Court, city of Quesnel, I was pronounced ‘Guilty’ by a jury of twelve men and women of the following criminal offence, also known as Count 1:
‘Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
Immediately following I was pronounced ‘Not Guilty’ of a second and identical criminal offence, known as Count 2:
‘Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 29th day of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
Within moments of the jury leaving the courtroom Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking new bail conditions that would restrict even further my fundamental rights as contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson immediately objected suggesting to Justice Bruce Butler that if Crown wants changes to my bail conditions then due process should be followed and Crown must file an application to that effect. Justice Butler agreed and the date of Thursday, November 19, 2015 was set for a hearing on Crown’s application. Later it was set for Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10 a.m.
Given the fact that Crown has attempted on two earlier occasions to have stringent bail conditions imposed upon my freedom to operate RadicalPress.com it must be assumed that in this instance too Crown will be calling for either removal of my site from the Internet or else a total ban on my ability to operate it until final sentencing which is tentatively scheduled for late January of 2016.
In the event that Crown is able to accomplish either of its objectives, November 20th, 2015 could, theoretically, be the last day that I am able to communicate the status of my case on the Internet pending the outcome of my Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2).
It therefore behooves me to make a few comments and observations before the hearing takes place.
Our collective dilemma
Only someone in a comatose condition or willfully blind to any form of self-reflection could deny the fact that the global state of affairs today has reached an extreme state of critical disharmony.
War, and the threat of war, environmental degradation, cancer rates of epic proportions, fear levels at an all-time high and an endless array of bureaucratic and media machinations all designed to confuse and obfuscate any remedial efforts on the part of the people to rectify this imminent threat to our collective condition are the order of the day. Then, coupled with all of these Orwellian conditions, is the growing threat by Zionist infiltrated nation states to introduce illogical, totalitarian, communist tactics such as ‘hate crime’ legislation in order to penalize those who attempt to define and interpret the present narrative of negativity.
Numerous individual writers from the past have warned us repeatedly of what would happen if we didn’t get off our collective fanny and do something about what was happening but, as is the human condition, the general populace is too busy making a living, paying off their plastic, raising families and mesmerized by Big Brother’s ‘Eye’ tv to find the time to address and dismantle these specious, serpentine moves of the Zionist lobbyist to put in place their anti-free speech ‘hate’ legislation.
Now that the proverbial fecal matter is hitting the fan suddenly the truth revealers are getting broad-sided by this legislation and falsely accused and dragged before Stalinist ‘Show Trial’courts in order to plug the failing dams of deception that are currently crumbling before their very eyes.
Holding the reins

In term of my own situation I’ve spent a lifetime searching for answers to this perennial problem of endless conflict and environmental destruction and now, at the ripe young age of 68, I can honestly and rightfully declare that all of my years of research and writing, coupled with the past 9 years of ‘harrowing’ legal hassles, only further corroborates and confirms that censorship of individuals who earnestly try to give warning to their fellow citizens and censorship of the Internet via the unscrupulous use of ‘hate crime’ legislation must be stopped if we are to remain free to think, reason and peacefully protest against any form of oppression.
The final step in this ongoing process of ridding our country of the last remaining legal barrier (Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code will be a Constitutional challenge using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Israel and the Zionist agenda
All of the hate crime legislation in the world has been created by one group, the Zionist Jew lobby, working through B’nai Brith International and other similar orgs. They’ve set themselves up in every nation of the West and their primary purpose as agents of the state of Israel is to silence any and all criticism of the Zionist ideology and its debilitating effect upon human rights and freedom of expression. This fact is now beyond dispute and case after case where individuals are charged with these duplicitous ‘hate’ crimes the complainants inevitably are dual citizens of the foreign state of Israel or else goy sycophants in the pay of these same lobbyists.
To support Israel is to support racism, apartheid, murder of innocents, theft of other nation’s land, the destruction of other cultures, war, destruction and endless terrorist acts and media deception on a scale never before witnessed in human history.
Any Western government that ‘stands with Israel’ is admitting to and condoning and complicit with all of these barbaric and uncivilized actions that comprise the whole of what political Zionism entails.
God
My first duty as a human being is to acknowledge, revere and do the Will of the Creator source of all life. God = Love = Truth. If I don’t include God in every equation related to my work and my life then it all becomes meaningless and devoid of that one fundamental principle which governs both the physical and spiritual realms. Any attempt at addressing the evils that men do which omits the Truth is futile. God gave man Free Will which ultimately implies the right to express himself without fear of state repression. The atheistic Zionist agenda would end that freedom of the mind and soul and for that reason alone it must be resisted all costs.
Conclusion
My purpose in all that I’ve done over my lifetime has been to shed light upon the machinations of those who would enslave us and silence us so that we’re not at liberty to express our thoughts and ideas. Censorship now remains the #1 threat to our global survival in that without the freedom to challenge the state (any state) and its dictates and demands we’re left bereft of the ability to speak the Truth. In this sense my struggle is every person’s struggle who desires to remain free and live in peace and harmony with their fellow human beings and all other life forms.

The following is the first part of Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial. This part contains a brief summary of Atzmon’s perception of the Jews and their politics. In the next part Atzmon will explain how these ideas serve to vindicate all forms of criticism of Jewish politics, ideology, symbols, rituals and so on.
Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, can you please elaborate on the notion of Jewish Identity Politics.
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Identity politics is a relatively new study that looks into the meaning and the means of identification of various groups. Instead of asking what is X or Y, identity politics delves into the question of what identifying as X or Y may entail. I have gone through the court case documentation and detected a considerable lack of understanding of the complexity of the terminology related to Jewish matters: identity, religion, race and politics. In particular, I encountered confusion in the comprehension of the crucial distinction among:
A: Judaism (the religion)
B: The Jews (the people)
C: Jewishness (the ideology)
In order to grasp these notions we must elaborate first on the meaning of Jewish Identity Politics.
Instead of asking what or who are the Jews, we will simplify the question. We will ask what those who identify themselves as Jews mean by that.
Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.
A: The Religion people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.
B: Ethnicity people who identify as Jews due to ancestry and family lineage. Ladies and gentlemen, this category is also innocent. Having a Jewish mother doesn’t make one into a war criminal!
C: Politics those who identify politically as Jews. Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, this category is far from innocent. Zionism-the promise to bring about a Jewish homeland in Palestine was executed at the expense of another people: namely the Palestinians. But Zionism is not alone. In fact all forms of Jewish politics are racially exclusive. Ask yourself, can Mr. Topham or any other ‘Goy’ (gentile, non-Jew) in this room join the group ‘Jews for Peace’ or ‘Jews for Human Rights’? The answer is NO. And why? Because the Goyim in the room are not racially qualified. The conclusion is inevitable. The 3rd category is racially oriented and to a certain extent, racist to the bone. ‘Jews for peace’ is in practice as racist and exclusive as ‘Aryans for Palestine’ or ‘Whites for free love.’ And yet, most of us would react angrily to White only clubs but we are somehow forgiving when it comes to Jews only associations.
Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, please make sure that we understand you correctly. Are Jews a race?
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. Jews are neither a race nor they are a biological entity, but Jewish politics is always racist or at least driven by racial orientation!
Attorney Barclay Johnson: How does the model you sketched above help to understand Israeli politics, Jewish Identity or progress in this court case?
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: In practice, every Jew who identifies as a Jew subscribes to one, two or three of the categories above. Let’s examine the case of an American Jewish settler living in occupied West Bank. Yes he follows the Torah (1st category), yes he is Jew by ancestry (2nd category) and certainly, he identifies politically as a Jew (3rd category). But what about the Jewish Marxists who went as far as Spain to fight Franco in the name of the revolution? These revolutionary Jews didn’t follow the Jewish religion, they were not the 1st category. They only subscribed to the 2nd and the 3rd categories. What about Noam Chomsky? He is not a religious Jew. Again, he only subscribes to the 2nd and the 3rd categories. He is a Jew by ancestry and also identifies politically as a Jew[1]. Albert Einstein? The Jury is out on that one but it would be reasonable to argue that he subscribes to the 2nd category.
I argue that it is the Jewish political element, the subscription to the 3rd category that leads towards some unsavoury acts whether they be the cold blood murder of Palestinian families or extensive Jewish Lobbying in the West. Those acts deserve criticism, politically and ideologically.
Attorney Barclay Johnson: But how does this model help this court to further its understanding the case of Arthur Topham or the accusation of hate speech?
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: As I mentioned before, categories 1 & 2 are totally innocent. And indeed, no one really criticises Neturei Karta (Torah Jews) or Satmar Jews in related to Israeli crimes in Palestine. These two ultra orthodox Jewish groups made it clear that they oppose the crimes committed by the Jewish State and Zionism. Moreover, nowadays, no one really criticises Jews as a race, biology or ethnicity. What we do see is opposition Jewish politics and ideology. However and this is crucial. In the West we tend to believe that every politics & ideology must be subject to political and ideological criticism. My Lord, if every form of politics and ideology must be subject to criticism, this rule must be applied also to Jewish politics and ideology, and as far as I can tell, Jewish politics and ideology deserves a lot of criticism.
Attorney Barclay Johnson: But it seems as if Jews are often feel hated if their politics is criticised.
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Correct, yet, the fact that Jews feel hated doesn’t mean that anyone really hates them. It is also be possible that some Jews feel hated because they actually project their own hatred onto others.
Attorney Barclay Johnson: I am slightly confused here it seems as if we are dealing with a sophisticated multi layered identity.
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: You are totally correct, this topic is indeed confusing and for a reason. Contemporary Diaspora Jewish politics struggles to maintain this confusion because it stifles any from of criticism of Jewish politics. In order to understand this construct we should imagine the following kosher trinity.
1447063494308
When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are‘racially offended’ in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to supress any possible criticism.
Attorney Barclay Johnson: In the last 7 days this court learned about some very problematic segments within the Talmud and the Torah. Yet, you insist here that the religion is innocent. Can you please enlighten us about the role of religion?
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: This is a crucial point. While I argue that the Jewish religion is an innocent category, this is far from saying that Judaism is clean of some very problematic teachings and even racist and supremacist preaching.
Here is the problem. The historical facts are plain. In spite of some very problematic Judaic teachings that are both Talmud and Torah related, rabbinical Jews have never been involved in any collective murderous attempt against anyone else. This fact suggests that in spite of some horrid segments, it was actually the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries. Such a view vindicates the Talmud despite its uncomfortable teachings. But things are about to get very uncomfortable now.
It is not a secret that in contemporary Israel, it is the orthodox Jews and the followers of the Talmud who lead the most racist and murderous abuse of the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, we have a clear question to answer. If it was the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries, why doesn’t it restrain orthodox Israeli Jews now? The orthodox rabbis argue that it is the addition of political orientation that interfered with Judaic peaceful teaching.
Another possible answer is that we were wrong all along. It wasn’t the Talmud that restrained the Jews, actually it was the ‘anti-Semitic’ church that repressed Jews. The collapse of the Church together with the rise of Israel and the influential Jewish lobbies in the West have led to a severe sense of impunity that is translated into a tsunami of violence and rise of Jewish supremacy that is religiously driven.
Here are some marbles taken from the Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, an Israeli Chief Sepharadi Rabbi. http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/
On Goyim:
‘Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world only to serve the People of Israel.’ Weekly Saturday night sermon in October 2010
On Muslims:
‘They’re stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are.’
— Weekly Saturday night sermon in December 2009.
I cannot judge whether this is indeed the case but I can clearly say that the only way to deal with these issues is to discuss them openly and to make sure that as much information as possible is available to all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, I do believe that this is the principle that guides Arthur Topham, who for over 30 years has made some of the most important texts on the matter available to us all.
I wouldn’t know about‘Germany Must Perish’ unless Mr Topham had made it into a satire. Would you? Even the Crown Expert, Mr Rudner, admitted that he wasn’t aware of the text and actually confirmed by this admission the importance of the Radical Press. Two days ago Mr Rudner admitted that ‘Germany Must Perish’ is a hateful text. Congratulation to Mr Rudner. It took the Jewish world more than 7 decades to denounce one of the most horrible Jewish texts ever. Is not Mr Rudner long awaited denunciation the direct outcome of Mr Topham’s satire?
Attorney Barclay Johnson: History. In your book, ‘The Wandering Who,’ you delve into the notion of History and Jewish history in particular. Can you please elaborate on the topic and its relevance within the context of ‘Holocaust denial’ and so-called ‘hatred?’
Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: History becomes a meaningful adventure once we learn to narrate the past as we move along. This means that as we are changing constantly, our understanding of the past is also shifting. Accordingly, history, at its best, is the ability to visit, re-visit and revise our past as we progress in time. This understanding of history must be applied to any chapter in our past including the Holocaust.
It is no secret that Jewish institutions oppose the Holocaust being subjected to revision and the outcome of this opposition is tragic, especially for the Jews. Instead of letting the Holocaust become a dynamic universal ethical lesson it has been reduced into the new canonical Jewish religion. It has its shrines (museums) prophets, preachers and even a new God figure: ‘The Jew,’ the one who was forsaken by God, yet resurrected himself from the slaughter, and against all odds, made Israel into a nuclear super power that too often threatens world peace.
Once again, our duty to the Jews, to humanity, to Canada as well as to Israel is to fight this intellectual stagnation. To burst the bubble with an injection of refreshing and controversial thoughts. But isn’t that what Radical Press and Arthur Topham have been doing for the last 35 years?
Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the most disturbing images of National Socialist Germany’s persecution of the Jews are those old archive films of book burning. It is rather disturbing that in Canada in 2015 it is actually the Jewish lobby that leads the call for book burning. One would expect Jews to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoah. Freedom of speech and expression are our most precious assets. It is what made Athens into the core of universal thinking. It is down to us to keep this promise for the sake of our future generations and humanism in general.

They say that the Devil never rests and in the case of Canada’s rabid Zionist Jew lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada truer words were never spoken.
Not wishing to await the outcome of the upcoming trial of R v Roy Arthur Topham set to commence on October 26th, 2015 the result of which will play heavily into whether or not the pro-Israeli, Zionist lobbyist will have been successful in using their Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation, which they successfully embedded into Canadian jurisprudence in order to censor and suppress any and all legitimate criticism of their nefarious political ideology and their detestable terrorist, racist supremacist actions in Palestine and around the world the Zionists are continually combing the Internet here in Canada trolling with vehement and fanatical Simon Wiesenthal ‘Nazi-hunting’ fervour for more truth seekers who are courageously revealing the plethora of lies that the Zionist controlled msm has been mind-controlling the masses with for the past century.
There are more victims of Zionist misfeasance in former democratic Canada than the recent case of Buddhist author and teacher Brian Ruhe of Vancouver, B.C., the foremost being that of Vancouver’s Chinese artist and writer Joe Canuck whose two websites www.joecanuck.net and www.joecanuck.wix.com/justiceforchinese were both surreptitiously and summarily silenced and removed from the net by the server www.wix.com without explanation to the owner, but for now I will focus on Ruhe as his woes are well documented.
What is rather unique about this latest provocation by the Zionist Jew control freaks from B’nai Brith Canada is that they usually spend their time and taxpayer’s money attacking Christians who they feel they can accuse of spreading ‘hate’ toward their self-chosen tribe of spiritual delinquents in order to have their victim’s tossed in the slammer for a couple of years and their websites either taken down and/or, as in the recent case of Canada’s coffee and donut franchise Tim Hortons, if nothing else, at least have their sites blocked from access by the general public.
These Talmudic Marxist Bolshevik Communist inspired censors from B’nai Brith Canada are relentless and deeply disturbed individuals their insecurity and paranoia being paramount and the transparency of their actions blatantly obvious in every act they perform. Rather than openly debating those who criticize aspects of their own ideological foundations and proving them wrong they prefer to use their ‘power of the purse’ and their undue political, legal and media influence to simply vilify and slander their intellectual opponents and in the process do anything they can to discriminate against and harass them and destroy their financial means of survival.
In the case of Vancouver based Buddhist teacher Brian Ruhe, rather than attempt to have him charged with a Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ Criminal Code of Canada offence, they’ve decided to do everything in their power to both discredit his good name amongst his employers and destroy his livelihood at all costs. This is the first instance that I’ve heard of where they are working their vile black sorcery behind the scenes in order to destroy the reputation and good will of a recognized and practising Buddhist. Once again living proof that their Talmudic mindset has absolutely no regard for any other religions or beliefs besides its own supremacist, racist ideology.
Readers who have been following my own case in the courts over the past 9 years of litigation brought on by this same notorious group of self-deluded sycophants for the state of Israel will know that recently I was interviewed on video by Brian Ruhe while in Vancouver early this year while looking after my dying brother. The purpose of the interview was to assist me in raising awareness about Canada’s disgusting, unjust ‘Hate Crime’ legislation (Sec. 318 to 320 CCC) which the Zionist Jew lobby was directly responsible for creating for their own self-serving purposes as well as helping me to raise funds for my upcoming trial this October.
Meeting Brian for the first time in the flesh it was easily discernible to me that here was another individual who had finally, through his own researching and seeking, come to the full realization that all we had been told and taught about world history over the past century was twisted and warped beyond comprehension by the Zionist Jew media acting in and through all of its shape-shifting aspects, be they academia, Hollywood movies, books, magazines, radio stations, tv news and the Zionist newspaper monopoly.
Brian Ruhe is the author of two well-known and loved books on Buddhism. His first work, Freeing the Buddha, pictured below was published in March of 1998.
FreeingtheBuddha copy
FreeingtheBuddha 1 copy
Brian’s second work, A Short Walk On An Ancient Path, came out in 2010 accompanied, as in his first work, with many positive reviews.
ShortWalkonÅncientPath copy
ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 6ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 4
ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 5
Upon reading the book reviews and accolades it was quite apparent that Brian Ruhe was/is a well loved and respected Buddhist meditation instructor. He had moved to Vancouver back in 1980 from Ontario where he’d studied business and philosophy at Brock University. Following a few years stint as a financial planner Brian’s inner quest for greater spiritual understanding finally moved him to begin his search for a deeper understanding of life. Like many of his generation he was drawn to Buddhism because of its focus upon the mind and the age-old practise of seeking within one’s own being for the truths that the soul eternally strives to attain.
Brian’s path led him to a Tibetan Buddhist centre in Vermont, USA that had been founded by the world reknowned Buddhist teacher Chögyam Trungpa. From there he traveled to Thailand where he continued his spiritual efforts for the next four years and was trained to be a meditation instructor. Brian eventually returned to Canada in order to begin sharing his teachings with others.
It wasn’t coincidental nor did it require any amount of foresight to realize that while in conversation with Brian at his Kitsilano apartment in Vancouver during the course of our interview we openly discussed the prospect that it was merely a matter of time before he would, in all likelihood, like myself, soon show up on B’nai Brith Canada’s radar screen and the attack upon his name and work would commence. In fact, it wasn’t long after doing the video with Brian I learned from him that he was being attacked front, left and center by the Zionist forces embedded throughout our pro-Israel, Jewish-influenced cultural institutions.
Of course, as per usual, it began with a Zionist Jew ‘Lama’ (try wrapping your mind around that one!) by the name of ‘Tsewang’ who phoned Brian at his home and threatened to call B’nai Brith Canada (BBC) and report him. Once he did that B’nai Brith’s Victoria based sayan operative* wrote to the Vancouver Parks Board and had Brian fired from teaching at (four) community centres.
On Sept. 14th Mr. Ruhe did get fired from the Roundhouse Community and Arts Centre. When this despicable act occurred Brian Ruhe phoned the sayan agent in Victoria, B.C. and spoke to him. The BBC operative told Brian ‘I don’t think you’re qualified to teach.’ He then threatened to contact the Vancouver Police force and register a complaint of harassment against Mr. Ruhe for actually having the chutzpah to call him on the telephone to discuss his rash and hateful behaviour!
Following word of his dismissal Brian also wrote a letter to Craig Giles President of the Roundhouse Community and Arts Centre stating in part,
‘As the president of the association you are in a leadership position in our community and it doesn’t make sense that someone in Victoria should tell you how to do your job. Were you under pressure from any quarters to fire me? Did City Manager Penny Ballem have anything to do with this?
I have taught meditation for 16 years at the Roundhouse since 1999 with over 1000 people taking my classes there in groups from 5 to 25. This has helped a lot of people and I have a good reputation with these students. I’ve always enjoyed working with the staff and have had a very good relationship with them all these years. I have booked Tuesday nights here and now it’s too late to work somewhere else for the fall term.
This is a larger issue of freedom of speech in Canada. I was fired for using my freedom of speech in my YouTube videos where I discuss truth search themes about geopolitical power in the world and 20th century history. I didn’t discuss these views in my meditation classes, I was not accused of doing so and there were no complaints from the students in my classes. I feel that I am showing a high moral standard by speaking out for the benefit of humanity. Our country was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom of speech and our forefathers fought for the freedoms that you and I have today. You are in a leadership position so I ask you to consider this and write back to me with your thoughts on this please.
Thank you kindly,
Brian Ruhe
brianruhe.ca’
So that in a nutshell is what is now happening here in Canada when anyone decides to question the Zionist Jewish narrative whether it be their ‘Holocaust Hoax’ of the 20th Century, their actions in Gaza against the indigenous true Semitic people of Palestine, their media control over Canada and the West, or any number of other facets of the Zionist paradigm that the Jews subject their host societies to in order to maintain their power base throughout the Western world.
Brian Ruhe’s experience is not new. Je Suis Brian Ruhe! There have been dozens of other Canadians before him (including yours truly) who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous falsehood by the political machinations of this tribe of psychopathic deviants willing to go to any length to prevent the world from knowing the truth about their dark and sinister agenda for total global control of the world’s resources, both natural and human.
In a very real sense this is the essence of all that I have fought against over the past nine years of ongoing litigation brought on by this power-crazed Rothschild Freemasonic organization known as B’nai Brith Canada. It began on Valentine’s Day February 14th, 2007 when this same deluded maniacal sayan first sent me an unsolicited email using a phoney alias ‘Brian Esker’ accusing me of being an ‘anti-Semite’ and demanding that I stop publishing articles on the Zionist Jews and remove the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion from my website.
Come October 26th, 2015 here in Quesnel’s Supreme Court we will see whether or not these past nine years of harassment, intimidation, arrest, incarceration and theft of my personal computers, files and firearms will end with a victory for freedom of speech in Canada and a loss for the likes of this traitorous foreign lobby group B’nai Brith Canada and their sleazy serpentine zombie trolls. If it doesn’t then we will all be held hostage to these alien enemy interlopers who’ve been destroying our nation and culture for the past century and the country will be torn further and further apart as they once again destroy another gentile nation in their heinous game of power and control over humanity.
Justice must and Will prevail.

——-
* [Editors Note: I am restricted by a court order from publishing the name of this B’nai Brith agent.]
•••• ••••
Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ trial in October by making a donation.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to Arthur Topham and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Commentary from https://endzog.wordpress.com/ :
In one of the most amazing events to occur in occupied Germany since the second world war Historian Ursula Haverbeck made history in a defiant interview in which she openly trashed the very basis of the lie upon which all modern European social democratic states have been built. The elderly historian, brought into question the moral integrity of all Western political parties and academic institutions, exposing the official account of the second world war and the Holocaust for the lie it was on a television station which is the second largest in the world after Britain’s BBC.
Millions of surprised Germans sat on the edges of their sofas and gasped as for the first time in their lives the truth about the second world war was brought into their living rooms as the second largest broadcaster in the world took the risk of being shut down for the illegal offense of transmitting Holocaust denial by the criminal transnational Jewish financial occupation regime in Bonn.

fotoflexdeuer_photoARD (full name: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Consortium of public broadcasters in Germany, details below at name) is a joint organization of Germany’s regional public-service broadcasters. It was founded in 1950 in West Germany to represent the common interests of the new, decentralized, post-war broadcasting services in particular the introduction of a joint television network.
The ARD is the world’s second largest public broadcaster after the British Broadcasting Corporation, with a budget of €6.3 billion and 23,000 employees.[1] The budget comes primarily from the licence fees every household, every company and even every public institution like city governments are required to pay. For an ordinary household the fee is currently €17.98 per month. Households living on welfare don’t have to pay the fee. The fees are not collected directly by the ARD, but by the Beitragsservice (formerly known as Gebühreneinzugszentrale GEZ), a common organization of the ARD member broadcasters, the second public TV broadcaster ZDF, and Deutschlandradio.
fotoflexer_photo6
THE BIGGEST SINGLE SOURCE OF HOLOHOAX PROPAGANDA IN MODERN TIMES IS JEWISH HOLLYWOOD. MOST PEOPLE’S VIEWS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR ARE FORMED BY WATCHING THEIR MOVIES AND THE JEWISH PROPAGANDA DOCUMENTARIES ON JEWISH OWNED OR RUN CHANNELS SUCH AS THE HISTORY CHANNEL, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL OR THE BBC.
——-
[Editor’s Note: One of the greatest propaganda attempts against Germany was the book Germany Must Perish! written by an American Jew by the name of Theodore N. Kaufmann in 1941 in order to build up hatred toward Adolf Hitler and the German nation.
GermanymustperishmedGermanymustperishBackMed
This book was the subject of a satire written by myself titled ‘Israel Must Perish!’ wherein I exposed the obvious Germanophobia that was being perpetrated against the German people by the Jewish owned media of the day.
ISRAELMUSTPERISHFRONT500IsraelmustperishBack500
Subsequent to the satire’s publication online the Jewish lobby in Canada (B’nai Brith) filed a Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ complaint against myself and my website RadicalPress.com which resulted in my arrest and incarceration back in May of 2012. That case is now in the B.C. Supreme Court awaiting trial.]

Dear Radical Press reader,
It has been close to a month now since I last posted an article. This is a rather long time given the usual amount of information regularly furnished to the site and it requires further explanation.
Since the end of April I have been caring for an older brother of mine who came down with a serious case of melanoma (skin cancer). Being on his own and handicapped and living in North Vancouver I had little choice but to spend a great deal of time away from my home in Cottonwood, B.C. (approximately 700 km NE of Vancouver).
My dear brother David passed away on July 1st and since that time I’ve been dealing with all the legal matters associated with his death. All of this has taken a heavy toll on my time and energy and prevented me from carrying on with my normal line of work, i.e. exposing the Zionist New World Order agenda and defending myself against the spurious, politically-motivated Sec. 319(2) CCC ‘hate crime’ criminal charges that were brought against me back in May of 2012 thanks to the machinations of B’nai Brith Canada and its agents working for the Jewish lobby.
It was during one of my trips to the coast that I attended the hearing being held in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver in June. That event and the outcome of it will be the subject of my next Legal Update. Suffice it to say here that the judge hearing the case, Justice Butler, declined to allow the Charter challenge to proceed prior to the pending trial set for October 26th, 2015.
What this means is that the case will proceed to trial although it is still uncertain as to whether or not the actual date set will remain fixed. This is due to the fact that now that the Charter application has been refused and the majority of the funds raised in order to pay counsel to represent me at the hearing are exhausted I am faced with having to raise another substantial amount of money in order to retain counsel for the actual trial in the fall. What that amount will be is not determined at this point. My current counsel was acting on my behalf on what in legalese is called a ‘limited retainer’ which means that he was hired only to deal with the Charter application. The trial itself, which could run for ten days, will require additional funding upwards of possibly $40,000.00. The exact amount is still undetermined at this stage but it means that I will have to re-apply for another Rowbotham application in order to assist me in paying the cost of hiring counsel.
The procedure for doing a Rowbotham was initiated back in June when I approached the local Legal Aid office here in Quesnel and, as per their unreasonable policies, was refused based upon the amount of donations that I was receiving at the time. I then wrote to the provincial office in Vancouver requesting that they reconsider their decision and I am currently awaiting word from the head office. When they reply and refuse me a second time (which they inevitably do) then I can proceed with the Rowbotham application. Time of course is running out and it does take time to jump through all the legal hoops involved in applying for funding in this manner for the Attorney General’s office is not about to assist me in hiring counsel when, at the same time, they are hell-bent on convicting me of this spurious, politically-motivated ‘hate’ charge. So the outcome of this next stage of developments is still very tentative and uncertain. If I cannot come up with the funds then I will be left with only one recourse and that will be to represent myself.
My GoGetFunding account is still active for those who may wish to assist in helping me to defray the cost of retaining their constitutional right to freedom of speech here in Canada. It will be a tough row to hoe to raise another $35 to $40 thousand dollars to fight this Zionist-created creature in the courtroom but one way or another the challenge must be met if Canadians wish to retain their most valued and fundamental right.
http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/
One final word on the planned Legal Update. I’m still not sure of my schedule over the next month or so as I am awaiting word from the lawyer who is dealing with my brother’s estate. I am currently at home but could be forced to return to North Vancouver any day and then my ability to focus on the update will undoubtedly be delayed.
My apologies to readers for all of this extra hindrance and the lack of posts. Hopefully this will return to normal in the next while.

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

‘We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.’
Editorial, Toronto Star, April 7, 2015
‘It’s really hard to come up with words to praise her highly enough because this is someone the world needs to hear.’
Michael Fine, Producer, Valentina Lisitsa’s Rachmaninoff Project at London’s Abbey Road Studio with the London Philharmonic Orchestra
Preliminary remarks
Back on April 27th, 2011, just days prior to Canada’s May 2nd federal election that saw the Stephen Harper Conservative government ascend to power, I penned and published an article titled, Hating Harper. The purpose of the piece was two-fold; first, to highlight my own battle with the then despicable Sec. 13(1) ‘hate crime’ legislation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and B’nai Brith Canada had been using against me since 2007 and second, to warn the Canadian electorate of the potentially dire consequences for the nation should the Conservative win a majority government.
The essay outlined what I felt were the root reasons why Canadians shouldn’t vote for this particular party. In part it contained the following:
‘Plainly stated Canada is a Zionist Jew-controlled colony of the state of Israel. . . While hidden for over six decades from the majority of Canadians by the Zionist-controlled media’s ‘Iron Curtain’ of deception it is nonetheless an established fact and a reality that must be faced if the nation is to ever recover its former independence and sovereignty.
Anyone who desires to dispute this assertion has to explain and justify to the people of Canada why there is not a single federal political party in the country willing to stand up to the Zionist Jew lobby that now wields such a sinister political influence upon the nation. To attempt a negation of the argument without speaking to this issue can only be construed as evasion and denial.
In the thick of yet another federal election, with Harper and his Conservative party striving with utmost intent to gain a majority government, this pseudo-Semitic elephant in the midst of Canada’s political/judicial/cultural/social living room blithely goes about its business of knocking over, crushing and destroying the country’s constitutional rights along with trammeling upon its domestic and foreign policies, all the while aided and abetted in its traitorous actions by a colluding, fifth column ‘mainstream’ media; itself but another monopoly controlled weapon within the Zionist’s plethoric armory of subterfuge and deception. . .
Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 11.17.33 AM
. . .The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is a contemptible Trojan Horse. Like previous governments it was dragged into Ottawa under the pretense of being the best option for Canadians to preserve not only their integrity as a free and democratic nation but to set a good example for the rest of the world; one that other nations might look up to and aspire after in the hope that someday they would also reap the benefits that a free society and sovereign democracy can offer to its people. This has not been the case. As we can see from the graphic immediately above there is a specific, self-chosen group of zealots who, through subterfuge and the power of their usurious ‘purse’ plus their Babylonian Talmud-inspired ideology known as Zionism, have a totally different agenda in store for the nation.
Voters, who for the most part have been deceived by the pundits and the Zionist-controlled talking heads within their media, remain unaware of this insidious threat to our sovereignty. Were Canadians fully apprised of the seditious nature of the Zionist Jews within their nation’s walls they would likely vote en masse to rid the country of this omnipresent danger. But they aren’t and so the country once again teeters on the brink of the unknowing. Should the false saviour of Canada, Stephen Harper, achieve his mandate to rule over us with his Zionist rod then maybe that will be the time for a new movement to arise and a new federal party to germinate; one that will address the issues I’ve delineated in this essay plus all the others not covered. The key to our future as a sovereign nation is to understand how the Zionist agenda operates, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Without that key we will continue to remain prisoners of Zion.’
On April 28, 2011, the day after my article appeared on the net Canada’s #1 serial ‘hate crime’ complainant working for the Canadian Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name), filed a Sec. 319(2) CCC complaint against myself and my website RadicalPress.com alleging that I was ‘promoting hatred toward Jews’.
On May 30, 2011, less than a month after the Harper Conservative government won the election, a second Sec. 319(2) CCC ‘hate propaganda’ complaint was filed against me and my website by a representative of B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name as well) also accusing me of ‘promoting hatred toward Jews’.
Both of these complaints were received by the BC Hate Crime Team in Surrey, B.C. and an investigation was undertaken by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. A year later on May 16th, 2012 I was arrested by the BC Hate Crime Team while traveling to work and placed in a jail cell while the RCMP illegally entered my premises using a trumped up ‘search warrant’ and stole all of my computers and electronic files containing well over a hundred thousand private emails.
I have been fighting this second, specious criminal charge that could result in a two year jail sentence ever since. The case is now in BC Supreme Court with a trial date set for October 26th, 2015.
With the one exception of my home town community newspaper the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and its illustrious editor Autumn Macdonald, ever since 2012 my story has been virtually blacked out by Canada’s mainstream media. Nothing, other than the usual smear and slander that appeared back in the msm in November of 2012 when the Indictment was formally handed down by the BC Attorney General’s office, has come out in the press since relating to the mis-use of these so-called ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws.
The Discordant Case of Valentina Lisitsa
lisitsa
The recent case of world renowned pianist Valentina Lisitsa has once again highlighted the hypocrisy, bigotry and outright malfeasance that pervades Canada’s judiciary and the nation’s cultural and social media environment when it comes to using the ‘hate’ card, aka Sections 318 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, to harass, intimidate and slander anyone whose opinions and political viewpoints don’t fall in line with the expected (and calculated) agenda of the Zionist interlopers who now control the Prime Minister’s office, his cabinet and, thus far, the leaders of all the other federal parties.
In an article published April 7th, 2015 in the Globe & Mail, reporter Robert Everett-Green writes: ‘On March 13, Ms. Lisitsa said, the TSO [Toronto Symphany Orchestra] forwarded to Ms. Dorn an e-mail from Toronto lawyer Michael C. Smith that cited section 319 of the Criminal Code concerning ‘wilful promotion of hatred,’ and said ‘there is a possibility that Ms. Lisitsa could be stopped at the border … and deemed ‘unacceptable’ to Canada.’ An attached note from Mr. Melanson, who is not a lawyer, went further, stating that Ms Lisitsa’s social media posts ‘would likely breach or come close to breaching the Criminal Code of Canada.’ Ms. Lisitsa replied with her lawyer’s opinion rejecting that of Mr. Smith. [All emphasis added.]
So what exactly does Canada’s Criminal Code say about ‘hate’ this oft used and ever abused term that the Zionist lobbyist has managed to inject, via subterfuge, into the country’s legal system and their media tool kit? The Code reads:
Wilful promotion of hatred
319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Judging from the wording of the text we find that just like the term ‘terrorist’ there’s no actual definition given as to what the word ‘hatred’ means. In other words it is subjective and means whatever a person or lawyer or judge decides it means to them. This fact renders it useless in terms of trying to argue against it or debate it once the word has been inserted into jurisprudence thus making it merely a tool for intimidation and control in the same way that the term ‘anti-Semite’ has been used for the last century to browbeat and demonize anyone who so much as issues a dissenting sigh in hearing distance of a Zionist Jew or one of their sycophantic lackeys.
The same has now become true for the ‘6 million’ holocaust debate wherein an accusation of being a ‘holocaust denier’ has taken on the same legal authority in certain countries and is being used to censor proven historical facts and jail anyone who so much as questions whether the alleged event ever occurred in real time or disputes the purported numbers.
As an editorial in the Toronto Star on April 7 put it the Ukrainian-born pianist shouldn’t have been prevented from performing with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, adding that, ‘In a particularly weak explanation of why the orchestra was dropping her, TSO president Jeff Melanson said Lisitsa was bounced over ‘ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets.’ And, he added: ‘As one of Canada’s most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world’s great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive.’
This misses the point on at least two counts. First, Lisitsa was not invited to Toronto to discuss her provocative political views. She was scheduled to play the piano. And second, banning a musician for expressing ‘opinions that some believe to be offensive’ shows an utter failure to grasp the concept of free speech.
We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.’
Again, in a subsequent article on April 9 in the same publication writer Vinay Menon adds, ‘It’s a good thing Jeff Melanson isn’t running our public library system. Or the city would need to hire 2,000 firefighters to keep up with all the book burnings this summer. . . Am I being unfair to Melanson, chief executive of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra? Perhaps! But this is my opinion and, here in Canada, we are allowed to express opinions, even ones that may seem unfair and offensive.’
Menon further states, ‘The spiritual charter of any cultural institution, important or otherwise, must have certain words etched between the operational lines, including ‘freedom of expression‘ and ‘don’t cave to special interests.‘’
Valentina Quote graphic800
It’s a well established fact that those who accuse others of ‘promoting hatred’ are, themselves, the ones who hate to hear the truth and therefore resort to Canada’s infamous ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws in order to stifle any discussion related to their own questionable actions. Such has been my own experience in dealing with my accusers and, as we can see from Valentina’s encounter with the bureaucrats who run the Toronto Symphony Orchestra she ran into this this same mindset; one that invariably displays both a lack of integrity and the inability to talk openly and honestly about their intentions or their ultimate agenda.
Are we finally seeing a change in attitude on the part of Canada’s mainstream media when it comes to actually challenging Canada’s ill-conceived ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws contained in Section 318 320 of the Criminal Code?
Is Canada’s media, the same organ that trumpeted the call for the repeal of Sec. 13(1) now going to tackle the final citadel of censorship, Section 319 of the Criminal Code? If so then they’ll also have to start considering lending a positive voice to organizations like the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, the one and only civil liberties group in Canada to date that is openly supporting my legal case and the repeal of these Orwellian ‘Hate’ laws that reap nothing but repression, opprobrium and the loss of free expression for all Canadians and others like pianist Valentina Lisitsa.
The time is long past for Canada to resume its former role as a free and democratic nation and nothing will ensure that this happens more than the country ridding itself of all its Zionist-induced ‘Hate’ legislation.