“It Ain’t Over”

Freedom activists are critical thinkers!

Our society is so dumbed down and indoctrinated that anyone who is a critical thinker is labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist

Did you know: The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was first coined and used by the CIA to ridicule anyone who opposed the gov’t narrative?


  Kelowna Courts

Falsified assault charge

Kelowna Courthouse

R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault

Next Provincial Court Hearing Date:

I am only appearing to the scheduler’s office on July 17 to set a date for the sentence judgment.

I will not know of the Sentencing date until Wednesday morning at some point.

Thank you for all your support and belief for freedom!!

Remember the Freedom Principle:

An attack against one is an attack against all.

An attack against all, is an attack against one.


Update on July 10, hearing

Let me begin by extending my heartfelt gratitude to everyone for all your kind support over the past week, and even ongoing. The amount of support was really overwhelming.

I am also much indebted to Bettina for all her sacrifices and appearing in Court for me when I could not make it. Appearing in Court for the first time can be frightening no matter what the reason, but especially under these conditions where she is simultaneously worried about me, while trying to convince the Judge and Grabavac that I truly was seriously ill, for which she had direct personal knowledge.

I was unable for the most part to communicate in the hospital as I had no computer for internet access until about ½ hour before I left. The weekend was pretty much spent in rest.

As by now all are aware, I was unable to make it to the sentencing hearing last Wed due to medical reasons; painful medical reasons.

Comments and actions taken by Grabavac (Crown Persecutor) and Judge Heinrichs on this date were completely unprofessional and disrespectful. And they may and likely do, go further than that.

Upon hearing Bettina in Court of my health situation, Grabavac immediately stood up in court and objected to my non-appearance, alleging that this was somehow typical Lindsay strategy, and on the basis that he is allegedly to be in pain every week and he still shows up to work. My life/health threatening situation was clearly of more importance than Grabavac’s weekly hemorrhoid problems. (Wait, yes this confirms he truly is a pain in everyone’s ass)

I wish to add at this point. Grabavac and local ragbloid media (primarily but not restricted to Castanet, InfoTel) strongly suggested I was on the lam to avoid the sentence, and possibility of jail. I have never been afraid of any Court in Canada, ever. I am not scared of Grabavac nor the Judge in this case. I have been falsely incarcerated for standing up for freedom in the past and this will likely happen in the future, simply because corrupt Socialist governments and justice system officials, do not like challenges to their corruption, not that I am doing anything wrong. The fact that sentencing involved the possibility of jail does not frighten me in the least. As Bruce and others will support, I was fully ready for Court the day prior.

J. Heinrich’s and Grabavac came to the decision that they did not believe Bettina when she appeared as my agent in court to advise them that she had to drive me to the hospital at 5:00 a.m. that morning due to unforeseen medical issues, that further resulted in absolutely no sleep at all. No reasons were provided for their unbelief, as usual.

Grabavac called the RCMP to come to the hospital and check on me that morning; as if they didn’t have more important things to do. The Officer arrived demanding the nurses and doctors tell them my private, confidential health information. Fortunately, and thankfully, they refused to so do and immediately came and advised me of his presence. They refused to tell the Officer any medical details and at their request, I agreed to speak to the RCMP Officer.

He arrived to my emergency room stall and the first words out of his mouth: “Good morning Mr. Lindsay….you don’t look too well.” He explained that he was there from the Court. He pretty much left immediately after that. He then filed a report with Grabavac confirming that there were real health problems. If he was there on behalf of the Court (Judge), why did he file a report with the Crown? Why did he not file his report directly with the Judge? Clearly Grabavac was behind this attack to my good name and reputation.

Have no doubt, that if Grabavac called in that he could not come to court due to medical issues, not one question would be demanded of him. The Court would simply adjourn and that would be the end of the matter. Why was I not accorded this same respect? If the Judge was truly believing that I was on the lam, all she had to do was have the Court clerk call the emergency department at the hospital to confirm my presence there. End of matter.

The fact that I had Bettina appear for me, still allowed the Judge to maintain jurisdiction over me. (Bit of a complicated legal issue – Provincial Court judges have jurisdiction over the offence and the person. If the person does not appear at all, warrants are issued to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction. If they did not, they would lose jurisdiction and it could only be regained if the accused voluntarily appeared at some future date.)

J. Heinrichs demanded that Bettina release the nature of my confidential health situation to her in open court. This was absolutely not permitted in law. No judge would compel any lawyer to release information under solicitor-client privilege, yet J. Heinrichs demanded Bettina release my private health information, against my express instructions, and which was completely covered in doctor-patient privilege/confidentiality. If anyone should know this, it is J. Heinrichs and Grabavac. Bettina has never been in any court in Canada in the past, and this was truly a dishonest opportunistic J. Heinrichs to compel answers to release my private health issues which she had no moral, ethical or legal right to know. Nor did Grabavac, or the media or the public. Remember, this was in open court with hounds of BC Socialist, ragbloid reporters just waiting to pounce.

At one point, after Grabavac finally conceded only after the RCMP report was provided to him that I was on IV in the hospital and it would be unfair to force my appearance, J. Heinrichs then exclaimed that the IV could be removed for me to appear at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon!!! So Judge Heinrichs is now Dr. Heinrichs. Compelling me to appear to any hearing, while I am high on opioids and incapacitated with significant amounts of pain, emanating from health and/or life-threatening issues and against doctor’s orders to remain in the hospital, is, to put it mildly, gross professional negligence at best. Forcing me to court could have been health or life threatening. I was in serious condition in the hospital for two days.

I have appeared to all court appearances in this matter without fail, for over 2 ½ years and done nothing to deserve any questioning or unbelief by the Judge or Grabavac. But if anything, this again confirms the politics behind these charges, as those people in attendance witnessed first-hand.

I now appear on July 17 to fix a date for hearing of the sentence and will let everyone know later this week of this date.

Once again, thank you to everyone for your kind support and concern. It is with your support that I will continue to stand for freedom in the coming years in ways that most people do not yet even know or are aware of. But more freedom issues will be arising, and I will be there. Quitting is not an option, period.


Next Supreme Court Appeal Hearing Date:

July 22, 2024 — 10:00 a.m.

Notice of Conviction Appeal Hearing

This hearing date will be to set the agenda for the hearing of the appeal from the conviction and sentence of J. Heinrichs.


City of Kelowna v David Lindsay et al

Petition to Stop Rallies

Week of September 3, 2024 10:00 a.m.

1355 Water St.

Kelowna Courthouse

for hearing on my SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) application to strike the City’s Petition against us. (See the B.C. Protection of Public Participation Act)

We had one day before the Hon. Justice Hardwick. The remaining two days were canceled apparently due to the judge either being ill or otherwise not available to appear.

There has now been a further three days set aside during the week of Sept. 3, 2024 for the continuation of this hearing. I will be notified on the Friday, Aug. 30, 2024 of what days this will be. Considering that Monday, Sept. 2 is Labour Day, it appears we will be heard starting Tuesday or Wednesday of that week.

Our documents in this case are located on our website at:

All City of Kelowna documents and pleadings are now placed on our website for public viewing:




Please remember other innocent people who have stood up for our rights and freedoms against our tyrannical governments during COVID-19 and to the present, who are now in the midst of their ongoing, oppressive trials:

Tamara Lich

Chris Barber

The Coutts prisoners: Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert

Pat King

and many other real victims.


It was an honour to meet Dr. Trozzi and Dr. Malthouse shortly before the hearing. Thank you to Teresa, Ted and all others whose efforts made our gathering possible.


Empower Hour

Every Wednesday Action4Canada hosts the Empower Hour, an online zoom meeting open to everyone. We have a special guest each week, who will educate, inform and answer your burning questions. Also, watch the Weekly Updates HERE.

To be kept informed of these webinars sign up for our Email Updates so as to receive advance notification along with details on how to pre-register for each Empower Hour webinar.

July 17, 2024

Sign on starts at: 4.30pm PST/7.30pm EST

Pre-Register Now for this Webinar

Join us! Share this page and link with your friends and social media!

Know Your Rights: 

Guidelines for Peaceful Protesting/Gathering/Rallies and/or Attending Events (eg. Council Meetings, School Boards, Handing out Flyers)

Check out A4C for some of the most successful actions and strategies available to us!

And a big thank you to Tanya for all her hard work and dedication and support for the Christian principles that founded our nation!


Below is a copy of the decision from the recent win in Ontario, where the Judge ruled that sticking a swab up a person’s nose for a PCR test, did violate the Quarantine Act. Interesting, that the Judge never dealt with the issue that this further constitutes a criminal assault if the legislation permitted it.



R. v. Fernando, 2024 ONCJ 336 (CanLII)

CITATION: R. v. Fernando, 2024 ONCJ 336

DATE: June 26, 2024

Court File No. 3111-999-00-3261751F-00




Meththa Fernando



on June 26th, 2024 at BRAMPTON, Ontario


A. Gurpersaud                  Counsel for The Crown

C. Weisdorf                     Agent for Meththa Fernando



MONAHAN, J. (Orally):


This is the case of Ms. Meththa Fernando, M-E-T-H-T-H-A, Fernando.  Ms. Meththa Fernando was charged with failing to comply with an order under Section 58 of the Quarantine Act.  (S.C. 2005, c. 20)

In particular, Ms. Fernando took an airplane flight to her home in Mississauga, arriving at Pearson Airport on April 9th, 2022.  She was apparently vaccinated, but she refused the COVID test, which was randomly selected to be performed on her. 

In particular, she was asked by a screening officer, Mr. Aliel, A-L-I-E-L, Joshua, J-O-S-H-U-A, Roxas, R-O-X-A-S, employed by the Public Health Agency of Canada, to undergo a nasal swab COVID-19 test, and she refused.

The actual test was to be performed by another person (see trial testimony of Roxas at page 12).  The evidence from Mr. Roxas is that he was requiring Ms. Fernando to submit to a nasal swab test.

Ms. Fernando was convicted at trial of failing to comply with an order under Section 58 of the Quarantine Act (the “Act”) and fined $5,000 with additional charges, taking it to a fine of $6,255. 

She appeals now to this Court.


Ms. Fernando appealed to this Court; she was assisted in her appeal by a non-lawyer, Mr. Weisdorf, who was helpful to her and to the Court.

Ms. Fernando sought to rely on the Canadian Bill of Rights before the Justice of the Peace and before me.  She was not permitted by the Justice of the Peace to rely on the Canadian Bill of Rights because there was no application before the Court.

Whether the Justice of the Peace should have let the defence argue about whether the Canadian Bill of Rights was violated or not is not necessary for me to decide, given my view regarding Section 14 of the Quarantine Act.

The defence raised an argument before the Justice of the Peace and before me which has merit.  The Justice of the Peace did not address this argument.  The argument, simply put, is that the Act did not authorize a screening officer to use a screening test which involved the entry into the traveller’s body of an instrument or other foreign body.

The screening test that Mr. Roxas proposed involved the insertion of a nasal swab into Ms. Fernando’s nasal cavity, contrary to Section 14 of the Quarantine Act.

The relevant provisions are as follows, quoting Section 14 of the Quarantine Act:

Screening Technology

14(1) Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body.

Refusal to be Screened

14(2) If a traveller refuses to be screened with the screening technology and the person using it is not a screening officer or quarantine officer, the person shall immediately inform the screening officer or quarantine officer of the refusal.

Section 58 of the Quarantine Act provides, in part, as follows:

[58(1)]   The Governor in Council may make an order prohibiting or subjecting to any condition the entry into Canada of any class of persons who have been in a foreign country or specified part of a foreign country if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that

(a)there is an outbreak of communicable disease in the foreign country;

(b)the introduction or spread of the disease would pose an imminent and severe risk to public health in Canada;

(c)the entry of members of that class of persons into Canada may introduce or contribute to the spread of the communicable disease in Canada; and

(d)no reasonable alternatives to prevent the introduction or spread of the disease are available.

The Governor in Council made numerous orders during COVID.  It appears common ground that the order in force on April the 11th, 2022, was “PC2022-0321,” which I will refer to as the “Order.”  The Order is over a hundred pages long.  It provides for, among other things, pre-arrival COVID tests and arrival tests, including random tests: see Section 2.3(1.2).

It provides for a polymerase chain reaction “(PCR)” test in these circumstances.  The COVID-19 molecular test is defined in the Order:

Covid-19 molecular test means a Covid-19 screening or diagnostic test, including a test performed using the method of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), that is

(a)if the test is self-administered, observed and the result is verified

(i)in person by an accredited laboratory or testing provider, or

(ii)in real time by remote audio-visual means by the accredited laboratory or testing provider who provided the test; or

(b)if the test is not self-administered, performed by an accredited laboratory or testing provider.

I return to Section 14(1) of the Quarantine Act.  It provides that the screening test cannot involve the insertion into the traveller’s body of any instrument or foreign body.

The prosecution raised the point that perhaps the insertion into the nasal cavity did not involve the entry into the body.  I disagree.  The insertion of a nasal swab into the nasal cavity is most definitely an insertion into the body.

Another question arises as to whether a nasal swab is an “instrument” or “foreign body.”  “Instrument” is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Edition, as “a tool or implement.” A “foreign body” is defined in the Oxford Languages Online Dictionary, as “an object or piece of extraneous matter that has entered the body by design or accident.”

In my view, a nasal swab is “an instrument” or “foreign body.”  In my view, the Quarantine Act did not permit a screening officer in this case, Mr. Roxas, to require Ms. Fernando to be tested at the airport by insertion into her nasal cavity of a nasal swab.

I am also of the view that the Order did not purport to expand the powers of the screening officers, and it could not do so as a matter of law.  The governing legislation is the Quarantine Act.  An Order made under Section 58 of the Act could not add to the legislative powers.  Indeed, Section 6.1 of the Order provides as follows:

[6.1]      For greater certainty

      (a)  this Order does not affect any of the powers and obligations set out in the Quarantine Act.

I am not called upon to decide, and I do not decide whether the requirement for pre-arrival COVID tests performed outside of Canada by persons who were not screening officers under the Quarantine Act was a violation of the Act.

I do decide that the nasal swab test, which the screening officer in this case required or demanded Ms. Fernando submit to, was an unlawful requirement or demand.  Ms. Fernando’s refusal to comply with the requirement or demand was lawful on her part. 

Because the requirement or demand made of her by the screening officer was not lawful, Ms. Fernando should not have been found guilty by the Justice of the Peace.

I am reversing the Justice of the Peace’s decision and entering a finding of not guilty.  Those are my reasons.


Evidence Act
I,Tammy Duffy,
 (Name of Authorized Person) 
certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of
R. v. MeththaFernandoin theOntario Court of Justice
(Name of Case) (Name of Court)
held at7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario
 (Court Address)
taken from Recording3111_105_20240626_084238__30_MONAHAPA.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
29 June 2024  
(Date) (Signature of Authorized Person(s))


Sunday Paper Deliveries

Next delivery day:


(Weather Permitting)

Add your name to the delivery list and make sure to check your
email on Sunday mornings for confirmation that our paper delivery will take place that day

Make sure you arrive before the designated time so we can all get going ASAP!

Schedule TBA

  • Sign-up on the Newspaper Delivery list so that you get an email confirming the deliveries for each Sunday. With winter in mind, we will only do this if roads are bare and it’s not snowing. The advantage of delivering this time of year is that nobody is hanging out in their front yards except for the odd snowman.
  • We meet at the Capri parking lot between A&W and De Dutch Pannekoek House
  • Bring a large bag for carrying the papers if you want
  • Grab a free small Kelowna mapbook that can help you get situated. Your cell phone will be tracking and tracing you. Learn how to read maps again
  • You will be provided with a printed google map of the area you will be delivering to. Bring a yellow marker to indicate which streets you completed. You may run out of papers or you may end up with extra
  • We ask that with every paper you deliver, you remove the inserts and place them in the mailbox in front or behind the paper. That way, someone who may hastily throw out the paper will still be forced to see each individual flyer
  • Please deliver only one paper per mailbox, regardless if you have different papers (we usually have a combination of different papers and editions). Some houses may have up to 4 mailboxes; put one paper in each as they are for different tenants
  • Sign up as a Volunteer to participate in one of the many focus groups we are working to organize. Most people are too busy to commit to fighting for freedom. I guarantee you will have plenty of extra time after Canada becomes a full-fledged communist country and your jobs & businesses are gone. Time to add freedom-fighting to your list of priorities. Much of the help needed can be done at home and even one hour per week will be helpful. Even if you don’t want to join a specific group, maybe you have something you can offer to help out. Let us know!
    Contact Linda at

3 Simple Things Freedom Activists can do to WIN this War:

1. Spread the Word by delivering papers and flyers everywhere:

Knowledge is power!

2. Replace your cell phone with a flip phone:

Think of your apps as TRAPS!

3. Use CASH:

Hand out the “Use cash cards” and “pay cash” business posters


A bit about David

Due to time constraints right now, I will try and complete Part II asap.

Thanks for your patience.


Freedom Rallies

It ain’t over till it’s over”

Next Kelowna Rallies:


July 20, 2024

Hwy 97 & Cooper

Aug 3, 2024

Stuart Park

Join us for important announcements on the local, legal scene, and informative speakers!


July 20, 2024

Vernon Freedom Rally

12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. @ Polson Park

Join Darren for the Largest rally in the North Okanagan, and growing weekly!

North Okanagan Shuswap Freedom Radio


July 20, 2024

O.K. Falls Freedom Rally

11:30 a.m.

Across from Esso Station


July 20, 2024

Oliver Freedom Rally

12:00 p.m.

Town Hall


July 20, 2024 12:00 noon

Kamloops Freedom Gathering

Valleyview Centennial Park

Whatcott Files Hate Crime Complaint Against Karen Pinder and Ingrid Barta For Celebrating Attempted Murder of President Donald Trump

Whatcott files hate crime complaint against Karen Pinder and Ingrid Barta and Court Update

Email starts:

Subject: I would like to report a Hate Crime, advocating murder

Bill Whatcott <>


Date: Jul 15, 2024, 4:49 PM

Dear Vancouver Hate Crime Unit, CC: UBC Campus Security,

I would like to report the UBC Professor Dr. Karen Pinder and Ingrid Barta, who is also employed at the University of British Columbia, for Public Incitement of Hatred/Wilful Promotion of Hatred, Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code. Attached is a screen grab of their public statements celebrating the attempted murder of US Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. I do not believe students who are conservative are safe with these two women holding positions of authority on campus. Left leaning students could take this type of endorsement of violence by a senior faculty member to heart with potentially terrible consequences.


Bill Whatcott

Phone: 403-598-0478

End of E-mail


Public Incitement of Hatred
Section 319 (1)

Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an offence.

Wilful Promotion of Hatred
Section 319 (2)

Everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an offence.


To be clear. These women should absolutely be fired from their positions at the University of British Columbia if the university wishes to maintain any credibility.

When it comes to police and courts I am not a huge fan of these two nasty women facing a criminal process for their awful public speech, but…….

Bill Whatcott arrested and criminally charged with Mischeif after the University of Regina called the police in 2014 on him in an effort to shut down his peaceful speech against abortion and homosexuality on the campus. Bill eventually prevailed in court and the University was found to have unjustly infringed on Whatcott’s Charter right to publicly engage in debates on moral issues on the publicly funded campus.

Every university that I went to, including the University of British Columbia, have called the police on me and attempted to have me criminally prosecuted when I attempted to hold a sign, preach, or hand out flyers expressing views they disagreed with on their campuses. When I was a student, 100% of my faculty at MacEwan university supported hate crime laws and believed it was an offense to call a biological male a male if the said male claimed he was a woman.

Karen and Ingrid are on the far left of the political spectrum and are the sorts who like hate crime laws. One can also reasonably conclude that in Ingrid’s case, given she is still wearing a face diaper on her avatar of her now deleted X account, she likely supports the coercive mask mandates. In spite of the “science” conclusively showing that face masks are appropriate for stopping sputum and blood droplets when working over open wounds, but they do absolutely nothing to slow the spread of airborne viruses when wearing them all day long in public; Ingrid was likely very sad the day the government stopped coercing people to wear face diapers.

So, in light of this, it seems reasonable that the sorts of people who support state control of speech, should at least live by their own rules. In my view the speech of these women is far more hateful than my flyer. I never celebrated the murder of anyone. In my flyer the warning against unhealthy practices is clear, as well as the offer of redemption through the shed blood of Jesus Christ to homosexuals who wish to have their sins forgiven.

If we say we have fellowship with Him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:6-9

These two women posted on X they want a prominent Conservative dead, period. They offer no pathway to redemption for conservatives. Their speech simply wishes death to a conservative politician because they hate him and what he professes to believe in.

Woke Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Epstein argued to the judge who oversaw my bail hearing in 2018, that my speech could cause “psychological harm” to LGBT Canadians. She worried my speech would cause “harm” to homosexuals across Canada if I didn’t have stringent bail conditions imposed on me, limiting my right to say anything in public regarding homosexuality, including even my own criminal charges that I was now facing.

If this is the metric leftists want, what about the psychological well being of conservative students who are forced to attend Karin Pinder’s classes? What about conservative students who are required to work in a subordinate role with Ingrid Barta? If adult homosexuals are too delicate to bear my words warning them about the risks of HIV, anal warts, anal cancer and a host of other maladies, related to their promiscuous and high risk sexual behaviour, shouldn’t young students be protected from two women who publicly celebrate the attempted murder of a conservative political figure?

I filed the hate crime complaint today and will follow up by phone tomorrow. We will see if the Vancouver Police are consistent in protecting everyone equally from “hate speech.” Thanks to hateful women like these two, everyone on university campuses across Canada feel they must be left or far left. Conservative can’t safely express themselves without fear of being discriminated against and cancelled. This must change. Conservative lives matter!

On other news. I was in court briefly today in front of Justice Bonnie L. Croll. She set my next hearing in Practice Court to Monday, August 12, 9:00 am, Toronto time. Today, I was informed the court will set aside 2-4 weeks for my “hate crime” trial. My trial date should be set at the August 12 Practice Court hearing. The zoom link will be:

In Christ’s Service,

Bill Whatcott

Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” James 1:21

Brad Love Letter from Prison: Censorship Continues & His Car Is Stolen

Brad Love Letter from Prison

As usual, I still receive receipts that you, Michelle E, and Diane King have sent me. [Letters seized by prison censors and not given to Mr. Love.] Why so much attention devoted to me here in Nowheresville in beyond me.

In Toronto, on June 11, a Tibetan immigrant who set a Chinese girl on fire on a bus at the Kipling subway station is sent to a looney bin. After what China did to Tibet, wasn’t this a revenge-motivated hate crime. No one brought that up. Or would this upset the swell cultural mosaic where only Whites are capable of hate?

NEWS FLASH: Guards on the weekend handed me a Stolen Auto Report Form — say what?. So, I try calling my brother [in Ontario] for hours in a panic. Sure enough, a moved out former housemate [in Fort McMurray] returned and drove off in my Hyundai. My landlord called the cops. So, the Fort Mac RCMP are hot on the trail. Yeah, I’ll bet. Shit, Just what I need to interrupt my already interrupted sleep in here. I was almost through an 11 month term without any personal losses, but now, shit! I had no theft insurance on my car and my insurance was up last week. So, I had by brother call in to pay the $850 yearly for me and they REFUSED to let him pay it. Stupid, eh? But no more stupid than their refusal to call out the massive auto theft problem as an “immigration problem” as the media tells us clearly that it is. Duh! This country is digging its own grave. — Brad Love

Update on Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott’s Re-trial for “Hate” Against the LGBTQ Crowd

Update on Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott’s Re-trial for “Hate” Against the LGBTQ Crowd

Whatcott’s Judicial Pretrial Judge was truly an honest half Indian

Honourable, Superior Court Justice, Todd Ducharme

Dear Friends,

My pre-trial took place today in front of Justice Todd Ducharme. Justice Ducharme is Canada’s first Metis Justice appointed to the Superior Court under the Liberal Government of Paul Martin in 2004. I definitely did not like Paul Martin back in the day, but fiscally and even socially, Martin was downright saintly compared to the trainwreck we have in the PM’s office now. And indeed the disparity between Trudeau and Martin can even be seen in judicial appointments.

Martin, being a Liberal may have felt he needed to tick a diversity box when he appointed Ducharme to the Superior Court bench, but at the end of the day Justice Todd Ducharme strikes me as a mixed bag who tries to do an honest job as a Superior Court Justice.

Some of Justice Ducharme’s politics, I don’t like much. The guy can reasonably be perceived as anti-oilsands and given that he partook in a mock show trial that vindicated environmental hypocrite David Suzuki, I wouldn’t put Ducharme in charge of Canada’s energy security. It is regrettable that Ducharme appears to think plant food (AKA CO2) is bringing about climate armageddon and that Suzuki (a guy who travels around the country is a diesel guzzling Prevost luxury bus) is the answer. But then again the guy was appointed by a Liberal government, so what do you expect?

Justice Duscharme has a long career in criminal law. I looked at one case where Justice Ducharme sat on the Supreme Court of Yukon bench and threw out criminal charges against an obviously guilty child predator who was also found to be in illegal possession of firearms. The ruling was regrettable but understandable. The lower court judge had no authority to allow the RCMP to search the pedophile’s residence as he wasn’t charged with anything yet, and no actual evidence of crimes being committed was presented to the court before the warrant was issued. It seems from a quick perusal of the ruling if the lower court judge was a little more patient and had he ordered the cops to follow proper procedure and gather the evidence needed to get a warrant, a proper conviction could have been attained. The reasoning of Ducharme shows me the guy has a legal mind and is oriented to following the law, rather than his own biases.

In another more recent case you can see Justice Ducharme displayed some intemperance. He told some lawyers in a pre-trial conference representing a couple who starved and beat their four year old child to death that their clients were “f–ked” and further went on to say “no one likes child killers.” His comments along with some meddling in his courtroom to try to get the couple to plead guilty to second degree murder led to the Ontario Court of Appeal ordering a second trial. In this case (unlike my own), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling actually made sense. In the end the couple were eventually convicted. Dad was convicted of second degree murder and mom of first degree murder. Maybe the judge could have done things better, but you can see from his sentiment he has some decency about him.

Which leads me to my pre-trial today. I won’t say anything about what my lawyer has been saying as she would prefer I shut my mouth when it comes to lawyer/client privilege stuff. But Justice Ducharme gave his opinion again, as he is an outspoken guy, —- deleted as per my lawyer’s request.——

Given my serious concerns about so-called hate speech prosecutions, this gives more credence to my concern that so-called “hate speech” prosecutions are highly subjective. A brief perusal of who gets prosecuted shows the victims are almost always Hitler dudes, Christians, and social conservatives. Those on the left who say unpleasant things are almost never prosecuted.

For months anti-Israel folks on Toronto’s university campuses and on major highways have been chanting “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” Being “free” clearly means Jews who are born and raised in Israel won’t be living there anymore and it seems no one in power and even a few in my friends circle want to explore the uncomfortable question about what happens to these Jews once Palestine is “free?” Anyways, being a free speech guy, I am not that zealous to criminally prosecute those chanting this disturbing chant; especially the far left 18 year old idiots who likely have no idea what they are actually chanting. But it is curious the Ontario Attorney General will sign off on prosecuting my Gospel flyer which has nothing remotely close to genocidal language in it, but for months has given a pass to this actual genocidal speech which is now a daily occurance on Toronto campuses and roadways.

None of those on the right who are convicted of so-called “hate speech” are ever actually violent. Some of those convicted, you may not like their opinions. From my perspective some opinions found to be criminal hate speech, I have actually agreed with the opinion expressed. One example is a French guy by the name of Eric Brazau who put a Saudi Arabian woman who became a Christian in a Niqab and mock beat her with a stick on a TTC subway train while reading verses from the Koran which explicitly sanctions this behaviour.

The woman who I met was a nominal Muslim before becoming a Christian and she experienced domestic violence when living in Saudi Arabia. She and her Frenchman friend wanted to make people aware of the Koranic verses which sanction wife beating. Anyways, someone on the train got offended at the skit as the Frenchman read from the Koran while lightly whacking the ex-Muslim woman (who was wearing a full burka) with a stick in the aisle of the train. The offended passenger pulled an alarm and at the next stop the pair were arrested. The Frenchman (who was an atheist) got 2 years in jail for his educational stunt. In my view Canadian justice is the worst for it.

As it stands now in my case, Superior Court Justice Goldstein and Justice Ducharme are clear they do not think my flyer is criminal hate speech. Ontario Court of Appeal Justices, Lorne Sossin He/Him, Harvesin-Young, and Copeland think my flyer “might be hate speech” and that a second trial is needed with evidence from a homosexual activist academic to make sure we know for sure. Conservative lawyers like Tom Schuck know for certain my flyer is not hate speech and homosexual activist lawyers like Doug Elliot know for certain my flyer is the worst kind of hate speech.

Interestingly, my former Lawyer John Rosin is ambiguous. The guy won me an acquittal for which I am forever grateful, but after multiple arguments on this topic over a period of a number of years, I don’t actually know his personal opinion on my flyer. Mr. Rosen did legal work for groups like The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which is definitely a pro-censorship lobby group. There is no doubt our world views are somewhat different.

The above diversity of opinions on what is “hate speech” and what isn’t shows we really need to get rid of our hate speech laws as they are written. Trudeau loves censorship and hates social conservatives. The needed change won’t happen under his leadership and the types of judges he appoints are unlikely to see the need to allow a greater latitude of speech in this country. Hopefully, after the next election, more freedom oriented judges can be appointed to the bench and hopefully Trudeau’s censorship bills can be repealed.

I will be a guest on Last call radio tomorrow at 11:00 am (Toronto time), which is 9:00 am (Edmonton time). You can listen or call in if you wish by following this link:

I declined a plea agreement and my next hearing is scheduled for Toronto Superior Practice Court at 9:00 am, Monday, July 15th.

In Christ’s Service,

Bill Whatcott

Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid.” Isaiah 12:2

Simon Wiesenthal: Fraudulent ‘Nazi Hunter’

Simon Wiesenthal: Fraudulent ‘Nazi Hunter’

By Mark Weber

Simon Wiesenthal, the veteran Nazi hunter who helped bring more than 1,100 Nazi war criminals to trial is seen in this June 2005 file photo. Wiesenthal has died in Vienna at the age of 96, the Simon Wiesenthal Center said on September 20, 2005. Wiesenthal, born in 1908 in what is now Ukraine, helped to catch major figures such as Adolf Eichmann, one of Hitler’s chief henchmen in the campaign to exterminate Jews, and Franz Stangl, ex-commandant of the Treblinka death camp. REUTERS/HBF/Dragen Tatic

For more than 40 years, Simon Wiesenthal has been tracking hundreds of “Nazi criminals” from his “Jewish Documentation Center” in Vienna. For his work as the world’s most prominent “Nazi hunter,” he has been awarded several honorary degrees and numerous medals, including Germany’s highest decoration. In a formal White House ceremony in August 1980, a teary-eyed President Carter presented him with a special gold medal awarded by the US Congress. President Reagan praised him in November 1988 as one of the “true heroes” of this century.

This living legend was portrayed in flattering terms by the late Laurence Oliver in the 1978 film fantasy “The Boys From Brazil,” and by Ben Kingsley in the 1989 HBO made-for-television movie “Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Story.” One of world’s most prominent Holocaust organizations bears his name: the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles.

Wiesenthal’s reputation as a moral authority is undeserved. The man whom The Washington Post has called the “Holocaust’s Avenging Angel” [1] has a little known but well-documented record of reckless disregard for truth. He has lied about his own wartime experiences, misrepresented his postwar “Nazi-hunting” achievements, and has spread vile falsehoods about alleged German atrocities.

Different Stories

Szymon (Simon) Wiesenthal was born on December 31, 1908, in Buczacz, a town in the province of Galicia (now Buchach in Ukraine) in what was then the eastern fringe of the Austro-Hungarian empire. His father was a prosperous wholesale sugar merchant.

In spite of all that has been written about him, just what Wiesenthal did during the war years under German occupation remains unclear. He has given conflicting stories in three separate accounts of his wartime activities. The first was given under oath during a two day interrogation session in May 1948 conducted by an official of the US Nuremberg war crimes commission. [2] The second is a summary of his life provided by Wiesenthal as part of a January 1949 “Application for Assistance” to the International Refugee Committee. [3] And the third account is given in his autobiography, The Murderers Among Us, first published in 1967. [4]

Soviet Engineer or Factory Mechanic?

In his 1948 interrogation, Wiesenthal declared that “between 1939 and 1941” he was a “Soviet chief engineer working in Lvov and Odessa.” [5] Consistent with that, he stated in his 1949 declaration that from December 1939 to April 1940 he worked as an architect in the Black Sea port of Odessa. But according to his autobiography, he spent the period between mid-September 1939 and June 1941 in Soviet-ruled Lvov, where he worked “as a mechanic in a factory that produced bedsprings.” [6]

Relative Freedom

After the Germans took control of Galicia province in June 1941, Wiesenthal was interned for a time in the Janowska concentration camp near Lvov, from where he was transferred a few months later to a camp affiliated with the repair works (OAW) in Lvov of the Ostbahn (“Eastern Railroad”) of German-ruled Poland. Wiesenthal reported in his autobiography that he worked there “as a technician and draftsman,” that he was rather well treated, and that his immediate superior, who was “secretly anti-Nazi,” even permitted him to own two pistols. He had his own office in a “small wooden hut,” and enjoyed “relative freedom and was permitted to walk all over the yards.” [7]

Partisan Fighter?

The next segment of Wiesenthal’s life — from October 1943 to June 1944 — is the most obscure, and his accounts of this period are contradictory. During his 1948 interrogation, Wiesenthal said that he fled from the Janowska camp in Lvov and joined a “partisan group which operated in the Tarnopol-Kamenopodolsk area.” [8] He said that “I was a partisan from October 6, 1943, until the middle of February 1944,” and declared that his unit fought against Ukrainian forces, both of the SS “Galicia” division and of the independent UPA partisan force. [9]

Wiesenthal said that he held the rank of lieutenant and then major, and was responsible for building bunkers and fortification lines. Although he was not explicit, he suggested that this (supposed) partisan unit was part of the Armia Ludowa (“Peoples Army”), the Polish Communist military force established and controlled by the Soviets. [10]

He said that he and other partisans slipped into Lvov in February 1944, where they were “hidden by friends of the A.L. [‘People’s Army’] group.” On June 13, 1944, his group was captured by the German Secret Field Police. (Although Jewish partisans caught in hiding were often shot, Wiesenthal reports that he was somehow spared.) Wiesenthal told much the same story in his 1949 statement. He said that he fled from internment in early October 1943 and then “fought against the Germans as a partisan in the forest” for eight months — from October 2, 1943, to March 1944. After that, he was “in hiding” in Lvov from March to June 1944.

Wiesenthal tells a totally different story in his 1967 autobiography. He reports there that after escaping from the Ostbahn Repair Works on Oct. 2, 1943, he lived in hiding in the houses of various friends until June 13, 1944, when he was discovered by Polish and German police and returned to a concentration camp. He makes no mention of any partisan membership or activity. [11]

According to both his 1948 interrogation and his 1967 autobiography, he tried to commit suicide on June 15, 1944, by cutting his wrists. Remarkably, though, he was saved from death by German SS doctors and recovered in an SS hospital. [12] He remained in the Lvov concentration camp “with double rations” for a time, and then, he reports in his autobiography, he was transferred to various work camps. He spent the remaining chaotic months, until the end of the war, in different camps until he was liberated from Mauthausen (in Austria) by American forces on May 5, 1945. [13]

Did Wiesenthal invent a past as a heroic wartime partisan? Or did he later try to suppress his record as a Communist fighter? Or is the true story altogether different — and too shameful to admit?

Nazi Agent?

Did Wiesenthal voluntarily work for his wartime oppressors? That’s the accusation leveled by Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, himself of Jewish ancestry and leader for many years of his country’s Socialist Party. During an interview with foreign journalists in 1975, Kreisky charged Wiesenthal with using “Mafia methods,” rejected his pretense of “moral authority,” and suggested that he was an agent for the German authorities. Some of his more pertinent remarks, which appeared in Austria’s leading news magazine Profil, include: [14]

I really know Mr. Wiesenthal only from secret reports, and they are bad, very nasty. I say this as Federal Chancellor … And I say that Mr. Wiesenthal had a different relationship with the Gestapo than I did. Yes, and this can be proven. I can’t say more [now]. Everything else, I’ll say in court.

My relationship with the Gestapo is unambiguous. I was their prisoner, their inmate, and I was interrogated. His relationship was a different one, I can say, and this will come out clearly. It’s bad enough what I’ve already said here. But he can’t clear himself by charging me with defaming his honor in the press, as he might wish. It’s not that simple, because that would mean a big court case … A man like this doesn’t have the right to pretend to be a moral authority. That’s what I say. He doesn’t have the right …

Whether a man who, in my view, is an agent, yes, that’s right, and who uses Mafia methods … Such a man has to go …

He is no gentleman, and I would say, to make this clear, so that he won’t become a moral authority, because he is not … He shouldn’t pretend to be a moral authority …

I say that Mr. Wiesenthal lived in that time in the Nazi sphere of influence without being persecuted. Right? And he lived openly without being persecuted, right? Is that clear? And you perhaps know, if you know what was going on, that no one could risk that.

He wasn’t a “submarine” … that is, submerged and in hiding, but instead, he was completely in the open without having to, well, ever risk persecution. I think that’s enough. There were so many opportunities to be an agent. He didn’t have to be a Gestapo agent. There were many other services.

In response to these damning words, Wiesenthal began efforts to bring a lawsuit against the Chancellor. Eventually, though, both Wiesenthal and Kreisky backed away from a major legal clash.

Mauthausen Myths

Before he became famous as a “Nazi hunter,” he made a name for himself as a propagandist. In 1946 Wiesenthal published KZ Mauthausen, an 85-page work that consists mainly of his own amateurish sketches purporting to represent the horrors of the Mauthausen concentration camp. One drawing depicts three inmates who had been bound to posts and brutally put to death by the Germans. [15]

The sketch is completely phony. It was copied — with some minor alterations — from photographs that appeared in Life magazine in 1945, which graphically record the firing-squad execution in December 1944 of three German soldiers who had been caught operating as spies behind the lines during the “Battle of the Bulge.” [16] The source of the Wiesenthal drawing is instantly obvious to anyone who compares it with the Life photos. [17]

The irresponsible character of this book is also shown by Wiesenthal’s extensive citation therein of the supposed “death bed confession” of Mauthausen Commandant Franz Ziereis, according to which four million were gassed to death with carbon monoxide at the nearby Hartheim satellite camp. [18] This claim is totally absurd, and no serious Holocaust historian still accepts it. [19] Also according to the Ziereis “confession” cited by Wiesenthal, the Germans supposedly killed another ten million people in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. [20] In fact, this fraudulent “confession” was obtained by torture. [21]

Years later, Wiesenthal was still lying about Mauthausen. In a 1983 interview with the daily newspaper USA Today, he said of his experience in Mauthausen: “I was one of 34 prisoners alive out of 150,000 who had been put there.” [22] This is a blatant falsehood. The years have apparently not been kind to Wiesenthal’s memory, because in his own autobiography he wrote that “almost 3,000 prisoners died in Mauthausen after the Americans liberated us on May 5, 1945.” [23] Another former inmate, Evelyn Le Chene, reported in her standard work about Mauthausen that there were 64,000 inmates in the camp when it was liberated in May 1945. [24] And according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, at least 212,000 inmates survived internment in the Mauthausen camp complex. [25]

After the war Wiesenthal worked for the US Office of Strategic Services (the forerunner of the CIA) and the US Army’s Counter-Intelligence Corps (CIC). He was also vice chairman of the Jewish Central Committee in the US occupation zone of Austria. [26]

‘Human Soap’

Wiesenthal has given circulation and credence to one of the most scurrilous Holocaust stories, the charge that the Germans manufactured soap from the corpses of murdered Jews. According to this tale, the letters “RIF” in bars of German-made soap allegedly stood for “Pure Jewish Fat” (“Rein judisches Fett”). In reality, the initials stood for “National Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning” (“Reichstelle fur industrielle Fettversorgung”). [27]

Wiesenthal promoted the “human soap” legend in articles published in 1946 in the Austrian Jewish community paper Der Neue Weg (“The New Path”). In an article entitled “RIF,” he wrote: “The terrible words ‘transport for soap’ were first heard at the end of 1942. It was in the [Polish] General Government, and the factory was in Galicia, in Belzec. From April 1942 until May 1943, 900,000 Jews were used as raw material in this factory.” After the corpses were turned into various raw materials, Wiesenthal wrote, “The rest, the residual fat stuff, was used for soap production.”

He continued: “After 1942 people in the General Government knew quite well what the RIF soap meant. The civilized world may not believe the joy with which the Nazis and their women in the General Government thought of this soap. In each piece of soap they saw a Jew who had been magically put there, and had thus been prevented from growing into a second Freud, Ehrlich or Einstein.” [28]

In another imaginative article published in 1946 entitled “Belzec Soap Factory,” Wiesenthal alleged that masses of Jews were exterminated in electrocution showers: [29]

The people, pressed together and driven on by the SS, Latvians and Ukrainians, go through the open door into the “bath.” Five hundred persons could fit at a time. The floor of the “bath chamber” was made of metal and shower heads hung from the ceiling. When the room was full, the SS turned on the 5,000 volts of electric current in the metal plate. At the same time water poured from the shower heads. A short scream and the execution was over. An SS chief physician named Schmidt determined through a peep hole that the victims were dead. The second door was opened and the “corpse commando” came in and quickly removed the dead. It was ready for the next 500.

Today no serious historian accepts the stories that Jewish corpses were manufactured into bars of soap or that Jews were electrocuted to death at Belzec (or anywhere).

Wiesenthal’s imaginative view of history is not limited to the twentieth century. In his 1973 book Sails of Hope, he argued that Christopher Columbus was a secret Jew, and that his famous voyage to the western hemisphere in 1492 was actually a search for a new homeland for Europe’s Jews. [30]

Wiesenthal is not always wrong, of course. In 1975 and again in 1993 he publicly acknowledged that “there were no extermination camps on German soil.” [31] He thus implicitly conceded that the claims made at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal and elsewhere that Buchenwald, Dachau and other camps in Germany proper were “extermination camps” are not true.

‘Fabrications’ About Eichmann

In more than 40 years of “Nazi hunting,” Wiesenthal’s role in locating and capturing Adolf Eichmann is often considered his greatest achievement. [32] (Eichmann headed the wartime SS Jewish affairs department. He was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina in May 1960 and hanged in Jerusalem after a trial that received worldwide media attention.)

But Isser Harel, the Israeli official who headed the team that seized Eichmann, has declared unequivocally that Wiesenthal had “absolutely nothing” to do with the capture. (Harel is a former head of both the Mossad and Shin Bet, Israel’s foreign and domestic security agencies.) [33]

Wiesenthal not only “had no role whatsoever” in the apprehension, said Harel, but in fact he endangered the entire Eichmann operation. In a 278-page manuscript, Harel carefully refuted every claim by Wiesenthal about his supposed role in identifying and capturing Eichmann. Claims by Wiesenthal and his many friends about his supposedly crucial role in capturing the former SS officer, said Harel, have no foundation in fact. Many specific assertions and incidents described in two books by Wiesenthal, said the Israeli official, are “complete fabrications.” [34]

“Wiesenthal’s reports and statements at that period prove beyond any doubt that he had no notion of Eichmann’s whereabouts,” said Harel. [35] (For example, just before Eichmann’s capture in Argentina, Wiesenthal was placing him in Japan and Saudi Arabia.) [36]

Characterizing Wiesenthal as a rank opportunist, Harel summed up: “All the information supplied by Wiesenthal before and in anticipation of the [Eichmann] operation was utterly worthless, and sometimes even misleading and of negative value.” [37]

Reckless Charges in Walus Case

One of Wiesenthal’s most spectacular cases involved a Polish-born Chicago man named Frank Walus. In a letter dated December 10, 1974, he charged that Walus “delivered Jews to the Gestapo” in Czestochowa and Kielce in Poland during the war. This letter prompted a US government investigation and legal action. [38] The Washington Post dealt with the case in a 1981 article entitled “The Nazi Who Never Was: How a witch hunt by judge, press and investigators branded an innocent man a war criminal.” The lengthy piece, which was copyrighted by the American Bar Association, reported: [39]

In January 1977, the United States government accused a Chicagoan named Frank Walus of having committed atrocities in Poland during World War II.

In the following years, this retired factory worker went into debt in order to raise more than $60,000 to defend himself. He sat in a courtroom while eleven Jewish survivors of the Nazi occupation of Poland testified that they saw him murder children, an old woman, a young woman, a hunchback and others …

Overwhelming evidence shows that Walus was not a Nazi War criminal, that he was not even in Poland during World War II.

… In an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man. In 1974, Simon Wiesenthal, the famous “Nazi hunter” of Vienna, denounced Walus as “a Pole in Chicago who performed duties with the Gestapo in the ghettos of Czestochowa and Kielce and handed over a number of Jews to the Gestapo.”

The Chicago weekly newspaper Reader also reported on the case in a detailed 1981 article headlined: “The Persecution of Frank Walus: To Catch a Nazi: The U.S. government wanted a war criminal. So, with the help of Simon Wiesenthal, the Israeli police, the local press and Judge Julius Hoffman, they invented one.” [40] The article stated:

… It is logical to assume that the “reports received by Wiesenthal [against Walus] actually were rumors… In other words, Simon Wiesenthal had no evidence against Walus. He denounced him anyway.

While [Judge] Hoffman had the Walus case under advisement, Holocaust aired on television. During the same period, in April 1978, Simon Wiesenthal came to Chicago, where he gave interviews taking credit for the Walus case. “How Nazi-Hunter Helped Find Walus,” was the Sun-Times headline on a story by Bob Olmstead. Wiesenthal told Sun-Times Abe Peck that he “has never had a case of mistaken identity.” “I know there are thousands of people who wait for my mistake,” he said.

It was only after an exhausting legal battle that the man who was vilified and physically attacked as “the butcher of Kielce” was finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a peaceful farm laborer in Germany. Frank Walus died in August 1994, a broken and bitterly disappointed man.

Wiesenthal’s recklessness in the Walus case should have been enough to permanently discredit him as a reliable investigator. But his Teflon reputation survived even this.

Wrong about Mengele

Much of the Wiesenthal myth is based on his hunt for Joseph Mengele, the wartime physician at Auschwitz known as the “Angel of Death.” Time and time again, Wiesenthal claimed to be close on Mengele’s heels. Wiesenthal reported that his informants had “seen” or “just missed” the elusive physician in Peru, Chile, Brazil, Spain, Greece, and half a dozen locations in Paraguay. [41]

One of the closest shaves came in the summer of 1960. Wiesenthal reported that Mengele had been hiding out on a small Greek island, from where he escaped by just a few hours. Wiesenthal continued to peddle this story, complete with precise details, even after a reporter whom he had hired to check it out informed him that the tale was false from beginning to end. [42]

According to another Wiesenthal report, Mengele arranged for the murder in 1960 of one of his former victims, a woman he had supposedly sterilized in Auschwitz. After spotting her, and her distinctive camp tattoo, at a hotel in Argentina where he was staying, Mengele allegedly arranged to have her killed because he feared that she would expose him. It turned out that the woman was never in a concentration camp, had no tattoo, had never met Mengele, and her death was a simple mountaineering accident. [43]

Mengele regularly dined at the finest restaurants in Asuncion, the Paraguayan capital, Wiesenthal said in 1977, and supposedly drove around the city with a bevy of armed guards in his black Mercedes Benz. [44]

Wiesenthal announced in 1985 that he was “100 percent sure” that Mengele had been hiding out in Paraguay until at least June 1984, and charged that the Mengele family in Germany knew exactly where. As it turned out, Wiesenthal was completely wrong. It was later definitively established that Mengele had died in 1979 in Brazil, where he had been living for years in anonymous poverty. [45]

Israel’s ambassador to Paraguay from 1968 to 1972, Benjamin (Benno) Varon, remarked in 1983 on the Mengele campaign: “Wiesenthal makes periodic statements that he is about to catch him, perhaps since Wiesenthal must raise funds for his activities and the name Mengele is always good for a plug.” Wiesenthal “failed miserably” in the Mengele case, the diplomat said on another occasion. [46] In the Mengele case, former Mossad chief Harel remarked, “Wiesenthal’s folly borders on the criminal.” [47]

In truth, the bulging Mengele file in Wiesenthal’s Vienna “Documentation Center” was such a jumble of useless information that, in the words of the London Times, it “only sustained his self-confirmatory myths and gave scant satisfaction to those who apparently needed a definitive answer to Mengele’s fate.” [48]

In the considered view of Gerald Posner and John Ware, coauthors of Mengele: The Complete Story, Wiesenthal spent years assiduously cultivating a mythical “self-image of a tireless, dogged sleuth, pitted against the omnipotent and sinister might of Mengele and a vast Nazi network.” Because of his “knack of playing to the gallery,” Posner and Ware concluded, Wiesenthal “ultimately compromised his credibility.” [49]

‘Incompetence and Arrogance’

Eli Rosenbaum, an official with the US government’s “Nazi hunting” Office of Special Investigations and an investigator for the World Jewish Congress, took aim at Wiesenthal’s carefully cultivated “Nazi hunter” reputation in a detailed 1993 book, Betrayal. [50] For example, Rosenbaum mentioned, Wiesenthal “had all these reports placing Mengele in almost every country in Latin America except the one he was in — namely, Brazil.” [51]

Wiesenthal, wrote Rosenbaum, has been a “pathetically ineffective” investigator who had “gone far beyond the buffoonery and false boasts in prior years.” Much of his illustrious career, Rosenbaum said, has been characterized by “incompetence and arrogance.” [52]

Bruno Kreisky once summed up his attitude towards the “Nazi hunter” in these words: [53]

The engineer Wiesenthal, or whatever else his title is, hates me because he knows that I despise his activity. The Wiesenthal group is a quasi-political Mafia that works against Austria with disgraceful methods. Wiesenthal is known as someone who isn’t very careful about the truth, who is not very selective about his methods and who uses tricks. He pretends to be the “Eichmann hunter,” even though everyone knows that this was the work of a secret service, and that Wiesenthal only takes credit for that.

‘Commercializing’ the Holocaust

The Los Angeles Wiesenthal Center pays the Vienna “Nazi Hunter” $75,000 a year for the use of his name, the director of Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center said in 1988.

Both the Center and Wiesenthal “commercialize” and “trivialize” the Holocaust, the director added.

Wiesenthal “threw out” the figure of “11 million who were murdered in the Holocaust — six million Jews and five million non-Jews,” said the Yad Vashem official. When asked why he gave these figures, Wiesenthal replied: “The gentiles will not pay attention if we do not mention their victims, too.” Wiesenthal “chose ‘five million (gentiles)’ because he wanted a ‘diplomatic’ number, one that told of a large number of gentile victims but in no way was larger than that of Jews …” [54]

“What Wiesenthal and the Los Angeles Center that bears his name do is to trivialize the Holocaust,” commented The Jewish Press, a weekly that claims to be the largest-circulation English-language Jewish community paper in America.

In recent years Wiesenthal has been concerned about the growing impact of Holocaust revisionism. In “A Message from Simon Wiesenthal” published by the Center that bears his name, he said: “Today, when I see the rise of antisemitism here in Europe … the popularity of Le Pen, of David Duke, of the Holocaust revisionists, then I am convinced more than ever about the need for our new [Wiesenthal Center] Beit Hashoah-Museum of Tolerance” in Los Angeles. [55]

Wiesenthal is often asked why he does not forgive those who persecuted Jews half a century ago. His stock answer is that although he has the right to forgive for himself, he does not have the right to forgive on behalf of others. [56] On the basis of this sophistical logic, though, neither does he have the right to accuse and track down anyone in the name of others. Wiesenthal has never confined his “hunt” to those who victimized him personally.

‘Driven by Hatred’

It is difficult to say just what drives this remarkable man. Is it a craving for fame and praise? Or is he trying to live down a shameful episode from his past?

Wiesenthal clearly enjoys the praise he receives. “He is a man of considerable ego, proud of testimonials and honorary degrees,” the Los Angeles Times has reported. [57] Bruno Kreisky has given a simpler explanation. He said that Wiesenthal is “driven by hatred.” [58]

In light of his well-documented record of deceit, lies and incompetence, the extravagant praise heaped upon this contemptible man is a sorry reflection of the venal corruptibility and unprincipled self-deception of our age.


  1. Quoted in: M. Weber, “‘Nazi Hunter’ Caught Lying,” The Spotlight (Washington, DC), Oct. 26, 1981, p. 9.
  2. Interrogation of S. Wiesenthal on May 27 and 28, 1948, conducted by Curt Ponger of the Interrogation Branch of the Evidence Division of the Office (U.S.) Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. Interrogation No. 2820. On file at the National Archives (Washington, DC), “Records of the U.S. Nürnberg War Crimes Trials Interrogations, 1946-49,” Record Group 238, microfilm M-1019, roll 79, frames 460-469 and 470-476. Also cited in: “New Documents Raise New Doubts About Simon Wiesenthal’s War Years,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pp. 489-503.
  3. PCIRO (International Refugee Organization, Austria) “Application for Assistance” filled out and signed by Wiesenthal. Dated Jan. 16,1949. (This was a trial exhibit in the Walus court case. Photocopy in author’s possession.)
  4. Simon Wiesenthal, The Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Memoirs. Edited by Joseph Wechsberg. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967)
  5. Interrogation of S. Wiesenthal, May 27, 1948, pp. 1-2.
  6. The Murderers Among Us, p. 27.
  7. The Murderers Among Us, pp. 29-35. This account is not inconsistent with his 1948 and 1949 statements; See also: Simon Wiesenthal, Justice Not Vengeance (New York: Grove Weidenfeld: 1989), pp. 7-9.
  8. Interrogation of May 27, 1948, p. 2. In a signed 1945 statement, Wiesenthal wrote:
    “… I escaped on October 18, 1943, from the Lemberg [Lvov] hard labor camp where I was kept as a prisoner during my two years of labor at the railroad works… and went into hiding until joining Jewish partisans on November 21, 1943, who operated there. It was while fighting in the partisan ranks against the Nazis that we managed to collect and bury for safekeeping considerable amount of evidence… When the partisans were dispersed by the Germans I fled to Lemberg on February 10, 1944, and again went into hiding. On June 13, 1944, I was found during a house to house search and was immediately sent to the famous Lacki camp, near that city …” Source: “Curriculum Vitae of Ing. Wiesenthal, Szymon.” SHAEF, Subject: War Crimes, July 6, 1945. Records of USAEUR, War Crimes Branch, National Archives (Suitland, Maryland), Records Group 338, Box 534, Folder 000-50-59. Wiesenthal’s alleged partisans activities are also recounted in Alan Levy, The Wiesenthal File (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 50-53.
  9. Interrogation of May 28, 1948, pp. 1-2.
  10. Interrogation of May 28, 1948, p. 5.
  11. The Murderers Among Us, pp. 35-37.
  12. The Murderers Among Us, pp. 37-38; Interrogation, May 27, 1948, p. 2, and May 28, 1948, p. 5; A. Levy, The Wiesenthal File (1994), p. 54.
  13. The Murderers Among Us, pp. 39-44; Interrogation, May 27, 1948, pp. 2-3.
  14. Interview with foreign journalists in Vienna, Nov. 10, 1975. Text published in: “War Wiesenthal ein Gestapo-Kollaborateur?,” Profil (Vienna), No. 47, Nov. 18, 1975, pp. 16, 22-23; Reprinted in: Robert H. Drechsler, Simon Wiesenthal: Dokumentation (Vienna: 1982), pp. 215-218, 222-223; Quoted in part in A. Levy, The Wiesenthal File (1994), p. 349, and in, S. Wiesenthal, Justice Not Vengeance (New York: 1989), pp. 7, 299. Kreisky was not alone in charging that Wiesenthal had collaborated with the German Gestapo. Wim Van Leer, columnist for the English-language daily Jerusalem Post, stated in May 1986 that a high-level police official in Vienna, citing confidential police records, had told him during the early 1960s that these and other charges against Wiesenthal were true. Source: J. Bushinsky, “Nazi hunter sues over charges of links to Gestapo,” Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 31, 1987.
  15. Simon Wiesenthal, KZ Mauthausen (Linz and Vienna: Ibis-Verlag, 1946). Facsimile reprint in: Robert H. Drechsler, Simon Wiesenthal: Dokumentation (Vienna: 1982), p. 64.
  16. “Firing Squad,” Life magazine, US edition, June 11, 1945, p. 50.
  17. M. Weber and K. Stimely, “The Sleight-of-Hand of Simon Wiesenthal,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1984 (Vol. 5, No. 1), pp. 120-122; D. National-Zeitung (Munich), May 21, 1993, p. 3.
  18. S. Wiesenthal, KZ Mauthausen (1946). See also facsimile reprint in: Robert H. Drechsler, Simon Wiesenthal: Dokumentation (Vienna: 1982), pp. 42, 46. This “confession” is a somewhat altered version of Nuremberg document NO-1973; A new edition of Wiesenthal’s 1946 book has been published under the title Denn sie Wussten, was sie tun: Zeichnungen und Aufzeichnungen aus dem KZ Mauthausen (Vienna: F. Deuticke, 1995). I am grateful to Robert Faurisson for bringing this to my attention. He points out in a July 1995 essay that Wiesenthal has deleted from this new edition both the “death bed confession” of Ziereis as well as his drawing of the three Mauthausen inmates.
  19. According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica (“Mauthausen,”, Vol. 11, p. 1138), a grand total of 206,000 persons were inmates of Mauthausen and its satellite camps (including Hartheim) at one time or another.
  20. S. Wiesenthal, KZ Mauthausen (1946). Facsimile reprint in: R. Drechsler, Simon Wiesenthal: Dokumentation, p. 47.
  21. R. Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers: Truth or Lie?,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1981, pp. 330, 361. See also: Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales (London: 1953), p. 185; Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution (London: Sphere, pb., 1971), p. 515; M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992 (Vol. 12, No. 2), p. 182.
  22. USA Today, April 21, 1983, p. 9A.
  23. The Murderers Among Us, p. 44.
  24. Evelyn Le Chene, Mauthausen: The History of a Death Camp (London: 1971), pp. 166-168 and 190-191.
  25. “Mauthausen”, Encyclopaedia Judaica (New York and Jerusalem: 1971), vol. 11, p. 1138.
  26. C. Moritz, ed., Current Biography 1975 (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1975), p. 442; Wiesenthal interrogation of May 27, 1948, p. 3.
  27. Mark Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 217-227; See also: Robert Faurisson, “La savon juif,” Annales d’Histoire Revisionniste (Paris), No. 1, Printemps 1987, pp. 153-159.
  28. Der Neue Weg (Vienna), No. 17/18, 1946, pp. 4-5. Article entitled “RIF” by “Ing. Wiesenth.” (Simon Wiesenthal).
  29. Der Neue Weg (Vienna), Nr. 19/20, 1946, pp. 14-15. Article entitled “Seifenfabrik Belsetz” (“Belzec Soap Factory”), by “Ing. S.Wiesenth.”
  30. S. Wiesenthal, Sails of Hope (Macmillan, 1973).
  31. Letters by Wiesenthal in Books and Bookmen (London), April 1975, p. 5, and in Stars and Stripes (European edition), Jan. 24, 1993, p. 14. Facsimile of Stars and Stripes letter in The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1993, p. 10; In 1986 Wiesenthal lied about his 1975 statement. In a letter dated May 12, 1986, to Prof. John George of Central State University in Edmond, Oklahoma (copy in author’s possession), Wiesenthal wrote: “I have never stated that ‘there were no extermination camps on German soil.’ This quote is false, I could never have said such a thing.”
  32. For example, in a letter (dated Sept. 13, 1993), published in The New York Times, Sept. 29, 1993, Wiesenthal boasted: “I succeeded in putting a number of Nazis on trial who had perpetrated horrendous crimes in the Nazi era, including Adolf Eichmann, Franz Stangl, Gustav Wagner,…”
  33. S. Birnbaum, “Wiesenthal’s Claim on Eichmann Disputed by Former Mossad Head,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin (New York), April 4, 1989. (Dispatch dated April 3).
  34. J. Schachter, “Wiesenthal had no role in Eichmann capture,” The Jerusalem Post, May 18, 1991. Facsimile reprint in Christian News, May 27, 1991, p. 19. See also: Ruth Sinai, “Wiesenthal’s role in Eichmann’s capture disputed,” Associated Press, The Orange County Register, Feb. 25, 1990, p. A 26; L. Lagnado, “How Simon Wiesenthal Helped a Secret Nazi,” Forward (New York), Sept. 24, 1993, pp. 1, 3.
  35. J. Schachter, The Jerusalem Post, May 18, 1991 (cited above). Facsimile in Christian News, May 27, 1991, p. 19.
  36. Arnold Forster, Square One (New York: 1988), pp. 187-189. (Forster was general counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, a major Zionist organization.)
  37. J. Goldberg, “Top Spy Says Wiesenthal Lied About His Exploits,” Forward (New York), Nov. 12, 1993, pp. 1, 4; R. Sinai, “Wiesenthal’s role…,” The Orange County Register, Feb. 25, 1990 (cited above).
  38. Michael Arndt, “The Wrong Man,” The Chicago Tribune Magazine, Dec. 2, 1984, pp. 15-35, esp. p. 23; Charles Ashman and Robert J. Wagman, The Nazi Hunters (New York: Pharos Books, 1988), pp. 193-195.
  39. “The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
  40. “The Persecution of Frank Walus,” Reader (Chicago), Jan. 23, 1981, pp. 19, 30. After Wiesenthal was ultimately proven wrong in a similar case in Canada, the Toronto Sun newspaper commented in an editorial: “It seems that material provided by professional Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal is wrong, but repeated anyway [in the media].” (Quoted by M. Weber in The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1984, pp. 120-122.)
  41. Gerald L. Posner and John Ware, Mengele: The Complete Story (New York: Dell, 1987), pp. 220-221; Gerald Astor, The ‘Last’ Nazi: The Life and Times of Dr. Joseph Mengele (Toronto: Paperjacks, 1986), p. 202.
  42. G. Posner and J. Ware, Mengele: The Complete Story (cited above), p. 220.
  43. G. Posner and J. Ware, Mengele (cited above), pp. 179-180; G. Astor, The ‘Last’ Nazi (cited above), pp. 178-180.
  44. Time magazine, Sept. 26, 1977, pp. 36-38. Cited in: G. Posner and J. Ware, Mengele (cited above), p. 219.
  45. “Hunting the ‘Angel of Death’,” Newsweek, May 20, 1985, pp. 36-38. See also: M. Weber, “Lessons of the Mengele Affair,” Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 3), p. 382. On Wiesenthal’s distortion of truth in the Mermelstein-IHR case, see: M. Weber, “Declaration,” Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1982 (Vol. 3, No. 1), pp. 42-43; M. Weber, “Albert Speer and the ‘Holocaust,”‘ Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1984 (Vol. 5, Nos. 2-4), p. 439.
  46. Midstream, Dec. 1983, p. 24. Quoted in: G. Posner and J. Ware, Mengele (cited above), p. 219; Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, 1985, p. 2.
  47. J. Schachter, “Wiesenthal had no role in Eichmann capture,” The Jerusalem Post, May 18, 1991. Facsimile reprint in Christian News, May 27, 1991, p. 19.
  48. Tom Bower in The Times (London), June 14, 1985, p. 14. Quoted in: G. Posner and J. Ware, Mengele (cited above), pp. 222-223.
  49. G. Posner and J. Ware, Mengele (cited above), pp. 222-223.
  50. Betrayal, by Eli M. Rosenbaum, with William Hoffer. Published in 1993 by St. Martin’s Press (New York). Reviewed by Jacob Heilbrunn in The New York Times Book Review, Oct. 10, 1993, p. 9.
  51. Quoted in L. Lagnado, “How Simon Wiesenthal…,” Forward (New York), Sept. 24, 1993, p. 3.
  52. The New York Times Book Review, Oct. 10, 1993, p. 9; Forward (New York), Sept. 24, 1993, p. 3.
  53. “Was hat Wiesenthal zu verbergen?,” D. National-Zeitung (Munich), Nov. 11, 1988, p. 4.
  54. David Sinai, “News We Doubt You’ve Seen,” The Jewish Press (Brooklyn, NY), Dec. 23, 1988. Based on report in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Dec. 16, 1988.
  55. “A Message from Simon Wiesenthal,” Response: The Wiesenthal Center World Report, Winter 1992, p. 11.
  56. Charles Ashman and Robert J. Wagman, The Nazi Hunters (New York: Pharos Books, 1988), p. 286; A. Popkin, “Nazi-Hunter Simon Wiesenthal: ‘Information is Our Best Defense’,” Washington Jewish Week, Oct. 29, 1987, p. 2.
  57. Quoted in: M. Weber, The Spotlight, Oct. 26, 1981, p. 9.
  58. Quoted in D. National-Zeitung (Munich), July 8, 1988, p. 7, and in, R. Drechsler, Simon Wiesenthal: Dokumentation (Vienna: 1982), p. 199.

About the Author

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as editor of the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review.



Vaccine Choice Canada Potluck


The next Vaccine Choice Canada Potluck meeting, 
– to brainstorm ideas on sustainability, share information, seeds, plants, and market exchanges

Sunday July 7th – 4:30 to 8 PM 
– Vancouver
Basement hall at 27th Ave and Prince Albert St.

Queenie will be bringing organic eggs for sale – $6 per dozen. Bring empty egg cartons. 

Queenie welcomes helpers to set up. 

Bring your favourite dish to share,

Remember to bring your own PLATE and cutlery, and serving spoon (labeled with your name)

and maybe a spare plate for a friend.

I will NOT be bringing spare plates this time! Let’s try to avoid “throw-away” disposables. (garbage

Small things matter when contributing to making our world a better place. 

Looking forward to seeing you there on Sunday, July 7th. i.h. 

Bring Back the Tsar

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, June 21, 2024

Bring Back the Tsar!

Thanks to the actions of J. Brandon Magoo, the bumbling nincompoop who is the nominal head of the American republic, and, with apologies to Ann Coulter, B. Hussein Obama, who almost certainly is the puppet master pulling Magoo’s strings, the world is the closest to nuclear Armageddon that it has ever been.  To be more precise, these are the two latest in a string of American presidents including the younger Bush and whichever Clinton was really calling the shots between 1993 to 2001 (most likely Hillary as Bill seemed to be caught with his pants down too often to be the one actually wearing them) who for whatever unfathomable reason, possibly having something to do with Russiophobic ethnics having too much influence in their administrations, made a point of poking the Russian bear with a stick by encouraging anti-Russian hostility on the part of her closest neighbours.  In the cases of Bush and Obama, they went so far as to overthrow Russia-friendly governments in Ukraine and replace them with anti-Russian ones by sponsoring colour revolutions in 2004-2005 and 2014 respectively.  Donald the Orange is the exception among the American presidents of the last quarter century which is one of the reasons the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas and Magoos all hate him so much.  Instead of the business as usual of enriching themselves by minding the rest of the world’s business, promoting instability in one region and war in another, he took the position that the United States should mind her own business.

Vladimir Putin is the excuse that these bellicose warmongering rejects from both the Peace Academy and the School of Just War have pointed to in order to justify their ramping up anti-Russian rhetoric to levels that were not seen even in the Cold War in which that country was run by a regime committed to a cold-blooded, murderous, atheistic, totalitarian ideology.  A former agent of the legendary secret police of that regime, Putin has led Russia in either the office of prime minister or president – he has alternated between the two – since 1999.  If one were to take seriously what the Clinton/Bush/Obama/Magoo crowd say about him, one would think that he was the corpse of Adolf Hitler, re-animated and zombified by voodoo magic, and hell bent on the quest to conquer the world, seize its lebensraum, and eat its brains.  But then if one were to take that crowd’s opinion seriously, one would have to think that the other Vlad, Zelenskyy that is, the president of Ukraine who jumped into that role after starring in a cheap Ukrainian comic television series in which he played a high school teacher who, well, jumped into the role of president of Ukraine, is a champion of freedom and Western values.  Considering that most countries in Western civilization are currently celebrating every form of sexual perversion imaginable in the name of the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins it is possible that Zelensky actually is a champion of “Western values.”  He is certainly not a champion of freedom but rather the same sort of autocrat that they, rightly or wrongly, have accused Putin of being ever since he first took office.

There would neither be a president of Russia nor a president of Ukraine had an earlier revolution not driven the legitimate claimant to the allegiance of both Russia and Ukraine from his throne then brutally murdered him and his family.  I recently reminded a friend that contrary to all the false ideas of the Zeitgeist of the Modern Age government legitimacy does not come from elections, from the “consent of the governed.”  Quite the contrary.  People, not having legitimate governing authority over each other, cannot delegate such to their representatives. All a government can obtain from the support of its people is power, the ability to compel through the force of numbers.  Authority, the legitimate right to lead, can only be passed on from those who had it before.  Moreover, legitimate governing authority on earth should be representative in form of the government of the universe in heaven. (1)  God is the King of His Creation.  Legitimate earthly government is the government of kings, who receive their authority by inheritance from those who went before them and pass it on to those who come after them.  The opposite of the Modern “consent of the governed” theory of legitimacy is actually the case.  Take my country, for example, the Dominion of Canada.  We are a Commonwealth Realm, over which King Charles III reigns, Parliament in Ottawa legislates, and a cabinet of ministers of the Crown chosen by Parliament governs.  Parliament is a democratic institution, obviously, but democracy is not the source of its legitimate authority.  It is the other way around.  Democracy derives whatever legitimacy it has, in our Parliament, the other Commonwealth Parliaments, and the Mother Parliament in the UK, from the king who authorizes Parliament.  Yes, most people don’t think about it this way, but most people are wrong.  Parliament’s value consists not in the fact that it is democratic, but in the fact that its worth has been proven over a very long period of time, and that worth consists of this, that it takes the power represented by popular support, the potentially dangerous and destructive power that in the wrong hands is what we call “mob rule” and enlists it in the service of law and order by tying it institutionally to legitimate authority. (2)

The last legitimate king to reign over Russia which at the time included, as it historically had, Ukraine, was Tsar Nicholas II of the House of Romanov.  He abdicated early in 1917 when the first wave of revolution broke out in Russia but the incompetence of the government that was set up in his place meant that the problems, other than World War I, that had produced the discontent exploited by the first wave of revolutionaries persisted and in the follow up revolution of October 1917 the Bolsheviks, an evil gang of terrorists that was committed to the atheist, socialist, ideology of Karl Marx, and which consisted mostly of members of minority groups that had ethnic and religious grudges against the Russians, the Russian Orthodox Church, and their emperor seized power. The largest such minority group represented was Jews, a fact that people who have more zeal against anti-Semitism than brains don’t like being pointed out because they think that nobody is capable of recognizing that neither “all Jews are Bolsheviks” nor “all Bolsheviks are Jews” logically follows from it (unfortunately, since all the schools seem to be teaching people today is gender confusion, sexual perversion, and racism against white people, rather than the old trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, they may have a point).  They then fought a five and a half year civil war to keep and consolidate that power after which they transformed the Russian Empire into the Soviet Union.  Early in the civil war, in the summer of 1918, agents of the Cheka, the Bolshevik secret police, murdered Tsar Nicholas, his wife Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna and their five children, and their attendants in the basement of Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg where they had been held captive.  Their bodies were taken to the nearby Koptyaki forest and disposed of in such a way that the burial site was not discovered for decades.

In 1981, a few years after the discovery of the burial site, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia recognized the murdered Imperial Family as martyrs and in 2000 they were formally canonized as passion bearers by the Russian Orthodox Church.  This was most appropriate.  Ivan III Vasilyevich took the throne as Grand Prince or Duke of Moscow in1462 and ten years later married Sophia Palaiologina, the niece of Constantine III Palaiologos, the last Byzantine Emperor who died defending his capital Constantinople against the forces of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II in 1453.  Upon this marriage Ivan took the title Tsar, a Russianized form of “Caesar” the title of the Roman Emperor (the Byzantine Empire was the eastern Roman Empire), and while it would be nonsense to claim that he was Constantine’s heir through marriage as there were others in line before Sophia the Tsars did indeed take over from the Byzantine Emperors the role of royal protector of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Tsar Nicholas II, therefore, was in the same position of royal protector with regards to the Russian Orthodox Church when murdered by her enemies that King Charles I had been in with regards to the Church of England when murdered by her enemies in 1649.  King Charles I was canonized by the Anglican Church when the provinces of York and Canterbury met in Convocation for the first time after his death when King Charles II was enthroned in the Restoration of 1660. (3) 

The Romanov heir, who for obvious reasons would not be a descendent of Nicholas II but the closest other kin, has not yet been restored to the empty throne of the Tsar.  Almost a quarter of a century after the canonization of Nicholas II and family it is about time that this be done.  Then the illegitimate offices of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine could be done away with as both countries swear allegiance to their legitimate ruler bringing the conflict to an end.  Putin could be given a minister’s office in the legitimate government of Russia.  Zelensky could go back to his true calling as a television clown.   Then Magoo, Obama, and our idiot prime minister Captain Airhead would have to either mind their own business or find somebody else’s business to mind that is less likely to result in mushroom clouds appearing everywhere.

(1)   This is extraneous to the subject of this essay, which is why I am putting it here in a note, but the Church’s worship on earth is supposed to be patterned on worship in heaven too.  See Fr. Paul A. F. Castellano’s As It is In Heaven: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Introduction to the Traditional Church and Her Worship (Tucson: Wheatmark, 2021) for the case for this and an account of what that looks like.

(2)   Stephen Leacock put it this way “This is a problem that we have solved, joining the dignity of Kingship with the power of democracy; this, too, by the simplest of political necromancy, the trick of which we now ex­ pound in our schools, as the very alphabet of political wisdom.” – “Greater Canada: An Appeal” which can be found in The Social Criticism Of Stephen Leacock: The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice and Other Essays edited by Alan Bowker (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1973).

(3)  There is a direct connection between these martyrdoms in that the Puritan revolution and murder of King Charles I in the seventeenth century was the inspiration of the Jacobin revolution and murder of King Louis XVI in France in the eighteenth century which in turn inspired the Bolshevik revolution and the murder of Nicholas II in the twentieth century.  King Louis XVI would be another royal martyr although it would have been the Hapsburg Emperor in Vienna at the time whose role in relation to the Roman Catholic Church would have more closely approximated that of Charles I to the Anglican Church and Nicholas II to the Orthodox Church. — Gerry T. Neal

Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 8:21 AM