The Antecedents of the Zündel Trial
by Revilo P. Oliver
RATIONAL AMERICANS were shocked when Ernst Zündel was arrested, tried, and convicted of having displeased Yahweh’s Master Race by disbelieving their impudent Holohoax. As I write, the sentence imposed by a Soviet-style judge is still sub judice in an appellate court, which is presumably pondering the brief submitted by Mr. Zündel’s courageous attorney, Douglas Christie, which has been published under the appropriate title, The Stench of the Zündel Trial: Political Persecution in Today’s Canada.
The shock was greatest for Americans whose memories of Canada go back to the years in which our country was in the fit of righteous idiocy called Prohibition, while Canada was sane, sober, and conspicuously free of the crime that righteousness had naturally brought with it. Canada still had the racial homogeneity that is requisite for a stable civilization. It was an Aryan land. Its dominant population was Anglo-Saxon, proudly British and subjects of Great Britain’s monarch. Quebec was, of course, an exception. It had a variegated population of French origin. There was a multitude of more or less mongrel Canucks, who jabbered in a jargon no civilized man could be expected to understand, and who seemed to resent the universe. The majority of Whites spoke “Canadian French,” correct enough but with a residue from the Eighteenth-Century, while a highly educated minority spoke an elegant French that only a minority of Parisians could have matched. The civilized part of the population, while sentimentally regretting the British conquest, were, so far as a visitor could perceive, entirely content with their status in Canada.(1)
(1. I do not know why their most distinguished poet, Rosaire Dion, chose to live in New Hampshire.)
Canada, even more than the United States, suffered the economic consequences of the Jews’ War against Germany, but in the 1950s an American visitor had the impression that the foundation of civilized life had not been shaken in Canada as it had in the United States by the proto-Communist subversion begun by the unspeakably foul creature called Franklin Roosevelt.
Twenty years ago, although a visitor to Vancouver saw ominous signs of an Oriental invasion, Toronto was still a civilized city, appearing startlingly clean and orderly to an American who had come to it from the dirt and racial squalor of Chicago. And with our perhaps unjustified faith in the good sense of our race, it was easy to ignore as vagaries the items of news that we recognize in retrospect as fissures in the foundation.
It was not until ten years ago that visitors to Toronto were startled by the sight of beady-eyed black beasts roaming loose in the streets and looking for opportunities to rob and/or rape the White idiots whom they justly despised for having admitted them to Canada. But even then, one did not, one could not foresee a national rotting of intelligence and moral fiber so great that Canadians could witness the infamous persecution of Ernst Zündel and be compelled to tolerate it by anything short of a Soviet conquest and armed occupation of Canada.
The trial of Zündel took place in the metropolitan squalor of Toronto; the complementary persecution of James Keegstra was staged in a small rural village in Alberta. The introduction of Soviet jurisprudence and the open repudiation of Western culture and Aryan mentality indicated that Canada had become just another colony of the Judaeo-Communist One World. Americans were appalled, and intelligent Canadians began to wonder how long it would be before it became a criminal offense to doubt that the famous Kike, Jonah, had taken a Mediterranean cruise in the belly of a whale.(2)
(2. I recall that when I was a child I saw a book of Christian propaganda with engravings that showed, e.g., the elephants, tigers, alligators, etc. politely marching, two by two, up the gangplank of Noah’s Ark. There was an especially edifying depiction of Jonah. In the dark cavern of the whale’s belly, the half-bald Kike was seated at a small table with a candle burning before him and holding in his hand a pen with which he was busily scribbling, perhaps indicting a gospel.)
But how did this sudden collapse of sanity in an entire nation come to pass? What can have caused it?
Canadians have just been given a good hint and, if they will follow it up, a clue to the whole mystery in a new book, No Sense of Evil: Espionage, the Case of E. Herbert Norman, by James Barros, published by Deneau Publishers, 608 Markham Street, Toronto.
Mr. Barros traces the career of an infamous traitor, who helped betray Britain, Canada, and even the United States to the Judaeo-Communist conspiracy, but he leaves no doubt but that an even more foul and influential traitor was Lester Pearson, who was the Prime Minister of Canada from 1963-1968, and who had been Foreign Minister for many years before that. To judge from the few reactions of the Canadian press that I have seen, that is startling news in Canada, and it seems likely that most of the captive press has been told to blanket the book with silence.
The book contains in its three hundred pages much valuable information, assembled by its author’s meticulous research, but there is nothing new about the essential conclusions it enforces. They have long been known to judicious observers. Just to give an example, they are only what I told audiences and readers twenty years ago (e.g., in “American Opinion,” July-August 1964, pp. 59-62), basing my statements on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, and not a few others, as well as on the conclusions that had inescapably to be drawn from the publicly known activities of Norman and Pearson.
Mr. Barros follows the reeking spoor of Norman, the traitor and Bolshevik, who, protected and abetted by Pearson, went about the world and labored in many lands to destroy our race and civilization, but the details, though corroborative of the conclusions, are not very important in themselves. It does not, for example, matter greatly that Norman was a colleague of the infamous Owen Lattimore and the patriotic Jew, Klaus Fuchs, nor even that he became a leading member of the “American” O.S.S., known to our old-line intelligence services as “The Office of Soviet Stooges,” or that in that capacity he became the virtual chief of General MacArthur’s Counter-Intelligence in Tokyo after the fall of Japan. If he, a living weapon in the hands of the Judaeo-Communist high command, had not held those positions, he would have been put in others, in which he could as effectively have served our implacable enemies.
What is new and most significant in No Sense of Evil is the account of Norman’s career at Cambridge, where he was recruited by the Soviet N.K.V.D. as a high-level operative against his nation and race. This raises, of course, the crucial question why Oxford and Cambridge, which not implausibly claimed to be “Kingdoms of the Mind” and the greatest of all universities, also incubated and hatched out some of the most deadly enemies of the culture they represented. One may perhaps begin with the conspiracy headed by Lord Milner, which I discussed in ‘Populism’ and ‘Elitism’. That purported to be, and no doubt was in the minds of its members, a plan to enhance the British Empire, which, however, its madcap ideologues helped destroy. From such delusions in overheated brains, however, it seems a great and drastic step to conscious and deliberate conspiracy against Britain and the civilized world. Mr. Barros believes, as the title of his book indicates, that Norman and his kind had no sense of the evil they were clandestinely promoting. How that is possible — if it is — is an aspect of a psychological phenomenon that calls for intensive investigation.(3) We are here concerned with the sequence of events in Canada.
(3. On the basis of very limited observation of Communists from Oxford and Cambridge in the 1930s, I am inclined to believe that what made them susceptible to the Marxian religion was a preliminary indoctrination with the contorted metaphysics of Immanuel Kant, a doctrine which a perspicacious writer in a German magazine around 1935 aptly called “Ersatz-Christentum.”)
It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back to the 1930s at least, remembering that Canadians always felt a lingering though often latent resentment of our attempt to conquer Canada during our Revolutionary War and again in 1812 and of irresponsible talk on various subsequent occasions by overly enthusiastic flag-wavers. Against this must be set the demoralizing effect on Canadians of the apparent prosperity of the United States despite its insane policy of serving as the world’s dumping ground for anthropoid refuse. That convinced greedy and thoughtless business men that future profits depended on increasing the body-count in Canada, and even in the 1920s some potentially dangerous groups were admitted to the Dominion.
A retired Army officer tells me that in 1935 his father, who had, ex officio, access to all information obtained by the F.B.I., told him that by that time “six million” sweet Jews had swarmed into the United States disguised as Englishmen. Many of them had, and many of them had not, changed their names, but all of them traveled on British passports and were admitted to the United States on the quota for Englishmen provided in the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, which, of course, was never filled by real English immigrants. If that is true, it is likely that the Royal Mounted Police had record of the number of itinerant Sheenies who elected to reside in Canada at that time. And that would be a datum of crucial importance.
Canada, of course, suffered some of the consequences of the Jews’ War against Germany, which, we must remember, they promoted for two complementary purposes, almost equally important to them, first, to destroy Germany, and second, to destroy the British Empire and ruin the English people. Even Roosevelt’s ruthless accomplice, the great war-monger, Winston Churchill, felt twinges of remorse when he saw the consequences of the insane policy that had rejected an alliance with Germany, which would not only have saved Great Britain, but would have made her greater, in order to rescue the implacable and unappeasable enemy of Britain, Europe, and all Western civilization.(4) In his intervals of sobriety, Churchill was wont to admit, with the surly crudity that marked his private conversation, “We killed the wrong pig.”
(4. One is appalled when one thinks of the great treasure of British heroism that was squandered in that suicidal war on behalf of the Soviet barbarians. For a vivid example, see Alistair MacLean’s first and best book, H.M.S. Ulysses (1948), which directly reflects his experiences as a naval officer on ships assigned to the “Murmansk run.”)
As soon as Germany had been brought down by enormous wolf-packs of deluded Aryans, the world-destroyers’ demolition crews started to work on the British Empire. Having staffed the British Colonial Office with literate traitors like Norman, Philby, Hollis, and innumerable others, they created the obscene “Commonwealth” to enlist the support of greedy and thoughtless English merchants, who did not perceive that they themselves were slated for eventual liquidation; to provide a pretext for impoverishing the English people with “aid” to “emerging nations”; and, above all, to drown the Anglo-Saxons in a flood of multiracial sewage.
The Dominion of Canada was made a part of that “Commonwealth,” on terms of equality with hordes of “liberated” savages, and was expected to admit her stinking peers with the sentimental idiocy with which the mother country had embarked on her own suicide. The Jews’ standard technique, which, as some of them have boasted, they use on every nation they invade, is to find and isolate groups whom they can make dissatisfied, resentful, and paranoid, persuading them to agitate for imaginary “rights” and thus disrupt the nation with selfish factions and set the stupid Aryans to fighting one another.
In Canada, Quebec gave the demolition crews a perfect opportunity. Persons of French ancestry, especially the sullen Canucks, were easily induced to want “independence,” and indeed, it was hard to see why Quebec did not have as much right to “self-determination” as a pack of sub-human cannibals infesting an island in the Pacific or festering in an African jungle. The loud agitation of the “Separatistes” was then used to alarm English Canada with a threat that it would be split, like Pakistan, into two unconnected parts, with Ontario and the West severed from the maritime provinces by a different and probably hostile nation. The deluded Anglo-Saxons accordingly cavorted with eagerness to appease the Jews’ “Separatist” puppets in Quebec.
At the same time, rats were gnawing at the bonds between the Dominion and the mother country with agitation that Canada should become as “independent” as India or the Andaman Islands. A sagacious Canadian who saw what the inevitable consequences of Anglo-Saxon separatism would be was John Farthing, whose Freedom Wears a Crown was published by Kingswood House, Toronto, in 1957. Farthing clearly perceived that only Canada’s traditional allegiance to the British monarchy could save her from the ravages of the “democracy” with which the stupid Americans had become infatuated. He, of course, did not measure the decay of England herself and could not foresee that grim Christmas in 1983 when Queen Elizabeth II committed treason against herself and her nation by publicly endorsing the old Communist boob-bait and announcing that “The greatest problem in the world today remains the gap between rich and poor nations and We [“sic”] shall not begin to close this gap until We hear less about nationalism and more about interdependence.” And the poor woman — one is tempted to call her a quean — went on to admit that the “Commonwealth” was a device to redistribute property (as Marx directed). And the British have become so mutton-headed that they went on cropping the ever scarcer grass in their pasture and did not even raise their heads when they heard their intoxicated Queen say, in effect, that they were to be made mutton to nourish the sub-humans who, breeding like guinea pigs, will overrun the planet and make it the fetid and feral jungle it was before the coming of our race.
Mr. Farthing, like the conservatives who were his contemporaries in the United States, recognized the danger but mistook symptoms for causes.
In 1948 a French Canadian, Louis St. Laurent, was made Prime Minister. Naive Canadians thought that would prove that Canada was just one big happy family and content the Separatists in Quebec. Like all “Liberal” policies, of course, it had precisely the opposite effect. It is characteristic of the “Liberal” mentality that it never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline, presumably hoping that the magic formula will work some day, and in the meantime resolving to learn nothing from experience. Like their verbose godfather, Rousseau, “Liberals” cannot endure the world of reality and must take refuge in their own fantasies.
Whatever St. Laurent’s real intentions, he promptly made Lester B. Pearson the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his cabinet. Pearson, who had been polished up for service as a Soviet agent at Oxford, had already a long list of achievements for the world-destroyers to his credit or discredit, and it is hard to believe that St. Laurent did not know it, since the Royal Mounted Police had supplied the Canadian government with conclusive information about both Norman and Pearson as early as 1940 and again in 1945.
St. Laurent’s misgovernment, of the “New Deal” variety, so incensed Canadians that in 1957 and 1958 they gave the Conservative Party, headed by John Diefenbaker, the greatest electoral victory in Canadian history and an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons (208 to 49 for all other parties). Canada was thus ready for the next act in her enemies’ program, and one is reminded of the trick used so effectively in the United States when the Republican Party was bought to install in the White House “Barney” Baruch’s tool, a mongrel named Eisenhower.(5) Diefenbaker promptly proceeded to betray the voters who had elected him. His apologists speak of the effects of an incurable disease, much as apologists for Roosevelt now claim that he was suffering from cancer of the brain. Some believe that Diefenbaker was simply bought by the enemy when he attained power. But it is likely that the London Economist, a sophisticated “Liberal” sheet for ideologues, was right in 1956 when it identified Diefenbaker as “really more of a Liberal than a Conservative” and predicted with cheerful innuendo that he was really going to put one over on the dim-witted Conservatives after he used them to attain power.
(5. Eisenhower’s mother was probably a quadroon. His features were distinctly Negroid when he was a cadet at West Point, where he was barely able to “squeak through” to a commission.)
Diefenbaker, elected by the conservatives he had cozened, proceeded to do what St. Laurent could not have done. He ruined Canada. He proposed and, through his complete control over the Parliament, procured the enactment of a “bill of rights” designed to protect and excite subversion. He so attenuated the restrictions on immigration as to begin the conversion of Canada into a “melting pot,” dear to “Liberals” for its stench. He openly encouraged violence by Communist labor unions. He prevented exposure of the nest of Communist operatives who used the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to misinform and delude the public and incite vice and degeneracy. He stifled all attempts to inquire into the treason that had become rampant in the Canadian government, and he shielded the traitors, including Norman and Pearson. And he ruined the nation economically with deficit financing and the deep corruption of a Hellfare State.
A year after the political victory of the Conservative Party, a sagacious Canadian remarked that the great majority of his countrymen had “switched from Liberals to Conservatives, and now see that there is essentially no difference.” Canadians were thus reduced to the plight of Americans, who are never permitted to do more than choose between two of their enemies’ henchmen. The two criminal gangs try hard to give the impression there is some significant difference between them, but in Canada the choice between the Conservative and Liberal Parties,(6) as in this country between Republicans and Democrats, is the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. One gang may replace the other, but “plus ca change, plus c’est la mˆme chose.”
(6. Canada has two smaller parties which elect members of parliament from some of the provinces but have no chance to control the national government. The Social Credit Party is declining. The New Democratic Party, small as it is, sometimes holds the balance of power in a parliament in which neither of the major parties has an absolute majority, and it is principally useful for political finagling and for averting the organization of a really conservative party by immobilizing the agrarian population of the western provinces.)
If there is a principal villain in the tragedy of Canada, it is Diefenbaker, and I hope that Mr. Barros will investigate his career as carefully as he investigated Norman’s, and that he will realize that it is not a question of espionage, but of the subjugation and destruction of a nation.
The subversion of Canada would not have been possible without the packs of “Liberal intellectuals,” who, heirs to the primitive Christian rancour against civilization, always come running to protect with frenzied barking every Judaeo-Communist agent who is inconvenienced by “reactionaries.” Through some spiritual perversity become instinctive, the “Liberal” jabberwockies always dote on such high-minded idealists as Alger Hiss, an arrant traitor, and Klaus Fuchs, a Jew loyally serving his Master Race in a position in which he was placed by Aryan folly. Even today you have only to mention the late Senator McCarthy to make a whole pack of “Liberal intellectuals” salivate and bite.
I mentioned above, only exempli gratia, what I wrote twenty years ago. I could have mentioned what I wrote to the same effect but more concisely in 1960 (A World Gone Crazy, pp. 19f.), and the treason of Pearson and Norman was not news even then; it had been established with sufficient clarity in hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, summarized in the Committee’s report for 1957, pp. 101-109. But as soon as the testimony before the Senate Subcommittee was reported in the press, in every city and college of the United States and Canada packs of rabid “intellectuals” began to bark furiously that vile reactionaries had pained the Christ-like souls of the traitors, and began to demand abolition of a Committee that in its mild and cautious work sometimes embarrassed the foes of our nation and race. I do not know how many of the packs were told “sic’em” by their Judaeo-Bolshevik trainers, or how many made a din spontaneously through some Christ-like hatred of civilization, but once the barking started, the whole pack, like fox terriers, joined in the uproar, whether or not they knew what it was all about.
The sanctimonious “Liberal intellectuals,” apostles of the “social gospel” they have taken over from the rabble-rousing Christian witch-doctors whose trouble-making righteousness they emulate, serve our enemies in another and equally important way. When Diefenbaker and his kind undermine the foundations of civilization, the packs begin to bark wildly at such “reactionary conservatism” and to demand even more devastating measures, thus inducing in the simple-minded public an illusion that the sabotage of their nation is really intended to preserve it. In this, of course, they are abetted by the alien masters of the media of communication.
If Canadians and Americans retain any hope of surviving, they will have to stop worrying about the putative innocence of child-like “idealists” and frankly recognize that, whatever their motives, the “Liberals” serve as enemy agents within the society that nurtured them and which their religion makes them hate. As the perspicacious and brave editor of the “South African Observer,” S. E. D. Brown, says in the lead article of his December issue, the “Liberals” are simply the Communists’ Fifth Column.
“Après Diefenbaker, le deluge.” He turned Canada over to Pearson in 1963, and Pearson in 1968 handed on the incendiary torch to a scabrous French Canadian shyster named Pierre Trudeau, who, a few decades before, would not have been admitted to a respectable home. He was the champion of the “bilingual” policy, by which every Canadian was to be made to learn French to soothe the petulant souls of his compatriots. Now it is true that, next to Latin, French, rather than German, is the language that makes the greatest contribution to the culture of persons whose native tongue is the English that was determined by the Norman conquest in 1066, but that is literary French, and it really has nothing to do with an attempt to ram a smattering of vulgar French into the head of every Anglo-Saxon in Canada.(7) The rest of Trudeau’s policy can be summed up as more immigration of anthropoid vermin, more sex, and more dope.
(7. The purpose of “bilingualism,” of course, is to make the Anglo-Saxon majority accept its duty to cringe before sacrosanct minorities, and to convince the minorities that the Anglo-Saxons are as bovine as they seem to be. The captors of the United States have gone much farther, not only making a pidgin Spanish an official language in the states from which the White population is to be driven eventually in the way Germans were driven from Czecho-Slovakia after the Suicide of Europe, but through their revolutionary courts making the dim-witted tax-paying animals everywhere finance the teaching of a Babel worse confounded in the public schools to prove that the United States has already become a multi-racial cesspool. In Canada, Pearson put over the adoption of a novel flag, ostensibly to show that Canada was gradually severing her ties with Britain, but actually to efface one symbol of the Anglo-Saxons who made the country that alien reavers are despoiling.)
Trudeau was soon known by the title of a widely circulated account of his career, “Chairman Pierre,” with an obvious allusion to the title, “Chairman of the Politburo,” borne by his counterpart, Brezhnev, in a land in which “democracy” is farther advanced. Canadians had enough of Trudeau in 1979 and hopefully installed a Conservative clown in his place, but a neat parliamentary trick put Chairman Pierre back in office nine months later.
Canada’s incubus managed to hang on to power for several years after 1980, in spite of Canadian sentiment. A well-known political observer and commentator, Richard Gwyn, in his column on 7 April 1983 reported that support for Trudeau had fallen to a mere seventeen percent, and that Canadians so detested him that they were ready to elect “anyone” in his place. Since they had no alternative, as Gwyn remarked, they turned to the Conservative Party, despite its zany shenanigans, such as choosing as delegates to the Party caucuses Koreans who could not speak English. Trudeau was replaced in 1984 by a Conservative named Mulroney, and Canadians were again taught that in a “democracy,” “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
In twenty years, Toronto has been made a multiracial swamp. An acquaintance who recently visited friends in a small town that is virtually a suburb of Toronto tells me that his friends have not gone into the metropolis for a decade and intend never to go. The latest addition to the ravenous fauna in the city is a horde of Dravidians,(8) who are said to be even more vicious than the niggers.
(8. They are called “Tamils,” but ‘Tamil’ is the name of the Dravidian language they speak and does not locate them, since the language is also spoken widely in the Deccan, the southern part of India. Dravidians are an ethnological enigma; they are typically of short stature, gracile, and black. Anatomically they show vestiges of Caucasian genes, and Calvin Kephart in his tendentious Races of Mankind (London, Owen, 1961) even classifies them as Aryan! The most plausible theory, I think, is that Dravidians are the result of prolonged and intensive miscegenation between the White men of the Indus Valley civilization (who belonged to the Mediterranean and Capellid sections of the Aryan race; see John Baker, Race, pp. 508 ff.) and black, small-boned aborigines, possibly Australoids or containing a large Australoid admixture. In the Ramayana, the natives of the Deccan, presumably Dravidian hybrids by that time, are described as a race of monkeys.
The Dravidians who are pouring into Canada are “refugees” from Ceylon (cf. *Liberty Bell*, February 1987, p. 8), where they form a little more than a fourth of the population, a minority that is both unassimilable and intractable. So long as the British ruled the island, they maintained order among its inhabitants and with the equity that makes our race so hated by others. Now that Ceylon enjoys the mystical blessings of “democracy” and “self-determination,” there is only one way to end a perpetual civil war, and, to speak bluntly and shock hot-house minds, that one way is by massacre of almost all of the Dravidians on the island, but that, of course, is no concern of ours. If the rabid “anti-colonialists” did not foresee the massacres that are now necessary and inevitable sooner or later, they should have remained in the nursery and played with their dolls, to which they could have done no great harm.)
It is in such a society that the Jews are now consolidating their conquest by the Soviet-style persecution of Aryans too intelligent to believe their crude hoaxes and too self-respecting to kowtow to the world-destroyers. The decision of the appellate court in the Zündel case will enable us to determine whether there is enough of civilized Canada left to serve as a nucleus of an effort by Canadians to regain the country they once had.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, March 1987