A Reply and Challenge to Ben Gadd By Monika Schaefer

A Reply and Challenge to Ben Gadd

By Monika Schaefer

Sunday, January 8th, 2017

Back in December, Ben Gadd responded to the shock expressed by a mutual friend about my expulsion from the Jasper Environmental Associaton (JEA). A small sample from Ben:

yegaddz

Holocaust denial is a federal offense in Canada, a serious crime. It’s hate speech, not free speech. That’s because it’s a particularly virulent lie promulgated by anti-Semites. And anti-Semitism, as we all know, has resulted in the hate-sparked deaths of millions of people over many hundreds of years. Hate crimes of all sorts occur in Canada, and they are not tolerated, especially this one. Nor is the public expression of the hateful beliefs that fuel such crimes…

The following letter by Rocky Notnes seemed like a natural and logical reaction to a situation by a person who apparently is not affected by all the control words which are meant to elicit a certain programmed response. He penned this letter after learning that I had been expelled from the JEA.

December 17, 2016

Dear JEA members

This is Rocky Notnes from the Entrance ranch near Hinton. Some of you will know me through the Alberta Environmental Network over the past 30 or so years.

Some, if not all of you probably also know that I wrote a letter to the Jasper newspapers, which was published in both, defending Monika Schaefer’s right to free speech re the holocaust. So my stand will not be news to you.

When I learned that she was expelled from JEA for her views as well as almost everything else I was quite surprised and disappointed. It seems like JEA have jumped on the anti-Monika bandwagon with most of the people in Jasper in what seems to have become a stampede. It is as if people are trying to distance themselves as if they think they are guilty by virtue of just knowing her.

I have known Monika before and after and I do not see her having changed, other than speaking out on an issue that obviously is taboo! While I am not a “holocaust denier” as it is called now, I find your, and others in Jasper, reaction appalling. It seems to me that if members of the JEA felt so strongly about it they could have issued a statement that they do not support Monika in her views. That’s all.  But this is democracy “in reaction”, not “action”!

I feel the same way about Elizabeth May and the Green Party,,, they could have issued a statement disassociating themselves from her views. But to boot somebody out for expressing a view, regardless of the topic, when she has been an upstanding member of the community all her life is, going over the top, in my view.

 

Regards, Rocky Notnes


The following day this rather patronizing diatribe came from Ben Gadd:

Thanks for writing to all of us, Rocky. I didn’t think I’d ever disagree with you about anything, but in Monika’s case I have to. Hers is not a free-speech issue. Here’s why.

Holocaust denial is a federal offense in Canada, a serious crime. It’s hate speech, not free speech. That’s because it’s a particularly virulent lie promulgated by anti-Semites. And anti-Semitism, as we all know, has resulted in the hate-sparked deaths of millions of people over many hundreds of years. Hate crimes of all sorts occur in Canada, and they are not tolerated, especially this one. Nor is the public expression of the hateful beliefs that fuel such crimes.

If Monika had kept her views to herself, as many anti-Semites do, none of this would have come up. But she hasn’t. In 2013, out of the blue, she sent me a “truther” video blaming the 9/11 attacks on the “Zionists,” i.e. the Jews.

Like other fake news on the Internet, this is a complete fabrication. Go to http://www.debunking911.com for a detailed analysis.

Monika approached other JEA members, too. We didn’t push her away at that point. Some of us took the time to reason with her and direct her to factual sources. I told her that such conspiracy theories are hazardous. They inevitably lead to hatred of whoever is accused of directing the conspiracy. I thought that Monika — the Monika we used to know and love — would realize the depth and danger of the rabbit hole she was going down and quickly reverse her direction.

But she rejected such advice and kept going, deeper and deeper, until now she seems to have reached the bottom, a scary place shared by the likes of Ernst Zündel and James Keegstra (and, alas, Monika’s own brother Alfred). At that point I pushed her away. As has the JEA.

The JEA is a group of like-minded, high-minded folks. We don’t hate anyone. We don’t hate Monika. Rather, our group works together to watch over Jasper National Park and alert the world to activities we see as harmful to this place we love. For that job the organization needs the public on side. And they are. As the polls show, Canadians believe what environmental groups such as the JEA have to say about the value of the park and how it needs to be protected, while Canadians do not buy the commercially-tainted stuff that park exploiters try to sell everyone in their self-promotional ad campaigns. Given the facts, which is what the JEA provides, it’s easy for people to tell the difference between the JEA’s clear and honest position of integrity and some corporation’s clever attempt to get what it wants.

So maintaining our integrity is crucial to the JEA. Opening our membership to vocal haters of any sort, who have accepted obvious lies and seek to spread them, would seriously damage that integrity.

Not only that, any society incorporated in Alberta must exist for a “benevolent, philanthropic, charitable, provident, scientific, artistic, literary, social, educational, agricultural, sporting or other useful purpose” [Societies Act, section 3(1)]. It goes without saying that (a) members should be in agreement with this statement and the goals of the society, (b) that spreading hatred is not included in the statement or in the JEA’s goals, and (c) that anyone doing so cannot be a member.

Monika can go on and on about how she’s the one with integrity, how she’s the victim and those organizations that have rejected her are the haters, but these are just tactics. They are used all the time by people held to account for bad behavior.

A good definition of integrity is “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.” (Just Google the word.) A person of integrity doesn’t try to convince others that dark-skinned people, for example (substitute indigenous people or Muslims or Jews, etc.) are evil and/or subhuman and should be discriminated against. Such beliefs are in themselves evil, because they are lies. These are not honest beliefs. These are falsehoods so easily exposed that they can be accepted only by the willing suspension of disbelief. You have to want to believe them, despite all the evidence. And there goes your integrity.

Worse, hateful beliefs provide excuses to hurt people. Bigoted mistreatment of minorities occurs all the time, even in Canada, and I’m sure that you, as I, abhor it. Anyone engaged in it is not acting with integrity.

And here’s what really hurts me. I think that Monika — pleasant, friendly Monika, the likeable Jasper violinist — is being used by her new anti-Semitic associates to give Holocaust denial a fresh face. They are turning her into something she’s basically not.

I hope that she awakens one morning to the truth about this (the real truth, not the “truther” truth) and disavows both the intellectual poison she has been fed and the whole crowd purveying it. I hope this occurs soon, before it brings her further mental and emotional injury and before the fully committed haters who are manipulating her succeed in recruiting others through her.

If Monika comes to her senses, all she has to do to extricate herself from this mess is to publicly disavow it, even if she’s sitting in prison for breaking the law, which might be the case. She needs to tell everyone that she was misled, that she was wrong, and that she is sorry for the hateful things she has said. If this happens, I have no doubt that she will mean it, and I will forgive her. I think we would all forgive her. We’d give her a hug and welcome her back to the real world.

Believing in Monika and anticipating that she will turn her life around,

 

— Ben


Screen Shot 2016-08-07 at 4.23.58 PM

Monika Schaefer

My Open Letter to Ben Gadd and the Jasper Environmental Association, January 5 2017 ~ by Monika Schaefer

Happy New Year to you all! Let us hope that this will be the year during which the light of truth becomes ever brighter.

Ben you seem intent on seeing me imprisoned. Let me assure you, that if it should come to that (which I doubt), I would rather be in jail with a free mind, than be a mind-controlled Pavlovian conditioned slave in the Orwellian world of double-speak where peace is war and black is white.

Truth is Hate to those who Hate the Truth.

CIA Director William Casey said in February 1981 in a staff meeting with newly elected President Ronald Reagan, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Thank you very much Ben for bringing up 9/11 in your letter. Most people around the world know that was a false flag event and that controlled demolition brought down the three towers. You claim I sent you a video blaming 9/11 on Zionists, therefore anti-Semitic. In fact I gave you the DVD called “Experts Speak Out” by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Their hallmark is that they investigate the physical aspects of what happened on 9/11, never the “who-done-it”. You reveal your prejudice on that story by implying that ae911truth.org is an anti-Semitic organization. How exactly does their scientific analysis of the chemistry, the architecture, the physics, the thermodynamics etc., add up to anti-Semitism? Who planted that meme into your head?

True, 9/11 was in fact a Zionist operation, therefore the powers-that-be preemptively try to steer people in another direction by using weaponized words such as “anti-Semitic” against anyone who dares question the official narrative.

Would you call me anti-Semitic for pointing out that Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 American Servicemen and injuring many more, and tried to blame Egypt? Had they succeeded in sinking the ship, they might have got away with the deception of blaming another country. Blaming a third party for misdeeds is what is called false flag and Israel is very good at it. I would venture a guess that some people in the JEA have never heard of the USS Liberty. That unfortunate “incident” was suppressed by the Johnston administration, and the mainstream media dutifully fell into line.

What about the Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, which helped to speed up the establishment of the state of Israel? According to the Jerusalem Post, they rarely call that a terrorist event in Israel, they commemorate it instead.

http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/This-Week-in-History-The-King-David-Hotel-bombing

Is it anti-Semitic to point out these well-documented facts? “Anti-Semitic” is just a Weaponized Control Trigger word which is meant to shut down rational thought and discussion. In fact, former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni agrees with my assessment of that. She calls it a trick, “we always use it…”

Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni- Anti-Semitic Trick!

The Israeli Mossad motto is “By way of Deception, thou shalt make War”. Wouldn’t it be more noble to have a motto about standing up for Truth and Justice and Peace? By way of deception — think about that word!

Formerly Jewish Israeli Gilad Atzmon puts it this way: Jewish power is the ability to silence criticism of Jewish Power.

Regarding WW2 history, nobody has been able to answer my question about the basic maths. In Auschwitz alone, the official death count has dropped by almost 3 million, yet the mythical 6 million number remains the same. In January 1933, the Jewish population of Germany was approximately 522,000. More than half emigrated during the following 6 years. It is difficult to imagine how 6 million could have been herded into gas chambers, even when Jewish populations from surrounding countries are taken into account. The numbers simply don’t add up. And how could there have been so many “survivors”, who then collected reparation money, and still collect reparations to this day, if 6 million were killed? And how is it that pre- and post-war population figures indicate no reduction in Jewish numbers – was there a giant unprecedented baby boom the likes of which has never been seen before or since?

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85432

The mythical 6 million number appeared many times in the decades preceding WW2.

http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

Are you familiar with the Doctrine of Judicial Notice? This doctrine allows courts to recognize as “fact” matters that are “common knowledge”. This doctrine has been used in the courts to avoid actual evidence which might run contrary to the victor’s version and Hollywood depiction of the so-called Jewish Holocaust. Evidence is not required because “The Holocaust” is self-evident. How is that for circular logic? Articles 19 and 21 of the Nuremberg trials stated as much, and Justice Thomas T. Johnson used the doctrine of judicial notice in the case by Mel Mermelstein against the Institute for Historical Review in 1981.

See this article for a thorough discussion of the Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust. You might choose to dismiss it as it comes from the Institute for Historical Review, but keep in mind the perverse logic of the doctrine which I explained in the previous paragraph.  It is a 2-part article, highly footnoted, and very educational.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html

To all the people who have actively spurned me, actively expelled me from organizations, actively ostracized me (you figure prominently in the JEA strangely enough), it is especially important for you to spend a little bit of time looking into these matters. Even just reading the one article from the IHR to which I supplied the link above, should give you pause to consider that it might not be me who is so 100% wildly wrong on these very important matters. If you react with the common “I refuse to debate this and I refuse to look at this”, how can you be so sure you are 100% right?

Meanwhile you go along with the casting of stones. Are you afraid to look? Do you actually believe I have lost my sanity, causing me to risk all – and to what end? Or might it occur to you in a tiny corner of your brain and heart and soul that just maybe, just maybe, there is another story here, one which is being viciously suppressed.

The Nuremberg Trials truly can be compared to the witch trials of the Middle Ages. This short video puts the matter into that context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-o_Fk0ezls

Ben Gadd, you of all people surprise me the most. The American draft dodger from the Vietnam era, the environmental guru, you always stood up for what you believed in. You always told us: question everything, don’t trust authority, governments lie to us. In that light, your outright dismissal and condemnation of me make absolutely no sense to me.

Your behaviour only makes sense if you were Sayanim. If that is the case, everything makes sense!

The fact that this one event in our history is untouchable should be enough to raise serious questions about it. Why are we not allowed to question and investigate this one event? Might it be because there is something to hide? Might it also be due to a particular group of people benefitting from it?

Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply ask who you are not allowed to criticize.

Finally, to answer the question that some have asked me: “To what end Monika?” A world of lies and deceptions is a world of war and turmoil. That is not the world I want to sit idle in and leave it as such for our children and grandchildren. I desire a world of Peace, Light, Love and Beauty. That comes only through charting our course through the world with a map based on Truth.

Monika Schaefer

Some further thoughts, …

Ben Gadd’s letter gave me the opportunity to write my response (above). I provided many links and many documented facts and I asked a few basic questions. None of that was addressed in this following response from Ben which came the very next day. It is interesting to note that instead of answering any questions or addressing any of the issues at hand, Ben uses language that is intended to so intimidate the mind-softened people to not even dare consider using their own brain. He continues to engage in name-calling and to use plenty of Weaponized Control Trigger words.


January 6th, 2017 from Ben:

Monika’s torrent of words leads to her saying this of me:

“Your behaviour only makes sense if you were Sayanim. If that is the case, everything makes sense!”

I had to look up “Sayanim.” It’s Hebrew for “assistants,” and it refers to Jews living outside Israel who assist the Mossad. More generally, it means Israeli secret agents.

Yikes! I’ve been exposed. (But it does remind to me go give my handler a ring. My cheque is late this month.)

All kidding aside, I am not now, nor have I ever been anyone’s secret agent for anything. Monika is just playing the ultimate card in the conspiracy theorist’s deck. Anyone who opposes the theory is part of the conspiracy.

This is paranoid-delusional, I know, but it’s also a bit scary. Anti-Semites can be quite nasty. They have their enemies list, and if I wasn’t on it already I am now. Should the Truthers come to power — a growing possibility in the Age of Trump — I can expect them to come after me.

That’s how hate speech works. The haters find their targets, denounce them and wait for the mob to do the rest.

After I sent that long reply to Rocky back on December 18th, I noted a long gap in new postings to Monika’s website. (Her anti-Semitic “freespeechmonika.wordpress.com” website, not her benign “monikaschaefer.ca” website.) Perhaps she was just taking some time off from her campaign, but I was hoping that she had withdrawn for some reflection on where all this was taking her. I was really hoping that the next posting would be a heartfelt retraction of the venemous stuff she had been saying.

Alas, not to be. At the end of the year Monika was back, attacking Elizabeth May again as some sort of Zionist puppet and telling us that climate change is caused by you-know-who spreading chemicals through the sky in the form of passenger-jet contrails. This is loonie stuff, but loads of unhappy, gullible people looking for someone to blame their troubles on believe it. Intelligent, articulate and reasonable-sounding Monika is clearly a rising star in their world. I haven’t seen a Donate button on her site, but perhaps that will be next.

Whatever, I’m done with this. Rocky, I’ve said my piece. Monika, for the last time, please, pretty-please, realize that the road you are on leads to Holocaust II.

Sincerely, and ‘bye for now,

 

— Ben


Ben is right in a way, in that I should have been clearer and simply said that his behaviour is like someone who is a Sayan and not imply (with my word if..) that he might actually be a real live Sayan. He says he is not, so there you have it.

For this he calls me “paranoid-delusional”, while in the next breath, engages in his own “paranoid-delusional” thoughts by saying, … “Anti-Semites can be quite nasty. They have their enemies list, and if I wasn’t on it already I am now. Should the Truthers come to power — a growing possibility in the Age of Trump — I can expect them to come after me.”

Ben, take a big breath, calm down and don’t worry your little PC heart that the knock on the door at 2 or 3 pm is the new Gestapo. (PC does not stand for Progressive Conservative like here in Canada, so just in case you have to look it up – its Politically Correct!) It will just be your neighbour wanting to borrow a cup of sweet lies that you have accepted and stored in abundance. Sweet comfortable lies that I have now thrown in the trash.

Ben then accuses me of being a “hater” and of saying “venomous” stuff. Isn’t this an ironic accusation when all I’m saying with regard to the “Holocaust” is that the German people were NOT guilty of that crime and there is overwhelming evidence to support that position? Now with 9/11, I am accusing organised jewry of carrying out that crime. So, you see, accusations of being a “hater”, etc., cuts both ways and can be used to prevent the truth from coming out. Are the police and courts “haters” when they accuse the Mafia of crimes? Are the police and courts “haters” when they sentence revisionists to years in prison for thinking the wrong thoughts?

Finally Ben ends with this melodramatic flourish, … “Whatever, I’m done with this. Rocky, I’ve said my piece. Monika, for the last time, please, pretty-please, realize that the road you are on leads to Holocaust II.”

Besides begging the very question of “Holocaust I” that is at the heart of the issue at hand, I believe that people like Ben Gadd are unwittingly helping to create a horrifying tyranny that allows no dissent, that crushes anyone who questions what organised jewry says.

So Ben, don’t run away in “outrage”. Perhaps I am wrong, so please engage me in polite and reasoned debate on substantial issues like the “Holocaust” or 9/11.

You never know how minds can be changed.


SOURCE ARTICLE

Report on week two of  Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham    by  Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the news concerning this important trial further afield.

To date only the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, and CBC Prince George have given coverage to the story so it’s now firmly established that Canada’s major news networks (all of which are either controlled or heavily influenced by the foreign Zionist lobby) have no intention of informing the general public on this matter.

As I previously stated in the first report it’s up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers around the world.

The original time period allotted for the trial indicated that it would conclude by Friday, November 6th but such is not the case. It will now carry on into week three and likely conclude on Tuesday, November 10th one day prior to Canada’s federal holiday known as Remembrance Day.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

To Alternative Media Sources
Report on week two of
Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham

by
Arthur Topham

The second week of Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial R v Roy Arthur Topham got underway Monday morning, November 2nd, 2015.

Witness #1 former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team

During the fourth day of the first week of testimony (October 29, 2015) Defence attorney Barclay Johnson had cross examined former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator involved in the current Sec. 319(2) charge, arrest and incarceration of Mr. Topham back in May of 2012. Throughout his questioning of Wilson it was clearly shown that the former detective was not an “expert” on what constituted “hate” and that Wilson was solely relying upon only one definition of “hatred” which appeared in the Keegstra case from back in the 1980’s. It was also evident from the former Hate Crime Unit investigator’s statements that after the second complainant had filed his complaint to the BC Hate Crime Team back in May of 2011 Wilson traveled over to Victoria, B.C. to interview the complainant who, during the course of the taped conversation, told Wilson that he’d also been involved in laying an earlier complaint against Topham back in 2007 as a representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. That earlier Sec. 13(1) complaint on the part of B’nai Brith Canada, fortunately for Topham, was stayed in 2010 pending the outcome of a Constitutional challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Act (where the legislation existed); one that ultimately resulted in the repeal of Sec. 13(1) in June of 2012.

In the course of their interview the complainant told Wilson that his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, didn’t think they had any evidence strong enough to gain a conviction under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada until Topham published his “book” Israel Must Perish! on his website May 28th, 2011. The complainant, upon reading what was in actuality a satire that Topham had written of the actual book Germany Must Perish! concluded that he now had sufficient evidence to prove to a court of law that Topham was proposing the total annihilation of the Jewish population and would therefore qualify as a candidate for a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team.

Under cross examination Defence attorney Johnson suggested to Wilson that it wasn’t until the complainant had told him about the “book” that he made his decision to charge Topham.

Topham’s attorney also brought forth evidence clearly showing Wilson to have abused his police powers during the course of his investigation when he wrote a personal letter to Topham’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) Netfirms.ca back on November 21, 2012 informing them that Topham had been charged on November 5, 2012 with a Sec. 319(2) CCC offence of “Wilfully Promoting Hatred”. Defence pointed out to the court that Wilson had taken it upon himself to go to Netfirms.ca, read through their policy and then suggested to the company that Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal charge “may in fact contravene” said policy under section 4(b)(i). The result of Wilson’s letter to Netfirms.ca was that the ISP wrote to Topham the same day issuing what was basically an ultimatum stating, “We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” It was signed by “Zach P Corporate Support”.

Given such short notice and not having the technical expertise to shift his website to a new (and more secure) server in the USA Topham had to rely upon an associate of his who also wasn’t fully proficient in downloading and uploading websites. The end result was that all the content on Topham’s website prior to November 21, 2012 ended up infected with computer code script that required hundreds of hours of labour to correct and to this day still hasn’t been fully repaired.

Defence also pointed out to the court that when Wilson wrote to Netfirms.ca on November 21, 2012 there had already been one attempt on the part of Crown to have Topham’s bail conditions changed so that he wouldn’t be able to carry on publishing until after the trial (should he be found not guilty). That attempt had failed and Crown was attempting a second time to change his conditions and a hearing on Crown’s application had already been set for January 2, 2013 but Wilson disregarded the court and proceeded on his own to try and remove RadicalPress.com before that date. Because of these independent actions on the part of former Det. Wilson, Defence suggested to the court that Wilson had acted in an extra-judicial manner and in doing so had attempted to circumvent whatever decision the court may have come to regarding Topham’s bail conditions (Crown’s application was unsuccessful). In other words Wilson had acted as judge and jury and concluded, prior to Crown’s application being heard, that Topham was guilty of the crime before having been tried. In other words, according to Defence counsel Johnson, Wilson’s testimony could not be taken seriously and ought to be disregarded by the jury.

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

The first week’s proceedings concluded Friday, October 30th, 2015 with Crown’s Expert Witness, Mr. Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, completing his testimony. Week two commenced with Defence attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross examination of Mr. Rudner testimony.

Len Rudner copy

As noted in the first report the focus of Crown’s evidence was contained in four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books posted on RadicalPress.com:

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins
5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text (580 pages) of Douglas Reed’s historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion. Binders #3 and #4 were basically screen shots of all of Topham’s monthly postings on his website which Wilson had “captured” during the course of the Hate Crime Team’s investigation once the initial complaint was laid against Topham and his website on April 28th, 2011. As well, a number of Topham’s personal writings contained in the sidebar on the home page under the heading Arthur’s Court were also included.

Over the course of Len Rudner’s testimony Crown’s Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Johnston led Rudner through all of the above online books and portions of the articles, most of which contained Topham’s “Editor’s Note” prefaces. It was mainly these prefaces to other writer’s work that Crown zeroed in on as they apparently were having great difficulty in finding anything in Topham’s own personal articles on the site that they felt would meet the stringent standards that the law required in order to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Topham was “wilfully” promoting hatred toward “people of Jewish ethnicity or religion”.

Fortunately, for the defence, Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner provided the court with some extremely revealing evidence while under cross examination which, ultimately, led to some damning conclusions.

Given that Rudner had told the court that during the period of his tenure as a Director for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which spanned the years in which Mr. Topham had been harassed and dragged through the whole of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13(1) complaint process from 2007 until 2012, Defence counsel Johnson began questioning Rudner on statements he’d made under oath regarding his personal involvement in the laying of these Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charges against Canadian citizens. What Rudner told the court, was most revealing and in some instances totally unexpected. As it turned out, in his capacity as a director of this foreign Israeli lobbyist organization, Rudner stated that as far back as 2007 he had been personally involved in an attempt on the part of the CJC to file a Sec. 319(2) “hate” complaint against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com with the British Columbia Hate Crimes Team (BCHCT). This was the very same RCMP unit that on May 16th, 2012 arrested Topham and charged him under the same Sec. 319(2) criminal code section. Rudner’s statements were corroborated by the evident from Crown’s disclosure which contained the following document shown below.

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

While the document itself hadn’t indicated who, in particular, was responsible for filing the complaint, Rudner having sworn that he was personally involved in drafting a number of such complaints, admitted to having signed off on that one as well.

During the course of his testimony before the court Rudner also admitted to having had contact with Topham’s former Internet Service Provider (ISP) MagNet.com (now defunct) back as far as 2005 wherein he had complained to said company that Topham was publishing “anti-Semitic” materials on his website RadicalPress.com. He admitted under oath that at the time he complained to the ISP he realized that it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that Topham’s site would be removed from the Internet but that it would at least be an “inconvenience” for Topham! What Rudner and the court, including Defence attorney Barclay Johnson, didn’t realize was that the complaint by the CJC to Topham’s then ISP resulted in Topham losing all of the contents of his website, including a long and lively forum, that dated back to and included the period from 1999 to 2005 and constituted a valuable historic record of a section of history that has since dominated much of the narrative concerning the nascent period of the 21st Century and its reaction to the defining event now known as 911. At the time of the loss Topham had a strong suspicion that the person or persons responsible for filing the complaint to his ISP were most likely connected to either the Canadian Jewish Congress or B’nai Brith Canada (both of whom are admitted lobbyists for the foreign state of Israel), but his then server refused to divulge who had registered the complaint and had only given Topham 48 hours to find a new server. Now the truth regarding that premeditated event finally came to light ten years after the fact.

Given Rudner’s direct testimony that he had personally been involved in two previous attempts to have Topham’s website taken down, Defence attorney Barclay Johnson then questioned Rudner regarding the credentials used in determining his suitability to appear as an “Expert Witness” on behalf of the Crown. Johnson pointed out to the court that in order to qualify for such an esteemed position within the Canadian court system one had to be seen as impartial and unbiased and neutral in order for their “Expert” testimony to be considered credible. He then punctuated this scathing indictment of Rudner’s disingenuousness and confession of complicity by stating that Rudner had, in fact, “a horse in the race” all along and that his admission of these facts could only serve to discredit the worth of all of his testimony in the case before the court.

When Rudner attempted to justify his clandestine attempts to take down Topham’s website Johnson’s response was to suggest that it was nothing but “pure sophistry”.

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.

Mr. Atzmon had agreed to take the stand on behalf of Arthur Topham and testify as to why he felt that the charge of “hatred toward the Jews” was inappropriate and his decision to do so was based upon his strongly held conviction that the vast majority of criticism being directed toward the Jews was in fact political in nature rather than personal or aimed specifically at Jews based upon either their religion or their ethnicity.

While the Crown had made a big display before the court of the fact that their Expert Witness Len Rudner was being paid $195.00 an hour to appear to testify when Mr. Atzmon appeared on the morning of November 3, 2015 Defence Barclay Johnson pointed out to the jury that Atzmon had volunteered his expertise without pay and that only his airfare and hotel accommodations and food were being covered by Topham’s defence fund.

After much to do about having his status as an Expert Witness accepted by Justice Bruce Butler when Gilad Atzmon stepped up to the podium and began to speak it immediately became apparent to the court that here was an Expert Witness to be reckoned with. Being an internationally recognized lecturer and in possession of the academic credentials to back up his philosophical approach to the issues being discussed in the courtroom, Mr. Atzmon’s quickly took control of the narrative and over the remainder of his testimony spoke with an unabashed air of certainty and conviction. Unlike Rudner whose quiet, monotone presentation lacked any overt sense of passion in what he was saying, Gilad’s outspoken oratory coupled with his obvious depth of knowledge concerning what he talked about left little doubt in the minds of anyone in the courtroom that here was a man of scholarly quality who unquestionably knew his subject.

Defence counsel Barclay Johnson then led Atzmon through the various online publications that were the subject of Crown’s evidence and Atzmon framed each book and quotation cited within his own analysis of the overall question concerning the Jewish Question and what Atzmon referred to as “Jewish Identity” politics. He went on to explain by means of visual aids (a graphic of a triangle with the three points headed by “Religion”, “Ethnicity” and “Identity or Jewish-ness”), all of which formed the basis of his thesis as contained in his internationally renowned book, The Wandering Who? which has been a best seller since it first came out in 2011.

Of particular note were Atzmon’s comments on the controversial satire which Topham had written in response to his reading of the actual book titled Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann which Topham then satirically titled  Israel Must Perish! This was the already noted article on Topham’s website that the complainant in the case told former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team was sufficient evidence that Topham was promoting the total genocide of the whole of the Jewish population. When Gilad Atzmon addressed the issue he was adamant in his appraisal of the satire stating that it was an exceptionally important contribution to the overall discussion of Jewish identity in that it basically represented a mirror image of what Kaufmann’s book had said and that this mirror was now being held up before the Jewish people and in particular the Zionist state of Israel as a reminder for them to reflect upon their own actions and behaviour in todays political setting. He made reference to the plight of the Palestinians in his comments but Crown was quick to object (and Justice Butler was also quick to agree with Crown) that Atzmon wasn’t an expert on the Palestinian issue and therefore his testimony in that regard should be disregarded.

As Atzmon stated in his book, “As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson commenced her cross examination of Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th and it resumed the next morning of November 5th. It was basically on the second day of cross examination that the Prosecutor began her laborious efforts to try and get Atzmon to agree to the Crown’s position with respect to the term “Hatred” and also to many of the quotations cited throughout the trial that Crown felt showed evidence of Topham’s wilful promotion of hatred toward the Jews in general. Suffice it to say that every attempt at twisting Gilad’s words to conform to Crown’s preconceived mould of what “hatred” meant was met with not only dismissal but further testimony on Atzmon’s part as to what he actually was saying. This process continued on throughout his cross examination and it would not be unfair to say that the following exchange was typical of Crown’s approach and Gilad’s reaction:

Crown: Mr. Atzmon, I’m sure that you would agree that ….

Gilad Atzmon: No.

The jury and members of the public sitting in the gallery witnessed this scenario occurring over and over and the end result was that Crown was unable to refute any of Atzmon’s testimony nor discredit his presentation in any way.

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

Friday, November 6, 2015 was originally the final day scheduled for R v Roy Arthur Topham. But like most things the numerous delays throughout the past two week due to Crown’s own actions (which will be touched on at the end of this report) the only thing that happened on this day was that Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson was able to (after numerous interruptions by Crown and Justice Butler) finally sum up before the jury his arguments as to why they should find the defendant not guilty. That summation, in itself, was prolonged by the presiding Justice so that it wasn’t until 2:30 p.m. that Johnson finally was able to speak to the jurors. He ended at precisely 4:00 p.m.

The main thrust by defence was to speak to the jury about Crown’s two witnesses, former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner. Johnson outlined for the jury the many instances of bias displayed by both these two individuals while testifying. In addition to that he also (after much wrangling with Justice Butler) presented to the jury some of Arthur Topham’s writings taken from an article which had been included in Crown’s disclosure. That article, titled KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada was originally posted on the website back in 2008 and dealt with issues related to the first complaint laid against Topham by B’nai Brith Canada under the former Sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act in the article were references made to the character of Topham which the defence wanted the jury to hear.

Defence then read out the following to the jury: [please note that the defendant is restricted by his current bail conditions from naming his accuser online and therefore the individual in question is simply referred to as “Mr. Z”]

“I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 – 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as http://www.radicalpress.com . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.

In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, newsroom@quesnelobserver.com beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case….

There is one last, missing factor in this “hate” equation which Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.”

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

Given that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers to proceed with this trial is likely over one million dollars throughout the duration of this two week trial the court has been witness to endless problems dealing with Crown’s disclosure materials. Given the fact that Crown has now had over three and half years to put together the evidence in a format that would easily facilitate the normal reading habits of the jurors and Defence counsel what we have witnessed throughout the trial is a disgrace to the supreme court system in British Columbia.

From the onset of the case (beginning in May of 20120), defence had to fight tooth and nail to get disclosure from Crown and to try and have Crown particularize the evidence so it was clearly evident what would be used in the actual trial. Instead Crown insisted that the case was an “ongoing investigation” and therefore they couldn’t provide the full disclosure until final weeks preceding trial. When they did send Defence counsel their Disclosure much of it was unreadable. Defence had to redo pages and pages of Crown evidence in order that it could be read in court, not only by defence but also by the jurors who would be expected to follow along in their own Binders. This aspect of the trial consumed hours of time and even after the trial was well underway it became blatantly obvious that the last two binders would have to be republished so the jury might have a readable copy to refer to. Those final two binders didn’t enter into the court until the morning of Friday, November 6, 2015!

Typical of the quality of the documents is the image below taken from one page of KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada It would not be a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the jurors being each given a magnifying glass in order to try and read the evidence. Given that it cost the taxpayers an additional $2000.00 to have them reprinted twelve magnifying glasses might have been a more cost effective measure.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

Monday, November 9, 2015 will see Crown present its summation to the jury. On Friday Justice Butler asked the jury if they would be ready to have him charge them on Tuesday morning the 10th of November. He told them that if he charged them on Tuesday that in the event they couldn’t come to a decision by the end of the day that they would have to remain sequestered through to November 11th which is Canada’s Remembrance Day federal holiday. The jury went out and discussed this and returned to tell Justice Butler that they would prefer to be charged on the 10th. That meant they didn’t think it would take more than one day to make their minds up.

As it now stands Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 will conclude the trial and a verdict will be handed down on that day. Stay tuned folks!

•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Anti-Semitism: Why Does It Exist? And Why Does it Persist? by Mark Weber

http://ihr.org/other/anti-semitism-why-does-it-exist-dec-2013

Anti-SemitismGraphic

Over the centuries, rage and hostility against Jews has repeatedly erupted in terrible violence. Again and again, Jews have been driven out of countries where they’d been living. Why does anti-Semitism exist? And why has furious hostility toward Jews broken out, again and again, in the most varied nations, eras and cultures? Closely related to this is the broader issue of relations between Jews and non-Jews – a subject that many writers and scholars have called “the Jewish question.”

All too often, discussions of anti-Semitism and the “Jewish question” have been distorted by prejudice, bigotry and lack of candor. But this important subject deserves careful, informed and honest consideration.

Prominent Jewish leaders claim to be puzzled by the persistence of anti-Jewish sentiment and behavior. Insisting that anti-Semitism is a baseless and unreasonable prejudice, they often compare it to a mysterious virus or disease.

Elie Wiesel is one of the best-known Jewish authors and community figures of our age. His memoir of wartime experiences, entitled Night, has been obligatory reading in many classrooms. He’s a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, and for years has been a professor at Boston University. Wiesel is considered to be an authority on anti-Semitism, but he says that he’s puzzled by it. The source and endurance of anti-Semitism in history remains a mystery, he told an audience in Germany in April 2004. /1 In another address he described anti-Semitism as an “irrational disease.” Speaking at a conference in October 2002, Wiesel went on to say: “The world has changed in the last 2,000 years, and only anti-Semitism has remained … The only disease that has not found its cure is anti-Semitism.” /2

Elie Wiesel

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is one of the world’s largest and most influential Jewish-Zionist organizations. It considers itself the foremost center for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism and educating the public about this dangerous phenomenon. In his 2003 book, Never Again?: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, ADL national director Abraham Foxman expressed grave concern about what he sees as rising hostility toward Jews: “I am convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one.” /3 Remarkably, he too claimed to be perplexed about the reasons for the origin and durability of discord between Jews and non-Jews. “I think of anti-Semitism as a disease,” Foxman writes. “Anti-Semitism also resembles a disease in being fundamentally irrational … It’s a spiritual and psychological illness.” /4

Abe Foxman

Wiesel and Foxman, along with other prominent Jewish-Zionist leaders, are unable – or unwilling – to provide an explanation for the persistence of anti-Semitism. They believe, or claim to believe, that because it’s an entirely irrational and baseless “disease,” there’s no relation between what Jews do, and what non-Jews think of Jews. In their view, the strife and tension between Jews and non-Jews that has persisted over the centuries is not caused by, or is even related to, Jewish behavior.

Fortunately, a reasonable explanation for this enduring phenomenon has been provided by one of the most prominent and influential Jewish figures of modern history: Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement. He laid out his views in a book, written in German, entitled The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat). Published in 1896, this work is the basic manifesto of the Zionist movement. A year and a half later he convened the first international Zionist conference.

Judenstat

In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, it’s inevitable. “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers,” he wrote. “Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.” /5

Theodor Herzl

In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.

Anti-Jewish sentiment in the modern era, Herzl believed, arose from the “emancipation” of Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries, which freed them from the confined life of the ghetto and brought them into modern urban society and direct economic dealings with middle class non-Jews. Anti-Semitism, Herzl wrote, is “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects.” In his diary he wrote: “I find the anti-Semites are fully within their rights.” /6

Herzl maintained that Jews must stop pretending — both to themselves and to non-Jews — that they are like everyone else, and instead must frankly acknowledge that they are a distinct and separate people, with distinct and separate goals and interests. The only workable long-term solution, he said, is for Jews to recognize reality and live, finally, as a “normal” people in a separate state of their own. In a memo to the Tsar of Russia, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the “final solution of the Jewish question.” /7

Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, expressed a similar view. In his memoirs, he wrote: “Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them … [This] reaction … cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off.” /8

Chaim Wiezmann

Such candor is rare. Only occasionally do Jewish leaders today explain anti-Semitism as a reaction to the behavior of Jews. One of the wealthiest and most influential figures in today’s world is George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire financier. Generally he avoids highlighting his ties to the Jewish community, and only rarely attends purely Jewish gatherings. But in November 2003 he addressed a meeting in New York City of the “Jewish Funders Network.” When he was asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros did not respond by saying that it is an irrational “disease.” Instead, he said that it is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States. “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” he said. “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish,” he went on. “I can’t see how one could confront it directly.” /9

GeorgeSoros

Jewish community leaders reacted angrily to Soros’ remarks. Elan Steinberg, senior adviser at the World Jewish Congress (and former executive director of that influential organization), said: “Let’s understand things clearly: Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; it’s caused by anti-Semites.” Abraham Foxman called Soros’ comments “absolutely obscene.” The ADL director went on to say: “He buys into the stereotype. It’s a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of what’s out there. It’s blaming the victim for all of Israel’s and the Jewish people’s ills.” /10

Most people readily accept that positive feelings by non-Jews toward Jews have some basis in Jewish behavior. But Jewish leaders such as Foxman, Wiesel and Steinberg seem unwilling to accept that negative feelings toward Jews might similarly have a basis in Jewish behavior.

Along with all other social behavior over time, conflict between Jews and non-Jews has an evident and understandable basis in history and human nature. The historical record suggests that the persistence of anti-Semitism over the centuries is rooted in the unusual way that Jews relate to non-Jews.

Israeli and Jewish- Zionist leaders affirm that Jews constitute a “people” or a “nation” – that is, a distinct nationality group to which Jews everywhere are supposed to feel and express a primary loyalty. /11 Some American Jewish leaders have been explicit about this. Louis Brandeis, a US Supreme Court justice and a leading American Zionist, said: “Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.” /12 Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and of the World Jewish Congress, told a rally in New York in June 1938: “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith. I am a Jew … Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race, and we are a race.” /13 In keeping with this outlook, Israeli leaders also say that the Zionist state represents not just its own Jewish citizens, but Jews everywhere. /14

While affirming — usually only among themselves – that Jews are members of a separate nationality to which they should feel and express a prime loyalty, Zionists simultaneously insist that Jews must be welcomed as full and equal citizens in whatever country they may wish to live. While Zionist Jews in the US such as Abraham Foxman speak of the “Jewish people” as a distinct nationality, they also claim that Jews are Americans like everyone else, and insist that Jews, including Zionist Jews, must be granted all the rights of US citizens, with no social, legal or institutional obstacles to Jewish power and influence in American life. In short, Jewish-Zionist leaders and organizations (such as the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee) demand full citizen rights for Zionist Jews not only in “their country,” Israel, but everywhere.

Major Jewish-Zionist organizations, and, more broadly, the organized Jewish community, also promote “pluralism,” “tolerance” and “diversity” in the United States and other countries. They believe this is useful for Jews. “America’s pluralistic society is at the heart of Jewish security,” wrote Abraham Foxman. “In the long run,” the ADL director went to explain, “what has made American Jewish life a uniquely positive experience in Diaspora history and which has enabled us to be such important allies for the State of Israel, is the health of a pluralistic, tolerant and inclusive American society.” /15

For some time, the ADL has promoted the slogan “Diversity is Our Strength.” In keeping with this motto, which it claims to have invented, the ADL has devoted effort and resources to persuading Americans – especially younger Americans – to welcome and embrace ever more social, cultural and racial “diversity.” /16

This campaign has been very successful. American politicians and educators, and virtually the entire US mass media, promote “diversity,” “multiculturalism” and “pluralism,” and portray those who do not embrace these objectives as hateful and ignorant. At the same time, influential Jewish-Zionist organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) insist that the US must recognize and defend Israel as a specifically Jewish ethnic-religious state. /17 Pluralism and diversity, it seems, are only for non-Jews. What’s good for Jews in their own homeland, Jewish-Zionist leaders seem to say, is not pluralism and diversity, but a tribalistic nationalism.

What Jews think is important because the Jewish community has the power to realize its goals. In a remarkable address in May 2013, Vice President Joe Biden said that the “immense” and “outsized” Jewish role in the US mass media and cultural life has been the single most important factor in shaping American attitudes over the past century, and in driving major cultural-political changes. “I bet you 85 percent of those [social-political] changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense,” he said. “Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that’s a fact,” he added. /18

Biden is not alone in acknowledging this clout. “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture,” wrote Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic in 1996. /19 Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in 2008: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood … I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” /20

Even though Jews have more influence and power in US political and cultural life than any other ethnic or religious group, Jewish groups are uncomfortable when non- Jews point this out. In fact, says Foxman and the ADL, one sure sign that someone is an anti-Semite is if he agrees with the statement that “Jews have too much power in our country today.” /21 For Foxman, apparently, there can never be “too much” Jewish influence and power.

Anti-Semitism is not a mysterious “disease.” As Herzl and Weizmann suggested, and as history shows, what is often called anti-Semitism is the natural and understandable attitude of people toward a minority with particularist loyalties that wields greatly disproportionate power for its own interests, rather than for the common good.

–––––

Source Notes

1. “Wiesel Calls for ‘Manifesto’ on Anti-Semitism.” The Jewish Federations of North America. April 30, 2004.
( http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=64683 )
2. “A Call to Conscience: Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel Opens ADL Conference on Global Anti-Semitism.” Anti-Defamation League. October 31, 2002
( http://archive.adl.org/Anti_semitism/conference/as_conf.asp )
3. Abraham H. Foxman. Never Again?: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism. (HarperCollins, 2003), p. 4.
4. Abraham H. Foxman. Never Again? (2003), pp. 42, 43.
5. Th. Herzl, Der Judenstaat. ( http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat ; http://www.zionismus.info/judenstaat/02.htm )
6. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Praeger,1998), pp. 45, 48. Ref. cited: R. Kornberg, Theodore Herzl (1993), p. 183.
7. Memo of Nov. 22, 1899. R. Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York: 1960), Vol. 3, p. 888. Also cited in: M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993, p. 29. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html )
8. Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error (1949), p. 90. Quoted in: Albert S. Lindemann, The Jew Accused (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 277.
9. Uriel Heilman, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). “In Rare Jewish Appearance, George Soros Says Jews and Israel Cause Anti- Semitism.” Nov. 10, 2003
( http://www.jta.org/2003/11/10/archive/in-rare-jewish-appearance-george-soros-says-jews-and-israel-cause-anti-semitism )
10. U. Heilman, JTA. “In Rare Jewish Appearance, George Soros Says Jews and Israel Cause Anti-Semitism.” Nov. 10, 2003.
11. Abraham H. Foxman. Never Again? (2003), pp. 18, 4.
12. Louis D. Brandeis, “The Jewish Problem and How to Solve It.” Speech of April 25, 1915. ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/sources_document11.html / http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/234 )
13. “Dr. Wise Urges Jews to Declare Selves as Such,” New York Herald Tribune, June 13, 1938, p. 12.
14. Israel even claims to speak on behalf of Jews who lived and died before the state was established. “Holocaust Victims Given Posthumous Citizenship by Israel,” The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, May 9, 1985.
( http://articles.latimes.com/1985-05-09/news/mn-6754_1_posthumous-citizenship )
See also: M. Weber , “West Germany’s Holocaust Payoff to Israel and World Jewry,” Summer 1988.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p243_Weber.html )
15. Foxman letter of Nov. 11, 2005. Published in The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 18, 2005.
( http://archive.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20051111-JPost.htm )
16. ADL On the Frontline (New York), Summer 1997, p. 8. This issue of the ADL bulletin also noted with some pride that President Clinton, in his Feb. 1997 “State of the Union” address, had given an unexpected boost to what it called the “ADL tag line.” In that address, Clinton said: “My fellow Americans, we must never, ever believe that our diversity is a weakness. It is our greatest strength.”
17. Note the address by US ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro, Sept. 6, 2011. See also: M. Weber, “Behind the Campaign For War Against Iran.” April 2013.
( http://www.ihr.org/other/behindwarcampaign )
18. Jennifer Epstein, “Biden: ‘Jewish heritage is American heritage’,” Politico, May 21, 2013.
( http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/biden-jewish-heritage-is-american-heritage-164525.html ); Daniel Halper, “Biden Talks of ‘Outsized Influence’ of Jews: ‘The Influence Is Immense’,” The Weekly Standard, May 22, 2013.
( http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-talks-outsized-influence-jews-influence-immense_728765.html )
19. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
20. J. Stein, “How Jewish Is Hollywood?,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008.
( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column ).
21. Abraham H. Foxman. Never Again? (2003), p. 14.

——-

Contact Information
email: news@ihr.org
phone: 714-593-9725
web: http://www.ihr.org/

Institute for Historical Review in Dire Financial Straits. Please help.

Please Help!


Dear Friend,

Each month we struggle to raise the funds we need to pay the bills and maintain our effectiveness.

But right now we’re grappling with an unusually severe financial squeeze.

At a time of growing national confusion and economic turmoil, our work for awareness and freedom has never been so vitally important.

To keep the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) strong and effective, support from friends like you is crucial.

Please help!

To make a tax-deductible donation on-line, click here http://www.ihr.org/main/support.shtml .

Faithfully yours,

Mark Weber

Director, Institute for Historical Review

Contact Information:
email: news@ihr.org
phone: 949-631-1490
web: http://www.ihr.org/


Institute for Historical Review | PO Box 2739 | Newport Beach | CA | 92659