Browsing: News

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

Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 12.37.20 PM

‘The Jewish religion is a religion of Mitzvoth (commandments) and without this religious idiom, the Jewish religion doesn’t exist at all.”
~ Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz
While Islam and Christianity can be easily understood as belief systems, Judaism actually defies the notion of belief all together. Judaism is an obedience regulative system. The Judaic universe is ruled by ‘mitzvoth’ (commandment), a set of 613 precepts and directives ordered by God. In opposition to Christianity and Islam that build from spiritual and heavenly precepts in worship to a transcendental God, the Judaic subject subscribes to strict earthly and material observance. While the Islamo-Christian is wrapped in God’s loving and the spirituality of the sublime and divinity, the follower of Judaism is judged by his or her ability to adhere to hundreds of rigorous earthly orders.
A brief look at the Judaic Sabbath common prayer reveals the nature of Judaism as an obedience regulatory system. As we can see below, in Judaism, even God-loving is not an involuntary act:
‘You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart,?with all your soul, and with all your might.?Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.
…Thus you shall remember to observe all My commandments?and to be holy to your God.?I am Adonai, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God:?I am Adonai your God.”
(Common Prayers for Shabbat Evening From Deuteronomy and Numbers)
For the Jew, belief and God-loving are not subject to either rational discretion or spiritual impulse. God loving, as we read above, is a strict ‘charge”, an order. But if Judaism is not a belief system, what kind of system is it? Does the Judaic subject believe in anything at all?
The answer is yes: the Jew believes in ‘The Jews’ and the Jews believe in ‘The Jew.’ This mode of mutual affirmation establishes a solid and forceful tribal continuum that serves the collective as well as the singular subject. Accordingly, the subject adheres to the collective and vice versa. In pragmatic terms, the Jew sticks to the ‘chosen people’ and, together the ‘chosenites’ uphold a collective sense of choseness.
In Judaism, ‘choseness’ is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God. For religious Jews, being chosen is realised as a duty. According to Judaic belief, the Jews have been placed on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. This purpose is bestowed upon the Jews and they pass it from father to son.[1]
In reality, the first Jews invented a God who chose them over all other people. For some reason this God is occasionally cruel, often non-ethical and as if this were not enough, not exactly a nice father. The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to call him by name. One may wonder what led the first Jews to invent such a horrid father figure. One may further question what led the Jews to sustain their ‘relationship’ with such an obnoxious father. The answer is surprisingly simple. They don’t.
The Jews don’t believe in God, they are observant of God. They believe in themselves- the Jews believe in ‘The Jew’ and vice versa. Within this peculiar troubled family affair, the Jew is free to dump God, as an author can freely re-write or at least re-shape his or her own narrative. But the Jew can never dump the Jews as much as the Jews can’t allow ‘The Jew’ to go free. And what about God, can he be emancipated, can he choose another people? Certainly not. Unlike the Jew who is free to dump God while clinging to a Jewish identity, the Jewish God is merely a Jewish protagonist, he can’t go anywhere, he is stuck with ‘his’ chosen people forever.
Choseness, so it seems, is hardly a heavenly gift, it is in fact a curse. It confines the Jew in a realm of self-imposed commandment and materiality. Instead of beauty, holiness and the pursuit of the divine and the sublime, the rabbinical Jew is left with an earthly obedience scheme that is sustained by a rigid tribal setting. ‘The Jew’ and ‘The Jews’ are bound in a set of mutual affirmations in which God serves an instrumental role.
Some may rightly argue that this spectacular bond between the Jews and ‘The Jew’ is essential for an understanding of the dichotomy between Judaic tribalism and the universal appeal of Islamo-Christian beliefs.
The Judaic crude intolerance towards dissent serves as an example of the above. Throughout their history, Jews have proven themselves hostile toward their nonconformists; now we are ready to grasp why. For the Islamo-Christian, secularization, for instance, entails a rejection of a transcendental affair. But for the rabbinical Judaic subject, failure to conform constitutes a rejection of the Jews. It interferes crudely with the fragile relationship between ‘The Jew’ and the Jews. It shatters the self-affirmation mechanism. While in the case of Christianity and Islam dumping God suggests turning one’s back on a remote supernatural entity, in the case of Judaism, such an act is interpreted as a disbelief in the tribe.
This interpretation may help illuminate Jesus’ plight. It may explain the reasoning behind the brutal Rabbinical Herem (excommunication) against Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa. And it also explains why the secular and the so-called ‘progressive’ Jew is equally obnoxious towards dissent or any form of criticism from within. If Judaism is not a belief system but rather a system of obedience regulation, then Jewish identity politics is merely an extension of the above regulatory philosophy.
Jews often drop their God, simply to invent a different God who ‘facilitates’ subscription to a new regulatory system. The new system, like the old outlines a new set of strict commandments, a manner of speech and rigorous boundaries of ‘kosher’ conduct.
In the beginning of the 20th century, for instance, Bolshevism appealed to many Eastern European Jews. It provided a sense of self-righteousness in addition to regulating a strict form of obedience. As we know, it didn’t take long for Bolshevism to mature into a genocidal doctrine that made Old Testament barbarism look like a juvenile fairytale. The Holocaust, that seems to be the most popular Jewish religion at present, may be the ultimate and final stage in Jewish historical development. According to the Holocaust religion, ‘God died in Auschwitz.’ Within the context of the Holocaust religion, ‘The Jew’ is the new Jewish God. The Holocaust religion has finally united ‘The Jew’ and the Jews into a self-sufficient comprehensive and independent ‘God-less’ religious narrative. Both were about to be eradicated. But, not only were they both saved: they have prevailed and each did so independently. In the Holocaust religion, Jews are both victims and oppressors they have transformed slavery into empowerment and they did it all alone, in spite of being dumped by their treacherous God. The Holocaust religion, like Judaism, prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially, like more traditional Judaism, it is totally and disgracefully intolerant toward dissent.
Due to the lack of a divine transcendental entity, Jewish religions have always regarded criticism as rejection of the tribe. Jewish religions, whether Judaism, Bolshevism or Holocaust, are equally intolerant towards criticism and dissent. Jewish religions treat opposition as a vile attempt at ‘delegitimization’ on the verge of genocidal inclination.
Jewish religions can be defined as different templates that facilitate a sense of choseness. They affirm a bond between an imaginary marginal ‘collective’ and a phantasmal ‘archetype’: the Bolshevists and ‘The Bolshevik’, the Survivours and ‘The Survivour’, the Jews and ‘The Jew,’ and so on. The bond between the collective and the idea of an archetypical singularity is always maintained by a set of rigid commandments, a correct manner of speech, some strict regulatory guidelines for behavior and vile opposition to dissent.
Tragically enough, intolerance of dissent has become a universal Western political symptom. Incidentally, Christianity, Islam, religion and divinity in general are also under attack within the context of contemporary Western discourse. Is this a symptom of the Jerusalemification of our Western universe? Is the emergence of the tyranny of political correctness a coincidence? And if we are becoming Jews, is there any room for the hope that our universe may, at some stage, embrace a universal ethos once again? Can we once again believe in something? Or do we have to wait for a new Jesus figure to resurrect our trust in the human spirit and humanity in general? Or have we been re-designed to self-destruct as soon as we come close to such a lucid awareness?
[1] As God himself suggests in the Book of Genesis: ‘And I (God) will establish My covenant between Me and you (the Jews) and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.” (Book of Genesis, Chapter 17).

{ Comments are closed }

Show-down at the Kol Shofar Synagogue: An Expose on Jewish Racism By Arthur Topham

Show-down at the Kol Shofar Synagogue: An Expose on Jewish Racism
By Arthur Topham
January 16, 2009
The trouble with you
Is the trouble with me
You got two good eyes
But you still don’t see.
~ The Grateful Dead/Casey Jones

Yet we must also respect those who simply protest anything less than full immediate denouncement of openly-declared racism, as Zionism defines itself to be, and as practiced for decades by the ‘Jewish State’ constantly expanding the turf of its supremacy. In all other cases of openly-declared state-racism, the ordinary, moderate response is to give the racist policies primary emphasis and absolute Zero tolerance. Delaying that frankness does perpetuate the cover-up which has managed to keep the gory Elephant of Zionist racism the best-kept secret in our living-room of ostensible egalitarianism.
~ Dave Kirsting, concerned Marin County, California resident

One of the great joys and blessings of being a publisher is the opportunity it provides for connecting up with interesting people from around the world.

Whether it’s a short congratulatory note from Noam Chomsky; a friendly request for further info on Ricardo Warmouse from David Icke; a polite, personal invite from Jeff Rense for an interview; a gentle email from Layla Anwar; or a long, intensely humorous and perspicacious hand-written letter, replete with comic drawings!, from my dear American sister Carolyn Chute (author of The Beans of Egypt Maine and other exceptional books on the human condition), all of them and many more comprise a legacy of intimate contacts. It’s these brief interludes with companion souls in the seemingly endless struggle to achieve peace and justice for all that help to compensate for the otherwise interminable and at times exasperating amount of energy expended in the operation of a thus far free and alternative news media.

In some respects each new day is like Christmas morning for a child raised in the belief that gifts are a result of living in harmony with a loving God and treating each other as we would like to be treated. And there is no gift so precious as that of discovering new friendships and realizing one is not alone, either in their feelings, their perspective or in the physical world that we all share.

One such gift for me was an email on Christmas day from a cyber friend who lives in Marin County, California. His name is Dave Kirsting. Dave has been a part of my Radical Press List Serve for some time and receives the assorted articles and analysis of global political events that I pass on to subscribers. On this occasion Dave was writing in regards to a short article of Layla Anwar’s entitled, Jingle Bells and all that Stuff… which I had sent out on December 24th.

As this is an article about Dave and his personal experiences with political Zionism as they pertain to the Arab Jewish predicament in the Middle East and how such explosive events tend to spread out over the globe like ash from an active volcano only to settle in small communities everywhere where one finds the Zionist mindset, I will let him do most of the talking (so to speak). Dave is, in my humble opinion, a very articulate, caring and astute thinker, aware of certain basic truths that I feel need to be shared with a much greater audience.

His initial email:

‘Thank you Arthur, and Merry Christmas, and thanks for all your work.

Myself, I am so unusual as to see all discussions and arguments as pleasant gifts to me, regardless of how others may feel or how they often interpret kinds words in the fair game of dialogue. I recall once sending a comment to you regarding what I saw as perhaps a word-choice oversight, what could be called an ‘error’ and a ‘correction,’ and you responded so sensibly as to leave that lesser paradigm floating along somewhere below. This is why I always welcome emails from RadicalPress.

I am sitting here drinking my meticulously selected and brewed and consequently superb coffee on Christmas morning, waiting for my friends (including the most magically delightful woman I have ever met) to arrive in a few hours for our lascivious indulgence of lavish gift-giving, my Druidic solstice-tree all sparkling with lights and ornaments (alongside my lofty view of Mount Tamalpais, amid the blowing trees, swirling white clouds, and sparkling sunlight of Southern Marin’s characteristically colliding micro-climates), to celebrate the arrival of full consciousness, a couple thousand years ago, when East met West, the discovery of a loving universe, or ‘God,’ the primacy of self-honesty, the proffered escape from wrathful paradigms, denials, and conceits, as it was all voluntarily embraced by the best of the Celts, wherever this new dimension of ever-returning life was superimposed over the message already inherent in their sacred evergreens.

Ms. Anwar is fundamentally correct, though a few semantic adjustments should be made, so her meaning will be clear enough for anyone willing to understand

For one thing, the truth has always been almost 100% lost in human denial, as exploited through the concerted efforts of Zionist atheists.

The Christened one always said his perfect advice could be understood by all but would be honored by terribly few. The forces that killed him, with his consent, have always remained in power and continue to try and kill his message, but they cannot do so, any more than they could even retain possession of his body, after it was dead.

The blame can’t be placed on any ‘leadership,’ as those of us who have always struggled directly among the people can attest. Unwilling to recognize their errors and vanities, most people are willingly susceptible to the open violations of due process by which Zionists embedded in the various peace movements quash any germination of political understanding. This infects virtually everyone certainly every Arab and/or Palestinian discussion-list as ‘leading’ Zionists, like Jeff Blankfort, Jeffrey Halper, Richard Becker, and all the others pose themselves as the most ‘radical’ ‘critics of Israel with the added advantage of being ‘Jewish’ or ‘leftist’ and therefore more credible and firmly prevent any pithy understanding of the flaming racism which they consistently ‘overlook.’ We who have won the only recorded victories against Zionism, by using the same principles taught to all children in US public schools, have been kicked off every Palestinian and Arab discussion-lists for saying unflattering but meticulously logical and polite things about the (mis)leading Jewish defenders of Palestine. Saying that an argument that ends with ‘end the occupation’ and/or ‘two-state peace’ is an essentially Zionist argument is reduced to ‘How dare you call our brave, Jewish, media-connected hero a Zionist?!?!’

The front lines of the anti-Zionist effort are way deep inside the ‘peace movement’ and deep inside the ostensible ‘anti-Zionist effort,’ and Bush is the natural figurehead of this problem, nothing like its cause.

‘The leaders’ are not responsible; we get the only ‘leaders’ that can be elected while Zionism holds the swing votes in every contest and in every decision of every ‘peace and justice’ organization. Progress cannot begin anywhere until it begins in our dialogue with terminally distracted Palestinian and Arab leadership and in our efforts within the long-dormant ‘peace movement.’ All other blame is a mere distraction, far to the rear of the real front lines and often intentionally extracting attention from them. The worst disparagement of the real fighters comes from the ‘Palestinian’ and ‘anti-Zionist’ side of the struggle, and this is exactly what the most cynical Zionists mean when they laugh about how they ‘control both sides of the debate.’

But the point of Christmas is that freedom is an individual issue.; ‘Narrow is the way and strait the gate that leads unto life and few there be who find it.’ ‘Those who have ears, let them hear.’ And we who really do live at the actual center of world events and who make a good living by creating the most revolutionary changes in the way children are raised are also able to express the true meaning of Christmas in the sparkle and decadent pleasures of a God who truly loves all of us. It’s up to us. The full luck of this perfect situation is accessible only to those who care to see it all. The Whole Truth loves us and it won’t go away.’

The ‘illegality of the occupation’

Following this came another letter on December 30th regarding what Dave feels is the crux of the argument used by the Zionists to shift the focus of debate away from the fundamental problem onto a secondary issue, that of the ‘illegality of Israel’s brutal occupation’.

He states:

The Zionists love to make us think so. Because they can so easily say that they would love to ‘give the land back,’ and that they’ve been trying for decades to do so, but the bloodthirsty Palestinians aren’t happy unless they’re killing Jews. That’s why the most active ‘two-state peace’ Zionists energetically propagate the slogan ‘End the Occupation’ to make sure that the real core issue is not noticed. The real core issue is the one about the whole basic problem, from which ‘the occupation’ is merely an aspect. The real core issue is also the one argument that cannot be answered and the one argument that clarifies the entire situation for all ordinary Americans the one argument that shows the wrong of every Zionist policy, the dream argument of an anti-war lifetime and the only argument the Zionists don’t want to hear: THE ARGUMENT AGAINST OPENLY-DECLARED RACISM.

A Jewish state any Jewish state forced into multi-ethnic Palestine or perpetuated in any part of Palestine is violent state-racism as plain as it can ever get. All the violence the racist denial of Palestinian return, the racist creation of new ‘Jewish Only’ settlements, the ‘targeted executions,’ the sharpshooting of Palestinian children who throw stones at Israeli tanks, oh, and even ‘the occupation’ can all be AND CONSTANTLY IS explained away as a necessary response to Palestinian violence. But all of it, in all its varieties including ‘the [post-‘67] occupation’ is an inherent aspect of the openly-declared racist violence of forcing an ethnic-supremacist state into a multi-ethnic region.

Invoking this reality and never straying from it the actual core issue, in its full moral inexcusability is essential to winning any argument or conflict with Zionism.

Saying that the core problem is the occupation plays right into the Zionists’ desire to keep peace-talks stuck in the hopeless 65-year-old boondoggle of seeking peace through a ‘realistic’ two-state scenario. This just happens to perpetuate Jewish supremacy in most of Palestine, while making that racist violence feel more and more like a reasonable status-quo, even as the ‘negotiations’ toward an inherently unworkable racist ‘solution’ cannot begin to get off the ground, thus maintaining the perfect background for ever more ‘reactions’ in ‘self-defense’ against Palestinians, and an expanded occupation in ‘self-defense.’

Playing the ‘two-state peace’ charade has the added benefit, for Zionists, of seducing the various ‘peace movements’ into ‘discreetly’ avoiding any ‘radical’ or ‘rejectionist’ talk about simply ending the racism. That is why Israel’s openly-declared racism was not mentioned at all by any of the ‘anti-war’ organizations in the run-up to ‘the war’ on Afghanistan and ‘the war’ on Iraq despite the fact that the racist core of the entire Middle East conflict would have been the strongest argument against those spin-off ‘wars’. Protecting Zionist interests in ‘ending the occupation’ and ‘two-state peace’ required discreetly avoiding the anti-racist argument because it impinges against the whole ‘two-state’ concept: and avoiding that argument against the Zionists’ moral Achilles Heel neutered the entire anti-war effort, thus perfectly serving Zionist interests in annihilating the still-resisting nations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Zionist racism is the core issue; any other instance of openly-declared ethnic-supremacy would be treated as racism and would be given primary emphasis and zero-tolerance by all concerned; anyone who fails to do so in the case of Israel has already internalized some of the racist indoctrination. Overlooking or protecting the racist core issue in any of its aspects has the effect of nurturing it everywhere.

The ethnically-based Zionist violence began several decades before ‘the occupation.’ The REAL ‘occupation’ which must be addressed and which can be addressed to ordinary Americans very easily is the occupation of ANY PART OF PALESTINE by an openly-declared racist-supremacist Israel.

The obvious solution the one the Zionists succeed in keeping off of everyone’s minds and lips is to simply stop financing any and all policies of prejudice in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every schoolchild in the US is taught the need to reject ethnic or religious prejudice. It is unconstitutional to finance it with our taxes. All we have to do is object to the RACISM, and all the derivative violence including the denial of Palestinian return, the Jewish-supremacist definition of Israel, the ‘Jewish Only’ settlements, and of course ‘the occupation’ dry up naturally.’

For Dave, ‘The question, combined with emphasis on ‘the occupation,’ shows confusion, but the answer is simple.; Israel will stop its racist violence against the Palestinians only when Israel’s OPENLY DECLARED RACISM is acknowledged for what it is the core of the problem and when international support for it, by people who do not mean to support racism, is correspondingly withdrawn. The ‘lands and freedom’ which the international community must force Israel to return must never be confined to the [post-‘67] ‘occupied territories.’ The violence will expand until the world frankly stops financing any and all Israeli policies of ethnic or religious prejudice: racism. Peace cannot begin unless it includes far more than just ‘ending the occupation.’ It must also include ending the racist violence which prevents Palestinian families from returning to their lands and homes, and it must also include ending every other policy of prejudice against the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel-Palestine.

Thanks for all your great work Arthur.; Getting the exact argument organized is essential to success which derives only from grabbing the racist Achilles Heel and never letting go for a moment, as the Zionists will try to change the subject to ANYTHING else, particularly ‘the occupation.’’

Killing for votes

Following close on the heels of these comments in a subsequent response to Gilad Atzmon’s recent article, ‘How Israeli leaders kill for their people’s vote’ Dave continues:

I would add that everything he says about ‘Israelis’ applies also to American Zionists including those who are surprised to discover Israel’s essential racism and then find that this does not induce them to audibly oppose racist violence that was never really disguised in the first place.

The blindness of US Zionist support for Israel is not caused by an urgent need to support something which cannot be justified as it really is, in plain sight. That notion, like all excuses for Israel, requires ‘angry’ denial of reason. The cause and effect go the other way.; The luxurious chauvinistic approval Israel enjoys from US Zionists is the source of the unlimited financial support provided by all US taxpayers (over eight million dollars a day) wangled from us through our inability to believe the obvious truth our Zionist friends, neighbors, and mass-media want us to deny. That unlimited support, with no questions asked, is what causes Israeli policies to be determined by the psychopaths who inevitably rise to top Israeli leadership by getting the quickest, bloodiest results: the policies that take utmost advantage of unlimited money and no accountability.

The geographic distance and psychic disconnect between the complacent soccer-mom Zionists among us and the hideous results of their comfy support for Israel, is exactly the disconnect that allows unthinkable barbarism ‘the insanity of war’ to prevail in Palestine and all the spin-off wars in the Middle East, belying all our espoused beliefs. The pleasing congeniality of our Zionist friends turns to resentment and censorship if we mention the ethnic-cleansing of Palestine. And that hostile reaction, just inside the congenial surface, is the near end of the racist violence which, at the other end, slaughters perfectly innocent men, women, and children, as ‘regrettably required’ for the constant expansion of an officially ‘Jewish’ state in multi-ethnic Palestine.’

The Marin Peace Justice Coalition and the Kol Shofar Synagogue Show-down

The perspective thus far presented is the background gestalt to a culminating event which took place in the community of Tiburon, Marin County, California at the Kol Shofar Synagogue Monday, January 12th at 7:00 P.M.

The local ‘Marin Peace and Justice Coalition’ had issued an open invitation to all concerned residents to join the Marin Jewish community on this evening for ‘prayers for peace, remarks by community and faith leaders followed by an opportunity to discuss the crisis in Israel and Gaza.’ In addition, as the contact person, Suzan Berns Berns,[email protected] stated in the announcement, ‘I strongly encourage you to attend this gathering. This is the time to listen, to learn, to speak and to be changed.’

At the same time and place another contingent of protesters had also made plans to be outside the synagogue expressing their opposition to ‘Israel’s Gaza genocidal slaughter’ as organizer Bill Rothman stated.’The slaughter goes on. This is chance, right in our own backyard, to show that there is strong opposition to Israel’s ongoing Gaza slaughter of the Palestinians.’

These two initiatives prompted Dave to write the following to some of his associates:

‘Most interesting It’s a whole new dimension of activism, involving the ‘Marin Peace and Justice Coalition,’ which has been totally dominated and muzzled by its Zionist, apartheid ‘two-state peace’ activists ever since its creation, right after 9/11.

It seems there will be a ‘dialogue’ between peace activists and long-standing, hard-core Zionists, claiming to represent ‘the Marin Jewish Community,’ and there will also be a protest of the dialogue, both at the same time and place, this Monday, in Tiburon.

The protest is a whole new dimension of activism in Marin and in the anti-war movement.

The contact-person for the ‘protest’ is Bill Rothman who was one of the leaders suppressing honest dialogue about Zionism in the ‘peace movement’ eight years ago, when the crises of the past eight years were clearly beginning. Perhaps Rothman has actually changed. Many people have.; Or maybe this is yet another effort by Zionists to maintain control of anti-war energies that have been aroused more seriously than ever: by the full revelation of what Zionism has always meant, now seen all too clearly in the ongoing, extended ‘Christmas Massacre’ of Palestinians in Gaza.

My very well informed belief is that a friendly constructive dialogue with Jewish people and the ‘Jewish Community’ is exactly what is most needed: so that those in the Jewish community who are willing to audibly protest the patent racist violence of forcing an expressly Jewish state into Palestine or of perpetuating the ethnic-cleansing of the past can step forward and declare this commendable transformation.; And those who refuse this special opportunity now that there can be no possible excuse for further self-deception can be specifically identified as the violent racists their refusal proves them to be.

To a real ‘peace’ activist, protesting a long-overdue dialogue is seen as jumping the gun, particularly in a mini-community of recalcitrant ‘peace activists’ which has long been the primary obstacle to polite, valid, pro-peace dialogue thus playing a key role in assuring that the realities would go totally nuts, as they now have in Israel-Palestine.

Yet, there is good reason to doubt the sincerity of a ‘Jewish community’ dialogue when it is led by notorious Zionists. Still, I believe the offer should be accepted in good faith. Perhaps people are really changing. If this offer proves false, protests against the Zionist ‘Jewish Community’ and its stubbornly racist leaders at their community gathering-places should proceed in full confidence of having tried everything.

Yet we must also respect those who simply protest anything less than full immediate denouncement of openly-declared racism, as Zionism defines itself to be, and as practiced for decades by the ‘Jewish State’ constantly expanding the turf of its supremacy.; In all other cases of openly-declared state-racism, the ordinary, moderate response is to give the racist policies primary emphasis and absolute Zero tolerance. Delaying that frankness does perpetuate the cover-up which has managed to keep the gory Elephant of Zionist racism the best-kept secret in our living-room of ostensible egalitarianism.

So ‘dialogue’ or ‘protest’: it’s anyone’s choice, at the same time and place.

I urge everyone who can make it: come to either the dialogue or the protest of the dialogue. I myself will attend the dialogue with complete sympathy for the protesters and with equal hopes for understanding with the Jewish community and very interested to see how leading Zionists will respond to the no-longer-deniable truth: the perfectly patent racism and violence of forcing a ‘Jewish’ state into a multi-ethnic region.

Let’s all be perfectly polite to each other. What is demonstrably racist should be described as such politely. And it should politely receive no more of our massive tax-financing.

The result

On January 14th I received the results of this ‘gathering’, one which Dave had called ‘the story of the decade’. His letter contained the details of his personal experiences plus his final ‘corrective letter’ to the Jewish Community Relations Council. As he said by way of introduction:

‘As always, when Zionism is involved, there was a gross misrepresentation.

But the significance of what transpired remains. The conflict between the realities of Zionism and the decent standards of the world and of our local neighborhoods becomes increasingly stark.

My corrective letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council (to whom the original nice-sounding announcement was attributed) is necessarily long, and I never ‘expect’ anyone to read anything I offer but this situation, the near-end of the wrongs we see in Palestine, is surely more significant than most of what is said on related subjects in the media.’

Here is what happened. [the following is directed to the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) Ed.]

I live in Tiburon, just a few blocks from Kol Shofar. I have many dear friends all around here, including many Jewish friends of course. I attended the event with high expectations, based on a representation whose origin appears to be you [the JCRC Ed.] and local representatives of the ‘Jewish community.’ As I have sometimes attended events of this kind and have always found the Jewish community quite open to challenging ideas, for the sake of peace in Israel as well as the entire region, I came prepared with some written, one-page copies of the best position I know for full equality in Israel-Palestine, in furtherance of the belief that human equality is fundamental to peace: the case for ending all US funding for any and all policies of ethnic or religious discrimination, by any side, involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict what all American children are taught to expect of their communities and country.

The last time I attended an event of this kind at the Osher Marin JCC I found a very large and friendly group discussing my ideas with me, kindly and attentively, and a number of people had asked where they could get my ideas in written form, so I came prepared. The extensive security at the Kol Shofar event struck me as reasonable, in these times, underlined by the presence of some nearby ‘protesters,’ who had apparently deigned to bypass the announced opportunity for constructive dialogue. And when someone near the door asked to see what was in my (paper) folder, I was pleased to hand it to him. The exact content did not appear to matter. The person looked at the paper for no more than two seconds, apparently deemed the ideas inconsistent with his own, and immediately threatened me with violence and ordered me to leave. The man told me that ‘This is private property, and you will be arrested if you don’t leave immediately.’

Naturally floored at this vulgar expression of violent discourtesy from Kol Shofar, I asked ‘Because I possess these ideas?’ The answer was ‘Yes.’ I had not given any papers to anyone, nor would I have felt mistreated if someone had asked me to leave them at the door. Thinking of the genteel announcement from the JCRC, I tried to ask while turning away ‘Are you aware that this event has been advertised as a community discussion?’ Before I could finish the first three words, I was interrupted with ‘No more words. Just leave.’ Tiburon Police officers, correctly doing their duty on behalf of private-property laws, closed in to properly enforce this grotesque misuse of local law and subversion of our Constitutional free speech. The invading extremists clearly know how to misuse our society’s standards and law-enforcement as a means of mere, subjective violence.

The attitude expressed by these representatives of Kol Shofar was not professional firmness; it was brute contempt for anyone outside their very narrow ethnic profile quite eye-opening, coinciding as it does with the impressions we are getting from Zionist behavior in Gaza.

With wonderfully telling coincidence, I had just encountered a long-time friend of mine, a young man of the finest courtesy and reputation, who grew up three blocks from Kol Shofar and whom I have known since he was an eleven-year-old child in my kids’ program a member of Kol Shofar who had come to join his mother, an Israeli citizen, who was saving a seat for him inside. But, because he had been talking with me, he was threatened and ordered to leave too. His astonished ‘But why are you telling me to leave?’ was cut short by the same ‘No more words’ threat, which was directed at both of us and enforced with ominous encirclement by misused local police. Though my friend was utterly polite, quiet, and cooperative, as is his way, his dismay and severe disillusionment were perfectly obvious, so he was escorted all the way to his car by four police-officers, apparently trained in recognizing emotion. In contrast, I was trusted to walk to my car unescorted.

Another young friend of mine another of the best-loved and finest young men in Southern Marin, having also lived right here all his life arrived shortly after I left, expecting to see me at this ‘time to listen, to learn, to speak, and to be changed.’ Apparently my blonde young friend also failed to fit the preferred profile. Though cell-phones were used by various people at the event, my friend’s call to me, to see if I had changed my plans, brought the same threats and violent ejection from our sadly misrepresented ‘Jewish community.’; (I trust you realize that total control over another person, when imposed by convincing threats of immediate violence, is properly called ‘violence.’)

Apparently, my other friend’s Israeli mother fit the preferred profile, as she spoke on her cell-phone with her son when he failed to arrive as expected and she was not subjected to ethnic-cleansing.

This was clearly a case of an alien culture, with no concept of our constitutional principles, such as human equality and free speech, taking over a piece of local real-estate, and using our private-property laws and local police to enforce principles completely contradictory to American and local values.

Yet none of this was any inconvenience to my friends or me. As I said in my final words to the Kol Shofar people, ‘This is all the information I could want.’

Though my friends, especially the Kol Shofar member, were stunned at this behavior, they found this experience corresponding all too well with what they have been seeing in the news about Gaza, their personal distress mere droplets in the ocean of horror which is ethnic-cleansing.

We had come to learn and be changed, and we certainly learned! I hope you will share in this windfall of insight.

The foremost victims of the behavior we experienced are the Jewish people, from whom the glaring truths of Zionist ethnic-cleansing so unchecked and thus ever more virulent and so essential to understanding the natural reasons for the world’s increasing anger could not be hidden by anything less than the incredible behavior that was manifest at Kol Shofar.

As a secondary matter, if you and the JCRC were misrepresented in a false announcement, you might wish to take some action against the culprits. Or, if the horrific actuality of the Kol Shofar event belies your and the JCRC’s good intentions using your lovely depiction to historically camouflage what was in fact an invasive, racist war-rally you will probably want to contact everyone to whom your announcement was sent, correct the record, apologize, and explain what steps you and the JCRC will be taking to repair the damage.

As for my friends and I, we greatly appreciate the announcement attributed to you, as our experience has been essential to understanding the problem of unchecked Zionism: if we had not tried to attend this event, the horrific realities just under the local surface, the near-end of what is happening in Gaza, would not have established themselves as important local history.

That manifest reality now adds to the burden of the extremists’ growing and obviously desperate cover-up and must awaken those interested in peace for Israel and in service to the Jewish community and its relations with the general community.

The positive aspects of Zionism must not cause a blindness to its negative potentials or allow them to continue so unchecked as the world is seeing in Gaza and as we have now found violating our dear Tiburon neighborhood.

I hope you and the JCRC will take steps to represent the majority of the Jewish community, in its distance from very harmful misrepresentation by international Zionist extremism which manifested itself in Tiburon on Monday evening.’

Dave’s ‘Corrective Letter’

Dear Ms. Berns,

I think you would wish to know that a serious misrepresentation was made and attributed to you and the Jewish Community Relations Council regarding the gathering at Kol Shofar at 7:30, on Monday, January 12.

I have copied the text of the announcement I received through the Marin Peace and Justice Coalition. [see above. Ed.]

Perhaps those words were not authorized by you and/or the JCRC, or perhaps they expressed a misapprehension.

In any case, the actual event proved to be the diametric opposite of what was described, and the effect was to create a disaster for Jewish community relations the scope of this ‘disaster’ determined only by the number of people who learn the truth or by the effectiveness of corrective efforts, perhaps by the JCRC.

I should add that this ‘disaster for Jewish community relations’ was also a valuable windfall of discovery for everyone who is actually ‘praying for peace, working for justice.’ While the error in the announcement of the Kol Shofar event drew people who would not otherwise have attended, there was no mistaking what we found what is actually going on in our community and the unacceptable realities call for a reassessment of the situation by all decent people, including you and the JCRC.

It is not so much a question of correcting an announcement, but rather an urgent need to correct misapprehensions about an illness in Zionism itself. What we have discovered is precisely the hostile and violent behavior, intruding into our dear neighborhoods at this local end, which correspond to the worst interpretations of the hostile and violent behavior we see expressed by the same organizations at the far end, in Palestine: where people don’t enjoy the protections we still have here.

Within the event itself, one speaker said it was not intended as a dialogue or discussion (thus contradicting the announcement attributed to you), but merely as a gathering of a local ‘congregation’ at a time of crisis for the state of Israel.

The content of the speeches conspicuously overlooking the most obvious explanation: the extremist racism of forcing a ‘Jewish’ state and ‘Jewish’ dominion ever deeper into a multi-ethnic region was clearly meant to fool the local Jewish congregation into excessive fears of unjustified, insane violence and anti-Semitism. This deception would of course promote the alternate approach the extreme folly of seeking ‘security’ through ethnic supremacy, with all its intrinsic slaughter an approach which does, in the short run, produce enormous profits for opportunists calling themselves ‘Zionists’ and falsely posing as representatives of ‘all Jews everywhere’.

The real effect of the Kol Shofar event was to trick decent, peace-loving Jewish people into overlooking what might very well be the best means of protecting Israel:; encouraging reform toward Twentieth Century ideas of egalitarianism, instead of the time-dishonored strategy of ethnic dominion. The event organizers’ utterly hostile attitude even toward a Jewish member of the Kol Shofar Congregation (who evidently did not quite fit their ‘profile’) demonstrated a mission of promoting the most racist kind of Zionism, quite to the detriment of ordinary Jewish people as well as everyone else who would never knowingly approve any such thing.

To various local residents, who were impressed by the announcement attributed to you but who were summarily deemed unfit for attendance, what actually transpired at Kol Shofar conveyed an unmistakable message: an exceedingly hostile takeover of our neighborhood and community by an alien culture that treats everyone else as less than subhuman. (In our neighborhood, people treat animals with more courtesy than we found in these mis-representatives of ‘the Jewish community.’) It became clear that the slightest variance from a narrow ethnic or cultural profile was sufficient cause for immediate threats of violence, misrepresented as the Jewish community’s way of telling people they are not welcome.

This was not a question of ‘security,’ as perfectly polite local residents were shown no courtesy at all: there was no ‘I’m sorry but we have to observe some strict security requirements’: just terse orders to leave immediately, expressed with threats of immediate violent arrest if we hesitated or even said anything. The first impressions of thuggish, foreign-looking security-people in uniform dark suits and foreign accents could be brushed aside in our pluralistic society, but the natural premonitions proved unequal to the realities which soon appeared: a scene like a neighborhood house that has been taken over by mafia goons or crack-dealers who exhibit nothing but utter contempt for the surrounding community.

I, myself, have operated a children’s center in Southern Marin for fifteen years; I am known to nearly everyone in our community, having been entrusted with many thousands of the local children, and I certainly do not exaggerate about gross violations of our decent traditional values belligerent, arrogant, invasive violations, the most extreme I have ever encountered anywhere.

I take every experience in a positive light, as a chance to learn something, and this experience provided a stunning but beautifully telling insight into attitudes which shed disconcerting light on the problem we thought we would be able to discuss in a civilized way: the dynamics behind the slaughter of ‘non-Jewish’ Palestinians, for the ‘security’ of an expressly ‘Jewish’ state relentlessly forcing its Zionist supremacy into a multi-ethnic region much as we have now found Kol Shofar (inadvertently?) doing to our decent, friendly neighborhood in Tiburon. It was all too easy to see: if we perfectly respectable neighbors of Kol Shofar and even a member of the Congregation could be summarily ejected with no word other than convincing threats of instant violence simply because we did not suit an incredibly arrogant ethnic profile it is very easy to see how this alien behavior would be applied to the Palestinians who are similarly deemed unfit for human treatment and, unlike us, have no protection at all, in the areas controlled by the same international organizations that show such hostile contempt for American values and the local community, right here in Tiburon.

If the conduct of the event-organizers does not coincide with what is going on in Gaza, why would local supporters of Israel’s actions subject their negatively profiled neighbors to the most extreme version of such treatment that they can legally get away with? If we try to imagine what racist invaders of Palestine might look like, or what behavior we would expect of them, if any could be found here in Marin County, we would find our worst images precisely fitting the appearance and behavior that ruled at Kol Shofar on Monday evening.

It is very alarming that these people believe they can behave that way right here in Tiburon, in an incredibly arrogant sense of total impunity and perfect contempt for any concerns about the message this sends to everyone outside the preferred profile the vast majority of local residents.’

Final radical commentary

Although overly lengthy for a standard internet article the import of Dave Kirsting’s message is vital to gaining the required insight necessary for a full understanding of both the gravity of what has been occurring in Palestine over the past six decades and the reason why it has prevailed for such a disastrously and unacceptably long period.

Dave’s thesis gives both form and substance to the undeniable fact that in order to fully comprehend the dynamics of political Zionism’s imminent and deadly danger to the world at large we must frame it within its legitimate context that being the crucial recognition that political Zionism is, first and foremost, a racist ideology and a mindset or paradigm which can never peacefully co-exist with any other multi-ethnic, pluralistic society anywhere upon the face of the planet. As such it cannot be allowed to continue in present form. This demands the dismantling of its fundamental ideological infrastructure for the good of the rest of humanity. If such actions do not occur within a reasonable amount of time the result may be a terminal state of chaos and destruction well beyond the already unacceptable levels we’re now witnessing in war-ravaged Gaza.

As the suffering and dying continues and the horror and shock of the last twenty days of genocide casts its long and dark shadow over our world this issue of Jewish racism screams out, like the cries of the Gazan victims of Israeli genocide, for universal recognition and amelioration. For the sake of all mankind we must work to ensure the knowledge of what Dave tells us spreads across the net and into the hearts and minds of peace-loving people everywhere.

Thank you Dave Kirsting for bringing your perspective forth. Your contribution to Life and Peace is sincerely appreciated.

{ Comments are closed }

Merry Christmas and a Happy, Hopeful New Year from


Dear Radical Readers and Friends of Freedom of Speech Everywhere,
On behalf of my wife Shastah and myself I would like to thank everyone who has been standing with over the past year and longer in my ongoing struggle to defend the legal right of all Canadians, as stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be able to express their thoughts and viewpoints on the Internet and in other media without fear of being attacked and persecuted by the government of Canada via the use of Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.
This past year saw the case move to the actual stage of trial which commenced in the B.C. Supreme Court, Quesnel, Canada on October 26, 2015 and ran until November 12, 2015 when the jury of 8 women and 4 men found me guilty in Count 1 and not guilty in Count 2 of the identical charge that I did ‘willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
As a result of this peculiar and strange ruling the stage has been now set for the continuation of my Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) in the coming new year. The time when this challenge will occur is yet to be determined but the week beginning January 25, 2016 will see a date fixed for the Constitutional argument to be heard.
In the event that my Charter argument fails to convince the Supreme Court that Sec. 319(2) is in violation of Sec. 2b of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms then I will then have the right to appeal the decision of the court on Count 1 that was handed down November 12, 2015.
There were a number of extenuating circumstances that arose during the actual trial which will, of necessity, come to the forefront in the appeal and portend a strong case for having the decision tossed out and a not guilty decision rendered. Space here doesn’t allow for any elaboration on the process but the new evidence will be forthcoming in the new year.
As of today I am still raising money in order to purchase the transcripts from the trial. Not only does the legal process in this country unfairly work against the individual through unjust legislation such as Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code but when forced to defend oneself against such specious forms of ‘thought crime’ laws the costs incurred are then further exacerbated by the state in the form of the victim having to pay exorbitant costs for the transcripts of the proceedings in order to continue on with their defence.
As it now stands the transcripts will cost me $7,500.00 to purchase from the sole contractor to the Attorney General’s office in B.C. JCWord Assist Ltd. The amount of support and funding for this onerous and ridiculously unfair process of procuring the transcripts has been overwhelmingly positive and to date we have already raised over $7,000.00 toward this end. I am deeply appreciative and humbled by this generosity on the part of supporters world-wide who’ve found it in their hearts to help me out. The transcripts are vital to my defence and will prove extremely useful in the days ahead as this battle to retain our right to freedom of speech continues to unfold in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The transcripts though are not the only expenses that I face and therefore I am forced to continue to ask for financial assistance and will likely do so until the process wends its way to a final outcome. It’s for this reason that I must therefore append my donation ‘shingle’ to this Christmas greeting as well.
As the new year approaches I am filled with hope, strength and an unwavering determination to carry on with this fight until the odious sections of our legal system that make it a criminal act to speak one’s mind are defeated and repealed once and for all.
The world today stands at the brink of despair and hope. Never has there been a more urgent time in our history for the people to be able to stand up and speak out for their basic human rights in order to defend their nation against the incredibly powerful and deceptive actions of their respective governments and media; political bodies and complicit agencies who have shown themselves, over and over, to be working against the fundamental rights of the individual in order to broaden the scope of their control and propaganda now being forced upon the minds and hearts of people around the globe all at the behest of special interest groups who wield, altogether, untold amounts of unwarranted power and influence over nation states worldwide.
2016 bodes well in terms of providing the impetus to speak out and be heard. Let us pray that vigilance and discernment will be the watchwords in the days ahead and that we will retain our basic rights and continue to live freely and in peace and harmony with all of humanity.
May God bless the peacemakers and all who strive for justice and truth!
Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network

{ Comments are closed }

When Truth Becomes ‘Anti-Semitic’: What World Famous People Say About Jews and Zionism

In a recent screed of January 10, 2009 (The ‘Oldest Hatred’ Lives, from Gaza to Florida ) outlining a list of relatively minor examples of anti-Jewish sentiment resulting from Israel’s current butchery of the defenseless Palestinians of Gaza, Canadian journalist Mark Steyn, one of Zionism’s key literary brokers for North America’s Jewish-owned media cartel, attempts to lay the blame for the growing public outrage on the doorstep of Palestine’s democratically elected government Hamas along with other Islamic extremists, Muslims and anyone, anywhere expressing ‘anti-Zionist’ sentiments.

After listing off his abbreviated litany of ‘anti-Semitic’ attacks upon various Jewish individuals and groups he writes, ‘Forget, for the moment, Gaza. Forget that the Palestinian people are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth. For the past sixty years they have been entrusted to the care of the United Nations, the Arab League, the PLO, Hamas and the ‘global community’ — and the results are pretty much what you’d expect’ all the while conveniently leaving out of his deceptively narrative description the blatant historic fact that it was the newly-formed Israeli government itself who, via mendacity and sheer ill-will and bloody terror, drove the legal inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes and villages and into that hideous concentration camp we now know as Gaza.

This simplistic and transparent ploy by Steyn to high jack the legitimate concerns of people around the world via jingoist sophistry and twisted argument in favour of the worn canard of ‘anti-Semitism’ falls flat in the face of an abundance of gross images of mutilated, dead and dying Palestinian children, women and elderly, yet this doesn’t deter him in his vainglorious denial of the truth from continuing to ride his blood-steyned steed further into the fray of unabashed Zionist media propaganda, thrashing about with his sword of lies and brandishing his bullet-ridden ‘anti-Semite’ banner one flapping madly about in the righteous winds of vehement feelings of horror expressed by decent people around the planet incensed and ashamed that such despicable acts of cruel and wanton bloodshed could still be committed against the human family at the beginning of the 21 Century.

But let’s, as Steyn says, ‘forget Gaza’ ‘and instead ponder the reaction to Gaza in Scandinavia, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and golly, even Florida. As the delegitimization of Israel has metastasized, we are assured that criticism of the Jewish state is not the same as anti-Semitism. We are further assured that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism, which is a wee bit more of a stretch. Only Israel attracts an intellectually respectable movement querying its very existence.’

In a token of submission to the Zionist god of cunning and perfidy Steyn tries comparing Israel with the state of Pakistan as part of recent political machinations and Mossad false flag operations by the Zionist-controlled US government to vilify Pakistan before eventually attacking it as yet another rogue, ‘terrorist’ state. Of Pakistan, and with obvious intent to deflect attention from Israel, Steyn sardonically states, ‘I happen to think the creation of Pakistan was the greatest failure of post-war British imperial policy.’

Steyn’s culminating and rather crass attempt to convince his western readers that all who reject Zionism are in fact Jew-hating bigots, hypocrites and ‘anti-Semites’ is eventually steeped in a feeble flourish of anti-Muslim artistry, punctuated with an excerpt from the Syrian poet, Nizar Qabbani, suggesting that the people of Gaza are all ‘mad’. And why are they mad? Why because, as Steyn so lucidly tells us, they exhibit ‘the enthusiastic adoption of the same pathologies’ that mainstream Europe is now expressing in their ‘anti-Semitic’ attacks but of course the Palestinians are even ‘more deranged — and in the end’ their resistance to the phosphorus bombs and DU bullets of Israeli justice ‘will prove just as self-destructive.’

Such is the ethereal substance of the Zionist media’s #1 propaganda broker Mark Steyn. If you don’t approve of the butcher’s banquet that Israel and its pro-Zionist supporters around the world are feasting upon then by definition you are ‘anti-Semitic’ and a Jew-hater.

Which brings me now to the list of world famous people, who by Steyn’s and Zionism’s definition, fit the description of ‘anti-Semite’. It was one of these people listed, H.H. Beamish who, in a New York address in October 1937 made the following observation:

‘In 1848 the word ‘anti-Semitic’ was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word ‘Jew.’ The right word for them is ‘Jew’ …’

Like gemstones and special treats of food I would guess that almost everybody loves reading quotes. The ones that follow are the most comprehensive list related to the issue of ‘anti-Semitism’ that I am aware of. They are offered here to the internet community as one small token of respect for the inhumane suffering of the Palestinian people of all of Palestine and the Arab world in general. They are also dedicated to those brave truth-seeking men and women who now languish in German prisons because they had the fortitude, the fore-knowledge and the courage to question the Zionist Lie. God bless and keep them all safe from any further harm.

If readers of these quotes feel they are being wrongly accused by the likes of Mark Steyn and the Zionist warlords I am certain that by the time they complete reading them they will not feel alone in their gut reaction to what is going on in Gaza today.

‘In the beginning was the word and the word was that the Talmudic Jews were anathema to universal justice and peace for all non-Jewish peoples of the earth.‘
~ Arthur Topham, January 13, 2009

Famous Quotes by Famous People on Jews and Zionism

CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman stateman, writer.

‘Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.’ (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)

Cicero was serving as defense counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official who interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their international headquarters (then, as now) in Jerusalem. Cicero himself certainly was not a nobody, and for one of this stature to have to ‘speak softly’ shows that he was in the presence of a dangerously powerful sphere of influence.

and on another occasion Cicero wrote:

‘The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers.’

SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher.

‘The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.’ (De Superstitione)

DIO CASSIUS. Second century Roman historian. Describing the savage Jewish uprising against the Roman empire that has been acknowledged as the turning point downward in the course of that great state-form:

‘The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood… In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today.’ (Roman History)

DIODORUS SICULUS. First century Greek historian. Observed that Jews treated other people as enemies and inferiors.

‘Usury’ is the practice of lending money at excessive interest rates. This has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles. It has brought strong condemnation of the Jews!

BERNARDINO OF FELTRO. 15th century Italian priest. A mild man who extolled patience and charity in normal circumstances, he described himself as a ‘barking dog’ when dealing with Jews:

‘Jewish usurers bleed the poor to death and grow fat on their substance, and I who live on alms, who feed on the bread of the poor, shall I then be mute before outraged charity? Dogs bark to protect those who feed them, and I, who am fed by the poor, shall I see them robbed of what belongs to them and keep silent?’ (E. Flornoy, Le Bienbeureux Bernardin the Feltre)

AQUINAS, THOMAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher. In his ‘On the Governance of the Jews,’ he wrote:

‘The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to work so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.’

HILAIRE BELLOC, in the book THE JEWS, page 9:

‘There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance … There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease.’

H. H. BEAMISH, in New York Speech, October 30, 1937:

‘The Boer War occurred 37 years ago. Boer means farmer. Many criticized a great power like Britain for trying to wipe out the Boers. Upon making inquiry, I found all the gold and diamond mines of South Africa were owned by Jews; that Rothschild controlled gold; Samuels controlled silver, Baum controlled other mining, and Moses controlled base metals. Anything these people touch they inevitably pollute.’

W. HUGHES, Premier of Australia, Saturday Evening Post, June 19, 1919:

‘The Montefiores have taken Australia for their own, and there is not a gold field or a sheep run from Tasmania to New South Wales that does not pay them a heavy tribute. They are the real owners of the antipodean continent. What is the good of our being a wealthy nation, if the wealth is all in the hands of German Jews?’


‘All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor.

Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.’

NESTA WEBSTER, In World Revolution, The Plot against Civilization, page 163:

‘Since the earliest times it is as the exploiter that the Jew has been known amongst his fellow men of all races and creeds. Moreover, he has persistently shown himself ungrateful… The Jews have always formed a rebellious element in every state.’

FRANZ LISZT, famed composer quoted in Col. E. N. Sanctuary’s Are These Things So?, page 278:

‘The day will come when all nations amidst which the Jews are dwelling will have to raise the question of their wholesale expulsion, a question which will be one of life or death, good health or chronic disease, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever.’

JESUS CHRIST, speaking to the Jews in the Gospel of St. John, VIII:44:

‘Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. then answered the Jews ’ (which makes it clear that Christ was addressing the Jews.)

MARTIN LUTHER, Table Talk of Martin Luther, translated by William Hazlett, Esq. page 43:

‘But the Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious race, oppressing all men by their usury and rapine. If they give a prince or magistrate a thousand florins, they extort twenty thousand from the subjects in payment. We must ever keep on guard against them.’

REV. GORDON WINROD, in his book The Keys to Christian Understanding, pages 114 115:

‘Judaism does not know Jesus Christ. Judaism hates Jesus Christ. When St. Paul was in Judaism, before he was converted to Christianity, he hated Jesus Christ and persecuted Christians and Christianity.’

Paul said: ‘You have heard of my earlier career in Judaism how furiously I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it; and how in devotion to Judaism I out-stripped many men of my own age among my people, being far more zealous than they for the tradition of my forefathers.’ (Gal. 1:13, 14, Weymouth Translation)

While in Judaism, Paul persecuted Christians because of his intense hatred for Christians and because of his conformity to the tradition of the fathers. This shows that the tradition of teachings of Judaism are filled with hate for Christians.

Few people know of this because they do not carefully read their Scriptures and because of the great pains which Jews have take to deceive the Christians. Care has been exerted by the Jews to hide their ECONOMIC-POLITICAL conspiracy for complete world domination UNDER high sounding words that have a ‘RELIGIOUS’ ring in the ears of Christians.

The Jews use such ‘religious’ sounding words as ‘the Jewish faith,’ ‘the Jewish religion,’ ‘Jewish spiritual values,’ ‘Jewish religious doctrines,’ and like phrases which deceive and lead the unlearned into total equanimity.

Behind this mask of religiosity stands a complete plan for world government, world power, world conquest, a Jewish kingdom of this world, and the destruction of Christianity.

REV. WILLIAM S. MITCHELL of Philadelphia, quoted in Count Cherep-Spiridovich’s book The Secret World Government, page 194:

‘If there is an ingrate in history, it is the Jew. In this land which befriended him he as conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted and corrupted and (hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of other folks), dares to contrive and scheme the death of every Christian principle which has protected him.’

ST. JUSTIN, martyr stated in 116 A. D.:

‘The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith.’

ST. JOHN, Gospel of St. John VII:1:

‘After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry because the Jews sought to kill him.’

M. H. DE HEEKELINGEN, in Israel: Son Passe, Son Avenir:

‘The former Rabbi Drach, converted to Catholicism, says that the Talmud contains ‘a large number of musing, utterly ridiculous extravagancies, most revolting indecencies, and, above all, the most horrible blasphemies against everything which the Christian religion holds most sacred and most dear.’

‘In the matter of the translation of the Talmud by non-Jews, we have always preferred that of Luzsensky, whose accuracy has been established by the Courts. In 1923, the Public Prosecutor of Hungary caused his Hungarian Talmud to be seized on account of ‘attack on public morals’ and ‘pornography.’ In delivering its verdict, the Court declared ‘INTER ALIA:

‘The horrors contained in the translation of Alfred Luzsensky are to be found, without exception, in the Talmud. His translation is correct, in that it renders these passages, which are actually to be found in the original text of the Talmud, after their true meaning.’


‘The Jews formed the breeding ground of all anti-Christian actions.’

REV. MARTIN LUTHER, sermon at Eisleben, a few days before his death, February, 1546:

‘Besides, you also have many Jews living in the country, who do much harm… You should know the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Savior day for day… for that reason you, Milords and men of authority, should not tolerate but expel them. They are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of changelings and abortions.

Therefore deal with them harshly as they do nothing but excruciatingly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, trying to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor and belongings.’

MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 1789):

‘Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commit all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible.’

(The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that ‘The Talmud is the real ‘bible’ of the Jews and that it supersedes the Old Testament. This volume has been condemned down through the ages for preaching hatred for Christ and all Christians. Read ‘THE TALMUD UNMASKED’ for the full shocking details.)

DIDEROT, DENIS. 18th century French scholar.

His famous ENCYCLOPEDIE, the bible of the pre-revolutionary French ‘enlightenment,’ has often been complained of by Jewish writers as ‘anti-Semitic.’ Some of Diderot’s other writings are likewise quite frank:

‘And you, angry and brutish people, vile and vulgar men, slaves worthy of the yoke [Talmudism] which you bear … Go, take back your books and remove yourselves from me. (LA MOISADE)

[The Talmud] taught the Jews to steal the goods of Christians, to regard them as savage beasts, to push them over the precipice … to kill them with impunity and to utter every morning the most horrible imprecations against them. (JUIFS)

NASTA WEBSTER, in Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, page 370:

‘The Jewish conception of the Jews as the Chosen People who must eventually rule the world forms indeed the basis of Rabbinical Judaism… The Jewish religion now takes its stand on the Talmud rather than on the Bible.’

F. TROCASE, in Jewish Austria:

‘No obstacle discourages them; they persevere throughout the world, throughout the centuries, the unity of their race. The Talmud has given them a powerful organization which modern progress has been unable to change. Deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not Jewish stimulates them in war which they wage against Christian Society, which is too divided to be able to fight with the necessary energy.’


‘The Jews form a state, and, obeying their own laws, they evade those of their host country. The Jews always consider an oath regarding a Christian not binding. During the Campaign of 1812 the Jews were spies, they were paid by both sides, they betrayed both sides.’

MOHAMMED, in the Koran:

‘Whoever is a friend of a Jew, belong to them, becomes one of them, God cannot tolerate this mean people. The Jews have wandered from divine religion. You must not relent in your work which must show up Jewish deceit.’

BACON, FRANCIS. 16th century British writer, politician.

In his The New Atlantis, he remarked that Jews,

‘hate the name of Christ and have a secret and innate rancor against the people among whom they live.’

He also disapproved of non-Jewish usurers as ‘Judaizers’ who would wear ‘tawny bonnets’ like Jews.

LUTHER, MARTIN. 16th century German religious reformer.

‘They are the real liars and bloodhounds, who have not only perverted and falsified the entire Scriptures from beginning to end and without ceasing with their interpretations. And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hoping of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us heathen as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther… On how they love the book of Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope.

The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they, who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. And the foremost undertaking which they expect of their Messiah is that he should slay and murder the whole world with the sword. As they at first demonstrated against us Christians and would like to do now, if they only could; have also tried it often and have been repeatedly struck on their snouts…

Their breath stinks for the gold and silver of the heathen; since no people under the sun always have been, still are, and always will remain more avaricious than they, as can be noticed in their cursed usury. They also find comfort with this: ‘When the Messiah comes, He shall take all the gold and silver in the world and distribute it among the Jews.

Thus, wherever they can direct Scripture to their insatiable avarice, they wickedly do so.

Therefore know, my dear Christians, that next to the Devil, you have no more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement an enemy than a real Jew who earnestly desires to be a Jew. There may be some among them who believe what the cow or the goose believes. But all of them are surrounded with their blood and circumcision. In history, therefore, they are often accused of poisoning wells, stealing children and mutilating them; as in Trent, Weszensee and the like. Of course they deny this. Be it so or not, however, I know full well that the ready will is not lacking with them if they could only transform it into deeds, in secret or openly.

A person who does not know the Devil, might wonder why they are so at enmity with the Christians above all others; for which they have no reason, since we only do good to them.

They live among us in our homes, under our protection, use land and highways, market and streets. Princes and government sit by, snore and have their maws open, let the Jews take from their purse and chest, steal and rob whatever they will. That is, they permit themselves and their subjects to be abused and sucked dry and reduced to beggars with their own money, through the usury of the Jews. For the Jews, as foreigners, certainly should have nothing from us; and what they have certainly must be ours. They do not work, do not earn anything from us, neither do we donate or give it to them. Yet they have our money and goods and are lords in our land where they are supposed to be in exile!

If a thief steals ten gulden he must hang; if he robs people on the highway, his head is gone. But a Jew, when he steals ten tons of gold through his usury is dearer than God himself!

Do not their TALMUD and rabbis write that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob (as they do with their moneylending) from a heathen, is a divine service… And they are the masters of the world and we are their servants yea, their cattle!

I maintain that in three fables of Aesop there is more wisdom to be found than in all the books of the Talmudists and rabbis and more than ever could come into the hearts of the Jews…

Should someone think I am saying too much I am saying much too little! For I see in [their] writings how they curse us Goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and prayers. They rob us of our money through usury, and wherever they are able, they play us all manner of mean tricks… No heathen has done such things and none would to so except the Devil himself and those whom he possesses as he possesses the Jews.

Burgensis, who was a very learned rabbi among them and by the grace of God became a Christian (which seldom occurs), is much moved that in their schools they so horribly curse us Christians (as Lyra also writes) and from that draws the conclusion that they must not be the people of God.

Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us! Jerusalem was destroyed more than 1,400 years ago during that time we Christians have been tortured and persecuted by the Jews in all the world. On top of that, we do not know to this day what Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem!… Yes, we have and hold them captive, as I would like to keep my rheumatism, and all other diseases and misfortunes, who must wait as a poor servant, with money and property and everything I have! I wish they were in Jerusalem with the other Jews and whomsoever they would like to have with them.

Now what are we going to do with these rejected, condemned Jewish people?… Let us apply the ordinary wisdom of other nations like France, Spain, Bohemia, et al., who made them give an account of what they had stolen through usury, and divided it evenly; but expelled them from their country;. For as heard before, God’s wrath is so great over them that through soft mercy they only become more wicked, through hard treatment, however, only a little better. Therefore, away with them!

How much more unbearable it is that we should permit the entire Christendom and all of us to be bought with our own money, be slandered and cursed by the Jews, who on top of all that be made rich and our lords, who laugh us to scorn and are tickled by their audacity!

What a joyful affair that would be for the Devil and his angels, and cause them to laugh through their snouts like a sow grinning at her little pigs, but deserving real wrath before God. (From THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES)

Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe that I am too rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that I ridicule them and treat them with much sarcasm. By my word, I am far too weak to be able to ridicule such a satanic brood. I would fain to do so, but they are far greater adepts at mockery than I and possess a god who is master in this art. It is the Evil One himself.

Even with no further evidence than the Old Testament, I would maintain, and no person on earth could alter my opinion, that the Jews as they are today are veritably a mixture of all the depraved and malevolent knaves of the whole world over, who have then been dispersed in all countries, similarly to the Tartars, Gypsies and such folk.’

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.

‘They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.’

This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a ‘CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION,’ at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.

‘I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.

In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.

If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.

If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.

Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.

STYVESANT, PETER. 17th century Dutch governor in America.

‘The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak newly developing place and land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ not be allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony. (Letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company, from New Amsterdam, September 22, 1654.)

The Jews whom he attempted to oust merely applied to their fellow Jews in Holland, and the order came back from the Company countermanding the expulsion. (For a similar situation during the Civil War, see ULYSSES GRANT). Among the reasons given by ‘their worships’ for over-ruling their governor, one stands out rather glaringly, in view of the usual Jewish contention that their people were ‘poor and persecuted:’ ’ …and also because of the large amount of capital which they have invested in shares of this Company.’ (Harry Golden and Martin Rywell, THE JEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY )

THE GEORGIA COLONY IN AMERICA. On January 5, 1734, the trustees ordered that three Jews who had been sending coreligionists into the colony without authorization ‘use their endeavors that the said Jews may be removed from the Colony of Georgia, as the best and only satisfaction that they can give to the Trustees for such an indignity offered to Gentlemen acting under His Majesty’s Charter.’ (C. Jones, HISTORY OF SAVANNAH)

JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman.

‘Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in. ’ (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS)

‘Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people. ’ (NOTES ON VIRGINIA)

BEAMISH, HENRY H. 20th century British publisher.

‘There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open and you were then free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat that is their reward. ’ (New York speech, October 30, 1937)

HARRINGTON, LORD. 19th century British statesman.

Opposed admission of Jewish immigrants to England because:

‘They are the great moneylenders and loan contractors of the world… The consequence is that the nations of the world are groaning under heavy systems of taxation and national debt. They have ever been the greatest enemies of freedom. (Speech in the House of Lords, July 12, 1858)

WALTER CRICK, British Manufacturer, in the NORTHAMPTON DAILY ECHO, March 19. 1925:

‘Jews can destroy by means of finance. Jews are International. Control of credits in this country is not in the hands of the English, but of Jews. It has become the biggest danger the British Empire ever had to face.’

WORLD FAMOUS MEN of the past accused the Jews of founding Communism. This charge is well founded. The Communist philosopy was drawn up by Karl Marx who descended from a long line of Rabbis. His ideology of anti-Christian and Socialist thought is outlined in the Jewish ‘TALMUD’ which is the ‘bible’ of the Jews. Of the four political groups which overthrew the Christan Czar of Russia two were 100% Jewish. They were the Mensheviks and The Jewish Bund. The other two were the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Bolsheviks. Both were headed by Jews but had some Gentile members. Today we now know that Lenin was Jewish and all of the leaders of his first government were Jews. They were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sverdlow. The wealthiest Jewish banker in the world at that time, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb investment bank of New York City, gave Trotsky and Lenin $20 million to overthrow the Czar and establish the Soviet tyranny (according to the ‘NEW YORK JOURNAL-AMERICAN’ of February 3, 1949.)

CHURCHILL, WINSTON. 20th century British politician.

In 1920, he wrote a long newspaper article of the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia. After praising what he called the ‘national Jews’ of Russia, he said:

‘In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, [now questionably of Jewish origin too. Ed.] the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders… In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (’Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.’ ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)

BAKUNIN, MIKHAIL. 19th century Russian revolutionary.

‘Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.

Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence…

In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks…’

This startling piece of prediction is particularly impressive to those who have observed the Soviet scene and notice its strange relationship with capitalist financiers overwhelmingly Jewish since the revolution. The line runs from Olof Aschberg, self-described ‘Bolshevik banker’ who ferried to Trotsky the huge sums raised for the revolution by financiers in Europe and America, to Armand Hammer in the 1970s, who has specialized in multimillion-dollar trade concessions with the now supposedly ‘anti-Semitic’ commissars.

WILHELM II. German Kaiser.

‘A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief even by pogroms, if necessary.

The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.’ (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, of Hungary quoted in B’nai B’rith Messenger, January 28, 1949

‘The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews… they demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary.’

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader New York speech, October 30, 1937:

‘When it came to Mexico, the promoters of Communism were the Jews Calles, Hubermann and Aaron Saenz; in Spain we saw Azaa and Rosenberg; in Hungary we saw Bela Kun, Szamuelly, Agoston and dozen other Jews; in Bavaria, we saw Kurt Eisner and a host of other Jews; in Belgium Marxian Socialism brought to power Vadervelde alias Epstein, and Paul Hymans, two Jews; in France, Marxian Socialism brought forth the Jews Leon Blum (who showed so well his Jewish instincts in his filthy book Du Mariarge), Mandel, Zyromsky, Danain and a whole tribe of them; in Italy we had seen the Jews Nathan and Claudio Treves. Everywhere, Marxism brings Jews on the top And this is no hazard.’

HILAIRE BELLOC, renown historian in G. K.’s WEEKLY, February 4, 1937:

‘The propaganda of Communism throughout the world, in organization and direction is in the hands of Jewish agents. As for anyone who does not know that the Bolshevist movement in Russia is Jewish, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppression of our deplorable press.’

A. HOMER, writes in Judaism and Bolshevism, page 7:

‘History shows that the Jew has always been, by nature, a revolutionary and that, since the dispersion of his race in the second century, he has either initiated or assisted revolutionary movements in religion, politics and finance, which weakened the power of the States wherein he dwelt. On the other hand, a few far-seeing members of that race have always been at hand to reap financial and political advantage coincident with such upheavals.’

CAPTAIN MONTGOMERY SCHYLER, American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia, in a military intelligence report dated March 1, 1919, to Lt. Col. Barrows in Vladivostok:

‘It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty.’

MRS. CLARE SHERIDAN, Traveler, Lecturer in NEW YORK WORLD, December 15, 1923:

‘The Communists are Jews, and Russia is being entirely administered by them. They are in every government office, bureau and newspaper. They are driving out the Russians and are responsible for the anti-Semitic feeling which is increasing.’

MAJOR ROBERT H. WILLIAMS, in Fecp and the Minority Machine, page 10:

‘B’nai B’rith, the secret Jewish fraternity, was organized in 1843, awakening world Jewish aspirations, or Zionism, and its name, meaning ‘Sons of the Covenant,’ suggests that the 12 men who organized the fraternity aimed at bringing about the fulfillment of ‘the Covenant,’ or the supposed Messianic promise of rulership over all peoples. To rule all peoples, it is first necessary to bring them together in a world federation or world government which is the avowed aim of both Communists and Zionists.’

VLADIMIR, LENIN, Founder of Bolshevik Communist (From an article in Northern Pravda, October-December 1913, qouted in Lenin on the Jewish Question, page 10):

‘There the great universally progressive features of Jewish culture have made themselves clearly felt: its internationalism, its responsiveness of the advanced movements of our times (the percentage of Jews in democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews in the general population.)

…Those Jewish Marxists who join up in the international Marxist organizations with the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other workers, adding their might (both in Russian and in Jewish) to the creation of an international culture of the working class movement, are continuing the best traditions of Jewry.’

JOSEPH STALIN in a reply given on January 12, 1931 to an enquiry made by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America (Stars and Sand, page 316):

‘Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death.’

HENRY FORD in (The Dearborn Independent, 12-19 February 1921:

‘Jews have always controlled the business… The motion picture influence of the United States and Canada… is exclusively under the control, moral and financial, of the Jewish manipulators of the public mind.’

M. OUDENDYK, the Netherlands’ Minister to Petrograd on September 6, 1918, to the British Government, published in the unexpurgated edition of A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, April, 1919:

‘…I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue before the World, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole World, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.’

A. N. FIELD, in Today’s Greatest Problem:

‘Once the Jewishness of Bolshevism is understood, its otherwise puzzling features become understandable. Hatred of Christianity, for instance, is not a Russian characteristic; it is a Jewish one.’

FATHER DENIS FAHEY; in his book The Rulers of Russia, page 25:

‘The real forces behind Bolshevism is Russia are Jewish forces, and Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom.’

A. N. FIELD, The Truth About the Slump, page 208:

‘The World today, however provides a spectacle of a great concentration of Jewish power. In New York there is a concentration of Jewish financial power dominating the entire world in its material affairs, and side by side with it is the greates physical concentration of the Jews ever recorded. On the other side of the globe, there has taken place in Russia the greatest concentration of the Jewish revolutionary activity in all history…

The enormously significant thing in the world today is that both this power of the purse (Theodor Herzl’s ‘terrible (Jewish) power of the purse’) and revolutionary activity are working in the direction of destroying the entire existing order of things, and not only are they working in a common direction, but there is a mass of evidence that they are working in unison.’

H. H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937:

‘Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918.’

HILARY COTTER, author of Cardinal Minszenty, The Truth About His Real ‘Crime’ page 6:

‘Communism and Judaism are one and the same.’

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader in New York Speech, October 30, 1937:

‘There is nothing else in Communism a Jewish conspiracy to grab the whole world in their clutches; and no intelligent man in the world can find anything else, except the Jews, who rightly call it for themselves a ‘paradise on earth.’

Jews are eager to bring Communism, because they know what it is and what it means.

It is because Communism has not been fought for what it really is a Jewish scheme invented by Jews that it has progressed against all opposition to it. We have fought the smoke-screen presented by Jewish dialecticians and publicists, refusing to fight the inventor, profiteer and string-puller. Because Christians and Gentiles have come to fear the Jews, fear the truth, and they are paralyzed by the paradoxical slogans shouted by the Jews.’


‘The Frankenstein of Communism is the product of the Jewish mind, and was turned loose upon the world by the son of a Rabbi, Karl Marx, in the hopes of destroying Christian civilization as well as others. The testimony given before the Senate of the United States which is take from the many pages of the Overman Report, reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jewish bankers financed the Russian Revolution.’


SYLVESTER I. Condemned Jewish anti-Christian activity.

GREGORY I (’The Great’). Protested wholesale circumcision of Christian slaves by Jewish traders, who monopolized the slave trade in Europe and the Middle East and were widely suspected of supplying white girls to Oriental and African buyers.

GREGORY VIII. Forbade Jews to have power over Christians, in a letter to Alfonso VI of Castile.

GREGORY IX. Condemned the TALMUD as containing ‘every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine.’

BENEDICT XIII. His Bull on the Jewish issue (1450) declared:

‘The heresies, vanities and errors of the TALMUD prevent their knowing the truth.’

JULIUS III. Contra Hebreos retinentes libros (1554) ordered the TALMUD burned ‘everywhere’ and established a strict censorship over Jewish genocidal writings an order that has never been rescinded and which presumably is still binding upon Catholics.

PAUL IV. Cum nimis absurdim (1555) promulgated immediately after his coronation, was a powerful condemnation of Jewish usury. It embodies a model legal code to curb Jewish power that was recommended to all communities.

PIUS IV. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

PIUS V. Hebraeorum gens (1569) expelled all Jews from the Papal States.

GREGORY XIII. Declared that Jews,

‘continue to plot horrible crimes’ against Christians ‘with daily increasing audacity.’

CLEMENT VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

ALEXANDER VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

BENEDICT XIV. Quo Primum (1751) denounced Jewish control of commerce and ‘systematical despoliation’ of the Christian through usury.

PIUS VII. Known generally as an ‘anti-Semite’ by Jewish writers.

BENEDICT XV. Warned, in 1920, against,

‘the advent of a Universal Republic which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder.’

This is resented by some Jews because of their active sponsorship and direction of such projects as the League of Nations and United Nations. And in effect, all Popes who have issued editions of the Index Expurgatorius, in which Jewish genocidal and anti-Christian writings are condemned, according to the instructions of the Council of Trent.

GRANT, USYSSES S. 19th century American general, politician.

While in command of the 13th Army Corps, headquartered at Oxford, Mississippi, he became so infuriated at Jewish camp-followers attempting to penetrate the conquered territory that he finally attempted to expel the Jews:

‘I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the special regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officers at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.’ (Letters to C. P. Wolcott, assistant secretary of war, Washington, December 17, 1862)

1. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department.
2. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are furnished with passes and required to leave, and anyone returning after such notification, will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permits from these headquarters.
3. No permits will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.

By order of Major Gen. Grant Jno. A. Rawlings, Assistant Adjutant General (General Order Number 11, December 17, 1862)

The expulsion order was immediately countermanded by the general-in-chief, H. W. Halleck, in Washington. Apparently the expelled Jews had immediately contacted their kinsmen there and had pressure brought to bear.

SHERMAN, WILLIAM T. 19th century American soldier.

In a letter from Union-occupied Memphis, July 30, 1862, he wrote:

‘I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and secessionists had become so open in refusing anything but gold, that I have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use the purchase of arms and ammunition… Of course, I have respected all permits by yourself or the Secretary of the Treasury, but in these new cases (swarms of Jews), I have stopped it.’ (The Sherman Letters)

ROSS, L. F. 19th century American military man.

As did Generals ULYSSES S. GRANT and WILLIAM T. SHERMAN, Ross confronted Jewish ‘carpetbagging’ cotton traders preying upon captured Confederate areas during the Civil War. In a letter to General John A. McClernand, he wrote:

‘The cotton speculators are quite clamorous for aid in the getting their cotton away from Middleburg, Hickory Valley, etc., and offer to pay liberally for the service. I think I can bring it away with safety, and make it pay to the Government. As some of the Jew owners have as good as stolen the cotton from the planters, I have no conscientious scruples in making them pay liberally to take it away.’

OLMSTED, GREDERICK LAW. 19th century American architect, historian.

‘A swarm of Jews has, within the last ten years, settled in every Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple Negroes, which is found very profitable. (The Cotton Kingdom. For other views on Jewish involvement in exploiting the South, see ULYSSES S. GRANT and MARK TWAIN.)

TWAIN, MARK (S. L. Clemens). 19th century American writer.

‘In the U.S. cotton states, after the war… the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the Negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew.
The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant stood no chance against his commercial abilities. The Jew was always ready to lend on a crop. When settlement day came, he owned the crop; the next year he owned the farm like Joseph.

In the England of John’s time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands. He was the King of Commerce. He had to be banished from the realm. For like reasons, Spain had to banish him 400 years ago, and Austria a couple of centuries later.

In all ages Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his activities. If he entered upon a trade, the Christian had to retire from it. If he set up as a doctor, he took the business. If he exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else. The law had to step in to save the Christian from the poor-house. Still, almost bereft of employments, he found ways to make money. Even to get rich. This history has a most sordid and practical commercial look. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it, bit not for the other nine.

Protestants have persecuted Catholics but they did not take their livelihoods away from them. Catholics have persecuted Protestants but they never closed agriculture and the handicrafts against them. I feel convinced that the Crucifixion has not much to do with the world’s attitude toward the Jew; that the reasons for it are much older than that event …

I am convinced that the persecution of the Jew is not in any large degree due to religious prejudice. No, the Jew is a money-getter. He made it the end and aim of his life. He was at it in Rome. He has been at it ever since. His success has made the whole human race his enemy.

You will say that the Jew is everywhere numerically feeble. When I read in the Cyclopedia Britannica that the Jewish population in the United States was 250,000 I wrote the editor and explained to him that I was personally acquainted with more Jews than that, and that his figures were without doubt a misprint for 25,000,000. People told me that they had reasons to suspect that for business reasons, many Jews did not report themselves as Jews. It looks plausible. I am strongly of the opinion that we have an immense Jewish population in America. I am assured by men competent to speak that the Jews are exceedingly active in politics.’ (’Concerning the Jews,’ Harper’s Monthly Magazine, September 1899)

Twain’s opinion on the Jews is probably the best-kept secret in American literary history. Immediately after his death, his eccentric daughter Clara married or was married by the Jewish piano player, Ossip Galbrilowitsch. Twain’s publishers were given speedy instructions to delete ‘Concerning the Jews’ from the collected works, where it had appeared in the book The Man that Corrupted Hadleybury & Other Stories. (1) Since Jews provided most of the agitators and orators who pushed forward the Abolition campaign that culminated in the Civil War (which Jewish bankers largely financed, on both sides), it seems a legitimate question whether there was any pre-planning for the wholesale and retail economic looting done by mainly Jewish carpetbaggers after the war. (2) We have cited a host of other writers on the terrible economic depredation that Jewry visited on the people of Tzarist Russia.

ERNEST RENAN, French historian:

‘The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but and this is the most important factor ethnically an altogether different race. The European felt instinctively that the Jew is a stranger, who immigrated from Asia. The so-called prejudice is natural sentiment. Civilization will overcome antipathy against the Israelite who merely professes another religion, but never against the racially different Jew…

In Eastern Europe the Jew is the cancer slowly eating into the flesh of other nations. Exploitation of the people is his only aim. Selfishness and a lack of personal courage are his chief characteristics; self-sacrifice and patriotism are altogether foreign to him.’

GOLDWIN SMITH, Professor of Modern History at Oxford, wrote in Nineteenth Century, October 1881:

‘The Jew alone regard his race as superior to humanity, and looks forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them all and to its final ascendancy under the leadership of a tribal Messiah.’

MENCKEN, H. L. 20th century American writer.

‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.’ (Treatise on the Gods)

The fact that what are commonly spoken of as rights are often really privileges is demonstrated in the case of the Jews. They resent bitterly their exclusion from certain hotels, resorts and other places of gathering, and make determined efforts to horn in. But the moment any considerable number of them horns in, the attractions of the place diminish, and the more pushful Jews turn to one where they are still nicht gewuenscht … (’not wanted.’)

‘I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the TALMUD. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other GOYIM. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish…’

‘The Jewish theory that the GOYIM envy the superior ability of the Jews is not borne out by the facts. Most GOYIM, in fact, deny that the Jew is superior, and point in evidence to his failure to take the first prizes: he has to be content with the seconds. No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms; no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world, and no Jewish scientist has equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. In the latter bracket such apparent exceptions as Ehrlich, Freud and Einstein are only apparent. Ehrlich, in fact, contributed less to biochemical fact than to biochemical theory, and most of his theory was dubious. Freud was nine-tenths quack, and there is sound reason for believing that even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim. But whether this inferiority of the Jew is real or only a delusion, it must be manifest that it is generally accepted. The GOY does not, in fact, believe that the Jew is better than the non-Jew; the most he will admit is that the Jew is smarter at achieving worldly success. But this he ascribes to sharp practices, not to superior ability.’ (Minority Report: H. L. Mencken’s Notebooks)

SHAW, GEORGE BERNARD. 20th century British dramatist.

‘This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word: the Jew. (London Morning Post, December 3, 1925)

This craving for bouquets by Jews is a symptom of racial degeneration. The Jews are worse than my own people. Those Jews who still want to be the chosen race (chosen by the late Lord Balfour) can go to Palestine and stew in their own juice. The rest had better stop being Jews and start being human beings. (Literary Digest, October 12, 1932)

WAGNER, RICHARD. 19th century German composer.

‘The Jew has never had an art of his own, hence never a life of art-enabling import… ‘So long as the separate art of music had a real organic life-need in it, down to the epochs of Mozart and Beethoven, there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was utterly impossible for an element quiet foreign to that living organism to take a part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of judgment in it yet merely to destroy it.

On one thing am I clear: that is the influence which the Jews have gained upon our mental life, as displayed in the deflection and falsification of our highest culture-tendencies. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of the destructive alien element, I an unable to decide, since that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. (Judaism in Music)

SOMBART, WERNER. 20th century German economist.

‘Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the root idea of capitalism. Turn to the pages of the TALMUD and you will find that the Jews made an art of lending money. They were taught early to look for their chief happiness in the possession of money. They fathomed all the secrets that lay hid in money. They became Lords of Money and Lords of the World…

FITZGERALD, F. SCOTT. 20th century American novelist.

‘Down a tall busy street he read a dozen Jewish names on a line of stores; in the door of each stood a dark little man watching the passers from intent eyes eyes gleaming with suspicion, with pride, with clarity, with cupidity, with comprehension. New York he could not dissociate it from the slow, upward creep of this people the little stores, growing, expanding, consolidating, moving, watched over with hawks’ eyes and a bee’s attention to detail they [were Jews.]

EMERSON, RALPH WALDO. 19th century American philosopher, poet.

‘The sufferance which is the badge of the Jew has made him, in these days, the ruler of the rulers of the earth. (Fate an essay)

BURTON, SIR RICHARD FRANCIS. 19th century British diplomat, writer.

After a sting as consul at Damascus, Syria, where some years before, a Catholic priest was allegedly murdered in a blood ritual by Jews, Burton took an interest in the matter. His investigations satisfied him that such killings actually were performed by certain sects of Jews.

‘The Jew’s hand was ever, like Ishmael’s, against every man but those belonging to the Synagogue. His fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combined to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind, whilst his unsocial and iniquitous Oral Law [the TALMUD, ed.] contributed to inflame his wild lust of self, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition.’

DREISER, THEODORE. 20th century American writer.

‘New York to me is a scream a Kyke’s dream of a ghetto. The Lost Tribe has taken the island. (Letter to H. L. Mencken, November 5, 1922) ’

‘Liberalism, in the case of the Jew, means internationalism. If you listen to Jews discuss Jews, you will find they are money-minded, very sharp in practice. The Jews lack the fine integrity which at last is endorsed, and to a certain degree followed, by lawyers of other nationalities. The Jew has been in Germany for a thousand years, and he is still a Jew. He has been in America for all of 200 years, and he has not faded into a pure American by any means and he will not. (Letter to Hutchins Hapgood, The Nation magazine, April 17, 1935)’

WELLS, H. G. 20th century British writer.

‘The Jews looked for a special savior, a messiah, who was to redeem mankind by the agreeable process of restoring the fabulous glories of David and Solomon, and bringing the whole world at last under the firm but benevolent Jewish heel.’ (The Outline of History)

‘Zionism is an expression of Jewish refusal to assimilate. If the Jews have suffered, it is because they have regarded themselves as a chosen people.’ (The Anatomy of Frustration)

‘A careful study of anti-Semitism prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritations they inflict.’ (Letter of November 11, 1933)

Wells was in the habit of referring to KARL MARX as ‘a shallow third-rate Jew,’ and ‘a lousy Jew’ in private correspondence. (Norman MacKenzie, H. G. Wells)

LINDBERGH, CHARLES. 20th century American aviator, writer.

Wednesday, August 23, 1939:

‘We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence in our press, radio and motion pictures. It may become very serious. [Fulton] Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising firms threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual system if a certain feature were permitted to go on the air. The threat was powerful enough to have the feature removed.’

Thursday, May 1, 1941

‘The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have ‘the bit in its teeth’ and is hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are the ‘intellectuals’ and the ‘Anglophiles,’ and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many others.’ (The Wartime Journals)

GENERAL GEORGE VAN HORN MOSELY, in the New York Tribune, March 29, 1939:

‘The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish influence throughout the world.’

HERDER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED. 18th century German philosopher.

‘The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which, according to its confession, it cannot do away with…

How many of this alien people can be tolerated without injury to the true citizen?

A ministry in which a Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a department or commissariat in which Jews do the principal business, are Pontine marshes which cannot be drained. (Bekehrung der Juden)

For thousands of years, since their emergence on the stage of history, the Jews were a parasitic growth on the stem of other nations, a race of cunning brokers all over the earth. They have caused great evil to many ill-organized states, by retarding the free and natural economic development of their indigenous population. (’Hebraer,’ in Ideen)

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON. French statesman, general.

‘The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes…’

‘Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity… ‘They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens.’

‘The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it… The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people.’ (From Napoleon’s Reflections, and from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806.)

‘Nothing more contemptible could be done than the reception of the Jews by you. I decided to improve the Jews. But I do not want more of them in my kingdom. Indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the most vile nation in the world.’ (Letter to his brother Jerome, King of Westphalia, March 6, 1808)

(1) Every big and small Jew in the peddling trade must renew his license every year.

(2) Checks and other obligations are only redeemable if the Jew can prove that he has obtained the money without cheating. (Ordinance of March 17, 1808. Napoleonic Code.)

DE GAULLE, CHARLES. 20th century French politician.

Addressing the Zionist imbroglio in the Mideast in a news conference of November 27, 1967, he observed:

‘The Jews remain what they have been at all times: an elite people, self-confident and domineering.’

SAND, GEORGE (Amantine Dupin Dudevant). 19th century French novelist.

‘I saw in ‘the wandering Jew’ the personification of the Jewish people, exiled in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, they are once again extremely rich, owing to their unfailing rude greediness and their indefatigable activity. With their hard-heartedness that they extend toward people of other faiths and races they are at the point of making themselves kings of the world. This people can thank its obstinacy that France will be Judized within fifty years. Already some wise Jews prophesy this frankly.’ (Letter to Victor Lorie, 1857)


In an address to the ASSEMBLEE in 1790, the city’s revolutionary leaders opposed citizenship for Jews, because:

‘Everyone knew the inherent bad character of the Jews and no one doubted they were foreigners… Let the ‘enlighteners’ stop defaming the Gentiles by blaming them for what is wrong with the Jews. Their conduct is their own fault. Perhaps the Jews might eventually give up every aspect of their separation and all the characteristics of their nature. Let us sit and wait until that happens; we might then judge them to be worthy of equality. (Tres Humble Adresse qui Presente la Commune de la Ville Strasbourg)

ROBERTS, STEPHEN H. 20th century Australian historian.

Though hostile on almost every point to National Socialism, his The House that Hitler Built does admit that Jews were a menace in Germany:

‘It is useless to deny that grave Jewish problems existed in Germany. The nation was in the unfortunate geographical position of being the first stage in the perennial push westward of the Polish Jews. Unless forced on, they tended to stop in Berlin and Hamburg, where they obtained an unduly share of good professional positions. In Berlin, for example, when the Nazi came to power, 50.2 percent of the lawyers were Jews. In medicine, 48 per cent of the doctors were Jews, and it was said that they systematically seized the principal hospital posts. The Jews owned the largest and most important Berlin newspapers, and they had made great inroads on the educational system.’

FRANCO, FRANCISCO. 20th century Spanish statesman.

In his victory speech in Madrid, on May 19, 1939, he declared:

‘Let us be under no illusion. The Jewish spirit, which was responsible for the alliance of large-scale capital with Marxism and was the driving force behind so many anti-Spanish revolutionary agreements, will not be got rid of in a day.’

PRIMO DE RIVERA, JOSE. 20th century Spanish political reformer (assassinated by the Communists).

He stressed that the instruments of Jewish domination in the modern world are money and the press, and that communism is an instrument of international Jewish capitalism used to smash and afterwards rule the nations. (El Estado Nacional)

H. H. BEAMISH, in a New York address, October 30 November 1, 1937:

‘In 1848 the word ‘anti-Semitic’ was invented by the Jews to prevent the use of the word ‘Jew.’ The right word for them is ‘Jew’ …

‘I implore all of you to be accurate call them Jews. There is no need to be delicate on this Jewish question. You must face them in this country. The Jew should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open to the Jews and they were free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat that is your reward.’

CHRISTEA, PATRIARCH. 20th century Romanian prelate.

‘The Jews have caused an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. They monopolize the press, which, with foreign help, flays all the spiritual treasures of the Romanians. To defend ourselves is a national and patriotic duty not anti-Semitism. Lack of measures to get rid of the plague would indicate that we are lazy cowards who let ourselves be carried alive to our graves. Why should we not get rid of these parasites who suck Romanian and Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them.’ (New York Herald Tribune, August 17, 1937)

HOUSTON STEWART CHAMBERLAIN, world famed author of Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, page 337:

‘The revelation of Christ has no significance for the Jew! … I have searched through a whole library of Jewish books in the expectation of finding naturally not belief in the Divinity of Christ, nor the idea of redemption, but the purely human feeling for the greatness of the suffering Savior but in vain. A Jew who feels that, is, in fact, no longer a Jew, but a denier of Judiasm. And while we find, even in Mohammed’s Koran, at least a vague conception of the importance of Christ and profound reverence for His personality, a cultured leading Jew of the nineteenth century (Graetz) calls Christ ‘the new birth with the death mask,’ which inflicted new and painful wounds upon the Jewish people; he cannot see anything else in Him. In view of the Cross he assures us that ‘the Jews do not require this convulsive emotion for their spiritual improvement,’ and adds, ‘particularly not among the middle classes of inhabitants of the cities.’ His comprehension goes further. In a book, republished in 1880, by a Spanish Jew (Mose de Leon) Jesus Christ is called a ‘dead dog’ that lies ‘buried in a dunghill.’ Besides, the Jews have taken care to issue in the latter part of the nineteen century several editions (naturally in Hebrew) of the so-called ‘censured passages’ from the Talmud, those passages usually omitted in which Christ is exposed to our scorn and hatred as a ‘fool,’ ‘sorcerer,’ ‘profane person,’ ‘idolater,’ ‘dog,’ ‘bastard,’ ‘child of lust,’ etc.: so, too, His sublime Mother.’

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader of the 1930s:

‘Through their (Jew’s) international news agencies, they mold your minds and have you see the world not as it is, but as they want you to see it. Through their cinema, they are the educators of our youth and with just one film in two hours, can wipe out of a child’s brain what he has learned in six months in the home, the church or the school.’

NESTA WEBSTER, in her book Germany and England:

‘England is no longer controlled by Britons. We are under the invisible Jewish dictatorship a dictatorship that can be felt in every sphere of life.’

HENRY WALLACE, Secretary of Commerce, under President Harry Truman.

Wrote in his dairy that in 1946,

‘Truman was ‘exasperated’ over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist rule over Palestine. Wallace added ‘Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much ‘put out’ with the Jews. He said that ‘Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?’ Pres. Truman said he had no use for them and didn’t care what happened to them.’

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYANT, three times the Democratic Party candidate for President said:

‘New York is the city of privilege. Here is the seat of the Invisible Power represented by the allied forces of finance and industry. This Invisible Government is reactionary, sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary, and sordid. It is wanting in national ideals and devoid of conscience… This kind of government must be scourged and destroyed.’

HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams), in a letter to John Hay, October 1895:

‘The Jewish question is really the most serious of our problems.’

SPRING-RICE, SIR CECIL. 20th century British politician.

‘One by one, the Jews are capturing the principal newspapers of America. (Letter of November 1914, to Sir Edward Grey, foreign secretary. Letters and Friendships)

CAPOTE, TRUMAN. 20th century American writer.

In an interview, he assailed ‘the Zionist mafia’ monopolizing publishing today, and protested a tendency to suppress things that do not meet with Jewish approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968)

VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer.

‘Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race…’

‘The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.’ (Essai sur le Moeurs)

‘You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.’ (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’ Examen des Quelques Objections… dans L’Essai sur le Moeurs.)

‘You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them.’ (’Juif,’ Dictionnaire Philosophique)

‘I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made… But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.’ (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondence. 86:166)

‘They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.’ (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)

CANNOT, E. 19th century French reformer.

In La Renovation, journal of the socialist school of CHARLES FOURIER.

‘Jews! To the heights of your Sinai… I humbly lift myself. I stand erect and cry out to you, in behalf of all my humble equals, of all those whom your spoliation has brought to grief, who died in misery through you and whose trembling shades accuse you: Jews! for Cain and Iscariot, leave us, leave us! Ah, cross the Red Sea again, and go down there to the desert, to the promised land which is waiting for you, the only country fit for you; o you wicked, rude and dishonest people, go there!!! (’Israel’)

DOUGLAS REED, Chief War Correspondent for London Times, author of The Controversy of Zion, Ch. 32, ‘The World Revolution Again’, P. 274:

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: ‘Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things’. The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: ‘The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution’. M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.

This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).

These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) [Lenin is now recognized to be Jewish as well. Ed.] and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Cheka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of ‘opposition’ was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).

{ Comments are closed }

Resisting the New World Order (NWO) War Against All of Humanity Video by Sean M. Madden


Dear Truth Seekers,
Sean Madden’s talk regarding the New World Order agenda is worthy of a listen. The main thesis throughout his talk revolves around the concept that we are and have been deeply immersed in a global or world conflict for well over a century now; one contrived and headed by the Zionist forces which have been operating behind the curtains of media and academia and banking and government covers well before the creation of the US Federal Reserve in 1913.
The message is to stop plugging in to the global matrix of lies and deception. Stop watching global TV. Stop reading the msm publications. Stop watching Hollywood scripts that reinforce the lies. Stop connecting up with the dialectic that the Zionists have projected onto the world via their controlled media. Stop participating in the Big Lie, the Big Deception. Stop falling prey to every new incident which the Zionists orchestrate in advance to keep the masses distracted from seeing beyond the smoke cover that they continually rekindle with false flag after false flag in order to smother and obfuscate and steer people along pre-conceived paths that all end up being cul de sacs, dead ends leading to more confusion and impasses that ultimately stymie the one essential revelation necessary to spur people on to greater and greater resistance, that being the realization that the dichotomy we’re told exists is but a facade.
It bears repeating these basic truths as the degree of deception is being ratcheted up and up with each new passing day making it more and more onerous for people to stay focussed on the basics. Sean does a bang up job of reinforcing those basics. Do share this important talk with those who are still confused about global events.
P.S. I must preface Sean’s comments on Putin and Russia by stating that I take them with a grain of salt at this point. It may just be my long standing connection with Edgar Cayce that prompts me to say this. Time, of course, reveals all.

{ Comments are closed }

Reply to Mark Weber by Robert Faurisson

I shall briefly sum up for you what, precisely, our recent exchange of correspondence has been. For greater clarity, I find myself obliged to emphasise certain words of this exchange, although I do not care for the practice. You will see that, contrary to what you venture to say, the letter that I sent you and made public on 17 December was neither ‘misleading’ nor ‘unfair’. You will also see, at the end of this reply, that you have made a monumental muddle of a text of mine of which you quote a very brief fragment; by so doing, you have been ‘misleading’ or ‘unfair’ or both. In conclusion, I will show that this controversy may in the end lead to a heartening prospect for the future of revisionism.
My question of 17 December was: ‘Tell me whether or not you SAY, as I myself have so clearly STATED for so many years, that the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS and the alleged Nazi GAS VANS never EXISTED’. The question was clear: it focused 1) on what you SAY or STATE, 2) on the very EXISTENCE, 3) of the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS, 4) and of the alleged Nazi GAS VANS.
Instead of answering this question directly, you wrote back: ‘I don’t believe the claims about the alleged Nazi gas chambers’. That act of faith was not what I was looking for. Effectively, whereas I was waiting to see what you, as a historian, would SAY or STATE, you answered by what you DIDN’T BELIEVE. Then, you asserted that you did not BELIEVE in CLAIMS, a particularly vague word; the remark may mean that you refuse to believe certain statements concerning the said gas chambers, but not necessarily all such statements; the choice of the word ‘CLAIMS’ may mean that you call into question certain aspects of the story of the Nazi gas chambers (their number, location, performance) but not necessarily the affirmation of their existence itself. Finally, with such a sentence you do not, as all may see, breathe a word of the ‘gas vans’.
Noting that with so vague a sentence you had not gone into the subject, I did not feel the need to deal with it in my letter itself, but, in the accompanying message, addressed to Jean Plantin, Yvonne Schleiter and Arthur Butz at the same time as to you, I plainly told you: ‘I did not ask for your ‘beliefs’ (?) about ‘claims’ (?) and, moreover, you do not mention the Nazi gas vans’.
Nor did I deal with your prologue regarding at once Dachau, Mauthausen, Hartheim and your ‘limited’ knowledge of technical and chemical matters. As is my habit, I went straight to the heart of the matter and so it was that, leaving to one side everything of the order of more or less trifling preliminary remarks, I extracted from your response the lone sentence that constituted an answer, FINALLY, to the question put. And that answer was as follows: ‘I do not like to say that the ‘Nazi gas chambers never existed’, in part because I do not regard myself as any kind of specialist of ‘gas chambers’ and in part because I avoid making such categorical statements.’
I think it useless here to run once more through the remarks that such a pitiful answer inspires me to make. It is typical of what I call ‘spineless Revisionism’. At the 2002 conference, I protested against this form of revisionism and suggested that, in future, revisionists come out fighting. I find comical the insistence of some revisionist ‘researchers’ on still looking into ‘the problem of the gas chambers’. We are not about to carry on this way till the end of time killing what has already, on the commonsense level, been ‘overkilled’. But with our ‘researchers’ the corpse of the ‘Nazi gas chambers or vans’ is buried, then exhumed to be put in a coffin into which one more nail is driven. The role of an Institute like the IHR ought to be to come out with a formal assertion, one requiring neither technical nor chemical expertise but rather of the simplest kind: For more than half a century, Germany’s accusers have in the end revealed their inability to let us see a single specimen of the alleged weapons of mass destruction that the Nazis are said to have designed, built or used for ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’ (Raul Hilberg).
Whatever you do, don’t moan that ‘Given that you have not pressed me for my view on Nazi gas chambers during the past ten years or so, I don’t understand why you have been pressing me on this in recent weeks’. In reality, you know perfectly well that there has been this point of discord between us for quite a long time. I have reminded you of the instance at which you and I confronted one another on it ten years ago in Washington. There was also, though you seem not to remember, another instance, over the telephone, on the subject of a statement of yours during a talk-show on a Black radio station. And I am not the only one to deplore Mark Weber’s shilly-shallying with regard to the gas chambers. I can recall Fritz Berg rightly complaining of your dodging the question. Carlos Porter also seems to find you are dancing around. I myself have had to approach you more than once in order to get you to respond. And now, finally, that your response is known, it is understandable why you have tried to dodge an irksome question. But, is it normal, Mark Weber, to conceal from the IHR’s readers, members, dues-paying supporters that their editor perhaps refuses, to a certain degree, to BELIEVE a lie and a historic slander but DOES NOT LIKE to have to say so? How many people imagine that for the Editor of the Journal of Historical Review a proper reply to that slander is: ‘I do not like to say that ‘the Nazis gas chambers never existed’’?
During the above-mentioned talk-show, you stated: ‘I do not deny the Holocaust happened but ’ I immediately told you how deadly wrong it was to make such a CONCESSION to The Big Lie and Defamation. You retort now that in 1991 I myself declared: ‘Revisionists do not deny the genocide and the gas chambers’. There you make a fine muddle. I said then, on the contrary, that by the acceptance of the word ‘deny’ an untoward CONCESSION was made to the liars. I give you below the full text of my remark, that was published under the altogether unambiguous title ‘AFFIRMATION, NOT DENIAL’:
A reminder: Revisionists do not deny the genocide and the gas chambers. This is a MISCONCEPTION. Galileo didn’t deny that the earth was stationary; he AFFIRMED, at the conclusion of his research, that the earth was not stationary, but that it rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. In the same way, the revisionists, after concluding their own research, AFFIRM that there was no genocide and no gas chambers, and that the ’ final solution of the Jewish question ’ consisted of the removal of the Jews from Europe by emigration if possible, and by deportation if necessary. The revisionists strive to establish what happened ; they are positive while the exterminationists doggedly continue to tell us about things which didn’t happen : their work is negative. The Revisionists stand for the reconciliation of the antagonists in the recognition of what really happened. (Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, January-February 1999, p. 21).
In other words, I make with that remark the opposite of a CONCESSION. In a general way, not only do I expose the enthusiasts of the Big Lie for what they are, but I also refuse to borrow their least turn of phrase. The revisionists must show themselves to be candid, unbending and without CONCESSION. The time for CONCESSIONS is over.
I come now to the possibility, mentioned at the outset, of an interesting prospect for the future of revisionism. On 2 June 2003, I published the following short article.
Hitler’s and Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is it not wonderful to get the same lie from the same people and for the same purpose?
In January 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to create, at the request of the Jew Henry Morgenthau and his fellows, the so-called War Refugee Board (WRB). In November 1944, that official body published, under the heading ‘Executive Office of the President / War Refugee Board / Washington, DC’, a report entitled German Extermination Camps Auschwitz and Birkenau, falsely accusing Adolf Hitler of having weapons of mass destruction or WMD (called execution gas chambers).
In 2002, President George W. Bush decided to create, at the request of the Jew Paul Wolfowitz and his fellows, the so-called Office of Special Plans (OSP). That official body authored reports falsely accusing Saddam Hussein of having WMD.
The lie was the same: an accusation based on false evidence. The people were the same: powerful American Jews. The purpose was the same: war.
But there were also differences. First, the lie against Hitler was about impossible and inconceivable WMD (for physical and chemical reasons) while the lie against Saddam Hussein was about quite possible and conceivable WMD since his accusers themselves had the same kind of weapons. Secondly, the lie against Adolf Hitler was more than half a century old and stronger than ever while the lie against Saddam Hussein was a few months old and already not too strong. Thirdly, if someone disputed the accusation against Adolf Hitler, he might go to prison like Ernst Zundel while, if someone disputed the accusation against Saddam Hussein, he might, at least currently, be taking limited risks.
Observe how the lie was built against Saddam Hussein and you will see exactly how the lie against Adolf Hitler was forged by the same kind of people and for the same purpose: perpetual war.
When you, Mark Weber, recently held a conference with David Irving on current world events, I suppose that the two of you had a good laugh with the tale of Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. If so, did you also have a laugh with Adolf Hitler’s WMD’s? And, if you did not, may one ask why?
It is time for the end of this COMEDY that consists in demanding that the Allies show us those weapons that Saddam is said to have possessed whilst, on the subject of the far more fantastic weapons that Hitler is said to have possessed and used on a large scale, Mark Weber is as reserved as a shy young maiden. With Saddam’s WMD’s, our patience did not last even a year, whereas with Hitler’s we shall soon have shown sixty years of patience.
In the late 1970s I myself opened the way to material revisionist studies, looking into the technical, physical, chemical, topographical and architectural aspects of the matter of Hitler’s alleged WMD’s. On this level, the revisionists have attained results of such abundance and precision that, little by little, the LIARS have found themselves at a loss for any answer. Their museums of the ‘Holocaust’ have been unable to take up my final 1992 challenge: ‘Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber’. And what is true of the ‘Nazi gas chambers’ is equally true of the ‘Nazi gas vans’ or ‘Jewish soap’ or lampshades made of human skin or still other nonsense.
I therefore suggest that the revisionists today close the book on this physical, chemical and other material research, for it is in fact taking a progressively pedantic turn. It is becoming ‘art for art’s sake’. These redundant studies have, above all, the disastrous effect of making a problem appear complicated when it is actually altogether easy to solve.
It is pitiful when the head of an institute of revisionist studies is reduced to confessing: ‘I do not like to say that the Nazi gas chambers never existed’. It is regrettable that he should have concealed that attitude up to now and that only my insistence on getting an answer on the subject made him come out with it. It is a pity that, seeking to vindicate his position, he wrongly accused me of having been ‘misleading and unfair’. It is lamentable that in the dispute with me he should bring up a text of mine whose meaning he distorts to the point of turning it entirely around.
But it is heartening to see that I am now far from alone in denouncing a revisionism that has had its day and in advocating a new revisionism, more clear-cut, straightforward, vigorous and able, for a start, to put it to the upholders of the Big Lie that ‘The best proof that your Nazi gas chambers and your Nazi gas vans did not exist any more than your Jewish soap, your lampshades of human skin and so much other nonsense of a vile war propaganda is that, more than fifty years after that war, your ‘scientific experts’ are, more than ever, unable to show them to us’.
This new revisionism, which demands character, calls for young and spirited men.
‘Hitler’s gas chambers are like Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction: THEY’VE NEVER BEEN SEEN!’ Voiced by a woman, this radio-style watchword has for the past few weeks been making the rounds of a French revisionist news group. I recommend that it be taken up with insistence in all revisionist publications and correspondence for as long as the Allies have not found Saddam’s secret weapons. As for the Liars who, to display Nazi gas chambers, put on view for us a section of wall or a door with a small window or a showerhead or a spyhole or a pair of shoes with the inscription ‘We are the last witnesses’ (as seen at the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum), they make one think of General Colin Powell who, at the UN, showed photos of buildings or trucks supposed to represent Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. And no one will have forgotten the ‘phial of poison’ brandished there by the same general, himself raised, as his biographers tell us, in Yiddishtown (New York). The phial contained only a sort of sneezing powder. It was pure, unadulterated ‘Nuremberg trial’!
22 December 2003

{ Comments are closed }

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 December 4th, 2015


The trial of Roy Arthur Topham by the government of Canada, aka ‘Regina’, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after his arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that Arthur Topham did ‘willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
There was a marked difference between the previous 24 court sessions where Arthur and his wife Shastah had attended court. In none of the earlier appearances was there any presence of RCMP officers yet now that the trial was actually beginning, there suddenly appeared an over abundance of police who commenced performing what turned out to be a very obvious, onerous, time-consuming and intimidating ‘security’ check system, not only for those attending the trial but also for anyone from the general public who had to enter the provincial government building on other business related matters. It was definitely an ‘over-kill’ approach obviously initiated by the Crown and the motives for doing so were suspected to be little more than an unabashed attempt at creating the illusion that this trial was of such supreme importance a high level of security was deemed necessary. Every person entering the building had to remove all their belongings from their person and then proceed through a body scanner. Following that they had to be additionally gone over with a special ‘wand’ by a police officer to detect any metal objects that might still be on them.
When Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler eventually arrived the bulk of the day was taken up with jury selection. A 12 member jury composed of eight women and four men were chosen from the local community. After that the trial commenced, running over the scheduled 10-day period to fourteen consecutive days and culminating on November 12th when the jury finally reached its verdict.
Twice charged
Of primary importance in understanding the nature and outcome of the trial is the fact that Roy Arthur Topham was charged TWICE with the same Sec. 319(2) criminal offence. The first time was the day of his arrest on May 16, 2012 and the second time was January 14, 2014. The wording of the second Indictment was identical to that of the first. The reason for the second charge, like that of the first, was so that Crown might try again to have Topham’s bail conditions altered in order to prevent him from publishing. These additional attempts (there were three in all) to increase the severity of the bail conditions were buttressed upon the questionable pretext by Crown that the police investigation was ‘ongoing’ and therefore the second Indictment (Count 2) was merely a result of additional evidence gleaned from posts Arthur Topham had added to his website after his initial bail conditions ended on October 9, 2012 (when Crown failed to hand down their initial Indictment within the prescribed time frame allotted them).
From the time of his arrest on May 16th, 2012 until October 9, 2012 Topham was not permitted to post anything to his site.
It’s fundamental to bear this in mind when attempting to understand why the jury concluded that Arthur Topham was guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on Count 2.
Weekly reports
Throughout the course of the trial weekly updates on what transpired in the courtroom were published on along with editorial commentary and photos. The ‘Report on first week of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham’ came out November 1, 2015 and can be found here. The second, ‘Report on week two of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham’ can be found here. Rather than repeat what was said in those articles it’s suggested that readers go to them further information.
Expert Witness for the defence
The defence was most fortunate in being able to solicit and obtain the expert testimony of Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli citizen, accomplished philosopher, scholar, writer and Jazz musician who graciously consented to appear on behalf of Arthur Topham free of charge. Gilad Atzmon’s testimony to the jury was covered on in a November 9, 2015 article titled, ‘The Expert Witness Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon‘. Mr. Atzmon’s intellectual/literary forte revolves around his best selling book The Wandering Who? which is a serious academic work in the relatively new field of Jewish Identity politics.
Cross-examination of former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner
[Editor’s Note: It must be stated here that until the actual transcripts of the proceedings are obtained the commentary below regarding cross-examination of these two Crown witnesses, in particular Crown’s Exert Witness Len Rudner, should be considered more anecdotal rather than precise and factual. Again, please refer to the two weekly reports mentioned above for greater detail on this portion of the trial.
Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross-examination of Crown’s two witnesses revealed to the court that both of these individuals had personal axes to grind when it came to their testimony against Topham or their actions (as in the case of Terry Wilson) while carrying out the investigation into Topham’s website.
Unfortunately, in the case of Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner, it wasn’t until after his testimony and cross-examination that the defence became aware of a very serious, glaring breach of legal protocol with respect to Rudner’s sworn statements to the court. The immediate result of this new-found evidence was a call by Defence for a mistrial based upon an accusation of perjury on the part of Rudner but that move on Johnson’s part was dismissed by Justice Butler as coming too late in the proceedings.
The Crown’s forte
Throughout the whole of the 14-day trial what stood out most for the defence (as well as many observers in the gallery) was the overwhelming volume of documentary evidence (all taken from the website) which the Crown downloaded on to the jury. Coupled with that fact was the additionally onerous presence of two bulky Binders which were of such poor quality they were virtually unreadable, thus making the task of comprehending the details of the evidence not only formidable but in all likelihood an impossibility for the jury to comprehend. In fact it wasn’t until the morning of Friday, November 6th, ten days into the trial, that new exhibits of Binders 3 & 4 were finally made available to jury members.
Charge to the jury
On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler read out his Charge to the jury. On top of the other thousands of pages of online books and articles the jury was now given an additional 62-page document instructing them on how to go about deliberating on all of the evidence presented over the previous 12 days of the trial. After reading out the document to the jury Justice Butler then instructed them to retire and seek a decision on the two counts.
The Decision
The decision was rendered on the morning of Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m.
Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Not Guilty
Immediately following the jury’s decision Justice Butler thanked the jury members for having done their civic duties then dismissed them. Next he told Crown and Defence that court would reconvene at 1:30 p.m. at which time any additional matters related to the trial would be dealt with.
New Bail Conditions Sought by Crown
When court reconvened at 1:40 p.m. Crown immediately brought up the issue of changing Topham’s bail conditions again. Defence objected as did Justice Butler and a new date was set for a bail hearing; one which was to take place on November 19th but was subsequently changed to November 20th, 2015.
The bail hearing began at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 20, 2015 with both Justice Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appearing via telephone. Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston and Arthur Topham were present in the Quesnel Supreme Court.

Justice Butler listened to Crown’s arguments for wanting severe restrictions on Topham’s ability to continue publishing on his website and then heard Defence’s arguments against such proposals.
It ended up being a very short session; one that culminated in Justice Butler’s decision to refuse Crown’s request pending the outcome of both Crown’s Sentencing position which was slated tentatively for January 25, 2016 plus the Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada which was also set to be heard before Justice Butler during the same week of January 25 29, 2016. Justice Butler did grant one small concession to Crown when they asked that a photo on, depicting from a distance the crowd of potential jurors lined up outside the courthouse on Monday, October 26, 2015, be removed from Topham’s website. Topham willingly consented to remove it and that concluded the bail hearing.
The Future and the Silver Lining: The Constitutional Challenge to Sec . 319(2)
Once the initial shock of the guilty verdict in Count 1 had subsided and time allowed for a reconsideration of all of the events surrounding the trial it became apparent that the verdict of ‘Guilty’ in Count 1 was, in reality, the key to opening the door for the Defence’s ultimate objective which was to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.
Back in the spring of 2015 on March 23rd Arthur Topham’s legal counsel Barclay Johnson had served a constitutional notice on the Crown. The purpose was to present before a Supreme Court Justice a Charter argument challenging the legitimacy of the now existing Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation. Eventually the date of June 22nd, 2015 was set to hear the Charter argument in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.
Topham’s Argument
The Issues that Arthur Topham wanted raised and which were included in his Memorandum of Argument were as follows:
• Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• The Crown bears the onus of justifying the infringement of Charter rights on a case-by-case basis.
• The present case is distinguishable from Keegstra on its facts.
• The infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter is not reasonably justified by Section 1 in the circumstances of this case, and specifically:
The ‘pressing and substantial objective’ of legislation must be defined narrowly for the purpose of a Section 1 analysis.
• The use of Section 319(2) in this case is not rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective of preventing harms associated with hate propaganda.
• Criminal prosecution by indictment is not a minimal impairment of the Applicant’s Charter rights.
• The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case.
• The appropriate remedy is to read into the law a constitutional exemption, to the effect that Section 319(2) is not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.
Arguments, Counter Arguments and Reasons for Judgment
For the full text of the Memorandum of Argument please go here and read it in pdf format.
The full text of the Respondent Crown’s Submissions concerning Charter S. 1 Justification and R v. Keegstra can be viewed here.
A copy of the Applicant’s Reply to Crown’s arguments can be found here.
Justice Butler’s Reasons for Judgment.
The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge now scheduled to take place during the week of January 25 29, 2016. In the interim period leading up to that challenge Topham will remain free to continue to publish and to carry on with his solicitations for funding in order to persevere with his efforts to have this unconstitutional section of Canada’s Criminal Code repealed.
Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then the next step will be an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1.

In order to support Arthur Topham’s ongoing efforts to protect Canada’s Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as contained in the Charter donations can be made online via his GoGetFunding site located at . If one is unable or unwilling to use that mode of helping out they may also asset by sending either cash, a cheque or a Money Order to the following postal address. Please make sure that all cheques or Money Orders are made out to Arthur Topham and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Thank You!

{ Comments are closed }

The New Russian Revolution Has Deposed the Jews

Shortly after Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia in 2000, the murdered family of Czar Nicholas was beatified. Until quite recently, the centers of Jewish power had hoped to preserve some idealized memories of the murderous Soviet system in the minds of the Russians, but it turned out to be a vain hope.
Because Bolshevism was formulated and executed by Jews, their power centers had retained fond hopes of being able some day to reconnect and reinstall some sort of Jewish lobby leverage in the Kremlin. These fond hopes were dashed by Vladimir Putin.
By the end of 2008, the Russians were expected to have decided on what archetype they preferred: Stalin s ‘Patriotic War’ or Czarism. Until quite recently, Stalin had remained slightly ahead of Czar Nicholas II . ‘Then, however, the Czar mysteriously pulled ahead.’ (Die Welt, 17 July 2008, page 1) After that, the choice no longer had to be made.
The Jewish Lobby was of course hoping that a Czarist cult would never rise again, since the Czar had been the great adversary of the Bolshevik Jews. Now however, the Russians again see in Czar Nicholas II a kind of savior who, like Jesus, had dared to oppose the Pharisees.
Following on the heels of the organized collapse of the Soviet Union, the global Jewish Lobby was able to install Boris Yeltsin (alias Jelzman) in the Kremlin. Once they had seized control of Russia s natural resources, they believed they could rule forever, or at least as long as they were operating under the protection of the US military forces. Not only did they control the military bloodhound USA, which they could let loose against any country that became troublesome; they also controlled Russia, whose energy wealth they could use to exploit and enslave the entire planet. Yeltsin-Jelzman allowed the Russian military forces to disintegrate rapidly.
In the early 1990s the Arab press investigated the Jelzman case and exposed Yeltsin as a puppet of the Lobby, providing additional background details. On 28 November 1992 the newspaper ‘Al Arab’, published in London, made the following announcement on the front page: ‘The name change was decided upon at the 20th Party Congress … Yeltsin is a Jew. Risselov, a member of the Volksunion, revealed that the family name of President Yeltsin was Jelzman, a German Jewish name. The 20th Party Congress then decided to change the family name of Boris Jelzman to Yeltsin … The reason given for this change was that the Russian people would be afraid of the name Jelzman since his grandfather Jelzman had murdered thousands of Russians under Beria.’
Everything had seemed to be going well for the Lobby. Then, out of a clear blue sky, Putin’s coup occurred.
He deposed the terrible Jelzman-Yeltsin. Today Yeltsin s Jewish background is openly discussed even in the Establishment press, where as he is described as having ‘converted to Christianity’. For example, on page 1 of its issue of 17 July 2008, Die Welt refers to ‘Boris Yeltsin, the Communist who later converted to Christianity.’
When they brutally murdered the Czar s family in Yekaterinburg on the night of 17 July 1918 in the house of the engineer Ipatjev, the Bolsheviks unwittingly established ‘…a cult that, 90 years later, is still as strong as ever.’ (Die Welt, 17 July 2008, p. 1) This was true even though Jelzman did everything in his power to erase the memory of the Czar from Russian consciousness. ‘Boris Yelzin even had the Ipatjev house demolished without being able to stop the growing fondness for the Czar in Russia.’ (Die Welt, 17 July 2008, page 1).
However, the Russian schools now teach that it was Jews who murdered the Czar’s family, which is probably the reason why even Wikipedia has begun reporting that the murderers were Jews, a fact that could not be mentioned in former times. ‘On 4 July 1918, the Cheka took over guarding the Romanovs in Yekaterinburg. They were accompanied by Jakov Jurovski… Jurovski was a Jew.’ (from Wikipedia). Two additional Jewish assassins who joined the Jurovski murderers were Alexander Belobarodov and Filip Goloschtschokin.
Today the Russians weep when they think of the horrible crime. ‘Only the Jews would have been capable of such a terrible bloody crime’ stated a participant in the memorial mass in front of the Church of the Blood that was held in Yekaterinburg in 2008.
According to eyewitness reports of the massacre, the Czarina complained to Commandant Jurovski about the empty room in which they were held and she requested two chairs. Jurovski then had two chairs brought in, on which the Czarina and her ill son Alexi sat down. Jurovski ordered the other family members to stand in two rows behind mother and son, then brought in the execution detail. Jurovski informed the Czar that the government had ordered their execution and therefore, he was now going to shoot them. The Czar said nothing except the words ‘Forgive them Father, for they know what they do’ as Jesus said on the Cross. Then Commandant Jurovski shot him. All the other soldiers also shot Nicholas as well, and he died immediately. Then the firing squad began shooting wildly to kill all the other members of the family. When the shooting was over, Alex and three of his sisters were still alive and lying wounded on the floor. The bullets that were fired at the girls seemed to have been deflected. The soldiers then began bayoneting the victims. However, the bayonets became stuck in the girls bodices. This was because, during internment in Alexander Palace, the children and Lady-in-waiting Anna Demidova had sewed a large number of the family jewels and diamonds into a pillow and the girls’ bodices. On the evening they were murdered they were wearing these bodices, and in addition, Demidova attempted to deflect the bullets with the pillow. For this reason the execution lasted about 20 minutes until the last member of the family was dead. After the murders, Jurovski attempted to erase all traces of the crime.’ (From Wikipedia).
According to a report released by Archbishop Wikenti on 17 July 2008, around 40,000 persons took part in a religious procession from Yekaterinburg to an abandoned mineshaft some 18 kilometers distant.
In conjunction with the memorial service for the Romanovs, copies of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ were offered for sale.
The bodies of Czar Nicholas, his German wife Alexandra and their five children had been carried to that place after they had been shot by their Jewish murderers in the night of 17 July 1918 in Yekaterinburg. In conjunction with the memorial service for the Romanovs, copies of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ were offered for sale. Large numbers of printed pamphlets were distributed along with the Protocols. The printed materials were entitled ‘Why we hate the Jewish Mafia’ and posed the question ‘Is This Xenophobia or Self Defense?’ The student Ivan Kolsev, 20, who had wrapped himself in a Czarist banner, expressed the opinion of many when he said ‘Democracy has no future — we are returning to Monarchy!’ On the banner was written ‘In honor of Russia: for Czar and Fatherland.’ [Agence France-Presse (AFP), 28 July 2008.]
For the Russians, the Jews are guilty of having killed emissaries of God when they murdered the Romanov family, since the family has been beatified. ‘…Just as they once crucified Jesus’ said a participant in the memorial services. ‘Nicholas and Alexandra were our father and mother — they were like Russia s parents’ said another of the faithful. Another participant in the memorial mass expressed enthusiasm for the return of the Czarism: ‘The Czar is God s chosen on Earth, we must have a Czar.’ (AFP 17 July 2008.)
The new Czarist cult is more than a revolution, it is the rebirth of the Russian nation after all the suffering the Bolsheviks inflicted on it. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expressed this view during his visit to Moscow at the end of July 2008: ‘Venezuela takes note of the rebirth of Russia with great and affectionate attention.’ (Die Welt, 23 July 2008, p. 5)
President Medvedev then expressed sincere appreciation to President Chavez for his heartfelt interest. Since his first day as President of Russia, it has been Putin s principal goal to enable Russia s reawakening. He and his allies have always had a clear picture of the people who murdered the Romanovs along with 55 million other Russians.
It was always clear to Putin that these peoples’ primary aim was to suck Russia dry and annihilate it for all time with their unparalleled parasitism. A Kremlin politician close to Putin was quoted as saying about the then most influential Jews: ‘Boris Beresovski and Vladimir Gussinski are like bacteria that establish themselves in diseased bodies, but then die when the bodies grow healthy again.’ [Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), 2 April 2002.] This statement reminds us of a passage from Mein Kampf: ‘The Jew is and will remain the eternal parasite, a freeloader that, like a malignant bacterium, spreads rapidly whenever a growth medium is made available to it.’ (Chapter 11)
Vladimir Gussinski was the head of the Jewish Central Committee in Russia as well as chairman of the Jewish World Congress. After fleeing Russia for refuge in Israel, he stated to the world press that in Russia, ‘a new state ideology against the West is to be feared… It has many anti-Jewish characteristics.’ He called the then Russian president, Vladimir Putin, an ‘extreme anti Semite and secret admirer of Hitler.’ (Spiegel, 25/2000, p. 180)
In early July 2008 observers noted a new high point in Russia’s struggle against the Lobby, when the new US ambassador was installed in Berlin. Former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, an intimate friend of Putin, declined the invitation of the American ambassador, without explanation.
In the entire history of Post-War-Germany, or BRDDR, this had never before occurred. Such a snub could never have happened before, even in a dream. In addition to the fact that Schroeder is not overly fond of the Lobby, he was certainly advised by his friend Putin to decline the invitation in order to demonstrate the new power relationship in Europe. ‘When the new American embassy is opened in Berlin, Gerhard Schroeder was absent. The ex-chancellor had been invited by the Americans, but he declined the invitation… The reasons for the former chancellor s failure to appear are not known.’ (, 4 July 2008)

{ Comments are closed }

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

Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website,, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.
Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.
Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)
Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.
‘The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.’
Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.
I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.
The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.
In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. ‘Jews,’ the Crown said, ‘could write anti-Semitic things too.’ Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.
If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.
Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

{ Comments are closed }