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

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

A Mockery of Justice: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944

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

Boy, Were You Ever Wrong

By Patrick Grimm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941
Editor‚¬â„¢s Preface: It was my intention to have this chapter from Douglas Reed‚¬â„¢s 1941 book, A Prophet At Home typed up and published online for November 11th to coincide with Remembrance Day. It didn‚¬â„¢t happen but readers will still benefit from what the author has to say about conditions in Britain in 1939-40 as they relate to those of today in Canada and the USA as well as elsewhere in Europe, etc.
Reed returned to England in 1939 from the Continent after spending a number of years in Berlin, Vienna and Prague working as Chief correspondent for the London Times. In that capacity he was privy to a panoramic view of the political landscape in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia leading up to the resumption of the World War in 1939.
This particular chapter from his final book of a three-part series that began in 1938 with Insanity Fair followed in ’39 by Disgrace Abounding is extremely relevant to our own times and bears close reading. Seventy years have passed yet the information contained in this chapter appears to be in a time-warp as if the conditions which precipitated it somehow were frozen in time. As such it now stands as a striking historical record, clearly illustrating the degree of power and influence which the Zionist Jews of his day wielded over the British parliament and the British press.
Concomitant with this fact and more important in terms of today is the evidence which Reed provides that shows how the Jews of the 1930s were already consummate masters of the immigration game.
It has been a contention of mine for a number of years that the Zionist Jews who control Canada‚¬â„¢s PM, House of Parliament and Judiciary are using their illegitimate influence over government to manipulate and control immigration policies; ones which have been having a detrimental effect upon Canadian society for decades and which also dovetail fully with the Zionist agenda of destroying all nation states in the world in order to facilitate the implementation of their Zionist one world government.
Immigration, like the control of the media, banking, pharmaceutical conglomerates, major corporations including oil and gas and water and cultural and educational institutions, is a vital part of the program to destroy the democratic framework upon which sovereign nations are built and the Zionist Jews have been working this tool here in Canada and elsewhere with deftness and surgical precision for many, many decades. This thesis that immigration policies are being exploited for partisan Zionist purposes should become obvious to any reader who takes the time to study what Reed has to say about the invasion of England by the Jews of Eastern Europe, or as the Jewish media of the day was wont to call them, ‚¬Ëœfriendly aliens‚¬â„¢; an endearing term to describe the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who flooded into Great Britain during the years leading up to the second act of the World War to take advantage of the precarious political conditions then existing in the British Isles.
There is much more though in this chapter that helps to explain some of the current behaviour on the part of today‚¬â„¢s extremist Zionist Jews who are going to great lengths to deflect the growing criticism of their doctrine of supremacist discrimination and racism that is now becoming almost rampant on the one venue for free information still not entirely controlled by their excessive and pervasive power ‚ the Internet.
Reed explains how the Jews of his day used their ‚¬Å”anti-Semitism‚¬Â card to full effect whenever anyone challenged the government’s and the media‚¬â„¢s blatant discrimination aimed at the English and the Arabs while all the while consistently favouring the ‚¬Ëœfriendly alien.
Given the fact that today, seven decades later, Canadians in the majority still haven‚¬â„¢t grasped the fact that their ‚¬Å”mainstream‚¬Â media and their government are absolutely controlled and manipulated to suit this extremist Zionist Jew agenda, Reed‚¬â„¢s prophetic warning of 1941 stands forth in even greater relief as a hallmark to be heeded by anyone concerned with knowing the truth about who is really pulling the strings of our Members of Parliament in Ottawa.
The parallels between Reed‚¬â„¢s description of the behaviour of the Members of the British Parliament respecting the ‚¬Ëœfriendly aliens‚¬â„¢ during a period of critical danger to the nation as a whole and that of our own parliament today is as uncanny as it is frightening to contemplate. It begs the question as to whether the term ‚¬Å”change‚¬Â is in fact a reality or merely a ruse to soothe the ignorant citizenry who still are brainwashed by the Zionist Jew tube.
Read Reed and you will discover why censorship and draconian legislation like sec. 13 today are of such paramount importance to the Zionist Jews and why the extremist Zionist Jew must continually re-create this false illusion now being coined as the ‚¬Å”new anti-Semitism‚¬Â by such Zionist Jew zealots as our former federal Liberal Attorney-General Mr. Irwin Cotler and being flogged upon an unsuspecting public by the likes of B‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and even committees formed from our Members of Parliament.
Anyone wishing to access what remains of Reed‚¬â„¢s works is encouraged to go to abebooks.com where you will still find a few of his works available. His most highly recommended work of course is the 1956 edition of The Controversy of Zion which readers will find online at RadicalPress.com.
—————-
AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941
DOUGLAS REED
A provoking thought: if Rupert Brooke, whose poetry, as Lord Halifax said in his ‘This is a conflict of youth against youth’ speech, so inspired the generation of 1914, if this Rupert Brooke had not died, with about a million other Britishers, in the 1914-1918 section of the war which has now been resumed, he would have needed to revise the poem he wrote in the Cafe des Westens, in the Kurfurstendamm in Berlin, in 1912. He wrote that poem sitting at the same table with a friend of mine, Rothay Reynolds, who in the years between the two sections of the World War struggled hard to fulfill the difficult task of being Berlin Correspondent of Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail, and when Rupert Brooke had finished he turned to Rothay Reynolds and said, ‘I have made this cafe famous’, which was true.
I well remember how that song of England wrung an Englishman’s heart, that is, the heart of a very young and fervent Englishman, who took on trust nearly everything he was told about his native country, of which he had seen but little, in the 1914-1918 war. But if Rupert Brooke had lived in 1939, or thereabouts, he would have found himself out of touch with the taste of the times. For his poem, ‘Grantchester,’ begins:
Du lieber Gott!
Here am I, sweating, sick and hot,
And there the shadowed waters fresh
Lean up to embrace the naked flesh.
Temperamentvoll German jews
Drink beer around ‚ and there the dews…
Well, well, well. How times have changed. Rupert Brooke is dead; the war-to-end-war has gone and the war-to-continue-war is simmering nicely; but the relative position of Jews and dews seems to have been reversed, or have we now both? Rupert Brooke, the singer of the generation of 1914, seemed to find the Jews in Berlin a thought unsympathetic and none took it amiss of him that he said so; indeed, the thought of those temperamental beer-drinking Jews in Berlin helped to fortify the faith of the young Englishman of 1914 in ‘the things he was fighting for’. Now we, he thought, have dews, and we are going to keep them.
But if Rupert Brooke had written twenty-five years later he would have known that those two lines must come out, or else he would have had to find a fresh rhyme for dews, for by the time the World War in which he died was resumed no Englishman of his class and kind would have thought of writing anything which would set the critics yelping the dread name ‘anti-Semite’.
, , , , , , , , , , , , RUPERT BROOKE – BRITISH POET
By the time the World War was resumed, indeed, the general understanding had come to be that the Jews of Berlin were the most valuable citizens of that town and that we were very lucky indeed to have them, because they were so much cleverer than ourselves. By some further process of reasoning which was a little outside my comprehension, the general understanding seemed also to be that we should fight Germany to enable these people, whom we had been fortunate enough to obtain, to return there as soon as possible; this, as far as I could gather, was among ‘the things’ we were about to fight for.
When I returned to England, on the eve of the new war which had become almost inevitable, I brought back with me a particular interest in this question, because for many years, since 1933, I had noticed, with growing misgiving, that, chiefly through the very great influence which the Jews in all countries exercised in the interest of their co-religionists, this relatively small aspect of an enormous problem was being set out of all proportion to the whole, that the entire wood was disappearing behind one tree.
It was patent that the number of Jews who would suffer from Hitlerism would never be more than a very small fraction of the entire number of sufferers; Czechs, Poles, Danes, Norwegians, Hollanders, Belgians, Frenchmen and Britishers, I knew, would suffer and die in thousands, in not millions, because of Hitler and yet the sufferings of the Jews, through the power wielded by other Jews over the press, the films and the stage, were presented as the greatest and most terrible thing in all this stupendous tragedy.
The film, ‘The Great Dictator’, produced by Charles Chaplin in peaceful Hollywood is a case in point. The ignorant and credulous seeing this astute production, which is half first-class humour and half very subtle propaganda, would gain the impression, similarly conveyed by many other films sent out from the same source, that the only people who suffered ill-treatment in Germany were the Jews, and that the Nazi Storm Troopers spent their entire time beating them up. Yet the number of Jews who suffered ill-treatment in Germany, save for the one violent outbreak in November 1938 when a Nazi diplomat was murdered in Paris by a young Jew, was never more than a small fraction of the whole; the great bulk of victims and martyrs was composed of German non-Jews and of non-Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler.
Further, I seemed to see, as I watched the great movement of Jews from Germany to Britain and the British Dominions (many of them Jews who had come from Eastern Europe to Germany during the last war), that the mass of compassion mobilized by the great publicity machine at their disposal was being exploited to gain them employment, in large numbers, in countries whose men would soon be going off to war, and, with the picture of Berlin after the war of 1914-18 in my mind, I greatly feared this development.
For the Jews as I had seen them in many European countries in those between-wars years of full Jewish emancipation and freedom in no way resembled the Ghetto-community of benevolent, mankind-loving people who only wished to be left in peace and poverty that was shown in the Chaplin film (incidentally, there were no ghettoes in Germany). Rather had I found them, when all the gates of opportunity were opened wide to them, to practise that very doctrine which they so reviled and detested when it was turned against them by Hitler ‚ discrimination. Discrimination against Gentiles.
In the trades and industries and professions to which they penetrated, and ultimately controlled through the power of finance, they were most resolute in the progressive exclusion of Gentiles by methods of extremely ruthless inter-collaboration. The figures are available and are irrefutable; such a state of affairs could not have come about by accident.
Moreover, this seemed to me quite natural, for it accorded with the teaching of the Jewish faith. And this seemed to me to be at once the weakest and the crucial point in the Jewish case, and one which all their champions and apologists implacably ignored, merely yelping in answer to it, ‘Anti-Semite’; that their religion was one of discrimination. The anti-Jewish teaching of National Socialism was but the direct inversion of the anti-Gentile teaching of the Hebrew religion, and this statement of the case cannot be refuted; it never is refuted, but is always ignored.
The Jews did not put their doctrines into practice through the medium of the concentration camp ‚ they could not, because they were always numerically too weak in any particular country physically to subdue the majority. They used another medium ‚ money and the power it gives, which can be enormously powerful in the hands even of a small minority if that minority is compact enough and if all of its members understand the great idea.
So much for the brief background to the Jewish question which an Englishman brought back with him to England after many years in Germany and in other parts of Europe. Before I tell you what I saw in this country I want to kill some of the more meaningless phrases which are in current use, even by persons reputed to be of the highest education and intellect, in this controversy.
The first is ‘anti-Semitism’. The word is used every day by millions of people who have read or heard it somewhere and have no notion what it means. On such a basis of ignorance do great debates proceed. The power, so strangely wielded, of the Press and film today is so great that you need only to shout this word long and loud enough at the credulous masses for them to think that it is something akin to rabies or leprosy; that is probably why it was coined and thrown into the the discussion.
As far as I know ‘Semite’ is a word describing a member of any one of a number of Mediterranean or Near Eastern races, for instance, the Turks, Moors, Arabs and Abyssinians, among others. I have nothing whatever against Abyssinians, Arabs, Moors and Turks, because they are never likely to harm me, though I should have been strongly opposed to the Turks at the time when they sought to impose their religion of discrimination against the Gentile peoples they had conquered in Europe. I should probably have joined a Crusade against them, which means, as I believe, a campaign, waged under the sign of the cross, against a religion of discrimination. For the same reason I am ready to join a crusade of words against any other religion of discrimination which, as I think, pursues ends of discrimination while seeking always to conceal this fact. I see no difference in this respect between National Socialism and Judaism save that National Socialism has eighty million bayonets and Judaism has a lot of money.
So that of ‘anti-Semitism’, a word uttered so many millions of times in recent years, you may say that there ain’t no such a thing, and you have been fooled, for want of examining the words you use. There is anti-Gentilism; and there is its reaction, anti-Judaism. I have several interesting letters from Jews who endorse this statement of the position.
The other lunatic phrase which parties to this discussion, and allegedly learned parties at that, are wont to throw into it is ‘racial discrimination’. In a debate in Parliament about new regulations issued by the British Government to restrict sales of land by Arabs to Jews in Palestine (an extremely important debate this, of which I shall speak again) one of the stoutest parliamentary champions of the Jewish cause, a Mr. Noel-Baker, fiercely attacked this ‘discrimination on racial grounds’.
The Jews and the Arabs are of the same race; both are Semitic. If debates in Parliament about the Jewish question are carried on at this level, they are of little value, and the representatives of English constituencies where a deal needs putting right would do better to begin at home.
When I returned to England my eyes told me, as I wandered about London, that the number of Jews who had come to this country was very great. I knew that before, because I had seen many of them depart, from various countries, but how many were there?
This is a question to which not even the most diligent research gives more than an approximate answer. As the untutored African negro said, there are one, two, three, a great many. The number of aliens ‘registered with the police’ in October 1939, according to Sir John Anderson, was 238,074, and of these some 150,000 were nominally of German, Australian, Hungarian, Czechoslovak, Polish and Russian nationality, which means that the great majority of them were Jews. The bulk of these, again, were new-comers.
But the number of these people ‘registered with the police’ gives little clue to the number who are actually here, for, from the very meagre records of recent proceedings in our police courts, I have kept notes of:
An Austrian Jew who, when he was detected by the police, was ‘making a profit of 16 pounds a week from a greengrocery business at Leeds and had been in England since 1937, when he landed from a Belgian fishing-boat’;
A Russian Jew who was charged at Old Street with failing ‘in or about 1916’ to report a change of address to the police. From 1916 to 1840 he had been in England unknown to the authorities! Asked where he had been since 1916 he said, ‘I have been out of work and could not come to report as I had no money’!
A German Jew, who was supposed to have come to England in 1933 and left again in in 1934, but in 1940 was discovered to be living here under the name of a British soldier killed in 1917 whose name appeared on a war memorial in a Sussex village; counsel for this man said he had obtained a copy of the dead soldier’s birth certificate ‘thinking it was probably himself’!
A Polish Jew who came to England in 1931 and was warned to leave in 1932; discovered in 1939, he had been living in this country for seven years unknown to the authorities!
Two Polish Jewish rabbis who were convicted of harbouring ten German Jews, nine Austrian Jews and nine stateless Jews without registering them with the police!
And so on.
The number of these newcomers to England, therefore, is a thing to guess about. What happens to them? The poorer ones, as I have shown, ‘open a greengrocery business in Leeds’, or go to staff those secret workshops of lowly-paid garment workers, in Bethnal Green, Hendon, Golders Green and Willesden which have sometimes received casual mention in the London Press, which defy discovery by the inspectors sent out under the Factory Acts (designed to protect workers), and supply cheap refugee labour to the price-cutting tailors.
This group of hidden refugees represents a threat to native labour.
But what happens to the thousands ‘registered with the police’? In respect of these the promise was ‘repeatedly given’ before the present war (to quote a reminder to Sir John Anderson from Mr. Raikes) ‘that they would be admitted for temporary refuge pending re-emigration’. After the outbreak of the war, which was not not difficult to foresee, Sir John Anderson stated that in fact they would not, save possibly in ‘individual cases’, re-emigrate, but would stay in this country, where their services would be ‘utilized in ways which will be advantageous to the national effort and will not conflict with the interests of British subjects’.
Thus was the principle established that these thousands of newcomers, who had come to England as transmigrants, should remain here and be allowed to take employment, always under the provision that this should not ‘conflict with the interests of British subjects’ ‚ a provision I shall subsequently discuss. But what of their maintenance in England?
No charge under this head was to have fallen on the British taxpayer. This was another of the oft-proclaimed safeguards, like those about re-emigration and non-employment, under which their original admission to this country had been allowed. In each case some ‘individual’ had guaranteed to be responsible for their maintenance, but by October 1939 Sir John Anderson announced that these guarantees had been given, not to the Government, but to ‘certain voluntary organizations’ (in practice, this meant almost entirely Jewish organizations). Only these voluntary organizations, said Sir John Anderson, could enforce the guarantees, and these organizations were satisfied that ‘in some cases the guarantor ought to be released of his obligation’. In those cases the voluntary organizations would undertake the whole responsibility for the care of the refugee from their own funds.
By February of 1940, however, the Government had decided that the ‘voluntary organizations’ could not bear the burden which private guarantors had originally pledged themselves to bear and asked the approval of Parliament for a grant of ,£100,000 to these organizations, to cover the period from September to December of 1939, and of ,£1 for every ,£1 spent by these organizations thereafter, up to a total of ,£27,000 a month.
Time then marched on, and by November of 1940 the Government announced that the ‘voluntary organizations’ had actually received ,£430,000 up to the end of September 1940, that a further ,£375,000 was required to carry them over until April 1940, and that the Government would in future pay ‘100 per cent’ (which means all) of the amounts expended on the maintenance of refugees, as well as 75 per cent of the administration expenses.
Thus, by this time both the original ‘private guarantors’ and the ‘voluntary organizations’ had been relieved of financial responsibility for the refugees, which devolved upon the British taxpayer; the number of refugees, as is shown by the cases I have quoted, was problematical; and they were entitled, with the permission of the Minister of Labour, to take employment at a time when the entire young manhood of the country had been called up for military service.
I have given this brief sketch so that a few people, at least, may gain some idea of the position of the Jewish immigrants to this country. There are a very large number of them. Very few of them, now, will ever leave again. The British taxpayer cares for them. In practice they seem to enjoy greater privileges than the native inhabitants, since they are ineligible for military service and will therefore presumably survive the war, while they are eligible for employment, which is easy to obtain when all the young men of this country have been called away, and when they take this it is called ‘helping the national war effort’, whereas if John Smith gets a job that is just called getting a job.
To have achieved so fair a deal as this, they must quite clearly have had the support of very powerful forces indeed.
I have shown that the several safeguards attached to their entry to the country have all proved illusory, and the solid-sounding promise that they would only be allowed to take employment if this ‘does not conflict with the interests of British citizens’ subsequently proved just as illusory. for one thing, the British citizens, in large numbers, are away at the war and cannot look after their interests. To take the job of a Britisher who is called up may, debatably, count as ‘helping the national war effort’, but what of the Britisher when he returns, and his peace effort?
The position may be alleviated a little, if they do not return, by the fact that some of the more influential of these people, after staying just long enough in England to proclaim that they were a hundred per cent British, found means when war broke out to transmigrate further, and became for the nonce a hundred per cent American. Such was the case with a much-publicized writer who saw the light of day in Rumania, then spent some years in Germany as a hundred per cent German, came to England after the advent of Hitler and announced simultaneously that he still loved Germany but was a hundred per cent British, and then moved on to confer the boon of his citizenship upon the United States.
Such cases as are known do not suggest that the provisions about ‘the interest of British citizens’ actually operates, in the granting of employment to these newcomers.
For instance, in the early days of the resumed war (I am forestalling my narrative a little, for the sake of coherency) the Ministry of Information decided to make a film called ’49th Parallel’. The 49th parallel is the boundary separating Canada from the United States, an attractive location for film-making when war is being waged all over Europe.
This film was to have been the most stupendous contribution to our war effort, and Miss Elizabeth Bergner, who was born, I believe, within the limits of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, who say the heyday of her fame in pre-Hitler Germany, who then came to England and who at some function for Austrian patriots paid the last Austrian Minister, Sir George Franckenstein, the eloquent tribute, in her delightful English, that he was ‘a passionate Austrian’, Miss Gergner was chosen to play the lead ‚ and crossed the Atlantic.
The Ministry of Information advanced the sum of ,£22,086 13s. 7d., towards this film, which has not yet been completed; whether it will be completed in time to give that enormous impetus to our war effort which was confidently expected from it seems doubtful. A large number of other people, including Miss Bergner’s husband, were given for the purpose of going to Canada to make this film those coveted exit permits which a British subject, having no particular contribution to offer to the country’s ware effort, might vainly seek to obtain for his children. I believe one or two of them have returned.
Why the film was so long delayed is a thing not yet explained. Miss Gergner, in a radio-telephonic interview from pleasant Hollywood (she seemingly did not penetrate farther towards the frozen north than Winnipeg), intimated to a London newspaper that she felt she had a grievance about the whole business. I do not know what part she was intended to play, but having the most pleasant memories of her personality, and of her charmingly squirming manner of expressing herself, I wonder whether she was better suited than any British actress of the day for the part of some hardy Anglo-Saxon woman pioneer.
However, in this case the Ministry of Labour was apparently satisfied that there was no conflict of interests of any British player; the Ministry of Information thought that the good which would accrue to the country’s cause was worth ,£22,000; and the Passport and Permit Department of the Foreign Office considered the undertaking of sufficient ‘national importance’ for the hardy and one hundred per cent British pioneers, to be allowed to cross the Atlantic.
I have quoted only this one case. There are many others, great and small, which might make a sane patriot wonder sadly if all was well.
Not one member of Parliament has ever risen to protest against this kind of thing, which in its patent unfairness is in such shrieking contrast to the clean white faith and spirit of the millions of Britishers, and of their allies, who are fighting all over the world, on land, at sea and in the air, to retrieve the world.
But the attitude of the British Parliament in the question of the Jews is curious. When great problems of the British Empire are under discussion the House is sometimes almost empty; speakers address twenty, forty, sixty of their fellow-members, in a House containing 615. The Colonial Empire, with its 50,000,000 inhabitants, is discussed but once a year in this House, and at the last such debate there were never more than a hundred members present. On one famous occasion Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, as Dominions Minister, tried hard to awaken interest in important colonial problems. ‘We are combating sleeping sickness,’ he said ‚ and the few members present roared with laughter, for one of the Government whips was sleeping quietly beside Mr. MacDonald on the Front Bench. The noise of their mirth even awoke him.
A marvelous picture of England in wartime, of front-line life ‚ for are we not ‘all in the front line’ this time, even those on the Front Bench?
Yet this House, with its 600 odd (and I mean, odd) members earning a minimum of ,£600 a year, with its indifference to the domestic scandals of England ‚ for if you explore the wastes of Hansard you will find that the party elected to represent the working-class seemingly has as little interest as the Tory Party in the derelict areas and the slums ‚ this House can at any moment be stung to impassioned activity by the mere mention of the word ‘Jews’!
This was the most curious and most perturbing result of my study of the Parliamentary debates between the resumption of the World War, in 1939, and the end of 1940. As I have said, such great Imperial problems as that of the colonies received only the briefest and most transient attention and aroused but the most languid interest in a sparsely attended House.
The matter of the ‘friendly aliens’ was given four full debates; the Palestine debate, in which it cropped up in another form, was in reality a fifth; and at Question Time hundreds upon hundreds of questions were put on behalf of this group of people. I think, if a close analysis of the debates were made, it might be found that this subject occupied more parliamentary time, in the the British House of Commons, than any other single question, during the period I have mentioned!
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , THE ‘FRIENDLY ALIEN’
A perusal of the Parliamentary Reports for this period will show anyone who may be interested that there is a number of Members in the House who seemingly devote their entire attention to this matter. Elected by British voters and paid by the British taxpayer, their constituents seem in effect to be practically without representation in the British Parliament; while the group of immigrants in whose interests they expend so much energy is represented out of all proportion to its size and value to this country.
This state of affairs led to the most absurd extravagances, especially during the summer months of 1940, when Britain passed through her greatest ordeal for many centuries. A patriotic Englishman, reading the Parliamentary Reports of the period, might clutch his head to find that the sufferings of his fellow-countrypeople were of small account compared with those of a group of alien immigrants.
Scores of thousands of British soldiers, cast into the enemy’s hands by the collapse of the French and Belgians on their flanks, were prisoners in Germany. Thousands of Britishers from the Channel Islands lost everything they had and found themselves, overnight, homeless and destitute refugees in England. Thousands more who had been earning their livelihoods in Germany, in France, in Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, were in like plight.
In Nice, reported The Times, ‘several hundred British subjects, mostly elderly retired people, have been sleeping on borrowed mattresses in the streets and are for the most part penniless and starving’. The lot of ‘the British refugees’ [subsequently alleviated] was even mentioned, once, in The Times, which said that letters reaching it referred ‘with some bitterness, to the lack of assistance; according to one correspondent British subjects who followed the British Ambassador’s advice and left Germany when war appeared inevitable regret bitterly their action, and say that, at least, the Nazis would have fed them’.
Not only that, but this country awaited, day and night, an invasion which, if it had succeeded, would have meant the submergence of the British nation for centuries, and Britons of all classes, armed with shotguns or unarmed, lay on the coasts and in the hedgerows after their working hours to defend their native land, if they could. Not only that, but the moment was approaching for London and the other great cities to be mercilessly bombed, and as this was plain to foresee the urgent need of the hour was to prepare deep shelters, health services and food distribution, and the removal of women and children to safe places.
Yet, if you wade through the columns of Hansard for those days, you will find but meagre reference to these things, but you will find pages of protest and expostulation on behalf of ‘the friendly aliens’. In terms of despairing incomprehension (‘How can anybody be so stupid?’) speaker after speaker asked why the services of these ‘friendly aliens’ were not immediately used to promote our ‘war effort’.
Yet at this time more than a million friendly Britons languished in unemployment; hardly a Member thought of them, or troubled to ask why their services were not used to promote this same ‘war effort’., That ‘friendly aliens’ were denied employment was proclaimed to be disgusting and even anti-patriotic; the denial of employment to native citizens of the country was seemingly thought to be natural. The internment of ‘friendly aliens’ was declared to be inhumane, intolerable, incompatible with all British tradition, and ‘incalculably harmful to us in American eyes’. The internment without charges or trial, of British subjects was generally accepted to be a necessary measure in war-time and, during all this windy, ignorant and prejudiced debate, hardly a voice challenged it.
The discussion reached its peak of insincerity in the debate of July 10th, 1940. At that time the plight of Britain was desperate. France had collapsed, Britain stood alone, and Britain was unready. The months, July, August and September of 1940, were the most dreadful in British history since 1066, and hardly anybody in this country knows, as I know, because I know what the Germans had in mind, what Britain was spared through the fact, or miracle, that the remnant of the Royal Air Force was still strong enough to inflict such damage on Goring’s fighters and bombers that the invasion had repeatedly to be postponed and now cannot succeed if it is attempted.
On that day in July the issue was not yet decided, and the threat of an indescribable fate hung heavily in the sultry sky. In such a crisis the debate about the ‘friendly aliens’ was resumed, with all the extravagant arguments and statements which I have already summarized. The voice of England was hardly heard in this debate, which might have been held upon another planet for all the relation it had with the dire realities in this country at that time.
Only Mrs. Tate, of Frome, came forward to say:
While we sympathize with some of these people, our first consideration should be for our own people and the cause for which they are fighting. You have no right to risk, by one hour, the fight against the awful power which is enveloping the world… In the case of certain Members in this House, one has, only to say the word ‘Jew’ and they lose all sense of reason….
and Mr. Logan, of the Scotland Division of Liverpool, to say:
I have heard tonight much commiseration with alien refugees, but I have heard very little about the danger to our own country and the protection that is necessary for our own people… In my home today we are suffering from the fact that two members of the family have had to go away again… I am beginning to think that the strong arm of Britain and the loyalty of our sons here and abroad are the only things we can count as solid. Moral values are of little account. Why should we trouble if one or two, or a thousand, suspects are interned if this land of ours is safe? We have had no knowledge of an invasion in our day. Only the history books record a conqueror coming here. But we know our men who returned from Dunkirk, and we know of the wonderful work of our airmen. That ought to teach the House the value of courage and teach it to be self-confident and to look after Number One first, giving protection to those who come to our shores only when we know they deserve it… We have in this country sentimentalists concerned about every country except their own, and always pleading for some poor creature in one part of the world or another; but I reckon that I, too, have something to complain of. I represent a particular section who, according to some people, are disloyal; but they are not. There are people in my streets who were in the Dunkirk business. The streets in which I live are the poorest in Liverpool, but some of those streets were decorated with flags and festoons and ‘God Save The King’ ‚ a thing unheard of in the Irish parts of Liverpool. Do not let us have so much sentimentality. I have heard of women without children talking about how to keep families together. [This seemed to have been a thrust at certain other speakers in the debate] We are having too much of this kind of sentimentality in this House. Let those who know something of the subject speak on it. When your sons are going out and your neighbours are going out, it is time to look into what the Government are doing… I hope the Government will be loyal to the country first and generous to their friends afterwards.
This was the reply to the debate of Sir Edward Grigg, Joint Under-Secretary of State for War:
I have listened to the greater part of this debate and am bound to say that I have never been more greatly struck by one of the great qualities of the House of Commons, and that is its power of detachment. There has been going on this afternoon, I suppose, one of the greatest air battles of the war. At this moment ‚ I do not know whether it is so ‚ bombers may be over many of our towns. Tonight thousands of our forces will be on the alert waiting for an attack which may come in several places at dawn. That army, after all, with the Navy and the Air Force, stands between this country and destruction and between all that this House of Commons represents and destruction, and yet we have been discussing this afternoon as though, when this Army is asked to help in providing security for this country, and when we are being asked to have this, or that possible handicap removed, we are pursuing a ridiculous form of militarism which this House ought to condemn. That is the point of many of the speeches to which I have listened this afternoon, and I am bound to say that when the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool [Mr. Logan] got up, I felt that a breath of fresh air had been blown into this House, and I was deeply grateful. In the approach of many Members of this House to this problem there was an atmosphere of unreality which to me was positively terrifying… I was also grateful to my honourable Friend the Member for Frome [Mrs. Tate] when she intervened, because she stated, with great courage, and I thought force, the view which the soldiers have. They are a very considerable part of this country at this present time, and they are carrying a greater responsibility than any Member of this House, except those who wear uniform. That is the situation at the present time. This country has always been a great asylum for the distressed refugees from other countries, but it would be foolish not to recognize that, in the opinion of its own people, it is beginning to be a great asylum in another sense… After all, we have destroyed the French Navy, against the heart of every sailor in this country, and it is not very much to ask friends of this country among these aliens to meet hardship and inconvenience if in the end the victory on which they depend as much as we do be made in any way more certain. Honourable Members say that the reputation of this country is at stake. It is. There is only one thing that will save the reputation of this country and that it stands for, and is victory in the war.
WHILE LONDON’S CORE BURNED PARLIAMENT’S FOCUS REMAINED ON THE ‘FRIENDLY ALIENS’ AND PALESTINE
These voices which spoke for England, however, did not avail, as I shall show. The view that the feeling of the men who were fighting, of the young manhood of Britain, should count, was a rare one in the strange assembly which was the British House of Commons in 1939 and 1940.
There was another debate in which those Members who, as Mrs. Tate put it, ‘lose all reason when the world “Jew” is mentioned’ had much to say, and I must mention it here, because it was more illuminating than any other of the way in which they present the case of the Jews as an unanswerable one, which no humane or reasonable man would challenge, and dispose of all reasoned arguments raised against it by yapping, ‘Anti-Semite’!
In this debate they were bitter about the anti-Semitism of the Arabs, who, as I have explained, are also Semites, and this was fairly typical of its level. But the most instructive thing was the manner in which they all completely ignored, when it was raised and proved against the Jews, the charge of ‘discrimination’ which they repeatedly brought against those who criticized the Jewish method. And this is the very root and core of the problem.
This debate turned on new regulations which the British Government had introduced in Palestine to check the sales of Arab land to Jews. The spokesman for the Jews came mainly from those who are supposed to represent the British working class, and they accused the Government, among other things, of imitating Dr. Goebbels in trying ‘to keep Palestine clean of Jews’, of repudiating moral contracts and promises made to the Jews, even of ‘striking a grievous blow at our national unity and our national cause’, of ‘throwing Palestine into turmoil again’, of ‘practising racial discrimination against the Jews’, of ‘introducing restrictions on racial grounds’, of ‘betraying the cause of freedom’, of ‘inflicting fresh wrong on the tortured, humiliated, suffering Jewish people’, and much more.
(Almost the only intelligent and intelligible speech by a private member in this debate, I must interpolate, came from a British Jew, Mr. Lipson, who described himself as ‘one to whom his religion has always meant a great deal and who as a member of this House has tried to do his own thinking’. The second part of this remark may not have been meant as a rebuke to those who had in such meaningless and ill-informed phrases championed the cause of co-religionists, but it fits. Mr. Lipson, almost the only speaker to understand what he was talking about, and, seemingly apprehensive lest the Jewish case should be damaged by so much extravagant exaggeration, said that Great Britain was fighting for the freedom of the human spirit, and that included freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the right of free people to their own existence, and the right of minorities to be different. If these things were lost, all would be lost. The survival of the Jews depended on the continuance of these things. Great Britain in this war had been said to be fighting for her existence. That was true, but if ‚ which God forbid ‚ Great Britain were to lose the war, she would live to fight again. If the Allies were to lose, however, the Jews might well very well be finished forever… Therefore to the Jew the war must be the overriding issue whenever any question arose during those anxious and difficult days. What would happen to the Jews if the Nazis were to prevail?)
Now let me point to the real crux of this debate, which all speakers ignored. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, defending the Government’s action as Secretary of State for the Colonies, said that the protest against it of the Jewish Agency had spoken about the rights of weak peoples, and the Government fully recognized the rights of the Jews in Palestine, but there was another small people in Palestine ‚ the Arabs, who had rights equal to the rights of the Jews. He then revealed that land bought from the Arabs in Palestine for Jewish settlement, by the Jewish National Fund, was, under the conditions of that Fund:
not allowed at any time in the future, under any circumstance whatsoever, to be alienated to anyone who is not a Jew. If the Jewish authorities consider that condition necessary in order to protect the interests of their own people, I do not know why they quarrel with us when we say that a similar condition, and, perhaps, a far less permanent condition, is required to protect the interests of the Arab population. . . .
This passage, as I say, was the crux of the debate. In it the Jewish doctrine of discrimination against non-Jews is clearly revealed. I can see no difference between this anti-Semitism (for the Arabs, if I may repeat myself, are also Semites) and the anti-Semitism of National Socialism. It is discrimination in exactly the same form which the Jews are wont to practise, in European and other countries, in those trades and professions in which they become predominant.
Yet, after this disclosure of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, a Member was found (Colonel Wedgwood) to say, of the regulations issued by the British Government to counteract this anti-Arab discrimination:
American publicists and columnists have now seen that we here, fighting Hitler with our mouths, are copying his practise. This is precisely Hitler’s policy of soil and blood, a policy of ultra-nationalism, preserving Palestine for one definite race. When shall we get away from the idea that this world is composed of a lot of different incompatible races? … We are importing that spirit into British legislation, importing it in the worst place, setting up in Palestine exactly the same anti-Jewish legislation that Hitler has forced upon Germany. Discrimination between two sorts of citizens on account of their ancestry is new to this country and has been imported by the right honourable Gentleman in imitation of the doctrines preached in Germany today. If there could be a worse blow at our prosecution of the war than this I should like to know what it is. All over the world this will be held up against us. . . .
I think the passages I have quoted show where discrimination begins, and I hope their perusal may lead some people to study statements made in Parliament with a critical eye. But in the name of unreason, why cannot the gentle Gentile champions of the Jews, for once, give an answer to this plain question: Why do they find discrimination natural, liberal, democratic and proper, when practised by Jews, but detestable, foul, illiberal and undemocratic when practised in retaliation by non-Jews? [Editor’s emphasis]
I must quote one other statement in this debate, in which the anti-Semitism of the Jews in Palestine was so conspicuously ignored, a statement made by Mr. Noel-Baker: ‘There is one indispensable solution ‚ the Jewish National Home in Palestine ‚ and whatever else there may be, there must be that as well’.
Mr. Noel-Baker was among the foremost advocates in Parliament of the opening of employment in this country to the ‘friendly aliens’. Does he believe that the Jews should be helped to a Jewish ruled, exclusive, discriminatory Jewish State in Palestine, and simultaneously hold the full rights of citizenship in this and other countries? That is something no non-Jew ever presumed to demand for himself. One thing or the other.
For what, then, are the Jews and what do they want? The subtle argument of the propagandist films sent out of Hollywood and of their wordier champions in this country is that they are persecuted people who wish nothing more than to be left in peace, and who desire, all of them, above all things, to fight for us.
It is much more difficult to define them. Dispersed throughout the world, they may themselves best be compared to a sphere of which the steel core is the body of fiercely intolerant, anti-Gentile Jews, while these qualities diminish as you work outward toward the softer peel. J. B. Priestly, in an article fiercely attacking ‘the dirty old game of Jew-baiting’ ‚ would those Jewish regulations in Palestine, be called Arab-baiting, or the disinheritance clause of a Jewish will Gentile-baiting? ‚ undercut his own argument by saying: ‘Nobody can deny that there is… a real Jewish problem in the modern world. Their present position is unsatisfactory to everybody. They are neither definitely separating themselves from other races, nor merging themselves with them. They are uneasily hanging in mid-air… When we Gentiles dislike a Jew it is because we feel that he wants to be one of us and at the same time not to be one of us, to enjoy all our holidays and then quietly take a Jewish one on his own. The problem will never be settled until the Jew decides either to move further away or to come nearer. That is all that really needs to be said.’
That comes nearer to the truth, with a few exceptions. First, the problem is not one ‘of our modern world’, but goes back to the beginning of recorded time, for the reasons Mr. Priestly stated. Secondly, it will never be settled, because by all that long experience the Jew never will decide ‘to move farther away or come nearer’; he wants to have his Jewish cake and eat Gentile cake too. And thirdly, that is not ‘all that needs to be said’; a great deal more needs to said, in the interest of the non-Jews.
For what are the Jews? They are the most complex people in the world and to claim to know their inmost souls and their uttermost motives, as do some of those Westminster-bound Members, is fatuous. Trebitsch Lincoln was a Jew, who was born in Hungary and became an Anglican clergyman in Canada and a Member of Parliament (yes, the same Parliament whose members now, twenty-five years later, are so sure about their Jew), in England, and turned out to be a German agent in the last war and after it was press-chief to the first anti-Semitic Putschists in Germany, the friends of Hitler (yes, Hitler too had availed himself of the services of Jews, among them the lady who, in collaboration with an English peer, did that spadework ‘which made the Munich Agreement possible’) and is now a Buddhist monk in far Tibet. Napoleon’s press chief, for that matter, was a Portuguese Jew, Lewis Goldschmidt, who, with all the fire of a Goebbels or a Gayda, in his Argus described the British Navy, three months before Trafalgar, as dilapidated, dispersed, incompetent and on the verge of mutiny, and England as decadent, degenerate and defeated. And did not the good Lewis Goldschmidt, after Waterloo, enter into the employ of the British Embassy in Paris, and even marry his daughter to an English peer?
Loyalties are, not so easy to discover. In Prague, just before Hitler marched into that city, was a rabbi, of whom a Jew told me, who instructed his people that Hitler was the Jewish Messiah, because the result of his work would be to open to the Jews all those countries, throughout the world, which were still closed to them. In Swansea, when the present war had been resumed, was a 67-year-old Russian Jew who had been in this country since he was a boy; he was sent to prison for saying: ‘Hitler is a friend of mine ‚ he is a good man. The English took Palestine from the Jews and Hitler is going to take England. Hitler is doing right.’
In West Hamstead was an 18-year-old German Jew who, like so many others, landed in this country surreptitiously and therefore did not appear in the official figures of ‘aliens registered with the police’; he told the Thames magistrate that he wished to return to fight for Germany. In Stepney was a 25-year-old Austrian Jew who, when he appeared before an ‘enemy alien’ tribunal to prove that he was a ‘friendly alien’, picked up an inkwell and threw it at the judge; what may his loyalty have been?
Yet the spokesmen in our Parliament of these people will admit of no arguments against them; they are all ‘friendly’, all highly talented, and all desperately anxious to fight for England.
What is sense of ignoring things which everybody knows? There was, for instance, the case of the ten East End Jews, most of them of Polish origin, who conspired to evade military service by sending up an unfit man, in their respective names, for medical examination; he received from ,£20 to ,£200 for his services. These men were detected and convicted. One of them, who was quick enough to escape the police by decamping to the Channel Islands, was there when the Germans arrived, when he decided to return to England and was arrested and sentenced.
The loyalties of the Jews are far more difficult to determine that their advocates in this country would admit. When Poland was fighting Germany, for instance, and Russia jumped on Poland’s back, taking half Poland for herself, the Jews in that part of Poland ‘hailed the Russian troops as deliverers’. The scene was described by the Correspondent of the News Chronicle, William Forrest. What Englishman would not understand that this left a feeling of bitterness in the minds of the Poles, who subsequently organized a magnificent army in this country? Yet as soon as the existence of this feeling became known those newspapers which make the cause of the Jews their own, before all others, began violently to attack the Poles, to cry that they were not worthy to fight in the ranks of ‘democracy’, that they were as bad as the Nazis, and the like.
I remember Jews in the trenches, in the air force, and in hospital in the last war, and know how well they fought. They were neither braver nor less brave than the rest; they just fitted in. But these were British Jews, who had been long in this country. They were not ‘Englishmen’; it is almost impossible for a Jew to be that, because he will not, save in rare cases, allow himself to be assimilated, he is too much aware of the differences in his blood, his religion, his upbringing, his fellow-Jews. These British Jews of long domicile will understand, probably better than most Gentile readers, many of the things I have written in this book; they know that where the Jew from Eastern Europe suddenly appears in large numbers, the old trouble starts all over again, and they fear it. They are said, and I believe this, from their very understanding of the problem to have formed private ‘tribunals of self-discipline’ to check those who may bring them into discredit.
But they have an extremely difficult task before them. The campaign to squeeze the newcomers into English life has as yet been carried on with a ruthless and relentless disregard for any point of view but theirs which bodes ill for the future.
I assume that many Jews are, must be, serving the British armed forces during the war which has now been resumed, though no man could go about London at this time without remarking how seldom a typically Jewish face is seen beneath a uniform cap, how often such faces are seen above while collars in the hotels and restaurants.
When the air raids on London began, and Londoners were having a very bad time indeed, the New Statesman published a letter urging that refugees interned in the Isle of Man should be released ‘before the rains come’, lest their health suffer from confinement ‘in the dining-rooms of their 34 houses’. This was at a time when hundreds of thousands of Londoners were sleeping on the platforms of tube stations, in unheated cellars, beneath railway arches, and the like, and it drew the following comment from one of the native citizens, a London ‘Shelter Marshal’:
May I inquire (1) how the health of these internees will stand up to numerous daylight raids and to nightly dusk-to-dawn confinement in packed shelters under heavy bombardment? (2) how the health of the other crowded users of these shelters will stand up to a yet bigger incursion of panic-stricken aliens into their midst?
Apart from the space problem (and I must reluctantly admit that the average ‘friendly’ alien seems to need a lot more shelter ‘Lebensraum’ than the average Londoner), one of the major difficulties of some London public shelters is the throng of neurotic foreign refugees who spend their lives, apparently, in an hysterical quest for 100 per cent safety at night.
LONDONERS SLEEPING IN SUBWAY PASSAGES DURING THE BOMBING
Another thing that troubled me when I returned to England and began to study at close quarters a problem of which I had seen the other end, was the suspicion that the foreign Jews were tending to receive preferential treatment even from British justice! Now this is a very serious thing, if it is true, for in no other country that I know is justice so implacably rigorous as in this. True, it seemed to me, like everything else in England, to have its first, second and third-class compartments, and I once raised a violently protesting eyebrow at my loudspeaker when I heard Sir William Jowitt, K.C., say, ‘The law is the same for rich and poor alike’.
Some newspapers grant the most unrestricted freedom for the publication of views with which they are in agreement; and in the sense that the millionaire and pauper who stole a loaf of bread would probably be treated alike I was prepared to believe him. But further than that I did not feel that I could go with this great King’s Counsel.
I had an uneasy feeling, for instance, that murder was not murder if committed at Oxford University, but was apt to be attributed invariably to a foreign crook called Schizophrenia. I had also remarked that members of ducal families found the most benevolent understanding of their quite honourable motives for committing what looked like criminal offences when they appeared before a local bench manned, or womanned, by members of local country families. I further remarked that a financier who died owing ,£80,000 to the Income Tax authorities, which he had been owing for several years, was generally held to have been a most estimable and successful man, but that people who owed a few pounds received summonses to appear at the Guildhall and were sometimes promptly committed to the cells.
But the severity of the British law in punishing small offences of theft by poor people far surpassed anything I had ever encountered on the Continent, in any country. I mentioned in a previous book the cases of a van boy and a shopboy who, for stealing Is. and 10s. respectively, were sent to prison for one and six months. I have records of many other such cases: for instance, the 66-year-old unemployed labourer of Bolton who received a month for stealing sixpennyworth of coal; the 18-year-old girl who, having been bound over on a charge of theft in the first place on condition that she ceased to take slimming tablets, later appeared on a charge of breaking this promise and was sent to gaol for six months! This last case seems to me to deserve inclusion in any calendar of judicial curiosities. The 18-year-old girl in question, incidentally, was not without wits or wit; she asked, before she went to the cells, ‘if it was against the law to take these tablets, why were they manufactured and sold?’
These very rigours of our judicial system, in its dealings with the lower orders, seems to me in strange contrast with the exceptionally easygoing treatment which was often given to ‘friendly aliens’. Nearly all the Metropolitan magistrates have, at one time or another, expressed grave misgivings about the size of the trade in smuggling aliens into this country; the late Mr. Herbert Metcalfe’s ‘These people are simply pouring into the country wholesale’ was typical. But on that occasion the aliens officer in court explained that it was ‘known in Antwerp that people could come to the United Kingdom irregularly and be dealt with lightly’.
No amount of research can discover what happens to the innumerable persons whose deportation these magistrates daily recommend, but all the signs suggest that when they have served their sentence, if any ‚ and some of them are very bad characters, as my notes show ‚ they either resume life in England somehow or contrive to return.
But what particularly attracted my notice ‚ and I invite the attention of others to it ‚ is that at one time the plea, ‘I am a refugee from Hitlerist persecution’ seemed to be regarded as an extenuating circumstance, almost to the point of annulling the offence, even in cases completely removed from the necessity to escape from Hitler.
I have a collection of quite extraordinary examples. For instance, a lady who was summoned for dangerously driving a borrowed motor-car pleaded that she was ‘a refugee from Hitlerist persecution’ and practically penniless, whereupon she was fined sixpence, ‘in view of your sad circumstances’. Any who have experienced, as I have experienced, the normally rigorous treatment of offending drivers by British benches will appreciate this case. A young lady who stole twelve pairs of stockings was fined 5s.; she was a refugee. A Polish rabbi who was convicted of harbouring a large number of foreign Jews without informing the police was fined ,£50 ‚ but the fine was later reduced to ,£5. Two men who were convicted of assisting a ‘friendly alien’ to evade registration were fined ,£5 each ‚ but the fine was later reduced to a farthing.
The state of affairs which I found in England, when I returned to it, was being reproduced in the Dominions. None knew South Africa better than the late Sir Abe Bailey, and none was less likely than he to be accused of unfriendliness towards the Jews. I wish therefore to invite particular consideration to this letter which he wrote to The Times a few days before the World War broke out again in September 1939. I have italicized the passages which are of especial importance:
The proceedings at the international conference of Jews in Geneva and letters and articles appearing in the Press are unfortunately creating an impression that many Jews are committing the mistake of their Nazi persecutors (exterminators and destroyers of religion) and looking at their present and future problems entirely as if nobody else in the world mattered but themselves.
At a time when Great Britain, the best friend of the Jews, is harassed and embarrassed and ringed round with envious and desperate enemies and when the Middle East is only one of many arenas where our whole Imperial position is at stake, far too many Jews, in voicing their grievances, make no allowance for the appalling difficulties and dangers which confront the British Government all over the world. To listen to the recital of these grievances one would think the only problem which Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has to face in Palestine (as a result of the British Government making it their national home) was the distribution of land among Jews and Arabs, with an open door to Jewish immigrants, whereas the Jews ought to know that the Government of which he is a member has to deal with strategic considerations which affect the whole of the Middle East, and at a time when the clouds of war are threatening British dominion in all the seven seas. The British Government’s positive policy is fair play to Jew and Arab alike, realizing the fact that economically they are interlocked.
The almost contemptuous disregard for other interests except those of their own is illustrated by a letter which appeared in your own columns recently from Professor Namier and in a remarkable article in a recent issue of the Economist, which, dealing with the problem of refugees in Britain, says:
Obviously not all refugees are capable of making an equal contribution to British prosperity. There may be some who are undesirable on other than economic grounds. But on the average they are more helpful to the community than the average Englishman, whether the standard is monetary, capital, industrial skill or intellectual attainments.
It is true that the Economist in a subsequent issue expressed its regret that this passage should have lent itself to misunderstanding but the whole tenor of the article unfortunately illustrated only too clearly the arrogance with which the claims of Jewish extremists are being advocated.
The supreme aim of Jewish statesmanship today is to see to it that the persecution of Jewry in Central Europe does not lead to world persecution and that the policy of fear and oppression which began in Germany does not spread to other countries. I speak with some experience in these matters, for I have seen the rise in South Africa of a wave of anti-Semitism which the Nazis confidently hope will one day redound to their benefit. When I was trading as a youth and used to cross South Africa from one end to the other, I found nearly all the stores, inns, and hotels on the roadside, in villages and towns, run by Britishers, mainly Scotsmen, but now they are mostly in the hands of Jews and Indians. Jews are steadily working their way into many of the profession, particularly the law and medicine, and are locking up these professions for themselves. Recently they have made attempts to secure a strong foothold in the Press of South Africa and in various cultural organizations.
It is almost a truism that a community can absorb only a certain proportion of Jews. When that proportion is exceeded, as it is in South Africa, anti-Semitism follows and is further fanned by too exclusive an expression of Jewish aspirations and ambitions.
All decent-minded people deplore the cruel persecutions practised on Jews in Nazi Germany. Jews must play their part in doing all they can to to put bounds to an infection which may one day poison the whole world.
The passages I have italicized are of especial value, coming from such an authority with side a circle of Jewish friends. In particular the quotation from the Economist is of the greatest interest.
Audacity is notoriously a very powerful weapon, and one the Jews particularly love, because it has served them well. Their argument, that they should oust the native-born Gentiles because they are in all respects better than these was never more openly and audaciously expressed. That it could be printed in the British press, at a time when sober arguments against the Jewish case, however well founded, could nowhere find a place in it, unless they carried such a signature as that of Sir Abe Bailey, when they might appear in an obscure correspondence column, is the best possible illustration of the measure of ‘freedom’ which has prevailed in the press of this country in this particular respect.
This argument, that the foreign Jews, the ‘friendly aliens’, are much cleverer and in every way more suitable than ourselves and should therefore be given preference in employment is that implicitly taken over by the innumerable spokesmen of these people in the British press and parliament.
It is the argument I have repeatedly heard myself from the lips of Jews, who did not realize that I was well versed in their methods in many foreign countries. This was the reason, they would have had me believe, that their newspapers in Berlin and Vienna, Prague and Budapest, were entirely staffed by Jews; that the local non-Jews were simply not equal to the work. They were of course not up to the standard of British journalists, these would-be wily ones would add, with a quick sideways glance at myself.
It is the method of discrimination, impure but simple. In this country it has already, in some cases, reached absurd lengths. I have before me a long press ‘puff’ about a young Jew from Hungary who was chosen to play the part of a British schoolboy in a British film ‘because he looked so English’. That is to say, no English schoolboys were available who looked so English as he! The public of a country must have reached a sad state of stupidity when such tricks can be played on it.
The second passage which I have italicized in Sir Abe Bailey’s letter shows the consequences to which these methods lead ‚ as they led in the European countries I knew, as they will lead in this country unless they are checked.
In the other British Dominions the same thing is happening, while the men are away at war.
‘Assisted passages’ to Australia, which might have replenished that continent with British blood, were suspended by the British Government from 1930 to 1938, when they were resumed until August 1939. Who was ‘assisted’ to go to Australia during this year when the assistance was resumed? ‚ 10,992 persons, of whom 881 were British! The bulk of the others were foreign Jews; indeed of the 10,111 non-Britons no less than 5,321 were of German nationality, which means that they were nearly all Jews from Germany.
‘The Government’s policy in this very important matter has produced disastrous results where Australia is concerned,’ wrote Sir Henry Galway, a former Governor of South Australia, to The Times on March 10th, 1940. ‘If this policy is persisted in, it will not take more than a couple of generations before Australia’s proud boast of a population with 95 per cent British stock is silenced. One of the many evils resulting from the substitution of alien for British stock is that the industries are by degrees falling under foreign control. For instance, the sugar and peanut industries are already fairly well in the hands of the alien, while the fruit industry is going that way. In spite of there being a war on, unemployment in Britain is still at an abnormally high figure. Crowds of boy s are unable to get employment even under the Derby and other schemes. Why should they not be permitted to go to Australia, where they are wanted, if they wish to? . . . The average Member of Parliament is woefully ignorant on the subject of migration, though I willingly allow that there are many bright exceptions . . . I humbly contend that it is up to the Government to do all in their power to save Australia from being swamped by people of alien race.’
To conclude the picture I have given I have to add that by January 1941 the last safeguards in this problem had been abandoned in Britain.
It was officially announced that the Ministry of Labour felt that it should pursue ‘a more positive policy of welcoming the 250,000 long-term foreign residents and refugees alongside our own workers’. Both employers and trade unions were in agreement with this policy. (The only opposition to it, as The Times along remarked, came from the workshops, that is to say, from the native workers, who had so little to say in these matters.)
These aliens were to have ‘the same wages and conditions of work as British subjects’, and they were also to have ‘the benefits of the health and unemployment insurance schemes’, into which the British workers had for many years been paying weekly contributions.
With this announcement the last barriers fell, and the British public, if any member of it happened to be watching, which I doubt, would have seen that it had once again picked quite a different card from that which it thought to have chosen. That which it had obtained was quite different from that which it had been promised.
These people had come, not to stay, oh no, only as transmigrants; they would be no charge on the British taxpayer, oh no, ‘private individuals’ and ‘voluntary organizations’ had guaranteed their maintenance; they would not swamp the home labour market, oh no, they would not be allowed to take employment.
But now they were come to stay! The cost of their maintenance fell on the British taxpayer, and when they were out of work, they would draw the dole by the contributions of British workers! They would be eligible for all employment!
And I foresee, if I am not mistaken, that when this war is over British citizenship may be granted to them because they came to us and ‘helped our war effort’. John Hammer, who worked in a foundry during the war, Jack Pickaxe, who worked down a mine, and Tommy Rifle, who served in the infantry will not find that they are entitled to any especial consideration after the war because they ‘helped the national war effort’.
May they be spared the cold and bitter struggle to find any kind of work which their forerunners had when they came back from the first World War, in 1918.
I think it is a regrettable thing that the last barriers were leveled by a Socialist Minister of Labour, a man of working-class origins himself.
It is a grave state of affairs that I have described. I saw it coming, from the Continent, and said so in the second book I wrote in this series of three. The greatest single factor in Hitler’s rise to power was the embitterment and desperation of the German war generation ‚ I mean, the 1914-1918 war. Those men, when they came back, found every road to advancement and useful employment closed to them, and they found many trades and professions locked-up by foreign Jews who had come to their country from Poland and elsewhere while they were away.
Before very long the Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen of this generation will be coming home from the war they are fighting to retrieve that civilization of which we last saw some traces in the Dark Ages. The Australians, with fresh laurels, will be returning to Australia, the South Africans to South Africa, the Canadians to Canada and the New Zealanders to New Zealand.
In Britain and in the Dominions a great mass of alien immigrants has been allowed to settle and take employment. Will they yield this employment when the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen come home, or are these latter to traipse and trail idly about the streets, as they did after the last war; or in the better event, are they to find the higher posts occupied by, people, many of them of alien blood, who have barnacled-in while they were away under the motto of ‘helping the national war effort’?
These aliens number, as far as one can judge, some hundreds of thousands. That is a very large mass to throw upon the labour market, to inject into the trades and professions, and it has been repeatedly proved that, once in, they exert their influence to help others in and to exclude non-Jews. Since the 1914-1918 war there have seldom been less than a million ‘friendly’ Britons unemployed in this country, and in some years their number has risen to several millions. The derelict areas and the slums still offer grim and spectral proof of the misrule of England in those between-war years. The new burden that has been put upon the British back is a very heavy one.
A bad day’s work has been done in this last year or so. I came back from abroad in 1939, after many years, fearing this only less than the war I knew was coming. I saw the things the same influx let to in other countries. If I am not a Boetian, they will come in England; the lowering of the levels of taste and talent, the swamping of the last native standards and customs and traditions, the introduction of a meretricious and alien way of life, the squeezing-out of youth and enthusiasm. Experience ‚ and this is the tragic thing ‚ teaches no lessons.
But the arguments I have raised are sober ones, that cannot be shouted down by cries of ‘anti-Semite’ or any other meaningless word. The policy that has been pursued is just as false in its field as was the policy of Munich ‚ and the result of that policy was not peace, but war.
And Rupert Brooke, if he lived today, would need to write:
‘And there the Jews!’
Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada.
He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a ‚¬Å”DONATE‚¬Â button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

But you are heroes. And I love you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I continue to pluck at that arrow.

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

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

“I’m looking at the stars, she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I’ll let you wish upon my star.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I choose to fight.

What are you doing today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Following upon the heels of Christopher Bollyn, investigative journalist for American Free Press, who recently was beaten and incarcerated in the USA this article by Michael C. Ruppert is further confirmation that Fascist America is well on its way to becoming the dangerous threat many have predicted for years. Ruppert’s courageous stand here and his willingness to retreat outside Fortress America and regroup for further skirmishes is a positive sign that the battle to confront this Evil Empire is not lost. Please pass this article on to everyone you can. Ed.]

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081606_burning_bridge.shtml

BY THE LIGHT OF A BURNING BRIDGE
A Permanent Goodbye to the United States
by Michael C. Ruppert
August 17, ’06

From The Wilderness Publications   

“Sometimes you get your best light from a burning bridge” – Don Henley, “My Thanksgiving”

August 16th 2006, 11:45 AM [PST] – CARACAS – It was about a week before I left the United States forever that I watched Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tell Charlie Rose something all of us already know in our hearts. “Today,” he said, “the United States is hated around the world far worse than it was at the height of the Vietnam War.” I remember the Vietnam War. I will never forget it.

I opposed that war, and I still remember riots on the UCLA campus in May,1970 when four students were shot dead by National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio. I was a college student then, and I was 2S-deferred for the draft. A year later I would be re-classified 1A as the nation shifted to a lottery system. At least someone in my country was willing to risk his life in the face of injustice. It gave me hope. That kind of risk-taking was commonplace then, from the civil rights movement to the anti-war movement, to the American Indian Movement. American blood was shed regularly on American soil to resist American tyranny; from Watts, to Detroit, to Selma, to San Francisco to Memphis to Wounded Knee. It fertilized our lives and souls as it touched the ground. The willingness to endure physical suffering, material sacrifice, and jail for the sake of justice was a singular mark of the American character that earned respect as it infected the world.

What is the United States infecting the world with today?

Now it seems the American people won’t even risk their credit ratings, student loans, the next piece of ass, or a sideways glance from people who look at them like AIDS patients for daring to deviate from the corporate, media-instilled norm. We have come a long way backward. Rodney King’s “Can’t we all just get along” has become the modern day theme song for the surrender of America’s character, and the L.A. Rebellion of 1992 was probably the last flame of will to fight injustice in American history.

This new quiescence comes at a time when US crimes are far worse and more far-reaching than they were in 1970; certainly in the eyes of the world. In 2001 the US government both facilitated and executed the attacks of 9/11 against its own people, killing thousands of its citizens as an excuse to launch a neo-imperial conquest for energy. A few Americans held small rallies, organized some ineffective groups, bought a few hundred thousand books and DVDs, listened to a few radio programs and lectures, and then quietly lined up to have their bags, emails, credit histories, minds and bodies searched. Critical mass was never achieved as Executive Orders along with the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts shredded the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to our Bill of Rights.

In my book Crossing the Rubicon I wrote that events that took place in the five years following those attacks would determine the course of human history for centuries to come. We now stand at the brink of that fateful anniversary.

After the 9-11 attacks the US government lied to create a war for oil in Iraq telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, almost-ready atom bombs, poison gas and deadly germs. We were told that he helped execute the 9/11 attacks. It was all lies, and no one has held the US accountable for the hundreds of thousands of deaths (murders) in Iraq and Afghanistan since then. Few have tried to hold the government accountable for 2,500 Americans who have died needlessly, and those who have, have been remarkably ineffective.

US presidential elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004 through rigged electronic voting software and intimidation. Not one drop of blood was spilled anywhere, even as the US Supreme Court rendered an illegal decision supporting the overthrow of the Constitution and trampling the rights of individual states.

I never thought I would call the 60s and 70s “the good old days”. I would cry tears of joy today to see just one campus overrun by a modern equivalent of the Students for a Democratic Society. I would cheer to see a general strike paralyze a city. It would be living proof that American character had not been submerged, drugged, weakened, and rendered anemic beyond revival.

My country is dead. Its people have surrendered to tyranny, and in so doing, they have become tyranny’s primary support group; its base constituency; its chief defender. Every day they offer their endorsement of tyranny by banking in its banks and spending their borrowed money with the corporations that run it. The great Neocon strategy of George H.W. Bush has triumphed. Convince the American people that they can’t live without the “good things”, then sit back and watch as they endorse the progressively more outrageous crimes you commit as you throw them bones with ever-less meat on them. All the while, lock them into debt. Destroy the middle class, the only political base that need be feared. Make them accept, because of their own shared guilt, ever-more repressive police state measures. Do whatever you want.

No amount of mind control spin can absolve any of us from acknowledging this ugly truth about the US and its crimes today. It lurks invisibly behind every corporate news broadcast, every commercially-made television show, every infomercial, every new magazine ad, and almost every new popular song that leads Americans deeper into ever-less-satisfying consumption, self-indulgence and debt. It stands grinning behind every report on the world’s rapacious financial markets and every new automobile, shampoo, or other product that promises to give the world larger and more potent sexual organs, bigger (more ridiculous) breasts, a better love life, and peace of mind.

I left my last classes that spring day in 1970 after four students had been murdered, crying from both the emotional pain and the tear gas that wafted up the Janns Steps and onto the Quad at UCLA. I went to my job as an intern at the Los Angeles Police Department. After donning my khaki uniform without gun or badge I returned to UCLA to work at LAPD’s command post, ferrying dispatches and running errands for Deputy Chiefs, Commanders, and Captains as LAPD batons shed the blood of my fellow students. My life has always been full of ironies. Then, I believed that the system could be changed from the inside. Then, I believed that the United States could be changed from the inside.

Mistrusted by both sides there was no safe place for me to cry that day.

My shame today is that it took a set of circumstances where my life was in danger to make me make the right choice, a choice I would now like to say was totally a matter of conscience, but it was not. The truth is that I was prompted to do what I should have done long ago out of a well-justified desire to save my life.

In this life I have chosen not to die a martyr’s death. As I am learning every day, there are more difficult and demanding ways to write the final chapters of one’s life. I left the United States with one large suitcase, my laptop, and a backpack. I left behind my precious library, most of my clothing, my personal possessions, my guns, and a house full of furniture. I brought with me less than eight thousand dollars in cash and gold to start the final segment of my life.

My permanent exodus from the US was actually ordained thirty years — to the month — before I left for good on July 18th, 2006. It was thirty years ago that my then-fiance, a career contract agent for the CIA, disclosed to me that “her people” were interested in giving a major boost to my career with LAPD if I would become involved with her “anti-terror” operations that involved “overlooking” (i.e. protecting) large drug shipments coming in while facilitating the movement of large quantities of firearms going out. I refused to compromise my ethics as a police officer and — as I wrote on page 6 of Crossing the Rubicon – “that has determined the course of my life ever since.”

Like all humans I want to hold on to dreams for as long as possible, even long after I know they will never come true. I have tried and sacrificed with every fiber of my being to change my country, but the plain fact is that the United States of America cannot and will never be changed from within. I recall the words spoken to me by a senior FBI agent in Los Angeles in 1986: “Mike, the world doesn’t want to be saved.”

Stupid me. I still believe it does — at least the parts of it that lie outside the US, Great Britain, and Israel; the real Axis of Evil.

Today the United States is the cause of ever-expanding wars (covert and overt), carnage, suffering, and political and economic exploitation — even within its own borders against its own people — that fill our corporate-issued headlines and TV shows. The US economy, the privately-owned Federal Reserve system, and the government which they operate like a franchise are the greatest enemies of the entire human race and especially the rapidly- deteriorating and fragile ecosystem which supports all life. U.S. citizens are slowly discovering that they are not immune because of their nationality. On our planet today, what happens to one must inevitably happen to all. Peak Oil and global warming will spare no nationality in the end.

The US economy, driven by a fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, debt-based financing — and “doped” with the billions of dollars of drug profits laundered through its corporations and banks — is a superheated pyramid scheme of infinite growth wherein 5% of the world’s population consumes 25% of the world’s energy and a totally disproportionate share of the world’s diminishing resources and commodities.

In their silence and acquiescence Americans have voted — even if by abstention — to stand on the shoulders of all drowning peoples in the vain hope that they will somehow be saved from a paradigm which they support and empower by obeying it; by endorsing it with their silence or knowingly impotent protests; by refusing to throw themselves against the gears of the machine. In this world, a protest which is allowed and encouraged, corralled into free-speech areas, and then policed by the ruling government only to be ignored by the media is, by definition, meaningless.

The US is a nation where the “non-negotiable” and unsustainable “American” way of life is propped up by global conflict, out-of-control military spending, massive and unsustainable debt, and an increasingly-aggressive fascist police state. It is a nation where all US citizens who do not resist and disconnect from this paradigm enjoy their ever-diminishing privileges with the guilty knowledge that somewhere else, hopefully in some “other” country, others are paying the price for it.

The world is now my country.

With the passage of time, the degree of corporate oppression, the outrageousness of the cruelty, and the absurdity of the lies can only increase as dwindling resources diminish and desperation erupts. Ironically, the disappearing American middle class will still cheer at each new millionaire success story, even if they quietly understand that a hundred or a thousand of their kind had to disappear to create it. They chase illusions of hope rather than the real possibility of justice and change like lottery players with a one-in-a-billion chance of winning. They prefer that to hard work and sacrifice with much better odds where almost everybody can win something.

As the human race enters the first stages of inevitable collapse resulting from Peak Oil, it does so ass-backwards, in complete denial, and in the one way most certain to guarantee the greatest amount of suffering and death for future generations. It does so because, for a time at least, U.S. foreign, military, and economic policy holds the steering wheel of human destiny through dollar hegemony, military force, technology and globalization.

This control is inevitably weakening, and other hands in other countries are successfully struggling for an ever-increasing measure of influence. The Empire is dying from within, and like all wounded beasts, it is becoming more vicious and dangerous in the process; its lies more transparent.

A different world is possible. A better world is possible. It took the imminent threat of my own death at the hands of my government to make me fully admit to my innermost self what I have known for years. Having failed to change my country’s direction after 30 years of effort, I had to stop living in the problem and start living in the solution. If I did not, my soul would have died just as surely as my body would have died after the recent burglary that savaged our offices.

I do not know where I will spend the rest of my days. Maybe in Venezuela, maybe in Mexico with the Zapatistas, maybe in Bolivia, maybe in France, Germany, or even Russia. But because Venezuela has become the singular world leader in resisting US domination under the courageous, intelligent, and inspired leadership of Hugo Chavez, I want to begin the rest of my days here.

Being freer to speak, to learn, to experience and to witness real solutions being discovered and implemented by peoples willing to take risks and who understand the challenges, I will be better able to report usefully to FTW readers and the world in future books and articles. I am currently in a country where the people have changed and are changing their government; where the elected head of state has won six elections while George W. Bush has stolen two. Is it any wonder I feel better already?

One thing is certain about fascism and that is that its behavior and evolution are remarkably predictable. Five years ago I helped bring into world consciousness a forgotten quote from Benito Mussolini wherein he said that, “Fascism ought to more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Nothing better describes the state of the world today. The U.S. is a nation of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. As such it has placed something different from and opposed to the welfare of human beings on the compass as its “true North”.

Fascism always becomes more vicious as it evolves. It never retreats, and as with drug addition, larger and larger doses of oppression and violence are always required to sustain its inevitable path towards self-destruction. As the great Cynthia McKinney said to me not long before her just-orchestrated ouster from the House of Representatives, “any fool can see it coming.”

KRISTALNACHT

The burglary that took place at the new FTW offices in Ashland, Oregon on Sunday, June 25th of this year was the equivalent of my Kristalnacht, a replay of the night in 1938 when Nazi storm troopers, aided by an increasingly cowed and cowardly citizenry, raided synagogues all over Germany and smashed every piece of glass and every window they could find. German Jews not in denial who could (literally) read the writing on the walls (Juden Raus!) fled for their lives in the short time remaining before The Holocaust. Those who denied the meaning of that very specific warning remained in Germany, and their fate was sealed.

As a man who owns his own mind I can and do vehemently oppose the Israeli government and its policies and still have no ill will at all towards any Jew anywhere. Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. All men and women are free to worship their God or Gods as they see fit, and in so doing, to bring knowledge of the unknowable and their truths to a human table that is increasingly deprived of compassion, love, justice, balance, and mercy. These will always remain the common threads in all true spirituality. Truly what is needed now is some spirit.

Those who do know history are not destined to repeat it.

DETAILS

As for the burglary itself, there will be another time and another place, when I can and will say more about what happened. Certain important events have yet to unfold, and I’m holding other key facts until the time is right. There are facts about the timing of the burglary that may eventually connect to events here in Venezuela. But for now, suffice it to say that it was the final outrage in almost three decades of attempts to silence my voice and the eight-year-old voice of From The Wilderness.

It is almost certain that the burglary was perpetrated, at minimum, based upon inside information provided by recently fired or resigned FTW staff members. There is – or was – only one television program I cared about, HBO’s Deadwood. It was common knowledge in FTW’s new offices that I was obsessed with the show, and on June 25th I was certain to be home watching one of the first episodes of the new season I had been anticipating for a year. As everyone knew, I worked late and had irregular hours every other day of the week. I may never find out if Al Swearingen got the best of George Hearst, but in retrospect, it’s a small price to pay for my new freedom.

The burglary followed on the heels of my humiliation of the perpetrator of a feeble and stupidly executed sexual blackmail plot that began when a newly-hired staff writer (with a clean record and a Master’s degree in English) began a torrid (and not very discrete) sexual affair with my long-term IT manager. The IT manager was, at the time, involved in a committed relationship with a woman in Los Angeles. The same female employee also made simultaneous direct sexual advances to my Operations Manager who is married. These included her showing naked photographs of herself to both men in our offices, something which they kept from me until later.

Eventually the sexual intrigue resulted in an altercation between the three which wound up on my doorstep late on a Sunday night in April. It seems no one involved in the altercation was capable of telling the whole truth. It was also clear that my IT manager – who was known for his appetites – had fallen hopelessly in the grasp of an attractive sexual smorgasbord that was fulfilling his every wish. This is what he said to people in phone conversations who later told me about them. He reportedly described her as a “sexual demon”. He lied to his girlfriend. He lied to me when he told me that he had ended the relationship. Then he lied to his friend, the Operations Manager, about it. I could no longer trust him, and this was of enormous concern to me.

After all of the previous attempts to sink FTW over the years I was well-prepared when the same woman started making advances to me. How dumb did they think I was? I concealed a tape recorder in my office as she directed me, after regular office hours, to pornographic web sites and continually tried to tempt me with scanty outfits, G-strings and hints of sexual delights including descriptions of her private parts. She was doing all this at a time when she made 103 cell phone calls in one month to my IT Manager on a cell phone that FTW was paying for. I got the bills. Most of the calls were made during business hours. The second month’s bill was just as bad when it arrived after she had been fired.

My IT Manager had been my most trusted employee and a close friend. I may never be able to forgive his betrayal even if the Siren’s song had overwhelmed him. In previous years FTW computers had been sabotaged, our web site had been hacked, and several attempts had been made to financially sabotage our operations. Being fully aware that he was likely revealing our most sensitive proprietary information, including account access codes, I had but two choices.

I could fire the young woman. But if I did so she would be angry outside the company and still have the IT Manager as helpless as Ulysses’ crew in her vindictive grasp. Or, I could keep her close, play along with her games, prepare myself against the blackmail I knew would come, and try to find out what kind of damage she was intent on doing and head it off. When she could not compromise me sexually, she turned the IT Manager against me, and he gave sudden notice. That was damaging enough. His last day of work was to be June 1st. I decided immediately that that would be her last day of work too, and so it was.

As June 1 approached I baited her with actions I knew would force her to show her hand. She did on May 29th and that’s when I let it be known how I had protected myself. She immediately went – no doubt with the guidance of our IT Manager – to a ridiculous pseudo-journalist who has been hounding FTW and other 9-11 activists for years. In a previous sabotage attempt in 2005 this same pseudo-journalist had been directly connected to the FBI by a tape recording.

Her allegations of sexual harassment against me fell flat on their faces, and she was publicly humiliated. She had also been showing highly erratic emotional behavior consistent with drug use in her last two weeks of work. On the day she was terminated she and the IT manager frantically rushed to erase large quantities of data from her office computer. This was witnessed by the entire office staff. Fortunately for us, the erasures were only made with one-pass deletions, and most of what they were trying to hide remains recoverable.

This was on my mind when I came into the office at 7:30 AM on June 26th and saw all seven of our computers dismantled and smashed in a vacant portion of our building. As luck would have it, the right hard drives were not damaged beyond recovery.

But other facts started to indicate government involvement. As soon as I discovered the burglary I ran next door to the offices of the US Forest Service which shares the same building (rented from a California property management company). A female Ranger who was raising the flag out front seemed unusually nervous even before I got to her. I asked if they had surveillance cameras covering the front of the building and our only parking lot. Reacting as though I was scaring her to death, she hastily replied, “No”. I couldn’t help but feel she already knew about the burglary.

If I didn’t know that there were no surveillance cameras on a government building then how could the burglars have been so confident? The street our offices are on is a long “no outlet” street, and the only place to park late at night is directly in front of FTW’s front door. My next step was to look for any one of the three small and run-down motor homes belonging to poor people who always parked right in front of our offices at night. It was a rent-free place for them to sleep, and it had a great view. Maybe they had seen something. All three were gone. One of them had been parking diagonally across the street every day since the day we moved in, and I had (correctly, I believe) pegged that one as government surveillance.

These witnesses would have been invaluable because they would have seen whoever came to the office in the quiet business park that was always abandoned after sunset. After I left the states, allegations were floated that I had smashed my computers myself. But who could have missed my Blue and Gold, 1996 Ford Bronco? It stands out like a sore thumb. And I could hardly have walked a block or two with a sledge hammer over my shoulder without risking being noticed.

There are between eight and twelve screws that need to be removed to take the cover off of each of our computers. There were seven computers, and every one had their covers removed before being smashed. This was not a one-man job. Someone with computer savvy was involved. Four interior doors were also smashed with multiple sledge hammer blows. I estimated between three and five blows per door. Each computer had been disconnected from its monitor and peripherals. That was three to six connections per computer. This feat would have taken one person hours, and it would have been physically exhausting.

All the evidence showed that one person was waiting to dismantle each computer as it was brought into the vacant office (where there was plenty of room to swing the hammers) by another person who was doing the disconnecting, while a third person went ahead with the sledgehammer to open the doors to which the fired female employee never had the keys, from which to make copies before she was fired. I suspect that a minimum of two sledge hammers were used.

One door to a storage area which held no computers at all was needlessly smashed. That was wasted time and effort. Likely one or more of the burglars didn’t know where the computers were. Or maybe they just had a little too much crystal meth in their system and needed to burn off some energy.

There was, however, one other way that the burglars could have gained entry to the interior of the building. That is through a back door which is accessible only through a high-security parking lot controlled by the Forest Service which covers the entire back side of the building. No one else can get to the back doors. The burglars could have been waiting inside the Forest Service offices for me to leave. This would have left no telltale cars out front and would have provided an easy, secure escape route in the event that I or a police car pulled up out front unexpectedly. No one would ever have been seen entering via the front door, the only way FTW employees could get in.

About a week after the burglary I noticed the Ashland Police Department towing away one of the mobile squatters. The one mobile home that had been there every night up until the burglary has never been seen again. The third just vanished the night of the burglary.

Also, about a week after the burglary, my Operations Manager, who we have since discovered was apparently in the process of destroying our paper financial records, disclosed that the fired female employee was a multi-year close friend of a convicted methamphetamine manufacturer and dealer who had served five years in prison. That was the last straw, and it was then I started realizing that it was time to go.

Convicted drug dealers are usually on parole. They have little or no rights and can be violated and sent back to prison at any time. Whether it’s federal or state parole, they’ll do anything the government wants them to in order to curry favor, including the commission of crimes “under color of authority”. The COINTELPRO records of the FBI from the 60s and 70s against civil rights and anti-war activists; against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement; show clearly how these convicted felons were used as ideal plausibly deniable weapons of infiltration and mass destruction by the US government against enemies of the state.

THE END OF HISTORY

In 2001 a high school classmate who had served in the US Army and worked for the National Security Agency, led FTW into a financial trap promising a major investment to re-publish suppressed books documenting US government corruption. After FTW had invested thousands of dollars in layout and committed to spending more for printing, the investor disappeared leaving us with a huge loss.

In 2001 and 2002 a series of previously-unknown computer viruses completely destroyed our office computers.

In 2003 an outside storage area of the building where our offices were, was burglarized.

In late 2003 our then General Manager, Michael Leon, suddenly abandoned his job and fled to New Zealand. That nearly put us out of business. We have since learned that he was, at minimum, a key material witness in a huge federal Ponzi scheme prosecution, US v. Osaki. (I had absolutely no connection to the case). In 2005 information surfaced in federal court that he had provided the FBI with information, and I have — based on other information — concluded that he was an active FBI informant while working for FTW.

Throughout 2004 and 2005 a series of successive employees (one of whom was a retired FBI agent presenting herself as a victimized whistleblower) engaged in ruthless sabotage which came closer to sinking us than anything ever had. Other links to the FBI were well-documented. FTW struggled for survival, and I successfully fought back, ultimately winning a case in Small Claims Court wherein I proved deliberate sabotage and won a small judgment. That nine-month effort ended just two months before we moved to Oregon.

Then came the events I just described in Ashland. To the end of my days I will never forget the indescribable beauty of the Rogue Valley in the brief time I was allowed to live there. I will always remember the wonderful, spiritual and courageous friends who came to our aid in time of need and who still remain close friends and supporters of FTW.

But at 55, as I looked at the smashed computers and realized that I had humiliated the government one too many times, I understood two things. I was too old to go on fighting these increasingly ugly and dangerous battles. And there was nothing left in the United States worth fighting for. The next battle would surely mean death for me. Additionally, according to their own figures, and after an independent review by a Los Angeles area law firm specializing in royalty rights, Rubicon’s publisher, New Society, appears to have defrauded me out of between $38,000 and $58,000 dollars of royalties.

I made my decision on July 1st. It really wasn’t difficult.

A NEW BEGINNING

Since my departure Carolyn Baker, Michael Kane, Stan Goff, Jamey Hecht and the remaining FTW office staff consisting of Brendan, Spencer and Luke have been performing heroically. A brave and honorable Ashland attorney has valiantly stepped in with complete power of attorney over my affairs. My agent and publicist Ken Levine has been steadfast and true. It was he who helped to get me out of the country in secret. In the coming weeks some of these wonderful people will provide our subscribers with their accounts of my last days in the US. There were many poignant moments in the way we put together and executed a plan to get me out of the country in just 18 days, even as I noticed renewed and ominous surveillance around the office.

To all those who will assert – and I’m sure they will – that all of these things happened because I’m some kind of deranged maniac who pisses everyone off, I ask how I could possibly have earned and retained the loyalty of these wonderful people and all of our subscribers for all these years.

FTW is going to be bigger and better. I will continue to write and offer editorial guidance, but my days of running the business are over. Carolyn Baker, Mike Kane and Stan Goff are giants in their own rights, and they need room to blossom and carry on the FTW tradition with their own unique styles and personalities. Since leaving the US I have been offering occasional editorial guidance, but I have come to realize that FTW’s writers need very little of this. They have the map and are reading it well. Listen to them.

FTW needs your help now. We need donations. We need sales. Very soon we will have a new DVD which will show you my last two public appearances ever in the United States. It will be my farewell message to all of you even as I say hello in a new form. After FTW’s current, considerable expenses and staff are paid, some of that badly-needed money will find its way to me in Venezuela where I sorely need it.

I have said time and again that the only thing that matters to me is effecting real change in the political landscape. Revolution is not a dinner party. The economy and government of the United States of America are my enemies and the enemies of the entire human race and even of the American people themselves. They must be weakened, defeated and replaced by something which places the welfare of human beings ahead of profits and share value.

With these words I have committed a crime in the eyes of US law. There is no turning back. The bridge is burned. But I will reply with the words of the Declaration of Independence which state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,…

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such Government.

In 1776 there was no concept of any limitation in terms of resources, space or possibilities. We live in a fundamentally different era today, and so therefore, I would add to these truths the following:

We must also recognize that Happiness cannot be defined solely within the mind and the will of individuals alone, without regard to the availability of the same potential for all mankind and all life placed here by the Creator. One human being, or group of human beings, cannot possess a disproportionate share, deprive others, and justly call this Happiness. True Happiness and Peace result from harmony between peoples, the planet and all life forms without which no life is possible. These can only be achieved in a world where men and women in all places realize the need for Balance, Equity, Harmony and Justice and that only these will ensure equal and fair Rights for subsequent generations and the sustainability of the planet itself.

In many lectures I have uttered another one of my trademarked lines: The human race is now being presented by a dispassionate universe with one test; either evolve or perish. I, for one, have chosen to evolve.

Now that I am in the world and not a “country”, my prayer is that my future adventures for as long as I live will connect me with other world-changers so that we can support and empower each other and all peoples. I am already finding out that there are more people who clearly see these challenges than I ever suspected.

But I am also under no illusions about the increased danger this will bring. Even though life is very difficult now as I live on the cheap and struggle to become halfway fluent in Spanish, I wake up each morning with something I haven’t felt in a long time – hope, real hope.

I promise to send some home.

Thought Makes You Free In the EU [and Canada]
by Bernhard Schaub
The world is in flux. The financial crisis has shattered our too-blind faith in the regnant economic and political system. The good in this crisis: it makes you think. Many realize that the remedies proposed by government are no remedies at all, but merely measures intended to keep the existing system alive. The idea is spreading that the whole thing in reality is a giant redistribution intended to concentrate money and power into even fewer hands than before. It is high time to end our unquestioning ways with some serious thought.
The present economic system-like all systems-rests on certain axioms, certain underpinnings, that cannot be disturbed without putting the entire edifice into danger of collapse. Such underpinnings are for that reason always sacrosanct.
He who wishes to be accepted, or even merely tolerated in our society does well to acknowledge, or at least not to openly dispute, certain core beliefs: To these belong devotion to the free market, including debt financing and the independence of the banking system, to so-called parliamentary democracy, including the attendant two-party system, devotion to philo-semitism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, and abortion together with the highest praises for the civil rights to which one considers oneself entitled.
It is even permitted to belong to whatever religion or philosophy one might wish to-but subject to the unstated condition that one doesn’t really take it seriously. Otherwise, one acquires very quickly the odor of fundamentalism.
In today’s political and cultural landscape, a fundamentalist is anyone who holds his Catholic, or Evangelical, or Islamic, or national-or whatever feelings of any kind-above those highest of values enumerated above. Therefore, fundamentalists cannot be tolerated under the global New World Order that is the central theme of American politics. It is only a very slight distance that separates the fundamentalist from the charge of being a terrorist. And it is not necessary here to spell out what sort of treatment awaits terrorists. That has been ordained by 9/11.
The thoughtful European notes with puzzlement that the proscriptions set forth by Political Correctness and monitored by the culture and the law grow more numerous every day. The citizen is condemned to silence by all manner of gag laws and cowed by the looming threat of the EU criminal code because he no longer knows what is punishable, nor why, nor where. Lately, we’re told, nearly 14,000 “rights violations”-whatever those might be-were committed in Germany in 2008, of which fully 700 were violent. Therefore, there remain from these numbers about 13,000 nonviolent “rights violations.” This is notable, especially in light of the incessant reminders by self-righteous German politicians to China and other countries to “uphold civil rights.” Obviously, the sacred rights of freedom of expression, academic freedom, religious or philosophical belief, etc., are valid only so long as they don’t oppose any of the listed Canons of Western Values.
Catch-22
Here is a Catch-22. It is profoundly disingenuous, not to say outright mendacious: an easily seen-through maneuver for the benefit of the ruling elites of the West.
The greatest taboo of Western propriety, however, is of a historical nature. That is, where the matter has to do with Nazism or the so-called Third Reich, contemporary thought abdicates completely. The brain is relieved of its function, and quasi-religious reflexes take over. All powers of discernment cease, any inquiry into the Holy Writ is thought inappropriate, even malign. Here there is only one viewpoint allowed: the Nazis-read, the Germans-are perpetrators, and exclusively that, and the Jews are victims, and innately and eternally, no less. The uproar about Erika Steinbach, Eva Herrmann, Martin Hohmann, and General Gunzel serves to illustrate. Whoever doubts these supreme tenets of belief is no longer a discussion partner, but instead a leper and a heretic rolled into one, subjected instantly to inquisitorial judgment, ostracism, and economic destruction. And everyone who has anything to do with such a person must immediately distance himself.
This goes double for questions concerning the Holocaust, the inner circle of this minefield. The never-ending rumble of the media concerning Bishop Richard Williamson has brought this taboo to the fore once again. Mrs. Merkel feels called upon to instruct the Pope; the Pope feels called upon to call Bishop Williamson to account; the attorney general of Regensburg proposes, and the Justice Department considers issuing, an international arrest warrant for the churchman-and why? Because he judges a historical matter differently from the way it is usually and permitted to do. This constitutes heresy. This means nothing else than that a historical event has been removed from the domain of scholarship and with that, of reasoned discussion, and elevated into the domain of religion, and indeed a kind of world religion that in Germany has unbeknownst acquired the standing of a half-official state religion.

Bishop Richard Williamson
As the media campaign against Bishop Williamson rose to a fever pitch, the revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler was sentenced in Munich to six years imprisonment and at the same time in Potsdam to four more years, because he questioned details of the Holocaust. In 2007, Mahler’s partner, lawyer Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced to 3 1/2 years’ imprisonment and escorted directly to jail from the courtroom. The reason: she defended the German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zundel in court in Mannheim and took the position that the accused was right, or at least that he was exercising his right to a dissenting opinion. Zundel himself got five years. Two years’ investigatory detention under the most dubious circumstances in Canada didn’t count. So Zundel does seven years because he published arguments over his Internet site concerning the historical thesis of the “mass gassing” of Jews.
Lawyer Sylvia Stolz and Revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler
Shortly after Zundel, the chemist and multi-book author Germar Rudolf, originally a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, received a sentence of 2 1/2 years because it was possible to arrive at the same conclusions from his neutral, scientific investigations in forensic chemistry as had been arrived at by other routes by earlier researchers.
Scientist Germar Rudolf
The Frenchman Robert Faurisson, university professor for documentary research and textual analysis at the Sorbonne in Paris has been subjected to multiple fines of astronomic amounts, and has sustained bodily injuries from a beating administered by unidentified assailants.
Robert Faurisson-French Revisionist
One of the best-known revisionist researchers and writers is the Swiss Romanist and Scandinavist Jurgen Graf, sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment by a Swiss court for questioning the holocaust hypothesis. He was able to avoid this imprisonment only by flight into exile.
Also in exile is the Belgian father of seven Vincent Reynouard. In Austria, court-expert-witness-engineer Wolfgang Fruhlich is in jail for the second time because he does not accept the official version of the holocaust.
Where is Amnesty International?
Where is Amnesty International? Where the European Court of Human Rights? Where the hue and cry of the media? Where the student protests? Where the Church?
All these men and women and many others, such as Ursula Haverbeck, Dr. Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Dr. Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz, have committed no offense other than to have arrived at conclusions from their research and analysis that diverge from the official account-and that they then addressed pointed questions to those who have promulgated the putative falsehoods around the world.
It is the pride of western science, since the Renaissance, and in particular since the Enlightenment, to allow nothing to be sacrosanct, and to accept nothing short of absolute objectivity. Revisionism – that is, discernment, confirmation, questioning – is a basic principle of science. All else is dogmatism. Science cannot admit of religious, political, or other social exceptions. In the sense of the natural sciences, there is no Christian reality nor Unchristian reality, no moral nor immoral fact. The scientist has the right to err, since no one is in possession of the absolute truth. Natural science has banished the medieval age of superstition with the age of reason.
As applied to research into the Holocaust, this means: it may not be clouded by philo-Semitic nor by anti-Semitic inclinations, any more than it may be by Germanophilic or Germanophobic. Whether one likes the Jews or the Germans, or dislikes them is no factor in research, and may not affect it in any way.
Ms Merkel said in her message to Pope Benedict XVI, “There may be no denial of the Holocaust.” What does this mean, there may not be? Does it mean that “denial” presupposes that someone advances lies while knowing better? This certainly doesn’t apply to the revisionists, who are convinced of their interpretations. Or does it mean that here, after all – trumping all factual inquiry – global political forces are in play to which both the German head of state as well as the leader of Christianity must bow?
There is commentary that implies something pretty close to these conjectures. As early as May 1979, Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in the Nation Review, “Were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the Number One weapon in Israel’s propaganda armory disappears.”
And after the lecturer and revisonist Gunther Deckert was sentenced to years in jail, the Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote on August 15, 1994, “If Deckert’s account of the Holocaust were correct, the Federal Republic of Germany would be founded upon a lie.” Every presidential address, every “moment of silence,” every history book would have lied. In that he denies the murder of the Jews, he contests the very legitimacy of the German Federal Republic.
The Canadian B’nai B’rith
But it seems that there are even higher matters at stake: the memory of the Holocaust is central to the erection of the new world order. So wrote Ian J. Kagedan, the Director of the Canadian B’nai B’rith in the Toronto Star for November 26, 1991.
These unseemly newspaper announcements enable us to understand why finally the effort to exhume the claimed victims and properly to account for them has not been undertaken; why Ms Merkel has not called an international Holocaust conference in Berlin and subjected the assertions of the revisionists to a public discussion and critique. With that, the sorry matter would once and for all be placed on the table and the “pseudoscientific bumbling” of the Holocaust deniers would be laid bare for all to see – and indeed by scientists, not just journalists. But therein, of course, argument and counter-argument would have to be heard.
Why can’t this be? Is it feared that such a discussion might produce results other than those that are politically desired? Is this why the revisionists languish in jail? Is this why their books are banned? Is the public to be denied the means of evaluating the state of the revisionist arguments?
The reason for this remarkable scientific regression appears to be the same as the reason for the judicial regression in the courtroom. Here also the established practice – which ashamedly is never admitted in public – that there is never inquiry into whether the accused might be right. Evidence is not taken, and if the accused should try to explain his position, he subjects himself to still further charges, and his attorney as well! A judicial monstrosity. The factuality of genocide of millions in gas chambers is simply declared “given,” and the court has merely to decide whether the defendant has contradicted this given – and then to arrive at a sentence. A historical assumption is thereby peremptorily raised to the status of a universally known and proven law of nature – and at the same time, factual confirmation of it is forbidden!
Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Truth?
Is somebody afraid of the truth here?
The voices are becoming more numerous that advocate breaking the silence over this: in 2007, Professor Karl Albert Schachtschneider, professor of public inquiry at the University of Erlangen, spoke on the Constitution of the European Union. He took a question from the audience, “Do we have freedom of speech here?” He answered: “A country in which free speech is constrained by severe punishments is not a free country. The immortal Kant said about freedom of speech that one must be free to say anything, whether it is true or untrue. With the Holocaust, anything might be true or not true; I wasn’t there. But another reason I don’t discuss it, is that it is forbidden. One is not allowed to dispute it, not even scientifically. The prohibition on “agitation” prevents it. This is not a free country.”
If the “new world order” that the Canadian gentleman from B’nai B’rith mentioned might be in some way identical with that financial system that currently has thrown the world into the grips of an unprecedented crisis, it might in any case be appropriate to examine the central historical and philosophical foundations of that new order somewhat more closely.
“Where everyone condemns, one must prove. Where everyone praises, as well.” Thought makes you free!
=====
The publicist and lecturer Bernhard Schaub (Dornach bei Basel), publisher of this newsletter, is Swiss. He was a teacher of German and history at Waldorf Schools until he was dismissed in 1993 for publishing a book in which he cited objective research into the Holocaust. He also lost a later position as academic dean of an adult-education school for similar reasons. In 2006 he participated in the Holocaust Conference called in Tehran by President Ahmedinejad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I remain, in Peace and Love,

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