Archive for November 2015

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

I find this trial to be an outstanding example of how our world actually works, but those who deny it are completely blind to it, even when they may be otherwise highly principled and well researched. Such is the nature of belief. Indeed, if such an individual understood that 9/11 was in inside job, they would almost certainly struggle to accept – more likely simply deny – the abundant evidence of Israeli involvement in those events.

There are many articles on the ‘net that discuss this current Canadian trial, and I find this one is a good starting point:

The Law
Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

End of quote.

I’m sure you get the drift.

This is how our world works – deny it if you will.

I commend the rest of the article to you.

The Victories of Revisionism (continued)

In the interests of seeking to have at least one more person who sees these posts to revisit the well-entrenched beliefs about the Holocaust, I share this well-researched and written blog post by Robert Faurisson. I quote:

On December 11, 2006 I completed a twenty-page study entitled “The Victories of Revisionism” ( In it I noted, as examples, twenty victories won by the revisionists on the strictly historical and scientific level, whereas, on the media and judicial levels, their opponents continued to occupy nearly all the terrain. The “Holocaust” sectarians concealed their defeats and went on deceiving the public as they had been doing since 1945. But now, suddenly, the accelerated development of the Internet and the evolution of the world situation, so unfortunate for the State of Israel and the United States of America, have gradually changed the order of things. Revisionism’s victories have started getting talked about. In particular, there is a proliferation of websites, forums and blogs where visitors have been able to learn, first, of the concessions made to the revisionists by “Holocaust” historians, and then of the real capitulations to which some of the latter have been driven. To begin, in 1979, a group of 34 French academics signed a joint statement that was most revealing of their inability to describe the operation of “the magical gas chamber” (Louis-Ferdinand Céline); they pitifully declared: “One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass-murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened” (Le Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23). In 1985 Raul Hilberg, the most eminent historian of “the Holocaust”, finally acknowledged that there was, after all, no known evidence of the reality of any order, plan or organisation aiming at the physical destruction of the European Jews and, in order to continue upholding that fiction nonetheless, he decided to resort to some astonishing explanations in the vein of what might be called “group parapsychology” (see below). In 1995 Jean-Claude Pressac, Serge Klarsfeld’s liege man, definitively laid down his arms (see below). In the years thereafter something of a general desertion or rout could be observed among historians of “the Holocaust”: feigning ignorance of what, in 1968 in her main academic dissertation, the Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot had herself been compelled to call “the problem of the gas chambers” and passing over in silence a number of other historical “problems” of that kind, they were content to repeat the purely gratuitous statements of the judges at Nuremberg and, for the most part, did not venture to look for historical and scientific evidence of their “Holocaust”. But one Jewish researcher remained in the running, the one whom I, for my part, called “the last of the Jewish Mohicans”; that was my sobriquet for Robert Jan van Pelt. However, once again, the matter was to end with a kind of capitulation. As will be seen below, on December 27, 2009 the fellow wound up his lengthy research work with the following observation: as concerns Auschwitz, for virtually everything “we know” about that camp (capital of “the Holocaust”, visited by millions of believers) there is simply no evidence to be found… there at Auschwitz; it would be better to stop spending so much money trying to preserve the place; nature should take it back! This researcher’s embarrassment is indeed understandable: he would prefer to see the pure fabrications, like the crematorium at Auschwitz I, disappear (“Everything in it is false”, as French historian Eric Conan eventually found in 1995: L’Express, January 19-25, 1995, p. 68; on this subject see point no. 16 at and the article at

From 1979 to 2009, that is, for thirty years, the proponents of the authorised version of Second World War history have failed in their attempts to reply to the revisionists on the level of history, science, material research and the careful study of documents and testimonies. To compensate for this failure the “Holocaust” worshipers have sought refuge via the reserves of imagination or belief; hence a remarkable propagation of novels, notoriously false “testimonies”, plays, films, ceremonies, pilgrimages. And so it is that “Shoah Business” and the “Holocaust Religion” have flooded the world with their products and their phantasmagoria.

End of quote.

I commend the remainder of the article to you.

Eisenhower’s Rhine-Meadows Death Camps

I’ll let this horrific and damning documentary speak for itself. It quotes extensively from those who were present and survived.

Once more, not the story we hear about WWII and its aftermath.

Only Edward Snowden Can Save James Bond

I share Dan Froomkin’s great article in full:

James Bond is doomed. But his undoing will not come from the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion, or Ernst Stavro Blofeld, or a jilted Bond girl.

Bond is doomed because early in the movie Spectre, the otherwise benevolent Q, muttering something about nanotechnology and microchips, injects him with “smart blood.”

“Smart blood,” Q tells us, allows MI6 to track Bond absolutely anywhere he goes in the entire world. Presumably it turns his circulatory system into a radio, battery, and powerful antenna all in one, and is irreversible. For Bond, constantly broadcasting his location makes it virtually impossible to sneak around.

Sure, in Spectre, he manages to slip off the grid temporarily — thanks to Q’s plot-friendly indulgence. But long term? Even assuming that only MI6 can lock onto his bloody beacon and that MI6 can’t be hacked, his bosses will still always know where he is. And trusting in the security of government computer systems, as the movie demonstrates, is probably not a good idea.

There is no such thing as “smart blood,” of course. But it’s a pretty good metaphor for those omnipresent tracking devices that, in real life, have become a de facto extension of our bodies: our phones.

Most of us have no choice any longer but to carry mobile phones, even though they rob us of our locational privacy. For Bond, his very blood now robs him of his M.O. Smart blood equals geospatial emasculation.

And there’s another way that Spectre makes a valuable contribution to the typically staid public discourse about the surveillance state.

The standard inside-the-Beltway arguments about surveillance assume there’s a tradeoff between national security and privacy. But Spectre emphatically asserts that you can do more harm with total information than you can good.

Knowing everything about everyone is actually of limited use to the good guys. But it’s hugely useful to the bad guys — be they extortionists, terrorists, or power-mad bureaucrats. And if it’s collected, somewhere, be assured the bad guys can get their hands on it.

While Bond is pursuing his super-villain, his boss M wages a losing bureaucratic war with C, who’s more of an NSA/GCHQ type. M inevitably describes the massive surveillance network that C is building as “George Orwell’s worst nightmare.” In response, C literally laughs at M’s devotion to the quaint notion of “democracy.” Subtle it ain’t, but the central point — that ubiquitous surveillance is an inevitably totalitarian tool, not just inappropriate for democratic society, but actively inimical to it — is often underappreciated in the current debate.

The timing of the movie is extraordinarily propitious, especially in Britain, which is already much more of a surveillance state than the U.S. — with one surveillance camera for every 11 people. A draft Investigatory Powers Bill unveiled just last week would institutionalize profound invasions of privacy, from snooping on domestic web-browsing histories to bulk hacking.

Way back in 1998, science-fiction author David Brin published a influential non-fiction book called The Transparent Society in which he argues that limiting the collection of information is futile, and that therefore the only solution is to share the powers of surveillance with the citizenry — enabling the public to watch the government as well as the government watches the public. It’s a nice idea, but so unrealistic that Spectre’s more dystopian vision actually seems more plausible.

What if mass surveillance by an ostensibly beneficent national government really means that whatever the government collects is de facto transparent to SPECTRE, SMERSH, Kaos, the mob, the cartels, Carlos the Jackal, ISIS, and Vladimir Putin?

M is an imperfect messenger, calling as he does for a return to the traditional core value of assassination mano a mano — but he makes a powerful argument, on purely pragmatic terms: “All the surveillance in the world can’t tell you what to do next.”

The movie also shows us what kind of hero we need to prevent such a dystopian future — and it isn’t Bond. It’s Q, who bears a striking resemblance to Edward Snowden.

Sure, Q starts off by forever damning Bond to life as a radio antenna on a virtual tether, but he turns out to be a geek with an unshakeable moral center. With his heavily be-stickered laptop, he transforms in Spectre from outfitter of nifty death machines to white-hat hacker, singlehandedly bringing down a surveillance network that threatens the free world.

End of quote.

I agree with Dan on the scope of our phones to track us wherever we go. I would also remind you of the recent article I referred to which showed about 1/3rd of Americans already have an implanted RFID chip, unbeknownst to them, and most likely correlated with recent dental work.

And there is an assumption in Dan’s article that there are some good guys who might be using this tracking information for good and honest purposes. It is difficult to know who they might be, beyond the fiction that the NSA or GCHQ have some interest in your protection from terrorists or others. I say fiction because you have to continue to believe that terrorists controlled by Osama bin Laden flew planes into the WTC towers on 9/11 to buy that story, when anyone who has done their homework knows this is simply nonsense, and that bin Laden was a long term CIA asset who died at the end of 2001. But it still challenges most people to even contemplate this truth.

And this is just the surface layer. When you realise that the Zionists have controlled the United States since at least 1913, Russia since 1917 and Britain since at least the Battle of Waterloo, you realise there are no good guys, and all of these systems are about the complete monitoring of every individual on the planet. It was one of the reasons for the execution of the 9/11 false flag – to set up the myth of the endless war on terrorism and justify total surveillance, ostensibly for our protection. Without this Hegelian excuse, we would not accept it.

But I have always enjoyed the Bond romps (though their recent increased violence challenges me) and how movies are used to telegraph the plans of the elite, so I look forward to watching Spectre when the opportunity arises.

An informed debate on euthanasia in Australia

Dr Rodney Syme is an Australian medical advocate for euthanasia.

You can hear him state his case in the brief video snippet in this article discussing a TV debate on Australia’s ABC, in which he gives examples of having prescribed Nembutal to dying patients.

It’s a debate that, in my opinion, the world needs to have.

Why do we lock people into life who no longer wish to live, for whatever reason?

Of course, people can find a way to end their lives if they have the courage. Suicide is widespread in our world.

Why should those in constant pain – physical or otherwise – or who know their life prognosis is very poor, for whatever reason, and who wish to end their life not be able to do so in a socially approved manner?

Those who understand the true nature of life understand that this physical experience is but a small segment of the journey of the soul.

Many of the great yogis of India have demonstrated the ability to consciously end their lives, often in a public, celebratory way. Paramahansa Yogananda demonstrated this ability in a very public manner at the end of a major speech in 1952 in Los Angeles, having foretold at least one of his students of his imminent departure. Of course, Western medical doctors produced an appropriate cause of a heart attack – this for a man who had demonstrated widely his ability to completely still both his breathing and heartbeat at will, as is common with these great masters.

But I digress.

Is the prevention of this choice simply another way we are prevented from having power and control over our own lives? Is it about promoting the fear of death?

In my opinion, it’s about disempowerment of the individual. Yes, you can get into all sorts of religious debates but, in the end, for me, it comes down to yet another example of the very intentional and carefully planned disempowerment of the individual that is everywhere in our world.

Our world has been turned upside down – intentionally – such that the state is more important than those who make it up. And to make that stick, you have to disempower the individual and keep them in fear. Denying the right to choose your own moment of death in a conscious manner is, in my opinion, part of this disempowerment and control.

How the Elite get their way

I was drawn to reflect on this subject after I saw this quote posted on the anniversary of the death of Aaron Swartz:

Aaron Swartz on SOPA

In case you’ve forgotten, SOPA was about on-line piracy and it is discussed here.

Aaron Swartz committed suicide after being hounded by the US Government, a story I shared here.

And so, what has happened since? Well, apart from the Ed Snowden exposures, we have the CISA legislation passing with scarcely a whimper, and we have the TPP, soon to be followed by the TTIP for US/European trade, packaging up all the tools any of the large corporations would want to throw the book at anyone – including governments – who might contemplate opposing any measures they might take to protect whatever they consider are appropriate actions to protect their IP.

So, the elite have got where they wanted to go in the end – and quite quickly, albeit with a few ipso facto journalists pointing out the draconian nature of the TPP.

I can’t help wondering what Aaron Swartz would have done to awaken people to what is being done to them. But they got rid of him, as they do anyone who represents a serious threat to their plans.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :
Follow by Email