ISSN 1440

Gotta see it, Fred, Gotta see it!

During a lunch-time screening of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ at the Norwood cinema complex I was surprised to see just on 17 elderly individuals take their seats. It promised to be an exclusive screening of this much talked-about film.

As the screen lit up and sound filled the theatre I tried to block out anything I had absorbed up to this point about the film, thereby implementing a somewhat watered-down version of the scientific method.

I wished to view the film as objectively as possible without falling into some cliché-laden conceptual prison from which desired release requires dissembling, if not outright lying. I also tried to concentrate on the spoken words rather than focus on the English sub titles.

The dark and gloomy opening scene depicts a group of men among some trees worrying about something, and soon there emerges the Protagonist who figuratively wrestles with an androgynous figure - female face but male voice. It is obvious that here we have a psychological problem unfolding. Great mental anguish ensues - the hallmark of a person wrestling within oneself rather than scapegoating and hitting out physically so befitting a person who is conscious of growing up and meeting life’s challenges, both physical and mental.

The Protagonist moves among his group of male followers and displays compassion. Through various flash-backs we receive more information about his life before he became concerned with matters of belief, of love and of this other world – the world of our Heavenly Father. We see him extending his compassion and protection towards a Woman against a mob about to stone her to death. We see him as a young carpenter making a sturdy table, something his Mother delights in, especially when he says to her that tables are the future. Such flashbacks are idyllic mother-child relationship scenes that reinforce the primacy of womanhood. It also depicts a creative but non-materialistic level of reflection on the meaning of life.

And then raw physical action begins – the mild and gentle man faces a contingent of armed men who have been ordered by the authorities to apprehend him. How did they find him? Simple – betrayal, and money changed hands for the information needed to identify the man. The elderly men who made up the group that gave the order to bring the protagonist before them look worried. This man who worries them has blasphemed, has challenged their authority – and that is not to be tolerated, no matter what. So here we have a group of men, the temple rulers, who wish to silence a man walking around the countryside saying things about them that is not nice.

A parallel comes to mind here with an old English law that punished anyone for gossiping about the landed gentry – ‘spreading false news’ was considered a criminal matter, which until 1992 was on the books in Canada . It was removed when Ernst Zündel won his appeal against the Jewish group that tried to silence him. Eleven years later, Zündel finds himself again in Canadian custody, already having spent over twelve months in solitary confinement. His crime? He refuses to believe in the ‘Holocaust’!

The apprehension scene is brutal – but also delicate. Resistance is only at the hands of those around the Protagonist who himself remains passive. Indeed, he extends empathy to one of the men who had come to take him in. A sword had cut his ear off and the protagonist cups his healing hand over the wound.

As the Protagonist is brought into the temple confines, outside his Mother begs soldiers on horseback to get him out of there because he had not done anything wrong. The soldiers report the matter to a likeable man who is the Administrator of the province. His clean shaven face indicates he does not need the mask of a beard to hide his facial lines that reveal so much of what is going on inside the head.

Beaten and bruised the Protagonist stands before his accusers where more beatings are inflicted upon him.

Interestingly, during the inquisition a number of the old men voice dissent, but they are smartly escorted out of the hall. Dissent within one’s own realm needs to be suppressed – desperately so, it seems.

The decision to find the Protagonist guilty of an offence is a foregone conclusion and this legally offensive procedure is reflected in what the Administrator says when the Protagonist is brought before him by the old temple men.

The administrator rhetorically asks the elderly men if it is usual for them to severely beat up anyone they don’t like without guilt first being formally established. Their leader replies that the Protagonist is guilty of blasphemy – that’s enough for them because he has condemned himself out of his own mouth.

The Administrator’s own wife reflects knowledge of the Protagonist’s doings – he has a reputation for being holy - and attempts to influence her husband to intervene and let him go. The Administrator advises the old men to take their troublemaker to their own king, which they do. Unfortunately for the old men their hedonistic king has a clear moment and assesses the Protagonist as innocent of any crime.

So back to the Administrator, and agreement is reached that the Protagonist will be given a severe beating, though not enough to kill him.

The horrible torture scene lasts a long time and I wondered if anyone could actually withstand such physical assault on the body without the mind switching on the unconscious button that usually is automatically activated when our body suffers unbearable pain. The message is clear – the Protagonist has by then already transcended his physical existence.

The torturers are shown to delight in their task, and only towards the end do some of them reach breaking point, as do the onlookers of this grizzly spectacle, including those who may have harboured some secret liking for such voyeuristic sport. The human factor operates within this scene and it is its measure that prevents it from degenerating into one of excess violence.

The children-murder horrors currently playing out in a Belgium court intrude into my mind. Here on the screen we see the depiction of an individual suffering public horrors, yet in Belgium there was a private revolting horror show out of public view until now of a man imprisoning and killing pre-pubescent girls for his own personal gratification.

I found the passivity of the onlookers in the film disturbing because I wanted to go there and say: Enough of this flogging, stop it!

We see again the Protagonist’s mother passively crying and observing the pain her son is absorbing. After he is taken away to be displayed before the Administrator, with her cloth she wipes up his flesh and blood.

The Administrator beholds the man – ecce homo - and concludes that he deserves to live, but the old men refuse to take him back, and in a wild frenzy cry for him to be crucified. As it is an annual custom for the Administrator to release prisoners, he decides to ask the temple men if they would like a murderer or the Protagonist released. The crowd is now baying for the Protagonist’s death because that is their leader’s wish, and the crowd cries out that the murderer should be released – which grotesquely happens.

The Administrator has had enough of this rabble and literally washes his hands of the matter – and so hands over the Protagonist to the rabble thus condemning the mild and gentle reflective man to be crucified.

We then watch in graphic detail how the Protagonist carries his own huge and heavy wooden cross along the streets – then with vital help from a man pulled out of the crowd, who is ordered to help carry the cross with him, we agonize as the Protagonist’s physical strength fades. Inevitable physical collapse is graphically captured, but the Protagonist’s mind is still there and the body flinches to life again. Considering what has been shown on television these past decades, this brutality is not excessive.

The actual hammering in of the nails into the hands and feet is also graphically depicted, including the turning over of the cross so that the nail ends can be bent over.

The Mother with the shunned Woman by her side approaches the three crosses. The dialogue between the crucified on either side of the Protagonist furthers the internal argument that climaxes when the Protagonist cries out why his Heavenly Father has forsaken him.

A storm wells up around the hilltop and the soldiers scatter, one of them before he, too, runs off, hurriedly pierces the protagonist’s side. Visual depiction of the escaping eternal life force is effectively contrasted with the concurrent temple’s destruction – and that final scene where the androgynous person disintegrates. Death has been conquered, transcendence guaranteed.

The film succeeds in its stated aim of objectifying Christ’s final twelve hours. Mel Gibson has created a masterwork that ahs de-mystified a mystery, that takes the innocence out of the pillar of Christianity. There will be consequences; the most important one is not so-called ‘antisemitism’ breaking out all over the world but rather a maturational process that will strike individuals by having viewed the film.

For decades, for a life-time perhaps, millions of individuals have cherished this crucial part of their belief system as something private and confidential, something extremely personal – not to be discussed openly, certainly not to be represented in public. Symbolically this basic tenet of Christianity’s belief system is represented in one of the world’s most distinguished forms - the crucifix.

Although some hapless whit has claimed that the crucifix has been superseded by consumerism’s ultimate symbol, MacDonald’s M, the crucifix still stands firm for most believing Christians. In fact, take away this crucial symbol and all Christians may as well revert to Judaism.

Christianity, especially in its European form gave the woman equality she did not have before. The Nordic ideal of courtly love, of male-female balance, is absorbed by the Christian emphasis in honouring Mary as the mother of Jesus. Mel Gibson has in his film clearly focused on this important aspect of human nature, and perhaps also making an indirect comment about feminism by making the Devil an androgynous individual.

Those individuals who feel anger at anything Jewish on account of viewing the film will need to grow up a little more and begin to realize that the foundations of Christianity are Jewish conceptual foundations. These primitive and underdeveloped roots are, of course, re-fashioned into an inspirational and life-giving force whose conceptual framework is all inclusive and life-giving, rather than life-denying. So much according to the ideal of Christianity.

Any Jew who feels aggrieved by this film remains blind to the realities upon which the ‘Christian revolution’ is based: a rejection of excessive legalism and materialism at the expense of the Passion.

In the film Mel Gibson indicates there is dissent among the Jewish ranks – from within the temple and on the streets. But he also shows the brutality with which any such dissent is silenced and unhesitatingly smashed.

Did the Jews kill Christ? They asked for his death when Rome offered them a compromise by flogging the life out of him – but not kill him. But that was not enough for the Jews and they wanted Christ crucified. An offer was made to trade Christ’s life with that of a condemned murderer’s life. The Jews asked that the murderer be released – and thereby sealed Christ’s fate.

Perhaps we can be thankful to the hatred-blinded Jews that in their baseness they lusted for blood, thereby giving the world something to fight against in the form of Christianity.

Interestingly, the Revisionists can clearly identify with the film’s basic message: for fear of the Jews. The question is had Pontius Pilate not bent to the Jewish pressure would that have resolved the issues that were so much alive at that time? Perhaps, but most likely not because the Jewish mentality here is a problem. The dialectic framework needs to be analyzed but there is no room for that here.

Angry Jews who felt power slip from them through the success of this non-Jewish inspired, this Christian-made film, have a right to be concerned. The many protests over the film have devalued the once-powerful name-calling word: antisemite! Also, with one fell-swoop Mel Gibson has wiped away the fear of the Hollow-wood Jews who had dominated the industry’s mind and media for decades.

To date Gibson has not found anyone in France to distribute the film, and French distributors are waiting to see how the film is received in other European countries set to start screening in April. There is the fear that the film will generate anti-Jewish sentiments. It may, but it need not, not unless it is actually in the interest of the Jews to fan so-called ‘antisemitism’.

After all, anyone whose conceptual framework claims that victimhood is their lot will need scapegoats to continue to exist. Such individuals thrive on being victims, and here the ‘Holocaust’ plays a major role in the self-identification of the Jews: they are expecting a ‘Holocaust’; they are experiencing a ‘Holocaust’; they are just emerging from a ‘Holocaust’.

Fredrick Töben, Adelaide , 4 March 2004

‘The Movie.’ Written by the four Apostles. Directed and Produced by Mel Gibson

Yesterday morning at 9.30 I picked up Fredrick Toben in my 1976 Volvo (previously his; such is the generosity of the man), and off we went to carry out several tasks that needed to be taken care of. Routine tasks such as calling in at the post office, returning several copies of his latest book to the printer to have them retrimmed, and talking to a prospective sponsor for the publication of my new book Daylight Corroboree.

As usual the conversation got underway with the two of us comparing notes on how respectively broke we each were. Fredrick underlined his straightened circumstances by lamenting that he had not even sufficient money to go and see ‘The Movie.’ And I, too could see little prospect of being able to afford the luxury of a visit to the cinema in the foreseeable future.

Oddly enough though, although there had been no further discussion on the topic, at 12.50pm we found ourselves seated in a theatre at the Norwood Cinema Complex watching that which we had feared we would be unable to, by virtue of sacrificing lunch.

Well, I must say that our decision was thoroughly vindicated with both of us agreeing afterwards that Mel’s movie certainly beat the Hell out of a cheese sandwich and a cappuccino. Whereas the finest lunch is soon forgotten, there can be little doubt that Mister Gibson’s film provides us with not only a new perspective in our quest to better understand the human condition, but I would go as far as to say, a new platform mounted on thick concrete.

We are all familiar with the story of the mock trial and crucifixion of the Christ, but now for the first time it has been presented to us in a pure and unsanitized form. The dilemma of Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea , the intractability of the High Priest Caiaphus, and the mindless collective will of the hysterical mob are all portrayed uncompromisingly. As a concession to equal opportunity, both Satan and Herod are depicted as androgynous. But the cowardly brutality that we witness on the screen not only speaks volumes about the great forces of evil that influence the thoughts and actions of mankind, but it also speaks to us of the unshakable

imperative to the maintenance of human authority over all religious constructs. Put simply, there can be absolutely no room for the presence of a messiah within the materialistic cosmology of organised religion. If a genuine messiah were to appear within our midst today, the church would need to neutralise him immediately either by execution or consignment to prison or a madhouse, in order to save itself from oblivion.

A welcome omission from this movie are the syrupy American accents that have characterised Hollywood ’s renditions of ‘historical events’ in the past, and had many of us feeling like reaching for the bucket. Gibson’s decision to have the dialogue delivered in Aramaic and Latin worked well in assisting his audience to suspend disbelief.

For those who take the Christ literally to be the Son of God and the Saviour of Mankind and for those who see him more as a Symbolic figure; an exemplar of compassion and forgiveness, we can now add superhuman strength and resolve to the equation, for Mel Gibson has spurned the lamb and offered us in its place, a lion.

John Bayley

Adelaide , 4 March 2004

The one serious subject Hollywood doesn't avoid

More than 170 films about the Holocaust have been made since 1989. Six more are out this fall.

By David Sterritt | Film critic of The Christian Science Monitor

At a time when fantasies, comedies, and frivolous fare dominate the movie marketplace, films on serious subjects often seem like an endangered cultural species. Yet one utterly serious event - arguably the gravest of the past century - retains strong relevance for filmmakers and audiences.

This is the Holocaust, with the evidence it contained of a bestial inhumanity lurking at the heart of contemporary life.

One sign of ongoing interest in Holocaust films is the arrival of four new movies on the subject in American theaters during the next two months: "The Pianist" and "Amen." dramatize true experiences; "Max" is historical fiction; and "Blind Spot - Hitler's Secretary" is a documentary.

Another sign is the publication of Annette Insdorf's definitive book "Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust" in a new edition next month.

The author discusses no fewer than 170 films that have been made or rediscovered since the last edition in 1989.

"I could have devoted a whole new book to the recent titles alone," said Ms. Insdorf in a recent interview.

Although the new films were made before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, they may be viewed more attentively by moviegoers because of that day's tragic events. "We are still reeling from the approximately 3,000 people killed on 9/11," notes Insdorf, "but we should recall that this is the approximate number of Jews killed every single day for around five years during the Holocaust."

Films on the Holocaust have existed since World War II, first attracting wide US interest when newsreel footage of liberated death camps appeared in theaters.

Hollywood began tackling the subject in earnest with Stanley Kramer's epic "Judgment at Nuremberg " in 1961, and Steven Spielberg renewed its impact for a new generation with "Schindler's List" in 1993, earning his first Oscar for best director.

Filmmakers have taken on Holocaust themes for many reasons, including personal ties to the subject or a wish to explore their own Jewish roots. Mr. Spielberg has said he thought of dealing with the Holocaust long before he directed "Schindler's List," but purposefully delayed this until he felt he had grown enough as a filmmaker to do the subject justice.

Insdorf's study of Holocaust films has revealed growth and change since World War II. "Movies made during or just after the war often show a belief in interfaith solidarity," she observes. By contrast, Holocaust movies of the '50s and '60s usually focus "on Jewish victims and Nazi villains, establishing basic facts of deportation and extermination."

Later releases like "Schindler's List" tend to concentrate on "resistance and rescue," in Insdorf's words. Darkly humorous films like Roberto Benigni's popular "Life Is Beautiful" and the Robin Williams comedy "Jakob the Liar" constitute another trend.

Also present are stories such as "The Pawnbroker" and "Shine," portraying survivors as mentally damaged by the torments they've undergone. Insdorf finds these "problematic" because of the stereotypes they suggest.Why do Holocaust films have enduring interest, decades after the Holocaust took place?

"Holocaust films provide all the melodramatic scenarios that have huge popular appeal," says Harvey Roy Greenberg, a psychoanalyst and film scholar. "They have heroism and villainy, rescue and survival, voyages from terror to safety, sacrifice for redemptive causes, religious issues, love among the ruins. And these are all magnified 10,000 times because of the extremity of the situation."

The fact that most Holocaust films are made for entertainment purposes doesn't mean they're lacking in social value. "Speaking from the heart as a Jew," says Mr. Greenberg, "I think Holocaust films should be shown as often as possible. Historical memory is very short, and there's a great rebirth of fascism, fundamentalism, and anti-Semitism in the world."

At the moment, films on Holocaust themes are thriving. "The Believer," about a contemporary neo-Nazi, and "The Grey Zone," set in a concentration camp, opened earlier this year. Others will arrive in coming weeks.

• "The Pianist," directed by Roman Polanski, is based on concert pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman's book about his experiences in Warsaw. Played by Adrien Brody, the protagonist lives in the infamous Warsaw ghetto, escapes deportation to a death camp, and survives in hiding as Nazis occupy his beleaguered city. It won the highest prize at the Cannes film festival.

Mr. Polanski has close connections to this story. He escaped from the Krakow ghetto as a child, lost much of his family to Nazi brutality, and reportedly turned down the opportunity to direct "Schindler's List" because he felt filming on location in Krakow would be too emotionally painful.

• "Amen." looks closely at the Vatican 's failure to take an uncompromising stance against Nazi genocide. Based on Roch Hochhuth's controversial play "The Deputy," it tells a sweeping story with two central characters. One is a young German engineer who joins the Nazi ranks, motivated by patriotism and duty. The other protagonist is a young Jesuit priest who strives to make his superiors hear and heed the German's urgent message, running into resistance at almost every step.

• "Max" explores the roots of the Holocaust in the demented ideas of the Nazi Party - and just as crucially, in the overall nature of German culture after World War I. John Cusack plays a Jewish art dealer who fought for Germany in the war. Returning to Munich , he befriends an eccentric artist named Adolf Hitler, thinking he can moderate the young man's anti-Semitic attitudes by encouraging him to stick with his painting career.

• "Blind Spot - Hitler's Secretary" continues the imposing lineup of Holocaust documentaries. It presents an interview with Traudl Junge, who worked for the dictator and resided in his fortified bunker. Ms. Junge, who refused to share her memories for many years, is strikingly candid, acknowledging Hitler's personal charm and confessing her complete failure to grasp the true evil of his activities.

Not all of the new Holocaust movies are free from controversy, as the debate over "Max" illustrates. Insdorf calls the film a "provocative drama ... with wonderful performances."

Taking a different view, Jewish Defense League spokesman Brett Stone writes on the organization's website that the film is "a psychic assault on Holocaust survivors and the entire Jewish community," fearing the film's portrait of Hitler as a young, idiosyncratic artist will serve to "glorify or humanize him in moviegoers' eyes."

Remarks like these continue a line of discussion that has gone on for decades among commentators on Holocaust films. Some feel any reproduction of Holocaust material risks giving some degree of aesthetic pleasure to those who view it.

One such critic is Susan Sontag, who wrote in 1980, "The display of atrocity in the form of photographic evidence risks being tacitly pornographic." Some makers of Holocaust documentaries, such as Claude Lanzmann in "Shoah," refuse to present "atrocity footage" at all.

While they may take different forms and spark debates, Holocaust movies will continue to pour from directors who respect the potential of film for keeping the past alive and staving off callousness in the present. "The Holocaust not only provides a dramatic context [for stories]," Insdorf says, "but cautionary tales, as well. A sad basic fact that connects World War II to our own time is indifference."

Truth is no defence

----- Original Message -----

From: C-FAR

To: cafe@canadafirst.net

Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 6:04 PM

Subject: EVIDENCE CSIS PLOTTED WITH THE U.S. TO RETURN ZÜNDEL TO CANADA ?

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Ingrid Rimland, Ernst Zündel's wife, was told by an American official that Mr. Zündel was ordered deported and handed over to the Canadians, February 19, 2003, as a quid pro quo. CSIS has had a longstanding grudge against Mr. Zündel.

Furthermore, CSIS, according to Andrew Mitrovica's book Covert Entry - available from CAFE for $45 postpaid - knew a pipebomb was being sent to Mr. Zündel in May, 1995, and warned its mail-opening agents, but did nothing to warn Mr. Zündel, the Post Office or Air Canada .

Apparently, CSIS wanted Mr. Zündel back in Canada to punish him for his political views. The Americans, apparently, wanted Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian suspected to ties with al Qaeda. The Americans turned over Ernst Zündel. CSIS tipped off the Americans about Arar's travels. He was arrested in the U.S. deported to Syria and, by his account, tortured.
Until recently, this account may have had little but circumstantial evidence to support it. However, along comes a group called the Libertarian Socialist News. On their website, March 6, they posted the following:

"Intercepted CSIS / CIN Emails -- [Bill: And for those who want a laugh, I just called the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service's Immigration Department on his private, secure, "intelligence" cell phone -- I forget his name, something French (Egon or Etienne or something -- I couldn't understand him) -- and told him we have all the secret, intelligence-related, internal emails he has ever written about Ernst Zündel and will be releasing them on the internet in the near future. He got a bit upset when I began reading some of these emails to him. It was quite amusing. I love French Canadians when they are real upset because they are absolutely unintelligible ...

A comrade forwarded on today all the internal Candian Security and Intelligence Service and Canadian Immigration Service emails that have been sent regarding Zündel in the past four years and so, and they demonstrate that the CSIS conspired to strip Ernst Zündel of his rights in Canada and leave him a man without a country, as well as set him up for this ridiculous proceeding and otherwise anatagonize him. We will be publishing several of these emails in the coming weeks.

Here's the first one. ;-D ]

To: Bleiwas-Oakes.:

ils@8604BCZ@CINA

From: Taylor.Ian@604BCZ@CINA

Cc: Deschenes.Claudettte@8601BCD@CINA, Rikhof.Joseph@8614bcw@CINA,

Gauthier.Annette@8601BCD@CINA
Subject: Re: Fwd: Zundel: Permanent Resident of the US

Attachment:
Date: 3/21/01 11:49 AM

Thanks Sheila.

Claudette, I am not sure if you will see Dan Cadman or someone else in INS in Washington . If possible, could you ask them to confirm if Ernst Christoff Zundel ( 24 July 1939 , Germany ) is in fact an Alien Resident of US now, as per info from Service and in media. He was landed in Canada in 1958 but has been denied CC as you knoq. If we can confirm his US residence we may be able to strip him of his PR in Canada . Many thanks, Ian

Ian Taylor,

Director Security Review BCZ),

Case Management Branch, NHQ

TEL 613-952-6336

CELL 613-795-8192

613-952-6825
---Original Text---

From: Bleiwas-Oakes.Sheila@8604BCZ@CINA, on 03/20/20001 11:29 AM

fyi. This info is from CSIS and also "Solicitor-client privilege". It might be a good idea to get

the confirmation from your US contacts.

Sheila Bielwas Oakes

Analyst
Security Review (BCZ)

Tel (613) 954-6615

Fax (613) 952-6825

From: Redden.Rosemarie@8602BCM@CINA on 3/9/01 8:59 AM

To: Bleiwas-Oakes.Sheila@8604BCZ@CINA, taylot. Ian@8604BCZ@CINA

FYI
----- Original Text -----

From: Yurack.Paul@8850BLD@CINA, on 03/08/2001 5:43 PM

To: ybb

cc, mam, Redden.Rosemarie@8602BCM@CINA, Rikhof.Joseph@8614bcw@CINA

Protected Solicitor - Client Privilege / Protege - Secret professional de l'avocat

DLSU File No.:

Yaron,
Just a quick heads-up. I received a letter from CSIS Legal Counsel, Murray Rodych, which indicates that Mr Zundel has moved to the United States where he now resides permanently with his wife. This may provide CIC with grounds for potential enforcement action under s. 24 of the Immigration Act.

Paul A Yurack, Counsel/Avocat

Legal Services / Services Juridiques

Citizenship And Immigration / Citoyenne et Immigration

Tel: (613) 957-5996

Fax: (613) 952-4744

Internet: Paul.Yurack@8850BLD.CINA.CIC.GC.CA

Emailed to you by:

Libertarian Socialist News

ATTN: Bill White, Editor"

Certainly, if authentic, these e-mails provide strong evidence of CSIS's interest in causing Mr.

Zundel grief after his departure to the U.S.

Internet Service Provider Bernard Klatt wrote the following informative letter to Kirk Makin,

ace reporter for the Globe and Mail:

6-March-04
Globe and Mail

Attn: Kirk Makin

Re: CSIS Internal Security

Compromised ?

Dear Mr. Makin,

Thank you for the one of the few reasonably objective commentaries on Ernst Zundel's

continued imprisonment.

( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/

LAC/20040306/ZUNDEL06/Comment/Idx )

As one of the persons named in the CSIS unclassified "summary" re: Zundel, I have some interest in following this case. Yesterday I noticed a posting at

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6812 that purports to be a partial release of CSIS/CIC secret, intelligence-related, internal emails regarding Ernst Zundel.

It appears someone forwarded a large collection of emails to Bill White (Overthrow.com). If real, this could prove to be an enormous embarassment for CSIS (which prides itself on having 'security' expertise) because it could mean that CSIS has been penetrated by a 'mole/spy' who managed to collect 4 years of email regarding Ernst Zundel.

If this person managed to collect CSIS/CIC email regarding Zundel, it is highly likely that they also managed to collect CSIS/CIC secret, intelligence-related, internal e-mails regarding other persons or topics as well.

Or.. it could mean that the much vaunted CSIS 'security' expertise has been severely compromised by an outside hacker. Perhaps one of the CSIS agents PC's has a keyboard logger/trojan installed on it and is being accessed remotely by a hacker.

Either way, there is tremendous potential for an investigative reporter to get a really interesting story here. Perhaps you would be interested in following up this lead?

Sincerely,
--Bernard Klatt

Mr. Klatt reports further: "I did do Google searches on all the CSIS/CIC names mentioned and they are definitely real. The attached Word document is what I found via Google and contains the fixed up email addresses for the agents. The stuff posted on Overthrow.com contains spelling errors and most of the agents email addresses are incomplete. The last 5 characters (@CINA) needs to be expanded to ( CINA.CIC.GC.CA ) to form a valid email address.
I see Paul Yurack sent the following email to ybb Yaron suggesting "grounds for potential enforcement action under s. 24 of the Immigration Act." The first name "Yaron" is a distinctly Israeli/Jewish male name. Is it too late for Peter Lindsay to attempt to determine the identity of this "Yaron" individual? Is there some reason CIC counsel Yurack, needs to be emailing an Israeli/Jewish person regarding Zundel?

From: Yurack.Paul@8850BLD@CINA, on 03/08/2001 5:43 PM

To: ybb

cc, mam,

Redden.Rosemarie@8602BCM@CINA, Rikhof.Joseph@8614bcw@CINA
Protected Solicitor - Client Privilege / Protege - Secret professional de l'avocat
DLSU File No.:

Paul A Yurack, Counsel/Avocat

If ybb Yaron is on staff at CSIS or Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), there should be a reasonable apprehension of bias due to his apparent Israeli/Jewish identity. Or.. is ybb Yaron someone on staff at the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Weisenthal Centre, B'nai Brith, or the Israeli embassy, etc..? If so, why is Yurack e-mailing him about Zundel?"

Section 24 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states: "A foreign national who, in the opinion of the officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act, becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances." It would appear that Paul Yurack may have contemplated that, by a given date, Mr. Zündel might have lost his landed immigrant status, and, therefore, be subject to much more arbitrary measures.

All this bears questioning in Court.

Paul Fromm

Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Soros vs. Shevardnadze

Stephen Gowans

Shevardnadze’s alliances with corporate Russia were an invitation to be overthrown. And sweeping the former golden boy aside wouldn’t prove to be too difficult. The infrastructure was already in place. US billionaire George Soros was backing the anti-Shevardnadze opposition, including a television station, Rustavi 2, the anti-Shevardnadze newspaper, 24 Hours, and a student direct action group, Kmara! (Enough!), modelled on Yugoslavia ’s Otpor (Resistance), also bankrolled by Soros. Plus, a successor had already been anointed: US-trained lawyer, Mikhail Saakashvili, zealously pro-US, whose glitzy biography, paid for by the US government, could be bought in Tbilisi bookstores, bursting with photographs of the rising Georgian star with the US political elite: George Soros, John McCain (who Saakashvili says he’s closest to politically), Edward Kennedy, Attorney-General John Ashcroft, and FBI Director Louis Freeh. What’s more, the great man himself, Soros, had personally conferred the Open Society award, named after his Open Society Institute, on Saakashvili.

In fact, Soros did more than put up the cash to fund the infrastructure that would chase Shevardnadze from power. He set the stage. Last year, he told a Moscow news conference that Shevardnadze couldn’t be trusted to hold free and fair parliamentary elections in 2003, which was true enough. Georgia had never had elections that weren’t flawed, so why start now? The question was, why hadn’t Soros said anything before? Going further, Soros issued a warning. He said he’d “mobilize civil society” to do “what we did...in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic.” And true to his word, events pretty well followed the path they had in October 2000, when Milosevic was forced to step down. And they’ll follow the same path they did after October, 2000, as well.

After Milosevic’s ouster, it was generally agreed in the Panglossian fashion that makes everyone feel better about an outrage committed by our side, that in the end, Yugoslavs would probably be better off without Milosevic. You could quibble about outside interference in Yugolsav politics, but on balance, the scales had tipped in the right direction. In this vein, Canada’s establishment newspaper, The Globe and Mail, grudgingly admitted that “it would be naive to assume that geopolitics played no part at all” in Shevardnadze’s fall from power, but that “whatever the forces that led to his ouster, Georgians are better off without him.”

Why should we suppose this? Milosevic’s successors in Yugoslavia have hardly been more democratic, and economically, their reform policies have been a disaster, as they’ve been for ordinary people everywhere. Life is only better for Serbs in a negative sense. Quislings aren’t bombed and slapped with sanctions, so now Serbs can get fuel oil to heat their homes in the winter and go about their daily business, free from worry they’ll become one of the tens of thousands of cases of “collateral damage” the US military has a habit of producing that US politicians keep deeply regretting.

As for Shevardnadze, it’s true enough that he offered nothing to ordinary Georgians, but why should anyone think that Shevardnadze’s presumed successor, Saakashvili, will offer Georgians relief from grinding poverty, freedom from being exploited by corporate interests, or will wrest the political system from the hands of US-funded NGO’s and George Soros and put it into the hands of Georgians, where it belongs? He’s backed by the same forces that originally backed Shevardnadze, he’s committed to the same policies of “economic reform” that plunged Georgia into the depths of poverty, and he’s only different in pledging his heart exclusively to corporate America , and to his patron George Soros. A velvet revolution? There has been no revolution. All that’s happened is that head office has fired the old branch manager and replaced him with a new one who’s just as keen to see to it that the employees get screwed. ..

Soros Toppled Governments in Poland , Czechoslovakia , Hungary

Neil Clark, New Statesman, 2 June 03

The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite’s failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros’s role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland’s Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union . In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a “civil society”, these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe’s eventual colonisation by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the “Americanisation” of eastern Europe.

The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic’s unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and “independent” media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world’s richest men on behalf of the world’s most powerful nation. With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d’etat financed, planned and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the ex- Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with those other custodians of human rights Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you’ve guessed it) Human Rights Watch.

Israel eager to gag nuclear whistleblower
The Age, Melbourne , January 6, 2004
By Dan Williams, Jerusalem

At Last Reunited

By Jonathan M. Katz

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BNEI BRAK, Israel For nearly 60 years, Binyamin Shilon believed his sister was among the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Now he holds her in his arms and cries with joy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031223-112046-7768r.htm

Former Holocaust denier wants to atone

By AP, Feb. 14, 2004

BUCHAREST, Romania

An ultranationalist politician accused of making anti-Semitic remarks has promised to organize a pilgrimage to a Nazi death camp in an appeal for forgiveness of his past statements, a newspaper reported Saturday. Corneliu Vadim Tudor, who heads the Greater Romania Party, made the pledge in a letter to Eyal Arad, the chairman of an advertising firm in Israel. Tudor plans to run for president this year and wants the Israeli firm to work on his campaign, said Nati Meir, his adviser. The letter was published in the Jurnalul National.

"I am asking for forgiveness from all Jews," Tudor said. "I've changed."

Tudor, who once denied that the Holocaust occurred in Romania, said he would lead a group of party members to the site of the Auschwitz camp in southern Poland this year. He also promised that if he became president, he would introduce the study of the Holocaust in schools. Romania was a German ally during most of World War II, and tens of thousands of Jews and Gypsies died in concentration camps in Romania and elsewhere in Nazi-occupied Europe.

During communist times, children were taught that Germans were the sole perpetrators of the Holocaust, ignoring the involvement of Romania's wartime leaders. Since the fall of communism in 1989, schools have largely failed to address the issue of Romanian involvement in the atrocities.

Last month, Tudor unveiled a bust of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in central Romania. Israeli officials accused Tudor of using the late prime minister's memory to further his election campaign. Romania was home to 760,000 Jews before World War II, and an estimated 420,000 were killed. About 6,000 Jews now live in Romania.

Viking burial boat found

From correspondents in London

February 17, 2004
THE first Viking boat burial site ever discovered in England has been found by a pair of amateur treasure hunters using a metal detector, British reports said.

The duo uncovered a hoard of silver coins, fragments of swords and shields and other items from the late ninth century, notably some iron "clinch nails" which experts think were used to construct a Viking longboat, The Times said.

The location of the site in the Yorkshire region of northern England is being kept secret until it is properly excavated, with archaeologists believing it could be the burial site of an affluent warrior with his boat, the report said.

Although Viking boat burials have previously been uncovered in Scotland and Ireland , this would be the first such find in England .

If it did turn out to be a boat burial, it would be "one of the most important Viking discoveries ever made in the British isles ," Simon Holmes, an archaeologist with the Yorkshire Museum , told The Times.

Holmes told The Guardian newspaper separately that the late ninth century was a period "we know comparatively little about" with regards to the Vikings in Britain .

"Previous finds have mainly related to the earlier period when the Vikings were just raiding, or to later when they began settling," he said.

Vikings from what are now Norway and Denmark began raiding parts of Britain from the start of the ninth century, with many later trading with local people and settling in the country.

Agence France-Presse