Search This Blog


Thursday, 21 January 2016

The Case Against Noahide Law

January 19, 2016 
ED Noor: Americans in their current Islamophobic fervor seem to be terrified of the imposition of Shariah Law upon the nation. They are completely unaware that their nation has already been sold over and that their American legal system has been hijacked by the Talmudics and that their once Napoleonic judicial system has been altered into a truly “jewdicial system”.
“On October 16th [2004], president Bush signed into law the global anti-semitism review act, designed to force the entire world into never being critical of the Jews, whatever their actions.
“This act establishes a special department within the United States state department to monitor global anti-semitism, which is to report annually to congress.
“This act defines a person as being anti-semitic if they purport any of the following beliefs:
~ Any assertion, “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world.”
~ The expression of, “strong anti-Israel sentiment.”
~ Expressing, “virulent criticism,” of Israel’s leaders, past or present. The state department gives an example of this occurring when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behaviour of a past or present Zionist leader.
~ Any criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature with the emphasis on the Talmud and Kabbalah.
~ Any criticism of the United States government and congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish – Zionist community, which would include Jewish organisations such as American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
~ Any criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism or what some call the, “New World Order.”
~ Placing any blame on Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ.
~ Citing any facts that could in any way diminish the, “six million,” figure of holocaust victims.
~ Claiming that Israel is a racist state.
~ Making any claim that there exists a, “Zionist conspiracy.”
~ Offering proof that Jews and their leaders created communism and the bolshevik revolution in Russia.
~ Making, “derogatory statements about Jewish persons.”
~ Asserting that spiritually disobedient Jews do not have the biblical right to re-occupy Palestine.
~ Making any allegations of Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attack.
And now, let us get into the nitty gritty of the Noahide Laws, something this blog has been exposing for several years now.
“All Israelites will have a part in the future world. The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell”. ~ Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha .
Public Law 102-14 is an American Federal law which states that the “Seven Noahide Laws” (Jewish Laws from the Talmud) are the principle on which the United States was founded and that it is the responsibility of America to transmit these “ethical values” to future generation both in the United States and the world. But what are these so-called “ethical values” known as the “Seven Noahide Laws” and what implications do they have for non-Jews?
Public Law 102-14 not only states that the Seven Noahide Laws are the principles upon which the American Nation was founded, it also honors Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of the Lubavitch Movement (also known as Chabad) as being a “great spiritual leader”. According to Rabbi Schneerson, the Noahide Laws are to be kept by force if possible and if not by “pleasantness and peace”.  This same Rabbi also stated that non-Jews are inferior to Jews, saying that they have “satanic souls” and their lives are worth nothing except as service to Jews.  Why would the USA honor such a Rabbi who preaches the most militant form of Noahide Law and who obviously hates non-Jews?
ED Noor: “It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not ~ they will be killed.” ~ Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
After learning about Public Law 102-14 and the Noahide Laws, discriminatory Jewish religious laws which threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech and sexual expression in the United States and the world, we wanted to learn a little more about modern Jewish opinion on this matter. We are fortunate because in 2008 a book on Noahide Law was published in Jerusalem entitled “The Divine Code”. Better still, the book was reviewed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Let’s see what “The Divine Code” and the Chief Rabbis have to say about Noahide Law.
American Public Law 102-14 enshrines the “Seven Noahide Laws”  as the “ethical values” upon which the United States was founded. The law also asserts that it is the nation’s “responsibility” to transmit these “ethical values” to the generations of the future. We read in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia that under these laws, those who practice other faiths, blaspheme against Judaism or commit “adultery” are to be punished by death and that non-Jews are commanded to set up “courts of justice” to judge the masses upon these laws. It would also seem that the Chief Rabbis of Israel also support the Noahide Laws being commanded upon non-Jews from their blessings upon the 2008 book “The Divine Code“. But where did these ideas about Noahide Law come from?  Noahide Law is not some bizarre aberration of Judaism, it is fundamental and central to Jewish cannon.  In which Jewish holy book can we find the Noahide Laws?  To answer these questions, we need to learn a little about the most important of all Jewish scriptures, The Babylonian Talmud.
Many American find it hard to believe that congress would pass Public Law 102-14 (The Noahide Laws) if they were truly detrimental to the freedoms of non-Jews. Aren’t most people in congress non-Jewish? Why would they pass a law that was against their own interests? According to former congressman Bill Dannemyer (this is not an endorsement of him), Public Law 102-14 was passed on the vote of only four congressmen, when 99% of congress was absent. If his testimony and the testimony of his wife Dr. Day (again, not an endorsement) are accurate, then 99% of congress never voted on Public Law 102-14. Why was such an important proclamation passed with the consent of only 1% of congress?
ED Noor: By Congressman Dannemyer serving at the time. An excellent read. Basically they passed this using the same conniving methods they utilized when signing the Federal Reserve Act back in 1903.
Ever since the Jewish Talmudic Noahide Laws were introduced into the American legal system back in 1991, some members of the Jewish legal community have been using deceptive practices and outright lies to introduce Jewish Talmudic Laws into the Supreme Court, particularly in the area of capital punishment and execution law. Execution is a legal issue of importance to those seeking to implement Noahide Law in the United States since Noahide Law calls for the decapitation of anyone who practices “idolatry” (which includes Christianity) or blasphemes the Jewish god. Here we will briefly discuss which organizations are infiltrating the Supreme Court, preparing it for the acceptance of Talmudic Law and how they are deceiving the public into accepting Talmudic execution laws (particularly decapitation) in the United States.
ED Noor: Bush Jr. Signing this infamous duplicitous law which had nothing to do with education and everything to do with signing in the Rebbe’s dream of establishing the Noahide Laws in America.
This photo provided by the Supreme Court shows President Bush, left, meeting with members of the Supreme Court during the investiture ceremony of Chief Justice John Roberts, second from right, in the Chief Justice's Conference Room at the court in Washington, Monday, Oct. 3, 2005. From left are, the president, Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Antonin Scalia, Roberts, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (AP Photo/Ken Heinen, Pool)
This photo provided by the Supreme Court shows President Bush, left, meeting with members of the Supreme Court during the investiture ceremony of Chief Justice John Roberts, second from right, in the Chief Justice’s Conference Room at the court in Washington, Monday, Oct. 3, 2005. From left are, the president, Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Antonin Scalia, Roberts, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. (AP Photo/Ken Heinen, Pool)
The Jews of America and Zionist Israel have not been satisfied with simply enshrining their supremacist, virulent and dangerous Noahide Laws into the United States government via Public Law 102-14. They have been working steadily to further encroach their Talmudic hegemony into the US, and they have won over our Presidents and Supreme Court Justices.
On November 5th, 2002 a Kosher dinner was held at the Supreme Court to celebrate the launch of the International Institute for Judaic Law (IIJL) [currently defunct]. This kosher dinner was attended by three of the Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia, some of whom provided their letters of approval to the founder of the institute, Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi Dr. Noson Gurary. President George W. Bush also sent his greetings and approval for the institute and Jewish Law.
One of the stated purposes of IIJL was to promote the application of Jewish Law and Philosophy in contemporary society. The Jewish Noahide Laws and Philosophy of the Talmud are inherently biased against non-Jews, promoting their general second-class citizenship and even extermination, so why is the President of the USA and Supreme Court giving credence to such an Jewish supremacist legal system?
When Americans learn about Public Law 102-14 and the Noahide Laws, many are quick to dismiss the threat because “Israel is a secular nation” and would never push for religious laws… how far this is from the truth!
Today, Jews and their supporters drum the misconception that Israel is a “secular sate”.  Israel is a “Jewish sate”, a Zionist state, a religious state and this is very obvious from Israel’s legal system.  The nation of Israel has no constitution, on purpose, because this would force the nation to choose between “secularism” and halacha (Jewish Law).  Israel does however have state appointed and funded Rabbis and Rabbinical Courts.  The Rabbis of Israel have gained control of and have implemented religious law in the sectors of marriage, divorce and adoption and are seeking to develop greater influence over the nation’s military and education sectors.  A nation which does not have a constitution of secularism but does have state religious figures with legal powers is not a “secular state”; it is a pseudo-theocracy at best.  Surprisingly, recent polls have suggested that support for Halacha law over democracy is very high within the nation of Israel.
When criticizing the international Jewish legal system known as Noahide Law (Public Law 102-14 in America), one is often accused of being “anti-Semitic”. To call someone an “anti-Semite” implies they have issues with “Semitic” people, and thus you are equating them with being something akin to a racist.  It can be stated that Noahide Law is just that, a law, and so opposing this law is no less “racist” than opposing Islamic Sharia law or Communism.  A legal text is not a group or people, it is not an ethnicity, and it is not a race, so to oppose it cannot be “anti-Semitic”.  However, there is a deeper question that needs to be answered here, are Jew’s really a race or ethnicity?  When we look at modern laws in Israel, Jewish theology, and claims by modern Jewish geneticists, we can see that Judaism has been conflated with “Semitism”, they are not the same thing.
Criticism of Noahide Law and Judaism in general has nothing to do with hatred for any race or ethnicity, it has to do with opposing deleterious ideology, nothing more, nothing less.
When many Christian learn about Noahide Law and the Talmud, they wrongly believe that the injunctions against “heathens” do not apply to them.  Little do Christians know that according to Jewish Law, to be Christian is worse than being a “heathen” since Christians are considered “heretics” and “apostates”. Indeed, according to the Talmud, becoming Christian is one of the worst sins one can commit, and Jesus himself is harshly admonished for being a sorcerer, blasphemer and a whore monger.
ED Noor: The seven Noahide laws, as traditionally enumerated are:
Do Not Deny God
Do Not Blaspheme God
Do Not Murder
Do Not Engage in Incestuous, Adulterous or Homosexual Relationships
Do Not Steal
Do Not Eat of a Live Animal
Establish Courts/Legal System to Ensure Law Obedience
Should the LGBTQ community be worried about Public Law 102-14 and the Jewish Noahide Laws? Absolutely.  According to traditional interpretations of Noahide Law, the law against “adultery” includes homosexuality, and like adulterers, homosexuals would be killed under Noahide Law.  The Talmud is full of commands to kill homosexuals, classing them with persons who have sex with animals.
Non-Jews accused of homosexuality could be executed at any time in a Noahide court upon the testimony of one witness and upon the verdict of just one judge; Jews on the other hand would need two witnesses to their “crime” of homosexuality and could not be executed unless they were brought before a panel of 71 judges (the Sanhedrin).  Further, some Rabbis of the Talmud make prejudicial assumptions, stating that Jews are generally not thought to practice homosexuality, thus providing Jews with a biased favor before the court. Talmudic Law obviously has an inherent bias against non-Jews who have been accused of this so-called “sin” and non-Jewish LGBTQs are obviously in greater danger of persecution under Noahide Law than Jewish LGBTQs.
Adultery is a “crime” under Jewish Noahide Law, one for which non-Jews are to be decapitated.  But what is the Jewish definition of adultery?  Many might be surprised to learn that under usual circumstance, only a woman can be accused of adultery under Jewish Law, while Jewish men are free to engage in extramarital sex and keep sex slaves, even having sex with non-Jewish infants as young as three years old.
Meanwhile, woman only accused of adultery were stripped naked and put on public display during the Talmudic times. Are these the type of “morals” we want in the USA (Public Law 102-14) or around the world? While many will point to the fact that such practices are not taking place today, according to Halachic material, this is only because current Israeli society has been corrupted by foreign influence (as during Roman times), something that Noahide advocates are working to correct.
One of the Seven Noahide Laws is “do not murder”; who could disagree with that? Well, it depends on your definition of murder.  According to the Jewish Law of the Talmud, there is no penalty for killing a person indirectly, thus Jewish law provides provisions for killing others (even other Jews) via starvation, exposure, suffocation, and more. But, this principle only applies to Jews.  Non-Jews who commit these same crimes are sentenced to death.  Noahide Law (Public Law 102-14) is inherently biased in favor of Jews, and resembles nothing close to what would be considered common morality or ethics.
ED Noor: Read about The King’s Torah, a modern Israeli publication by several prominent rabbis.
One of the Seven Noahide Laws from the Jewish Talmud is “Do Not Steal”. That sounds pretty reasonable right? But did you know that according to the Talmud Jews are given full permission to steal from non-Jews? And don’t forget, Jews are not prosecuted for stealing small amounts of money, but non-Jews are.
Members of the modern Sanhedrin in Israel.
The seventh and final law of the Seven Noahide Laws (Public Law 102-14) is to “appoint courts of justice”. But what kind of American courts would uphold Jewish law?  According to the reputable Jewish legal source, the Mishneh Torah (aka Rambam) written by the famous Jewish scholar Maimonides, non-Jews are to set up “theocratic courts” whose judges are learned in “Torah” and who do no “pervert” the law with secular logic.
Non-Jews who fail to set up theocratic Jewish courts in their nations are subjected to mass execution.  If this were not enough, it may (or may not) be required for non-Jews to appoint theocratic kings among themselves who will ensure that the nation is upholding Noahide Law.  The United States was founded upon the principle of separation of Church and State, so what is such a law as Public Law 102-14 doing in our federal legal system?
The very first of The Seven Jewish Noahide Laws (American Public Law 102-14) is “No Idolatry”.  Well most people don’t bow before graven images, so does it really matter if such practices are outlawed? “Idolatry” under Jewish Noahide Law encompasses much much more than simply banning people from bowing before statues.
According to Jewish legal scholars, to avoid “idolatry”, one must:
~ accept Jewish Torah;
~ accept Jewish prophets and teachers;
~ and give obedience to Jewish courts.
~ Also, one must not accept non-Jewish scriptures;
~ not follow non-Jewish prophets or priests.
All non-Jewish religious temples and paraphernalia are to be destroyed and any attempts to proselytize a non-Jewish religion will lead to execution. In addition, under the Noahide Law which abolishes “idolatry”, non-Jews can be executed for doing something as simple as consulting astrologers or getting a tattoo. Finally, non-Jews are commanded to not love those who practice idolatry and to even hate them.
ED Noor: “MAY” have racist UNDERtones!? See images above.
Public Law 102-14 in the United States and the Jewish Noahide Laws are of concern to all non-Jews.  The Noahide Laws are rules created by Jews for non-Jews, and these rules relegate us to a 2nd class status. But there are layers to this 2nd class citizenship for non-Jews under Jewish Talmudic law.
Did you know that according to the Talmud, the same book which gives us the Noahide Laws, that African people are considered to be cursed?  That’s right, according to the Talmud the “negro” race was produced through a curse on Noah’s son Ham. Since it is the Talmud which informs Noahide Law in general, and it is from Jewish Talmudists that we are informed on the laws, it is certainly possible that some of this Talmudic racism could bleed through, infecting the already nefarious Noahide Laws with a new layer of hate, anti-African racism.  Anti-African racism in Israel might be a good indicator for the temper in which Rabbis might promote the Noahide Law among non-Jews.
When speaking about Noahide Law with either Jews or Noahides, sometimes a person who is either misinformed or even willingly trying to deceive you will proclaim that there is no reason to worry about Noahide Law since according to Jewish theology, no “Ger Toshav” can be accepted at this time. According to Jewish Law, a “Ger Toshav” can only be accepted during a time when the nation of Israel has instated a holiday called the Jubilee, and the modern nation of Israel has not done this. However, this logic is deceptive, since the speaker is either accidentally or intentionally conflating a “Noahide” with a “Ger Toshav”, they are not the same thing!


“Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: ”Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh, they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.’ At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: ‘‘The Lord alone will appear great on that day! …’” ~ Zohar, Vayshlah 177b
“It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” ~ Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
“Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” ~ Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog  ~“Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”.



Filed Under: Noahide LawNoor al-HaqiqaSnippits and Snappits

Eagles co-founder Glenn Frey flies away. RIP. A RadicalPress Public Service Announcement

ATEditorPic185 copy
One of country rock’s best ever bands. I love them. May Glenn rest in eternal peace and be blessed for his contribution to musical history.
Arthur Topham
Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 12.17.37 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 12.20.09 PM



Today’s Free Speech Rant: Advocating for Brad Love and Arthur Topham by Alberta Al

Today’s Free Speech Rant: Advocating for Brad Love and Arthur Topham
by Alberta Al
ATEditorPic185 copy
Editor’s Note: The following rant by 79 year old Alberta Al is in response to an article by Paul Fromm on political prisoner Brad Love who has been in and out of jail here in Canada for the past 14 years for the horrendous crime of . . . . writing non-theatening letters of criticism to politicians and bureaucrats on controversial topics! Freedom of expression for Love has turned into hatred by the alien forces of repressive censorship who now rule the Canadian state. Alberta Al’s remarks are poignant and worthy of serious consideration.
If thousands of us across this once great nation were to publish CRITICAL comments about Zionist Israeli policies and programs and deny that the holocaust occurred, and those comments were applied to all Jewish lobby groups in Canada; and if all of us were charged under section 319(2) of the CRIMINAL CODE; and if ALL of us pled GUILTY to the charges there would NOT be enough rooms in our jails and loonie bins to house us all.  So what would the Crown do with us?  If I were charged and pled guilty I wouldn’t mind the comfort of a private cell where I receive 3 meals a day without having to prepare one morsel, free medical and dental care, free library facilities, free TV and internet and (because some perverts have taken advantage of it) a free make-over making one a woman from a man.
True red-blooded Canadians who have any substance to them have slid into almost nothingness along with the rest of our complacent, uncaring and unfriendly society.  We have lost our ability to communicate with each other orally to debate issues or express our opinions without fear of retribution.  Instead, we have become robotically engineered by those IN POWER to dance tunes on our bee-bop-a lulus, our gadgets and devices, from which we can HIDE and call anyone any blasphemous name or expletive they can think of.  Just look at the comments after particular articles and you will see what I mean.  You will also notice that by and large the commentators don’t know the English language which proves to me that FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY is alive and well in Canada even though we spend BILLIONS on trying to educate our children to………THINK ANALYTICALLY!
In the last 40 odd years our politicians have learned very well NOT to communicate with us peons, not to be accountable and transparent to us.  They sit back in their GD comfortable office pews with their feet on their desks and fall asleep while the ship of state is floundering.  Governments of all stripes have learned that the best way to be reelected is to GIVE money to every Tom, Dick and Mary and corporation and increase the public debt…………………seemingly without batting an eye!  What do they care?  It’s not their money?  And anyway they get 1/3 of their salaries TAX FREE!  When was the last time YOU got tax-free wages or salaries?
One cannot advocate for Brad Love – and Arthur Topham – strong enough.  Our rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS guaranteed under the CHARTER are being washed away by the shifting, whispering sands.  We no long respect and love each other because it is much easier to………………………….HATE!  We have become cowering cowards, afraid of our own shadows, afraid to speak out except when we hold a gun to someone’s head!  Amen and hallelujah!  Al has completed his rant for the day.
Contact Alberta Al: Al Romanchuk

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical and Scientific Level By Robert Faurisson

TotalVictory copy
The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical 
and Scientific Level
By Robert Faurisson
December 31, 2015
“The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.”
~ Robert Faurisson
In France and in the rest of the world historians and specialists of “the Holocaust” no longer know what to answer to the revisionists’ arguments. And to speak only of my own case, which has been going on since 1978 (that is, for some thirty-seven years), never has my country’s justice system, despite the tireless requests by self-righteous associations to rule against me on the substance of my writings or statements, been able to note therein the least trace of any rashnessnegligence,deliberate ignorancefalsehoodfalsification or lying. My adversaries, rich and powerful though they may be, have never succeeded in getting our judges to convict me on the merits of the conclusions reached through my research work which, for over half a century, has focused on what is commonly called “the genocide of the Jews”, “the Nazi gas chambers” and “the six million (or nearly)” Jewish victims of the Third Reich. At most, at the end countless cases I have lost suits (whether as plaintiff or defendant) or been found guilty mainly 1) for a malevolence, supposed but not demonstrated, towards the Jews, 2) for breaking the gayssotine (the Fabius-Gayssot or Faurisson Act, legislation of convenience specifically targeting the findings of my research) or 3) by virtue of the “good faith” (sic) of individuals like Léon Poliakov or Robert Badinter, even though found to be at fault by the judges themselves.
For years Poliakov had well and truly manipulated the writings of SS officer Kurt Gerstein (who, having “repented” (?), then committed suicide (?)), when not fabricating outright fragments of text to attribute to him. But the judges granted the presumption of good faith to Poliakov. He had been, we were told, “animated by the passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and about facts of contemporary history that were particularly tragic”. It was therefore appropriate to forgive him for having “perhaps, on minor points [sic!!!], broken scientific standards of rigour without, however, it being permissible to state that he is a manipulator or fabricator of texts”. As for Badinter, in 2006 he claimed that in 1981, when he was still barrister for the LICRA and just before becoming Minister of Justice, he had got a court to rule against me “for being a falsifier of history”. A decision of 2007 restored the truth and held that Badinter had “failed in his evidence” to demonstrate my alleged dishonesty; but, the court hastened to add, he had been in good faith. For want of both money and a lawyer (Eric Delcroix having retired – not without being refused honorary membership of the bar), I did not appeal and was forced to pay the Socialist millionaire the sum of €5,000. But at least since then I have had the satisfaction of being able to speak of “Robert Badinter, my liar, my slanderer… in good faith”.
An astute observer will have noted that the more our opponents sense the game is getting away from them on the historical or scientific level, the more they feel the need to increase their propagandistic drum beating, and the repression as well. In France, at this very moment, they are putting all their hopes in having Parliament pass a supergayssotine. Good for them! A few weeks short of my 87th birthday, I have six cases pending, four against me and two others that I have had to instigate, albeit quite unwillingly. Will my judges finally decide, in 2016, to leave us, my wife and me, destitute? Or are they getting ready simply to throw me into a prison of the République? It is understood beforehand, is it not?, that if they were to carry things to such extremes it would only be on the grounds of the noblest républicain principles and in the name of human rights.
Let’s consider our current Prime Minister. One day, Manuel Valls, in full pomposity, his mouth, heart and left hand clenched, let fly: “I am, by my wife, eternally linked to the Jewish community and Israel”. He saw himself as “eternal”: a vast programme! But fervour was leading him astray. He ought to come back down to earth, reconnect with the ground, get treatment and stop deluding himself: the revisionists have, already as of now, won the match.
As early as in 1983-1985, Raul Hilberg, surrendering to the arguments of “Faurisson and others…” had to drop the pretension of explaining, on the basis of valid arguments and documents of his own, that the Third Reich had, with proper Germanic efficiency, designed, prepared, developed, organised and financed the killing of millions of European Jews. The eminent Jewish American historian ended up finding himself reduced to trying to have us believe that this gigantic massacre had come about by the operation of the Holy Spirit or, in his words, by “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading within a large bureaucracy” that had, on its own, spontaneously decided, it seemed, gradually to abandon written communication in favour of verbal or indeed telepathic exchange to such an extent that no written or material evidence bespoke the six million Jews’ (or, in Hilberg’s case, a bit fewer) had been systematically killed either on the Eastern Front or in the gas chambers, mainly at Auschwitz.
Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 11.16.23 AM
A number of historians or researchers, such as Arno Mayer, Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt, have also capitulated, in a more frank and direct manner. The first has had to admit, among other bitter observations, that “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”. The second, a protégé of the Klarsfeld couple, came to understand that the dossier of the official story of the Jews’ extermination, “rotten” with too many lies, was bound for “the rubbish bins of history”. The third has concluded that “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove”; despite this, millions of visitors there have been and continue to be shown a “gas chamber” said to be in its “original state”, as well as ruins of other alleged “gas chambers”. As for the figure of “six million”, never subjected to the least scientific verification, it is rooted in the most sordid of realities: an old American publicity slogan used already before 1900 and up to the end of the Second World War to collect a windfall of cash especially from the Jewish community. The searing words amounted to the cry “Six million of our brothers are dying in Europe [by the acts, according to circumstance, of Poland, the Balkan countries, Tsarist Russia, National-Socialist Germany…]; we await your money for the victims of this holocaust [sic already in 1919]!”
Manuel Valls, our Prime Minister, and François Hollande, President of our Republic, devote themselves to launching, in several foreign countries, warlike crusades of the kind that have backfired horribly for us French this year. To proceed as they do, contrary to the Constitution, they dispense with the approval of Parliament, either in advance or within forty days from the start of operations. On top of their foreign wars, conducted in the most cowardly as well as the most comfortable conditions, they instil an atmosphere of internecine war at home. They call “cowards” certain enemies who, after all, are inspired on a grand scale by the practices of our gloriousRésistants: “Hey, killers with the bullet and the knife, kill quickly!” If François Hollande has the stature of a pedalo admiral, Mr Valls resembles Picrochole, that character in Rabelais whose Greek name means “bitter bile” and who regularly gets all excited at the prospect of going off to war. Mr Valls began with a crusade against the Saracens of today and against the real or supposed enemies of Israel but he is also on a campaign against the revisionists, against “Dieudonné in peace”, against Marine Le Pen – even though she has pushed her own father down the stairs – and even against his friends of the Socialist clan. A good suggestion for him would be to calm down, take care of himself, try to laugh with Dieudonné, reflect for a moment with the revisionists, allow historians or researchers to work as they wish and, at long last, spare us the flag-waving frenzy, the bugle-blowing, the verse and chorus of the Marseillaise on the “day of glory”, the “impure blood” and the “ferocious soldiers”. As we know, it is, unhappily, all too easy to take the French in with that sort of thing.
Such, today, are the modest New Year wishes for 2016 that I allow myself to make for that person, for his victims, for the French and for the rest of the world. But is it perhaps already asking too much?
For their part, the revisionists know what awaits them: the confirmation in the mainstream media, sooner or later, that they have already won a total victory on the historical and scientific level. The political and media powers will indeed have to resign themselves to the facts: persistence in gunboat policies abroad and in those of gagging and censorship at home will only dishonour them a bit more. For nothing.
The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.
The lies of “the Holocaust” are modelled on those of the First World War. All those “Nazi death-works”, like the ones at Auschwitz, are but a reprise of the myth of German “corpse factories” of 1914-1918. They were merely modernised by the adding of gas (Jewish-American version of November 1944) and sometimes of electricity (Jewish-Soviet version of February 1945). The good people, already generally not well disposed towards the practice of cremating the dead, were led to believe that Germany, a nation considered modern and known for having an abundance of engineers and chemists, had built structures containing, in addition to a cremation space, others called “gas chambers” (in reality, the “depositories”, Leichenhalle or Leichenkeller, technically designed to hold bodies awaiting cremation). Thus a certain propaganda has managed to persuade us that those Germans devils were dumb enough to house under the same roof, on one side, spaces full of a highly inflammable and explosive gas (the hydrocyanic acid or hydrogen cyanide contained in the pesticide Zyklon B, created in the 1920s) and, on the other side, crematory ovens that had to be laboriously brought to a temperature of 900° C.
Germar Rudolf
In 1943 some of the men in charge of British war propaganda deplored “this gas chambers story”. For his part, the revisionist Germar Rudolf sums up the subject rather well in his Lectures on the Holocaust (Chicago, Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005, 566 p., p. 82-85). Even Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of the Intelligence Service in London ready to believe just about any nonsense said against the Germans, was to write: “I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas chambers story” (p. 83). The trouble was that the British, undisputed champions of lying propaganda during the two world wars, needed those fables. On February 29, 1944 their Ministry of Information sent the BBC and the Church of England a circular letter of the greatest cynicism, requesting their respective cooperation for the spreading of propaganda on the basis of atrocity stories either already in circulation or currently being concocted. It was a matter of forestalling the disastrous effect that the Red Army, an ally, was inevitably to bring about in Central Europe by real atrocities (p. 84)! On these inventions, these fabrications and the wide-scale dissemination of enormous tall tales, two books remain of great interest: Edward J. Rozek’s Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, New York, Wiley, 1958 and, especially, by Walter Laqueur (a Jew born in Breslau in 1921): The Terrible Secret, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980, 262 p., wherein we see Cavendish-Bentinck, him again, “Chairman of the British Intelligence Committee”, writing in July 1943 that “The Poles and, to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up” (p. 83).
Fifteen months ago, referring to the crisis that the historians of “the Holocaust” were experiencing, I wrote that there was “more and more water in their gas, and slack in their knotted rope”. Since January 2015 and the anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz I have noted a sudden acceleration of the phenomenon. I have a whole file and a whole demonstration on the subject but the continuing judicial repression has not yet left me time to publish this information. In any case, for the historian, it has become captivating to observe the never-ending agony of the “magical gas chamber” (Céline in 1950). This agony is accompanied, as we have seen, by a redoubling of the repression of revisionism and a turning up of the volume of holocaustic propaganda. May our Picrochole refrain, then, from going on the stage and into a trance! He would have a stroke. He might even be cruelly snatched away from us. Who knows? He could precede in death a man who will be 87 years of age on January 25, 2016 and whom some have, thus far in vain, so often sought to kill, not for his ideas (he has hardly any) but for having wanted to publish the result of his research, which is summed up in a phrase of about sixty words. I repeat it here for memory, and to have done with it:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
Note: For sources or references especially regarding certain points of this text one may consult the indices of the seven volumes of my Ecrits révisionnistes thus far published. On the Internet, for “The Victories of Revisionism” (11 December 2006), and for “The Victories of Revisionism (continued)” (September 11, 2011), see
Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.
In preparation: 1) an article about an embarrassing secret of Serge Klarsfeld; 2) a study of the highly inflammable and explosive nature of hydrogen cyanide.
Editor’s Note: It’s with a continuing sense of gratification and appreciation that I post the following letter by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) sent out today, January 13th, 2016 in support of my Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code
The OCLA has been the only civil liberties association at the forefront in Canada in their determined efforts to bring a sense of clarity, fairness, honesty and responsibility to the nation’s legal jurisprudence insofar as it applies to Charter issues and in particular the fundamental issue of freedom of expression as guaranteed under Sec. 2b of said Charter.
All their efforts toward ridding this nation of these draconian, anti-democratic “hate crime” laws that only serve vested interests and serve to silence the vast majority of decent, thoughtful citizens are extremely important and should be supported. 
There are very strong arguments for defeating this legislation and I would hope to see similar actions by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and every other civil minded organization in Canada that has the nation’s best interests at heart. Now that we have a new and more liberal government in power the opportunity is there for our leaders to do what the previous governments never had the integrity to do – given the people their voice back!
Please try to share this post with as many others as you can.
Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 1.08.46 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 1.20.02 PM
January 13, 2016                                                                                                    By Mail and Fax
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Your Honour:
Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. [1]
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada: [2]
And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”. [Emphasis added].
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression: [3]
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
[1]  Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2]  Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.

Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”: [5]
35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat. [Emphasis added.] [6]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 31 9(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”) [7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein
[4]  Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5]  General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6]  Ibid., at para. 35.
[7]  Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution. [8]
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
lf the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.

Yours sincerely,
Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 3.54.11 PM
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
613-252-6148 (c)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Judge’s Chambers
Supreme Court of British Columbia
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 2E1
Fax: 604-660-2418
And copy to:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Judge’s Chambers
Supreme Court of British Columbia
305-350 Barlow Avenue
Quesnel, BC
V2J 2C1
Fax: 250-992-4171
8  For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLll); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLll 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

And to:
Barclay W. Johnson
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary
Counsel for the Defendant
1027 Pandora Avenue,
Victoria, BC
Fax: 250-413-3110
Rodney G. Garson
Prosecution Support Unit
Crown Law Division
Ministry of Justice
3rd Floor – 940 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC
Fax: 250-387-4262
The Honourable Suzanne Anton
Attorney General of BC
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
VIEW SOURCE PDF HERE: 2016-01-13-Letter-OCLA-re-R-v-Topham

The desperate search for Guy Montag by John Kaminski

The desperate search
for Guy Montag
. . . among indifferent and alienated dupes
oblivious to their own impending demise
By John Kaminski
Guy Montag, Guy Montag, you think, tapping your fingers on your desk. Where have we heard that name before? Suddenly you remember.
He was the conflicted hero in arguably the most famous science fiction story of all time, something almost everybody in America read in school, and marveled over its frightful foresight. Guy Montag was the enigmatic fireman who burned outlawed books in Ray Bradbury’s epic novel Fahrenheit 451.
One day a woman chose to die with her books. But before she immolated herself, Guy stole a book from her to try to learn why she should do such a thing. Then Guy started smuggling books home. His suicidal wife turned him in to the authorities. When they came to burn down HIS house, Guy turned on his chief, sprayed him with fire, and burned him to a crisp. Following that, Guy escaped and lived with the impoverished intellectual hobos, with the hopeful aim of restoring sanity to a deranged society.
In a series of ironic twists years after it was written, small minded school boards tried to ban Fahrenheit 451 without ever realizing they were unwittingly mimicking the book’s plot — destroying books society has been persuaded not to read because their thoughts were too dangerous.
Bradbury’s narrative describes how Montag gradually began to doubt his mission after he saw how important books were to people willing to die rather than give them up, and his brittle life crumbled around him. When the book’s hero changed his mind about books and what he should be doing to them, he brought the power of the totalitarian state down upon him, before escaping into the shadows and yearning for revolution.
Bradbury never mentioned how that revolution turned out, but the future has revealed an uncanny twist in what the famous science fiction author wrote and the way reality has turned out.
Firemen are supposed to put fires out, but Bradbury’s firemen burned books the government deemed illegal.
This is how our future has progressed; what was once the truth is now a lie. Suddenly, forces once thought necessary and beneficial have now turned into their opposite — a destructive menace.
Think cops killing people’s pets while trying to bust somebody at the wrong address. Or a woman pulled over for not signaling a lane change winds up a few hours later supposedly hanging herself in the cell of a local jail.
Politicians and presidents preach for peace yet incinerate defenseless foreign countries while insisting they are killing innocent people to preserve freedom. It’s the modern variation of the old Vietnam proverb: We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
What is the shocking reversal dominating society today? It should be obvious to you. It’s the false flag syndrome, in which the government creates disasters that it then cleans up and boasts how efficiently and vigilantly it has protected the population. The list of FBI provocations reveals there would be practically no crime at all if not for the sadistic schemes like Oklahoma City and 9/11 that our government cooks up.
Firemen who burn things rather than extinguish them are exactly the opposite of the way things should work in a normal world. Most of us know by now the world is nowhere near normal.
Instead of trying to protect us, the police are killing us in record numbers, and then refusing to say how many they’ve killed, or why.
Today, judges ostensibly profess to protect the rights of individuals but consistently rule in favor of big businesses that demolish these very rights. Instead of seeking justice in courts, the judges and the lawyers are deciding how they can fleece and convict us to fulfill the contracts they have with the private prison corporations to keep the jails full.
And as we have seen most recently in Oregon, the government wants to put us in jail in order to take our land because that land contains valuable minerals that our bellicose bigwigs want to sell to the very corporations that provide the campaign finances that keep them in office. As long as the Hammonds are in jail, we are all incarcerated.
I think the thing that got me thinking about this reversal of intent was the discovery that bodies supposedly massacred in a Paris nightclub turned out to be dummies, mannikins, planted by the spinmeisters who arranged the whole hoax to convince the public that the bloody stunt really happened. <>
This kind of ridiculous effort on the part of the authorities fits right in with the Sandy Hook school affair, in which children were claimed to have been killed but no bodies were ever reported being seen by local hospitals. <> It was a prima facieexample of the cops who are supposedly assigned to protect us preventing us from knowing about the truth of a major crime.
The Boston Marathon bombing was another government sponsored charade, with one designated patsy murdered in the streets by police and his brother sentenced to die by a kangaroo court without ever being allowed to speak candidly.<>
The conspiracy conducting this long-running political campaign to get people to give up their guns is insidious and seemingly inextinguishable, despite the fact that it only increases gun sales. It includes the entire Jewish controlled media, of course, and journalists and cops at every level willing to participate in scams for which, in the specific case of Sandy Hook, they are sometimes paid millions of dollars for their participation in the charade.<>
Why does the government want us to give up our guns? To put us all in prison and to take everything we own before eventually taking our lives. The process is well underway, as the Hammond family of Oregon knows so well. Ammon Bundy’s supporters bivouacked in a nearby forest know it, too, and despite the media slander that calls them vigilantes are really defending the rest of us from a future nobody really wants to see — total government control of every aspect of our lives.
The heroes who try to reveal government criminality — Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings, Julian Assange, Bill Cooper — are constantly killed or jailed by those who resent their lucrative criminal schemes being exposed.
The doctors who try to circumvent the poisonous medicines of Big Pharma — James Bradstreet, Theresa Sievers, Nicholas Gonzalez— are suicided by those who want to continue to poison their patients and deny life saving techniques and medicines from people who really need them.
But what sticks in my mind is the similarity between Bradbury’s descriptive prediction of firemen doing exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to be doing — putting out fires instead of lighting them — and the behavior of the U.S. military monster today, murdering innocents for totally false reasons, and the intelligence community creating phony terrorist incidents and then prosecuting and convicting innocent patsies to make government agents look good when in reality they are criminals.
As deranged firemen scorched neighborhoods as well as the minds of would be intellects oppressed by their governments, so our military and police today do exactly the opposite of what they have been charged to do — preserve our safety and defend our freedoms.
Instead they intimidate the majority into silence and leave them cringing in silence while secretly hoping to avoid the fickle finger of fate and a violent SWAT team crashing through their front door even though it is the wrong address.
This is not to say there aren’t heroic individuals in the U.S. military. This would account for all the generals the last few presidents have fired for counseling common sense rather the following homicidal orders.
And now happening in Oregon, quasi government agencies of questionable authenticity steal land from legitimate farmers, throw them in jail, and the dumbfounded population stands around with their mouths open, criticizing those who would save farmers from being hoodwinked out of their land and homes by corrupt judges in kangaroo courts.<>
The potential course of the future now depends on the resolve of a small group of patriots gathered in a cold forest sorely lacking in support from the general population. It is no exaggeration to predict that whatever happens to them will happen to the rest of us.
The Jews who run our country are never going to listen to reason and suddenly strive to behave in a reasonable and rational manner. They are going to keep stealing and killing until they are stopped.
The shooting has to start somewhere. Burns, Oregon might be a sensible place to begin.
But the vast majority of Americans don’t want to be bothered with matters of justice. Even as their privately owned land disappears, stolen by the government, they don’t think these issues will affect them. They just sit home and watch TV and wonder what they’ll do when the ATMs stop working and the banks all close.
At exactly the time we need more people to behave like Guy Montag and stop this slide into insanity when truth is what our voracious government says it is, and justice cannot intrude into the consciousness of a citizenry intent on watching TV and texting their friends, we observe an unprecedented turning away from what needs to be done to survive, and misplaced intent leading to the widespread destruction of our species and every other species as well.
Sorry to have to tell you again, but those who sleep now will be the first ones to die in the very near future. Our criminal, Jew-run government must be disenfranchised, detoxified and, where appropriate, disemboweled as soon as possible.
If you must pick a day to start fighting back, today might just be the best choice of all.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.

MUSLIMS (AND CHRISTIANS) THE BAD GUYS? a Radical Press Public Service Announcement

KeepYerEyeontheBall!BLUE copy
Editor’s Note: Let’s not delude ourselves about who the real enemy of humanity is. Those who fall for the lies of the Zionist media campaign against the Muslims (as well as the Christians) are being hoodwinked into aiding and abetting the Jewish agenda of divide and conquer of nations for the benefit of their NWO program. Stay focused on the ultimate designers of deception – Israel and World Jewry headed by the Rothschild criminal cartel.
Screen Shot 2016-01-08 at 7.40.52 PM
Screen Shot 2016-01-08 at 7.56.41 PMScreen Shot 2016-01-08 at 8.02.39 PM
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Oregon Standoff. Part I.
By Scott Bennett
The metal flavor of blood and the hard truth of silence was all the dusty denim-clad rancher had won as the double courtroom doors closed behind the exiting attorneys fondling his family’s case.
 January, 8th, 2016
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Oregon Standoff. Part I.
By Scott Bennett
He was alone, and felt it deeply, like a far echo sounding in an immensely vast cavern.  He tilted his Stetson to the ground, looked at the burgundy courtroom carpet, and thought…and thought…and thought some more.
How could it have come to this?  Did he miss something? What just happened?  After all, his family had worn the military uniform for a hundred years and pridefully accented their walls and desks with the old pictures, medals, framed citations, and faded ribbons, along with the music of heroic, quiet, and laughing stories of men acting like boys during war, which always changed rooms and lives.
He recounted the basic facts, biting his lip and squinting at floor as he strained his thoughts slowly, and re-ordered in his mind every step taken — every action, every word said, every judgment hammered.
Let’s see, for the last ten years, he thought to himself, somehow he had been — although he didn’t know it — connected to bearded Middle Eastern, Arabic chanting terrorists firing machine guns in shopping malls and bombing marathons; then grimacing at the thought’s odor and shaking his head in bemusement.  Oh please, come on, of course it was insane.  Surely no one in their right mind could think a cowboy boot wearing, beer drinking, rodeo-howling rancher was a danger to children, his people, his town, his country…but yet this was precisely what the Department of Justice lawyer had so many times inferred in his loud, angry syllables and resentful tone as he repeated the terrorism statute definition used to box-in the rancher.   So it had been said, and since words make law, they mean something, regardless.
It would have been surreal and laughable if it wasn’t so repugnantly real and deadly serious.  After all, men with guns and blue windbreakers were soon coming to force him back into a jail cell, then turn around and push his wife and their history of existence off the farm; and perhaps eventually erase him from life as his years faded.  That is, unless he did something.  But what was he to do now?
How do you get back on the roller coaster after being told to exit to the right, other than refusing to get out of your seat?  That’s it, he thought, he just wouldn’t move and let them come to him, so he could  explain it all over again.  This time, he would tell them what they missed the first time…yes, that must have been the reason for their screw up and slandering of them.  But then again, he knew human lust and desire for power and laziness — the opiates of politics — and when combined with government authority, it became a deadly and paralyzing tonic.
He shivered again, and felt the anger begin to rise like it never had before.  Suddenly his jaw clenched as he heard a familiar drill sergeant somewhere in his mind calling out numbers in his head and speaking the words:
One!…Lighting strikes land, starts fire.
Two!…Boy follows dad’s orders and ignites a counter-action fire
to contain the burn, and save the feed and animals from starving.
Three!…Bureau of Land Management staff file complaint, alleging a crime.
Four!…No crime found, charges dropped by District Attorney.  Five years go by.
Five!…Somehow, Department of Justice thinks they know better, contact him by letter, then file another court action—this time accusing him of terrorism activity in relation to the fire, and calling it arson instead of a controlled burn.  Strange, and wrong.  But…
Six!…Goes to court, judge keeps out key facts, attorney falls apart—or intentionally throws him under the buss—and somehow the jury get find him and his son guilty.  Cold shock, gaping mouth amazement…but there has to be some kind of fix or appeal… surely.
Seven!…Goes into sentencing, lies told, confusion, hustled off to jail.
Eight!…Now another letter demanding a second bite of the apple and more time added unto father and son’s sentence? 
Something deep in his instincts founded in the primordial passion to defend wife and children began to growl, and the thought cleared…Now the real agenda: theft of property and destruction of life.  Isn’t this war?  And in war, aren’t you either alive and victorious or dead and defeated?
He would not bow down without a fight.
His blood ran in the creeks and fed the grass and cows and had nourished the land and lives there for over one hundred years….this was beyond life, beyond body, beyond government, this was his time to stand, and show his ancestors what they created in him.  For his God and for everything right and true and good, he had to.  To fail to, was not just un-American, it was inhuman.
He would get a few hits in, that’s for sure, if for nothing else than for his ancestors who first settled the ranch and planted their blood in the communality.  Time would tell.
Most likely these, or something like them, were the thoughts in the minds of the Oregon Rancher father-and-son duo now surrounded by friends and strangers wearing guns and camouflage, and grimly nodding their commitment to him through low country drawls about God and country.
If anything encapsulates the unfolding Oregon drama, this might.
No doubt these may have been some of the thoughts, images, memories, and emotions that rushed and pounded through the minds of the rancher and his son in Oregon as they pondered their fates, and that of their family.
There are three things to consider in order to understand this: the full dramatic history of this event, the laws and interests involved, and the possible future scenarios being prepared.  After all, there are global implications, not just American, should an American civil war percolate.
The Temper of Democracy
Over the past couple of days, a seemingly small mole hill has suddenly transformed into a violently erupting volcano, to the terrifying surprise of almost every shallow journalist, Constitutional lawyer, and plastic smiled politician in Washington DC.  In short, it has instantly and irrevocably changed America’s constitutional perspective, by forcing Americans to see fellow citizens — branded and prosecuted and imprisoned as terrorists — in a a kind of “perfect storm” of ignorance, government abuse, and lawlessness—and I use the term lawlessness multidimensionally.
It is easy to be blown away on the strong howling winds of terrorist fears and intimidated silent by the thunderous cachophy of tyrannical patriotism.  But we are not kites, we are men.  And as a military man myself, I am by training and temperament inclined to instinctively not back down or retreat from a rising challenge, but instead meet it head on, either to harmonize and diplomatically engage, or to conquer and destroy.  In the gladiatorial arena of willpower, either the citizen is master over the government, or the slave—there is no other role.
If Americans have a right to engage in civil disobedience, then government has an obligation to endure that civil disobedience.  That’s how the process of “making known and seeking the redress of grievances” works in a Democratic Republic, and it is essential for government agencies and actors to be willingly compliant with this.  And if they refuse to be compliant, this means by definition they are tyrants—which warrants civil war or death.  One or the other.
To fully understand and resolve the Oregon stand-off situation, requires that we analyze the history and dynamics of the problem, the competing parties, and the friction between their competing interests. The parameters of the discussion must be justice and law, with human life, liberty, happiness, being the justification for the discussion.
In America, we pride ourselves on the notion of “law and order”, but admittedly our own past examples of engaging them diplomatically have ended badly:  the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, the Branch Davidians at Waco Texas — are just a few of the motley crew of memories in our Republic’s vaults.
Now we see and hear at most every corner journalists scrambling to brand the Bundy occupiers and protesters as right wing, gun wielding, hillbilly, backwoodsmen, bark eating, whiskey still running terrorists.  The facts show otherwise, but nevertheless the caustic language and propaganda indicates a larger menace: the agenda of a police state crushing all forms of dissent in the United States.  Make no mistake about it.  This is a political tug of war, with one winner, and the law itself is the rope.  The only thing keeping the protesters alive is the incompetence of the Obama Administration, and the conviction of the patriots standing in the shadows.

Books of Importance: The Holocaust Hoax Exposed by Victor Thorn on Amazon. com

The Holocaust Hoax Exposed
Perfect Paperback – March 15, 2012
by Victor Thorn (Author)
Today, if a book similar to this one were published in Europe, its author would be arrested and imprisoned. Their crime: simply questioning the so-called holocaust where six million Jews were allegedly exterminated during WW II. Indeed, researchers have endured solitary confinement, brutal beatings by Jewish assailants, ongoing harassment, lengthy court battles, career suicide, and media attacks directed against their work all because they presented a revisionist history of this pivotal event. Other writers have been the victims of hate crimes, extensive smear campaigns, fines, death threats, and monetary rewards placed upon their heads after going into hiding. The perpetrators behind these jack-booted Thought Police tactics are an entire holohoax industry devoted to suppressing factual data in favor of peddling heavy-handed doses of propaganda. Despite these obvious dangers, The Holocaust Hoax Exposed dissects every element of what has become the 20th century s most grotesque conspiracy. Covered in jarring detail is the mythology surrounding concentration camps, the truth about Zyklon B, Anne Frank s fable, how the absurd six million figure has become a laughingstock, and the betrayal by maniacal Zionists of their own Jewish people that led to their deaths (via starvation and disease) after Allied bombings cutoff supply lines to German work camps. Yet, the only way an Israeli state could be created on stolen Palestinian land following WW II was through the most outlandish lies imaginable. Consequently, the holohoax industry has become a tyrannical dictatorship that incessantly manipulates, distorts, marginalizes and manufactures false results to achieve their Machiavellian ends. By taking their hysterical obsessions to psychopathic levels, the charlatans behind this ruse make it glaringly apparent how weak their foundation is. To compensate, these intellectually dishonest con men (and women) continue to persecute revisionist historians all because they re incapable of supporting their arguments through legitimate debate. The Holocaust Hoax Exposed is the final nail in a rotting coffin that has long been buried beneath a plethora of deceit.
Click HERE to view book on

FBI Moves In On Oregon Militia Occupation – What They Aren’t Telling You BY ASA J

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 6.05.21 PM
FBI Moves In On Oregon Militia Occupation – What They Aren’t Telling You
As armed Americans take a stand against a tyrannical federal government near Burns, Oregon, the timid amongst the right and the totalitarian amongst the left offer a resounding chorus: Nothing good can come of this.
I disagree. If nothing else, the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters by the Bundy led militia serves as a much needed symbol for the silent majority of the nation – a silent majority that is fed up with the encroachment on our liberties. Symbols are important, and it only takes a spark to start a prairie fire.
Coincidentally, that’s just what 73-year-old Dwight Lincoln Hammond Jr. and his son, 46-year-old Steven Dwight Hammond did – start fires. The men said they started a series of range fires on their own private property – first in 2001 to burn off an invasive species, and then in 2006 to protect their land and feed crops from fires already ignited by lightening – a tactic known as “back burning.”
The fires spread onto public land controlled by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the ranchers were prosecuted in 2012 as part of a plea arrangement on an array of charges including conspiracy, arson under federal terrorism acts, and attempting to damage property through fire. They were also made to pay $400,000.
As part of their plea deal, the Hammond’s agreed not to appeal their sentences. Dwight was sentenced to three months in prison and Steven was sentenced to 11 months – far below the mandatory minimum of five years their charges demanded – which judge Michael Hogan called “grossly disproportionate” and a “shock [to] his conscience.”
Unfortunately for the ranchers, the feds did challenge the sentencing getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals involved in order to overturn Hogan’s decision and send the men back to prison to serve the entire five year term. They are scheduled to report to the federal Terminal Island prison in San Pedro, California today.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, the federal government claims ownership of nearly 650 million acres of land in the country – almost 30 percent of the nation’s land mass.
This type of land monopolization by government, which is sold to the populace as being “the people’s land” or “common property,” is nothing less than communism and has many detrimental affects. First and foremost, its important to understand that the government is not the people.
It is a separate entity than us. We are not them. We need only to look at the example of the Hammonds to see the reality of this in action, but economist and political theorist Dr. Murray N. Rothbard exemplified this fact perfectly in his essay, Anatomy of the State:
…With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.  One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
Primarily, the government “ownership” of vast amounts of land has harmful economic affects on the very people the land is supposedly being maintained for: the people. It’s basic supply and demand. If 30 percent of all land is being kept off the market by the feds, just what to you suppose is going to happen to property prices? They are going to be much higher than they would otherwise be.
This is the primary qualm the Bundy led militia in Oregon has with the present situation surrounding the Hammond case. Not only did the feds essentially railroad the ranchers by overturning their sentencing, the case appears to be just another ploy by the government to continue its illegitimate land grabbing from ranchers.
According to Tri-State Livestock News, former BLM range technician, watershed specialist and Oregon rancher Erin Maupin said backfires set by other ranchers had burned federal lands in the past, but only the Hammonds have been charged, arrested and sentenced.
Maupin said ranchers “would call and the BLM would go and help put [fires] out and it was not a big deal,” but that there were numerous instances of BLM fires spreading onto private land causing ranchers to lose significant numbers of cattle, resources, and other property. Maupin claims she is unaware of the BLM ever compensating ranchers for the destruction.
Just as it was claimed, under the auspices of environmental protection, that Sen. Harry Reid wanted Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy off his Clark County ranch in 2014 in order to aid a Chinese solar power firm his son represents build a solar energy complex, corruption also seems to be afoot in Oregon.
As part of a 2000 deal to prevent the government from designating Steens Mountain as a federal monument, area ranchers traded in their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, which allowed Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness with 100,000 acres being deemed “cow-free.”
“The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” Maupin said. “[The Oregon Natural Desert Association was] relentless in their pursuit to [drive ranchers] off, in order to expand the cow-free wilderness.”
After the Hammonds are displaced from their property, the feds will be free to fully exploit the natural resource rich area in Harney County. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the land has a high potential for silver, “It’s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch,” area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee Rusty Inglis said. “It would tie in with what they [already] have.”
This is the kind of corruption the Ammon and Ryan Bundy led militia group is standing up against in Oregon. Despite this, the brothers have been mercilessly condemned by the left, the mainstream media, and the GOP establishment – with even Sen. Ted Cruz asking them to stand down.
There have been calls to “mow [the men] down.” Popular media personalities like Montel Williamshave even called for “the massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy,” and labeled the ranchers as “treasonous terrorist thugs,” that need to be “disemboweled” in a now deleted Facebook post.
As for the Hammond family, they have made it clear that they don’t want the support of the Bundys and wish to quietly turn themselves in. If the Hammonds wish to submit to being slaves to the federal government without resistance, that’s their decision. It is also the decision of the Bundys however, to stand by their convictions and take up what cause they wish.
“The end goal here is that we are here to restore the rights to the people here so that they can use the land and resources. All of them.” Ryan Bundy said. “We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely. This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.
For the most part, local cops and federal law enforcement agencies have kept their distance but as history has taught us in cases like Waco and Ruby Ridge, that likely wont last for long. The FBI has now reportedly taken charge of the law enforcement response to the situation and is working with the Harney County Sheriff’s Office, the Oregon State Police, and other local and state agencies.
“Due to safety considerations for both those inside the refuge, as well as the law enforcement officers involved, we will not be releasing any specifics with regards to the law enforcement response,” the FBI said in a statement. They maintain they are looking for “a peaceful resolution to the situation.”
Ammon Bundy said at a press conference Monday that officials have sent messages to the occupiers inside the refuge saying that authorities do not intend to approach the group – which have now taken the name of “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.” He also maintained that he did not believe officials would try to forcibly remove the protesters.
The situation has interesting similarities with a historical incident in Ireland called the Easter Uprising. During the week of Easter in 1916, Irish Republicans mounted a revolt to end British rule and establish an independent Republic.
Starting out with only several hundred members of the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Citizen Army and Cumann na mBan, the rebels seized key locations in Dublin. After gaining the support of around 1600 fighters, the uprising was quickly suppressed by the British army, and most of the leaders were executed.
As I said before however, it only takes a spark, and the rebellion succeeded in changing the political landscape in Ireland. In December 1918, the Irish Republican Sinn Féin party won 73 seats out of 105 in the General Election before forming a breakaway government and declaring independence from the United Kingdom.
Following the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty, Ireland effectively gained independence as the Irish Free State in 1922 with Northern Ireland exercising an option called the Ulster Month to remain in the United Kingdom. Latter, the nation became a republic, with an elected president, under the constitution of 1937.
Remember, it only takes a spark… Now listen to some words of encouragement from Florida Libertarian Senatorial candidate Augustus Sol Invictus:

NOTICE to All Members of the Press Corps, All Federal Employees, All Members of the American Armed Forces, All Sheriffs, United States Marshals from Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

NOTICE to All Members of the Press Corps, All Federal Employees, All Members of the American Armed Forces, All Sheriffs, United States Marshals, and Others Responsible for Public Safety and Peacekeeping Regarding the Take Over of BLM Facilities in the Western States
Issued by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
January 3, 2016
Although it may come as a surprise to many Americans we have been mischaracterized and misidentified as British Crown Subjects for the better part of a hundred years. This travesty has never been corrected; instead, the British Crown, a commercial investment organization, has kidnapped and press-ganged American land assets into the international jurisdiction of the sea and has pillaged our labor and our resources without mercy in criminal conspiracy and contempt of our Constitution. They have been aided and abetted in this activity by members of the American Bar Association and the Internal Revenue Service acting as licensed privateers.
These vipers nurtured in our bosom pretending to be our “Friends” and our “Allies” and even our “Trustees” have practiced identity theft against the American people, have involved us in their own private bankruptcies as sureties obligated to pay their debts; they have pretended that because of their fraud against us, we have “abandoned” our property including our land patents, our bank accounts, and our organic states. They have usurped against our lawful government, enslaved our people, and acted as criminals in our midst.
The corporations responsible for this behavior are no different and no better than Walmart or Sears or Burger King; they have used names like “Bureau of Land Management” or “United States Department of Agriculture” and so on under color of law.
The “Bureau of Land Management” is not an actual unit of the American government. It is a foreign corporation whose only business here is to provide us with “essential governmental services”.
The land patents to the western states are owed to the States of America and the Indigenous Tribal Governments without exception. The only ownership accruing to the Federal United States dba District of Columbia Municipal Corporation or in other corporate guises is vested entirely in the ten square miles of the District and limited to its Boundary Stones. The only ownership vested in the Federal Government in the western states or anywhere else is a lease interest in facilities that have been provided to expedite their service missions.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) facilities being occupied by American Militiamen were bought and paid for by the people of this country for the use of the BLM with the understanding that the BLM is a unit of the American government and is working in good faith for the people of this nation.
However, according to the public and private records, the BLM is not in fact any part of our lawful government at all and has not been so for decades. It is a privately owned foreign “governmental services corporation” operating under color of law; it has no business interfering in the activities of the ranchers and farmers, occupying government facilities under conditions of fraud, or otherwise presenting false claims of interest, ownership, or authority.
The Hammonds and the Bundy Family are Priority Creditors of all the governmental services corporations which are now or which have operated in this country in the past. They are tax exempt and their “vessels in commerce”— meaning the various trusts and public utilities operated under their NAMES without their knowledge or consent— are all tax-prepaid. They and their countrymen are owed the patent to all land within the geographically defined boundaries of their respective states, free and clear of liens, encumbrances, or other presumptions against their property rights by foreign corporations operating under conditions of self-interested fraud.
BLM employees are here to provide “essential governmental services”. Those services do not include acting as undeclared commercial mercenaries operating under color of law and against the best interests of their employers and benefactors. Any federal employee offering to harm or interfere in the normal occupations of their employers, that is, the people of this country, or to prohibit their employer’s customary use of the land and resources they are heir to is acting as an Outlaw in contempt of the Public Law and the actual Constitution and is subject to arrest under the Bounty Hunter provisions of the United States Statutes-at-Large.
Being employed by BLM like being employed by JC PENNY confers no special authority, grants no immunity, and is not a license to undertake any activity that would otherwise be unlawful—including trespassing on private property, making fraudulent claims, and racketeering under armed force. The rule for federal employees and law enforcement officials including “Federal State” and “Federal County” officials is that if you can’t do it in your private capacity, you can’t do it at all.
Members of the Press Corps are similarly reminded of their responsibility to safeguard public safety and obey the Public Law, including their obligation not to incite, misrepresent, or engage in insurrection against the lawful government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is not a country of the corporation, by the corporation or for the corporation. Anyone needing to be reminded of that fact should question both their education and their sanity.
The highest Law Officer in this country is the County Sheriff who has accepted the public office, received his bond, and taken his Oath. He is enabled to deputize as many men as he needs to enforce the Public Law within the borders of his county and may require the use of any and all equipment and facilities paid for with public funds in pursuit of these ends. He works directly for the people of his county and is accountable only to them.
All federal employees are guests of the people of each county and state. So long as they pursue their lawful duties and do not inappropriately presume upon, threaten, harass, or otherwise offer to harm their hosts, over-reach their lawful jurisdiction, or make false claims against land assets they are owed safe conduct and support. The moment they breach the peace, break the Public Law, offer contempt against the Constitution, engage in operations under color of law—including trespass on private property, cattle rustling, armed racketeering and so on, they are subject to arrest like any common felon.
The people of this country are the employers, benefactors, and Priority Creditors of all federal corporations, all federal employees, all federal contractors, and all federal officials. The people did not grant their hirelings any power to harass them, indebt them, mischaracterize them, change their political status, seize upon their property, defraud them, trespass upon them, or engage in any other criminal activity whatsoever.
It must be squarely recognized that the burning of barns is arson. The theft and removal of livestock is cattle rustling. The bringing of false claims of indebtedness and obligation is fraud. The presentation of weapons, especially tactical weapons, employed in any of these activities is assault and attempted racketeering under force by undeclared private mercenary forces. It is now easy to recognize that these are crimes masquerading as “law enforcement”.
The private in-house laws of corporations must remain in accord with the Public Law or those corporations must be liquidated as crime syndicates and their assets distributed to those they have harmed and to their lawful creditors. This includes the BLM, the UNITED STATES, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, the STATE OF OREGON, or any other corporation found to be operating in violation of the Public Law and their own charter.
Any questions may be addressed to:
Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
(907) 250-5087
Judge Bruce Doucette
(720) 338-0394

Chosen By God: Jewish Religions and The Prospect of Dissent by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 12.37.20 PM
Jewish Religions and the Prospect of Dissent
By Gilad Atzmon
December 31, 2015
“The Jewish religion is a religion of Mitzvoth (commandments) and without this religious idiom, the Jewish religion doesn’t exist at all.”
~ Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz
While Islam and Christianity can be easily understood as belief systems, Judaism actually defies the notion of belief all together. Judaism is an obedience regulative system. The Judaic universe is ruled by ‘mitzvoth’ (commandment), a set of 613 precepts and directives ordered by God. In opposition to Christianity and Islam that build from spiritual and heavenly precepts in worship to a transcendental God, the Judaic subject subscribes to strict earthly and material observance. While the Islamo-Christian is wrapped in God’s loving and the spirituality of the sublime and divinity, the follower of Judaism is judged by his or her ability to adhere to hundreds of rigorous earthly orders.
A brief look at the Judaic Sabbath common prayer reveals the nature of Judaism as an obedience regulatory system. As we can see below, in Judaism, even God-loving is not an involuntary act:
“You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart,?with all your soul, and with all your might.?Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.
…Thus you shall remember to observe all My commandments?and to be holy to your God.?I am Adonai, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God:?I am Adonai your God.”
(Common Prayers for Shabbat Evening From Deuteronomy and Numbers)
For the Jew, belief and God-loving are not subject to either rational discretion or spiritual impulse. God loving, as we read above, is a strict “charge”, an order. But if Judaism is not a belief system, what kind of system is it?  Does the Judaic subject believe in anything at all?
The answer is yes: the Jew believes in ‘The Jews’ and the Jews believe in ‘The Jew.’ This mode of mutual affirmation establishes a solid and forceful tribal continuum that serves the collective as well as the singular subject.  Accordingly, the subject adheres to the collective and vice versa. In pragmatic terms, the Jew sticks to the ‘chosen people’ and, together the ‘chosenites’ uphold a collective sense of choseness.
In Judaism, ‘choseness’ is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God.  For religious Jews, being chosen is realised as a duty. According to Judaic belief, the Jews have been placed on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. This purpose is bestowed upon the Jews and they pass it from father to son.[1]
In reality, the first Jews invented a God who chose them over all other people. For some reason this God is occasionally cruel, often non-ethical and as if this were not enough, not exactly a nice father. The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to call him by name. One may wonder what led the first Jews to invent such a horrid father figure. One may further question what led the Jews to sustain their ‘relationship’ with such an obnoxious father. The answer is surprisingly simple. They don’t.
The Jews don’t believe in God, they are observant of God. They believe in themselves- the Jews believe in ‘The Jew’ and vice versa. Within this peculiar troubled family affair, the Jew is free to dump God, as an author can freely re-write or at least re-shape his or her own narrative.  But the Jew can never dump the Jews as much as the Jews can’t allow ‘The Jew’ to go free. And what about God, can he be emancipated, can he choose another people? Certainly not. Unlike the Jew who is free to dump God while clinging to a Jewish identity, the Jewish God is merely a Jewish protagonist, he can’t go anywhere, he is stuck with ‘his’ chosen people forever.
Choseness, so it seems, is hardly a heavenly gift, it is in fact a curse. It confines the Jew in a realm of self-imposed commandment and materiality. Instead of beauty, holiness and the pursuit of the divine and the sublime, the rabbinical Jew is left with an earthly obedience scheme that is sustained by a rigid tribal setting. ‘The Jew’ and ‘The Jews’ are bound in a set of mutual affirmations in which God serves an instrumental role.
Some may rightly argue that this spectacular bond between the Jews and ‘The Jew’ is essential for an understanding of the dichotomy between Judaic tribalism and the universal appeal of Islamo-Christian beliefs.
The Judaic crude intolerance towards dissent serves as an example of the above. Throughout their history, Jews have proven themselves hostile toward their nonconformists; now we are ready to grasp why.  For the Islamo-Christian, secularization, for instance, entails a rejection of a transcendental affair. But for the rabbinical Judaic subject, failure to conform constitutes a rejection of the Jews. It interferes crudely with the fragile relationship between ‘The Jew’ and the Jews. It shatters the self-affirmation mechanism. While in the case of Christianity and Islam dumping God suggests turning one’s back on a remote supernatural entity, in the case of Judaism, such an act is interpreted as a disbelief in the tribe.
This interpretation may help illuminate Jesus’ plight. It may explain the reasoning behind the brutal Rabbinical Herem (excommunication) against Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa. And it also explains why the secular and the so-called ‘progressive’ Jew is equally obnoxious towards dissent or any form of criticism from within. If Judaism is not a belief system but rather a system of obedience regulation, then Jewish identity politics is merely an extension of the above regulatory philosophy.
Jews often drop their God, simply to invent a different God who ‘facilitates’   subscription to a new regulatory system. The new system, like the old outlines a new set of strict commandments, a manner of speech and rigorous boundaries of ‘kosher’ conduct.
In the beginning of the 20th century, for instance, Bolshevism appealed to many Eastern European Jews. It provided a sense of self-righteousness in addition to regulating a strict form of obedience. As we know, it didn’t take long for Bolshevism to mature into a genocidal doctrine that made Old Testament barbarism look like a juvenile fairytale. The Holocaust, that seems to be the most popular Jewish religion at present, may be the ultimate and final stage in Jewish historical development. According to the Holocaust religion, ‘God died in Auschwitz.’  Within the context of the Holocaust religion, ‘The Jew’ is the new Jewish God. The Holocaust religion has finally united ‘The Jew’ and the Jews into a self-sufficient comprehensive and independent ‘God-less’ religious narrative. Both were about to be eradicated. But, not only were they both saved: they have prevailed and each did so independently. In the Holocaust religion, Jews are both victims and oppressors – they have transformed slavery into empowerment and they did it all alone, in spite of being dumped by their treacherous God.   The Holocaust religion, like Judaism, prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially, like more traditional Judaism, it is totally and disgracefully intolerant toward dissent.
Due to the lack of a divine transcendental entity, Jewish religions have always regarded criticism as rejection of the tribe. Jewish religions, whether Judaism, Bolshevism or Holocaust, are equally intolerant towards criticism and dissent. Jewish religions treat opposition as a vile attempt at ‘delegitimization’ on the verge of genocidal inclination.
Jewish religions can be defined as different templates that facilitate a sense of choseness. They affirm a bond between an imaginary marginal ‘collective’ and a phantasmal ‘archetype’: the Bolshevists and ‘The Bolshevik’, the Survivours and ‘The Survivour’, the Jews and ‘The Jew,’ and so on.  The bond between the collective and the idea of an archetypical singularity is always maintained by a set of rigid commandments, a correct manner of speech, some strict regulatory guidelines for behavior and vile opposition to dissent.
Tragically enough, intolerance of dissent has become a universal Western political symptom. Incidentally, Christianity, Islam, religion and divinity in general are also under attack within the context of contemporary Western discourse. Is this a symptom of the Jerusalemification of our Western universe? Is the emergence of the tyranny of political correctness a coincidence? And if we are becoming Jews, is there any room for the hope that our universe may, at some stage, embrace a universal ethos once again? Can we once again believe in something?   Or do we have to wait for a new Jesus figure to resurrect our trust in the human spirit and humanity in general?  Or have we been re-designed to self-destruct as soon as we come close to such a lucid awareness?
[1] As God himself suggests in the Book of Genesis: “And I (God) will establish My covenant between Me and you (the Jews) and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”  (Book of Genesis, Chapter 17).

HappyNewYeark! copy



Merry Christmas and a Happy, Hopeful New Year from

Dear Radical Readers and Friends of Freedom of Speech Everywhere,
On behalf of my wife Shastah and myself I would like to thank everyone who has been standing with over the past year and longer in my ongoing struggle to defend the legal right of all Canadians, as stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be able to express their thoughts and viewpoints on the Internet and in other media without fear of being attacked and persecuted by the government of Canada via the use of Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.
This past year saw the case move to the actual stage of trial which commenced in the B.C. Supreme Court, Quesnel, Canada on October 26, 2015 and ran until November 12, 2015 when the jury of 8 women and 4 men found me guilty in Count 1 and not guilty in Count 2 of the identical charge that I did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”
As a result of this peculiar and strange ruling the stage has been now set for the continuation of myCharter challenge to Sec. 319(2) in the coming new year. The time when this challenge will occur is yet to be determined but the week beginning January 25, 2016 will see a date fixed for the Constitutional argument to be heard.
In the event that my Charter argument fails to convince the Supreme Court that Sec. 319(2) is in violation of Sec. 2b of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms then I will then have the right to appeal the decision of the court on Count 1 that was handed down November 12, 2015.
There were a number of extenuating circumstances that arose during the actual trial which will, of necessity, come to the forefront in the appeal and portend a strong case for having the decision tossed out and a not guilty decision rendered. Space here doesn’t allow for any elaboration on the process but the new evidence will be forthcoming in the new year.
As of today I am still raising money in order to purchase the transcripts from the trial. Not only does the legal process in this country unfairly work against the individual through unjust legislation such as Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code but when forced to defend oneself against such specious forms of “thought crime” laws the costs incurred are then further exacerbated by the state in the form of  the victim having to pay exorbitant costs for the transcripts of the proceedings in order to continue on with their defence.
As  it now stands the transcripts will cost me $7,500.00 to purchase from the sole contractor to the Attorney General’s office in B.C. JCWord Assist Ltd. The amount of support and funding for this onerous and ridiculously unfair process of procuring the transcripts has been overwhelmingly positive and to date we have already raised over $7,000.00 toward this end. I am deeply appreciative and humbled by this generosity on the part of supporters world-wide who’ve found it in their hearts to help me out. The transcripts are vital to my defence and will prove extremely useful in the days ahead as this battle to retain our right to freedom of speech continues to unfold in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The transcripts though are not the only expenses that I face and therefore I am forced to continue to ask for financial assistance and will likely do so until the process wends its way to a final outcome. It’s for this reason that I must therefore append my donation “shingle” to this Christmas greeting as well.
As the new year approaches I am filled with hope, strength and an unwavering determination to carry on with this fight until the odious sections of our legal system that make it a criminal act to speak one’s mind are defeated and repealed once and for all.
The world today stands at the brink of despair and hope. Never has there been a more urgent time in our history for the people to be able to stand up and speak out for their basic human rights in order to defend their nation against the incredibly powerful and deceptive actions of their respective governments and media; political bodies and complicit agencies who have shown themselves, over and over, to be working against the fundamental rights of the individual in order to broaden the scope of their control and propaganda now being forced upon the minds and hearts of people around the globe all at the behest of special interest groups who wield, altogether, untold amounts of unwarranted power and influence over nation states worldwide.
2016 bodes well in terms of providing the impetus to speak out and be heard. Let us pray that vigilance and discernment will be the watchwords in the days ahead and that we will retain our basic rights and continue to live freely and in peace and harmony with all of humanity.
May God bless the peacemakers and all who strive for justice and truth!
Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Kenneth L. Marcus: King Canard and the Lie of Anti-Semitism By Arthur Topham

Kenneth L. Marcus: King Canard and the Lie of Anti-Semitism
A response to the Marcus Interview in the Canadian Jewish News
Arthur Topham
UPDATE: DEC. 23/15
Editor’s Note: In the interest of dialogue I posted the following comment on the Canadian Jewish News website where Kenneth L. Marcus’s interview was published. When I clicked “send” the following window appeared:
Four hours later when I checked to see if my comment had appeared on the site I found this:
So I suppose it proves the point that I’ve been trying to make when it comes to dialoguing with the Zionist Jews:
FBHeaderNew copy
A dear friend recently alerted me to a Jonathan Dick email interview in the Canadian Jewish Newswith Kenneth L. Marcus, self-chosen founder, president and legal beagle for his Zionist propaganda organization titled the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. The reason for doing so was because Marcus had mentioned my trial here in Canada in response to a question from Dick regarding whether he could provide readers with any specific examples of anti-Semitism “in a Canadian context”.
Marcus’s interview was mainly focused on the Zionist’s ongoing attempts at equating “anti-Semitism” with criticism of Israel and its Zionist ideology within the context of what the Zionists perceive as a growing resurgence of “anti-Semitism” on U.S. campuses. My response is as follows:
In his interview with the Canadian Jewish News Kenneth L. Marcus tells us that he “sadly discovered that anti-Semitism was surging on university campuses” but of course fails to address the reasons why he perceives such a phenomenon occurring today.
In response to the question, “How do you feel about the EU’s recent ruling in the labelling of products originating from Israeli settlements? Could this type of legislation bolster anti-Semitism globally?” Marcus replies that “The European Union’s labelling policy is classically discriminatory in that it subjects products produced in Jewish-owned businesses to adverse treatment. It is no mere response to occupation.” and then goes on to state that “Other countries are engaged in occupations, but Europe does not treat them in this way.” This of course is pure, outright hypocrisy and bigotry veiled behind a lame, undocumented accusation that other nations are doing it so why can’t Israel.
Marcus then attempts to suggest that the reason for Israel being singled out is simply because it is a “Jewish state” as if that, in itself, was something warranting a positive response. Merely making such a confession is proof enough that Israel is a RACIST, Jews-only state that treats its own non-Jewish, Arab and Christian citizens as second class, thus refusing them equality under state laws.
To then further his sophistry Marcus has the unmitigated gall to state that “The EU’s actions make sense only as an example of anti-Jewish hate. The EU may protest that they are not anti-Semitic. But their actions speak for themselves.”
It didn’t take Marcus too long to get to the “hate” factor which is the essence of his groundless accusations against the EU, “hate” of course being the semantic oil that the Zionist Jew applies liberally to every aspect of Jewish misfeasance and crime against humanity in order to make their “anti-Semitism” canard run smoothly throughout their global network of lies, deception, and brainwashing.
Marcus adds, “Whether consciously or unconsciously, Europe’s leaders are treating Israel as the collective Jew, assailing its legitimacy in the same way that their ancestors challenged the legitimacy of the Jewish people.” It begs the question as to whether or not Marcus actually expects readers to fall for such simplistic, transparent jingoism given that during the last genocide of the Palestinian people of Gaza by the Israeli state the Israeli people were 95% in favour of the wanton bombing and killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children. No Marcus you’re wrong. Israel IS the collective Jew in that its Jewish population, as a collective, whole-heartedly endorses mass genocide of innocent Palestinian citizens and the theft of their legitimate territory and it therefore begs the question as to why it’s that difficult for Marcus to understand such a simple and truthful concept?
Then, to add further injury to his already pretentious, self-righteous accusations, Marcus has the chutzpah to reference the charlatan of all modern-day charlatans, Elie Wiesel and allude to his fictional, propagandist novel, Night, as a “classic”. Yes, Kenneth it truly is a classic alright; a classic example of pure, fictional lies and hate propaganda designed to promote endless Germanophobia and prop up the Zionist 6 Million “holocaust” lie that the Jew media has been inculcating into gentile minds since the end of WW II. It’s lies and bigotry are only surpassed by that other hideous “classic” Jewish “hate” novel, Germany Must Perish! penned by the American Jewish writer Theodore N. Kaufman back in 1941.
Of closer note though are references to your traitorous Canadian Jew associates/advisers like Irwin Cotler who has been working tirelessly for decades to undermine Canada’s Constitution andCharter of Rights and Freedoms by conspiring with like-minded dual-citizen Israeli/Canadian Jews and gentile sycophants to promote his brain-scheme the “Ottawa Protocols” along with infesting Canada’s judicial system with Talmudic-driven “Hate Propaganda” legislation such as Sec. 319(2) under which I was recently falsely accused, tried and (thus far) found guilty on one count out of two of “promoting hatred” toward “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin”.
Your remark that, “Part of the problem is that anti-Semitism is not widely enough understood.” is a classic statement in itself Kenneth. Most intelligent observers of the actions of the state of Israel are quite aware of the discrepancies that exist within that government’s policies toward non-Jews, be they the second-class citizens within Israel or the Arab people of Palestine, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Israel’s actions are legally and morally reprehensible and most worthy of condemnation by any normal, civilized nation or individual. No, Kenneth, we don’t need any more “education” from the Zionists about what Jewish hatred toward non-Jews is all about. We see it enacted daily around the world in both the open and hidden actions of the Zionists everywhere. The only “problem” is you and your ilk who cannot seem to grasp the obvious truth that it’s your actions against others that call forth the indignation and displeasure of decent people around the world; healthy, natural reactions which you refuse to acknowledge because of your own grotesquely perverse mindset that sees any attempt to dissuade you from your killing and destructive behaviour as merely “anti-Semitism”.
As for young people today on campuses reacting with horror and revulsion upon witnessing the actions of Israel against the defenceless Palestinian people of Gaza and the West Bank this is no different than the reactions of young people on campuses back in the 1960s when the Viet Nam war was being enacted before the world. Judging from your age you were likely still in diapers at the time or else unborn but I clearly recall the temper of those times. The only difference now is that it’s not the US military doing the slaughtering but the IDF and so for students to be able to recognize who the guilty culprits are is as simple as going online and watching the devastation. But not only have you got this wrong Kenneth you’re also out to lunch as well in stating that “North American campuses often harbour radical left-wing movements that are hostile to Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish people.” If you knew your “left-wingers” you’d know that most of them support the actions of Israel for the “left” is but another category of the Zionist conspiracy. It’s the truth-revealers and those on the right who condemn Israel’s heinous actions not the “left”.
Your attempt to lay blame on the German people (again) for being the original instigators of boycotts like the BDS movement is another futile gesture which others have exposed in the comments section below your CJN article. Again, it all boils down to your refusal to look into the mirror and see yourself for what you are – a pretentious fool so entangled in your own convoluted, Talmudic “logic” and sophistry that you cannot extricate yourself from an identity that’s leading you and your Zionist cohorts to the edge of that same self-created abyss you’ve always arrived at throughout history.
Your advice to college students again illustrates the degree to which you misinterpret what’s happening to Jewish people everywhere due to the actions of the Zionist element which is apparently now beyond redemption. To suggest that people should “maintain the moral high ground” and not “use the vicious tactics of Jewry’s enemies” has got to be another gross example of Zion’s fatuous, deluded mentality given the incredibly immoral actions on the part of the state of Israel which you are attempting to legitimize in your interview. The same goes for your advice to “Stay safe”, “Stand tall”, “Organize”, “Collaborate”, “Educate”, “Cooperate”, “Laugh” and “Fight”. These are actions for individuals who are ethical and moral beings; people who understand what truth and freedom and justice mean. It’s obvious from the stance that you take in this interview that none of those qualities could ever apply to people who condone what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinian people and others around the world.
In a further question form Dick “Could you provide specific examples of recent anti-Semitism in a Canadian context?” you replied, “More recently, one thinks about the trial of Arthur Topham[emphasis added. A.T.]”
It’s good that you should think about the trial of Arthur Topham Kenneth Marcus. You and all the rest of the Zionist Jews across Canada, the USA, the EU and elsewhere in the world. That trial is far from over and there will be additional lessons to be learned by studying its unfoldment. It’s not, as you would suggest, a case involving “anti-Semitism” but rather a case revealing to the world the TRUTH about the extent of Zionist Jew collusion and conspiracy, not only in Canada, but in every democratic nation around the planet. It’s a case of wilful collusion designed to destroy the civil and legal rights of individuals and prevent people from expressing on the internet their opinions and thoughts on political matters relevant to their own lives, the lives of their families and friends and their respective nations. What’s really on trial in the Arthur Topham case Kenneth is whether Truth or Deception will reign supreme in the future of free and democratic countries around the world. Your “anti-Semitism” canard is but an old, worn-out, transparently duplicitous epithet whose time is long past and will never serve to cover up the crimes of the Zionists as it once did when you controlled all the major media sources.
Dick’s final question to Marcus: “Where do you see Israel in ten years? Where do you see the state of global anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism in ten years?”
Your final comment Kenneth that the future of Israel and of the Jewish people is “in our hands” couldn’t be closer to the truth although you obviously cannot envision what that truth is or how it might unfold for the “Jewish people”.
The “truth” is unfolding before your eyes and before the eyes of all Zionists today, be they Jewish or gentile, yet you are unable to recognize it for what it is because of your own lack of prejudicial understanding and the age-old handicap known as the Talmudic mindset that has formed the foundational basis of your religious/political ideology over the past two thousand years.
Seeing as how Christmas and Hannukah are currently underway it might be a fitting time to draw some analogies from these two historic events.
Just as Jesus Christ attempted to convince the Jewish Pharisees and Sanhedrin of old that their stifling, dead letter approach to divine Law was no longer relevant in a world evolving toward love, peace, universal brotherhood and freedom of the individual, so too now, as the world at large is attempting to tell you once again that your actions and Israel’s actions are no longer acceptable to the freedom-loving people of the world today, you are still doing your utmost to deny what’s happening and resorting to the only escape you feel is available which is to delude yourselves and others into thinking that the truth-revealers who are trying to help you avoid the ultimate pitfall actually “hate” you and wish to do you wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth Kenneth.
Your Pharisaic, Talmudic legacy was responsible for the murdering of the prophets of old in a vain attempt to co-opt the divinity of the heavenly Father and claim Providence as your own but that time has now passed away. As things stand today it’s inconceivable that Israel will still exist as a nation in ten years if it doesn’t break free from its Pharisiac-imposed, ghetto consciousness (psychosis) wherein it sees every action designed to enlighten it and bring it back into the family of man as mere “anti-Semitism”. The global truth movement Kenneth will not be stopped. It’s unstoppable as the rising sun is unstoppable. The Zionist’s licence to indiscriminately kill has been revoked. The light of truth is increasing at an exponential rate and cannot be resisted without having major detrimental effects upon those who fight against it. You do have the power to change Kenneth but that power will only come from recognizing the error of your ways and returning to a path of peace and love for all of humanity not just your own tribe. Only then will you and the rest of humanity achieve what you term “justice for all”.

B.C.’s Attorney – General office wants $7,500.00 for the transcript of Topham Trial By

Dear   Mr. Topham:
Further to your request for an estimate for the preparation of transcripts regarding the above noted matter and based solely upon information we’ve received from the Quesnel Court Registry, the estimate for the proceedings heard the dates listed below, is as follows:
Normal delivery (within 20 business days):                                   $7,500.00
Expedited delivery (within 3 business days):                                 $9,000.00
Daily delivery (within one business day):                                       This is not an available service rate.
Please note, this is an estimate only based on information received from the Court Registry and the costs may vary upon completion.  Please also note this estimate is for one copy only which includes an electronic copy.
If you wish to proceed with this order, we will require payment in advance.  The acceptable method of payment for this transcript request is via bank draft or money order only.
This order will be placed on hold until we hear further from you and/or we receive your deposit in full.
If you have any further questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Many thanks,
Dear Radical Reader,
Well, there you have it. $7,500.00 for the transcript of R v Roy Arthur Topham less the Charge to the Jury which would have included another 62 pages raising the cost up a few hundred dollars more. Had I required the transcript in 3 business days the price would have jumped up another $1,500.00 bringing the total to $9,000.00.
It’s no wonder that the little guys and gals who get caught up in the machinery of Canada’s “Just”us system invariably find themselves in a position where it becomes just too cost prohibitive to challenge decisions that could, were they accessible financially, be amenable to positive change.
I can only thank my lucky stars for the ongoing support from people here in Canada and around the world who believe in the principle and importance of freedom of speech and who’ve come to my assistance over the many long years of seemingly endless litigation. The trial itself was a costly process even with the help coming from Legal Aid which, of itself, is twenty years behind in paying a Legal Aid lawyer an equivalent salary to that being paid Crown prosecutors.
Were I forced to rely solely upon my Old Age Pension Cheque to carry on with the battle for free expression it would have ended years ago, but, because I’m not alone in this struggle and because good people everywhere realize that our ability to confront the repressive power of censorship depends upon our ability to openly express our thoughts and ideas, they have lent their financial support in order to keep the struggle alive.
At this point in time we’re not that far from achieving the present objective of raising the exorbitant amount being charged for the words spoken in our (the people’s) courtroom. Thanks to a recent donation of $5,000.00 by Dr. James Sears of Ontario we’re around the $6,000.00 mark with another $1,500.00 left to raise.
Murphy’s Law (of course) would have it such that this final amount comes due right around Christmas when everyone who does have a few extra bucks in their pocket is thinking of gifts for their loved ones and family and friends not having to fork it out to maintain what they naturally expect to be their supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The transcript of the trial is critically important for a number of reasons. The vast majority of people interested in its outcome were unable to attend the proceedings and therefore missed out on the daily unfolding of events. Having the transcript will allow for its posting to the net thus making it available for truth seekers everywhere to study what went on and gain a much broader concept of how the trial unfolded.
In terms of future events the transcript is vital to the defence in that statements made by Crown and Expert witnesses must be corroborated in order to verify our next moves which will be, in large part, based upon the evidence presented by the prosecution.
With a Sec. 2b Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s criminal code coming up next year and the possibility of an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1 of the trial should the Charter challenge fail, it’s crucial that the evidence from the trial be available to us.
Please do what you can to help out with this important case and if you’re not in a position to help out financially then try to share this information with others who may be able to assist in keeping our right to freedom of expression alive and well in Canada.
Thanks so much to all who helped out.
Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8


Ottawa, Ontario
15 December 2015
Implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the largest class-action settlement in Canadian history, began in 2007. The agreement includes individual and collective elements to address the sad and terrible legacy of Indian Residential Schools.
One of these elements is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). The official mandate of the TRC is found in Schedule “N” of the Settlement Agreement which includes the principles that guided the Commission in its important work. The TRC provided those individuals directly or indirectly affected by the legacy of the Indian Residential School system with an opportunity to share their stories and/or experiences.
The Commission hosted seven national events across Canada, as well as a Closing Event in Ottawa, with the goals of hearing from former students, engaging the Canadian public, providing education about the history and legacy of the residential schools system, and sharing and honouring the experiences of former students and their families.
At the Closing Event in June 2015, the TRC released its Executive Summary, which included its findings and 94 Calls to Action aimed at redressing the legacy of residential schools and advancing the process of reconciliation in Canada.
REZ3 copy
During the TRC’s final event on December 15, 2015, the Prime Minister reiterated the Government of Canada’s commitment to work in partnership with Indigenous communities, the provinces, territories and other vital partners, to fully implement recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Why is a Hate Campaign being Waged against Muslims? By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research

Why is a Hate Campaign being Waged against Muslims?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 10, 2015
Why is a hate campaign being waged against Muslims?
Why are Muslims increasingly categorized as terrorists?
Why is this hate campaign  part of the US  presidential election campaign?
Why is Donald Trump calling for police state measures directed against American Muslims?
Why are Muslims the object of ethnic profiling and job discrimination?
Why has France’s president Francois Hollande suspended civil rights coupled with a hate campaign directed against France’s Muslims, which represent 7.5 percent of the country’s population?
Why is the West waging a war against Muslim countries?
Why is Islam regarded as evil?
The answer to all these questions is both simple and complex.
It just so happens that more than 60% of the World’s reserves of crude oil lie in Muslim lands.
Muslims are the inhabitants of the countries which possess the oil.  And America’s imperial agenda consists in acquiring ownership and control over the World’s oil reserves.
If these lands had been inhabited by Buddhists, Western politicians –with the support of the mainstream media– would be demonizing the Buddhists.
Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess more than 60 percent of the World’s crude oil reserves.
With regard to conventional crude oil (excluding tar sands in Venezuela and Canada), the percentage of global (conventional crude) oil reserves in Muslim countries is much larger.
Countries which possess large reserves of crude oil are slated for destabilization.
More than 50 percent of the World’s crude oil reserves lies between the tip of the Arabian peninsula and the Caspian Sea basin: Yemen, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan.
Map: copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research 2003
The above region is America’s war theater. That is where the battle for oil under the banner of the “war on terrorism” is being fought. Those are the Muslim lands which have been slated for conquest or regime change. Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf monarchies and emirates are US proxy states, firmly under US control.
The collective demonization of Muslims, including the vilification of the tenets of Islam, applied Worldwide, constitutes at an ideological level, an instrument of conquest of the World’s energy resources. It is part of the broader economic, political mechanisms underlying the New World Order.
This vilification is carried out by actually creating terrorist organizations integrated by Muslims, as part of a longstanding intelligence operation going back to the Soviet-Afghan war.
Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations are creations of the CIA. They are not the product of Muslim society. Terrorist attacks are undertaken by jihadist entities which are CIA intelligence assets.
The Islamic State (ISIS) is an intelligence construct which is used essentially for two related purposes.
1. They are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance, the instruments of destabilization, recruited, trained, financed by the Western military alliance. The various al Qaeda entities are the instruments of destabilization in US-NATO sponsored proxy wars (AQIM in Mali, Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIS in Syria and Iraq). At the same time, they constitute a pretext and a justification to intervene under the banner of a “counter-terrorism” bombing campaign.
2. On the home front, the various Al Qaeda/ ISIS terrorist cells –supported covertly by Western intelligence–  are the  instruments of a diabolical and criminal propaganda operation which consists in killing innocent civilians with a view to providing legitimacy to the instatement of  police state measures allegedly in support of democracy. These false flag attacks allegedly perpetrated by terrorist organization are then used to harness Western public against Muslims.
The underlying objective is to wage a an illegal war of conquest in the Middle East and beyond under the banner of the “global war on terrorism”. According to Western politicians, “we are defending ourselves against the terrorists”. According to our governments, the bombing raids allegedly directed against the terrorists in Syria are “not an act of war”, they are presented to Western public opinion as an “act of self-defense”. “The West is under attack by the ISIS terrorists”, the ISIS is based in Raqqa, Northern Syria, “we must defend ourselves” by bombing ISIS.
We are told that this is not an act of war, it is an act of retribution and self-defense. The only problem with this propaganda op is that “The Terrorists R US”, our governments and intelligence services have been supporting ISIS from the very outset.
In the eyes of public opinion, possessing a “just cause” for waging war is central. A war is said to be Just if it is waged on moral, religious or ethical grounds. Muslims within Western countries are being vilified as part of an imperial agenda, as a means to justify the destabilization of Muslim countries on humanitarian grounds (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Yemen).
America is waging a holy crusade against Muslims and Muslim countries.  The “war on terrorism” purports to defend the American Homeland and protect the “civilized world”. It is upheld as a “war of religion”, a “clash of civilizations”, when in fact the main objective of this war is to secure control and corporate ownership over the region’s extensive oil wealth.
Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again. The Crusades of the Middle Age consisted in demonizing the Turks as infidels and heretics, with a view to justifying military action.
Demonization serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against “Islamic terrorism” (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth.
Muslims are equated with terrorists: Islamophobia serves to wage nationwide campaigns against Muslims in Europe and North America.
It is an instrument of war propaganda used to degrade the history, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while upholding the tenets of “Western democracy” and the “free market” as the only alternative for these countries.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2015

Open Letter from Dr. James Sears: Financial support for Arthur Topham’s legal battle for Freedom of Speech in Canada

Open Letter from Dr. James Sears: Financial support for Arthur Topham’s legal battle for Freedom of Speech in Canada
Dec. 10th, 2015

Dec. 10/15Dr. James SearsPic

Firstly, thank you for having the courage to stand up to the powerful ZioMarxist lobby.  If you ever lose faith in your ultimate victory, please keep in mind that Jesus survived it, and so will you!  Secondly, thank you for publishing my satirical story on your court case.  I will be writing more stories on your saga very soon.
I am writing you today because I understand from a mutual acquaintance that you are about to incur substantial legal costs, including over $4,000 to order trial transcripts, and that these costs may be prohibitive, potentially jeopardizing your appeal.  I love Canada, so I refuse to allow ZioFascists to take down a good man, because for all I know, any one of us could be next!
Therefore, I have email transferred you a token $5,000 to relieve some of your immediate financial stress.  I have set aside a substantial sum of money that you may tap into at any time, with just one call or email to me.  However, further donations are contingent upon the freedom-loving, patriotic internet community matching my initial donation. In other words, as I give you each tranche of money, I expect the community to match what I have given you before my next tranche comes in. In essence, I will pre-match every dollar you collect.
All I ask in return is that you fight these parasites to the bitter end.  Do not give up until you have achieved victory or you have taken your dying breath.
Dr. James Sears
Founder and Leader
New Constitution Party of Canada

Israel court says book on killing non-Jews not incitement
December 10, 2015
A book by hardline Israeli rabbis justifying the murder of non-Jews will not have to face charges of inciting violence, the Jerusalem High Court said.
Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post reported Thursday that the court ruled there was “no basis” for the charges, upholding a 2012 decision by Israel’s Attorney General to not pursue a criminal investigation.
The Torat Hamelech (The King’s Torah) was published in 2009 and sparked controversy and a debate on free speech by arguing that Jewish law allowed, in some cases, for Jewish people to kill non-Jews without being to court.
According to The Jerusalem Post, the book states that anyone who opposes “our kingdom” or encourages attacks against them can be killed, as can children “if there is a good chance they will grow up to be like their evil parents.”
The Attorney General’s 2012 decision argued that the book was a religious study and not aimed at encouraging individuals to violence, despite concern within Israeli society that it could lead to violence against Palestinians.
Several Jewish groups objected the groups, as did senior Rabbis, including the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism, which petitioned the High Court to question why there have been no investigation for racial incitement.
Israeli blog Reform Judaism, which supported the petition, wrote in 2012 that the book was “a manual on how Jewish law can justify hate and violence.”
“When the Mufti of Jerusalem gave a sermon about killing Jews, the State opened a criminal investigation in less than a week,” the blog wrote. “When rabbis widely distribute their manual for violence to the masses, the State remains silent.”

New Video from Alfred Schaefer: 911 Brainwashing Part 3 Pavlov’s Dog


I heard about the outcome of your court case and found it exceptionally amusing! I wish you luck on your appeal and I have dough available if you need it, provided you let people know where you got it. I was originally going to write a serious article about your kangaroo court, but I find that the brainwashed masses only respond to humour (Jews like Jon Stewart used humour to brainwash them in the first place).
Therefore, I decided that your court case was too important for a dry, boring article. I decided to write a satirical piece about it, which we just published a few days ago. I hope you, your wife (and Paul Fromm) have a sense of humour. Check out our latest publication for it (it is on pages 8-9) …
It has gone out to 77,000 homes in Toronto and response has been overwhelmingly positive. That is to say, I consider people tweeting, blogging and emailing us that we are anti-Semitic Nazis, positive. Here is a sample of a couple of positive responses …
Also, my graphic artist Robert recreated your original split image of the Sanhedrin and your head popped into the Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of
Speech. He has a VERY HIGH RESOLUTION copy on file. If you want it, let us know.
If you wish to reprint my article, or any others in our publication, please feel free. I know they are not of the serious style of those in your publication, so I will not take it personally if you decline our offer. That being said, I did make a non-critical mistake in mixing up Count 1 and Count 2 of your charges, but no big deal. The important thing is that people are now aware of how you have been railroaded!

Dr. James Sears,
Your Ward News

Resisting the New World Order (NWO) War Against All of Humanity Video by Sean M. Madden

Dear Truth Seekers,
Sean Madden’s talk regarding the New World Order agenda is worthy of a listen. The main thesis throughout his talk revolves around the concept that we are and have been deeply immersed in a global or world conflict for well over a century now; one contrived and headed by the Zionist forces which have been operating behind the curtains of media and academia and banking and government covers well before the creation of the US Federal Reserve in 1913.
The message is to stop plugging in to the global matrix of lies and deception. Stop watching global TV. Stop reading the msm publications. Stop watching Hollywood scripts that reinforce the lies. Stop connecting up with the dialectic that the Zionists have projected onto the world via their controlled media. Stop participating in the Big Lie, the Big Deception. Stop falling prey to every new incident which the Zionists orchestrate in advance to keep the masses distracted from seeing beyond the smoke cover that they continually rekindle with false flag after false flag in order to smother and obfuscate and steer people along pre-conceived paths that all end up being cul de sacs, dead ends leading to more confusion and impasses that ultimately stymie the one essential revelation necessary to spur people on to greater and greater resistance, that being the realization that the dichotomy we’re told exists is but a facade.
It bears repeating these basic truths as the degree of deception is being ratcheted up and up with each new passing day making it more and more onerous for people to stay focussed on the basics. Sean does a bang up job of reinforcing those basics. Do share this important talk with those who are still confused about global events.
P.S. I must preface Sean’s comments on Putin and Russia by stating that I take them with a grain of salt at this point. It may just be my long standing connection with Edgar Cayce that prompts me to say this. Time, of course, reveals all.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

No comments: