Month: May 2020

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 }

Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws by Arthur Topham

‘The National Post, perhaps Canada’s foremost advocate and practitioner of censorship, is the least qualified to condemn the alleged revenge massacre of 11 Charlie Hebdo workers, yet devoted several consecutive front pages and endless verbiage to the incident far greater coverage than that allotted to the brutal massacre of 3000 innocent Palestinians several months earlier in Gaza, although the massacre was the more reprehensible for having been committed by a racist, occupier government already condemned by the United Nations for its barbarism.’
~ Ian V. Macdonald, letter to the National Post, Jan. 10, 2015

The latest Zionist false flag event in Paris, France on January 7th, 2015 that wiped out the staff of the pro-zionist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian Charlie Hebdo hate propaganda rag, immediately unleashed a massively orchestrated outcry of cacophonous proportions from the Beast’s Big Brother Zionist msm media calling for greater protection of people’s right to ‘Freedom of Speech’.
Apart from the aftermath of 9/11, never has this writer witnessed such a unified show of chimerical bigotry and deception, all of it wrapped in the gilded glitter of falsely misplaced emotional rhetoric, blatant lies and contrived television imagery specifically designed and pre-packaged to elicit a world-wide response from an unconscious audience of somnambulant innocents still too blurry-eyed and bewitched to recognize the reality of the Rothschild New World Order and its modus operandi.
Reacting with predictable clockwork precision to their own fabricated murderous crime; one bearing all the standard hallmarks of yet another Israeli Mossad covert operation designed to appear as a deliberate ‘terrorist act’ by a fanatical group of ‘radical’ Muslims, the Canada-wide Zionist-controlled media immediately cranked up its Islamophobic sirens to a deafening roar with broadcasts blaring forth from talking heads accompanied by what W. H. Auden once aptly styled, ‘the hum of the printing presses, turning forests into lies’ with their broadsheets whirling like buzz saws 24/7, flashing out nonstop, monotonous anti-Islam hate messages to Canadians across the country.
This relentless verbal/visual assault by the Talmudic inspired Israeli/Rothschild media upon the abused psyche of Western civilization ongoing since their hugely successful 9/11 coup of September 11th, 2001 has now reached the stage where every facet of their global crime syndicate is being utilized to increase hatred and fear of Islam to a climactic point of no return, thus providing their needed justification for whatever pre-emptive mode of violent attack the Zionist Jew killing machine might wish to adopt in the near future.
No better example exists of this hypocritical, bigoted vilification of Islam by the Zionist-controlled media than that found in their premier flag ship hate generator the National Post, Tel Aviv’s direct propaganda line for funnelling into the unwary, dumbed down minds of Canadians, Israel’s racist, supremacist, apartheid mindset; one that constitutes the foundational basis of its twisted, psychopathic political ideology known as Zionism.
NatZJPost copy 7
Completely disregarding Canada’s horrific record of outright censorship, harassment, fines, jailings and ongoing suppression of its own citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech, the Zionist media now has the unmitigated chutzpah to sermonize to Canadians about how important it is to protect ‘FREE SPEECH’ for the likes of Charlie Hebdo and co. all the while overlooking the stinking mess of free speech violations in Canada’s own backyard.
Canada’s Disgraceful ‘Free Speech’ Record
The National Post, of all Canada’s zio-rags, is a veteran of the infamous and controversial Section 13 ‘hate speech’ legislation wars that suddenly gained prominence across the nation around 2007 when the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filing a Section 13 ‘hate speech’ complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine), based upon the reproduction of perceived anti-Islam writings by one of their pro-Zionist Jewish writers Mark Steyn.
Coinciding with Steyn’s case was also that of Ezra Levant, then owner of the Western Standard, an Alberta based tabloid that callously published the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) back in February of 2006. As a result of Levant’s insolent disregard for Islam’s holy Prophet both the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed complaints against Levant and his magazine with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission that resulted in a hearing in January of 2008.
MarcLemireFreedomsite
Marc Lemire, one of Canada’s most distinguished Section 13 victims and staunch resister to this nasty piece of Zionist/Bolshevik-motivated legislation, gives us a compete, well documented history of the rise and fall of Section 13 which can be found on his website, FreedomSite Blog. As well, for those interested in delving into the specifics surrounding this specious piece of draconian ‘hate speech’ legislation that initially slithered its way into Canadian jurisprudence via the untiring efforts of Canada’s Jewish lobby organizations (predominantly the former Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada) beginning as far back as the 1950’s, I suggest reading the following article, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s ‘Hate Propaganda’ Laws.
In Part 3 of Lemire’s history, under sub-heading ‘Section 13: The Shit hits the fan’, he writes: ‘Keep in mind that the primary intent of Section 13 was to quietly keep it behind closed doors and censor individuals in a manner which ‘would not be attended by great publicity’. While this was true with most Section 13 cases, it certainly was not true with Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine. The proverbial ‘hate speech earthquake’ hit the media, once it was revealed that one of Canada’s most respected magazines and the ‘one-man global content provider’ Mark Steyn were under investigation for hate speech. Editorials against censorship went viral from coast to coast in Canada and spread across the globe via the Internet.’
The war to silence Canadians and stymie any public speech that the Jewish lobby felt might negatively impact them or Israel in any way (either on or off the internet), gained its foothold back in 1977 when the federal government first implemented the so-called Canadian Human Rights Act and created its attendant enforcement agencies, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). Both the commission and the tribunal were quasi-judicial, i.e. ‘crazy’ judicial in that they basically set their own rules and guidelines and consistently changed the ‘legal’ goal posts depending upon whatever case they were dealing with, in order to ensure a conviction. If fact, of the hundreds of Canadians dragged before these Stalinist style ‘Show Trial’ tribunals, EVERYONE was found guilty for the simple reason that all it took was for someone to register a complain against them and that, in itself, sealed their fate. When I describe Section 13 as a ‘Bolshevik’ type law I do so with the full knowledge that under the former Soviet system, Lenin, in one of the regime’s very first acts upon gaining absolute power, was to make ‘anti-Semitism’ a crime punishable by death. Death, that is, without so much as a trial even. All it would take, (just as with the Section 13 ‘complaints’) was for someone to accuse another of said crime and the Cheka (soviet secret police) had the excuse to execute the victim.
In the case of Canada and its Section 13 ‘hate crime’ laws, which invariably include the same accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’, the punishment wasn’t quite as severe or immediate but metaphorically speaking, in term of survival, the victims stood no greater chance of gaining their freedom once accused. Many, if not most of the victims, were unable to afford to hire counsel and even if they were able to the fact that Truth was not considered a viable defence against whatever they had written or spoken, it was virtually impossible to argue against the charge. As such the defendants were at the mercy of the tribunals and the commission’s commissars were able to maintain a 100% conviction rate right up until 2007 when, Allah be praised!, the Canadian Islamic Congress and other Muslim organizations finally decided to file similar Section 13 complaints against the two self-chosen writers mentioned above who were, by their Judaic birthmarks, both members of the same conniving covenant that initially bore responsibility for creating these very censorship laws in the first place. Not only that, they were the only two Jews in Canada ever to be charged with ‘hate speech’ under Section 13 and, surprise! surprise! the only two individuals ever to escape the snares and traps that CHRC and the CHRT had used on hundreds of non-Jewish Canadians for decades prior to then.
SteynLevantJNOMouthpieces800
It has always been this writer’s contention, based upon my last eight years of personal experience in dealing with these Orwellian censors, that had the Canadian Islamic Congress not filed a complaint against Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine and had Ezra Levant also not been charged by a Muslim complainant over his publication of the infamous Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) cartoons, this Zionist-inspired legislation known as Section 13 that clung like a barnacle to the dark underside of Canada’s legal system for the past thirty years without the Zionist media challenging it, would, in all likelihood, have continued on unabated and still not have been repealed. It was only the final realization by the Jewish lobby that Section 13 was, in fact, a double-edged sword capable of being used against their own kind as well that spurred the Zionist media on to make a major issue out of an Orwellian, Zionist-driven law that had for decades been used against non-Jews with hardly a murmur of protest. Now that the perpetrators themselves were being held to account for the same crimes the whole dynamic changed and the war to rid the nation of Section 13 began in earnest.
It was around the same period (2007) when Steyn and Levant received their just deserts that I and my website RadicalPress.com were also caught up in the legally sticky Section 13 ‘hate speech’ web and I suddenly found myself forcefully initiated into that elite, Zionist-created group of alleged ‘hate-mongers’,’anti-Semites’, ‘racists’ and ‘neo-Nazis’ who had come before me throughout the late 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. In my own case it was the secret, Jews-only Masonic society, B’nai Brith Canada who had filed a Section 13 complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission; one premised on the ‘contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.’ Please note the ‘citizens of Israel’ portion. It was the first time in Canadian jurisprudence that the Jews, via their back-room manipulation of the CHRC, had arbitrarily introduced this novel addition to the Section 13 complaint; one which now included people of a foreign nation! [There are reasons why they attempted this but a thorough analysis of that particular subterfuge is beyond the scope of this article. A.T.]
While the Zionist news media, throughout its campaign to hasten the demise of Section 13, magnified its two pet Jewish ‘free speech’ advocates to heroic proportions, the remaining hundreds of victims, once they had been tried and convicted, inevitably sank back into Zion’s media pit of silence and anonymity their identities liquidated and their unjust sufferings lost forever. Their names though are important, more important to the struggle for real freedom of speech than the media’s manufactured heroes, Steyn and Levant, for the nameless ones were the truly courageous Canadian heroes, those resisters whose who, on their own and motivated by their strong convictions, had stood up to Canada’s Marxist/Bolshevik commissars with little or no money and next to nil support from the general public while the Zio-media used all of its ill-gained media power to malign, vilify and crucify them in the public eye, just as they always do to anyone who stands in the way of their hate-filled agenda. And so here I present the names of some of victims that I was able to find. God forgive me for the ones I’ve left off (if readers can provide me with additional names I’ll add them to my website as they emerge).
The list began with John Ross Taylor back in the late 70’s and carried on with Terry Long, Randy Johnston, William James Harcus, Wolfgang Droege, Kevin Lew, Derek J. Peterson, Tony McAleer, Charles Scott, Ernst Zundel, John Micka, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Alexan Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Tomasz Winnicki, Craig Harrison, Peter Kouba, Glen Bahr, Terry Tremaine, Alex Di Civita, Liz Lampman, Lubomyr Prytulak, Bobby Wilkinson, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, Ciaran Paul Donnelly, Jason Ouwendyk, Heather Fleming, Ronald Fleming, Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, Doug Collins, Marc Lemire, Arthur Topham, David Ahenakew, Bill Whatcott, Mark Merek, Dean Clifford….
It must also be mentioned here that those pictured below, as well as Bill Whatcott, were all assisted in great measure by Canada’s foremost defender of true freedom of speech, the late Douglas Christie, who acted in varying capacities for all of the accused, including myself, right up to the point of his tragic passing in March of 2013.
DouglasHChristieFreedomFighter copy 3
SomeCanadianFreeSpeechVictims
In previous writings I’ve delved further into the creation of Canada’s ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws and in every case of ongoing persecution and prosecution it was always the Jewish lobby groups in Canada who were clambering and crying for the use and retention of these anti-democratic, unconstitutional ‘laws’ that for some strange reason, in practically 99% of all cases, involved non-Jewish individuals who were being critical of the ideology of political Zionism or the illegal, terrorist actions of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or else exposing the mendacious Jewish Rothschild central banking cartel that controls much of the world’s monetary system or the Jewish media cartel that controls the vast proportion of the Western world’s media and source of information. Those who were publishing critical articles were doing so because they firmly believed that their country, its government, jurisprudence, culture and social mores were under direct attack by the foreign influences of these Zionist organizations plus the choke hold that the state of Israel was gaining over Canada’s federal leaders and their parties. In other words their criticisms in many cases were based upon their personal belief and knowledge that Canada was under attack from foreign agents and that it was their constitutional right and duty to express their views on this vital matter of national security.
Charlie Hebdo and the ongoing Lies of the Jews
Juxtaposed against this background gestalt of brutal, repressive anti-Free Speech legislation (easily traced back to and premised upon the foundational lie of the 20th Century by World Jewry that ‘6 Million Jews’ had been ‘holocausted’ by gas and ovens in the work camps of National Socialist Germany during the latter half of WWII, a deception now proven to have been a fabricated event of mythical and universal proportions perpetrated upon humanity), Canada’s anti-Free Speech laws tended, in practically every case, to always benefit only one small minority the nation’s Jewish community who amount to less that 2% of the country’s population. Thus all the present hoopla emanating from the Jewish-controlled media about ‘Freedom of Speech’, ‘free expression’ and the West’s longstanding ‘liberal’ tradition of justifiable satire for the likes of Islamophobic and Christianophobic writers, artists and publishers like Charlie Hebdo, the repulsively loathsome Jew ‘comedian’ Sarah Silverman, et al, resonates with even greater magnitude the same hollow sounds of bigotry and deception here in Canada today.
When the news began to break via Twitter on June 26th, 2013 that the Canada’s Senate had finally given third and final reading to Bill C-304, an Act to repeal the censorship provision Section 13 contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act this didn’t automatically signal the end of ALL of Canada’s repressive ‘Free Speech’ legislation. Far from it. All the repeal accomplished was to removed the provisions within the Act that formerly gave non-Jews the same legal right to point a fierce and accusing finger at those of ‘Jewish ethnicity’ who were out to destroy Canada’s socio-cultural and democratic way of life and demand that they also be held accountable for their traitorous actions against the nation in this regard. The demise, therefore, of Section 13, as far as the Zionist media was concerned, was the end of their coverage on the issue of ‘Freedom of Speech’. Their job was done and their own media was now far less restricted in its ability to carry on with their Islamophobic agenda of vilifying Muslims everywhere. As for the even more threatening, draconian legislation still contained within Canada’s Criminal Code under Section 318 to 320, ‘Hate Propaganda’, those heinous laws are still very much alive and currently being used to the max to take down my website RadicalPress.com and myself and thus set a new precedent that will undoubtedly be used to coerce any other Canadian citizen who might think they still have the right of ‘Freedom of Speech’ to self-censor their opinions and beliefs and whatever historic research they may have uncovered that might support their viewpoint.
When you are immersed in the thick of a battle, be it to retain your constitutional right to freedom of expression or your fundamental right to stay alive physically, you quickly learn who the enemy is and what type of tactics they employ to overpower you. After eight long years of being in the trenches of what metaphorically (and some say realistically) might appropriately be called World War III and witnessing the stratagems used by the Zionist forces, it becomes clear how their modus operandi works. In actual physical warfare the Zionist forces, be they Israel attacking Gaza with their superior military firepower or the USA attacking Iraq with its superior firepower, they always resort to what they coined their ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing power on their perceived enemy. This same strategy though is also, first and foremost, used pre-emptively when it comes to their disinformation ‘bombing campaign’campaigns that always precede any actual on the ground operations. In esoteric terms it exhibits the old adage, ‘As above, so below’.
At this stage of writing, the Charlie Hebdo narrative, for those whose minds haven’t already succumbed to the current ‘Shock and Awe’ propaganda ordinance emanating forth from Zion’s big media guns, more than sufficient evidence now exists to prove that we’ve being subjected once again to another Israeli Mossad false flag operation; one deliberately orchestrated in order to provide the necessary media grist to carry out their latest ‘Free Speech’ disinfo blitzkrieg designed to fool the traumatized masses into believing their lie that the massacre was carried out by ‘Muslim Jihadists’ incensed over the magazine’s ongoing slander and mockery of Islam’s Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW). Nothing could be further from the truth.
As many writers have already revealed, including the American writer Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: ‘The Charlie Hebdo Story Simply Doesn’t Wash‘. There’s just too many similarities to all the previous false flag events, including the greatest of all thus far in the 21st Century 9/11 all of which were carried out with precisely the same global mind-control objective the obfuscation, via dissimulation and outright LIES projected through Zion’s global media cartel, of the true motives and actions of the state of Israel, first by transforming, then transposing their wilful and ongoing acts of terrorism against the Muslim people of the Middle East into a completely opposite, inverted and deceptive narrative; one that portrays Israel (again and again) as the woefully misunderstood victim of the former ‘Nazi-insprired Holocaust of 6 Million Jews’ plus interminable Islamic ill-will, anti-Semitic chicanery and racist hatred, all of which is presently being focalized in the Charlie Hebdo incident in order to then justify their ultimate purpose in pulling off this latest cabalistic caper; one intended to be a ‘shock and awe’ strike against the very foundations of freedom itself, that is, the fundamental, God-given right and necessity for every single human being on the face of this planet to be allowed to speak their mind and criticize whomever they feel may be attempting to stand in the way of this core human characteristic and all it entails in terms of keeping the principles of truth, honesty and moral rectitude alive.
By their past fruits we are able to recognize the Zionist’s present plot to disenfranchise the West of its basic human right to free expression via their entrenched ‘Hate Speech’ laws which they themselves were instrumental in setting in place over the decades following WWII and have steadfastly refused to abolish in Canada and France and Germany and Australia and numerous other EU nations. It also explains the Zionist media’s refusal to deal with Section 318 to 320 during the many years that Section 13 was a hot topic across the Zionist news wires. The big question remains though, why are they waxing so eloquent about ‘Freedom of Speech’ for the likes of Charlie Hebdo yet refusing to face the reality of these current, draconian ‘Hate Propaganda’laws; ones that fly in the face of the very principles and liberties that they are now espousing with such zealous vigour and haughtiness?
Dieudonne, Moi, Satire and Big Brother double standards
Je suis Dieudonne!! 1000 NEW
The most inescapable act of hypocrisy regarding the Zionist media’s trumpeting of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is France’s disingenuous and despicable treatment of that nation’s famed comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, without a doubt one of the finest and incisive minds, popular comedians and satirists alive today. The French officials’ two-faced approach of promoting Charlie Hebdo and the concept of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and the right to satire anything satireable while at the same time going on a ‘Hate Speech’ rampage around the country arresting anyone who so much as made a contrary peep about the manifestly obvious suspicious murders or didn’t append their ‘Je suis’ to the proper name, not only showed the world what a bunch of hypocritical and dangerous clowns they were but also reinforced the fact that France’s government is totally under the control of seditious Zionist Jew forces.
Just recently, in a radio interview with Kevin Barrett where we were discussing the whole Dieudonne debacle, it was pointed out that what is happening to Dieudonne in France and myself here in Canada over the past eight years of ongoing harassment, arrests, libel suit threats and so on is indicative of a world-wide conspiracy to stop the flow of truthful information concerning the miserable machinations of World Jewry’s Zionist juggernaut whether it issues forth from writings on a blogsite or from out of the mouths of satirical comedians such as Dieudonne.
While it’s just fine for Charlie Hebdo to ‘satirize’ whomever they like (but please don’t criticize Zionism or Israel) when I penned a satire on a hate-filled screed against the German people originally written by a Jewish writer, Theodore n. Kaufman, back in 1941 in his now infamous book, Germany Must Perish! and called it Israel Must Perish! the immediate reaction from the Jew lobby in Canada was to file a Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ complaint against me and my website alleging that I was calling for the genocide of the whole Jewish population! Did the satire aspect of the article elude their intellectual acumen or were they just grasping at straws in order to somehow get me arrested? Only time will tell.
Here in Canada it’s B’nai Brith International, one of Rothschild’s 19th century secret masonic brainchilds, who man Big Brother’s ‘hate speech’ ghetto towers, sweeping the Cyberian landscape 24/7 with their search lights in an ongoing effort to spot a Truth Revealer lurking somewhere in the digital underbrush that they can then literally hunt down by simply filing a Section 319(2) ‘hate speech’ complaint against them with whatever local ‘Hate Crime Team’ may be available depending upon the province the patriot resides in.
BBDieuTop1000
In France they likely hide behind a different mask but regardless of the name their purpose is to spy on a nation’s citizens and rat out anyone who they think may be a danger to Zion’s ongoing subterfuge and then use that nation’s ‘Hate Speech’ laws to prosecute the alleged ‘anti-Semitic’ victim.
The notion of satire has to be the biggest joke of all when viewed within the context of the current feigned fuss over free expression and the Charlie Hebdo false flag. For the Zionist Jew media the right to be able to publish endless lies, hatred, pornography, Islamophobia, Christianophobia all of which mock everything that humanity has held sacred for millennia is foremost and nothing illustrates this fact more than the government/media’s full-scale promotion of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo that came out within practically a week following the demise of its former staff. Touting this deliberate act of further promoting a magazine whose contents supposedly were responsible for the deaths of around a dozen or more people as ‘Freedom of Speech’ has to be one of the more provocative examples of Jewish chutzpah ever witnessed, yet, thanks to such sinister machinations this jaded, derelict crime syndicate comprised of interminable moral reprobates and serial killers were then able to utilize their widespread media sorcery to cast their evil spell over millions of French citizens thus manipulating them into believing their absurd lies while at the same time dashing about the country arresting others who were theoretically exercising these same, supposed ‘freedoms’.
As a Christian I’ve observed the artistic, literary and mimetic actions of the Jews when it comes to ‘satirizing’ non-Jewish religions, their churches, their leaders or their saints and I’ve seen with my own eyes too many examples of what they consider to be ‘free expression’ and ‘satire’ disguised as ‘modern art’ or ‘satire’ yet, upon closer examination reveal themselves to be nothing more than lurid, depraved exhibitions of pornographic, scatological/sexual perversion and deviancy, reprehensible to the eye and an affront to one’s spiritual and moral sense of propriety. And when I witness such moral obscenity associated with their ‘artistic’ creations I can only conclude and agree with those who state that the ideology of political Zionism is, at its root, immoral, atheistic and demonic in nature and cannot be connected to anything truly spiritual or holy in the traditional sense of those terms.
That said it behooves me to further add that, given all of the revulsion, disrespect, contempt and derision that much of what Zion vainly attempts to portray as ‘art’ and ‘satire’ entails, what is even more insulting, outrageous and unjust, is the fact that, after appointing themselves the arbiters of all things permissible, including the right to insult and denigrate anyone that they so wish to (for whatever purposes), they then turn around and create, promulgate and rigidly uphold so-called ‘Hate Speech’ laws that exist only to prohibit, by the force of the state, anyone else from exercising these same identical freedoms which they sell to the gullible public as universal rights and freedoms! Put in layman’s language there can never be such a thing as a level playing field when it comes to ‘Freedom of Speech’ if, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some people are more free to say what they want than others.
Allow me to present some examples. As a Christian I’ll use two ‘cartoons’ from Charlie Hebdo that relate to spreading Christianophobia or anti-Christian, anti-God hate propaganda rather than adding to the already existing plethora of specious, Zionist hate-motivated Islamophobic ‘art’. To wit:

CharHebGod
The Babylonian Talmud, the ‘bible’ of the Rabbinical cult we associate with ‘Judaism’, consists of massive tomes of Jewish ‘Law’ purported (by the priesthood) to have been handed down orally to Moses by the Jewish ‘g-d’ Jehovah in the self-chosen people’s hoary past. Then, with the addition of greater masses of written commentary on said law, finally set in print around the 5th century A.D. The Talmud considered to be the ultimate authority and reference when it comes to any and all questions dealing with the religious life of an orthodox Jew supersedes the Torah in all aspects of authority.
Hidden for centuries from the prying eyes of non-Jews the Talmud was eventually translated into English in the early part of the 20th Century. Not long afterward an American author and researcher, Elizabeth Dilling, began a comprehensive study of the Talmud after returning from a visit to the Soviet Union in 1931 where she had gone to observe what the Zio-Communists were then touting as their great ‘humanitarian experiment’. Being able to go behind the scenes Dilling was, ‘shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.’ But even more so was she shocked by the ‘virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.’
Had Dilling been able, at the time, to penetrate further into the vast reaches of the Soviet wastelands she would have witnessed what, thanks to the heroic efforts of Russia’s Nobel Prize winning author and dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, he described as the greatest mass genocide of Gentile Russian Christians ever undertaken in the history of the world. According to Solzhenitsyn somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty-six million souls vanished into that frozen nightmare of terror and fear now known as the Gulag Archipelago.
SolzhenitsynGulagZioHatredquote 800
Dillings book, THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today is a wealth of factual information on the hidden side of Pharisiac Judaism. Chapter 3 in particular, ‘The Talmud and Bible Believers’ examines in detail how the Rabbinical priesthood views the likes of Jesus Christ and Mother Mary; both of whom are treated with the utmost contempt and disrespect. When one realizes just how vile and hateful the passages are describing Jesus and his Mother it’s not too difficult to connect the dots when it comes to understanding why this book, which is posted on my website RadicalPress.com in digital format (and numerous other websites around the world), was one of the principal documents submitted by the ‘complainants’ in my present case as ‘proof’ that I am willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’. Still, as the old saying goes, ‘The proof is in the pudding’ and in the case of the Gulag Archipelago that pudding is stuffed to overflowing with the bloated and starved carcasses of countless millions of innocent people.
As such it beggars the mind to think that BC’s Attorney General, the Honourable Suzanne Anton, would have attached her name to such a sleazy and ill-conceived accusation; one that eventually led the thought police to proceed with their stalking and final arrest and jailing that then allowed them to illegally enter my home and steal all of my computers and electronic files and subsequently subject me to years of ongoing litigation in order to prove my innocence. This ‘law’ we call Section 319(2) is a purely Bolshevik-inspired piece of Zionist double-talk and deception that allows the state to accuse me (or any other Canadian) of willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ for simply re-posting historical facts gleaned from the annals of the former Zionist Jew dominated Soviet dictatorship.
ChHebJesus
Upon reading what the Talmud has to say about Jesus Christ and Mother Mary it won’t take a whole lot of extrapolating to see why the Talmud-driven Zionist media commissars are still going out of their way to defend the likes of images such as these. Just like the New York Times, Charlie Hebdo’s messages appear to be exactly what the Zionist media cartel deems content ‘fit to print’. I will leave it to viewers to decide whether they see these ‘cartoons’ as satire, humour or otherwise. They certainly aren’t the ones though that the Zionist media has been flashing about since the Charlie Hebdo incident.
One of the National Post’s well known Jewish writers, Andrew Coyne, in the comment section of its January 15, 2015 edition, penned an article entitled, ‘Humour busts taboos’ (currently changed online to read: ‘Coyne: Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed’) wherein he labours to intellectually justify the ‘humour’ associated with Charlie Hebdo and Jewish ‘comedians’ such as Sarah Silverman (Coyne finds her humour ‘indefensibly funny’) who get their jollies out of telling anti-Christian jokes such as the example below:

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 11.45.31 PM
British Internet writer and contributor to Veteran’s Today, Lasha Darkmoon, also has a few pertinent things to say about Silverman in her recent and popular article, ‘The Paris Massacre: they had it coming’ where she writes, ‘The Jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman, the nice young lady who likes humping dogs and licking their anuses in various video skits—see here—and who gets many a cheap laugh by insulting Christianity in America, would have been a great hit with these satirical French journalists. They would have loved her for saying, ‘I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again—in a second!’.
Coyne on the other hand, quoting François Cavanna, founder of Charlie Hebdo, who once stated, ‘Nothing is sacred’ goes on to say, ‘I have been turning over those words in my mind ever since I saw them, shortly after the massacre. Can he really have meant it? Nothing is sacred? Why? Why was he so insistent, so absolute? …But I think it is more than that. I think it stems from an understanding that ‘offensive’ humour is not an aberration, a warped version of the real thing, but rather that offensiveness of one kind or another is an intrinsic part of humour. Virtually all humour is offensive to someone; most humour is hurtful to some sensibility; much humour is rooted in pain and fear and the ugly reality of things.’
In his analysis of why people laugh, he tells us, ‘Nobody really knows why people laugh. They just do.’ … ‘What one can say, however, is that it [laughter] emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.’
So I ask myself, why didn’t I laugh when I looked at the Charlie Hebdo image of God the Father being bum-phucked by my Lord Jesus Christ who, in turn, is having his own derriere desecrated by what is supposed to be a symbolic image of the Holy Spirit? The standard interpretation for Jews like Coyne would be that it’s apparently just a pun (satire) on the Catholic church’s opposition to gay marriage. No problem. Get over it guys. It’s all just ‘a joke’. Remember, ‘Nothing is sacred’ and the laughter produced by such ‘satire’ obviously ‘emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.’
But if you don’t find it funny at all and rather offensive then according to Coyne’s reasoning ‘…that’s also the moral answer. The first thing to ask about a joke is not, is it offensive, but: is it funny? If it is, if we laugh at it in spite of ourselves, chances are it is because there is something else to it than mere insult or grotesquerie: some larger truth, some point we resist acknowledging, because to do so would make us uncomfortable.’ [Note: all emphasis throughout this article is by the author. A.T.]
Really now Andrew? Oi vey! I should truly like to know just what it is, what ‘larger truth’ is hidden there that we, who don’t laugh at supposed ‘cartoons’ such as this, ‘resist acknowledging’ because it would ‘make us uncomfortable’? How about the ‘larger truth’ that the atheistic Zionist mindset could care less about what Christians or Muslims hold to be sacred? Is this not their standard operating procedure today just as it was after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas of Russia in 1917 when the Jew-led Bolsheviks systematically went about raping and murdering and torturing the Christian priests and nuns and destroying their houses of worship on a scale that, were it fully disclosed to the masses today on the Zionist media, would turn the stomachs of whole nations to the point where their present belief in your endless lies would suddenly cease to exist?
Commenting on Sarah Silverman’s career Coyne says, ‘If her routine were only about shock value, I don’t imagine she would have lasted as long as she has. Rather, she has thought long and hard about what makes us anxious — what we’re least willing to talk about.’
So, according to the atheistic Zionist mind-set of Jewish writers like Coyne, if someone has expended a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to make Christians ‘anxious’ about homos marrying homos by forcing them to talk about it through portraying their Saviour screwing God the Father up the ass, then this is a good thing. A funny thing. A laughter producing mechanism that gets the desired result ‘by turning our anxieties and discomforts in on themselves, forcing us to confront them rather than bury them.’ Sigmund, I’m certain, would have been proud of Andrew Coyne’s deeply analytical diagnosis of Sarah Silverman’s perverted, sick mind.
Then of course, as Coyne goes on to say, ‘There’s a world of meaning in this. When an ‘offensive’ comic says nothing is unsayable, they mean that we do not have to be afraid of words. They are not our master: we are theirs. Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed.’
Now this is all fine and dandy for Andrew Coyne and his Jewish comedians and the National Post and its readership who subscribe to this type of psycho-babble purporting to be wisdom but, like all babble that arises in the Zionist media, it only caters to the self-chosen mindset, be it ethnic Jews or culturally and socially indoctrinated ‘mentally-cloned’ chabez goy ‘Jews’ who, because of their own life experiences growing up in a culture saturated with endless Zionist propaganda, have come to think and react and behave just like their Zionist counterparts.
But of course for all of Coyne’s sophisticated rhetoric and sophistry, specifically designed to make an ugly pile of dog shit look like a fruit cake, his arguments in favour of justifying what is nothing more than pure pornography, an ‘art’ and an industry which the the Jews have developed to the point of perfection and now reap countless millions from its exploitation via their mass media, don’t impress me one iota.
But, and believe me when I say this is a BIG BUT (no pun or typo intended), there are the rest of us great unwashed goyim who amount to not millions but billions, who for numerous reasons don’t think at all like the Zionists would have us think. We have our own codes of moral conduct and our own spiritual views and perspectives on what we believe to be the holy and sacred side of life here on planet Earth. And yes, we also value justice and freedom of speech just like the Zionists purport to value it. Nonetheless, there is a vast and fundamental separation between the Zionist version of freedom of speech and that of the non-Zionist; a difference based upon the elemental fact that non-Zionists believe in freedom of speech for EVERYONE, not just for the Zionist Jews and their fawning sycophants who, for whatever reason, feel that Zion’s version of TRUTH and FREEDOM is somehow the only version permissible for the whole of humanity. Therein lies the rub and therein lies the one single factor that historically has made the ‘Jewish Question’ one of continuing paramount importance for all of mankind and, as far back as a century ago, prompted the late Henry Ford, Sr. to describe this amazing occurrence with the Jews as ‘The world’s Foremost Problem’.
HenryQuotesTemplate 600
Given a level playing field in all the critical sectors of a nation that comprise government, banking, economics, industry, education, social and religious institutions and most important of all, openness and diversity within the most crucial area its media/news/entertainment/communication systems the majority of citizens in any democratic nation would have the wherewithal to manage their country for the good of all rather than be held hostage to a tiny deviant minority that now rules over us with greater and greater disregard for the essential values that do make life both sacred and worthwhile. This is a lesson that the Zionists and their obeisant sycophants are still in denial about. For the majority it’s but a matter of ignorance due to their brainwashing and were they to be told the whole truth would likely change their ways but for those in power who manage the levers of deception it’s not so much a matter of denial but one of cold, calculated, wilful, heartless premeditated criminal intent to perpetrate and perpetuate their execrable program to enslave the vast majority of humanity via the ongoing misuse of their media cartel and other control mechanisms.
Some final thoughts on Canada’s PM Stephen Harper and ‘Freedom of Speech’
Saving the worst for last and not wishing to subject readers to more obnoxious imagery I will forgo posting a photo of Canada’s No. 1 Zionist lackey and current Prime Minister of Canada, the Dishonourable Stephen Harper.
Before commenting on his recent reaction to the Charlie Hebdo affair I want to reiterate a fact that needs to be born in mind with respect to my legal proceedings now before the court. On April 27th, 2011, about one week prior to the last federal election, being fully conscious of the imminent threat that Harper posed to my country should his Conservative party gain a majority vote and be given the opportunity to exercise h/is-rael’s agenda via their controlled puppet, I penned an article titled, Hating Harper and posted it to my website. There you will find an image of the traitor who is now attempting to tell Canadians what a wonderful, free and democratic nation they live in; one that, were it not for those insanely envious ‘Mooslim’ terrorist Jihadists who hate our way of life, would have us all living just happy as a clam. When I wrote the article I knew full well what Canada would be facing should Stephen Harper and his Con-servative Party gain a majority of votes necessary to rule the country for next four years.
The very next day, Canada’s former No. 1 serial complainant in the vast majority of the now repealed Sec. 13 ‘Human Rights’ cases (please note that I am under a court order NOT to publish his name anywhere on the net), filed a Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team under the supervision of Det. Cst. Terry Wilson pictured below along with his partner in crime Cst. Normandie Levas. That was the first step taken in a long drawn-out clandestine process that eventually culminated in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012.
The BC Hate Crime Team’s website tells us that it ‘has two full-time police officers trained to recognize the specialized and multi-jurisdictional nature of hate propaganda offences.’ It was one of those ‘trained’ police officers, Cst. Levas, who filed a report with BC Attorney General, Hon. Suzanne Anton, outlining her reasons why she felt I had committed the unforgivable crime of ‘willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ by, (quoting Det. Cst. Wilson’s words to me while I was in jail), ‘calling for the total genocide of the Jewish population’. Based on this ‘trained’ police officer’s ‘evidence’ the Attorney General then gave their consent to have me formally charged. Later on, during the preliminary inquiry when I cross examined Cst. Levas in court about her ‘training’ and what it was that qualified her to make such presumptive and false accusations about me, she revealed to the court that prior to joining the ‘Hate Crime Team’ she had worked as a . . . dental assistant!
NewWilsonPhoto
Returning to the Charlie Hebdo hoax and that other hoax, the Zionist National Post, I want to make further reference to an article that appeared on the front page of the January 9, 2015 edition titled, ‘THIS IS WAR ON US ALL, HARPER SAYS: PM says terror law to be tabled soon.’ (My apologies to readers but I’ve been unable to find a link to the article online)
Before the blood had dried on the two young Muslim brothers alleged to have carried out the shootings at the office of Charlie Hebdo then subsequently murdered by the French security forces in order to ensure that they would never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story, Canada’s Zionist-controlled puppet, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was already blabbering on in the media about how the ‘jihadists are at war with anyone who values openness and tolerance’ and further stating that his government was already busy formulating new proposed legislation that would introduce ‘new arrest powers aimed at thwarting terrorist threats’ in an upcoming bill destined to be tabled at the end of January when Parliament resumes.
He then went on to say, ‘They have declared war and are already executing it on a massive scale on a whole range of countries with which they are in contact, and they have declared war on any country, like ourselves(sic), that values freedom, openness and tolerance. We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it is not going to go away.’
Yes, Stephen Harper, you can be damn sure that these false flag events such as we’ve just witnessed in Paris, France won’t ‘go away’ so long as the wars which your government has plunged Canada into at the behest of Israel are slated to carry on and the necessity to manufacture greater and greater levels of fear remain a prerequisite to gaining approval for your heinous acts of genocide against defenceless people like the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, the Afghans and those still surviving in other Middle East nations where the Zionist forces are constantly committing their war crimes.
Making these hypocritically absurd pronouncements given the fact that there was still no definite proof as to who had committed the murders merely shows the insidiousness and transparent bigotry of those in power who, because they are puppets dangling on Zionist strings, will mouth their aggressive lies and threats to the world regardless of whatever the people may think to the contrary. This process of accusing either an individual or a nation of crimes yet unproven applies not only to the Islamic community as a whole but to my own ‘Freedom of Speech’ case here at home in Canada and now before the Supreme court of British Columbia. The fact that I have yet to be tried for the alleged ‘crime’ of ‘willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ certainly didn’t deter the Zionist media in Canada from making all sorts of false and defamatory accusations and slanderous remarks against my person when the Indictment was first handed down November 5, 2012. The same Zionist big mouth, Ezra Levant, was only too happy to interview my former counsel, Douglas Christie on his SunNews show ‘The Source’ where he then proceeded to accuse me of all sorts of falsehoods just like Harper does when it comes to discussing issues to do with Islam and Israel’s false flag events all of which are designed to further enhance just such vitriolic rhetoric.
Within the short span of about six minutes good ol’ free speech advocate Ezra Levant managed to slander, defame and libel me as many times as possible, punctuating every comment or question to lawyer Doug Christie with at least one or more ad hominem slur, in order to show the world just how grand and liberal the Zionist mainstream media truly is when it comes to freedom of expression.
Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 4.55.45 PM
Yes, said Ezra, that Topham is an ‘anti-Semite.’ He’s ‘offensive’ and an ‘anti-Zionist [which is] code for anti-Semitic.’ His website is ‘gross’ and his comments ‘repulsive’ and everything that he does is ‘motivated by a form of malice.’ And on top of that Levant also shared freely his opinion that I was a ‘nobody’ and an ‘anti-Semitic idiot and a right wing wacko’ ending his ‘freedom of speech’ soliloquy by emphatically pronouncing to all of Canada that when it came right down to it ‘I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!’
When I finished watched the interview I said to myself, oi vey! with ‘free speech’ friends like this who needs enemies? Here he is, one of Canada’s most vocal advocates for ‘freedom of speech’ on the Internet and he’s sitting there abusing me left, right and center telling the world blatant lies about me and making me out to be some sort of crazed Jew-hating anti-Semite! That folks is how ‘Freedom of Speech’ works for those holding the mechanisms of mind-control in their nefarious little hands.
Getting back to Harper and his disingenuous statements to the media he goes on to say, ‘At the same time, we also encourage people to go about their lives and to exercise our rights and freedoms and our openness as a society as loudly and as clear as we can because that is the best way of defeating what is ultimately a movement of hatred and intolerance.’ ‘No shit Batman’ as a friend of mine used to say when confronted with such transparent posturing. That is precisely what I and many other Canadians have been doing for decades. And were we able to ‘exercise our rights and freedoms’ without the Jewish lobbyists using their ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws to attack and imprison us? No. Just more hypocritical smoke and mirrors and sententious sophistry that’s all.
Commenting on the Paris demonstrations that followed in the wake of the shootings Harper, monotonously mouthing the Zionist agenda rather than taking into consideration ALL Canadians, displayed his now usual chutzpah by stating, ‘Today, I know all Canadians…stand together with [Israel? A.T.] the people of France…our great friends and allies’ culminating his bigoted remarks with his final fatuous remark that, ‘When a trio of [alleged. A.T.] hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles freedom of expression, freedom of the press they assaulted democracy everywhere.’
Talk is obviously cheap and meaningless when a nation’s leader can make such blatantly deceptive statements to the press and the so-called ‘independent’ media stands by unquestioningly allowing it to go on.
Conclusion
So what are we to make of this latest false flag event that occurred in Paris, France? Will the world fall for it like most people fell for the 9/11 false flag and continue on supporting those who are the perpetrators of the majority of mankind’s problems? How long will the pretense last before the mask of Zion finally falls from the face of evil, revealing forever the primary source of mankind’s collective woes and allowing for the final liberation of the millions of people still suffering from the ignorance that’s ultimately a result of having lived their lives in a trauma-induced trance of fear and insecurity; products of deliberate mind-control by a globally elite force of psychopaths who truly believe that they were given the right by their G_d to wield unlimited power and control over the majority of humanity? How long before the majority of Jews themselves will be healed of this devastating ghetto consciousness that’s plagued the world for over two millennia?
For most people today the realization that they are going about their lives unaware of the fact that there’s a war going on around them designed to eventually enslave them is beyond belief. They simply remain transfixed by Big Brother’s media, struggle on a daily basis to pay their credit card debts and keep food on the table and a roof over their heads all the while faithfully watching the sitcoms and television news and sports and a myriad number of channels all designed with the intent of diverting their attention away from the psycho/spiritual battles that are going on behind the scenes both in Cyberspace (the Internet) where the final battle is now well underway as well as in the courtrooms of the nation where the Zionist forces are surreptitiously at work both enacting new legislation and protecting old legislation like Section 318 to 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, laws overtly and covertly designed to criminalize the Truth Revealers who are on to their scams and are doing their utmost with scant resources to strike the chimes of truth and freedom and connect the dots so that the majority of those still asleep might one day awaken.
Make no mistake about it. The Zionists KNOW their days are numbered and that time is fast running out for them to pull off their global coup. The fact that they know though is not something that will automatically tempt them to change their evil ways. That’s not how psychopaths operate. The stronger the resistance to their plotting and scheming the more they dig their heels in and resort to greater and greater subterfuges to prevent the tide of truth from rising. They understand better than anyone the power of their media and the power of their purse and they will not stop using either of these devices to achieve the end they’ve worked for so long and with such single-minded, albeit, malicious intent.
It may be pointless at this juncture in the battle to remind people that this war has been going on since Lucifer first broke rank with the heavenly hosts and decided that he would rather be God and do his own thing instead of remaining a willing and loving participant in the grand scheme of Creation. God of course, having endowed all of his Creation, from the heavenly realms down to us mundane time-space mortal creatures of flesh and blood with free will wasn’t about to interfere with his design and so left his somewhat recalcitrant and sentient family to work it out on their own.
The debate over who the Zionists really are and why they’re motivated to act as they do would fill a thousand Alexandrian libraries. The origins of such primal urges to control others cannot help but lead serious thinkers to an eventual realization that such questions ultimately cannot be answered without delving into speculative philosophical, occult and spiritual realms that go far beyond the scope of this article.
The Internet at this early juncture in its nascent beginnings is already expanding at quantum speeds. The information age is gaining ground with every millisecond, exploding our preconceived notions of time and space and taking us on a transcendental journey that at this point in time is akin in terms of progress to our little toe projecting out upon the threshold of a dream that undoubtedly will continue to unfold throughout the remainder of the present Aquarian cycle, leading us onward and inward to greater and greater understanding, peace, harmony, and love.
Together humanity now faces the supreme trial of all ages past. We stand as a vast human species with one foot embedded in yesterday and the other foot jutting forth into a future that all too often appears shrouded in grey, chemtrail-like clouds of self doubt brought forth daily through the interminable Big Brother’s flak of fear and loathing which constitute the hallmarks of the Zionist Information Media now permanently acting in collusion with its counterparts in every other phase of global involvement who are intent on breaking the will of the people to the point where they eventually give up and bow their heads to accept their chains of slavery and subservience to the satanic power that now rules the world by default.
Bob_Dylan_-_The_Times_They_Are_A-Changin’
Bob Dylan, one of the leading American Jewish poets, songwriters and musicians of the 1960’s prophetically expressed best our current existential dilemma when, in 1964 he wrote his immortal song, ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’. I publish it here for readers to consider.
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
The glorious sun of Truth and Justice is now rising upon an otherwise outwardly bleak, forlorn, terror-stricken Cyberian landscape according to divine plan, casting great shadows across the wreckage of thousands of years of endless war and strife and suffering. Its radiant rays of life-giving hope are bursting forth with new and brighter intensity than ever before, defying with the full intensity of its love-driven will and determination all of the Evil and Darkness emanating forth from the present Zio-Talmudic tyranny now so frantic with fear and desperately attempting to pull off its age-long plan for absolute control of planet Earth.
In the end Truth and Love and Peace WILL prevail.

{ Add a Comment }