I have had some requests to ship additional information on the grotesque "Truth is not a defence!" Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling of 25 May '98 and why it was forced out of the censors. It is a fascinating question, the bare tentacles of which are only now beginning to appear. To save myself some work, I am running what was indicated in the July 1998 Power Letter shipped from the Zundel-Haus:
Dr. Schweitzer himself had opened the proverbial can of worms - the Jewish role in Bolshevism and later Communism. Doug Christie showed Schweitzer an article published in a London newspaper on February 8, 1920 by Winston Churchill about Zionism and Bolshevism, outlining the Jewishness of many Bolshevik revolutionaries and leaders.
Schweitzer had to admit that this was well-known! This is something that my Jewish detractors do not like one bit - that I keep hammering away at the Jewishness of Bolshevism! Our opposition was taken aback - Jewish lawyers repeatedly jumped to their feet to object! Too late - the truth was out!
Next, Christie went over the Jewish "Big Lie" technique they accuse Hitler and Goebbels of using - we hammered away at that too; that the Jewish media completely distort what Hitler said about in Mein Kampf! He does not advocate the Big Lie technique; he tells who uses it!
Christie next raised the issue of Lenin's Jewish lineage. Again, Schweitzer surprised his handlers by having to admit to Lenin's Jewish grandparents. We showed him Russian documents; he had to agree; yes, it was so.
Christie zeroed in on a term I had used of "Judaization of our culture" and "the mental circumcision of our minds" - concepts strenuously objected to by the Commission lawyers and my accusers/intervenors. The opposition lawyers were visibly upset.
And so it went - hour after hour! Increasingly, the intervenors became louder and more shrill, and the Tribunal members became testy! It rained objections! It was classic Talmudism in action! The arguments, questions, evasive answers, the Talmudic logic displayed in that court room in Toronto during the 26-27 of May '98 would have put the Pharisees of Christ's time to shame!
Schweitzer squirmed like a worm on a hook!
Finally, at approximately 3:40 p.m., May 27, '98, we let him off the hook - to use that metaphor. A man who had downloaded the Zundelsite - as it turned out, mainly a mirror site, which means, a site not regularly updated - testified last, and then the government lawyers said their case was closed. The defence case could begin.
The first defence witness - disqualified!
At exactly 4:00 p.m. Dr. Alexander Jacob, our first defense witness, stepped up to the microphone. He is small in stature, dark in complexion, but Aryan in features and mind. Compared to Schweitzer's evasive philo-semitic gyrations, Dr. Jacob was a paragon of forthright honesty that bordered on the suicidal, given the make-up of the panel judges and the Commission and intervenor lawyers.
There was no equivocation in Dr. Jacob's voice! Marvin Kurtz, B'nai Brith's lawyer, tried to lay a guilt trip on him for some "anti-semitic" writings and statements Dr. Jacob had published; Dr. Jacob was not cowed, even less impressed - all Kurtz got for his attempt at playing mind games with him was that he elicited from Dr. Jacob answers like "The Jewish Defence League is the physical terrorist arm of 'the Jewry'" ("dem Judentum", a term Dr. Jacob likes to use) "and B'nai Brith is the mental or psychological terrorist arm!" With answers like these, I knew that Dr. Jacob was not going to be qualified as an expert on my behalf!
I had worked with Dr. Jacob for a number of years. He did videos and research for our Satellite TV program, and I was glad to give him the experience and exposure to the Tribunal's Inquisition hearings. I am sure that as a scholar he will have benefitted from his first encounter with Talmudism in action. In subsequent conversations I was proven right! Dr. Jacob found the experience shocking - and instructive at the same time. So did the onlookers, I am sure - and the one Indian judge on the panel of the Tribunal who must have been surprised at how the Jewish lawyers treated and talked down to his fellow Indian!
As I feared, the Tribunal did not allow Dr. Jacob as an expert witness because of his "anti-semitic bias"! Hopefully, in the August Power letter I am going to show you what he was going to contribute, had Dr. Jacob been permitted to testify - simply quality testimony!
The second defence witness - disqualified!
Dr. Robert Countess, the well-known Revisionist writer, lecturer, radio show producer and retired academic, was our next witness for the defence. I like Dr. Countess immensely for his outgoing style and infectious dynamism. One could tell that here was a man who had preached many a sermon and given many a lecture and seminar. He had a quick mind and was in control of his facts and his emotions. He was widely read and, I believe, would have been a very helpful and important witness to the defence.
Unfortunately, our enemies perceived Dr. Countess obviously in a similar light and proceeded to neutralize him because he was - get this! - "an enthusiastic Revisionist" who had "volunteered to help Zündel" and had been called an "impressario of Revisionism" in one promotional brochure put out by Samisdat about an interview with him. They also found him wanting in the intellectual, scholarly field, an excuse always trotted out by my enemies at every trial! No one is ever "scholarly" enough for them from my side - and never mind that their own witness, Dr. Schweitzer, did not have one single attribution or reference to back up his outrageously subjective statements in the paper about the Zundelsite accepted into evidence!
I felt very keenly for Dr. Countess, for he knows so much about Revisionism and has met and been in personal contact with people like Alfred Lilienthal, Dr. Israel Shahak, Noam Chomsky and many others by phone, by letter or visits in person, all of whom had been mentioned in the testimony of Dr. Schweitzer. I think we scared the living daylights out of the opposition by the list of books and topics we were going to raise through Dr. Countess's testimony! I could see that this list really frightened them!
It did not take long after Dr. Countess stepped up to the microphone that the tension mounted in the hearing room. Once again, the approximately 8-10 lawyers from the Commission and the intervenors ganged up like a relay team on Doug Christie, who fought tenaciously to qualify Dr. Countess as the defence's chief witness to the events described in my newsletters. There were recesses, delays, endless submissions, hours of legal wranglings and arguments - all to no avail. The Tribunal disallowed Dr. Countess on June 8, 1998 by a faxed ruling, which reached me at 3:57 p.m. Monday afternoon. We were all keenly disappointed.
Dr. Countess realized, having watched the proceedings, that they feared him and his knowledge of the topic. He was completely in control of his emotions when the decision finally came, even though he had been insulted and defamed, and within an hour he was on his way in his 22-year-old Peugot - back to the freedom of the United States of America, leaving Absurdistan and the People's Republic of Canada, as he eventually called this place, behind!
The Germans to the front!
The Zündel team now brought up its next line of defence - German community leaders! For the first time since I started out in my long struggle of over 40 years, German men really testified in defence of me and my right to speak! It was a bittersweet experience. I had known some of them less than six months; others I had known for years. Now all of them in their retirement years, these men tried bravely to step into the witness box to defend the Germans' right to their own history.
On June 9, 1998, after lunch at 2 p.m., the Tribunal ruled they would allow the Germans to testify in a severely restricted capacity only.
Frank Schmidt, a Danube Swabian, who had served over five years with the Canadian Army in World War II and was with the Army of Occupation in Germany after the war, was the first German witness allowed. Schmidt and the others did not know that the Tribunal had ruled in their absence that Doug Christie could only ask questions of them in a severely restricted, very narrow area, which completely threw into disarray what they had wanted to testify to. As a consequence, Schmidt's and the others' testimony, brave though it was, seemed disjointed. They were all strangers to courtroom rules and settings, and most were disappointed by what they could not get out, could not say, and could not put in the public record. Only after the proceedings were over, could we tell them why Doug had to ask them in this weird, stilted way! Only then did they really realize what had happened!
(end of July Power letter excerpt)
Thought for the Day:
"White men have always whined and moaned about how other white men have senselessly killed blacks, Asians and American Indians. But I hardly ever hear white men saying that whites have senselessly killed more whites than non-whites."
(Letters to the Editor, Instauration, May 1998)