Nothing left of Canada’s political culture by Greg Felton

Canadian Arab News
January 13, 2010
Making New Year’s Resolutions is a ritual that I’ve never had much use for because the first of January is no more significant than the first day of any other month. Indulging the myth that a new year portends new beginnings invariably leads to disillusionment after the events and behaviours of the previous year show unexpected persistence.
This painful fact is particularly acute for many Canadians who yearn for a genuinely national government, but will be forced to endure yet another year of servility and imbecility from Israel’s proconsul Stephen Harper and his ruling clique of hasbaratchiks.
The problem is that Canada’s political spectrum, like that of the U.S., has shifted so far to the right that rational debate and informed opposition have become delegitimized. We used to speak of “right-wing” and “left-wing” to describe political differences, but in the absence of a political centre “right” and “left” have no meaning. “Left” and “leftist” have now become epithets used to stigmatize and delegitimize those who oppose extremist “right-wing” dogmata.
A graphic depiction of how absurdity becomes consensus politics comes to us courtesy of Joseph P. Overton—researcher, author and senior vice-president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
The “Overton Window” (see diagram below) indicates the range of ideas deemed acceptable in a society at any given time. Under normal, rational, circumstances, the window would oscillate between centre-left (L1) and centre-right (R1), thus clearly excluding the extremist/unacceptable range of ideas (L3-L4 and R3-R4).
However, under the influence of Israel’s fifth column in Ottawa, Canada’s window has shifted into the “unacceptable” R4 range. Under a steady propaganda barrage from hasbarats and hasbaratchiks, ideas once easily recognizable as unethical, un-Canadian, or downright criminal have acquired respectability. In turn, views opposed to the new extremism are now so far from view that they are all deemed unacceptable.
When, exactly, our political window shifted to the Christian/zionist lunatic fringe is debatable, though a case could be made that it occurred when Paul Martin became Liberal Party leader after the resignation of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the last real Canadian to hold that position.
Martin was, and is, an Isramerican sycophant, so immediately after he took over Irwin Cotler became Israel’s main man in cabinet; the “Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel” clique was formed; and Canada’s voting pattern at the UN became abjectly pro-Israeli. Harper is the Canadian “Likud” analog to the “Labour” Liberals, now led by Michael Ignatieff.  
Prime Minister Stephen Harper reporting to his Zionist taskmasters

A state where the government politicizes acceptable discourse is, of course, a tyranny, and that is what R4 Canada is. Don’t believe me? Here’s what columnist Lawrence Martin had to say recently in the Globe and Mail about Harper’s hubris:
“It is said that a hallmark of democracy is the toleration of dissent. Best leave that one in the church pew. Exceptional measures need be used to crush the opposition. Stuff such as taking the unprecedented step of launching personal attack ads between election campaigns. Or trying to push through a measure that would effectively cut off financing to the opposition.
A heavy dose of demagoguery also can go a long way. Play on simple prejudices by accusing opponents of not supporting the troops or of being anti-Israel. If nothing’s working, if the going gets really tough, don’t hesitate to bring out the heavy timber. Just after Parliament has reopened, have it shut down.”
Given that Canada has already tilted to the extreme right, is there any hope of returning the country to the rational centre? Perhaps not all the way, but two recent events give reason to believe that the country can be pulled back, however slightly.
For the second time in a year, Jason Kenney, Harper’s Minion of Official Bigotry, used the “anti-Semitism” smear to justify cutting off federal funding to a non-zionist organization. Last March it was the Canadian Arab Federation, because Kenney objected to being called a “whore.” In December, Kenney denied a request for $7 million over four years from KAIROS, a Christian aid agency that promotes human rights, justice and peace, viable human development, and ecological justice.
Jason Kenney – CPC’s Official Bigot
During a speech at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-semitism (!) in Occupied Jerusalem, Kenney accused KAIROS of promoting anti-semitism, and taking a leading role in promoting the BDS (boycott/divestment/sanctions) campaign against Israel. The fact that the accusation was patently false didn’t matter. Consider his audience and where it was uttered.
That this attack was politically motivated malice also comes from Harper’s own Minion of International Cooperation Bev Oda, who essentially called Kenney a liar! She told KAIROS that funding was denied because “the group did not fit the government’s priorities of food security, helping youths and economic growth”—not a word about anti-Semitism.
The Dec. 18 Toronto Star editorial captured the overwhelming public and political revulsion at the attack on KAIROS: “Is everyone who disagrees with Prime Minister Stephen Harper a Taliban stooge, a raving anti-Semite or a loony-left extremist? You’d think so, to hear the shabby low blows Harper and his cabinet are forever aiming at any and all who dare to criticize federal policy…The Conservatives invite contempt with these endless, over-the-top smears. They discredit their party and its policies.”
In his column, excerpted above, Lawrence Martin made reference to Harper’s decision to have Parliament shut down (prorogued) until after the Winter Olympic Games. This is the second time in just over a year that Harper has pulled this stunt. On Dec. 4, 2008, he called on the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament because he was afraid of being defeated by a coalition of opposition parties in the House of Commons. The coalition subsequently petered out.
This time, Harper is afraid to face questions about his government’s knowledge about the torture of Afghan detainees, and to exploit the closure to add five stooges to the Senate to overcome Liberal “opposition.”
As a result of this chicanery, 37 bills will not be passed and, most significantly, the committee investigating the detainee cover-up will be disbanded. Harper will not have to face Parliament again until March 3.
You know a government has gone beyond the pale of acceptable conduct when a daily newspaper, in this case the Globe and Mail, runs a front-page editorial to denounce it: “The Prime Minister is turning prorogation…into an underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament. In the interests of political expediency, the government will diminish the democratic rights of Canadians.”
It’s hard to imagine a greater insult to this country that a prime minister who is afraid of the law, unless it’s a prime minister who is an obvious lackey for a foreign government. In Harper’s case both are true.
The person to benefit most from Harper’s latest chicanery is Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He has denounced the suspension of Parliament as politically arrogant, and has promised to reinstate funding for KAIROS. If Harper wanted to sabotage his government’s chances of forming a majority government, to say nothing of being reelected, he could not have done a better job.
Until now, Ignatieff has been seen as Harper’s enabler, a weak leader who lacks the balls or party cohesion to force an election. Now, he can act like Captain Canada champion of democracy and scourge of the enemies of Parliament. Ironically, though, if an election were held tomorrow Canadians still could not elect a proper government: a choice between the Harperites and Ignatieff’s Liberals amounts to no choice at all, because Ignatieff learned the hard way that thinking for oneself amounts to political suicide.
If nothing else, getting rid of Harper would move Canada’s political window from R4 to R3. It’s a start.

{ Comments are closed }

Battle for the blue Seiko Watch

At The heart of Seiko’s 2018 Prospex collection is the new blue ‘Save The Ocean’ series. It continues the recent black collection and blue lagoon. But while last year’s limited edition was a cosmetic update, the release of save the ocean had an element of social responsibility. Seiko has teamed up with Fabien Cousteau to raise funds and awareness for his Ocean Learning Centre. Fabien Cousteau himself is a Marine conservationist. This increased awareness includes highlighting healthy and less healthy Marine environments in several Australian cities. So, not only do these watches look right, they also look right.  
Firstly, aside from the dial and bezel, this watch is pretty much identical to its regular release brethren. So, you’re getting the same angular, slightly blocky steel case, with solid proportions of 43.8mm across and 12.82mm tall — with a neatly knurled crown at three and fairly pointy guards. One point of difference between this and the regular Samurai models is that the bezel and crown here have been given a black treatment, which is a beautiful touch. The Turtle is a design that looks to the past. It’s softer, rounded and more classic. The Samurai is much more modern in feel. And while they both represent different sides of the same coin, to my mind the Samurai is the more conservative, and arguably the more versatile offering.
Here’s where it starts getting fun. As far as the fake rolex watches limited-edition dials go, this one is pretty out-there, in the best way possible. It’s a graduated bright-aqua-to-almost-black dial, evoking how the sea changes color the deeper it gets. On its own, this is a powerful enough look, but Seiko adds some distinctive, organic, horizontal stripes, similar to the wave or distinctive abdominal folds on the strong blue whale chin. The aluminium bezel is of a matching blue to the dial, predominantly dark blue, with the first 15 minutes of hash marks a lighter shade. This is a unique dial.
The bracelet fits perfectly in price, but if it were my watch, I would probably put it on cloth or rubber to offset the weight. I like the fact that any belt change is relatively simple due to drilling.
The Samurai has always been a tank on the wrist, and this Save the Ocean edition feels the same. But it does look different. It’s one of the most stylish Seiko replica watches I’ve ever worn, and the quality makes you smile when you look at it. As I said above, it’s not the least noticeable look, but why?

{ 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 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 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


from The Radical VOL.3 NO.5 JANUARY 2001

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

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.


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….


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 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 }

Zundel’s Merry Christmas to all Political Prisoners

[Editor’s Note: As Christmas draws near once again it brings along with it the grim reminder that all of the political prisoners now in prison in Germany and Austria are Christians. Men and women who are on the forefront of the bitter struggle to challenge the diabolic agenda of the Zionist Jews who are doing their damnedest to destroy the Christian religion and all that it has brought to the world including every free man’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Christmas was once a time when people could relax and enjoy the Spirit of Peace and Love that exemplified the life and the teachings of Jesus Christ. But now it is fraught with attacks by the Zionist forces within our societies who do their utmost to disparage and ridicule the traditional values and freedoms that this season of Light has always represented to millions of people around the world.
Those listed below have given their all for their beliefs in expressing their thoughts and ideas in the face of Zionist legislation that would criminalize the very basis of learning and knowledge, i.e. the right to question whatever orthodoxy that exhibits signs of deception and falsehood.
So this year think about maybe sending these heroes and heroines of freedom a glad tiding in the form of a card to help them keep their spirits upbeat in the face of the evil they now bear on behalf of so many others.]
Send Christmas Cards To Heroic Political Prisoners Imprisoned For Exercising Freedom Of Speech And Inquiry

Imagine the pleasure our prisoners will have if they receive a big bag of Christmas cards. At least they will see that they are not forgotten. Here are their addresses:

Ernst Zandel
JVA Mannheim
Herzogenriedstrasse 111
D-68169 Mannheim

Horst Mahler
Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22
D-14772 Brandenburg/Havel

Gerd Honsik
Justizanstalt Wien-Josefstadt
Wickenburggasse 18-22
A-1082 Wien

Wolfgang Frahlich
Justizanstalt Wien-Josefstadt
Wickenburggasse 18-22
A-1082 Wien

Sylvia Stolz
Manchener Str. 33
D-86551 Aichach

{ Comments are closed }

Anti-Zionist Canada group formed to combat Zionist take-over of Canada

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper (C) is surrounded by members of the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch during a reception on Parliament Hill in Ottawa March 12, 2009. The reception honoured the memory of those who lost their lives in the terrorist attack in Mumbai.
REUTERS/Christopher Pike (CANADA)

Editor’s Note: On December 1st, 2009 I formed the above Yahoo Group.
There is today, here in Canada and around the world, what Michael Bakunin once described as a “sense of palpitating urgency” with respect to the growing threat to all democratic nations and institutions by this alien force known as Political Zionism. Due to its inordinate power to infiltrate and subvert representatives of all governments thanks to the enormous wealth and media control which it controls in an absolute fashion once sovereign nations like Canada no longer find themselves in control of their own destiny but rather, find themselves in the unenviable position of being nothing more than front nations for the state of Israel and the Rothschild cartel that created and owns that illegitimate bastard child of the World Zionist Organization.
One by one the independent countries outside of Israel have fallen to the Zionist lobby which, via subterfuge, undue influence and the machinations of those government representatives who have succumbed to the Zionist rhetoric both politically and spiritually (“Christian” Zionists) has now taken control of Canada’s parliament and judiciary to such a blatant extreme that our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is sounding more like Israel’s Prime Minister every day and his henchmen, Ministers such as Jason Kenney, act as if they were 1st Class Honor graduates of the Knesset rather than patriotic Canadians.
Anti-Zionist Canada is a possible first step here in Canada in resisting this global conspiracy to usurp the democratic powers of independent nations. It is hoped that it will become more of a working body of patriotic partisans who will debate and discuss and share ideas that might take root and eventually grow into a world wide movement to expose and eventually dismantle the present infrastructure of tyranny now threatening the stability of the planet as a whole. One might also view it as a think tank; one that will eventually challenge and roll over that juggernaut known as Zionism and allow the world to resume its normal course of free and democratic development.
Below I am posting the tentative Mission Statement of the group along with its Objectives. These will be subject to alteration and improvement once the group evolves. Think of them as merely a working model. Also included is the url to the group site. I’m not clear yet whether or not one can join at the site but if not and you wish to join simply send me an email and I will send you an invite.
Please give this idea some sober, serious thought. The Zionists are here and they have taken control of our government and our institutions and our media. Only a fool or someone in deep denial would argue against that assertion. They gained the ground they did by cooperating and working together. If we want to win back our nation then we’d bloody well sit up and pay attention and do likewise.
Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
[email protected]

POST NUMBER ONE TO ANTI-ZIONIST CANADA by AZC Moderator Arthur Topham, December 1, 2009:
Greetings to Canadians and people around the world who are interested in stemming the tide of Zionist influence and control in their respective countries. It is hoped that those who understand the growing threat to our democratic rights and freedoms will join this group and assist in helping to fulfill the aims and objectives of the group.
My name is Arthur Topham and I am presently the Moderator and Founder. The Mission Statement on the Home Page gives a brief outline of some of the main objectives in forming this group. It is hoped that if enough people join it then we can discuss and debate these objectives and either modify them for further clarity or else add additional ones to the list.
It is my perception that more needs to be done in the way of organizing resistance to the increasing control that the Zionists are gaining over Canada’s Parliament, our Prime Ministers and especially our legal system.
Over the past two years of battling with the Zionist Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada in a struggle to maintain my freedom of speech rights contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms I’ve come to the realization that all levels of government and especially the mainstream media are thoroughly influenced in a negative way and biased toward the racist, supremacist state of Israel. So much so that Canada has allowed itself to be drawn into illegal foreign wars and is sacrificing its native born children to the interests of the state of Israel.
It is my wish that this group will address these issues and more and build up a virtual army of Canadian patriots who will stand on guard for our nation against the invading army of Zionists whose agenda is to destroy our nation and its democratic principles and censor our right to free expression, especially on the Internet.
I’m hopeful that a group such as this with such a mission will rise up in defense of all that Canada once stood for before the Zionist lobbyists and their sycophantic supporters gained the upper hand via media manipulation and back-room subterfuge throughout all levels of our government and judiciary.
I’ll leave it at that for now and see if invited people will join and assist in this endeavor.
Arthur Topham
Anti-Zionist Canada Moderator is pleased to announce the formation of a new Yahoo Group called ANTI-ZIONIST CANADA. My website is not a suitable place to discuss the important issue of Zionism and its debilitating effects upon Canada’s government and society at large so I decided to create a group that allows for discussion to take place without all the additional hassles in trying to use the site for such an undertaking.
The following information below will explain the concept and the purpose of the group. I would invite anyone reading this post to join the group and help work on resolving this major challenge to our sovereignty and our personal freedoms.]

Discussions on Canadian Sovereignty, Culture, Jurisprudence and Government
Statement of Purpose
The goals of ANTI-ZIONIST CANADA are:
1. To document, expose and eliminate all forms of Zionist infiltration and influence in Canada with an emphasis on every level of Government, the Judiciary, the Mainstream Media, Academia, Corporations, Banking and Cultural Institutions.
2. To restore faith, honour and integrity in the Rule Of Law.
3. To liaise, support and assist allied individuals, groups and coalitions within Canada also involved in similar goals.
4. To work for and lobby for the elimination of sec. 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act and insure that Freedom of Expression in Canada remains sacrosanct and guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
5. To foster and build a Canada-wide Peoples’ Network as an effective, independent watchdog to observe in a vigilant manner ‘public’ and ‘political’ party policies and programs to insure that the racist, supremacist Zionist agenda now being promulgated by federal pro-Zionist parties such as the Conservative Party of Canada and extremist Jewish Lobby groups within Canada such as B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is exposed, halted and eliminated from Canadian politics.
6. To expand and to share these goals with other nations globally who are also experiencing similar problems with Zionist infiltration and control of their governments and Institutions and Media.
7. To ensure that the Internet remains absolutely free in Canada for the use of every Canadian to express their opinions and beliefs.

{ Comments are closed }

A Mockery of Justice: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944

 [Editor’s Note: While the focus of the article below is not primarily upon one of the greatest of American heroes in the battle for freedom of speech and the exposure of those within the US government who have turned the White House into a Zionist fortress for the exclusive execution of their one world government agenda nonetheless I would like to dedicate this article to Senator Joe McCarthy. He, of most Americans, suffered some of the worst vilification in US history at the hands of the Zionists and I would like to commemorate his courageous bravery in this small way.  
This article is one of the best examples I have yet read that brings into focus and corroborates all I have written over the past few years regarding the very secretive and, yes, seditious machinations of the organization known as B’nai Brith International; one whose Canadian counterpart, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, is carrying on the longstanding traditions of the Anti Defamation League in the USA in slandering, vilifying and viciously persecuting via the court system, individuals such as myself who have been striving over the years to alert the Canadian public to the nefarious actions and motives of the World Zionist Organization and its deceptive, destructive ideology known as political Zionism.
There is no fundamental difference between the work that I have been doing and that of many of the principal characters contained in this article and the parallels between the treatment of my case with that of the protagonists in this, the Great Sedition Trial of 1944, are as uncanny as they are revealing and synchronous.
The fact that one of the more famous of the group falsely accused of “sedition” in that infamous “show trial” of 1944, Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling, is now still one of the main writers who Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have listed in their sec. 13(1) “hate crimes” complaint made against myself and, is a striking illustration of just how deep, pervasive and virulent are the machinations of this supposed “service organization” in whose Preamble to their founding Constitution they once declared that B’nai Brith’s mission would be to “promote [the] highest interest” of those of “Jewish faith” and “those of humanity”; of “developing and elevating the mental and moral character of the people of our faith; of inculcating the purest principles of philanthropy, honour and patriotism”; “alleviating the wants of the poor and needy”; and “providing for, protecting and assisting the aged, the widow and orphan on the broadest principles of humanity.” Just how far they’ve strayed from this laudable position taken back on the 13th of October, 1843 is clearly revealed in the article below. My deep appreciation and thanks to Daryl – Bradford Smith of for this revealing article.]

A Mockery of Justice: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944

According to historian Harry Elmer Barnes who was one of FDRs leading critics from the academic arena, the purpose of the Great Sedition Trial was to make the Roosevelt administration seem opposed to fascism when, in fact, the administration was pursuing totalitarian policies. Too few Americans today know of this travesty, a shameful blot on U.S. history.
Judges and lawyers alike will tell you the mass sedition trial of World War II will go down in legal history as one of the blackest marks on the record of American jurisprudence. In the legal world, none can recall a case where so many Americans were brought to trial for political persecution and were so arrogantly denied the rights granted [guaranteed Ed.] an American citizen under the Constitution.1
This is how the Chicago Tribune, then a voice for America First in a media world already brimming with internationalism, described the infamous war time show trial and its aftermath.
The Great Sedition Trial formally came to an unexpected halt on November 30, 1944, having been declared a mistrial upon the death of the presiding judge. Yet, the case continued to hang in limbo with Justice Department prosecutors angling for a retrial.
However, on November 22, 1946, Judge Bolitha Laws of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the charges against the defendants, saying that to allow the case to continue would be a travesty on justice.2
Although the Justice Department prosecutors appealed the dismissal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Judge Laws ruling and, as a consequence, the saga of the Great Sedition Trial at long last came to a close. This brought to an end five years of harassment that the defendants had suffered, including for some periods of imprisonment.
Judge Laws had thus called a halt to this Soviet-style attack on American liberty. Sanity had prevailed and the case was shelved forever. The war was over and the one individual who was the prime mover behind the trial Franklin D. Roosevelt was dead.
According to historian Ronald Ra dosh, a self-styled progressive who has written somewhat sympathetically of the pre-World War II critics of the Roosevelt administration, FDR had prodded Attorney General Francis Biddle for months, asking him when he would indict the seditionists.3 Biddle himself later pointed out that FDR was not much interested . . . in the constitutional right to criticize the government in wartime.4
However, as we shall see, there were powerful forces at work behind the scenes prodding FDR. And they, more than FDR, played a major role in pushing the actual investigation Biddle was not enthusiastic to undertake.
Although there was a grand total of 42 people (and one newspaper) indicted over the course of three separate indictments, beginning with the first indictment, which was handed down on July 21, 1942, the number of those who actually went on trial was 30, and several of them were severed from the trial as it proceeded.
Roosevelts biographer, James McGregor Burns, waggishly called the trial a grand rally of all the fanatic Roosevelt haters.5 But theres much more to the story than that.
In fact, there were a handful of influential figures among the indictees. Among them included:
Noted German-American poet, essayist and social critic, George Sylvester Viereck (a well-known foreign publicist for the German government as far back as World War I);
Former American diplomat and economist Lawrence Dennis, an informal behind-the-scenes advisor to some of the more prominent congressional critics of the Roosevelt administration;
Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling of Chicago, an outspoken and highly articulate author and lecturer who was well regarded and widely known nationally as a leader of the anti-communist movement and a fierce opponent of the ad ministration;
Rev. Gerald Winrod of Kansas. With a national following and wide-ranging connections among Christian ministers and lay leaders throughout the country, Winrod had emerged as a force to be reckoned with. In 1938 he ran a strong race for the U.S. Senate. (One of Winrods prot s was none other than evangelist Billy Graham, who is said to have learned much but kept quiet publicly about what he learned privately6 as a young man traveling with Winrod.) And:
William Griffin, a New York-based publisher with strong connections in the Roman Catholic Church. Many American Catholics were strongly anti-communist, and Irish-American Catholics, in particular, were generally skeptical of FDRs war policies at a time when, it will be remembered, the government of Ireland remained neutral in the war being waged against Germany by the United States and England, Irelands traditional enemy.
However, most of those who finally went to trial were little known and hardly influential on a national level, other than the few exceptions just noted. Among the defendants were: a sign painter who was 80 percent deaf, a Detroit factory worker, a waiter and a maid.
In short, they were at best average Americans, without the means or the opportunity to be able to conduct the kind of seditious and internationally connected conspiracy that the government had charged, nor were they in any position to defend themselves against the unlimited resources of the central government. In many cases, the defendants were paupers, virtually penniless. Many of them were one-man publishers, reaching small audiences hardly a threat to the mighty forces that controlled the New Deal. Several were very elderly. Few of the indictees even knew each other before the trial, despite the fact that the indictments charged them with being part of a grand conspiracy, orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, to undermine the morale of the American military during wartime.
Lawrence Dennis commented later that: One of the most significant features of the trial was the utter insignificance of the defendants in relation to the great importance which the government sought to give to the trial by all sorts of publicity-seeking devices.7
Unfortunately, in this brief study of the tangled circumstances surrounding the great sedition trial, we will be unable to provide all of the defendants the recognition they deserve. But by virtue of having been targeted for destruction by the Roosevelt administration and its behind-the-scenes allies for their patriotic anti-war stand, this handful of otherwise insignificant Americans became folk heroes.
Thanks to their more vocal compatriots, such as, perhaps most notably, Lawrence Dennis, we are able to commemorate the details of their plight today.
According to Dennis, it was the design of the sedition trial to target not the big-name critics of the Roosevelt war policies, but instead to use the publicity surrounding the trial to frighten the vast numbers of potential grass-roots critics of the intervention in the Eurasian war into silence, essentially showing them that, they, too, could end up in the dock if they were to dare to speak out as the defendants had in opposition to the administrations policies.
Wrote Dennis:
“The crackpots, so-called, or the agitators, are never intimidated by sedition trials. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
The people who are intimidated by sedition trials are the people who have not enough courage or enough indiscretion ever to say or do anything that would get them involved in a sedition trial. And it is mainly for the purpose of intimidating these more prudent citizens that sedition trials are held . . .
A government seeking to suppress certain dangerous ideas and tendencies and certain types of feared opposition will not, if its leaders are smart, indict men like Col. [Charles] Lindbergh or senators [Burton] Wheeler [D-Mont.], [Robert] Taft [R-Ohio] and Gerald Nye [R-N.D.], who did far more along the line of helping the Nazis by opposing Roosevelts foreign policy as charged against the defendants than any of the defendants.
The chances of conviction would be nil, and the cry of persecution would resound throughout the land.
It is the weak, obscure and indiscreet who are singled out by an astute politician for a legalized witch-hunt. The political purpose of intimidating the more cautious and respectable is best served in this country by picking for a trick indictment and a propaganda mass trial the most vulnerable rather than the most dangerous critics; the poorest rather than the richest; the least popular rather than the most popular; the least rather than the most important and influential.
This is the smart way to get at the more influential and the more dangerous. The latter see what is done to the less influential and less important, and they govern themselves accordingly. The chances of convicting the weaker are better than of convicting the stronger . . .8
One of the defendants one of the weaker, less influential and less important, insignificant Americans targeted by FDR was Elmer J. Garner of Wichita, Kansas. This elderly American patriot died three weeks after the trial began.
Sen. William Langer (R-N.D.), an angry critic of the trial, described the victim in a speech on the floor of the Senate. Garner, he said, was:
A little old gentleman of 83, almost stone deaf, with three great-grandchildren. After he lost the mailing permit for his little weekly paper, he lived with his aged wife through small donations, keeping a goat and a few chickens and raising vegetables on his small home plot.
Held in the [Washington, D.C.] jail for several weeks, for lack of bond fees, and finally impoverished by three indictments and forced trips and stays in Washington, he died alone in a Washington rooming house early in this trial, with 40 cents in his pocket. His body was shipped naked in a wooden box to his ailing, impoverished widow, his two suits and typewriter being held, so that clothing had to be purchased for his funeral. That is one of the dangerous men about whom we have been hearing so much.9
According to attorney Henry Klein, an American Jew who defied the ADL by boldly serving as defense counsel for another of the defendants, Garner who was a first cousin of FDRs first vice president (1933-1941), John Nance Garner died at his typewriter in a tiny room in a Washington flophouse, typing out his defense.10
Who was it, then, that brought about the series of events that led to the indictment of Elmer Garner and his both more distinguished and perhaps even less distinguished fellow seditionists?
It was, of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt who ordered the Justice Department investigation. Attorney General Francis Biddle (who opposed this blatantly political prosecution), followed the presidents orders. And Assistant Attorney General William Power Maloney handled the day-to-day details of the investigation that won the indictments before a federal grand jury in Washington. But behind the scenes there were other forces at work: the power brokers who dictated the overall grand design of the Roosevelt administration and its foreign and domestic policies.
In A Trial on Trial, his sharply written critique of the trial, which is a veritable dissection of the fraud that the trial represented, Lawrence Dennis and his co-author, Maximilian St. George (who was Dennis counsel during the trial, although Dennis not an attorney did most of the legal work himself), concluded based upon very readily available evidence in the public record that the three prime movers behind the trial were in his words extreme leftists, organized Jewish groups, and internationalists in general, all of whom were loud and persistent advocates of the trial, editorializing in favor of the investigation and indictments in their newspapers and through media voices such as radio personality Walter Winchell.
However, Dennis pointed out, the internationalists behind the trial are not as easy to link with definite agitation for this prosecution as are the leftists and the Jewish groups.11 Dennis stated unequivocally: One of the most important Jewish organizations behind the sedition trial was the [referring, specifically, to the adjunct known as the Anti-Defamation League or ADL].12
According to Dennis: Getting the federal government to stage such a trial, like getting America into the war, was a must on the agenda of the fighters against isolationism and anti-Semitism.13
What the people behind the trial wanted to have judicially certified to the world was that anti-Semitism is a Nazi idea and that anyone holding this idea is a Nazi, who is thereby violating the law in this instance, by causing insubordination in the armed forces through his belief in or advocacy of this idea.14
This was not just Denniss conclusion, by any means. One of the other defendants, David Baxter, later pointed out that a United Press report published in 1943 said:
Under pressure from Jewish organizations, to judge from articles appearing in publications put out by Jews for Jews, the [indictment] . . . was drawn to include criticisms of Jews as sedition.
It appeared that a main purpose of the whole procedure, along with outlawing unfavorable comments on the administration, was to set a legal precedent of judicial interpretations and severe penalties which would serve to exempt Jews in America from all public mention except praise, in contrast to the traditional American viewpoint which holds that all who take part in public affairs must be ready to accept full free public discussion, either pro or con.15
In a word, commented Dennis, the sedition trial as politics was smart. It was good politics.16
Baxter himself determined in later years that certain Jewish groups, specifically the ADL, had been prime movers behind the Justice Department investigation that resulted in the indictments of the defendants in the sedition trial. According to Baxter, commenting many years later:
I demanded, through the Freedom of Information Act, that the FBI turn over to me its investigation records of my activities during the early 1940s leading up to the Sedition Trial. I learned that the investigation had extended over several years and covered hundreds of pages . . . The FBI blocked out the names of those who had given information about me, much of it as false as anything could be. I was never given a chance to face these people and make them prove their accusations. Yet everything they said went into the investigation records.
Oddly enough, in a great many cases, it wasnt the FBI that conducted the investigation, but the Anti-Defamation League, with the FBI merely receiving the reports of the ADL investigators. One can hard ly tell from the reports whether a given person was an FBI or an ADL agent. But at the time all this was so hush-hush that I didnt even suspect the web-spinning going on around me. I hadnt considered myself that important.17
For his own part, commenting on the way that the FBI had been used by the ADL, for example, Lawrence Dennis pointed out: The FBI, like the atomic bomb and so many other useful and dangerous tools, is an instrument around the use of which new safeguards against abuse by unscrupulous interests must soon be created.18
[To our shame, Americans did not learn that lesson, in light of FBI intrigue alongside the ADL, later exposed in the course of such controversies as the holocaust at Waco, the slaughter of the Weaver family members at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and the mysterious Oklahoma City bombing. Ed.]
Writing in his 1999 book, Montanas Lost Cause (see review on page 27), a study of Sen. Burton Wheeler and other members of Montanas congressional delegation who opposed the Roosevelt administrations war in Europe, historian Roger Roots also points out another fascinating cog in the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the sedition trial:
The Jewish-owned Washington Post assisted in the detective work of the Justice Department from the beginning. Dillard Stokes, the [Post] columnist who was most conspicuous in his insider reporting of the sedition grand jury proceedings, actually became part of the Justice Departments case against the isolationists when he wrote requests to numerous of the defendants to send their literature to him under an assumed name. It was this that allowed defendants to be brought from the farthest reaches of the country into the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.19
David Baxter elaborated on the role played by the Post columnist Stokes, who used the pseudonym Jefferson Breem, in order to obtain some of the allegedly seditious literature that had been published by some of the defendants:
In order to try us in Washington as a group, it was necessary to establish that a crime had been committed in the District of Columbia, thus giving jurisdiction to the federal courts there. So the grand jury, which was obviously controlled by the prosecutor, charged us with the crime of sedition, and then established District of Columbia jurisdiction to try us on the grounds that a District of Columbia resident, Jefferson Breem, had received the allegedly seditious literature. Thus was the alleged crime committed in the capital. The defendants were charged with having conspired in the District of Columbia, despite the fact that I had never been in Washington in my life until ordered there by the grand jury.20
Kirkpatrick Dilling, now an attorney in Chicago but then a young man in uniform and the son of one of the more prominent defendants, Elizabeth Dilling, pointed out in a letter to TBR publisher Willis Carto that: My mother was indicted with many others, most of whom she had never had any contact with whatsoever. For example, some of such co-indictees were members of the German-American Bund. My mother said they were included to give the case a sauerkraut flavor. 21
Later, during the trial itself, the aforementioned Sen. Langer, scored what he described as: the idea of bringing together for one trial in Washington 30 people who never saw each other, who never wrote to each other, some of whom did not know that the others existed, with some of them allegedly insane and the majority of them unable to hire a lawyer.
And remember, Langer pointed out, [the defendants] were brought to Washington from California and [Illinois] and other states a long way from Washington, placed in one room and all tried at the same time, with the 29 sitting idly by while the testimony against one of them may go on for weeks and weeks and weeks, the testimony of a man or woman [whom the] other defendants never saw before in their lives. That is what is taking place in Washington [the District of Columbia] here today.22
As mentioned previously, there were actually three indictments handed down. The first indictment came on July 21, 1942. The indictments came as a surprise to more than a few people, including the defendants. As David Baxter said: Actually, at that time I was simply a New Deal Democrat interested in what was going on in the country politically.23 But as a consequence of the indictment, he was being accused of sedition by the very regime he had once supported.
Elizabeth Dilling learned of her indictment on the radio. The nature of one of the charges against Mrs. Dilling exposes precisely how trumped up the sedition trial was from the start. The indictment charged that Mrs. Dilling had committed sedition by reprinting, in the pages of her newsletter, a speech in Congress by Rep. Clare Hoffman (R-Mich.), an administration critic, in which the congressman quoted an American soldier in the Philippines who complained his outfit lacked bombers because the planes had been given to Britain.24 This ostensibly was dangerous to military morale.
But Mrs. Dillings many supporters around the country rose to her defense, raising money through dances, dinners and bake sales. Mrs. Dilling, ever courageous, would not let even a federal criminal indictment silence her. She still continued to speak out.
On August 17, 1942 Sen. Robert A. Taft spoke out against the indictment:25 I am deeply alarmed by the growing tendency to smear loyal citizens who are critical of the national administration and of the conduct of the war . . .
Something very close to fanaticism exists in certain circles. I cannot understand it cannot grasp it. But I am sure of this: Freedom of speech itself is at stake, unless the general methods pursued by the Department of Justice are changed.26
Taft noted that the indictment, in his words, was adroitly drawn27 and said it claimed that groups such as the Coalition of Patriotic Societies were linked to the accused conspirators. The coalition, Taft noted, included among its member organizations such groups as the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and the Sons of the American Revolution, among others.
On the basis of the way in which the indictment was written, Taft said, a considerable number of members of both the House and the Senate could also be indicted, along with a considerable number of the nations newspaper editors.
The second indictment came on January 4, 1943. Lawrence Dennis summarized the nature of the indictments: The first indictment charged conspiracy to violate the seditious propaganda sections of both the wartime Espionage Act of 1917 and the peacetime Smith Act of 1940, sometimes called the Alien Registration Act. This indictment . . . was that the defendants had conspired to spread Nazi propaganda for the purpose of violating the just mentioned laws. The government case consisted of showing the similarity between the propaganda themes of the Nazis and the defendants.28
However, as Dennis pointed out, for a conviction on such an indictment to stand under the law, it is necessary to prove similarity of intent of the persons accused rather than similarity of content of what they said.
The weaknesses of these first two indictments were that they fitted neither the law nor the evidence. The governments difficulty was that, to please the people behind the trial, it had had to indict persons whose only crime was isolationism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism when there was no law on the statute books against these isms. The two laws chosen for the first two indictments penalized advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force and of insubordination in the armed forces.29
Several new defendants were added with the second indictment. Among them was Frank Clark. Considering the charge that Clark (and the others) had been conspiring to undermine the morale of the American military, it is worth noting that Clark was a highly decorated veteran of World War I, who was wounded eight times in action. Clark had been an organizer of the famous Bonus March of World War I veterans to Washington in the 1920s. He had lobbied for early payment of veterans bonuses that had been promised to the wars veterans, returning home a hero. When arrested, he lacked enough money to hire a lawyer.30
All of this, however, meant nothing in the course of the ongoing effort by the Roosevelt administration to silence its critics and to prevent more and more Americans from speaking out.
Throughout this period, the major media was rife with reports of how a group of Americans, in league with Hitler and the German National Socialists, were trying to destroy America from within and how the Roosevelt administration was bravely taking on this conspiracy. However, the Justice Department had made a misstep and the second indictment, like the first, was thrown out.
As Roger Roots notes, The indictment was unlawful. It was discarded due to the obvious absence of evidence for conviction, among other flaws. Past Supreme Court decisions clearly showed that a conviction for advocating the overthrow of the government by violent force must include some evidence of actual plans to use violence, not just political literature. Again, the indictment was never dismissed formally but simply retired.31
Sen. Burton Wheeler, in particular, was a harsh critic of the Justice Department and publicly made clear his intention, as new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee following the 1942 elections, to keep a close watch on the affair as it unfolded. As far as the legal procedures used in the first two indictments, he declared: If it happened in most jurisdictions of this country, the prosecuting attorneys would be held for contempt of court.32
Thus, despite all the determined efforts of the Justice Department and its allies in the Anti-Defamation League and at The Washington Post, the first two indictments were indeed thrown out as defective.
On March 5, 1943 Judge Jesse C. Adkins dismissed the count in the indictment that accused the defendants of conspiring together on or about the first day of January 1933, and continuously thereafter up to and including the date of the filing of the indictment since, as the judge held, the law which the defendants were accused of conspiring to violate had not been enacted until 1940.33 At this juncture, under pressure from Sen. Wheeler, Attorney General Biddle agreed to remove prosecutor William Power Maloney as the chief Nazi-hunter.
Thus, a new Justice Department prosecutor entered into the case, O. John Rogge. As defendant David Baxter pointed out, Rogge was a fitting choice for the administrations chief point man in this Soviet-style show trial:
“It later turned out that Rogge had been a good friend of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, was involved in numerous communist front groups, and had visited Russia, where he spoke in the Kremlin and laid a wreath at the grave of American Communist Party co-founder John Reed in Red Square. His wreath was inscribed: In loving memory from grateful Americans. . . . Rogge was an American delegate to a world communist peace conference in Paris and was a lawyer for many communists in trouble with the law. He was the attorney for David Greenglass, the atomic spy who saved his own life by turning states evidence against his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg [who] went to the electric chair for turning over U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviets. [Rogge] was thus eventually exposed for what he was. No wonder he was so fanatical in his hatred against the Sedition Trial defendants, all of whom were anti-communists.34
Rogge was an ideal choice for the Roosevelt administration and its allies, who were determined to pursue the prosecution, one way or the other. He moved forward relentlessly.
As Roger Roots points out: Not wishing to waste momentum, the government reconvened another grand jury, resubmitted the same pamphlets, publications, and materials that the previous grand jury had already seen, re-called the same testimony of the witnesses, and once again pleaded the grand jury to return yet another indictment.35
The third (and final) indictment was handed down on January 3, 1944. In fact, Rogge and his Justice Department allies had decided to take a new tack and added eight new names (including Lawrence Dennis, who had not been named in the first indictments) and dismissed 12 defendants who had been named.
Among those whose names were dismissed were influential New York Catholic lay leader William Griffin and his newspaper, The New York Evening Enquirer (the only publication indicted) former American diplomat Ralph Town send of San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and Paquita ( Mady) de Shishmareff, the well-to-do American-born widow of a former Russian czarist military figure.
Townsend, who had enraged the Roosevelt administration by opposing its anti-Japanese policies in the Pacific, had written an explosive book, Ways That Are Dark, highly critical of imperial China.* But although he was now free, he and his family had been broken financially by the indictment, and, according to his late wife, Janet, many of their close friends deserted them in this time of crisis.
It was a very difficult period in our lives, she later recalled. But it didnt prevent Ralph from continuing to speak out.36 Townsend did continue to speak out, and in later years he became a friend of Willis A. Carto, publisher of The Barnes Review, and, today, portions of Townsends personal library are a part of TBRs archives.
Tony Blizzard, who is now research director for Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution, was a prot in the early 1960s of Paquita de Shishmareff (who wrote as L. Fry) and he recently commented on the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the indictment against her along with some fascinating, little-known details about this remarkable woman. In Blizzards informed estimation:
One of the reasons they dropped the indictment against Mady was precisely because they knew they were dealing with a very sharp lady with a great deal of brain power. A woman of the old school, Mady would never put herself in the forefront, but she knew how to use the strengths of the men around her. She also was a woman of some means unlike most of the other defendants and was a formidable opponent.
The government clearly decided that it was in their best interests to dismiss the case against her. There was no way they could ever make Nazis out of all of these defendants, whose only real crime was exposing Jewish power as long as Mady was on the dock with the rest of them.
The prosecutors knew quite well, although it was not widely known then nor is it widely known today, that it was Mady who had supplied Henry Ford virtually all of the information that Ford had published in his controversial series about Jewish power in The Dearborn Independent. With her wide-ranging, high-level connections, Mady was an encyclopedic storehouse of inside in formation about the power elite.
The last thing the prosecution wanted was for Mady to take the stand. By releasing her as a defendant, they eliminated, to them, what was a very frightening possibility.37
But there were 30 others who were not so lucky as Paquita de Shishmareff, Ralph Townsend and the others who had been released, and their trial commenced on April 17, 1944 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Kirkpatrick Dilling, son of defendant Elizabeth Dilling, captured the essence of the indictment. According to Dilling, The indictment was premised on an alleged conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces. Thus criticizing President Roosevelt, who was armed forces commander in chief was an alleged overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Denouncing our ally, communist Soviet Russia, was a further alleged overt act. Opposing communism was an alleged overt act because our enemy Hitler had also opposed communists.38
Ironically, while his mother was on trial for her alleged participation in this conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces, Kirkpatrick Dilling was promoted from corporal to second lieutenant in the U.S. Army.39
Other defendants, including George Sylvester Viereck, George Deatherage, Robert Noble and Rev. Gerald Winrod, also had sons in the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.40 Vierecks son died in combat while his father was on trial and in prison (see the memorial poem on these pages).
Presiding as judge at the trial was ex-Iowa Democratic Congressman Edward C. Eicher, a New Deal stalwart who had served a brief period as chairman of FDRs Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after being defeated for re-election to Congress. After Eichers term at the SEC, FDR then appointed Eicher to the judgeship. And serving as prosecutor was Eichers former legal counsel at the SEC, the aforementioned O. John Rogge. 41
It seemed that the case was fixed from top to bottom.
Albert Dilling, the attorney, who represented his wife Elizabeth Dilling, called for a congressional investigation of the trial on the grounds that it was impossible for such a trial to be fair during wartime.42 But that was not enough to stop the trial juggernaut.
Although proving sedition was the ostensible purpose of the prosecution, Lawrence Dennis reached other conclusions about the actual political basis for the trial: The trial was conceived and staged as a political instrument of propaganda and intimidation against certain ideas and tendencies which are popularly spoken of as isolationism, anti-communism and anti-Semitism. The biggest single idea of the trial was that of linking Nazism with isolationism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism.43 However, as Dennis pointed out:
American isolationism was born with George Washingtons Farewell Address, not with anything the Nazis ever penned. As for anti-Semitism, it has flourished since the dawn of Jewish history. It is as old and widespread as the Jews . . . As for anti-communism, while it was one of Hitlers two or three biggest ideas, it is in no way peculiar to Hitler or the Nazis, any more than anti-capitalism is peculiar to the Russian communists.44
To add shock value to the indictment, the government in an accompanying bill of particulars, which was basically a rehash of the history of the Nazi Party in Germany named German Chancellor Adolf Hitler as a co-conspirator.
During the trial, the prosecutor, Rogge, charged that Hitler had picked the defendants to head a Nazi occupation government in the United States once Germany won the war.45
What the prosecutor was essentially trying to do, according to Lawrence Dennis, was to perfect a formula to convict people for doing what was against no law. It boiled down to choosing a crime which the Department of Justice would undertake to prove equaled anti-Semitism, anti-communism and isolationism. The crime chosen was causing insubordination in the armed forces. The law was the Smith Act,46 which had been enacted in 1940.
As Dennis pointed out: One of the many ironies of the mass sedition trial was that the defendants were charged with conspiring to violate a law aimed at the communists and [of using] a communist tactic that of trying to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces. What makes this so ironic is the fact that many of the defendants, being fanatical anti-communists, had openly supported the enactment of this law.48
Defendant David Baxter later re called:
After Hitler and Stalin concluded a treaty, American communists enthusiastically endorsed those of us who opposed getting into the European war between Germany and the British-French alliance. The communists even stomached the Jewish issue that some of us raised, and many Jewish communists, who wanted the United States to join the war against Hitler, left their party. All that changed overnight, however, when war broke out between Germany and Russia. The communists then turned against us with a vengeance and eagerly backed FDR and American participation in the war to save the Soviets.48
Lawrence Denniss assessment of the governments case is reminiscent of that of Kirkpatrick Dilling: The pattern of the prosecution gradually emerged something like this: Our country is at war; Russia is our ally; the Russian government is communist; these defendants fight communism; they are therefore weakening the ties between the two countries; this is interfering with the war efforts; this in turn is injuring the morale of the armed forces. The indictees should therefore be sent to prison.49
Henry H. Klein, an outspoken Jewish anti-communist, was the attorney who represented defendant Eugene Sanctuary, and he took issue with the very constitutionality of the trial.
This alleged indictment, thundered Klein in his opening address to the jury, is under the peace-time statute, not under the wartime act, and the writings and speeches of these defendants were made when this nation was at peace, and under a Constitution which guarantees free press and free speech at all times, including during wartime, until the Constitution is suspended, and it has not yet been suspended. These people believed in the guarantees set forth in the Constitution, and they criticized various acts of the administration.50
About his own client, Klein noted: He is 73 years old and devoutly religious. He and his wife ran the Presbyterian foreign mission office in New York City for many years, and he has written and published several hundred sacred and patriotic songs.51 One of those songs, Klein noted, was Uncle Sam We Are Standing by You and was published in June of 1942, well after the war had begun hardly the actions of the dangerous seditionist that the prosecution and the sympathetic press painted Sanctuary to be.
As far as Lawrence Denniss purported sedition was concerned, the prosecution had attempted to prove its case exclusively by placing in evidence seven excerpts from his public writings, reprinted in the publication of the German-American Bund rather than as originally published.52 In other words, the evidence that Dennis had committed sedition was because he had written something (published and freely available to the public) that was later reprinted by a group sympathetic to Nazi Germany not that Dennis himself had actively done anything to stir dissension among the American armed forces. According to Dennis:
The governments prosecution theory said, in effect: We postulate a world conspiracy, the members of which all conspired to Nazify the entire world by using the unlawful means of undermining the loyalty of the armed forces. We ask the jury to infer the existence of such a conspiracy from such evidence as we shall submit about the Nazis. We shall then ask the jury to infer that the defendants joined this conspiracy from the nature of the things they said and did. We do not need to show that the defendants ever did or said anything that directly constituted the crime of impairing the morale or loyalty of the armed forces. Our thesis is that Nazism was a world movement, which, by definition, was also a conspiracy to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces and that the defendants were members of the Nazi world movement.53
There was no more reason to bring out in a charge of conspiracy to cause military insubordination the facts that most of the defendants were anti-Semites, isolationists or anti-communists than there would have been in a trial of a group of New York City contractors on a charge of conspiring to defraud the city to bring out the facts that the defendants were all Irish or Jews and had always voted the Democratic ticket.54
Eugene Sanctuarys attorney, Henry Klein, pulled no punches when he laid out the defense, declaring:
We will prove that this persecution and prosecution was undertaken to cover the crimes of government remember that.
We will prove that it was undertaken by order of the president, in spite of the opposition of Attorney General Biddle.
We will prove that Mr. Rogge was selected for this job of punishing these defendants because no one else in the Department of Justice felt that he could find sufficient grounds in to spell out a crime against these defendants.
We will prove that the communists control not only our government but our politics, our labor organizations, our agriculture, our mines, our industries, our war plants and our armed encampments.
We will prove that the law under which these defendants are being tried was enacted at the repeated demands of the heads of our armed forces to prevent communists from destroying the morale of our soldiers, sailors, marine and air forces [and that this prosecution] was undertaken to protect communists who were and are guilty of the very crimes charged against these defendants who are utterly innocent and have been made the victims of this law.55
Klein minced no words when he told the jury that Jewish organizations were using the trial for their own ends:
We will prove that this persecution was instigated by so-called professional Jews who make a business of preying on other Jews by scaring them into the belief that their lives and their property are in danger through threatened pogroms in the United States [and that] anti-Semitism charged in this so-called indictment, is a racket, that is being run by racketeers for graft purposes.56
Klein also forcefully made the allegation that FBI agents had been acting as agents provocateurs, attempting to stir up acts of sedition:
We will show that the most vicious written attack on Jews and on the Roosevelt administration emanated from the office of the FBI by one of its agents, and that the purpose of this attack was to provoke others to do likewise. We will show that this agent also drilled his underlings in New York with broom sticks preparatory to killing Jews.57
Klein also put forth a rather interesting allegation about the source of certain funds purportedly supplied by Nazi Germany to no less than Franklin D. Roosevelt himself. According to Klein: We will show that large sums of Hitler money helped finance Mr. Roosevelts campaign for re-election in 1936 and that right at this moment, British, American and German capital and industry are cooperating together in South America and other parts of the world.58
What Klein alleged about international collaboration of high-finance capitalism has been part of the lore of the populist right and the populist left for over a century and is a theme that has been analyzed in scores of books, monographs and other literature, but largely ignored in the so-called academic mainstream.
According to Lawrence Reillys account of the sedition trial, Kleins speech was a critical turning point in the defense: Klein did much in his brief speech to torpedo Rogges case by bringing to light the hidden agencies responsible for its existence.59
However, noted Reilly, even many of the daily newspapers which opposed the trial editorially were afraid to discuss this hidden aspect of the case that Klein had dared bring forth in open court. Reilly said that readers were often left confused60 because the papers never touched on the real factors involved. Some of these friendly papers, Reilly noted, insisted on referring to the defendants as crackpots.
But the fact is that, as a direct consequence of his offensive against the ADL and the other Jewish groups that had played a part in orchestrating the trial, Klein was targeted, specifically because he was Jewish, by organized Jewish groups that resented Kleins defense of the purported anti-Semites and seditionists.
For his own part, Lawrence Dennis stood up in court to take on his own defense and delivered what even liberal writer Charles Higham was inclined to acknowledge was a high-powered address61 calling Rogges outline of the government case, corny, false, fantastic, untrue, unproveable and unsound [and describing the trial as] a Roosevelt administration fourth-term conspiracy [and] another Dreyfus case [in which the government was] trying to write history in the heat of battle.62 To the loud applause of his fellow defendants, Dennis declared: Pearl Harbor did not suspend the Bill of Rights.63
A critical juncture in the case came when one of the defense attorneys, James Laughlin (a public defender representing Ernest Elmhurst) said in open court that it would be impossible for the trial to continue unless the private files of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of could be impounded and introduced as evidence.
It was clear that much of the prosecution was based on the ADLs fact finding and Laughlin concluded that it would be necessary to determine precisely what the ADL had provided the government if the defendants would be able to put on an effective defense.
The judge seemed prepared to ignore Laughlins motion, but the clever attorney had already prepared copies of his motion in advance and distributed copies of the motion to the press. As a direct consequence, Washington newspapers reported that the ADL files had been made an issue in the case. As Reilly summarized the situation: Laughlin had placed the spotlight upon the big secret of the case.64 This, according to Reilly, was a bomb, which, some have said, had more to do with demoralizing [the prosecutions] case than any other single [factor].65
At that point, there seemed to be a strange turnabout in the way that the press supporting the trial began looking at the case. Even The Washington Post (which had played a part in orchestrating the trial by lending the services of its reporter, Dillard Stokes, to the joint ADL-FBI investigation) completely reversed itself, according to Reilly, and started demanding that the case be brought to a quick conclusion.66
In short, The Post wanted to keep the big secret of the case behind-the-scenes orchestration of the case by the ADL under wraps and now seemed to be calling to bring the trial to a rapid conclusion before the truth came out.
The Post even commented editorially that: We fear that, whatever may be the outcome of this trial, it will stand as a black mark against American justice for many years to come.67 As David Baxter later remarked: Such were the remarkable words of the very paper whose own reporter had plotted with the original prosecutor to entrap the defendants and bring them to trial in Washington.69
Despite these concerns, Rogge seemed to intensify his efforts. There was clearly a great deal of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the prosecutor and his backers as to how to deal with the challenge that had been presented. Since the judge never ordered the ADLs files impounded, Rogge was free to move forward. He was determined to carry the trial through to conclusion, and he had many more witnesses to present.
Author Roger Roots describes the course of events as follows:
Day after day, the trial wore on. Page after page of publications authored by the defendants was introduced into evidence, giving rise [among] all in attendance to the idea that it was their writings which were really on trial. The government announced that it intended to introduce 32,000 exhibits. It became obvious that what the defendants were really being prosecuted for was Jew-baiting which gave an indication of one principal source of the prosecutions support. It became one of the longest and most expensive trials in U.S. history. In essence, the trial was little more than an assault against free speech.69
As the trial proceeded, outspoken trial critic Sen. William Langer visited defendants in jail and defied the media and its allies in the prosecution by publicly escorting defendant Elizabeth Dilling in and out of court and around Washington while she was on bail.70
Said Roots: The government worked with unlimited funds, unlimited personnel, and unlimited access to intelligence information. The defense had to work with mostly court-appointed lawyers who were unacquainted with the defendants and the arguments of the case.71
What is particularly interesting, as pointed out by liberal historian Glenn Jeansonne, is that: Many of the defense attorneys were liberals unsympathetic with the clients beliefs. But they came to see the defendants side on a human basis, and instead of conducting a perfunctory defense, as many observers had expected, they put up a vigorous defense.72
Even Charles Higham, who, writing retrospectively, was an enthusiastic advocate of the trial, pointed out that after two and a half months, neither defendants nor prosecution had managed to present a satisfactory case,73 and, ultimately, both press and public were beginning to lose interest in the case.74
At the same time, according to Paquita de Shishmareff, the defendants had managed to survive and develop their own way of dealing with their predicament: Their physical lives were made almost impossible. They got little to eat and were hamstrung in every way possible. But when they got into court, it was such a farce they really just enjoyed themselves.75
At one point, when the prosecutor was solemnly reading off a list of names of individuals allies of the Roosevelt administration who had been attacked in some way by the defendants defendant Edward James Smythe shouted out, and Eleanor Roosevelt, resulting in laughter from the courtroom.76 Smythe didnt want Mrs. Roosevelts name to go unrecorded in the pantheon of villainy.
This, by the way, was only one of many amusing events that took place during this circus. In many respects, the sedition trial could be the basis for a Hollywood comedy, the serious and scandalous violation of the rights of the defendants notwithstanding.
But this is not to suggest that the sedition trial was all a lot of merriment for the attorneys or for the defendants. Far from it. Two of the attorneys had a shot fired at them as they drove in their car. One of those attorneys lost a 12-year law association. Another was beaten by five thugs and hospitalized for five days.
Henry Klein was harassed relentlessly, held in contempt of court for his defense of his client, and, then, ultimately, driven from the case altogether (although the contempt of court charges were eventually overturned).
In addition, strenuous efforts were made to keep the defendants who were out on bail from holding jobs during the course of the trial, a particular problem for those who were not of independent means (and that was most of them).
One defendant, Ernest Elmhurst, got a job as a headwaiter in a Washington hotel in order to make ends meet during the trial, but the ADLs leading broadcasting voice, Walter Winchell, learned of Elmhursts employment and agitated on his widely heard radio show for Elmhursts firing, resulting in Elmhursts dismissal.77
As the trial dragged on, however, the government began to realize that its efforts were going nowhere. Roger Roots points out: The prosecution had undoubtedly expected one or more of the defendants to break and testify against the others . . . [Yet] not one defendant gave any indication of such an inclination. Though they disagreed and some even disliked each other, they came together as a cohesive unit.78
David Baxter had the pleasure to learn that he was going to be severed from the trial and the charges dismissed. His increasing deafness made it impossible for Baxter to have a fair trial. Baxter recalls that Judge Eicher called Baxter into his chamber, smiled, held out his hand, and said: Go back to California and forget about it, Dave.79
The judge reportedly told Baxter that if Baxter and his wife wanted to buy a car to return to California, he would help and handed Baxter a roll of gasoline coupons (which, during wartime, were severely rationed). Despite everything, it seems, even the judge realized what a farce the trial really was.
It was something totally unexpected that brought the trial to a halt: Judge Eichers sudden death on November 29, 1944. The judges demise came at a point where Rogge was not even halfway through the prosecutions case. At this point he had brought 39 witnesses to the stand, and expected to present 67 more. The defense had not even yet begun.80
Defendant David Baxter later commented (reflecting on his own friendly personal experience with the judge): That trial could have killed any judge with a Christian conscience and any semblance of fairness. I felt genuinely sorry about Judge Eichers death.81 Rogge accused the defense of having effectively killed the judge by having put up such a defense that it made the judges life (and that of the prosecutor) uncomfortable. Under the circumstances, it was apparent that there was no way that the case could continue on a fair basis.
As a consequence, after a period of legal haggling on both sides (with one defendant, Prescott Dennett, actually asking for the trial to continue, determined to present his defense after having been tried and convicted in the media), a mistrial was declared.
Prodded primarily by Jewish groups, Prosecutor Rogge hoped to be able to keep the case alive and set a new trial in motion. But by the spring of 1945, the trials chief instigator, President Roosvelt, was dead, and the war had come to a close. Rogge, however, continued to ask for delays in setting a new trial date. Since Germany had fallen, Rogge claimed, he was confident that he could find evidence in the German archives that the sedition trial defendants had been Nazi collaborators. However, according to historian Glen Jeansonne, no friend of the purported seditionists, nothing Rogge found proved the existence of a conspiracy82 between the German government and the defendants.
Undaunted, Rogge launched a nationwide lecture tour that was, not surprisingly, conducted under the auspices of . The combative and loquacious Rogge, prodded by his sponsors, could not contain himself in his enthusiastic recounting of the events of the trial and of the personalities involved and, in the end, was fired by the Justice Department on October 25, 1946, for leaking information to the press.83 At that time Rogge was ordered to hand over all Justice Department and FBI documents in his possession. The Justice Department had apparently decided that Rogge had outlived his usefulness.
Less than a month later, District Judge Bolitha Laws dismissed the charges altogether, declaring that the defendants had not received a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. Although the Justice Department ap pealed, the dismissal was upheld on June 30, 1947 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Great Sedition Trial thus came to a close.
As even defendant Lawrence Dennis was moved to comment:
Some or all may even have been guilty of conspiring to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces, but not as charged by the [government] . . . Nothing in the evidence brought out during the trial proved or even suggested that any one of the defendants was ever guilty of any such conspiracy, except on the prosecution theory. And on that theory, opponents of President Roosevelts pre-Pearl Harbor foreign policy and steps in foreign affairs, such as Col. Lindbergh, Sen. Taft, Sen. Nye or Sen. Wheeler, and Col. McCormick, publisher of The Chicago Tribune, would be equally guilty.
Indeed, the prosecution case, according to the prosecution theory, would have been much stronger against these prominent isolationists than it ever could be against the less important defendants in the Sedition Trial.84
Many years later it is grimly amusing to note that organized Jewish groups and Jewish newspapers attacked the attorney general, Francis Biddle, for having failed to see the sedition trial through to the bitter end and achieve the conviction of the defendants. Lawrence Dennis wryly commented that all of this showed a great deal of ingratitude on their part.
According to Dennis: It shows what a public servant gets for attempting to do dirty work to the satisfaction of minority pressure groups. Biddle did the best anyone in his position could do to carry out the wishes of the people behind the trial. They simply did not appreciate the difficulties of railroading to jail their political enemies without evidence of any acts in violation of the law.85
Dennis added a further warning for those who would allow themselves to be caught up in promoting show trials such as that which was effected in the Great Sedition Trial of 1944: What the government does today to a crackpot, so-called, Dennis said, it may do to an elder statesman of the opposition the day after tomorrow.86
The trial made history, Dennis said, but not as the government had planned. It made history as a government experiment, which went wrong. It was a Department of Justice experiment in imitation of a Moscow political propaganda trial.87
There are at least five definitive conclusions which can be drawn about this trial, based upon all that is in the historical record:
1.The defendants charged were largely on trial for having expressed views that were either anti-Jewish or anti-communist or both. The actions of the defendants had little or nothing to do with encouragement of dissension or insurrection within the U.S. armed forces. In short, the sedition trial was a fraud from the start.
2.The prime movers behind the prosecution were private special interest groups representing powerful Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of that were closely allied with the Roosevelt regime in power.
3.As a consequence, high-level politicians (including the U.S. president) and bureaucrats beholden to those private interests used their influence to ensure that the police powers of the government were used to advance the demands of those private pressure groups agitating for the sedition trial.
4.Major media voices (such as The Washington Post), working with the ADL and allied with the ruling regime, were prime players in promoting and facilitating the events that led to the trial.
5.The police powers of government can easily be abused, and innocent citizens, despite Constitutional guarantees of protection, can be persecuted under color of law, their innocence notwithstanding.
About a decade after The Great Sedition Trial had come to a close, the major media in America began devoting much energy to denouncing so-called anti-communist witch-hunts by Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and others, the media (not to mention mainstream historians) never drew the obvious parallel with the precedent for such witch-hunting that had been set by the activities of the ADL and its allies in the Roosevelt administration who had orchestrated the sedition trial.
The events of The Great Sedition Trial are a black page of American history (and little known at that). Civil libertarians should take note: It can happen here, and it did.

{ Comments are closed }

Boy, Were You Ever Wrong By Patrick Grimm

Boy, Were You Ever Wrong

By Patrick Grimm

So you thought the Jews were just another clannish and ethnocentric group interested in preserving their religious and cultural traditions. You believed the Jews when they told you that they only wanted to live and let live. You took them at their word when they said they were only desirous of a country where they could reside free of persecution. You didn’t think twice when they larded up their pronouncements with lots of inclusiveness and out-group words of good will. You believed the scholars who pinned all the blame for anti-Jewish persecution, pogroms, expulsions and genocide on those people who were not Jewish. You thought it not unseemly that these same Jews were a bit touchy when it came to their history and their preoccupation with Holocaust dramatizations. Boy, were you ever wrong.

You knew your country was sick, didn’t you? Yes, you did. You can feel this sick degeneration down deep in your bones. It was a sixth sense you had. It spoke to you like a still small voice and it whispered ever so softly. It told you that the foundations were crumbling and the buffering institutions were being eroded. But you wanted to call it something else. You ranted about liberalism, big government, high taxes, overregulation and how bad those Democrats were. Perhaps you attended a few Tea Parties and whined to your friends about the dangers and wickedness of an Obama administration. You might have even dropped a few dollars in the coffers of yet another conservative group, thinking you were doing your due diligence. Sarah Palin is probably your girl in 2012. Her shallow rhetoric and inane sound bites did not dissuade you one bit. You, a solid red state flag-waving patriot probably cheered the war in Iraq even as the pseudo-mission became more and more opaque and fuzzy. This didn’t stop you from sending your precious son or daughter to fight for democracy and freedom and kill more Muslim people all for the nebulous pronouncements of War Party bureaucrats who knew nothing about Sherman tanks, but spent most of their time in think tanks.

When your child came home from college or university mocking the religious beliefs you taught them since their birth and began spouting rehearsed bromides against the evils of white European culture, you blamed liberal professors. When your offspring waxed pretty about alternative lifestyles, the merits of homosexuality and the open-minded beauty of bi-curious pursuits, you blamed those damn liberals and Communists. You were half right, which still means that you were also half wrong too. You didn’t look any deeper, did you? You asked shallow questions and you got shallow answers. What did you expect?

Now, as you glance about you and see very few Americans flying American flags (they are almost non-existent in my community), you are chagrined. Like you, many of our citizens know that a sick force has seized our government and our institutions. You know something is awry. But that’s all you know. You, even more than a liberal or a progressive, believe what the controlled, so-called conservative media tells you. You don’t ask questions. You are a controlled opponent and don’t even know it. You parrot the tired rehashed lines of a Glenn Beck, a Rush Limbaugh or (god forbid) a Sean Hannity. These folks talk about the symptoms all day long, but they want to leave the causes untouched.

You know that patriotic fervor is dead in the USA, but you don’t know why. You know your dollar won’t buy you much, but you’ve done little to investigate exactly why this is the case. The hatred against your country grows, but you, like most Americans, assure your family that we live in the best country in the world, even though you share a typically American lack of curiosity about other nations. You’ve never been anywhere else. Europe must be jealous of America. That’s it. It couldn’t be that our foreign policy has created a hatred now erupting in violence aimed at our citizens.

Despite all of the chaos now dragging this country into the abyss, you can’t think outside the box. If you just happened upon this little essay, you have already branded me as anti-Semitic. As almost every economy except Israel’s falls to rubble, you don’t ask why. Have you ever wondered why it seems that the Jews are the only ethnicity sitting pretty in the worst economy since the Depression? No, you don’t because you are a Zionist, an Israel-Firster, even as that crooked alliance extracts more blood from our people. You go to church and sit obediently in your pew as your minister defends the Jewish people, calls them God’s Chosen and declares Israel’s existence a fulfillment of all sorts of vague biblical prophecies. You don’t blanche when your preacher, a man with little knowledge outside of his skewed predilections towards the Bible, warns you that any resistance or criticism of Jews will earn you an eternity in hell. You try to jettison any negative thoughts you may have had about Jews in the past, quivering and genuflecting like a slave who must deny reality. You have long ago taken all your church’s ideas into your unthinking mind and made them the dogma that keeps you silent, ensuring that you will never defend yourself.

Occasionally, cognitive dissonance will trouble you, but not for too long. If you own a business or work for a company that has dealings with Jews, you have surely noticed the two-faced ugly ways that Jews behave in the marketplace. You’ve seen them try to get something for nothing. Maybe they tried to Jew you down or hoodwinked you or stole from you or, god forbid, even tried to steal your company, robbing you of your birthright. (I have had many business dealings with Jews and they are always looking for a hand-out or some sort of extravagant special treatment not afforded others.) But you won’t, you can’t see these traits as quintessentially Jewish. You wouldn’t dare be particularistic or ethnically conscious. No way. It might get you labeled, and that would be worse than death. It would also be a sin against the Judaic god too, and he is known for having a short temper when somebody messes with his favorite pets. So you amble along, turning your lily-white cheek to the destroyer, smiling as you are displaced, dispossessed, disarmed by Jewish social policy and demoralized and debauched by the cancer that Jews mistakenly call entertainment.

You never wonder why your immune system so reflexively attacks itself and not the malignancy that weakens your body just a little more each day. You never question why an outside group gets to decide how a European-founded country is run. You never ask why your group is the only group not allowed to name itself and to organize on its own behalf and for its own interests. You don’t even think you have any unique interests. Perhaps you really do believe that any curiosity might cause the early demise of the proverbial cat.

Here’s the deal: You made one mistake. Either out of fear, ignorance, laziness or stupidity, you overlooked the Jew. You saw the Jew and his politically active brethren as just another political group and for that I can’t be too hard on you. As America becomes darker and more multicultural, the Jew becomes harder to recognize as a unique and pernicious danger to all races and peoples, including yours. It’s hard to pick out a freak when you’re right in the middle of a freak show put on by the freak himself. You’ve been busy shadowboxing in the dark and you’ve been swinging at phantoms who did not cause the dilemma that is destroying you. You didn’t realize that Judaism is not a true religion at all, but an evolutionary strategy designed to topple what they perceive to be false idols, that being anyone or anything that is not of them, by them and for them. The Jewish tribalists hate your guts. Their books order them to feel this way about you. They aren’t changing and they can count on your complicity or your cowardly silence as the cold war against your traditions rages unabated.

Now there is only one thing for you to do, and I hope I have given you a small push in that direction. Do your homework. Do some research. Learn what motivates the Jew and his rancid activities. Does your mind still intrinsically call me an anti-Semite even now? It’s okay. I once was as you are. I know what you’re going through. Trust me, I do. Open your mind, think outside the box and dare to believe the unbelievable truth. It is the truth, and when you finally connect the dots you will never be fooled again.

{ Comments are closed }

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

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 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
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941
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.
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.
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 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) regarding donations. Also there is a ‚¬Å”DONATE‚¬Â button there for Paypal or here at . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

{ Comments are closed }

Lisbon And The Zionist Nightmare

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

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

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

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

But you are heroes. And I love you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I continue to pluck at that arrow.

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

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

“I’m looking at the stars, she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I’ll let you wish upon my star.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I choose to fight.

What are you doing today?

{ 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 }