Search results for: "trial"

Doenitz and the American Brass by Hans Krampe

The Nuremberg Trials Show, a grand standing, self righteous performance launched under the name of ‘International Military Tribunal’ (IMT) — none of its members, except for the Russians, having actually fought in the war — was a politically motivated orgy of revenge, malice, hypocrisy, humiliation and lies; the icing on the cake of the simultaneously ongoing allied mass murder of the German populace, then very much in progress.
It was a copy-cat Stalinist show trial, stage managed by Jewish controlled media hacks, whose principle contribution to the war had been the fabrication of anti-German hate propaganda throughout, performed by mean spirited lawyers, oozing with malice, principal among them high ranking Soviet war criminals; zealously assisted by largely Jewish torturers (interrogators) and sadistic murderers (executioners), often in brand new uniforms.
Ten years later, in response to invitations from U.S. Rear Admiral Dan V. Gallery, over 400 written and signed statements, made by hundreds of U.S. and international Flag Officers, congressmen, Supreme Court judges and diplomats, including the future U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, and prominent personalities of the time condemned the Nuremberg Trials as a disgraceful act of revenge by the victors over the vanquished; as a step back into the dark ages as well as a stain on civilization and a shameful slander of professional soldiers; because the German Flag Officers had done what all Flag Officers in the world do, namely, nothing but their jobs they had sworn an oath to do in case of war for their country.
This expression of belated public outrage happened on the occasion of the release of Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz in 1956 from ten years of incarceration.
Photobucket
To be able to incarcerate or sentence to death the German leadership, military as well as civilian, the Nuremberg ‘judges’ had to break international law by inventing ex post facto crimes, had to suppress the evidence of the defense, produce forged copies of ‘confessions’, permit bizarre and fraudulent testimonies and ignore their own constitutional principle of habeas corpus by the American lawyers. That the Germans were guilty was a foregone conclusion, as casually accepted as the American’s indoctrinated Germanophobia and hate. No forensic investigation was necessary, neither then nor to this day.
Most bizarre was the presence of Soviet officers, the worst war criminals of WW II, presiding as judges over their German victims, on which they were guilty of having perpetrated unspeakably more heinous war crimes, on a humongous scale, than the horror stories that they had fabricated about the ‘Nazi Regime’. Their Katyn massacre of 20,000 Polish officers and members of the Polish intelligentsia, discovered and exposed to the international media in 1943 by the German Wehrmacht, they now accused the Germans of, using expertly forged documents and witness statements.
Photobucket
In Admiral Gallery’s opinion the Nuremberg Trials were a kangaroo court by the misnomer of ‘International Military Tribunal’ and that this name was a libel on the military profession. He felt relieved that there was nothing military about it, that it was in fact a lawyers’ tribunal and sarcastically observed how the American Bar had kept bashfully silent on that topic since, not wanting its role in this disgraceful and macabre theater to be widely known. He was ‘glad that our military men had nothing to do with it’. Hundreds of U.S. Admirals and Generals not only agreed with Admiral Gallery, but some also spoke highly and with respect of Admiral Doenitz.
Doenitz, Raeder, Jodl and many others were being charged with 1) having conspired to wage aggressive war, 2) having waged aggressive war and 3) violated the laws of war at sea; all this applied especially to German submarine warfare. Referring to these charges Admiral Gallery exclaimed in exasperation: ‘How in the name of common sense a military officer can wage any kind of war except an aggressive one without being a traitor to his country, I’ll never know.’
Hitler,Keitel,Jodl
Doenitz requested U.S. Admiral Nimitz to be summoned as witness for the defense, to explain his style of submarine warfare in the Pacific. Nimitz was unable to appear in person, but declared in a sworn statement that U.S. submarine warfare was just as aggressive in the Pacific as the German submarine warfare in the Atlantic, that in fact no other mode of submarine warfare was possible in this day and age and that the outdated laws of war at sea were impossible to adhere to since they applied to the era of tall ships, which was long gone. This resulted in an awkward back-paddling by the kangaroos.
Admiral Doenitz was acquitted of the first charge but found guilty of the other two. To find fault with his impeccable and capable conduct of the war they accused him of having deliberately prolonged it, ignoring the fact that in 1945 Doenitz had to evacuate from East Prussia ten times more refugees than the British had evacuated from Dunkirk. As soon as he had brought as many refugees as possible to safety he surrendered. It seemed to be of no consequence to the kangaroos that it was in fact the allied demand of unconditional surrender which prolonged the war. The German leadership was fully aware what they would be facing in such an event and rather chose to fight to the last bullet than to submit themselves voluntarily to certain ignominy and horror. As it turned out, what followed proved them right, in spades.
Raeder was sentenced to life, Doenitz to ten years, while many others were sentenced to be executed and summarily strangled to death.
While all these high ranking allied officers commiserated with their enemy colleagues, none of them seemed to have known clearly, nor cared, why the war was fought. It was enough for them to get the order to fight, whipped into the mood by relentless hate propaganda. It sufficed for them to ‘know’ that the German government was evil; just as General Colin Powell, presiding over the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, ‘knew’ that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Ten years too late, they remembered that they owed a debt of chivalry and an apology to Admiral Doenitz, et al, not to mention justice.
They couldn’t find it in their hearts to extend the same sentiments to Rudolf Hess, who languished in Spandau, a prison built for 600 prisoners, the only one there, kept in solitary confinement until 1987, when he was murdered at age of 93, strangled to death.
Such sentiments were also absent when they ‘merely did their sworn duty’, bombing the German civilian population to smithereens. And even in 1956, as they expressed regret for the treatment of German flag officers, they couldn’t have cared less what they had done to the German nation at large. Not one of them expressed any regret about what they had done to German women and children, by the millions; to the German POWs — AFTER THE WAR — by the millions; or the flattening of the beautiful towns and cities that had taken more than a millennium to build; not to mention the theft of trillions of dollars worth of German patents and industrial hardware. They had just followed their orders, as they had sworn an oath to do. What was a virtue for them had to be, of course, a vice for the Germans, rooted in evil Bismarck’s Prussia. It was the pin-point rationale of the kangaroos sitting in judgment, tailoring crimes to fit the anti-German war propaganda.
According to Admiral Gallery, however, just that is the proper conduct of flag officers, ‘after all, one thing the much maligned military brass must do, in a democracy as well as a dictatorship, is swallow their convictions, if any, and do as they are told by their politicians…’ In other words, for a flag officer it doesn’t matter what kind of political creep gives the orders, it’s best not to have an opinion about anything, to avoid unnecessary problems with indigestion. By this rationale, Flag Officers are capable of ordering the shooting on their own unarmed people, if ordered to do so, as they did in 1970 at Kent state university, or as they are currently doing to innocent peoples all over the world.
It doesn’t seem to occur to any of them that they also swore an oath to defend the United States and its constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Yet, they are blind to the enemy within — their own government — and keep following the orders, with a few notable exceptions, of presidential morons with blatantly genocidal intentions, to wage aggressive war without there being ever a hint of a threat, other than manufactured ones. The American brass seems to have been oblivious that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were the only ones who had made every effort to avoid WW II, while their own government did the opposite.
The 400 expressions of regret about Admiral Karl Doenitz’s incarceration and their condemnation of the IMT were edited and published in book form in 1976 by H.K. Thompson, a Yale graduate of naval science and history; and Henry Strutz, a teacher of foreign languages and history. The title: Donitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, War Crimes and the Military Professional.
Needless to say, it never became a bestseller.

{ Comments are closed }

POLICE ABUSE, HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION & RACIAL PROFILING OF INDIGENUOUS NATIVES CONTINUES by Helen Michell

[Editor’s Note: I have known Frank Martin and Helen Michell for 22 years now and have worked with them on different issues to do with native sovereignty, Residential School abuse and basic human rights issues. Both Helen and Frank are hard core, dedicated activists who have given their adult lives to the struggles that indigenous natives face around the province. As Helen states in her article below she would need to write a book just to record all of the incidents in her and Frank’s life where they’ve been unduly stopped, pulled over, forced off the highway, accosted, harassed, beaten up, forced into courts of law and teased and terrorized by the so-called authorities whose job it is to uphold the law and treat all people equally. Their trials and tribulations epitomize what is a daily occurrence for so many indigenous natives here in ‘beautiful’ B.C. Please read Helen’s story and do what you can to pass it along in the hope that someone, somewhere, may find it in their heart to assist these folks and help them in their quest for justice.]
POLICE ABUSE, HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION & RACIAL PROFILING OF INDIGENOUS NATIVES CONTINUES
by Helen Michell
Sunday, February 27, 2011


To all who may be concerned: This letter is about the abuse, intimidation, harassment, discrimination, racial profiling that we as indigenous people of British Columbia, Canada have to put up with regards to the authorities of of this unceded province called British Columbia. Authorities such as the Vancouver City police, the Royal Canadian Mounted police and the Social Services of this province. As indigenous people, we have gone through so much discrimination and intimidation and racial profiling from these so called authorities.
I am an indigenous woman. I am also a disabled indigenous woman and an elder who has had to live in a wheel chair since 2000. In the year 2000, at the end of July, I and my husband Frank were forced off the highway by an R.C.M.P cruiser that rammed our vehicle off the highway north of Cache Creek, B.C., and left me disabled. Since than I have come a long way along the road to recovery but I’m still not fully recovered. I will always have to get around in an electric wheel chair.
I am also a witness to many of the abuses we as indigenous people have to live with on a daily basis. I am also an indigenous human rights defender and an outspoken indigenous activist who really cares about her indigenous people.
As a child, I witnessed my elders being threatened by the RCMP with prison or Esendale which was a place they put crazy people. Back then the police used ‘the mental health act’ to force indigenous people into jails or off the streets. This ‘mental health act’ was put on the shelf for most of my life time. Now this ‘Mental health act’ is being re-enacted and put back into action once again. This act has forced many of our indigenous people off the streets and many have been given huge fines which most cannot pay. Fines such as ‘jay walking’ and for ‘being drunk in a public place’. Just being seen on the streets of Commercial Drive of Vancouver, B.C. is now a crime if you are indigenous. Age does not matter but the color or your skin matters. The Vancouver city police have become judge, jury and executioner when it comes to indigenous peoples of B.C. and so has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of B.C.
In the past few days, the indigenous youth of the Vancouver Indian Center have also come to us and asked us for help from the abuse of the Vancouver City police. They are also being chased around by the police. They are also being forced off the streets of Commercial Drive. Where are these indigenous youth going to go? There is no other place to go. Late at night we witnessed 12 and 13 years old indigenous youth at the Vancouver Indian Center being questioned by the Vancouver police. Why are they allowed to question the indigenous youth without the presence of the elders? This is abuse of their authority in attempting to scare the youth off the streets.
This is only one example of the city police abuse of their authority: On February 24, 2011, we were at the Vancouver Indian Center for a memorial for one of our elders who passed away. This memorial was held from 7 pm until 10 pm. We left the Indian Center to go to our vehicle. On our way to the car we noticed the police cars around one of the apartments near our vehicle. We didn’t think anything of it then. But when we got into our car and drove up Commercial Drive one of the police cars started to follow us for quit a few blocks before they turned the police lights onto us. We immediately pulled over our car. At first the police officer said we were being stopped for a traffic infraction where my husband, who was a passenger, was not suppose to be driving. He wasn’t as I was in the the drivers seat and was the driver with a valid drivers license. The police officer took my driver’s license and the registration papers for the car.
The police officer was gone with our papers for quit a long time before he or she came back. I say he or she because I could not tell if he or she was a male or a female. All along I thought he or she was a male but when the police officer finally gave us a card, the card said the name was Jocelyn Deziel, pin 2067. This whole incident went from a traffic matter to a drug matter within a few minutes. The police officer said that the RCMP informed her that we were busted at our house for a ‘grow op’ marijuana matter, which was false. This officer said we had a few pounds of marijuana in our car. He/she ordered us out of our car so he/she could illegally search our vehicle. I, being disabled, had to sit on the back bumper of my vehicle for the whole one hour while the car search was going on. Plus, it was 5 degrees below zero outside and freezing. I was so cold my legs practically froze by the time I was allowed to go back into my car. This treatment toward us was ‘inhumane treatment’ and was uncalled for. This police officer practically took the inside of our car apart, front to back, top to bottom, and found NOTHING. This police officer was extremely rude and discriminating.
Frank&HelenArticle
An all too familiar scene on Vancouver’s streets with flashing police lights
___________________________________________________________________________

This police officer has a name on the street of Commercial Drive: The Name is ‘Super Cop’, because he/she gets what he/she wants. This officer terrorizes indigenous people. I was terrorized by this officer’s abuse toward us. I am 58 years old and my husband and I are elders and we have lived through this type of abuse through out most of our lives. We are human beings, we are not animals to be pushed around nor penned up whenever the police feel we are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here are some dates of when we were stopped by the Vancouver City police and the RCMP during the past year only:
February 1, 2011 at 11:25 pm. Abbotsford police stopped us while on our way home, gave my passenger a no driving ticket, which was illegal. No business harassing my passengers.
February 10, 2011. RCMP pulled us over east of Port Mann bridge at 9:15 pm.
January 19, 2011, at 11:55 pm. Pulled over by RCMP from Hope BC, only to tell me my license was expiring at the end of this year.
January 25, 20011, 12:15 pm. I was followed for a while on a side road before I pulled onto the main highway where I was pulled over by the Agassiz Police, for nothing, then let go.
December 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm. Chilliwack, B.C., RCMP pulled us over on the Freeway in Chilliwack for no apparent reason.
December 17, 2010 at 8:45 pm. Agassiz police pulled us over on a very dark side road, off the main highway. He had no lights going, he just came out of the dark to harass me while I was at a stop sign. He scared me, as I thought he was a regular person trying to stop me. I didn’t know he was a police officer until he was at my window.
December 31, 2010. Stopped once again at 9:15 pm by Agassiz police on Evans Rd. No apparent reason.
September 8, 2010 at 12 pm. Pulled over by Agassiz police. There were two police cars for this stop. I was close to home when I was pulled over. I consider most of these stops by police as ‘racial profiling’ of me, as an indigenous person.
September 17, 2010 at 9:30 pm. Pulled over by Langley RCMP, again no apparent reason.
July 4, 2010 at 8 pm. Pulled over by Vancouver city police on Commercial Drive. Again, no reason. This occurred after attending a Jazz Festival.
June 29, 2010, at 11 pm. After attending a pow wow night at Vancouver Indian Center the Vancouver city police pulled us over only to tease me that I was wanted Canada wide for stealing chocolates!!!
May 24, 2010, at 9 am. Chilliwack Police pulled us over on Freeway in Chilliwack. Ordered us out of the car. Searched our vehicle and found nothing.
February 20, 2010 around 9:30 pm. My husband, Frank Martin, was arrested and beaten up by four Vancouver city policemen on Commercial Drive and 1st ave; beaten up with their batons and knocked unconscious. Then he was taken by ambulance to the Vancouver General Hospital where he awoke, with no clothes on, laying on a bed. He escaped from the hospital with the help of a Chinese fellow who gave him some clothes that he found. At home, I saw all the black and blue bruises that he sustained by the police beating. It was horrible. Why do we as indigenous people have to put up with this kind of abuse and inhumane treatment, and no one will help us to stand up and fight this police brutality? Are we not considered as human beings?
FrankMed
Frank Martin
______________________________________________________
January 21, 2010 at 5:50 pm. We were pulled over on Commercial Drive by the Vancouver city police on our way to attend a B.C. Civil Liberties meeting on police brutality at Vancity Theatre. Scare tactic?
January 30, 2010, at 10:45 am. Two policeman, in an unmarked police car, parked outside our house for 10 min. but did not come in. Very unusual.
Now this is only one year’s span of our 58 years on this earth where we’ve been pulled over by the police. How many times in the past, that we were pulled over and our vehicles confiscated will have to be printed in a book, as it will not fit in this article and I do not have enough time to write it all down.
Now does this article prove that we are being harassed, intimidated, discriminated against and been ‘racially profiled’ merely for being indigenous people of British Columbia, Canada? You must be the judge of that.
Besides all of the police abuse of us as indigenous people of B.C., we are also being abused by the authorities that are put in place to take care of us.
During the past few years, we have been ‘kicked out’ of the welfare office in Chilliwack, B.C. for trying to stand up to a bad social worker who did not like us one bit. We have been banned from going into that welfare office for a few years now. Our welfare files were then transferred to the nearest Salvation Army social services, where they have been these past few years. I guess we are considered a ‘mental’ case for trying to get what we are entitled to from the welfare office, so that is one of the reasons for transferring our files to the Salvation Army. All we were doing was questioning the welfare worker why I cannot get them to buy me an electric wheel chair, which I still have not got yet. And why my daughter, who has been taking care of us as disabled elders, cannot get assistance from the welfare office. Instead, we were forced out of this welfare office. I have to still buy my own electric wheel chairs second hand. Whenever I have to buy another electric wheel chair it puts us in debt. I also need to buy food with what little the welfare gives us and it hurts us more if I have to buy my own electric wheel chairs. How many other indigenous families of B.C., Canada, are forced to live in poverty because of the abuse of the social workers of this province?
The Wetsuweeten First Nations band welfare worker is no different from the white social workers. My brother who lives on the reserve is suffering extreme poverty because of the abuse of the band social workers. He cannot go hunting because of the band denying him his right to have a gun to go food hunting. Yet the band gives their own families the right to carry a gun to go hunting and the right to sell the moose meat instead of giving the meat to the band members that so badly need it. Now there are no more moose to hunt.
Who in the world will stand up beside us and fight for our rights, our human rights, our indigenous rights, our disabled rights, our woman’s rights, our indigenous childrens rights? What rights do we really have? I know I have some kind of rights because I am still here, trying to tell you all what kind of abuse we as indigenous people of B.C. have to put up with.
Please send this article far and wide, to whomever you know that you think will help us in any way to put a stop to the abuse of the authorities of this only unceded province now called British Columbia, Canada.
Outspoken, indigenous, disabled and a human rights defender of indigenous peoples of B.C., Canada.
Telquaa,Helen Michell,
PO Box 806,
Harrison Hot Springs
B.C. Canada V0M 1K0.
Telephone: 604 796 9191
Email: Helen Michell [email protected]

{ Comments are closed }

Mainstream Media a Sinking Ship by S.H.Pearson

The Internet is fraught with worried liars seeking to confuse and mislead independent thinkers. Their motive is clear scatter decoys and throw people off the path of discovery. They want to obscure the real news, knowing that truth has a flavor.

Once you get a taste of it you’ll know what it is.

Today media stands at the threshold of cataclysm. The modes of media that survive, even thrive, shall be those who make bringing truth to the people their hallmark. High-impact writing, devoid of slant, spin and evasive mumbo-jumbo is what today reader expects from a journalist. Gone are the days of the news room team-player.

Gone are the days also of controlling who can and cannot access information. Get yourself a Macintosh.

There is a new awareness on the streets today. It comes to the chagrin and worry of those who would bar the ordinary citizen from the power of knowledge. This thought police has published their concerns in an academic journal whose words fly 200 miles above the Middle American radar. The writers of this discussion are worried about new technologies that are not just cheap but sometimes even free. These technologies are user-friendly, accessible, and fast. More harrowing, they are global.

Based on these new developments and digital technologies, the average citizen, given the desire to learn, can educate himself to threatening new heights. This makes the news reader of the future a different animal. He will expect more from his news media because with access to high speed Internet, he will be able to get translations of news from around the world. Conducting his own research, this new animal can compare notes, check facts and bounce what he has learned off the daily feed of his local media.

The fog of the last century is lifting. But there is a gathering storm encroaching on every major newspaper. Their readerships are getting their news from all over the world now and it does not jibe with what they are reading in their local papers. The billion dollar question for the mainstream media is nd why is that?

journalist credibility, once lost, is gone forever, a professor recently taught. So too is gone forever the reputation of one whose character has been assassinated by the press. The professor added, journalist is in the business of truth-telling.

If it is the truth, we get to print it. There are basic elements of a news story that should always be answered. Given the answers to who, where, what, when, and how, the why may be discerned.

In the local paper there was a story about how Palestinian refugees had been taken in by Chile. The Spanish-speaking, predominantly-Christian country embraced these Muslims with a warm welcome. The refugees joined an already thriving population of 300,000 other Palestinians who now call Chile home. There were several quotes from one Palestinian family that the story featured. They spoke of their two-year ordeal living in squalid tents, fearing for their lives from harassment and attacks. They fled after one of their neighbors was killed in front of them. In each quote describing the atrocities suffered by this Palestinian family, the pronoun they was used to describe their attackers. This leaves a reader curious as to who they were. Never once were they identified. What kind of news-writing is this? Today reader demands all the facts not just some of them. He does not want the doctored facts or the censored facts. He wants the unaltered whole of it and he wants it now.

A concern for those who own today news media is what Howard Rheingold refers to as smart mobs in his new book. Rheingold phrase has been adopted by sociologists who discuss in their journals the threat of self-educating new citizens who might begin to think for themselves. This could bring about a social revolution. Why such an upheaval is not good news to everyone is piquant. Why would such a revolution not be good news? It entails none of the carnage of the French, Cuban or Bolshevik revolutions, for example, so what is not to like about it? Why would it not be good news to have a smarter readership? What sinister efficacy would ignorance serve the captains of industry? Perhaps this is a feature story that mainstream newspapers could take for action.

No doubt aiding the media tailspin are exposes about historic news spanning the last century. This historic news is full of holes. What is watertight; however, is testimony.

People who have been heretofore silenced, imprisoned and smeared by the press are coming out of the woodwork to tell their stories. Some of them have grown old and infirm enough to no longer have anything to lose. So they have given recent interviews. The fear of death has loomed over such witnesses as the truth has been kept from the world.

Was the news media in cahoots with those to whom truth is a threat? What passed for news on such matters suggests that this is the case. If so, it is a scandal worthy of more than public pillory. That is not the kind of media Lady Columbia wants in her news rooms. This is at the heart of why newspapers are taking a nosedive. They have lost credibility with their readerships on a global scale.

The muckraking that is going on today outshines Nellie Bly in that it transcends the hack-mentality of a beat reporter. There seems a higher purpose to this movement. It has taken on a life of its own, like MicroSoft-ware, except it works for the good of the people. A force to be reckoned with, the modern muckraking movement is rocking the foundations of the world belief systems, infiltrating every knowledge-base. There is no stone it leaves unturned. The literate world is experiencing a shockwave of illumination devoid and despite of the mainstream media.

It appears that this phenomenon is beyond the scope, reach, policing and control of the current establishment and much to their dismay. It has gone too far, too fast for retraction. It has flung forth like a strike fighter from the catapult. It has been launched like an Exocet or righteous, rollicking round. To the jailers of truth, to the gatekeepers of knowledge, to the barons of education the Internet is the biggest nightmare of their lives. The World Wide Web makes what used to be viciously-guarded available to anyone who can read. For purveyors of half-truths, propaganda and filler gibberish, it tolls the knell of their sinking ships. The Internet has awakened a sleeping lion of lucidity.

Newspapers who want to survive will need to walk a straighter line. What has passed for news is no longer holding water. People have stopped buying lies, subterfuge, ruses, cover-ups and propaganda. Hearst snow-jobs have gone the way of the whale-bone corset.

People want a media with credibility. Americans are waking up, wising up and bucking up. They are hungry for new caliber. People are tired of a press who couches and breaks bread with corrupt politicians. And crawls up the bomb-bay of Bilderberg. Good writing is a craft, but lying should not be. America does not need another Stephen Glass.

Today mainstream press is in deep kimchi. People are being informed by maverick muckrakers that big media has lied to them on the hard news for not just a decade, but for over 50 years. Things are coming out in the wash to the disgrace of big news organizations. The government is likewise losing credibility with an increasingly research-savvy and skeptical public. When it comes to the press and the government these days, people are questioning everything.

Unlike the years prior to 1995, people are no longer limited to their sources of information. The world is now at their fingertips. If they can read and have time, they can learn about anything without setting foot into a library or leaving their homes.

Perhaps it is time for a media renaissance. Change is good when things are bad. The time has come for a strident evaluation of the Federal Reserve. No private bank should masquerade as a Federal anything. So too should an in-depth analysis of our mass media be conducted by neutral outsiders who have no vested interests.

Citing the castes of Indian princes Buddha, Krishna, and Mahavira, for example, their credibility was heightened by having nothing to lose or gain by what they taught. They were born into wealth and could not be bought. So too should evaluators of a system be enlisted, lest the truth be compromised or twisted.

The bottom-feeders of the press who hound celebrities and smear non-threatening famous people are what The Project for Excellence in Journalism calls exploitative jackals. These same jackals know better than to snap at the heels of a Rockefeller or shoot telephoto of a Rothschild. One must pose the question, why do you think that is? Such jackals hounded Princess Diana and Dodi al Fayed to their deaths. What made Fayed a yellow press target whilst Mr. Rockefeller enjoys immunity?

A plausible factor for the yellow press inconsistencies about whom they hunt, harass and lampoon is either a secret loyalty to those they leave alone or a fear of tit for tat in the shooting game. What paparazzi gadfly wishes to find himself in the cross-hairs of Heckler and Koch?

Some people are clearly above the law and the press knows it. Not exposing what they know to be the truth does not win the mainstream media points with a public who is growing more informed every day. Ask those babies they burned at Waco. Where was the press when they needed them? You want a story? Go interview Janet Reno. She should have more time to give interviews these days. Burning all those innocent people should not only be fresh on her mind, it will hound her for the rest of her days. If this was our Department of Justice at work what does it say about the rest of our government?

There is enough real news breaking in the world without prying into the personal lives of public figures for sport and lampoonery. If some people are game for scrutiny then they should all be game for scrutiny. Inconsistencies like these are a telling wall for the dishonesty and corruption that drive today media. Let the tailspin of the press be a sign of the times. Let it write into the sky poetic justice for a media gone wrong.

The press has long lavished a pillory on certain people while giving others a wide berth. Vicious character assassinations have been made of people on flimsy premise while more questionable folks get away with murder. William Randolph Hearst newspaper helped sentence a man to death in a speedy trial a man whose widow protested his execution unto her death of old age. Hearst news deliberately fanned the flames of suspicion against a man who has never been proven guilty. Once the press drags a name through the mud, it is indelibly mired. The uneven hand of the media is suspicious in a profession where blind justice is required. Why would anyone spend two cents on a newspaper like that?

Given all this news it is less difficult to figure out why the entry lobby of the Miami Herald employs maximum security and uses a decoy building to distract visitors from its location. Why would a newspaper office have to resort to the security of Fort Knox? What does it have to fear from its public that merits this kind of fortification? The answer to these questions will reveal what can be done to save the sinking ship of today mainstream media.

{ Comments are closed }

HOWARD THE LAME DUCK ZIONIST by Arthur Topham

HOWARD THE LAME DUCK ZIONIST
by Arthur Topham
July 12, 2010
Preface: Recently an associate, still struggling with the bigger picture of what “Israel” and political Zionism actually represent, sent me an article by an American writer, Howard Galganov. Her motive in doing so was to try and weaken my resolve on the issue of political Zionism and Palestine and persuade me to see the current state of Israel’s policies from her and Howard’s flawed and premature perspective. After reading Howard’s “in your face” piece of blustering Zionist propaganda I decided to respond to its contents. What you see in the article below therefore is a line by line deconstruction of Galganov’s pro-Zionist, pro-“Israel” editorial. Throughout the essay I surround the word “Israel” with double quotes to indicate that I do not recognize this false state as a viable and legitimate member of the world’s nations.
———————
I AM ISRAEL
To all those who worry most about Obama’s quest to “deal with Israel, Obama is not to be as feared as many dread, simply because Obama is not Israel.
LDH (Lame Duck Howard): “I was RE-BORN after an exile of 2,000 years, because I am Israel.”
Howard, you’re dead wrong in titling your editorial “I AM ISRAEL”. You definitely ain’t Israel. What you are is just another lame duck Zionist hack attempting to bamboozle the gullible goi with deliberate, confusing subterfuges and insufferable obfuscations all designed to thwart a clear understanding of the true nature of the Beast that you and your ilk perceive as the new Jewish Messiah. I will outline these accusations for you in my critique below. In doing so it’s hoped that readers will see through the deceptive rhetoric and the real purpose for your pathetic attempt to conceal the facts about “Israel”.
You start off (in stereotypical Zionist form) with a massive lie then follow through with more of the same intensity and end on a similar note giving your readers nothing beyond a short cacophonous symphony of contemptible lies that culminates in a crescendo of cunning, annoying noise all designed to further the illusion that the premise of your present existence is valid and true.
I don’t disagree with you saying that you were “re-born”; most, if not all of us, were re-born. Some are re-born on a daily basis even. The fact that we were born even once is just as miraculous as being born twice and so as we near the grand finale in this round of the cosmic dance many of us have returned to bear witness to these times and learn from the coming revelation and the imminent demise of Zionism.
In your case though Howard I think you may have emerged again from the Great Mystery, not because you are “Israel” and can therefore legitimately lay claim such a title but likely to learn a harsh lesson that you refused to heed in your past incarnations. You aren’t the true Israel because the entity that you’re now attempting to pawn off to the public as the real thing is, in truth, but a vile and deceptive shadow of the real thing; a by-product of the finite minds of those Pharasaic Talmudic rabbis of old who first conjured up the sacrilegious concept of man as the center and seed of all Creation.
I will grant you the fact though (based upon your conceit and your cocksureness and level of maturity), that you may have been suspended in some Talmudic bardo plane hell for the past two thousand years, frozen in time like some forlorn Vonnegut character. Your attitude is strikingly similar in many respects to those ancient Pharisaic sorcerers of Old Testament days.
LDH: “I rose from the ashes of Hell on Earth we call the Holocaust, because I am Israel.”
I don’t think so Howard. Your current state of consciousness rose from the ashes of Hell period. You’re a product of the Babylonian Talmud; an after-effect of centuries of rabbinical mind-fucking, sophistry and perfidy. Your treachery knows no bounds and your principles (if one might call them such), forged as they were in the molten crucible of these wayward wizards of deceit give you a false sense of superiority. The exhibition on the world stage of your “Holocaust” circus show is proof positive of this fact.
You fail the test Howard (once again). You don’t apparently see the Machiavellian links between the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, the World Zionist Organization of Hertzl, B’nai Brith International, the Arab domains of Palestine, the Belfour Declaration, World Wars I and II and the end result that Frankenstein of the Middle East you call “Israel.”
It’s not because you are some actual DNA remnant of those hoary tribal misfits from Judah who were booted forth from the Middle East because of their lying, destructive, murderous and tyrannical ways that you now believe you are “Israel.” Nope. Far from it. It’s because you’re a flawed piece of Talmudic machinery, likely raised up in the rabbinical traditions of your equally flawed forefathers, that you and your calculating cohorts churn out this daily deceptive junk product of Zionist propaganda in addition to the already abundant overload of lies that permeate your Jewish International Media Monopoly (aka JIMM).
LDH: “I clung to the earth of my promised land with flesh-torn-hands to reclaim what for thousands of years was always mine, because I am Israel.”


WhitewashingWarCrimes
Alas, Howard, you’re wrong again. You clung to a false belief; a lie, branded into that “re-born” soul of yours by Zionist Talmudic inculcators, that somehow you are the rightful owner of that tiny piece of cosmic real estate known as Palestine, when, in fact, it was your Rothschild-inspired terrorist Urgun “elders” who, via stealth, collusion, blackmail and cold-blooded murder, stole the once good earth from the true and original inhabitants of that sandy section of somewhere you now attempt to convince others is rightfully yours.
It’s true that your hands and the hands of all Zionists are bloody Howard but the flesh that was torn away to release the metaphoric blood now dripping profusely from your claw-like keyboard consciousness, was the collective flesh of the Arab people, who, from the onset of the Rothschild quest to conquer the world, have become your sacrificial host.
LDH: “I opened my Jewish doors to Christians, Muslims and all others who yearned to live in religious FREEDOM, because I am Israel.”
Again, Howard, no cigar. The doors that you opened were doors illegally taken by force and terror from the original inhabitants of the good earth that your recent forefathers acquired by violence and sadistic torture in 1948.
The Babylonian Talmud, the ultimate reference point in this dimension for your professed “Jewish” philanthropy, doesn’t open doors for any of the goyim (cattle) religions. Quite the contrary. Your Talmudic traditions are anathema to any religious freedom for anyone who isn’t designated by the rabbis to be a “Jew.”
Have you studied your own “religious” works Howard? Are you aware of the venom and the hatred and the barbaric, mendacious attitudes toward others that infest your Talmudic teachings?
No, Howard, your “Israel” doesn’t open doors for anyone who isn’t a member of your tribal troupe of misguided malcontents. You slam doors in the face of those who try to encourage you to see the good in humanity as a whole; you lock and barricade the doors and hide away the keys that hold the Christians and Muslims captive to your demented, psychopathic ideology known as Zionism; you attack and murder and corner and brutalize and rape Christians and Muslims all the while professing some sort of sordid “religious” kinship with your victims that you spew forth via JIMM and your bought and paid for pulpit preachin’ pranksters like Jim Hagee, et al.
No, Howard! You fail the acid test for both honesty and integrity in making such serpentine statements. Your “Israel” will never bring “FREEDOM” of any sort to anyone, least of all the Jews. It’s not designed to. It’s a vehicle for creating disease, death, misery and slavery of every type for every person and every nation that doesn’t bow down in obeisance and kiss the hairy ass of the Rothschild criminal cartel now animating JIMM, US foreign and domestic policies, and similar national government policies throughout the world.
What you call “freedom” Howie is but a license for your “Israel” to commit the grossest crimes known to mankind and then twist them, via JIMM, into convoluted cords of contemptible and contiguous lies all the better to bind and deceive the minds of the unwary and innocent.
LDH: “I ask for nothing other than to be allowed to live in peace and security, so that my children can also grow and prosper under the Sun and Stars like all others, because I am Israel.”
Oi veh Howard! Such chutzpah! Such claptrap! Such Talmudic double-think! Statements such as this only confirm the fact that you regard all non-Zionists as a bunch of deluded shmucks.
Your feigned sentiments of “living in peace and security” are reminiscent of another of your Zionist ilk, Nahum Sokolow, author of History of Zionism: 1600 1918. In his Introduction to the 2-volume set, published in 1919, he voices similar flourishes of deceptive rhetoric while stating:
“Let humanity do for Palestine only a small part of what has been done so liberally for the most exotic colony nay, less than that, because Zionists ask for no material support [U.S. taxpayers exempted of course], and for no embarrassing responsibility [like obeying international law and UN resolutions for example]. They ask only for sympathetic consideration and help, for recognition and protection. And let humanity be sure of the loyalty of a people which, although, sorely tried, has never grown cold in its affections, a people which by its resurrection will become again what it was in very ancient times, not a military power but a spiritual and peaceful power. Then the time will come when this people’s gratitude will recognize its indebtedness to the world for the co-operation which will assist its great and just cause.” [bold and brackets are mine. A.T.]
Because you think you are “Israel” Howard you feel that you can lie through your cyber teeth to everyone about all the shit that’s come down over the past century and more due to endless Zionist deception and terror and that the stupid goi will swallow whatever swill you and JIMM feed them. Well, this harbinger is here to tell you that the game’s up Howard. As Bob so succinctly said, “the times they are a’ changin.” Big time. Thanks to the Internet and its anarchist model of no centralized control, your dirty, stinking, blood-soaked laundry is now being hung out on the cyber line to air and the neighbours, to put it mildly, are not impressed with the foul stench that your “Israel” undergarments are emitting.
LDH: “I stand with but a few friends, who stand by me in a hostile world with whom I will stand forever, because I am Israel.”
Forever is a long, long time Howard and I doubt that for all your lavish display of lies that your “Israel” will withstand the test of time. Only that which is truthful and valid and honest and real and loving and nurturing has such resilience and longevity.
The world is “hostile” Howie because your “Israel” has made it so and your “few friends” are likely to become fewer yet as the months and years pass by and the nefariousness of your dastardly deeds, as witnessed by the world in the two most recent ones the Rothschild’s British Petroleum poisoning of the world’s oceans via the Gulf of Mexico and the slaughter of innocents on the Gaza relief flotilla come more and more to light.
LDH: “But I also know that in the end, I will be standing alone, because I’ve always stood alone, because I am Israel.”
No Howard you’ll end up standing alone because you’re basically a fragile, sick, dislocated and twisted mind suffering from delusion of grandeur and a self-imposed persecution complex brought on by centuries of rabbinical brainwashing conjoined with the attendant restrictions of living within a rigid set of ghetto consciousness guidelines forged within your tortured soul by the precepts contained within the Babylonian Talmud.
You and your “Israel” have been fucking up in every nation that you’ve wormed your way into since Christ was a corporal and then using the “poor us, the self-chosen, the misunderstood and the persecuted” ruse all these centuries because you inevitably always get caught trying to undermine and destroy whatever host country you deceitfully inhabit. In other words Howard you stand alone because you behave like the proverbial asshole bigot to the rest of the world and you just can’t seem to get it through your thick head what everyone else inevitably is forced to conclude regarding your modus operandi.
LDH: “I live by the tenets of thousands of years of Biblical Covenant to do what is right, regardless of the cost and risk, not just because of the word of God, but more so because without a moral compass there is no direction, because I am Israel.”
Again Howard, pure balderdash and lies compounded with an all too liberal sprinkling of conceit. The so-called original “Covenant” wasn’t for a gang of thieves, terrorists, rapists, murderers and usurers such as are those who profess to be “Israel” today. If you truly think that you’ve been given some “god-given” right as “Israel” to hold the world hostage and mutilate and torture and pillage and extort the planet and its non-Jewish population, then I’m afraid that you’ll have a few more incarnations to go before the Light of truth finally dawns for you.
If you were truly a member of the original 12 tribes that comprised what, in the Bible, is called the true Israel then you would be obeying the one God and also the teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ, who taught LOVE AND PEACE AND BROTHERHOOD AND SISTERHOOD FOR ALL PEOPLE (not just the blatant, selfish aberrations of the self-chosen Ashkenazi hybrid “Jews” that you are attempting to hood-wink people into falling for).
As a purveyor of lies and deception for your “Israel” do you actually think you’re doing what is “right, regardless of the cost and risk”? At whose cost? At whose risk? Certainly not yours Howard.
Do you also believe that your “Israel” is setting a precedent for the world as THEE moral standard? My God man! give the rest of us a much needed break from your moralizing mania. Any GPS unit on the market today would clearly indicate that “Israel” is hopelessly lost and wandering about in a mentally and spiritually frenetic wasteland of its own making in search of its lost sense of self. Further denial of this fact may prove fatal for not only your lost tribe of psychopaths and its attendant sycophants but also for the world as a whole.
Is this your idea of joke Howard? Is this your concept of what constitutes “Israel’s” notion of “moral”?
LDH: “I pray every night to be accepted by those who wish me ill, even though I know my prayers will go unanswered, because I am Israel.”
Spare us the feigned, sanctimonious sniveling Howard. You damn well know deep down inside why your prayers to your god of war and deception go unanswered. It’s because you are worshiping at the foot of Mammon and Moloch the Destroyer; demons from the depths of the very Hell you now try to associate with your weasel tales concerning the supposed Jewish “6 Million Holocaust.”
Your self-chosen “god” is not the God of true Christians and Muslims; the one God of love and peace and true freedom. No Howard, your prays are being sent to the Devil himself whose earthly residence is the synagogue of Satan, deceiver of all who have turned their eyes from that which is good and pure and innocent and loving.
LDH: “I’ve begged to be accepted. I’ve surrendered territory won in bloody battles to be accepted. To be accepted, I’ve forcibly removed my own people from their homes as they cried with despair, because I am Israel.”
Good God man, is there no shame within you at all? Do you spout off this sort of rubbish on a regular basis? Do you actually believe yourself?
Begged? Surrendered? Forcible removed your own people? From what? The very lands that you stole from the Arab people of Palestine through clandestine and macabre blood sacrifices and torture and terrorism?
And why did you remove your fellow “Israelis” Howard? Not because you were returning those stolen lands to their rightful owners but because your Zionist plotters were planning on turning those vacated areas into pits of Hell and prisons where you could then sit back on your concrete ramparts and harass and shoot and bomb and burn and starve the inmates to death in a slow and definite process resembling, for once, a holocaust that truly is real?
Statements such as these Howard are the reason why, after reading them through, I quickly came to the logical conclusion that you must either be delusional or else at some point in your short life you got a good kick in the head from that horse you’re parading about on your website and you just don’t know any better. Either way, only a lame duck Zionist would have the bloody nerve to make such asinine statements as these.
LDH: “I rush to give aid in times of need during a Tsunami or a massive Earthquake, even to those who wish I did not exist, or wouldn’t lift a finger to help me in my hour of need, because I am Israel.”
Spare us Howard. A lame duck with crocodile tears dribbling down his face is too much of a mixed metaphor even for me.
LDH: “I warn the families of those who are trying to murder my family, when and where we will attack, so as not to harm those who are not directly engaged in our destruction, because I am Israel.”
DeadPalestineBoyMother&Child
DeadPalestinianGirlDeadBurntPalKId
Yes Howard I can see from the examples above that your Zionist killing machine goes to great lengths to ensure that the innocents are duly warned.
These and countless examples now on the books and on the web which refute this sort of psychosis Howard are too plentiful to argue or dispute. You’d be much better off if you just stated, “I warn the world that anyone who stands in the way of ‘Israel’s’ agenda for global hegemony and the creation of a New World Order totalitarian government will be murdered.” That’s the reality of “Israel” both today and since its inception so why make bones about it?
LDH: “I share with the world magnificent technologies, medical discoveries, and ways to feed those who without my help could not feed themselves, because I am Israel.”
Ugh! More self-serving praise from the self-chosen “saviors” of the world Howard?
Are you referring here to Oppenheimer’s creation of the atomic bomb that your Zionist Jew “advisers” had Truman drop on a defenseless population of sleeping Japanese citizens? Or possibly you’re thinking of all the Depleted Uranium that you’re poisoning and mutating the planet with so you can gain more control of the world’s resources? Then again could it be the AIDS virus that you sent to Africa to help out with population control? No? Oh, I know, I’ll bet it’s all those lovely GMO seeds that you and Monsanto and Bill Gates are involved with so that the world will be guaranteed a good, wholesome, secure supply of fresh, healthy organic food crops, right? Na, I guess you’re just thinking about Gaza and its starving population of useless cockroaches, eh?
Yes, indeed Howard, without your help we’d all be in deep doggy do do wouldn’t we?
LDH: “BUT I AM NOT JUST A PLACE:
I am not just defined as a piece of barren unproductive geography brought to life by the dreams and resilience of a people who reach far beyond their grasp.”
This schpeel Howard is the same pile of horse feathers (or hogwash, depending which term one prefers) you’ve been ranting about from the moment you opened your bill confirming again that you’re just another lame duck Zionist peddling myths in order to justify the unjustifiable.
You stole the lands of Palestine from millions of its inhabitants through subterfuge and barbaric, terrorist tactics and yet you still have the audacity to claim that these stolen lands were “a piece of barren unproductive geography brought to life by the dreams and resilience of a people who reach far beyond their grasp.” Are you for real Howard the Lame Duck Zionist or are you simply another figment of George Lucas’s imagination? Can’t you see the obvious discrepancy in what you just wrote? Millions of Palestinian Arabs living on a piece of “barren, unproductive geography”? Really now. And just how did they manage that act for the past few thousand of years Daffy… I mean Howard? Was it manna from Heaven that fed them all that time?
It appears you’ve been reading too much of Joseph Farah’s writings on his Zionist site WorldNetDaily. Thanks to the Rev. Ted Pike, in a recent article on this very issue he had the following remarks and factual information to offer that counters all your sly, quacking lies.
For example, the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem explains Israel’s strategy:
“In order to create an alleged justification for the crime of genocide they have committed against the Palestinian Arabs, the Zionists have tried to convince the world that Palestine was practically uninhabited, A Land Without People For a People Without a Land.’ They created and propagated the myths that the Palestinian Arabs were nomads or semi-nomads without a culture and a civilization, that the Palestinians had neither a national identity nor existence, that the Palestinians lacked an economic structure and roots in the land.
Numerous pre-20th century accounts, recounted in the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, describe it as a veritable cornucopia of every kind of agricultural products, with excess exported by the Palestinians even to the nations of Europe.
The Encyclopedia confirms that before 1948,
“these Arab towns and villages were not merely place names on a map. They were developed communities containing farms, factories, stores and schools, with an infrastructure of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, merchants, mechanics, industrialists, workers, and farmers which would be the envy of any developing country today Before 1948 they resided in 12 cities, 8 major towns, and 830 small towns and villages. Arab homes in the cities were either luxurious stone villas with beautiful gardens, or apartments with 2-5 bedrooms. These residences were well-furnished with modern furniture and household goods. No Arab home of the middle and upper classes contained less than eight valuable Persian carpets. All these homes and their furnishings were usurped by Israel.
Pike goes on to say, “After 1948, Israel took over 12 cities and large towns and 526 small towns and villages. They bulldozed the towns and villages, building new towns with Jewish names.
The Encyclopedia extensively documents from British records that, far from Palestinians depending on Jewish prosperity, the Zionists were permeated with Marxist/collectivist values, resulting in eventual failure of the “kibbutz” experiment. Fairly new to Mideast agriculture, they were largely inefficient, dependent upon regular massive infusion of Western Jewish capital. Despite a general Israeli policy of boycott of Palestinian goods and services, the Palestinians, with a rapidly growing population in 1948 of 1,444,274, were both politically, socially, and economically racing toward UN-sponsored nationhood in 1948.”
Not exactly a chunk of “barren geography” Howard by any stretch of the imagination.
LDH: “ISRAEL IS AN IDEAL:
All of us who reach beyond our grasp, who live by a moral code that cannot be shaken, who wake every day in the hopes of waking to a better world are Israel.
All of us who stand against evil while defending the essence of truth, justice and FREEDOM are Israel.”
In your case Howard you’re living proof of someone who has definitely reached beyond his grasp. The semantic straws that you’re attempting to muster up and clutch at here in this ignorant argument of yours, proffered in order to justify the brutal robbery and murder and dislocation of a whole people are pathetically vacuous and non-existent. If shame was a word that existed in your vocabulary here is a place where it would fittingly apply.
Your “ISRAEL” isn’t an ideal Harold; it’s a LIVING NIGHTMARE! one shared by all the countless victims of Zionism’s horror show around the world and over the past centuries. Your Mossadic inversion of the truth as in the statement, “All of us who stand against evil while defending the essence of truth, justice and FREEDOM are Israel” is pure, unblemished, transparent Orwellian double-speak. Nice try Bubba but in terms of ethical conduct you still come out a loser.
You Zionists, in true deceptive fashion, took a name that was not rightfully yours, just as you took a country that was not rightfully yours, then twisted it into some sort of hideous Talmudic caricature and called it “Israel,” all in order to further your heinous and evil agenda.
LDH: “Christians who care about their soul are no less Israel. Jewish believers and non-believers who do right by mankind are Israel. And people who believe only in the heart of mankind to do the right thing are also Israel.”
Christians, Howard, who are truly concerned about their souls would be heeding the words of their teacher, Jesus Christ, who recognized the inherent evil in the Pharasiac rabbis of his day and warned His followers to be vigilant of their deceitful and treacherous ways. He knew then, two thousand years ago, full well what your game is and clearly stated it when he said, “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.” His ‘Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees” found in Matthew 23 is a summation of all that I and numerous others are saying today about your hypocritical, deceitful Zionist ways.
He compared your ilk to whited sepulchres that, on the outside, shone resplendent yet within were full of dead men’s’ bones and all sorts of uncleanliness.
He correctly stated that you’re the offspring of those who killed the prophets.
He was bang on the money when he said that you loved to appear outwardly as righteous to the world but that within you were full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Probably His most poignant and scathing criticism of you was when he said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?”
Is it any wonder then Howard you sense somehow that you rose from the some nether-world? How typical of you, in all your unabashed hubris, to equate it with the lie of Auschwitz rather than the hell of the Babylonian Talmud from whence your tormented soul gained access to the third dimension.
Jesus Christ also forewarned the world that you Pharasaic usurpers would eventually shape-shift into the present-day Zionists then try to blow your satanic, deceptive smoke into the ears of the apathetic and complacent Christians who, for a variety of reasons, had grown lax and sloppy in their reading and understanding of the words of Him who they professed to be followers of. As He said, “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”
With the Torah Jews I find little fault Howard for they see the evil of your ways too and do their best to expose your lies.
As for the atheists their reward is their loneliness and their existential suffering.
When you speak of the “heart of mankind” know that the world is now witnessing as your beloved “Israel” continually plunges its knife into the heart of the Palestinian people of Gaza and the West Bank and deceitfully attempts to use its media monopoly to give it another name.
LDH: “People who will not bend a knee or surrender to those who cast upon them terrible aspersions, lies and hatred are Israel.”
Continual calumny and vituperation directed toward the truth-seekers who are now exposing your evil agenda Howard are a sure guarantee of a lack of cigars for you in the days ahead. Given the growing volume of critique surrounding your shady ways you best stock up on them as soon as possible.
LDH: “Those of us willing to share our good fortune with others, not through coercion, but through compassion are Israel.”
Here’s the url to my paypal button Howard. Feel free to click on it. Put your “compassion” where your mouth is. 🙂
LDH: “Those who will defend those who cannot defend themselves are Israel.”
There goes another cigar Howard. The truth is: Those who will defend those who cannot defend themselves, i.e. the Palestinian people, et al, are the peacemakers, activists, freedom lovers and truth-seekers around the world who now know what your agenda is and are doing something to prevent it from happening. You know, like those nine people trying to bring food and medical supplies to Gaza that your Zio-commandos murdered in cold blood on the freedom flotilla. You do recall that don’t you?
LDH: “And all those who stand and fight against all who wish to force themselves upon humanity to take what is not theirs are Israel.”
Lordy, lordy but you do have a way with words Howard! Suave as a Tik Tak and flagrant as a plastic rose. It’s unfortunate that in this instance you forgot to put the “not” between “are” and “Israel”.
Most readers by now are aware of the motto of the Israeli Unintelligence Agency. It goes, “By Way of Deception Thou Shalt do War.” This sentence of yours could have been taken directly from their manual of deception. Collusion via inversion of truth. Who woulda though, eh?
LDH: “Israel can never be defeated without first defeating decency in humanity, because in the final truth, those of us who really care about doing what is right are Israel. Even to the last person.
Because of the ideals of Israel, and as long as one decent person who is willing to stand-up and be counted continues to take breath, Israel will survive to the end of time.”
That’s it Howard. You’re a dead duck! You had one cigar left in the box and you just blew it! Your false Messiah, call it “Israel” or “Zionism” or some other deceptive Utopian title you choose, WILL BE DEFEATED. It’s a foregone conclusion, as certain as day follows night. Evil never triumphs in the end and, surprise, surprise, the end for your gargantuan, global deception is now nigh.
We’re living in the end times spoken of in the holy writings and the last two millennia of lies are now coagulating, like the blood of the countless number of victims of your Rothschld/Marxist/Zionist enterprise, upon the computer screens of millions of viewers around the world. Your fog of lies is lifting and the gentle rays of the sun of truth are shining through.
You might recall the words of Jesus Christ once again. I’m sure you’ve heard them somewhere. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
We shall be set free of your demonic spell Howard the Lame Duck Zionist and we shall wax in beauty and freedom and peace and harmony and your days and your ways will be as memories and lessons to future generations not to ever fall prey again to the siren songs of those who call themselves the “self-chosen saviors” but are in truth the Devil incarnate.
Have a nice life Howard and may God bless your lame duck soul.
P.S. As for your statement that Obama isn’t “Israel” you’re dead wrong again. He’s “Israel’s” puppet and a shabez goi doing the bidding of his taskmasters. But, because he’s a mere tool of Zionists he’s also expendable.

{ Comments are closed }

Canadian faces two years prison for lawful attempt to arrest war criminal G.W. Bush

Former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark to Speak at the University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium in Defence of Splitting the Sky The Man Who Attempted a Citizens’ Arrest on George W. Bush 

Joshua Blakeney
Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

“George Bush hasn’t suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused…no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same or next day

Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, 2008

Ramsey Clark will arrive in the Canadian oil-patch city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, this coming June 6th and 7th, mounting pressure on attempted a citizen arrest on George W. Bush on March 17, 2009 when the former US president was addressing an audience of business people at the TELUS Convention Centre in the downtown of Calgary.2

In his March 2010 trial STS invoked the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes legislation, which was enacted by the Canadian parliament in 2000, to submit to the court that he was implementing the law by seeking to apprehend Bush, and was unjustly arrested by police who were in effect “aiding and abetting a credibly accused war criminal.

Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney came to Calgary to attempt to testify in the March trial but was prevented from doing so as the judge shut down the trial earlier than anticipated. Instead McKinney spoke at the University of Calgary in support of Splitting the Sky.3

It is hoped by supporters of justice that the arrival of Ramsey Clark in Calgary will help to publicize this unprecedented case in Canadian legal history, the knowledge of which the state and their media accomplices have made a concerted effort to suppress and censor from the public domain.

Ramsey Clark has a long history of being a thorn in the side of those political elites who would seek to apply the law expediently rather than unanimously. Born in Dallas, Texas, the son of prominent jurist Tom C. Clark, Ramsey Clark witnessed as a young man the Nuremberg trials following World War II. Clark would go on to graduate from the University of Chicago law school and become Attorney General of the United States under the administration of Lyndon Johnson.

Clark has worked tirelessly throughout his career as an outspoken civil rights attorney advocating for many prominent activists and political dissidents. After the 1971 Attica Prison debacle Clark replaced William Kunstler as Splitting the Sky’s legal advocate. STS’s charges were acquitted as a result of Clark’s relentless advocacy.

On April 3, 2010 Clark was elected at a meeting of over 150 lawyers, legal scholars and human rights campaigners, to be the chairperson of a new international campaign to investigate the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Bush regime.

Global Research reported: “Ramsey Clark emphasized that it is the imperative responsibility of the American people to relentlessly pursue this investigation, and to seek prosecution and indictment inside of the United States…Ramsey Clark made the point that all the war crimes and crimes against humanity flow from the commission of the most supreme crimes which he identified as the Crimes against Peace. This was the finding at the Nuremberg trial, and it is enshrined in the Nuremberg Principles.6

Clark’s reference to precedents set at Nuremberg, a German city, encourages those of us who would like to see Calgary’s image in the world evolve from one of Harperite cowboys and vulture-capitalists into a city where law enforcement agencies set precedents in human rights jurisprudence and international law with the support of the polity’s residents.

Perhaps such a paradigm shift would ignite a necessary atonement for the state-endorsed despoliation of the Indigenous Peoples of the region’s ancestral resources, lands and waters which has been unpardonably gifted to mainly Texas-based oil and gas conglomerates.

How Judge Manfred Delong will be influenced by Clark’s arrival in Calgary is yet to be seen. Will Judge Delong compound the Culture of Impunity afforded to credibly accused war criminals emanating from Anglo-America – which the Harper-minority government and their equivalents around the world have supported – by “setting an example and sentencing STS to spend two-more years of his life behind bars and burdening him with a fine of up to $5000? Or will he realize the broader implications of this trial and dismiss the case before the court that STS “obstructed a police officer?

The more citizens who mobilize in solidarity with STS the less able the state and their media accomplices will be to sweep the profound juridical questions being raised by STS, Clark and others, under the carpet.

The proceedings are as follows:

Ramsey Clark arrives in Calgary, June 6, 2010. He will speak at the University of Calgary, Murray Fraser Hall Room 164, 4pm 6.30pm.

The sentencing of Splitting the Sky commences on June 7, 2010 at the Calgary Courts Centre.

{ Comments are closed }

Canadian Senators support Freedom of Speech and slam “Human Rights” Censorship

Canadian Senators support Freedom of Speech and slam “Human Rights” Censorship

our own Canadian Human Rights Commission has egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame. In a censorship trial in 2007, a CHRC investigator named Dean Stacey testified that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” He actually said that. The Canadian Human Rights Commission actually admits they do not give free speech any value. That is totally unacceptable.

Senator Finley Senate of Canada March 30, 2010

SenateDebatejpg

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

3rd Session, 40th Parliament,
Volume 147, Issue 13

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Erosion of Freedom of Speech

Inquiry€Debate Adjourned

Hon. Doug Finley rose pursuant to notice of March 25, 2010:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the issue of the erosion of Freedom of Speech in our country.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to call the attention of the Senate to the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada.

There can scarcely be a more important issue than this one. Freedom of speech is, and always has been, the bedrock of our Canadian democracy. The great Alan Borovoy, who was the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for more than 40 years, calls freedom of speech a “strategic freedom” because it is a freedom upon which all other freedoms are built. For example, how could we exercise our democratic right to hold elections without free speech? How could we have a fair trial without free speech? What is the point of freedom of assembly if we cannot talk freely at such a public meeting?

Freedom of speech is a most important freedom. Indeed, if we had all our other rights taken away we could still win them back with freedom of speech.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech is embedded in Parliament’s DNA. The word “Parliament” itself comes from the French word “parler,” to speak. As parliamentarians we guard our freedom jealously. No member of the House of Commons or the Senate may be sued for anything that is said in Parliament. Our freedom of speech is absolute.

Yet, only last week, a few miles from here, censorship reared its ugly head. Ann Coulter, an American political commentator, had been invited to speak at the University of Ottawa. Before she even said a word, she was served with a letter from François Houle, the university’s vice-president, containing a thinly veiled threat that she could face criminal charges if she proceeded with her speech.

On the night of her speech, an unruly mob of nearly 1,000 people, some of whom had publicly mused about assaulting her, succeeded in shutting down her lecture after overwhelmed police said they could not guarantee her safety.

Honourable senators, it was the most un-Canadian display that I personally have seen in years. It was so shocking that hundreds of foreign news media covered the fiasco, from the BBC to The New York Times to CNN. It was an embarrassing moment for Canada because it besmirched our reputation as a bastion of human rights € a reputation hard won in places like Vimy Ridge, Juno Beach and Kandahar.

More important than international embarrassment is the truth those ugly news stories revealed. Too many Canadians, especially those in positions of authority, have replaced the real human right of freedom of speech with a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

An angry mob is bad enough. That may be written off as misguided youth, overcome by enthusiasm. However, such excuses are not available to a university vice-president who obviously wrote his warning letter to Ms. Coulter after careful thought.

Ann Coulter is controversial, she is not to everyone’s taste, but that is irrelevant because freedom of speech means nothing if it applies only to people with whom we agree. To quote George Orwell: “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

In a pluralistic society like Canada, we must protect our right to peacefully disagree with each other. We must allow a diversity of opinion, even if we find some opinions offensive. Unless someone counsels violence or other crimes, we must never use the law to silence them.

Freedom of speech is as Canadian as maple syrup, hockey and the northern lights. It is part of our national identity, our history and our culture. It is section 2 of our 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, listed as one of our “fundamental freedoms;” and it is in the first section of Canada’s 1960 Bill of Rights.

Honourable senators, our Canadian tradition of liberty goes much further back than that. In 1835, a 30-year-old newspaper publisher in Nova Scotia was charged with seditious libel for exposing corruption amongst Halifax politicians. The judge instructed the jury to convict him. At that time, truth was not a defence. The publisher passionately called on the jury to “leave an unshackled press as a legacy to your children.” After only 10 minutes of deliberations, the jury acquitted him. That young man, of course, was Joseph Howe, who would go on to become the premier of Nova Scotia.

Our Canadian tradition of free speech is even older than that. It is part of our inheritance from Great Britain and France.

[Translation]

Quebecers are heir to article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789. This article states:

The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most invaluable rights of the man; any citizen can thus speak, write, [and] print freely. . .

France has produced some of the most well-known defenders of free speech in the world.

(1650)

François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen name, Voltaire, was a polemicist who used satire and criticism to press for political and religious reforms. He paid a personal price, facing censorship and legal threats.

[English]

Voltaire put it best when he famously wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” His passionate advocacy helped shape liberty on both sides of the Atlantic.

English Canada has an impressive legacy of free speech, too. Like Voltaire, John Milton, the great poet who wrote Paradise Lost, was constantly hounded for his political views. His 1644 pamphlet on free speech, Areopagitica, perhaps the greatest defence of free speech ever written, is as relevant today as it was 350 years ago. In it, Milton wrote, “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worst, in a free and open encounter?” and, “He who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself . . .”

Yet, despite our 400-year tradition of free speech, the tyrannical instinct to censor still exists. We saw it on a university campus last week, and we see it every week in Canada’s misleadingly named human rights commissions.

This week in Vancouver, a stand up comedian named Guy Earl has been on trial before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for the crime of telling jokes that someone did not find funny. An audience member who heckled him is suing him for $20,000 because she found his retorts offensive. They may have been offensive, but what is more offensive is that a government agency would be the arbiter of good taste or humour. Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to eight years of hard labour for telling a joke about Stalin’s moustache. It is a disgrace that Canada is now putting comedians on trial.

There is not a lot that the Senate can do about the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, but our own Canadian Human Rights Commission has egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame. In a censorship trial in 2007, a CHRC investigator named Dean Stacey testified that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” He actually said that. The Canadian Human Rights Commission actually admits they do not give free speech any value. That is totally unacceptable.

Freedom of speech is the great non-partisan principle that every Member of Parliament can agree on € that every Canadian can agree on. I will never tire of quoting the great Liberal Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier when he said that Canada is free and its freedom is its nationality. I will readily give credit to Keith Martin, the Liberal MP from British Columbia, who two years ago introduced a private member’s motion to repeal the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, I call for this inquiry to accomplish five things: first, to reaffirm that freedom of speech is a great Canadian principle that goes back hundreds of years; second, to put Canada’s censors on notice that their days of infringing upon our freedoms with impunity are over; third, to show moral support for those who are battling censors; fourth, to inquire into the details of what went so desperately wrong at the University of Ottawa to ensure that those awful events never happen again; and, fifth, to inspire a debate that hopefully will lead to a redefinition of section 13.1 of the [Canadian] Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, there are times for partisan debate when parties must naturally be at odds with one another. This is not one of those times. Freedom of speech and respect for differing views is a foundational principle of our entire parliamentary system € indeed, of our entire legal system, as well.

I look forward to the constructive comments of my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the bipartisan history that Canadian free speech enjoys. If we can rededicate our Parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service, but if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty, the duty to uphold our constitution and the rights in it, the rights it guarantees for all Canadians.

I know that, like so many generations of Canadians before us, we will meet the challenges of our time and live up to our responsibility to pass on to our children the same freedoms that we inherited from our parents. God keep our land glorious and free.

{ Comments are closed }

Extortion charges against Wiebo Ludwig dropped by RCMP! A RadicalPress Exclusive Report

Extortion charges against Wiebo Ludwig dropped by RCMP!

A RadicalPress Exclusive Report

By Arthur Topham

January 9, 2010

RadicalPress.com editor and publisher Arthur Topham, in a short interview with Ben Ludwig, son of Wiebo Ludwig, on Saturday morning, January 9th, 2010 was informed that Wiebo Ludwig, contrary to reports in the mainstream media, has not been formally charged by the RCMP with “extortion” as reported in the msm on Friday, January 8th.

The RCMP have a time limit of 24 hours in which to lay formal charges and according to Ben Ludwig they didn’t do so. At the time of the conversation, Ben told Topham that his Mother, Mamie Ludwig, had gone to pick her husband up from the police station in Grande Prairie.

In a subsequent call only minutes after the interview Ben informed RadicalPress.com that his father was now safely home and the charges against him were not forthcoming.

Close to a decade has passed since the Radical Press last covered the grotesque tale of the harassment and victimization of the Ludwig Christian Community known as Trickle Creek farm as a reporter for the now defunct alternative newspaper, The Radical.

Editor’s note: It was in my January, 2001 edition of the newspaper that I ran a feature length article on the Ludwig story and manner in which the RCMP, the media and the vigilante groups in the area had acted throughout the course of the investigation leading up to the arrest, trial and subsequent imprisonment of Wiebo Ludwig. It’s not a pretty picture but a vivid example of how the state and its complicit media, aided and abetted by the corporate interests involved, conspire to create scapegoats out of decent, innocent people in order to cover up for their own ineptitude and crimes committed against the environment and people who become victims of industrial pollution and poisoning.

In the interests of telling the truth about Wiebo Ludwig and the Trickle Creek Christian Community I am again publishing this important article. It has never seen the light of day on the Internet prior to now. Please feel free to pass this document on to any interested party.

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

RadicalPress.com

from The Radical VOL.3 NO.5 JANUARY 2001

CANADA’S JUSTICE SYSTEM €œ SANCTUARY OR TYRANNY
The Case of Wiebo Ludwig and the Trickle Creek Christian Community

I see my light come shining from the West unto the East
Any day now, any day now I shall be released.
-Bob Dylan, I Shall Be Released, 1967

By Arthur Topham
Radical Reporter
©RadicalPress.com

The Setting

There is a belief held by the native American Sioux people that at the beginning of each new cycle of Creation a buffalo is placed in the West in order to hold back the waters. With each passing year one hair falls out of the buffalo and with each passing Age one of the buffalo’s legs falls off. When all the hair and the four legs have fallen off the cycle will be complete and the waters will again rush in and signal the end. Strangely enough there is a similar belief contained within the Hindu mythology. What is also of interest is the fact that both the American Indian and the Hindu believe that in our present age the buffalo is now standing on only one leg and is pretty much bald.

To say therefore that we’re living in an apocalyptic period of increasing social injustice may soon prove to be an understatement. The longstanding notion that our hard-won democratic institutions are shielding us from foreign threat is no longer valid as we witness our emergence into the 21st Century and, along with it, an increasingly unprecedented and unabashed assault on our basic human rights and economic freedoms. What makes it striking though is not that it’s sources stem from international financial and corporate interests, but more importantly and much closer to home it seems, from within the very institutions of our own domestic governments; entities ostensibly created to prevent just such occurrences from ever manifesting.

Aided and abetted by megalithic media monopolies, domestic (and soon to be foreign U.N.) military and police units, and a select assortment of traitorous citizens who’ve succumbed to the overt financial pressures of greed and survival, thus making them willing pawns in the game of power-over those who resist their efforts, Canadian citizens are now finding themselves strangers in a strange land whenever and wherever they insist that justice be meted out in a fair and equable manner.

The ways and means of achieving such an overall, suppressive system of slavery is not new, only the tactics have changed due to the increased development and use of more sophisticated mind-control techniques, surveillance systems and high-tech gadgetry. Of fundamental importance to the successful completion of their nefarious plan though is the maintenance of a vehicle or medium for disseminating the Orwellian Newspeak that comprises the daily dispensation of media deceit called news.

Legitimate dissent, it appears, has now become illegitimate – a bastard child of a once virgin system of justice and a naive and complacent populace no longer deemed expedient in a New World Order of corporate philistines out to conquer the globe. Peaceful protest is no longer considered an acceptable form of political expression by the corporate business sector, nor, as the following article will hopefully show, is it deemed such by our governments or our courts. Instead of having the rights and freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed under our suspect Constitution, an increasing number of politically aware citizens are being subjected to a new, raw, unexpurgated version of growing police harassment and violence often attended by a treasonous and surreptitious forgery of fact by both media representatives and a lackey police force. Such overt behaviour is quickly becoming a growing threat to all who still believe in the principles of justice, liberty and freedom and the ensuing thought of a corporate-controlled government combined with a partial judiciary acting at the behest of financial interests, rather than a dedication to upholding the sovereignty of one law for all, is most abhorrent.

Still, for all the subterfuge within the mainstream media, the alternative, independent media is rife with growing reports of these sorts of terrorist tactics that western governments are inflicting upon their own citizens in order to quell dissent. A prime example of such corporate, police and government parole-perpetrated propaganda against protesters involves one of the leading figures within the environmental movement in Canada – the Reverend Wiebo Ludwig – along with the extended family who comprise the Christian Community known as Trickle Creek Farm located in the northwestern region of Alberta’s Peace River district near the towns of Hythe and Beaverlodge.

The community of Trickle Creek (numbering 35 at the moment) [Editor’s note: This figure is likely much higher today ten years later.] has been carrying on a protracted and bitter struggle with the giant Alberta oil & gas industry over the poisoning of their air, water and soil for over a decade. Flaring of toxic gases from oil and gas wells that surround their farmlands became an urgent, life-threatening concern when the community suddenly began experiencing the negative effects that such practices were having on their unborn children and livestock. Mother’s were aborting or giving birth to abnormal, still-born babies and animals were dying and aborting. Children and adults began suffering from a litany of skin rashes and flu-like symptoms that eventually forced this peaceful, God-fearing community to seek out the cause of their ill-fortune. It didn’t take too long for them to realize what and who was responsible for their sickness but that in itself turned out to be only the first step in what later became a long and arduous battle to seek redress.

Young Women and Mothers from Trickle Creek Christian Community circa 1998

After years of struggling to have the problem of oil and gas pollution recognized as a legitimate threat to all life-forms and in dire need of stringent safety regulations, the bubble of blacked-out information finally burst when a growing wave of protest culminated in a series of attacks upon oil and gas installations in the areas affected by the toxic emissions. The RCMP ended up launching an investigation and in the process of attempting to come up with a suspect they themselves fell prey to using illegal means such as faking a phony explosion of a well-site in order to incite fear and uncertainty into a region where levels of paranoia were already rampant. The numbers of incidents of police collusion with the corporate oil and gas sector and governmental bodies associated with the Alberta government must unfortunately, because of space restraints, remain a separate issue for another time.

In the process of trying to expose the toxic practices of a obscenely bloated and arrogant oil industry that’s been habitually trampling over citizens’ rights for generations the members of Trickle Creek found themselves victims in new and wondrous ways. Some residents of the surrounding municipalities, consisting mainly of farmers and oil workers directly or indirectly dependent upon the oil and gas industry for their livelihood, turned on the Trickle Creek community with a vengeance. After the unfortunate shooting of Karman Willis during a trespassing incident in June of 1999, they formed an ad hoc group of self-appointed vigilantes who dubbed themselves the West County Concerned Citizens (WCCC) led by spokesman Brian Peterson. Once up this organization began a smear and disinformation campaign against the Ludwig and Boonsta families that is ongoing to this day. As one reads through the various assessments carried out by Corrections Canada after Wiebo Ludwig’s imprisonment, it becomes readily apparent that the negative effects of these smear tactics permeate much of what is accepted as truth and fact by the RCMP, the parole board, and the general public. All of this deception ultimately played a crucial role in prohibiting the early release of Wiebo Ludwig.

When Wiebo Ludwig and Richard Boonstra’s controversial trial ended both men were sentenced on April 26, 2000 to prison terms based on circumstantial evidence that they had participated in the blowing up of a Suncor oil well north of Hinton, Alberta. Richard Boonstra was given a short jail sentence but Wiebo Ludwig, pumped up by the prosecution, police and the media as the prime instigator of all the bombings, received a sentence of 2 years 4 months in federal prison. He is currently serving time in a minimum security jail known as the Grande Cache Institution located about a hundred miles north of Hinton, Alberta. I went to visit Wiebo Ludwig on Saturday, October 21 to discuss his situation, in particular, the refusal by Corrections Canada to allow him out on accelerated parole. While I was there I also met his wife Mamie Lou, two of their children and grandchildren and their close friends and in-laws Richard and Lois Boonstra.

Richard Boonsra and the younger men of Trickle Creek farm outstanding in their field

During the course of our amicable meeting I was presented with a number of official documents and letters related to the subject of Wiebo’s parole. After returning home I read through the lengthy Intake and Community assessments that were recorded by Corrections Canada parole officers only to discover that they had been liberally seasoned with a large amount of police and community (read WCCC) input. Taken at face value the accusations contained in these documents portrayed a rather frightening picture of Wiebo Ludwig and the community of which he is a father, grandfather and spiritual Elder. Had I only these government documents as a reference it would have been virtually impossible to come up with a reasonable and unbiased sense of who Wiebo Ludwig really was. I say this in retrospect though because it was only after reading through the equally lengthy rebuttals to these government assessments, later submitted to the parole board by both the Reverend Ludwig and the rest of the resident members, that it became glaringly obvious that the Trickle Creek community was confronting yet another head on the Hydra of Corporate Globalization, this latest menace taking on the shape-shifting form of none other than Corrections Canada itself.

It’s not easy to perceive just how the parole board fashions its assessment data in order to achieve a preconceived agenda but it must be borne in mind that the mainstream press gets much of its information from police and parole officer reports and then adds its own sinister twist to the supposed facts that appear in official documents thus projecting an image to the general public that, upon closer examination, reveals an almost unbelievable bias toward the institutions and values of which it too is an integral part. In doing so the media becomes a willing agent, both complicit in and guilty of, forging lies and half-truths in order to assist its counter-parts in the global scheme for world domination.

The oil and gas industry wants Wiebo Ludwig in jail. The West County Concerned Citizens (known locally as the WKKK because of their overt, antagonistic actions against Trickle Creek) want Wiebo Ludwig in jail. The Alberta government, which draws its economic breath from out of the black, porous, subterranean lungs of oil and gas lying beneath its troubled landscape, also wants Wiebo Ludwig locked up and silent, a grim and sphinx-like reminder of what lies in store for those who dare to challenge an industry that feeds the voracious belly of an antiquated industrial system long overdue for radical change.

Once in the clutches of Correction Canada the agents of persecution aligned with the oil industry knew that it was essential to portray to the public and the parole board a picture of Wiebo Ludwig that was in keeping with the RCMP’s and the WCCC’s preconceived and concocted image of a man who they wanted the public to view as an egotistical, domineering, violent, sexist, tyrant. It therefore became necessary to paint such a picture into the framework of Corrections Canada’s bureaucrat assessment process. That is what was done using unsubstantiated allegations, half-truths, twisted logic, gossip and out and out lies. Once the maligning by parole assessors was complete, the media was given this distorted palate containing a potpourri of darkly-coloured images depicting a man wholly out of keeping with his basic persona. They then proceeded to use these false images with willing intent, malice and premeditated editorial malediction. That is what this article is all about: the subversion of truth for the sake of greed, power and injustice.

The Assessment

(Editor’s Note: In order for the reader to fully comprehend the subtlety and scope of what Corrections Canada and the RCMP do when they choose to defame an inmate for the purposes of preventing early parole and also to gain an insight into the way in which the mainstream media exacerbates this deception, it’s imperative to pass through the smoke and mirrors of indecent innuendo and outrageous design that created the original illusion. It’s the only way in which a clear understanding of what has happened to Wiebo Ludwig will be detectable. The article is lengthy but without going into the nitty gritty of the reports (and even there I’ve had to leave much out) the underlying theme would not become apparent and the purpose of the exercise would ultimately be in vain. I would ask therefore, dear reader, that you give your patient attention to this protracted dissertation for a good man has been defamed and jailed and his family and his spiritual community have been maligned and viciously condemned; all in order that the underlying raison d’etre which caused their protestations might be obscured, overlooked and finally forgotten. Collusion has clearly shown itself to be present within the police investigation and the immediate health threats of the oil and gas industry thwarted in favour of victimizing the messengers. In short there has been a cover-up of the truth – one that exposes all the colluding parties: the various levels of government, industry, the RCMP, the courts and Corrections Canada. They all stand accused of complicity in forging a lie and attempting to whitewash over a cruel and evil deceit – the deliberate poisoning of Canada’s citizens for the sake of a fierce and unqualified desire for monetary gain.)

After Wiebo Ludwig’s incarceration at Grande Cache Institution members of the Trickle Creek community were put in the position of having to go through what Corrections Canada refers to as a Community Assessment. This exercise is carried out ostensibly to access suitability for Private Family Visits, to identify issues for the offender to address during his sentence, and to address issues to be addressed in preparation for his return to the community. At the same time Wiebo also went through an Intake Assessment during the month of July 2000 which amounted to 33 typewritten legal sized pages. That assessment was recorded by Ms. Lisa Ling, Parole Officer. For the purposes of this article I will mainly focus on the Community Assessment document with some additional quotes from Wiebo Ludwig taken from his rebuttal to Ms. Ling’s Intake Assessment and to the National Parole board.

From the onset of the Community Assessment and scattered throughout the 14 legal-length pages that make it up there is a serious and detectable bias present in the manner in which Wiebo’s relationship with his wife and family and his extended family are described. The writer, Parole Officer Paul Plant, through his use of unsubstantiated police reports, heresay allegations from telephone conversations that were never recorded and the direct testimony of one hostile, local resident, pieces together a slipshod, jigsaw puzzle of innuendo and half-truths that smears everyone from the children on up to the grandparents and then tries to create the appearance of Wiebo Ludwig as a potentially violent and aggressive cult leader strikingly similar to the scenario fabricated by the FBI and the U.S. media during the Waco, Texas incident which, in the latter case, ended tragically in the massacre of scores of innocent men, women and children.

The Community Assessment report is divided into a number of sections each containing commentaries related to both Wiebo Ludwig and the residents of Trickle Creek. These sections or categories will be headlined for ease of reference. All bold text is in keeping with the original documents.

Physical description of environment

Whether Paul Plant is talking about the actual physical property that composes the Trickle Creek Farm, the people who dwell there, the manner in which they choose to educate their children, how they live their lives or their religious beliefs, inevitably assertions are stated that lead the reader to conclude that this Rev. Wiebo Ludwig and his cult of misguided religious adherents are one mean, nasty and dangerous lot.

Trickle Creek Farm, within the scope of the assessment, is not merely a family farm but a compound, a term highly loaded with negative connotations. The older male children of Wiebo & Mamie Lou (they have 11 children of their own) married the daughters of Richard & Lois Boonstra and as if that wasn’t controversial enough in the eyes of the police they told Paul Plant that no registry of the marriages had been found which in their eyes suggested that, they have not participated in society by registering their marriage. This went into the assessment and remained there leaving the impression that the children were somehow living either common law or in some other sin in the eyes of a morally upstanding public. Even though the Trickle Creek residence provided certificates of marriage to show that the allegations were untrue the report remained unchanged. Then to add further insult to the injury already committed the police report goes on to say, A further anomaly is that one of Harmony’s children [Harmony being Wiebo and Mamie Lou’s eldest daughter. Ed.] appears to have been conceived while Trevor [her husband. Ed.] was out of the province. LUDWIG is listed as legal guardian on the child’s birth certificate. Now, I needn’t dwell on what accusations such as these imply to a reading public jaded into complacency and fed daily on a diet of sensationalism and perverted sexual fantasies. In their response to the assessment the community of Trickle Creek wrote: One wonders about the relevance and purpose of this false and therefore slanderous information from the police. Even though this should be a private matter, the truth is Trevor was only absent during the birth not conception. Furthermore, Rev. Ludwig does not appear as the legal guardian on any certificate. In his own rebuttal in the Intake Assessment Wiebo adds the following comments to the police-induced smut campaign to defame his daughter: What amazing and perverse invasive interest as to what goes on in the bedroom privacy of people’s lives at Trickle Creek. It boggles the mind and gives one the creeps. Certainly it makes Orwell’s 1984 look like child’s play….How low can the RCMP stoop? And to what end does Corrections Canada wish to involve itself in such bureaucratic abuse and indecency?

So, after Paul Plant, via the police report, intimates that Harmony Schilthuis is a harlot because her husband was absent while she conceived of child, he goes on to make subjective, moral judgments as to the nature of how the community is run. Major themes of this community’s operation include strict obedience to the Bible…. Authority is another theme of their community dynamics where the Chief Elder (LUDWIG) is honoured as the leader and final decision maker due to his more advanced knowledge and interpretive skills with the Bible. In their rebuttal to these statements the community says, Authority is not, as Plant incorrectly reports, honoured…due to [Rev. Ludwig’s] more advanced knowledge and interpretive skills of the Bible.’ This misrepresentation is typical of the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church method of denying the masses the right to read the Bible for themselves and so keep control of the masses’ religious thinking. Instead, authority is honoured because of calling, one of which is natural in the form of grandfather, father, and the other as God-ordained minister. The difference in Plant’s report is that he implies incorrectly that Ludwig’s knowledge intimidates people into a blind following and therefore is the basis for his authority. Also on the same topic is the relevant comment by Richard Boonstra which states, The term strict obedience’ is an extremely loaded’ term in its modern usage with at least two distinct and implied meanings: a) zealotry, narrow-mindedness, etc. and b) something not done out of free volition, especially when used in a group or cult setting. It should also be noted that this is Mr. Plant’s terminology, not ours. We would simply say that we have made it our aim to obey the Scriptures in order to give meaning to our individual and familial lives here and have become a community around those aims and goals. As an elder I have seldom been inspired with the strict’ nature of obedience to the Scriptures in this regard; if anything, we would generally discourage strict obedience’ to any rule since Christ Himself came to fulfill the law, not create more slavery to it.

Criminal history

On the topic of Criminal History Plant notes that everything connected with Wiebo Ludwig’s conviction revolves around the family’s battle with the oil and gas industry and that, the Industry’s practices of flaring’ (burning off gasses from the well) and venting’ (releasing gas into the air to relieve pressure) causes toxic chemicals to settle and collect on their property resulting in sickness and rashes for their children. Wiebo Jr. and Renee had a son still born at full term because he had Anacephaly (a lack of skull development). They noted that the point of his gestation where skull development occurs corresponded to a period of venting’ of a nearby pipeline, and feel that this practice caused the death of their son. In their response to this statement the Trickle Creek community says, The truthful account is: They noted that the point of his gestation where skull development occurs corresponded to a period of industry documented, deliberate venting and flaring of a gas well during its production testing phase, shortly after pumping fracing fluid down the well. They simply realized that this practice is the most reasonable and likely explanation for the unusual deformation and death of their son especially since the Material Safety Data Sheet for chemicals used in the fracing fluid warn of effects like anacephaly.’ Subsequent research further underscores the reasonableness of their suspicions and fears.

Note: Plant fails to mention deaths of animals (many) in association with toxic fumigations, and oilfield associated deaths of 5 other children at Trickle Creek besides Renee and Bo’s son.

Marital/Family

In this category, with respect to the community’s treatment of their children, Plant goes on to cast more seeds of doubt in people’s minds by suggesting that because the community declined to comment on matters of family discipline and also because Wiebo supposedly had eight wives then, This is an area that should be monitored due to reports of harsh discipline of members of the Trickle Creek Farm community. Being little more than another cheap shot based on rumour and conjecture the community responded by saying, Unless reports of (uncalled for) harsh discipline’ are substantiated in fact, people’s lives should not be monitored or their privacy invaded in any fashion. It is a known fact that much gossip has been spread by severe vigilante bigotry about the Trickle Creek families because of their religious stance and their stand against pollution. They should not be victimized further by invasive inquisition and programs based upon such malicious gossip as Plant recommends in this paragraph, as elsewhere throughout his report.

Wiebo also comments on this matter in his rebuttal of accusations made in his Intake Assessment by remarking, I reiterate that I am still shocked and offended by the amount of unabashed reliance upon malicious gossip (collateral information’) in this evaluation generally, but especially here, since those whom I love are implicated as much by it as I. It seems to me a sorry way to deal with people’s lives, lives that are, in my considered opinion, already under more than enough stress from the frightening impacts of gasfield fumigations and the attending struggle to have that responsibility addressed. Also, the fact that we practice the biblical teachings regarding headship’ and submission,’ so crucial to wholesome family living, etc., may be considerably varied from contemporary practices but does not, ipso facto, have to imply abuse, except perhaps for those who have neither regard for multicultural tolerance nor for the right to practice religious freedom.’ In a society with such an unprecedented amount of marriage and family breakdown the sheer wholesomeness of our marriage and family life at Trickle Creek stands as a beacon of encouragement and should not, as gossip (or: collateral information’) would have it, be held suspect of dysfunctionality across the board, including spousal assault’ both sexual’ and physical,’ as here affirmed. Much less should shaky and unwarranted suspicions be grounds upon which a course in parenting’ is now proposed and an entire family disturbed. A government of worth ought rather to praise and protect such accomplishment in family living today – especially today! At the risk of sounding supercilious, our extensive experience and singular accomplishments in family living, alone, would more than qualify our familial community to both structure and teach such a course to the considerable benefit of those who have been overcome my marital and familial defeats…. Most all who have spent time with us and know us would, I believe, confirm that our family life is exceptionally wholesome and appealing even to those who do not particularly understand or share our Christian values or orientation.

In brief, I neither believe in nor practice spousal abuse’ be that physical’ or sexual’ even though we have undoubtedly had our differences and an occasional serious quarrel during our 36+ years of a very interesting marriage and love affair to date – not many dull moments to be sure. Statistically, our familial community is blessed aggregately with close to l00′ years of marriage and 0′ years of divorce, an encouraging record.

Personal/Emotional Orientation

Here Parole Officer Plant first describes how the family sees Wiebo Ludwig as tolerant and gracious of other person’s religious perspectives and that he, focuses on who a person is rather than on what he believes, and that rather than being an anti type he endeavours to look for the positive in relationships. They also told Plant that Wiebo doesn’t discriminate against groups and is very conciliatory.

Not to be outdone by anything so positive and praiseworthy Plant then goes on to document what the police and the West County Concerned Citizens have to say. Reports from the police and the community [read WCCC. Ed] indicate that LUDWIG believes in the use of Instrumental Violence to achieve his goals. He and members of his family have used veiled threats while armed with firearms or machetes to encourage people to comply with their wishes. They have tried to control the section of the county road that runs between their two quarter sections in this way and even installed a gate across it on one occasion and had the women chained to the gate in protest. The young children were wearing fanny packs and wandering around. During a subsequent search of their property fanny packs were found to contain ammunition. The police report that LUDWIG fired his rifle onto his neighbour’s property in the direction of the neighbour’s dog with the owners and their children present. He claimed that this was done because the dog had acted aggressively toward him on an earlier visit to the residence. LUDWIG is suspected of being involved in two other shooting incidents also although it cannot be proven. There is also the incident of the shooting death of the youth, Carmen Willis, and the injury of her companion on the Ludwig property. Police report that the Trickle Creek residents have refused to cooperate with their investigation in order to bring closure to the incident. The family counters that they offered to be fully cooperative on the first day of the investigation by showing the evidence of the youths’ reckless driving through their property and endangering the lives of their children camping on the lawn but the police didn’t cooperate. In the one current conviction (the Suncor site bombing) the police believed this should have been recognized as endangerment of human life.

Taken at face value these reports from the police and members of the WCCC are quite damming with respect to Wiebo and the Trickle Creek community. Instrumental Violence, veiled threats, firearms & machetes, fanny packs full of ammunition and the shooting off of a rifle in the direction of one’s neighbour and their children all sound like pretty serious stuff for a good Christian community to be involved in and they are, at least until one hears the other side of the story, the side that somehow doesn’t make it into the mainstream press. Responding to this list of allegations the Trickle Creek residents had this to say: Contrary to what police or community may believe or say re: instrumental violence,’ Rev. Ludwig has repeatedly stated, also to the media, that he does not believe in any form of violence’ but only in justified use of force’ such as in the case of self-defense’ (see Criminal Code of Canada).

Further, here, the incident involving so-called machetes’ and rifles’ is misconstrued and exaggerated and was, in fact, a friendly discussion with 2 surveyors that ended in a handshake. A few members of Trickle Creek met these two men on the way back from a casual Sunday walk carrying one machete and one .22′ rifle since they were in the bush at the time. Plant’s report insinuates not only that there was more than one gun and machete but it also fails to mention that those tools (machete and firearm) are both common and quite legitimate when taking a walk through the bush – for brush clearing, defense against wild animals (e.g. bear) and for small game hunting (e.g. grouse, rabbit), etc.

On the subject of the gate that was erected the community had this response: After much reckless drunken driving and a life-threatening experience for a young child on the road where an industry backhoe recklessly nearly ran over him, the residents at Trickle Creek contacted the affected landowners for approval to put in a gate on the last half-mile of the dead end road which runs between the two Trickle Creek properties. The affected (absentee) landowner gave his approval. Furthermore, industry had promised that they would use the other access anyway. However, once the gate was erected, the County’ came and threatened to tear it down. Several persons, including women, volunteered to appear chained to the gate – although they were not – in protest for the safety of the children at Trickle Creek. The residents arranged and agreed to leave the gate open until the County’ could give approval but the County’ unexpectedly came back and tore the gate down before a hearing could take place, as if out of spite.

Note: that gate would most likely have prevented Karman Willis and her boozing buddies from trespassing etc., as well as her death.

On the subject of the fanny packs: the insinuation in Plant’s report that children were wearing fanny packs full of ammunition is in error. Only 2 fanny packs have ever been owned by the Trickle Creek families. Plant’s report incorrectly conjures in one’s mind an army of children wandering around’ with fanny packs full of ammunition. Contrary to Plant’s report, only one fanny pack (not the plural fanny packs’) was (months later) found with ammunition stored in it for use by the community butcher (not the children). The so-called subsequent search’ (which again conjures in the mind that it was soon after and related to the gate incident) occurred almost a year later in an unrelated incident. Such stretches of association do not meet the rules of evidence but turn out to be maliciously harmful gossip.

As for Wiebo Ludwig firing his rifle in the direction of his neighbour and his kids that is also in error according to Trickle Creek residents: Contrary to Plant’s report, Mamie Ludwig – a witness of the incident – says the dog had shown aggression, was on the road and approaching them; no bullets were actually fired at the dog, let alone on the neighbour’s property. Carrying a firearm in such a remote area for protection from wildlife and for hunting small game etc. (especially persons interested in self sufficiency) is common.

As for the accusation by police that the residents refused to cooperate with the investigation the community says, Not only did the police not cooperate concerning the investigation, they deceived and detained the resident men away from the women and children by stating they wanted the men to come to a predetermined spot to arrange for show and tell’ of the crime scene. However when the resident men came to the agreed spot, the officer in charge, Cpl. Cox (now Sgt. Cox) said, we don’t need your help, we are professionals.’ The RCMP then ordered the men into a locked prisoner van and transported them about 70 km away to Grande Prairie. They resisted the residents’ pleas towards the RCMP to return them to their wives and children at the farm. The RCMP initially refused, stating it was for their own safety because of the local hostility towards them. The police said they were making preparations to house all the Trickle Creek residents into a school or church in Hythe or Beaverlodge for the time being – which was obviously more dangerous to their safety, leaving the farm animals without caretakers!

While this was happening, the women and children were, in effect, ambushed and held at gunpoint at home by camouflaged SWAT team members carrying automatic weapons….

Attitude

Contained within this category we find further slanderous statements by the police that are not backed up with evidence. For example, The police note that theft and vandalism of Oil and Gas installations has dramatically decreased since LUDWIG’S incarceration. In response the community of Trickle Creek calls such statements, speculative and misleading. According to their appraisal of this situation, Mr. Bob Wraight’s [Bob Wraight was the police informant. Ed.] leaving the area is just as likely a reason for the alleged decrease in oilfield sabotage. Moreover, sabotage has, in fact, continued in the area. That it may appear to have lessened could be due to the fact that police and locals simply feel they’ve gotten their man and therefore are no longer that concerned about the issue which has been an issue in the oilfields for decades [emphasis added. Ed.]. There are any number of additional explanations. Why continue to pick on Ludwig as a target at the exclusion of so many other explanations even as the trial itself revealed about the police investigation? Moreover, what will history’s judgment be when it is finally acknowledged that we and so many others, also in our immediate area and throughout the world, were suffering sentinels of industrial sickness and death, especially infanticide? Will history favour those who dismissed, maligned and even imprisoned them?

Assessment of Impact on Victim

Moving on to this category parole officer Plant includes in his assessment the following comments by Brian Peterson who Plant notes is, speaking on behalf of the West County Community Council. Having suddenly given this group a different name with a different connotation i.e. changing it from concerned citizens to community council Plant then quotes a number of misleading statements by Mr. Peterson. According to Peterson Wiebo Ludwig can only bring peace to the community by ceasing to condone violence, showing remorse for the effect on other people of his actions and recognizing that he has used threats of violence and instilled fear in other people. As Plant goes on to state, Mr. Peterson doesn’t believe there is much risk of violence from the community toward LUDWIG or his family. The people he represents are angry and grieving over the events that have occurred but they recognize that more violence will not solve anything. They have perspective. If violence does occur it will not be from or endorsed by their group.

In response to these remarks the residents of Trickle Creek had the following comments to make: Plant’s report refers to Brian Peterson as spokesperson for the community council. Instead, Brian Peterson does not speak for the Community Council’ but only for a local citizen’s group labeled West County Concerned Citizens’ which had its origination at the time Karman Willis died after she and her friends trespassed on Trickle Creek property. The group was started (according to media reports) to counter Wiebo Ludwig’s side of the story which was getting apparent publicity and favour in the media and the general public.

On the subject of Brian Peterson’s statement regarding violence from his group not being endorsed the Trickle Creek residents have this comment. In reality, according to the media at least, the violent actions of the teens and young adults who almost drove over the Ludwig girls camping on their own lawn, by recklessly driving drunk before dawn, trespassing with two pickups, on two occasions within 15 minutes, HAS NEVER BEEN DENOUNCED AS VIOLENCE BY BRIAN PETERSON, HIS GROUP, OR THE RCMP, BUT INSTEAD HAS BEEN IGNORED AS SOMETHING KIDS JUST DO NOWADAYS’ AND JUST JOYRIDING’ AND A NORMAL THING’.

Some of those in the groups of young persons who trespassed and terrorized the Trickle Creek community that morning, etc., have admitted to heavy drinking and partying that night, previously stealing flags off the property, and damaging and attempting to pull down a sign protesting the gas industry’s practices. (Jennifer Peterson (Brian’s daughter) is a member of that group of youth and has been convicted of underage drinking.) Nonetheless, no charges have been laid against those who trespassed.

Wiebo’s comments are also particularly telling regarding the possible true source of violent accusations: To date I have not been able to get access to any of the so-called victim statements’ nor the complete police report. I say so-called’ because, if what I am led to believe, they are statements from local agitators headed up by the WCCC which the Crown would not qualify or accept as impact statements at trial toward sentencing. Also, on a change of venue,’ which the court granted, it was successfully argued that the prospect of any unbiased jury from the immediate area was unlikely because of isolated but vehement local prejudice propagated by the WCCC.

As to the claims cited here, I can forthrightly say that we have never ever threatened our neighbors or their children nor victimized any of them. Nor have we ever said anything to the effect of what is alleged here to be said by one of us on tape, namely: if a neighbour gets in your way, shoot him.’ Only the police informant was recorded as saying things to that effect on the tapes submitted to trial. Even though we tested Mr. Wraight during this period and therefore often pretended to be on side, we never ever suggested shooting anybody – abhor the thought! It was his proposal of such things that made us leery of him even though he appears at times to be only kidding when he spoke so roughly.

On the contrary, it was we who were being threatened. It was our van that was bombed, our home and the home of a Beaverlodge environmentalist [Allan Johnstone. Ed.] that were repeatedly vandalized, our phone that received threatening calls, our children and we, ourselves, who were being accosted and maligned out on the street and in our own homes, not vice versa, to which the police have both actively contributed and been indifferent in addressing, as revealed also on CBC television: The National’.

Allan H. Johnstone, former Alberta oil&gas pollution whistle-blower (now diseased)

Police or Other Information

Throughout the whole of Plant’s report it’s within this particular segment of the overall assessment that we witness some of the most atrocious accusations, obviously designed to portray a negative image of both Wiebo and the rest of the community as a bunch if violent, ignorant and deranged misfits. The first of this series of slanderous and misinformed statements concerns the education of the children at Trickle Creek who are home-schooled. Plant writes in his report, It is believed that the children under the age of 10 are illiterate. Police searches have revealed no material that would indicate that formal education is being conducted. If the government takes action on this issue, they believe that LUDWIG would become a high escape risk. In their rebuttal of this statement the community of Trickle Creeks says: A) Police are reported to believe this but, as usual throughout Plant’s report, no substantiation is given. See attached handwritten letters to Wiebo in prison by children under 10. [not shown in this article. Ed.]

B) The statement: Police searches have revealed no material that would indicate that formal education is being conducted…’ is in error. The police were not authorized by search warrant to search for nor to seize such items, but were there on other business. Furthermore, they should look at their own videotape which reveals bookshelves and boxes full of reading and math school textbooks, atlases, dictionaries, encyclopedias and writing notebooks and blackboards. Furthermore, Mamie Ludwig used to be a teacher and Rev. Ludwig a principal in Iowa; Mr. Boonstra was a child welfare officer in Ontario; besides being the parents and grandparents of these children they are very qualified to teach them. They even have had accreditation as bonafide teachers in the U.S.

In other words, one could say that the RCMP base their (unsubstantiated) fears that Ludwig could be an escape risk if the government acts on such an issue. This issue’ is improperly based on the fact that the RCMP didn’t notice the educational material during the execution of a search warrant which was totally unrelated to the issue.’ The point is, the RCMP weren’t looking for educational material, and such an investigation was not part of their mandate as outlined in the warrant. Furthermore, according to Plant’s report, D. Carter (child welfare officer) said there has been no investigation into such an issue’, which furthers the point that the RCMP have not done any real investigation but are only making trouble. One wonders how much the local RCMP are conspiring with the local vocal minority – and pulling at straws’ – in an effort to find a scapegoat and keep an (innocent) man behind bars.

In Richard Boonstra’s separate rebuttal regarding this same issue he says, I find it personally baffling to see in this section that the police believe’ that the children under the age of 10 are illiterate. As a teacher in this community I can say that this is blatantly untrue. It should also be noted here that a highly sophisticated system of education and curriculum is in place in this community as was also evidenced to a superintendent of the Board of Education during a visit from him early on in our history at Trickle Creek.

Can the police ever say anything positive about Trickle Creek? Does their apparent inability to ever think or speak well of Trickle Creek not belie their so-called neutral’ professional attitude?

Further on, under this same category, we come to more damaging pseudo evidence reputed to be cold, hard facts. Plant reports that, Police searches have seized restricted weapons including a sawed off rifle and home made silencers. All weapons with the exception of the 30-30 rifle (suspected in the shooting death of Carmen Willis) were loaded at the time of seizure. None of the firearms, some of recent manufacture, were purchases with a firearm acquisition permit, although the law has required one since the late 1970’s. Police believe there are still weapons on the property because purchases of ammunition have been made for hand guns (44 Magnum) and shotguns subsequent to the seizures. In addition no 7-mm weapon has been found to correspond to ammunition found in a wall. LUDWIG has claimed that this ammunition was to be used for gopher traps, yet gophers are not found in that area.

…One weapon was located in a secret compartment in a work bench that was accessed by pressing a button concealed in the work bench.

Anyone reading statements such as this, in the absence of further information, would naturally assume that there were a bunch of maniacs on the loose obviously gearing up for some sort of uprising or insurrection. The reality of what the police actually found and the truth behind this ongoing veil of RCMP deception only begins to become clear after hearing (as the saying goes) the rest of the story. In their response to these defamatory accusations the community says, re: so-called silencers and restricted weapons’ is misleading and in error. Police seized a .22 rifle that was reported broken and had the last 6 inches of the cracked barrel sawed off to remain operative while a replacement barrel was on back order at the local gunsmith. The gun was in repair, hardly a case of a restricted weapon!

The other firearm the police called restricted’ was a modified .22 rifle used for butchering, allowable by the Criminal Code, an obscure clause perhaps not familiar to the RCMP. Loaded weapons, too, have traditionally been allowed for predator control on rural farms though, in our case, they were also there for our protection from death threats.

re: homemade silencers’ is in error. The police publicly called a piece of plastic pipe with holes a silencer’, but their own lab said it didn’t work as a silencer when they tested it. The RCMP returned the item to Trickle Creek with documentation that indicated it was not an illegal item to have! The second so-called silencer was just a heavy metal pipe about 14 inches long. This too, although proclaimed publicly as a silencer’, is documented as merely a piece of pipe and was returned to the farm’s welding shop where there is a considerable assortment of such pipe.

Note that such public defamation of character(s) has been a normal occurrence against Trickle Creek residents throughout the RCMP investigation’. Throughout this investigation’ which ended in a sentence against Rev. W.A. Ludwig, the RCMP refused to interview Ludwig or the Trickle Creek residents because they said it would be fruitless etc.! For months, the RCMP gathered evidence’ against Ludwig from sources like the Alberta Energy Company, who at the time were in conflict with Trickle Creek and especially peeved by Rev. Ludwig’s exposure of their reckless actions in the media, and in numerous meetings that AEC pollution was killing vegetation, livestock, and the unborn – as well generally degrading the quality of life for people trying to live totally off their own land at Trickle Creek. AEC hired security who initially gathered information’, which they eventually passed on to the RCMP, at which time the RCMP took over’ and built their case against Rev. Ludwig… those AEC security persons were led by high ranking ex-RCMP officers!!! One wonders at the objectivity and purity of such an investigation’. It seems the local oil and gas industry has pulled the puppet strings’ of the RCMP once again…by getting them to do their biased bidding.

Carrying on with their rebuttal of the police report the residents say that, By the time that the investigation into Karman Willis’ death occurred, the RCMP were breaking the law openly in regards to publicly naming persons and location of a search warrant before laying any charges and trespassing on private property without a warrant. Interestingly, days later, the police drummed up unrelated charges in a seeming effort to justify their illegal actions in regards to what was defaming Rev. Ludwig, et al. Note that the one drummed up charge was dropped by the Crown Prosecutor before it got to court and the other was immediately dismissed by the presiding Judge!

Note also that a larger lawsuit including these points and others against the RCMP etc. is still being considered!

re: firearm purchases is in error. The report again insinuates that a law was broken. Police could not have known if a permit was used to buy the guns, because at the time of their purchase, it was not required to document the permit with the seller (that has changed recently). The police also failed to mention that a couple of residents have had permits to obtain firearms in the recent past.

re: gopher traps’ is in error. The insinuation is that Ludwig was lying and trying to be deceitful in saying that the ammunition not matching any firearms was to be used for gopher traps while there are no gophers in the area. However, Rev. Ludwig is clearly documented in court transcripts to have said that 12 gauge shotgun shells were for coyote traps (a constant menace) not the alleged gophers that Plant reports from RCMP information.

Then again, as for the secret hide-out in the workbench the Trickle Creek residents’ response was, There was/is no button-controlled’ concealed space anywhere at Trickle Creek including the workbench.’

And as if all the preceding information wasn’t enough the police then list a number of books which were found on the Trickle Creek Farm property which they maintain promoted the use of violence. As Plant puts it, Police believe their discovery on the LUDWIG property is significant because they have seen some of these techniques used by LUDWIG and are concerned that he may be escalating toward an ultimate showdown scenario.

In response to these misleading assumptions Trickle Creek residents replied, Note that none of these books are illegal to possess, and that the RCMP keep such books on hand also in their fight against crime i.e. to know the enemy’ (which is a good example that there are other reasons in possessing such books other than ill intent). The report’s statement that the book Poor Man’s James Bond lists for $600.00 at Amazon.com insinuates that it is a black market book; this is misleading: the book is listed in Calgary (at Spy City) for $49.95. Most all of this reading material was unsolicited and given to Trickle Creek by friends in the environmental movement. Moreover, The Field Guide Manual to Monkey Wrenching’ actually disclaims the use of violence.’

Furthermore, none of these books were found among Ludwig’s personals or in his possession. They were found in another resident’s house who ironically was not charged but instead the books are used to frame and defame Rev. Ludwig!

As for the police statement saying that they’d seen some of these techniques used by LUDWIG Trickle Creek replies that this is yet another error on the part of the police because in reality, police suspect Ludwig, but have not seen him use these techniques’. The comment escalation towards an ultimate showdown scenario’ is purely speculative and nonsense and smells of Salem witch trial tactics.

Moving right along we come to another of Plant’s reported police statements that displays open bias. As Plant puts it, Police advised that lies and deception are a standard strategy [of] LUDWIG and his followers and that LUDWIG has said this himself. Police advise that if you assume that everything is a lie, then what was confusing and contradictory about the case suddenly makes perfect sense….

In their response the Trickle Creek residents write, Note the significance of the word assume’ in Plant’s report that the RCMP advise that if you assume that every thing is a lie, then what was confusing and contradictory about the case suddenly makes perfect sense…’ One sees in this statement evidence of severe bias and lack of objectivity. What kind of police investigation is that indicative of? It is bizarre to make serious conclusions on such a wholesale assumption. Again, more of Salem afoot here.

Resocialization measures proposed

Nearing the end of the assessment this category continues in the same vein as the preceding comments with an emphasis on accenting the supposed violent nature of Wiebo Ludwig. In Plant’s judgement, based on a medley of unsubstantiated police statements and the one-sided, biased comments by the leader of the oil industry advocates Brian Peterson, Any release decision made concerning LUDWIG must take into consideration his history of intimidation and his possession of restricted weapons in connection with his endorsement of civil disobedience involving violence. If he is deemed to qualify for Accelerated Parole Review this matter will be an important consideration in this decision.

LUDWIG must meaningfully address his attitudes toward the use of Instrumental Violence and his poor conflict resolution skills before and during his release in order for his reintegration to be safe.

To these judgements the Trickle Creek community replied, 1st sentence under Resocialization Measures Proposed’ is in error: A respectful submission regarding this sentence is that the words the validity of reports concerning his history’ should be added so that the sentence reads: Any release decision made concerning Ludwig must take into consideration the validity of reports concerning his history of intimidation and his possession of restricted weapons…’

Ludwig has never been even charged with possession of restricted weapons, let alone convicted. In fact, nobody on the property has ever been! Furthermore, it has not been proven, otherwise or in court, that there were any unlawful or restricted weapons on the property!

On this same topic they go on to say, The allegation that Ludwig endorses civil disobedience involving violence was a rumour started and maintained by a self-serving sensational media which is interested in selling papers by polarizing an already controversial issue.

And again Plant brings up statements by Brian Peterson and his infamously incorrect group called the West County Community Council and refers to said group as a representative body of this community to which Trickle Creek residents reply that Plant is again in error because, Plant never met with such a council, he met only with a local citizens’ group called West County Concerned Citizens, whose present existence is now even in doubt since they no longer even have a website.

Being merely a rump citizens’ group, it is [was] not a representative body of this community.’ This group is only representative of relatives and friends of Karman Willis or those related to her friends who terrorized and trespassed on Trickle Creek property and are, as a pro-industry faction, opposed to Wiebo Ludwig for his stand against oil and gas pollution i.e. a very biased lobby group.

Overall assessment risk assessment

Plant’s judgment of Wiebo Ludwig concludes that, Unfortunately it appears that LUDWIG’s conflict with the law has arisen from the integration of civil disobedience into his values. The larger community lives in fear [of] him and his potential for further violence and he and his family in turn fear them.

Commenting on Plant’s assertion regarding Wiebo’s conflict the residents of Trickle Creek say that it didn’t arise here, from Ludwig’s integration of civil disobedience into his values’ but from the desperation of being polluted to death without recourse to redress and from speaking out about this against the press of petro-chemical politics as everyone knows. Even the Crown and Court conceded that much.

As for the larger community living in fear of Wiebo they have this to say: Certain members of the local community who have had little or no contact with Ludwig, those of Hythe and Beaverlodge, claim to fear him – others and the larger community’ with whom he does associate do not! A local senior woman who has lived here all of her life spoke to Mrs. Ludwig senior (Mamie) recently and told Mamie she addressed Brian Peterson personally and told Brian in no uncertain terms that his so-called fear of Rev. Ludwig was a bunch of bullshit’. She has known Brian since he was born and knew of all his wild ways.

Interviewer’s assessment

One of the more astounding and cruel aspects to this whole report by parole officer Plant has got to be his intentional exclusion, from his assessment, of the many positive statements made in favour of Wiebo Ludwig’s character by friends and associates who personally know him. Such a transparent attempt at purporting to present a fair and impartial assessment without including vital and relevant information which would obviously counter the bad press that Plant was continually piling up against Wiebo is tantamount to creating a fraudulent and one-sided document.

Apart from the voices of the RCMP and a vindicative, suspicious group known as the West County Concerned Citizens the report falls far short of a overall assessment that would give voice to opposing opinions, especially considering that in the end opinions and unsubstantiated accusations are ultimately what make up the substance of the overall report. In his own words Plant acknowledges that his investigation was difficult due to the disparity of impressions that he received. Then, when he realized that there were a number of possible contacts to interview on the subject he cops out and decides to make the assignment manageable by limiting his investigation to just the statements of the RCMP and the vigilante group led by Brian Peterson. As Plant goes on to say, This necessarily excludes the many supporters of the Ludwigs from outside of their immediate group. They may wish to invite select members of their supporters to write letters of support on their behalf to provide them a voice in the process.

Hello???!!! Here we have the reputation of a righteous man being slandered and maligned by a corporate media who’ve been pursuing him like the proverbial hounds from hell. At the same time, hiding behind their tar-stained corporate masks, a vile and cruel oil and gas industry, delirious with greed and overcome with arrogance of power, continues to influence and pull the strings of the RCMP. Then, on top of all that, there’s the boisterous little oil-soaked, pack of WCCC hyenas screeching for vengeance and still our status quo hero, parole officer Paul Plant, has the unmitigated gall to dismiss the only credible evidence of good character from his assessment because he’s either too damned shortsighted and lazy to finish his job properly (which I doubt) or else he’s dancing to the tune of a different drummer that no one else in the public arena is privy to!

Assessment of community support and reintegration potential

In this final, yet relevant category of Plant’s report, he again makes mistaken reference to what he calls the West County Community Council and attributes their biased remarks to the general community at large when he suggests that there is a …widely held belief in the community that the Justice System was too lenient on LUDWIG. As the Trickle Creek residents rightly point out making such a statement again is in error because, This comment contradicts the fact. As Plant reports, he only talked to one WCCC person and 2 local police officers and excluded the many supporters of the Ludwigs from outside their immediate group.’ Therefore, how can the report truthfully say it is a widely held belief’? Moreover, the belief’ is not grounded but slanderous and fuel for more vigilante injustice.

In their final rebuttal the residents of Trickle Creek refute and denounce the credibility of Paul Plant with the following statement: Does the Parole Board take into account that Plant makes a point that Ludwig may invite supporters to write in order to provide them a voice in the process’, whereas the group West County Concerned Citizens has vigorously pursued persons unacquainted with Rev. Ludwig’s person to write the Parole Board opposing Wiebo Ludwig’s early release. Note: Brian Peterson’s pressure comment to those in attendance at the West County Concerned Citizens (WCCC) organized meeting – in Paul Plant’s presence: If you don’t all write a letter, and Wiebo gets out, it will be your fault’.

Note also his publicly displayed poster reminding those persons to write the parole board. These bright posters were displayed at locally selected locations and not in places frequented by those who know Ludwig.

It is unfortunate that Plant’s presence along with the area parole supervisor at the WCCC rally has been manipulated by the local lobby group to lend stature to pressuring locals into opposing Ludwig’s early release’ by writing to the parole board, while the many Ludwig supporters’ are not even notified or invited to such a meeting by Plant as were the locals associated with the WCCC. No one pushed the many supporters’ to write like the WCCC has pushed against the idea of Ludwig’s release with their local one-sided campaign.

**************

As mentioned earlier there were other assessments taken of Wiebo after he entered Grande Cache Institution which basically follow a similar format and attempt on the surface to delve deeply into his family history and his psyche. In the end they too come out looking awkward, contrived and inept. Also, the overall relevancy of both Paul Plant’s Community Assessment along with Ms. Ling’s Intake Assessment, with respect to Wiebo Ludwig qualifying for Accelerated Parole cannot be overstated.

When the time for review of Wiebo’s case finally arrived the various factors had already been set in place. On August 24th, 2000 Edmonton Area Parole Officer Dave Noland in his Assessment for Decision on the subject of whether or not Wiebo should be recommended for Accelerated Day Parole states in his Appraisal: There are reasonable grounds to believe that Wiebo Ludwig is likely to commit an offense involving violence before the expiration of his sentence according to law.

The date of October 5th, 2000 was set for a Parole Board hearing. Prior to that Wiebo was given a letter on September 25th which listed numerous individuals who would be in attendance at the hearing, including a number of observers from the WCCC and the media. In a reply to Ms. Cherkewich of the National Parole Board Wiebo states, My family and I have serious objections to the presence of persons listed as #’s 16-23, all of who are members of the WCCC. This self-appointed elite pro-oil and gas industry group, also dubbed as the West County KKK by citizens of Hythe and Beaverlodge because of various oppressive tactics they have and continue to use against the families at Trickle Creek, are the very people we have cause to believe responsible for stirring up strife and hatred. They have promoted and pushed relentlessly for extensive business boycotts against all the people at Trickle Creek and certain close friends who continue to associate with us. Many businesses prefer to do business with us but felt intimidated and threatened by them.

This same group also continues to point the finger at Trickle Creek, insisting that we know who shot Karman Willis even though there is no evidence to support their claim that we know or that anyone from Trickle Creek is responsible for the death of Karman. They have even erected a 4’x8′ sign at the end of our road to badger us into a confession of guilt for her death.

They have repeatedly also slandered us in the news and do not represent the interests of the bulk of the people in the Hythe-Beaverlodge area, as such, who they claim to represent and speak for.

In the same letter, referring again to Brian Peterson of the WCCC, Wiebo says, The daughter of Mr. Peterson, leader of this group, was a close friend of Karman Willis. She and Karman were regularly involved with up to as many as 150 other, mostly young people, in raucous drinking parties till the wee hours of the morning at Red Willow Park. These parties have been so wild at times that even the local RCMP was afraid to intervene. Recently Mr. Peterson’s daughter has been charged for liquor violations and tried in the Grande Prairie law courts.

There is much for Mr. Peterson to cover up and transfer here onto Trickle Creek which we believe he is doing ever since he has openly slandered and otherwise publicly misrepresented the concerns and the people at Trickle Creek, also in the media. Since our young people at Trickle Creek do not engage in these reckless and lawless social activities they stand out in painful contrast to the likes of Mr. Peterson’s daughter and her raucous companions. Hence their efforts, we believe, to degrade us in the public as religious extremists, slandering us with outlandish charges of polygamy, incest and the like, in which the local police have also played an all too willing part.

For the calm and safety of my family and the negative fall-out of their very presence, I respectfully request that the members of the very dangerous vigilante group not attend my hearing of October 5, 2000. My family members, who will be present, are intimidated by them and afraid of their motives. You should also know that the Crown would not grant these people victim impact status at trial and thus the court refused the impact statements they submitted. Also, because of their action the court changed the venue from Grande Prairie to Edmonton.

As to your media list, I respectfully request that Mr. David Staples (#7) not be granted observer status on behalf of the Edmonton Journal. He has done me and the families at Trickle Creek great uncalled for harm by disseminating slanderous misinformation concerning us of which I have additional hard evidence even in his most recent coverage of this case in the Journal. There are plenty of journalists at the Edmonton Journal not maliciously disposed toward us whom I welcome in his stead.

Well, as you might readily imagine, this request went unheeded by the parole board and as such Wiebo decided to waive the hearing. In a subsequent letter to the National Parole Board’s Regional Communications Officer, Elaine Cherkewich in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan dated October 10, 2000 Wiebo offers a further personal explanation for his decision: Given the shocking amount of distorted information and sheer conjecture on file (concerning which you received some extensive rebuttal from us) and the decision of this institution (the Grande Cache Institution) as well as that of the single National Parole Board member not to direct for Early Release’ – decisions seriously tainted by misinformation and speculation – prospects for any positive outcome at the scheduled parole hearing of October 5, 2000 were already dim, at best!

And what was the National Parole Board’s esteemed decision? In their Decision Sheet they stated, You have not met criteria for accelerated release given the potentially lethal violence your activities posed to the community. Your radical conduct and obsession with environmental issues [emphasis added. Ed.]that you believe have impacted your family negatively, causes concern with regard to potential for future violence within the community.

In responding to this NPB decision Wiebo again stresses in his letter to Ms. Cherkewich that, there is absolutely no reason to believe that I would commit a violent offense or any offense before the end of my sentence or afterward. We, as the record and our lifestyle will show, are not criminal types but peace-loving folk. Together we have laboured hard to create a uniquely peaceful pastoral self-sufficient lifestyle in keeping also with God’s
ordinances to love and be generous to others….

Moreover, I was let free on bail for almost a full year before trial, after the alleged offenses took place, on the assumption that I was not likely to do any violence and indeed I did not. Subsequently, violence was also struck from the charges against me at trial. The Crown even indicated to the court that not in his life time’ would he be able to prove violence’. The Crown also assured the court that he did not see us (Mr. Boonstra and myself) as terrorists’ i.e. as violent men.

Somehow these findings of the court have been altogether obscured by Corrections Canada due to speculative reasoning on the basis of much misinformation and hearsay. The court also declared that there was not a scintilla’ of evidence that either of the accused were involved in other incidents of vandalism that the Crown had the court consider, acts of vandalism for which we had not even been charged.

I pray that the great amount of misleading information on my file can yet be cleared up in order that so much needless suffering can be cut short.

Wiebo Ludwig did not receive a reply to his October 10 letter sent to Ms. Elaine Cherkewich or even a confirmation that it had been received and so again on December 1, 2000 he sent another more comprehensive package of materials to her written in the 3rd person. In that information Wiebo again makes reference to Corrections Canada’s mistaken assumption that he somehow poses a violent threat to his community. With respect to the falsity of said reports Wiebo comments, a) It is very unfortunate that the police (the RCMP) have superimposed their view of the charges, of which Rev. Ludwig was convicted, into the information, namely, as involving violence’ even though the court (inclusive of Judge, Crown and Defense) rejected any suggestion of violence,’ of endangering life’ and, even, discounted the label of terrorism.’ It is apparent from this action that the RCMP are not ready to submit to the authority of the court in this judgement. b) It is doubly unfortunate that this labeling of violence’ by the RCMP found its way into the initial assessments (i.e. the intake and CA) and was then further exploited in subsequent reports that are now also on file…. c) It is regretful that the Board adopted this arrogant position of the RCMP. d) There is no mention of either violence’ or endangerment of life’ in the 5 counts of the indictment. e) The court spoke very definitively on the matter of violence’ and endangerment of life’ both in its Reasons for Judgment’ and in Speaking to Sentence.

**************

And so to conclude this epic of injustice let me repeat once again, in the most vehement manner, that after all the hours spent sifting through the piles of collateral rubble now scattered across the darkened political landscape of Canada’s most unctuous of prairie provinces, the negative effects of this mountain of misguided and mean-spirited invective must be exposed. And hopefully, in doing so, it will be cleansed and removed from Canada’s ailing justice system forever.

There is so much more that could be said regarding this wholesale miscarriage of justice but time and space forbid further elucidation. What has been presented here though should be evidence enough to alert readers to the magnitude of this cruel and terrible hoax that’s been perpetrated upon Wiebo Ludwig and the Christian community of Trickle Creek. It’s this writer’s hope that somehow the public will become more conscious of the raw deal that’s been meted out to these people and that an outcry of support for immediate redress will be forthcoming and that Wiebo will in fact gain the parole which he rightfully deserves under Canadian law.

The trend though, as it appears to be developing throughout the global community, is one in which acts of treacherous (and treasonous) malfeasance such as those perpetrated by the police and Corrections Canada, are becoming all too common. Another frightening aspect of this growing phenomenon is that they are not being openly challenged because of the immediate and direct complicity of the elitist-controlled media structure which obstructs all attempts at exposure.

If, as a sovereign country and as a community within the wider community of mankind, we hesitate too long in resisting such fascist intrusions into our judicial system such as what we’re seeing here in Wiebo Ludwig’s case then we are heading down a perilous pathway that can only lead to further abuse by the very guardians we’ve elected to protect our civil rights.

In the final analysis it is the collective will of the people that is being usurped here and this must inevitably lead to the dismantling of our civic institutions and the freedom and democracy with which they are assoicated. As a nation we must stand up and make our voices heard over and above the din and the glare of corporate globalization.

Ultimately, through freeing Wiebo Ludwig, we will free ourselves.

{ Comments are closed }

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

AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941
Editor‚¬â„¢s Preface: It was my intention to have this chapter from Douglas Reed‚¬â„¢s 1941 book, A Prophet At Home typed up and published online for November 11th to coincide with Remembrance Day. It didn‚¬â„¢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‚¬â„¢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, ‚¬Ëœfriendly aliens‚¬â„¢; 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‚¬â„¢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 ‚¬Å”anti-Semitism‚¬Â card to full effect whenever anyone challenged the government’s and the media‚¬â„¢s blatant discrimination aimed at the English and the Arabs while all the while consistently favouring the ‚¬Ëœfriendly alien.
Given the fact that today, seven decades later, Canadians in the majority still haven‚¬â„¢t grasped the fact that their ‚¬Å”mainstream‚¬Â media and their government are absolutely controlled and manipulated to suit this extremist Zionist Jew agenda, Reed‚¬â„¢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‚¬â„¢s description of the behaviour of the Members of the British Parliament respecting the ‚¬Ëœfriendly aliens‚¬â„¢ 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 ‚¬Å”change‚¬Â 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 ‚¬Å”new anti-Semitism‚¬Â 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‚¬â„¢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‚¬â„¢s works is encouraged to go to 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‚¬â„¢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 ‚¬Å”DONATE‚¬Â 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.

{ Comments are closed }

In the Social Storm: Memoirs of the Russian Revolution By Boris Yelensky Chapter 27

We were pleasantly surprised to come across our old time friend Semke Friedman in Moscow. We had been good friends in Chicago and had not seen him for some time. Short of stature, a garment worker by trade, Semke was the kind of person who could not endure any injustice, and he would relentlessly pursue anyone he judged guilty of a grave wrong. Despite this fixation, he had all the qualities of a devoted friend and we deeply appreciated his friendship with us. His devotion to our cause was equally intense, and he demanded a like attachment from others. Friedman had been among the first of our comrades to leave Chicago for Russia. For a brief period of time he served in Makhnos army. Following one major battle with the White Army, Makhnos staff was obliged to evacuate its positions and transfer to another locality. Only small detachments remained in the city and there was grave peril for anyone returning there. In spite of this, Friedman insisted on coming back, afraid some important materials had been left behind. He did find two large envelopes and when he arrived back at the new headquarters and they were opened, it was found that a very large portion of the partisan treasury had been recovered.

For the past two years, Semke had been living in Odessa, where he was married to Comrade Dora. In 1923, they succeeded in leaving the Soviet Union, and by merest chance we met in Constantinople.From there they went to Paris, where they became active in the Jewish anarchist group. Throughout that time we maintained contact by correspondence. A girl was born to them but they never had a chance to enjoy her company. World War II came and the Nazis arrested both Semke and Dora, while the child was hidden in the home of French comrades. As the couple were being led to their deaths, Semke wrote a message and succeeded in throwing it out of the train window; it bore a request that the letter be forwarded to our address. It eventually reached us and the contents were brief and heart-rending: We are being led away; we do not know where. Take care of our child. That was the last we heard of Semke and Dora.

One of the odd things about Semke was that he was a vegetarian, so strict that it became something of an obsession with him. In 1919, a daring expropriation was pulled off in Moscow, and a huge sum of money seized. The Cheka proceeded to make arrests among the left-wing factions and a number of anarchists, including Semke, were seized. As a rigid vegetarian, he demanded a diet in prison of vegetables and fruits. He was clamorous in this demand, quite indifferent to the fact that he was imprisoned in the dreaded All-Russian Vecheka, a name that produced a feeling of terror everywhere in those days. One day all of the imprisoned anarchists were summoned from their cells and lined up in a large hall. Before long the door opened and the terror of the All-Russian Cheka, Dzerzhinski, with his entire coterie, entered. Recklessly disregarding all risks, Semke went directly to this dreaded figure and demanded that, as a vegetarian, he be fed a vegetarian diet.

A week later, when he rode to Odessa with us, I managed to procure some foodstuffs en route, and among them was a slice or two of sausage. When we began to consume our humble meal, I noted that Friedman cut off a sliver of the sausage and began to eat it with great gusto. When I asked him what had become of his vegetarian philosophy, he justified his action on the grounds that he had gone hungry for many days, and felt that under the special stress and strain of a social revolution, one had to put aside his vegetarian faith and eat what he could get.

When we left Moscow, the general mood was still one of extreme dismay and depression among our comrades. The Moscow jails were filled to overflowing with our comrades and there was a feeling in the air that the Bolsheviks were about to begin liquidating all the revolutionary factions. This was manifest in their treatment of the political prisoners. We had a presentiment that a dire fate awaited all the non-Bolsheviks who had helped bring about the October revolution.

We encountered a similar mood of despair when we reached Odessa, where a large number of our comrades were being confined in local jails. However here the gathering political reaction was not felt quite so strongly. For instance, when we visited our imprisoned comrades, we observed that their guards treated them with some compassion and consideration. Apparently the guards remembered that the inmates had only yesterday joined with them in combatting the Kerensky regime.

It certainly sounded odd to hear the prison guards address the inmates as comrade. I was unable to remain in Odessa, as I had promised my superiors in Moscow that I would return to that city immediately.

On my return to Moscow it required about a week to organize the tour which was to take more than three months and over the area from Moscow to Baku on the Caspian Sea and then the Caucasus region as far as Batum on the Black Sea. I was assigned three assistants for the organizational effort and an additional person to supervise and keep watch over the special railway car which had been fitted out somewhat like a bookmobile. For such a long trip and considering the circumstances, it was a fairly comfortable way to travel. It is interesting to note how, even at that time, the new bureaucracy was beginning to build up, from top to bottom. Up until that time, I had operated largely by myself and taken along an aide only occasionally. This time however, I had three assistants with whom I was not personally acquainted. From a practical point of view I could not see why this undertaking called for so many participants and such an expenditure of money. And now a few words about my assistants:

During the first few days of our journey I learned that these people had little genuine interest in the success of our mission. They were former business managers and were animated by only two motives: first, the opportunity to get some nourishing food and to bring some groceries home and second, to engage in some profitable speculation. Apparently they had been briefed about me in Moscow. Shortly after our departure I sought to organize our project in such a way that each of us would be responsible for a role in our undertaking. They soon sensed that I was in earnest about my mission and that this was not to be a joyride. That was not altogether to their liking and they seemed to fear that the entire mission would end up a failure. I could also sense they were afraid of me and this created a tense atmosphere – regrettable, because we could not obtain any constructive results under such conditions.

However my three aides were also practical and astute business people and they cautiously began to search for devices to soften me up so that I would not interfere with their private business affairs. It was during the third week of our journey that things began to happen. We commenced our labors in Kharkov, where all three performed their tasks relatively well, though our relations were still strained to some extent. After the days work, or while en route, the three of them would pass the time playing cards, with large sums of money at stake. They constantly urged me to join them, but I declined, having neither the inclination nor the monetary means. But one evening they began to reproach me for being aloof and seeming to ignore them.

I did not suspect right away that their tactic was to ingratiate themselves with me. By nature, they were not evil and they harbored no malicious intent toward me. They simply did not trust me and feared I would spoil their private dealings. They were aware of my ideological affiliation and the trap they laid for me was successful as long as they maintained friendly relations with me. But at that moment I did not want them to regard me as a snob, so I consented to play cards with them for an hour or two. I did remind them however, that my funds were limited and that they would have to reduce the stakes. The first evening everything proceeded smoothly and I came out the winner at our card game by a couple of rubles. The second evening this result was repeated and they expressed considerable satisfaction over my joining them. Before long however, I began to observe that it was their intent that I should win a large sum of money. Actually they were skillful players, yet they seemed to get careless occasionally and I ended up by winning a substantial sum. At first, I fancied this was mere beginners luck, but when my good fortune persisted for a week or more I began to feel uncomfortable. As a result I became careless in turn, in the expectation of losing to them the large amounts I had won.

However my strategy failed and I found myself with larger winnings than before. I then began to realize that all of this had been a maneuver, a little conspiracy to bribe me in the hope that I would not disturb their speculative machinations. The whole business went against my grain. To be sure, I was not a Cheka agent nor connected with the police, but I resolved to put an end to this little tragi-comedy. That same evening, before they started their card playing, I preached them this little sermon:

You know of course, that as an official representative of the Tsentro-Pechat, I have the authority to return all of you to Moscow at the next depot, as well as report your suspicious activities to the railway Cheka. I can assure you however, that I will do neither, as I am not associated with either the police or the Cheka. You yourselves are responsible for your activities on this tour, aside from your work for the Tsentro-Pechat. I have observed on several occasions that you carry out your official duties fairly well. We have three more months to spend together and in order to crown our mission with success, I demand of the three of you that you cease attempting to bribe me by deliberately losing money to me at cards. As long as you fulfill your obligations in our organizational effort, I shall completely ignore your other activities. You have two days to reflect on this matter – think it over and give me an answer.

All three were taken aback. That evening there was no card playing. Before retiring for the night, the three of them entered my compartment and one of them offered me an apology for their underhanded ruse. Their explanation was that they had heard in Moscow that I was extremely strict and this accounted for their actions. They assured me that they were not engaged in any counter-revolutionary activity, but also admitted that they were carrying with them a certain amount of manufactured goods, which they wanted to sell so as to purchase some provisions for their families. They assured me that if I forgave them, they would see to it that our mission was successfully completed. I accepted their apology, but insisted that they take back the money I had won from them. They declined, suggesting that this money should be used for spending money for our trip. They stood their ground and I finally yielded. As a matter of fact they turned out to be rather decent fellows and acquitted themselves quite creditably for the rest of the trip.

I have deliberately mentioned this incident so that the reader might gain at least some insight into that was going on at that time as the Bolshevik regime spread its bureaucratic tentacles of control over the entire Russian land. For here were three perfectly innocent men thrown into such fear and confusion by the bureaucratic monster that they were prepared to risk their freedom and their very lives in order to obtain some sustenance for themselves and their families. Tens of millions throughout Russia reacted in similar fashion.

While my three aides were engaged on the side in their private business of procuring some foodstuffs for their families I made it my purpose to acquaint my comrades with developments in Moscow with regard to our arrested friends. These included the ones arrested in Kharkov, the prisoners of the Kronstadt revolt, the Makhno followers and others who had been transferred to the Moscow jails. I also urged them to find means of extending help to all of our imprisoned comrades in various jails. As previously stated, the Bolsheviks had collected such a throng of political prisoners that there were not enough prison cells to hold them. This was especially true of the Butirky Prison.

In Kharkov, as well as in other localities where I encountered my comrades, I found a continuing atmosphere of gloom. The spirit of resistance and combat had to a great extent disappeared and on all sides there was the anticipation of more severe repressions against our comrades. We began to feel that our movement had lost the fight and now every individual must place himself in a defensive position. The disappearance of the powerful Makhno army, the mass arrests of the Nabat Confederation members throughout the Ukraine, the general arrests of our comrades – all this made us feel that the anarchist movement was facing its last moments in Russia.

I have commented that in the course of my three-month long tour I noted that the revolutionary mood was being wiped out everywhere. The first signs of the evolving new bureaucracy became visible and the Russian people began to sense that these new bureaucrats were emerging in place of the old power structure. It was this journey that thoroughly awakened me from my sweet dream that the terror and repression had only been a transitional phase.

The high Commissars of the Tsentro-Pechat had for months been clamoring for me to take on this extensive organizing tour; but now that I and my three aides were in the midst of our labors, we began to receive reports that in many places a group of organizers had already made their appearance, spent a couple of days and moved on. This situation continued until we reached the city of Tiflis, deep in the heart of the Caucasus Mountains. Here we found an efficiently organized Tsentro-Pechat. It turned out that one of the staff in Moscow, a resident of Tiflis, had decided to return to his home city. He was a well-educated man descended from a well-to-do family of some prestige in the area. On arrival he decided to maintain the place in its previous state and immediately proceeded to organize the local Tsentro-Pechat there. When we learned of this situation I went to call on the manager and at once recognized him as a former employee of mine at the Moscow Tsentro-Pechat. When he first saw me his reaction was one of surprise at my being in his city. He then commented that apparently Moscow lacked confidence in him since they had already dispatched three different railroad coaches with special organizers and he had already accomplished the task personally.

His explanation took me by surprise. The Head Commissar of the All-Russian Tsentro-Pechat had urged me to leave my still unfinished work in Moscow and undertake this organizational tour throughout the Caucasus and here I find two distinct, so-called organizational representatives sent out ahead of me. I asked who they were and was given their names which were not known to me. He also told me that their special coaches could be found at the depot. They had been in Tiflis for a couple of weeks by now.

While he was talking to us he picked up the phone and told someone on the line that there would be three additional guests for dinner. He then told me that he had already invited the other organizers for dinner at his home and he wanted us to come also to meet his wife and parents. When we arrived at his home that evening it was evident that it was one of the old, wealthy mansions, surrounded by an atmosphere of culture. The other organizers arrived presently. Since the atmosphere was quite congenial I refrained from questioning them at that time however I did propose that the following day we should gather at the local Tsentro-Pechat to discuss matters related to our work. My suggestion did not evoke much enthusiasm but on the other hand they could not very well decline. All in all we spent a very pleasant evening. There was no dearth of satisfying food and the beverages were all of the choicest.

When we gathered the following day with the other organizers I learned that they had been away from Moscow for four months now. When I asked why they had spent so much time in Tiflis when the manager had the project so well organized they replied that they had labored very hard on their tour and were now allowing themselves two weeks vacation. I promptly deduced that these fellows were engaged in some speculative manipulations and that they maintained contact with Moscow through the couriers who each day brought the periodicals and literature from the metropolis.

This episode impressed me with the fact that speculation on the black market and the bureaucracy were fashioning a new order. It was this above all that impelled me to abandon my entire effort and return to the United States. When my aides learned of my intention they sought to persuade me not to return as they had become entranced by the superb beauty of the Caucasus region. In particular they desired to take the trip from Tiflis to Batum in the shadow of the majestic Caucasus Mountains in the hope that this enchanting route would relax them from their strenuous labors. They admitted that they had not exactly overworked themselves but tried to butter me up by stressing that I deserved a vacation myself after such extensive efforts and that we should therefore all ride to Batum.

As a matter of fact the idea did not displease me and when we met the next day I proposed to cable Moscow informing them there were three railroad coaches from Moscow cluttering things up and that they should decide which of the three should go on to Batum. This suggestion did not find favor with the two other organizers who informed me that they would leave for Moscow the next day and that I should go on to Batum. This was agreeable to me but to make certain that they would depart promptly for Moscow I added that I would dispatch a telegram to Moscow to that effect. There was no way for them to evade the issue any longer and they accepted my proposal.

The manager of the Tiflis Tsentro-Pechat was a left-wing Social Revolutionary somewhat in sympathy with the anarchist movement and well acquainted with our comrades in that city. He suggested that if it was agreeable to me he would invite our comrades so that we could spend an evening together. At the same time I could orient myself on the current situation in the country, particularly in Moscow. The evening passed pleasantly enough. The modest number of comrades located in Tiflis had no organized group; for the most part they were students along with a handful of workers. In general Tiflis was not highly industrialized so the entire activity of our comrades consisted in meeting occasionally for a discussion of live issues. The political situation in the city was not quite as tense as in other areas. To be sure the Bolsheviks had occupied all of Georgia but they realized that if they drew the reins too tightly a bloody revolt would ensue. Thus at the beginning of their occupation they were somewhat more moderate and this worked to the advantage of our comrades.

We remained there until late that night and the comrades were quite pleased to receive the information I had brought to them. They promised to raise a sum of money and some provisions for our imprisoned comrades. On our way back from Batum we met with a larger group and as they had promised they turned over to me a substantial amount of money and some foodstuffs and other products such as tea which were virtually unobtainable in Moscow.

We left Tiflis and set out for Batum where we spent a week effecting the organizational activities of the Tsentro-Pechat. But by this time my heart was no longer in this organizational effort. I began to realize that it was futile to expect constructive achievements in the social-political realm from the new Soviet bureaucracy. After the experience in Tiflis, with the organizers sent by the government involved in black market speculation in violation of government decree and in conflict with the spirit of the October revolution, my determination to leave Russia became more firm.

On our return from Batum we stopped for a couple of days in Tiflis, then went on from there to Stavropol where we wanted to procure more salt for our co-workers in the Tsentro-Pechat. Indeed, salt was the best medium of exchange for obtaining the various products by barter. When we arrived in Stavropol I went directly to the chairman of the Soviet and presented my request. Since we were well acquainted he promptly directed his secretary to issue a permit for us to receive a large quantity of salt for our Tsentro-Pechat co-workers. The convoluted bureaucratic apparatus was developing so rapidly by this time that even though Stavropol and its environs for a distance of many miles possessed sufficient salt to supply most of Russia no one seemed to be concerned that a large portion of the countrys population was suffering from goiter, an organic malfunction usually resulting from a deficiency of salt or iodine in the body. I would have been surprised if the Bolshevik politicians in Moscow, who were so intent on grabbing political power, even knew of the existence of these huge salt reserves.

In Batum, Tiflis and Baku, I proceeded to purchase produce for our imprisoned comrades in Moscow, having in my possession the precious salt, the gold to be used as an exchange commodity. In the evening, when we reached a major railway depot at Kursk, we went out to the waiting room and not far away there was a market alongside of which were a number of peasants with their wagons. These latter viewed anyone approaching their loads with some suspicion but one of them finally grudgingly agreed to answer me when I asked what they had for sale. He countered with a question as to what I had to offer in return. I knew quite well that he was not interested in currency but that the word salt would be the open sesame to many doors. I handed him a bag of salt and he tasted it, which caused a broad grin to spread across his face. He enquired how much salt I would trade for a sheep and before long, I was the owner of six sheep, tethered in our coach, besides three more acquired by my aides.

The following afternoon our train arrived in Moscow where we reported to the head office and told them that we had brought with us provisions for the employees of the Tsentro-Pechat. Soon a truck arrived and picked up all the produce we had bought. My personal possessions and three of the sheep were hauled to a hotel where a room had been provided for me. I immediately informed the Black Cross that I had brought provisions for the arrested comrades and before long several colleagues came and took away the foodstuffs and two of the sheep to distribute among our imprisoned comrades.

{ Comments are closed }

St. Valentine’s Vendetta: My 10 Year Battle With Canada’s Jewish Lobby By Arthur Topham

St. Valentine’s Vendetta:
My 10 Year Battle With Canada’s Jewish Lobby
By
Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
RadicalPress.com
March 8th, 2017
“But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual,  a fight of cosmic proportions,
is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun
their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications
are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?”
~Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, Commencement Address
Delivered at Harvard University, June 8, 1978.
“Nobody knows the troubles I’ve seen
Nobody knows my sorrow.”
~ Traditional Negro Spiritual
“Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: 
thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.”
~ Psalm 23 vs 5
Preamble

The seemingly endless struggle to overcome evil in this world never seems to let up. Generations; centuries; millennia have found mankind facing this general dilemma and the number of books written on the problem are likely in the millions.Over the past two thousand years there has been one single group of people whose nature and behaviour has continuously thrust them into the spotlight and onto the stage of human history even though they’ve adamantly strived throughout that period to keep their actions and agenda as clandestine as possible. That group, for better or for worse, is the Jews.

Due to their historic stance of remaining aloof and segregated from the rest of humanity they’ve naturally gained a reputation for secrecy, deception, dishonesty, greed, arrogance and an overall stubborn resistance to joining the human family in a positive, inclusive way. Thus was self-created, over time, the eternal, nagging problem still plaguing world peace and harmony and known around the world as the “Jewish Question” or the “Jewish Problem.”

It was my fate, karma or destiny, like many others before me, to encounter this question or problem while searching for answers to the persistent and ponderous problems that the world I was living in faced – debt slavery, poverty, war, sickness, inequality, social, cultural, moral and spiritual disintegration, pollution, environmental destruction and so on (the list is virtually endless when broken down into all its component parts).

Having began that quest for answers back in 1967 then spending the next forty years actively searching for the truth regarding these varied plagues that have tormented the world for countless centuries, by the year 2007 I finally felt I understood what the main source of the problem was. But what was even more disconcerting at that point than the answer I’d sought all those years was the realization that those who were so deeply implicated in this massive conspiracy to prevent humanity from achieving its rightful place in the cosmic order of things had already pre-emptively placed legal restrictions (some might call them legal land mines on the road to justice) on the ability of individual truth revealers to present their evidence of wrong-doing to the public be it via the Internet or in print. By fabricating so-called “Hate Crime” laws that essentially block or stem the flow of truthful facts which, otherwise, would clearly show and back up the growing general thesis that the Zionist Jewish conspiracy was and is, undoubtedly, a clear, present and dangerous reality; one that’s inimical to the well-being of otherwise independent nation states and, by extension, the world at large, that element of World Jewry involved in these unethical, illicit, criminal activities had constructed a legal shield or wall to protect themselves from their own criminal activities.

The Vendetta begins
This final realization was thrust upon me in November of 2007 when I first became aware that the Zionist Jew lobby organization know as B’nai Brith Canada had filed a “hate crime” complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

Like everything Zionist motivated the attack was clandestine and cruel – conceived in darkness and deceit then, with evil intent, spawned like some fecund fungi upon Canada’s Cyberian landscape in yet another pre-emptive, calculated attempt to cover up their crimes, censor the Internet and disenfranchise every free-thinking Canadian of their God-given, (presumed) Constitutional right to freedom of expression (aka free speech) as (supposedly) guaranteed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b.

I did have some foreknowledge of what occurred though. It happened on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, 2007when I found amongst the usual correspondence and spam on my computer an email with the Subject line that read: “Discriminatory material on Radicalpress.com.” It had been written two days prior to Valentine’s Day by a Zionist troll called “Brian Esker,” someone unknown to me at the time and an entity who I cannot, due to a court order, reveal publicly.

The email was an unabashed ultimatum stating that I had “unacceptably racist material posted” on my website RadicalPress.com and its author was demanding that I remove it.

Then, just to add a little touch of good old Jewish chutzpah to his already imperious command, Esker stated that I “delete” said article (ironically, given recent events, it was one by Eric Hunt titled Trapping Wiesels and Other Rodents) and, “advise me when this has been effected so that I can point out more articles of a similar nature also for removal. Failure to do so may result in legal action being taken against you.[emphasis added. A.T.]

For goodness sake I said to myself. Here it is Valentine’s Day and everywhere people are getting “Be My Valentine” cards, flowers, chocolate treats and heart-shaped candies embossed with little phrases like “I Love You!” and what does my inbox offer up on this special Christian celebration of love but another Zionist psycho out to harass, intimidate and threaten my basic rights.

I attempted to communicate with the writer but to no avail and I therefore assumed they were ikely an agent of either B’nai Brith, the ADL or the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) or some other affiliated Zionist lobby group.

I never heard from him again until after his devilish deed had been done and word arrived nine months later on November 20th of 2007 from the Canadian Human Rights Commission advising me that I was to be the latest victim of B’nai Brith Canada’s ongoing “hate crime” vendetta compliments of Sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Welcome to Gulag Canuckistan
Thus commenced a vendetta against me, my family, my website and, by proxy, every other Canadian who believes in freedom of speech either on or off the Internet, that’s been ongoing now for over 10 years!

The essence of Esker’s complaint was B’nai Brith Canada’s contention that I, Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com had contrived, “to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.  [emphasis added. A.T.] Imagine that, the audacity of me for criticizing citizens of a foreign country!

The unidentified November 20th envelope from the CHRC signalled the commencement of a legal battle with Canada’s quasi-judicial organizations like the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), both of which were staffed by an assortment of pro-Zionist Jews, gung ho Zionist sycophants, political commissars and dishonest deviants including the actual Chief CHRC lead Investigator for Internet “hate” Dean Stacey, who, believe it or not, was legally blind but still able somehow to keep the commission’s “hate crime” racket going by posting racist, hateful messages on other people’s websites and forums so that these brutal Orwellian thought-control agencies like B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) could then file Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaints against them for fun, censorship and, of course, profit.

Esker himself had gained minor notoriety back in 1999 after laying a similar B.C. Human Rights “hate” complaint against the former North Vancouver North Shore News journalist Doug Collins. Having his first taste of goy blood he was now on a roll like some Simon Wiesenthal fanatic spun out on methedrine determined to clean up Dodge City and rid the nation of anyone who exhibited the audacity to question Jewish affairs, be they religious, monetary, political or “holocaust” related.

At the time Esker was already a “friend and colleague” of another chabez goy, i.e. gentile sycophant “neo-nazi” hunter who just coincidentally happened to be a lawyer employed by the CHRC.

A Second Kick at the “Radical” Cat
It wasn’t until four years later, in 2011, that a second “hate” complaint was again laid against me by the same Brian Esker only this time, due to the fact that he and others could see that the demise of Sec. 13 was imminent, he resorted to using the Criminal Code of Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Code as his next legal weapon of choice.

Sec. 319(2) is virtually identical in wording to the old Sec. 13(1) legislation found in the Canadian Human Rights Act but when Esker’s second kick at the “radical” cat came Sec. 13 was already slated to be repealed by the Harper Conservative government and by that time the Sec. 13 case against me had already been stayed pending the final repeal.

The other important point to remember about Esker’s second complaint to the BC Hate Crime Unit was that it was preceded almost a month earlier by another identical complaint, also sent to the same Unit, only this time it was laid by Brian Esker’s lawyer “friend and colleague” mentioned above. That individual too must also remain unnamed, for his identity, like that of Esker’s, is protected by the same court order which prohibits me from mentioning either of them publicly lest their “safety” as Canadian citizens be threatened(?).

Getting back to the original complain by Brian Esker and B’nai Brith I was extremely fortunate to get a phone call not too long afterwards from the late Barrister and Solicitor Douglas H. Christie who kindly offered to assist me in my struggle with the Zionist censors and the “Human Rights” commissars. The complaint dragged on throughout the Tribunal stages and the next three years was comprised of onerous, ongoing exchanges between myself and the Tribunal right up until Sec. 13 was repealed by the Harper Conservative government in June of 2013. Their main reason the government repealed it was because Muslim groups in Canada finally copped to the idea that they too could use this Sec. 13(1) legislation against the Jew media who had been constantly spreading Islamophobic hatred toward people of Arabic ethnicity since 911 and therefore the Jewish lobby decided it had to go.

When the repeal of Sec. 13 finally came I posted an article on June 27th, 2013 challenging those who had fought for the repeal to not cease until the greater evil of Sec. 319(2) was also repealed. In short I said, “The only avenue available now for these same control-freak forces who have relied on section 13 to stop open discussion of Israeli war crimes and Zionist involvement within the media, government, banking and corporations will be to charge Canadians under section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, the very same section that the two complainants used in order to have me arrested back on May 16th, 2012 and charged with willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group”.

The Zionist’s dilemma
This particular section of Canada’s Criminal Code (Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” legislation) is the foremost danger to the country’s God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech for all Canadians and is as dangerous to our collective civil rights as plutonium is to the human body and ought to be treated as such by any reasonable and fair-minded citizen of the country.

What we’re witnessing today is a resurgence by the Zionist media and Zionist lobby organizations like B’nai Brith Canada to retain this section of the Criminal Code in order to use it against people like myself and others who are exposing the Zionist agenda to the general public. The dilemma for the Zionists is that they are now faced with having to deal with a Liberal government that appears determined to enshrine into law not only protection of Jews from “hatred” but also people of the Muslim religion, that greatest of scapegoats which the Zionists worldwide have been using to instil fear and loathing and hatred into the minds of Western civilization ever since the Zionist state of Israel, in collusion with its Zionist counterparts in the USA, pulled off the greatest false flag attack of the 21st century when they orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 in New York city on September 11th, 2001. The intention of the Zionist criminal cartel was to create an event which, via their media power and government influence and complicity would lay the blame squarely on the back of the Arab Muslim world and justify the start of their pre-planned “War on Terror.”

To Summarize
Any effort to try and encapsulate the whole of the past decade of my legal wrangling in one article is futile. A book could (and should) be written on my case that would delve into all the sordid details of how the Canadian legal system works and how the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada have taken it over in order to prevent truth and justice from ever reaching any meaningful stage of honest dialogue.

As this article will likely be my last official word on the subject of Zionist infiltration of all of Canada’s legal, government, cultural and social infrastructure prior to being silenced by the B.C. court system I have been forced to abbreviate it for the sake of my readers and for my own lack of time due the looming sentencing date of March 13th, 2017 when, I shall have to remove my website RadicalPress.com from the Internet and endure whatever additional punishment the court deems necessary in order to ensure that the truth about who is controlling our country doesn’t reach the general public.  The court’s and the Zionist lobby’s attempts to suppress the truth of course is futile at this stage. I am but one of thousands, if not millions of people across the length and breadth of this planet, who have witnessed the diabolic beckoning threat emanating forth from the light of Zion and will never cease from spreading the word about this deliberately induced global cover-up that, up until the advent of the Internet, had been relatively successful in covering its tracks.

There is just one other item that I want to share with readers before I sign off and that is to make mention of the third bad actor making up the trinity of traitors involved in my arrest, detention and subsequent trial – former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team pictured in the graphic below.

I purposely refer to these three characters as a trinity for the simple reason that ample evidence exists which links them together and proves that they willing conspired together for at least 20 years in order to falsely accuse, frame, arrest and try individuals such as myself for “hate crimes” at the behest of the Zionist lobbyists here in Canada. Unfortunately this evidence wasn’t given the prominence it deserved during my trial otherwise the two opposing verdicts – Guilty on Count 1 and Not Guilty on Count 2 (for the same charge) – may never have occurred. All of this clandestine conniving by these three individuals has been covered elsewhere in numerous articles on my website and that is but one more reason why the Jewish lobby B’nai Brith Canada wanted it shut down.

It is also why I wanted my case to go to trial in the first place so that as much as possible of my side of the story might be entered into the court record where it would remain relatively safe and publicly accessible should my website and its wide-ranging contents be “liquidated” by Canada’s Israeli Zionist commissars. It was a gamble from the get go as to whether or not I might be successful in winning my case. Had my former legal counsel Doug Christie lived to argue my case I’m confident that the outcome would have been a positive one and that my publishing business of the past 19 years, The Radical Press, would still be operating. While that was not to be the case I still have no regrets about trying my best to do my duty to my country in warning it of this insidious, life-threatening  peril posed by the Jewish lobby and their infamous ideology of political Zionism.

To refer once again to the words of the great Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn while on his first speaking tour in the USA back in 1975; words found in his small booklet titled, Warning to the West:

“My friends, I’m not going to give you sugary words. The situation in the world is not just dangerous, it isn’t just threatening, it is catastrophic. Something that is incomprehensible to the ordinary human mind has taken place.”

Those words were spoken 42 years ago. The catastrophe which Solzhenitsyn was referring to is the one which has now engulfed Canada, the USA, Great Britain, the European nations and the whole of the Middle East and is squeezing the last remaining breath of freedom of speech from the people in its insidious efforts to strangle to death the nation states of the world. Having failed to recognize this imminent danger; one which former writers have been warning us about since Henry Ford first brought it to public attention in the early 1920s, what are our chances today of peacefully curtailing this Talmud-driven, psychopathic Cyclopian political agenda that’s been running rough-shod and rampant throughout the world like some insane, unstoppable juggernaut for the past century?

Given the reaction of Canada’s legal system to my efforts to further expose this “catastrophic” situation, hope for the future of our democratic ideals and way of life appear grim at best.

Being married to a Jewish woman for the past 39 years was one of the primary motivating factors in attempting to find a peaceful solution to the “Jewish Question” by doing everything I could to bring to the Canadian public’s attention the damage that the Zionist ideology was producing in our nation. I felt deeply that if something wasn’t done about it in order to resolve the growing displeasure that people were showing toward the Zionist Jews and Jews in general that eventually we might see a repeat of the historic tendency for people to eventually react   violently toward Jews when they felt that all other methods of trying to resolve their frustration proved to be futile. Once that stage of reaction breaks out there’s no telling who might become the victim when mob rule supersedes other forms of justice that might have resolved the situation peacefully. It’s now obvious that Canada’s governing bodies don’t want to even hear about any alternative views regarding this matter and are more than willing to exercise the might of the state to silence such dissenting viewpoints via the use of “hate crime” legislation.

Given this approach to the problem I am reminded once again of the prophetic words of John F. Kennedy who once stated that, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

A Final Word on “Hate”
I cannot conclude my struggle with the Zionist Jews without a final word on the term “hate” which the Zionists, over the past few decades, have managed through their Orwellian media to shape-shift into a type of linguistic bludgeon with which to attack and destroy truth revealers.
I know that I speak for the vast majority when I state that the truth revealers are motived in their efforts by LOVE, not hate as the Zionist Jews would have everyone believe. That is certainly what has motivated me over the past 50 years of speaking out on issues that affect my country, my community, my family and the Earth Mother that sustains all living forces. For the Zionists, whose motives and actions are the epitome of “HATE” itself, to try and twist the noble, spiritual ideals and truths of the Gentile world into something dirty, sordid, despicable and illegal only reflects back upon their own tribal psychosis and shifts the endless dialogue concerning the “Jewish Question” back to its source.
May God bless Canada in the days and years to come. And to all my readers and supporters who have helped and inspired me over the past 19 years of publishing RadicalPress.com I wish to extend my deepest appreciation and love to you all.

I remain, in Peace and Love,

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

FINAL NOTE TO READERS. RADICALPRESS.COM WILL BE GOING OFFLINE ON MARCH 12TH, 2013. ANYONE WISHING TO SAVE ANY ARTICLES, GRAPHICS OR OTHER POSTINGS IS ADVISED TO DOWNLOAD THEM FROM THE SITE BEFORE THIS COMING SUNDAY. THANK YOU.
***ALSO NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER NEED TO SEND DONATIONS.

{ Comments are closed }