Free Speech for Jews: A Critique of Ezra Levant’s ‘Jews for free speech’ article by Arthur Topham

EZLA800

On May 4, 2008 the Jewish Canadian blogger and former publisher of the Western Standard magazine Ezra Levant ran an article on his website called, ‘Jews for free speech.’ In it he appears to formally distance himself and many other ‘individual’ Jews from the machinations of the unholy trinity of Zionist Israeli mole operatives working behind the scenes of Canadian politics and known respectively as the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
Drawing upon the names of many well-known Jewish writers and media personalities like David Frum and Noam Chomsky, Levant gives his readers the impression that a distinct philosophical, if not spiritual, dichotomy exists between these independent-minded individuals and the likes of the BBC, CJC and the SWC who he disdainfully refers to as ‘the Official Jews, the Professional Jews, the Jews Who Are Jews for a Living’.
On the surface Levant’s criticisms give the impression that, yes, these individual Jewish ‘mavericks’ are definitely not cut from the same cloth as the rest of the ‘self-chosen’ sufferers who continually flog themselves in their traditionally masochistic manner before the Canadian public, moaning and crying afoul about the eternal threat to their ‘physical and psychological security’ as Levant states. But this is not the full story of what is currently happening within either the ‘Official Jew’ camp or the camp of Jewish ‘free speechers’ that Levant would have the general public believe is far removed from the proponents of media censorship and the infamous Sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
After doing his utmost to distance himself from these ‘professional’ Jews Levant eventually comes to the crux of his argument contained in the‘ADDENDUM’ section of his anti-‘Official Jew’ screed wherein he attempts to prove to his readers that it is not just that the ‘free speech’ Jews find Sec. 13(1) unsavory but that the ‘anti-Semites’ are now using this draconian, post 9-11 insertion into Canadian jurisprudence as a ‘weapon against us.’
Of course the ‘anti-Semites’ alluded to are not the likes of myself and Radicalpress.com or http://www.PEJ.org , two independent, Canadian alternative media ‘goy’ sites, who the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have complained to the CHRC are ‘spreading hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel’. No, that wouldn’t be kosher on the part of Levant or Steyn or his other adherents to give any additional media attention to them because, especially in the case of Radicalpress.com, the evidence of the root involvement of the Zionist forces at work within the fabric of Canadian society and government is too well documented. For Levant and his supporters it is imperative that the public not get the impression that there may be something much more sinister contained within the ‘Zionist’ factor in terms of the overall censorship equation that Canadians are now dealing with in this latest Zionist public relations campaign designed to heap abuse, racism, disinformation and responsibility upon the Muslim community for the woes of all those who are now victims of said Sec. 13(1) legislation.
It’s my assertion that this is all smoke and mirrors designed to smother and obfuscate, in a further PR initiative, the ugly face of Zionist ideology and keep it hidden away from the Canadian public’s aroused curiosity in this sudden chain of events where we are seeing Jews being highlighted in a scam of massive proportions. The tables have been turned and the shells suddenly flipped over and lo and behold how the exposed culprits in question are squirming and skittering about, frantically trying to conceal their true identities!
Throughout it all though one must never forget that the whole superstructure of Zionism rests upon one fundamental tenet: deception of all non-Jews whoever and wherever they may be. If, as others are suggesting, Ezra Levant is, in fact, a Zionist (I personally haven’t seen any admission of this to date) then whatever comes out of his mouth must be measured against the yardstick of truth about what Political Zionism really represents, not only in terms of Canada but in terms of the rest of the world, for it is the globe, as primary target, that is now, and has been for the last century and more, directly in the sights of the Zionist’s propaganda gun barrel. To deny this or dismiss it as ‘conspiracy theory’ (another Zionist catch-all phrase designed to further deceive earnest seekers after truth in history) is to fall further into the trap that the majority of Canadians have lived all their lives; a trap for the most part so subtle and invisible that average Canadians never realize the magnitude or the identity of the chains that have held them in mental and financial servitude throughout their lives.
Let us be quite clear about some things which Levant isn’t saying. It was the ‘Official’ Jewish lobby groups who have been responsible for sneaking into legislation the infamous Sec. 13(1). It was the former Zionist Jew ‘Canadian’ Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler who was, and still is, behind this Zionist infiltration of our federal government, aided and abetted by the overwhelming preponderance of Zionist Jew Supreme Court Justices within our federal judiciary who have worked with deceptive diligence in bringing about all this draconian legislation which they, in their typical Talmudic, elitist hubris, never thought might backfire on them at some point in the future.
These are the culprits in this maniacal melodrama who, now that they’ve been caught with their proverbial pants down, are attempting to shine, with full, high-beam intensity, their media floodlights into the eyes of the Canadian public in yet another attempt to blind us, like innocent deer upon a midnight highway, into believing that it’s all the fault of those ‘jihadists’ and ‘terrorists’ from Iraq and Iran and Palestine and Afghanistan and elsewhere that Canadians are now having their basic human right to freedom of speech threatened. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Warmouse, who is but another dupe for these Zionist forces, will eventually get caught in the crossfire and crash and burn along with all the other front men and women like Dean Steacy and Sandy Kozak, et al. It’s an age old, repetitive story for those who’ve taken the time to research the wonders that comprise this ancient Pharisaic, Talmudic scheme to destroy the sovereign nation states of the world and along with it create yet another final and global holocaust, only this time one where the Zionists get the deluded, mind-controlled ‘christians’ to take up arms against the people of Mohammedan faith in a mutual conflagration of fire that will supposedly fulfil Biblical prophecy and, unbeknownst to the christian dupes, usher in a New World Order of Zionist Jew dictatorship and global slavery.
Part of this subterfuge is Warmouse’s suing of Levant, the National Post, its editor Jonathan Kay, and four of Canada’s most fanatical and pro-Israel Gentile bloggers, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Connie and Mark Fournier who, as Levant so graciously states, are part of the free speech loving Jew’s ‘righteous Gentile allies’.
When all this complaining of hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel first came down upon my head back in November of 2007 and I became aware of other blogs also being harassed. One of them was Connie and Mark Fournier’s forum known as ‘FreeDominion.ca’. I registered on the site and as a contributing member and a N.T. Christian, I felt morally duty-bound to try and alert my fellow brothers and sisters to the forces ultimately responsible for the legal dilemma that they were caught in.
It quickly became apparent that FreeDominion.ca was not as ‘Free’ as it touted itself to be. What was most obvious were the Israeli flags flying everywhere and the standard ‘6 million’ victims of the Hun propaganda flashing before one’s eyes. Like all things Zionist it wasn’t what it purported to be. It wasn’t a true Christian site but in actuality a pro-Israeli, pro-Zionist disinformation site designed to further the aims and aspirations of the Zionist Jews who had control of the minds of its members. I soon noted that anyone who expressed anything contrary to the Zionist line of linear, apocalyptic thinking, was usually browbeaten and intimidated into some small corner where they eventually slithered out under the door and disappeared from sight. Immediately upon my mentioning Zionists the attacks began in earnest and I was treated, as all Zionists treat real Christians and non-Jews, like a leper and a deluded ‘wing nut’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’, etc. *
Being earnest, polite, civil and dedicated to serving truth I ‘Gentilely’ persisted in my efforts to debate the issue of Zionism. The result? First denial, then rage and ad hominem epithets and mutterings and complaints from members about usavory sorts such as myself being allowed on the forum and then finally, unceremoniously, I was banned from the site without warning by the good ‘christian’ folks who run it. I now refer to it as the ‘NotSoFreeDominion.ca’ forum. Another victory for the Zionist infiltrators of the true Christian faith. Sad but, alas, true.
Levant, of course, for all his rhetoric about the other Jews who are lovers and defenders of ‘free speech’ and throughout all his tirades against the ‘Official’ Jews and the Muslims, somehow always fails to mention that when Ernst Zundel was being high-jacked out of the USA and incarcerated here in Canada and tortured and abused by Canadian authorities and then sent off to rot in a Zionist-Jew controlled German dungeon that we heard diddley squat from these so-called lovers of ‘free speech’. The same when Malcolm Ross was being dragged through the courts and abused and mistreated. The same with Doug Collins and Terry Long and Paul Fromm and Mark Lemire and David Icke and all the other nameless (white, non-Jewish) victims of this Boshevik/Zionist ‘Star Chamber’ charade who have been intimidated and fined and jailed and harassed and abused and bad-mouthed and vilified and libeled by these same Zionist forces who own and control our so-called ‘Canadian’ mainstream media and have used it as a weapon against Christian and non-Jewish dissidents for decades upon decades.
Now, all of a sudden, in the tinkle of a keyboard, we have all these ‘free speech’ loving Jews who are suddenly and pompously and adamantly filled with righteous indignation over the fact that some of them and their deluded lackeys are being subjected to the very same injustice that the rest of us have had to suffer in vain and silence for years and years. This type of behaviour, is, I would humbly suggest, stuff of which bigotry and hypocrisy are made of.
Finally. After all his hullabaloo about the ‘Official’ Jews Levant still has the chutzpah to attempt one last defence of the B’nai Brith, one of the oldest and most provocative and sinister Jews-only masonic organizations ever to grow legs and arms and wield its censorship club about the North American continent. These so-called ‘Children of the Covenant’ are, as Jesus Christ so aptly put it, of the ‘synagogue of Satan’, ‘vipers’ and ‘serpents’ and ‘hypocrites’ who will use whatever method of calumny and vituperative sleaze available to them to libel and harass and imprison and silence those who criticize their racist, apartheid policies being carried out in the ‘ ‘spiritual’ homeland’ of Israel; land stolen via the same nefarious methods from the Arab people of the Middle East.
But, alas, I cannot, at this point and in good conscience, condemn Ezra Levant fully for some of the errors he is making. Whether it is conscious on his part or just plain ignorance of all the facts I truly do not know. He is a young man of 36 years, the same age as my oldest daughter and when I was 36 I too was unaware of the degree of involvement in global politics that the Zionists actually represented. It took me close to sixty years to finally figure it out so in that context there is always hope that a bright young man like Ezra Levant, a protege of The Fraser Institute, will eventually learn the error of his ways. As Michael Walker, Executive Director for said organization once remarked in a Preface to Ezra’s first book, Youthquake, (1996) published when he was just 24 years of age, ‘It is written by one of the brightest student interns ever to work at The Fraser Institute. It is important because of the insights it provides into the mind-set of the next generation of Canadian leaders. For, certainly, Ezra Levant is going to be a Leader.’
Well Ezra, if you are going to be a ‘Leader’ here in Canada then you are going to have to hit the books some more and get a much firmer grasp on the issue of Political Zionism and learn how this alien, anti-Christian Talmudic doctrine is affecting the Canadian landscape. It behooves you to understand the primary motives of those who are determined to turn this nation into another Communist gulag. Not just for the sake of those ‘individual’ Jews who love ‘freedom of speech’ but for the rest of us non-Jew Canadians who also cherish these very same ideals.
—-
* Editor’s Note here: It should be understood that although Connie and Mark Fournier did ban me from their forum they later relented and we were able to cooperate on other matters dealing with the censors off the forum. This article was written prior to then and now six years later Connie and Mark are still battling with those who were, then, attacking Ezra Levant.

{ Add a Comment }

B’nai Brith: Beating the anti-Semitic Drum

The recent attack upon Mr. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, by the pro-Zionist media (Ottawa Citizen) and one of its principal internal organs, the B’nai Brith, is worthy of additional historic perspective in order to further delineate the modus operandi of these instruments of political propaganda and social control.
To assist in comprehending the breadth and depth of this universal scheme to silence dissent and permit an unleashed, purposeful program of pro-Israeli propaganda to emerge throughout Canada’s mainstream media, one affecting both the mass mind of the citizenry as well as the nation’s legal and social fabric, it’s imperative that concerned individuals be aware of the nascent beginnings of organizations such as the B’nai Brith and one of its more controversial offshoots known as the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.). The latter organization, while rarely appearing in today’s controlled press due to its own self-induced ill-repute, is still a force to be reckoned with and one of paramount influence in the false proselytizing of the absurd notion of ‘anti-Semitism’.
In order to define this illogical phenomenon and expose its nefarious purpose it is necessary that the reader be furnished with some extensively researched commentary from a book written fifty years ago by a once famed (and now defamed) British author by the name of Douglas Reed.
In his virtually unknown, yet massively documented and scholarly seminal work on the history of Political Zionism and its effects upon the past and present global political situation, (The Controversy of Zion, Dolphin Press (Pty) Ltd., 1978)[1] Mr. Douglas Reed, former Chief European war correspondent for the London Times and successful author of numerous popular books written prior to, during and after WW II, gives us some extremely pertinent contextual information concerning both the B’nai Brith and the A.D.L. which places the latest assault upon Mr. Chossudovsky in a more clearly defined light.
Reed was no slouch when it came to covering historical events of his time and his first book, The Reichstag Fire, which appeared in 1934 was proof of his ability to discern the maneuverings of factions working behind the scenes to manipulate public perception, thwart reasonable analysis and control agendas for ulterior purposes.
Having spent seven years in Berlin and adjacent European countries throughout the 1930s observing and discussing political strategy with Prime Ministers and Kings, Reed was able to accumulate information and impressions that most journalists would not otherwise be privy to. As the pieces of the puzzling times began to take shape before his analytical eye Reed eventually concluded that the hidden hand behind paradigm-shattering decisions of the period was none other than that of the Political Zionists and those in high office whom they were able to solicit for support.
In 1938, on the eve of WW II, Reed began to notice, with growing concern, that his submissions to the Times (which by then was under Zionist control) were either being altered or eliminated altogether in favour of stories that were the exact opposite of the real conditions which he was witnessing on the ground in Germany and elsewhere. This frustration eventually resulted in Reed resigning from the paper and publishing his second book called Insanity Fair which was a summation of all that he had gleaned of political events over the past seven years. The book was an instant success throughout Britain, Europe and North America and its prophetic warnings were soon to be revealed as truth as the second great world war unfolded.
In order to facilitate this much-needed perspective one needs to cast an eye back almost a full century to the period of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s years in office and the time of the first world war. It was during this era that the original silent coup by Zionist forces usurped the independence of the White House and placed its exclusive powers in the hands of Wilson’s chief Advisor Mr. Colonel House, a pro-Zionist proponent.
In his book Reed describes President Wilson as ‘a captive president’ as the war drew nigh and states that after his election ‘Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told Cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on.’[2]
Reed, who was born in 1895 just two years prior to Theodor Herzl (Political Zionism’s official founder) setting up the World Zionist Organization in 1897, grew up during the early years of the 20th Century and came of age, politically-speaking, while living in Europe throughout the thirties and forties and witnessing in detail the intimate machinations by the world leaders who were then rearranging the pieces on the world’s political chessboard.
In his exhaustive analysis of how the Zionists slowly, but surely, overtook the U.S. government’s executive levels of command, the better to gain control of policy-making for the exclusive purpose of acquiring the lands of Palestine to create their ‘State’ of Israel, Reed emphasizes the crucial role played by groups such as the B’nai Brith and the Anti-defamation League in blocking all criticism of their efforts through the use of blackmail, intimidation and public vilification of the sort we’re now seeing employed in the Chossudovsky case.
It was after this period of initiation into the inner workings of intrigue by the Zionist forces that he began voicing his comments on the B’nai Brith. He writes:
‘At that period (1913) [of Colonel House and W. Wilson, A.T.] an event occurred which seemed of little importance then but needs recording here because of its later, large consequence. In America was an organization called B’nai Brith (Hebrew for ‘Children of the Covenant’). Founded in 1843 as a fraternal lodge exclusively for Jews, it was called ‘purely an American institution’, but it put out branches in many countries and today claims to ‘represent all Jews throughout the world’, so that it appears to be part of the arrangement described by Dr. Kastein[3] as ‘the Jewish international’. In 1913 B’nai Brith put out a tiny offshoot, the ‘Anti-Defamation League’. It was to grow to great size and power; in it the state-within-states acquired a kind of secret police and it will reappear in this story.’[4]
In Chapter 43, aptly titled ‘The Invasion of America’, Reed describes to a tee the techniques presently applied to Michel Chossudovsky in order to discredit his person, his work and at the same time expunge from the mass mind the true motives of Israeli domestic and foreign policies. Please witness the following comments:
‘While military invasions and counter-invasions multiplied during the six years of the Second War, absorbing all thought and energy of the masses locked in combat, a silent invasion went on which produced more momentous effects than the armed ones. This was the political invasion of the American Republic and its success was shown by the shape of American state policy at the war’s end, which was so directed as to ensure that the only military invasions that yielded enduring ‘territorial gains’ were those of the revolution into Europe and of the Zionists into Arabia . . .’[5]
‘The renewal of large-scale immigration formed the background to the political invasion of the Republic. This was a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state’s defenses: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and ‘public opinion’ or the mass-mind at the base. The way in which control over acts of state policy was achieved (through the ‘adviserships’ which became part of American political life after 1913) has already been shown, this part of the process having preceded the others. The methods used to attempt the capture of government services will be discussed later in this chapter. In what immediately follows the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information, will be described; it was indispensable to the other two thrusts.
This form of political invasion is called by Dr. Weizmann[6], who exhaustively studied it in his youth when he was preparing in Russia for his life’s work in the west, ‘the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses’. The operation so described may now be studied in actual operation:
Far back in this book the reader was invited to note that ‘B’nai Brith’ put out a shoot. B’nai Brith, until then, might be compared with such groups of other religious affiliation as the Young Men’s Christian Association or the Knights of Columbus; its declared objects were the help of the poor, sick and fatherless and good works in general. The little offshoot of 1913, the ‘Anti-Defamation League’, had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America.*
In Doublespeak ‘anti-defamation’ means ‘defamation’ and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot and more of the like. The vocabulary is fixed and may be traced back to the attacks on Barruel, Robison and Morse after the French revolution; the true nature of any writer’s or newspaper’s allegiance may be detected by keeping count of the number of times these trade-mark words are used. The achievement of this organization (usually known as the A.D.L.) has been by iteration to make fetishes of them, so that party politicians hasten to deny that they are any of these things. Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo-jumbo of Asiatic conspirators.
When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B’nai Brith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, ‘Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew’. In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, ‘Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he’s never heard of Jews . . .
These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.’s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; . . .
America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.[7]
The A.D.L., of such small beginnings in 1913, in 1948 had a budget of three million dollars (it is only one of several Jewish organizations pursuing Zionist aims in America at a similar rate of expenditure). The Menorah Journal, discussing ‘Anti-Defamation Hysteria’, said, ‘Fighting anti-semitism has been built up into a big business, with annual budgets running into millions of dollars’. It said the object was ‘to continue beating the anti-semitic drum’ and ‘to scare the pants off prospective contributors’ in order to raise funds. It mentioned some of the methods used (‘outright business blackmail; if you can’t afford to give $10,000 to this cause, you can take your business elsewhere’), and said American Jews were being ‘stampeded into a state of mass-hysteria by their self-styled defenders’.[8]
An interesting point which Reed made back in the 1950s, and which today is probably more relevant considering the 1984ish times we’re living in, involved one of the current icons of anti-dictatorship and anti-totalitarianism, Mr. George Orwell. According to Reed even Orwell succumbed in some measure to the then pervasive pressures being exerted on the general public by these agents of one world government. He states:
‘Mass-hysteria’ is not only produced among Jews and band-wagon politicians by this method; it produces another kind of mass-hysteria among earnest but uninformed people of the ‘Liberal’ kind: the mass-hysteria of self-righteousness, which is a tempting form of self-indulgence. The late Mr. George Orwell was of those who helped spread ‘mass-hysteria’ in this way. He was a good man, because he did not merely incite others to succour the weak and avenge injustice, but went himself to fight when the Civil War broke out in Spain, then discovering that Communism, when he saw it, was worse than the thing which (as he thought) he set out to destroy. He died before he could go to Palestine and experience any similar enlightenment, so that what he wrote about ‘anti-semitism’ was but the echo of ‘anti-defamationist hysteria’. It is so good an example of this that I quote it; here a man of goodwill offered, as his own wisdom, phrases which others poured into his ear.
He explored ‘anti-semitism in Britain’ (1945) and found ’ a perceptibly anti-semitic strain in Chaucer’. Mr. Hilaire Belloc and Mr. G.K.Chesterton were ‘literary Jew-baiters’. He found passages in Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Shaw, T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and others ‘which if written now would be stigmatized as anti-semitism’ (he was right without knowing it; if written now they would have been stigmatized). Then he suffered what Americans call a pratfall. He said that ‘offhand, the only English writers I can think of who, before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade’. Thus he extolled one of the A.D.L.’s ‘Jew-baiters’ as a champion of Jews; in America the film of Oliver Twist was banned because of Fagin! This was the work of the A.D.L.; its representative, a Mr. Arnold Forster, announced:
‘American movie-distributors refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after the A.D.L. and others expressed the fear that the film was harmful; the Rank Organization withdrew the picture in the United States’. Later the picture was released after censorship by the A.D.L.; ‘seventy two eliminations’ were made at its command and a prologue was added assuring beholders that they might accept it as ‘a filmization of Dickens without anti-semitic intentions’. (In occupied Berlin the A.D.L. ban was final; the British authorities ordered Dickens withdrawn from German eyes).
I was in America at this time and thus saw the fulfilment of a prediction made in a book of 1943, when I wrote that, as the secret censorship was going, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens would one day be defamed as ‘anti-semites’. I thought to strain probability, to make a point, but it happened in all three cases: a Shakespearean actor-manager visiting New York was ordered not to play The Merchant of Venice, Dickens was banned, and the defamationists put Chaucer on their black-list.
A private organization which can produce such results is obviously powerful; there is nothing comparable in the world. Mr. Vincent Sheehan wrote in 1949, ‘There is scarcely a voice in the United States that dares raise itself for the rights, any rights, of the Arabs; any slight criticism of the Zionist high command is immediately labelled as anti-semitic’. . .
How is the oracle worked? By what means has America (and the entire West) been brought to the state that no public man aspires to office, or editor feels secure at his desk, until he has brought out his prayer-mat and prostrated himself to Zion? How have presidents and prime ministers been led to compete for the approval of this faction like bridesmaids for the bride’s bouquet? Why do leading men suffer themselves to be paraded at hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets for Zion, or to be herded on to Zionist platforms to receive ‘plaques’ for services rendered?
The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information; to lay stress on what a faction wants and to exclude from it all that the faction dislikes, and so to be able to give any selected person a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ press. This is in fact control of ‘the mob’. In today’s language it is ‘the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses’, as Dr. Weizmann said, but it is an ancient, Asiatic art and was described, on a famous occasion, by Saint Matthew and Saint Mark: ‘The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude . . . The chief priests moved the people . . .’
In forty years the A.D.L. perfected a machine for persuading the multitude. It is a method of thought-control of which the subject-mass is unconscious and its ability to destroy any who cry out is great . . .
The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) ‘set out to make the American people aware of anti-semitism’. It informed Jews that ‘25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism’, and that another 50 might develop the disease. By 1945 it was carrying out ‘a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child’ in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, ‘churches’ and trade unions. This program included ‘219 broadcasts a day’, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertizing in 130 cities, and ‘persuasions’ subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (‘1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation’) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, ‘and used’, its material in the form of ‘news, background material, cartoons and comic strips’. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed ‘more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions’, furnished authors with ‘material and complete ideas’, and circulated nine million pamphlets ‘all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed’. It found ‘comic books’ to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated ‘millions of copies’ of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and ‘2,000 key men in 1,000 cities’.
The name of the body which supplied this mass of suggestive material never reached the public. During the 1940’s the system of ‘syndicated writers’ in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer’s column may appear in a thousand newspapers each day; editors like this system, which saves them the cost of employing their own writers, for its cheapness. Through a few dozen such writers the entire stream of information can be tinctured at its source . . . By all these means a generation has been reared in America (and this applies equally to England [and Canada. A.T.]) which has been deprived of authentic information about, and independent comment on, the nature of Zionism, its original connection with Communism, the infestation of administrations and capture of ‘administrators’, and the relationship of all this to the ultimate world-government project.’ [9]
In 1949 Douglas Reed traveled throughout the United States prior to writing his book, Far and Wide, which was his first-hand impressions of America and a final summation of the influences that Political Zionism was having upon the nation to that point. It was to be his final publication prior to the Zionists imposing a general ban on his works which eventually led to a virtual annulling of his name in published circles around the world.
His conclusions though have, as in the case of Insanity Fair again proven to be the most prophetic of the 20th Century in terms of how the Zionist agenda functions and what its ends are designed to produce. As he states in a chapter called ‘Zionism Paramount’, America suffers from ‘three servitudes’: those being the influences of Russian Communism (a product of Zionism) which had infiltrated the bureaucratic levels of government during Roosevelt’s tenure as president; the debilitating effects of organized crime; and the greatest of all, Political Zionism. He writes:
‘The three forces which weaken the whole structure of American public life in effect serve the strongest among themselves, Political Zionism, which stands behind the seats of the mighty while the others work in lesser places, if to similar ends of power-over-politicians. The proof of this supremacy is to be found by a simple test: the extent to which public discussion is permitted . . . At the topmost level, a virtual ban on public discussion of Political Zionism proves the paramountcy of its sway in American affairs. As in England, the open expression of doubt about this territorial ambition, and support for it, has been almost driven underground in recent years. An imperial thrall has been laid on America in this matter. Traditional Americans, whose forebears detested laws of lese-majesty and the genuflections of courts, now find their leaders performing an even humbler obeisance in this direction; like foremost politicians in England, they thus emulate those Rumanian nobles who long bowed to the Sultan’s rule, vainly hoping to keep rank and possessions. The Soviet ban on ‘anti-Semitism’ (which was in effect a veto on public discussion of the origins of Communism) has in practice been extended to the British island and the American Republic in the matter of Political Zionism. It is lese-majesty [i.e. treason A.T.] in a new form and because of it present-day Americans and Englishmen do not as a rule see the grave future courses and penalties to which support of Political Zionism has committed them.’[10]
It takes little extrapolating to see that all which Reed described in his foregoing comments dovetails smoothly with the apparent convoluted, confusing and tumultuous period that we’re now experiencing in global politics. To elaborate further upon that subject must remain the labour of another article and another time. What is essential here is that readers note the connectedness of events and the fact that the Political Zionists are still very much alive and alert to their diligent and determined effort to destroy the sovereignty of nation-states, serve the interests of Israel and bring in the ill-fated New World Order under the auspices of their original plan, the United Nations.
To those ends organizations such as the B’nai Brith and the A.D.L. have evolved and continue to act as Zionist watchdogs and public censors. It is not surprising therefore that they would eventually attack even those of Jewish decent such as Michel Chossudovsky for Political Zionism’s bold and ambitious plans for global dominance owes allegiance only to its proponents and thus their exclusive and racial policies of imperialism continue to pose a direct threat to both the Christian and Moslem world. Our ultimate freedom therefore depends upon our ability to combat this censorship of free speech which continually keeps the occult nature of Poltitical Zionism hidden from the public eye.
————
Arthur Topham is the publisher/editor for the Radical Press. He lives in British Columbia, Canada. He can be contacted at radical@radicalpress.com
* In fact though not in form. The secret police in countries where the institution is native have their entire power and resources of the state behind them; indeed, they are the state. In America Zionism built the nucleus of a secret police nearly as effective in many ways as those prototypes. It could only become equally effective if it gained full control of the state’s resources, including the power of arrest and imprisonment, and in my judgment that was the ultimate goal.
Footnotes:
[1] The book can be found in the U.S.A. at Abebooks.com
[2] Controversy of Zion, Page 242
[3] Dr. Joseph Kastein according to Reed was a ‘zealous’ Zionist historian who wrote the book, History and Destiny of the Jews, (Eng. trans., London, 1933). He is extensively quoted by Douglas Reed in his book Controversy of Zion.
[4] Controversy of Zion, Page 243
[5] Controversy of Zion, Page 339
[6] Dr. Chaim Weizmann was a tireless proponent of Zionism. Having supplanted Theodor Herzl as the leader of the World Zionist Organization back in 1904 his influence throughout the formative years of the first half of the 20th Century upon the creation of Israel is well documented. He eventually became Israel’s first Prime Minister in 1948.
[7] Reed had first-hand experience of this practise. In 1952 the Canadian Jewish Congress requested that Canadian booksellers refuse to carry his books.
[8] Controversy of Zion, Pages 340 342
[9] Controversy of Zion, Pages 342-345
[10] Far and Wide, Page 274.

{ Add a Comment }

Pianist Valentina Lisitsa: latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws By Arthur Topham

‘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.

{ Add a Comment }

FREE SPEECH ON TRIAL: Buddhist activist Brian Ruhe interviews RadicalPress.com Publisher Arthur Topham

Brian Ruhe interview A.T.

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 1 of 7
https://youtu.be/xA5juFE_F2g

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 2 of 7
https://youtu.be/R8jddUc9Z2U

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 3 of 7
https://youtu.be/4tp9hnpU-DM

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 4 of 7
https://youtu.be/zBOor3Gu2E0

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 5 of 7
https://youtu.be/RVbz4FuwVg8

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 6 of 7
https://youtu.be/eY7Ewjv5kCU

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 7 of 7
https://youtu.be/TjBMCf-p4zM

{ Add a Comment }

Free Speech in Canada: A Review of the ongoing Lemire, Levant & Steyn cases by Arthur Topham

Freedom of speech in Canada has been under attack for a number of years but it is only recently that it has gained the attention of a growing number of Canadians and many stateside as well.
This is due to a variety of factors but the main mitigating ones have been the recent attacks upon two individuals who, had they otherwise not been targeted by the Muslim Canadian community, would have left this vital issue well below the public’s radar screen. Hitherto, such had been the case ever since those repressive forces within Canada first began their surreptitious manoeuverings designed to silence a growing and vociferous electorate slowly awakening to the actual political realities of today’s world.
In that respect, and within such a context, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) for without their direct involvement in this malevolent melodrama now unfolding upon Canada’s civil stage, we might otherwise not have come to understand the depth and the degree of danger that these draconian devils represent to our innate freedoms.
The second important factor of course has been the internet itself and the multitude of blogs that now exist and are, of necessity, focusing on the subject of internet censorship as it obviously is relevant to their own potential well-being depending upon the outcome of this threat to our fundamental civil liberties.
The two reluctant players of whom I speak are Ezra Levant http://ezralevant.com/ and Mark Steyn http://www.steynonline.com/ . They have, ironically, been cast in what is essentially a bad movie produced and directed by a certain group of individuals who have a vested interested in manipulating Canadian public opinion and controlling the content of information on the internet. Due to the longstanding effort on the part of this shadowy alliance of censors, one which extend back into Canada’s past to at least the 1930s, they have slowly and relentlessly been undermining our basic human rights and sovereignty as an independent nation for the past 80 years.
The third party (to date) in this present drama is Mark Lemire, the one Canadian to whom the nation as a whole ought to be, should justice be achieved, eternally grateful to for his persistent, undaunted will and indefatigable determination to battle with those forces now attacking so many Canadians who chose to exercise their natural right to freedom of expression. It is within the case of Warmouse vs Lemire see http://www.freedomsite.org that, like a welcome healing poultice, a remedy has finally appeared that is now drawing out the pernicious poison of censorship which has been wending its nefarious way through Canada’s wounded body politic for too many years.
As one of those additional parties currently under siege by these Soviet-Bolshevik-Communist-Cheka style censors ( see my Response to Canadian Human Rights Commission by the Radical Press, Jan. 3, 2008 http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629 ) I have been intently watching this power play unfold since November of 2007 when I and my website http://www.radicalpress.com were rudely intruded upon and forced to ‘ respond’ to the thought police now steadfastly stationed within the federally funded precinct euphemistically known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and located in Ottawa, Canada.
Over the course of the last 6 months greater and greater amounts of information have slowly surfaced to the top of this scum-covered swamp that supposedly symbolizes Canada’s foremost guardian of our inherent human rights; information that, for the most part, would never have reached the light of day had it not been for the case of Marc Lemire and the subsequent cases that have drawn into the foray Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.
The irony I spoke of lies in the fact that those to whom I have alluded above as being ‘ repressive forces’ are composed of elements of Canada’s Jewish community; supposedly good, kosher organizations that exist in order to make the lives of their respective members more positive and happy and also to contribute to the overall well-being of Canada’s multicultural mosaic of which we Canadians, ostensibly one of the world’s foremost democratic nations, profess to be so proud. That fact, coupled with the additional knowledge that both Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are also members of Canada’s Jewish community is what makes this present theatre of the absurd rather a unique performance.
Due to these conditions which existed from the start and went either unnoticed or else were intentionally ignored by the many blogs feverishly analyzing and critiquing the events over the past half a year I have watched how this potential Gordian Knot of convoluted, and seemingly endless rhetoric would unfold before the general public. After years of diligent, painstaking research on my part into the age-old phenomenon of the ‘ Jewish Question’, (being a Gentile married to a Jew I have a vested interest in the subject) I had come to what I felt to be a legitimate suspicion of the motivations of certain segments of the Jewish community (those adhering to the ideological mindset associated with political Zionism) and so when it became apparent to me that two of the protagonists were themselves Jewish, and in the case of Mark Steyn a self-professed ‘ Zionist Bush shill’, I found it a fascinating (and yes, entertaining) notion that suddenly we had a situation of major importance to all Canadians and also that within the overall context of this culminating threat to our civil liberties we would ultimately be witness to a novel scenario wherein two apparent factions within the Jewish community would find themselves at loggerheads over such an important issue as freedom of speech and freedom of the internet.
There is a old saying that all roads lead to Rome and, for a greater part of human history that was the case. Today though, I would venture to contend otherwise and say that to bring this saying into a modern-day context one would undoubtedly have to rephrase it to read that all roads lead to Zion rather than Rome. Based on such a presumption I felt that as night inevitably moves into day ultimately the machinations of those who adhere to the Zionist philosophy would also eventually move out of the shadow of darkness (wherein Zionism works best) into the sunlight of objective, public scrutiny. Such is the prospect in the current case of the Canadian Human Rights Commission versus Lemire, Levant & Steyn. Whether it ends in such a fashion or again becomes clouded over with new and additional subterfuges by those who long to keep the lid on Zionism’s global agenda waits to be seen. Time revealeth all and it is time that now controls the future unraveling of the final act in this drama.
Where a glimmer of hope now lies though is in the recent revelations of Ezra Levant and Marc Lemire with respect to those aforementioned Jewish organizations who are finally coming to the surface in the Warmouse vs Lemire case now before the CHRC. In an article entitled, Athanasios Hadjis: ‘ I’m lazy’ by Ezra Levant on May 16th, 2008 http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/athanasios-hadjis-im-lazy.html Levant challenges Athanasios Hadjis, the chair of the tribunal hearing the matter of Warmouse vs Lemire (the paramount Section 13 case) over the question of who gets to be present at the next round of hearings with respect to Intervenor Status. It turns out that the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) an organization described by Levant as ‘ a registered charity, with a sterling record of defending minority rights, ranging from Japanese-Canadian fishermen to a Nisga’a chief’ and comprised of ‘ true constitutional experts’ was turned down in its bid for such status by Hadjis while at the same time the three Jewish organizations, the B’nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (the three pro-Zionist organizations which I have been alluding to throughout this article) were not only given this Intervenor Status outright but, as it turns out on further scrutiny, there appears to be a distinct element of collusion involved between the tribunal judge Hadjis and these three parties, all of which are dead set against ridding the country of this draconian Section 13 clause now contained within the Canadian Human Rights Act while the CCF is questioning the legitimacy of Sec. 13.
When Hadjis justified his dismissal of the CCF on the grounds that ‘ …interested party status will not be granted if it does not add significantly to the legal positions of the parties representing a similar viewpoint.’ Levant replied, ‘ Oh, really? Is there really a difference amongst the positions taken by three of the intervenors against Lemire — the Canadian Jewish Congress, the B’nai Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center? They’re so cookie-cutter, they even file joint affidavits — as in this affidavit, that denigrates Canadian Jews as being psychologically insecure. Yet all three of them received Hadjis’s approval. That couldn’t be because they’re all on the side of the prosecution, is it?
Or: is it because, before Hadjis received his patronage appointment, he was vice-president of Canada’s Hellenic Congress, and he formed a coalition with the Canadian Jewish Congress? Did he approve the CJC’s application because they were old friends, but the CCF wasn’t?’
The fact that Ezra Levant (himself a Canadian Jew) is now questioning the motives of these three pro-Zionist organizations is a very positive step, not only for what I perceive to be the majority of Jews in Canada who I believe are not card-carrying members of these groups nor pro-Zionist in their political leaning, but because the issue of the underlying influences upon Canadian jurisprudence by these pro-censorship organizations is yet to be fully realized by the majority of Canadians and by broaching the subject of their involvement in repressive legislation in his article Levant is giving a strong indication that he is not of their camp and rather, is standing for what the vast majority of Canadians feel is the correct position on this important matter, i.e. that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act ought never to have been inserted into the legislation and that Canadians in general do not want to have their freedom of speech and their right to publish their thoughts on the internet curtailed by the questionable efforts of a small minority of Canadians whose allegiance to Canada’s longstanding principles of free speech is of a dubious nature.
As for ‘ Zionist Bush shill’ Mark Steyn’s position with respect to these pro-Zionist organizations, again time will tell whether or not he is willing to put the freedom of the majority of Canadians above his own partisan political views.
———-
Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of The Radical Press.com, Canada’s Radical News Network. He can be contacted at: radical@radicalpress.com

{ Add a Comment }

How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law by Ezra Levant (with commentary by Arthur Topham)

[Editor’s Note:
An interesting dynamic is developing around the CHRC drama now unfolding here in Canada.
Prior to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn being dragged, kicking and screaming, into a public foray that had, hitherto, been the sole arena of mainly white, Christian players, overall publicity surrounding cases of HRC abuse was heavily influenced in a negative way against the victims, be they Malcolm Ross or Doug Collins or Canada most heinous example of all, that of Ernst Zundel who now rots in a German prison cell thanks to the despicable machinations of the Canadian courts, the HRCs, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of Bnai Brith Canada and their various political courtiers and syncophants. Along with the disgusting actions of these government agents one needs to also include the mainstream media which inevitably joined in the vileness and the calumny associated with such attacks. The media of course, being for the most part exclusively owned and controlled by Zionist Jews, relished roasting Zundel upon their monopolist spit while at the same time enhancing the brainwashing of Canadians into further belief that Zundel was somehow an imminent threat to Canadian security.
Now, for some strange reason (possibly karma or divine retribution?), the tables have been turned and for the first time (from what Ive been able to glean) we have two Jewish stars on the rise in the new firmament of political correctness who are reluctantly on the defensive rather than the usual offensive as has always been the case with complaints of this nature in the past. As Levant states below concerning Marc Lemire chart of HRC victims, even though he finds Lemire website to contain white supremicist overtones he nonetheless could not find fault with Lemire research that proved only white, mostly Christian people were the recipients of HRC vendettas.
But did Levant then go on to elaborate upon how many of those cases such as Malcolm Ross and Doug Collins and Ernst Zundel were instigated by Jews from either the Bnai Brith or the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Simon Weisenthal Centre or some other Jewish organization? Good gosh no! What purpose would that serve other than to draw the public attention closer to the ultimate source of all of this conflict in the first place. No, better to divert people attention away from the Jews and ultimately their Zionist-induced agenda and onto their pet peeve of the day, the radical Muslim Jihadists and any others of similar ilk lurking about the fringes of truly mainstream, Canadian society.
Why, Levant bemoans, arent the HRCs going after radical Sikh secessionalists and Tamil Tigers and the traditional lineage of white, ethnic Christian victims like Ross and Collins and Zundel and Lemire and Topham and other similar poor shleps instead of making center-jobs of such noble, law-abiding Jews like Levant and Steyn? Why indeed. As Levant goes on to state, with respect to the forementioned Arab/Muslims, the media has already done such a bang up job of convincing Canadians that these groups are the real terrorists and danger. In his words, There is no shortage of news on each of those groups…. There never is in the Zionist-controlled media but there is also never a mention of those Jews and/or Jewish organizations who lobby and connive endlessly to superimpose their own political agenda upon the overall Canadian landscape.
So now we have HRCs with a sudden and new twist and a challenge to the very instigators of such tribunals. Blowback time? The time of the Quickening? It will be very interesting to see how Levant and Steyn go about thwarting their illiberal enemy and keeping the real culprit in this game of deception (Political Zionism) hidden from the masses of Canadian internet users while they battle the very monster that they themselves created.]
——————————————————-
http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/how-the-canadian-human-rights.html
How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law
By Ezra Levant
The opposite of the ‘ rule of law’ is the ‘ rule of man’. Canadians love the rule of law so dearly because it makes us feel safe: we know what to expect in life; we know if we follow the rules, the police won’t capriciously arrest us. There will be no knock on our door in the middle of the night. We won’t be arrested without a proper reason. The rule of law gives us confidence when we deal with the state and its officers, even its policemen, even its prime ministers. Because we know that they are our servants and that, if anything, they are bound by more rules than we are. They only hold the power that we give them, and they only hold it in trust for us.
We are strict with our police; maybe even too strict, but that’s a better error to make than being too lax. Besides Internal Affairs officers within police departments, we have additional layers of scrutiny. For example, Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit  does nothing but investigate police who are accused of abusing their powers. Canada answers Juvenal’s question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F ? pretty well.
(As a student at law, I attended a hearing of Alberta’s Law Enforcement Review Board http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/lerb/role_mandate_member.aspx , the body that considers complaints against Alberta police, ranging from the farcically trivial to the most serious. I was impressed — and frankly, a little bit irritated — at the lengths the province went to ensure fairness. As an example, complaints against officers from Calgary were heard in Edmonton and vice versa, to reduce the risk of collusion or even collegiality between police and those who were investigating the police. The particular day I was there, some nuisance complaints filed by prisoners were being heard. It was clear to me that besides the thrill of causing a hassle for the police and for the justice system in general, the prisoners in question had simply found a way to get out of jail for a day and travel, at taxpayers expense, to a hearing in which they were the center of attention.)

But it’s not just the police who are countered with enormous checks and balances. The other half of the ‘ Law and Order’ duo is hamstrung, too. For example, prosecutors are generally not allowed to tell a jury http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=919600 about an accused’s prior criminal convictions at his trial, unless the accused is foolish enough to claim that he has sterling credibility, or otherwise opens the door himself. This might seem frustrating to those who are ‘ tough on crime’, but cool reflection tells us such information would likely so overwhelm a jury’s views about an accused that they would be likely to convict him even if he were innocent of the new accusations, simply on the weight of the old ones. Even convicted criminals have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty when they’re charged with new crimes. That’s a form of rule of law, too. It’s not just that the high and mighty (like Eliot Spitzer!) are bound by the strictures of the law; it’s that the lowly and odious are given the benefits of the law, too.
Another example in this vein — and I assure you, dear reader, that I am coming to my point — is that of the ‘ rape shield’ law http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20001012/ctvnews76815?s_name=&no_ads= . It’s an expression of the rule of law, too. Just as the general rule against adducing evidence of an accused’s prior criminal record is done to give even past criminals a fair trial, the rape shield law was designed to give sexually promiscuous women — such as prostitutes, for example — a level playing field when they accuse a man of rape. If any and all of a woman’s past sexual history was admissable in court, it could prejudice a jury against her in a current case of rape — that is, her past behaviour could overwhelm the current facts at hand, and falsely acquit a man charged with her rape. I’m not well-versed enough in criminal law to know if the courts and legislatures have found the right balance here — given that the rape shield law almost exclusively benefits women to the detriment of accused men, it has been called a feminist law that unfairly undermines men’s legal rights. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that, but my main point remains: in the name of the rule of law, our police and courts go to great lengths to make sure that everyone has the same benefit and burden under law, no matter their personal characteristics or past behaviour.
Which is all a lengthy introduction to this stunning internal Canadian Human Rights Commission document http://ezralevant.com/guille.pdf posted by Connie Fournier of Free Dominion. Here’s http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1156179&sid=80678e297e5d4e5927691e679be345db her analysis. And here’s mine:
Andrew Guille filed a ‘ hate messages’ complaint with the CHRC. He complained that a website called http://www.Recomnetwork.org , run by an ‘ anti-hate’ group, contained hateful messages that contravened section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by discriminating against people based on race, colour, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.
So what happened? Did the ‘ anti-hate’ group in question, with all of the bigoted remarks on their website, become the first defendant ever to be acquitted in a section 13 trial? Or did Guille pull a Ricardo Warmouse http://www.ricardowarmouse.com/ — slam-dunk a bigoted website and collect a few thousand dollars for bringing the complaint to the CHRC’s attention?
Neither, actually. The CHRC refused to take the matter to a tribunal hearing, ruling it a frivolous complaint. But look at the grounds upon which this complaint was dismissed: Andrew Guille, said CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, is the ‘ sibling of both Melissa and Chris Guille’, who Steacy implies are racist. Steacy — whose job it is to investigate complaints of bigotry — indeed conducted an investigation. But not into the website and its hate messages. He investigated Guille himself. Steacy met with Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force to get the low-down on Guille; he spoke with ‘ anti-hate’ activists with their own axes to grind and books to sell. None of this was done under oath; none of this was done with Guille there to cross examine his defamers (or to challenge McKinnon’s right as a government employee to disclose Guille’s personal information without permission). But even those offensive procedures aren’t the point: the point is the CHRC simply wouldn’t accept a complaint from someone they didn’t like, for the most tenuous and circumstantial reasons.
Even if their hunches and their gossip was right — even if Guille was, himself, a racist — so what? If a website is bigoted, isn’t it the CHRC’s job (an immoral job, an improper job, but their job nonetheless) to investigate it? Does the offensiveness of the site in question depend on the character of the complainant? Is the question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act, a law of Parliament, is violated depend on who brings an alleged offence to the attention of the commission?
Compare that sloppy, vindictive, capricious standard to the aforementioned lengths real police and real prosecutors go to, to ensure that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. What Steacy has done here is exactly the kind of arbitrariness the rape shield law was designed to prevent. If a prostitute complains that she was raped, it is improper for the police to say ‘ she has no standing to complain about rape’ or ‘ we know that, in the past, she has consented to sex with strangers — no use investigating.’ An even more exact analogy would be if a convicted rapist complained of having in turn been raped himself. That would not excuse the police from ignoring the rapist’s own complaint.
The CHRC isn’t governed by the rule of law. It is governed by the whimsy of men — in this case, Dean Steacy, who himself admits to making anonymous posts on bigoted websites http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/answers.pdf .
Which is the other half of the broken system here. Put aside Guille; what about Recomnetwork.org, the hateful ‘ anti-hate’ website in question? Steacy’s memo acknowledges that the site indeed had hateful words on it — including copies of CHRC complaints filed by Ricardo Warmouse, which themselves contained bigoted remarks. But Steacy exculpates those sites by stating that the purpose of the website was to ‘ educate the public about racism’. That may well be true, but the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn’t care about such nuances. Section 13 of that law http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/h-6/bo-ga:l_I::bo-ga:l_II/en?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:13 makes it illegal to communicate ‘ any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.’ It doesn’t talk about ‘ intentions’ at all; and, as I’ve lamented before, the truth of the statements made is not a defence, unlike in defamation law in real courts.
The test isn’t good or evil intentions. The test is whether the words are ‘ likely to expose’ someone to feelings of ‘ hatred or contempt’. The rule of law would hold Recomnetwork.org, and indeed Ricardo Warmouse, whose complaints were on that site, to the same standard as the person who originally wrote the hateful words. To excuse them because they have noble intentions is Steacy injecting his own personal views or friendships or biases into the law, which the law does not permit.
By the way, I happen to agree with Steacy on the narrow point that there is a difference between someone uttering a bigoted comment as an epithet, and someone else repeating that epithet, simply by listing it in a complaint (as Warman did); and someone else who writes a report of the whole thing (Recomnetwork.org). But that’s not what the law says. The law doesn’t care about anything other than the likelihood of hurting someone’s feelings, which is one of the reasons the law is so dangerous.
If merely reporting on a controversial communication was acceptable, then surely my own decision two years ago to report the news of the cartoon riots, including showing the cartoons in question, would have been equally lawful, and the complaints filed against me for doing so would have been ruled ‘ frivolous and vexatious’, as Steacy ruled Guille’s complaint against Recomnetwork.org to be. Or at least you’d expect that, if there was a consistency in these human rights commissions — if there was rule of law, instead of rule of men.
If these commissions were governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of men, Ricardo Warmouse and Dean Steacy themselves would be charged with violating section 13, because the Act gives no weight to intentions, and both men have posted on bigoted websites — Warmouse ending many of his posts with a symbol for ‘ Heil Hitler’. If these commissions were governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of men, Mohamed Elmasry, the Jew-hating bigot who filed a complaint against Maclean’s magazine, would be charged with a section 13 violation himself, for publicly excusing the murder of Jews in Israel.
Marc Lemire has compiled a chart of every section 13 decision . One of the line items in his chart is the ethnicity of the respondents — 100% of them are white. When I first saw that chart, I was uncomfortable with that data, especially given the white supremacist overtones of Lemire’s site. But with that caveat said, it is still a fact: not a single radical Muslim jihadi has had a section 13 trial; not a single radical Sikh secessionist; not a single Tamil Tiger supporter. There is no shortage of news on each of those groups, just to pick three. But none have been taken before the CHRC tribunal — even though, unlike the poor shleps who have been, those three groups have actually gone beyond mere words into violent criminal acts.
There are many things I know now that I wouldn’t have likely believed a few months ago, before I stared spelunking around the caves of the human rights commissions. I would never have believed that human rights ‘ officers’ would go around anonymously planting bigoted comments on websites — I would have called that a nutty conspiracy theory. But then I saw the CHRC staff and Ricardo Warmouse admitting under oath to doing just that.
And, before reading Dean Steacy’s memo on the Andrew Guille complaint, I would have thought that the CHRC runs itself at least along some basic concepts of natural justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice . Now I know better.
As a lawyer, I know and accept that not all decisions by the government should be made as formally and rigorously as in a real court of law. But even the most trivial administrative tribunal needs to have basic rules of fair play. I really cannot think of a single element of fair play and natural justice that the CHRC has not violated. And, unlike so many other arms of the state, the CHRC has terrifying powers, from their official powers to fine people and subject them to life-long publication bans (surely an illegal ‘ unusual’ punishment under our Charter), but also their unofficial punishments, such as their abusive, costly processes themselves.
There is not a drop of doubt in my heart or mind: Canada’s human rights commissions, with their illberal mission of political censorship and their perversion of the rule of law, have become a grave threat to our human rights. We simply must stop them.

{ Add a Comment }

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

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

{ Add a Comment }