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

May 1, 2009 by admin
SaveBCRivers

Photo credit: WCWC

BC’s Rivers: Is Anyone Listening?

by Arthur Topham

May 1, 2009

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

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

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

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

SaveOurRiversCrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

â€ŔWhy the lack of real consultation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCRiverWldPublic

Photo credit: WCWC

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

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

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

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

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

Such is life in the Cariboo!
————

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

{ Add a Comment }

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

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

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater

by Arthur Topham

April 27, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————-

{ Add a Comment }

The “six-million killed” lie—the hoax of the twentieth century By Jonas E. Alexis & Monika Schaefer

 

“The six-million lie is pernicious because it is the foundational lie for the rogue state of Israel, and it is also the foundational lie for how the occupied state of Germany is currently structured.”

~Monika Schaefer

Monika Schaefer started to play the violin at age 7, under the tutelage of Alexander Nicol, former concert master of the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra. Later she studied with Norman Nelson, co-founder of the renowned chamber group Academy of St. Martin in the Fields. While studying sciences at the University of Alberta, Monika played in the St. Cecilia Orchestra. All her life, she has played with various combinations of people and instruments, wherever she was living and working.

In 1982, Monika moved to Jasper, Alberta, to work for Parks Canada. While classical music remains the cornerstone of her musical endeavors, Monika has broadened her horizons in recent years, delving into old-time fiddle, bluegrass, swing, improvisation and “jamming” with all who like to play. Lately she has discovered the joy of composing and has a few tunes to her name. Schaefer has recently discovered that she has been lied to about the so-called Holocaust. Here we will discuss her story.

Alexis: You say that the so-called holocaust, “the six-million lie,” is “the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.” That indeed is an extraordinary statement which demands extraordinary backbone. Expand on that statement for us. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that it is indeed the most pernicious lie in all of history.

Schaefer: I will give a very brief answer to this right now. The six-million lie is pernicious because it is the foundational lie for the rogue state of Israel, and it is also the foundational lie for how the occupied state of Germany is currently structured. Because of the myth of the holocaust, Israel can do anything. The lies continue, in the form of false-flag terror attacks, and these give justification to the fraudulent War on Terror. The Islamic world and the Christian world are being set up to fight each other, the beneficiary being Israel.

Alexis: Great point. Israeli embassy spokeswoman Adi Farjon declared that the Israeli regime wants to maintain “German guilt about the Holocaust” because it “helps Israel.”[1] In other words, she was basically saying that the so-called Holocaust is as sacrosanct as the state of Israel itself. Let’s get to the heart of the issue. Tell us your story and how you have delved into the history of this critically important issue.

Schaefer: Let me begin by giving you a brief description of the video which we released just over 2 months ago on June 17th, 2016. I make an apology to my parents, my mother in particular for having berated her long ago for having “let all those bad things happen in WW2, like Hitler and the death camps.” This apology was in essence to their spirit, because my parents are deceased.

I believe my reproach dates all the way back to my teenage years. Of course I believed all the stories we were taught in school, why would I not believe them? It never occurred to me at that tender young age that teachers would lie to us, let alone anybody else. We were taught to tell the truth, and telling the truth is a natural thing to do. Lying is something that has to be learned. Truth-telling, in my opinion, is the natural instinct.

When I reproached my mother, I don’t think that I really believed that she personally was at fault. I think I was just so indignant about all the injustice that I needed to let out my feelings, and it is easiest and safest to blame those close to you. So that is what I did all those years ago, I held my mother to account for the horrors of WW2!

So now, in 2016, when I know better, and understand that the history we have been taught is wrong, I started feeling really badly about that reproach years ago. I mentioned that to my brother Alfred once, just in passing – I said I wish I could apologize to our parents for what I said all those years ago. He immediately recognized the significance of that story, and suggested we do something with that.

You see, we don’t think we are alone in those sentiments that I had then, and now. There is a whole generation or two of German people who felt this disdain, disgust, shame, all these negative emotions about their grandparents and parents. This constitutes psychological trauma, it causes a generation gap, it causes shame of one’s own heritage and culture.

Back to the short video, I thought it would be good to give it a tone of happiness because for me, waking up to the truth is a liberating experience. I am so glad to know the truth. So, I played a cheerful little tune on the violin, and that is how the video begins and ends. It sets a tone which reflects that truth is light.

I would like to add something here that I did not include in the video but would like to make it perfectly clear, that I never said No Jews Died. Many Jews died in the camps. And yes they were in the camps against their will. Most of the deaths occurred in the last months of the war. Disease and starvation took their toll, as Germany was being bombed by Allied Forces and food was not reaching the typhus-infested camps. And no doubt there were also brutalities.

We know through Ursula Haverbeck’s research that at least 2, if not more, SS officers were themselves executed for brutalizing prisoners. So that means that there were rules against abusing prisoners.

I started down this journey of my awakening in about 2011, 10 years post 9/11. 9/11 is the port-hole through which I began to understand the matrix of deception and illusions that we live in. It was actually a number of years earlier that I was visiting friends on an acreage in central Alberta, and this fellow told me there was this 9/11 truther movement.

I was very curious and interested, because I had this sense right from Day 1 that something was wrong with this picture the way the American government responded to 9/11 by making war in several countries, which made no sense to me. I kept saying to my friends, wow, it sure looks like someone handed that to them on a silver platter because look at the aftermath….look what they are doing with it.

So I listened carefully to this friend, and I wanted to know more. I didn’t say much, and I was pretty wide-eyed. At the end of the day, I went home, and life was busy for me. I didn’t even have a computer at home yet. Even though I was curious, the days and months and years slipped by and I didn’t do any research on the 9/11 question. But I never forgot that encounter. I wondered about it a lot.

So…. when in 2011, my brother Alfred, who lives in Germany, started sending stuff to our family members about 9/11, I immediately jumped on this – and by that time I did have a computer at home and was connected to the internet -I would fire back right away, how do you know this and that and where are you learning this from?

This curiosity about what that man had told me years earlier had been simmering in the back of my mind all along, and when I finally had some concrete information coming my way about this subject, the seeds that had been planted started to grow.

I was insatiable for more knowledge about what really happened on 9-11. I checked everything Alfred was telling us, especially when he was implicating Israel. There was a taboo about implicating Israel. I said, how do you know?

Anyway, I started learning everything I could. I checked sources, I dug into this, and I read, and I looked at videos and I maintained a healthy dose of skepticism, because I was going to make sure that I wasn’t just “falling” for something just because my brother said something. The rest of the family didn’t show much interest, and that is actually the way it has remained to this day.

Fast forward to late 2013, early 2014. At that point I was confronted with some statements about the holocaust not being true. I had heard about “holocaust deniers” before, every once in a while there would be a name in the news, like Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra, and I remember thinking, wow, that’s really weird.

Why would someone deny the holocaust? Really? Everyone knows the holocaust happened. It seemed as solid as the grass is green the sky is blue and I have a nose on my face. I mean, there was simply no questioning it. If someone says outright, that didn’t happen, well, maybe they are a bit crazy.  But I have to say, I never thought to myself that those people are hateful people, no-no, it just puzzled me.

So when I was being confronted with this, I resisted at first. I said, don’t be mixing this up with 9/11, you’re just going to undermine the 9/11 truth movement!

But okay, the questions started to pry their way into my brain. There were enough little doubts, and those little seeds began to grow. Finally, I dared to look. I remember opening the website holocaustdeprogrammingcourse. That opened my eyes! I saw immediately that there was a TON of material on there – you know that little scroll bar on the side – it was tiny.

I pulled on that scroll bar, and there was endless material – articles, videos, survivor stories (other kind of survivor stories). I only spent a few minutes the first time I dared go there, but it was like a lightning bolt for me, just to see that there existed so much material that was contrary to what we had been told all our lives.

Soon after that, I watched the 90 minute video about Ernst Zundel called “Off Your Knees, Germany!” That was huge for me. … My eyes were being opened. There wasn’t any going back. I looked at lots more material after that, but really, when I think about it, the Ernst Zundel case was and still is ground-breaking.

In those Toronto trials in 1985 and 1988 – evidence was brought into the courts! Actual forensic evidence. (Leuchter Report, Robert Faurisson was there, coaching Lawyer Doug Christie on cross-examination,…) This is not done anymore. Holocaust trials with evidence are avoided nowadays.

The process of awakening did not happen without discomfort. When I started learning about the false-flag nature of 9/11, I recall feeling semi-nauseous for days and weeks maybe even months at a time. There was that feeling that not all is well in the gut. That went on for a while.

Learning about the holocaust did not give me that same nauseous feeling, even though it is a deception on a much larger scale. In retrospect I think comprehending 9/11 is easy compared to the holocaust. And yet, when I think back on it, that nauseous feeling occurred primarily when I was discovering that “easier” deception.

I think that once a person has made that first step and understands that our governments, our institutions such as the media, the justice system, etc, are not acting in our best interest, and in fact are beholden to a hidden hand of power, it is then easier to understand the bigger deceptions.

Going through the first door is the hardest. The next door, even if it is a much more difficult subject, and much more deeply ingrained in our brain, and much older, that door is easier to go through.

So, what exactly is Our Problem?

We seem to be living in a Matrix of Deception. And the foundational Lie is the one that I apologize to my mother for having reproached her for. The singular so-called Holocaust. The Holohoax. The 6 Million Lie. Foundational, because the state of Israel is based on the fictional holocaust. Foundational, because Germany as it exists today (and it is not a sovereign country, it is an occupied country!), Germany in its current form is structured on this lie.

The Times of Israel quoted Angela Merkel in an August 9th, 2013 article:

“The heinous crime committed by Germany against the Jews, the betrayal of all civilized values that was the Shoah, will always be present and we can shape the future of the resulting special relationship between Germany and Israel in awareness of that.

“That means that we’ll never be neutral and that Israel can be sure of our support when it comes to ensuring its security. That’s why I also said that Germany’s support for Israel’s security is part of our national ethos, our raison d’être.”[2]

Angela Merkel had said much the same thing when she addressed the Knesset, the legislature of the Jewish state of Israel, on March 18th of 2008. How are these deceptions kept up? Much of it is through psychological warfare, together with endless false-flag events which are coming at an ever-increasing rate.

It seems to me that the primary tool in psychological warfare is the weaponization of language. This, coupled with the indoctrination of young minds through the school education system, through the film and television industries, through the incessant repetition of the lies in the mainstream media.

Weaponized language is designed to prevent us from looking. Certain control words put gates into our brains, and our brains become fragmented. Barriers have been engineered into our brains by the lies and indoctrination.

So what are some of those control words and expressions that cause these brain barriers, and stop us from thinking clearly?

Well, I think we are all familiar with the long-standing weaponized terms like Nazi, neo-Nazi, holocaust, holocaust denier, anti-Semite, or the name Hitler – if someone gets compared to Hitler, that is the worst you can say about them.

Other terms are 9/11 Truther, and Conspiracy theory. I am sure you can add to the list. Nowadays, there is this package of 4. If you are one, you are all 4:

•9-11 truther

•Anti-Semite

•Conspiracy theorist

•Holocaust denier

When I began my awakening to the 9/11 story, I was called an anti-Semite by a former friend before I even brought Israel into the conversation. I had only presented him with Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth materials, and they only deal with physical evidence, not with the “who did it?”

This friend also said – next thing, you’ll become a holocaust denier. At the time I retorted angrily – what are you talking about, no I am not, it is totally unrelated. … Little did I know. I should write to him and tell him thank you, you were right!

Alexis: Good start. We will pick up on that theme later this month.

[1] “Israeli Diplomat in Berlin: Maintaining German Guilt About the Holocaust Helps Israel,” Haaretz, June 25, 2015.

[2] “Merkel: Germany can never be neutral on Israel,” Times of Israel, August 9, 2013.

{ 4 Comments }

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Honour:

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

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

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

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

{ Add a Comment }