The trials and tribulations of Arthur Topham reveal details about the penchant of Zionists for conspiracy even in the minutest details. The key document, as described earlier, was Israel Must Perish!, Topham's parody based on a now forgotten book Germany Must Perish! (1942) by Theodore Kaufman. Next the tired, old Protocols of the Elders of Zion were trotted out as evidence. Officially the Protocols were declared a forgery in a Swiss court in 1935, though no one ever made clear just what it was a forgery of, and they are easily available on the internet, so what makes Topham particularly guilty of anything in regards to them remained a mystery, despite the rigours of Canadian justice.
Another part of the Crown's "Book of Evidence" was Elizabeth Dilling Stokes' book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today (1964, self published). Dilling Stokes was--I quote Wikipedia: "an American anti-communist and later antisemitic social activist, as well as an anti-war campaigner and writer in the 1930s and 1940s. She stood trial for sedition in Washington in 1944. The author of four political books, Dilling claimed that Marxism and 'Jewry' were synonymous."
Dilling Stokes was both an American anti-communist (that's OK) and later an antisemitic social activist (that's NOT OK). A noisy isolationist, she was tried for opposing WWII when it was no longer fashionable. The gripe against her today is her claim that Marxism and "Jewry" were synonymous, though this was the view of such eminent pundits as Winston Churchill, and is still fervently believed today, though no one but Topham is being persecuted for it.
And finally, The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, a popular WWII correspondent. Reed's Insanity Fair (1938) was a hit in 1938 warning of Hitler's mad rush to war. A militant anti-fascist. Sounds good to me. Reed wrote Controversy in the 1950s, but could find no publisher, and it only saw the light of day in 1978. His concern was “the continued role of the Middle East as the tinderbox, that can become the cause of the next world war, and the continued suppression and misrepresentation, in the media, of all news and discussion,” according to Knud Eriksen. Reed also dabbled in Jewish history, convinced that there is a long running conspiratorial history behind Judaism.
But, I again quote Wikipedia: "When The Times ran his obituary, it condemned Reed as a 'virulent anti-Semite,' although Reed himself claimed that he drew a distinction between opposition to Zionism and anti-Semitism.” Reed later wrote that Ian Smith's apartheid Rhodesia should be defended “as 'the last bulwark against the Third World War, just as Czechoslovakia should have been defended against Hitler in 1938."
No mention in his writings of wiping out Israel, or hating Jews. On the contrary, Reed's final words in Controversy are, “I think, that the Jews of the world are beginning to realize the wrong of revolutionary Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, Communism, and that towards the end of this 20th Century they will finally have decided to join in the ranks of mankind.”
Who wrote the "Book of Evidence"?
Why my niggling references to Wikipedia? Because I could just as easily be footnoting the "expert witness" "Book of Evidence" submitted by the accusers at Topham's trial. Written without attribution.
Quotes require a citation (or at the very least, a rewrite). Well, the "expert witness" in Topham's trial, Len Rudner (if it was him) was not so rigorous. In preparing his "Book of Evidence", he just cut-and-pasted his bits and pieces of pseudo-proof of anti-Semitism at Wikipedia and no doubt elsewhere. As with his submission of the sizzling graphic as evidence of Topham's hatred, Rudner seems to be working for the Jews' purported enemy (much like the tragic Kaufman).
But is Rudner the 'brains', or the Jewish Sancho Panza? The stooge? The sequence of events in the farcical trial actually starts with Bernie Farber, the original “expert witness”. Farber is--I'm quoting his statement to the Court on September 30, just days before the trial was to start--“Executive Director of the Mosaic Institute, a research 'think tank' that supports multiculturalism and pluralism in Canada.” Prior to that, he was “Chief Executive Officer of Canadian Jewish Congress and in that capacity testified [sic] for the Crown as an expert on Jewish issues”.
Farber submitted his “Book of Evidence” and then suddenly recused himself. His charge against Topham: claiming “Jewish control of media and banking and the sowing of corruption and religious discord”.
Whoa. A few statistics can show Jewish pre-eminence in media and banking. It's not hard to prove “sowing corruption and religious discord” either. Pretty thin ice.
Enter Faber's “roady” Rudner, as performer Atzmon affectionately calls him. From the start, there was serious doubt about just how “expert” Rudner was. The Crown tried to verify this only once--under pressure--after Topham's lawyer, Barclay Johnson, challenged Rudner and embarrassed him, as he couldn't even define anti-Semitism or Zionism without read from his notes, an odd inarticulateness for an “expert”. Finally the Crown, Jennifer Johnston, was forced to ask Rudner: “Did you write this document?” to which he answered: "To the best of my knowledge I wrote this document".
An “expert witness” who couldn't even define anti-Semitism without cribbing from his notes. Atzmon had seen Farber's notes as the original expert witness, and when he read Rudner's, he saw they were identical, but were being pawned off as Rudner's. Even more devastating, Farber had forgotten to turn off 'viewing mode' 'mark up' in the Word document, and Gilad noticed a comment on September 26 by Rudner: “Bernie. Let me know what books you want to use to support this position and I will add them as footnotes.” The emperor was wearing no clothes, and the Crown and judge chose not to notice.
Perjury? Call a mistrial and go after Rudner? At the very least, this was a blatant attempting to deceive the jury.
And why didn't Rudner just 'fess up? Why perjure oneself? Atzmon joked to the author, “If I was asked under oath: Did you write Altneuland (Old New Land) [by Zionism's founder Theordore Herzel] I would just say NO!”
And why didn't Farber stick with his task? Cold feed? Farber is eager to join the electoral ranks as a Liberal and an ugly, skewed trial with him at the centre would muddy the waters. Even worse if he lost. Maybe Farber had a kind of Jewish Damascus moment: he saw the light, that the case was pathetic, far more injurious to the cause than helpful. And far more injurious to himself as a future prime minister.
And why was Atzmon asked every time he opened his mouth to testify: “Is what you are saying your own words?” Rudner was asked only once. Come to think of it, who hacked Topham's site in 2006 and wiped it out at the very time that Rudner was harassing him? Would Rudner answer: “Not me--to the best of my knowledge”? Mystery after mystery. How can there not be a conspiracy (many conspiracies) in all this?
Personally, I'm in no position to be sued by powerful and ruthless conspirators (excuse me: legal opponents), so let me state here for the record: I'm not accusing anyone of anything--other than Farber (or Rudner) for cribbing. (I hope they donate to Wikipedia very generously.)
Topham's only sin was exercising his freedom of speech, providing sharp graphics and free downloads of quaint books at his site, and telling the truth there about Zionist control of western politics, especially Canadian. Topham's little soldiers of truth were hacked to death in a Zionist rage in 2006, but the undeterred Topham resuscitated them. That was his crime.
Thank you once again, Mr Rudner, for alerting world citizens to Topham's quixotic mission, however unkosher it may be. I will certainly have a look at Reed's Controversy (I've read and written about the Elders of Zion and don't need a refresher course).
Update: In a Zionist setback, on November 20, the Crown prosecutor's attempt to criminally charge Topham for allegedly publishing Crown documents, and to close his website, were dismissed. The Crown also sought unsuccessfully to prevent outside media from speculating on the reasons for the jury’s decision to find Topham guilty. So consider this expose a journalistic scoop.