ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (ERIC HUNT) BITES THE DUST By Jim Rizoli & Diane King

ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (Eric Hunt) BITES THE DUST

By Jim Rizoli & Diane King

FIRST EMAIL:

From: Diane King <dianekayking@hotmail.com>
Subject: ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (Eric Hunt) BITES THE DUST
Date: February 15, 2017 at 10:41:59 AM PST

Jim and I have received a response from Eric Hunt about my inquiry: “Did Eric Hunt Write This” and we responded to it. (These letters are in a separate email.) Below are OUR responses to the news of Eric Hunt’s capitulation. Diane

“ERIC HUNT: For over a decade I have devoted a great deal of my life to investigating what is known as “The Holocaust.” I’ve endured 18 months imprisonment, overwhelming hardships, and live life as an outcast due to my activism as a Holocaust skeptic. All along, I claimed I was looking for the truth and out to tell the truth. I have determined I have reached “the end of the line” in the extent relevant research in the central issue of the “Holocaust denial” debate is able to go.”

JIM RIZOLI: Another HoloHoax truther bites the dust….Why are these people retreating from the revisionist camp? Are they being threatened? No matter…..I still will stick to my hardcore revisionist views until I can be proven wrong with FACTS and not just what ifs, and maybes. I notice that this article supposedly by Eric Hunt seems like it came off the skeptics site….maybe they are his new friends.

DIANE KING: I would like to thank Joe Rizoli for finding and sharing this ‘reversal’ and Germar Rudolf for confirming this unexpected issue. (My letter response to Germar Rudolf):

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

WE ARE A FACT-BASED not a FAITH-BASED movement. Now, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool, 100%, BORN AGAIN BELIEVER – Christian. I wouldn’t say my belief system is based exclusively on faith … OR facts. I believe there are plenty of FACTS to support my faith. There are so many things we CAN’T PROVE in our ‘faith,’ but having come to understand the Lord’s character, I have no problem with my inability to prove everything about GOD.

Having said that, THAT isn’t the way it is in the revisionist world. We springboard FROM the facts and nearly EVERYTHING can be proven. So, I’m appalled at this “bailing” mindset. How can you turn your back on the facts!!!!

It’s like NO ONE has suffered but him. (Not to minimize what he’s been through). MANY soldiers of truth – Germar, Leuchter, Faurisson, Fredrick, Deckert, Fromm – a number of us in lesser AND greater degrees — have suffered too. We haven’t ‘bailed’ on the truth. But bottom line is the facts addressing the specific points concerning the claims of the holohoax are nearly indisputable. So because of this, isn’t this PC-incorrect issue worth fighting for????!!! It’s like he’s been tortured (as it seemed were David Cole and David Irving) until he RECANTED. So once he does, instead of the peace he seeks, he will continue to be hounded to keep him in line.

So what’s he going to do now? More articles denouncing what HE KNOWS is the truth??? Go on the road and try to ingratiate himself back into his tormentor’s good graces? If nothing else, what is going on with Ingrid and Ernst Zundel should prove THERE IS NOT ENOUGH GROVELING you can do – when you resist them, YOU ARE MARKED FOR LIFE.

Jim and I will be pursuing this further (stay tuned for further correspondence).

Eric Hunt’s Kapitulation

Jim and Diane’s Response to Eric Hunt

Dear Eric:

Diane and I collaborated with our response, as this was a big discussion point with us, to make sure the wording and sentiment were precise. This may be long, but we took the time to read yours. You can do us the courtesy of reading ours.

I appreciate your response but you still haven’t proven anything … you sound like you’re coming from the Skeptics (forum) crowd who continue to uphold the Holohoax theories 100?, where not only do they just emote on certain points, but they ridicule and punish counter arguments by censorship. I’m not saying that the National Socialist Germans were angels. I don’t maintain that – it was wartime – but had they wanted to exterminate ANYONE, you KNOW they’d have come up with extremely MORE EFFICIENT means than drafty/questionable facilities using a less than effective agent — Zyklon B. or whatever silly method they say. (By the way, your using the term ‘gassing’ for the means of extermination suggests you’ve bailed on scientific proof.) Have you even considered the other ridiculous methods that were said to have been used? Have you heard about these? Eric do you really believe this below? Have you even read revisionist literature?

Killing methods
Holocaust or Hoax book Jurgen Graf. 55

If we trace the evolution of the Holocaust yarn over the years since 1942, we stumble across one surprise after the other. In particular, innumerable methods of mass killing of which there is not the slightest mention in the later literature, are described in the most graphic detail, particularly:

a) Pneumatic hammers
This method is described as follows in a report of the Polish resistance movement on Auschwitz (23): “When the Kommandos went to work, they led them into the courtyard in the penal company where the executions took place by means of a ‘pneumatic hammer’. They bound the prisoners’ hands together behind their backs and brought them in, one after the other, naked, into the courtyard. They placed them in front of the barrel of an air gun, which was discharged without a sound. The hammer crushed the skull, and the compressed air destroyed the entire brain.”

b) Electric baths
As reported by the Polish resistance movement, the following method was also commonly used in Auschwitz (24): “According to the report of an SS officer, the number of victims in the electrical chambers amounted, unofficially, to 2,500 per night. The executions took place in electrical baths…”

c) Electrical assembly line killing
Another variant was described by Pravda on 2 February, five days after the liberation of Auschwitz: “They (the Germans) opened up the so-called ‘old graves’ in the eastern part of the camp, removed the bodies, and wiped out the trace of the assembly linekilling installation where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electrical current.”

d) Atomic bombs
At the Nuremberg Trial, US prosecutor Robert Jackson made the following accusation (25): “A village, a small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them; the explosive used developing temperatures of from four to five hundred degrees Centigrade.”

e) Burning alive
Elie Wiesel, honored with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, was interned at Auschwitz from the spring of 1944 until January 1945. In his memoirs of the camp, La Nuit, published in 1958, he never mentions the gas chambers — not once, not with one single word — even though 400,000 Hungarian Jews, among others, are said to have been gassed during his period of internment. (In the German translation, which appeared under the title of Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa, the gas chambers nevertheless make a miraculous appearance, for the simple reason that, whenever the word “crématoire” appears in the original, the translator has mistranslated it as “Gaskammer”). According to Wiesel, the Jews were exterminated in the following manner (26): “Not far from us blazed flames from a pit, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drove up to the pit and dumped its load into the pit. They were small children. Babies! Yes, I had seen it, with my own eyes…Children in the flames (is it any wonder, that sleep shuns my eyes since that time?). We went there, too. Somewhat further along, was another, bigger pit, for adults. ‘Father’, I said, ‘if that is so, I wish to wait no longer. I shall throw myself against the electrified barbed wire fence. That is better than lying around in the flames for hours’.” How little Elie survived lying around in the flames for hours, by some miracle, will be revealed below.

f) Steam chambers
In December 1945, at the Nuremberg Trial the following accusation was made regarding the mass killings at Treblinka (27): “All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers… After being filled to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over… From reports received may be assumed that several hundred thousands of Jews have been exterminated in Treblinka.”

g) Suffocation by pumping all the air out of the death chambers
This method was described by the Soviet-Jewish writer Vassily Grossman at Treblinka.

h) Quicklime trains
At Belzec the Jews were killed according to eyewitness Jan Karski as follows (29): “The floors of the car had been covered with a thick, white powder. It was quicklime. Quicklime is simply unslaked lime or calcium oxide that has been dehydrated. Anyone who has seen cement being mixed knows what occurs when water is poured on lime. The mixture bubbles and steams as the powder combines with the water, generating a large amount of heat. Here the lime served a double purpose in the Nazi economy of brutality. The moist flesh coming in contact with the lime is rapidly dehydrated and burned. The occupants of the cars would be literally burned to death before long, the flesh eaten from their bones. Thus, the Jews would ‘die in agony'”, fulfilling the promise Himmler had issued “in accord with the will of the Fuehrer”, in Warsaw, in 1942. Secondly, the lime would prevent decomposing bodies from spreading disease. It was efficient and inexpensive – a perfectly chosen agent for their purposes.

It took three hours to fill up the entire train by repetitions of this procedure. It was twilight when the forty six (I counted them) cars were packed. From one end to the other, the train, with its quivering cargo of flesh, seemed to throb, vibrate, rock, and jump as if bewitched. There would be a strangely uniform momentary lull and then, again, the train would begin to moan and sob, wail, and how. Inside the camp a few score dead bodies remained and a few in the final throes of death. German policemen walked around at leisure with smoking guns, pumping bullets into anything that by single motion betrayed an excess of vitality. Soon, not a single one was left alive. In the now quiet camp the only sounds were the inhuman screams that were echoes from the moving train. Then these, too, ceased. All that was now left was the stench of excrement and rotting straw and a queer, sickening, acidulous odour which, I thought, may have come from the quantities of blood that had been let, and with which the ground was stained. As I listened to the dwindling outcries from the train, I thought of the destination toward which it was speeding. My informants had minutes described the entire journey. The train would travel about eighty miles and finally come to a halt in an empty, barren field. Then nothing at all would happen. The train would stand stock-still, patiently waiting until death had penetrated into every corner of its interior. This would take from two to four days.” This Jan Karski was, by the way, appointed to chair a committee for “Scientific Research on the Holocaust” along with Elie Wiesel.

i) Chambers with submergible, electrified flooring. Stefan Szende, a Doctor of Philosophy, describes the extermination of the Jews at Belzec quite differently: “The death factory comprises an area approximately 7 km in diameter… The trains filled with Jews entered a tunnel into the underground rooms of the execution factory… The naked Jews were brought into gigantic halls. Several thousand people at one time could fit into these halls. The halls had no floor. The floor was of metal and was submergible. The floors of these halls, with their thousands of Jews, sank into a basin of water which lay beneath — but only far enough so that the people on the metal plate were not entirely under water. When all the Jews on the metal plate were in the water up to over their hips, electrical current was sent through the water. After a few moments, all the Jews, thousands at once, were dead. Then they raised the metal plate out of the water. On it lay the corpses of the murder victims. Another shock of electrical current was sent through, and the metal plate became a crematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies were burnt to ashes… Each individual train brought three to five thousand, sometimes more, Jews. There were days on which the lines to Belzec supplied twenty or more trains. Modern technology triumphed in the Nazi system. The problem of how to execute millions of people, was solved.”

j) Blood poisoning
This method, described on 7 February 1943 in the New York Times (“… gas chambers and blood poisoning stations which were erected in the rural regions…”), appears to have gone into oblivion as soon as it was invented.

k) Drowning
According to the Israeli Holocaust specialist Yehuda Bauer, the Romanians in Odessa murdered 144,000 Soviet Jews, mostly by drowning (31). The same method of extermination was testified to by the underground press agent for the Warsaw ghetto, as well as for Babi Yar (32): “Not a single Jew remains in Kiev, since the Germans have thrown the entire Jewish population of Kiev into the Dnieper.”

l) Chlorine gas, assembly-line shootings, boiling water, acids
Mass murders with chlorine gas, as well as assembly line shootings were reported for Treblinka (33). Reports of massacres with acids and boiling water round make a complete assortment of killing methods (34).

The exterminationists no longer wish to be reminded of all these stories today. At that time, however, they were considered to be “proven fact” — “proven” by the testimonies of “eyewitnesses” — just like the gas chambers, which have been placed a under legal protection order in several “free democracies”. Not to mention, that as the revisionists assert certain facts, the hoax changes to attempt to address the ‘new’ findings, not the least of which is the diesel to gas discussion (following) again, from Jurgen Graf:

Diesel or gas?

A marvelous metamorphosis is already taking place in the holocaust story. Several leading Holocaust proponents are now taking great pains to drop the Diesel claim and replace it with the view that the engines were not Diesels but conventional gasoline engines which simply burned Diesel fuel, presumably to make the engines more deadly than if they had only burned regular gasoline. This amazing transformation has appeared in a recent book in Germany entitled Nationalsozialistiche Massentötungen durch Giftgas. (fn. 34) The book was a joint project of 24 of the most eminent scholars on the subject, including such notables as Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rueckerl, Gideon Hausner, Germaine Tillion and Georges Wellers. The book represents the current state of the art of holocaust mythomania and has already been recommended by the World Jewish Congress in London. (fn. 35) The new, “revised” version of the holocaust says, in effect, that Gerstein and others were mistaken when they had claimed that Diesels were used to kill Jews at reblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. The claim now is that gasoline engines were used.

The clumsy juggling of evidence which characterizes this book is exemplified by the fact that although the Gerstein statement refers to Diesel engines four times, the portion of the Gerstein statement which is quoted in this supposedly definitive rebuttal of the revisionists does not mention Diesels at all, nor does it even describe the alleged killing process. (fn. 36) For a description of the killing process that Gerstein supposedly witnessed, the book gives a piece of postwar testimony by Dr. Pfannenstiel in which there is also no mention of the use of Diesels, but only of the use of Diesel fuel in the engine. How one could possibly have operated a gasoline engine with Diesel fuel is, of course, left to the imagination. The fact is that any gasoline engine simply would not operate with Diesel fuel (and vice-versa).

A fatal flaw in the new, non-Diesel, version is the retention of the recurrent claim that the corpses were “blue.” Although any possible death from Diesel exhaust would have been due to lack of oxygen, which would in turn have caused a bluish appearance of the corpse, death from gasoline engine exhaust would “only” have been due to carbon monoxide and could “only” have caused a distinctive “cherry red” or “pink” appearance. Although Pfannenstiel’s postwar testimony is generally less wild than the Gerstein statement, nonetheless he and other “eyewitnesses” also repeated the claim that the corpses were “blue.” (fn. 37)

That the Gerstein statement, although in a severely abbreviated form, is included at all in such a scholarly work, despite the problems for the “revised” version of the holocaust story which should be obvious to anyone looking at the complete text of that statement, only shows how desperate the holocaust scholars are to scrape together everything they have in support of their monstrous fantasy. They have precious little, and the Gerstein statement is still the best evidence they can present.

The new “revised” version of the holocaust story is actually more absurd than the old version. Although it might be remotely possible for an engineer to have mistaken a gasoline engine for a Diesel engine, how could anyone possibly have mistaken “red” for “blue”? Perhaps they were all color blind-we will just have to wait and see. No doubt, we will see many more attempts by desperate men to hold together a crumbling patchwork of lies.

The Diesel gas chamber claim is rubbish-apparently some of the exterminationists themselves recognize that now. However, the alternate claim that gasoline engine exhaust was used instead is rubbish also.

Holohoax museum
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220

Snippet…
Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka

In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers (with carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines) began at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in Poland. As victims were “unloaded” from cattle cars, they were told that they had to be disinfected in “showers.” The Nazi and Ukrainian guards sometimes shouted at and beat the victims, who were ordered to enter the “showers” with raised arms to allow as many people as possible to fit into the gas chambers. The tighter the gas chambers were packed, the faster the victims suffocated.

I hope all that was educational for you for future discussions.

Lets get back to the gassings.

FRED LEUCHTER: Not withstanding the evidence that Irving and Weber, have relative to “Limited Gassings”, The fact remains that Mass Gas Executions are impossible from a hardware standpoint. The evidence cited by both Weber and Irving is circumstantial. I have great respect for circumstantial evidence. It indicates an need for further investigation. This evidence will convince some and not others, and I can respect everyone’s opinion. However, the fact that is impossible from an engineering standpoint to effect Mass Executions with gas is not circumstantial. It is Scientific/Engineering Fact. This should override any doubts created in anyone’s mind about the matter. If anyone is willing to believe “Leuchter” and “Rudolf” some of the time, they should believe all the time. There is not middle ground in Science (Rudolf) and Leuchter (Engineering) …. I have left no room for doubt nor has Germar. (Fred Leuchter).

In complete agreement, the claimed mass extermination could NOT have occurred in ANY venue – because the facts for such are just not there like the solid facts of mass killings in the Reinhardt camps like Treblinka. (On this topic, Both Jim and Diane on separate occasions asked Mark Weber, “How did they do it, how were the killings done in the Reinhardt camps?” To which he responded, “I don’t know.” We learned that David Irving was asked the same thing and he answered, “I don’t know and I don’t care!”) THAT’S A PROBLEM! What kind of answer is “I don’t know?” How about “results are pending” (.LOL) Even some Jews admit there are some issues here.

“Most of the memoirs and reports of Holocaust survivors are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks…” –Samuel Gringauz, “Jewish Social Studies” (New York), January 1950, Vol. 12, p6.

Now, I’m all for open debate but honestly, the stupidity or believing things that are just totally impossible to have occurred, which you seem to now believe …. !!!! You’re a smart guy. But sadly You seem to just parrot the mainstream, PC-driven, mind-numbing, brain dead drivel who make statements without any facts to back up the claims: Saying “it” happened because (all hinging on the trumped-up question) “Where did these people go?” Really now we have to prove that to make our points valid? We don’t have to prove ANYTHING (the accuser must make his case) We just have to show that the official narrative is wrong which I think I’ve done with above comments.

What this is really about?

The Holohoax narrative is operated and controlled by a high-powered CULT, one that wants to USE the Holohoax narrative to control and suppress ALL thought and expression. THEY will decide what WE are to think and express. THEY will determine the parameters of what is acceptable to speak about – their game, their terms – typical CULT behavior and if you question ANY of their tenets, YOU will be dealt with as an apostate, as you have been, as Germar has, Leuchter, Deckart, Faurisson, Toben, Zundel have, to name a few of the many high-profile targets of this cult. And then there are also the low-profile ‘deviants’ (in their mind) like ourselves. So if you think you’re going to get on the fast track and be welcomed again by these people that hate you and what you believe, you better think again.

You think that by taking on this new PC-version of truth, you’re going to be accepted in the Holohoax community? That by ingratiating yourself to THEIR narrative (at least partially) that they will welcome you with open arms or leave you alone? Do you really honestly think that the Holohucksters are going to appreciate you in your back pedaling when you don’t subscribe 100% to THEIR version of the narrative, that you don’t believe in the Six Million!!!??? They still will look at you as a HOLOCAUST DENIER largely because you KNOW that 6 million did NOT die (even with those deaths you claim at Treblinka).

Sorry Eric – ain’t gonna happen. You’re a marked man now just like David Cole, Mark Weber and David Irving? You have joined THEIR dishonorable and even cowardly ranks? The only problem now is people are going to look at you as a sell-out – someone who couldn’t “take the heat,” who sold his soul to the PC devil, if you will. The only good news is your videos have been state of the art and MOST desired and respected and largely, THAT’s how you will be remembered. It’s easy to give in. It’s difficult to HANG TOUGH, which you have done for quite some time. Know this, though, that by caving, whatever you do from now on will be tainted and discounted. We draw the line on your work up to this date, as we have with Weber, Cole and Irving. Are you now going to recant what you have already done and call it wrong, misguided, and not in harmony with the facts?

I just think you’ve been sold a bill of goods and cannot accept the truth that the entire narrative of the Holohoax is a farse because it has cost you to maintain that stance. Why would you capitulate after so many years of ‘hanging tough’!!!! They wear you down? You waved the WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER/CAPITULATION. You didn’t have to. You now have the option to hang tough or place yourself as a doormat where the HoloHoax Cultmasters can wipe their feet on and claim victory. Is that what you want? Because that is exactly what you will get from them.

I guess there is not much more to say to you….As a final note, and hopefully you will entertain this invitation we’d like to interview you so you can say exactly what your thoughts are so you won’t be misquoted… I’ve interviewed nearly all of the high-profile revisionists and many ‘unsung revisionist heroes’ who have consented to such an interview. We’ll give you your voice, your say and we’ll have a lively debate. Also note, I’m NOT like Ray Dawson, who would hang up on you if he doesn’t like what you say. We look forward to hearing from you about the interview.

ELISABETH CARTO: Eric H’s story can be totally disproved by Walter N. Sanning’s book “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry”. The breakdown of individual countries by their Jewish populations, who had a low birthrate in any case, shows that the disabled and children were absorbed into the nearby Jewish Ghettos as in Hungary. They certainly were not killed in gas chambers that did not exist. In 1990/91 Auschwitz had to remove the 6 mil figure from it’s stone monument and changed to 4 mill deaths. There was not ever any word of children being killed there. Actually, there were registered births of babies at the camp hospital. If the book is still in print, readers should buy it. Good luck, Elisabeth Carto

Keine Kapitulation (No Surrender),
(Capitulation is more than surrender, which may suggest ‘mere ceasing hostilities’. Capitulation is GOING OVER TO THEIR SIDE – a worse betrayal).

Jim Rizoli and Diane King
508-872-7292

Why Israel is Burning? by Gilad Atzmon

Why Israel is Burning?

By Gilad Atzmon
1480033316706

Israel’s rural landscape is saturated with pine trees. These trees are new to the region.  The pine trees were introduced to the Palestinians landscape in the early 1930s by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in an attempt to ‘reclaim the land’ . By 1935, JNF had planted 1.7 million trees over a total area of 1,750 acres. Over fifty years, the JNF planted over 260 million trees largely on confiscated Palestinian land. It did it all in a desperate attempt to hide the ruins of the ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages and their history.

Along the years the JNF performed a crude attempt to eliminate Palestinian civilisation and past  but it also tried to make Palestine look like Europe. The Palestinian natural forest was eradicated. Similarly the olive trees were uprooted. The pine trees took their place. On the southern part of mount Carmel the Israelis named an area as ‘Little Switzerland’. By now, there is no much left of “Little Switzerland.”

However, the facts on the ground were pretty devastating for the JNF. The pine tree didn’t adapt to the Israeli climate as much as the Israelis failed to adapt to the Middle East. According to JNF statistics, six out of every 10 saplings planted did not survive. Those few trees that did survive formed nothing but a firetrap. By the end of each Israeli summer each of the Israeli pine forests become a potential deadly zone.

In spite of its nuclear ability, its criminal army, the occupation, the Mossad and its lobbies all over the world, Israel seems to be  vulnerable. It is devastatingly alienated from the land it claims to own and care for. Like the pine tree, Zionism, Israel and the Israeli are foreign to the region.

Published originally under the title  The Burning Bush on December 2,  2010, http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-burning-bush.html

On Trump’s Victory by Gilad Atzmon

 

screen-shot-2016-11-11-at-6-17-20-pm
trumpsvictoryhdr

On Trump’s Victory

By Gilad Atzmon

It occurred to me in recent years that the act of being Progressive is not a political position but rather a mental state.

The incapacity of the entire American progressive and Left establishment to foresee Trump’s landslide victory suggests that we are dealing with people who are institutionally detached.

Just three days ahead of the presidential elections, the Huffington Post pathetically criticised star pollster Nate Silver of “Unskewing Polls in Trump’s direction,” for suggesting that Trump victory was realistic.  Ryan Grim wrote: “HuffPost Pollster is giving Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning, and The New York Times’ model at The Upshot puts her chances at 85 percent.”

There is one outlier, however, that is causing waves of panic among Democrats around the country and injecting Trump backers with the hope that their guy might pull this thing off after all. Nate Silver’s 538 model gives Donald Trump a heart-stopping 35% chance of winning as of this weekend.”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com)

The Huffington Post goes as far as accusing Silver of “making a mockery of the very forecasting industry that he popularized.”

In perspectives, Nate Silver and his 538 were obviously spot on. The Huffington Post and The New York Times were totally off the mark. Is it a coincidence?

How is it possible that the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and Wall Street have managed to totally miss the level of anger that unites the American masses. These questions go far beyond polling strategy or the science of statistics.  We are dealing with a state of being aloof on the verge of total detachment.

Left and progressive thinking is shaped like a dream. It tells us what the world ought to be. Progressives often seem to forget what the world really is and what its people are really like.  Hillary Clinton and her campaign, just like the New York Times and The Huffington Post, were in a state of denial. Boasting in righteous hubris, they failed to read the map.

“Progressive thought is the secular manifestation of ‘chosenness’. It is inherently Jewish, a fact that explains why Hillary Clinton’s top five donors were Jewish billionaires.”

But this shouldn’t take us by a complete surprise. Detachment wasn’t invented by Clinton and her team. Detachment and alienation are ingrained in progressive thought. To be a progressive is to believe that some of the ‘other’ people are simply a bunch of unaware ‘reactionaries.’ Progressive thought is the secular manifestation of ‘chosenness’. It is inherently Jewish, a fact that explains why Hillary Clinton’s top five donors were Jewish billionaires.

Since being progressive is a form of supremacy. I would go as far as suggesting that progressives’ antagonism towards ‘white supremacy’, is at large, a form of projection. The progressive attributes to ‘Whiteness’ his own exceptionalist inclinations.

Americans vs. Identitarians

On election day, we learned that the Democratic Party was hanging on a thread, hoping to be saved by Florida’s ‘Hispanic vote.’ Clinton’s political future depended upon the hope that Trump had managed to upset enough Latinos. This peculiar development in which a national party is dependent on group politics shouldn’t take us by surprise anymore.

The 2016 American presidential election divided America into two camps: The Americans on one side and the Identitarians on the other. The Americans are those who see themselves primarily as American patriots. They are driven by rootedness and heritage. For them, the promise to make ‘America great again’ confirms that utopia is nostalgia and that the progressive reality is nothing short of dystopia.  The Identitarians, on the other hand, are those who subscribe to progressive sectarian politics. They see themselves primarily as LGBTQ, Latino, Black, Jews, Women, and so on. Their bond with the American national or patriotic ethos is secondary and often non-existent.  The future of the Democratic party, in its current form, depends upon the hope that American subscriptions to sectarian ideologies will gradually increase and, as a result, will eventually strengthen the context of identity or group politics.  The progressive agenda banks on the divestiture of the national and patriotic ethos. Needless to mention that half of America voted for Clinton. Hence, this political agenda is far from being farfetched or delusional.

But the Identitarian agenda backfired. It was only a question of time before the so-called ‘whites’ or ‘rednecks’ grasped that their backs have been pressed to the wall.  They also started to act and think as an identitarian political sector.  Hillary Clinton calling Trump’s voters a “basket of deplorables” was a clear sign for white poor Americans that Hillary wasn’t exactly their ally. However, Hillary was far from being alone. Almost every Jewish writer within the American press didn’t miss the opportunity to attribute the “White Supremacist” label to Trump’s voters.  For Cheryl Greenberg, Trump’s popularity was “the final gasping of white supremacy.”  For Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall, Trump’s closing ad was packed with “anti-Semitic dog whistles, anti-Semitic tropes, and anti-Semitic vocabulary.”  For Marshall and Goldberg, half of the American people were dogs obeying their master’s whistle.

It shouldn’t take us by surprise that half of the American people would eventually react. They became weary of Jewish progressives like Marshall and Goldberg seeing them as dogs and white supremacists. The time was ripe for a revolution.

So is the revolution here? I’m not holding my breath. The people who crowned Trump are certainly exhausted. They are ready for a change. Can Trump introduce such a change? No one knows. He is certainly going to keep us entertained.


SOURCE ARTICLE

For Goy Hatred on Speed Please Subscribe to the Forward By Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/8/24/for-goy-hatred-on-speed-please-subscribe-to-the-forward

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 11.19.55 PMFor Goy Hatred on Speed Please Subscribe to the Forward

By Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 11.19.30 PM

If you want to grasp the level of contempt American ‘progressive’ Jews hold towards their host nation all you have to do is subscribe to the Forward. Jay Michaelson, a contributing editor for the kosher outlet, proclaims that Donald Trump is the candidate of “the losers.”

The fact that progressive Jews don’t like goyim, especially when they appear in white, is not new, but Michaelson takes Jewish bigotry to a new level.   “As is now well known,” Michelson writes, Trump’s “core supporters are white, undereducated men who have been left behind by technology, globalization and the attendant erosion of America’s manufacturing base. Moreover, their days of white supremacy are coming to a close, and they’re mad as hell about it.”

Why does it seem natural for a Jew to label about half of the American people as ‘white supremacist’ i.e., rabid racists.

In case you failed to get the message, the Jewish writer reiterates for you: “Trump’s supporters are the losers of the new economy on the one hand, and of multiculturalism on the other.”

Trump supporters, pretty much like Bernie Sanders’s betrayed followers, have one thing in common: they crave a radical change. They long for a productive America, a country with a prospect of hope and a future.  They reject the narrative offered by Wall Street’s oligarchy that America is committed to one thing; Mammon. Does this make Americans into losers? Apparently so, in the eyes of the New York Jewish writer.

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 11.19.08 PM

The Forward calls Trump’s supporters a bunch of ‘bullies.’ And the losers always become bullies. At this stage, Michaelson realises that he’s gone a bit too far. After all, a Jew throwing gruesome insults at most of the American people can lead to some tragic consequences. The ‘progressive’ editor backtracks a bit. He concedes that Jews are also losers, yet, unlike Trump supporters, Michaelson explains, in the Jewish cultural heritage Jewish losers always prevail:

“Of course, in each case, the(Jewish) ‘loser’ wins, enacting ancient Israel’s fantasies of triumph.” And if you want to know why the Jews think they are so good at spotting injustice, Michaelson has the answer. “Along the way, these biblical stories also instill a keenly felt sense of the injustice of bullying.”

The kosher progressive kindly allows a narrow outlet for criticism of Jewish bad behaviour. “Often the Jewish state is not so different from what Trump’s would be, particularly in the past few years, as ugly racism has become mainstreamed in Israeli society, as Islamophobic rhetoric insists that ‘they’ are unlike ‘us.’”

This is a typical Jewish progressive spin. Israel is not an occasional mirror of an imaginary Trump America, Israel and Zionism were racist and plunderous from the day of inception. The 1948 Nakba was a barbarian act against the indigenous Palestinians driven by racist ideology that is deeply rooted in Jewish culture.   The Holodomor, the systematic starvation of Ukraine was perpetrated by “Stalin’s willing executioners” as the Jewish historian Yuri Slezkin refers to Stalin’s Jews in his monumental book The Jewish Century.

The Israeli ultra Zionist writer Sever Plocker repeated this line in the Israeli outlet Ynet admitting, “we mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.”  In 1936, justice driven revolutionary Jews traveled to Spain to fight ‘Fascism’ by killing Catholics and burning their churches. It took us three quarters of a century to admit that three quarters of the Spanish International Brigade were Jewish volunteers and the Lingua Franca of the Brigade was Yiddish. Time to ask why these moral interventionists always happen to burn Churches and kill Goyim.  Is this their ultimate sense of Justice?

And what about the Neocon school, another Zionist ideological precept that has inflicted global disaster in the name of ‘moral interventionism.’ Also, consider Wilhelm Reich, Marcuse and the cultural Marxists who used their sexualised interpretation of ‘socialism’ to weaken the West and destroy the unity of the labour movement beyond repair.

Michaelson’s Jewish progressive propaganda is consciously misleading. It isn’t just recent Israeli politics that shows a small problem with the notion of ‘Jewish justice.’ We have suffered a century of global disasters. Many of them were and still are driven by Jewish ideologies and political practices. Bolshevism, Cultural Marxism, Ziocons, Zionism, Mammonism a la Soros et Goldman Sachs are just different horrid faces of one tribal supremacy – an ideology that refers to the goyim as a bunch of losers and ‘white supremacists’, as Michaelson does in his Forward article.

Let ‘s examine this progressive Pro-Palestine comment in light of Jewish supremacism: moderate and contained anti Zionism is a maneuver used by the Jewish Left as a diversion. Instead of examining the breadth of disastrous global activity by Soros, Goldman Sachs, Cultural Marxism, Bolshevism and Neocons, we are permitted limited criticism of Israeli politics. Why do they allow us to reproach Israel? Because they know that Israel can easily take it.

Michelson ends his Jewish self loving rant, writing“Judaism is proudly the religion of losers. It is a faith, and now a culture, of people who remind themselves every year — every day, even — that they were slaves, that might doesn’t make right, and that while it is human nature for the weak to bully the weaker, it is our divine nature to rise above it.”

These words make clear why Michaelson is afraid of the so-called American ‘losers.’ He knows that people who are oppressed by Wall Street’s mammonism and tired of neocon wars may well rise like the Jews and in the name of Justice identify those who bully them for more than a while.

I do not think that Trump is capable of leading such a move. But Michaelson knows enough Jewish history to gather that the conditions for America’s awakening are ripe.  In fact the rise of the Americans is overdue.   Michaelson knows that Justice may prevail and he is surely aware of the meaning it may carry for himself and his people whom he outrageously labels as of “divine nature.”

—–

“Being a Jew and a Zionist are one and the same” (Jewish Chronicle) by Gilad Atzmon

Gilad
1465553780067
“Being a Jew and a Zionist are one and the same” (Jewish Chronicle)
By Gilad Atzmon

Anti-Zionist Jews insist that Zionism and being Jewish are entirely different matters that have nothing to do with each other. Jonathan Boyd, the Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) claims the opposite.  According to Boyd, statistics proves that “being a Jew and a Zionist are one and the same, they cannot be separated out.” Demands to separate Zionism and the Jews tear “Jewishness in two,” Boyd wrote today in the Jewish Chronicle.

According to Boyd, a 2010 JPR survey of British Jewish attitudes towards Israel found that “82 per cent of British Jews say that Israel plays either a central or important part in their Jewish identity. 95 per cent of British Jewish adults have visited the country at least once, and 90 per cent regard it as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.”

I guess that Jewish statistics has now replaced the Talmud and the Torah as sources of law. If as many as 90% of Jews believe that Palestine is a Jewish land, then the Palestinians must have been living there by mistake.

Boyd opines that drawing parallels between Nazis and Israelis, or calling for boycotts of Israeli products makes British Jews feel threatened.

I agree with Boyd. I am not keen on the equation between ‘Israelis and Nazis.’ I think that it is not fair to German National Socialism. Israel is a democracy and its crimes reflect the popular choice of the Israeli Jews and according to Boyd the vast majority of world Jewry who identify with Israel and Zionism. National Socialist Germany wasn’t a democracy and the different measures of political oppression it inflicted on Jews and others lasted for, at most, 12 years. Israel’s racist abuse of Palestinians has been going on for almost seven decades.

Boyd further reveals to us that most Jews do not believe in God. They actually believe in the ‘Jew.’ In 2013, JPR asked British Jews which aspects of Jewishness were most important to them.  Eighty-nine percent highlighted “feeling part of the Jewish people.”

This makes economic sense. Instead of inventing a god who chooses you over all other people, the contemporary secular Jew cuts out the almighty middle ’man.’ The Jews love themselves just for being themselves. This seems the ultimate form of collective narcissism. JPR’s findings agree with what I have observed so far: all permutations of Jewish ID politics from JVP to ADL and beyond are in practice different forms of intense tribal self love.

Boyd explains.  “The reason for that is because the Jews are a people over and above a religious group…the truth is you don’t actually have to believe anything to be Jewish. According to Jewish law, you simply need to be born to a Jewish mother, or convert. What you believe, or practise, whilst vital to the maintenance of that identity, is immaterial to your fundamental status as a Jew.”

There you go. Jewishness is a blood related identity, call it biology or race or a matter of conversion. Conversion into what? You guessed right –collective narcissism, self love or shall we simply say, ‘choseness.’

But Boyd insists that British Jews are also connected to Britain. “That (Zionist) feeling does not necessarily translate itself into Jews wanting to live in Israel. While about 35,000 have made aliyah since 1948, most British Jews feel very connected to Britain.”

According to Boyd, EU data reveals that “84 per cent (of British Jews) feel fully part of British society.” Fascinating. I would advise Boyd and his fellows at the Jewish research institute to try and find out what the British people think about the Jewish Lobby, the CFI and the LFI that push them into immoral interventionist wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran.  Boyd and his institute should try to ascertain what British people think about the fact that a tribal foreign lobby dominates Britain’s political affairs. What do the British people think about the idea that an ethnic group that amounts to less than half a percent of British society has so much influence in politics, finance and media? Looking into these topics may help to save both Britain and its Jewry from an unfortunate disaster.

SOURCE ARTICLE

U.S. leaders capitulate to Zionist Jew lobby group AIPAC – PRESS TV UK interview with Gilad Atzmon & Hafsa Kara Mustapha

GiladPressTVAIPAC

Press TV: Telling The Truth About AIPAC, Jewish Political Lobbying And The Fate Of The West

with Roshan Muhammed Salih (Moderator), Hafsa Kara Mustapha and Gilad Atzmon

https://youtu.be/23TJwROwifY

Roshan Muhammed Salih (Moderator), Hafsa Kara Mustapha and Gilad Atzmon

Canadian Roundtable – The Trial of Arthur Topham & The Jewish Lobby in Canada by Red Ice Radio

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2016/02/RIR-160210.php

CanRound Final

 

Meet The New Sniper Golem by Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/2/3/meet-the-new-sniper-golem

Screen Shot 2016-02-03 at 12.36.58 PM

1454513431136

Meet The New Sniper Golem

By Gilad Atzmon

In Jewish tradition the Golem is a robot created by the Jews to serve the chosen people and their tribal interests.

The best known story of the Golem is of Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, called the Maharal of Prague  (1513-1609). It is said that the Maharal created a Golem out of clay to protect the Jews from blood libel and to help Jews comply with requirements for physical labour.

The Golem has made it to Israel.  By now, the Palestinians are accustomed to being watched constantly by a score of Israeli flying Golem or ‘kosher drones.’

Yesterday we learned that the World Zionist Organization (WZO) has invested in a new cyber Golem designed to spy on all of us. Sniper, the new Golem will scan the net using a new algorithm, looking for anti-Jewish content.

The new Golem will search for certain keywords in different languages. A crew of WZO members will monitor the results, and react immediately. Once an offender is detected, the WZO will either contact authorities in the offending party’s country or, alternatively, send a flying Golem to track the suspected Jew hater.

The Sniper Golem “will create deterrence,” say the entrepreneurs behind it, “it won’t be so easy to publish a status calling for the murder of Jews.”

In my years of activity as a writer and researcher I have never come across a single ‘status’ calling for the ‘murder of Jews.’ This appears to be a severe manifestation of collective Jewish pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PRE TSD) hovering on the verge of psychosis.

The new Golem is set for launch on Sunday, during a WZO conference aimed at combating anti-Semitism in the modern era, which will be attended by Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon and Knesset Speaker MK Yuli Edelstein. In short, if you planned to publish a ‘murderous status’, hurry up, only three days left.

—-

Chosen By God: Jewish Religions and The Prospect of Dissent by Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/12/31/jewish-religions-and-the-prospect-of-dissent

Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 12.37.20 PM

Jewish Religions and the Prospect of Dissent
By Gilad Atzmon

December 31, 2015

“The Jewish religion is a religion of Mitzvoth (commandments) and without this religious idiom, the Jewish religion doesn’t exist at all.”
~ Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz

While Islam and Christianity can be easily understood as belief systems, Judaism actually defies the notion of belief all together. Judaism is an obedience regulative system. The Judaic universe is ruled by ‘mitzvoth’ (commandment), a set of 613 precepts and directives ordered by God. In opposition to Christianity and Islam that build from spiritual and heavenly precepts in worship to a transcendental God, the Judaic subject subscribes to strict earthly and material observance. While the Islamo-Christian is wrapped in God’s loving and the spirituality of the sublime and divinity, the follower of Judaism is judged by his or her ability to adhere to hundreds of rigorous earthly orders.

A brief look at the Judaic Sabbath common prayer reveals the nature of Judaism as an obedience regulatory system. As we can see below, in Judaism, even God-loving is not an involuntary act:

“You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart,?with all your soul, and with all your might.?Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.
…Thus you shall remember to observe all My commandments?and to be holy to your God.?I am Adonai, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God:?I am Adonai your God.”
(Common Prayers for Shabbat Evening From Deuteronomy and Numbers)

For the Jew, belief and God-loving are not subject to either rational discretion or spiritual impulse. God loving, as we read above, is a strict “charge”, an order. But if Judaism is not a belief system, what kind of system is it?  Does the Judaic subject believe in anything at all?

The answer is yes: the Jew believes in ‘The Jews’ and the Jews believe in ‘The Jew.’ This mode of mutual affirmation establishes a solid and forceful tribal continuum that serves the collective as well as the singular subject.  Accordingly, the subject adheres to the collective and vice versa. In pragmatic terms, the Jew sticks to the ‘chosen people’ and, together the ‘chosenites’ uphold a collective sense of choseness.

In Judaism, ‘choseness’ is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God.  For religious Jews, being chosen is realised as a duty. According to Judaic belief, the Jews have been placed on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. This purpose is bestowed upon the Jews and they pass it from father to son.[1]

In reality, the first Jews invented a God who chose them over all other people. For some reason this God is occasionally cruel, often non-ethical and as if this were not enough, not exactly a nice father. The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to call him by name. One may wonder what led the first Jews to invent such a horrid father figure. One may further question what led the Jews to sustain their ‘relationship’ with such an obnoxious father. The answer is surprisingly simple. They don’t.

The Jews don’t believe in God, they are observant of God. They believe in themselves- the Jews believe in ‘The Jew’ and vice versa. Within this peculiar troubled family affair, the Jew is free to dump God, as an author can freely re-write or at least re-shape his or her own narrative.  But the Jew can never dump the Jews as much as the Jews can’t allow ‘The Jew’ to go free. And what about God, can he be emancipated, can he choose another people? Certainly not. Unlike the Jew who is free to dump God while clinging to a Jewish identity, the Jewish God is merely a Jewish protagonist, he can’t go anywhere, he is stuck with ‘his’ chosen people forever.

Choseness, so it seems, is hardly a heavenly gift, it is in fact a curse. It confines the Jew in a realm of self-imposed commandment and materiality. Instead of beauty, holiness and the pursuit of the divine and the sublime, the rabbinical Jew is left with an earthly obedience scheme that is sustained by a rigid tribal setting. ‘The Jew’ and ‘The Jews’ are bound in a set of mutual affirmations in which God serves an instrumental role.

Some may rightly argue that this spectacular bond between the Jews and ‘The Jew’ is essential for an understanding of the dichotomy between Judaic tribalism and the universal appeal of Islamo-Christian beliefs.

The Judaic crude intolerance towards dissent serves as an example of the above. Throughout their history, Jews have proven themselves hostile toward their nonconformists; now we are ready to grasp why.  For the Islamo-Christian, secularization, for instance, entails a rejection of a transcendental affair. But for the rabbinical Judaic subject, failure to conform constitutes a rejection of the Jews. It interferes crudely with the fragile relationship between ‘The Jew’ and the Jews. It shatters the self-affirmation mechanism. While in the case of Christianity and Islam dumping God suggests turning one’s back on a remote supernatural entity, in the case of Judaism, such an act is interpreted as a disbelief in the tribe.

This interpretation may help illuminate Jesus’ plight. It may explain the reasoning behind the brutal Rabbinical Herem (excommunication) against Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa. And it also explains why the secular and the so-called ‘progressive’ Jew is equally obnoxious towards dissent or any form of criticism from within. If Judaism is not a belief system but rather a system of obedience regulation, then Jewish identity politics is merely an extension of the above regulatory philosophy.

Jews often drop their God, simply to invent a different God who ‘facilitates’   subscription to a new regulatory system. The new system, like the old outlines a new set of strict commandments, a manner of speech and rigorous boundaries of ‘kosher’ conduct.

In the beginning of the 20th century, for instance, Bolshevism appealed to many Eastern European Jews. It provided a sense of self-righteousness in addition to regulating a strict form of obedience. As we know, it didn’t take long for Bolshevism to mature into a genocidal doctrine that made Old Testament barbarism look like a juvenile fairytale. The Holocaust, that seems to be the most popular Jewish religion at present, may be the ultimate and final stage in Jewish historical development. According to the Holocaust religion, ‘God died in Auschwitz.’  Within the context of the Holocaust religion, ‘The Jew’ is the new Jewish God. The Holocaust religion has finally united ‘The Jew’ and the Jews into a self-sufficient comprehensive and independent ‘God-less’ religious narrative. Both were about to be eradicated. But, not only were they both saved: they have prevailed and each did so independently. In the Holocaust religion, Jews are both victims and oppressors – they have transformed slavery into empowerment and they did it all alone, in spite of being dumped by their treacherous God.   The Holocaust religion, like Judaism, prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially, like more traditional Judaism, it is totally and disgracefully intolerant toward dissent.

Due to the lack of a divine transcendental entity, Jewish religions have always regarded criticism as rejection of the tribe. Jewish religions, whether Judaism, Bolshevism or Holocaust, are equally intolerant towards criticism and dissent. Jewish religions treat opposition as a vile attempt at ‘delegitimization’ on the verge of genocidal inclination.

Jewish religions can be defined as different templates that facilitate a sense of choseness. They affirm a bond between an imaginary marginal ‘collective’ and a phantasmal ‘archetype’: the Bolshevists and ‘The Bolshevik’, the Survivours and ‘The Survivour’, the Jews and ‘The Jew,’ and so on.  The bond between the collective and the idea of an archetypical singularity is always maintained by a set of rigid commandments, a correct manner of speech, some strict regulatory guidelines for behavior and vile opposition to dissent.

Tragically enough, intolerance of dissent has become a universal Western political symptom. Incidentally, Christianity, Islam, religion and divinity in general are also under attack within the context of contemporary Western discourse. Is this a symptom of the Jerusalemification of our Western universe? Is the emergence of the tyranny of political correctness a coincidence? And if we are becoming Jews, is there any room for the hope that our universe may, at some stage, embrace a universal ethos once again? Can we once again believe in something?   Or do we have to wait for a new Jesus figure to resurrect our trust in the human spirit and humanity in general?  Or have we been re-designed to self-destruct as soon as we come close to such a lucid awareness?

—-

[1] As God himself suggests in the Book of Genesis: “And I (God) will establish My covenant between Me and you (the Jews) and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”  (Book of Genesis, Chapter 17).

After Hours with Gilad Atzmon & Friends at the Occidental Hotel, Quesnel, B.C. (Video by MoonFire II)

GiladAfterHours copy 2

 

 

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 3
by Eve Mykytyn / November 29th, 2015

On November 12, 2015 Arthur Topham was convicted of inciting hatred against a racial group, the Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.

Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.

Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)

Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.

“The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.”

Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.

I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.

The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.

In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. “Jews,” the Crown said, “could write anti-Semitic things too.” Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.

If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.

Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

Article Source

Topham, Zionist Elders and their Trial Protocols by Eric Walberg

http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=586:topham-zionist-elders-and-their-trial-protocols&catid=39:europe-canada-and-us-&Itemid=92

RudFarbCartoonAtzmon

Topham, Zionist Elders and their Trial Protocols

Thursday, 26 November 2015 

By Eric Walberg

The trials and tribulations of Arthur Topham reveal details about the penchant of Zionists for conspiracy even in the minutest details. The key document, as described earlier, was Israel Must Perish!, Topham’s parody based on a now forgotten book Germany Must Perish! (1942) by Theodore Kaufman. Next the tired, old Protocols of the Elders of Zion were trotted out as evidence. Officially the Protocols were declared a forgery in a Swiss court in 1935, though no one ever made clear just what it was a forgery of, and they are easily available on the internet, so what makes Topham particularly guilty of anything in regards to them remained a mystery, despite the rigours of Canadian justice.

Another part of the Crown’s “Book of Evidence” was Elizabeth Dilling Stokes’ book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today (1964, self published). Dilling Stokes was–I quote Wikipedia: “an American anti-communist and later antisemitic social activist, as well as an anti-war campaigner and writer in the 1930s and 1940s. She stood trial for sedition in Washington in 1944. The author of four political books, Dilling claimed that Marxism and ‘Jewry’ were synonymous.”

Dilling Stokes was both an American anti-communist (that’s OK) and later an antisemitic social activist (that’s NOT OK). A noisy isolationist, she was tried for opposing WWII when it was no longer fashionable. The gripe against her today is her claim that Marxism and “Jewry” were synonymous, though this was the view of such eminent pundits as Winston Churchill, and is still fervently believed today, though no one but Topham is being persecuted for it.

And finally, The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, a popular WWII correspondent. Reed’s Insanity Fair (1938) was a hit in 1938 warning of Hitler’s mad rush to war. A militant anti-fascist. Sounds good to me. Reed wrote Controversy in the 1950s, but could find no publisher, and it only saw the light of day in 1978. His concern was “the continued role of the Middle East as the tinderbox, that can become the cause of the next world war, and the continued suppression and misrepresentation, in the media, of all news and discussion,” according to Knud Eriksen. Reed also dabbled in Jewish history, convinced that there is a long running conspiratorial history behind Judaism.

But, I again quote Wikipedia: “When The Times ran his obituary, it condemned Reed as a ‘virulent anti-Semite,’ although Reed himself claimed that he drew a distinction between opposition to Zionism and anti-Semitism.” Reed later wrote that Ian Smith’s apartheid Rhodesia should be defended “as ‘the last bulwark against the Third World War, just as Czechoslovakia should have been defended against Hitler in 1938.”

No mention in his writings of wiping out Israel, or hating Jews. On the contrary, Reed’s final words in Controversy are, “I think, that the Jews of the world are beginning to realize the wrong of revolutionary Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, Communism, and that towards the end of this 20th Century they will finally have decided to join in the ranks of mankind.”

Who wrote the “Book of Evidence”?

Why my niggling references to Wikipedia? Because I could just as easily be footnoting the “expert witness” “Book of Evidence” submitted by the accusers at Topham’s trial. Written without attribution.

Quotes require a citation (or at the very least, a rewrite). Well, the “expert witness” in Topham’s trial, Len Rudner (if it was him) was not so rigorous. In preparing his “Book of Evidence”, he just cut-and-pasted his bits and pieces of pseudo-proof of anti-Semitism at Wikipedia and no doubt elsewhere. As with his submission of the sizzling graphic as evidence of Topham’s hatred, Rudner seems to be working for the Jews’ purported enemy (much like the tragic Kaufman).

But is Rudner the ‘brains’, or the Jewish Sancho Panza? The stooge? The sequence of events in the farcical trial actually starts with Bernie Farber, the original “expert witness”. Farber is–I’m quoting his statement to the Court on September 30, just days before the trial was to start–“Executive Director of the Mosaic Institute, a research ‘think tank’ that supports multiculturalism and pluralism in Canada.” Prior to that, he was “Chief Executive Officer of Canadian Jewish Congress and in that capacity testified [sic] for the Crown as an expert on Jewish issues”.

Farber submitted his “Book of Evidence” and then suddenly recused himself. His charge against Topham: claiming “Jewish control of media and banking and the sowing of corruption and religious discord”.

Whoa. A few statistics can show Jewish pre-eminence in media and banking. It’s not hard to prove “sowing corruption and religious discord” either. Pretty thin ice.

Enter Faber’s “roady” Rudner, as performer Atzmon affectionately calls him. From the start, there was serious doubt about just how “expert” Rudner was. The Crown tried to verify this only once–under pressure–after Topham’s lawyer, Barclay Johnson, challenged Rudner and embarrassed him, as he couldn’t even define anti-Semitism or Zionism without read from his notes, an odd inarticulateness for an “expert”. Finally the Crown, Jennifer Johnston, was forced to ask Rudner: “Did you write this document?” to which he answered: “To the best of my knowledge I wrote this document”.

An “expert witness” who couldn’t even define anti-Semitism without cribbing from his notes. Atzmon had seen Farber’s notes as the original expert witness, and when he read

Rudner’s, he saw they were identical, but were being pawned off as Rudner’s. Even more devastating, Farber had forgotten to turn off ‘viewing mode’ ‘mark up’ in the Word document, and Gilad noticed a comment on September 26 by Rudner: “Bernie. Let me know what books you want to use to support this position and I will add them as footnotes.” The emperor was wearing no clothes, and the Crown and judge chose not to notice.

collaboration

Perjury? Call a mistrial and go after Rudner? At the very least, this was a blatant attempting to deceive the jury.

And why didn’t Rudner just ‘fess up? Why perjure oneself? Atzmon joked to the author, “If I was asked under oath: Did you write Altneuland (Old New Land) [by Zionism’s founder Theordore Herzel] I would just say NO!”

And why didn’t Farber stick with his task? Cold feed? Farber is eager to join the electoral ranks as a Liberal and an ugly, skewed trial with him at the centre would muddy the waters. Even worse if he lost. Maybe Farber had a kind of Jewish Damascus moment: he saw the light, that the case was pathetic, far more injurious to the cause than helpful. And far more injurious to himself as a future prime minister.

GILAD&BARCLAY

Atzmon & Johnson: the real Quixote and Panza

And why was Atzmon asked every time he opened his mouth to testify: “Is what you are saying your own words?” Rudner was asked only once. Come to think of it, who hacked Topham’s site in 2006 and wiped it out at the very time that Rudner was harassing him? Would Rudner answer: “Not me–to the best of my knowledge”?  Mystery after mystery. How can there not be a conspiracy (many conspiracies) in all this?

Personally, I’m in no position to be sued by powerful and ruthless conspirators (excuse me: legal opponents), so let me state here for the record: I’m not accusing anyone of anything–other than Farber (or Rudner) for cribbing. (I hope they donate to Wikipedia very generously.)

Topham’s crime

Topham’s only sin was exercising his freedom of speech, providing sharp graphics and free downloads of quaint books at his site, and telling the truth there about Zionist control of western politics, especially Canadian. Topham’s little soldiers of truth were hacked to death in a Zionist rage in 2006, but the undeterred Topham resuscitated them. That was his crime.

Thank you once again, Mr Rudner, for alerting world citizens to Topham’s quixotic mission, however unkosher it may be. I will certainly have a look at Reed’s Controversy (I’ve read and written about the Elders of Zion and don’t need a refresher course).

Update: In a Zionist setback, on November 20, the Crown prosecutor’s attempt to criminally charge Topham for allegedly publishing Crown documents, and to close his website, were dismissed. The Crown also sought unsuccessfully to prevent outside media from speculating on the reasons for the jury’s decision to find Topham guilty. So consider this expose a journalistic scoop.

____

Eric Walberg

‘Connect with Eric on Facebook or Twitter
Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-West relations since the 1980s.
He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, Al-Jazeerah and Turkish Weekly, and is a commentator on Voice of the Cape radio.

From Zundel to Topham: Zionist theatre by Eric Walberg

http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=585:from-zundel-to-topham-zionist-theatre&catid=39:europe-canada-and-us-&Itemid=92

From Zundel to Topham: Zionist theatre

Saturday, 21 November 2015

Eric Walberg

israel-must-perish47

The trials of Arthur Topham, Canadian journalist and publisher of Radical Press, for “hate crime” (2007) and “hate propaganda” (2012) under new Criminal Code “Hate Propaganda” legislation, have resulted in exactly the opposite of what the prosecution, B’Nai Brith, wanted. Instead of quietly muzzling the gadfly critic, the result has been the highlighting of past Jewish hate crimes, and the increasing control by Zionist groups of Canadian politics to promote Israel and censor anti-Zionist criticism.

Topham’s trial is a storybook battle of the brave little guy against goliath.  The 68-year-old Topham lives on an isolated farm in BC, and has worked as a carpenter, miner, farmer, and journalist-publisher. The crown’s chief witness against him was Len Rudner from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner had attempted to force Topham’s internet provider to shut down his web site, and no doubt took satisfaction when a hacker mysteriously wiped out its contents in 2006.

As evidence of hate, Rudner presented Topham’s political poster which truthfully (if provocatively) shows the theatrical state of Canadian-Israeli relations today. (thanks Len, for bringing this sizzling graphic to the attention of millions of Canadians).

wakeupcanada-458x600

Puppet theatre

Germany Must Perish!

Then the trial turned to Israel Must Perish!, Topham’s parody based on a now forgotten book Germany Must Perish! (1941) by Theodore Kaufman.

One of the most bizarre literary careers in America is that of the now obscure Theodore Kaufman, a  pacifist member of the American Federation of Peace, born in 1910, whose first publication was “Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness – Where? In The Graves of European Battle Fields?” (1938). He, like most Americans at the time who bothered thinking about it, realized the insanity of WWI, and even in 1938 was, again, like most Americans, staunchly against US participation in the coming war. He differed from most American Jews, who by then were pressing the US to join in the battle against Hitler, who was openly persecuting Jews in Germany and had vowed to clear Europe of them.

As the US war began and the evidence against Nazi crimes mounted, Kaufman drew inspiration, and wrote his startling book Germany Must Perish!, advocating the sterilization of all German males. A few hausfraus could be left to breed, but preferably with non-Germans, so a defanged German identity could be left extant.

Whew! What a hot potato that seems these days. But hardly warranting a prison sentence for the author. And in any case eugenics and sterilization were not taboo in the 1930s. The British Eugenics Education Society (1907) and the American Eugenics Society (1921) promoted eugenics. Patients with mental illness were sterilized not only in Nazi Germany but in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Sweden. At its peak of popularity, supporters of eugenics included Winston Churchill, HG Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and George Bernard Shaw. Granted, sterilizing all Germans sounds a bit over-the-top.

Just before his epiphany and the publication of Germany Must Perish!, pacifist Kaufman went so far as to advocate sterilizing all American troops: “A possible plea to Congress….

germanymustperish2

Kaufman’s post-war Europe

Have Us All Sterilized! … If You Plan On Sending Us To A Foreign War … Spare Us Any Possibility Of Ever Bringing Children Into This World — Into This Country Of Ours!” Kaufman’s book was ignored in the US. 1941 was not a good year for civil rights advocates, especially of German rights. Americans of German descent were being herded into prison camps along with Japanese Americans and communists.

Kaufman’s greatest fan

Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels read the book and immediately grasped its value, writing in his diary: “This Jew did a real service for the enemy [German] side. Had he written this book for us, he could not have made it any better.” Under Goebbels’ direction, Germany Must Perish! became a staple of German radio and press, convincing wavering Germans that killing Jews was necessary and justified, till the last Jewish death was registered as the Reich collapsed.

What a horrifying legacy for the gentle, militantly pacifist Kaufman, who apparently soon rued his rhetoric.

Theodore N Kaufman

His final publication at his Argyle Press was the March 1942 brochure titled “No More German Wars! Being an outline for their permanent cessation”, advocating democratic re-education of the German population. But it was read by no one.  He tried to atone, dropping his pacifism, and enlisting in the US Army, along with his three brothers. After World War II, Kaufman disappeared entirely from public life and died in 1986, not in Israel but in his ‘homeland’ in New Jersey, in obscurity. Not feted by Israel as a Zionist icon—with good reason, as he  greatly facilitated the murderous deeds of the Nazis through his success in promoting hatred of his own people through his scandalous screed.

Kaufman’s surprising legacies

In a bizarre twist, Israeli Zionist hate literature continues the shortlived propaganda life of Kaufman, promoting daily murder and occasional campaigns of mass ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. In yet another bizarre twist—more hopeful—the Zionist version of Kaufman’s screed—Palestine Must Perish!—has inspired millions of people—including Jews—to fight Zionism.

In his defense, Kaufman’s plans were not so different from FDR’s (Jewish) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who advocated dismantling postwar Germany’s industrial base, turning it into a harmless (destitute) rural nation. Lucky for the Germans, the US occupational forces did not follow directions for large-scale destruction of mines and industrial plant, giving wide-ranging discretion to the military governor and Morgenthau’s opponents at the War Department.

Celebrating Zundel’s 30th anniversary

This trial recalls the legendary trials of Ernst Zundel, a German Canadian jailed in 1988 for publishing literature “likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group” as a threat to national security, and in Germany in 2007 for charges of “inciting racial hatred”. He lived in Canada from 1958 to 2000 but was denied citizenship.

In 1977, Zündel founded Samisdat Publishers, which issued his “The Hitler We Loved and Why” and Richard Verrall’s “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last”.  In 1984, the Ontario government initiated criminal proceedings against Zündel based on Holocaust survivor Sabina Citron’s complaint, charging him with spreading false news by publishing “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last.”

He underwent his first criminal trial in 1985, where he was found guilty, though this conviction was overturned on a legal technicality, and he was tried again in 1988, when he was again convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. In 1992 this conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada who ruled that the law under which he had been charged—reporting false news—was unconstitutional.

Wow! In 1992, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that you can question the veracity of the official Holocaust narrative.

But Zundel’s trials were far from over. His house was destroyed in an arson attack in 1995. The leader of the Toronto wing of the Jewish Defense League, Meir Weinstein, denied involvement in the attack; however, five days later, Weinstein and American JDL leader Irv Rubin were arrested trying to break into the property. No charges were ever filed. Weeks after the fire, Zündel was targeted with a parcel bomb that was detonated by the Toronto Police bomb squad. A suspect was arrested but again, no charges were laid. Finally, he was deported to Germany and in 2007, convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison (released in 2010).

The more oppressive political climate today vs the 1980s is shown by Topham’s fate. Despite strong support from Jews and Gentiles alike, and though Topham’s credentials as civil libertarian and anti-Nazi are impeccable (none of Zundel’s baggage), he was nonetheless found guilty on one of two “promoting hate” counts (they were indistinguishable, covering two periods of Topham’s website publications). British-Israeli anti-Zionist activist Gilad Atzmon flew to BC to testify that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments, that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology, that Israel Must Perish! was a harmless parody, but to no avail.

Topham is now out on bail, pending an appeal (the prosecution also wants to appeal). Meanwhile, Zionists are free to promote hatred of Topham, such as Ezra Levant (“I Hate Arthur Topham” on the Sun News Talk Show “The Source”). When Topham heard this, he debated whether to sue Levant, and instead, just laughed.  The circus continues.

—-

Eric Walberg

‘Connect with Eric on Facebook or Twitter

Eric’s From Postmodernism to Postsecularism is available here

Eric’s Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics 

and the Great Games is available here

Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-West relations since the 1980s.

He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, Al-Jazeerah and Turkish Weekly, and is a commentator on Voice of the Cape radio.

TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham by Dr. Kevin Barrett

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/14/gilad-arthur/

KBarrettVTHdr

TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham
By Kevin Barrett on November 14, 2015

Trial was Alice-in-Wonderland meets Franz Kafka – judge, jury & crown unable to grasp concept of “satire”

GILAD&BARCLAYGilad Atzmon, expert witness, with Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson

Canadian publisher Arthur Topham will likely be appealing his conviction on one count (accompanied by an acquittal on the other) of “promoting hatred toward the Jewish people.” The conviction appears to have been the result of the prosecutor, judge and jury’s inability to understand the concept of satire. Check out Arthur’s article “Guilty/Not Guilty” for details. If and when Arthur appeals, I will be happy to volunteer my services as an expert witness. I have four advanced degrees in literature (three MAs and a Ph.D.) and have done extensive work on the literary theory of Bakhtin, whose work provides the best possible basis for an accurate understanding of what satire is and how it works.

Meanwhile…Shortly before the verdict came in I recorded this interview with ex-Israeli philosopher-musician Gilad Atzmon, who may be the world’s leading expert on Jewish identity politics. When Arthur Topham was charged with “willfully promoting hatred against the Jewish people,” hauled into court, and menaced with a possible two-year prison sentence, Gilad flew to Quesnel, British Columbia to appear as an expert witness. (Read Gilad’s description of his testimony, “The Expert Witness“).

Arthur Topham (who has appeared on Truth Jihad Radio) is a kind, decent person without any apparent hatred in his heart. It is his love of justice, not his hatred of anyone, that led him to criticize Zionism and the dark side of Jewish identity politics. Arthur and his wife Shasta, who is Jewish, have behaved with amazing restraint and decorum during their eight-year ordeal, during which their remodeling business was destroyed.

What was Arthur Topham’s alleged crime? Parodying Zionist Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish!” by changing “Germany” to “Israel” throughout the text. This tiny change produced the satirical masterpiece “Israel Must Perish!” – and led Canada’s Zionist Power Configuration to have him jailed on “hate crime” charges!

Who is the REAL hater here – Arthur Topham, or the Zionists like Kaufman who wanted to commit genocide against Germany, and are now committing genocide in Palestine with the full support of the governments of the US and Canada?

And how has Jewish identity politics morphed into genocidal Zionism? If anyone can explain that, it would be Gilad Atzmon.

Also check out my interviews with Arthur Topham:

Arthur Topham puts Zionist double-standards & hypocrisy on trial! (December 17, 2013)

Persecuted writer-editor Arthur Topham: “Zionists assault free speech” (January 21, 2015)
Related Posts:
Arthur Topham vs. Theodore Nathan Kaufman
Outlawing Free Speech on Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial – Part 1
Gilad in the USA- May 15th
Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not

——-

For only $3.95 a month you can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads and other perks from Kevin! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of TruthJihad.com to get early access to the shows. Help Kevin keep these shows on the air – become a subscriber today!

A Battle With No Front by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2015-11-14 at 7.42.59 AM

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/1/a-battle-with-no-front

A Battle With No Front
November 14, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday morning, the news was broadcast of extensive ‘heroic’ allied drone attacks in Iraq and Syria in support of the battle for Sinjar. We also learned about the assassination of Jihadi John. We were told some revenge might be on the way. As promised, last night Paris was bathing in blood.

Welcome to World War III – a global conflict with unlimited battlefronts. We, as people of the world, are all caught in the middle in this disaster. We see that our universe is crumbling, we want peace, yet we don’t even know who the enemy is.

For some of us, this recent escalation is not a surprising development. We have been writing about it for years. We have been scrutinising the disastrous impact of the matrix of Ziocon immoral interventionist lobbies that have been relentlessly advocating more and more conflicts. The CRIF in Paris, CFI in London and AIPAC in Washington all push for escalation of the battle against Arabs and Muslims in accordance with the Israeli plan for a new Middle East.

We are forced to accept the fact that extremist Muslims are very upset and they can hit hard and in a very short time. Russia saw one of its planes falling out of the sky, killing more than two hundred innocent holiday makers. Paris has again suffered. We must ask, is it necessary? Do we have to live in fear from now on? Is peace an option?

The terror is a message that we have to understand. What is its message? ‘Leave us alone’ is what these homicidal terrorists are trying to tell us. Is that too complicated for the Western subject to take in? ‘Live and let others be,’ is what this is about. The pragmatic implication is obvious. The West must immediately stop serving Israeli and global Zionist interests. We must cease all operations in Arabia and the Mid East. For that to happen, and for a chance for peace, opposition to global Zionism and Israeli lobbying is imperative.

Here is some practical advice; next time Bernard Henri Levy, David Aaronovitch or Alan Dershowitz attempt to sell a new conflict-pack in the name of ‘human rights,’ we should politely advise them that we have learned our lesson – no more wars for Zion. Then, peace may prevail.

—–

The Expert Witness – Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 7.05.41 AM

The Expert Witness – Part 1
November 09, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

The following is the first part of Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial.  This part contains a brief summary of Atzmon’s perception of the Jews and their politics.  In the next part Atzmon will explain how these ideas serve to vindicate all forms of criticism of Jewish politics, ideology, symbols, rituals and so on.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, can you please elaborate on the notion of Jewish Identity Politics.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Identity politics is a relatively new study that looks into the meaning and the means of identification of various groups. Instead of asking what is X or Y, identity politics delves into the question of what identifying as X or Y may entail.  I have gone through the court case documentation and detected a considerable lack of understanding of the complexity of the terminology related to Jewish matters: identity, religion, race and politics. In particular, I encountered confusion in the comprehension of the crucial distinction among:

A: Judaism (the religion)

B:  The Jews (the people)

C: Jewishness (the ideology)

In order to grasp these notions we must elaborate first on the meaning of Jewish Identity Politics.

Instead of asking what or who are the Jews, we will simplify the question. We will ask what those who identify themselves as Jews mean by that.

Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.

A: The Religion – people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.

B: Ethnicity – people who identify as Jews due to ancestry and family lineage. Ladies and gentlemen, this category is also innocent. Having a Jewish mother doesn’t make one into a war criminal!

C: Politics – those who identify politically as Jews. Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, this category is far from innocent. Zionism-the promise to bring about a Jewish homeland in Palestine was executed at the expense of another people: namely the Palestinians. But Zionism is not alone. In fact all forms of Jewish politics are racially exclusive. Ask yourself, can Mr. Topham or any other ‘Goy’ (gentile, non-Jew) in this room join the group ‘Jews for Peace’ or ‘Jews for Human Rights’? The answer is NO. And why? Because the Goyim in the room are not racially qualified. The conclusion is inevitable. The 3rd category is racially oriented and to a certain extent, racist to the bone.   ‘Jews for peace’ is in practice as racist and exclusive as “Aryans for Palestine” or “Whites for free love.” And yet, most of us would react angrily to White only clubs but we are somehow forgiving when it comes to Jews only associations.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, please make sure that we understand you correctly. Are Jews a race?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. Jews are neither a race nor they are a biological entity, but Jewish politics is always racist or at least driven by racial orientation!

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  How does the model you sketched above help to understand Israeli politics, Jewish Identity or progress in this court case?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: In practice, every Jew who identifies as a Jew subscribes to one, two or three of the categories above.  Let’s examine the case of an American Jewish settler living in occupied West Bank. Yes he follows the Torah (1st category), yes he is Jew by ancestry (2nd category) and certainly, he identifies politically as a Jew (3rd category). But what about the Jewish Marxists who went as far as Spain to fight Franco in the name of the revolution? These revolutionary Jews didn’t follow the Jewish religion, they were not the 1st category. They only subscribed to the 2nd and the 3rd categories. What about Noam Chomsky? He is not a religious Jew. Again, he only subscribes to the 2nd and the 3rd   categories. He is a Jew by ancestry and also identifies politically as a Jew[1]. Albert Einstein? The Jury is out on that one but it would be reasonable to argue that he subscribes to the 2nd category.

I argue that it is the Jewish political element, the subscription to the 3rd category that leads towards some unsavoury acts whether they be the cold blood murder of Palestinian families or extensive Jewish Lobbying in the West.  Those acts deserve criticism, politically and ideologically.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But how does this model help this court to further its understanding the case of Arthur Topham or the accusation of hate speech?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: As I mentioned before, categories 1 & 2 are totally innocent. And indeed, no one really criticises Neturei Karta (Torah Jews) or Satmar Jews in related to Israeli crimes in Palestine. These two ultra orthodox Jewish groups made it clear that they oppose the crimes committed by the Jewish State and Zionism. Moreover, nowadays, no one really criticises Jews as a race, biology or ethnicity. What we do see is opposition Jewish politics and ideology. However and this is crucial. In the West we tend to believe that every politics & ideology must be subject to political and ideological criticism. My Lord, if every form of politics and ideology must be subject to criticism, this rule must be applied also to Jewish politics and ideology, and as far as I can tell, Jewish politics and ideology deserves a lot of criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But it seems as if Jews are often feel hated if their politics is criticised.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon:  Correct, yet, the fact that Jews feel hated doesn’t mean that anyone really hates them. It is also be possible that some Jews feel hated because they actually project their own hatred onto others.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  I am slightly confused here it seems as if we are dealing with a sophisticated multi layered identity.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: You are totally correct, this topic is indeed confusing and for a reason. Contemporary Diaspora Jewish politics struggles to maintain this confusion because it stifles any from of criticism of Jewish politics. In order to understand this construct we should imagine the following kosher trinity.

1447063494308

When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are“racially offended” in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned.   When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to supress any possible criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: In the last 7 days this court learned about some very problematic segments within the Talmud and the Torah. Yet, you insist here that the religion is innocent. Can you please enlighten us about the role of religion?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: This is a crucial point. While I argue that the Jewish religion is an innocent category, this is far from saying that Judaism is clean of some very problematic teachings and even racist and supremacist preaching.

Here is the problem. The historical facts are plain. In spite of some very problematic Judaic teachings that are both Talmud and Torah related, rabbinical Jews have never been involved in any collective murderous attempt against anyone else. This fact suggests that in spite of some horrid segments, it was actually the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries. Such a view vindicates the Talmud despite its uncomfortable teachings. But things are about to get very uncomfortable now.

It is not a secret that in contemporary Israel, it is the orthodox Jews and the followers of the Talmud who lead the most racist and murderous abuse of the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, we have a clear question to answer. If it was the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries, why doesn’t it restrain orthodox Israeli Jews now? The orthodox rabbis argue that it is the addition of political orientation that interfered with Judaic peaceful teaching.

Another possible answer is that we were wrong all along.  It wasn’t the Talmud that restrained the Jews, actually it was the ‘anti-Semitic’ church that repressed Jews. The collapse of the Church together with the rise of Israel and the influential Jewish lobbies in the West have led to a severe sense of impunity that is translated into a tsunami of violence and rise of Jewish supremacy that is religiously driven.

Here are some marbles taken from the Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, an Israeli Chief Sepharadi Rabbi. http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

On Goyim:

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”  Weekly Saturday night sermon in October 2010

On Muslims:

“They’re stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are.”

— Weekly Saturday night sermon in December 2009.

I cannot judge whether this is indeed the case but I can clearly say that the only way to deal with these issues is to discuss them openly and to make sure that as much information as possible is available to all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, I do believe that this is the principle that guides Arthur Topham, who for over 30 years has made some of the most important texts on the matter available to us all.

I wouldn’t know about‘Germany Must Perish’ unless Mr Topham had made it into a satire. Would you? Even the Crown Expert, Mr Rudner, admitted that he wasn’t aware of the text and actually confirmed by this admission the importance of the Radical Press. Two days ago Mr Rudner admitted that ‘Germany Must Perish’ is a hateful text. Congratulation to Mr Rudner. It took the Jewish world more than 7 decades to denounce one of the most horrible Jewish texts ever. Is not Mr Rudner long awaited denunciation the direct outcome of Mr Topham’s satire?

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  History. In your book, ‘The Wandering Who,’ you delve into the notion of History and Jewish history in particular. Can you please elaborate on the topic and its relevance within the context of ‘Holocaust denial’ and so-called ‘hatred?’

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: History becomes a meaningful adventure once we learn to narrate the past as we move along. This means that as we are changing constantly, our understanding of the past is also shifting. Accordingly, history, at its best, is the ability to visit, re-visit and revise our past as we progress in time. This understanding of history must be applied to any chapter in our past including the Holocaust.

It is no secret that Jewish institutions oppose the Holocaust being subjected to revision and the outcome of this opposition is tragic, especially for the Jews. Instead of letting the Holocaust become a dynamic universal ethical lesson it has been reduced into the new canonical Jewish religion. It has its shrines (museums) prophets, preachers and even a new God figure: ‘The Jew,’ the one who was forsaken by God, yet resurrected himself from the slaughter, and against all odds, made Israel into a nuclear super power that too often threatens world peace.

Once again, our duty to the Jews, to humanity, to Canada as well as to Israel is to fight this intellectual stagnation. To burst the bubble with an injection of refreshing and controversial thoughts. But isn’t that what Radical Press and Arthur Topham have been doing for the last 35 years?

Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the most disturbing images of National Socialist Germany’s persecution of the Jews are those old archive films of book burning. It is rather disturbing that in Canada in 2015 it is actually the Jewish lobby that leads the call for book burning. One would expect Jews to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoah. Freedom of speech and expression are our most precious assets. It is what made Athens into the core of universal thinking. It is down to us to keep this promise for the sake of our future generations and humanism in general.

GILAD&BARCLAY

—–

[1] Professor Chomsky recently endorsed Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP): http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/mazal-tov-to-chomsky-and-jews-voice-for-peace.html

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

Part 1

by Eve Mykytyn / November 7th, 2015

Five security guards, members of the RCMP, two in bulletproof vests, all entrants pass through metal detectors, undergo a wand search, check all electronics including cell phones and have their bags meticulously scrutinized. Why all the security? The crown was presenting its criminal case against Arthur Topham, for the crime of “hate.’

The Law

Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at Amazon.ca.

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

Mr. Rudner indicated under direct examination that he was the author of the written expert opinion he provided to the court. This was troubling, because the Crown had originally employed Bernie Farber as its expert, and Mr. Farber had provided an opinion that was word for word the same as Mr. Rudner’s. If Mr. Rudner did not commit perjury, he was at least deceptive in his presentation of his expert opinion.

The Defense

Barclay Johnson, defense attorney extraordinaire, gave an opening argument that was an impassioned call for freedom of thought and speech. Later the Crown objected, but the damage so-called had been done. Mr. Johnson endured a tongue lashing and a civil procedure lesson from the judge. The jury was instructed to ignore some of Mr. Johnson’s speech. I assume that this helped plant the speech more firmly in their minds.

Mr. Topham countered the charge of hate and argued as a defense that the writing was political with an expert of his own. Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic jazz musician, writer and philosopher volunteered his time to help. It seems wrong to enjoy a presentation when a man’s freedom is at stake, but it was delightful to watch Mr. Atzmon ignore or flaunt every rule of procedure and get away with it.

Atzmon was qualified as an expert on Jewish Identity Politics a topic that clearly few in the court had heard of. In his most amusing argument on the subject, Atzmon explained that there was a section on identity politics in every bookshop, and that topics included the LBGT community. Faced with political correctness, the court backed off and agreed to allow Atzmon in as an expert.

Atzmon began by explaining his system of characterization. He divides ‘the Jews’ into three non-exclusive categories. The first, Judaism, is made up of religious Jews. The second, Jews, are people who are Jewish by an accident of birth. The third, and most important category for this purpose is ‘Jewishness,’ those who identify politically as Jews. Mr. Atzmon described the first two categories as innocent. Objections were raised, innocent is, after all, a legal conclusion and if the first two are innocent, the third is, by implication, guilty. Judge Butler agreed with the Crown’s objection and then allowed Atzmon to proceed in describing the first two categories as innocent. From then on, the defense attorney, the prosecution and the judge adopted these categories for clarity of discussion.

Atzmon argued that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments; that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology. There is little criticism of Judaism, the religion, as a whole, but there has been some criticism leveled at a few aspects of the religion such as blood rituals and goy hatred. The thrust of his argument was that Jewish politics and ideology must be subject to criticism like all other politics and ideologies.

Like a rabbi on acid, Atzmon explained his philosophy, allowed few questions, and browbeat the attorneys. He dealt with his own philosophical approach to Jewishness and the dangers of believing oneself ‘chosen’ and then he got in a few swipes at categories one and two as well. The jury was mesmerized. Later, Atzmon told friends that he had directed his remarks to the juror sleeping in the first row. If he could be made to listen, presumably the others could as well.

Atzmon made the point that many of the most apparently anti-Semitic writings were made by the early Zionists. According to Atzmon, Herzl and others saw a problem with European Jewry and thought that the existence of a homeland could cure problems such as usury, discrimination against non-Jews, exclusiveness, etc. The take away is that if Jews are entitled to criticize Jews, why can’t other people? This is especially true because the Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in government, finance and the media. They clearly have the means to counter criticism if they choose to do so.

Part 2 will cover the closing arguments and the verdict.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.
 
•••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

 

Report on first week 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: Please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the word further afield. Now that the first week of the trial has ended and there’s been no mention of it in Canada’s mainstream media, other than the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, I believe it’s fair to assume that the mainstream news outlets in this country have collectively decided to censor the case in order that the Canadian public remains unaware of the importance of what’s occurring in British Columbia.

Given the importance of this trial to every citizen of the nation who values their constitutional right to freedom of expression and also considering the wide-spread media coverage over the years leading up to the final repeal of the Sec. 13(1) legislation as contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act in June of 2012, it’s highly unlikely that the msm is unaware of the fact that this trial is happening.

It’s therefore 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.

Because of the nature of the case and for obvious reasons of strategy I’ve kept the details of the proceedings to a bare minimum. Rest assured though that at the trial’s end which could be at the end of the coming week (November 6th) a more thorough analysis of the trial will be forthcoming.

Thank you.]

——–

 

To Alternative Media Sources 

Report on first week of 

Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham 

 by 

Arthur Topham

The Supreme Court “Hate Speech” trial of Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com concluded its first week of deliberations on Friday, October 30th, 2015 in the small, central interior city of Quesnel, British Columbia.

Having elected to be tried by a jury of his peers rather than gamble on the Attorney General’s office selecting a potentially biased justice to oversee the proceedings and decide his fate the first order of business was to select twelve individuals from around the local community to sit on the jury. This process of selection meant that well over a hundred individuals were called to appear at the provincial government office on the morning of Monday, October 26th.

As well, and contrary to its normal behaviour over the past three and a half years, it was also at this time that Crown decided to initiate a rather Orwellian practise of setting up a RCMP screening process within the building which required every individual entering to have to go through a security check prior to gaining access to the courts. This entailed the removal of all of one’s personal possessions such as wallets, purses, cell phones, etc from their pockets and placing them in little plastic baskets and then walking through a scanner and having an RCMP officer go over your whole body with a hand-held wand to determine whether you might have a concealed weapon or possibly explosives(?) strapped to your body with the intent of committing an act of “terrorism”. Given the undue inconvenience of this intimidating process one can only imagine that it may have been designed by Crown to discourage the local citizenry from attending the trial and observing its proceedings.

Len Rudner copy

In addition, considering the fact that Crown’s star Expert witness was Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), it was highly likely that the additional security measures were part of the conditions upon which Mr. Rudner consented to appear. This was further corroborated by the fact that while Mr. Rudner was in attendance he was constantly accompanied by a police bodyguard.

Meanwhile the crowd of potential jurors were forced to line up outside and wait in the snow and sleet as each one of them went through the onerous security process.

The Show Begins

Crown’s first witness was now retired Det. Cst. Terry Wilson who, at the time of my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012, was the lead investigator for the BC Hate Crime Unit located in Surrey, B.C., a suburb of Vancouver. Wilson, along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas and a team of other police officers, had, after investigating complaints from two individuals back in 2011 that I and my website RadicalPress.com were contravening Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” decided to charge and arrest me for the promotion of “hate propaganda”.

Wilson&LevasPhoto copy 4

The focus of Crown’s evidence consisted of four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books which are 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 of Douglas Reed’s masterful historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion.

The remaining two binders contained numerous posts and Editorial comments by Topham. The majority of material being that produced by authors other than the accused.

It wasn’t until the end of Wednesday, October 28th that Crown completed her testimony from former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. The following morning, Thursday, October 29th at 10:26 a.m. Arthur Topham’s Defence Counsel, Barclay Johnson had the opportunity to cross-examine Wilson on his three day of testimony.

Court adjourned at 4:05 p.m. and Mr. Topham, his Attorney Barclay Johnson and a number of supporters, including Mr. Topham’s wife proceeded across the street from the Courthouse to the Billy Barker Hotel where all of the out-of-town visitors were staying to await the arrival of Topham’s Expert Witness Mr. Gilad Atzmon, who was due to arrive at the Quesnel airport at 4:00 p.m. that same day.

TophamLegalTeam

Mr. 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.

AtzBkCov

Day five of the trial began Friday, October 30th, 2015. Crown’s Expert Witness Mr. Len Rudner testified throughout the whole of the day. Cross examination of Mr. Rudner will begin Monday, November 2nd.

•••0•••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

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

From “A” to “Zion” On Gilad Atzmon’s “The Definitive Israeli Lexicon”

From “A” to “Zion”

On Gilad Atzmon’s “The Definitive Israeli Lexicon”

by EUGENE SCHULMAN

Infamous for his earlier book, “The Wandering Who?: A Study in Jewish Identity Politics” (2011), Gilad Atzmon has collaborated with Italian cartoonist and interior designer, Enzo Apicella to produce “The Definitive Israeli Lexicon, A to Zion”.

Since the publication of “The Wandering Who?” Atzmon has been vilified and dragged through the mud of slander by the Jewish/Israeli establishment, accused of anti-Semitism and being a self-hating Jew.  Born in Israel of Jewish parents, and having served in the IDF, Atzmon became disenchanted, to say the least, with Israel and its policies in Palestine and against the Palestinian people.  He moved to England to follow a career in jazz music as a talented saxophone player, and put himself through university where he studied philosophy and earned a masters degree.

Atzmon has been on the road playing concerts and lecturing on the meaning of his book for a number of years, and despite the criticisms of it, it still sells widely and has had an enormous influence on public opinion of Judaism and Israeli policies.  The same public who were moved by Walt and Mearsheimer’s book, “The Israeli Lobby”, are moved by Atzmon.atzmonlex

The book under review is, on the surface, of a much different nature.  “A to Zion” is intended to be a book of humor, attacking the shibboleths of Zionism.  But, as we know, Jewish humor is directed at itself and is often self deprecating.  Atzmon uses it often in his lectures and conferences.  And in his travels he has picked up a lot of this humor and translates it in this book as jabs against Zionism.  A short aphoristic book of only a hundred or so pages, it is designed to alphabetically define certain aspects of Zionism and Zionist personalities in one-liner jabs.  Interspersed throughout are delicious cartoons by Apicella, a cartoonist I have never encountered before this book.  His drawings are clever enough to be editorial cartoons in any newspaper.  They probably are in Italy.

Here are just a few of the one liners that grab attention:

* Aliya – Jewish immigration to Israel; initially it was supposed to solve the Jewish question.  In practice, it just moved it to a new location.

* Bar Mitzvah – the moment when the male Jew accepts that his foreskin is not going to grow back.

* Humour, Jewish – diverts attention from the problematic symptoms by means of self-deprecation.

* Zionism – a false promise to take the Jews away and to give the goyim a break.

Please, run out and buy a copy of this book.  It will knock a hole in all your prejudices.

A short video on The Definitive Israeli Lexicon.

Eugene Schulman lives in Geneva, Switzerland.

 Order online in the USA: 

http://www.malloybooks.com/Fanfarelimited.html

http://www.amazon.com

Order online UK & Europe:

http://www.fanfare.website/

http://www.amazon.co.uk

 

In These Very Moments, The Protocols Are Being Rewritten by Gilad Atzmon

Gilad:Yossi

In These Very Moments, The Protocols Are Being Rewritten
February 08, 2015

By Gilad Atzmon

gilad--banner-sea-1

The Protocols copy 3

For many years my detractors have pointed at the following quote as evidence of my anti Jewish sentiments:

“American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ are an authentic document or a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do control the world.”

Both Zionists as well as anti Zionist Zionists cling to this quote as evidence that my ideas are ‘anti Semitic’. As if Jewish power and dominance is a product of my sick imagination.

In the article on antisemitism that was published back in December 2003 I presented an extensive list of Zionist Jews in Bush Administration. I also pointed out that “in Clinton’s administration the situation was even worse. Even though the Jews only make up 1.9 per cent of the country’s population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton’s appointees were Jews.” I tried to warn Jews that their excessive power is dangerous for our universe as well as Jewry.

I have never retracted or apologized for statements of what I believed and still believe to be the truth. It is not a secret that with time, many scholars have supported my position. In 2006 Mearsheimer and Walt published their book on The Israeli Lobby.

45% of the Brits are regarded by the Jewish leaders as ‘antisemites’ because the Brits acknowledged in response to survey questions that Jews enjoy extensive power in media, politics and finance.

For 12 years I’ve been accused of being an ‘antisemite’ for stating the obvious – the question of whether the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is an authentic document or a forgery is irrelevant. Jewish power in media, finance and politics is immense and devastatingly dangerous.

Today, Yossi Sarid, the Israeli light Zionist veteran politician agreed with my position. This is what he wrote in Haaretz:

“In these very moments, the protocols are being rewritten. Rich Jews are writing them in their own handwriting. They, in their wealth, are confirming with their own signatures what anti-Semites used to slander them with in days gone by: We, the elders of Zion, pull the strings of Congress, and the congressmen are nothing but marionettes who do our will. If they don’t understand our words, they’ll understand our threats. And if in the past, we ran the show from behind the scenes, now we’re doing it openly, from center stage. And if you forget our donations, the wellspring will run dry.”

One question remains, is telling the truth about Jewish power Antisemitism?

My answer is unequivocal. No it isn’t, truth is liberation.

Source: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/2/8/in-these-very-moments-the-protocols-are-being-rewritten

WHAT IS WRONG WITH GARETH PORTER – AN INTERVIEW by Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/what-is-wrong-with-gareth-porter-an-interview.html

Screen Shot 2014-10-21 at 9.44.19 AM

WHAT IS WRONG WITH GARETH PORTER – AN INTERVIEW

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014  GILAD ATZMON

By

Gilad Atzmon

A few days ago, I came across a disturbing article on Buzzfeed. The headline read; “U.S. Journalist Regrets Attending Conspiracy Conference In Tehran.” According to Buzzfeed, Gareth Porter, a respected journalist and critic of the Jewish lobby and Israel, reported that he would have never have attended the  “conference in Tehran if he had known the real views of his fellow attendees.”

Screen-Shot-2014-10-14-at-10.25.14-AM

But the report didn’t stop there. In an attempt to justify his position, Porter proceeded to breach the ethics of journalism — he published an email correspondence with a top Iranian official without requesting permission to do so. Porter didn’t even bother to correct the spelling and typos of the Iranian official.

Porter purported to speak on behalf of other activists and writers, again, without obtaining their consent. And as if all this was not sufficient, Porter went on to smear other activists and condemned their elementary exercise of freedom of speech.

But the entire story is not all bad. While most non-ethical conspirators operate in a clandestine manner, Porter exposed his methods. For some reason he provided a precious glimpse into the entire spectrum of ugly tactics that are employed to keep the gates sealed.  It is not a secret that instead of choosing to be a guardian of the truth, the contemporary progressive operates as a guardian of the discourse, or, more accurately, ‘the progressive discourse.’

The Buzzfeed article is a very sad piece. It conveys an image of a weak human being desperate to save his reputation. In order to do so he tries every trick he knows. Sadly, he achieves the opposite.  In his attempt to smear Mark Glenn, the man behind The Ugly Truth Radio Network, Porter quotes Glenn out of context. He fails to comply with even the minimum journalistic standard of fairness and provide a URL reference for his quotation.  One would expect this from Dershowitz, but not from a ‘progressive dissident’.

Mark Glenn

The crucial question not answered by his article, is who is Porter trying to appease? Why does he defame Mark Glenn who didn’t even attend the conference? Is it possible that veteran progressive journalist Porter is breaching every journalist ethic just to convey the image that he is committed to Jewish primary interests?

I wonder what made Porter, who isn’t a novice, perform in such an unprofessional, non-journalistic and non-ethical manner. I initially thought that he was under some horrendous Zionist pressure. I decided to approach Porter and find out whether he could offer some explanations.  I was hoping to hear that his computer was hacked, that his HD was stolen, that he doesn’t know how all that information leaked to Buzzfeed, but I soon realised that my expectations were far too lofty.

GarethPorterPic300 copy 2

Gilad Atzmon: Hello Gareth, Gilad Atzmon here. Any chance we could have a short chat followed by an interview?

Gareth Porter: For Whatsupic? (a new anti Zionist outlet that reported on Porter’s fiasco earlier this week)

Gilad Atzmon: Not at all, I was actually very disturbed by Whatsupic’s article. I wanted to hear your take first…

Gareth Porter: It’s very simple. I said it all in my email to Buzzfeed, which is all in the story. I won’t be associated with people who re openly anti-Jewish, as distinct from anti-Zionist. Mark Glenn was clearly the former.–

–I guess that by now it is clear that Buzzfeed’s agents didn’t break into the Porter house in the middle of the night or hack his computer from afar. Porter voluntarily sent the information to Buzzfeed, defaming some thinkers, with the hope of disowning his own journey to Iran.—  

 Porter continues: I was told by a participant in the conference that three French guys displayed cartoons that made fun of the holocaust, which I found unacceptable. And the Italian who I heard speak put a paper on the table that said Judaism is the enemy.

Gilad Atzmon:  I assume that you are familiar with my take on the topic. I am not anti Jew or anti Judaism, but I am certainly anti Jewishness, which I define as different forms of celebration of Jewish exceptionalism.

Gareth Porter: I’m not really familiar with it but that wouldn’t cover what was said by Glenn or Prof. Moffa or the Frenchmen right?

Gilad Atzmon:  Of course, however, you have to remember that Israel is the Jewish State, it is supported by the Jewish Lobby, and you are very critical of the Jewish lobby, as far as I am aware. Hence it is necessary to find out once and for all what Jewishness stands for, don’t you agree?

Gareth Porter: How is this related to what I have explained?

Gilad Atzmon: Simple, if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and it decorates its airplanes with Jewish symbols, shouldn’t the rest of us ask, once and for all, what is Jewishness?

Gareth Porter: Why is that necessary to take (such) a stand against the Israeli state and its policies?  I suggest that it isn’t. Plenty of people, including Jews and non-Jews have been doing so for a long time.

Again what does this have to do with your question to me?

–I guess that by now Porter has expressly admitted that he opposes any attempt to understand the meaning of Jewishness as it relates to the Jewish State. In addition, he has expressed his opposition to the most precious American value, freedom of expression. One would expect an American dissident writer to be the first to defend the first amendment rather than attempting to suppress free speech.  Porter produced a deeply flawed and embarrassingly bad argument. The fact that many activists or even scholars (both Jews and gentiles) avoid touching the ‘J’ word doesn’t, by itself, mean that the ‘J’ issue should be dismissed. It only means that many of our leading scholars and activists are probably too scared to ask the core question to do with the State that defines itself as the Jewish one–

Gilad Atzmon: Ok, so you believe that the fact that Israel claims to adhere to Jewish principles is something that we should ignore in our analysis of its politics. Am I correct?

Gareth Porter: I don’t want to get into this more deeply. You know as well as I do that plenty of people have argued from before the beginning of Israel against the project on the basis of “Jewish principles.”

–This is actually not true at all, those secular Jews who opposed Israel and the Zionist project in the name of universal principles, employed non-Jewish principles (such as Martin Buber, and Israeli Communists). The Jews who opposed Israel and Zionism in the name of Judaism (such as the Torah Jews) did so in the name of Talmudic teachings that have nothing to do with ethics, universalism or any morally oriented  principled thought. I assume that Porter is clueless as far as ‘Jewish principles’ are concerned and seemingly this is not going to change because he clearly attempts to silence every discussion on the topic– 

Gilad Atzmon: I will explain it all. If Jewishness becomes the ‘issue,’ then some people (such as Mark Glenn) may as well look for answers in Judaism, others may look into ethnicity, some would look into culture. After all, no one stopped Max Weber from looking into the core of Protestant religion and its impact on capitalism.

Gareth Porter:  I don’t have time to continue. I’ve got two pieces to finish. Look I’m not knocking anybody who wants to explore questions of what it means to be Jewish. But I’ve explained why I said (and) what I did showed that.

Gilad Atzmon:  Ok, final question, you shared with the public emails from a top Iranian official, did you obtain the right to do so? 

Gareth Porter: I reject the premise of your question. These were not personal e-mails. They related to matters of public interest about which I was subject to a smear campaign by right-wing extremists.

Gilad Atzmon: I guess that the answer is NO then…  Thanks so much for your time.

All that remains is for us is to roll our eyes the toward the heavens in dismay and ask, ‘how did this happen to us?’ How did it happen to Porter? How did this defeatist culture win over true dissent? I have been sad in the last few days, witnessing a journalist of Porter’s abilities compromising journalistic principles in a desperate attempt to appease the Jewish media, the same power he so profoundly criticised in the past. But at least this failure explains why progressive dissent has achieved nothing. We are dealing with a weak operation on the verge of controlled opposition

The Book of Gareth: Why Persians Should Never Sleep With Jewish Whores by Trevor LaBonte

BkofGareth Hdr

By Trevor LaBonte

October 16th, 2014

 

Whatsupic — “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”  

 Marcus Tullius Cicero  Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, consul and constitutionalist.

Iran New Horizon Conference 2014

A few curious events regarding the New Horizons conspiracy conference in Tehran in early October 2014 provide us with a crucial case study in what ails the anti-Zionist truth movement and how the situation needs to be improved.

For those in need of debriefing, here is the article based on emails that journalist Gareth Porter leaked to the Zionist-infested internet news media company “Buzz Feed.”

(Here is my original op-ed about it, published on Oct 9, 2014)

Jewish “Anti-war” leftist journalist Gareth Porter managed to pull off a major double-cross against the government of Iran, which happens to be fighting to continue to exist amid a sea of Zionist-manufactured regional turmoil. Porter received a valuable assist from the inside by conference organizer Reza Montazami, who refrained from commenting in the aftermath of Porter leaking his personal emails to Buzz Feed in the interests of libeling and smearing the conference organizer and falsely implicating the government of Iran into the phony scandal.

The episode is a textbook example of why it is crucial to pay strict attention to a number of simple key factors in determining who should be allowed inside the Islamic Republic, and who should be considered an enemy to be barred at the door.

The leaked emails reveal that, beginning on Aug 15, 2014, Porter first demanded, as a prerequisite to his participation, as a prerequisite to his participation that respected author and political commentator, Mark Glenn of Press TV and The Ugly Truth, be dis-invited from the conference, a conference which was important to Iran’s safety and national interests.

Parenthetically, Mark Glenn and USS Liberty survivor Philip F. Tourney happened to have co-authored a revealing book together, which reveals all the details of Israel’s treacherous June 8, 1967 false flag attack against America, which was designed to frame Egypt, presumably so the Israeli government could trick America into entering the “Six Day War” for Israel’s slated expansion, the establishment of “Greater Israel,” and a Jewish one-world government. The book clearly illustrates how Zionist interests have an astonishing amount of control over America, with subversive Zionist elements in America conspiring with Israel and even trying to sink the USS Liberty together, and collaborating on the sloppy cover-up when the mission had to be aborted prior to completion. Even though Israel was caught red-handed perpetrating the unspeakably treacherous attack against its supposed ally, the story has yet to break to the public at large, thanks to the power of historical concealment. It is starkly reminiscent of 9/11 on multiple levels, but that is another story.

Porter also, over several emails in the exchange, nosily prodded Montazami for a list of all the other names of the would-be conference participants, and what all of their topics of address would be. When Montazami neglected to answer the questions sufficiently, Porter asked again.

Montazami quickly and inexplicably capitulated to Porter’s demands, offering as his rationale, “We don’t invite him whether you come or not. It means that is vrery [sic] critical point for us. if not, what is the different between us and Takfirist. You know what means takfir. May you look at dicionary [sic], and you will find that it makes no differnt[sic] whether you are an American scholar or Libian [sic] primitive, While you hate other, you are takfirist just like Daesh.”

It’s an interesting comparison, given that Glenn is not part of a known force of Zionist-backed foreign mercenaries posing as rebels in a fake civil war, nor has he played soccer with any decapitated heads or cooked up any human livers on his Webber grill. I do occasionally hear that his wife makes good spaghetti sauce, though.

For the record, Glenn’s “problematic” observations about Judaism’s core being an ideology of chosen-ness rather than providing a moral and ethical code which is universal and fair to all people and not just Jews, are simple statements of basic fact and are not based in hatred, bigotry, or prejudice.

Contemporary essentialist philosopher and former Israeli/ former Jew Gilad Atzmon has written on the subject of Jewish identity politics extensively, revealing the same facts which in turn prove Porter’s tit-for-tat equation between Judaism and Islam (reprinted further down) to be a classic example of a logical fallacy.

Yet, it was successful as an appeal to Montazami’s apparently faulty understanding of his own religious faith. Porter said to Montazami, “I’m sorry to delay my acceptance of the invitation in this way, but I hope you will understand the difficulty that Mr. Glenn’s participation presents. I would have the same reaction, of course, to the participation in a conference by someone who espoused the view that Islam is a faith that ‘bring [sic] nothing but sickness and death’. I’m sure you have the same reaction.”

Porter failed to produce one example of anything Glenn has said which is not empirically correct, instead making the plea, “I have only one problem at this point. One of the people who has been invited to speak at the conference, Mark Glenn, is someone about whom IPIS should be extremely wary. He is notorious for his hatred of Judaism and Jews, which needless to say, IPIS would certainly not want to be associated with.”

Charging someone with being “anti-Semitic” is unfair. It vaguely alleges that there is hatred of Jews based on racial reasons, and makes no reference to the tribalist ideology around which Jewish culture revolves. Opposing a racist/supremacist ideology does not make one a racist.

This passage from the Old Testament summarizes Judaism:

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are to possess and casts out the many peoples living there, you shall then slaughter them all and utterly destroy them…You shall make no agreements with them nor show them any mercy. You shall destroy their altars, break down their images, cut down their groves and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people unto the LORD thy God and He has chosen you to be a special people above all others upon the face of the earth…”

–Book of Deuteronomy, 7:1-8

 

Porter is a hypocrite for lashing out Glenn but taking no issue with the concept that the Earth and all its life forms are the property of the Jews.

When Porter got back to the US, he turned around and attacked Iran itself, the country he purports to be defending against Israel’s “nuclear threat” lies. In an act of sheer deceit and betrayal to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Porter leaked the private emails, which dated back months, to the heavily Jewish-staffed Zionist media outlet “Buzz Feed” to falsely implicate the government of Iran in participating in and helping to organize what was then insultingly reported as an official conference of “9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites,” with Porter saying he “regretted attending.” Porter’s report conflicts with Montazami’s clear and unambiguous statement that IPIS, Iran’s Foreign Ministry think-tank, was not involved with organizing the conference, and therefore the government of Iran had nothing to do with the conference. He managed to paint a non-governmental conference of responsible adults discussing real Zionist crimes and deception…as a scandalous “anti-Semitic” conference done with the government of Iran’s blessings and active participation. Yet, Porter seems to know a lot about “Manufactured Crisis,” which, ironically, is the title of his book about the Israeli MOSSAD’s plot to trick the US into attacking Iran based on Israel’s phony stories about Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.

Porter mentioned in the interview that a nonprofit organization called “Catalytic Diplomacy” paid for his travel to Iran. This statement regarding the conference episode to Buzz Feed by the Catalytic Diplomacy’s founder, Jeremy Stone, reveals Stone’s contempt for the truth movement, as well as his Zionistic bigotry against Middle Easterners and his sympathies with the Jewish Israeli imperialist project: “It is sad, but definitely true, that the Middle East is full of crazies, of which the Holocaust deniers and the 9/11 truthers are, certainly, among the sickest…But in our half-century of efforts to prevent war, terrorism and genocide, and forestall the collapse of civilization, it is not feasible to avoid attending Middle East conferences that might, in the end, be attended by various nuts in varying proportions. In particular, anti-semitism [sic] is endemic in the Middle East and rising.”

Jeremy Stone is a former head of the Federation of American Scientists and now leads Catalytic Diplomacy

So the Sayan returned the favor of being invited to the conference by making numerous censorious demands, trying to do as much damage as  possible to Mark Glenn’s good reputation, lying about the government of Iran, and trying to tar as many people as possible as “anti-Semites,”  “conspiracy theorists,” “crazies,” and “Holocaust deniers,” reaching potentially into the highest eschelons of the Iranian government. Only two things appear to have been forgotten, which was to call some of the conference participants “Nazis” and maybe call Iran’s Supreme Leader “a  new Hitler” or something like that. But maybe that is coming in the next libelous article featuring Porter, Benjamin, Weir, Escobar, and Co. in Buzz Feed.

Read the rest of the story HERE

 

CHASED BY A KLEZMER  by Gilad Atzmon

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/chased-by-a-klezmer.html

gilad--banner-sea-1

RPEdNew400

[Editor’s Comment: I want to add a few of my own thoughts on one of the main points contained in Gilad’s article below, i.e., “Jewish Exclusivity”. As Gilad puts it, in plain English, “Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist organizations are exclusive to Jews.” This is something that I’ve found out over years of attempts at trying to either join in Jewish forums or Jewish groups here in Canada who profess to be at odds with the Jewish state of Israel and its policies toward the Palestinian people. The last time, a few years back, I did get accepted into a discussion group but when I mentioned Gilad’s name in a discussion I was unceremoniously given the boot. Prior to that time I had made other friendly overtures to similar groups with no positive results. 

The most recent creation by the Jewish ‘left’ here in Canada is the Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) organization. I signed up for their mailing list and periodically receive notices, most recently dealing with the Gaza debacle. Inevitably they present themselves as “progressives” which is the tell-tale sign that they are Jewish in nature and control. They also appear on the leading edge of initiatives that they themselves have created but which always tend to push whatever their agenda happens to be. A recent example is the following:

Screen Shot 2014-08-29 at 10.15.10 AM

It all sounds to open and free and positive but just try to contact the folks at IJV and receive a reply from them. It ain’t a gonna happen. It’s a one-way street and all roads lead back to this same “Jewish exclusivity” that Gilad Atzmon describes so well in his article. I would be absolutely floored if I was to find that there were Goyim members of the Board of Directors of the IJV here in Canada. But simply posing the question to them would be construed as being “anti-Semitic” and “un-progressive” and unacceptable.

It’s endemic throughout all countries I would imagine and that attitude only serves to reinforce the commonly accepted view that Jews aren’t to be trusted or relied upon to be cooperative members of any ad hoc organization that opposes the Zionist agenda of Israel and the global Rothschild elites who now control much to much of the world’s power and resources.]

—————

 

 Atzmon_defamation_League

CHASED BY A KLEZMER 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2014

By  GILAD ATZMON

I am amused that as the Zionist smear campaign against me and my work has faded, the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists, A.K.A AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists), are ever more infuriated by my thoughts.  They are desperate to silence me. They don’t have a chance, but, let’s face it, they have some really good reasons.

The recent events in Palestine have proved beyond any doubt my interpretation of Jewish nationalism and Jewish identity politics. It is not a coincidence that I was the only one to predict the Israeli defeat  even before the first Israeli soldier entered Gaza. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, its actions and atrocities must be understood within the context of Jewish culture and heritage. This is my line of thought and this is what I am known for.

Leading commentator, Jeff Blankfort, argued recently that the Jewish Left is not the solution, it is actually a continuation of the problem. I believe that the Jewish Left is not merely a continuation of the problem, it is actually at the heart of the problem. Jewish power, as I see it, is the capacity to silence criticism of Jewish power. In that regard, AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby are not ‘Jewish power,’ they are symptoms of Jewish power. The institutional attempt to silence any debate about Jewish power is provided by the Jewish Left and the so called Jewish anti Zionist network (JVP, Mondowiess, Chomsky, Blumenthal, etc.). It is the Jewish Left that attempts to set the boundaries of the discussion and dictates what can and cannot be said.

For instance, we may talk about Zionism and Israel but we must never elaborate on the Jewishness of the Jewish state. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it attests to its affinity to Jewish history, and it draws its vile inception from the Old Testament, yet, the Jewish pro Palestinian outlet Mondoweiss, changed its comment policy to ban discussion of Jewish culture in the context of criticizing Israel.  To sum it all up, I am not just an anti Zionist, I am actually critical of all forms of Jewish politics, both Zionist and Anti. I contend that all forms of Jewish politics are ethno-centric and to a certain extent, racially driven. And in my latest book The Wandering Who I substantiate this point and yet to see any attempt to prove me wrong.

In the last few days I have came across several attempts to defame me. I am cheered by each of them. I tend to see these attempts as an acknowledgment of the importance of my contribution to the discourse.

Earlier today I read a clumsy diatribe  written by Nick Cooper, a Jewish ethnic campaigner as well as a Klezmer artist from Texas. In his article, Why Other Critics of Israel Won’t Work With Gilad Atzmon Anymore, Klezmer Cooper engages in a Dershowitz like cherry-picking exercise but, instead of exposing me, he conveniently provides us with an example of morbid Jewish Left ideology and tactics.

Ali Abunimah Did Ask Me To Lie

Cooper is convinced that my words are too often “defamatory, inaccurate, and self-aggrandizing.” He accuses me of “fabricating” a statement by Ali Abunimah. Cooper quotes a line of mine from an email exchange.  “Abunimah,” I wrote,  “calls Israelis Zionists because he needs the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists to support his operation. The last time I communicated with Ali Abunimah he wrote to me, ‘Just refer to Zionism instead of Jewish identity and everything would be fine’. He basically asked me to lie.. I obviously refused’…”

If Cooper bothered with even minimal research he would find out that Mr Abunimah admitted that he sent me a message along this exact line. The email is available on Ali Abuimah’s web site:

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/response-recent-efforts-cast-me-racist


From: Ali Abunimah

November 30, 2010 at 5:16 pm

Dear Gilad, I appreciate your note… What you describe as “Jewish” might perhaps be more accurately described as “Zionist,” – and then we might find grounds for a lot of agreement..

Rather than ‘fabricating’ Abunimah’s words, I described his embarrassing non- ethical offer pretty accurately. 

Jewish Exclusivity

Klezmer Cooper is correct in claiming that in our correspondence I told him that he wasn’t intelligent enough to grasp the relatively simple argument that Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist organizations are exclusive to Jews. No doubt, Jewish organizations are happy to collect subscription fees from Goyim (gentiles). But can a Goy become the secretary of Jewish Voice for Peace or the spokesperson for the Jewish Anti-Zionist Network? Not really, and why? Is it because the Goyim aren’t racially qualified or is it because they are ethnically unfit for the job?  The answer should be embarrassing to the Jewish Left, as it seems even the Israeli Knesset is more tolerant than Western Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist organizations.

Truthfulness

Cooper is also correct that I see “Jewish exclusivity everywhere.” And I further contend that Jewish anti-Zionists are a ‘racially oriented exclusivist culture driven by chosenness.’ But in order to prove me wrong  Cooper argues that  “Anti-Zionist Jews often have non-Jewish partners.”  If Cooper were familiar with Jewish heritage and culture he would know that those ‘partners’ are tagged within the tribal discourse as ‘Sabbos Goyim’- Gentiles who toadie to the every wish and whim of the Jews, especially in politics. Cooper is even kind enough to provide us with a list of his favourite Sabbos Goyim. They are all there at the bottom of his article. Arab sounding names first, English names later, for Sabbos Goyim are set in a hierarchic manner based on the primacy of Jewish interests.

Killing Christ on a daily Basis

Cooper accuses me of racism, but there is one thing he forgets to do; produce a single reference made by me in which I criticize Jews as a race or ethnicity.

“Gilad compared the Israeli attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla to the killing of Jesus,” Cooper writes. I did and would do it again! But is this racism? In the last 5 weeks I have interpreted Israeli crimes in Gaza in the light of Christ killing. Is it racist? Not at all! The murder of Christ symbolizes the killing of the innocent. As far as I am aware this is exactly what the Jewish State has done in turning Gaza into a pile or rubble and murdering children, women, elders and medical workers.

But Chirst Killing also embodies the killing of the messenger. Isn’t that exactly what Nick Cooper attempts to do in struggling to silence me in such a transparently deceitful fashion?

Cooper writes, “Invoking the Christ Killer slur invokes past centuries of anti-Jewish racism and violence in Europe and the US.” I would suggest to Cooper and other Hasbara merchants  that if Israel were to stop killing innocent people in Palestine in the name of the Jewish people, that would be a very useful tactic in combating the ‘Christ Killer’ slur.

Distortion of truth 

Klezmer Cooper writes at the end of his piece, “Several years ago, I collaborated with Gilad Atzmon on the Klezmer Musicians Against the Wall Compilation CD”

This is simply not true. I have never collaborated with Cooper. His playing wasn’t in line with my standards (Cooper owns a drum set). I allowed Cooper to use a few tunes from my parody album “Artie Fishel and The Promised Band” – a comical musical project that mocks Klezmer music and Jewish identity politics, on his Klezmer compilation. Cooper was obviously too dim to grasp that Artie Fishel was a spoof character mocking the Coopers of this world.

Watch Artie Fishel (on Jazz in my Jihad)  http://youtu.be/oCJ4De0POGs

Screen Shot 2014-08-29 at 9.37.11 AM

Back To The Ghetto

I understand Cooper’s frustration as much as I understand his fear. The popularity of my criticism of Jewish identity politics is well established by now. It has been endorsed by the greatest scholars and commentators ever associated with the solidarity movement.

If Jewish activists and Klezmers alike want to be part of a true solidarity movement, they better sneak out of the ghetto and join a universal discourse. I don’t hold my breath for that to happen any time soon.

——–

The End of Israel by Gilad Atzmon

 http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-end-of-israel.html

THE END OF ISRAEL

MONDAY, JULY 21, 2014 AT 1:21PM

GILAD ATZMON

killing and sobbing .jpg

By Gilad Atzmon


In his speech to the nation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged yesterday that the war on Gaza is a battle for the existence of the Jewish State. Netanyahu is correct. And Israel cannot win this battle; it cannot even define what a victory might entail. Surely the battle is not about the tunnels or the militants’ underground operation, the tunnels are just weapons of resistance rather than the resistance itself. The Hamas and Gaza militants lured Israel into a battle zone in which it could never succeed and Hamas set the conditions, chose the ground and has written the terms required to conclude this cycle of violence.

For ten days Netanyahu did all he could to prevent an IDF ground operation. He was facing the reality that Israel lacks a military answer to Palestinian resistance. Netanyahu knew that a defeat on the ground would eradicate the little that remains of IDF’s power of deterrence.

Five days ago, Israel, at least in the eyes of its supporters, held the upper ground. It saw it citizens subject to an endless barrage of rockets, yet it showed relative restraint, killing Palestinian civilians only from afar, which served to convey an imaginary image of strength. But that has changed rapidly since Israel launched its ground operation. Israel is now, once again, involved in colossal war crimes against a civilian population and worse, at least strategically, its elite infantry commandos are being eradicated in a face-to-face street battle in Gaza.  In spite of clear Israeli technological superiority and firepower, the Palestinian militants are winning the battle on the ground and they have even managed to move the battle to Israeli territory. In addition, the barrage of rockets on Tel Aviv doesn’t seem to stop.

IDF’s defeat in Gaza leaves the Jewish State with no hope. The moral is simple. If you insist on living on someone else’s land, military might is an essential ingredient to discourage the dispossessed from acting to reclaim their rights.  The level of IDF casualties and the number of bodies of Israeli elite soldiers returning home in coffins send a clear message to both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli military superiority belongs to the past. There is no future for the Jews-only-State in Palestine; they may have to try somewhere else.

Alain Soral and Gilad Atzmon on Jewish Power and cultural narcissism Interview by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/alain-soral-and-gilad-atzmon-on-jewish-power-and-cultural-na.html

Alain Soral and Gilad Atzmon on Jewish Power and cultural narcissism

Saturday, March 8, 2014  Gilad Atzmon

An Interview by Alimuddin Usmani 

Translated by Romain Redouin

Alain&Gilad

 

 (http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr)

 

“The real meaning of Jewish Power is the capacity to silence the discussion of Jewish power”

~ Gilad Atzmon

 

Alain Soral and Gilad Atzmon have each faced (and perhaps welcomed) criticism and controversy as a result of their intellectual inquiries  and honest reasoning. Neither man has shied away from politically incorrect observations including  those on issues of Zionism, culture, Europe or freedom of speech.

How  did you get to know each other?

 AS: I first got to know  Gilad through his  music. I am a jazz lover  and have long appreciated Gilad who is an internationally known and admired  musician. Gilad also played with Robert Wyatt who has been my favorite musician since I was 16.

Gilad and I met in person two years ago at the Paris Book Fair. He was there to finalize the contract of his latest book, “The Wandering Who?” which is co-published by my publishing company, Kontre Kulture.

I am blown away by Gilad’s courage  and lucidity. By culture and experience I have seen that those Jews who are able to tear the veil of tribalism to reach the  authentic universal are very rare, although they are always the best!

GA: Soral published one of the two French editions of my latest book, “The Wandering Who.” I met him at  the Paris book fair 2 years ago and in spite of the language barrier between us, I have managed to learn a lot from him. Soral is one of the last European intellectuals. And it is far from surprising that the Left is outraged by his profound political and ideological insights.

For quite a while those who oppose, satirize or criticize the domination of the Zionist lobby within French politics and media, seem to be subject to political abuse and judicial persecution. Why do you think the Zionist elite choose to target France in particular?

AS: It should be noted first that France has, or suffers from – depending on your point of view –  what is by far the largest Jewish community in Europe, with nearly 700,000 members, while  Italy or Spain, for example, have about  40,000. The pressure and the influence of this very organized  community on French power and policy are inevitably proportional to its size.

There are also some historical components that are particular to France: France prides itself on being the country of human rights, it was the first nation to emancipate the Jews of Europe, it had the Dreyfus affair, the maintained guilt of Petainism, the Zionism of the Fourth Republic, the dominance of the Grand Orient masonry on the supposedly French socialist left … These are some of the many factors that  give our “organized Jewish community” as it defines itself, its effective and overwhelming position of moral watchdog.

GA:  I think that the Jewish Lobby is particularly forceful in France as a result of the impact of the ’68 student revolution. French society has been broken into a multitude of identity groups, and the more broken a society is, the more it tends to subscribe to Jewish politics. The reason is simple. After 3000 years of tribal exilic operation, the Jewish intelligencia is the most advanced in identity sectarian politics and cultural manipulation.

The gist of identity politics is an attempt to transform the cohesive host nation into a myriad of godless synagogues.  To some extent, Soral and Dieudonné have managed to unite what is left of the French working class; which includes Muslims,  Arabs, Blacks and  Whites. And as we have seen, the Jews and the Socialists see this development as an imminent danger.

A controversial anti-immigration initiative won the backing of the Swiss electorate on February 9. EU politicians reacted harshly, some even  threatened  Switzerland. For its part, the State of Israel continues to enforce an immigration policy based  solely on the criteria of Jewish ethnicity, without receiving any criticism from the EU. How should we interpret this discrepancy?

AS: I think one of the best definitions of power, for those who have ceased to harbor illusions of democratic equality is: “Give to yourself and yourself alone the right to do the opposite of what you brutally require from others”.

The Zionist Jewish community, which dominates the Western discourse,  requires the goyim to behave as men of the left: anti-racist and anti-nationalist … While they themselves behave as far right-wing men through their shameless support of a country (Israel) which is openly racist and ultra-nationalist.

GA: It is very simple. As much as  Jewish intelligencia, wants to break the host nation, to dismantle its cohesive narrative, and debase the patriotic impetus, the Jewish State is committed to Jewish interests that represent the complete opposite of the ideology it espouses. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and  it subscribes to a racist, expansionist, nationalist and patriotic ideology.  This may seem to be a discrepancy, but in fact it isn’t.

The above dual ethic is actually engraved in Jewish emancipation philosophy.  The Jewish Haskala (enlightenment) motto that is mistakenly attributed to Moses Mendelssohn  instructs  the Jew- “be a Jew in your tent and a man on the street.” It teaches the Israelite to behave as a Jew at home but, while in the street to pretend to be a goy. This  perplexing dishonest dualism  (one lies to God at home while misleading the Goy in the street) explains the contradiction between the Jewish intelligencia call for diversity in the West, on the one hand, and the adherence to hard core patriotism in the Jewish State, on the other hand. The Jewish Haskala dual existential mode allows a clear distinction between the ‘Goyim universe’ and the ‘Jewish ghetto.’  In practice, Jewish intellectuals would teach  the Goyim about diversity and tolerance, yet defend  vile Judeo-centrism at home, i.e., Israel.

The expression “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy” is mainly used to discredit those who criticize the bond between the Masonic and the Zionist network. Is it possible to demonstrate this bond without being locked up in a “reductio ad hitlerum”?

AS: No. The term “Judeo-Masonic Plutocracy” has cradled all the 30’s far-right discourse, so it’s now an unusable phrase.

Yet, it is enough to look at the claimed alliances currently in in the mondialist process to objectively determine that international finance, the Masonic networks and Zionism are openly working in concert to impose on us their unequal vision and domination.

GA:  For a long time I have suggested that there are no hidden conspiracies in the Jewish world – all is done in the open. I strongly suggest that instead of looking for conspiracies under the carpet, we learn to analyze mainstream news. Everything is there and in the open. In fact I argue that the real meaning of Jewish Power is the capacity to silence the discussion of Jewish power. To look for the ‘hidden agenda,’ in that context, is to surrender to Jewish power. We must do the opposite. Look into the work of George Soros, AIPAC, CRIF, CFI, Lord Levy, Wall Street, etc.

Finally what is your reaction to the strategic coalition conducted by Lebanese Hezbollah with Christendom?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlXek4xQd381

AS: The utmost respect.

Facing the “clash of civilizations” strategy advocated by the American-Zionists, the transcurrent alliances – Middle-class/Proletariat but also Christians/Muslims – are the only solution. It took years of civil war for the Lebanese to understand this and I just hope we will not have to go that far in this disaster in France, in order to embark on this path of wisdom.

GA: I guess that such an inevitable coalition is what torments the Jewish intelligencia as inspired by the Frankfurt School to operate forcefully against the so -called ‘patriarchal West.’ It is  possible that  true diverse humanism (as oppose to ‘diversity’)  poses the ultimate danger to Jewish cultural narcissistic chauvinism.  In true diverse humanism, we’re all united in our search for the ethical and the universal, we revert to Athenian thinking and oppose the Bernard Henri Levis and the rest of the Jerusalemite cantors.

——-