Editor’s Note: Due to the intensity of the campaign by the Zionist Jew element within Canada i.e. B’nai Brith Canada, to shut down my publishing business I’ve been too maxed out to get around to publishing some of the recent letters sent to RadicalPress.

I’m now publishing what I can on this post. My apologies for those who submitted their thoughts and ideas and had not response. I’ll try to do better.

Arthur Topham

Editor

————-

November 18, 2009
Dear Editor,

Parliamentary testimony this week documents that the Harper government was knowingly complicit in the torture of Afghan civilians - many of whom were not even suspected of being enemy Taliban. Mr. Harper’s government has disgraced us and our country’s good name in front of the entire world.

Eugene Parks
Victoria BC
elparks@shaw.ca

All Afghan detainees likely tortured: diplomat
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/18/diplomat-afghan-detainees.html
———————

October 31, 2009
The Editor,

“Why are we going Tory?”, asks John Robson. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/going+Tory/2161043/story.html

The answer is, we’re not. The never-ending campaign, attack-ads, and negative political messaging borrowed from America’s extreme-right and taught by borrowed Republican advisors aren’t serving democracy. But they are pummeling the Liberal leadership just as the neo-conservative movement’s US never-ending campaign out of office is trying to hurt the best president Americans have had in decades.

Robson is right, however, to identify the visceral desire for revenge motivating the former Reform-Alliance party. The same visceral hatred of Progressive Conservatives continues to drive true Tories out of the re-branded party of Stephen Harper.

Just ask Bill Casey. Or Garth Turner. Or Joe Clark.

Robson’s apologetics for the Harper electoral bribery scandal - I agree Chequegate is too “gate” - are over the top largely because it turns on criticism of their opponents. Based on their merits, Canadians would likely choose Liberals over the Harper government, so the never-ending negative campaign should not surprise. Nor should negative polling.

But never forget a party that relies, as he states, on “nastily vacuous partisanship” is “deeply harmful to Canada.” It is also irresponsible. Never forget either that Tory progressives made Progressive Conservatives electable and good for Canada.

Brian Marlatt
White Rock, BC
bdmarlatt@3web.com
——————————-

October 8, 2009

Editor,

RE: Your latest article

Having worked in the House of Commons for 27 years, I recognize the same types at the CHRC as ran the administration in the House, apparently right up to the level of the Speaker, for at least the last three Speakers.  I conclude that the upper levels of the bureaucracy are saturated with these arrogant tyrants, which of course suggests that the corruption that has been exposed in the offices of the CHRC is a generalized, not  isolated, problem.  Therefore I am not surprised that, despite the recent apparent retreat by the CHRC, you find yourself still coming under attack.  “Two steps forward, one step back” was the Leninist tactic for revolutionary advance.  That this tactic is being applied everywhere in Canada has become quite obvious.  Clearly, there is something seriously amiss with institutions that are not capable even of restoring university degrees that have been arbitrarily stripped by bureaucrats from a citizen (which is what the House of Commons did to me more than two decades ago).  And PM Harper, a real hero, doesn’t even acknowledge receipt of correspondence about such a blatant abuse!

Canada is a nuthouse, not a country.

Robert Klinck

Ottawa, Ontario

robert.klinck@gmail.com

___________________________________________________________________________

AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941

Editor’s Preface: It was my intention to have this chapter from Douglas Reed’s 1941 book, A Prophet At Home typed up and published online for November 11th to coincide with Remembrance Day. It didn’t happen but readers will still benefit from what the author has to say about conditions in Britain in 1939-40 as they relate to those of today in Canada and the USA as well as elsewhere in Europe, etc.

Reed returned to England in 1939 from the Continent after spending a number of years in Berlin, Vienna and Prague working as Chief correspondent for the London Times. In that capacity he was privy to a panoramic view of the political landscape in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia leading up to the resumption of the World War in 1939.

This particular chapter from his final book of a three-part series that began in 1938 with Insanity Fair followed in ‘39 by Disgrace Abounding is extremely relevant to our own times and bears close reading. Seventy years have passed yet the information contained in this chapter appears to be in a time-warp as if the conditions which precipitated it somehow were frozen in time. As such it now stands as a striking historical record, clearly illustrating the degree of power and influence which the Zionist Jews of his day wielded over the British parliament and the British press.

Concomitant with this fact and more important in terms of today is the evidence which Reed provides that shows how the Jews of the 1930s were already consummate masters of the immigration game.

It has been a contention of mine for a number of years that the Zionist Jews who control Canada’s PM, House of Parliament and Judiciary are using their illegitimate influence over government to manipulate and control immigration policies; ones which have been having a detrimental effect upon Canadian society for decades and which also dovetail fully with the Zionist agenda of destroying all nation states in the world in order to facilitate the implementation of their Zionist one world government.

Immigration, like the control of the media, banking, pharmaceutical conglomerates, major corporations including oil and gas and water and cultural and educational institutions, is a vital part of the program to destroy the democratic framework upon which sovereign nations are built and the Zionist Jews have been working this tool here in Canada and elsewhere with deftness and surgical precision for many, many decades. This thesis that immigration policies are being exploited for partisan Zionist purposes should become obvious to any reader who takes the time to study what Reed has to say about the invasion of England by the Jews of Eastern Europe, or as the Jewish media of the day was wont to call them, ‘friendly aliens’; an endearing term to describe the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who flooded into Great Britain during the years leading up to the second act of the World War to take advantage of the precarious political conditions then existing in the British Isles.

There is much more though in this chapter that helps to explain some of the current behaviour on the part of today’s extremist Zionist Jews who are going to great lengths to deflect the growing criticism of their doctrine of supremacist discrimination and racism that is now becoming almost rampant on the one venue for free information still not entirely controlled by their excessive and pervasive power – the Internet.

Reed explains how the Jews of his day used their “anti-Semitism” card to full effect whenever anyone challenged the government’s and the media’s blatant discrimination aimed at the English and the Arabs while all the while consistently favouring the ‘friendly alien’.

Given the fact that today, seven decades later, Canadians in the majority still haven’t grasped the fact that their “mainstream” media and their government are absolutely controlled and manipulated to suit this extremist Zionist Jew agenda, Reed’s prophetic warning of 1941 stands forth in even greater relief as a hallmark to be heeded by anyone concerned with knowing the truth about who is really pulling the strings of our Members of Parliament in Ottawa.

The parallels between Reed’s description of the behaviour of the Members of the British Parliament respecting the ‘friendly aliens’ during a period of critical danger to the nation as a whole and that of our own parliament today is as uncanny as it is frightening to contemplate. It begs the question as to whether the term “change” is in fact a reality or merely a ruse to soothe the ignorant citizenry who still are brainwashed by the Zionist Jew tube.

Read Reed and you will discover why censorship and draconian legislation like sec. 13 today are of such paramount importance to the Zionist Jews and why the extremist Zionist Jew must continually re-create this false illusion now being coined as the “new anti-Semitism” by such Zionist Jew zealots as our former federal Liberal Attorney-General Mr. Irwin Cotler and being flogged upon an unsuspecting public by the likes of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and even committees formed from our Members of Parliament.

Anyone wishing to access what remains of Reed’s works is encouraged to go to http://www.abebooks.com where you will still find a few of his works available. His most highly recommended work of course is the 1956 edition of The Controversy of Zion which readers will find online at RadicalPress.com.
—————-

AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941

DOUGLAS REED

A provoking thought: if Rupert Brooke, whose poetry, as Lord Halifax said in his ‘This is a conflict of youth against youth’ speech, so inspired the generation of 1914, if this Rupert Brooke had not died, with about a million other Britishers, in the 1914-1918 section of the war which has now been resumed, he would have needed to revise the poem he wrote in the Cafe des Westens, in the Kurfurstendamm in Berlin, in 1912. He wrote that poem sitting at the same table with a friend of mine, Rothay Reynolds, who in the years between the two sections of the World War struggled hard to fulfill the difficult task of being Berlin Correspondent of Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail, and when Rupert Brooke had finished he turned to Rothay Reynolds and said, ‘I have made this cafe famous’, which was true.

I well remember how that song of England wrung an Englishman’s heart, that is, the heart of a very young and fervent Englishman, who took on trust nearly everything he was told about his native country, of which he had seen but little, in the 1914-1918 war. But if Rupert Brooke had lived in 1939, or thereabouts, he would have found himself out of touch with the taste of the times. For his poem, ‘Grantchester,’ begins:

Du lieber Gott!
Here am I, sweating, sick and hot,
And there the shadowed waters fresh
Lean up to embrace the naked flesh.
Temperamentvoll German jews
Drink beer around – and there the dews…

Well, well, well. How times have changed. Rupert Brooke is dead; the war-to-end-war has gone and the war-to-continue-war is simmering nicely; but the relative position of Jews and dews seems to have been reversed, or have we now both? Rupert Brooke, the singer of the generation of 1914, seemed to find the Jews in Berlin a thought unsympathetic and none took it amiss of him that he said so; indeed, the thought of those temperamental beer-drinking Jews in Berlin helped to fortify the faith of the young Englishman of 1914 in ‘the things he was fighting for’. Now we, he thought, have dews, and we are going to keep them.

But if Rupert Brooke had written twenty-five years later he would have known that those two lines must come out, or else he would have had to find a fresh rhyme for dews, for by the time the World War in which he died was resumed no Englishman of his class and kind would have thought of writing anything which would set the critics yelping the dread name ‘anti-Semite’.

             RUPERT BROOKE - BRITISH POET

By the time the World War was resumed, indeed, the general understanding had come to be that the Jews of Berlin were the most valuable citizens of that town and that we were very lucky indeed to have them, because they were so much cleverer than ourselves. By some further process of reasoning which was a little outside my comprehension, the general understanding seemed also to be that we should fight Germany to enable these people, whom we had been fortunate enough to obtain, to return there as soon as possible; this, as far as I could gather, was among ‘the things’ we were about to fight for.

When I returned to England, on the eve of the new war which had become almost inevitable, I brought back with me a particular interest in this question, because for many years, since 1933, I had noticed, with growing misgiving, that, chiefly through the very great influence which the Jews in all countries exercised in the interest of their co-religionists, this relatively small aspect of an enormous problem was being set out of all proportion to the whole, that the entire wood was disappearing behind one tree.

It was patent that the number of Jews who would suffer from Hitlerism would never be more than a very small fraction of the entire number of sufferers; Czechs, Poles, Danes, Norwegians, Hollanders, Belgians, Frenchmen and Britishers, I knew, would suffer and die in thousands, in not millions, because of Hitler and yet the sufferings of the Jews, through the power wielded by other Jews over the press, the films and the stage, were presented as the greatest and most terrible thing in all this stupendous tragedy.

The film, ‘The Great Dictator’, produced by Charles Chaplin in peaceful Hollywood is a case in point. The ignorant and credulous seeing this astute production, which is half first-class humour and half very subtle propaganda, would gain the impression, similarly conveyed by many other films sent out from the same source, that the only people who suffered ill-treatment in Germany were the Jews, and that the Nazi Storm Troopers spent their entire time beating them up. Yet the number of Jews who suffered ill-treatment in Germany, save for the one violent outbreak in November 1938 when a Nazi diplomat was murdered in Paris by a young Jew, was never more than a small fraction of the whole; the great bulk of victims and martyrs was composed of German non-Jews and of non-Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler.

Further, I seemed to see, as I watched the great movement of Jews from Germany to Britain and the British Dominions (many of them Jews who had come from Eastern Europe to Germany during the last war), that the mass of compassion mobilized by the great publicity machine at their disposal was being exploited to gain them employment, in large numbers, in countries whose men would soon be going off to war, and, with the picture of Berlin after the war of 1914-18 in my mind, I greatly feared this development.

For the Jews as I had seen them in many European countries in those between-wars years of full Jewish emancipation and freedom in no way resembled the Ghetto-community of benevolent, mankind-loving people who only wished to be left in peace and poverty that was shown in the Chaplin film (incidentally, there were no ghettoes in Germany). Rather had I found them, when all the gates of opportunity were opened wide to them, to practise that very doctrine which they so reviled and detested when it was turned against them by Hitler – discrimination. Discrimination against Gentiles.

In the trades and industries and professions to which they penetrated, and ultimately controlled through the power of finance, they were most resolute in the progressive exclusion of Gentiles by methods of extremely ruthless inter-collaboration. The figures are available and are irrefutable; such a state of affairs could not have come about by accident.

Moreover, this seemed to me quite natural, for it accorded with the teaching of the Jewish faith. And this seemed to me to be at once the weakest and the crucial point in the Jewish case, and one which all their champions and apologists implacably ignored, merely yelping in answer to it, ‘Anti-Semite’; that their religion was one of discrimination. The anti-Jewish teaching of National Socialism was but the direct inversion of the anti-Gentile teaching of the Hebrew religion, and this statement of the case cannot be refuted; it never is refuted, but is always ignored.

The Jews did not put their doctrines into practice through the medium of the concentration camp – they could not, because they were always numerically too weak in any particular country physically to subdue the majority. They used another medium – money and the power it gives, which can be enormously powerful in the hands even of a small minority if that minority is compact enough and if all of its members understand the great idea.

So much for the brief background to the Jewish question which an Englishman brought back with him to England after many years in Germany and in other parts of Europe. Before I tell you what I saw in this country I want to kill some of the more meaningless phrases which are in current use, even by persons reputed to be of the highest education and intellect, in this controversy.

The first is ‘anti-Semitism’. The word is used every day by millions of people who have read or heard it somewhere and have no notion what it means. On such a basis of ignorance do great debates proceed. The power, so strangely wielded, of the Press and film today is so great that you need only to shout this word long and loud enough at the credulous masses for them to think that it is something akin to rabies or leprosy; that is probably why it was coined and thrown into the the discussion.

As far as I know ‘Semite’ is a word describing a member of any one of a number of Mediterranean or Near Eastern races, for instance, the Turks, Moors, Arabs and Abyssinians, among others. I have nothing whatever against Abyssinians, Arabs, Moors and Turks, because they are never likely to harm me, though I should have been strongly opposed to the Turks at the time when they sought to impose their religion of discrimination against the Gentile peoples they had conquered in Europe. I should probably have joined a Crusade against them, which means, as I believe, a campaign, waged under the sign of the cross, against a religion of discrimination. For the same reason I am ready to join a crusade of words against any other religion of discrimination which, as I think, pursues ends of discrimination while seeking always to conceal this fact. I see no difference in this respect between National Socialism and Judaism save that National Socialism has eighty million bayonets and Judaism has a lot of money.

So that of ‘anti-Semitism’, a word uttered so many millions of times in recent years, you may say that there ain’t no such a thing, and you have been fooled, for want of examining the words you use. There is anti-Gentilism; and there is its reaction, anti-Judaism. I have several interesting letters from Jews who endorse this statement of the position.

The other lunatic phrase which parties to this discussion, and allegedly learned parties at that, are wont to throw into it is ‘racial discrimination’. In a debate in Parliament about new regulations issued by the British Government to restrict sales of land by Arabs to Jews in Palestine (an extremely important debate this, of which I shall speak again) one of the stoutest parliamentary champions of the Jewish cause, a Mr. Noel-Baker, fiercely attacked this ‘discrimination on racial grounds’.

The Jews and the Arabs are of the same race; both are Semitic. If debates in Parliament about the Jewish question are carried on at this level, they are of little value, and the representatives of English constituencies where a deal needs putting right would do better to begin at home.

When I returned to England my eyes told me, as I wandered about London, that the number of Jews who had come to this country was very great. I knew that before, because I had seen many of them depart, from various countries, but how many were there?

This is a question to which not even the most diligent research gives more than an approximate answer. As the untutored African negro said, there are one, two, three, a great many. The number of aliens ‘registered with the police’ in October 1939, according to Sir John Anderson, was 238,074, and of these some 150,000 were nominally of German, Australian, Hungarian, Czechoslovak, Polish and Russian nationality, which means that the great majority of them were Jews. The bulk of these, again, were new-comers.

But the number of these people ‘registered with the police’ gives little clue to the number who are actually here, for, from the very meagre records of recent proceedings in our police courts, I have kept notes of:

An Austrian Jew who, when he was detected by the police, was ‘making a profit of 16 pounds a week from a greengrocery business at Leeds and had been in England since 1937, when he landed from a Belgian fishing-boat’;

A Russian Jew who was charged at Old Street with failing ‘in or about 1916′ to report a change of address to the police. From 1916 to 1840 he had been in England unknown to the authorities! Asked where he had been since 1916 he said, ‘I have been out of work and could not come to report as I had no money’!

A German Jew, who was supposed to have come to England in 1933 and left again in in 1934, but in 1940 was discovered to be living here under the name of a British soldier killed in 1917 whose name appeared on a war memorial in a Sussex village; counsel for this man said he had obtained a copy of the dead soldier’s birth certificate ‘thinking it was probably himself’!

A Polish Jew who came to England in 1931 and was warned to leave in 1932; discovered in 1939, he had been living in this country for seven years unknown to the authorities!

Two Polish Jewish rabbis who were convicted of harbouring ten German Jews, nine Austrian Jews and nine stateless Jews without registering them with the police!

And so on.

The number of these newcomers to England, therefore, is a thing to guess about. What happens to them? The poorer ones, as I have shown, ‘open a greengrocery business in Leeds’, or go to staff those secret workshops of lowly-paid garment workers, in Bethnal Green, Hendon, Golders Green and Willesden which have sometimes received casual mention in the London Press, which defy discovery by the inspectors sent out under the Factory Acts (designed to protect workers), and supply cheap refugee labour to the price-cutting tailors.

This group of hidden refugees represents a threat to native labour.

But what happens to the thousands ‘registered with the police’? In respect of these the promise was ‘repeatedly given’ before the present war (to quote a reminder to Sir John Anderson from Mr. Raikes) ‘that they would be admitted for temporary refuge pending re-emigration’. After the outbreak of the war, which was not not difficult to foresee, Sir John Anderson stated that in fact they would not, save possibly in ‘individual cases’, re-emigrate, but would stay in this country, where their services would be ‘utilized in ways which will be advantageous to the national effort and will not conflict with the interests of British subjects’.

Thus was the principle established that these thousands of newcomers, who had come to England as transmigrants, should remain here and be allowed to take employment, always under the provision that this should not ‘conflict with the interests of British subjects’ – a provision I shall subsequently discuss. But what of their maintenance in England?

No charge under this head was to have fallen on the British taxpayer. This was another of the oft-proclaimed safeguards, like those about re-emigration and non-employment, under which their original admission to this country had been allowed. In each case some ‘individual’ had guaranteed to be responsible for their maintenance, but by October 1939 Sir John Anderson announced that these guarantees had been given, not to the Government, but to ‘certain voluntary organizations’ (in practice, this meant almost entirely Jewish organizations). Only these voluntary organizations, said Sir John Anderson, could enforce the guarantees, and these organizations were satisfied that ‘in some cases the guarantor ought to be released of his obligation’. In those cases the voluntary organizations would undertake the whole responsibility for the care of the refugee from their own funds.

By February of 1940, however, the Government had decided that the ‘voluntary organizations’ could not bear the burden which private guarantors had originally pledged themselves to bear and asked the approval of Parliament for a grant of £100,000 to these organizations, to cover the period from September to December of 1939, and of £1 for every £1 spent by these organizations thereafter, up to a total of £27,000 a month.

Time then marched on, and by November of 1940 the Government announced that the ‘voluntary organizations’ had actually received £430,000 up to the end of September 1940, that a further £375,000 was required to carry them over until April 1940, and that the Government would in future pay ‘100 per cent’ (which means all) of the amounts expended on the maintenance of refugees, as well as 75 per cent of the administration expenses.

Thus, by this time both the original ‘private guarantors’ and the ‘voluntary organizations’ had been relieved of financial responsibility for the refugees, which devolved upon the British taxpayer; the number of refugees, as is shown by the cases I have quoted, was problematical; and they were entitled, with the permission of the Minister of Labour, to take employment at a time when the entire young manhood of the country had been called up for military service.

I have given this brief sketch so that a few people, at least, may gain some idea of the position of the Jewish immigrants to this country. There are a very large number of them. Very few of them, now, will ever leave again. The British taxpayer cares for them. In practice they seem to enjoy greater privileges than the native inhabitants, since they are ineligible for military service and will therefore presumably survive the war, while they are eligible for employment, which is easy to obtain when all the young men of this country have been called away, and when they take this it is called ‘helping the national war effort’, whereas if John Smith gets a job that is just called getting a job.

To have achieved so fair a deal as this, they must quite clearly have had the support of very powerful forces indeed.

I have shown that the several safeguards attached to their entry to the country have all proved illusory, and the solid-sounding promise that they would only be allowed to take employment if this ‘does not conflict with the interests of British citizens’ subsequently proved just as illusory. for one thing, the British citizens, in large numbers, are away at the war and cannot look after their interests. To take the job of a Britisher who is called up may, debatably, count as ‘helping the national war effort’, but what of the Britisher when he returns, and his peace effort?

The position may be alleviated a little, if they do not return, by the fact that some of the more influential of these people, after staying just long enough in England to proclaim that they were a hundred per cent British, found means when war broke out to transmigrate further, and became for the nonce a hundred per cent American. Such was the case with a much-publicized writer who saw the light of day in Rumania, then spent some years in Germany as a hundred per cent German, came to England after the advent of Hitler and announced simultaneously that he still loved Germany but was a hundred per cent British, and then moved on to confer the boon of his citizenship upon the United States.

Such cases as are known do not suggest that the provisions about ‘the interest of British citizens’ actually operates, in the granting of employment to these newcomers.

For instance, in the early days of the resumed war (I am forestalling my narrative a little, for the sake of coherency) the Ministry of Information decided to make a film called ‘49th Parallel’. The 49th parallel is the boundary separating Canada from the United States, an attractive location for film-making when war is being waged all over Europe.

This film was to have been the most stupendous contribution to our war effort, and Miss Elizabeth Bergner, who was born, I believe, within the limits of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, who say the heyday of her fame in pre-Hitler Germany, who then came to England and who at some function for Austrian patriots paid the last Austrian Minister, Sir George Franckenstein, the eloquent tribute, in her delightful English, that he was ‘a passionate Austrian’, Miss Gergner was chosen to play the lead – and crossed the Atlantic.

The Ministry of Information advanced the sum of £22,086 13s. 7d., towards this film, which has not yet been completed; whether it will be completed in time to give that enormous impetus to our war effort which was confidently expected from it seems doubtful. A large number of other people, including Miss Bergner’s husband, were given for the purpose of going to Canada to make this film those coveted exit permits which a British subject, having no particular contribution to offer to the country’s ware effort, might vainly seek to obtain for his children. I believe one or two of them have returned.

Why the film was so long delayed is a thing not yet explained. Miss Gergner, in a radio-telephonic interview from pleasant Hollywood (she seemingly did not penetrate farther towards the frozen north than Winnipeg), intimated to a London newspaper that she felt she had a grievance about the whole business. I do not know what part she was intended to play, but having the most pleasant memories of her personality, and of her charmingly squirming manner of expressing herself, I wonder whether she was better suited than any British actress of the day for the part of some hardy Anglo-Saxon woman pioneer.

However, in this case the Ministry of Labour was apparently satisfied that there was no conflict of interests of any British player; the Ministry of Information thought that the good which would accrue to the country’s cause was worth £22,000; and the Passport and Permit Department of the Foreign Office considered the undertaking of sufficient ‘national importance’ for the hardy and one hundred per cent British pioneers, to be allowed to cross the Atlantic.

I have quoted only this one case. There are many others, great and small, which might make a sane patriot wonder sadly if all was well.

Not one member of Parliament has ever risen to protest against this kind of thing, which in its patent unfairness is in such shrieking contrast to the clean white faith and spirit of the millions of Britishers, and of their allies, who are fighting all over the world, on land, at sea and in the air, to retrieve the world.

But the attitude of the British Parliament in the question of the Jews is curious. When great problems of the British Empire are under discussion the House is sometimes almost empty; speakers address twenty, forty, sixty of their fellow-members, in a House containing 615. The Colonial Empire, with its 50,000,000 inhabitants, is discussed but once a year in this House, and at the last such debate there were never more than a hundred members present. On one famous occasion Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, as Dominions Minister, tried hard to awaken interest in important colonial problems. ‘We are combating sleeping sickness,’ he said – and the few members present roared with laughter, for one of the Government whips was sleeping quietly beside Mr. MacDonald on the Front Bench. The noise of their mirth even awoke him.

A marvelous picture of England in wartime, of front-line life – for are we not ‘all in the front line’ this time, even those on the Front Bench?

Yet this House, with its 600 odd (and I mean, odd) members earning a minimum of £600 a year, with its indifference to the domestic scandals of England – for if you explore the wastes of Hansard you will find that the party elected to represent the working-class seemingly has as little interest as the Tory Party in the derelict areas and the slums – this House can at any moment be stung to impassioned activity by the mere mention of the word ‘Jews’!

This was the most curious and most perturbing result of my study of the Parliamentary debates between the resumption of the World War, in 1939, and the end of 1940. As I have said, such great Imperial problems as that of the colonies received only the briefest and most transient attention and aroused but the most languid interest in a sparsely attended House.

The matter of the ‘friendly aliens’ was given four full debates; the Palestine debate, in which it cropped up in another form, was in reality a fifth; and at Question Time hundreds upon hundreds of questions were put on behalf of this group of people. I think, if a close analysis of the debates were made, it might be found that this subject occupied more parliamentary time, in the the British House of Commons, than any other single question, during the period I have mentioned!

                            THE ‘FRIENDLY ALIEN’

A perusal of the Parliamentary Reports for this period will show anyone who may be interested that there is a number of Members in the House who seemingly devote their entire attention to this matter. Elected by British voters and paid by the British taxpayer, their constituents seem in effect to be practically without representation in the British Parliament; while the group of immigrants in whose interests they expend so much energy is represented out of all proportion to its size and value to this country.

This state of affairs led to the most absurd extravagances, especially during the summer months of 1940, when Britain passed through her greatest ordeal for many centuries. A patriotic Englishman, reading the Parliamentary Reports of the period, might clutch his head to find that the sufferings of his fellow-countrypeople were of small account compared with those of a group of alien immigrants.

Scores of thousands of British soldiers, cast into the enemy’s hands by the collapse of the French and Belgians on their flanks, were prisoners in Germany. Thousands of Britishers from the Channel Islands lost everything they had and found themselves, overnight, homeless and destitute refugees in England. Thousands more who had been earning their livelihoods in Germany, in France, in Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, were in like plight.

In Nice, reported The Times, ’several hundred British subjects, mostly elderly retired people, have been sleeping on borrowed mattresses in the streets and are for the most part penniless and starving’. The lot of ‘the British refugees’ [subsequently alleviated] was even mentioned, once, in The Times, which said that letters reaching it referred ‘with some bitterness, to the lack of assistance; according to one correspondent British subjects who followed the British Ambassador’s advice and left Germany when war appeared inevitable regret bitterly their action, and say that, at least, the Nazis would have fed them’.

Not only that, but this country awaited, day and night, an invasion which, if it had succeeded, would have meant the submergence of the British nation for centuries, and Britons of all classes, armed with shotguns or unarmed, lay on the coasts and in the hedgerows after their working hours to defend their native land, if they could. Not only that, but the moment was approaching for London and the other great cities to be mercilessly bombed, and as this was plain to foresee the urgent need of the hour was to prepare deep shelters, health services and food distribution, and the removal of women and children to safe places.

Yet, if you wade through the columns of Hansard for those days, you will find but meagre reference to these things, but you will find pages of protest and expostulation on behalf of ‘the friendly aliens’. In terms of despairing incomprehension (’How can anybody be so stupid?’) speaker after speaker asked why the services of these ‘friendly aliens’ were not immediately used to promote our ‘war effort’.

Yet at this time more than a million friendly Britons languished in unemployment; hardly a Member thought of them, or troubled to ask why their services were not used to promote this same ‘war effort’.  That ‘friendly aliens’ were denied employment was proclaimed to be disgusting and even anti-patriotic; the denial of employment to native citizens of the country was seemingly thought to be natural. The internment of ‘friendly aliens’ was declared to be inhumane, intolerable, incompatible with all British tradition, and ‘incalculably harmful to us in American eyes’. The internment without charges or trial, of British subjects was generally accepted to be a necessary measure in war-time and, during all this windy, ignorant and prejudiced debate, hardly a voice challenged it.

The discussion reached its peak of insincerity in the debate of July 10th, 1940. At that time the plight of Britain was desperate. France had collapsed, Britain stood alone, and Britain was unready. The months, July, August and September of 1940, were the most dreadful in British history since 1066, and hardly anybody in this country knows, as I know, because I know what the Germans had in mind, what Britain was spared through the fact, or miracle, that the remnant of the Royal Air Force was still strong enough to inflict such damage on Goring’s fighters and bombers that the invasion had repeatedly to be postponed and now cannot succeed if it is attempted.

On that day in July the issue was not yet decided, and the threat of an indescribable fate hung heavily in the sultry sky. In such a crisis the debate about the ‘friendly aliens’ was resumed, with all the extravagant arguments and statements which I have already summarized. The voice of England was hardly heard in this debate, which might have been held upon another planet for all the relation it had with the dire realities in this country at that time.

Only Mrs. Tate, of Frome, came forward to say:

While we sympathize with some of these people, our first consideration should be for our own people and the cause for which they are fighting. You have no right to risk, by one hour, the fight against the awful power which is enveloping the world… In the case of certain Members in this House, one has  only to say the word ‘Jew’ and they lose all sense of reason….

and Mr. Logan, of the Scotland Division of Liverpool, to say:

I have heard tonight much commiseration with alien refugees, but I have heard very little about the danger to our own country and the protection that is necessary for our own people… In my home today we are suffering from the fact that two members of the family have had to go away again… I am beginning to think that the strong arm of Britain and the loyalty of our sons here and abroad are the only things we can count as solid. Moral values are of little account. Why should we trouble if one or two, or a thousand, suspects are interned if this land of ours is safe? We have had no knowledge of an invasion in our day. Only the history books record a conqueror coming here. But we know our men who returned from Dunkirk, and we know of the wonderful work of our airmen. That ought to teach the House the value of courage and teach it to be self-confident and to look after Number One first, giving protection to those who come to our shores only when we know they deserve it… We have in this country sentimentalists concerned about every country except their own, and always pleading for some poor creature in one part of the world or another; but I reckon that I, too, have something to complain of. I represent a particular section who, according to some people, are disloyal; but they are not. There are people in my streets who were in the Dunkirk business. The streets in which I live are the poorest in Liverpool, but some of those streets were decorated with flags and festoons and ‘God Save The King’ – a thing unheard of in the Irish parts of Liverpool. Do not let us have so much sentimentality. I have heard of women without children talking about how to keep families together. [This seemed to have been a thrust at certain other speakers in the debate] We are having too much of this kind of sentimentality in this House. Let those who know something of the subject speak on it. When your sons are going out and your neighbours are going out, it is time to look into what the Government are doing… I hope the Government will be loyal to the country first and generous to their friends afterwards.

This was the reply to the debate of Sir Edward Grigg, Joint Under-Secretary of State for War:

I have listened to the greater part of this debate and am bound to say that I have never been more greatly struck by one of the great qualities of the House of Commons, and that is its power of detachment. There has been going on this afternoon, I suppose, one of the greatest air battles of the war. At this moment – I do not know whether it is so – bombers may be over many of our towns. Tonight thousands of our forces will be on the alert waiting for an attack which may come in several places at dawn. That army, after all, with the Navy and the Air Force, stands between this country and destruction and between all that this House of Commons represents and destruction, and yet we have been discussing this afternoon as though, when this Army is asked to help in providing security for this country, and when we are being asked to have this, or that possible handicap removed, we are pursuing a ridiculous form of militarism which this House ought to condemn. That is the point of many of the speeches to which I have listened this afternoon, and I am bound to say that when the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool [Mr. Logan] got up, I felt that a breath of fresh air had been blown into this House, and I was deeply grateful. In the approach of many Members of this House to this problem there was an atmosphere of unreality which to me was positively terrifying… I was also grateful to my honourable Friend the Member for Frome [Mrs. Tate] when she intervened, because she stated, with great courage, and I thought force, the view which the soldiers have. They are a very considerable part of this country at this present time, and they are carrying a greater responsibility than any Member of this House, except those who wear uniform. That is the situation at the present time. This country has always been a great asylum for the distressed refugees from other countries, but it would be foolish not to recognize that, in the opinion of its own people, it is beginning to be a great asylum in another sense… After all, we have destroyed the French Navy, against the heart of every sailor in this country, and it is not very much to ask friends of this country among these aliens to meet hardship and inconvenience if in the end the victory on which they depend as much as we do be made in any way more certain. Honourable Members say that the reputation of this country is at stake. It is. There is only one thing that will save the reputation of this country and that it stands for, and is victory in the war.

WHILE LONDON’S CORE BURNED PARLIAMENT’S FOCUS REMAINED ON THE ‘FRIENDLY ALIENS’ AND PALESTINE

These voices which spoke for England, however, did not avail, as I shall show. The view that the feeling of the men who were fighting, of the young manhood of Britain, should count, was a rare one in the strange assembly which was the British House of Commons in 1939 and 1940.

There was another debate in which those Members who, as Mrs. Tate put it, ‘lose all reason when the world “Jew” is mentioned’ had much to say, and I must mention it here, because it was more illuminating than any other of the way in which they present the case of the Jews as an unanswerable one, which no humane or reasonable man would challenge, and dispose of all reasoned arguments raised against it by yapping, ‘Anti-Semite’!

In this debate they were bitter about the anti-Semitism of the Arabs, who, as I have explained, are also Semites, and this was fairly typical of its level. But the most instructive thing was the manner in which they all completely ignored, when it was raised and proved against the Jews, the charge of ‘discrimination’ which they repeatedly brought against those who criticized the Jewish method. And this is the very root and core of the problem.

This debate turned on new regulations which the British Government had introduced in Palestine to check the sales of Arab land to Jews. The spokesman for the Jews came mainly from those who are supposed to represent the British working class, and they accused the Government, among other things, of imitating Dr. Goebbels in trying ‘to keep Palestine clean of Jews’, of repudiating moral contracts and promises made to the Jews, even of ’striking a grievous blow at our national unity and our national cause’, of ‘throwing Palestine into turmoil again’, of ‘practising racial discrimination against the Jews’, of ‘introducing restrictions on racial grounds’, of ‘betraying the cause of freedom’, of ‘inflicting fresh wrong on the tortured, humiliated, suffering Jewish people’, and much more.

(Almost the only intelligent and intelligible speech by a private member in this debate, I must interpolate, came from a British Jew, Mr. Lipson, who described himself as ‘one to whom his religion has always meant a great deal and who as a member of this House has tried to do his own thinking’. The second part of this remark may not have been meant as a rebuke to those who had in such meaningless and ill-informed phrases championed the cause of co-religionists, but it fits. Mr. Lipson, almost the only speaker to understand what he was talking about, and, seemingly apprehensive lest the Jewish case should be damaged by so much extravagant exaggeration, said that Great Britain was fighting for the freedom of the human spirit, and that included freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the right of free people to their own existence, and the right of minorities to be different. If these things were lost, all would be lost. The survival of the Jews depended on the continuance of these things. Great Britain in this war had been said to be fighting for her existence. That was true, but if – which God forbid – Great Britain were to lose the war, she would live to fight again. If the Allies were to lose, however, the Jews might well very well be finished forever… Therefore to the Jew the war must be the overriding issue whenever any question arose during those anxious and difficult days. What would happen to the Jews if the Nazis were to prevail?)

Now let me point to the real crux of this debate, which all speakers ignored. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, defending the Government’s action as Secretary of State for the Colonies, said that the protest against it of the Jewish Agency had spoken about the rights of weak peoples, and the Government fully recognized the rights of the Jews in Palestine, but there was another small people in Palestine – the Arabs, who had rights equal to the rights of the Jews. He then revealed that land bought from the Arabs in Palestine for Jewish settlement, by the Jewish National Fund, was, under the conditions of that Fund:

not allowed at any time in the future, under any circumstance whatsoever, to be alienated to anyone who is not a Jew. If the Jewish authorities consider that condition necessary in order to protect the interests of their own people, I do not know why they quarrel with us when we say that a similar condition, and, perhaps, a far less permanent condition, is required to protect the interests of the Arab population. . . .

This passage, as I say, was the crux of the debate. In it the Jewish doctrine of discrimination against non-Jews is clearly revealed. I can see no difference between this anti-Semitism (for the Arabs, if I may repeat myself, are also Semites) and the anti-Semitism of National Socialism. It is discrimination in exactly the same form which the Jews are wont to practise, in European and other countries, in those trades and professions in which they become predominant.

Yet, after this disclosure of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, a Member was found (Colonel Wedgwood) to say, of the regulations issued by the British Government to counteract this anti-Arab discrimination:

American publicists and columnists have now seen that we here, fighting Hitler with our mouths, are copying his practise. This is precisely Hitler’s policy of soil and blood, a policy of ultra-nationalism, preserving Palestine for one definite race. When shall we get away from the idea that this world is composed of a lot of different incompatible races? … We are importing that spirit into British legislation, importing it in the worst place, setting up in Palestine exactly the same anti-Jewish legislation that Hitler has forced upon Germany. Discrimination between two sorts of citizens on account of their ancestry is new to this country and has been imported by the right honourable Gentleman in imitation of the doctrines preached in Germany today. If there could be a worse blow at our prosecution of the war than this I should like to know what it is. All over the world this will be held up against us. . . .

I think the passages I have quoted show where discrimination begins, and I hope their perusal may lead some people to study statements made in Parliament with a critical eye. But in the name of unreason, why cannot the gentle Gentile champions of the Jews, for once, give an answer to this plain question: Why do they find discrimination natural, liberal, democratic and proper, when practised by Jews, but detestable, foul, illiberal and undemocratic when practised in retaliation by non-Jews? [Editor’s emphasis]

I must quote one other statement in this debate, in which the anti-Semitism of the Jews in Palestine was so conspicuously ignored, a statement made by Mr. Noel-Baker: ‘There is one indispensable solution – the Jewish National Home in Palestine – and whatever else there may be, there must be that as well’.

Mr. Noel-Baker was among the foremost advocates in Parliament of the opening of employment in this country to the ‘friendly aliens’. Does he believe that the Jews should be helped to a Jewish ruled, exclusive, discriminatory Jewish State in Palestine, and simultaneously hold the full rights of citizenship in this and other countries? That is something no non-Jew ever presumed to demand for himself. One thing or the other.

For what, then, are the Jews and what do they want? The subtle argument of the propagandist films sent out of Hollywood and of their wordier champions in this country is that they are persecuted people who wish nothing more than to be left in peace, and who desire, all of them, above all things, to fight for us.

It is much more difficult to define them. Dispersed throughout the world, they may themselves best be compared to a sphere of which the steel core is the body of fiercely intolerant, anti-Gentile Jews, while these qualities diminish as you work outward toward the softer peel. J. B. Priestly, in an article fiercely attacking ‘the dirty old game of Jew-baiting’ – would those Jewish regulations in Palestine  be called Arab-baiting, or the disinheritance clause of a Jewish will Gentile-baiting? – undercut his own argument by saying: ‘Nobody can deny that there is… a real Jewish problem in the modern world. Their present position is unsatisfactory to everybody. They are neither definitely separating themselves from other races, nor merging themselves with them. They are uneasily hanging in mid-air… When we Gentiles dislike a Jew it is because we feel that he wants to be one of us and at the same time not to be one of us, to enjoy all our holidays and then quietly take a Jewish one on his own. The problem will never be settled until the Jew decides either to move further away or to come nearer. That is all that really needs to be said.’

That comes nearer to the truth, with a few exceptions. First, the problem is not one ‘of our modern world’, but goes back to the beginning of recorded time, for the reasons Mr. Priestly stated. Secondly, it will never be settled, because by all that long experience the Jew never will decide ‘to move farther away or come nearer’; he wants to have his Jewish cake and eat Gentile cake too. And thirdly, that is not ‘all that needs to be said’; a great deal more needs to said, in the interest of the non-Jews.

For what are the Jews? They are the most complex people in the world and to claim to know their inmost souls and their uttermost motives, as do some of those Westminster-bound Members, is fatuous. Trebitsch Lincoln was a Jew, who was born in Hungary and became an Anglican clergyman in Canada and a Member of Parliament (yes, the same Parliament whose members now, twenty-five years later, are so sure about their Jew)  in England, and turned out to be a German agent in the last war and after it was press-chief to the first anti-Semitic Putschists in Germany, the friends of Hitler (yes, Hitler too had availed himself of the services of Jews, among them the lady who, in collaboration with an English peer, did that spadework ‘which made the Munich Agreement possible’) and is now a Buddhist monk in far Tibet. Napoleon’s press chief, for that matter, was a Portuguese Jew, Lewis Goldschmidt, who, with all the fire of a Goebbels or a Gayda, in his Argus described the British Navy, three months before Trafalgar, as dilapidated, dispersed, incompetent and on the verge of mutiny, and England as decadent, degenerate and defeated. And did not the good Lewis Goldschmidt, after Waterloo, enter into the employ of the British Embassy in Paris, and even marry his daughter to an English peer?

Loyalties are  not so easy to discover. In Prague, just before Hitler marched into that city, was a rabbi, of whom a Jew told me, who instructed his people that Hitler was the Jewish Messiah, because the result of his work would be to open to the Jews all those countries, throughout the world, which were still closed to them. In Swansea, when the present war had been resumed, was a 67-year-old Russian Jew who had been in this country since he was a boy; he was sent to prison for saying: ‘Hitler is a friend of mine – he is a good man. The English took Palestine from the Jews and Hitler is going to take England. Hitler is doing right.’

In West Hamstead was an 18-year-old German Jew who, like so many others, landed in this country surreptitiously and therefore did not appear in the official figures of ‘aliens registered with the police’; he told the Thames magistrate that he wished to return to fight for Germany. In Stepney was a 25-year-old Austrian Jew who, when he appeared before an ‘enemy alien’ tribunal to prove that he was a ‘friendly alien’, picked up an inkwell and threw it at the judge; what may his loyalty have been?

Yet the spokesmen in our Parliament of these people will admit of no arguments against them; they are all ‘friendly’, all highly talented, and all desperately anxious to fight for England.

What is sense of ignoring things which everybody knows? There was, for instance, the case of the ten East End Jews, most of them of Polish origin, who conspired to evade military service by sending up an unfit man, in their respective names, for medical examination; he received from £20 to £200 for his services. These men were detected and convicted. One of them, who was quick enough to escape the police by decamping to the Channel Islands, was there when the Germans arrived, when he decided to return to England and was arrested and sentenced.

The loyalties of the Jews are far more difficult to determine that their advocates in this country would admit. When Poland was fighting Germany, for instance, and Russia jumped on Poland’s back, taking half Poland for herself, the Jews in that part of Poland ‘hailed the Russian troops as deliverers’. The scene was described by the Correspondent of the News Chronicle, William Forrest. What Englishman would not understand that this left a feeling of bitterness in the minds of the Poles, who subsequently organized a magnificent army in this country? Yet as soon as the existence of this feeling became known those newspapers which make the cause of the Jews their own, before all others, began violently to attack the Poles, to cry that they were not worthy to fight in the ranks of ‘democracy’, that they were as bad as the Nazis, and the like.

I remember Jews in the trenches, in the air force, and in hospital in the last war, and know how well they fought. They were neither braver nor less brave than the rest; they just fitted in. But these were British Jews, who had been long in this country. They were not ‘Englishmen’; it is almost impossible for a Jew to be that, because he will not, save in rare cases, allow himself to be assimilated, he is too much aware of the differences in his blood, his religion, his upbringing, his fellow-Jews. These British Jews of long domicile will understand, probably better than most Gentile readers, many of the things I have written in this book; they know that where the Jew from Eastern Europe suddenly appears in large numbers, the old trouble starts all over again, and they fear it. They are said, and I believe this, from their very understanding of the problem to have formed private ‘tribunals of self-discipline’ to check those who may bring them into discredit.

But they have an extremely difficult task before them. The campaign to squeeze the newcomers into English life has as yet been carried on with a ruthless and relentless disregard for any point of view but theirs which bodes ill for the future.

I assume that many Jews are, must be, serving the British armed forces during the war which has now been resumed, though no man could go about London at this time without remarking how seldom a typically Jewish face is seen beneath a uniform cap, how often such faces are seen above while collars in the hotels and restaurants.

When the air raids on London began, and Londoners were having a very bad time indeed, the New Statesman published a letter urging that refugees interned in the Isle of Man should be released ‘before the rains come’, lest their health suffer from confinement ‘in the dining-rooms of their 34 houses’. This was at a time when hundreds of thousands of Londoners were sleeping on the platforms of tube stations, in unheated cellars, beneath railway arches, and the like, and it drew the following comment from one of the native citizens, a London ‘Shelter Marshal’:

May I inquire (1) how the health of these internees will stand up to numerous daylight raids and to nightly dusk-to-dawn confinement in packed shelters under heavy bombardment? (2) how the health of the other crowded users of these shelters will stand up to a yet bigger incursion of panic-stricken aliens into their midst?

Apart from the space problem (and I must reluctantly admit that the average ‘friendly’ alien seems to need a lot more shelter ‘Lebensraum’ than the average Londoner), one of the major difficulties of some London public shelters is the throng of neurotic foreign refugees who spend their lives, apparently, in an hysterical quest for 100 per cent safety at night.

LONDONERS SLEEPING IN SUBWAY PASSAGES DURING THE BOMBING

Another thing that troubled me when I returned to England and began to study at close quarters a problem of which I had seen the other end, was the suspicion that the foreign Jews were tending to receive preferential treatment even from British justice! Now this is a very serious thing, if it is true, for in no other country that I know is justice so implacably rigorous as in this. True, it seemed to me, like everything else in England, to have its first, second and third-class compartments, and I once raised a violently protesting eyebrow at my loudspeaker when I heard Sir William Jowitt, K.C., say, ‘The law is the same for rich and poor alike’.

Some newspapers grant the most unrestricted freedom for the publication of views with which they are in agreement; and in the sense that the millionaire and pauper who stole a loaf of bread would probably be treated alike I was prepared to believe him. But further than that I did not feel that I could go with this great King’s Counsel.

I had an uneasy feeling, for instance, that murder was not murder if committed at Oxford University, but was apt to be attributed invariably to a foreign crook called Schizophrenia. I had also remarked that members of ducal families found the most benevolent understanding of their quite honourable motives for committing what looked like criminal offences when they appeared before a local bench manned, or womanned, by members of local country families. I further remarked that a financier who died owing £80,000 to the Income Tax authorities, which he had been owing for several years, was generally held to have been a most estimable and successful man, but that people who owed a few pounds received summonses to appear at the Guildhall and were sometimes promptly committed to the cells.

But the severity of the British law in punishing small offences of theft by poor people far surpassed anything I had ever encountered on the Continent, in any country. I mentioned in a previous book the cases of a van boy and a shopboy who, for stealing Is. and 10s. respectively, were sent to prison for one and six months. I have records of many other such cases: for instance, the 66-year-old unemployed labourer of Bolton who received a month for stealing sixpennyworth of coal; the 18-year-old girl who, having been bound over on a charge of theft in the first place on condition that she ceased to take slimming tablets, later appeared on a charge of breaking this promise and was sent to gaol for six months! This last case seems to me to deserve inclusion in any calendar of judicial curiosities. The 18-year-old girl in question, incidentally, was not without wits or wit; she asked, before she went to the cells, ‘if it was against the law to take these tablets, why were they manufactured and sold?’

These very rigours of our judicial system, in its dealings with the lower orders, seems to me in strange contrast with the exceptionally easygoing treatment which was often given to ‘friendly aliens’. Nearly all the Metropolitan magistrates have, at one time or another, expressed grave misgivings about the size of the trade in smuggling aliens into this country; the late Mr. Herbert Metcalfe’s ‘These people are simply pouring into the country wholesale’ was typical. But on that occasion the aliens officer in court explained that it was ‘known in Antwerp that people could come to the United Kingdom irregularly and be dealt with lightly’.

No amount of research can discover what happens to the innumerable persons whose deportation these magistrates daily recommend, but all the signs suggest that when they have served their sentence, if any – and some of them are very bad characters, as my notes show – they either resume life in England somehow or contrive to return.

But what particularly attracted my notice – and I invite the attention of others to it – is that at one time the plea, ‘I am a refugee from Hitlerist persecution’ seemed to be regarded as an extenuating circumstance, almost to the point of annulling the offence, even in cases completely removed from the necessity to escape from Hitler.

I have a collection of quite extraordinary examples. For instance, a lady who was summoned for dangerously driving a borrowed motor-car pleaded that she was ‘a refugee from Hitlerist persecution’ and practically penniless, whereupon she was fined sixpence, ‘in view of your sad circumstances’. Any who have experienced, as I have experienced, the normally rigorous treatment of offending drivers by British benches will appreciate this case. A young lady who stole twelve pairs of stockings was fined 5s.; she was a refugee. A Polish rabbi who was convicted of harbouring a large number of foreign Jews without informing the police was fined £50 – but the fine was later reduced to £5. Two men who were convicted of assisting a ‘friendly alien’ to evade registration were fined £5 each – but the fine was later reduced to a farthing.

The state of affairs which I found in England, when I returned to it, was being reproduced in the Dominions. None knew South Africa better than the late Sir Abe Bailey, and none was less likely than he to be accused of unfriendliness towards the Jews. I wish therefore to invite particular consideration to this letter which he wrote to The Times a few days before the World War broke out again in September 1939. I have italicized the passages which are of especial importance:

The proceedings at the international conference of Jews in Geneva and letters and articles appearing in the Press are unfortunately creating an impression that many Jews are committing the mistake of their Nazi persecutors (exterminators and destroyers of religion) and looking at their present and future problems entirely as if nobody else in the world mattered but themselves.

At a time when Great Britain, the best friend of the Jews, is harassed and embarrassed and ringed round with envious and desperate enemies and when the Middle East is only one of many arenas where our whole Imperial position is at stake, far too many Jews, in voicing their grievances, make no allowance for the appalling difficulties and dangers which confront the British Government all over the world. To listen to the recital of these grievances one would think the only problem which Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has to face in Palestine (as a result of the British Government making it their national home) was the distribution of land among Jews and Arabs, with an open door to Jewish immigrants, whereas the Jews ought to know that the Government of which he is a member has to deal with strategic considerations which affect the whole of the Middle East, and at a time when the clouds of war are threatening British dominion in all the seven seas. The British Government’s positive policy is fair play to Jew and Arab alike, realizing the fact that economically they are interlocked.

The almost contemptuous disregard for other interests except those of their own is illustrated by a letter which appeared in your own columns recently from Professor Namier and in a remarkable article in a recent issue of the Economist, which, dealing with the problem of refugees in Britain, says:

Obviously not all refugees are capable of making an equal contribution to British prosperity. There may be some who are undesirable on other than economic grounds. But on the average they are more helpful to the community than the average Englishman, whether the standard is monetary, capital, industrial skill or intellectual attainments.

It is true that the Economist in a subsequent issue expressed its regret that this passage should have lent itself to misunderstanding but the whole tenor of the article unfortunately illustrated only too clearly the arrogance with which the claims of Jewish extremists are being advocated.

The supreme aim of Jewish statesmanship today is to see to it that the persecution of Jewry in Central Europe does not lead to world persecution and that the policy of fear and oppression which began in Germany does not spread to other countries. I speak with some experience in these matters, for I have seen the rise in South Africa of a wave of anti-Semitism which the Nazis confidently hope will one day redound to their benefit. When I was trading as a youth and used to cross South Africa from one end to the other, I found nearly all the stores, inns, and hotels on the roadside, in villages and towns, run by Britishers, mainly Scotsmen, but now they are mostly in the hands of Jews and Indians. Jews are steadily working their way into many of the profession, particularly the law and medicine, and are locking up these professions for themselves. Recently they have made attempts to secure a strong foothold in the Press of South Africa and in various cultural organizations.

It is almost a truism that a community can absorb only a certain proportion of Jews. When that proportion is exceeded, as it is in South Africa, anti-Semitism follows and is further fanned by too exclusive an expression of Jewish aspirations and ambitions.

All decent-minded people deplore the cruel persecutions practised on Jews in Nazi Germany. Jews must play their part in doing all they can to to put bounds to an infection which may one day poison the whole world.

The passages I have italicized are of especial value, coming from such an authority with side a circle of Jewish friends. In particular the quotation from the Economist is of the greatest interest.

Audacity is notoriously a very powerful weapon, and one the Jews particularly love, because it has served them well. Their argument, that they should oust the native-born Gentiles because they are in all respects better than these was never more openly and audaciously expressed. That it could be printed in the British press, at a time when sober arguments against the Jewish case, however well founded, could nowhere find a place in it, unless they carried such a signature as that of Sir Abe Bailey, when they might appear in an obscure correspondence column, is the best possible illustration of the measure of ‘freedom’ which has prevailed in the press of this country in this particular respect.

This argument, that the foreign Jews, the ‘friendly aliens’, are much cleverer and in every way more suitable than ourselves and should therefore be given preference in employment is that implicitly taken over by the innumerable spokesmen of these people in the British press and parliament.

It is the argument I have repeatedly heard myself from the lips of Jews, who did not realize that I was well versed in their methods in many foreign countries. This was the reason, they would have had me believe, that their newspapers in Berlin and Vienna, Prague and Budapest, were entirely staffed by Jews; that the local non-Jews were simply not equal to the work. They were of course not up to the standard of British journalists, these would-be wily ones would add, with a quick sideways glance at myself.

It is the method of discrimination, impure but simple. In this country it has already, in some cases, reached absurd lengths. I have before me a long press ‘puff’ about a young Jew from Hungary who was chosen to play the part of a British schoolboy in a British film ‘because he looked so English’. That is to say, no English schoolboys were available who looked so English as he! The public of a country must have reached a sad state of stupidity when such tricks can be played on it.

The second passage which I have italicized in Sir Abe Bailey’s letter shows the consequences to which these methods lead – as they led in the European countries I knew, as they will lead in this country unless they are checked.

In the other British Dominions the same thing is happening, while the men are away at war.

‘Assisted passages’ to Australia, which might have replenished that continent with British blood, were suspended by the British Government from 1930 to 1938, when they were resumed until August 1939. Who was ‘assisted’ to go to Australia during this year when the assistance was resumed? – 10,992 persons, of whom 881 were British! The bulk of the others were foreign Jews; indeed of the 10,111 non-Britons no less than 5,321 were of German nationality, which means that they were nearly all Jews from Germany.

‘The Government’s policy in this very important matter has produced disastrous results where Australia is concerned,’ wrote Sir Henry Galway, a former Governor of South Australia, to The Times on March 10th, 1940. ‘If this policy is persisted in, it will not take more than a couple of generations before Australia’s proud boast of a population with 95 per cent British stock is silenced. One of the many evils resulting from the substitution of alien for British stock is that the industries are by degrees falling under foreign control. For instance, the sugar and peanut industries are already fairly well in the hands of the alien, while the fruit industry is going that way. In spite of there being a war on, unemployment in Britain is still at an abnormally high figure. Crowds of boy s are unable to get employment even under the Derby and other schemes. Why should they not be permitted to go to Australia, where they are wanted, if they wish to? . . . The average Member of Parliament is woefully ignorant on the subject of migration, though I willingly allow that there are many bright exceptions . . . I humbly contend that it is up to the Government to do all in their power to save Australia from being swamped by people of alien race.’

To conclude the picture I have given I have to add that by January 1941 the last safeguards in this problem had been abandoned in Britain.

It was officially announced that the Ministry of Labour felt that it should pursue ‘a more positive policy of welcoming the 250,000 long-term foreign residents and refugees alongside our own workers’. Both employers and trade unions were in agreement with this policy. (The only opposition to it, as The Times along remarked, came from the workshops, that is to say, from the native workers, who had so little to say in these matters.)

These aliens were to have ‘the same wages and conditions of work as British subjects’, and they were also to have ‘the benefits of the health and unemployment insurance schemes’, into which the British workers had for many years been paying weekly contributions.

With this announcement the last barriers fell, and the British public, if any member of it happened to be watching, which I doubt, would have seen that it had once again picked quite a different card from that which it thought to have chosen. That which it had obtained was quite different from that which it had been promised.

These people had come, not to stay, oh no, only as transmigrants; they would be no charge on the British taxpayer, oh no, ‘private individuals’ and ‘voluntary organizations’ had guaranteed their maintenance; they would not swamp the home labour market, oh no, they would not be allowed to take employment.

But now they were come to stay! The cost of their maintenance fell on the British taxpayer, and when they were out of work, they would draw the dole by the contributions of British workers! They would be eligible for all employment!

And I foresee, if I am not mistaken, that when this war is over British citizenship may be granted to them because they came to us and ‘helped our war effort’. John Hammer, who worked in a foundry during the war, Jack Pickaxe, who worked down a mine, and Tommy Rifle, who served in the infantry will not find that they are entitled to any especial consideration after the war because they ‘helped the national war effort’.

May they be spared the cold and bitter struggle to find any kind of work which their forerunners had when they came back from the first World War, in 1918.

I think it is a regrettable thing that the last barriers were leveled by a Socialist Minister of Labour, a man of working-class origins himself.

It is a grave state of affairs that I have described. I saw it coming, from the Continent, and said so in the second book I wrote in this series of three. The greatest single factor in Hitler’s rise to power was the embitterment and desperation of the German war generation – I mean, the 1914-1918 war. Those men, when they came back, found every road to advancement and useful employment closed to them, and they found many trades and professions locked-up by foreign Jews who had come to their country from Poland and elsewhere while they were away.

Before very long the Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen of this generation will be coming home from the war they are fighting to retrieve that civilization of which we last saw some traces in the Dark Ages. The Australians, with fresh laurels, will be returning to Australia, the South Africans to South Africa, the Canadians to Canada and the New Zealanders to New Zealand.

In Britain and in the Dominions a great mass of alien immigrants has been allowed to settle and take employment. Will they yield this employment when the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen come home, or are these latter to traipse and trail idly about the streets, as they did after the last war; or in the better event, are they to find the higher posts occupied by  people, many of them of alien blood, who have barnacled-in while they were away under the motto of ‘helping the national war effort’?

These aliens number, as far as one can judge, some hundreds of thousands. That is a very large mass to throw upon the labour market, to inject into the trades and professions, and it has been repeatedly proved that, once in, they exert their influence to help others in and to exclude non-Jews. Since the 1914-1918 war there have seldom been less than a million ‘friendly’ Britons unemployed in this country, and in some years their number has risen to several millions. The derelict areas and the slums still offer grim and spectral proof of the misrule of England in those between-war years. The new burden that has been put upon the British back is a very heavy one.

A bad day’s work has been done in this last year or so. I came back from abroad in 1939, after many years, fearing this only less than the war I knew was coming. I saw the things the same influx let to in other countries. If I am not a Boetian, they will come in England; the lowering of the levels of taste and talent, the swamping of the last native standards and customs and traditions, the introduction of a meretricious and alien way of life, the squeezing-out of youth and enthusiasm. Experience – and this is the tragic thing – teaches no lessons.

But the arguments I have raised are sober ones, that cannot be shouted down by cries of ‘anti-Semite’ or any other meaningless word. The policy that has been pursued is just as false in its field as was the policy of Munich – and the result of that policy was not peace, but war.

And Rupert Brooke, if he lived today, would need to write:

‘And there the Jews!’

———————

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

Lisbon And The Zionist Nightmare

By Mike James in Germany – 8 November 2009

You make me laugh. You make me cry. You are fighters. You are natural-born rebels. You are my people.

You are, by virtue of your Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Frankish, Teutonic, Alpine, Old Mediterranean and Scandinavian ancestry, one whole bunch of contentious, argumentative, reactionary, swing-a-fist after one too many beers, sons of proverbial bitches.

You are the scum of the earth. You are an utter disgrace.

You are largely ignorant, dumbed-down, manipulated, deceived, naive, easily duped by The International Tribe and their grotesque quasi-religious fables and their International Money System.

But you are heroes. And I love you.

Upon the burden sufficient to the strength of your shoulders, all things depend.

You are European Americans, ancestral English, Saxons, the spawn of the great races of the Irish Gaels, the Gauls, the Picts, the Scots. You are the one force in this world that stands between universal Tyranny and absolute Freedom.

In the course of the last year since I was bankrupted, disenfranchised by the Jewish Lobby and forced offline, I became physically weak and financially impoverished. I’ve been there before; but this time, I almost rolled up the white flag of surrender. I was beat. I became seriously ill; for indeed, despite my youthful looks, I am advanced in years. I almost drowned in a valley of tears.

Than a woman entered my life again. Right here in the heart of Zionist-occupied Germany, I fell in love with the most beautiful Celtic woman upon whom I have ever clapped eyes. She fights in her own quiet way. She offers me protection. Her wisdom knows no bounds. Through her, the light of the Creator, who blessed all men and women, with particular regard to ancestral Europeans, has given me fresh hope again.

You are not alone. We shall win. We shall defeat the evil, anti-human Zionist New World Order.

Take a look at yourself in the mirror. You may see a disillusioned youngster riddled with a myriad of doubts and facing an uncertain future without any assurance that you can be all that God meant you to be. You may see the image of a grey or bald-headed man resigned to defeat, working three jobs a day just to provide for his children and raise himself above the status of what the false, Ashkenazi Jews superciliously describe as “white trash”.

How oft must you creep in the shadows of a heavily intimated and legally codified system of oppression, and yet call yourselves the children, the offspring of the greatest and most scientifically creative, ethically refined and well-discoursed race that ever walked the face of this planet?

Don’t be ashamed to say it. You are. The human species consists of many races. You were the first from the very beginning of time; and your role was to defend the innate and inborn freedoms granted to you by an adoring Creator, who loved you so much, he sent himself in the form of a man to die for you as an example of sacrificial, revolutionary action.

The dispensation of universal freedom has been propagated no more widely and efficiently by those who can be described as Anglo-Saxon and Celtic of origin. We, and we alone, are The Chosen from the beginning of Time: not in terms of an oppressive or patronising elite, but to teach our fellow human races (who are, in every sense, almost equal to us) the virtues of living in harmony with the Natural Laws of the True Creator.

Yes, it is hard to teach a Jew (who hates the True Creator) the value of hard work and genuine productivity and to steer him away from his pathological tendency to subvert and undermine all that is wholesome and good about the world in which we seek to understand and accommodate a multitude of paradoxes and anomalies. Jews can, with patience and consideration, be inducted in the fineries of actually producing artefacts of value that possess within themselves no speculative designs. Jews are capable of contributing to the good of humanity by producing useful goods and services from which others may derive some form of benefit. Jews can, given adequate psychiatric and practical training, actually learn to work with their own hands. It’s a tough shout, but nothing is impossible.

By default, most Jews in their teenage years, as was the case with all the Jewish lads who attended my Grammar school in England, are ordinary, caring, rational and pleasant human beings. Then, at some indeterminate point in time, they become infected with the most deadly virus known to mankind. It’s called ‘Zionism’. It’s probably the worst form of cancer any man or woman is liable to contract. It begins by affecting one’s normal, mentally-sound thinking processes. The psychological illness often manifests itself in the form of lies, manipulation, violence, false flag attacks (such as Mossad’s 9-11) and all manner of bizarre machinations designed to persuade young Americans and Europeans to piss away their blood for a cause worth not one single strip of recycled toilet paper.

Why are we sacrificing our lives, our children, our freedoms, our liberties and our national rights of independence to the Luciferian construct of a One World government on behalf of a squalid, dishonest and conniving bunch of historically proven thieves, liars and murderers? Are we really so stupid, forgiving and easily beguiled?

I fear for the future, for we are a very compassionate, trusting and benevolent people. We have been taught to roll over and play dead for the Ashkenazi Jews, none of whom were ever related to the true Children of Israel, the latter of whom are, indeed, the Palestinian farmers and olive-grove keepers who were, from 1948 onwards, slaughtered in untold numbers by the viciously Satanic Jewish murderers and rapists who loathe and despise the True Creator and openly urinate upon the image of his incarnation, Jesus Christ. The ‘Diaspora’, a fantasy almost matching the technicolor religious myth of the nonsensical ‘holocaust dreamscape’ is provable garbage. Let the True Creator exact vengeful justice upon those who say they are Jews, but are not. Let them repay every pint of spilled Goyim blood with their own.

That any American or European child be commanded to risk his or her own life fighting to defend the most viciously evil, genocidal, apartheid and Satanic regime to have forever defiled the noble concept of Man’s striving toward dignity and egalitarianism within a world of free nation states, beggars not only belief, but every dollar, euro and pound sent to the psychopathic bloodthirsty leaches who string-puppet the world from Tel Aviv.

The modern day dark-skinned Jews known as the Sephardim, who are Idumeans (Canaanites), and those of Ashkenazi (southern Asia Minor) descent, are not ‘Jews’ at all. They are not even Judeans. They are pretenders. Magpies. They make for brilliant story-tellers, actors, embezzlers, forgers, hedge-fund operators, imitators, scamsters, bankers, insurance swindlers and liars. We need them. They are our foil. They tell excellent jokes. Their entire culture is a joke based upon an indefensible howler.

Individually, they can be our friends. Collectively — and this is when the ‘hive-mind’ mentality kicks in — they are capable of the most unimaginable forms of wickedness. They have already threatened the West with nuclear destruction unless we play the ‘game’ their way. Tel Aviv’s veiled threat, issued by Martin Creveld, is something we cannot afford to ignore. Why haven’t western nations re-pointed their nuclear weapons in the only direction that counts – the biblically illegal and murderous state of Israel?

However, let us, should we dare, be meek and mild. Let us learn to forgive and love the Ashkenazi Jews, for they have absolutely no idea as to the limits of their destructiveness. Let us instruct them as to just how evil, collectively, they are, and guide them back to the fold of humanity. Let us direct them to the error of their ways and disabuse them of the many myths and fables they have spawned over the centuries in their bid to claim victim status.

And then, an only then, let us make a decisive blow for freedom from the encroaching Global Soviet Union of formerly free nation states, which has always been a Zionist-Jewish obsession. I’m just an old, impoverished and very ordinary man, approaching his fiftieth year, and I can make no promises. But I shall fight for my people unto the very day I go to my grave. If an Israeli or a Brussels bureaucrat stands between me and my natural rights to liberty and freedom as a freeborn Englishman, I shall kill him.

I’m just like you. I love my country. The country that was mine, and which I have lost. But I want it back again; and come hell or high water, I shall do the best I can to help other like-minded compatriots to establish a form of governance that is primarily centred upon the needs of my people, but which yet bestows upon those who are strangers (but loyal and respectful to our way of life) every measure of respect under a new rule of law — the Natural Law of the Ancestral People of Europe and the followers of the True Creator, not that of the parasitic elites, the corporations, the usurious bankers, the Zionists, the military, the pharmaceutical mafia and the ultra-rich.

Does that sound like a loser wishing upon a star? Heck, you may well be right, my friend. If I were to wish upon a star, I would wish for a free republican England, removed from the Soviet European Union, the City of London, NATO and the United Nations; and I long for a truly independent America unbound by the slavery imposed upon her by the Zionist Federal Reserve and the hypnotic political control grip of evil Zionist Jews.

Many of us who intuit that we live in an unchangeable world of pain policed by the fascist cohorts employed by faceless, quasi-Zionist and Freemasonic organisations, oft stare blankly at the stars in the hope that something, anything, right up there in the heavens, will provide us with a glimmer of hope.

So let met tell you a true story about a real-existing star in the firmament.

In 1970, my history teacher at Ansdell County Primary School asked us all to leave the classroom and then troop back as two separate groups in accordance with those we identified as sharing roughly the same colour of hair.

“You,” she told the lads and lasses with blonde and sandy coloured hair, “are descended from Saxons.”

Then she pointed to the rest of us, saying, “And you are descendents of William the Conqueror.”

I was devastated. King Harold was my hero, and remains so to this very day. I used to stare at the Bordeaux Tapestry and will the arrow from Harold’s eye. He had valiantly defeated the Viking onslaught at Stamford Bridge, determinedly marched his men hundreds of miles to the south and, half-starved, outnumbered and with all odds stacked against him, had deployed an ingenious military tactic to defend his island race against the tyrant that would spawn for generations to come a hideously oppressive bureaucracy and a caste system that disfigured the social landscape of a nation steeped in Saxon egalitarianism.

I continue to pluck at that arrow.

When I was twelve years old, I was much given over to sneaking through an opening onto the Royal Lytham St. Annes Golf Course, whereon I would find a hillock, upon which I would lie and gaze at the early evening stars. On one such occasion I found I was not alone. I heard someone sneeze, raised myself to my feet and saw a little girl of my own age lying on her back.

“What are you doing?” I asked her shyly, for she was very pretty.

“I’m looking at the stars,” she said.

I lay down beside her and asked her if she thought we came from the stars.

“Oh, yes,” she replied quite emphatically, pointing at the brightest star in the sky. “And that’s where I come from.”

Knowing little about astronomy, I queried as to whether or not it was the North Star.

“I’m not sure,” she said hesitantly, “but my dad calls it ‘Karen’, after me.”

Then she sat gently on her haunches and smiled at me.

“Which star do you come from?” she asked presently.

“I don’t know,” I replied. “Maybe King Harold’s star.”

“Oh, no,” she said with an air of imperious certainty. “Everyone has a different star; the star that was you before you were born. You must find it. Then you can wish upon it.”

“But if I don’t know which star is mine,” I implored, “how can I wish upon it?”

Karen fell silent for a while, and then turned to me with a whisper.

“I’ll let you wish upon my star.”

“Really?” I asked in a flummox, quite abashed.

“Yes,” she said. “Anything you wish. But just one wish, nothing more. And you mustn’t tell me. It has to be a secret.”

I thought long and hard, closed my eyes, then wished upon Karen’s star. And when I turned to face her, she was gone.

I’m still waiting for that wish to come true. But I don’t have long to wait, for I have already parted with the first shots in the Leaderless Resistance, of which I shall say nothing.

More I cannot do. Nor should you do more than can be realistically achieved. But we are now at war. The demonic and malevolent Lisbon Treaty, written and formulated by Jewish lawyers, must be rejected by the people of England by all means necessary, even though this may (and indeed will) lead to civil war or a long-awaited national revolution of independence. I am more than willing to take up firearms and selectively target in Brussels those who have conspired to rob me of my God-given rights bestowed upon me as a freeborn Englishman. Americans must likewise resist their cooption into the Marxist North American Union.

Only the people of America and England have the will and the political and military power to prevent the inception of a Globalist, Zionist New World banking system and governmental codex. Inevitably, if we remain true to ourselves and those whom we love, we shall win. We always do. We are fighters.

One day we shall all be called upon to fight for our liberties and very substance or die peacefully like cowards and slaves in the comfort of our own beds.

I choose to fight.

What are you doing today?

———-

Michael James, an English patriot, is a blacklisted former freelance journalist resident in Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland.

By Rev. Ted Pike

October 11, 2009

For the past ten years, the Anti-Defamation League has introduced its federal hate crime bill into Congress five times – and lost. ADL claims to have the purest intentions—concern that federal power is needed if a state does not have a hate crimes law or is unwilling or unable to punish a hate crime. ADL insisted passage of a federal hate crimes law would change little: the vast majority of prosecutions of hate crimes will be initiated by states.

But in its exultant press announcement yesterday, ADL reveals the real reason it has never given up its struggle to make its hate bill the law of the land: ADL wants an army of “anti-hate” prosecutors who can go after those ADL considers guilty of bias-motivated crimes. After giving itself credit as chief architect of hate crimes laws on the state and federal level, ADL says:

The end of the legislative path for the hate crimes bill also marks the beginning of the next campaign – training prosecutors and law enforcement officials about the new law. ADL stands ready to help lead that continuing effort.

ADL is clearly beginning a second phase – to train lawyers and law enforcement nationwide on prosecuting hate criminals. In ADL-speak, “haters” are those who oppose homosexuality, allege Jews dominate media, government, finance, or are guilty of “strong” criticism of Israel or its leaders.

ADL is already the primary source for hate crimes education for the US Justice Department, FBI and all local law enforcement. In 1990, through passage of its Hate Crimes Statistics Act, ADL granted itself such empowerment. But ADL wants much more.

Entirely staffed by Jews, ADL is headed by a devoutly religious Orthodox Jew, Abe Foxman (See, ADL’s Foxman: Man of Faith?). Like its sister Jewish attack group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL has a focused religious objective: to revive ancient Jewish persecution of Christians, begun 2,000 years ago and recorded in the New Testament. The true intent of ADL’s federal and 45 state hate laws is to empower the legal, systematic, and ruthless persecution of Talmudic Judaism’s greatest rival, Christianity. To this end, ADL now calls for a national “campaign” to train an army of federal and local hate crimes prosecutors.

Already, ADL and SPLC–through their Missouri Police MIA Directive as well as warnings from ADL sycophant Janet Nepalitano and her Department of Homeland Security–stereotype Christian and conservatives as unstable bigots and potential terrorist threats. ADL’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department says anyone who believes the New Testament claim that Jewish leaders masterminded the crucifixion is a “classic anti-Semite.” (See, U.S. State Department Says New Testament is ‘Anti-Semitic’?)

ADL’s new campaign to train an army of prosecutors to enforce the federal hate crimes law will usher in progressive arrest of Christian “haters.”  These could well be destined to occupy FEMA prison camps in the years ahead. Ultimately, many could be delivered up, as Christ prophesied, to be tried, convicted and imprisoned in the courts and synagogues of Jewry (Matthew 10:17). Their “crimes against the Jewish people” would include criticism of matters Jewish (anti-Semitism) and questioning the accuracy of the sacred 6 million figure of Holocaust victims (Holocaust denial). However, most will likely be indicted under Jewish Noahide laws for heresy – the “idolatry” of affirming the deity of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity. (See, Coming Jewish ‘Utopia’ Ruled by Noahide Laws)

The Book of Revelation prophesies that the garments of the Great Harlot (Israel and international Jewish control) will be soaked with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6). (See, Israel: On the Way to Empire in the Mideast)

Jewish world dominion will fulfill Biblical prophesy but also a number of predictions by modern Jewish leaders:

“The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope of world empire…” (Max Mandelstam, World Zionist Congress, July 1898.)

“Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel and world Jewry: it aspires to become the spiritual center of the world…” (David Ben-Gurion, Jewish Chronicle, London, Dec. 16, 1949)

“In Jerusalem,  the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah…” (David Ben-Burion, Look Magazine, Jan. 16, 1962)

“The Jewish people cannot ever be destroyed, but rather they and their G-d of History will emerge in days to come triumphant over the evils and the foolishness of all other nations. Zion will and must emerge as the mount to which all other peoples turn.” (Rabbi Meir Kahane, Jewish Press, Brooklyn, New York, Nov. 9, 1973.)

Will Christian America silently allow President Obama to sign ADL’s hate bill as early as this week, accelerating arrival of the Zionist New World order? Incredibly, all major Christian and conservative organizations remain oblivious to the tactic of pressuring Obama to keep his promise to veto a wasteful defense authorization bill–one that includes $100 billion funding for extra F-35 jet engines. Only the National Prayer Network proclaims that we can still defeat the hate bill through presidential veto.

ADL now considers passage of the hate bill a virtual reality. It’s not.

The Senate has yet to give final approval, which will probably take place early this week. Pres. Obama still has to sign the defense bill with the hate bill attached. Obama doesn’t like this defense authorization bill. I believe he’s burned that Congress has defied him. It forces him to approve what he has steadfastly vowed he would not approve –thousands of F-35 engines he says squander taxpayers’ money.

It is up to Christian America NOW to exert greater pressure on Obama than is now being applied by ADL. We must demand he stays true to his promise and vetoes the defense bill. If he vetoes it, the hate bill will be dead in this session of Congress. ADL will have to cancel their second “campaign” to create a federally-authorized army of prosecutors against Christians.

Take action NOW! Don’t be distracted by more controversy about healthcare. Pressure Obama to keep his word.

Email these two messages to the President immediately:

Mr. President, I will vote out Democrats at midterms if you sign the freedom-destroying federal hate crimes bill.

Mr. President, I expect you to keep your promise to veto any military authorization bill that wastes $100 billion of taxpayers’ money on unnecessary F-35 jet engines.

Send these two messages in separate emails.  You may cut and paste them in at www.whitehouse.gov/contact .
This week may decide if America still has hope, or will begin descent into impending slavery. The hate bill could be on Obama’s desk by Tuesday.

Your emails should be there first thing Monday morning.

Endnote:

Modern or “rabbinic” Judaism continues unaltered the teaching of the ancient Pharisees who killed Christ. In my 345-page book Israel: Our Duty…Our Dilemma (available at www.truthtellers.org), I thoroughly document that deep within the teachings of the Pharisees, as contained in their Talmud and Kabbalah, is the oft-repeated assertion that Christianity and its belief in “three Gods” is idolatry; if the world were put right, Christians, as heretics and idolaters, should be killed. After the apostle Paul was converted, he realized that a new “age of grace” made obsolete any duty to kill “heretics,” but before that, as Saul of Tarsus, he, in all good conscience as an Orthodox Jew, killed and hailed into prison as many Christians as possible.

For Talmudic Judaism, no new age of grace ended the ancient duty to cleanse the land of idolaters. Instead, Talmudic, kabbalistic literature, (the highest religious and ethical guide to Orthodox Jews) teaches that when the messiah (Antichrist) comes, he and the righteous of Israel will follow the precedent of Joshua and the Hebrews entering Canaan and annihilate all “idol-worshippers” – Christians– from the earth.

If you don’t think Jewish supremacists today are capable of such horror, just remember what Jewish supremacists unleashed in 1917. Conquering Russia, they set in motion the eventual slaughter of more than 100 million Gentiles, many of whom were Christians (See, Jewish Activists Created Communism).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and spearhead attempts to pass the federal hate crimes bill: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp .

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.

NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org

[Editor’s Note: After posting this last night and sending it out to my list I received word from one of my readers that the creator of this petition, Joseph C. Ben-Ami, is connected with B’nai Brith Canada. The following bio is from his website.

Joseph C. Ben-Ami

“Widely regarded as one of Canada’s leading conservative thinkers and strategists, Joseph C. Ben-Ami is the president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. Before joining the Centre, Ben-Ami was Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values and, before that, Director of Government Relations and Diplomatic Affairs for the well known Jewish human rights group B’nai Brith. Prior to this he was a policy aid to Stephen Harper, Canada’s current Prime Minister, and Stockwell Day, Harper’s predecessor as party leader. He also served as National Director of Operations on Day’s 2002 leadership campaign. Ben-Ami writes extensively on current affairs and public policy and is a much sought after public speaker and frequent radio and television commentator. A strong and unapologetic defender of conservatism and conservative values, Ben-Ami is known for his clear and independent thinking on issues.”

Bearing this in mind it begs the question as to his motives in creating the petition? Is it designed to furnish B’nai Brith Canada with a list of those who oppose sec. 13 of the CHR Act? Or possibly a poll for the Zionist forces working here in Canada?

Whatever it is I still think it’s a damn good way of determining the efficacy of the Canadian blogging and communication network that exists outside the mainstream Zionist-controlled media.

If people are too scared to sign their name for a petition to save their freedom of speech then they’ve already succumbed to the wishes of BB (that’s Big Brother or B’nai Brith. Take your pick).

Please try to pass this petition to as many folks as you can. Don’t stall on doing so. Your freedom of expression is in mortal danger at this point in Canada’s history.]

——————–

Joseph C. Ben-Ami
Reflections of an unrepentant conservative

October 15, 2009

As you know, freedom of speech is an essential characteristic of a free society. In Canada, however, this freedom has been under attack in recent years under the pretext of protecting and promoting human rights. Laws that prohibit the free expression of opinion undermine the very foundations of a free and tolerant society and are, therefore, illegitimate and must be abolished.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies ( http://www.policystudies.ca/ ) has just launched an online petition calling on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada to examine legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion, i.e. section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Please take a minute to sign this petition yourself and email it to your friends and family for their signature as well. You can do so now by clicking on the following link or by cutting and pasting the url into your browser. You can also post the link to social networking sites like facebook or in any forum you regularly visit.

Let’s see how many signatures we can gather on this important issue.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/defend-freedom-of-speech-in-canada.html

Travel from our relatively remote area of the province to the island is expensive and it was only due to the generosity of those who donated funds that we were able to attend this important gathering of free speech advocates from across Canada.

This was the second time that we were able to enjoy the fellowship of people on the front lines of those fighting to retain the right to speak out their truths in the face of a brutal and alarmingly dangerous force: the government of Canada and its bureaucratic agent known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

Due to time restrictions at the moment I cannot elaborate on the meeting but will do so over the next while.

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

RadicalPress.com

[Editor’s Note: No sooner had I published my recent article of October 6, 2009 on Harry Abrams and his attempts to vilify me and RadicalPress.com by putting words in my mouth that weren’t mine I learned from FreeDominion.com that co-owner Mark Fournier had made the decision to ban Harry for yet another alleged case of further lying and defamation and alteration of documents designed to make Marc Lemire appear to be an unsavory character.

The following thread from the FreeDominion.com forum will explain the details of why Mark Fournier took such drastic action against B’nai Brith Canada’s B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights.]

——————–
Posted: 10/ 06/ 09 1:09 pm

Mark Fournier writes:

Harry, Harry, Harry…You’ve been hanging around the CHRC for much too long and you’ve picked up some very nasty habits.

[snip]

I also found it amusing (as did others who have already pointed it out) that the document you used to “prove” Marc Lemire was the head of the Heritage Front from 2001 to 2005 actually reveals that there was no head of the organization during that time period. Yet somehow I expect you will continue to spread the same lie even though you clearly know it is a lie.

But this is just the comic relief stuff, you have some big and serious problems here, Harry.

Marc Lemire wrote:

… the simple fact is we have learned from our past and moved on to a more progressive organizational structure. The Heritage Front now is based on a committee of various people who oversee different duties within the HF. There is no one leader, but rather it is a democratic process where each person gets a vote.

Maikeru wrote:

Beyond satisfying the gap in presidency for the period, it also answers why Gerry Lincoln’s nose was out of joint in the article posted by our ARC buddies.

However, in light of that information, another question arises.

Mark Fournier writes:

There is an error in Maikeru’s post above and you are directly (and I believe knowingly) responsible for that error. There is no reason to believe Maikeru is yet aware that he has made a mistake but I’ll bet you can spot where he has it wrong, can’t you, Harry?

I’m aware that this discussion has taken place on a public internet discussion forum. This is not a real court of law where there would be immediate repercussions for what you’ve done here. Neither is it a CHRC hearing where you can lie and fiddle with evidence with impunity if you are the complainant. But don’t you think tampering with evidence, even just in an internet forum, is more than a little bit scummy? The optics are really bad for you with this one, Harry.

Below is an accurate reproduction of the opening of the post you have cited earlier on this thread as it appeared on Stormfront in 2002:

Quote:
—————
The HERITAGE FRONT
——————

P.O. Box 564, Station “R”, Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Website: http://www.heritagefront.com
E-Mail: heritagefront@freedomsite.org
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298

A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us. Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups, criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

————
Now here is your reproduction of the same text as you posted it on Free Dominion.

Quote:
Harry Abrams wrote:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38867

—————–
The HERITAGE FRONT
——————

P.O. Box 564, Station “R”, Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Website: http://www.heritagefront.com
E-Mail: heritagefront@freedomsite.org
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298

A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

by Marc Lemire

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us. Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups, criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

—————-
Compare the two closely, Harry. Can you spot the discrepancy that led directly to Maikeru’s error in his post? I missed it myself the first time through so I didn’t begin to suspect you had falsified the document until I scrolled to the bottom and saw this reference to the article in question:

Quote:
Reprinted from UpFront: FRONTLINE - Issue #20

The devil is in the details, Harry. You should have deleted this line when you were falsifying the beginning of the article. I might have entirely missed your tampering had you been smart enough to make the deletion of the actual source of the article. But I did notice. And then I noticed that, although Marc Lemire doesn’t have much writing to draw from, the writing style of the real author of the article did not seem like Marc Lemire’s writing style.

I knew I had you then, Harry, but I waited to confirm my suspicions. I emailed the link to Marc Lemire and straight out asked him if he had written it. I’ll bet you aren’t the least bit surprised that he had no problem admitting that he had reposted the article, but he flatly denied he had authored it.

So who has more credibility? Marc Lemire or Harry Abrams?

Well, Marc Lemire has spent the past six years under the thought police’s microscope at the Ministry of Love and no one has caught him in a lie yet. You, on the other hand Harry, are a known liar and now you have clearly shown that you will falsify a document to support your lies.

It isn’t like this is the first time you’ve consciously and knowingly attributed words to somebody that you knew weren’t his for the purpose of damaging the reputation of your target. You did the same thing on another thread here at Free Dominion when you put up some text prefaced with, “Arthur Topham says:” even though there is no way you could deny that you knew Arthur Topham hadn’t said the words you attributed to him because you knew the identity of the real author of those words before you posted them.

Marc Lemire’s CHRC case is over, Harry. The constitutionality of the process he went through is being appealed but the facts of the case are settled. Why are you spending so much time spreading lies and and taking the foolish risk of falsifying a document to continue the smear of Marc Lemire? Malice?

Or is this something you have been doing on behalf of the B’nai Brith? Do they know what you are doiing here? Do they know that you have lied and defamed Arthur Topham in this forum? The same Arthur Topham who you and B’nai Brith are harassing with a CHRC complaint? Do they know you have falsified a document in an attempt to publicly smear Marc Lemire even though his case is over?

Maybe you aren’t here at the behest of the B’nai Brith but it wouldn’t surprise me if you were. After all, the B’nai Brith, with their false identification of Lemire in a picture that they had up on their Nizkor website kind of indicates that they would completely approve of what you have been doing.

But now we come to the sad part, Harry.

It is with real regret, and against my wishes (and probably against the wishes of at least some FDers), that I must ban you, Harry. I have genuinely enjoyed your time here but I’m sure you’ll understand why so many of my advisors are ready to strangle me for letting you stay this long. I think some of them are on the verge of resorting to physical pain if I don’t listen to them so I am finally going to take their advice.

It has really been a fun game we’ve played, Harry, and I know that banning you at this time makes me look like the kind of jerk who wins a couple of big pots at the poker table and then gets up and leaves without giving anyone a chance to win their money back, but my aversion to physical pain compels me to do so.

You came here to cross-examine us for the benefit of your “friend and colleague” Richard Warman. While you were here you just couldn’t resist expanding your mission to smearing some of your political opponents with lies and evidence tampering, but your base reason for being here was always clear. Of course we knew all this and the risk to us was that we might slip up and say something Richard Warman could later use against us. I’m just a small town rube and not an expert at the thought crimes racket like you are, but I think we came through it intact. I may learn later that I’m wrong, but at this point I think we did OK.

The trade off for us was we would give you a soapbox and enough rope to ensure you didn’t make it to the ground when you fell off. I tend to think you have lost out on this exchange, Harry. You have given everyone a clear demonstration of how at least one B’nai Brith employee handles himself. You have lied, you have defamed, and you have falsified a document to further your ends. You have also demonstrated clearly how far the CHRC and its users and camp followers will go to smear a fellow Canadian in order to further your political agenda.

Part of the reason I have to ban you, Harry, goes beyond the reasons the people who have been advising me have already given to me. I also have to worry that you could get me into legal trouble of another kind. The world people like you and Richard Warman have been trying to build would hold me responsible for allowing you to defame people on a website I help to operate. I could be sued for allowing you to put a falsified document on Free Dominion. I can’t take that risk, Harry.

I don’t trust you.

It’s been fun, Harry. We are sure to meet again further along in the game. I look forward to it.
_________________
“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” - Entropy Squared

                  Douglas Christie - Canadian Free Speech League
___________________________________________________________________________

CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
PO Box 24052
4420 West Saanich Road
Victoria, BC  V8Z 7E7
Telephone 250-590-2979   Fax 250-479-3294

BY EMAIL

nancy.lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

October 6, 2009

Nancy LaFontant, Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

Dear Ms. LaFontant:

Re:      Harry Abrams and The League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com
Complaint No. : 20071016

Hearing

I would like to indicate, on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, that the decision of Member Hadjis in Lemire is morally binding and legally persuasive to the argument that the hearing against Mr. Topham should not proceed. This would be a waste of judicial time and contrary to fundamental justice. We are of the view, in light of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s seeking of judicial review, that the CHRC regards Member Hadjis’s decision as more than just affecting penalty clauses.

Our view is that this matter should be dealt with by a preliminary motion in order to avoid unnecessary waste of time and expense in the defence of the matter and the re-litigation of the constitutional question, which would be inevitably necessary, if this matter were to proceed.

It is unfair in the extreme, for government-funded entities like the Commission and well-funded organizations like B’nai Brith to put private individuals and small-organizations defending free speech to the expense of a full-blow hearing, when the constitutional validity of the enabling legislation is impugned by the Tribunal itself. The principle of stare decisis requires this matter be resolved by a higher authority, if there is any doubt, and there certainly seems to be doubt in the mind of the Commission, considering its decision to seek judicial review.

Our view is that this issue of whether to proceed or not needs a separate hearing as soon as possible. Would the Tribunal please accept this as a motion on our part, accepting the issue of constitutional validity directly: That a date be set for argument about constitutional validity and the existing hearing dates be abandoned.

Yours truly,
Douglas H. Christie
General Counsel
DHC/kmg

cc
Arthur Topham
Daniel Poulin
Anita Bromberg
Harry Abrams
Marvin Kurz
Paul Fromm
Danielle Desrosiers

Harry Abrams: Big Mouth Singer or Just a Gaby Haas Wannabe?
By Arthur Topham
October 5, 2009

“There is nothing that the International Jew fears so much as the truth, or any hint of the truth about himself or his plans.”
~Henry Ford Sr.,The International Jew, Vol. I, p. 200. originally published in The Dearborn Independent.

Back in the 70s when the kids were in their early years the grandparents used to buy them the latest plastic Fisher-Price toys. Their parents, being Hippies, weren’t into plastic so whenever they got something brand new from the grand-folks they usually took a shine to it. One toy in particular that I’ll always remember with fondness was a musical one that sang songs. It consisted of a number of variously-colored, bright plastic heads all lined up in a couple of rows like a chorus of singers and when you pushed the right button their mouths would all suddenly open in unison and a particular electronic sound/song would blare forth. I believe it’s brand name was “The Big Mouth Singers.”

Well, after reading some of Harry Abrams’ postings on FreeDominion.com, where he has taken up residency since July 22, 2009, I’m beginning to think that he and B’nai Brith Canada may possibly have been the prototype the creator of this delightful toy had in mind.

Two features of it tend to sway me in that direction: First, the plastic heads and second, the big mouths that, upon pushing the right button, automatically opened and omitted their pre-programmed, onerous screeching sounds.

Now Harry generally shies away from attacking me personally on the FreeDominion forum. Not because he doesn’t enjoy a good repartee (his accordian playing comments attest to that) but because he appears to be smart enough to know that in doing so he might jeopardize the very thing he’s hoping will eventually result in his being rewarded his thirty pieces of silver for having betrayed me to the Zionist/Bolshevik censors at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I’m talking here about his attempts in this current sec. 13 “Show Trial” complaint to have the Tribunal find me guilty of “retaliating” against him for having turned an otherwise Zionist media black-out case into an open, Internet-public event.

You see for Harry and the band of B’nai Brith sycophants embedded throughout the country who control the Harper Conservative government, anything bordering on a denial of THEIR claim of discriminating against “Jews and/or citizens of Israel” by a mere peasant such as I is proof enough for them that I’m guilty of their vexatious accusations. And so for me to actually have the chutzpah to not only oppose them but to also refuse to remove materials from my website that THEY’VE judged in advance to be “discriminatory” and then on top of that carrying my defense to the world wide web is tantamount to heresy and in their kinky, myopic Marxist vision of things I therefore must be severely punished. That means of course not only being forced to remove countless articles from my site and never mentioning the words “Jew” or “Israel” or “apartheid” or “Zionism” ever again (or else going straight to jail) but also to compensate poor ol’ Harry to the tune of so many thousands of dollars for having hurt his “feelings.” All of this charade of course is absolute nonsense and the very stuff of which conspiracy theories  gain their credentials. Seen from my perspective, this arrogant, all-knowing, presumptuous attitude by these self-chosen censors is obviously not in the best interests of any functioning democracy and so from the start I refused to be intimidated into succumbing to B’nai Brith’s Zionist mind-control program for killing my constitutional right to free expression.

To simplify it even further, for those who tend to get bogged down in all the bureaucratic legalese that these Zionist/Bolsheviks love to shroud simple events in, it’s no different than Harry picking up a rock behind my back and throwing it at me unannounced (which is basically what he did by filing his complaint to the CHR Commission after sending me a bogus email under a false alias). The rock hits me in the back of the head and knocks me to the ground temporarily but rather than just lying there in the dirt awaiting my fate I jump back on my feet and hurl a rock back at him in self-defense. That, according to Harry, is “retaliating” against him for having cast the first stone. In Harry’s mind the fact that sec. 13 allows him to legally cast his stone justifies his additional claims of “retaliation.” It’s a fine example of Zionist/Bolshevik “logic” at work in Canada’s current judicial wasteland. So, instead of taking any chances that could risk his little Warmouse money-making operation, he prefers to use what he feels is the slyest tactic available to him: innuendo. In fact he gets into it so much that a whole discussion thread wove its way into the cyber-tapestry known as FreeDominion.com simply because of it.

It all began in the midst of a particular thread, “Paul Fromm: Demands that Hadjis Reverse Beaumont Penalties Hadjis Imposed”  on Page 4 where Harry, responding to another poster, Jay Currie, who had said the I had filed for dismissal of the complaint, replied:

“Oh did he?
He files for dismissal about once a week. How am I supposed to keep track?

He also says this:

“…When the American people really discover and realize what the unspeakable Jew has perpetrated, their wrath will know no bounds, and the gutters will run deep with blood.” [My emphasis. Ed.]

It was the “He also says this:” bit that got the ball rollin’. A classic example of the “guilt trip by association” that the Zionist-goon squads from the ADL (the violent, terrorist strong-arm of B’nai Brith International known as the Anti-Defamation League) and JDL (the Jewish Defense League, another Zionist terrorist organization that counsels Harper and Jason Kenney) and other affiliated Mossad terrorist organizations lurking about the back rooms of Canada’s Zionist-controlled “mainstream” media enjoy laying on anyone who happens to be a “problem” for them. “Problem” of course meaning anyone who has dared to even brush up against the veil that hides their deviously devilish designs, let alone someone actually having the balls to grab their digital curtain of lies and pulling it back for the public to view in all its glaring hideousness. (For the full historic monty on this group of mind-controlling misfits see the article B’nai Brith: Beating the anti-Semitic Drum showing their networks of slanderers and propaganda patriots and the duration in which they’ve been working on brainwashing the Canadian public into believing their lies.)

You see the point of Harry’s opprobrious bad-mouthing and blatant lying on FreeDominion.com is designed to build up and reinforce B’nai Brith’s case against myself and RadicalPress that we’re a VIOLENT, anti-Semitic, racist, hate-mongering lot out to incite the dumbed-down goyim mob of Canada to rise up, pitch-fork and double-bitted axe in hand, and go on a major, modern-day rampaging pogrom to slaughter millions of innocent Jews (at least “6″ I would imagine), thus filling the gutters of Canada’s city streets with gallons of “Jewish blood.”

Hey, what the hell, maybe it’s a bit over done but it sounds and looks good on that odious, Jew-hatin’ Topham (who nobody out east has ever heard of) and besides, the owners of FreeDominion have banned him from the forum because of his anti-Zionist views so what has Harry got to lose. Topham can stand there with his hands and nose pressed firmly against the glass looking in on the malicious slurs and deliberations but he can’t defend himself so Harry might as well make a little propaganda hay while the hearing draws near, eh? The drama of it, bordering on a Ben Hur Hollywood production, is bound to win over to the side of the Bolshevik Brithers the Tribunal member hearing the case and Harry could walk away with his pockets bulging with silver. Oi veh! you gotta like that. Why I’d bet even Doug Collins would likely take another spin in his grave when he hears about it.

But, fortunately for me, not all FreeDominion members (FDers to the locals) are knuckle-dragging neanderthals who take whatever Harry dishes out as gospel and so rather quickly he was called to task for his blatant attempt to frame me for a statement I hadn’t made. It soon turned out that the words which Harry had tried to place in my mouth were those he had lifted from an interview with the Jew Harold Wallace Rosenthal back in 1976 which I had posted on my site. The facts, as opposed to Harry’s fictitious pipe-dream with its silver lining, were rather different than Harry’s lie.

Walter White, Jr. Director and Editor of the monthly conservative publication Western Front for 17 years had paid a healthy sum to interview Harold Wallace Rosenthal in 1976. One can read the first and second parts of it on the RadicalPress.com site. The quote from Walter White, Jr., which Harry conveniently ascribed to myself, was the final sentence at the end of the two-part interview and basically was a prediction that if things didn’t change and people eventually woke up to the imminent dangers of Zionism that at sometime in the “future” the inevitable and historically documented repetitive reaction would ensue once again wherein the masses of Gentiles, realizing that they’d been deceived and dominated by the sly fox known as Zionism yet another time, would become violent and in their state of outrage go on yet another rampage against their perceived Jewish foe. This was stated 33 years ago.

The purpose therefore of the following thread is to give readers who have been following this sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint a greater insight into the mindset of the Complainant Harry Abrams and his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. I trust that it will be of sufficient interest to hold the reader’s attention.

One of the first FDer to catch Harry on his fabulous faux pas was “Narrow Back” who in response to Harry’s assertion replied:

“Another superb example of innuendo. Hall of Fame material, to be sure. I simply Googled the phrase. Magic!”

He had googled and found the original site at BibleBelievers.org. Harry didn’t respond to Narrow Back and so another poster LAR wrote:

“But can you respond to Narrow Backs’s post that showed you attributed a quote to Topham that he didn’t say?”

No response from Harry.

LAR posts another message:

“It looks like Walter White, Jr. took credit for the post. So how does Topham get tagged with it?”

Finally Harry responds:

“It’s part of the S. 13 complaint.

Not violently racist enough for you?”

LAR replies:

“It’s definitely violently racist and I’m not a fan. But why say Topham said it when this other guy as much as signed it?”

At this point Narrow Back posts again:

“The comment was made by Walter White Jr. in 1976 after he had an interview with someone by the name of Harold Rosenthal. That was 33 years ago. Arthur Topham never made that comment.

This is not simply innuendo, it’s an out and out lie.” [bold is that of the poster. Ed.]

Now Connie Fournier, co-owner of FreeDominion.com joins in:

“OK, Harry. I followed the link and I read the article. It was vile.

But, Arthur Topham didn’t write it.

Also, I have to wonder why you posted the link here. If your goal is to prevent people from reading stuff like that, it seems kind of self-defeating to post a link to it on a busy messageboard. I don’t have access to Arthur Topham’s stats, but I’d be willing to wager that more visitors have now read that article as a result of your link than had read it since the day it was posted.”

Harry, in response to Connie Fournier’s post, replies:

“Arthur didn’t write it himself. But he revived and re-posted it…..and many more similar. So much, that I’ve asked for outside help in cleaning it up, because he refuses to.

It offends, hurts and frightens me when people call for Jewish blood to run in the streets.

And now that the formal complaint has been made and folks here seems to want to condemn any controls of hate expression to a civil standard…we may as well now study some of this crud.

Maybe learn or re-think something.”

FD poster Gerry T. Neal then replies to Harry’s comment that “It offends, hurts and frightens me when people call for Jewish blood to run in the streets.” :

“Understandably so.

Do you know what offends me?

When someone like you says that I, and the other roughly 34 million citizens of Canada, cannot be trusted to read material like that for ourselves and come to the right conclusion about it.

When someone like you says that I, and other roughly 34 million citizens of Canada, are liable to become a bloodthirsty, anti-semitic mob, if we read stuff like that.

Nobody is saying you don’t have the right to be offended by what Mr. White wrote and Mr. Topham reposted, or by what Doug Collins wrote, or by anything else for that matter.”

Next, Mark Fournier, Connie’s husband, writes in response to Harry’s statement, “Arthur didn’t write it himself. But he revived and re-posted it….” :

“Just as you have done here, Harry. And don’t try to use the argument that you only linked to it, according to the CHRC there is no difference between reposting an article and linking to it. The Marie-Line Gentes complaint against Free Dominion was initiated because one of our members did exactly what you have just done and the CHRC was fully prepared to act on that complaint until Gentes chickened out.

According to Section 13 and the record of the CHRC you, Harry Abrams, are now a thought criminal.

Not that you would have anything to worry about even if Section 13 were still operative. After all, in the crazy world of thought crimes some people are not liable for what they say or do.”

In a subsequent post Mark continues along this same line commenting on Harry’s initial lie:

“Harry, how could anyone possibly guess, from the words you have written here, that the quote above is not Arthur Topham’s? You didn’t say, “He reposted this:” You didn’t say he offered up this quote from…” You said, “He says…”

No one reading what you wrote about Arthur Topham above would have any reason to suspect those words were not his own and that you were either lying about their source or that you don’t know what you are talking about. You even tried to stick to this overt piece of misinformation until you were cornered by the facts and then you finally retreated to:

“Harry Abrams wrote:
Arthur didn’t write it himself. But he revived and re-posted it…..”

Doesn’t it ever occur to you that it is exactly this kind of deceit that has brought Section 13, the CHRC, the B’nai Brith and yourself into such disrepute? Actually, I hope you never figure it out. You’re destroying the credibility of all the censors quite well on your own.”

Replying to Mark Fournier, Harry offers his defense:

“Well for you and anyone else who asks, I mentioned and linked to the article that’s about 1/50th of our complaint, to demonstrate a sample of material that we think crosses the “line.”

“Calling for blood to run in the streets” is just a bit more than merely offensive in my book. Technically it’s at the criminal standard. But I and BBC have lodged a complaint to the civil standard, which is to ask that it be removed.

Would you or Connie allow 10 such articles to stand on FD? Especially if they were brought to your attention as threatening and hurtful?” [bold is Harry’s. Ed.]

In a second post, referring to Mark’s following comment, he writes:

Mark Fournier wrote:

“…No one reading what you wrote about Arthur Topham above would have any reason to suspect those words were not his own and that you were either lying about their source or that you don’t know what you are talking about….”

“It was close enough to make my point. Wrote or re-posted? What does it matter? [Emphasis and color are mine. Ed.]

You’re nitpicking. I don’t want to have to lawyer everything I say here, and I’m sure you don’t [want] me to either, because that will spoil or end the conversation.”

Replying again to Harry, Mark Fournier writes:

“Deliberately attributing that quote to someone who did not author it is a bit more than merely making a mistake in my book. It is at the very least deliberately misleading.

But that is only one level of your deceit in this matter, Harry.

Here is the orginal quote which came at the end of a very lengthy interview:

Walter White, Jr (not Arthur Topham) wrote:

When the American people really discover and realize what the unspeakable Jew has perpetrated, their wrath will know no bounds, and the gutters will run deep with blood.

This, Harry, is a prediction not a “call for”. Walter White is predicting that when the American people learn something there will be blood in the streets. I suspect it wouldn’t bother White one little bit if his prediction came true, but he is not calling for it. He did not say, “We must run out and make sure the gutters run with blood”, he simply predicted it would happen 33 years ago, and it doesn’t look like prediction was his strong suit because none of it has happened.

You have not only changed the meaning of what White said, Harry, you have also tried to hang your false meaning of what White said onto Arthur Topham. Is the rest of your complaint against him rife with this kind of deceit? It wouldn’t surprise me considering the complete lack of credibility of the complainants.”

Adamant, and as worn as the Wailing Wall, Harry stubbornly replies:

“Whether Topham wrote or re-posted that screed is a distinction without a difference. It’s on his website. And our contention is that it’s unacceptably violent language on constitutionally prohibited grounds. Until S. 13 is repealed by Parliament, The Jews whose blood is predicted or called for to “run in the streets” still have a legal (therefore credible) means of recourse if the owner of that website refuses to remove it.”

Here another poster, “ree_life2,” responding to Harry’s comment, “Topham put that material and much more like it on his website. That’s all that matters.” writes:

“That’s all that matters…says it all about you Harry. It is not all that matters and who made you the prosecutor of words that Canadians can and cannot speak? Answer - no one did!”

As recently ruled it is unconstitutional to use section 13 in this way. And that is why we have a hate crimes law and real courts to handle calls for physical violence. If you feel that strongly that something must be done about these particular words use the police and the courts not the puppeteers at the Commissions and Tribunals, where no one is able to defend themselves (well till now with Lemire to some extent, after years of being persecuted).

Again, Gerry T. Neal replies to Harry:

“You later write Whether Topham wrote or re-posted that screed is a distinction without a difference.

I don’t agree with you, but lets say that you are right and the distinction between writing and re-posting is a “distinction without a difference”. The distinction between a “prediction” and a “call for” is very much a distinction with a difference. A prediction is expressing an opinion about what is likely to happen in the future if a certain pattern of events continues to unfold in a certain way. A “call for” personally involves the person in the future event he is calling for. It is the difference between the indicative and imperative mood and it is absolutely vital because “calling for” violence against somebody could legitimately be considered part of the violence itself, if it ensues, making the person who called for it criminally culpable. To make a person criminally or even legally culpable for a prediction however, no matter how vile a mindset on the part of the predictor, the prediction may reveal, is to penalize opinion. That is thought control and is unacceptable in a free, civil, society.

Your question to Mark, and the answer to it, are not remotely relevant except as perfectly rational justifications for your being offended by White’s remarks. But justifying your sense of being offended is not the same thing as justifying your action against Topham.”

Mark Fournier, in reply to Harry and quoting from Gerry T. Neal writes:

“As Gerry T. Neal points out above, Harry, your response was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nice try dodging, but you still haven’t addressed the points I raised. Gerry T. Neal also dealt with your seeming inability to distinguish the difference between predicting something and calling for something, so I will address your assertion that the distinction between writing and re-posting is a “distinction without a difference”.

How well do you think your argument would stand if presented as a defense by a student who has just been caught submitting an essay he copied from the internet as his own? Do you think the Harry Abrams’ defense of ‘there is no distinguishing difference between authoring words and repeating those words’ would hold up with the professor? One thing is certain, the copyright people are about to get a real shock when they learn that according to Harry Abrams the underlying premise of their entire industry is no longer operative.

But you are playing a game here, Harry, and we both know it.

First you posted words that you allege to be hate speech and clearly and unambiguously and falsely accredited those words to Arthur Topham. You could not have not known that those were not Arthur Topham’s words when you made that post, but you went ahead and did it anyway. When you got called on it, rather than man up and admit what you had done, you retreated into the ridiculous arguments that there is no difference between predicting something and calling for something, and that there is no difference between authoring words and repeating the words of another (particularly when the person who repeats the words clearly attributes them to their true author.)

Why would you do such a thing, Harry?

”Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Now, Harry, as much as I would like to be able to take full billing for the quote above merely by dint of having repeated it, those words will always belong to A.C. Doyle, regardless of your assertion that there is no distinquishing difference between Sir A. authoring them and me repeating them.

So let’s see if we can eliminate some of the impossible to see if we can get a hint of why you would put out such a falsehood about Arthur Topham.

I expect you are called many names as you go through life, Harry, but stupid wouldn’t be one of them. I can’t imagine that you would have posted your obvious falsehood merely because you were too stupid to understand what you were doing.

You have already proven yourself not to be ignorant. It is apparent you have received a decent education and that you have a full working knowledge of the English language. You have access to a fair number of words and you know how to string them together to make sentences and paragraphs that convey coherent thoughts, so you can’t claim you don’t understand any of the words you used or the meaning conveyed by how you arranged them.

Neither are you ignorant of the issues at hand. B’nai Brith Canada and the CHRC seem to think you are equipped to be the point man in an unconstitutional attack on Arthur Topham and surely they wouldn’t choose someone for your role in this who didn’t have a good working knowledge of the “I’m offended” racket.

You’re quickly running out of excuses, Harry.

By the process of elimination it appears very much like you wrote that about Arthur Topham for the purpose of smearing him and discrediting him so no one will pay any attention to the unconstitutional attack you are waging against him under the auspices of B’nai Brith and the CHRC. This sounds amazingly similar to the reason why Marc Lemire was so badly smeared during the Warman vs Lemire unconstitutional persecution.

So why did you do it, Harry? Why did you knowingly and falsely attribute words to Arthur Topham that you knew he did not say or write?”

Not wishing to delve too deeply into the nitty gritty of it all Harry responds with his usual plethora of pithy platitudes:

“Mark,

With respect, For the purpose of this complaint it doesn’t matter if Topham authored those words himself or not. He posted them. He is maintaining them there in the face of a now formal complaint. [Emphasis is mine. Ed.]

Just like for example a conventional libel action against a newspaper. Some reporter did a story that damaged somebody’s reputation. Buddy doesn’t just sue the writer, he sues the publisher of the newspaper it appeared in.”

Another poster, “red” replies to Harry:

“For the purpose of this complaint it does matter Harry. Harry did you not post the self same words and assign authorship to the wrong person is that libel or a mistake or a violation of Section 13 buttercup? Can I file a complaint against you now for posting the same thing as Topham, you had no problem publishing something you deem offensive sniff what is that stink? Careful Harry the sand is falling out of your pocket, when it’s gone you won’t be able to move your moral and ethical line to suit your special interests via the CHRC.”

Finally, to conclude this little example of Zionist/Bolshevik group think displayed by Harry, we have the final comments from Gerry T. Neal, who in a most cogent fashion summarizes the position of those who wish to control the thoughts and ideas and freedoms of Canadians to suit their own special interests:

Harry Abrams wrote:

I don’t expect you to understand this, but I have a problem when somebody publishes calls or “predictions” that Jewish blood will “run in the streets.”

Or makes a mockery of my dead relatives who perished violently, and en masse, not for what they did, but for who they were.

I have a problem when somebody publishes disgusting lies about my religion, ethnicity or describes me wrongly as a traitor to my country.

Or publishes vicious ignorant screeds or repeats vicious lies that describe my religion as sanctioning and encouraging sex with babies and corpses and forgiving the murder of non-Jewish persons.

“It would appear that you are projecting your own inability to comprehend onto other people Harry. By placing “predictions” in quotation marks you demonstrate that in your mind the distinction between “calls” and “predictions” is insignificant. Since, however, it is raised in the context of a discussion of the use of government power to limit someone’s right to say whatever they wish in public, that distinction is of the utmost significance. A prediction is in the indicative mood. It expresses a statement as to how the person making the prediction perceives future reality to be likely to unfold. It may be worded in such a way as to indicate how that person would like to see the future unfold, but it does not involve the person doing the predicting in the events personally, unless the person doing the predicting so chooses to include himself by using the first person. A call is in the imperative mood. It involves the person doing the calling directly in the act called for by making that act a response to an expressed wish or command.

A reasonable person, who respects freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and tolerates the right of other people to see things differently from himself, might agree that it is in the public interest that public calls for violence against other people be limited by law. Such a person would say, however, that the calls for violence being legally proscribed need to be clearly and unmistakably involving the person doing the speaking in the act called for. It has to be in the form, in other words, of “Beat up, main, kill so-and-so”. “If so-and-so doesn’t shape up, there will be hell to pay” does not cut it. A further corollary, in the interest of maximizing freedom, is that punitive or remedial action against people calling for violence should only be taken in cases where violence can be demonstrated to have materialized as a result of said call.

You, on the other hand, Harry, seem to take the position that if a person expresses in public ideas that if taken seriously would reflect very negatively on certain people, and the possibility exists that someone may believe those ideas and decide in their own mind to act on them in a violent way, that this indicates an intent to provoke violence on the part of the original speaker, and that the government should be free to proscribe that speech, and possibly take remedial or punitive action even if no violence can be shown to have resulted from the speech in question.

That you have not shown the slightest indication that you understand why people find your position unreasonable and offensive in a country built upon a tradition of maximizing freedom and liberty is very sad Harry.

I think everyone here understands why you “have a problem” with someone publishing the kind of material you referred to. No one is saying you have to like it or be happy about it. What we are saying is that we do not want our government to think it has the right to tell people to shut up just because what they are saying is offensive to you, or even to the majority of people. That opens up the door to where nobody is free to speak their mind for fear that it might offend somebody else and the government will nab them for it.

You said earlier that:

Hate speech isn’t “free” speech.

That is a well-known slogan among radical, left-wing crackpots, but it is a meaningless piece of jargon. The concept of “freedom of speech” as a basic freedom exists to protect the “free market of ideas” where we all have the right to express our thoughts without fear of being punished for expressing “incorrect” thoughts, and where we all have the right to accept or reject the expressed thoughts of others, based upon their own merits or demerits. The concept of “hate speech” exists to eliminate the free market of ideas. Defining the expression of certain ideas as “hate speech” and saying that the government should proscribe “hate speech”, takes away our right to express our thoughts freely without fear of being punished for “incorrectness” and takes away our right to accept or reject the ideas being defined as “hate speech” on their own merits/demerits.”

Conclusion

This is but one of many tales hidden within the cyber-crypts of FreeDominion.com’s forums that reveal the inner workings of censors like Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada. Time and space allowing I will be bringing more of them to light. It’s highly recommended that readers wishing to view these discussions go and register and join in the debates.

And so we see that, like the Big Mouth Singers toy of the 70s, B’nai Brith Canada is set up to respond in kind to key words and whenever they appear on the web to react in an appropriate manner by opening their big mouths and making their harrowing, whining protestations in the name of “discrimination,” “anti-Semitism,” “hate-mongering,” all the other politically correct rhetoric deemed necessary in order to reinforce their longstanding subliminal message that to criticize the Zionist state of Israel or its racist, supremacist ideology is forbidden to all Canadians.

As one FDer put it so aptly in another thread, now that Harry’s cheese has slid off his cracker he ought to wake up and realize that Canadians don’t want any part of censorship in Canada. Censorship is un-democratic and un-Canadian and must be eliminated once and for all from our nation’s legal statutes.
———-

[Editor’s Note: RadicalPress.com was just notified by Marc Lemire of this latest decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to file an application today (Oct.1, 2009) for a Judicial Review of the Warman v. Lemire decision of Sept. 2, 2009.

As in my previous post regarding the Commission’s decision to persevere in recommending that the hearing between B’nai Brith Canada and RadicalPress.com proceed, this new development is but further evidence of the viciousness of this Bolshevik group of malcontents who refuse to accept the wishes of the Canadian public.

Judging from the context and wording of this Judicial Review application I would venture to guess that it was written in full by B’nai Brith Canada and given to the Commission to rubber stamp.

I feel bad for Marc Lemire and Barbara Kulaszka as this will mean having to strap on their guns once again and join in the battle that doesn’t appear to be ending soon.

God grant them courage to continue on!]

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=570

What’s New

01/10/2009

Judicial Review Application in the Warman v. Lemire case

On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Commission applied for Judicial Review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in the Warman v. Lemire case before the Federal Court.

The Commission applied for Judicial Review so that technical but important legal issues raised by the decision can be clarified. These issues go beyond this particular case and could have an impact on other administrative tribunals. As a result, the uncertainty created by the decision is not in the public interest and merits a binding decision by a higher court.

The application is based on two grounds. It is the Commission’s view that:

The Tribunal erred in law when it found that the manner by which the applicant exercises its statutory mandate could render section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional; and

The Tribunal’s findings of unconstitutionality also resulted from the adoption of subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada’ s decision in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply section 13 of the Act because a refusal to apply subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) would have provided a sufficient remedy in respect of this ground.

The Commission endorses the Tribunal’s narrow interpretation of section 13, which is consistent with the Supreme Court and Tribunal’s jurisprudence as well as with the Commission’s 2009 Special Report to Parliament. The Commission accepts the Tribunal’s finding that the penalty clause is unconstitutional. In fact, the Commission itself has recommended that this provision be repealed in its Special Report to Parliament.

The Commission is a servant of Parliament and considers that Parliament’s statutes must be applied unless they are found to be unconstitutional. In this case, it is the Commission’s view that the Tribunal went too far in refusing to apply section 13 in its entirety when the constitutional concern could be remedied by refusing to apply the penalty clause in 54(1)(c).

————