RadicalPress.com | AAA+ Replica Watches | Designer Replica Rolex Diamond Watches 2023

[Editor’s Note:
An interesting dynamic is developing around the CHRC drama now unfolding here in Canada.
Prior to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn being dragged, kicking and screaming, into a public foray that had, hitherto, been the sole arena of mainly white, Christian players, overall publicity surrounding cases of HRC abuse was heavily influenced in a negative way against the victims, be they Malcolm Ross or Doug Collins or Canada most heinous example of all, that of Ernst Zundel who now rots in a German prison cell thanks to the despicable machinations of the Canadian courts, the HRCs, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of Bnai Brith Canada and their various political courtiers and syncophants. Along with the disgusting actions of these government agents one needs to also include the mainstream media which inevitably joined in the vileness and the calumny associated with such attacks. The media of course, being for the most part exclusively owned and controlled by Zionist Jews, relished roasting Zundel upon their monopolist spit while at the same time enhancing the brainwashing of Canadians into further belief that Zundel was somehow an imminent threat to Canadian security.
Now, for some strange reason (possibly karma or divine retribution?), the tables have been turned and for the first time (from what Ive been able to glean) we have two Jewish stars on the rise in the new firmament of political correctness who are reluctantly on the defensive rather than the usual offensive as has always been the case with complaints of this nature in the past. As Levant states below concerning Marc Lemire chart of HRC victims, even though he finds Lemire website to contain white supremicist overtones he nonetheless could not find fault with Lemire research that proved only white, mostly Christian people were the recipients of HRC vendettas.
But did Levant then go on to elaborate upon how many of those cases such as Malcolm Ross and Doug Collins and Ernst Zundel were instigated by Jews from either the Bnai Brith or the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Simon Weisenthal Centre or some other Jewish organization? Good gosh no! What purpose would that serve other than to draw the public attention closer to the ultimate source of all of this conflict in the first place. No, better to divert people attention away from the Jews and ultimately their Zionist-induced agenda and onto their pet peeve of the day, the radical Muslim Jihadists and any others of similar ilk lurking about the fringes of truly mainstream, Canadian society.
Why, Levant bemoans, arent the HRCs going after radical Sikh secessionalists and Tamil Tigers and the traditional lineage of white, ethnic Christian victims like Ross and Collins and Zundel and Lemire and Topham and other similar poor shleps instead of making center-jobs of such noble, law-abiding Jews like Levant and Steyn? Why indeed. As Levant goes on to state, with respect to the forementioned Arab/Muslims, the media has already done such a bang up job of convincing Canadians that these groups are the real terrorists and danger. In his words, There is no shortage of news on each of those groups…. There never is in the Zionist-controlled media but there is also never a mention of those Jews and/or Jewish organizations who lobby and connive endlessly to superimpose their own political agenda upon the overall Canadian landscape.
So now we have HRCs with a sudden and new twist and a challenge to the very instigators of such tribunals. Blowback time? The time of the Quickening? It will be very interesting to see how Levant and Steyn go about thwarting their illiberal enemy and keeping the real culprit in this game of deception (Political Zionism) hidden from the masses of Canadian internet users while they battle the very monster that they themselves created.]
——————————————————-
http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/how-the-canadian-human-rights.html
How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law
By Ezra Levant
The opposite of the ‘ rule of law’ is the ‘ rule of man’. Canadians love the rule of law so dearly because it makes us feel safe: we know what to expect in life; we know if we follow the rules, the police won’t capriciously arrest us. There will be no knock on our door in the middle of the night. We won’t be arrested without a proper reason. The rule of law gives us confidence when we deal with the state and its officers, even its policemen, even its prime ministers. Because we know that they are our servants and that, if anything, they are bound by more rules than we are. They only hold the power that we give them, and they only hold it in trust for us.
We are strict with our police; maybe even too strict, but that’s a better error to make than being too lax. Besides Internal Affairs officers within police departments, we have additional layers of scrutiny. For example, Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit  does nothing but investigate police who are accused of abusing their powers. Canada answers Juvenal’s question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F ? pretty well.
(As a student at law, I attended a hearing of Alberta’s Law Enforcement Review Board http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/lerb/role_mandate_member.aspx , the body that considers complaints against Alberta police, ranging from the farcically trivial to the most serious. I was impressed — and frankly, a little bit irritated — at the lengths the province went to ensure fairness. As an example, complaints against officers from Calgary were heard in Edmonton and vice versa, to reduce the risk of collusion or even collegiality between police and those who were investigating the police. The particular day I was there, some nuisance complaints filed by prisoners were being heard. It was clear to me that besides the thrill of causing a hassle for the police and for the justice system in general, the prisoners in question had simply found a way to get out of jail for a day and travel, at taxpayers expense, to a hearing in which they were the center of attention.)

But it’s not just the police who are countered with enormous checks and balances. The other half of the ‘ Law and Order’ duo is hamstrung, too. For example, prosecutors are generally not allowed to tell a jury http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=919600 about an accused’s prior criminal convictions at his trial, unless the accused is foolish enough to claim that he has sterling credibility, or otherwise opens the door himself. This might seem frustrating to those who are ‘ tough on crime’, but cool reflection tells us such information would likely so overwhelm a jury’s views about an accused that they would be likely to convict him even if he were innocent of the new accusations, simply on the weight of the old ones. Even convicted criminals have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty when they’re charged with new crimes. That’s a form of rule of law, too. It’s not just that the high and mighty (like Eliot Spitzer!) are bound by the strictures of the law; it’s that the lowly and odious are given the benefits of the law, too.
Another example in this vein — and I assure you, dear reader, that I am coming to my point — is that of the ‘ rape shield’ law http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20001012/ctvnews76815?s_name=&no_ads= . It’s an expression of the rule of law, too. Just as the general rule against adducing evidence of an accused’s prior criminal record is done to give even past criminals a fair trial, the rape shield law was designed to give sexually promiscuous women — such as prostitutes, for example — a level playing field when they accuse a man of rape. If any and all of a woman’s past sexual history was admissable in court, it could prejudice a jury against her in a current case of rape — that is, her past behaviour could overwhelm the current facts at hand, and falsely acquit a man charged with her rape. I’m not well-versed enough in criminal law to know if the courts and legislatures have found the right balance here — given that the rape shield law almost exclusively benefits women to the detriment of accused men, it has been called a feminist law that unfairly undermines men’s legal rights. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that, but my main point remains: in the name of the rule of law, our police and courts go to great lengths to make sure that everyone has the same benefit and burden under law, no matter their personal characteristics or past behaviour.
Which is all a lengthy introduction to this stunning internal Canadian Human Rights Commission document http://ezralevant.com/guille.pdf posted by Connie Fournier of Free Dominion. Here’s http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1156179&sid=80678e297e5d4e5927691e679be345db her analysis. And here’s mine:
Andrew Guille filed a ‘ hate messages’ complaint with the CHRC. He complained that a website called http://www.Recomnetwork.org , run by an ‘ anti-hate’ group, contained hateful messages that contravened section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by discriminating against people based on race, colour, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.
So what happened? Did the ‘ anti-hate’ group in question, with all of the bigoted remarks on their website, become the first defendant ever to be acquitted in a section 13 trial? Or did Guille pull a Ricardo Warmouse http://www.ricardowarmouse.com/ — slam-dunk a bigoted website and collect a few thousand dollars for bringing the complaint to the CHRC’s attention?
Neither, actually. The CHRC refused to take the matter to a tribunal hearing, ruling it a frivolous complaint. But look at the grounds upon which this complaint was dismissed: Andrew Guille, said CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, is the ‘ sibling of both Melissa and Chris Guille’, who Steacy implies are racist. Steacy — whose job it is to investigate complaints of bigotry — indeed conducted an investigation. But not into the website and its hate messages. He investigated Guille himself. Steacy met with Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force to get the low-down on Guille; he spoke with ‘ anti-hate’ activists with their own axes to grind and books to sell. None of this was done under oath; none of this was done with Guille there to cross examine his defamers (or to challenge McKinnon’s right as a government employee to disclose Guille’s personal information without permission). But even those offensive procedures aren’t the point: the point is the CHRC simply wouldn’t accept a complaint from someone they didn’t like, for the most tenuous and circumstantial reasons.
Even if their hunches and their gossip was right — even if Guille was, himself, a racist — so what? If a website is bigoted, isn’t it the CHRC’s job (an immoral job, an improper job, but their job nonetheless) to investigate it? Does the offensiveness of the site in question depend on the character of the complainant? Is the question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act, a law of Parliament, is violated depend on who brings an alleged offence to the attention of the commission?
Compare that sloppy, vindictive, capricious standard to the aforementioned lengths real police and real prosecutors go to, to ensure that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. What Steacy has done here is exactly the kind of arbitrariness the rape shield law was designed to prevent. If a prostitute complains that she was raped, it is improper for the police to say ‘ she has no standing to complain about rape’ or ‘ we know that, in the past, she has consented to sex with strangers — no use investigating.’ An even more exact analogy would be if a convicted rapist complained of having in turn been raped himself. That would not excuse the police from ignoring the rapist’s own complaint.
The CHRC isn’t governed by the rule of law. It is governed by the whimsy of men — in this case, Dean Steacy, who himself admits to making anonymous posts on bigoted websites http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/answers.pdf .
Which is the other half of the broken system here. Put aside Guille; what about Recomnetwork.org, the hateful ‘ anti-hate’ website in question? Steacy’s memo acknowledges that the site indeed had hateful words on it — including copies of CHRC complaints filed by Ricardo Warmouse, which themselves contained bigoted remarks. But Steacy exculpates those sites by stating that the purpose of the website was to ‘ educate the public about racism’. That may well be true, but the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn’t care about such nuances. Section 13 of that law http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/h-6/bo-ga:l_I::bo-ga:l_II/en?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:13 makes it illegal to communicate ‘ any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.’ It doesn’t talk about ‘ intentions’ at all; and, as I’ve lamented before, the truth of the statements made is not a defence, unlike in defamation law in real courts.
The test isn’t good or evil intentions. The test is whether the words are ‘ likely to expose’ someone to feelings of ‘ hatred or contempt’. The rule of law would hold Recomnetwork.org, and indeed Ricardo Warmouse, whose complaints were on that site, to the same standard as the person who originally wrote the hateful words. To excuse them because they have noble intentions is Steacy injecting his own personal views or friendships or biases into the law, which the law does not permit.
By the way, I happen to agree with Steacy on the narrow point that there is a difference between someone uttering a bigoted comment as an epithet, and someone else repeating that epithet, simply by listing it in a complaint (as Warman did); and someone else who writes a report of the whole thing (Recomnetwork.org). But that’s not what the law says. The law doesn’t care about anything other than the likelihood of hurting someone’s feelings, which is one of the reasons the law is so dangerous.
If merely reporting on a controversial communication was acceptable, then surely my own decision two years ago to report the news of the cartoon riots, including showing the cartoons in question, would have been equally lawful, and the complaints filed against me for doing so would have been ruled ‘ frivolous and vexatious’, as Steacy ruled Guille’s complaint against Recomnetwork.org to be. Or at least you’d expect that, if there was a consistency in these human rights commissions — if there was rule of law, instead of rule of men.
If these commissions were governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of men, Ricardo Warmouse and Dean Steacy themselves would be charged with violating section 13, because the Act gives no weight to intentions, and both men have posted on bigoted websites — Warmouse ending many of his posts with a symbol for ‘ Heil Hitler’. If these commissions were governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of men, Mohamed Elmasry, the Jew-hating bigot who filed a complaint against Maclean’s magazine, would be charged with a section 13 violation himself, for publicly excusing the murder of Jews in Israel.
Marc Lemire has compiled a chart of every section 13 decision . One of the line items in his chart is the ethnicity of the respondents — 100% of them are white. When I first saw that chart, I was uncomfortable with that data, especially given the white supremacist overtones of Lemire’s site. But with that caveat said, it is still a fact: not a single radical Muslim jihadi has had a section 13 trial; not a single radical Sikh secessionist; not a single Tamil Tiger supporter. There is no shortage of news on each of those groups, just to pick three. But none have been taken before the CHRC tribunal — even though, unlike the poor shleps who have been, those three groups have actually gone beyond mere words into violent criminal acts.
There are many things I know now that I wouldn’t have likely believed a few months ago, before I stared spelunking around the caves of the human rights commissions. I would never have believed that human rights ‘ officers’ would go around anonymously planting bigoted comments on websites — I would have called that a nutty conspiracy theory. But then I saw the CHRC staff and Ricardo Warmouse admitting under oath to doing just that.
And, before reading Dean Steacy’s memo on the Andrew Guille complaint, I would have thought that the CHRC runs itself at least along some basic concepts of natural justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice . Now I know better.
As a lawyer, I know and accept that not all decisions by the government should be made as formally and rigorously as in a real court of law. But even the most trivial administrative tribunal needs to have basic rules of fair play. I really cannot think of a single element of fair play and natural justice that the CHRC has not violated. And, unlike so many other arms of the state, the CHRC has terrifying powers, from their official powers to fine people and subject them to life-long publication bans (surely an illegal ‘ unusual’ punishment under our Charter), but also their unofficial punishments, such as their abusive, costly processes themselves.
There is not a drop of doubt in my heart or mind: Canada’s human rights commissions, with their illberal mission of political censorship and their perversion of the rule of law, have become a grave threat to our human rights. We simply must stop them.

Editor’s Note: Brainwashing: 9/11 & the Holohoax a two part video by German producer Alfred Schaefer is, without a doubt, one of the best visual productions to date outlining the massive deceptions on the part of the Zionist Jew criminal cartel now in control of the majority of Western civilization. Via its powerful media control, its control of western political leaders, and the power of its purse to wreak havoc across the globe using whatever ruthless tactics it so desires in order to create chaos, confusion and fear in the minds and hearts of the common people, these two videos give the viewer a comprehensive overview of just how the masses have been brainwashed over the past seventy years.
Schaefer’s 2-part video is amazingly well done and packed full with extensive footage relating to 9/11 and to the evidence surrounding the Holohoax that was revealed to the world during the famous Ernst Zundel trial in Canada throughout the 1980’s and ’90’s.
Brainwashing: 9/11 & the Holohoax reveals the endless deceptions, the blatant lies of the Zionist Jew media and those who labour to maintain the deception surrounding both these two world-changing events the false claims of 6 Million Jews purported to have been gassed and ‘ holocausted’ in ovens during WW2 and the subsequent attack upon the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.
Using footage related to the 9/11 false flag where those complicit attempt to divert attention from the skeptical public’s questioning by equating them with ‘ Holocaust deniers’ Schaefer is then able to show viewers the striking similarities between these two Zionist false flags and clearly outline why 1+1=2 and not 3.
These videos illuminate with increasing intensity the dark shroud of lies that the Zionist criminal cartel continually uses to cover up their own diabolic actions and one cannot watch them without coming away feeling that all which Schaefer has presented as further evidence of these two massive cover-ups makes perfect sense in light events that have transpired since 1945.
Viewers are urged to pass these videos on to friends and those who are still in doubt about both these cataclysmic events that are driving the world further and further to the brink of global disaster.

‘The National Post, perhaps Canada’s foremost advocate and practitioner of censorship, is the least qualified to condemn the alleged revenge massacre of 11 Charlie Hebdo workers, yet devoted several consecutive front pages and endless verbiage to the incident far greater coverage than that allotted to the brutal massacre of 3000 innocent Palestinians several months earlier in Gaza, although the massacre was the more reprehensible for having been committed by a racist, occupier government already condemned by the United Nations for its barbarism.’
~ Ian V. Macdonald, letter to the National Post, Jan. 10, 2015

The latest Zionist false flag event in Paris, France on January 7th, 2015 that wiped out the staff of the pro-zionist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian Charlie Hebdo hate propaganda rag, immediately unleashed a massively orchestrated outcry of cacophonous proportions from the Beast’s Big Brother Zionist msm media calling for greater protection of people’s right to ‘Freedom of Speech’.
Apart from the aftermath of 9/11, never has this writer witnessed such a unified show of chimerical bigotry and deception, all of it wrapped in the gilded glitter of falsely misplaced emotional rhetoric, blatant lies and contrived television imagery specifically designed and pre-packaged to elicit a world-wide response from an unconscious audience of somnambulant innocents still too blurry-eyed and bewitched to recognize the reality of the Rothschild New World Order and its modus operandi.
Reacting with predictable clockwork precision to their own fabricated murderous crime; one bearing all the standard hallmarks of yet another Israeli Mossad covert operation designed to appear as a deliberate ‘terrorist act’ by a fanatical group of ‘radical’ Muslims, the Canada-wide Zionist-controlled media immediately cranked up its Islamophobic sirens to a deafening roar with broadcasts blaring forth from talking heads accompanied by what W. H. Auden once aptly styled, ‘the hum of the printing presses, turning forests into lies’ with their broadsheets whirling like buzz saws 24/7, flashing out nonstop, monotonous anti-Islam hate messages to Canadians across the country.
This relentless verbal/visual assault by the Talmudic inspired Israeli/Rothschild media upon the abused psyche of Western civilization ongoing since their hugely successful 9/11 coup of September 11th, 2001 has now reached the stage where every facet of their global crime syndicate is being utilized to increase hatred and fear of Islam to a climactic point of no return, thus providing their needed justification for whatever pre-emptive mode of violent attack the Zionist Jew killing machine might wish to adopt in the near future.
No better example exists of this hypocritical, bigoted vilification of Islam by the Zionist-controlled media than that found in their premier flag ship hate generator the National Post, Tel Aviv’s direct propaganda line for funnelling into the unwary, dumbed down minds of Canadians, Israel’s racist, supremacist, apartheid mindset; one that constitutes the foundational basis of its twisted, psychopathic political ideology known as Zionism.
NatZJPost copy 7
Completely disregarding Canada’s horrific record of outright censorship, harassment, fines, jailings and ongoing suppression of its own citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech, the Zionist media now has the unmitigated chutzpah to sermonize to Canadians about how important it is to protect ‘FREE SPEECH’ for the likes of Charlie Hebdo and co. all the while overlooking the stinking mess of free speech violations in Canada’s own backyard.
Canada’s Disgraceful ‘Free Speech’ Record
The National Post, of all Canada’s zio-rags, is a veteran of the infamous and controversial Section 13 ‘hate speech’ legislation wars that suddenly gained prominence across the nation around 2007 when the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filing a Section 13 ‘hate speech’ complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine), based upon the reproduction of perceived anti-Islam writings by one of their pro-Zionist Jewish writers Mark Steyn.
Coinciding with Steyn’s case was also that of Ezra Levant, then owner of the Western Standard, an Alberta based tabloid that callously published the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) back in February of 2006. As a result of Levant’s insolent disregard for Islam’s holy Prophet both the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed complaints against Levant and his magazine with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission that resulted in a hearing in January of 2008.
MarcLemireFreedomsite
Marc Lemire, one of Canada’s most distinguished Section 13 victims and staunch resister to this nasty piece of Zionist/Bolshevik-motivated legislation, gives us a compete, well documented history of the rise and fall of Section 13 which can be found on his website, FreedomSite Blog. As well, for those interested in delving into the specifics surrounding this specious piece of draconian ‘hate speech’ legislation that initially slithered its way into Canadian jurisprudence via the untiring efforts of Canada’s Jewish lobby organizations (predominantly the former Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada) beginning as far back as the 1950’s, I suggest reading the following article, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s ‘Hate Propaganda’ Laws.
In Part 3 of Lemire’s history, under sub-heading ‘Section 13: The Shit hits the fan’, he writes: ‘Keep in mind that the primary intent of Section 13 was to quietly keep it behind closed doors and censor individuals in a manner which ‘would not be attended by great publicity’. While this was true with most Section 13 cases, it certainly was not true with Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine. The proverbial ‘hate speech earthquake’ hit the media, once it was revealed that one of Canada’s most respected magazines and the ‘one-man global content provider’ Mark Steyn were under investigation for hate speech. Editorials against censorship went viral from coast to coast in Canada and spread across the globe via the Internet.’
The war to silence Canadians and stymie any public speech that the Jewish lobby felt might negatively impact them or Israel in any way (either on or off the internet), gained its foothold back in 1977 when the federal government first implemented the so-called Canadian Human Rights Act and created its attendant enforcement agencies, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). Both the commission and the tribunal were quasi-judicial, i.e. ‘crazy’ judicial in that they basically set their own rules and guidelines and consistently changed the ‘legal’ goal posts depending upon whatever case they were dealing with, in order to ensure a conviction. If fact, of the hundreds of Canadians dragged before these Stalinist style ‘Show Trial’ tribunals, EVERYONE was found guilty for the simple reason that all it took was for someone to register a complain against them and that, in itself, sealed their fate. When I describe Section 13 as a ‘Bolshevik’ type law I do so with the full knowledge that under the former Soviet system, Lenin, in one of the regime’s very first acts upon gaining absolute power, was to make ‘anti-Semitism’ a crime punishable by death. Death, that is, without so much as a trial even. All it would take, (just as with the Section 13 ‘complaints’) was for someone to accuse another of said crime and the Cheka (soviet secret police) had the excuse to execute the victim.
In the case of Canada and its Section 13 ‘hate crime’ laws, which invariably include the same accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’, the punishment wasn’t quite as severe or immediate but metaphorically speaking, in term of survival, the victims stood no greater chance of gaining their freedom once accused. Many, if not most of the victims, were unable to afford to hire counsel and even if they were able to the fact that Truth was not considered a viable defence against whatever they had written or spoken, it was virtually impossible to argue against the charge. As such the defendants were at the mercy of the tribunals and the commission’s commissars were able to maintain a 100% conviction rate right up until 2007 when, Allah be praised!, the Canadian Islamic Congress and other Muslim organizations finally decided to file similar Section 13 complaints against the two self-chosen writers mentioned above who were, by their Judaic birthmarks, both members of the same conniving covenant that initially bore responsibility for creating these very censorship laws in the first place. Not only that, they were the only two Jews in Canada ever to be charged with ‘hate speech’ under Section 13 and, surprise! surprise! the only two individuals ever to escape the snares and traps that CHRC and the CHRT had used on hundreds of non-Jewish Canadians for decades prior to then.
SteynLevantJNOMouthpieces800
It has always been this writer’s contention, based upon my last eight years of personal experience in dealing with these Orwellian censors, that had the Canadian Islamic Congress not filed a complaint against Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine and had Ezra Levant also not been charged by a Muslim complainant over his publication of the infamous Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) cartoons, this Zionist-inspired legislation known as Section 13 that clung like a barnacle to the dark underside of Canada’s legal system for the past thirty years without the Zionist media challenging it, would, in all likelihood, have continued on unabated and still not have been repealed. It was only the final realization by the Jewish lobby that Section 13 was, in fact, a double-edged sword capable of being used against their own kind as well that spurred the Zionist media on to make a major issue out of an Orwellian, Zionist-driven law that had for decades been used against non-Jews with hardly a murmur of protest. Now that the perpetrators themselves were being held to account for the same crimes the whole dynamic changed and the war to rid the nation of Section 13 began in earnest.
It was around the same period (2007) when Steyn and Levant received their just deserts that I and my website RadicalPress.com were also caught up in the legally sticky Section 13 ‘hate speech’ web and I suddenly found myself forcefully initiated into that elite, Zionist-created group of alleged ‘hate-mongers’,’anti-Semites’, ‘racists’ and ‘neo-Nazis’ who had come before me throughout the late 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. In my own case it was the secret, Jews-only Masonic society, B’nai Brith Canada who had filed a Section 13 complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission; one premised on the ‘contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.’ Please note the ‘citizens of Israel’ portion. It was the first time in Canadian jurisprudence that the Jews, via their back-room manipulation of the CHRC, had arbitrarily introduced this novel addition to the Section 13 complaint; one which now included people of a foreign nation! [There are reasons why they attempted this but a thorough analysis of that particular subterfuge is beyond the scope of this article. A.T.]
While the Zionist news media, throughout its campaign to hasten the demise of Section 13, magnified its two pet Jewish ‘free speech’ advocates to heroic proportions, the remaining hundreds of victims, once they had been tried and convicted, inevitably sank back into Zion’s media pit of silence and anonymity their identities liquidated and their unjust sufferings lost forever. Their names though are important, more important to the struggle for real freedom of speech than the media’s manufactured heroes, Steyn and Levant, for the nameless ones were the truly courageous Canadian heroes, those resisters whose who, on their own and motivated by their strong convictions, had stood up to Canada’s Marxist/Bolshevik commissars with little or no money and next to nil support from the general public while the Zio-media used all of its ill-gained media power to malign, vilify and crucify them in the public eye, just as they always do to anyone who stands in the way of their hate-filled agenda. And so here I present the names of some of victims that I was able to find. God forgive me for the ones I’ve left off (if readers can provide me with additional names I’ll add them to my website as they emerge).
The list began with John Ross Taylor back in the late 70’s and carried on with Terry Long, Randy Johnston, William James Harcus, Wolfgang Droege, Kevin Lew, Derek J. Peterson, Tony McAleer, Charles Scott, Ernst Zundel, John Micka, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Alexan Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Tomasz Winnicki, Craig Harrison, Peter Kouba, Glen Bahr, Terry Tremaine, Alex Di Civita, Liz Lampman, Lubomyr Prytulak, Bobby Wilkinson, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, Ciaran Paul Donnelly, Jason Ouwendyk, Heather Fleming, Ronald Fleming, Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, Doug Collins, Marc Lemire, Arthur Topham, David Ahenakew, Bill Whatcott, Mark Merek, Dean Clifford….
It must also be mentioned here that those pictured below, as well as Bill Whatcott, were all assisted in great measure by Canada’s foremost defender of true freedom of speech, the late Douglas Christie, who acted in varying capacities for all of the accused, including myself, right up to the point of his tragic passing in March of 2013.
DouglasHChristieFreedomFighter copy 3
SomeCanadianFreeSpeechVictims
In previous writings I’ve delved further into the creation of Canada’s ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws and in every case of ongoing persecution and prosecution it was always the Jewish lobby groups in Canada who were clambering and crying for the use and retention of these anti-democratic, unconstitutional ‘laws’ that for some strange reason, in practically 99% of all cases, involved non-Jewish individuals who were being critical of the ideology of political Zionism or the illegal, terrorist actions of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or else exposing the mendacious Jewish Rothschild central banking cartel that controls much of the world’s monetary system or the Jewish media cartel that controls the vast proportion of the Western world’s media and source of information. Those who were publishing critical articles were doing so because they firmly believed that their country, its government, jurisprudence, culture and social mores were under direct attack by the foreign influences of these Zionist organizations plus the choke hold that the state of Israel was gaining over Canada’s federal leaders and their parties. In other words their criticisms in many cases were based upon their personal belief and knowledge that Canada was under attack from foreign agents and that it was their constitutional right and duty to express their views on this vital matter of national security.
Charlie Hebdo and the ongoing Lies of the Jews
Juxtaposed against this background gestalt of brutal, repressive anti-Free Speech legislation (easily traced back to and premised upon the foundational lie of the 20th Century by World Jewry that ‘6 Million Jews’ had been ‘holocausted’ by gas and ovens in the work camps of National Socialist Germany during the latter half of WWII, a deception now proven to have been a fabricated event of mythical and universal proportions perpetrated upon humanity), Canada’s anti-Free Speech laws tended, in practically every case, to always benefit only one small minority the nation’s Jewish community who amount to less that 2% of the country’s population. Thus all the present hoopla emanating from the Jewish-controlled media about ‘Freedom of Speech’, ‘free expression’ and the West’s longstanding ‘liberal’ tradition of justifiable satire for the likes of Islamophobic and Christianophobic writers, artists and publishers like Charlie Hebdo, the repulsively loathsome Jew ‘comedian’ Sarah Silverman, et al, resonates with even greater magnitude the same hollow sounds of bigotry and deception here in Canada today.
When the news began to break via Twitter on June 26th, 2013 that the Canada’s Senate had finally given third and final reading to Bill C-304, an Act to repeal the censorship provision Section 13 contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act this didn’t automatically signal the end of ALL of Canada’s repressive ‘Free Speech’ legislation. Far from it. All the repeal accomplished was to removed the provisions within the Act that formerly gave non-Jews the same legal right to point a fierce and accusing finger at those of ‘Jewish ethnicity’ who were out to destroy Canada’s socio-cultural and democratic way of life and demand that they also be held accountable for their traitorous actions against the nation in this regard. The demise, therefore, of Section 13, as far as the Zionist media was concerned, was the end of their coverage on the issue of ‘Freedom of Speech’. Their job was done and their own media was now far less restricted in its ability to carry on with their Islamophobic agenda of vilifying Muslims everywhere. As for the even more threatening, draconian legislation still contained within Canada’s Criminal Code under Section 318 to 320, ‘Hate Propaganda’, those heinous laws are still very much alive and currently being used to the max to take down my website RadicalPress.com and myself and thus set a new precedent that will undoubtedly be used to coerce any other Canadian citizen who might think they still have the right of ‘Freedom of Speech’ to self-censor their opinions and beliefs and whatever historic research they may have uncovered that might support their viewpoint.
When you are immersed in the thick of a battle, be it to retain your constitutional right to freedom of expression or your fundamental right to stay alive physically, you quickly learn who the enemy is and what type of tactics they employ to overpower you. After eight long years of being in the trenches of what metaphorically (and some say realistically) might appropriately be called World War III and witnessing the stratagems used by the Zionist forces, it becomes clear how their modus operandi works. In actual physical warfare the Zionist forces, be they Israel attacking Gaza with their superior military firepower or the USA attacking Iraq with its superior firepower, they always resort to what they coined their ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing power on their perceived enemy. This same strategy though is also, first and foremost, used pre-emptively when it comes to their disinformation ‘bombing campaign’campaigns that always precede any actual on the ground operations. In esoteric terms it exhibits the old adage, ‘As above, so below’.
At this stage of writing, the Charlie Hebdo narrative, for those whose minds haven’t already succumbed to the current ‘Shock and Awe’ propaganda ordinance emanating forth from Zion’s big media guns, more than sufficient evidence now exists to prove that we’ve being subjected once again to another Israeli Mossad false flag operation; one deliberately orchestrated in order to provide the necessary media grist to carry out their latest ‘Free Speech’ disinfo blitzkrieg designed to fool the traumatized masses into believing their lie that the massacre was carried out by ‘Muslim Jihadists’ incensed over the magazine’s ongoing slander and mockery of Islam’s Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW). Nothing could be further from the truth.
As many writers have already revealed, including the American writer Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: ‘The Charlie Hebdo Story Simply Doesn’t Wash‘. There’s just too many similarities to all the previous false flag events, including the greatest of all thus far in the 21st Century 9/11 all of which were carried out with precisely the same global mind-control objective the obfuscation, via dissimulation and outright LIES projected through Zion’s global media cartel, of the true motives and actions of the state of Israel, first by transforming, then transposing their wilful and ongoing acts of terrorism against the Muslim people of the Middle East into a completely opposite, inverted and deceptive narrative; one that portrays Israel (again and again) as the woefully misunderstood victim of the former ‘Nazi-insprired Holocaust of 6 Million Jews’ plus interminable Islamic ill-will, anti-Semitic chicanery and racist hatred, all of which is presently being focalized in the Charlie Hebdo incident in order to then justify their ultimate purpose in pulling off this latest cabalistic caper; one intended to be a ‘shock and awe’ strike against the very foundations of freedom itself, that is, the fundamental, God-given right and necessity for every single human being on the face of this planet to be allowed to speak their mind and criticize whomever they feel may be attempting to stand in the way of this core human characteristic and all it entails in terms of keeping the principles of truth, honesty and moral rectitude alive.
By their past fruits we are able to recognize the Zionist’s present plot to disenfranchise the West of its basic human right to free expression via their entrenched ‘Hate Speech’ laws which they themselves were instrumental in setting in place over the decades following WWII and have steadfastly refused to abolish in Canada and France and Germany and Australia and numerous other EU nations. It also explains the Zionist media’s refusal to deal with Section 318 to 320 during the many years that Section 13 was a hot topic across the Zionist news wires. The big question remains though, why are they waxing so eloquent about ‘Freedom of Speech’ for the likes of Charlie Hebdo yet refusing to face the reality of these current, draconian ‘Hate Propaganda’laws; ones that fly in the face of the very principles and liberties that they are now espousing with such zealous vigour and haughtiness?
Dieudonne, Moi, Satire and Big Brother double standards
Je suis Dieudonne!! 1000 NEW
The most inescapable act of hypocrisy regarding the Zionist media’s trumpeting of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is France’s disingenuous and despicable treatment of that nation’s famed comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, without a doubt one of the finest and incisive minds, popular comedians and satirists alive today. The French officials’ two-faced approach of promoting Charlie Hebdo and the concept of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and the right to satire anything satireable while at the same time going on a ‘Hate Speech’ rampage around the country arresting anyone who so much as made a contrary peep about the manifestly obvious suspicious murders or didn’t append their ‘Je suis’ to the proper name, not only showed the world what a bunch of hypocritical and dangerous clowns they were but also reinforced the fact that France’s government is totally under the control of seditious Zionist Jew forces.
Just recently, in a radio interview with Kevin Barrett where we were discussing the whole Dieudonne debacle, it was pointed out that what is happening to Dieudonne in France and myself here in Canada over the past eight years of ongoing harassment, arrests, libel suit threats and so on is indicative of a world-wide conspiracy to stop the flow of truthful information concerning the miserable machinations of World Jewry’s Zionist juggernaut whether it issues forth from writings on a blogsite or from out of the mouths of satirical comedians such as Dieudonne.
While it’s just fine for Charlie Hebdo to ‘satirize’ whomever they like (but please don’t criticize Zionism or Israel) when I penned a satire on a hate-filled screed against the German people originally written by a Jewish writer, Theodore n. Kaufman, back in 1941 in his now infamous book, Germany Must Perish! and called it Israel Must Perish! the immediate reaction from the Jew lobby in Canada was to file a Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ complaint against me and my website alleging that I was calling for the genocide of the whole Jewish population! Did the satire aspect of the article elude their intellectual acumen or were they just grasping at straws in order to somehow get me arrested? Only time will tell.
Here in Canada it’s B’nai Brith International, one of Rothschild’s 19th century secret masonic brainchilds, who man Big Brother’s ‘hate speech’ ghetto towers, sweeping the Cyberian landscape 24/7 with their search lights in an ongoing effort to spot a Truth Revealer lurking somewhere in the digital underbrush that they can then literally hunt down by simply filing a Section 319(2) ‘hate speech’ complaint against them with whatever local ‘Hate Crime Team’ may be available depending upon the province the patriot resides in.
BBDieuTop1000
In France they likely hide behind a different mask but regardless of the name their purpose is to spy on a nation’s citizens and rat out anyone who they think may be a danger to Zion’s ongoing subterfuge and then use that nation’s ‘Hate Speech’ laws to prosecute the alleged ‘anti-Semitic’ victim.
The notion of satire has to be the biggest joke of all when viewed within the context of the current feigned fuss over free expression and the Charlie Hebdo false flag. For the Zionist Jew media the right to be able to publish endless lies, hatred, pornography, Islamophobia, Christianophobia all of which mock everything that humanity has held sacred for millennia is foremost and nothing illustrates this fact more than the government/media’s full-scale promotion of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo that came out within practically a week following the demise of its former staff. Touting this deliberate act of further promoting a magazine whose contents supposedly were responsible for the deaths of around a dozen or more people as ‘Freedom of Speech’ has to be one of the more provocative examples of Jewish chutzpah ever witnessed, yet, thanks to such sinister machinations this jaded, derelict crime syndicate comprised of interminable moral reprobates and serial killers were then able to utilize their widespread media sorcery to cast their evil spell over millions of French citizens thus manipulating them into believing their absurd lies while at the same time dashing about the country arresting others who were theoretically exercising these same, supposed ‘freedoms’.
As a Christian I’ve observed the artistic, literary and mimetic actions of the Jews when it comes to ‘satirizing’ non-Jewish religions, their churches, their leaders or their saints and I’ve seen with my own eyes too many examples of what they consider to be ‘free expression’ and ‘satire’ disguised as ‘modern art’ or ‘satire’ yet, upon closer examination reveal themselves to be nothing more than lurid, depraved exhibitions of pornographic, scatological/sexual perversion and deviancy, reprehensible to the eye and an affront to one’s spiritual and moral sense of propriety. And when I witness such moral obscenity associated with their ‘artistic’ creations I can only conclude and agree with those who state that the ideology of political Zionism is, at its root, immoral, atheistic and demonic in nature and cannot be connected to anything truly spiritual or holy in the traditional sense of those terms.
That said it behooves me to further add that, given all of the revulsion, disrespect, contempt and derision that much of what Zion vainly attempts to portray as ‘art’ and ‘satire’ entails, what is even more insulting, outrageous and unjust, is the fact that, after appointing themselves the arbiters of all things permissible, including the right to insult and denigrate anyone that they so wish to (for whatever purposes), they then turn around and create, promulgate and rigidly uphold so-called ‘Hate Speech’ laws that exist only to prohibit, by the force of the state, anyone else from exercising these same identical freedoms which they sell to the gullible public as universal rights and freedoms! Put in layman’s language there can never be such a thing as a level playing field when it comes to ‘Freedom of Speech’ if, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some people are more free to say what they want than others.
Allow me to present some examples. As a Christian I’ll use two ‘cartoons’ from Charlie Hebdo that relate to spreading Christianophobia or anti-Christian, anti-God hate propaganda rather than adding to the already existing plethora of specious, Zionist hate-motivated Islamophobic ‘art’. To wit:

CharHebGod
The Babylonian Talmud, the ‘bible’ of the Rabbinical cult we associate with ‘Judaism’, consists of massive tomes of Jewish ‘Law’ purported (by the priesthood) to have been handed down orally to Moses by the Jewish ‘g-d’ Jehovah in the self-chosen people’s hoary past. Then, with the addition of greater masses of written commentary on said law, finally set in print around the 5th century A.D. The Talmud considered to be the ultimate authority and reference when it comes to any and all questions dealing with the religious life of an orthodox Jew supersedes the Torah in all aspects of authority.
Hidden for centuries from the prying eyes of non-Jews the Talmud was eventually translated into English in the early part of the 20th Century. Not long afterward an American author and researcher, Elizabeth Dilling, began a comprehensive study of the Talmud after returning from a visit to the Soviet Union in 1931 where she had gone to observe what the Zio-Communists were then touting as their great ‘humanitarian experiment’. Being able to go behind the scenes Dilling was, ‘shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.’ But even more so was she shocked by the ‘virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.’
Had Dilling been able, at the time, to penetrate further into the vast reaches of the Soviet wastelands she would have witnessed what, thanks to the heroic efforts of Russia’s Nobel Prize winning author and dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, he described as the greatest mass genocide of Gentile Russian Christians ever undertaken in the history of the world. According to Solzhenitsyn somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty-six million souls vanished into that frozen nightmare of terror and fear now known as the Gulag Archipelago.
SolzhenitsynGulagZioHatredquote 800
Dillings book, THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today is a wealth of factual information on the hidden side of Pharisiac Judaism. Chapter 3 in particular, ‘The Talmud and Bible Believers’ examines in detail how the Rabbinical priesthood views the likes of Jesus Christ and Mother Mary; both of whom are treated with the utmost contempt and disrespect. When one realizes just how vile and hateful the passages are describing Jesus and his Mother it’s not too difficult to connect the dots when it comes to understanding why this book, which is posted on my website RadicalPress.com in digital format (and numerous other websites around the world), was one of the principal documents submitted by the ‘complainants’ in my present case as ‘proof’ that I am willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’. Still, as the old saying goes, ‘The proof is in the pudding’ and in the case of the Gulag Archipelago that pudding is stuffed to overflowing with the bloated and starved carcasses of countless millions of innocent people.
As such it beggars the mind to think that BC’s Attorney General, the Honourable Suzanne Anton, would have attached her name to such a sleazy and ill-conceived accusation; one that eventually led the thought police to proceed with their stalking and final arrest and jailing that then allowed them to illegally enter my home and steal all of my computers and electronic files and subsequently subject me to years of ongoing litigation in order to prove my innocence. This ‘law’ we call Section 319(2) is a purely Bolshevik-inspired piece of Zionist double-talk and deception that allows the state to accuse me (or any other Canadian) of willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ for simply re-posting historical facts gleaned from the annals of the former Zionist Jew dominated Soviet dictatorship.
ChHebJesus
Upon reading what the Talmud has to say about Jesus Christ and Mother Mary it won’t take a whole lot of extrapolating to see why the Talmud-driven Zionist media commissars are still going out of their way to defend the likes of images such as these. Just like the New York Times, Charlie Hebdo’s messages appear to be exactly what the Zionist media cartel deems content ‘fit to print’. I will leave it to viewers to decide whether they see these ‘cartoons’ as satire, humour or otherwise. They certainly aren’t the ones though that the Zionist media has been flashing about since the Charlie Hebdo incident.
One of the National Post’s well known Jewish writers, Andrew Coyne, in the comment section of its January 15, 2015 edition, penned an article entitled, ‘Humour busts taboos’ (currently changed online to read: ‘Coyne: Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed’) wherein he labours to intellectually justify the ‘humour’ associated with Charlie Hebdo and Jewish ‘comedians’ such as Sarah Silverman (Coyne finds her humour ‘indefensibly funny’) who get their jollies out of telling anti-Christian jokes such as the example below:

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 11.45.31 PM
British Internet writer and contributor to Veteran’s Today, Lasha Darkmoon, also has a few pertinent things to say about Silverman in her recent and popular article, ‘The Paris Massacre: they had it coming’ where she writes, ‘The Jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman, the nice young lady who likes humping dogs and licking their anuses in various video skits—see here—and who gets many a cheap laugh by insulting Christianity in America, would have been a great hit with these satirical French journalists. They would have loved her for saying, ‘I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again—in a second!’.
Coyne on the other hand, quoting François Cavanna, founder of Charlie Hebdo, who once stated, ‘Nothing is sacred’ goes on to say, ‘I have been turning over those words in my mind ever since I saw them, shortly after the massacre. Can he really have meant it? Nothing is sacred? Why? Why was he so insistent, so absolute? …But I think it is more than that. I think it stems from an understanding that ‘offensive’ humour is not an aberration, a warped version of the real thing, but rather that offensiveness of one kind or another is an intrinsic part of humour. Virtually all humour is offensive to someone; most humour is hurtful to some sensibility; much humour is rooted in pain and fear and the ugly reality of things.’
In his analysis of why people laugh, he tells us, ‘Nobody really knows why people laugh. They just do.’ … ‘What one can say, however, is that it [laughter] emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.’
So I ask myself, why didn’t I laugh when I looked at the Charlie Hebdo image of God the Father being bum-phucked by my Lord Jesus Christ who, in turn, is having his own derriere desecrated by what is supposed to be a symbolic image of the Holy Spirit? The standard interpretation for Jews like Coyne would be that it’s apparently just a pun (satire) on the Catholic church’s opposition to gay marriage. No problem. Get over it guys. It’s all just ‘a joke’. Remember, ‘Nothing is sacred’ and the laughter produced by such ‘satire’ obviously ‘emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.’
But if you don’t find it funny at all and rather offensive then according to Coyne’s reasoning ‘…that’s also the moral answer. The first thing to ask about a joke is not, is it offensive, but: is it funny? If it is, if we laugh at it in spite of ourselves, chances are it is because there is something else to it than mere insult or grotesquerie: some larger truth, some point we resist acknowledging, because to do so would make us uncomfortable.’ [Note: all emphasis throughout this article is by the author. A.T.]
Really now Andrew? Oi vey! I should truly like to know just what it is, what ‘larger truth’ is hidden there that we, who don’t laugh at supposed ‘cartoons’ such as this, ‘resist acknowledging’ because it would ‘make us uncomfortable’? How about the ‘larger truth’ that the atheistic Zionist mindset could care less about what Christians or Muslims hold to be sacred? Is this not their standard operating procedure today just as it was after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas of Russia in 1917 when the Jew-led Bolsheviks systematically went about raping and murdering and torturing the Christian priests and nuns and destroying their houses of worship on a scale that, were it fully disclosed to the masses today on the Zionist media, would turn the stomachs of whole nations to the point where their present belief in your endless lies would suddenly cease to exist?
Commenting on Sarah Silverman’s career Coyne says, ‘If her routine were only about shock value, I don’t imagine she would have lasted as long as she has. Rather, she has thought long and hard about what makes us anxious — what we’re least willing to talk about.’
So, according to the atheistic Zionist mind-set of Jewish writers like Coyne, if someone has expended a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to make Christians ‘anxious’ about homos marrying homos by forcing them to talk about it through portraying their Saviour screwing God the Father up the ass, then this is a good thing. A funny thing. A laughter producing mechanism that gets the desired result ‘by turning our anxieties and discomforts in on themselves, forcing us to confront them rather than bury them.’ Sigmund, I’m certain, would have been proud of Andrew Coyne’s deeply analytical diagnosis of Sarah Silverman’s perverted, sick mind.
Then of course, as Coyne goes on to say, ‘There’s a world of meaning in this. When an ‘offensive’ comic says nothing is unsayable, they mean that we do not have to be afraid of words. They are not our master: we are theirs. Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed.’
Now this is all fine and dandy for Andrew Coyne and his Jewish comedians and the National Post and its readership who subscribe to this type of psycho-babble purporting to be wisdom but, like all babble that arises in the Zionist media, it only caters to the self-chosen mindset, be it ethnic Jews or culturally and socially indoctrinated ‘mentally-cloned’ chabez goy ‘Jews’ who, because of their own life experiences growing up in a culture saturated with endless Zionist propaganda, have come to think and react and behave just like their Zionist counterparts.
But of course for all of Coyne’s sophisticated rhetoric and sophistry, specifically designed to make an ugly pile of dog shit look like a fruit cake, his arguments in favour of justifying what is nothing more than pure pornography, an ‘art’ and an industry which the the Jews have developed to the point of perfection and now reap countless millions from its exploitation via their mass media, don’t impress me one iota.
But, and believe me when I say this is a BIG BUT (no pun or typo intended), there are the rest of us great unwashed goyim who amount to not millions but billions, who for numerous reasons don’t think at all like the Zionists would have us think. We have our own codes of moral conduct and our own spiritual views and perspectives on what we believe to be the holy and sacred side of life here on planet Earth. And yes, we also value justice and freedom of speech just like the Zionists purport to value it. Nonetheless, there is a vast and fundamental separation between the Zionist version of freedom of speech and that of the non-Zionist; a difference based upon the elemental fact that non-Zionists believe in freedom of speech for EVERYONE, not just for the Zionist Jews and their fawning sycophants who, for whatever reason, feel that Zion’s version of TRUTH and FREEDOM is somehow the only version permissible for the whole of humanity. Therein lies the rub and therein lies the one single factor that historically has made the ‘Jewish Question’ one of continuing paramount importance for all of mankind and, as far back as a century ago, prompted the late Henry Ford, Sr. to describe this amazing occurrence with the Jews as ‘The world’s Foremost Problem’.
HenryQuotesTemplate 600
Given a level playing field in all the critical sectors of a nation that comprise government, banking, economics, industry, education, social and religious institutions and most important of all, openness and diversity within the most crucial area its media/news/entertainment/communication systems the majority of citizens in any democratic nation would have the wherewithal to manage their country for the good of all rather than be held hostage to a tiny deviant minority that now rules over us with greater and greater disregard for the essential values that do make life both sacred and worthwhile. This is a lesson that the Zionists and their obeisant sycophants are still in denial about. For the majority it’s but a matter of ignorance due to their brainwashing and were they to be told the whole truth would likely change their ways but for those in power who manage the levers of deception it’s not so much a matter of denial but one of cold, calculated, wilful, heartless premeditated criminal intent to perpetrate and perpetuate their execrable program to enslave the vast majority of humanity via the ongoing misuse of their media cartel and other control mechanisms.
Some final thoughts on Canada’s PM Stephen Harper and ‘Freedom of Speech’
Saving the worst for last and not wishing to subject readers to more obnoxious imagery I will forgo posting a photo of Canada’s No. 1 Zionist lackey and current Prime Minister of Canada, the Dishonourable Stephen Harper.
Before commenting on his recent reaction to the Charlie Hebdo affair I want to reiterate a fact that needs to be born in mind with respect to my legal proceedings now before the court. On April 27th, 2011, about one week prior to the last federal election, being fully conscious of the imminent threat that Harper posed to my country should his Conservative party gain a majority vote and be given the opportunity to exercise h/is-rael’s agenda via their controlled puppet, I penned an article titled, Hating Harper and posted it to my website. There you will find an image of the traitor who is now attempting to tell Canadians what a wonderful, free and democratic nation they live in; one that, were it not for those insanely envious ‘Mooslim’ terrorist Jihadists who hate our way of life, would have us all living just happy as a clam. When I wrote the article I knew full well what Canada would be facing should Stephen Harper and his Con-servative Party gain a majority of votes necessary to rule the country for next four years.
The very next day, Canada’s former No. 1 serial complainant in the vast majority of the now repealed Sec. 13 ‘Human Rights’ cases (please note that I am under a court order NOT to publish his name anywhere on the net), filed a Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team under the supervision of Det. Cst. Terry Wilson pictured below along with his partner in crime Cst. Normandie Levas. That was the first step taken in a long drawn-out clandestine process that eventually culminated in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012.
The BC Hate Crime Team’s website tells us that it ‘has two full-time police officers trained to recognize the specialized and multi-jurisdictional nature of hate propaganda offences.’ It was one of those ‘trained’ police officers, Cst. Levas, who filed a report with BC Attorney General, Hon. Suzanne Anton, outlining her reasons why she felt I had committed the unforgivable crime of ‘willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ by, (quoting Det. Cst. Wilson’s words to me while I was in jail), ‘calling for the total genocide of the Jewish population’. Based on this ‘trained’ police officer’s ‘evidence’ the Attorney General then gave their consent to have me formally charged. Later on, during the preliminary inquiry when I cross examined Cst. Levas in court about her ‘training’ and what it was that qualified her to make such presumptive and false accusations about me, she revealed to the court that prior to joining the ‘Hate Crime Team’ she had worked as a . . . dental assistant!
NewWilsonPhoto
Returning to the Charlie Hebdo hoax and that other hoax, the Zionist National Post, I want to make further reference to an article that appeared on the front page of the January 9, 2015 edition titled, ‘THIS IS WAR ON US ALL, HARPER SAYS: PM says terror law to be tabled soon.’ (My apologies to readers but I’ve been unable to find a link to the article online)
Before the blood had dried on the two young Muslim brothers alleged to have carried out the shootings at the office of Charlie Hebdo then subsequently murdered by the French security forces in order to ensure that they would never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story, Canada’s Zionist-controlled puppet, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was already blabbering on in the media about how the ‘jihadists are at war with anyone who values openness and tolerance’ and further stating that his government was already busy formulating new proposed legislation that would introduce ‘new arrest powers aimed at thwarting terrorist threats’ in an upcoming bill destined to be tabled at the end of January when Parliament resumes.
He then went on to say, ‘They have declared war and are already executing it on a massive scale on a whole range of countries with which they are in contact, and they have declared war on any country, like ourselves(sic), that values freedom, openness and tolerance. We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it is not going to go away.’
Yes, Stephen Harper, you can be damn sure that these false flag events such as we’ve just witnessed in Paris, France won’t ‘go away’ so long as the wars which your government has plunged Canada into at the behest of Israel are slated to carry on and the necessity to manufacture greater and greater levels of fear remain a prerequisite to gaining approval for your heinous acts of genocide against defenceless people like the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, the Afghans and those still surviving in other Middle East nations where the Zionist forces are constantly committing their war crimes.
Making these hypocritically absurd pronouncements given the fact that there was still no definite proof as to who had committed the murders merely shows the insidiousness and transparent bigotry of those in power who, because they are puppets dangling on Zionist strings, will mouth their aggressive lies and threats to the world regardless of whatever the people may think to the contrary. This process of accusing either an individual or a nation of crimes yet unproven applies not only to the Islamic community as a whole but to my own ‘Freedom of Speech’ case here at home in Canada and now before the Supreme court of British Columbia. The fact that I have yet to be tried for the alleged ‘crime’ of ‘willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ certainly didn’t deter the Zionist media in Canada from making all sorts of false and defamatory accusations and slanderous remarks against my person when the Indictment was first handed down November 5, 2012. The same Zionist big mouth, Ezra Levant, was only too happy to interview my former counsel, Douglas Christie on his SunNews show ‘The Source’ where he then proceeded to accuse me of all sorts of falsehoods just like Harper does when it comes to discussing issues to do with Islam and Israel’s false flag events all of which are designed to further enhance just such vitriolic rhetoric.
Within the short span of about six minutes good ol’ free speech advocate Ezra Levant managed to slander, defame and libel me as many times as possible, punctuating every comment or question to lawyer Doug Christie with at least one or more ad hominem slur, in order to show the world just how grand and liberal the Zionist mainstream media truly is when it comes to freedom of expression.
Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 4.55.45 PM
Yes, said Ezra, that Topham is an ‘anti-Semite.’ He’s ‘offensive’ and an ‘anti-Zionist [which is] code for anti-Semitic.’ His website is ‘gross’ and his comments ‘repulsive’ and everything that he does is ‘motivated by a form of malice.’ And on top of that Levant also shared freely his opinion that I was a ‘nobody’ and an ‘anti-Semitic idiot and a right wing wacko’ ending his ‘freedom of speech’ soliloquy by emphatically pronouncing to all of Canada that when it came right down to it ‘I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!’
When I finished watched the interview I said to myself, oi vey! with ‘free speech’ friends like this who needs enemies? Here he is, one of Canada’s most vocal advocates for ‘freedom of speech’ on the Internet and he’s sitting there abusing me left, right and center telling the world blatant lies about me and making me out to be some sort of crazed Jew-hating anti-Semite! That folks is how ‘Freedom of Speech’ works for those holding the mechanisms of mind-control in their nefarious little hands.
Getting back to Harper and his disingenuous statements to the media he goes on to say, ‘At the same time, we also encourage people to go about their lives and to exercise our rights and freedoms and our openness as a society as loudly and as clear as we can because that is the best way of defeating what is ultimately a movement of hatred and intolerance.’ ‘No shit Batman’ as a friend of mine used to say when confronted with such transparent posturing. That is precisely what I and many other Canadians have been doing for decades. And were we able to ‘exercise our rights and freedoms’ without the Jewish lobbyists using their ‘Hate Propaganda’ laws to attack and imprison us? No. Just more hypocritical smoke and mirrors and sententious sophistry that’s all.
Commenting on the Paris demonstrations that followed in the wake of the shootings Harper, monotonously mouthing the Zionist agenda rather than taking into consideration ALL Canadians, displayed his now usual chutzpah by stating, ‘Today, I know all Canadians…stand together with [Israel? A.T.] the people of France…our great friends and allies’ culminating his bigoted remarks with his final fatuous remark that, ‘When a trio of [alleged. A.T.] hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles freedom of expression, freedom of the press they assaulted democracy everywhere.’
Talk is obviously cheap and meaningless when a nation’s leader can make such blatantly deceptive statements to the press and the so-called ‘independent’ media stands by unquestioningly allowing it to go on.
Conclusion
So what are we to make of this latest false flag event that occurred in Paris, France? Will the world fall for it like most people fell for the 9/11 false flag and continue on supporting those who are the perpetrators of the majority of mankind’s problems? How long will the pretense last before the mask of Zion finally falls from the face of evil, revealing forever the primary source of mankind’s collective woes and allowing for the final liberation of the millions of people still suffering from the ignorance that’s ultimately a result of having lived their lives in a trauma-induced trance of fear and insecurity; products of deliberate mind-control by a globally elite force of psychopaths who truly believe that they were given the right by their G_d to wield unlimited power and control over the majority of humanity? How long before the majority of Jews themselves will be healed of this devastating ghetto consciousness that’s plagued the world for over two millennia?
For most people today the realization that they are going about their lives unaware of the fact that there’s a war going on around them designed to eventually enslave them is beyond belief. They simply remain transfixed by Big Brother’s media, struggle on a daily basis to pay their credit card debts and keep food on the table and a roof over their heads all the while faithfully watching the sitcoms and television news and sports and a myriad number of channels all designed with the intent of diverting their attention away from the psycho/spiritual battles that are going on behind the scenes both in Cyberspace (the Internet) where the final battle is now well underway as well as in the courtrooms of the nation where the Zionist forces are surreptitiously at work both enacting new legislation and protecting old legislation like Section 318 to 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, laws overtly and covertly designed to criminalize the Truth Revealers who are on to their scams and are doing their utmost with scant resources to strike the chimes of truth and freedom and connect the dots so that the majority of those still asleep might one day awaken.
Make no mistake about it. The Zionists KNOW their days are numbered and that time is fast running out for them to pull off their global coup. The fact that they know though is not something that will automatically tempt them to change their evil ways. That’s not how psychopaths operate. The stronger the resistance to their plotting and scheming the more they dig their heels in and resort to greater and greater subterfuges to prevent the tide of truth from rising. They understand better than anyone the power of their media and the power of their purse and they will not stop using either of these devices to achieve the end they’ve worked for so long and with such single-minded, albeit, malicious intent.
It may be pointless at this juncture in the battle to remind people that this war has been going on since Lucifer first broke rank with the heavenly hosts and decided that he would rather be God and do his own thing instead of remaining a willing and loving participant in the grand scheme of Creation. God of course, having endowed all of his Creation, from the heavenly realms down to us mundane time-space mortal creatures of flesh and blood with free will wasn’t about to interfere with his design and so left his somewhat recalcitrant and sentient family to work it out on their own.
The debate over who the Zionists really are and why they’re motivated to act as they do would fill a thousand Alexandrian libraries. The origins of such primal urges to control others cannot help but lead serious thinkers to an eventual realization that such questions ultimately cannot be answered without delving into speculative philosophical, occult and spiritual realms that go far beyond the scope of this article.
The Internet at this early juncture in its nascent beginnings is already expanding at quantum speeds. The information age is gaining ground with every millisecond, exploding our preconceived notions of time and space and taking us on a transcendental journey that at this point in time is akin in terms of progress to our little toe projecting out upon the threshold of a dream that undoubtedly will continue to unfold throughout the remainder of the present Aquarian cycle, leading us onward and inward to greater and greater understanding, peace, harmony, and love.
Together humanity now faces the supreme trial of all ages past. We stand as a vast human species with one foot embedded in yesterday and the other foot jutting forth into a future that all too often appears shrouded in grey, chemtrail-like clouds of self doubt brought forth daily through the interminable Big Brother’s flak of fear and loathing which constitute the hallmarks of the Zionist Information Media now permanently acting in collusion with its counterparts in every other phase of global involvement who are intent on breaking the will of the people to the point where they eventually give up and bow their heads to accept their chains of slavery and subservience to the satanic power that now rules the world by default.
Bob_Dylan_-_The_Times_They_Are_A-Changin’
Bob Dylan, one of the leading American Jewish poets, songwriters and musicians of the 1960’s prophetically expressed best our current existential dilemma when, in 1964 he wrote his immortal song, ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’. I publish it here for readers to consider.
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
The glorious sun of Truth and Justice is now rising upon an otherwise outwardly bleak, forlorn, terror-stricken Cyberian landscape according to divine plan, casting great shadows across the wreckage of thousands of years of endless war and strife and suffering. Its radiant rays of life-giving hope are bursting forth with new and brighter intensity than ever before, defying with the full intensity of its love-driven will and determination all of the Evil and Darkness emanating forth from the present Zio-Talmudic tyranny now so frantic with fear and desperately attempting to pull off its age-long plan for absolute control of planet Earth.
In the end Truth and Love and Peace WILL prevail.

[Editor’s Note: Solzhenitsyn’s book has not been published in English and will likely remain hidden from the west unless someone in Russia translates it and publishes it there and makes it available to western readers. This extensive review with excerpts based upon the German translation is of inestimable value in understanding the real history of the Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution. Please forward the url for this article to all you can.]
———
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s new book ‘200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916″ is unlikely to be translated into English …
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Strauss342-351.html
The End of the Legends
By Wolfgang Strauss
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, ‘200 Jahre zusammen.’ Die russisch-jüdische Geschichte 1795-1916 (200 Years Together. The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916), Herbig, Munich 2002, 560 pp., €34.90; ‘Zweihundert Jahre zusammen,’ Die Juden in der Sowjetunion (200 Years Together. The Jews in the Soviet Union), ibidem, 2003, 608 pp., €39.90.
It may be said without hesitation that Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: The Jews in the Soviet Union is one of the most important books on the Russian Revolution and the early Bolshevik period ever to appear. After publication of this work with its many revelations about the role of the Jews during the Leninist period, the history of the Bolshevik October putsch will have to be rewritten, if not completely, then with substantial additions.
The book title might have been even more appropriately called ‘The End of the Legends.’ For example, the legend that there ever existed an independent ‘Russian’ Social Democracy Party is questioned. Founded in Minsk in 1898, the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP) derived, with respect to personnel and organization, from the Allgemeine jüdische Arbeiterbund in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia. It might be said that the Jewish Arbeiterbund midwife service officiated at the birth of the Russian Social Democracy Party. Legends without number are examined.
Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, ‘Many more Jewish voices than Russian are heard in this book’. Jewish voices, not Russian, speak of Jewish dominance in the anti-monarchial movements in the period before the war. In an article entitled ‘The Jewish Revolution’ in the 10 December 1919 issue of the Neue Jüdischen Monatsheften, published in Berlin, was the sentence:
‘Regardless of how extremely the anti-Semites exaggerate it, and how so nervously the Jewish bourgeoisie deny it, the large Jewish contingent in today’s revolutionary movement stands fast.’
The writer, whom the publicist Sonia Margolina calls a ‘patriarch’ in the tradition of Dostoyevsky, the last Russian prophet, rejects decisively, almost passionately, all theses of collective guilt. The chronicler of the Gulag holds that neither the Russians nor the Jews can be held separately responsible for the emergence of the reign of terror. He characterizes the relationship between Russian and Jews as a ‘burning wedge.’ In his book he tries to see the wedge from both sides. In so doing, the legends dissolve.
Perhaps the most persistent legend, now dissolved, used to go like this: Long before the last Tsar left the throne, the old Russian Empire was in decline, the revolution was coming, the apocalypses of February and October 1917 could not have been prevented. They were determined as if by a world court. Only a legend, Solzhenitsyn says, and this chapter in his book, a noir-thriller, illuminates 18 September 1911 a day that heralded the approach of the Great Terror in that it dimmed the last opportunity to prevent it.
They had tried to assassinate Petr Stolypin eight times. Various terrorist groups had attempted to murder Stolypin and his family, but they had never succeeded in killing the man who had set governmental direction in the decade before the war nor in tarnishing his reputation and charisma. The ‘Russian Bismarck,’ as he was called, had, as an unassuming Christian and self-confident first servant of the Russian Empire, led his country into the modern age by introducing agrarian reforms and representative self-government that made individual enterprising farmers out of the backward villagers. The eighth attempt, however, on 18 September 1911 in the Kiev Opera, succeeded in ending the life of the great reformer who had served his country as minister president and minister of the internal affairs. Ninety years later Solzhenitsyn was to write:
‘The first Russian premier minister, who had honorably set the task of establishing equal rights for Jews and had even opposed the Tsar in attempting to realize it, was killed at the hands of a Jew. Was it an irony of history?’ (p. 431)
The assassin was Mordko Hershovich Bogrov, a university student, grandson of a liquor concessionaire and son of a millionaire. When he fired his Browning at Stolypin, Bogrov was 23 years old. Those shots brought the process of Russian reformation, including Stolypin’s measures to lift anti-Jewish restrictions, to a fateful end by their own hands. Among the grave consequences of 18 September was a radical change in world politics. Stolypin had opposed Russian foreign policy that had been hostile to Germany and friendly with France and Britain. Solzhenitsyn asserts that under Stolypin Russia would have never entered World War I. The ultimate beneficial consequence for the Russian people would have been that they would have been spared the February revolution, which was triggered by the defeats in the First World War. Whether Bogrov acted alone or as a member of the Bolshevik, Menshevik, or anarchist underground remains unknown. Solzhenitsyn provides no answer. But the Nobel Laureate does not doubt that Mordo Hershevich was an agent of the Okhrana, a spy in the pay of the Tsarist secret police. In August Nineteen-Fourteen, the first volume of The Red Wheel cycle, 233 pages are given over to the ‘Jewish Question’ by a partially documentary and partially literary presentation of Stolypin’s person and his reforms. There, too, is a characterization of the assassin and a psychogram of Bogrov’s motive:
‘Stolypin had done nothing directly against the Jews, he had even made their lives easier in some ways, but it did not come from the heart. To decide whether or not a man is an enemy of the Jews, you must look beneath the surface. Stolypin boosted Russian national interests too blatantly and too insistently, even provocatively about Russian international interests. […] the Russianness of the Duma as a representative body, the Russianness of the State. He was trying to build, not a country in which all were free, but a nationalist monarchy. So that the future of the Jews was not affected by his goodwill toward them. The development of the country along Stolypin’s lines promised no golden age for the Jews. Bogrov might or might not take part in revolutionary activity, might associate with the Maximalists, Anarcho-Communists, or with no one, might change his Party allegiance and change his character a hundred time over, but one thing was beyond all doubt: his exceptionally talented people must gain the fullest opportunity to develop unimpeded in Russia.’ (p. 592 in August-Fourteen)
Because of this passage, fifteen printed lines in all, Solzhenitsyn has been accused of anti-Semitism not by the Russians but in the American press. The unusually gifted people referred to in the passage are the Jewish people.

After the deadly shots of Kiev, the shots fired in Sarajevo three years later destroyed the peace of Europe. Kiev and Sarajevo belong together as turning points in the history of mankind. The depiction of Stolypin’s assassin belongs among the highpoints in Solzhenitsyn’s career, who to this point had evoked no positive echo in the (West) German media which regrettably was to be expected. In any case, the Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin reviews have become like a hotbed of hedonism that is the most inappropriate reception imaginable for ethical and aesthetic ascetics like Solzhenitsyn.
Gerd Koenen of the Welt newspaper (12 October 2002), who calls this great Russian a ‘moral overlord,’ believes it would be ‘an unreasonable intellectual demand’ to be forced to read his work. Nonetheless, Koenen attributes a ‘patriarchal sternness’ to the Russian in a tone that is not accusatory or virulent, but rather ‘deliberately conciliatory.’ That Sonia Margolina of all people, the daughter of a Jewish Trotskyite, of whom she remains proud today, that of all people, this nostalgic Red can accuse Solzhenitsyn’s enlightened spirit of ‘always looking backwards’ should be laughed at as a joke in a feuilleton world. Every truth lives within a time nucleus. The truth about the October Revolution in which the Bogrovs, Bronsteins, Mandelstams, Auerbachs, Rosenfelds, Brilliants, and Apfelbaums played an essential role, is being vomited up ten years after the end of the failed experiment of Communism.
The Dirty Revolution I
If it is true that it was neither the planned economy nor the absence of democracy that landed bolshevism in the dustbin of history, then the question of just when the downfall set in and what caused it must be answered. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, deemed the greatest conservative writer of our times by many, cites 1918 as the date Red Terror was born.
A terrorist named Apfelbaum proclaimed the mass death sentence:
‘The bourgeoisie can kill some individuals, but we can murder whole classes of people.’
In that year the non-communist intelligentsia saw Medusa’s head. Apfelbaum, who entered the history books as Zinovev, wanted to send ten million Russians (ten out of each one hundred) to the smoldering ovens of the class war. German historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte states that this pronouncement of 17 September 1918 sounds almost unbelievable in its monstrosity; Apfelbaum formulated this holocaust sentence:
‘From the population of a hundred million in Soviet Russia, we must win over ninety million to our side. We have nothing to say to the others. They have to be exterminated.’
In this, his latest book, Solzhenitsyn writes of the ‘dushiteli Rossii’ (stranglers of Russia,) the ‘palachi grasnoy revolyutsii’ (hangmen of the dirty revolution.) Who does he mean exactly? On page 89 he writes, ‘Bol’sheviki yevrey’ the ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’ In another place he uses the term ‘Bol’shevististkiye Juden’ (Bolshevistic Jews). Superordinate to these is the key expression ‘Yevreyskiy vopros’ (the Jewish Question). After 1918 the Communist censors in no way forbade this expression, even with regard to Jew Bolsheviks the Jewish question was not a taboo. On the contrary, the Jewish question became the central theme of the Party ideology, which had become a secular religion. Lenin himself set the example in 1924 with his famous instructive paper ‘On the Jewish Question in Russia,’ published in the Moscow Proletariat Publishing House (cited by Solzhenitsyn on page 79).
Given the factual revelations in this book, the history of the 20th Century ought to be revised, especially that of the Soviet Union with particular reference to the collapse of the great ideological fronts in the pre-revisionist period. What is new in this work is Solzhenitsyn’s graphic depiction of a phenomenon about which the (West) German historians’ establishment has kept absolutely mute about, namely, that the historically unprecedented cruelty exercised in the seizure of power, the Russian Civil War, and wartime (WWII) had a clearly defined ideological and anthropological source. As mentioned above, the codeword Solzhenitsyn uses is ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’
‘Before the October Revolution, Bolshevism was not the numerically strongest movement among the Jews.’ (p. 73)
Solzhenitsyn recalls that immediately before the Revolution, the Bolshevistic Jews Trotsky and Kamenev concluded a military alliance with three Jewish social revolutionaries Natanson, Steinberg, and Kamkov. What Solzhenitsyn is saying is that Lenin’s military putsch, from the purely military point of view, relied on a Jewish network. The collaboration between Trotsky and his coreligionists in the Left Social Revolutionary parties assured Lenin’s success in the Palace revolt of October 1917. As crown witness, Solzhenitsyn cites the Israeli historian Aron Abramovitch who in 1982 in Tel Aviv wrote:
‘In October 1917 the Jewish contingent of soldiers played a decisive role in the preparation and execution of the armed Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd and other cities as well as in the following battles in the course of suppressing rebellions against the new Soviet power.’
The famed Latvian Rifle Regiment of the 12th Army, Lenin’s praetorian guard, had a Jewish commissar, Nachimson, in charge.
There are crimes that the descendents of the victims cannot bear. Those are crimes that break through the last protective wall, crimes like the psychocide of a civilized people. Most educated Russians sensed in October the emergence of a destructive reordering principle. ‘October’ became synonymous with a deadly threat to their existence. In 1924 the Jewish historian, Pasmanik, wrote:
‘The emergence of Bolshevism was the result of special aspects of Russian history. However, Soviet Russia can thank the work of the Jewish commissars for the organization of Bolshevism.’
Solzhenitsyn cites this key passage on page 80 in which the word ‘organization’ is in quotes in the book text.
The large number of eyewitness reports from the early period of Soviet rule is astounding. In the Council of People’s Commissars, the writer Nashivin simply notes: ‘Jews, Jews, Jews.’ Nashivin avers that he was never an anti-Semite, but ‘the mass of Jews in the Kremlin literally knocks your eyes out.’ In 1919 the famous writer Vladimir Korolenko, who was close to the Social Democrats and who had protested against the pogroms in Tsarist Russia, made the following entry in his diary:
‘There are many Jews and Jewesses among the Bolsheviks. Their main characteristics self-righteousness, aggressive tactlessness and presumptive arrogance are painfully evident. Bolshevism is found contemptible in the Ukraine. The preponderance of Jewish physiognomies, especially in the Cheka, evokes an extremely virulent hatred of Jews among the people.’
Chapter 15 of Solzhenitsyn’s book opens with the words:
‘Jews among the Bolsheviks is nothing new. Much has already been written about it.’
This for Solzhenitsyn is further support for his cardinal thesis, namely, that Bolshevik Jews were the indispensable power brokers in the victory of Bolshevism, in the Russian Civil War, and in the early Soviet Regime.
Alexander Solzhenitzyn:
‘Whoever holds the opinion that the revolution was not a Russian, but an alien-led revolution points to the Yiddish family names or pseudonyms to exonerate the Russian people for the revolution. On the other hand, those who try to minimize the over-proportional representation of Jews in the Bolshevik seizure of power may sometimes claim that they were not religious Jews, but rather, apostates, renegades, and atheists.’
According to rabbinical law, whoever was born of a Jewish mother is a Jew. Orthodox Judaism requires more, i.e., recognition of the Hebraic Halacha scriptural laws and the observance of the religious laws of the Mishna, which form the basis of the Talmud. Solzhenitsyn then asks:
‘How strong were the influence, power, fascination, and adherence of secular Jews among the religious Jews and how many atheists were active among the Bolsheviks? Can a people really just renounce its renegades? Does such a renunciation make any sense?’
Solzhenitsyns’s attempt to answer these questions on the basis of historical facts concentrates on several factors, namely, the behavior of Orthodox Jews after October, the relative numbers of Bolshevik Jews before and after October, the ascendence of Bolshevistic Jews in the cadres of the Red Army and the Cheka, Lenin’s Jewish strategy, and finally, Lenin’s own heritage.
‘The Bolsheviks appealed to the Jews immediately after the seizure of power. And they came; they came in masses. Some served in the executive branch, others in the various governmental organs. They came primarily from among secular young Jews who in no way could be classified as atheists or even as enemies of God. This phenomenon bore a mass character.’ (p. 79)
By the end of 1917 Lenin had not yet left Smolny, when a Jewish Commissariat for Nationality Questions was already at work in Petrograd. In March 1919 the VIII Party Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) undertook to establish a ‘Jewish Soviet Russian Communist Bund.’
In this matter Solzhenitsyn again relies on Jewish historians. Leonard Schapiro, living in London in 1961, wrote:
‘Thousands of Jews streamed to the Bolsheviks whom they saw as the protectors of the international revolution.’
M. Chaifetz also commented on the Jewish support of Bolshevism:
‘For a Jew, who came neither from among the aristocrats nor the clergy, Bolshevism represented a successful and promising new prospect to belong to a new clan.’
The Chaifetz article appeared in 1980 in an Israeli journal for the Jewish intelligentsia arriving from the USSR.
The influx of Jewish youths into the Bolshevik Party at first was a consequence of the pogroms in the territory held by the White Army in 1919, argues a certain Schub. Solzhenitsyn rejects Schub’s argument as a myth:
‘Schub’s argument is not valid because the massive entry of Jews into the Soviet apparatus occurred as early as 1917 and throughout all of 1918. Unquestionably, the Civil War situation in 1919 did hasten the amalgamation of Jewish cadres with the Bolsheviks.’ (p. 80)
Solzhenitsyn traces the rise in Judeophobia, among other things, back to the brutal Bolshevistic suppression of peasant and citizen uprisings, the slaughter of priests and bishops, especially the village clergy, and finally, the extermination of the nobility, culminating in the murder of the Tsar and his family.
During the decisive years of the Civil War (1918-1920) the secret police (Cheka) was controlled by Bolshevistic Jews. The commandants of the various prisons were usually from Poland or Latvia.
Exclusively Jews occupied the Party, Army, and Cheka command positions in Odessa. Jews constituted the majority in the Presidium of the Petrograd City Soviet. Lazar Kaganovich directed the Civil War terror in Nizhny Novgorod, while Rosalia Salkind-Semlyachka commanded the mass executions by firing squads in the Kremlin. In 1920 the farming areas of West Siberia were turned into a Vendée when grain-commissar Indenbaum through his confiscation campaigns caused mass starvation. During the winter in the steppes, rebellious farmers were forced to dig their own graves. The Chekists doused the naked bodies with water; those that tried to flee were machine-gunned. The peasant uprising in Tyumen entered the history books as the ‘Iskhimski Rebellion’.
By virtue of the sheer numbers liquidated and the radicalism and motivation of the perpetrators, the mass executions of Russian Orthodox priests assumed a genocidal character. The intellectual elite of Eastern Christendom in Russia was literally slaughtered. Lenin provided the impetus. On 27 July 1918, shortly after the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Soviet government ordered the liquidation of all pogromists; every priest was by law considered to be a pogromist. As Lunacharsky recalls, Lenin composed the text of the law by his own hand, and Lenin ordered that the clergy could be executed (vne zakona) outside the law and the courts. That meant, Solzhenitsyn comments, they could simply be shot out of hand.
It was Lenin, not Stalin, who on 17 July 1918 let loose the demons (p. 15). It was the Party, Army, and Cheka apparatus under Lenin’s command during the early Bolshevik period that characterized the ideology of crimes against humanity. (Ernst Nolte writes about ‘an ideological extermination postulate.’) ‘The key to the decision was in Lenin’s hands,’ Solzhenitsyn asserts in his chapter on Bartholomew’s Night in Yekaterinburg. Lenin exhibited neither doubt nor compromise in this matter. ‘He had no reservations about exterminations.’ To destroy and exterminate was his intent.
For this destruction and extermination, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinski, and Trotsky were his most powerful allies. None of them was Russian. Lenin’s executioners in Yekaterinburg and the Ural governments were not Russians. The bloody careers of Goloshekin and Beloborodov, the Party terrorists and Ural mafia killers, are described on pp. 90-91. Yankel Yurovsky, who boasted ‘it was my revolver that knocked off Nicholas on the spot,’ certainly was not a Russian. In 1936 Stalin’s Chekists executed Beloborodov in Lubyanka, whether as a Jew, a cosmopolitan, or as an enemy of Stalin’s Russification policies. Goloshekin met death in the Fall of 1941 as German tanks approached Moscow.
Is Russia a land of criminal perpetrators? Solzhenitsyn denies it as strongly as he rejects the concept of collective guilt in general, and the rejection pertains to both the Large People (the Russians) as well as the Small People (the Jews). And who were the victims? The overwhelming majority were Russians. Those shot in cellars, those burnt to death in the cloisters, those drowned in river boats, those hanged in the forest; officers, peasants, aristocrats, proletariats, the anti-anti-Semitic bourgeois intellectuals Russians mostly, but others as well. The ‘hangmen of the Revolution,’ the crimes they try to justify with internationalism, transformed their ‘dirty revolution’ into what Solzhenitsyn calls an ‘antislav’ revolution. No, the Nobel Laureate Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, the Cheka-Lubyanka-Gulag holocaustic perpetrators could not possibly be a Slavic people (p. 93)
On page 233 of Nolte’s Der Kausale Nexus is an early confirmation of Solzhenitsyn’s theses. The German historian is convinced that the term ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ is not simply an invention made for crude political purposes, but that it is historically well-founded and not to be expunged from history ‘regardless of how terrible the National Socialist consequences were’. Nolte draws a parallel to the other contrary, ideological postulate:
‘Only when it has not been excluded and made a taboo beforehand can ‘Auschwitz’ escape the danger that now threatens it, namely, that by being isolated from ‘Gulag’ and the conflict between the two ideologically driven States (Germany and the Soviet Union) it becomes not a lie, but a myth that contradicts history.’
Is Solzhenitsyn the first historian to examine the dark year of 1918 scientifically? About a decade ago, the Russian Jewess Sonya Margolina, daughter of a Bolshevik of the Lenin-Stalin era, wrote about the crimes committed by the Bolsheviks and the part the Jews played in them. The horrors of the Revolution and the Civil War are ‘closely bound to the image of the Jewish commissar,’ she writes in Das Ende der Lügen (The End of the Lies), published in 1992 by Siedler Publishers in Berlin. Her book bore the shocking subtitle The Russian Jews Perpetrators and Victims at the Same Time. Sentences appear in the chapter ‘Jews and Soviet Power’ whose validity Solzhenitsyn now confirms. ‘In the first years after the revolution the Bolsheviks and the Jews at their side ruled Russia with the cold sweat of fear on their brows,’ Margolina writes. One thing remained very clear in the minds of the actors: if the red hangman’s rope around the neck of the people were ever to be loosened, ‘the Jewish Bolsheviks would be the first candidates for the scaffold.’
Where was God in Lubyanka? In Kolyma? On the White Sea Canal project? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in the sense of one of Dostoyevsky’s God-seekers a homo religious, does not even ask that question. He wants to know, as does Margolina, why Russia’s Jews were both the perpetrators and victims alike during the Bolshevik century? At the onset of the third millennium this 84-year old the public conscience of Russian culture understands the first precept of historical revisionism in a Russia unsullied with political correctness, namely, he who breaks through the fire wall surrounding the ‘Jewish question’ is sovereign.
The Dirty Revolution II
‘Everyone was listening intently to determine if the Germans were already on the way.’
In June and July of 1941 those living in the regions of eastern Poland occupied by the Red Army Polish farmers, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, ex-soldiers, and intellectuals all awaited the invasion of German troops. This quote is from the Polish Jewish historian J. Gross, author of the book Neighbors: The Murder of the Jews of Jedwabne. Solzhenitsyn explains why Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Belorussians, Bukowina-, and Moldava-Romanians could hardly wait for the Germans to invade.
Pursuant to his central thesis, Solzhenitsyn writes that without the high Jewish presence among the leaders and executioners of the Bolshevik dictatorship, Lenin’s newly born Soviet state would have been at an end, at the latest, by the time of the Kronstadt Sailors Rebellion in 1921. Solzhenitsyn examines specific decisive questions, as for example: Why, in the period 1939-41, did such a large percentage of Jewry in eastern Poland, Galicia, and in the Baltic States collaborate with the Red Army, Stalin’s secret police, and Bolshevism in general? And why did the pogroms in these regions take place under the slogan ‘Revenge for the Soviet Occupation’? Solzhenitsyn:
‘In eastern Poland, which had been incorporated in the Soviet Union in September 1939, the Jews, especially the younger generation, welcomed the invading Red Army with frenetic jubilation. Whether in Poland, Bessarabia, Lithuania, or Bukowina, the Jews were the main support of Soviet power. The newspapers report that the Jews are enthusiastically supporting the establishment of Communist rule.’ (p. 329)
In that fateful year a Polish Jew who had emigrated to France prophesized that the non-Jews who had been subjugated to Bolshevism would one day exact a fearful war of vengeance. In 1939 Stanislav Ivanowich, a left socialist sympathetic to the Soviet Union, warned:
‘Should the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks end one day, the collapse will be accompanied by the atavistic, barbaric passions of Jew hate and violence. The collapse of Soviet power would be a terrible catastrophe for Jewry; today Soviet rule equates to Judeophilia.’ (p. 310)
Shoot Anti-Semites on the Spot
And as for the next aspect examined, why was it that in 1918 the victorious Russian worker class supported, not just an underground, but also an openly aggressive even Party-based broad anti-Semitism taking the form of Jew-hatred?
Although on 27 July 1918 Lenin had issued an ukase ordering that any active anti-Semite could be shot without going through any court procedures, a new, extremely militant form of anti-Semitism, which had even gained influence in governmental layers of the monopoly Party, was rife in the mid-twenties.
‘This wave of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ included the cultural cadres and educational inspectors of the Russian worker class and reached into the Komsomol and the Party’. (p. 200f.)
To explain the reasons for this, Solzhenitsyn cites extensively and without commentary from the newspapers of the day. According to the newspapers, the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ had captured and occupied the Soviet State; they were in the top ranks of the Red Army. Soviet power had been converted into Jewish power, and the Jews pursued Jewish, not Russian goals. (p. 201)
In 1922 exiled Social Revolutionaries E. Kuskova and S. Maslov, both Jews, reported:
‘Judeophobia has spread throughout present-day Russia. It has even spread to areas in which previously no Jews had even lived and where there was never a Jewish Question. […] Bolshevism today is without any doubt identified with Jewish rule.’
Or colloquially expressed:
‘Aron Moiseyevich Tankelwich today walks in the place of Ivan Ivanov.’
Kuskova and Maslov reported further:
‘New slogans have appeared on the walls of the high schools ‘Smash the Jews, Save the Soviets’; ‘Beat the Jews Up, Save the Councils’’.
In other words, the revolutionary jargon of that day wanted to keep the Soviets and the Soviet rule, but without Jews.
‘‘Smash the Jews’ was not the slogan of the Black Hundreds from the pogroms of Tsarist times, but the battle cry of young Russian communards five years after the Great October.’ (p. 229)
On the eve of the XII Party Day 1923, the Politburo consisted of three Jews and three non-Jews. The ratio in the Komsomol Presidium was three to four. In the XI Party Day, ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ constituted 26% of the Central Committee membership. Because of this foreign invasion and anti-Slavic trends, prominent Russian Leninists decided upon an ‘anti-Jewish rebellion.’
May 1924
Shortly before the opening of the XIII Party Day, veteran Russian revolutionaries Frunze, Nogin, and Troyanovsky called for the expulsion of the ‘Jewish leaders’ from the Politburo. The opponents of the purge reacted quickly. In no time, Nogin died after an operation on his esophagus, after which Frunze went under the knife. (p. 207)
In Solzhenitsyn’s opinion, the main reason for this outbreak of new anti-Semitism is to be found in the hostility towards Russians inherent in the extreme Jewish internationalism. Unlike the Jewish intelligentsia who greeted the revolution of 1918 with great passion, the Russian proletariat was not fascinated by the idea of a Russian-led internationalism. After 1918 the Jews spoke consistently of ‘their country.’ (p. 218)
To support his thesis Solzhenitsyn cites Party ideologue Nikolai Bukharin, who was executed after the last Moscow show trial. At the Leningrad Party Conference in early 1927 Bukharin had criticized the ‘capitalistic’ nature of the Jewish mid-level bourgeoisie who had come to power and had taken the place of the Russian bourgeoisie in the main cities of the USSR (p. 209), and ‘whom we, comrades, must sharply condemn.’ Former chief Bolshevik theorist Bukharin concluded by saying that the Jews themselves were responsible for the new anti-Semitism.
It was part of Stalin’s tactical game not just to tolerate Jews in his own entourage, but also deliberately to place them in leading positions so that later he would have plausible grounds for turning them over to the executioner on grievous charges. Such was the case in the murderous collectivization program in 1928-1933 to which the names of prominent ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ were attached. Stalin was well aware of the hate city Jews had for everything related to the Russian and Ukrainian peasantry. They spread terror, killing the peasants and destroying the villages, eventually causing the famine that took the lives of at least six million Ukrainians. The Jewish commissars in charge of the anti-kulak program, which was tantamount to genocide, were literally the masters over life and death.
In 1936, after the slaughter of the peasantry ‘at the hands of the Bolshevik Jews,’ the death bell began to toll for those who had been responsible for the carnage. For the first time in a Russian historical work, their names are listed: Ya. Yakovlev-Epstein, M. Kolmanovich, G. Roschal, V. Feygin. (p. 285) The books covering the crimes in the first twenty years after Lenin seized power fill many meters of shelf space. With this one Solzhenitsyn volume, the subsequent reckoning with the Slavic peasant holocaust has only begun.
Bread and Knowledge, Stomach and Brain
There were also reasons for the outburst of proletariat anti-Semitism in two other sensitive areas. The Russian working class young people were getting nowhere in their quest for advancement on the educational front. In 1926, 26% of university students were Jews who had enjoyed a bourgeois background. (p. 202). Mostly Jews, between 30 and 50%, occupied the main positions in the domestic and foreign trade commissariats. Their empire included rural and urban store chains, restaurants, business canteens, prison and barracks galleys, cooperatives, and consumer goods production. Management of the Gosplan (State Plan) and the five-year plans was exercised by Rosenholz, Rukhimovich, Epstein, Frumkin, and Selemki; they controlled the nation’s food supply. In 1936 they themselves became fodder for the execution chambers in Lubyanka.
Despite the enormous bloodletting in 1936-37, millions of Jews still served the Stalinist regime with cadaver-like loyalty; they remained enthusiastic, unshakable, almost blind defenders of the cause of Socialism. Solzhenitsyn writes:
‘Cadaver-like obedience in the GPU, the Red Army, the diplomatic service, and on the ideological front. The passionate participation of young Jews in these branches was in no way dampened by the bloody events of 1936-38.’ (p. 281)
The world spirit, Hegel says, assists the lowest creatures to realize its impenetrable intentions. In the realization of the socialist experiment the world spirit did not just serve the lower creatures. Nikolai Ostrovsky, crippled and blind, wrote his autobiographical novel How the Steel Was Hardened as an idealist. Others belonged among the lowest creatures, and Solzhenitsyn enumerates them in the chapters concerning the secret police. (In the book reviews published in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel and the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, these bloody chapters were ignored.)
Gassing Trucks and Poison Chairs
From the very beginning the secret police was under the control of the ‘Bolshevik Jews.’ Solzhenitsyn revealed their names in the most interesting chapter of his book called The Nineteen Twenties. They are the biographies of the mass murderers at their desks in the Cheka, the OGPU, and the GPU. But they were not just sitting at their desks. Uritzki, Unschlicht, Katznelson, Bermann, Agranov, Spiegelglas, Schwarz, Asbel, Chaifetz, Pauker, Maier, Yagoda, personally participated in the tortures, hangings, crucifixions, and incinerations. Dzerzhinski, the founder of the Cheka, had three deputies from this guard of iron Bolsheviks Gerson, Luszki, and Yagoda. An elite of Bolshevik Jews! Years later, when the Gulag Archipelago was being expanded, they were again to be found in the front line of executioners. Israel Pliner was the slave master of the Moscow-Volga-Canal; Lazar Kogan, Zinovey Katznelson, and Boris Bermann directed the forced labor genocide at the White Sea Canal project. The Great Purge became their graveyard.
Solzhenitsyn comments: (p. 293)
‘One cannot deny that history elected very many Jews to be the executors of Russia’s fate.’
Commissioned by the NKVD, the Jewish designer of execution systems, Grigori Mayranovsky, invented the gas chair. When, in 1951, Mayranovsky, as the former head of the NKVD Laboratory Institute, was himself incarcerated, he wrote to Beria:
‘Please do not forget that by my hand hundreds of enemy-pigs of the Soviet State found their deserved end.’
The mobile gassing truck was invented and tested by Isay Davidovich Berg, head of the NKVD Economics Division in the Moscow region. In 1937, a second highpoint in the Great Purge, prisoners were sentenced to death in conveyor-belt fashion, packed into trucks, taken to the places of execution, shot in the back of the neck, and buried. In the economic sense, Isay Berg found this method of liquidation inefficient, time-consuming and cost-intensive. He, therefore, in 1937 designed the mobile asphyxiation chamber, the gassing truck (Russian: dushegubka, p. 297). The doomed were loaded into a tightly sealed, completely airtight Russian Ford; during the drive the deadly exhaust from a gasoline engine was directed into the section containing those sentenced to death. Upon reaching the mass gravesite, the truck dumped the corpses into the burial ditch.
The Dirty Revolution III
History sheds blood. The history of Bolshevism shed the blood of at least sixty-six million, according to the calculations of statistician Prof. I. A. Kurganov, cited by Solzhenitsyn in his Novy Mir essay ‘The Russian Question at the End of the Century,’ Moscow 1994. The crimes against humanity of the Bolshevik genocide up to 1937, i.e., in the first twenty years of the permanent terror, amounted to twenty million victims. In his scientific probing, Solzhenitsyn does not ignore the morally imperfect; he does not fail to connect the uniqueness of the Bolshevik holocaust with the exorcistic destructive hate of a particular ethnic-religious group in old Russia. This may well be the reason why this second volume of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together has been given the silent treatment or has been distorted, not in Putin’s Russia, but rather in Germany’s establishment media. (An honest translation of this work by Solzhenitsyn would constitute a major contribution to historiography.)
Schirrmacher and Holm: Refuted
The motives and obsessions of the left-oriented intellectual class recall the Cambridge Spy case (Philby, Maclean, Blunt, Burgess). Specifically, in the BBC sentimentalized story, in which one of the decadents proclaims:
‘To fight Fascism, you have to be a Communist.’
German reviews concerning the crimes of the Soviet secret police state sympathetically that in the final analysis at least the Jews in the GPU, NKVD, and KGB were fighting against Hitler. ‘Russians and Jews fought together against Hitler,’ Ms. Holm writes in the Schirrmacher review. (Many reviews read like news reports from the Soviet Union!) In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 29 January 2003, she writes:
‘After the October Revolution, the author explains, the high Jewish presence in the young Soviet state was found acting with great innovative agitation and drive in fields of State service, among the people’s commissars, and in the top ranks of the Army.’
That, however, is not Solzhenitsyn’s interpretation! On the basis of document analysis, Solzhenitsyn states that Lenin had three reasons for elevating young secular, revolutionary-minded Jews to the State’s elite, in effect replacing the Tsarist bureaucracy. First, because of the deadly hate the young Jews had for Russian traditions, religious rites, historical models, hate for everything Russian and Russia itself. Second, their willingness to cross the last taboo borders in morality. And third, their readiness to physically liquidate the enemy.
‘Mixed Blood Mestizo’
Lenin, the internationalist, was no friend of Jews who were Zionists. In 1903 he expressed the opinion that there was no such thing as a Jewish nationality; the concept was a monstrous invention of a moribund capitalism. Stalin, along the same lines, considered Jewry a ‘paper nation’ that would over time ‘disappear in an inevitable assimilation.’
For Solzhenitsyn, Lenin himself was ‘a mixed blood mestizo.’ (p. 76) A grandfather on his father’s side was an Asian Kalmuck; the other grandfather, Israel Blank, was a Jew from Volhynia, who after converting to the Russian Orthodox Church took the first name of Alexander. His grandmother on his father’s side, Anna Johanna, had German and Swedish blood; her maiden name was Grossschopf. Solzhenitsyn:
‘Initially Russians did not consider Lenin to be an enemy of the Russian people, although at certain times his behavior became anti-Russian. Many Russians considered him a product of another race. Despite that, we as Russians cannot completely renounce Lenin.’ (p. 76)
A Bestseller in Russia
In a Russia free of literature-policing Solzhenitsyn’s book of historical revelations has achieved the status of bestseller. The first hundred thousand edition of the second volume was sold out shortly after it appeared. Solzhenitsyn’s expression ‘a century of crimes’ has become widely used among writers. Crimes with consequences to the 22nd century, because ‘never before had Russia stood so close to the historical abyss, separating her from the void,’ the poetess Natalia Ayrapetrova writes in Literaturnaya gazeta (22 January 2002). Solzhenitsyn has set an avalanche loose. A new book, The Enemy Within. Genealogy of Evil (576 pp., Feri Publishers, Moscow), by the historian Nikolai Ostrovski has just appeared. Ostrovski became famous for his Holy Slaves and Temple of the Chimeras, discourses critical of Judaism that do not permit the author to be banished to the dead end of conspiracy theories.
In contrast to the general Russian acceptance of Solzhenitsyn’s second volume, the German-language edition has been met with silence and misrepresentation, and in most cases with a touch of Russophobia. Der Spiegel (7/2003) provided an interpretation that contradicted the facts. For example, Der Spiegel’s reviewer wrote that under Stalin many Jews were alienated from Soviet power and that there was a reduction in the number of Jewish ‘collaborators’ in the Party and the secret police.
An interpretation of a critical chapter in Solzhenitsyn’s book vacillates between trivialization and obfuscation. Spiegel uses the word ‘collaborators’ instead of accomplices in the various phases of Stalin’s rise. In the mid nineteen twenties until the mid thirties the Jewish component in the leadership functions of the Party and State apparatus in the Ukraine amounted to 22.6% (in the capital Kharkov it was 30%), in Belorussia it was 30.6% (in the capital Minsk it was almost 40%) and in Moscow city it was about 12%. Six and a half times more Jews occupied cadre positions in the Soviet ruling class than existed in the total Jewish population, which was 1.82% in 1926.
‘The greatest influx of Jews to Soviet government offices took place in the cities and metropolitan areas of the Soviet Republics,’
Solzhenitsyn observes (p. 199), and it is characteristic of Der Spiegel’s and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’s lack of objectivity and philosemitism that they deny their German readers the most important data and numerical comparisons given in Chapter 18.
Even in the purge year of 1936 one still sees a disproportionately high representation in the ‘People’s Commissariat of Jews:’ Litvinov-Finkelstein, Yagoda, Rosenholz, Weizer, Kalmanovich, Kaganovich. In the same government Sozhenitsyn observes whole groups of people’s commissars (ministers) with the names Solz, Gamarnik, Gurevich, and Ginzburg. These are only a few of the hundreds. A predominance of ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ is noted in the cultural fields, the brainwashing section, and the news-speak department. In the nineteen twenties the Jewish internationalists purged the history books. Radical ideological reeducation by race haters like Goykhbarg, Larin, Radek, and Rotstein began by deleting and forbidding such concepts as ‘Russian history’ and ‘Great Russian,’ putting them on the black list of counter-revolutionary terminology. In the Moscow Party press Jewish writers advocated blowing-up the Minin-Posharsky Monument on Red Square (p. 275).
But to come back to the left-oriented German media: The spirited derussification program conducted by the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ during the nineteen twenties is not mentioned at all, neither by Uwe Klussmann nor by Kerstin Holm. Nor do the terms Cheka and GPU appear in the German reviews.
The Cheka the bulldozer locomotive of State terror, the bulldozer for sixty-six million corpses, and the gas turbine for the Bolshevik holocaust does not exist in Schirrmacher’s daily newspaper and Augstein’s successor Holm, chief editor of Der Spiegel, as a shorthand symbol for death. Is it simply the rejection of the truth, or shame, or fear of exposure because many liberal humanists have so long stood beside Stalinist humanism? In any case, ethical and physical degenerates do use the word when it is buried in history as a unique chapter on the Cheka/GPU under the laurels of the anti-Hitler war.
Name Lists Betray Everything
Solzhenitsyn lists the names of about fifty mass murderers, desk criminals, and murderers of prisoners. (p. 300f.) Their first names betray the ethnic origin of these monsters. Moise Framing, Mordichai Chorus, Josef Khodorovsky, Isaak Solz, Naum Zorkin, Moise Kalmanovich, Samuel Agurski, Lazar Aronstam, Israel Weizer, Aron Weinstein, Isaak Grindberg, Sholom Dvoylazki, Max Daitsh, Yesif Dreiser, Samuel Saks, Jona Jakir, Moise Kharitonov, Frid Markus, Solomon Kruglikov, Israel Razgon, Benjamin Sverdlov, Leo Kritzman…
‘Here and now we are making an end to synagogues forever,’ the new foreign minister Molotov is reported to have said in the Spring of 1939 as he undertook to purge his own ministry. (Litvinov-Finkelstein took revenge in 1943 when he gave Roosevelt a personal secret list of Stalin’s pogroms.) In comparison with the foreign ministry, the official pogrom in the ministry of internal affairs was much more dramatic. Between 1 January 1935 and 1 January 1938, Jewish dominance in the ministry of internal affairs fell from about 50% of ministry members to about 6%. Solzhenitsyn writes:
‘The rulers over the fate of the Russian people believed that they were irreplaceable and invulnerable. All the more terrible for them when the blow fell. They had to face the collapse of their world and their view of the world.’
Also in this section Solzhenitsyn reveals the names of the butchers who once bossed the secret police. They once headed the Lubyanka, now they themselves ended in the corridors of Lubyanka: pistol-flaunting Matvey Berman, Josef Blatt, Abraham Belenki, Isaak Shapiro, Serge Shpigelglas, Israel Leblevski, Pinkus Simanovski, Abraham Slutski, Benjamin Gerson, Zinovi Katsnelson, Natan Margolin an almost endless list of ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’ These names are not mentioned in Germany, the ‘land of the perpetrators.’ Salpeter, Seligmann, Kagan, Rappoport, Fridland, Rayski-Lakhman, Yoselevich, Faylovich… prominent names in Stalin’s list for execution after 1936. The Jewish Menshevik, S. Shvarts, who emigrated to the United States, noted in 1966 in a documentation of the American Jewish Worker Committee:
‘The purges resulted in the physical disappearance of almost all Jewish Communists who had played an important role in the USSR.’. (p. 327)
Hebrew or Yiddish
The early Stalin believed in the eventual assimilation of the Jews under the dogmas of the ‘proletarian revolution.’ Innately opposed to this, most of the Jewish Bolsheviks fiercely rejected assimilation, i.e., their disappearance as a special ethnic group in Socialism (by assimilation they understood a mortally feared Russification). From the beginning these Jews fought in the Jewish Commissariat (Yevkom) and the Jewish Section within the Russian Communist Party (Yevsek) for the ‘preservation of the Jewish people’ in the Socialist state, and even for the creation of a ‘Jewish Soviet Nation in the USSR.’ The historical recreation of these events is a service of Solzhenitsyn. Naturally it found no mention in the German book reviews.
The promotion of Yiddish as a State language was a way of establishing the Jewish Soviet Nation; it was recognized by law for the first time in Belorus in 1920.That recognition meant not only a ‘no’ to Zionism, but also to the expansion of New Hebrew (Ivrit). In the early 1920s Ivrit was officially forbidden, while Yiddish was recognized as a ‘Language of Soviet Proletariat Culture.’ (p. 255). Marc Chagall and Ed Lisizki were considered in the vanguard of a Yiddish-Communist culture the New Man from Vitebsk.
A political setback came at the end of the twenties when Yevkom and Yevsek were abolished. The younger generation of Soviet Jews accepted this without protest, Solzhenitsyn reports. Without protest, without rebellion, and without a ‘Kronstadt.’ The abandonment of Yiddish occurred with the triumph of an international atheism, and internationalism without nationalities, without national identities, but with one single exception: ‘The Soviet People!’ An artificial construct, sacrificed to the hecatombs of proletariat blood, the blood of Slavs, Balts, Moslems, and Caucasians; the Soviet people, a drawing-board product, a Frankenstein monster, was created in Gulagism, whose existence without the enforcers from the ranks of the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ would not be conceivable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn documents this on almost 600 pages of text. When near the end of the war Stalin ordered the liquidation of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and proceeded to murder their intellectual leaders, as well as programming the end of Yiddish as a separate culture, the Bolshevik solution of the old Russian ‘Jewish Question’ came to a bizarre conclusion, i.e., on the ramps to the Gulag.
Final Comments
‘Our history is one of tragedies and catastrophes,’ writes Svetlana Alekseyevicha thirteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago appeared in the West thirty years ago. The Main Directorate of Camps (Glawnoje Uprawlenije Lagerei = GULag), which lasted for half a century, was one of the saddest catastrophes in the two thousand year history of Russia. Looking back today, one can say with good reason that Solzhenitsyn’s reportage on the bloodiest crimes against humanity in modern times belongs among the spiritual turning points that represented the beginning of the end of the Red Imperium.
Solzhenitsyn’s chronicle from hell prompts the question of why today the historical reality of the Gulag is much less widely and passionately remembered than is the persecution of the Jews under National Socialism. There can be no rational answer to this. The reproach is that a work like the Gulag Archipelago exceeds the powers of imagination and that based on the laws of classical aesthetics it ought not to be produced at all because it inundates the reader with unrelieved pictures of disgust and revulsion. But then, by the same logic, a play like Macbeth might also be considered too off-putting. In his third volume Solzhenitsyn depicts the slaughter of five thousand women and children in the Kingir slave labor camp in June 1954 (only thirteen years after Babi Yar).
The opinion that the Gulag, unlike the killing of the Jews, has yet to find a Hollywood director of the caliber of Steven Spielberg to film it, is negated by the fact that Russia, herself, has highly talented, even brilliant film producers, dramaturges, and screenplay writers whose work can easily stand comparison with that in the West. The showing of the play I Will Repay by Serge Kuznetsov in the Maly Theater in Moscow, for example, always plays to a full house standing room only for months on end! The play recreates the last tragic moments of the Tsar’s family. For Russia’s Orthodox, but also for Russian revisionist historians, 16 July 1918 was the ultimate ejaculation of Gulag thinking. The role of the Bolshevik Jews is handled directly in this stage play as when Botkin, the Tsar’s physician, says to one of his guards:
‘The time will come when everyone will believe that the Jews were responsible for this and you will be the victims of the revenge.’
For the lyricist Stanislav Kunyayev, chief editor of the literary magazine Nash Sovremennik, the murder of the Romanovs was the product of ‘depraved intellects and a satanic will.’ Kunyayev is one of a group of seventy leading Russian intellectuals who have signed their names to a letter, in which they hold Communist Jews responsible for the murder of the Tsar, the Bolshevik putsch, and the mass murders that followed it. In the case of Kunyayev it is clear why the filming of the Gulag era would be unthinkable in a Western country for the time being. Or, to put it differently: Why the Jew Steven Spielberg shies away like Belshazzar from the handwriting on the wall. It is not just the sheer magnitude of the crimes that block Spielberg’s undertaking a film of the Gulag, it is much more the taboo question of the unspoken complicity of secularized Jews in a unique breach of civilized behavior that resulted in the execution chambers in Lefortovo, the stone quarries of the White Sea Canal project, and the gold mines of Kolyma.
In Germany, the land of the Adornos and Friedmans, the dreadful accusation of anti-Semitism is held in the ready for anyone who wants to use it at anytime; it is omnipresent and inexpensive, and packs a deadly explosive force socially and professionally. The left-liberal review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 26 June 2003 published an allegedly lost story of the Bolshevik writer, Isaak Babel, who was shot in January 1941 in a Bolshevik forced labor camp. The previously unknown story, Esfir’s Ring, aesthetically and morally without any reference to Russian literature, eulogizes the death of the Jewish secret policeman, Esfir Rubenblum, ‘Commissar of the Special Department of the Kiev Cheka,’ who died ‘a hero’s death in the struggle against enemies of the revolution.’ Original quotations of Isaak Babel were written a few years before the ‘hero’s death’ of the Civil War Chekist Babel.
This world-famous Bolshevik (the evaluation of Frank Schirrmacher, chief editor of the Frankfurter) confirms in one of his last contributions the Jewish leadership in the execution squads of the secret police in the Lenin period. Dr. Schirrmacher found no reason to go into Babel’s Chekist past. In Germany the deadly threat of the anti-Semitism shibboleth prevents an objective discussion of the anthropological roots of the theme Solzhenitsyn has illuminated.
On the occasion of his receiving the left-wing German Ludwig-Börne-Prize for outstanding performances in literature, the American-Jewish scholar George Steiner said in his thank-you speech:
‘In my opinion there can be no higher honor, no higher nobility, than to belong to a people who has never engaged in persecution. Since my childhood I have been proud not to have that arrogance. I belong to the highest race because it does not persecute others. We are the only ones; we never had the power to do so. Alleluia!’ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 May 2003)
Never persecuted others? Never held power?
‘The Jewish commissar with the leather jacket and Mauser pistol, often speaking broken Russian, is the typical image of revolutionary power.’
This statement comes from Sonya Margolina, who is proud to be ‘the daughter of a Jewish Bolshevik.’ Margolina today lives in Berlin. Her book Das Ende der Lügen: Rußland und die Juden im 20. Jahrhundert (Siedler, Berlin 1992), from which the above passage is cited, follows it with these words:
‘The tragedy of Jewry is that there was no political option to escape the vengeance for the historical sin of the Jews, namely, their enthusiastic cooperation with the Communist regime. The victory of the Soviet regime saved them for a while, but vengeance still lurked ahead.’
© Oct. 31/Nov. 7, 2002 / Jan. 30./31 2003/Sept. 17./30, 2003
————————————————————————
First published in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 7(3&4) (2003), pp. 451-460. Translated by Dan Michaels.
————————————————————————
Source: The Revisionist 2(3) (2004), pp. 342-351.

What can be done?
By Ezra Levant on January 16, 2008 7:29 PM
Comments on Ezra Levant’s article by
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
January 18, 2008
Re: these comments were posted on Ezra Levant’s site at: http://www.ezralevant.com
Dear Ezra,
Greetings from another Canadian publisher who is also battling against the Beast that you refer to in your article, ‘What can be done?’. As a fellow recipient of a complaint registered against both myself and my website http://www.radicalpress.com with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and received on November 20th, 2007 I would have to submit that my case is probably the latest in a rather long list of individuals and organizations and publications who have come under attack by these quasi-judicial body.
As you have asked for advice regarding this matter I thought it appropriate to proffer some from what I have gleaned over the past years of study and research that relates to this issue. There are some basic differences between your case Ezra and many of the others who have been either harassed, intimidated, fined, silenced or jailed due to the decisions of this politically-motivated body of censors. These will become obvious as run through your article but for the moment let us look at your recommendations for dismantling this quasi-infrastructure that tends toward tyranny rather than openness and trust.
You are absolutely correct in saying that there is an urgent need to alert the general public to the misconceptions that the vast majority of Canadians are suffering under when they think of Human Rights Commissions. They have, as you so poignantly state, become a sword rather than a shield to protect those within our society who are treated unjustly. Where you and I might disagree is in recognizing who is wielding that sword and why they are thus motivated to do so.
You state, truthfully, that these commissions aren’t ‘normal’; that it is ‘not normal to haul publishers before the government to ask them about their political thoughts. It’s not normal for a secular state to enforce a radical Muslim fatwa against cartoons.’ I could not concur more fully with this perception. They are, in fact, abnormal and, like abnormal cells within a body, inherently a danger to the organism as a whole, in this case Canadian society in general. The business of government is to ensure that the free flow of ideas continues uninterrupted, for it is within such a process that governments evolve into greater and greater egalitarian entities thus both preserving our sacred, democratic ideals and rights and ensuring greater justice for all Canadian citizens.
I also find myself agreeing with your assessment of these HRCs as being counterfeit and casting false shadows of genuine authority and legitimacy that ultimately will end up maligning Canada’s judicial integrity; one I might add, that is already in a precarious position for many Canadians.
What you refer to as ‘denormalizing’ I would prefer to term ‘debriefing’ because it is my contention that these commissions were set up specifically for partisan purposes; ones which the Canadian public needs to understand in much greater detail in order to fully realize why they were created. All the details regarding this position are outlined in detail in my own ‘‘Response’ to the CHRC which I submitted to them on January 3, 2008. The complete text of this Response can be viewed on my website at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629
Again, you rightly state that most Canadians have never heard of these ‘human rights commissions’ but I would suggest that there are specific reasons why this is so and why these undemocratic, draconian, ‘Star Chamber’ entities perform their ‘show trials’ in secret and beyond the pale of the press. You use the example of the ‘German Democratic Republic’ which you say, ‘was neither Democratic nor a Republic’. I, in turn, would choose another country and say the Democratic State of Israel, which is not a democracy but in reality an apartheid, racist, totalitarian state. Like you say, it sounds good to state that it is a democracy like Canada and the USA and elsewhere but when the mask of media propaganda is removed the real face presents a rather stark and differing countenance than what our mainstream media intentionally portray.
With respect to the blogosphere or the Internet again you are bang on the money in terms of the immediacy of information transferal. This is what makes the net an anarchistic medium free of any centralized control and what ensures that each and every person’s perspective is guaranteed a hearing if they are capable of procuring a computer and a ISP. The www is the ultimate form of democracy in terms of freedom of speech. But it also presents a clear and present danger to the vested interests who now own and control the older forms of communication i.e. the printing presses, radio and television and it is these institutions that are now clearly feeling challenged by the free access of opinion and information.
You mention that your YouTube videos have been viewed by 320,000 people thus far. In my own case I did not have video material to assist me but nonetheless I still had my keyboard and access to some of the largest alternative news outlets on the web today. Prior to sending my Response to the CHRC I made the decision to not go the route that Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler and try to appease the censors but instead chose to send my thoughts and defense to the millions of readers who inhabit the Cyberian landscape known as the Internet. In this way I knew that my position with respect to these clandestine and dangerous entities would be exposed beforehand. When Rense.com and WhatReallyHappened.com and Ziopedia.com ran my article, KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress, http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628 within hours millions of readers had access to the contents of my Response to the CHRC. That, I suggest, is a form of immediate redress and justice which one will not find in any similar quarter within the bureaucracy of Ottawa or the offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their illegal and unjust Tribunal system. Obviously it doesn’t guarantee a fair hearing in the matter (considering the parameters within which these commissions operate) but it does alert the public to the manner in which the commissions function and that is a first step in the debriefing process that is necessary in order to implement the requisite changes.
You go on to highlight two central qualities of these commissions. First off they erode values such as ‘freedom of speech, freedom of religion and diversity of opinion’ which you contend is their mission. You further state that this is ‘unCanadian’. I would go one step beyond that and say that such a purpose is undemocratic, unconstitutional, totalitarian and fascist and inimical to everything that Canadians both fought and died for and value as supreme in their lives.
Your second point about ‘fairness’ is concomitant with your first and needs no further explanation.
You then go on to discuss how you have posted some of the more egregious examples of decisions these commissions have come to, especially in Alberta, and also make mention of the many complaints under the ‘hate’ section contained in Sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is the section under which my complainant Harvey Smarba, B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada has submitted his spurious contention that I am spreading ‘hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel’ via my website.
Your mention of Ricardo Warmouse is most appropriate under these circumstances and I am surprised that in this regard you haven’t made mention of the very recent decision in the Warmouse v. Lemire case which occurred on January 15th of this year. The most dramatic disclosure and the one most damning to the CHRC itself was, as Marc Lemire states in his Press Release, ‘the admission by Dean Steacy, the chief internet investigator for the CHRC [that he] tried to entrap me in 2006 on Stormfront using the alias ‘Jadewarr’. This means that EVERY single party against me (on the Merits of the case) at one point tried to entrap me. Ricardo Warmouse using the alias ‘Pogue Mahone’ tried to get me to say stuff about him and attempted to engage in me conversations on Stormfront. I smelled a rat immediately, and I wrote ‘who is this, Terry Wilson or Ricardo Warmouse?’ Boy did I have foresight! It was indeed Ricardo Warmouse. With the retaliation provisions of the CHRA, getting me to say stuff could have meant huge fines.’ The details of this federal case can be found at http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan18-08_FreeDominion_and_CHRC.html
All things considered Ezra your goal to rid the nation of these Soviet-style ‘commissions’ is most laudable indeed. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper did refer to these HRCs as totalitarian he did so prior to becoming the Prime Minister and it is still uncertain as to whether or not his thoughts on this matter are the same as before. There are serious backers and lobbying agencies within the federal government who have strong, vested interests in maintaining these commissions as they tend to act as watchdogs for government policies, especially foreign policy.
As for your ‘to-do’ list for legislators, while you may think it is possible (and I kind of doubt that you do) to people these commissariats with unbiased individuals who wouldn’t be tempted to exploit them for political purposes I don’t think it would work. The nature of the Beast itself precludes it functioning in any non-political fashion.
Your point 3 ‘Introduce an amendment to the human rights acts to protect freedom of speech and thought’ is worthy of consideration but I’m not convinced that all the media would favour such a proposition. Much of Canada’s mainstream media is already riddled with major bias due to the monopoly situation under which our media currently operates and were such freedoms protected it would mean that the general public would now feel much more assured in openly advocating for greater accountability in this area and that is something the mainstream monopoly does not want to deal with. I fully agree that the public would want it and they do expect it regardless of what now exists.
Point 4 regarding the Tribunals again calls for greater debate. We can’t afford, in these times of rapid changes and imminent danger from every quarter, to take intermediate steps when it comes to freedom of speech. We either must claim it and stand by it or else continue to be victimized by unaccountable partisans. Respecting this I thought it rather amusing that you said it wasn’t just ‘pruning’ but ‘digging it out by its roots’. The motto of my former newspaper and my current online website is, ‘Digging to the root of the issues’. Seems our convictions intersect at this point.
Point 5 (Abolish both the commission and the tribunal) is of course the only sensible and realistic solution to the unsavory problems that these censors pose. Whether it’s Christians expressing their views on homosexuals and same-sex marriage, or Jewish publishers publishing cartoons that Muslims find offensive, or, as in my case, non-Jewish news networks and writers criticizing the ideological underpinnings of Jewish-created Political Zionism and its effects upon the Israeli state and the Palestinian people, all of these issues are part and parcel of living in an open society which values the ideas and opinions of all of its members. As the infamous American writer and social critic Edward Abbey put it, ‘The best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy’.
I would end my free advice to you on this issue by saying that in my own experience, receiving the amazing support which I have since publishing my Response on the net, not only from Canadians but from people around the world, by far the vast majority of people do not want or need these guardians of political correctness and prefer freedom over repression.
Good luck in your continuing adventures Ezra.
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
[email protected]
http://www.radicalpress.com
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
————————————————————
THE PLUG:
I would also like to add a plug here with respect to my financial situation. I’m still unable to work steady due to the amount of time and energy required to deal with this matter. Donations have been coming to me and I’m feeling rather awed and humbled by people’s generosity. Unfortunately I’m still very much under the gun in this respect so if it is possibly please send either a M.O. or a Cheque or Cash to:
The Radical Press
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
If you include your email address I will contact you to let you know I received your mail and also be able to thank you personally.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Radical Press

In 1998, a young medical researcher, Professor Nancy Olivieri (University of Toronto), became a target of Jewish lobby groups and pharmaceutical industry when she claimed that her research indicates serious problems with an experimental drug manufactured by Canada’s largest drug company, Apotex. Apotex, which is owned by Jewish billionaire Bernard C. Sherman (born 1942), retaliated by cancelling her research and slamming her reputation. In 2005, Miriam Shuchman published her book ‘ The Drug Trial: Nancy Olivieri and the scandal that rocked the Hospital for Sick Children’.
Later, Nancy became a whistleblower and is widely recognized as one of the pre-eminent crusaders for academic freedom in Canada and United States.
In 2004, Daniel Freeman-Maloy, an anti-Zionist student activist at York University was expelled from the Campus by York’s Jewish president Lorna Marsden. He was allegedly punished for his encounter with notorious Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes who runs the Campus Watch website which he uses to smear individuals who challenge Israeli policies in the Muslim East. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered York to pay $850,000 to Daniel as compensation.
In 2005, Jewish professor at York University (Toronto), Dr. David Noble sued York and several Jewish groups lobbying for Israel including CIJA, CJC, CIC, Hillel and B’nai Brith for $10 million for violation of his academic freedom and defamation.
In 2010 University of Toronto was slammed by Jewish groups for awarding a Master’s degree to a Jew female student Jennifer Peto for her thesis which claims that the Jews practice racism against non-Jews.
Last year, University of Toronto, Jewish professor Rupaleem Bhuyan was hunted down by Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) for refusing to shut-up her students who claimed that ‘Jews have too much power’ in Canada and America. Earlier she had called Israel; ‘a satellite of the United States, unworthy of distinction as a separate country’.
Last year, Jon Thompson published his book, ‘No Debate: The Israel Lobby and Free Speech at Canadian Universities‘. Jason Kunin, a Toronto teacher and writer wrote the book review in Socialist Solidarity website on January 20, 2012.
‘Institutionally, universities serve and always have served the interests of power, but they nevertheless contain spaces that are among the few places left in North America where informed discussion about Palestine can take place outside the well-funded apparatus of Israeli sponsored hasbara (propaganda),’ says Jason.
‘What emerges from Thompson’s summary of events is that when it comes to outside groups like B’nai Brith, the JDL, and the Canadian Israel Jewish Affairs Committee (CIJA), while they contributed to creating a climate of intimidation and put pressure on some members of the York University administration, particularly as the controversy threatened to alienate donors, their sphere of influence was and remains primarily outside (but above) the university, in the media and in the halls of government power,’ says Jason.
The major pro-Israel campaigner is Gerald Steinberg, an Israeli academic and founder of the justly maligned NGO Monitor, which is often compared to Daniel Pipes’s notorious snitch site Campus Watch. Steinberg’s editorials were published widely by several major newspapers that never questioned his academic credibility.
Jason concludes his review by saying: ‘Universities have never been the bastions of academic freedom that some have liked to think they were, but I do agree with Thompson’s conclusion that current trends suggest the ‘existing frameworks that protect the public interest will continue to be eroded’ both by the global entrenching of neo-liberal economic policies and by the aggressive acceleration of those policies under our current, highly ideological (Stephen Harper’s pro-Israel) government. The worst, I fear, is still to come.’

[Editor’s Note: The following Response to the allegations by Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada that the Radical Press website is spreading ‘hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel’ is posted below. It was also contained in the article ‘Killing The 100th Monkey’ which was sent out to the Internet on Thursday, January 3, 2008 and can be found at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628 . Readers interested in just the contents of the Response itself can copy it directly from this post and refer to it by the url itself.]
———
From:
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
[email protected]
http://www.radicalpress.com
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

Thursday
January 3, 2008
To:
Sandy Kozak [email protected]
Anti-Hate Team Investigator
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Investigations Branch
344 Slater Street,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1E1
Toll-free 1-888-214-1090
Fax (613) 947-7279
Website: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca
Dear Ms. Kozak,
Re: File No: 2007 1016
Please find enclosed my answers to the questions contained in the original September 13, 2007 letter from Michel Pare, A/Deputy Secretary General and my response to the allegations by Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also contained in your initial correspondence which I first received via Canada Post on November 20th, 2007.
Prior to presenting my answers to the ten questions from Michel Pare I will first respond with an overall assessment of the complaint from Harvey Smarba, B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and explain why I feel it is a vexatious, spurious, and disingenuous charge; one that, for the reasons which I will present, ought to be dismissed outright by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, hereafter referred to as the CHRC.
As well, as a precautionary preface to any commentary on these matters, I would ask that you bear in mind that all of my comments are not to be misconstrued in any manner as emanating from a place of malice or, as the CHRC might define it, ‘hate’. I speak my mind freely, frankly and honestly as a basic human right, one which presumably applies to all Canadian citizens. I do so with the deepest and sincerest intent that what I say will assist both you, as an investigator for the CHRC, and the rest of the Tribunal members, to realize that I and many Canadians view the actions of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada with grave and rightful suspicion and interpret their actions, such as this ‘hate-crimes’charge, as not being in the best interests of the Canadian people nor conducive to a free and well-functioning democracy. It is therefore my hope that you will come to a similar realization with respect to these allegations once you have given due consideration to the arguments and the information which I intent to present in favour of such a position.
To begin I must say that it would be a gross understatement indeed to suggest that Harvey Smarba and his partner in this complaint, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada are exploiting and abusing the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act for their own narrow, partisan, ideological purposes; ones which I feel strongly are not designed to promote and ensure the freedom of expression that the vast majority of Canadians demand and expect but rather are meant to buttress and support the political aims of a foreign state (Israel) of which these organizations are but political extensions.

The reality, as I understand it Ms. Kozak, is that the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, like its twin, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), and their adjunct arm the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), are not what they ostensibly appear to be in terms of the public’s general understanding and that when the truth is finally revealed and their masks eventually removed, all these entities will be shown to be long-standing, front organizations created to function as propaganda tools for those who ascribe to what is historically known as Political Zionism, an ideology based upon the Judaic Talmud and manifesting in the policies of the government of the state of Israel. For the historical evidence of this please see the article B’nai Brith: Beating the anti-Semitic Drum http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=477 This Zionist ideology, when juxtaposed with all the corroborating evidence which exists, shows itself to be a political/religious program designed to instill and promote a racist-based, segregated, supremacist, discriminatory, apartheid system of governance; one that has been in existence since the inception of the Jewish state of Israel back in 1948 and is currently still being enforced by the present state and operating not only within its own undefined boundaries but also within foreign (Palestinian) territory illegally occupied by Israeli military forces.
While on first notice this may appear to be an extreme assertion, the historical evidence exists (although hidden from the general public for the better part of the last century by a complicit, pro-Zionist-controlled ‘western’ media cartel), to fully corroborate the premise upon which I make these apparently radical and seemingly startling statements.
What I am proposing to you and your Commission members and to the Canadian public (who will also be alerted to this critical issue) is the contention that, based upon my years of research, the actual and true agenda of Harvey Smarba and his partner in this complaint, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada is, in fact, one of seditious, purposeful design meant to undermine not only the sovereignty of the legally elected Canadian government, but simultaneously, to assist, aid and abet a much larger and more sinister agenda that of attempting to subvert, suppress and nullify the legitimate rights of all Canadian citizens with respect to their most cherished and intrinsic values. Here I refer to a citizen’s inalienable right to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of speech, all of which are currently being attacked in earnest by extremist, ideologically driven organizations such as the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress, both of whom ascribe to, and are in fact undeniably and inextricably based upon the racist, unconstitutional, discriminatory, exclusionary, and supremacist philosophy known as Political Zionism.
As already stated I have investigated this phenomenon in earnest for a number of years, both as a writer and researcher of history and as a publisher of a legitimate, established new service (The Radical Press) which has been operating in Canada since June of 1998. During the course of the last decade and following the dictates of my business motto ‘Digging to the root of the issues’ I have unearthed more than a sufficient amount of authentic evidence which indicates that organizations such as the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress consistently use their financial position, media monopoly and political lobbying power to negatively influence Canadian jurisprudence in order that cumulative legislation over the years inevitably tends to disproportionately favour one extremely small minority group in Canada (less than 2% of all Canadians) and that minority happens to be Canada’s Jewish population, and in particular the sub-element of Zionists embedded within the greater Jewish community, who believe in and promote the Zionist ideology as subscribed to by the state of Israel. In other words, Ms. Kozak, Canadian jurisprudence, and subsequently Canada’s freedom, has been incrementally high-jacked by what amounts to be a percentage of citizens who comprise less than 1% of Canada’s total population.
As such Harvey Smarba and the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada’s spurious contention that I and my website, http://www.radicalpress.com are contriving to ‘promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel’ is premised not only upon the false accusation that the articles contained on the website, written either by myself or other writers, are designed to somehow denigrate all Jews but also with the premeditated intention of diverting and misdirecting the focus of the public away from the content of the information (the message) onto a side diversion, that of ‘promoting hatred’, (the messenger) so as to prevent the reading population from gaining access to and assimilating the data and possibly using it to form their own conclusions as to whether or not the information fits into the overall picture of what is really happening in Israel and Palestine and, concurrently, here in Canada. Along with these two objectives I would hasten to add what I conceive to be a further and more imminent danger for all for Canadians, that of surreptitiously creating biased, deceiving and unconstitutional legislation which, over time, will stifle and silence, by fear-motivated threat of litigation, fines and imprisonment, any and all debate related to the ideology and practice of Zionism, either by those who promote such policies in Israel (the majority of Jewish citizens) or those front organizations within Canada such as the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress whose primary modus operandi is to support the objectives of the Jewish state.
Bearing such assertions in mind, for Harvey Smarba and the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada to attempt a perpetuation of this old and worn-out canard of ‘hatred’ toward Jews, regardless of its past efficacy in silencing and suppressing debate on issues related to either the policies of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or to the stranglehold over western mainstream media and international finance and so on, flies in the face of insurmountable and indisputable evidence to the contrary that appears daily on the internet and is even now, of necessity, trickling down into the Zionist-run media monopoly that heavily influences both Americans and Canadians alike. As a result we find in some of the most recent examples the cases of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter who is being incessantly attacked and vilified around the world by Zionist ideologues for his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which focuses in on the very issues which I am outlining here, which are: the parallel structure and nature of the former apartheid state of South Africa with that of the current state of Israel and its racist, exclusionary treatment of the Palestinian people both within its own undetermined national boundaries and in the surrounding Palestinian territories which it illegally has occupied for decades. The other outstanding instance (more so in the US media) is the controversial case of the two respected Jewish researchers in the USA, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and their book, The Israeli Lobby. Again, the attack upon them is relentlessly rude and only the epithets differ because they themselves are both ethnic Jews. Numerous other examples abound.
Synonymous with current criticism of Israel and the Zionist Jews by such notable Gentile internet authors as John Kaminski, Curt Maynard, Wendy Campbell, Texe Marrs, Alex James, Paul Fromm, Michael A. Hoffman II, James Petras, Edgar J. Steele, Mark Glenn and others are the writings and speeches of some of the most fervent and impassioned critics of the Zionist Israeli state who are themselves ethnic Jews. Canadian internet writer Dr. Henry Makow http://www.henrymakow.com/ is a good example of what I am referring to. Due to the fact that these harsh critics of Zionist Israeli policies are bone fide Jews, the fanatical element itself, i.e. the Zionists, cannot with any credibility, accuse them of promoting Å‘hatred’ toward Jews. It therefore creates a conundrum for the Zionist Jews as well as for the Christian Zionist elements within our own western society who have been deceived by this false Messiah (Zionism) and fallen into the trap of believing that the state of Israel, because of its Biblical ramifications, is above and beyond criticism and/or fault. As a result, and true to the fallacious and indefensibly dogmatic tenets upon which the Zionist ideology is constructed, their only method of retaliating against their own kind is to resort to the most sordid practice of heaping as much calumny, slander, libel, verbal abuse and willful, malicious hatred that they can muster onto those ethnic Jews who they deem traitorous to the Zionist Israeli government. Thus, the brave and courageous Jews who have broken away from this pack of perfidious, self-chosen zealots and have displayed the audacity to criticize the Zionist agenda now are forced to bear the brunt of what is likely some of the most scathing, vitriolic, hate-related messaging on the net today. For anyone who doubts the veracity of the above statement they need only go to the following website http://www.masada2000.org/list-A.html and read for themselves the long list created by these fanatical proponents of Zionism. Blatant examples such as this beg the question as to why the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada are not raising a public outcry and pushing to have this site shut down for promoting ‘hatred*’ toward Jews?
These introductory comments basically cover what I wish to say at this point regarding Political Zionism and its direct connection with Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. Tribunal members and readers in general who are interested in finding out more about this race-based ideology can study the phenomenon in greater detail by reading online the classic reference book on the origins and practices of Political Zionism by the late Douglas Reed, former British foreign correspondent for the London Times who wrote The Controversy of Zion http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=34 back in 1956 after spending 25 years researching the subject. For a more detailed account of my own views on this subject I suggest the article, Epistle to Paul, http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=90 . There will also be other urls to articles and books on this topic which I will be posting in the bibliography at the end of this response. Simply googling the term ‘Zionism’ or ‘Political Zionism’ will give enquirers ample information. I would now like to return to the charges that Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have brought to your Commission and focus attention on the specifics of the alleged misdeeds.
On Page 1 the Complainant, Harvey Smarba, states that he is ‘a Canadian citizen of Jewish faith’ and that it is his (and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada’s) contention that I and my website RadicalPress.com are contriving ‘to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.’ In my discussions with you Ms. Kovak on the issue of this contention I asked for some clarification on the meaning and use of this word ‘‘hatred’ as it is understood and applied by the CHRC. You kindly furnished me with the following reply which I am inserting here. I do so because meanings of words play an extremely important role in determining intent and truth when it comes to such subjective concepts as hatred and contempt toward human beings:
From: SANDY KOZAK
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007
To:
Subject: Re: CHRC complaint
Mr. Topham,
In response to your email of 28 November 2007, the following information should answer the questions you posed about the meaning of ‘hate’ and our investigation of these types of complaints. Further, I would recommend that you submit a full response to the allegations initially, however, further information can be submitted later if necessary.
The investigation will examine whether there is support for the complainant’s allegation of hate on the internet by considering:
i. whether the material which forms the basis of the complaint was observed on the Internet;
ii. whether the communication of the material has at least partially taken place in Canada;
iii. whether the material is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on characteristic(s) based upon a prohibited ground(s)
iv. whether the Respondent communicated or caused to be communicated the material which forms the basis of the complaint.
What constitutes ‘hatred’ is not defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is a question of fact. It is generally accepted to refer to extreme ill-will and is an emotion which allows for ‘no redeeming qualities’ in the person at whom it is directed. ‘Contempt’ is similarly extreme and includes circumstances in which the object of one’s feelings is looked down upon, belittled, despised, dishonored or disgraced.
Sincerely,
Sandy Kozak
Investigator
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Now, apart from the nebulous CHRC guidelines upon which to base the ‘support’ for the complainant’s allegation (contained in i. to iv.), it appears from what is stated, that the term ‘hatred’ is not defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Whether this is so because it is not possible to define it in any legal sense is not stated. One is left to assume that instead of defining the word it is to be regarded as a ‘question of fact’; that it is ‘generally accepted’ as referring to ‘extreme ill-will’ by one person toward another and is an ‘emotion’that will not ‘allow for’ the person who feels such feelings to see any ‘redeeming qualities’ in the person at whom this ‘hatred’ is directed. In addition the term ‘contempt’ is also defined as ‘similarly extreme’ and ‘includes circumstances in which the object of one’s feelings is looked down upon, belittled, despised, dishonored or disgraced.’ These, I would say, are extremely relative, subjective terms and liable to a variety of interpretations, as will be shown.
Given this interpretation, and taking it at face value, I would now have you consider the following: Mr. Harvey Smarba has stated in his complaint that he is a Canadian citizen ‘of Jewish ‘. This, by definition, means that he believes in and accepts and acts upon those beliefs and founding principles and dogma which are contained within the tenets of his faith, Judaism, as outlined in the main work upon which Judaism rests, the Babylonian Talmud. If this is so then Harvey Smarba believes in and supports the fundamental ideological principles upon which the Jewish state of Israel is based, for that nation was founded upon the same beliefs as those contained in the Judaic Talmud. This assertion of mine is also based upon the facts of the complaint wherein Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada state that they feel I and my website are promoting ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as ‘citizens of Israel’. To attempt to defend the foreign citizens of Israel, who, by majority choice, have continuously elected governments that are premised upon a racist, exclusionary, anti-democratic platform, from criticisms originating in another foreign country (Canada), is, I suggest, both disingenuous and frivolous and designed to conceal a much greater and immediate plan on the part of Mr. Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, which is that of censorship of Israeli/Zionist aims and principles via the unscrupulous manipulation of organizations such as the CHRC which, due to their inherent structure, lend themselves to such clandestine practices.
In order to clearly illustrate the quintessential point which I am attempting to convey to the CHRC it is necessary at this place in my response that I insert a somewhat lengthy extract from a source within Israel itself. In his classic work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, published in 1994, the well-known and respected Jewish scholar, life-long human rights activist and citizen of the state of Israel, Israel Shahak, describes the Jewish state of Israel and shows how it defines itself and its citizens. Because of the paramount importance of this particular issue of Jewish citizenship, its dual nature and direct relationship to both the Judaic faith and to the fact that Mr. Harvey Smarba claims himself to be a member of this faith, I feel it needs to be examined by your commission in much greater detail. The extract itself comes from Chapter 1, A Closed Utopia? Sub-titled, Defining the Jewish State. All bold type is mine:
‘Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews, even the concept of Israel as ’ Jewish state’, as Israel formally defines itself, cannot be understood. The widespread misconception that Israel, even without considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal to confront the significance of the term ’ Jewish state’ for non-Jews. In my view, Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond….’
‘…Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term Jewish’ illustrating the crucial difference between Israel as ’ Jewish state’ and the majority of other states. By this official definition, Israel ‘belongs’ to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as ‘Jewish’, irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn’t officially’belong’ to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members of a Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per cent of the West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper), officially designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews, (not only Palestinians) are prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high rank.) The case involving Peruvian converts to Judaism actually occurred a few years ago. The newly-created Jews were settled in the West Bank, near Nablus, on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded. All Israeli governments are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war, so that such settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as ‘Jewish’ (and not ‘Israeli’ as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to only ‘Jewish’ authority.
‘I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain [or Canada A.T.] would regard it as antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a ‘Christian state’, belonging only to citizens officially defined as ‘Christians’. The consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to Christianity would become full citizens because of their conversion. It should be recalled that the benefits of conversions are well known to Jews from their own history. When the Christians and the Islamic states used to discriminate against all persons not belonging to the religion of the state, including the Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once removed by their conversion. But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of Israel will cease to be so treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism. This simply shows that the same kind of exclusivity that is regarded by the majority of the diaspora Jews as antisemitic is regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish. To oppose both antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a ‘self-hatred’, a concept which I regard as nonsensical.
‘The meaning of the term ‘Jewish’ and its cognates, including ‘Judaism’, thus becomes in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of ‘Islamic’ when officially used by Iran or ‘communist’ when it was officially used by the USSR. However, the meaning of the term ‘Jewish’ as it is popularly used is not clear, either in Hebrew or when translated into other languages, and so the term had to defined officially.
‘According to Israeli law a person is considered ‘Jewish’ if either their mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were Jewesses by religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way satisfactory to the Israeli authorities, and on condition that the person has not converted from Judaism to another religion, in which case Israel ceases to regard them as ‘Jewish’. Of the three conditions, the first represents the Talmudic definition of ‘who is a Jew’, a definition followed by Jewish Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognize the conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorized rabbis in a proper manner. This ‘proper manner’ entails, for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a ‘bath of purification’, a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for certain readers. I hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will rectify this discrepancy.
‘But there is another urgent necessity for an official definition of who is, and who is not ‘Jewish’. The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of Jews and against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being most important: residency rights, the right to work and the right to equality before the law. Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that about 92 per cent of Israel’s land is the property of the state and is administered by the Israel Land Authority according to regulations issued by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an affiliate of the World Zionist Organization. In its regulations the JNF denies the right to reside, to open a business, and often also to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the Jews, such discriminatory practice would instantly and justifiably be labeled antisemitism and would no doubt spark massive public protests. When applied by Israel as a part of its ‘Jewish ideology’, they are usually studiously ignored or excused when rarely mentioned.
‘The denial of the right to work means that non-Jews [but still citizens A.T.] are prohibited officially from working on land administered by the Israel Land Authority according to the JNF regulations….
‘Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the right to equality before the law….
‘…The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID card, which everyone is obliged to carry at all times. ID cards list the official ‘nationality’ of a person, which can be ‘Jewish’, ‘Arab’, ‘Druze’ and the like, with the significant exception of ‘Israeli’. Attempts to force the Interior Ministry to allow Israelis wishing to be officially described as ‘Israeli’, or even as ‘Israeli-Jew’ in their ID cards have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have received a letter from the Ministry of the Interior stating that ‘it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality’. The letter does not specify who made the decision or when.
‘There are so many laws and regulations in Israel which discriminate in favour of the persons defined as those ‘who can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return’ [i.e. Jews. A.T.] that the subject demands separate treatment. We can look here at one example, seemingly trivial in comparison with residence restrictions, but nevertheless important since it reveals the real intentions of the Israeli legislator. Israeli citizens who left the country for a time but who are defined as those who ‘can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return’ are eligible on their return to generous customs benefits, to receive subsidy for their children’s high school education, and to receive either a grant or a loan on easy terms for the purchase of an apartment, as well as other benefits. Citizens who cannot be so defined, in other words, the non-Jewish citizens of Israel, get none of these benefits. The obvious intention of such discriminatory measures is to decrease the number of non-Jewish citizens of Israel, in order to make Israel a more ‘Jewish state.’
Returning now to the Commission’s definition of hatred and contempt, and based upon the testimony of what constitutes a person deemed to be ‘Jewish’, the evidence clearly points to a ‘question of fact’ and that fact is that the official state policy of Israel is racist-based and discriminatory and divides its citizens into two distinct classes, those fitting the designation of ‘Jewish’ and those not. Those who don’t meet the guidelines that define them as ‘Jewish’ are accorded less rights and privileges than those who do meet the rigid criteria. This, I propose, is NOT the basis of a free and democratic society where ALL citizens are accorded equal rights by law as is assumed to be the case here in Canada. It is, in FACT, a description of a totalitarian, apartheid state wherein only those considered by law to be full citizens are given full rights. Those of a lesser degree who are not considered to be of the Jewish faith (the prerequisite for full citizenship) are treated as second-class citizens.
Therefore, according to reason and the laws of logic, this definition of what constitutes a Jewish citizen means that Mr. Harvey Smarba and any other Canadian citizen ‘of Jewish faith’ is, in FACT, someone who holds duel citizenship in both Canada and Israel. And, again, by definition and logic, this also means that Mr. Harvey Smarba and all members of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada must either overtly or tacitly support the Israeli government’s domestic policies which are based upon a set of principles fundamentally in violation of Canadian provincial and national laws as well as international law, all of which stipulate that within a democratic state ALL citizens MUST be treated equally. Any arguments contrary to this basic international human right must be construed as being either sophistry or else blatant, transparent hypocrisy.
In other words the spurious charge by Mr. Harvey Smarba that I and my website are contriving ‘to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.’ is nothing less, based upon the facts surrounding the state of Israel’s domestic policies toward its citizens, than rank bigotry and a disingenuous and vexatious attempt to both slander and libel my name and that of my website while at the same time attempting to censor and suppress valuable, responsible coverage of the truth about the actual conditions which exist in Israel proper and in the surrounding areas of Palestine which have been illegally occupied and brutally exploited and controlled for decades now by the invading, imperialist Israeli Defense Forces.
Further to this, the examples available on numerous websites who monitor human rights violations, illustrate again and again the FACT that Israel treats its own non-Jewish citizens with great disdain and has been carrying on a program of ethnic cleansing within its undetermined borders since the state’s inception in 1948. This provable fact only reinforces the charge that the Israeli state holds all non-Jews, citizen or not, in complete disrespect and contempt. And without getting side-tracked on to related issues it can only be stated here that the prevalent attitude of the ‘Jewish’ state of Israel fully fits the description of the CHRC’s definition of ‘hatred’ and ‘contempt’ exemplified by the FACT that non-Jewish citizens and Gentiles not holding citizenship, are consistently and persistently subjected to the sort of contempt defined in your letter above and are ‘looked down upon, belittled, despised, dishonored or disgraced’ on a routine basis.
This is all I have to say at this time regarding the contentions of Mr. Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and would like to now say a few words in my own defense as to who I am, what efforts I have devoted my life to and, finally, why I consider this whole affair to be one politically motivated (and by definition in this case, religiously as well) and not, in any sense of the word, having to do with any ‘hatred’ toward Jews on my part or on the part of my website that publishes information on this topic.
Like Mr. Harvey Smarba, I too am a Canadian citizen, born in Saskatchewan in 1947 to a Ukrainian Mother and an English Father, prior, I might add, to the birth of the present state of Israel. In that same year I was Baptized a Christian and at this point in my life consider myself to be a person of ‘Christian faith’. As such I have attempted throughout my lifetime to actualize the teachings of Christ insofar as they pertain to treating others as one might like to be treated and to help build a world where the precepts of Christ Peace, Love, Brotherhood and Sisterhood for All would be a guide to harmony on a global scale. My efforts in this regard have been published and are on public record since the year 1968 when, at the young age of 21 I first began penning letters to newspapers in British Columbia voicing my opinion on matters related to politics, religion, human rights and social justice issues. A record of these writings exists and will corroborate all such material that I intend to further use should this matter go beyond this preliminary investigation.
Having spent the majority of my life thus far in a variety of pursuits I will only highlight those most relevant so as to give you, as an Investigator into this matter, and those to whom you must report, a general outline of my life and work.
I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as http://www.radicalpress.com . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.
In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, [email protected] beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case.
As you stated in the above letter Ms. Kozak, there will be further opportunity to submit additional information and or evidence in support of my claim to innocence in this matter so with that in mind I will now conclude my response with a summary my position and then furnish you with the list of resources which I have relied upon in my quest for a greater understanding of this phenomenon known as Political Zionism and how it is affecting not only Canada but the world at large.
Summary
When I first received your unmarked, unregistered envelope in the mail Ms. Kozak, one containing the complaint from Mr. Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada it didn’t come as a surprise. It was only a matter of time before my name and the name of my website would come up on Mr. Harvey Smarba’s hit list which he and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have been diligently and, I might assume, frantically compiling since they and the CJC were instrumental in changing the legal wording contained in Sec. 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, immediately following the attack on the World Trade Center in New York city on September 11, 2001. For those still unaware Sec. 13 (1) deals with ‘Hate messages’ and prior to the new ‘‘interpretation’ of said legislation, applied only to the use of telephones. This controversial section reads as follows:
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
In the immediate aftermath of the horrendous attack upon the World Trade Center the Canadian government, acting upon misinformation and deceptive intelligence reporting from the USA, passed its new Anti-terrorism Act, c.41 on December 18th, 2001. That premature and misguided legislation, now included the following ‘Interpretation’ of Sec. 13 (1) which reads as follows:
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
This is precisely what the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress were waiting for. Now they had the legal pretext within which they could begin their assault upon any individual or group who they felt was a threat to the national interests of the state of Israel. This in itself was rather revealing considering that within months of the attack a vast number of people around the world were already cognizant of the numerous discrepancies surrounding the so-called ‘Official’ investigation into the causes and the culprits involved in this heinous act. Since 9/11 there has been a steady growth in the numbers of people who have examined the evidence and are now fully aware of the fact that the attack was not one by Arab terrorists with box cutters but was, in fact, orchestrated by forces within the US government; forces that also were found to be directly linked to a number of incidents which indicated to a great degree that the state of Israel, and in particular their intelligence service known as the Mossad, were directly complicit with the insiders working within the US government in the attack. Since 9/11 there have been endless efforts on the part of the survivors and families of the victims to have an independent inquiry carried out but to date all such efforts have been quashed by the US government. The event of 9/11 has precipitated untold misery and death and destruction and has led the world into a continuous state of fear and insecurity and provided the excuse or ‘false flag’ for all the subsequent imperialist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; wars without just cause and based upon lies and fabrications that have all since been proven false beyond a doubt. What most people though have failed to realize is that President GW Bush’s so-called‘War on Terror’ has also been a direct result of the 9/11 event and stands as a perfect metaphor for what has been happening in Israel since 1948 where a continuous state of war has existed against the Palestinian people and other Arab states, all of which are intertwined with an ongoing program of terror that has persisted throughout Israeli’s close to 60 year history. Now we are seeing this same phenomenon expanded on a global scale thanks to the many Zionist ideologues who have been shaping US foreign policy since at least the time of President Woodrow Wilson. And to keep these issues hidden away from the public consciousness is, I maintain, one of the foremost reasons why front organizations such as League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada are desperately attempting to silence all debate on either Israeli policies or Zionist ideology here in Canada.
When I say that it came as no surprise that Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada had me on their hit list I base this on the fact that in the May 24, 2007 edition of The Globe and Mail an article entitled ‘‘Website promotes hate, B’nai Brith member says’ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070524.wbcrights24/BNStory/Technology/home by the writer, Sid Tafler, stated, ‘The B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada has filed a human-rights complaint alleging a Victoria-based website [ http://www.PEJ.org ] and its editors, manager and directors ‘contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.’’ Further on the article states: ‘Mr. Smarba says other Canadian-based websites are being examined for possible complaints before the commission. We have to show that Canadian law extends to the Internet as well as the conventional printed word,’ he said.
This, I soon realized, was but one of many similar assaults upon Canadians and their treasured right to freedom of speech which I discovered as I began researching this issue more fully. Now I see a much larger pattern emerging with the addition of more and more similar charges being laid against individuals, media outlets and websites and even mainstream political parties. Individuals such as Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression http://www.canadianfreespeech.com who only recently had his longstanding teaching certificate revoked because of the actions of these pro-Zionist censors. Mainstream news magazines such as MacLean’s are also not immune to this insidious disease called censorship that’s sweeping across the nation. See Canada’s Thought Police http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm . Attacks upon Christians and their organizations have always been standard fare for Zionists and it appears that such actions are on the rise again. We only need witness such Christian sites as Free Dominion http://www.freedominion.ca (which received a similar letter as I and others on July 16th, 2007 containing a demand for a full response by July 18th!). See http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/a-free-dominion-against-the-hrcs.html for their explanation and reaction to this attack. Now even mainstream political parties such as the Christian Heritage Party, http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112706.html (who received their ‘letter’ on November 27th, 2007), have been subjected to this same process of intimidation and vilification, all of which, I contend, is designed to reinforce this absurd and highly unreasonable and undemocratic, ideologically-driven notion that any criticism of any minority, (but especially the Jewish minority in Canada), is to be met with swift, draconian repercussions by a Commission that was once set up to ensure equal rights for ALL Canadians rather than the present situation wherein an extremely small group of religious zealots within the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress have basically usurped a governmental process and are using it to promote their own racist, hate-filled agenda; one, I contend, that treats Canadians and their democratic ideals and institutions with utter disdain and contempt and threatens a way of life that the majority of Canadians do not wish to give up.
This unsavory business of thought control over Canadians had its early beginnings prior to the advent of the internet when people like Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress basically had free rein with their ambitions to squelch any and all criticism they deemed anti-Zionist. Working with a complicit Zionist-controlled media they used its power and influence to vilify whomever they felt was deserving of their smear campaigns. It was then that Mr. Smarba made a name for himself back in 1997 when he brought a complaint against Mr. Doug Collins and the Northshore News in North Vancouver to the B.C. Human Rights Commission. But now it appears these initial successes have gone to their heads to the point where they are rampaging about cyberspace like some renegade band of vigilantes from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, convinced that they are still hunting down Nazi ‘war criminals’.
Another even earlier case was that of Malcolm Ross, a Christian author and teacher living in New Brunswick, who opposed the machinations of the Talmudic Zionists and their hate-filled attacks upon Christians and Christianity (see his book Spectre of Power) and was subsequently nailed to the cross and lost his livelihood due to a complaint laid with the Human Rights Commission that was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would venture to say that what Mr. Ross was trying to convey to the general public at the time of his trials and persecution is likely no different than the message that I and others are still trying to give to you today. The only difference is that at the time when Mr. Ross was attempting to present his case to the general public he didn’t have the Internet to reach out beyond his local area and thus became another victim of the circumscribed and reprehensible Zionist media who tarred and feathered him with their usual epithets of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘hatred toward Jews’ and so on and the public was given no alternative perspective upon which to base any rational, balanced opinion.
Back in 1999 I was carrying articles by the British Author and Internationally-renowned lecturer David Icke http://www.davidicke.com who was coming to Canada on speaking tours and book promotions. During that time he was constantly harassed and abused by these organizations to the point of violent confrontations via some of their more sleazy organs like the Anti-Racist Action (ARA) committee. Accusations of Icke being a hate-monger and an anti-Semite abounded. Most disturbing in the present context of all that’s happening is the fact that lawyers directly connected with the CHRC were playing major roles in this harassment and in the encouraging of such illegal actions by the ARA. I recall the words of David Icke at the time when he said, ‘Have you ever noticed that those who dub others as purveyors of hate have hate in their hearts? And that those who claim to be anti-fascist act in every way like the fascists?’
Then there’s the case of the Canadian Website Publisher Reni Sentana-Ries of Edmonton who recently was sentenced to 16 months in jail for the crime of offending Jews. On and on and on, case after case it is always this 1% or less of the Canadian population who seems hell-bent on turning Canada into some Orwellian nightmare where people are coerced and cajoled through fear and intimidation and litigation into thinking that they have to keep their mouths shut or else some Bolshevik Cheka agent might appear at their door with a ‘complaint’ in hand and off they must go to try in vain to justify their existence before a ‘Tribunal’. The more one connects the dots the more insidious the whole affair appears and, quite frankly, it’s beginning to feel more and more like I’m a second-class Arab-Palestinian living in the racist, apartheid state of Israel rather than a Canadian citizen living in a country that once held freedom of speech and expression and thought in the highest regard.
While doing this research I came upon a frightening set of statistics regarding your Commission’s record Ms. Kozak that gave me (again) serious pause for more concern. It appears that out of 46 Active and Past cases, of which the CHRC Tribunal ruled on 37, not a single respondent has ever won a Section 13 case! 100% of the respondents in every case were Caucasian. 98% of cases were brought against poor and/or working class respondents. 90.7% of the respondents were not represented by lawyers. From out of these 37 cases a total of $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensations since 2003. And to compound this amazing set of statistics we see that 35 respondents have been given lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist orders) and if said orders are breached these people could face up to 5 years in prison!
Statistics such as these Ms. Kozak represent, for me, a shameful and black mark on Canada’s reputation as an open, just and democratic nation. When we begin to jail our own kind for expressing their views (such as occurred recently in the case of Ernst Zundel who now rots in a German prison cell because the Zionist Jews here in Canada and those that control the present German government didn’t like his peaceful, yet provocative, views on their version of history) we have already succumbed to the same level of fear that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel and Palestine are experiencing daily and the Chinese citizens are forced to live under in a Communist dictatorship where dissent is met with deadly and swift reprisal. Such regrettable behaviour Ms. Kozak, can only lead to further degradation and injustice as our nation begins its final descent down the slippery slope leading to fascism or some other form of totalitarian dictatorship. Not, I might add, a pleasant prospect as we move into the 21st Century.
And so I have noted and pondered all these related cases and how they somehow always end up like the proverbial chickens who return to their roost at night. Only in all these cases the chickens are returning to a hen house that contains a sly fox and that fox is not residing in there because he has the best interests of the chickens in mind. And so the question continually arises as to who Harvey Smarba and his ‘League’ truly represent and the only reasonable conclusion that I can come to, after looking at the fruits of their labour is that this organization is NOT concerned about the rights of ALL Canadians but, in fact, is solely concerned with pursuing its own agenda; one that places the interests of a foreign nation (Israel) above those of Canadians and one that is severely impinging upon the human rights of the other 99% of Canadians who much prefer to live in peace and freedom than in a constant state of terror and anxiety and fear. This, I would categorically state, is a blatant form of treason on the part of these organizations.
The last example that I will give here involves yet another legal challenge to these organizations and, I might add, to even the CHRC itself. I’m referring to Marc Lemire’s appeal to the Federal Court of Canada that is set for January 15th, 2008 at 9:30am 180 Queen Street W Toronto, Ontario and involves a direct challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As stated on the website of Paul Fromm’s: http://www.canadianfreespeech.com :
‘For the first time ever in history, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is being challenged by Marc Lemire in the Federal Court of Canada for its spying operations, abuses of the law, deception and agent provocateur agenda. Like some mobster in a U.S. trial who keeps invoking the Fifth Amendment, the CHRC is trying to keep the veil of secrecy wrapped tight around its spying operations on Canadian Internet dissidents. Its tool of choice is Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. This allows government representatives the ability to prevent disclosure (hide) and claim immunity over the disclosure of information that the CHRC alleges to be injurious to Canadian Government security and operations of a Federal agency. The evidence Marc Lemire is challenging before the Federal Court is explosive and will blow the whole agenda of the CHRC into the open. In a 300 page record, prepared by lead counsel Barbara Kulaszka, the abuse of Section 37 by the Commission was laid out in amazingly clear detail. Those 300 pages decimate the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s claims and expose the spying operations of Canada’s Thought Control apparatus.’
Again I must reiterate what I said at the beginning of this response: I am not passing judgment at this time on you or your Commission Ms. Kozak. What I am attempting to do is alert both you and the public to the fact that the actions of the CHRC are tending to create a negative perception of inequity in terms of meting out justice as this applies to the issue of freedom of speech and this perception ought to give the CHRC cause for serious reflection.
There is one last, missing factor in this ‘hate’ equation which Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting ‘ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.’ I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.
Based therefore upon all that I have gleaned of this situation over the years Ms. Kozak I feel very strongly that organizations such as League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the CJC require investigation and that their seditious behaviour be curbed before our Canadian system of justice is turned into a Soviet ‘Star Chamber’ such as existed under the former Bolshevik Communist Dictator Josef Stalin. It behooves you and your Commission members to take heed of this situation and the information contained in this response and that you begin weighing the total of the repercussions which are likely to manifest in this nation if these foreign (Israeli) front organizations are given free rein over our media, our institutions, our economy and our judicial affairs. Such unethical, undemocratic and discriminatory practices, in my humble opinion, require immediate redress and therefore I feel it would be in the best interest of the vast majority of Canadians if a full and independent inquiry into the nature of these activities by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the CJC were conducted forthwith and that the said inquiry be carried out without any undue influence by either of these two organizations in question and that no members of the inquiry be of ethnic Jewish origin or biased in favour of Israel in any manner.
As I sit here this morning at the start of a new year with my four month old grandson, Hunter, on my knee, reflecting on the type of country that he will inherit from his Grandpa and Grandma and his Dad and Mom I can’t help but feel an overwhelming sense of urgency with respect to the sorts of activities that are now going on in the sphere of human rights and freedoms in my country. For these reasons I also recall the words of William Blake who once wrote, ‘I shall not cease from mental fight, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand….’ and I leave you with them for they likely symbolize the hopes and dreams of all honest and vigilant Canadians who have fought and died so that our generation and future generations would have greater freedom and liberty and opportunity to live in peace and harmony and share the love that we all so desire for ourselves, our families, our friends and our communities. For the sake of Canada and our democratic way of life you owe this much to your country.
Beyond this I await your reply on these urgent matters and remain,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
[email protected]
http://www.radicalpress.com
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

Post Script: Below please find my answers to the ten questions contained in your initial package of materials which I received on November 20th, 2007 as well as the bibliography of some of the books and articles which relate to this complaint and are used here as partial reference.
ANSWERS TO CHRC QUESTIONAIRE:
1. Do you own and/or control radicalpress.com? If not, do you know who own’s [sic] and/or controls this website?
Yes. I own and control radicalpress.com
2. What is the purpose of this website?
The Radical Press is a Sole Proprietorship business registered with the provincial government in Victoria, B.C. It was formed in 1998 when I began publishing a monthly alternative tabloid known as The Radical. The online version of this hard copy newspaper is known as Radicalpress.com . The purpose of the Radical Press and Radicalpress.com, like all news services, is to present to the general public news, information and opinions with which readers can better understand the world they are living in. The forum is provided, as is/was a Letters to the Editor page in The Radical, for public input, debate and feedback.
3. What is the intent of the information/documentation posted on this website?
See answer to Question #2.
4. Who is responsible for editing and/or posting the content of the information/documentation on this website?
I am.
5. How are the documents being posted on this website?
Documents are received from various writers on the net either via email or from their own websites or listserv or in hardcopy format or else written by myself and then republished on my site.
6. What is your relationship to radicalpress.com?
The Radical Press is my voice on the world wide web and the vehicle that I use to exercise my human right to freedom of the press and self-expression.
7. Who is the webmaster of this website?
I am the webmaster of radicalpress.com
8. Who is responsible for monitoring the forums on your website? What are your rules and regulations concerning the postings of messages on the forums? What is the criteria used to remove postings?
I am responsible for all aspects of monitoring the Radical Press forum. The rules and regulations are simple: no racist comments or articles are allowed. If this is discovered on the forum the post is removed and the poster is given a fair warning to not repeat their error. If they do they are deleted from the forum.
9. In reviewing your website, it would appear that radicalpress.com active [sic] links to organizations such as http://www.Stormfront.org . What is the purpose of making these links available and active?
Again, please see response to Question #2.
10. Who is your present Internet Service Provider (ISP)? Where is it located? Please provide a copy of the ISP’s arrangement. Please provide a copy of the agreement with ISP.
All information regarding my ISP, its location and whatever agreements I have with it, are of a private business nature no different than my bank account and credit card information and passwords, etc. No organization, including the CHRC, has a right to this information. I have committed no criminal act and therefore am entitled to retain my legal business rights.
I might add to this the fact that those responsible for making these false, slanderous and libelous accusations against my person and my website i.e. the B’nai Brith and their representative Harvey Smarba, appear to have had no problem in locating my previous server and pressuring them to cancel my former agreement. I would therefore suggest that you ask Harvey Smarba and the B’nai Brith this question if you so desire such information.
‘Also, please be advised that you are required to preserve any material related to this complaint, including information in electronic format, until the final disposition of the matter.’
This has not been possible in one case. When Harvey Smarba and the B’nai Brith or some other Zionist pressured my previous server into canceling my agreement with them I received a short notice on August 24, 2007 that the hosting service would cease as of August 31, 2007. This gave me very little time to arrange a database back up for the site and during that process that backup became corrupted. As a result I had to upload an earlier archived version when I resumed online publication on November 3, 2007 and that version didn’t contain the specific article which is included in the complaint. I’m referring here to the topic ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’. The url to the forum was still intact on the RadicalPress.com Home Page but the content had disappeared from off the forum itself and no link remained. I therefore removed the url from the Home Page of the site. The article exists on numerous other websites outside present-day Zionist Jew control. I have now reposted the article and it can be found at http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=601
It’s my contention concerning this matter that the site was purposely sabotaged by either the B’nai Brith or some other affiliated pro-Zionist person or organization.
——
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCE BOOKS AND ONLINE MATERIALS:
URLS TO ARTICLES:
The Controversy of Zion
by Douglas Reed

Best Health & Wellness Promotional Products

What Price Israel?
by Alfred M. Lilienthal
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=620
Of Jews, Gentiles & Journalistic Jerk-Offs
by Arthur Topham
July, 2000
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=591
Dismantling the Infrastructure of Tyranny
By Arthur Topham
March 27, 2003
http://www.radicalpress.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=656
B’nai Brith: Beating the anti-Semitic Drum
By Arthur Topham
Sept. 3, 2005
http://www.radicalpress.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1281
Epistle to Paul
by Arthur Topham
August 6, 2006
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=90
Light Bringer or Faallen Angel?
Sorcha Faal, the Jews, the Nazis, the West and the Zionist Challenge
By Arthur Topham
Sept. 17, 2006

Light Bringer or Faallen Angel? Sorcha Faal, the Jews, the Nazis, the West and the Zionist Challenge

The Many Masks of Zionism
By Arthur Topham
January 9, 2007

The Many Masks of Zionism

The Seeds of Global Tyranny
Perennial Notes on Political Zionism
By Arthur Topham
May 1, 2007

The Seeds of Global Tyranny

Defining the Jewish State
by Israel Shahak
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=617
Promise and Fulfulment: Palestine 1917 1949
By Arthur Koestler
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=616
OT or NT? DARKNESS OR LIGHT? YOU decide!
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=603
One Hundred Years of Jewish Solitude
By Gilad Atzmon
January 23rd, 2007
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=364
The Politics of Anti-Semitism: Zionism, the Bund and Jewish Identity Politics
By Gilad Atzmon
November 29th, 2007
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=554
THE PROTOCOLS OF POLITICAL ZIONISM
AKA THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

THE PROTOCOLS

BOOKS:
The Holy Bible, King James Version, Thomas Nelson, Publishers
History of Zionism 1600 1918, Nahum Sokolow 1919 Longman, Green and Co. London
The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, Henry Ford, Sr. 1920 CPA Book Publisher Boring Oregon
Insanity Fair, Douglas Reed 1938 Jonathan Cape Ltd. 30 Bedford Square London
Disgrace Abounding, Douglas Reed 1939 Jonathan Cape Ltd. 30 Bedford Square London
Nemesis?:The Story of Otto Strasser and The Black Front, Douglas Reed 1940 Houghton Mifflin Company Boston
From Smoke to Smother, Douglas Reed 1948 Jonathan Cape Ltd. 30 Bedford Square London
Far and Wide, Douglas Reed 1951 GSG & Associates [email protected]
The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed 1979, GSG & Associates [email protected]
also online at http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=34
The Iron Curtain Over America, John Beaty 1951 Chestnut Mountain Books Barboursville Virginia
The Palestine Diary, (Vol. 1&2) Robert John & Sami Hadawi 1970 New World Press New York N.Y.
Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Israel Shahak 1994 The Pluto Press Boulder Colorado
Promise and Fulfilment: Palestine 1917 1949, Arthur Koestler 1949 Macmillan & Co. Ltd. London
The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler 1976 Random House Inc. New York
Trial and Error: The Autobiography of Chaim Weizmann, Chaim Weizmann 1947 Harper & Bro. England
Zionism: False Messiah, Nathan Weinstock 1969 Ink Links Ltd. London
Spectre of Power, Malcolm Ross 1987 Stronghold Publishing Co. Ltd. Moncton New Brunswick
Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942 1948, Thomas A. Kolsky Temple University Press Philidelphia
The Gulag Archipelago, (Vols. 1, 2, 3) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1973 Harper & Row, Publishers New York
The Fateful Triangle: Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians, Noam Chomsky 1984 Black Rose Books Montreal Canada

1. If we do not permit any independent dabbling in the political we shall on the other hand encourage every kind of report or petition with proposals for the government to examine into all kinds of projects for the amelioration of the condition of the people; this will reveal to us the defects or else the fantasies of our subjects, to which we shall respond either by accomplishing them or by a wise rebuttment to prove the shortsightedness of one who judges wrongly.
2. Sedition-mongering is nothing more than the yapping of a lap-dog at an elephant. For a government well organized, not from the police but from the public point of view, the lap-dog yaps at the elephant in entire unconsciousness of its strength and importance. It needs no more than to take a good example to show the relative importance of both and the lap-dogs will cease to yap and will wag their tails the moment they set eyes on an elephant.
3. In order to destroy the prestige of heroism for political crime we shall send it for trial in the category of thieving, murder, and every kind of abominable and filthy crime. Public opinion will then confuse in its conception this category of crime with the disgrace attaching to every other and will brand it with the same contempt.
4. We have done our best, and I hope we have succeeded to obtain that the GOYIM should not arrive at this means of contending with sedition. It was for this reason that through the Press and in speeches, indirectly in cleverly compiled school-books on history, we have advertised the martyrdom alleged to have been accredited by sedition-mongers for the idea of the commonweal. This advertisement has increased the contingent of liberals and has brought thousands of GOYIM into the ranks of our livestock cattle.
PROTOCOL No. 20
1. To-day we shall touch upon the financial program, which I put off to the end of my report as being the most difficult, the crowning and the decisive point of our plans. Before entering upon it I will remind you that I have already spoken before by way of a hint when I said that the sum total of our actions is settled by the question of figures.

2. When we come into our kingdom our autocratic government will avoid, from a principle of self-preservation, sensibly burdening the masses of the people with taxes, remembering that it plays the part of father and protector. But as State organization cost dear it is necessary nevertheless to obtain the funds required for it. It will, therefore, elaborate with particular precaution the question of equilibrium in this matter.
3. Our rule, in which the king will enjoy the legal fiction that everything in his State belongs to him (which may easily be translated into fact), will be enabled to resort to the lawful confiscation of all sums of every kind for the regulation of their circulation in the State. From this follows that taxation will best be covered by a progressive tax on property. In this manner the dues will be paid without straitening or ruining anybody in the form of a percentage of the amount of property. The rich must be aware that it is their duty to place a part of their superfluities at the disposal of the State since the State guarantees them security of possession of the rest of their property and the right of honest gains, I say honest, for the control over property will do away with robbery on a legal basis.
4. This social reform must come from above, for the time is ripe for it it is indispensable as a pledge of peace.
WE SHALL DESTROY CAPITAL
5. The tax upon the poor man is a seed of revolution and works to the detriment of the State which in hunting after the trifling is missing the big. Quite apart from this, a tax on capitalists diminishes the growth of wealth in private hands in which we have in these days concentrated it as a counterpoise to the government strength of the GOYIM their State finances.
6. A tax increasing in a percentage ratio to capital will give much larger revenue than the present individual or property tax, which is useful to us now for the sole reason that it excites trouble and discontent among the GOYIM.
7. The force upon which our king will rest consists in the equilibrium and the guarantee of peace, for the sake of which things it is indispensable that the capitalists should yield up a portion of their incomes for the sake of the secure working of the machinery of the State. State needs must be paid by those who will not feel the burden and have enough to take from.
8. Such a measure will destroy the hatred of the poor man for the rich, in whom he will see a necessary financial support for the State, will see in him the organizer of peace and well-being since he will see that it is the rich man who is paying the necessary means to attain these things.
9. In order that payers of the educated classes should not too much distress themselves over the new payments they will have full accounts given them of the destination of those payments, with the exception of such sums as will be appropriated for the needs of the throne and the administrative institutions.
10. He who reigns will not have any properties of his own once all in the State represented his patrimony, or else the one would be in contradiction to the other; the fact of holding private means would destroy the right of property in the common possessions of all.
11. Relatives of him who reigns, his heirs excepted, who will be maintained by the resources of the State, must enter the ranks of servants of the State or must work to obtain the right to property; the privilege of royal blood must not serve for the spoiling of the treasury.
12. Purchase, receipt of money or inheritance will be subject to the payment of a stamp progressive tax. Any transfer of property, whether money or other, without evidence of payment of this tax which will be strictly registered by names, will render the former holder liable to pay interest on the tax from the moment of transfer of these sums up to the discovery of his evasion of declaration of the transfer. Transfer documents must be presented weekly at the local treasury office with notifications of the name, surname and permanent place of residence of the former and the new holder of the property. This transfer with register of names must begin from a definite sum which exceeds the ordinary expenses of buying and selling necessaries, and these will be subject to payment only by a stamp impost of a definite percentage of the unit.
13. Just strike an estimate of how many times such taxes as these will cover the revenue of the GOYIM States.
WE CAUSE DEPRESSIONS
14. The State exchequer will have to maintain a definite complement of reserve sums, and all that is collected above that complement must be returned into circulation. On these sums will be organized public works. The initiative in works of this kind, proceeding from State sources, will bind the working class firmly to the interests of the State and to those who reign. From these same sums also a part will be set aside as rewards of inventiveness and productiveness.
15. On no account should so much as a single unit above the definite and freely estimated sums be retained in the State Treasuries, for money exists to be circulated and any kind of stagnation of money acts ruinously on the running of the State machinery, for which it is the lubricant; a stagnation of the lubricant may stop the regular working of the mechanism.
16. The substitution of interest-bearing paper for a part of the token of exchange has produced exactly this stagnation. The consequences of this circumstance are already sufficiently noticeable.
17. A court of account will also be instituted by us, and in it the ruler will find at any moment a full accounting for State income and expenditure, with the exception of the current monthly account, not yet made up, and that of the preceding month, which will not yet have been delivered.
18. The one and only person who will have no interest in robbing the State is its owner, the ruler. This is why his personal control will remove the possibility of leakages or extravagances.
19. The representative function of the ruler at receptions for the sake of etiquette, which absorbs so much invaluable time, will be abolished in order that the ruler may have time for control and consideration. His power will not then be split up into fractional parts among time-serving favorites who surround the throne for its pomp and splendor, and are interested only in their own and not in the common interests of the State.
20. Economic crises have been produced by us for the GOYIM by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation. Huge capitals have stagnated, withdrawing money from States, which were constantly obliged to apply to those same stagnant capitals for loans. These loans burdened the finances of the State with the payment of interest and made them the bond slaves of these capitals …. The concentration of industry in the hands of capitalists out of the hands of small masters has drained away all the juices of the peoples and with them also the States …
21. The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth. The revision of issue is a material question for the whole world.
22. YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE GOLD STANDARD HAS BEEN THE RUIN OF THE STATES WHICH ADOPTED IT, FOR IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS FOR MONEY, THE MORE SO THAT WE HAVE REMOVED GOLD FROM CIRCULATION AS FAR AS POSSIBLE.
GENTILE STATES BANKRUPT
23. With us the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.
24. The accounts will be managed by each department (the French administrative division), each circle.
25. In order that there may be no delays in the paying out of money for State needs the sums and terms of such payments will be fixed by decree of the ruler; this will do away with the protection by a ministry of one institution to the detriment of others.
26. The budgets of income and expenditure will be carried out side by side that they may not be obscured by distance one to another.
27. The reforms projected by us in the financial institutions and principles of the GOYIM will be clothed by us in such forms as will alarm nobody. We shall point out the necessity of reforms in consequence of the disorderly darkness into which the GOYIM by their irregularities have plunged the finances. The first irregularity, as we shall point out, consists in their beginning with drawing up a single budget which year after year grows owing to the following cause: this budget is dragged out to half the year, then they demand a budget to put things right, and this they expend in three months, after which they ask for a supplementary budget, and all this ends with a liquidation budget. But, as the budget of the following year is drawn up in accordance with the sum of the total addition, the annual departure from the normal reaches as much as 50 per cent in a year, and so the annual budget is trebled in ten years. Thanks to such methods, allowed by the carelessness of the GOY States, their treasuries are empty. The period of loans supervenes, and that has swallowed up remainders and brought all the GOY States to bankruptcy.
28. You understand perfectly that economic arrangements of this kind, which have been suggested to the GOYIM by us, cannot be carried on by us.
29. Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State and a want of understanding of the rights of the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax, come begging with outstretched palm to our bankers. Foreign loans are leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State until they fall off of themselves or the State flings them off. But the GOY States do not tear them off; they go on in persisting in putting more on to themselves so that they must inevitably perish, drained by voluntary blood-letting.
TYRANNY OF USURY
30. What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.
31. From this calculation it is obvious that with any form of taxation per head the State is baling out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest.
32. So long as loans were internal the GOYIM only shuffled their money from the pockets of the poor to those of the rich, but when we bought up the necessary persons in order to transfer loans into the external sphere, all the wealth of States flowed into our cash-boxes and all the GOYIM began to pay us the tribute of subjects.
33. If the superficiality of GOY kings on their thrones in regard to State affairs and the venality of ministers or the want of understanding of financial matters on the part of other ruling persons have made their countries debtors to our treasuries to amounts quite impossible to pay it has not been accomplished without, on our part, heavy expenditure of trouble and money.
34. Stagnation of money will not be allowed by us and therefore there will be no State interest-bearing paper, except a one per-cent series, so that there will be no payment of interest to leeches that suck all the strength out of the State. The right to issue interest-bearing paper will be given exclusively to industrial companies who find no difficulty in paying interest out of profits, whereas the State does not make interest on borrowed money like these companies, for the State borrows to spend and not to use in operations.
35. Industrial papers will be bought also by the government which from being as now a paper of tribute by loan operations will be transformed into a lender of money at a profit. This measure will stop the stagnation of money, parasitic profits and idleness, all of which were useful for us among the GOYIM so long as they were independent but are not desirable under our rule.
36. How clear is the undeveloped power of thought of the purely brute brains of the GOYIM, as expressed in the fact that they have been borrowing from us with payment of interest without ever thinking that all the same these very moneys plus an addition for payment of interest must be got by them from their own State pockets in order to settle up with us. What could have been simpler than to take the money they wanted from their own people?
37. But it is a proof of the genius of our chosen mind that we have contrived to present the matter of loans to them in such a light that they have even seen in them an advantage for themselves.
38. Our accounts, which we shall present when the time comes, in the light of centuries of experience gained by experiments made by us on the GOY States, will be distinguished by clearness and definiteness and will show at a glance to all men the advantage of our innovations. They will put an end to those abuses to which we owe our mastery over the GOYIM, but which cannot be allowed in our kingdom.
39. We shall so hedge about our system of accounting that neither the ruler nor the most insignificant public servant will be in a position to divert even the smallest sum from its destination without detection or to direct it in another direction except that which will be once fixed in a definite plan of action.
40. And without a definite plan it is impossible to rule. Marching along an undetermined road and with undetermined resources brings to ruin by the way heroes and demi-gods.
41. The GOY rulers, whom we once upon a time advised should be distracted from State occupations by representative receptions, observances of etiquette, entertainments, were only screens for our rule. The accounts of favorite courtiers who replaced them in the sphere of affairs were drawn up for them by our agents, and every time gave satisfaction to short-sighted minds by promises that in the future economies and improvements were foreseen … Economies from what? From new taxes? were questions that might have been but were not asked by those who read our accounts and projects.
42. You know to what they have been brought by this carelessness, to what pitch of financial disorder they have arrived, notwithstanding the astonishing industry of their peoples …
PROTOCOL No. 21
1. To what I reported to you at the last meeting I shall now add a detailed explanation of internal loans. Of foreign loans I shall say nothing more, because they have fed us with the national moneys of the GOYIM, but for our State there will be no foreigners, that is, nothing external.
2. We have taken advantage of the venality of administrators and slackness of rulers to get our moneys twice, thrice and more times over, by lending to the GOY governments moneys which were not at all needed by the States. Could anyone do the like in regard to us? … Therefore, I shall only deal with the details of internal loans.
3. States announce that such a loan is to be concluded and open subscriptions for their own bills of exchange, that is, for their interest-bearing paper. That they may be within the reach of all the price is determined at from a hundred to a thousand; and a discount is made for the earliest subscribers. Next day by artificial means the price of them goes up, the alleged reason being that everyone is rushing to buy them. In a few days the treasury safes are, as they say, overflowing and there’s more money than they can do with. The subscription, it is alleged, covers many times over the issue total of the loan; in this lies the whole stage effect look you, they say, what confidence is shown in the government’s bills of exchange.
4. But when the comedy is played out there emerges the fact that a debit and an exceedingly burdensome debit has been created. For the payment of interest it becomes necessary to have recourse to new loans, which do not swallow up but only add to the capital debt. And when this credit is exhausted it becomes necessary by new taxes to cover, not the loan, BUT ONLY THE INTEREST ON IT. These taxes are a debit employed to cover a debit …
5. Later comes the time for conversions, but they diminish the payment of interest without covering the debt, and besides they cannot be made without the consent of the lenders; on announcing a conversion a proposal is made to return the money to those who are not willing to convert their paper. If everybody expressed his unwillingness and demanded his money back, the government would be hoist on their own petard and would be found insolvent and unable to pay the proposed sums. By good luck the subjects of the GOY governments, knowing nothing about financial affairs, have always preferred losses on exchange and diminution of interest to the risk of new investments of their moneys, and have thereby many a time enabled these governments to throw off their shoulders a debit of several millions.
6. Nowadays, with external loans, these tricks cannot be played by the GOYIM for they know that we shall demand all our moneys back.
7. In this way in acknowledged bankruptcy will best prove to the various countries the absence of any means between the interests of the peoples and of those who rule them.
8. I beg you to concentrate your particular attention upon this point and upon the following: nowadays all internal loans are consolidated by so-called flying loans, that is, such as have terms of payment more or less near. These debts consist of moneys paid into the savings banks and reserve funds. If left for long at the disposition of a government these funds evaporate in the payment of interest on foreign loans, and are placed by the deposit of equivalent amount of RENTS.
9. And these last it is which patch up all the leaks in the State treasuries of the GOYIM.
10. When we ascend the throne of the world all these financial and similar shifts, as being not in accord with our interests, will be swept away so as not to leave a trace, as also will be destroyed all money markets, since we shall not allow the prestige of our power to be shaken by fluctuations of prices set upon our values, which we shall announce by law at the price which represents their full worth without any possibility of lowering or raising.
11. We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions, the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views. These institutions will be in a position to fling upon the market five hundred millions of industrial paper in one day, or to buy up for the same amount. In this way all industrial undertakings will come into dependence upon us. You may imagine for yourselves what immense power we shall thereby secure for ourselves …
PROTOCOL No. 22
1 In all that has so far been reported by me to you, I have endeavored to depict with care the secret of what is coming, of what is past, and of what is going on now, rushing into the flood of the great events coming already in the near future, the secret of our relations to the GOYIM and of financial operations. On this subject there remains still a little for me to add.
2. IN OUR HANDS IS THE GREATEST POWER OF OUR DAY GOLD: IN TWO DAYS WE CAN PROCURE FROM OUR STOREHOUSES ANY QUANTITY WE MAY PLEASE.
3. Surely there is no need to seek further proof that our rule is predestined by God? Surely we shall not fail with such wealth to prove that all that evil which for so many centuries we have had to commit has served at the end of ends the cause of true well-being the bringing of everything into order? Though it be even by the exercise of some violence, yet all the same it will be established. We shall contrive to prove that we are benefactors who have restored to the rent and mangled earth the true good and also freedom of the person, and therewith we shall enable it to be enjoyed in peace and quiet, with proper dignity of relations, on the condition, of course, of strict observance of the laws established by us. We shall make plain therewith that freedom does not consist in dissipation and in the right of unbridled license any more than the dignity and force of a man do not consist in the right of everyone to promulgate destructive principles in the nature of freedom of conscience, equality and the like, that freedom of the person in no wise consists in the right to agitate oneself and others by abominable speeches before disorderly mobs, and that true freedom consists in the inviolability of the person who honorably and strictly observes all the laws of life in common, that human dignity is wrapped up in consciousness of the rights and also of the absence of rights of each, and not wholly and solely in fantastic imaginings about the subject of one’s EGO.
4. One authority will be glorious because it will be all-powerful, will rule and guide, and not muddle along after leaders and orators shrieking themselves hoarse with senseless words which they call great principles and which are nothing else, to speak honestly, but utopian … Our authority will be the crown of order, and in that is included the whole happiness of man. The aureole of this authority will inspire a mystical bowing of the knee before it and a reverent fear before it of all the peoples. True force makes no terms with any right, not even with that of God: none dare come near to it so as to take so much as a span from it away.
PROTOCOL No. 23
1. That the peoples may become accustomed to obedience it is necessary to inculcate lessons of humility and therefore to reduce the production of articles of luxury. By this we shall improve morals which have been debased by emulation in the sphere of luxury. We shall re-establish small master production which will mean laying a mine under the private capital of manufactures. This is indispensable also for the reason that manufacturers on the grand scale often move, though not always consciously, the thoughts of the masses in directions against the government. A people of small masters knows nothing of unemployment and this binds him closely with existing order, and consequently with the firmness of authority. For us its part will have been played out the moment authority is transferred into our hands. Drunkenness also will be prohibited by law and punishable as a crime against the humanness of man who is turned into a brute under the influence of alcohol.
2. Subjects, I repeat once more, give blind obedience only to the strong hand which is absolutely independent of them, for in it they feel the sword of defense and support against social scourges … What do they want with an angelic spirit in a king? What they have to see in him is the personification of force and power.
3. The supreme lord who will replace all now existing rulers, dragging in their existence among societies demoralized by us, societies that have denied even the authority of God, from whose midst breeds out on all sides the fire of anarchy, must first of all proceed to quench this all-devouring flame. Therefore he will be obliged to kill off those existing societies, though he should drench them with his own blood, that he may resurrect them again in the form of regularly organized troops fighting consciously with every kind of infection that may cover the body of the State with sores.
4. This Chosen One of God is chosen from above to demolish the senseless forces moved by instinct and not reason, by brutishness and not humanness. These forces now triumph in manifestations of robbery and every kind of violence under the mask of principles of freedom and rights. They have overthrown all forms of social order to erect on the ruins the throne of the King of the Jews; but their part will be played out the moment he enters into his kingdom. Then it will be necessary to sweep them away from his path, on which must be left no knot, no splinter.
5. Then will it be possible for us to say to the peoples of the world: ‘Give thanks to God and bow the knee before him who bears on his front the seal of the predestination of man, to which God himself has led his star that none other but Him might free us from all the before-mentioned forces and evils’.
PROTOCOL No. 24
1. I pass now to the method of confirming the dynastic roots of King David to the last strata of the earth.
2. This confirmation will first and foremost be included in that which to this day has rested the force of conservatism by our learned elders of the conduct of the affairs of the world, in the directing of the education of thought of all humanity.
3. Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the kings and their heirs, selecting not by right of heritage but by eminent capacities, inducting them into the most secret mysteries of the political, into schemes of government, but providing always that none may come to knowledge of the secrets. The object of this mode of action is that all may know that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its art…
4. To these persons only will be taught the practical application of the aforenamed plans by comparison of the experiences of many centuries, all the observations on the politico-economic moves and social sciences in a word, all the spirit of laws which have been unshakably established by nature herself for the regulation of the relations of humanity.
5. Direct heirs will often be set aside from ascending the throne if in their time of training they exhibit frivolity, softness and other qualities that are the ruin of authority, which render them incapable of governing and in themselves dangerous for kingly office.
6. Only those who are unconditionally capable for firm, even if it be to cruelty, direct rule will receive the reins of rule from our learned elders.
7. In case of falling sick with weakness of will or other form of incapacity. kings must by law hand over the reins of rule to new and capable hands.
8. The king’s plan of action for the current moment, and all the more so for the future, will be unknown, even to those who are called his closest counselors.
KING OF THE JEWS
9. Only the king and the three who stood sponsor for him will know what is coming.
10. In the person of the king who with unbending will is master of himself and of humanity all will discern as it were fate with its mysterious ways. None will know what the king wishes to attain by his dispositions, and therefore none will dare to stand across an unknown path.
11. It is understood that the brain reservoir of the king must correspond in capacity to the plan of government it has to contain. It is for this reason that he will ascend the throne not otherwise than after examination of his mind by the aforesaid learned elders.
12. That the people may know and love their king, it is indispensable for him to converse in the market-places with his people. This ensures the necessary clinching of the two forces which are now divided one from another by us by the terror.
13. This terror was indispensable for us till the time comes for both these forces separately to fall under our influence.
14. The king of the Jews must not be at the mercy of his passions, and especially of sensuality: on no side of his character must he give brute instincts power over his mind. Sensuality worse than all else disorganizes the capacities of the mind and clearness of views, distracting the thoughts to the worst and most brutal side of human activity.
15. The prop of humanity in the person of the supreme lord of all the world of the holy seed of David must sacrifice to his people all personal inclinations.
16. Our supreme lord must be of an exemplary irreproachability.

1. The word ‘freedom,’ which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows
2. Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.
3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press today? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? The produce of publicity, which nowadays is a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it, will be turned by us into a very lucrative source of income to our State: we shall lay on it a special stamp tax and require deposits of caution-money before permitting the establishment of any organ of the press or of printing offices; these will then have to guarantee our government against any kind of attack on the part of the press. For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy. Such measures as stamp tax, deposit of caution-money and fines secured by these deposits, will bring in a huge income to the government. It is true that party organs might not spare money for the sake of publicity, but these we shall shut up at the second attack upon us. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification. I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER.
WE CONTROL THE PRESS
4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world …
6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits … All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest…
FREE PRESS DESTROYED
7. We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution-money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.
8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind … If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.
9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.
10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions  aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical for so long, of course, as the constitution exists … Like the Indian idol ‘Vishnu’ they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.
14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.
ONLY LIES PRINTED
15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it … WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.
16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.
17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other … These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.
18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.
19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED … Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses no more.
PROTOCOL No. 13
1. The need for daily bread forces the GOYIM to keep silence and be our humble servants. Agents taken on to our press from among the GOYIM will at our orders discuss anything which it is inconvenient for us to issue directly in official documents, and we meanwhile, quietly amid the din of the discussion so raised, shall simply take and carry through such measures as we wish and then offer them to the public as an accomplished fact. No one will dare to demand the abrogation of a matter once settled, all the more so as it will be represented as an improvement … And immediately the press will distract the current of thought towards, new questions, (have we not trained people always to be seeking something new?). Into the discussions of these new questions will throw themselves those of the brainless dispensers of fortunes who are not able even now to understand that they have not the remotest conception about the matters which they undertake to discuss. Questions of the political are unattainable for any save those who have guided it already for many ages, the creators.
2. From all this you will see that in securing the opinion of the mob we are only facilitating the working of our machinery, and you may remark that it is not for actions but for words issued by us on this or that question that we seem to seek approval. We are constantly making public declaration that we are guided in all our undertakings by the hope, joined to the conviction, that we are serving the common weal.
WE DECEIVE WORKERS
3. In order to distract people who may be too troublesome from discussions of questions of the political we are now putting forward what we allege to be new questions of the political, namely, questions of industry. In this sphere let them discuss themselves silly! The masses are agreed to remain inactive, to take a rest from what they suppose to be political (which we trained them to in order to use them as a means of combating the GOY governments) only on condition of being found new employments, in which we are prescribing them something that looks like the same political object. In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about WE FURTHER DISTRACT THEM WITH AMUSEMENTS, GAMES, PASTIMES, PASSIONS, PEOPLE’S PALACES … SOON WE SHALL BEGIN THROUGH THE PRESS TO PROPOSE COMPETITIONS IN ART, IN SPORT IN ALL KINDS: these interests will finally distract their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them. Growing more and more unaccustomed to reflect and form any opinions of their own, people will begin to talk in the same tone as we because we alone shall be offering them new directions for thought … of course through such persons as will not be suspected of solidarity with us.
4. The part played by the liberals, utopian dreamers, will be finally played out when our government is acknowledged. Till such time they will continue to do us good service. Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive: for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the GOYIM with progress, till there is not among the GOYIM one mind able to perceive that under this word lies a departure from truth in all cases where it is not a question of material inventions, for truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us, the Chosen of God, its guardians.
5. When, we come into our kingdom our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring it at the end under our beneficent rule.
6. Who will ever suspect then that ALL THESE PEOPLES WERE STAGE-MANAGED BY US ACCORDING TO A POLITICAL PLAN WHICH NO ONE HAS SO MUCH AS GUESSED AT IN THE COURSE OF MANY CENTURIES?
PROTOCOL No. 14
1. When we come into our kingdom it will be undesirable for us that there should exist any other religion than ours of the One God with whom our destiny is bound up by our position as the Chosen People and through whom our same destiny is united with the destinies of the world. We must therefore sweep away all other forms of belief. If this gives birth to the atheists whom we see to-day, it will not, being only a transitional stage, interfere with our views, but will serve as a warning for those generations which will hearken to our preaching of the religion of Moses, that, by its stable and thoroughly elaborated system has brought all the peoples of the world into subjection to us. Therein we shall emphasize its mystical right, on which, as we shall say, all its educative power is based … Then at every possible opportunity we shall publish articles in which we shall make comparisons between our beneficent rule and those of past ages. The blessing of tranquillity, though it be a tranquillity forcibly brought about by centuries of agitation, will throw into higher relief the benefits to which we shall point. The errors of the GOYIM governments will be depicted by us in the most vivid hues. We shall implant such an abhorrence of them that the peoples will prefer tranquillity in a state of serfdom to those rights of vaunted freedom which have tortured humanity and exhausted the very sources of human existence, sources which have been exploited by a mob of rascally adventurers who know not what they do … USELESS CHANGES OF FORMS OF GOVERNMENT TO WHICH WE INSTIGATED THE ‘GOYIM’ WHEN WE WERE UNDERMINING THEIR STATE STRUCTURES, WILL HAVE SO WEARIED THE PEOPLES BY THAT TIME THAT THEY WILL PREFER TO SUFFER ANYTHING UNDER US RATHER THAN RUN THE RISK OF ENDURING AGAIN ALL THE AGITATIONS AND MISERIES THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH. WE SHALL FORBID CHRIST.
2. At the same time we shall not omit to emphasize the historical mistakes of the GOY governments which have tormented humanity for so many centuries by their lack of understanding of everything that constitutes the true good of humanity in their chase after fantastic schemes of social blessings, and have never noticed that these schemes kept on producing a worse and never a better state of the universal relations which are the basis of human life …
3. The whole force of our principles and methods will lie in the fact that we shall present them and expound them as a splendid contrast to the dead and decomposed old order of things in social life.
4. Our philosophers will discuss all the shortcomings of the various beliefs of the ‘GOYIM,’ BUT NO ONE WILL EVER BRING UNDER DISCUSSION OUR FAITH FROM ITS TRUE POINT OF VIEW SINCE THIS WILL BE FULLY LEARNED BY NONE SAVE OURS WHO WILL NEVER DARE TO BETRAY ITS SECRETS.
5. IN COUNTRIES KNOWN AS PROGRESSIVE AND ENLIGHTENED WE HAVE CREATED A SENSELESS, FILTHY, ABOMINABLE LITERATURE. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence in order to provide a telling relief by contrast to the speeches, party program, which will be distributed from exalted quarters of ours … Our wise men, trained to become leaders of the GOYIM, will compose speeches, projects, memoirs, articles, which will be used by us to influence the minds of the GOYIM, directing them towards such understanding and forms of knowledge as have been determined by us.
PROTOCOL No. 15
1. When we at last definitely come into our kingdom by the aid of COUPS D’ETAT prepared everywhere for one and the same day, after definitely acknowledged (and not a little time will pass before that comes about, perhaps even a whole century) we shall make it our task to see that against us such things as plots shall no longer exist. With this purpose we shall slay without mercy all who take arms to oppose our coming into our kingdom. Every kind of new institution of anything like a secret society will also be punished with death; those of them which are now in existence, are known to us, serve us and have served us, we shall disband and send into exile to continents far removed from Europe. IN THIS WAY WE SHALL PROCEED WITH THOSE ‘GOY’ MASONS WHO KNOW TOO MUCH; such of these as we may for some reason spare will be kept in constant fear of exile. We shall promulgate a law making all former members of secret societies liable to exile from Europe as the center of rule.
2. Resolutions of our government will be final, without appeal.
3. In the GOY societies, in which we have planted and deeply rooted discord and protestantism, the only possible way of restoring order is to employ merciless measures that prove the direct force of authority: no regard must be paid to the victims who fall, they suffer for the well-being of the future. The attainment of that well-being, even at the expense of sacrifices, is the duty of any kind of government that acknowledges as justification for its existence not only its privileges but its obligations. The principal guarantee of stability of rule is to confirm the aureole of power, and this aureole is attained only by such a majestic inflexibility of might as shall carry on its face the emblems of inviolability from mystical causes from the choice of God. SUCH WAS, UNTIL RECENT TIMES, THE RUSSIAN AUTOCRACY, THE ONE AND ONLY SERIOUS FOE WE HAD IN THE WORLD, WITHOUT COUNTING THE PAPACY. Bear in mind the example when Italy, drenched with blood, never touched a hair of the head of Sulla who had poured forth that blood: Sulla enjoyed an apotheosis for his might in him, but his intrepid return to Italy ringed him round with inviolability. The people do not lay a finger on him who hypnotizes them by his daring and strength of mind.
SECRET SOCIETIES
4. Meantime, however, until we come into our kingdom, we shall act in the contrary way: we shall create and multiply free masonic lodges in all the countries of the world, absorb into them all who may become or who are prominent in public activity, for these lodges we shall find our principal intelligence office and means of influence. All these lodges we shall bring under one central administration, known to us alone and to all others absolutely unknown, which will be composed of our learned elders. The lodges will have their representatives who will serve to screen the above-mentioned administration of MASONRY and from whom will issue the watchword and program. In these lodges we shall tie together the knot which binds together all revolutionary and liberal elements. Their composition will be made up of all strata of society. The most secret political plots will be known to us and fall under our guiding hands on the very day of their conception. AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THESE LODGES WILL BE ALMOST ALL THE AGENTS OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL POLICE since their service is for us irreplaceable in the respect that the police is in a position not only to use its own particular measures with the insubordinate, but also to screen our activities and provide pretexts for discontents, ET CETERA.
5. The class of people who most willingly enter into secret societies are those who live by their wits, careerists, and in general people, mostly light-minded, with whom we shall have no difficulty in dealing and in using to wind up the mechanism of the machine devised by us. If this world grows agitated the meaning of that will be that we have had to stir up in order to break up its too great solidarity. BUT IF THERE SHOULD ARISE IN ITS MIDST A PLOT, THEN AT THE HEAD OF THAT PLOT WILL BE NO OTHER THAN ONE OF OUR MOST TRUSTED SERVANTS. It is natural that we and no other should lead MASONIC activities, for we know whither we are leading, we know the final goal of every form of activity whereas the GOYIM have knowledge of nothing, not even of the immediate effect of action; they put before themselves, usually, the momentary reckoning of the satisfaction of their self-opinion in the accomplishment of their thought without even remarking that the very conception never belonged to their initiative but to our instigation of their thought …
GENTILES ARE STUPID
6. The GOYIM enter the lodges out of curiosity or in the hope by their means to get a nibble at the public pie, and some of them in order to obtain a hearing before the public for their impracticable and groundless fantasies: they thirst for the emotion of success and applause, of which we are remarkably generous. And the reason why we give them this success is to make use of the high conceit of themselves to which it gives birth, for that insensibly disposes them to assimilate our suggestions without being on their guard against them in the fullness of their confidence that it is their own infallibility which is giving utterance to their own thoughts and that it is impossible for them to borrow those of others … You cannot imagine to what extent the wisest of the GOYIM can be brought to a state of unconscious naivete in the presence of this condition of high conceit of themselves, and at the same time how easy it is to take the heart out of them by the slightest ill-success, though it be nothing more than the stoppage of the applause they had, and to reduce them to a slavish submission for the sake of winning a renewal of success … BY SO MUCH AS OURS DISREGARD SUCCESS IF ONLY THEY CAN CARRY THROUGH THEIR PLANS, BY SO MUCH THE ‘GOYIM’ ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE ANY PLANS ONLY TO HAVE SUCCESS. This psychology of theirs materially facilitates for us the task of setting them in the required direction. These tigers in appearance have the souls of sheep and the wind blows freely through their heads. We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM … They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality …
7. If we have been able to bring them to such a pitch of stupid blindness is it not a proof, and an amazingly clear proof, of the degree to which the mind of the GOYIM is undeveloped in comparison with our mind? This it is, mainly, which guarantees our success.
GENTILES ARE CATTLE
8. And how far-seeing were our learned elders in ancient times when they said that to attain a serious end it behooves not to stop at any means or to count the victims sacrificed for the sake of that end … We have not counted the victims of the seed of the GOY cattle, though we have sacrificed many of our own, but for that we have now already given them such a position on the earth as they could not even have dreamed of. The comparatively small numbers of the victims from the number of ours have preserved our nationality from destruction.
9. Death is the inevitable end for all. It is better to bring that end nearer to those who hinder our affairs than to ourselves, to the founders of this affair. WE EXECUTE MASONS IN SUCH WISE THAT NONE SAVE THE BROTHERHOOD CAN EVER HAVE A SUSPICION OF IT, NOT EVEN THE VICTIMS THEMSELVES OF OUR DEATH SENTENCE, THEY ALL DIE WHEN REQUIRED AS IF FROM A NORMAL KIND OF ILLNESS … Knowing this, even the brotherhood in its turn dare not protest. By such methods we have plucked out of the midst of MASONRY the very root of protest against our disposition. While preaching liberalism to the GOY we at the same time keep our own people and our agents in a state of unquestioning submission.
10. Under our influence the execution of the laws of the GOYIM has been reduced to a minimum. The prestige of the law has been exploded by the liberal interpretations introduced into this sphere. In the most important and fundamental affairs and questions, JUDGES DECIDE AS WE DICTATE TO THEM, see matters in the light wherewith we enfold them for the administration of the GOYIM, of course, through persons who are our tools though we do not appear to have anything in common with them by newspaper opinion or by other means … Even senators and the higher administration accept our counsels. The purely brute mind of the GOYIM is incapable of use for analysis and observation, and still more for the foreseeing whither a certain manner of setting a question may tend.
11. In this difference in capacity for thought between the GOYIM and ourselves may be clearly discerned the seal of our position as the Chosen People and of our higher quality of humanness, in contradistinction to the brute mind of the GOYIM. Their eyes are open, but see nothing before them and do not invent (unless perhaps, material things). From this it is plain that nature herself has destined us to guide and rule the world.
WE DEMAND SUBMISSION
12. When comes the time of our overt rule, the time to manifest its blessing, we shall remake all legislatures, all our laws will be brief, plain, stable, without any kind of interpretations, so that anyone will be in a position to know them perfectly. The main feature which will run right through them is submission to orders, and this principle will be carried to a grandiose height. Every abuse will then disappear in consequence of the responsibility of all down to the lowest unit before the higher authority of the representative of power. Abuses of power subordinate to this last instance will be so mercilessly punished that none will be found anxious to try experiments with their own powers. We shall follow up jealously every action of the administration on which depends the smooth running of the machinery of the State, for slackness in this produces slackness everywhere; not a single case of illegality or abuse of power will be left without exemplary punishment.
13. Concealment of guilt, connivance between those in the service of the administration all this kind of evil will disappear after the very first examples of severe punishment. The aureole of our power demands suitable, that is, cruel, punishments for the slightest infringement, for the sake of gain, of its supreme prestige. The sufferer, though his punishment may exceed his fault, will count as a soldier falling on the administrative field of battle in the interests of authority, principle and law, which do not permit that any of those who hold the reins of the public coach should turn aside from the public highway to their own private paths. FOR EXAMPLES OUR JUDGES WILL KNOW THAT WHENEVER THEY FEEL DISPOSED TO PLUME THEMSELVES ON FOOLISH CLEMENCY THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LAW OF JUSTICE WHICH IS INSTITUTED FOR THE EXEMPLARY EDIFICATION OF MEN BY PENALTIES FOR LAPSES AND NOT FOR DISPLAY OF THE SPIRITUAL QUALITIES OF THE JUDGES … Such qualities it is proper to show in private life, but not in a public square which is the educational basis of human life.
14. Our legal staff will serve not beyond the age of 55, firstly because old men more obstinately hold to prejudiced opinions, and are less capable of submitting to new directions, and secondly because this will give us the possibility by this measure of securing elasticity in the changing of staff, which will thus the more easily bend under our pressure: he who wishes to keep his place will have to give blind obedience to deserve it. In general, our judges will be elected by us only from among those who thoroughly understand that the part they have to play is to punish and apply laws and not to dream about the manifestations of liberalism at the expense of the educational scheme of the State, as the GOYIM in these days imagine it to be … This method of shuffling the staff will serve also to explode any collective solidarity of those in the same service and will bind all to the interests of the government upon which their fate will depend. The young generation of judges will be trained in certain views regarding the inadmissibility of any abuses that might disturb the established order of our subjects among themselves.
15. In these days the judges of the GOYIM create indulgences to every kind of crimes, not having a just understanding of their office, because the rulers of the present age in appointing judges to office take no care to inculcate in them a sense of duty and consciousness of the matter which is demanded of them. As a brute beast lets out its young in search of prey, so do the GOYIM give to them for what purpose such place was created. This is the reason why their governments are being ruined by their own forces through the acts of their own administration.
16. Let us borrow from the example of the results of these actions yet another lesson for our government.
17. We shall root out liberalism from all the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure. Such posts will fall exclusively to those who have been trained by us for administrative rule. To the possible objection that the retirement of old servants will cost the Treasury heavily, I reply, firstly, they will be provided with some private service in place of what they lose, and, secondly, I have to remark that all the money in the world will be concentrated in our hands, consequently it is not our government that has to fear expense.
WE SHALL BE CRUEL
18. Our absolutism will in all things be logically consecutive and therefore in each one of its decrees our supreme will must be respected and unquestionably fulfilled: it will ignore all murmurs, all discontents of every kind and will destroy to the root every kind of manifestation of them in act by punishment of an exemplary character.
19. We shall abolish the right of appeal, which will be transferred exclusively to our disposal to the cognizance of him who rules, for we must not allow the conception among the people of a thought that there could be such a thing as a decision that is not right of judges set up by us. If, however, anything like this should occur, we shall ourselves quash the decision, but inflict therewith such exemplary punishment on the judge for lack of understanding of his duty and the purpose of his appointment as will prevent a repetition of such cases … I repeat that it must be born in mind that we shall know every step of our administration which only needs to be closely watched for the people to be content with us, for it has the right to demand from a good government a good official.
20. OUR GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A PATRIARCHAL PATERNAL GUARDIANSHIP ON THE PART OF OUR RULER. Our own nation and our subjects will discern in his person a father caring for their every need, their every act, their every interrelation as subjects one with another, as well as their relations to the ruler. They will then be so thoroughly imbued with the thought that it is impossible for them to dispense with this wardship and guidance, if they wish to live in peace and quiet, THAT THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE AUTOCRACY OF OUR RULER WITH A DEVOTION BORDERING ON ‘APOTHEOSIS,’ especially when they are convinced that those whom we set up do not put their own in place of authority, but only blindly execute his dictates. They will be rejoiced that we have regulated everything in their lives as is done by wise parents who desire to train children in the cause of duty and submission. For the peoples of the world in regard to the secrets of our polity are ever through the ages only children under age, precisely as are also their governments.
21. As you see, I found our despotism on right and duty: the right to compel the execution of duty is the direct obligation of a government which is a father for its subjects. It has the right of the strong that it may use it for the benefit of directing humanity towards that order which is defined by nature, namely, submission. Everything in the world is in a state of submission, if not to man, then to circumstances or its own inner character, in all cases, to what is stronger. And so shall we be this something stronger for the sake of good.
22. We are obliged without hesitation to sacrifice individuals, who commit a breach of established order, for in the exemplary punishment of evil lies a great educational problem.
23. When the King of Israel sets upon his sacred head the crown offered him by Europe he will become patriarch of the world. The indispensable victims offered by him in consequence of their suitability will never reach the number of victims offered in the course of centuries by the mania of magnificence, the emulation between the GOY governments.
24. Our King will be in constant communion with the peoples, making to them from the tribune speeches which fame will in that same hour distribute over all the world.
PROTOCOL No. 16
1. In order to effect the destruction of all collective forces except ours we shall emasculate the first stage of collectivism the UNIVERSITIES, by re-educating them in a new direction. THEIR OFFICIALS AND PROFESSORS WILL BE PREPARED FOR THEIR BUSINESS BY DETAILED SECRET PROGRAMS OF ACTION FROM WHICH THEY WILL NOT WITH IMMUNITY DIVERGE, NOT BY ONE IOTA. THEY WILL BE APPOINTED WITH ESPECIAL PRECAUTION, AND WILL BE SO PLACED AS TO BE WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT.
2. We shall exclude from the course of instruction State Law as also all that concerns the political question. These subjects will be taught to a few dozen of persons chosen for their pre-eminent capacities from among the number of the initiated. THE UNIVERSITIES MUST NO LONGER SEND OUT FROM THEIR HALLS MILK SOPS CONCOCTING PLANS FOR A CONSTITUTION, LIKE A COMEDY OR A TRAGEDY, BUSYING THEMSELVES WITH QUESTIONS OF POLICY IN WHICH EVEN THEIR OWN FATHERS NEVER HAD ANY POWER OF THOUGHT.
3. The ill-guided acquaintance of a large number of persons with questions of polity creates utopian dreamers and bad subjects, as you can see for yourselves from the example of the universal education in this direction of the GOYIM. We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order. But when we are in power we shall remove every kind of disturbing subject from the course of education and shall make out of the youth obedient children of authority, loving him who rules as the support and hope of peace and quiet.
WE SHALL CHANGE HISTORY
4. Classicism as also any form of study of ancient history, in which there are more bad than good examples, we shall replace with the study of the program of the future. We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the GOYIM. The study of practical life, of the obligations of order, of the relations of people one to another, of avoiding bad and selfish examples, which spread the infection of evil, and similar questions of an educative nature, will stand in the forefront of the teaching program, which will be drawn up on a separate plan for each calling or state of life, in no wise generalizing the teaching. This treatment of the question has special importance.
5. Each state of life must be trained within strict limits corresponding to its destination and work in life. The OCCASIONAL GENIUS HAS ALWAYS MANAGED AND ALWAYS WILL MANAGE TO SLIP THROUGH INTO OTHER STATES OF LIFE, BUT IT IS THE MOST PERFECT FOLLY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS RARE OCCASIONAL GENIUS TO LET THROUGH INTO RANKS FOREIGN TO THEM THE UNTALENTED WHO THUS ROB OF THEIR PLACES THOSE WHO BELONG TO THOSE RANKS BY BIRTH OR EMPLOYMENT. YOU KNOW YOURSELVES IN WHAT ALL THIS HAS ENDED FOR THE ‘GOYIM’ WHO ALLOWED THIS CRYING ABSURDITY.
6. In order that he who rules may be seated firmly in the hearts and minds of his subjects it is necessary for the time of his activity to instruct the whole nation in the schools and on the market places about this meaning and his acts and all his beneficent initiatives.
7. We shall abolish every kind of freedom of instruction. Learners of all ages have the right to assemble together with their parents in the educational establishments as it were in a club: during these assemblies, on holidays, teachers will read what will pass as free lectures on questions of human relations, of the laws of examples, of the philosophy of new theories not yet declared to the world. These theories will be raised by us to the stage of a dogma of faith as a traditional stage towards our faith. On the completion of this exposition of our program of action in the present and the future I will read you the principles of these theories.
8. In a word, knowing by the experience of many centuries that people live and are guided by ideas, that these ideas are imbibed by people only by the aid of education provided with equal success for all ages of growth, but of course by varying methods, we shall swallow up and confiscate to our own use the last scintilla of independence of thought, which we have for long past been directing towards subjects and ideas useful for us. The system of bridling thought is already at work in the so-called system of teaching by OBJECT LESSONS, the purpose of which is to turn the GOYIM into unthinking submissive brutes waiting for things to be presented before their eyes in order to form an idea of them … In France, one of our best agents, Bourgeois, has already made public a new program of teaching by object lessons.
PROTOCOL No. 17
1. The practice of advocacy produces men cold, cruel, persistent, unprincipled, who in all cases take up an impersonal, purely legal standpoint. They have the inveterate habit to refer everything to its value for the defense and not to the public welfare of its results. They do not usually decline to undertake any defense whatever, they strive for an acquittal at all costs, caviling over every petty crux of jurisprudence and thereby they demoralize justice. For this reason we shall set this profession into narrow frames which will keep it inside this sphere of executive public service. Advocates, equally with judges, will be deprived of the right of communication with litigants; they will receive business only from the court and will study it by notes of report and documents, defending their clients after they have been interrogated in court on facts that have appeared. They will receive an honorarium without regard to the quality of the defense. This will render them mere reporters on law-business in the interests of justice and as counterpoise to the proctor who will be the reporter in the interests of prosecution; this will shorten business before the courts. In this way will be established a practice of honest unprejudiced defense conducted not from personal interest but by conviction. This will also, by the way, remove the present practice of corrupt bargain between advocation to agree only to let that side win which pays most …
WE SHALL DESTROY THE CLERGY
2. WE HAVE LONG PAST TAKEN CARE TO DISCREDIT THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE ‘GOYIM,’ and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which in these days might still be a great hindrance to us. Day by day its influence on the peoples of the world is falling lower. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN DECLARED EVERYWHERE, SO THAT NOW ONLY YEARS DIVIDE US FROM THE MOMENT OF THE COMPLETE WRECKING OF THAT CHRISTIAN RELIGION: as to other religions we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to speak of this now. We shall set clericalism and clericals into such narrow frames as to make their influence move in retrogressive proportion to its former progress.
3. When the time comes finally to destroy the papal court the finger of an invisible hand will point the nations towards this court. When, however, the nations fling themselves upon it, we shall come forward in the guise of its defenders as if to save excessive bloodshed. By this diversion we shall penetrate to its very bowels and be sure we shall never come out again until we have gnawed through the entire strength of this place.
4. THE KING OF THE JEWS WILL BE THE REAL POPE OF THE UNIVERSE, THE PATRIARCH OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH
5. But, IN THE MEANTIME, while we are re-educating youth in new traditional religions and afterwards in ours, WE SHALL NOT OVERTLY LAY A FINGER ON EXISTING CHURCHES, BUT WE SHALL FIGHT AGAINST THEM BY CRITICISM CALCULATED TO PRODUCE SCHISM …
6. In general, then, our contemporary press will continue to CONVICT State affairs, religions, incapacities of the GOYIM, always using the most unprincipled expressions in order by every means to lower their prestige in the manner which can only be practiced by the genius of our gifted tribe …
7. Our kingdom will be an apologia of the divinity Vishnu, in whom is found its personification in our hundred hands will be, one in each, the springs of the machinery of social life. We shall see everything without the aid of official police which, in that scope of its rights which we elaborated for the use of the GOYIM, hinders governments from seeing. In our programs ONE-THIRD OF OUR SUBJECTS WILL KEEP THE REST UNDER OBSERVATION from a sense of duty, on the principle of volunteer service to the State. It will then be no disgrace to be a spy and informer, but a merit: unfounded denunciations, however, will be cruelly punished that there may be no development of abuses of this right.
8. Our agents will be taken from the higher as well as the lower ranks of society, from among the administrative class who spend their time in amusements, editors, printers and publishers, booksellers, clerks, and salesmen, workmen, coachmen, lackeys, et cetera. This body, having no rights and not being empowered to take any action on their own account, and consequently a police without any power, will only witness and report: verification of their reports and arrests will depend upon a responsible group of controllers of police affairs, while the actual act of arrest will be performed by the gendarmerie and the municipal police. Any person not denouncing anything seen or heard concerning questions of polity will also be charged with and made responsible for concealment, if it be proved that he is guilty of this crime.
9. JUST AS NOWADAYS OUR BRETHREN, ARE OBLIGED AT THEIR OWN RISK TO DENOUNCE TO THE KAHAL APOSTATES OF THEIR OWN FAMILY or members who have been noticed doing anything in opposition to the KAHAL, SO IN OUR KINGDOM OVER ALL THE WORLD IT WILL BE OBLIGATORY FOR ALL OUR SUBJECTS TO OBSERVE THE DUTY OF SERVICE TO THE STATE IN THIS DIRECTION.
10. Such an organization will extirpate abuses of authority, of force, of bribery, everything in fact which we by our counsels, by our theories of the superhuman rights of man, have introduced into the customs of the GOYIM … But how else were we to procure that increase of causes predisposing to disorders in the midst of their administration? … Among the number of those methods one of the most important is agents for the restoration of order, so placed as to have the opportunity in their disintegrating activity of developing and displaying their evil inclinations obstinate self-conceit, irresponsible exercise of authority, and, first and foremost, venality.
PROTOCOL No. 18
1. When it becomes necessary for us to strengthen the strict measures of secret defense (the most fatal poison for the prestige of authority) we shall arrange a simulation of disorders or some manifestation of discontents finding expression through the co-operation of good speakers. Round these speakers will assemble all who are sympathetic to his utterances. This will give us the pretext for domiciliary prerequisitions and surveillance on the part of our servants from among the number of the GOYIM police …
2. As the majority of conspirators act out of love for the game, for the sake of talking, so, until they commit some overt act we shall not lay a finger on them but only introduce into their midst observation elements … It must be remembered that the prestige of authority is lessened if it frequently discovers conspiracies against itself: this implies a presumption of consciousness of weakness, or, what is still worse, of injustice. You are aware that we have broken the prestige of the GOY kings by frequent attempts upon their lives through our agents, blind sheep of our flock, who are easily moved by a few liberal phrases to crimes provided only they be painted in political colors. WE HAVE COMPELLED THE RULERS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR WEAKNESS IN ADVERTISING OVERT MEASURES OF SECRET DEFENSE AND THEREBY WE SHALL BRING THE PROMISE OF AUTHORITY TO DESTRUCTION.
3. Our ruler will be secretly protected only by the most insignificant guard, because we shall not admit so much as a thought that there could exist against him any sedition with which he is not strong enough to contend and is compelled to hide from it.
4. If we should admit this thought, as the GOYIM have done and are doing, we should IPSO FACTO be signing a death sentence, if not for our ruler, at any rate for his dynasty, at no distant date.
GOVERNMENT BY FEAR
5. According to strictly enforced outward appearances our ruler will employ his power only for the advantage of the nation and in no wise for his own or dynastic profits. Therefore, with the observance of this decorum, his authority will be respected and guarded by the subjects themselves, it will receive an apotheosis in the admission that with it is bound up the well-being of every citizen of the State, for upon it will depend all order in the common life of the pack …
6. OVERT DEFENSE OF THE KIND ARGUES WEAKNESS IN THE ORGANIZATION OF HIS STRENGTH.
7. Our ruler will always be among the people and be surrounded by a mob of apparently curious men and women, who will occupy the front ranks about him, to all appearance by chance, and will restrain the ranks of the rest out of respect as it will appear for good order. This will sow an example of restraint also in others. If a petitioner appears among the people trying to hand a petition and forcing his way through the ranks, the first ranks must receive the petition and before the eyes of the petitioner pass it to the ruler, so that all may know that what is handed in reaches its destination, that consequently, there exists a control of the ruler himself. The aureole of power requires for his existence that the people may be able to say: ‘If the king knew of this,: or: ‘the king will hear it.’
8. WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICIAL DEFENSE, THE MYSTICAL PRESTIGE OF AUTHORITY DISAPPEARS: given a certain audacity, and everyone counts himself master of it, the sedition-monger is conscious of his strength, and when occasion serves watches for the moment to make an attempt upon authority … For the GOYIM we have been preaching something else, but by that very fact we are enabled to see what measures of overt defense have brought them to …
9. CRIMINALS WITH US WILL BE ARRESTED AT THE FIRST, more or less, well-grounded SUSPICION: it cannot be allowed that out of fear of a possible mistake an opportunity should be given of escape to persons suspected of a political lapse of crime, for in these matters we shall be literally merciless. If it is still possible, by stretching a point, to admit a reconsideration of the motive causes in simple crimes, there is no possibility of excuse for persons occupying themselves with questions in which nobody except the government can understand anything … And it is not all governments that understand true policy.