Compiled by Gail Umeham
**

Double Talk

Southwestern Jewish Press December 25, 1953 Page 8

By Janet and Susan Solof

Janet and Susan wish you all good things in store.
In their Season’s Greetings to you and good wishes for ’54.

Vacation has come and brought home many of our “Kollege Kids.”  Among them are Linda Solof, Roslyn Burdman, Leonard Naiman, Gary Chenkin, Carolyn Silverman, Syd Slippoff, Debra Perlmutter, Jerry Berg and Jerry Schissell from U.C.L.A.; Esther Lustig from U.S.C.; Gary Breitbard from Cal. Tech; Paul Kaufman, Jean and Ellen Goldstein, Jack Pearl from Berkeley; Lou Kleinman from Pomona; Larry Solomon from Illinois U.; Sam Sosna from Stanford; Nelson Olf from Oregon State.  Welcome home all and have fun.

Congrats to those who participated in the recent State College Speech Tournament.  Sherry Newman won the award to outstanding novice speaker.  Other winners in various speech contests were Jerry Schultz, Gloria Abramson, and Lawrence Schiller.  A job well done.

Lois Kaufman is returning home from Palm Springs to say hello to all her friends during vacation.

The Hi-Debber Ball brought many couples out on the Mission Beach Dance floor.  Enjoying the glamor were Lucy Recht ‘n Bill Kollander (sic, Kolender), Janet Solof ‘n Jerry Schultz, Georgette Lesser ‘n Gary Breitbard, Janice Klaskin ‘n Stanley Breitbard.  Barry Goldman ‘n Henrietta Faquet, Sue Hutler ‘n Dan Weinberg, Eileen Rivers ‘n Lenny Weiss, Maxine Shoenkopf ‘n Mick McLean, Linda Douglas ‘n Lou Kleinman and many, many more.

Diana Steckel recently celebrated her 12^th birthday with a dinner dance for many of her friends “Crazy Fun” was had by all the kids.  Many more happy birthdays.

Lisa Ann Lieberman celebrated her 4^th birthday with 12 of her friends.  Her uncle Sanford Engel came in from New York and entertained the kids and also helped them with their games.  To make the party complete, the kids “Broke the Piñata” which was filled with prizes and candy.

San Diego welcomes back their old time citizens Nelson Guyer and Loretta Goldberger.

Bye now—W-5-0679.

Jewish Center News

Southwestern Jewish Press December 25, 1953 Page 8

Teen-Age New Year’s Eve Dance
“Midnight Carnival” is the name of the gala New Year’s Eve Dance on Thursday, December 31^st…8 p.m. by the San Diego Jewish Youth Council at Temple Beth Israel Center at 3^rd and Laurel.  In addition to the usual decorations, favors and noisemakers, a queen will be selected from the various Jewish Youth group nominees.  A special door prize will be awarded to the lucky fellow and gal…A teenage favorite—Buddy Biotti and his Band—will provide dance music for the evening’s activities.  Hosts for this event are the San Diego AZA and BBG.

Winter Day Camp
The Camp Jaycee youngsters are looking forward to the special events planned for the last week of winter vacation:  On Monday morning December 28^th—an excursion boat ride around San Diego bay; Tuesday, a cook-out at Presidio Park and trip to la Jolla Shores; Wednesday swimming at the YWCA and Thursday a final cook-out at Felicita Park in Escondido.

Regular Center Activities
The regular schedule of center activities will resume after the school vacation.

Juniors (5-12 yrs.) please note a change of the Arts and Crafts class at the Center to Wednesday afternoon at the same time as the Ballet and Creative Dance Class.  Arts and Craft Classes will be under the supervision of Mrs. Evelyn Herrmann and the Dance Classes will continue under Mrs. Irene Timen’s supervision.  Pt. Loma participants will renew activities on Friday afternoon, January 8^th at the Portuguese Assembly Hall—2818 Addison St.

Discussion Group
Dr. Virginia Voek, assistant professor of psychology of San Diego State College, will be the next speaker at the Jewish Community Center’s Discussion Group meeting on Wednesday, January 13^th—8 p.m. at the Center—3227 El Cajon Blvd.  Her topic in the series on “Psychology of Prejudice” will be “Why the Hate—The Personality of the Bigot.”

Makes Last Appeal

Southwestern Jewish Press December 25, 1953 Page 8

Victor Schulman, president of trhe S.D. Hebrew Home for the Aged, stated that unless $20,000 was raised within the next two weeks, building of the new Home will be seriously delayed.

He urged everyone who intends to contribute to the present drive for funds tro do so now before the year’s end.  The present drive is headed by George Neumann who can be reached at W-2626.  A call to him and you can add to the efforts of those seeking to promote the happiness and welfare of our aged.

Fund To Elect New Officers January 5

Southwestern Jewish Press December 25, 1953 Page 8

Officers of the United Jewish Fund for the year 1954 will be elected by the Fund board of directors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 5, 1954, in El Cortez Hotel.

Murray Goodrich, president, will chair the first meeting of the new board which will elect a president, three vice-presidents, a secretary, treasurer, and an executive committee of seven members.

New board members sitting for the first time as directors for the Fund are:  Edward Breitbard, Carl M. Esenoff, Milton Fredman, Max Maisel, Robert Speigel, David Stotsky, William Colt, and Samuel A. Nussman.

Present officers of the Fund include M.I. Goodrich, president; Jack O. Gross, Rodin Horrow, Mrs. Gabriel Berg, vice presidents; Manuel S. Fisher, secretary; Harry Snyder, treasurer; and David Block, Mack Esterson, Morey Levenson, Harry Mallen, Louis Moorsteen, Sol Price, Milton Y. Roberts, members of the executive committee.

The Fund board will also consider the election of area directors for Oceanside, Coronado, La Mesa-El Cajon, South Bay Area, Vista-Escondido.  At present Elmer Glaser represents Oceanside, Arthur Cohen, Coronado; and William Schwartz, La Mesa-El Cajon.

Ralph Feldman To Be Installed As Prexy Of Lasker Lodge B.B.

Southwestern Jewish Press January 8, 1954 Page 1

San Diego Lasker Lodge of B’nai B’rith will install its 1954 officers Saturday night at 8 p.m. January 9 at the Don Room of the El Cortez Hotel.

Ralph J. Feldman is to be installed as President, Milton Fredman, Jack Lowenbein and Marshall Zucker will be seated as First, Second and Third Vice-Presidents respectively.  Other officers who will be installed Saturday night are Joseph Kaplan, Fin. Sec.; Edward Baranov, Treas.; Richard Berman, Rec. Sec.; Edmund Herman, Warden; and Milton Millman, Guardian.  Installing Officer Morris Kraus will be assisted by Henry Weinberger, Past Grand President of District No. 4.  Jeremiah Aronoff, Sam Bennett and Al Hutler are the new trustees for the lodge.  Outgoing President Harry Wax will be installed as Chaplain.

The installation and dance which follows is open to the public.

Council, Jewish Federations To Meet Here January 22^nd

Southwestern Jewish Press January 8, 1954 Page 1

Philip Bernstein of New York, associate director of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, will keynote the CJFWF’s Western States Regional Assembly, it was announced today by Murray D. Goodrich, Assembly chairman.

This annual conference of communities will take place on January 23-24 at the U.S. Grant Hotel.  Locally appointed delegates from ten western states and western Canada will attend.

Mr. Bernstein, a nationally recognized authority on Jewish community life will highlight the three day discussion of vital problems and programs concerning the operation of local services, immigration, planning and financing Jewish responsibilities.  He will speak on “Meeting Jewish Community Responsibilities.”

Serving as discussants in thus session will be Judge David Coleman, President of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Council, Walter D. Heller, president of the San Francisco Jewish Welfare Fund, Eli H. Levenson of San Diego, CJFWF regional president, and Lawrence Simon, member of the board of the Oakland Jewish Welfare Federation.

On Friday morning, January 22^nd, there will be an examination of “Jewish Family Services—their Place and Program.” Workshop leaders will be Leon Klugman, member of the board of the Oakland Jewish Welfare Federation, and Harry Mallen, president of the Jewish Family Service of San Diego.  The consultant will be Miss Freda Mohr, executive director of the Los Angeles Jewish Family Service.

Friday afternoon, January 22^nd, will be devoted to a discussion of “Selling Services and Needs.” Workshop leader will be Julius Bisno, executive director of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Council.  Edward Bransten, Jr., member of the board of the San Francisco Jewish Welfare Fund, and Robert Fischer, board member of the Oakland Jewish Welfare Federation, will serve as discussants.

In another keynote session, to be held on Saturday, January 23, Miss Ann S. Petlock, assistant executive director of the United Service for New Americans, will speak on “Immigration Problems.” Robert J. Koshland, campaign chairman of the San Francisco Jewish Welfare Fund and past president of the CJFWF Western Stats Region, will serve as chairman and there will be two discussants, Alvin Landis, president of the Sacramento Jewish Community Council, and Joseph Roos, executive director of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Relations Council.  Albert A. Hutler, executive director of the San Diego United Jewish Fund, will function as consultant.

Workshops on “Techniques for Securing Increased Funds” will be held on Sunday morning, January 24^th.  For the larger cities Rodin Horrow of San Diego and Joseph Sloss, JR., of San Francisco will lead the discussion and Milton D. Goldsmith of Portland will serve as consultant.  Mr. Horrow and Mr. Sloss are past campaign chairmen of their respective community campaigns and Mr. Goldsmith is the executive director of the Portland Jewish Welfare Fund.

For the smaller cities, Jack C. Fruchthendler, president of the Tucson Jewish Community Council, will be workshop leader and Joshua Marcus, executive director of the Long Beach Jewish Community Council will serve as consultant.  During the business luncheon on January 24^th, there will be an election of officers and the adoption of resolutions.  The Assembly will conclude with an annual report and an address by Eli H. Levenson of San Diego, regional president.

*

“Adventures in Jewish History” is sponsored by Inland Industries Group LP in memory of long-time San Diego Jewish community leader Marie (Mrs. Gabriel) Berg. Our indexed “Adventures in San Diego Jewish History” series will be a daily feature until we run out of history.

Holocaust:

(n.) The Judeo-Masonic destruction of former Christendom. Present situation: perverts and godless racial supremacists write and enforce the laws, and brainwash the enslaved population through their ‘educational’ and infotainment franchises; elders are euthanized and babies are slaughtered; temporary survivors are enslaved, numbered, tracked like criminals, and farmed for profit.

~ For L.A. & G.Q. ~

Malachi Martin “Michael Serafian” “The Pilgrim” of Zion

Malachi Martin was an allegedly Christian Irish priest who worked for decades in the Vatican and claimed that Satanic Masses had been performed in the Vatican, in which Christian children had been sacrificed to Satan. His claims actually had  ring of truth to them, even though he never identified the Satanists. Obviously this Crypt-Jew — who claimed to be descended from “a banker” who fled to Ireland in 1492 — didn’t want to incriminate himself. Martin also wrote a book for the American Jewish Committee entitled “The Pilgrim”, under the pseudonym “Michael Serafian”.

“Father” Martin attended Belvedere College in Dublin, became a Jesuit novice in 1939, and received a bachelor’s degree in Semitic languages, and Oriental History at the National University of Ireland while carrying out concurrent study in Assyriology at Trinity College. At the Roman Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, he completed degrees in Philosophy, Theology, Semitic Languages, Archeology and Oriental History. In 1954, he was ordained a Jesuit Priest. He then studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at Oxford University, specializing in intertestamentary studies and knowledge of Jesus Christ from Hebrew and Arabic manuscripts. He undertook additional study in rational psychology, experimental psychology, physics and anthropology. He took part in the research of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and published twenty four articles on Semitic paleography in various journals. He was summoned to Rome to work within the Holy See and act as the private secretary for Augustin Cardinal Bea S.J.. While in Rome, he became a professor within the Pontifical Biblical Institute of the Vatican, where he taught Aramaic, paleography, Hebrew and Sacred Scripture. According to his book Hostage to the Devil, he assisted in several exorcisms. Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Travelled, developed a friendship with Martin and was influenced by the latter in the development of his theories of evil and exorcism. After a brief stay in Paris, Martin relocated to New York City in 1965, and was active as a Masonic propagandist for the rest of his life. He received a Guggenheim fellowship, which enabled him to write his first bestseller, Hostage to the Devil. Martin a member of the Vatican advisory council.

Malachi Martin’s Double Agent Status Documented

By John Grasmeier, Angelqueen.org, June, 2007

Angelqueen.org has obtained numerous incriminating documents proving not only that Malachi Martin was indeed the infamous Vatican II “double agent,” but also that his duplicitous activities during the Council ran far deeper than had been previously thought.

Background

During the Second Vatican Council, Martin acted as an assistant and translator to Cardinal Augustin Bea, head of the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity (SPCU). At the time, a major focus of the SPCU was the Jewish declaration portion of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document that addressed the Church’s relations with other religions. Cardinal Bea would later be referred to by Archbishop Lefebvre as an “instrument of betrayal.”

In January of 1966, Look Magazine ran an article entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking,” a lengthy, in-depth look at the influence various Jewish lobbying groups had over the final draft of Nostra Aetate. In the article, Senior Editor Joseph Roddy tells of an unnamed Jesuit priest who held a key position in Rome during the time the Second Vatican Council was in session. The priest, described as a “double agent who “could never turn down work” and a “savior in the diaspora,” would use his position to gather and disseminate inside information to the secular press and the Jewish lobbying groups, who would in turn use that information in their efforts to influence the Council fathers – particularly the progressive American bishops. Although the priest’s actual name is withheld, several pseudonyms he used for his various activities are revealed.

As “Michael Serafian,” he wrote “The Pilgrim” (Ferrar, Straus & Giroux, 1964), a tell-all book on the politics, key figures and inner dealings of the council. As “F.E. Cartus,” he penned two timely articles, one for Harper’s Magazine and one for the American Jewish Committee’s influential intellectual periodical Commentary. As “Pushkin,” he would feed “inside tips and tactical leaks,” often in the form of notes slipped under doors, to journalists of major media organizations.

This all took place many years before Malachi Martin became a cult figure and public author who wrote books under his own name. Although word began to get around in certain circles that Martin and the pen-names were one in the same, it wasn’t until 5 years after he left Rome, when he wrote “The Encounter” (Ferrar, Straus & Giroux), that the first solid nexus was made between Martin and the double-agent priest. On the back cover of The Encounter, it states clearly that Malachi Martin did indeed write “The Pilgrim” under the pseudonym Michael Serafian.

Despite the indisputable self-admission that Michael Serafian was Martin’s pen name, many of his devoted fans would claim that there was no evidence that he was the mole priest identified in the Look article who wrote for the American Jewish Committee and used his position in Rome to pass sensitive information to the press. What follows, will indisputably show not only that Martin was the double-agent priest in the Look article, but that the “warm friendship with the AJC” described by Joe Roddy was far warmer than anyone, including Roddy, had suspected.

The documents referenced below were made available to AQ by the Manuscripts Department of the New York Public Library. They are part of the Ferrar, Straus & Giroux collection, which contains correspondence and documentation on the publishing company’s dealings with many of its authors. They are available to any and all. None have been altered in any way shape or form.

THE DOCUMENTS

Exhibit A: Setting up the Swiss bank account

This memo, dated March 19, 1964 was written by FSG treasurer Robert Wohlforth (RW) and sent to Robert Straus (RWS). Roger Straus is the president of Ferrar, Straus and Giroux and the sole heir to the Guggenheim fortune. The memo describes a discussion the two had regarding “The Pilgrim contract” and what steps needed to be taken to set up a Swiss bank account.

Exhibit B: Zachariah Shuster receives royalty payments from Martin’s book, “The Pilgrim”

This extraordinarily fascinating sheet of paper must be colloquially described as the proverbial “doozey.” It’s a Ferrar, Straus and Giroux royalty statement listing payouts and deductions for The Pilgrim. Only instead of the payee being the author of the book, Malachi Martin (aka Michael Serafian), the payee just happens to be Zachariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee.

Exhibit C: Zachariah Shuster wonders where the check is

Zachariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee writes a letter to FS&G treasurer wondering why a check that was destined for a Swiss bank account hasn’t yet arrived. He follows up with a confirmation then receives a response from Ferrar, Straus and Giroux treasurer Robert Wohlforth.

Exhibit D: Martin’s services are requested by the AJC

Here we have Marc Tanenbaum, Director of Interreligious Affairs for the AJC, accepting a gracious offer from Roger Straus to use Malachi Martin as he sees fit. Tanenbaum thinks the idea is a good one, stating that “Serafian (Martin) could provide a genuine service if he were to deal with the crucial issue of the deicide problem…” Although the hoped for late summer deadline would not be met, in the January 1965 issue of the AJC publication, Commentary, Martin, as F.E. Cartus, writes an article entitled “Vatican II and the Jews,” At the beginning of the third paragraph, it reads in part as follows:

“Roman Catholic believers drew a whole range of practical conclusions from these premises. The Jews as a people-not only the Jews of Christ’s time but Jews of all time-were guilty of having killed Christ, the God-man: theologically speaking, they were deicides.”

Not only does Martin dutifully write the article (containing a vast amount of insider information) as requested, but he exceeds all expectations when he fabricates a statement on the Jews that he attributes to Pope John XXIII, claiming it was written shortly before his death and was to be read on a set date in all Catholic Churches worldwide. That story HERE.

Exhibit E: Robert Straus receives Martin’s assignment from the AJC

Robert Straus acknowledges receiving Tanenbaum’s letter and notes that he simultaneously had received the assignment for “The Pilgrim” to write the article for the AJC publication.

Exhibit F: Roger Straus wants to discuss Martin with Podhorez

Roger Straus wishes to discuss a letter from Michael Serafian (Malachi Martin) with Norman Podhorez, the editor of Commentary, where the article was to appear. It’s unclear what is meant when Straus states they should discuss the matter as a “possible post mortem.” Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the hoped for timeframe of late summer couldn’t be met.

Exhibit G: Straus makes undeniable connection between Martin and F.E. Cartus

Roger Straus writes to a British publisher telling him to look for an article by pseudonym Michael Serafian (Martin) that will appear in the September 1965 issue of Harper’s Magazine. As promised, an article by F.E. Cartus entitled “The Vatican Council Ends – Reform on borrowed time?” by F.E. Cartus appears in the September edition of Harpers.

Exhibit H: An ledger with interesting transactions

A ledger that was created to show “actual payments to or in (sic) behalf of Michael Serafian,” offers some interesting insights. On line 1, it shows the check sent to Zachariah Shuster on June 25, 1964 (see Exhibit C). On line 3, it shows the net royalty payment that is shown on line 29 of the document at Exhibit B. On line 2, it shows another payment to Zachariah Shuster that does not have any corresponding documentation in the FS&G collection. On line 5, it shows a payment of $500 to Abe Karlikow. Abe Karlikow was the director of the American Jewish Committee’s European office, based in Paris, France. On line 9, it shows Martin’s last payment as being on June 7, 1965. Just a few weeks later, on June 24, 1965, Martin would receive a $7,350 (around $48,000 in 2007 dollars) fellowship grant from the Harry F. Guggenheim foundation. The founder of that foundation, Harry Frank Guggenheim, just so happens to be Roger Straus’ uncle on his mother’s side.

In conclusion

There is no doubt whatsoever that the double agent described in the Look article by Joseph Roddy was in fact Malachi Martin. The document at exhibit G undeniably ties Michael Serafian – who is undeniably Malachi Martin – to the F.E Cartus pseudonym.

Joe Roddy was somewhat remiss, in that the relationship between Martin and the American Jewish Committee was far more than “warm friendship.” The relationship was outright collusive. Zachariah Shuster and Abe Kalikow were receiving payments on Martin’s behalf that were laundered through a Swiss bank account set up specifically for that purpose. Marc Tanenbaum requested custom propaganda for the AJC periodical Commentary, which Martin happily provided. Shuster and Kalikow were attached to the European office of the AJC in Paris, France, which just so happens to be where Martin fled to after he left Rome.

Martin was paid well for his services. According to the Straus ledger (exhibit H), during the latter half of 1964, he received a total of $3,651.03. According to the Federal Reserve consumer price index calculator, that would equal $24,202.80 today. In the first half of 1965, he received $4,282.85, which works out to $27,940.50 in 2007 dollars. Immediately after receiving his last payment from Straus in June of ’65, Martin receives a grant from Straus’ uncle’s foundation for $7,350 or $47,950 adjusted to 2007. In fairness to Martin, it must be noted that he took that grant in monthly payments over 15 months following the time it was awarded to him. The fact remains however, in the year’s time that spanned from June of ’64 and June of ’65, Martin was paid, granted, or received on his behalf at least $100,000 adjusted for inflation. This sum only includes what has been documented by AQ as being paid from Guggenheim and FS&G from in that one year span. It does not include other payments, if any, from Guggenheim and FS&G that AQ doesn’t have a record of. It does not include any payments Martin would have received for writing the articles for Commentary and Harpers. It does not include any other possible income sources. In the summer of 1963, Robert Kaiser claims that Martin “always had a wallet was stuffed with hundred dollar bills,” that he believed was provided by the AJC. In any case, he most certainly didn’t do the AJC’s bidding for free. It’s more than safe to assume that Martin had income aside from that which AQ has been able to document 40 years after the fact.

While Malachi Martin was supposed to be working on behalf of Holy Mother Church, the Holy See and his brother and sister Catholics, he was working for secular publishers, secular media organization and Jewish interest groups.

Related:

• John Grasmeier: Malachi Martin wasn’t a 60s liberal, he was far worse”
• John Grasmeier:  ”Malachi Martin’s actions against the Church during the 1960’s, Clever pseudonyms, paid intelligence work and fabricated Papal Prayers”

How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking

LOOK Magazine, Volume 30 No. 2
by Joseph Roddy
January 25, 1966

[I have taken the liberty of crossing out the self-pitying and mendacious Anti-Christ Jewish propaganda, and have added  a few helpful comments.]

For the simple tenets of their faith, most Roman Catholics rely on the catechism’s hard questions and imprimatured answers. Children in Church schools memorize its passages, which they rarely forget the rest of their lives. In the catechism, they learn that Catholic dogma does not change and, far more vividly, that Jews killed Jesus Christ. [In fact, this is a Jewish teaching; in The Talmud, the Jews boast about having murdered the Son of God, and celebrate their belief that He is boiling for eternity in a vat of boiling shit and/or sperm.] Because of that Christian [Jewish] concept, for the past 20 centuries anti-Semitism spread as a kind of social disease on the body of mankind. [No. Jews have had a few set-backs over the years because their host populations resent being manipulated and lorded over by Jewish racial supremacists who are at war with humanity.] Its incidence rose and fell, but anti-Semites were never quite out of style. The ill-minded who argued all other matters could still join in contempt for Jews. It was a gentlemen’s agreement that carried into Auschwitz.

Few Catholics were ever directly taught to hate Jews. Yet Catholic teaching could not get around the New Testament account that Jews provoked the Crucifixion. The gas chambers were only the latest proof that they had not yet been pardoned. The best hope that the Church of Rome will not again seem an accomplice to genocide is the fourth chapter of its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non- Christian Religions, which Pope Paul VI declared Church law near the end of Vatican Council II. At no place in his address from the Chair of Peter did the Pope talk of Jules Isaac. But perhaps the archbishop of Aix, Charles de Provenchères, had made Isaac’s role perfectly clear some few years earlier. “It is a sign of the times,” the Archbishop said, ” that a layman, and a Jewish layman at that, has become the originator of a Council decree.”

Jules Isaac was a history scholar, a Legion of Honor member, and the inspector of schools in France. In 1943, he was 66, a despairing man living near Vichy, when the Germans picked up his daughter and wife. From then on, Isaac could think of little but the apathy of the Christian world before the fate of incinerated Jews. His book Jesus and Israel was published in 1948, and after reading it, Father Paul Démann in Paris searched schoolbooks and verified Isaac’s sad claim that inadvertently, if not by intent, Catholics taught contempt for Jews. Gregory Baum, an Augustinian priest born an Orthodox Jews, called it “a moving account of the love which Jesus had for his people, the Jews, and of the contempt which the Christians, later, harbored for them.”

Isaac’s book was noticed. In 1949, Pope Pius XII received its author briefly. But 11 years went by before Isaac saw real hope. In Rome, in mid-June, 1960, the French Embassy pressed Isaac on to the Holy See. Isaac wanted to see John XXIII. He was passed from the old Cardinal Eugene Tisserant to the archconservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Ottaviani sent him on to the 83-year-old Cardinal Andrea Jullien, who stared without seeing and stayed motionless as stone while Isaac told how Catholic teaching led to anti- Semitism. When he had finished, he waited for a reaction, but Jullien stayed in stone. Isaac, who was hard of hearing, stared intently at the prelate’s lips. Time passed, neither spoke. Isaac thought of just leaving, then decided to intrude. “But whom should I see about this terrible thing?” he asked, finally, and after another long pause, the old Cardinal said,” Tisserant.” The silence settled in again. The next word was, “Ottaviani.” Isaac shook that off too. When it was time for another, the word was, “Bea.” With that, Jules Isaac went to Augustin Bea, the one German Jesuit in the College of Cardinals. “In him, I found powerful support,” Isaac said.

The next day, the support was even stronger. John XXIII, standing in the doorway of the fourth-floor papal apartment, reached for Jules Isaac’s hand, then sat beside him. “I introduced myself as a non- Christian, the [non-]promoter of l’Amitiés Judéo-Chrétiennes, and a very deaf old man,” Isaac said. John talked for a while of his [Judaic] devotion to the Old Testament, told of his days as a Vatican diplomat in France, then asked where his caller was born. Here, Isaac felt a rambling chat with the Supreme Pontiff coming on and started worrying about how he would ever bring the conversation around to his subject. He told John that his actions had kindled great hopes in the people of the Old Testament, and added: “Is not the Pope himself, in his great kindness, responsible for it if we now expect more?” John laughed, and Isaac had a listener. The non-Christian beside the Pope said the Vatican should study anti-Semitism [sic]. John said he had been thinking about that from the beginning of their talk. “I asked if I might take away some sparks of hope,” Isaac recalled. John said he had a right to more than hope and then went on about the limits of sovereignty. “I am the head, but I must consult others too….This is not monarchie absolue!” To much of the world, it seemed to be monarchy benevolent. Because of John, a lot was happening fast in Catholicism and Jewry.

A few months before Isaac spelled out his case against the Gentiles [sic], a Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was set up by Pope John under Cardinal Bea. It was to press toward reunion with the churches Rome lost at the Reformation. After Isaac left, John made it clear to the administrators in the Vatican’s Curia that a firm condemnation of Catholic anti-Semitism [sic] was to come from the council he had called. To John, the German Cardinal seemed the right legislative whip for the job, even if his Christian Unity secretariat seemed a vexing address to work from.

By then, there was a fair amount of talk passing between the Vatican Council offices and Jewish groups, and both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith were heard loud and clear in Rome. Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel of New York’s Jewish Theological Seminary, who first knew of Bea in Berlin 30 years ago, met with the Cardinal in Rome. Bea had already read the American Jewish Committee’s The Image of the Jews in Catholic Teaching. It was followed by another AJC paper, the 23-page study, Anti-Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy. Speaking for the AJC, Heschel said he hoped the Vatican Council would purge Catholic teaching of all suggestions that the Jews were a cursed race. And in doing that, Heschel felt, the Council should in no way exhort Jews to become Christians. About the same time, Israel’s Dr. Nahum Goldmann, head of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations, whose members ranged in creed from the most orthodox to liberal, pressed its aspirations on the Pope. B’nai B’rith wanted the Catholics to delete all language from the Church services that could even seem anti-Semitic [sic]. Not then, nor in any time to come, would that be a simple thing to do. The Catholic liturgy, where it was drawn from writings of the early Church Fathers, could easily be edited. But not the Gospels. Even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were better at evangelism than history, their writings were divinely inspired, according to Catholic dogma, and about as easy to alter as the center of the sun. That difficulty put both Catholics with the very best intentions and Jews with the deepest understanding of Catholicism in a theological fix. It also brought out the conservative opposition in the Church and, to some extent, Arab anxieties in the Mideast. The conservative charge against the Jews was that they were deicides, guilty of killing God in the human-divine person of Christ. And to say now that they were not deicides was to say by indirection that Christ was not God, for the fact of the execution on Calvary stood unquestioned in Catholic theology. Yet the execution and the religion of those demanding it were the reasons Jews were “God-killers” and “Christ-killers” in the taunts of anti-Semites [sic]. Clearly, then, Catholic Scripture [i.e. Christian Scriptire, i.e. The New Testament, which supersedes The Old Testament] would be at issue if the council spoke about deicides and Jews. Wise and long-mitred heads around the Curia warned that the bishops in council should not touch this issue with ten-foot staffs. But still there was John XXIII, who said they must.

If the inviolability of Holy Writ was most of the problem in Rome, the rest was the Arab-Israeli war. Ben-Gurion’s Israel, in the Arab League’s view, like Mao’s China in the world out of Taiwan, really does not exist. Or, it only exists as a bone in the throat of Nasser. If the Council were to speak out for the Jews, then the spiritual order would seem political to Arab bishops. Next, there would be envoys passing in the night between the Vatican and Tel Aviv. This was a crisis the Arab League thought it might handle by diplomacy. Unlike Israel, its states already had some ambassadors to the papal court. They would bear the politest of reminders to the Holy See that some 2,756,000 Roman Catholics lived in Arab lands and mention the 420,000 [Arab] Orthodox Catholics separated from Rome, whom the Papacy hoped to reclaim. Bishops of both cuts [huh?] of Catholicism could be counted on to convey their interests to the Holy See. It was too soon for the threats. [No. There was only the ubiquitous Jewish threat.] Instead, the Arabs importuned Rome to see that they were neither anti-Semitic [sic] nor anti-Jewish. Arabs, too, are Semites, they said ["they said"? "they said?" it's a fact!], and among them lived thousands of Jewish refugees. Patriotic Arabs were just anti-Zionist because to them, Zionism was a plot to set a Judaic state in the center of Islam. ["to them..."? "to them..."? it's a fact!]

In Rome, the word from the Mideast and the conservatives was that a Jewish declaration would be inopportune. From the West, where 225,500 more Jews live in New York than in Israel, the word was that dropping the declaration would be a calamity. And into this impasse came the ingenuous bulk of John XXIII — not to settle the dispute but to enlarge it. Quite on his own, the Pope was toying with an idea, which the Roman Curia found grotesque, that non-Catholic faiths should send observers to the Council. The prospect of being invited caused no crisis among Protestants, but it plainly nonplussed the Jews. To attend suggested to some Jews that Christian theology concerned them. [And yet, today Jews make rulings on who is entitled to Christian communion, and issue their demands to their slave, or colleague, the Bishop of Rome.] But to stay away when invited might suggest that the Jews did not really care whether Catholics came to grips with anti-Semitism [sic]. When it was learned that Bea’s declaration, set for voting at the first Council session, carried a clear refutation of the decide charge, the World Jewish Congress let it be known around Rome that Dr. Haim Y. Vardi, an Israeli, would be an unofficial observer at the Council. The two reports may not have been related, but still they seemed to be. Because of them, other reports — louder ones — were heard. The Arabs complained to the Holy See. The Holy See said no Israeli had been invited. The Israelis denied then that an observer had been named. The Jews in New York thought an American should observe. In Rome, it all ended up with a jiggering of the agenda to make sure that the declaration would not come to the Council floor that session. Still, for the bishops, there was quite a bit of supplementary reading on Jews. Some agency close enough to the Vatican to have the addresses in Rome of the Council’s 2,200 visiting cardinals and bishops, supplied each with a 900-page book, Il Complotto contro la Chiesa (The Plot Against the Church) In it, among reams of scurrility, was a kind of fetching shred of truth. Its claim [of the fact] that the Church was being infiltrated by Jews would intrigue anti-Semites [sic]. For, in fact, ordained Jews around Rome working on the Jewish declaration included Father Baum, as well as Msgr. John Oesterreicher, on Bea’s staff at the Secretariat. Bea, himself, according to the Cairo daily, Al Gomhuria, was a Jew named Behar. Neither Baum nor Oesterreicher was with Bea in the late afternoon on March 31, 1963, when a limousine was waiting for him outside the Hotel Plaza in New York. The ride ended about six blocks away, outside the offices of the American Jewish Committee. There, a latter-day Sanhedrin was waiting to greet the head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. The gathering was kept secret from the press. Bea wanted neither the Holy See nor the Arab League to know he was there to take questions the Jews wanted to hear answered. “I am not authorized to speak officially,” he told them. “I can, therefore, speak only of what, in my opinion, could be effected, indeed, should be effected, by the Council.” Then, he spelled out the problem. “In round terms” he said, “the Jews are accused of being guilty of deicide, and on them is supposed to lie a curse.” [And they boast of their Deicide in The Talmud.] He countered both charges. Because even in the accounts of the Evangelists, only the leaders of the Jews then in Jerusalem and a very small group of followers shouted for the death sentence on Jesus, all those absent and the generations of Jews unborn were not implicated in deicide in any way, Bea said. [Which is why "Christ-Killers" is a proud Jewish boast, and not exactly Christian teaching. Christian teaching is that Judaism is of course evil, but humankind killed Christ.] As to the curse, it could not condemn the crucifiers anyway, the Cardinal reasoned, because Christ’s dying words were a prayer for their pardon.

The Rabbis in the room wanted to know then if the declaration would specify deicide, the curse and the rejection of the Jewish people by God as errors in Christian teaching. [From Chapter 8 of the Gospel of St John, a true Israelite, and the Most Beloved Disciple: "They answered, 'Our father is Abraham.' … 'God is our Father; he is the only Father we have.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were really your Father, you would love me, because I came from God and now I am here. I did not come by my own authority; God sent me. You don’t understand what I say, because you cannot accept my teaching. You belong to your father the devil, and you want to do what he wants. He was a murderer from the beginning and was against the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he shows what he is really like, because he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you don’t believe me.'… 'you don’t accept what God says, because you don’t belong to God.'"] Implicit in their question was the most touchy problem of the New Testament. Bea’s answer was oblique. He cautioned his listeners that an unwieldy assemblage of bishops could not possibly get down to details, could only set guidelines, and hope not to make the complex seem simple. “Actually,” he went on, “it is wrong to seek the chief cause of anti- Semitism [sic] in purely religious sources — in the Gospel accounts, for example. These religious causes, in so far as they are adduced (often they are not), are often merely an excuse and a veil to cover over other more operative reasons for enmity.” [Mr Bea did not mention Jewish contempt for non-Jewish humanity, or "goyim", and Jewish hatred of Christ and His Church.] Cardinal and rabbis joined in a toast with sherry after the talk, and one asked the prelate about Monsignor Oesterreicher, whom many Jews regard as too missionary with them. “You know, Eminence,” a Jewish reporter once told Bea, “Jews do not regard Jewish converts [i.e Jewish apostates who have converted to God] as their best friends.” Bea answered gravely, “Not our Jews.”

Not long after that, the Rolf Hochhuth [slanderous, mendacious] play The Deputy opened [and not by coincidence], to depict Pius XII as the Vicar of Christ who fell silent [a lie] while Hitler went to The Final Solution [i.e, the expulsion of Jews from the Gerrman Reich]. From the pages of the Jesuit magazine America, Oesterreicher talked straight at the AJC and B’nai B’rith. “Jewish human-relations agencies,” he wrote, “will have to speak out against The Deputy in unmistakable terms. Otherwise they will defeat their own purpose.” In the Table of London, Giovanni Battista Montini, the archbishop of Milan, wrote an attack on the play as a defense of the Pope, whose secretary he had been. A few months later, Pope John XXIII was dead, and Montini became Pope Paul VI.

At the second session of the Council, in the fall of 1963, the Jewish declaration came to the bishops as Chapter 4 of the larger declaration On Ecumenism. The Chapter 5 behind it was the equally troublesome declaration on religious liberty. Like riders to bills in congress, each of the disputed chapters was a wayward caboose hooked to the new ecumenical train. Near the end of the session, when On Ecumenism came up for a vote, the Council moderators decided the voting should cover only the first three chapters. That switched the cabooses to a siding and averted a lot of clatter in a council trying hard to be ecumenical. Voting on the Jews and religious liberty would follow soon, the bishops were promised. And while waiting around, they could read The Jews and the Council in the Light of Scripture and Tradition which was shorter, but more scurrilous than Il Complotto. But the second session ended without the vote on the Jews or religious liberty, and on a distinctly sour note, despite the Pope’s announced visit to the Holy Land. That pilgrimage would take up a lot of newsprint, but still leave room for questions about votes that vanished. “Something had happened behind the scenes,” ["and God said, "Let their be light."] the voice of the National Catholic Welfare Conference wrote.” [It is] one of the mysteries of the second session.”

Two very concerned Jewish gentlemen who had to reflect hard on such mysteries were 59-year-old Joseph Lichten of [Masonic] B’nai B’rith’s [gangster] Anti- Defamation League in New York, and Zachariah Shuster, 63, of the American Jewish Committee. Lichten, who lost his parents, wife and daughter in Buchenwald, and Shuster, who also lost come of his closest relatives, had been talking with bishops and their staff men in Rome. The two lobbyists were not, however, seeing a lot of one another over vin rosso around St. Peter’s. The strongest possible Jewish declaration was their common cause, but each wanted his home office to have credit for it. [Is this an "antishemitic" jibe, making fun of the common perception that Jews will even cheat each other every chance they get?] That is, of course, if the declaration was really strong. But until then, each would offer himself to the American hierarchs as the best barometer in Rome of Jewish sentiment back home.

To find out how the Council was going, many U.S. bishops in Rome depended on what they read in the New York Times. And so did the AJC and B’nai B’rith. That paper was the place to make points. Lichten thought Shuster was a genius at getting space in it, but less than deeply instructed in theology. Which is just about the way Shuster saw Lichten. Neither had much time for Frith Becker. Becker was in Rome for the World Jewish Congress, as its spokesman who sought no publicity and got little. The WJC, according to Becker, was interested in the Council, but not in trying to shape it. “We don’t have the American outlook,” he said, “on the importance of getting into print.” [And who owns the presses?]

Getting into print was even beginning to look good to the Vatican. Yet an expert at the public relations craft would say the Holy See showed inexperience in the Holy Land. When Paul prayed with the bearded Orthodox Patriarch Athenagora in the Jordanian sector, the visit looked very good. Yet when he crossed over to Israel, he had cutting words about the author of The Deputy and a conversionest sermon for the Jews. His stay was so short that he never publicly uttered the name of the young country he was visiting in. [Rightly so, since The Church (wherever and whatever The Church is) is in fact Israel.] Vaticanlogists studying his moves thought they saw lessened hope for the declaration on the Jews.

Things looked better ["better"?] at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. There, at a Beth Israel Hospital anniversary, guests learned that, years earlier, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver had told Cardinal Francis Spellman of Israel’s efforts to get a seat in the United Nations. To help, Spellman said he would call on South American governments and share with them his fond wish that Israel be admitted. About the same time, il Papa americana told an AJC meeting it was “absurd to maintain that there is some kind of continuing guilt.” In Pittsburgh, Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the AJC spoke to the Catholic Press Association about the deicide charge, and the editorial response was abundant. In Rome, six AJC members had an audience with the Pope, and one of them, Mrs. Leonard M. Sperry, had just endowed [i.e. Jewish $$$, to corrupt] the Sperry Center for Intergroup Cooperation at Pro Deo University in the Holy City. The Pope told his callers he agreed with all Cardinal Spellman had said about Jewish guilt. Vaticanologists could not help but reverse their reading and see a roseate future for the declaration.

Then came the New York Times. On June 12, 1964, it reported that the denial of deicide had been cut from the latest draft of the declaration. At the Secretariat for Christian Unity, a spokesman said only that the text had been made stronger. But that is not the way most Jews read it, nor a great many Catholics. Before the Council met and while the text was still sub secreto, whole sections of it turned up one morning in the New York Herald Tribune. No mention of the deicide charge was to be found. Instead, there was a clear call for the ecumenical spirit to extend itself because “the union of the Jewish people with the Church is a part of the Christian hope.” Among the few Jews who did not mind reading that were Lichten and Shuster. They could look at it professionally. It read, say, much better over coffee in a morning paper than it would if the Pope were promulgating it as Catholic teaching. On other Jews, its effect was galvanic. Their disappointment set off indignation among some American bishops, and Lichten and Shuster appreciated their concern. Chances that a deicideless declaration, with a built-in conversion clause, would ever get by the American bishops and cardinals at the Council were what a couple of good lobbyists might call slim.

About two weeks before that, Msgr. George Higgins of the National Catholic Welfare Conference in Washington, D.C., helped arrange a papal audience for UN Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg, who was a Supreme Court Justice at the time. Rabbi Heschel briefed Goldberg before the Justice and the Pope discussed the declaration. Cardinal Richard Cushing, in Boston, wanted to help too. Through his aide in Rome, the Cardinal set up an audience with the Pope for Heschel, whose apprehensions had reason to exceed Cushing’s. With the AJC’s Shuster beside him, Heschel talked hard about deicide and guilt, and asked the Pontiff to press for a declaration in which Catholics would be forbidden to proselytize Jews. Paul, somewhat affronted, would in no way agree. Shuster, somewhat chagrined, disassociated himself gingerly from Heschel by switching to French, which the Pope speaks but the Rabbi does not. All agree that the audience did not end as cordially as it began. Only Heschel and a few others think it did good. He invited notice in an Israeli paper that the declaration’s next text had emerged free of conversionary tone. To the AJC, that interview was one more irritant. The Rabbi’s audience with Paul in the Vatican, like Bea’s meeting with the AJC in New York, was granted on the condition that it would be kept secret. It was undercover summit conferences of that sort that led conservatives [i.e. Christians] to claim that American Jews were the new powers behind the Church. But on the floor of the Council, things looked even worse to the conservatives. There, it seemed to them as if Catholic bishops were working for the Jews. At issue was the weakened text. The cardinals from St. Louis and Chicago, Joseph Ritter and the late Albert Meyer, demanded a return to the strong one. Cushing said the deicide denial would have to be put back. Bishop Steven Leven of San Antonio called for clearing the text of conversionary pleas and , unknowingly, uttered a prophetic view about deicide. “We must tear this word out of the Christian vocabulary,” he said, “so that it may never again be used against the Jews.”

All that talk brought out the Arab bishops. They argued that a declaration favoring Jews would expose Catholics to persecution as long as Arabs fought Israelis. Deicide, inherited guilt and conversionary locutions seemed like so many debating points to most Arabs. They wanted no declaration at all, they kept saying, because it would be put to political use against them. Their allies in this holy war were conservative Italians, Spaniards and South Americans. They saw the structure of the faith being shaken by theological liberals who thought Church teaching could change. To the conservatives, this was near-heresy, and to the liberals, it was pure faith. Beyond faith, the liberals had the votes, and sent the declaration back to its Secretariat for more strength. While it was out for redrafting again, the conservatives wanted it flattened into one paragraph in the Constitution of the Church. But when the declaration reappeared at the third session’s end, it was in a wholly new document called The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. In that setting, the bishops approved it with a 1,770 to 185 vote. There was considerable joy among Jews in the United States because their declaration had finally come out. In fact, it had not. The vote had been an endorsement only for the general substance of the text. But because votes with qualifications were accepted (placet iuxta modum is the Latin term for “yes, but with this modification”), the time between the third session and the fourth — just finished — would be spent fitting in the modifying modi, or those most of the 31 voting members of the Secretariat thought acceptable. By Council rules, modi could qualify or nuance the language, but they could not change the substance of the text. But then, what substance is or is not had always kept philosophers on edge. And theologians have had trouble with it too.

But first there were less recondite troubles to face. In Segni, near Rome, Bishop Luigi Carli wrote in the February, 1965 issue of his diocesan magazine that the Jews of Christ’s time and their descendants down to the present were collectively guilty of Christ’s death. A few weeks later, on Passion Sunday, at an outdoor Mass in Rome, Pope Paul talked of the Crucifixion and the Jews’ heavy part in it. Rome’s chief rabbi, Elio Toaff [whose son recently wrote a book -- banned by the ADL -- about Jewish torture and cannibalism of Christian youth], said in saddened reply that in “even the most qualified Catholic personalities, the imminence of Easter causes prejudices to reemerge.”

On April 25, 1965, the New York Times correspondent in Rome, Robert C. Doty, upset just about everybody. The Jewish declaration was in trouble was the gist of his story reporting that the Pope had turned it over to four consultants to clear it of its contradictions to Scripture and make it less objectionable to Arabs. It was about as refuted as a Times story ever gets. When Cardinal Bea arrived in New York three days later, he had his priest-secretary deny Doty’s story by saying that his Secretariat for Christian Unity still had full control of the Jewish declaration. Then came an apologia for Paul’s sermon. “Keep in mind that the Pope was speaking to ordinary and simple faithful people — not before a learned body,” the priest said. As to the anti-Semitic [sic] Bishop of Segni, the Cardinal’s man said that Carli’s views were definitely not those of the Secretariat. Morris B. Abram of the AJC was at the airport to greet Bea and found his secretary’s views on that reassuring.

In Rome a few days later, some fraction of the Secretariat met to vote on the bishops’ suggested modi. Among them were a few borne down from the fourth floor of the Vatican over the signature of the Bishop of Rome. It is not known for certain whether that special bishop urged that the “guilty of deicide” denial be cut. But the alternate possibility that the phrase would have been cut, if he had wanted it kept, is not pondered on much any more. Accounts of the Secretariat’s struggles over deicide agree that it was a very close vote after a long day’s debate. After deicide went out, there remained the Bishop of Rome’s suggestion that the clause beginning “deplores, indeed condemns, hatred and persecution of Jews” might read better with “indeed condemns” left out. That would leave hatred and persecution of Jews still “deplored.” The suggestion stirred no debate and was quickly accepted by vote. It was late, and nobody cared to fuss any more about little things.

That meeting was from May 9 to 15, and during that week, the New York Times had a story every other day from the Vatican. On May 8, the Secretariat denied again that outsiders were taking a hand in the Jewish declaration. [A lie.] On the 11th, President Charles Helou of Lebanon, an Arab Maronite Catholic, had an audience with the Pope. On the 12th, the Vatican Press Office announced that the Jewish declaration remained unchanged. If that was to reassure Jews, it came across as a Press Office protesting too much. On the 15th, the Secretariat closed its meeting, and the bishops went their separate ways, some sad, some satisfied, all with lips sealed. A few may have wondered if something out of order had happened and if, despite Council rules, a Council document had been substantially changed between sessions. The Times persisted in making trouble. On June 20, under Doty’s by-line, was the report that the declaration was “under study” and might be dropped altogether. On June 22, Doty filed a story amounting to a self-directed punch in the nose. Commenting to Doty on his own earlier report, a source close to Bea said it was “so deprived of any basis that it doesn’t even deserve a denial.” For those who have raised refutations to a fine art, that was a denial to be proud of, because it was precisely true while completely misleading. Doty had written that the declaration was under study when in fact, the study was finished, the damage was done, and there existed what many regard as a substantially new declaration on the Jews.

In Geneva, Dr. Willem Visser ‘tHooft, head of the [Judeo-Masonic] World Council of Churches, told two American priests that, if the reports were true, the ecumenical movement would be slowed. His sentiments were not kept secret from the U.S. hierarchy. Nor was the AJC saddened into inactivity. Rabbi Tanenbaum plied Monsignor Higgins with press clippings from appalled Jewish editors. Higgins conveyed his fears to Cardinal Cushing, and the Boston prelate made polite inquiry to the Bishop of Rome. In Germany, a group for Jewish-Christian amity sent a letter to the bishops claiming, “There is now prevailing a crisis of confidence vis-à-vis the Catholic Church.” At the Times, there had never been a crisis of confidence vis-à-vis its reporting from Rome, but if there had been one, it would have passed on September 10. In his story under the headline VATICAN DRAFT EXONERATING JEWS REVISED TO OMIT WORD “DEICIDE,” Doty allowed no Times reader to think he had pried into Vatican secrets. He was pleased to credit as his source, “an authorized leak by the Vatican.”

Similar stories in the Times foretold Council failings before they happened. Most of these were substantiated in magazine pieces and books published later, though some had traces of special pleading. The American Jewish Committee’s intellectual monthly, Commentary, had offered a most bleak report on the Council and the Jews by the pseudonymous F. E. Cartus [i.e. Malachi Martin]. In a footnote, the author referred the reader to a confirming account in The Pilgrim, a 281-page book by the pseudonymous Michael Serafian [i.e. Malachi Martin]. Later, in Harper’s magazine, Cartus [i.e. Malachi Martin], even more dour, added to the doubts on the Jewish text. To buttress his case, he recast Pilgrim passages and cited Council accounts in Time, whose Rome correspondent had surfaced for by-line status as author of a notably good book on the Council. At the time, both Time and the New York Times were glad to have an inside tipster. Just for the journalistic fun of it, the inside man’s revelations were signed “Pushkin,” [i.e. Malachi Martin] when slipped under some correspondents’ doors. But readers were served no rewritten Pushkin on the Council’s last sessions. The cassock had come off the double agent who could never turn down work. Pushkin [i.e. Malachi Martin], it turned out, was Michael Serafian [i.e. Malachi Martin] in book length, F.E. Cartus [i.e. Malachi Martin] for the magazines, and a translator in the Secretariat for Christian Unity, while keeping up a warm friendship with the AJC. At the time, Pushkin-Serafian- Cartus [i.e. Malachi Martin]was living in the Biblical Institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954, though he will be known here as Timothy Fitzharris O’Boyle, S.J. [i.e. Malachi Martin] For the journalists, the young priest’s inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. And an imprecision or two could even be charged off to exhaustion in his case. He was known to be working on a book at a young married couple’s flat. The book finally got finished, but so did half of the friendship. Father Fitzharris-O’Boyle knew it was time for a forced march before his religious superior could inquire too closely into the reasons for that crisis in camaraderie. He left Rome then, sure that he could be of no more use [use to whom?] locally.

Apart from his taste for pseudonyms, fair ladies, reports on the nonexistent and perhaps a real jester’s genius for footnotes, Fitzharris- O’Boyle [i.e. Malachi Martin] was good at his job in the Secretariat, valuable to the AJC and is still thought of by many around Rome as a kind of genuine savior in the diaspora. Without him, the Jewish declaration might well have gone under early, for it was Fitzharris-O’Boyle [i.e. Malachi Martin] who best helped the press harass the Romans wanting to scuttle it. The man has a lot of priests’ prayers.

Other years, Fitzharris-O’Boyle [i.e. Malachi Martin] was around Rome when the declaration needed help. At Vatican II’s fourth and last session, there was no help in sight. And things were happening very fast. The text came out weakened, as the Times said it would. Then, the Pope took off for the UN, where his jamais plus la guerre speech was a triumph. After that, he greeted the president of the AJC in an East Side church. That looked good for the cause. Then, at the Yankee Stadium Mass, the Pope’s lector intoned a text beginning “for fear of the Jews.” [ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 20:19: "Οὔσης οὖν ὀψίας τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτων, καὶ τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταὶ συνηγμένοι διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν." (ויהי לעת ערב ביום ההוא והוא אחד בשבת כאשר נסגרו דלתות הבית אשר נקבצו שם התלמידים מיראת היהודים ויבא ישוע ויעמד ביניהם ויאמר אליהם שלום לכם׃)] And on TV that sounded quite astonishing. Everywhere, there were speeches on the rises and falls of the Jewish declaration, many of them preparing for a final letdown. Lichten’s executive vice-president, Rabbi Jay Kaufman, had told audiences of his own puzzlement “as the fate of the section on Jews is shuttled between momentary declaration and certain confutation, like a sparrow caught in a clerical badminton game.” Shuster could hear about the same from the AJC. He could also hear the opposition. Not content with a weakened declaration, it again wanted the total victory of no declaration at all. For that, the Arabs’ last words were “respectfully submitted“ in a 28-page memorandum [correctly] calling on the bishops to save the faith from “communism and atheism and the Jewish-Communist alliance.” In Rome, the bishops’ vote was set for October 14, and to Lichten and Shuster, the prospects of anything better looked almost hopeless. Priests had slipped each a copy of the Secretariat’s secret replies to the modifications the bishops wanted. The modi made disconsolate reading. In the old text, the Jewish origin of Catholicism [a semantic lie; Judaism is a reaction to Christianity] was noted in a paragraph, beginning, “In truth, with a grateful heart, the Church of Christ acknowledges…” In the modi sent to the Secretariat, two bishops suggested that “with a grateful heart” be deleted. It could, they feared, be understood to mean that Catholics were required to give thanks to the Jews of today [i.e. those who follow the ones whom Christ Jesus condemned as being of their father the devil, and on a mission to drag others to Hell with them]. “The suggestion is accepted,” the Secretariat decided. The replies went that way for most of 16 pages. Through all of them, few reasons were advanced for taking the warmth out of the old text and making the new one more legal than humane.

When Shuster and Lichten had finished reading, there were telephone calls to be made to the AJC and B’nai B’rith in New York. But these were not much help at either end. It was Higgins who first tried convincing two disheartened lobbyists to settle for what they would get. Yet for a day or two, Bishop Leven of San Antonio gave them hope. He thought the new statement was so weakened that the American bishops should vote en bloc against it. If followed, the tactic would have added a few hundred negative votes to the Arab-conservative side and marked the Council as so split that the Pope might not promulgate anything. The protest-vote tactic was soon abandoned. Lichten’s remorse lasted longer. He sent telegrams to about 25 bishops he thought could still help retrieve the strong text. But again, it was Higgins who quietly told him to give up. “Look, Joe,” the priest with the labor-lawyer manner told Lichten, “I understand your disappointment. I’m disappointed too.” Then, he went off to console Shuster.

In his own room, where Higgins thinks he had Lichten and Shuster together for their first joint appearance in Rome, the priest could sound as if he were putting it straight to company men looking for a square shake from the union. “If you two give New York the impression you can get a better text, you are crazy,” he told them. “Lay all your cards on the table. It’s just insane to think by some pressures here or newspaper articles back in New York, you can work a miracle in the Council. You are not going to work it, and they will think you fell down on the job.”

Lichten remembers more. “Higgins said, ‘Think how much harm can be done, Joe, if we allow these changes to erect barriers in the path we have taken for such a long time. And this may happen if your people, and mine, don’t respond to the positive aspects.’ That was the psychological turning point for me,” Lichten said. Shuster was still unreconciled, and he can remember the day well. “I had to break my head and heart,” he said, “to think what should be done. I went through a crisis, but I was convinced by Higgins. The loss of deicide, frankly, I did not consider a catastrophe. But ‘deplore’ for ‘condemn’ is another thing. When I step on your toes, you deplore what I do. But massacre? Do you deplore massacre?” [Was he referring to the Jewish massacres of Slavic Orthodox Christians and others, or the Jewish massacres of Arabs?] A differing view was taken by Abbé René Laurentin, a Council staff man who wrote to all the bishops with a last-minute appeal to conscience. Of itself, the loss of the deicide denial would not have mattered to Laurentin either, if there would never be anti-Semitism in the world again. But since history invites pessimism in this, Laurentin asked the bishops to suppose that genocide might recur. “Then, the Council and the Church will be accused,” [But why should Christians be blamed for Jewish genocides of Arabs, Iranians, Armenians, etc? Does this make any sense at all? I suppose it makes sense if the Church of Rome is a pawn of the Jews.] he contended, “of having left dormant the emotional root of anti-Semitism [sic] which is the theme of deicide.” Bishop Leven had wanted the word deicide torn out of the Christian vocabulary when he argued a year earlier for the stronger text. Now, the Secretariat had even torn it out of the declaration, and proscribed it from the Christian vocabulary so abruptly that even the proscription itself was suppressed. “With difficulty, one escapes the impression,’ Laurentin wrote, “that these arguments owe something to artifice.” Before the vote in St. Peter’s, Cardinal Bea spoke to the assembled bishops. He said his Secretariat had received their modi “with grateful heart” — and the words just happened to be the very first ones deleted by his Secretariat’s vote from the new version. A year earlier, Bea had argued for getting the deicide denial into the text, and now he was defending its removal. He spoke without zeal, as if he, too, knew he was asking the bishops for less than Jules Isaac and John XXIII might have wanted. Exactly 250 bishops voted against the declaration, while 1,763 supported it. Through much of the U.S. and Europe, the press minutes later made the complex simple with headlines reading VATICAN PARDONS JEWS, JEWS NOT GUILTY or JEWS EXONERATED IN ROME.

Glowing statements came from spokesmen of the AJC and B’nai B’rith, but each had a note of disappointment that the strong declaration had been diluted. Bea’s friend Heschel was the harshest and called the Council’s failure to deal with deicide “an act of paying homage to Satan.” [But why would a Babylonian rabbi complain about any alleged homages to Satan?] Later on, when calm, he was just saddened. “my old friend, the Jesuit priest Gus Weigel, spent one of the last nights of his life in this room,” Heschel said. “I asked him whether he thought it would really be ad majorem Dei gloriam if there were no more synagogues, no more Seder dinners and no more prayers said in Hebrew?” [But this is a nonsensical question. Of course Christian prayers can be recited in Hebrew.] The question was rhetorical, and Weigel has since gone to his grave. Other comments ranged from the elated to the satiric. Dr. William Wexler of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations tried for precision. “The true significance of the Ecumenical Council’s statement will be determined by the practical effects it has on those to whom it is addressed,” he said. Harry Golden of the Carolina Israelite called for a Jewish Ecumenical council in Jerusalem to issue [yet another] a Jewish declaration on Christians.

With his needling retort, the columnist was reflecting a view popular in the U.S. that some kind of forgiveness had been granted the Jews. The notion was both started and sustained by the press, but there was no basis for it in the declaration. What led quite understandably to it, however, was the open wrangling [driven by Jews and Jewish assets] around the Council that had made the Jews seem on trial for four years. If the accused did not quite feel cleared when the verdict was in, it was because the jury was out far too long.

It was out for reasons politicians understand but few thought relevant to religion. The present head of the Holy See, like the top man in the White House, believed deeply in pressing for a consensus when any touchy issue was put to a Council vote. By the principle of collegiality, in which all bishops help govern the whole Church, any real issue divided the college of bishops into progressives and conservatives. Reconciling them was the Pope’s job. For this rub in the collegial process, the papal remedy, whether persuaded or imposed, played some hob with the law of contradiction. When one faction said Scripture alone was the source of Church teaching, the other held for the two sources of Scripture and Tradition. To bridge that break, the declaration was rewritten with Pauline touches to reaffirm the two-source teaching while allowing that the other merited study. When opponents of religious liberty said it would fly against the teaching that Catholicism is the One True Church, a similar solution trickled down from the Vatican’s fourth floor. Religious liberty now starts with the One True Church teaching, which, according to some satisfied conservatives, contradicts the text that follows.

The Jewish issue was an even more troublesome one for a consensus- maker. Those who saw a dichotomy in the declaration could find it in the New Testament, too, where all are agreed it will stay. But to what extent was that issue complicated by the politics of the Arabs? In Israel, there is the feeling since the vote, and in Mideast journals there is considerable evidence for it, that the masses of Arab Christians were more indifferent to dispute then the Scriptural conservatives would like known. By the Newtonian laws of political motion, pressure begets counterpressure more often than lobbyists like to admit. And one of the hypotheses that B’nai B’rith and the AJC must ponder is that much Arab resistance and some theological intransigence were creatures of Jewish lobbying [and Jewish colonialism in Arab land]. There was anxiety all along about that, and Nahum Goldmann cautioned Jews early to “not raise the issue with too much intensity.” Some did not. After the vote, when Fritz Becker, the WJC’s silent man, admitted he once called on Bea at home, he said the declaration was not mentioned. “We just talked, the Cardinal and I,” Becker said, “about the advantages of not talking.”

There are Catholics close to what went on in Rome who think that Jewish energy did harm. Higgins, the social-action priest from Washington, D.C., is not one of them. If it had not been for the lobbying, he felt, the declaration would have been tabled. But in his usual gruff way, Cardinal Cushing said that the only people who could beat the Jewish declaration were the Jewish lobbyists. Father Tome Stransky, the touchy, young Paulist who rides a Lambretta to work at the Secretariat, thought that once the press got on to the Council there was no way to stop such pressure groups. If the Council could have deliberated in secret with no strainings from the outside, he thinks the declaration would have been stronger.

As it stands, Stransky fears that some Catholics may gleefully [rightly] pass it off as if it were written to and for Jews. “This, you have got to remember, is addressed to Catholics. This is Catholic Church business. I don’t mind telling you I’d be insulted, too, if I were a Jew and I thought this document was speaking to Jews.” For the Catholics, he thinks it is now written for its best effect. It was Stransky’s superior in the Secretariat, Cardinal Bea, who came around most to the claims of the conservatives. Bea apparently realized fairly late that there were some Catholics, more pious than instructed, whose contempt for Jews was inseparable from their love for Christ. To be told by the Council that Jews were not Christ-killers would be too abrupt a turnabout for their faith. These were Catholicism’s simple dogmatics. But there were many bishops at the Council who, if far less simple, were no less dogmatic. They felt Jewish pressure in Rome and resented it. They thought Bea’s enemies were proved right when Council secrets turned up in American papers. “He wants to turn the Church over to the Jews,” the hatemongers said of the old Cardinal, and some dogmatics in the Council thought the charge about right. “Don’t say the Jews had any part in this,” one priest said, “or the whole fight with the dogmatics will start over.” Another, Father Felix Morlion at the Pro Deo University, who heads the study group working closely with the AJC, thought the promulgated text the best. “The one before had more regard for the sensitiveness of the Jewish people, but it did not produce the necessary clearness in the minds of Christians,” he said. “In this sense, it was less effective even to the very cause of the Jewish people.”

Morlion knew just what the Jews did to get the declaration and why the Catholics had settled its compromise. “We could have beaten the dogmatics,” he insisted. They could, indeed, but the cost would have been a split in the Church.

The Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

A Report by the late-U.S. Senator Jack B. Tenney

[This is from the 1960s, and everything has only gotten worse with these ANti-Christs, except at least it's easier to get information now, which is why the ADL want the internet shut down. Just wait till they start demanding that people need licenses to blog. Transcribed by Dr David Duke. Photocopies of original text at Honest Media Today.]

While the ADL, bureaucracy emphasizes its Jewish character for defensive purposes it does not speak for American Jews. The political nature of its work is not revealed to the average Jewish contributor, and its activities in this field are carefully concealed from American Jewry and the general public under either ethnic or religious cloaks.

The fears and complexes of the Jew are exploited by the bureaucracies that control and direct the net-work of organizations set up in his name and ostensibly for his protection. The laws of America are not sufficient, he is told. There must be a multitude of committees and councils — a vast inter-locking series of organizations that will work for his interest alone.

The Anti-Defamation League is one of the most aggressive of these Jewish agencies. Through its exploitation methods in its appeals for funds many American Jews have become obsessed with the idea that all non Jews are either consciously and actively anti-Semitic or passive and potentially anti-Semitic. The scare-propaganda of the ADL, has served to perpetuate and intensify the persecution complex in the collective Jewish mind. Confidential material mailed to American Jews by organizations appealing for funds is marked “to be destroyed after reading” — thus creating an atmosphere of terrifying secrecy and pending doom: the futility of appealing to the ordinary governmental agencies, and effectually cutting the Jew off from his American fellows.

“It is currently estimated,” declares a spokesman for the Joint Jewish Appeal, “that 25%–or more than 20 million Americans–have an already rooted prejudice against their fellow citizens. Fourteen independent polls, conducted by impartial research organizations–reveal that out of every four adults questioned at least one has been infected with anti-Semitism. . . one is opposed to anti-Semitism. . . while a third. . . and a fourth are, as yet undecided.”

Thus 75 percent of the adult population, according to this statement, is either actively or potentially anti-Semitic. The one in four or 25 percent opposed to anti-Semitism–and this group must necessarily include the American Jewish population–indicates that nearly every adult Gentile American–including American Negroes–are actively or passively anti-Semitic. Whether the Jewish organizations behind the Jewish Appeal intend to convey this impression is probably irrelevant, but the conclusion is inescapable.

2

Beyond the double doors of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is a single door. On it is lettered: “FACT FINDING, LEGAL AND INVESTIGATIVE DIVISIONS.”

Shall we enter?

“We are unwilling to guess about anti-Semitism.” an ADL, spokesman tells us. “The offices have long maintained a close watch on the activities of Democracy’s bigoted enemies.”

Despite the double-talk involved in the use of the term “Democracy” we understand what the spokesman is saying.

Our glance follows banks of filing cabinets and, for a moment, we believe we are in the Record Department of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington. D.C. Clerks are busy at the cabinets, sorting and filing papers.

Our ADL, spokesman is very frank and informative about the entire operation, although we find that we must occasionally interpret his propaganda double-talk in order to understand clearly. We are curious to examine some of the papers and cards contained in the banks of cabinets, but we are not afforded the opportunity. We are told that “carefully and painstakingly documented evidence” is piling up in these files.

“What does it tend to prove?” we inquired innocently.

“It proves that the amazing parallel between the Nazi climb to power in Germany and the present-day tactics of the enemies of human rights within our own borders can no longer be denied!” declares our guide.

His vehemence and emotionalism mark his sincerity. He apparently is a victim of his own propaganda. We know that he is talking about himself.

What is done with all the information on anti-Semitism contained in the ADL’s banks of filing cabinets?

We are shown a roomful of girls pounding away at typewriters. Automatic teletype tickets beat a machine-gun racket. Linotype machines pour out molded lines of metal words and phrases. We learn that the printing presses are disgorging tons of newsprint while hundreds of thousands of propaganda books roll through automatic binderies. Clerks and more clerks; busy telephone switchboards. Motion picture sets spring into action at the command of the brain center; Mitchell cameras swing into focus. Miles of film developing in laboratories. Newscasters and commentators at radio microphones; radio towers flashing the ADL’s propaganda to the four quarters of the globe. . .

All this to offset anti-Semitism, we are told.

“Ceaselessly, tirelessly,” boasts our guide, “through one of the largest mass education and public relation programs ever attempted by private groups, the “Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee are engaged in an all-out determination. . .”

His voice is lost in the roar of the presses, the clatter of typewriters, linotype-machines and automatic teletype tickers.

We enter a door marked “PRESS DIVISION, FEATURE SERVICES.” A man is at a desk dictating to his secretary. He pays no attention to our presence.

“Release number 6155,” he dictates. “The following constitutes additional background material on. . .”

“What do the newspapers do with the material you feed them?” we ask.

“Information supplied to the newspapers reaches the public in the form of editorials,”  is the answer.

We pass on through a door marked: “PRESS DIVISION, PULP SECTION.” We discover a large work table in the center of the room around which are several copy readers busily at wok. The table is piled high with magazines, among which we see copies of “Famous Western Stories”, “Ideal Love,” and “Crack Detective Stories.”

We are not sure whether the copy readers are searching the pages of the magazines for tell-tale indications of anti-Semitism or cataloging the articles and stories planted by the ADL. We are informed, however, that the “Pulp Magazine Section” is charged with the responsibility of utilizing the pages of the pulps; planting stories and articles glamorizing the Jews. Our guide does not elaborate on how the job is done; whether or not the ADL articles and stories are ever returned with polite rejection slips.

“Pulp magazines,” he declares with a note of finality–”with their enormous circulation carry true stories of American-Jewish heroism in peace as well as in war.”

What other handful of private individuals in the world’s history has had such power at its fingertips? What other private organization can say with assurance that its propaganda reaches the public in the form of newspaper editorials; that it can utilize the pages of pulp magazines?

We are in another room.

“This is the ‘COMIC BOOK SECTION’,” we are told.

“Does the ADL plant propaganda in children’s Comic books?” we ask.

“Comic books,” our guide replies, ignoring the form of the question, “carry strips denouncing native fascists and their use of inter-group tension as a weapon against Democracy.”

The phraseology is reminiscent of the Daily People’s World and Daily Worker. . . “Native fascist,” “intergroup tension,” “Democracy”–brain-blinding slogans from the dialectical lexicon of Max and Lenin.

3

We enter a studio through a door lettered “PRESS DIVISION CARTOON SECTION.” Men are working at drawing boards. Cartoons by Carl Rose and Eric Godall are prominently displayed on the walls.

“Cartoons are very useful,” explains our guide. “Some are prepared by the nation’s most popular artists and decorate the newspapers of the land–pointing the fingers of ridicule and scorn at bigotry and the purveyors of racial hatred.”

Passing on down the corridor we come to a door marked “PRESS DIVISION, BOOKS”. Our ADL spokesman tells us that the Book Section is charged with “exposing the fascist trick of using anti-Semitism in its ‘divide and conquer’ campaign.” We are told that efforts of the Book Section are reaching America’s bookshelves in ever-increasing numbers.

We observe some of the titles of the volumes that fill the book cases. “They Got the Blame,” “Out of the Many–One,” “We Who Are America,” “These Are Our Neighbors,” “Living Together in Today’s World,” ” Brother Town,” “United We Grow,” ” Strong as the People,” “This is Our Town,” “These Are Our Friends,” “Early American Life,” “This is Our Heritage,” “One God,” and “Under Cover.” One of the latest is “Danger on the Right.”

We hurried along to the “Research Division” and into the American Jewish Committee library. We are told that we are in “an arsenal of information”; that the library contains over twenty-one thousand volumes, and more than two million additional items dealing with Jewish problems and anti-Semitism in America.”

“And what is done with all this information?” we ask.

“A special division channels this authenticated material to that group of men and women whose opinions are certain to have a deciding effect on America’s future. . .”

We are now before a door on which is lettered “VETERANS DIVISION.”

“It is of vital importance,” our guide is explaining, “that the American veteran–he who has already risked his life in the struggle against fascism–has come face to face with it and knows it for what it is–should be forewarned of the same danger at home . . . so that he will not have to risk his life again. The fight is being carried on in the American Legion, The Veterans of Foreign Wars and other large Veteran’s organizations.”

No segment of American life seems to have been overlooked by the enterprising ADL and the American Jewish Committee.

We are now in the “LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION.”

“This Division,” our guide is saying, “works closely with both the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. on the local as well as national scale, determined to prevent the promoter of inter-group tension from spreading their poison through these ranks.”

Our hurried visit to the “Book” section of the “PRESS DIVISION” gave us little opportunity to examine the full scope of the work of this department. We were shown the propaganda product and told that such volumes as “Under Cover,” “They Got the Blame,” etc., were reaching America’s bookshelves in ever-increasing numbers.

The ADL does not go in for book-burning as yet. Obviously such bonfires contemplate a degree of force only found in lawlessness or in the hands of a dictator. Pending such direct and conclusive action–or perhaps we should say in lieu of such action–the ADL indulges in what it calls “book-stifling“. Applied to books displeasing to ADL bureaucracy the “stifling” method appears to be quite as effective as applying the torch–perhaps more so, as it catches the books at the source, cutting off the channels of publicity and destroying retail markets.

“The Conquest of a Continent” by Madison Grant is one example. “The book was driven from the market,” writes Mr. Franklin Hichborn. “Sales were not only restricted, they were stopped.”

How was it done?

The following is a letter signed by Richard E. Gutstadt, on ADL stationary, dated December 13, 1933 at Chicago:

“TO THE PUBLISHERS OF ANGLO-JEWISH PERIODICALS:

“Gentlemen”

“Scribners & Sons have just published a book by Madison Grant entitled ‘The Conquest of a Continent.’ It is extremely antagonistic to Jewish interests. Emphasized throughout is the ‘Nordic superiority’ theory, and the utter negation of any ‘melting pot’ philosophy with regard to America.

“Scribners, in a sales circular concerning the book, points to Herr Hitler as the man who has demonstrated the value of ‘racial purity’ in Germany. The Author insists that American development depends upon the elimination of unassimilable alien masses in our midst. This book is considered by some as even more destructive than Hitler’s ‘Mien Kampf.’ Mr. Grant also avers that, ‘national problems are in the end racial problems’.

“We are interested in stifling the sale of this book. We believe that this can best be accomplished by refusing to be stampeded into giving it publicity. Every review or public criticism of a book of this character brings it to the attention of many who would otherwise know nothing of it. This results in added sales. The less discussion there is concerning it, the more sales resistance will be created.

“We therefore appeal to you to refrain from comment on this book, which will undoubtedly be brought to your attention sooner of later. It is our conviction that a general compliance with this request will sound warning to other publishing houses against engaging in this type of venture.”

We are not concerned with the merit or demerits of books. We are presently interested in HOW the ADL operates.

“THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE DIVISION” of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith concerns itself with transmitting ADL propaganda into foreign languages and planting articles in the foreign language press.

“In addition,” explains our ADL spokesman and guide. “This division keeps a constant check on foreign language papers, representing some sixteen different languages. This check makes possible an accurate evaluation of trends of thought taken by this special group of America’s citizens;”

In the “RADIO DIVISION” we are told that “there is no single road to the American mind,” and “that every road must be utilized.” Consequently the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-make extensive use of radio. In 1946 an average of 216 individual radio stations broadcast ADL material daily. The average is alleged to have doubled since 1946.

“We reach all faiths,” declares our guide. “Programs like ‘The Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto’, starring Raymond Massey, and ‘Behold the Jew’, starring Aline McMahon, reach millions of Americans. . . Where material prepared by this division has been judged pertinent, it has been sought for use by programs such as ‘Kate Smith’, ‘We, The People’, ‘The Doctor Fights’, ‘Mr. District Attorney’, ‘Treasury Salute’, ‘Reunion, U.S.A.’ and others enjoying the largest listening audience in the country!”

4

“What about other religious denominations?” we ask. “Are you able to get to them?”

“More than 8,000 thoughtful men of God of many Christian sects and denominations, disquieted by the hostility stirred up against the Jews, have been able–through this channel–to get the facts for their congregations–ammunition to help in their part of the fight against race hatred. Prominent among the men of religion concerned by this problem, is forward looking Rev. William C. Kernan, of the Institute for American Democracy.”

Our ADL spokesman speaks of the formation of the “Christian Friends of the Anti-Defamation League” as though the organization was a spontaneous movement prompted by “8,000 thought men of God of many Christian sects and denominations”– and that the ADL had nothing to do with its creation.

“This is one of the clearest signs,” he declares, “that all of America is slowly but surely becoming increasingly aware of the true nature of anti-Semitism– and the threat it constitutes to the country as a whole.”

We are becoming familiar with the propaganda tag-lines: “the threat it constitutes to the country as a whole“, “he who attacks one minority group attacks all groups.” In psychological warfare it is known as the AMALGAMATION method in wholesale quantities. “The Smith Act and the McCarran Act,” declare Communist Party propagandists, “are not really directed at the Communist Party! They are directed at labor organizations and minority groups!”

“Just what is the Institute for American Democracy?” we inquire.

“The Institute for American Democracy sponsors hard hitting Democratic propaganda, appearing on billboards form coast to coast. In the transportation systems of twenty-four cities sixteen thousand billboard messages are being displayed. Supplementing its billboard and car-card program, the Institute for American Democracy has produced a series of one-minute films–dramatizing its message, shown as part of the regular feature presentation in theaters patronized by people in all walks of life.”

We had run across this organization in our studies and had learned that it was, like the Institute for Democratic Education, a “front” or subsidized organization of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Our ADL friend would have liked us to believe that the two Institutes were independent of ADL control–just two organizations “cooperating fully in this vital battle against bigotry.”

“All of this must cost a lot of money,” we observe.

We catch sight of a door labeled “INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES” but our guide rushes us along without an explanation. We are before the department on “INTERCULTURAL ACTIVITIES.”

“This work in school systems,” says our guide, “is coordinated by a special division given over to the development of intercultural relation. Working specifically with the Bureau For Intercultural Education and with educators and leaders of all cultural groups, this division services public and parochial schools, teachers’ work shop, and the publishers of textbooks used in all school systems. The work of every division is subjected to constant tests to determine its effectiveness.”

We move rapidly down the corridor and pause at an oak-paneled door labeled “INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH.”

“The division of Scientific Research and Analysis,” our guide is telling us, “uses campus-tested techniques in measuring the value of methods employed. Trained sociologists–experts in the field of inter-group tensions–are employed and based on findings, constant revisions of conception and approach are made.”

Without pausing in his running account of AJC and ADL activities our guide pauses before another door on which is lettered “COMMUNITY SERVICE DIVISION.”

“It remains for the Community Service Division”–pointing to the door–”to assure that this vast national program will reach every single one in the country.”

Leading us to another door marked “SPEAKERS BUREAU”, he continues:

“One means of accomplishing this is the maintenance of a Speakers’ Bureau. . . which furnishes more than 7,000 Rotary, Kewanis, and other types of audiences with speakers of national reputation, carrying the message of Democracy into individual communities. Spread coast to coast, the community Service Division is subdivided into 14 regional offices, and maintains an additional 2,000 key men in 1,000 cities through the country.”

“What do these 2,000 key men do?” we ask innocently.

“They helped handle more than 4,000 individual cases of anti-Semitism during the past year. The American Jewish Committee and and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith are forming a protective shield across the nation. . . The fight costs money. Full continuation of it requires contributions . . . I shall not insult your intelligence by repeating countless reasons why you should contribute to this year’s Joint Defense Appeal. Suffice it to say that as JEWS you will want to give. As AMERICANS you can do no less. It is your duty!”

An example of the technique of Jewish exploitation of Jews is a letter dated July 7, 1962 on the letterhead of the United Jewish Welfare Fund, addressed to Jewish insurance underwriters.

The letter follows:

“Dear Fellow-Underwriter:

“May I apologize for our failure to contact you personally relative to your contribution  to the United Jewish Welfare Fund? I know you will understand because we, like you, have a living to make.

“Although the worthiness and the need of this cause need no amplifying, let me give you one example—the attached is a true and shocking story. It touches everyone of us, whether we are in Life, Casualty or any other type of insurance business. The anti-Semites who publish the dangerous filth described herein are well-financed. They have no trouble raising funds. But the source of funds to combat them–your United Jewish Welfare Fund—finds it much harder to get support.

“We are critically behind schedule in meeting this year’s minimum quota, not only to combat anti-Semitism, but to support such other agencies as: taking care of the Jewish needs of men and women in uniform: supporting over 30 of our local agencies, saving lives of Jews in Israel, Europe and the Moslem World.

“Will you do your part? At this writing your contribution has not been received. I join with your colleagues in the Insurance Division in urging that you read the attached folder, then promptly make your gift to the United Jewish Welfare Fund—and make it generous enough to enable us to conquer the hate that threatens us all.

“Your pledge card is enclosed. Sign it for the maximum amount, keeping in mind that you may pay your contribution in monthly or quarterly installments. Please take care of this matter today so that we may all go back to the business of selling insurance.”

Enclosed with the letter is an expensive–and alarming–five page folder. In red and white ominous lettering against a black background is the legend “Violence Against The Jew.” Superimposed over a mass of wriggling arrow-pointed white lines is a red curling, snake-like figure. The overall effect is designed to be frightening. The recipient of the folder is led to believe that the drawing is the work of some sinister, blood-thirsty anti-Semite rather than the propaganda “art-work” of the United Jewish Welfare Fund.

Reproduced throughout the folder are the title pages of a number of booklets dealing with Jewish Questions. Not a single title page reproduced indicates violence against the Jews. The overall effect of the folder,however, conveys the terrifying idea that all Jews are in deadly peril.

The second page of the folder warns: “Make no mistake: On every side there is danger to our homes and families.” The word “danger” is in inch-high, blood-red quivering letters.

The psychological reaction to this sort of propaganda is obvious. The average uninformed American Jew is immediately confronted with visions of pogroms and mob violence–terrorized by the thought that the ordinary protections of government will be denied him–that only the Jewish agencies stand between him and doom!

5

We were back in the clear, clean air of America as the double doors marked American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith close behind us. We had just seen the inside working of a private espionage and propaganda agency an agency organized with and maintained by private contributions; the nerve center of a world-wide net-work whose tentacles reach into every Gentile activity.

In the “Fact-Finding, Legal and Investigative Divisions” we learned of the organizations’ second (and perhaps most important) activity–the collection of files on so-called “anti-Semites”. We had a glimpse of the extensive rows of cabinets containing data on thousands of individuals who , for one reason or another, qualify by ADL standards as anti-Jewish, actually  or potentially, YOUR name may be included.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee do not have any excuse whatever for their operations. Their secret agents spy upon American citizens. They penetrate the political field injecting racism into political campaigns. Through their multitudinous controls of the media of communication they are capable of destroying reputations and silencing all rebuttal. By “book-stifling” and the American Jewish Committee technique of “quarantine” (silent-treatment), critics are denied a public audience for either attack or defense.

The amazing part of the whole sordid story is the fact that Americans–including American Jews–know so little about it. Those who have had occasion to learn a little of ADL and AJC operations are fearful to do or say anything about them. Legislators who have some knowledge of the facts are fearful of taking any action because they well know that they would be smeared as “anti-Semites” in the next election. No newspaper will risk its advertising contracts by telling the story.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is probably the largest and most efficient private gestapo in the world today and, without doubt, the largest of its kind in the history of the world. And–amazing as it may be–this vast interlocking system of departments, sections and divisions is devoted to but one issue–and only one issue despite propaganda to the contrary–political conquest in the name of Racism!

The international character of the network of Zionist organizations is obvious. Among the hundreds of American Jewish organizations flourishing in the United States today, only one stands out clearly as basically American. The American Council for Judaism has had the courage to proclaim its political loyalty to the United States, and its spiritual loyalty to Judaism. It has met with abuse and condemnation at the hands of the Zionists for its patriotism. Ignoring vicious attacks it dares stand for what is best for the United States rather than what is best for Israel. It dares plead justice for the Arabs.

We are beginning to understand something of the magnitude of the ADL’s operations. We are beginning to appreciate its vast spy-network sprawling across the nation and throughout the world. Our imagination is staggered by it apparent control of the avenues of communications. We pause to remember that we are dealing with a private organization, financed by contributions wrung from American Jews–American Jews cut off from the healthy intercourse of American life by the alarm-trumpets of fear and suspicion.

We remember the provocative phrases of our ADL spokesman: “native fascists”, “racial hatred”, “anti-Semites”, etc., and we suddenly recall that He who loved all mankind said: “These Things I Command You , That Ye Love One Another.” We ponder the psychological reaction of one who is branded “a native fascist” and a “bigot“; whether or not such a person is hardened in his bigotry or suddenly transformed into the quintessence of brotherly love. Robert Herrick paraphrased Ausionius when he declared that “love begets love.” It would appear that the ADL is more motivated by Econchar Lebrun-Pindare’s harsh admonition “let us be brothers–or I’ll cut your throat“,  than the gentle command to “love one another.”

+ + +

From ”A History of Hate for Christian Values”

By Rev. Ted Pike, 2009.05.11

• 1971: After ten years lobbying, B’nai B’rith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress persuaded Ottawa to enact their federal “anti-hate” law, the Canadian Human Rights Act. Its Sec. 319 and subsequent provincial hate laws criminalize any speech even “likely” to cause hatred or contempt against specially federally protected groups-especially homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, but never Christians.
• 1985: ADL began massive programs to end “bias,” “hate,” and Christian “homophobia” in American businesses, local governments and schools. Since its inception, ADL’s World of Difference program has instructed, according to ADL, “more than 375,000 elementary and secondary school teachers, responsible for nearly 12 million students” toward “tolerance” of homosexuality.
• 1988: ADL sponsored a nationwide competition open to all law students in America, to craft a “model” anti-hate law for the US. Jewish law student Joseph Ribikoff won first prize with his proposal to criminalize all Christian/conservative leaders who criticize homosexuality as well as all loyal members. Through the 1990s, ADL persuaded roughly 45 states to adopt some version of its refined model hate law. Visit ADL.org for detailed charts about states’ implementation. During this time ADL also established hate law bureaucracies throughout Europe.
• 1990: ADL was convicted in a California court of violating the civil rights of more than 10,000 conservatives, pro-lifers, members of the political right and Muslims on whom ADL had spied over the years, keeping secret surveillance files. My father and I were listed in these files gathered in cooperation with West coast police departments.
• 1990: Congress passed ADL’s Hate Crimes Statistics Act. It mixed synagogue with state, making ADL the hate laws teacher to the US Justice Department, FBI and every police precinct in America. Since then, ADL’s twisted definitions, hate law enforcement methods, and criteria for statistics reporting inform the thinking and reflexes of the US law enforcement system.
• 1998: ADL introduced its Hate Crimes Prevention Act to Congress, confident of easy passage. Republican leaders in the House and Senate instructed everyone to vote for it. Yet independent-thinking Republicans, dominating Conference between the House and Senate, examined the bill closely. Aghast at its sinister intentions, they stripped it out. Since then, ADL’s federal hate bill has been reintroduced and defeated by Republicans in every session of Congress. Today, with a Democrat-dominated government, ADL eagerly anticipates victory: an ADL-dominated hate crimes bureaucracy in America, ending free speech and persecuting Christians from a hate crimes command center in Washington.
• 2004: Acting on authority of ADL’s Pennsylvania hate law, ADL national executive board member and Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham arrested and imprisoned for 21 hours 11 Christians for the “hate crime” of peacefully witnessing to homosexuals. Penalty if convicted of the seven charges would be 47 years in prison and $90,000 fines each. After 3 months they were acquitted.
• 2004: ADL introduced their No Place for Hate program, which boldly encourages American families to embrace homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. No Place for Hate literature is promoted in Barnes and Noble bookstores and at local chapters across the nation. One piece encourages families with young children to invite a homosexual couple for an evening of dinner, fun and fellowship. This, ADL says, will help destroy any “homophobic” attitudes developing in their young minds.
• 2004: ADL Europe and B’nai B’rith International set up a 56-member hate law bureaucracy in Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). They also persuaded the European Union and Council of Europe to promote the ADL hate law agenda. As part of OSCE, ADL created the International Network Against Cyber-Hate (INACH) dedicated to ending online “hate speech” (really, free speech, such as criticism of homosexuality and Israel).
• 2006: ADL persuaded Congress to create its Global Office of Anti-Semitism in the US State Department. Every year this ADL front reports on an “epidemic” of anti-Semitism gleaned from ADL statistics gathered worldwide. In last year’s report to Congress, it accused Christians who believe the New Testament account that Jewish leaders had Christ crucified of being “classic anti-Semites”- as was Adolf Hitler. In Canada, any public statement that Jewish leaders killed Christ is considered the hate crime of anti-Semitism, punishable by a minimum $5,000 fine and prison if repeated.
• 2007: The ADL-inspired Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act was introduced into Congress. It would set up a federal commission to study and make legislative recommendations to Congress on how to end Christian, conservative, and far right “hate speech” that streams the internet, possibly inciting violent hate crimes. It was unanimously passed by the House.
• 2008: ADL, through Jewish lesbian activist and state Rep. Sheila Kuehl helped pass California’s SB777, banning criticism of homosexuality in public schools. If any child now criticizes sodomy, he will be expelled. If a teacher or administrator does, they are fired. At the same time, ADL submitted an extensive amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage. It undoubtedly influenced the Court’s pro-homosexual decision.
• 2009: With another Jewish activist group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL directed Missouri state police to consider white Christian conservatives, Ron Paul supporters, tax and immigration protestors, pro-lifers, etc., as possible domestic terrorists. Soon after, Janet Nepolitano, who recently delivered an extensive and flattering speech to an ADL convention, issued a very similar directive from the Department of Homeland security, warning America of this threat from the Christian conservative right.
• 2009: ADL’s federal hate crimes bill passed the House of Representatives 249-175. The Senate version will probably be considered in the Senate Judiciary Tuesday, May 12 at 10am EDT.

ADL Hate Laws Target Christians

…

ADL is a cesspool of anti-Christian, anti-freedom social “civil rights” initiatives. For decades its pipeline of legislative sewage has flowed directly and interminably into Congress. If Americans defeat one ADL-inspired bill, ADL has lined up six more. But unlike most evangelical Christians, ADL will never, never give up-until it has created an “anti-hate” bureaucracy in America, like Canada’s, ending free speech.

What is ADL’s ultimate objective? National director Abraham H. Foxman, author of Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, is a devout Orthodox Jew. In 1991, he angrily vacated his seat in the Orthodox synagogue of Teaneck, New Jersey, because he felt its members and leadership were not praying for Israel as passionately as they should! Foxman says he earnestly looks forward to Israel’s Biblically prophesied “messiah.”

Christians know this is not Jesus Christ but that prophesied “man of sin” (John 5:43) whom Jesus said Jews would someday accept in place of Himself. Contemporary Jewish activists, like Foxman, think “the messiah is the Jewish people”- i.e., when Jewish power finally ascends over Christians and Gentiles, Jewish power by itself will make “messiah” happen.

Why does Foxman promote homosexuality, same-sex marriage, pornography (he gave pornographers Hugh and Christy Hefner special “free speech” awards)? Why do ADL and other Jewish “civil liberties” groups, such as the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way, etc., do all they can to tear down our crosses, Ten Commandments, manger scenes, Christian symbols and passionately support the killing of 50 million babies through abortion? For that matter, why did the Jewish forefathers of these Jewish supremacists invent and facilitate Communism and socialism (liberalism)-dedicated to breaking down the capitalist free enterprise system? Why does Jewish-dominated media relentlessly corrupt our morals and those of our children, casting aspersions (as in The Da Vinci Code) on the deity and legitimacy of Christ?

Simple.

The Jewish supremacists of ADL/B’nai B’rith know that if Christian nations remain strong, virtuous and industrious, they will never realize their messiah in sovereignty over the nations, ruling the world from Jerusalem.

Even if Christian or conservative leaders know of such demonic aspirations, they will never say it. ADL has them convinced they will be ruined if they do-smeared as “anti-Semites” and abandoned by Israel-first followers who have been conditioned to loathe any hint of criticism of “God’s chosen people.”

If America is to survive, this must change. ADL has brought us the very brink of slavery-intending to herd America into a one-world, international police state. A great abyss of darkness lies just before us.

From Benjamin Edelman’s “Sited Blocked by ADL HateFilter”, 2003

ADL HateFilter consists of two distinct components merged together by the Anti-Defamation League: First, ADL provides a software program called ICRAfilter, developed by the Internet Content Rating Association (a British non-profit receiving funding from, among other sources, the European Union’s Safer Internet Action Plan). Second, ADL provides an encoded list of sites that “in the judgment of the Anti-Defamation League, advocate hatred, bigotry or even violence towards Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics.”

HateFilter seeks to keep secret its list of blocked sites. The ICRAfilter framework provides explicit guidance as to how to do so: the ICRA Template Creation Pack instructions link to a specification for encoding of URLs via hashing. As the Template Creation Pack explains, this process “put[s] each URL through a one-way encryption process” although it note that “Hash is the correct term, not encryption.” (p 11) The Whatis.com glossary provides a more explicit definition of hashing: “the transformation of a string of characters into a … fixed-length value or key that represents the original.”

The ICRA Template Creation Pack continues by suggesting that hashing is “the electronic equivalent of making an omelette; there’s no way you can take an omelette and reverse the process to put the eggs back in their shells.” As described in greater detail below — this claim seems to overstate the effectiveness of the ICRA hashing system.

Partial list of sites that have been blocked by “ADL HateFilter”

http://1488.com

http://199.227.134.125

http://64.27.72.153

http://abbc.com

http://americandefenseleague.com

http://amprom.org

http://anparty.com

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict

http://hebron.com

http://holywar.org

http://home.arkansasusa.com/dlackey

http://home.inreach.com/dov/cdl.htm

http://members.odinsrage.com

http://sharpwebpage.com/cr

http://twelvearyannations.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1920932670630585756

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=976870941610001004

http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil

http://www.1488.com

http://www.14words.com

http://www.3rd.org

http://www.88music.net

http://www.abbc.com

http://www.air-photo.com

http://www.americandefenseleague.com

http://www.americannaziparty.com

http://www.amprom.org

http://www.amren.com

http://www.anu.org

http://www.apopulistreview.com

http://www.aryangraphics.com

http://www.aryankindred.com

http://www.aztlan.net

http://www.azzam.com

http://www.bayouknights.org

http://www.beforegod.net

http://www.blacksandjews.com

http://www.bloodandhonour-usa.com

http://www.bnp.net

http://www.byyahwehsdesign.com

http://www.carolontheweb.com

http://www.childrenofyahweh.com

http://www.christian-aryannations.com

http://www.christianseparatist.org

http://www.churchofthecreator.com

http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com

http://www.codoh.com

http://www.codoh.org

http://www.compuserb.com

http://www.creator.org

http://www.crusader.net

http://www.ctnatall.com

http://www.ddc.net/ygg

http://www.davidduke.com

http://www.deadarab.com

http://www.demon.co.uk/natofeur

http://www.dougmoon.com

http://www.duke.org

http://www.earsite.org

http://www.eskimo.com/~ralphj

http://www.ety.com/hrp

http://www.expage.com/777kkk

http://www.faem.com

http://www.fagwatch.com

http://www.finalcall.com

http://www.focal.org

http://www.fourteenwords.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.front14.org

http://www.garethw.com

http://www.giwersworld.org

http://www.godhatesamerica.com

http://www.godhatesfags.com

http://www.halturnershow.com

http://www.hammerskins.com

http://www.hangemhighrecords.com

http://www.harold-covington.org

http://www.hatedbooks.com

http://www.heathenfront.org

http://www.henrymakow.com

http://www.heretical.com

http://www.heterosexuals.com

http://www.hitlerisgod.com

http://www.hoffman-info.com

http://www.hollyland.com

http://www.holywar.org

http://www.iahushua.com

http://www.identity.org

http://www.ihr.org

http://www.indara.com

http://www.insp88.org

http://www.intimidation1.com

http://www.islamweb.net

http://www.jeffsarchive.com

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://www.jigaboo.com

http://www.jrbooksonline.com

http://www.jtf.org

http://www.jubilee-newspaper.com

http://www.k-k-k.com

http://www.kahane.org

http://www.kamellia.com

http://www.kingdomtruth.org

http://www.kingidentity.com

http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com

http://www.kkk.com

http://www.kkkcalifornia.org

http://www.kkkk.net

http://www.kkklan.com

http://www.klang.com

http://www.klavern.org

http://www.kof.net

http://www.kriegsberichter.com

http://www.kukluxklan.net

http://www.kukluxklan.org

http://www.lbp2.com

http://www.lebensraum.org

http://www.liesexposed.net

http://www.lightning-rod.com

http://www.louisbeam.com

http://www.martinlutherking.org

http://www.melvig.org

http://www.micetrap.net

http://www.missiontoisrael.org

http://www.mlking.org

http://www.moqawama.org

http://www.mourningtheancient.com

http://www.msrproductions.com

http://www.musicalterrorists.com

http://www.mysticknights.org

http://www.naanap.com

http://www.naawp.com

http://www.naawp.net

http://www.naawp.org

http://www.naawpflch.org

http://www.natall.com

http://www.natallaz.com

http://www.natallchicago.com

http://www.natallco.com

http://www.natesu.org

http://www.nationalist.org

http://www.nationaljournal.org

http://www.natvan.com

http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com

http://www.new-order.org

http://www.newnation.org

http://www.neworderknights.com

http://www.niggerclaus.com

http://www.nilemedia.com

http://www.noi.org

http://www.nsm88.com

http://www.nswpp.org

http://www.odinsrage.com

http://www.officialjohnnyrebel.com

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

http://www.ostara.org

http://www.ourhero.com

http://www.outlawhammerskins.com

http://www.paganfront.com

http://www.palestine-info.com

http://www.panzerfaust.com

http://podblanc.com

http://www.politicalsoldier.net

http://www.posse-comitatus.org

http://www.propatria.org

http://www.psychobitch1488.com

http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy

http://www.qudsway.com

http://www.rac-usa.org

http://www.radio-program.com

http://www.radioislam.net

http://www.radioislam.org

http://www.radiowhite.com

http://www.rahowa.com

http://www.realskinheads.net

http://www.resist.com

http://www.resistance-radio.com

http://www.resistance.com

http://www.revilo-oliver.com

http://www.rense.com

http://www.revisionism.com

http://www.revisionists.com

http://news.ronatvan.com

http://www.ritualmurder.org

http://www.russgranata.com

http://www.savethemales.ca

http://www.saxonnews.org

http://www.scott.net/~akc

http://www.seek-info.com

http://www.sigrdrifa.com

http://www.skinheads88.com

http://www.skrewdriver.com

http://www.spic.net

http://www.spotlight.org

http://www.ssenterprises.com

http://www.ssman.com

http://www.stormfront.org

http://www.strikeforce88.com

http://www.texasamericanknights.org

http://www.texasbestseminars.org

http://www.thebirdman.org

http://www.theklan.com

http://www.theneworder.org

http://www.thulepublications.com

http://www.tommetzger.net

http://www.ukar.org

http://www.unitedskins.com

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com

http://www.vho.org

http://www.victoryorvalhalla.com

http://www.vinlandwinds.com

http://www.volksfront-usa.org

http://www.voteforusa.com

http://www.wakeupordie.com

http://www.wckkkk.com

http://www.wcotc.com

http://www.whitecivilrights.com

http://www.whitepower.com

http://www.whitepowermusic.com

http://www.whitepride.net

http://www.whiterace.com

http://www.whitesingles.com

http://www.whitesurvival.com

http://www.whitevictory.com

http://www.williscarto.com

http://www.wntube.net

http://www.wpww.net

http://www.yoderanium.com

http://www.zionwatch.com

http://www2.stormfront.org

http://www4.stormfront.org

“Daddy, why did those bloodthirsty Jews kill us?”

«ни стыда, ни раскаяния»

Троцкий и евреи позади русской революции

Написано бывшим русским красным комиссаром.

Oпубликовано в 1937 году в США

«…. и смотрите люди… появляется Красный Дракон.»

~ Апокалипсис 12:3

Эта книга написана в США бывшим русским комиссаром в 1937 году, через некоторое время после появления “Автобиографии» Троцкого. Видимо, чаша терпения человека, который, в общем, не предполагал быть писателем, переполнилась, и он взялся за перо, чтобы восстановить глубоко запрятанную историческую истину.

Немногим более двадцати лет назад прошло с того момента, как некто Лев Бронштейн, более известный под фамилией Троцкий, вынырнул ниоткуда на политическую арену.

Кажется совершенно невероятным, что сын жадного еврейского землевладельца, который безжалостно эксплуатировал своих соседей, вдруг станет основным в мире радикальным политическим лидером. Однако, еще более удивительно, что внимание всего мира к его персоне ещё более возросло после того, как он продемонстрировал полнейшее наплевательское отношение на человеческие права в глобальных размерах.

Но сегодня Троцкий не только притягивает к себе все радикально-уголовные элементы со всей Европы и Америки, но он ещё и единовластный хозяин Четвёртого Интернационала, который является конкурирующей фирмой Третьего Коммунистического Интернационала. 
Ещё более интересным является то, что он, оказывается, вдруг вызывает симпатии всей либеральной западной интеллигенции, которые изображают его как, дескать, жертву сталинского режима; жертву кровавого режима, который он сам же и установил.

Сейчас, этот режим полностью контролируется сталинским родственником по жене (неофициальная жена Роза Каганович) – Кагановичем.

Сбежав в Мексику, Троцкий-Бронштейн заявляет о своём скором возвращении. Факт, что Троцкий живёт на шикарной вилле своего дружка-миллионера и, еврея, Диего Риверы, говорит сам за себя. Президент Мексики генерал Лазаро Карденас прислал за этим еврейским апостолом человеческого равноправия специальный поезд под названием «Эль Идальго», что в переводе означает «Благородный дворянин». Троцкий всю свою жизнь показывал своим поведением, что лично он отнюдь не отказывается от самых роскошных капиталистических привилегий. Радикалы и интеллектуалы всех мастей, кажется, не видят ничего удивительного, в какой роскоши всегда утопает этот человек, который зарплату получал только в небольшой период его жизни. И тем не менее, такой известный американский либерал и автор как Б. Штольберг во всеуслышание объявляет: «Причины карьеры Троцкого лежат в его личности, как деятельного и неутомимого революционера».

Конечно, с какой стороны смотреть. Многие евреи найдут Троцкого симпатягой. Интеллектуалы, горящие желанием спасти мир неизвестно от кого, пытаются представить Троцкого этаким мессией, призванным вести мир к социальному и экономическому раю. Однако, простой человек должен подумать дважды, прежде чем судить о Троцком; так как существует большое расхождение в том, что о нём пишут в прессе и тем, что он в действительности из себя представляет.

Я был красным комиссаром в России в то время, как Троцкий находился на вершине власти, и я утверждаю, что мне есть, что сказать об этом человеке.

+ + +

Давайте обратимся к написанной им самим «Автобиографии». Как и все, Бронштейн начинает с раннего детства. Интересно, что первый инцидент, который он помнит, это когда ещё мальчиком, играя с детьми, он описался. Инцидент пустяковый и, казалось бы, что человек таких глобальных амбиций не должен уделять внимания пустякам в своей «гениальной» биографии. Однако Бронштейн пускается в объяснения, и эти объяснения проливают свет на его уродливую личность.

Мать маленького Лёвика спрашивает его: «Тебе самому не стыдно, что ты наделал?». И Троцкий заявляет, что он не чувствовал «ни стыда, ни раскаяния». Это и есть ключ к раскрытию характера Троцкого с точки зрения психоанализа Фрейда. Никогда, несмотря на чудовищность преступлений, совершённых Троцким против России и всего человечества, он не чувствовал «ни стыда, ни раскаяния». Многое в истории русской революции станет более понятным вам, если вы будете иметь ввиду это признание Троцкого.

Стыд и раскаяние совершенно чужды этому человеку, который являетя самым отъявленным уголовником и бандитом на протяжении всей человеческой истории.

[N.B. I couldn't post the rest of this book here, because of the length, or due to a problem with the Cyrillic font. The rest of the text, nine chapters, is in the Comments section below. One day I may translate it, but don't hold your breath.]

False North Weak and Enslaved

In its 2002 report “Without Discrimination: The Fundamental Right of All Canadians to Human Rights Protection”, Amnesty International Canada argued that the Canadian government should do more to violate the Canadaian Human Rights Act.

[Re:] Legal provisions prohibiting propaganda that promotes racial superiority or racial hatred and discrimination in any form. Amnesty International is of the view that Canadian law in this area should be improved.

Amnesty argued that there should be “fewer defences for hate crimes”

Three of the four Criminal Code defenses to the offence of wilful promotion of hatred are problematic. Two of those offences relate to truth. An accused can be acquitted under Canadian law if either the person “establishes that the statements communicated were true” or “if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he (the accused) believed them to be true”. [Criminal Code, R.S.C, c. C-34, s. 319 (3) (a) and (c).]

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the offence of hate propaganda in the Criminal Code was constitutional and that the defense of truth was not necessary for the offence to remain constitutional.

“I find it difficult to accept that circumstances exist where factually accurate statements can be used for no other purpose than to stir up hatred against a social or religious group. It would seem to follow that there is no reason why the individual who intentionally employs such statements to achieve harmful ends must, under the Charter, be protected from criminal censure.” [A quote from the ruling regarding Jim Keegstra, a Canadian teacher who was prosecuted for stating facts about the Second World War: R. v. Keegstra (1991) 61 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.). ]

The third problematic defense relates to religious beliefs, namely that the accused, in good faith, “expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.” [Criminal Code, R.S.C, c. C-34, s. 319(3)(b)] A UN expert has pointed out that religion has all too often become a mask for prejudices which intrinsically have nothing to do with religion. Religion is not the cornerstone of the hatred. Rather, the conceptions of religion have been construed and twisted to condone prejudice. Conflicts often give rise to propaganda that use religious grounds to justify attacks. [Elizabeth Odio Benito, Elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, UN Centre for Human Rights, Study series 2, 1989, page 40, paragraph 163.]

Amnesty International urges the Canadian government to amend the Criminal Code hate crimes provisions by removing the two defences related to truth and the defense related to religious belief.

Amnesty then argued that the fascist state should make “Holocaust Denial” an automatic criminal offence, since the state had twice failed to convict Ernst Zündel based on the evidence, and in the course of his trials “Holocaust Scholars” had been compelled to admit under oath that they had lied about the Holocaust.

The Criminal Code offence needs an amendment to make clear that the offence encompasses Holocaust denial. The majority in the Zundel case at the Supreme Court of Canada, in the course of striking down the provision under which Ernst Zundel was convicted — wilfully and knowingly spreading false news causing public injury — referred to the German offence of Holocaust denial and said that it was “a much more finely tailored provision (than the Canadian Criminal Code’s false news provision) to which different considerations might well apply.” [R. v. Zundel (1992) 2 S.C.R. 731.]

Amnesty International urges the Canadian government to amend the Criminal Code and clearly establish Holocaust denial as a form of hate crime.

Amnesty then argued that hatred should be a global criminal offence:

The Criminal Code offence of public incitement to hatred should be a universal jurisdiction offence. The offence should be punishable in Canada no matter where it was committed, as long as the perpetrator is found in Canada. Amnesty International urges the Canadian government to amend Canadian law and establish universal jurisdiction for the offences of incitement to genocide and incitement to hatred.

Some other aspects of Amnesty’s inhuman rights agenda:

Prosecution for the Criminal Code offence requires the consent of the Attorney General. As a result private prosecutions are impossible. Unless police forces have dedicated hate-crimes units, they are unlikely either to acquire the evidence or to be sensitive to the nature of the problem.

…

Amnesty International urges the Canadian government to ensure that provincial human rights laws uniformly prohibit the publication of hate speech.

Considering Amnesty International’s role in pushing the Canadian state to violate the basic liberty cited in the Human Rights Act — freedom of expression — it should come as no surprise that Amnesty refused to do anything to assist the Ernst Zündel, a pacifist Jewis (according to the Toronto Sun, which claimed his mother was Jewish) community organizer, with no criminal record, when he was:

• Extrajudicially arrested (without warrant) in Tennessee, on a false charge of allegedly missing an immigration board interview, which charge was anyway irrelevant since there was no warrant (a habeus corpus hearing was later rejected out of hand by the courts on the grounds that he had already been deported and therefore any violation of Mr Zundel’s rights was irrelevant)
• Arrested in the United States on the personal instruction of an Israeli citizen, Michael Chertoff, using the Patriot Act that Amnesty International claims is a violation of human rights.
• Subjected to Abu Graib style tortures involving being terrorized by dogs (this a year before the Abu Graib tortures were reluctantly admitted to by the American regime).
• Renditioned (kidnapped by state authorities and transferred across an international border) to Canada, without due process, then returned to the United States, then returned to Canada.
• Banished from the United States for 20 years (at age 70), on unspecified “national security grounds”, even though his wife is an American citizen.
• Held in solitary confinement for two years in a maximum security prison, on the unspecified and unproven grounds that he was “a threat to national security”, by Zionist authority. [The justice minister, Irwin Cotler -- a Zionist, who had been president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and who championed the Anti-Terror Act that Amnesty pretended to oppose) loves to boast about his service as counsel to "prisoners of conscience" Nelson Mandela, Jacobo Timmerman, Muchtar Pakpahan, and other well known dissidents, including Natan Sharansky, helping to free him so that he could become Israel's Deputy Prime Minister.]
• Deported to Germany — a state that he had left more than forty years earlier as a pacifist conscientious objector to military conscription — to face criminal charges for thought crimes committed outside Germany.
• Tried for his political opinions without any right to present a defence, and with his lawyers being dismissed, disbarred and jailed for daring to defend him.
• Sentenced to five years incarceration (with no consideration of his two years in Canadian solitary confinement) for having dared to express his personal opinions –many of which are supported by respected Holocaust scholars — and having contradicted the German state’s dogmatic assertions regarding historiographical interpretations.

“It can’t happen here!”?

“Never again”?

Well, it is happening, and these human rights abuses are deemed kosher by Amnesty International.

+ + +

Holocaust Deniers try to portray getting sent to Bergen-Belsen as “A Special Privilege”

One of the most bizarre incidents in Canadian history was when Raul Hilberg, a Holocaust Denier (he claimed that less than 4,200,000 Jews were killed by Nazis in WWII, and asserted that only 1,000,000 or so Jews were killed at Auschwitz, at a time when the Auschwitz museum claimed it was 4,000,000), was called to testify against Ernst Zundel in Zundel’s “Holocaust Denial” trial. Zundel was on trial for writing “Did Six Million Really Die?” Yad Vashem has answered that question: “No.”

+ + +

The Status of Political Prisoners in Internazistaat Deutschland

Letter from Political Prisoner Ernst Zundel

Dear Friend:

Just a short sign of life from here: Over the last four years, thousands of letters to me were withheld or stolen outright en route to me and to friends on the outside.

My lawyers filed charges with the prosecutors, and repeatedly mentioned it to the judges that hundreds of letters were missing including money, shipments of books, registered letters with documents from my Canadian lawyers, my wife, my children. All turned a deaf ear to these mail disappearances. ALL!!!

One man from Berlin had sent me 107 letters in the last 4 years and 3 months. Fully 41 letters, some of them registered, even insured and registered mail, never reached me.

They paid the sender E 50.00, each for several missing letters, rather than investigating where my mail was. The callousness and disinterest in the topic of my missing mail amazed me. And still amazes me! Compared to that, the Canadian Postal Investigators were paragons of virtue and law-abidingness.

At the moment, I am still owed about 1700 letters since 2005, 2006, 2007 and even court decisions which I won, on 19 Dec 2008 – have not resulted in the handing over of even one single letter to me from those they kept back!

The lawyers here do not know the concept of rights. Individual, civic or human rights, are laughed at, sneered at. The one who invokes these rights is considered some kind of crank! I am not kidding!

Thus, lawyers, judges, and prosecutors pay lip service to [condemning] the violations of one’s rights and then ignore them and trample on them at every turn.

The media? The same attitude, if you are a German that is.

If you are a Gypsy or Chinese or Burmese, they will exercise themselves from the prime minister on down. The hypocrisy is almost unbearable.

No, sir. This society [in Germany] has little to recommend itself.

Give me Canada and America any time – warts, imperfections and all.

It is significant that in the 60 years of the existence of this state, they have never established a single organization like the ACLU or the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. NONE! 82 million goyim chewing the cud. An unusual situation and place.

My release date is 7 March 2010.

+ + +

More anti-Canadian activities, from B’nai Brith Canada

Senator Jerahmiel (Jerry) Samson Grafstein [I thought it was "antisemitic to refer to Jews by their full Jewish names... - Akira] is angry. Very angry. “Canadian Jews have an abominable misunderstanding of the public process,” he thundered…to The Jewish Tribune. He is appalled that Canada “lags far behind” Germany and France in getting tough on anti-semitism. The Senator, a tireless advocate for tougher hate laws [sic], notes: “The Canadian government is a vehicle of public opinion.” [And I thought it was a defender of te constitution against the mob.] … For the first time since Confederation, Parliament has before it a resolution on anti-semitism. … The resolution [is] a result of his active participation in the Organization forSecurity and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) … “The Jewish community is complacent.”

Grafstein speaks out for free trade … Senator Jerry Grafstein recently appeared before the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in Europe to discuss free trade in the Mediterranean. [Is Canada a Mediterranean country?] … Grafstein explored the lessons of history about free trade from the time of ancient Rome … “conditions are now ripe for a magnificent and explosive trade expansion only if there is the political will and political concentration to achieve this goal of free trade quickly and open borders occurs.” … “Yet the present process is too slow and too cumbersome.”

B’nai Brith Canada has accepted the resignation of Adam Aptowitzer, the now former Chair of its Institute for International Affairs, over remarks he had made on the Michael Coren Show. Aptowitzer said on the show that Israel’s acts of self-defence against Palestinian terrorism could be construed as “state-sponsored terrorism”

Shulamit Imber, Pedagogical Director of the International School for Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem, and Dr. Karen Mock, Executive Director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, collaborated to present a lecture on The Language of anti-Semitism – Challenges to Holocaust Education and Remembrance Today at Beth Tikvah Synagogue for Holocaust Education Week. Mock said that the challenge is to bring Holocaust Education into the wider context of anti-Racist Education. … A major issue in Holocaust Education today, Mock said, stems from the appropriation of the language of Jewish oppression. … Too often, the Holocaust becomes reduced, as others claim to be experiencing their own Holocaust. … Imber considered Holocaust Education on a global scale. Imber noted that the interest in Holocaust Education in Europe has been steadily rising. A total of 27 European countries are committed to teaching the Holocaust and have declared an official Holocaust Remembrance Day. … She added that one cannot teach the Holocaust without teaching Judaism. [Can one teach the greater Holocaust of Slavic Orthodox Christians without teaching Orthodox Christianity? - Akira] … Her guidelines are that educators must teach Nazi ideology, Judaism and Jewish life before the war, as well as antisemitism. … Antisemitism threatens democracy. Mock previously served as National Director of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

CTV:

Zundel has been accused of being a dangerous preacher of anti-Semitic, white-supremacist hatred and is currently being held in a Toronto jail on a controversial anti-terrorism measure known as a security certificate. … The 65-year old native of Romania had been living in the United States…but was returned to Canada last year after missing a routine meeting with immigration officials. Abe Silverman, an Edmonton representative of the national Jewish lobby group B’nai Brith, said Zundel has been given due process under Canadian law and that courts found he was promoting hatred. He said it’s an issue of justice. “He was found to be a national security risk. Who’s to question that?” Silverman said. [Resistance is verboten!]

BB:

“We are outraged that a man like Ernst Zundel was allowed to re-enter this country,” said Frank Dimant, Executive Vice-President of B’nai Brith Canada after learning that Zundel was deported to Canada earlier today. … “He should be sent right back to Germany where he belongs [in spite of having spent 4o years in Canada; B'nai Brith defends Israel's refusal to deport WWII war criminals] … Zundel’s claim for refugee status makes a laughing stock out of Canada’s refugee program, which is meant for genuine claimants [not political prisoners like Zundel!] … It is shameful that the US did an end-run on Canada by dumping him here.”

BB’s Karen Mock:

Germany is the first country to try to patrol the information highway. In June 1997, the German parliament passed the first comprehensive national Internet law that sets out the rules for protecting confidentiality of personal data. The new law prescribes responsibilities…objectionable material…as well as granting licenses for “digital signatures,” electronic codes that are supposed to make commercial transactions on the Internet both secure and confidential. In spite of the objections by many Americans, who balk at anything resembling a violation of free speech and expression, German officials are unapologetic. According to the law’s sponsor, Jurgen Ruttgers, Minister of Education and Technology: ‘It’s a liberal law that has nothing to do with censorship but clearly sets the conditions for what a provider can and cannot do.‘

Haters Never Rest:

Ernst Zundel, champion of civil rights?

By: Lynne Cohen

So says the Globe & Mail, in the March 6 edition, about one of the most infamous and unapologetic Holocaust deniers Canada has ever known.

…

David Matas, senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, wrote to Government Ministers in Canada alerting them to [Zundel's extrajudicial] arrest and reminding them that Zundel had already been denied Canadian citizenship and should therefore not be accepted back into this country. According to Matas, Zundel, who faces jail time in his native Germany, should have been deported directly there.

The Canadian government failed to heed Matas’ advice, however, and accepted Zundel back into the country in February of that year. Since then he has been in jail in Toronto’s Metro West Detention Centre on a national security certificate as Canadian authorities grapple with how to eject him from the country. This spring the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear his case under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash the security certificate.

…

“The Jewish community wants me on my knees,” Zundel is quoted as saying in the article, declaring his belief that the secret information in support of the national security certificate was fabricated, and claiming that photos could be altered to “have me making love to Golda Meir.”

Makin reports Zundel’s tale of woe as if he were the victim, and not the victimizer. Zundel’s description of his arrest in Tennessee is a case in point. On that day, three police cars and a van showed up at his home in the Smokey Mountains to ensure that Zundel came peacefully. To hear Zundel himself describe the event, however, is to imagine a whole army of police converging on his residence. “It was a whole armada,” he complains. “They put me up against my pick up truck, spread-eagled me and said I was being arrested and deported. Within five minutes I was gone.”

Rochelle Wilner, President of B’nai Brith Canada, believes that the Globe and Mail did a terrible disservice to Canada’s Jews: “It’s incredible that the Globe & Mail would allow itself to become an advocate for Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel at a time when antisemitism is growing around the world and in Canada.”

B’nai Brith’s brazen attempt to hardwire Hatred and Censorship into the Canadian Psyche:

By Arthur Topham, 2009.08.07

In his 2006 book, The Synagogue of Satan [http://www.thesynagogueofsatan.com], the British writer Andrew C. Hitchcock [andrewcarringtonhitchcock@hotmail.com ] has a lot to say about the house of Rothschild….

Prime Minister attends the B’nai Brith Canada 2006 Award of Merit Dinner

The last 250 years is basically a record of the Rothschild’s devastating effects upon the people and the planet; one that has now brought our 20th Century civilization to the brink of either global disaster, or, should we awake in time to this imminent end and act accordingly, the final dismantling and dissolution of this infamous house of hell that’s been the root cause of humanity’s discontent for the past two and a half centuries.

…

Hitchcock’s…particular expose of the secret masonic society of B’nai Brith, one of the many Rothschild enterprises designed to assist in its agenda for world domination, should be of special interest to Canadians…

This well-concealed Rothschild front organization is mainly focused…on fulfilling the very same mandate as its American cousin, the ADL; that is, stifling and smothering any and all criticism of the Rothschild agenda for silence and slavery of the masses under its profound and poignant program for global hegemony in all matters related to the human experience.

In the case of Canada, we’re now witnessing both the long term machinations and the desired effects of this organization in the current battle building between the forces for Internet repression and anti-free speech and the counter forces slowly beginning to realize the ultimate aim of Canada’s mendacious desire to sustain the shocking, repulsive piece of human rights legislation known as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

…

B’nai Brith Canada has been instrumental in forcing into the lives of all free Canadians what those of us in the fight for free speech now recognize as the one primary tool being used to silence critical debate of either the actions of the state of Israel or any other relevant discussions concerning the nature of the Rothschild cabal and its political ideology known as Zionism.

This current repressive law de jour is known amongst those in the free speech movement as section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and in typical Zionist style, i.e. using deception of the general public as its Mossadic modus operandi.

B’nai Brith Canada has been instrumental in working the crowds of politicians and law makers and using their influential power of the purse combined with their sycophantic lackeys and supporters in the Zionist media to slowly and surely entrench into Canadian culture the stereotypical, fundamental precepts that eventually lead to a nation of mind-controlled morons who ultimately cannot distinguish truth from deception or freedom from slavery.

As the former writer, journalist and founder of Greenpeace International Robert Hunter once remarked in his profound and prophetic book, The Storming of the Mind, we’ve been conditioned to live in “comfortable concentration camps” and think of ourselves as free, independent human beings.

Of course B’nai Brith Canada with all the candour of a condor will automatically begin to shriek and hiss and bear its fangs accusing this writer of being “anti-Semitic” and a “hater of Jews and citizens of Israel” and whatever other epithet that they can dredge out from their mindless, memorized plethora of programmed slander they’re so adept at adopting whenever someone calls them on their ongoing commission of crimes against the majority of the gentile population of Canada. …

Mr. Hitchcock:

“The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), initiate a nationwide competition for law students to draft anti-hate legislation designed to protect minority groups.”
That competition is won by a man named, Joseph Ribakoff, whose proposals stipulate that not only must hate motivated violence be banned, but any words which stimulate: suspicion; friction; hate; and possible violence, must also be criminalized.

This ADL prize-winning paper suggests that not only should state-agencies [read Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. A.T.] monitor and restrict free speech in general, but they should also censor all films that criticize identifiable groups [unless of course they happen to be the popular ones the Jews hate the most like the Germans (Nazis) and the Muslims and the Christians. A.T.]

Furthermore, even if the person making the statement can justify it, for example Christians criticizing homosexuality because the Bible expressly forbids it, Ribakoff asserts that the truth is to be no defense in court.

The only proof a court will need in order to secure a conviction of hate speech is that something has been said, and a minority group or member of such group has felt emotionally damaged as a result of such criticism.

[This is practically verbatim the text contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 13. and currently being used by Harry Abrams and the BBC to charge me and RadicalPress.com with “hate” crimes. A.T.]

Therefore, under these proposals which the ADL will have forced into law all over the world less than 15 years later, through their bought and paid for politicians and media, Jesus Christ would have been arrested as a hate criminal.

This law is designed to protect the Rothschild conspiracy from being revealed in that if you criticize the Rothschild’s criminal cabal, you will be targeted as anti-Semitic, and thus risk imprisonment [and/or steep fines and a loss of your website and a reputation as a hatemonger. A.T.].

[If] a Rabbi torches his synagogue to collect insurance money because it is in need of repair, as opposed to someone else perpetrating the crime who was found to have an interest in anti-establishment media, the later would receive a stiffer sentence for the same act.”

[T]he ADL’s plans have taken firm root in the collective mind of Canadians thanks to decades of collaborating between the mainstream Rothschild media and the politicians who, due to their own brainwashing, have lent their ignorant albeit earnest support to the Zionist effort to instill in us all these false concepts of “hatred” and “contempt”.

The final result of all of this shady, unscrupulous sabotage of Canada’s civic and federal laws is, of course, a burgeoning bureaucracy of Zionist created Bolsheviks who’ve been placidly and surreptitiously placed in these ‘quasi-judicial” entities known to us as “human rights” commissions and tribunals.

Their primary purpose is to enforce the agenda of the Rothschild’s synagogue of satan upon an unwary and uniformed public; one misinformed for so long that they are for all intents of purpose unable now to grasp the full import of what is happening to their former legal right to the fundamental freedoms all Canadians once trusted in and enjoyed.

Microsoft removes big bad swastika

atheism.about.com/b/a/050153.htm

Microsoft Removes Swastikas from Software

卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐

The swastika [is] an ancient religious symbol that has long been used in cultures as diverse as Mesopotamia, Scandinavia, India and the Americas. Even today it is important in Buddhism, symbolizing the footprints of the Buddha. CNN reports:

卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐

“The swastika…was included in Microsoft’s “Bookshelf Symbol 7″ font. That font was derived from a Japanese font set, said Microsoft Office product manager Simon Marks. “It was discovered by one of our customers a couple weeks ago,” Marks said, adding that there was “no indication of malicious intent.” Now, if this were simply a matter of allowing people to remove it if they didn’t like it, I wouldn’t have much to comment on. However, it appears that Microsoft wishes that the swastika had never been included – and, in future versions, that it won’t be there at all. This, I think, creates a different situation: Microsoft is eliminating a symbol that is holy to more than one religion/culture in order to avoid causing discomfort to members of another religion/culture.

卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐

… I wouldn’t dream of insisting that no one could ever use the swastika…simply because I am bothered by it.

卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐 卐

Question one: Isn’t this a sort of information warfare that Microsoft has caved to, not wanting bad press with the Politically-Correct troublemakers?

Question Two: Facism is a form of Totalitarianism. Isn’t it funny that the most totalitarian software company in the world would even bother doing this? In a way it’s a form of information warfare against billions of people who see and use the symbol everyday and make no big deal about it.

卐

This image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. The use of insignia of organizations that have been banned in Germany (like the Nazi swastika or the arrow cross) may also be illegal in Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Brazil, Russia and other countries, depending on context.

From Asgy

左万字 13315	右万字 13316	陰の左万字 13317	角立て左万字 13318
万字崩し 13319	万字丸 13320	陰の万字丸 13401	万字菱 13402
万字菱崩し 13403	陰の左万字菱 13404	剣先万字 13405	角立五つ割り万字 13406
五つ割り万字 13407	井桁に五つ割り万字 IG-13407	組み合い角に五つ割り万字 KIK-13407	替り万字 13408
五つ割り万字菱 13409	丸に右万字 13410	蜂須賀万字 13411	丸に角立て左万字 13412
丸に角立て右万字 13413	石持ち地抜き万字 13414	丸に五つ割り万字 13415	万字丸 13416
丸に左万字菱 13417	三の万字の丸 13418	捻万字 13419	四つ持ち合い万字 13420
糸輪に小万字 13501	糸輪に捻じ万字菱 13502

Lord of Zion, Arthur Balfour:

The power of authority is never more subtle and effective than when it produces a psychological “atmosphere” or “climate” favorable to the life of certain modes of belief, unfavorable, and even fatal, to the life of others.

Re Canadian Anti-Human Rights Tribunal, before 2009.09.03:

• No respondent had ever won a section 13 case
• 100% of cases against White people
• 98% of cases against the poor or working class
• 90.7% of respondents had no legal representation
• $93,000 awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003
• 35 respondents have lifetime speech bans, “cease and desist” orders (protocol dissidents could face up to 5 years in prison)
• 72.4% of complaints claim that “Jews” are victims
• 48.8% of all cases have been initiated by one complainant, Richard Warman, a Neo-Nazi, who has filed all cases but one since 2002

It’s true that sometimes people can say things that could be extremely hateful, and that could even inspire acts of violence against certain communities. For example, when Israeli prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parliament, said,

"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." [Quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, in "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982]

You may think that Mr Begin was referring to the superiority of his native Khazar/Turkish genetic heritage, but he was actually referring to the Jewish “race”, which he believed himself to be part of.

Now, even though this is an impression of the most vile sort of racial supremacism, and could likely be connected with any number of Israeli Jewish massacres of those he refers to as, “beasts and animals, cattle at best…human excrement…inferior races.” But I defend the right of such hatemongers to freely express themselves!

However, since Canadian authorities pretnd to be seriously concerned about hate speech and thought crimes, shouldn’t people like Benjamin Natanyahu be put on some sort of Hate-Mongers Watch List, since he shares Begin’s political philosophy; and shouldn’t Zionists in general be subject to the same sort of scrutiny that Neo-Nazis are subjected to; and shouldn’t Cabbalists and Talmudists ought to be interrogated since their “sacred” texts likely inspired Begin’s statements?

In light of all this, one would imagine that Canadian Jews would be very afraid of Hate Crimes legislation. Even the alleged “Star of David” could end up being banned, when one considers how offensive it must be to all the Lebanese and Palestinians and others who are immigrating more and more to Canada.

And yet, strangely, self-proclaimed representatives of Canadian Jews are unafraid of the “Anti-Hate” regime. It could even be be argued that if it weren’t for Jewish pressure, there would be no Hate Crime laws in Canada! But why would Jews be clamoring for the imposition of laws that by rights should be directed against them? It’s almost as if they believe they are above the law, or have some sort of immunity.

In fact, while Christians have been persecuted and punished in Canada for simple things such as quoting the Bible or praying, the idea that a Jew would face prosecution  for quoting some hateful tractate is risible.

Another anomaly in the bizarre world of Canadian Hate Politics, is the fact that Richard Warman, the man who has used the Human Rights Commission as his personal agent to persecute his political nemies, by accusing them of hate and bigotry — this very same Warman is himself a Neo-Nazi!

Here are a few of the messages that this Neo-Nazi has left on his favourite “hate sites”:

• “Theres a reason it’s called “White” Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement…”
• [re: "WHITE REVOLUTION, The Only Solution":]“I agree. Keep up the good work Commander Schoep! 88 [= Heil Hitler]“
• “Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy cunt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place… And that place was NOT in public!”

For these political activities, Warman was rewarded with the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award from the Canadian Jewish Congress for “distinguished service to the cause of human rights,” which seems a bit strange, to say the least. So it would seem that the CJC in fact encourages Hitler-idolatry and hatred for Jews. One can only guess that the CJC must gain some sort of benefit from the promotion of hate. What could that be?

Anyway, Hate Crime laws have been in the news again because of the  strange case of Canada/Warman/CJC/B’nai Brith vs Marc Lemire.

Mr Lemire got in trouble because somebody posted by an essay by American political theorist on his website. The essay was about a serious health concern. For some reason, the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith stuck their big noses in and said the article was offensive to queers, and to the black “race” (what on Earth is a race anyway? do they have apartheid in Canada? they have committees to determine what race everyone belongs to?), which is so weak it needs Jews to defend it.

The Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified. Classification was based on appearance, social acceptance, and descent. For example, each person was defined as “in appearance obviously a black/white/colored person or generally accepted as a black/white/colored person.” Race-determination would take into account “habits, education, speech, deportment and demeanor.” The government’s Department of Home Affairs was responsible for the race-classification of the citizenry.

It’s strange. South Africa’s apartheid regime was propped up for years by the Oppenheimers’ deals with the USSR, and by South Africa’s great ally, Israel, but in North America, elite Jews have set themselves up as the natural defenders of Blacks (and Muslims, and anal obsessives). Oh, I forgot, the (strangely ineffective) Communist and terrorist resistance ) to apartheid was also lead by Jews. Life’s funny that way. Yes, it’s true that the Communist party’s slogan was “Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa!”, but they outwardly changed their racial orientation under orders from their masters, Bronstein and Radomyslsky, in Moscow.  While the Soviet Union led a global boycott of South Africa, it had its own treaty with the Oppenheimers. De Beers provided the Soviet Union with its single largest source of hard currency, and in turn left the diamond monopoly in the hands of South African Jews. And of course the NAACP was set up and run by Jews and one token Black communist, so Jews have always been very helpful to the poor blacks. The good thing about this kind of action, by Canada’s Jewish establishment, is that it provide the opportunity for “a teaching moment”, which is good, because the Canadian school system is useless at teaching history. Canadian schools seem to be under the thumb of some special interest groups who hate that people should know how the world is run.

“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them, … we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” — Ariel Sharon, 1973

[Winston S. Churchill III, grandson of the British prime minister of the same name, related this quote at the National Press Club in Washington DC, in October 2001, recalling a meeting he had had with Sharon in 1973.]

Queer groups demonstrate against the homophoia of America’s Last Black President

In Canada, Thought Crime is verboten, but if you don’t actively celebrate queerness and ass-faggotry (public figures have been compelled by law to celebrate Homosexual Pride parades and give speeches praising perversion) and bow down and grovel before some phallus or some BBW “goddess”, then Official Jewry will get its proxies to use the powers of the state to ruin your life and try to rape your mind. Since free speech is offensive, don’t dare complain if your kids have some ugly dyke’s floppy mammaries or some old fruitcake’s dick waved in their faces while they’re trying to go for an innocent stroll down a public sidewalk. Thanks, B’nai Brith.

Celebrate? : XXX

Proud of What? : XXX

After five years, even the kangaroo court’s “judge” just said that the whole case is a load of rubbish, and that the relevant legislation is unconstitutional (for now), threw his hands up, and said “get outta here!” However, since he’s not a real judge, but just wears a wig and a gown and bangs a gavel and tries to sound clever, his impotent “rulings” can’t result in a law being struck down.

So now these Jewish leaders are appealing to their puppet judges and getting their puppet press to put the screws to their puppet politicians. These sick, twisted, fascist, neo-Nazi Jewish groups, that are opposed to the right to life, and despise freedom of expression except for pornographers, perverts, and anti-Christ, are appealing on some queer grounds, so in another five years or so some other pseudo-judge will get to “rule” again.

Who are the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith? B’nai Brith was founded by Freemasons in order to coordinate international revolutionary movements. Its ADL wing was established as the Schutzstaffel for Murder Incorporated, the Jewish gangsters (Siegel, Lansky, Schultz, Rothstein, Dalitz…) who created modern organized crime. The other Kosher Nostra group, the CJC, was formed through the amalgamation of a bunch of mostly Marxist Jews. It’s been quite useful in providing a “respectable” (?) front for the Bronfman crime family. It’s been run by the men who made a mint off of phony holocau$t claims [see Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry]. The current rebbe there is Bernie Interessengemeinschaft Farber, who’s mission is to do all he can to destroy Canadian society by crushing freedom of expression.

Their purpose is to:

• Eliminate any public knowledge of their organized crime connections/histories
• Prevent any serious analysis of the elite Jewish stranglehold of the press, media, government, entertainment, schools, and banks
• Prevent non-Jews from being able to find out what Judaism really is
• Have any effective criticism of Israel labeled as a hate-crime
• Promote global oligarchy
• Control the telling of history
  
• Divide and conquer
  
• Prevent Christians from quoting our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, INRI
• Prevent Jews from being saved
  

The main techniques of these groups are:

• Use what Theodor Herzl called the Jews’ “terrible power of the purse” to corrupt politicians and launch hate campaigns against effective critics
• Exploit any form Jewish suffering, especially through the promotion of the religion of Holocaustianity, both for material gain and in order to promote the Masonic agenda
  
• Instill terror into the hearts of Jews, have them live of constant fear, and then use that fear to have them always ready to serve the interests of the Jewish aristocracy
• Create and/or support hate groups, terror, Neo-Nazis, Hamas, and so on.
  
• Keep the “antisemitism” scam going, and implement the “hate-crime” regime through media pressure, brainwashing and proxy state power.

In the Soviet Union it was possible for Jewish commissars to summarily execute “antisemites”, but since that option is not practical at this time in North America, a gradual (Fabian) war against human liberty is being waged. The fact that these Jewish elites need to resort to coercive measures to silence their critics (but reward Neo-Nazis who advance their agenda) proves that they have no rational way of responding to serious, factual criticisms.

Having taken vastly disproportional control of the media, and having prevented dissidents from being able to speak openly in public, these elites are now terrified of the information available on the internet. Information that can even be posted anonymously and then transmitted across borders! And so there’s now a need to employ agents provocateurs, and invent or exaggerate “antisemitic” incidents ad statements, in order to get Canadians on board for the campaign to put an end to internet liberty.

Ultimately, their goal is to make the subject population so submissive and eager to please that they will love their own chains, until even the memory of freedom dies.

Anyway, the supposedly “offensive” article must now be kosher, since it’s on the Kangaroo Court “Human Rights” Commissariat’s website. Or read it here and see what the artificial hysteria is all about. I haven’t had time to read it — it’s poorly written and unoriginal, and would probably be forgeten forever if these Jewish groups hadn’t insisted on making it national news. And I’m not really that interested in the subject — the main thing about AIDS, I’d say, is just avoid anal perversions, filthy whores, and degenerate drug habits, and you’ll probably be okay. I took a glance at it though, and didn’t see anything worse than what you’d hear in a Judd Apatow or Ben Stiller movie.

AIDS SECRETS: What the Government and the Media Don’t Want You to Know

By Kevin Alfred Strom, 1993.07.10

WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY will shock you. It will disturb your sleep. It will make you worry for your loved ones. It will give you nightmares of disaster, plague, and horrible death. It will make you rethink the priorities of your life. It will change the way you look at yourself and the world. There is a killer loose in the land. This killer cuts down all whom he touches. If he touches you, you will die. If he touches your child, your child will die. His victims die a slow, horrible death. They waste away. They drown in their own body fluids. They lose control of their bowels. They lose their memories. They become demented. They die in agony. There is nothing that can be done to save them.

The killer’s name is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV for short. When he starts to kill you, it is said that you have AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. This killer emerged into our world over a decade ago, rising like an angel of death out of the oozing rivers of body fluids that spilled like fetid waterfalls into the streets of America from the sick and sleazy pleasure houses of the “liberated” homosexuals.

When a killer like HIV is stalking the landscape, one would assume that the guardians of the public health would be galvanized into action, taking any and all measures to protect the uninfected from coming into contact with this killer.

But the medical establishment and the public health authorities are not taking such action. In fact, most of their efforts are directed toward protecting the so-called “confidentiality” of the infected rather than toward isolating and preventing the further transmission of the virus. They withhold vital information about AIDS which could save millions of lives. By their acts of omission and commission they have become, in effect, the protectors and guardians of this killer virus. And as such, they may well become your murderers. Or your child’s murderers.

Why are we being betrayed and lied to by those who are paid with our tax money to protect us? It has been well-documented, on this program and elsewhere, that the tremendous power of organized homosexuals (which reaches even into the White House, as President Clinton’s appointments and policies make clear) holds most of our craven and criminal politicians in thrall. And it should be obvious to Americans still capable of thinking for themselves that the homosexuals have been greatly aided by the controlled media. In the eyes of the powerful minority which controls the U.S. media, homosexuals are one among the many “oppressed minorities,” criticism of which is forbidden, on pain of losing one’s job or character assassination. (Look what happened to Andy Rooney when he mildly criticized perverts, or what happened to Jimmy the Greek when he speculated on the reasons for Black athletic success.)

Yes, the power of organized perversion is a factor in the suppression of the truth about AIDS. And it is certainly a fact that the darling deviants are a part of the media’s push to destroy America. But there’s more to it than that. If the uncensored truth about AIDS were released to the American public, it would have the potential of permanently derailing the plan to submerge America into a multicultural New World Order. It would have the potential of waking up the sleeping American people — and our masters in Washington, New York and Tel Aviv cannot allow that to happen.

AIDS is Transmissible via All Body Fluids

Listening to the establishment media one could easily get the impression that about the only ways that one can get infected with the AIDS virus are to share IV needles with, or have unprotected sex with someone who is already infected. Those who believe that lie are at risk of becoming tomorrow’s AIDS statistics.

First, there is no such thing as “safe sex” with a person who is HIV-positive. The condoms available in your local pharmacy or handed to twelve-year-olds at public schools offer little protection from the virus. Dr. C. M. Roland, Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology for the Naval Research Laboratory, states: “The 12 per cent failure rate of condoms in the prevention of pregnancy alone argues against their use for AIDS prevention. However, because the AIDS virus is orders of magnitude smaller than sperm, the situation is actually worse.” Dr. Roland goes on to point out that the AIDS virus is 0.1 micron in size, while typical holes in condoms, invisible to the naked eye, are 50 to 500 times larger, easily allowing passage of the virus. And according to Surgical Practice News of August, 1988, even surgical gloves, which are manufactured to a higher standard than condoms, may have holes nearly ten microns in diameter, or 100 times larger than the virus.

Thousands have died because they, or doctors they trusted, believed the government’s and the media’s lies about AIDS. A startling example of this is the criminal negligence regarding AIDS-tainted blood in the blood banks.

In 1983, we were told that the blood supply was safe. We were told that there were no documented cases of transmission via blood transfusion. When some individuals at the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control suggested that blood bankers could eliminate 80% of the AIDS-infected blood by testing all donated blood for Hepatitis-B, with which 80% of homosexual males are infected due to their filthy practices, and rejecting all the blood that tested positive, the higher-ups at both agencies declined to make that a requirement. Tens of thousands were sentenced to death by that decision. Why? Because homosexuals don’t want to be tested, they don’t want to be identified, and they don’t want their twisted sexual appetites restricted in even the slightest way. Homosexuals and powerful forces friendly to the homosexualization of America have successfully blocked this and many other common-sense proposals to protect the rest of us from AIDS.

Later we were told that the chances of infection from blood transfusions were about one in 1 million. A few years down the road, the official story was that the chances were less than one in 100,000.

Finally, in May 1985, a test became available that tested for the antibodies that the body produces in response to HIV infection. Just prior to that, the official story had changed again. Now supposedly the chances for HIV infection from a transfusion were one in 50,000 or less. When the blood supplies finally were able to be tested, albeit indirectly, for AIDS, the shocking truth became known.

An investigation into the voluntary donor blood bank in San Francisco revealed that the risk there prior to 1985 was not one in a million. It was not even one in 50,000. It was one in one hundred.

The same people who lied to you for years about the safety of the blood supply now tell you that the supply really is safe. Well, after the body count had become astronomical, public health officials were forced to adopt testing for the antibodies to HIV, and all blood which tests positive is supposed to be thrown out. So the blood supply certainly is safer than it was a few years ago. But there is a period of time after a person becomes infected with the AIDS virus, before his immune system responds by producing antibodies. This period of time is six weeks to six months in most people, but in some cases it can be as long as three years before antibodies are produced. During this time interval, the individual will be carrying the virus in his blood, but will test HIV-negative. This period of time is called the “negative window.

If an HIV-infected person donates blood during this six-week to three-year “negative window,” his blood will not be screened out by the test presently in use. Anyone receiving a blood transfusion from blood bank inventory blood is therefore still at risk. Using your own blood, or that of a designated donor known to be HIV-free, is far safer. And you should also know that factions of radical homosexuals have publicly threatened to purposely donate infected blood if certain of their demands are not met. The “negative window” effect means that these threats should be taken seriously.

You should also reflect seriously on the fact that, despite the availability of an HIV antibody test (and even its mandatory use in some situations such as blood bank donations), contact tracing of an infected individual’s sex partners is not being done in most instances. Infected individuals, even if they work as dentists or doctors or in other occupations where they could easily pass on the virus to others, are not required to notify anyone of their HIV-positive status. The AIDS virus is the only virus that has “civil rights.” Innocents must die, so that the sick sex games of the pervert minority can continue. The normal public health measures that always have been applied to other infectious diseases are not being applied to AIDS. The imposition of universal testing and quarantine where appropriate would end the anal fun, you see, and we can’t — we simply can’t have that. They — the infected — have all the rights. And we — the uninfected — have none. A complete inversion of what the public health system is supposed to be all about.

We are repeatedly told by the controlled media that the AIDS virus is fragile, and that it does not survive well outside the body. But that simply isn’t true. The prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, for September 28, 1985, states that the virus can survive in dried body fluids for as long as seven days. It survives twice as long in a moist environment. The HIV virus easily survives freezing. It survives being placed under running alcohol for twenty minutes. It can pass through intact mucous membranes. It can pass through intact skin. It is present not only in blood, but in urine, feces, sweat, vaginal secretions, semen, tears, mother’s milk, and saliva. It has been transmitted by kissing. It has been transmitted through contact sports. In short, wherever and whenever body fluids can be exchanged between individuals, the HIV virus can also be transmitted.

The government “experts” will tell you again and again that their studies “have not shown” transmission by these means. In many cases that merely means that studies have not been done. In some cases, studies have been stopped, apparently because they might have come to an “unapproved” conclusion if they were allowed to continue. Dr. Gus Sermos of the Centers for Disease Control was studying the possibility of mosquito transmission of the AIDS virus in semi-tropical Belle Glade, Florida, where an unusually high incidence of AIDS among low-risk individuals coincided with a large mosquito population. That study was stopped in its tracks, and there have been many other similar instances. The CDC stopped studying household transmission of AIDS after most such studies had been carried out for one year or less. They did this with full knowledge of the fact that it often takes six months and sometimes takes three years for an individual to develop antibodies to the virus. Now they point to these studies to claim that household transmission is insignificant.

Racial Differences in AIDS Infection

So far, the hidden facts about this disease that I have pointed out are hidden at least partly at the behest of organized perversion, which is very powerful, and which has powerful friends in the controlled media and even in the White House. But I want you to realize that the liars of the media are lying not only to protect the so-called “human rights” of homosexuals. They are also lying to protect their one-world, multicultural agenda.

Now I’m going to let you in on the AIDS statistics that the media masters are the most desperate to keep from you. Most of you are not IV drug users, nor are you homosexuals, nor are you recipients of tainted blood. Most of you fall into the category of people whose greatest chance of contracting AIDS is via normal heterosexual sex. What are your risk factors? By what routes does this killer virus make its way into the bloodstreams of normal heterosexuals?

When looking at the data for heterosexuals with AIDS, the one fact that is the most striking is that Blacks are between 14 and 20 times more likely to be infected than are Whites. Fourteen to twenty times more likely! In fact, even though Blacks account for only about 12% of the US population, they account for fully 90% of all AIDS infections in this country which were acquired through heterosexual means.

Among straight White Americans who acquired an AIDS infection heterosexually, the risk category of the greatest relevance to most of us, and also the risk category that is never mentioned in the controlled media, the sources of infection estimates break down as follows (based on “Epidemiology and Evolution of Heterosexually Acquired AIDS — US” Stockholm, 1988; and R.M. Selik, American J. of Public Health v.78, #12):

• 3% of straight White Americans with AIDS got it by having sex with partners who had received tainted blood from a transfusion.
• 13% of straight White Americans with AIDS, in this case all women, got it by having sex with bisexual men.
• 42% of straight White Americans with AIDS got it by having sex with IV drug users.
• And 42% of straight White Americans with AIDS got it by having sex with non-Whites.

In other countries the figures are even more startling. In a study entitled “Patterns of Heterosexual HIV Infection in Brussels,” published by the Division of Infectious Diseases at St. Pierre University Hospital, 250 heterosexual AIDS patients were studied. Astoundingly, in the very White country of Belgium, fully 83% of these cases were Black African immigrants. Most of the White males with AIDS lived in or travelled regularly to Central Africa. 70% of these men with AIDS had had sex with Black women in Africa. Of the White women with AIDS, all lived exclusively in Belgium, but 83% of them had had sex with Africans or sex with men returning from Africa.

Our young people need to be informed of these facts. These are the real-life risks that they face in this sorry world that we have made for them. It is criminal, it is homicidal, to deny them these facts just because the conclusions one might draw from them are at variance with the multicultural, one-world agenda that the forces behind Liberalism are ramming down our throats. We must shout the truth about AIDS from the housetops.

Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones

What can you do to save your family and your country from this deadly epidemic? There’s a lot you can do.

Avoid all contact with known homosexuals. If there is a known homosexual district in your area, do not go there. Avoid the “trendy,” “fashionable” part of town, whenever possible. This is often where the highest percentage of homosexuals are to be found. Particularly avoid using public rest rooms or eating in restaurants in such areas.

If you live in a rural area or small town that has preserved traditional American values, stay there. If you live in an area where such values have disappeared, where “Gay Pride” parades have replaced Independence Day parades and where the Third World invasion is in full swing, carefully consider your options. Moving into a racially, culturally, and medically healthier area should be considered.

Carefully choose who you socially and professionally associate with. Even if you must sacrifice status or money to do it, it is wise to avoid repeated close contact with those in high-risk groups, including Blacks, Third World immigrants, homosexuals, and drug users. Do not allow your children to associate with individuals in these groups when it can be avoided. Plan your travels to skirt around areas where such groups form a high percentage of the population, even if it takes extra time and gasoline to do so. Remember, any body fluid can transmit the virus, and it is impossible to predict the occurrence of auto accidents, altercations, the need to use unsanitary toilet facilities, or emergencies in which you may be placed in a hospital environment in a highly infected zone, possibly right next to a terminal AIDS patient.

Be aware that certain metropolitan areas, especially San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York, have populations which are particularly heavily infected.

What you must do, above all, to stop the spread of this disease among our people is to participate as fully as you can in the educational effort represented by this radio program.

Last Friday afternoon, B’nai Brith Canada sent out a news release. They do this often. Stuff happens in the Jewish community, and they send out a news release. Stuff happens in the Christian community, and they send out a news release. Someone farts at York University, and they send out a news release. While the many emails from “JEWISH CANADA” can become annoying at times, I ultimately commend them for remaining diligent in their communication efforts – they do a much better job than many other Jewish organizations.

But. Last Friday’s email was different. The title was:

United Church of Canada Resolutions Insult to Grassroots Canadian Jews

Hmm. Something jumped out at me. Angered me a little. Can you spot it? Moving on, the first sentence in the email read as follows:

B’nai Brith Canada, the voice of the grassroots Canadian Jewish community, was disappointed to learn that resolutions that enable United Church Conferences, Presbyteries, congregations, and community ministries to boycott the Jewish State of Israel, if they so choose, were unanimously passed at the United Church of Canada’s (UCC) 40th General Council.

How about now?

B’nai Brith is many things. They’re a Jewish advocacy organization. They’re an Israel advocacy organization. They’re a human rights advocacy organization. Their newspaper in Canada claims to provide “the real story – and the story behind the story – from a Jewish perspective,” though more often than not, that appears to be code for the Right Wing perspective. I should also say that they run a number of summer camps, and Jewish camping is more than important to me. They are indeed many things, but they are certainly not grassroots.

What is grassroots? For starters, labeling an organization as grassroots implies that there is a movement behind the organization. It implies that a collection of people – the roots – have come together independently to identify as a group with a shared philosophy. What is the B’nai Brith movement? Visit the “About Us” section of the website, and you’ll learn that:

B’nai Brith Canada is the action arm of the Jewish community. We believe in:

1. Reaching out to those in need
2. Fighting antisemitism, racism and bigotry;
3. Promoting human rights and peace throughout the world.

What is B’nai Brith’s philosophy? Their ideology? Their social perspective? These are things we would expect to know about a movement. How many people today will claim that they are part of the B’nai Brith movement?

The term also implies that the movement and its related organizations evolved spontaneously and naturally as a response to some stimulus. B’nai Brith – at least in the USA – certainly had a grassroots origin, with German-Jewish immigrants gathering to do something about the squalor in which Jews were living at the time. But now they have evolved into something beyond this grassroots origin. They do wonderful work, representing their constituents and advocating on behalf of certain Jewish views, but they are far past the days of being a small, grassroots movement. To be sure, they are part and parcel of the Jewish establishment. Meet your friends Federation, the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, and the State of Israel.

Labeling a group grassroots is also a way to highlight the differences between that group and its accompanying movement, and other organizations governed by more traditional power structures. A quick glance at B’nai Brith and B’nai Brith Canada’s websites is more than enough to show you that they are intimately familiar with “traditional power structures,” as the names and pictures of their leadership look like they came from a Facebook group called “old white Jewish men.”

The labeling of B’nai Brith Canada as grassroots is a curious move by the organization. For one, it is an abrupt change – they’ve never called themselves this before. Last Friday’s email was the first appearance of this adjective. Why, all of a sudden the need to add this term in August 2009? (8.28.09 Update: Turns out they have called their constituency grassroots a few times before. Mostly in press releases.)

I take great issue with this. It’s an attempt to make it look like they aren’t facing declining relevance like the rest of the organizational Jewish world. It’s an attempt to make it look like they don’t have a member base that’s almost entirely made up of people who were born before 1950 (not that there’s anything wrong with people born before the invention of the VW minibus). It’s an attempt to make it look like they attract the same type of people that Obama attracts.

There’s a term for what B’nai Brith is doing. It’s called Astroturfing. And in the political, advertising, and PR world, this is a BIG no-no. By calling themselves grassroots, B’nai Brith Canada is trying to project an image of something it isn’t.

Let me re-iterate: B’nai Brith does many wonderful things, many vital things for the Jewish and broader communities in Canada and the US. But they are not grassroots. To try and present this image is dishonest and unfair.

I’m also left with a few final questions from B’nai Brith’s email of last Friday…

Is there a difference between “grassroots” Canadian Jews and “regular” Canadian Jews? And if so, is the Canadian Jewish community insulted and disappointed en masse, or is just the “grassroots” Jews? And if so, is B’nai Brith really the voice of the entire “grassroots” Canadian community?

This is where B’nai Brith shows their true colours. You can’t just blanket label a group of people as grassroots. At the end of the day, I’m left wondering what B’nai Brith Canada’s “grassroots” movement is all about…

There is nothing that is intentionally “alarmist” about this headline, as much as some Canadians would want to reassure themselves that only with reference to a corrupt and dictatorial African state would such a headline have any relevance. However, the fact remains, and it is documented and abundantly public, that the Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, has intervened in a political action. designed to impede academic freedom for daring to question the supremacy of Israel. Goodyear is a member of the ruling Conservative Party that won power, as a minority government, thanks to 22% of registered voters who cast their ballots for this increasingly extreme right wing party. Not in many decades has Canada seen such an extremist party in power, rendering Canada the last refuge of the Neo-Con agenda, and hopefully its final burial ground.

Not only has the ruling party,

• consistently and automatically backed Israel, without regard for international law or human rights, with a speed that approaches the instantaneous, on whatever issue at whatever time even when the U.S. criticizes Israel, declaring its bias openly against Arab Canadians and their national organizations (and pulling their funding);
• acted on purely ideological grounds to ban foreign speakers from Canada, while playing host to war criminals such as George W. Bush on at least two occasions since he left office;
• declared, in absolutely upside down logic, that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism and is an “existential threat” to the whole of “Western civilization”;
  
• not only has Minister Goodyear refused to confirm whether he believes in biological evolution — remember, this is a Minister for science, he famously stated: “I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate”;
• Minister Goodyear cut research funding to the social sciences and reoriented more of the funding to favour business, in line with the ruling party’s ideological agenda;

but now Minister Goodyear also directly intervened to try to stop funding awarded for a conference, purely on political grounds, and at the behest of the Zionist lobby, and in a clear violation of academic freedom. This is the situation we are dealing with now. These actions and statements have been in public and are documented for anyone whose ideological blinkers are not so firmly nailed into their skulls that they cannot see any of this.

And to some extent, it is we academics, and the wider citizenry, that are to blame. As detailed and discussed in greater depth in my series of essays on SSHRC funding, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to be funding education, which is the domain of the Provinces. In setting up something like SSHRC, the Federal Government violates provincial jurisdiction, and overly centralizes research funding, thereby reducing any room for autonomy in local decision-making. If instead of mumbling and grumbling in private, as the majority of us do — now check how many articles or blog posts are “out there” by Canadian academics critical of SSHRC — we should be organizing. Funding for research should be managed by those who know what to do with it, and that means that any funds that the Federal Government has been accumulating from the Provinces, and directing into research funding, should instead be returned to the Provinces, whose universities should be the primary if not sole arbiters about how to distribute and manage research funds. It makes sense — which means it will likely never see the light of day. In the meantime, we continue to allow ourselves to be held hostage to funding that is aligned with state power that is itself aligned with a ruling party.

Let us look now at the latest episode from Extreme Canada, concerning political intervention designed to stop SSHRC Funding for Conference at York University, “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace,” beginning with those who complained about the conference, and responses from many academics in protest:

(1)

If you have not been following the ‘Queers Against Israeli Apartheid’ fiasco in the past few weeks let me sum it up for you.

- Event entitled ‘Coming Out Against Israeli Apartheid’ @ the end of May – sponsored by Coalition Against ‘Israeli Apartheid, Students Against ‘Israeli Apartheid’, High School Students Against ‘Israeli Apartheid, and finally Queers Against ‘Israeli Apartheid’

- If you can’t read between the lines….it’s very obvious that these organizations are the SAME – they are all the first one

- core membership is very small….that doesn’t mean they aren’t lethal

- The radical Rafeef Ziadeh spoke at the event….funny because I doubt ‘Queers’ would be allowed in her ‘Palestine’

ANYWAYS,

- B’nai Brith, UJA, and others condemned QuAIA and their event because the only country in the Middle East where you can openly be gay is Israel…somehow these people think they can walk into Gaza with those flags…

- These organizations called for QuAIA to be banned from the Pride Parade because they clearly don’t support peace, mulitculturalism etc.

- Crapstorm ensued after the Pride Parade Organizers promised and then retracted that QuAIA would be banned from the parade

- El-Farouk Khaki, Pride Grand Marshall, has been told by Pride organizers to desist from his political activities in the name of the parade

- These extremists represent a fringe in the gay community …….we need members of the gay community to take a stand!

- Sponsors have been promised that there will not be anything Anti-Semitic or hateful taking place at Pride 2009

CALL TO ACTION:                                                                                                                                                                                      If  you have two minutes call Pride Toronto @ 416 927 7433  and demand that Israel not be demonized like it was last year at the parade because the only gay-friendly place in the Middle East is ISRAEL!

You would think with the spring semester over by now there wouldn’t be considerable drama still happening at York University. You would be dead wrong.

York University is set to be the host (along with Queens University) of an anti-Israel conference which is calling for a one state solution. The conference is set to take place on June 22-24.

Problems and Questions regarding the one-sided conference:

- There is no group/side/people representing a pro-Israel viewpoint or any representative from the Jewish community

- The only ‘Jewish’ speakers are ones that hate on Israel

- It is disguised as an ‘academic’ conference yet it doesn’t even want to acknowledge the idea that most people and academic accept – a two state solution

- It is being sponsored by Queens  University and York University – Why wasn’t the Jewish studies department invited?

- The conference is the receipient of a federal grant amount to $19,750 – Isn’t it the foreign policy of Canadian to support a two-state solution?

Check out this article in today’s Globe and Mail

We cannot stand idly by while islamists, the extreme left, members of CUPE and other unionists, try to defame Israel for their own personal gain. You don’t have to be Israeli, or even Jewish for that matter, to be outraged that a Canadian ‘academic’ institution would hold a conference on such a contentious issue without showing both sides.

Take 2 minutes out of your day and call Prime Minister Stephen Harpers office – 613-992-4211- now you obviously can’t speak directly too him but leave a message for him expressing:

‘my extreme disappointment that the one-state solution conference that will defame and bash Israel is receiving federal funding’

‘I was so proud that Canada lead moral and ethical nations by pulling out of Durban 2 but now it is not only letting an extremely anti-Israel conference take place but FUNDING IT!”

‘As a Canadian citizen and a moral citizen of the world I am asking that PM Harper withdraw federal funding from the anti-Israel conference’

ADL of B’nai B’rith “rebuked”
by the UCSB Academic Senate

Professor William Robinson

LA VOZ DE AZTLAN
Los Angeles, Alta California
June 9, 2009

The Academic Senate of the University of California at Santa Barbara has voted to rebuke the Zionist organization ADL of B’nai B’rith in a case involving “Academic Freedom” and phony charges of “antisemitism” against Professor William I. Robinson.

At a packed meeting on June 4th, the Academic Senate approved motions to investigate the mismanagement of student complaints against the professor and to recommend changes in Senate procedures to avoid improprieties and abuses in the future.

The ADL, in cahoots with the Zionist student organization Hillel of B’nai B’rith had conspired to bring trumped-up charges against Professor Robinson in order to silence his criticism of Israel and the regime’s ongoing genocidal policies against the Palestinian people.

More than 100 faculty members across the UCSB campus plus 20 department heads signed a petition protesting the university’s handling of accusations against Professor Robinson.

The ADL of B’nai B’rith is an arm of the Israeli MOSSAD which is a spy agency headquartered in Tel Aviv. The ADL maintains extensive dossiers on US citizens who criticize the Zionist Israeli regime.

The ADL of B’nai B’rith has also attacked and defamed La Voz de Aztlan on many occasions . It has published a long series of false allegations against La Voz de Aztlan on its website. These false allegations are then utilized by many Zionist front organizations to attempt to discredit our Internet news and information service.

On November of 2001, Hector Carreon wrote a long article defending La Voz de Aztlan against false accusations made by the ADL of B’nai B’rith in a press release. The article titled, “Sons of the Covenant” Defame La Voz de Aztlan, also describes another case similar to that of Professor William Robinson involving a professor at Wellesley College. The article, which also describes the world Zionist movement called B’nai B’rith International, is published at  http://www.aztlan.net/sonsisrael.htm

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

Related Article

 William Robinson Speaks out in Defense of Academic Freedom and Social Justice at Al-Awda Convention

Bill Surkis, un leader de la communauté juive, est accusé de possession de matériel de pornographie juvénile. Il a comparu au palais de justice de Montréal, vendredi après-midi.

Une vingtaine de vidéos de pornographie infantile auraient été retrouvés dans l’ordinateur que M. Surkis a envoyé dans un magasin de réparation.

Informé jeudi soir des accusations, celui qui fut directeur de la section québécoise du B’nai Brith s’est rendu lui-même au poste de police, où il a été mis en état d’arrestation. Il est accusé d’accès et de possession de matériel de pornographie juvénile.

Pour chacun des chefs d’accusation, Surkis est passible d’un minimum de 45 jours en prison. La peine maximale est de 10 ans, selon son avocat, Steven Slimovitch.

Bill Surkis, 69 ans, a été remis en liberté sous plusieurs conditions. Il lui est interdit de se trouver seul en présence de mineurs, et son utilisation d’un ordinateur est limitée à des fins professionnelles. Il doit aussi informer, chaque mois, la police à propos de sa navigation sur le net, et ne pourra pas quitter le Québec.

L’accusé, marié et grand-père, reviendra en cour le 24 septembre prochain pour connaître la suite des procédures.

« Ils seront déçus. Ils me connaissent comme un individu dévoué », a déclaré M. Surkis quant à l’impact qu’aura son arrestation au sein de la communauté juive.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/2009/05/29/006-Sukis-pornographie-juvenile.shtml

I’m especially shocked by the horrendous attacks on Judge Sotomayor’s character, her intellect, her legal record, her race and gender.

Upon hearing that the International President of B’nai Brith was local restauranteur Moishe Smith…I decided to see just what goes on in those Lodges where the Jews run the world from ….here is some footage that was smuggled out by an insider from when Mel Brooks paid a visit to the lodge….

apparently, they love to celebrate their massive psy-op called World War II, where their crypto-jew Dolph Shicklegruber ran heard over Europe, dividing up Poland between him and fellow crypto-jew Uncle Joe Juvilovich and when it was all over, dividing up the spoils mafia-style with crypto Jews Churchill and Roosevelt.

Crypto-Jew Adolph Shicklegruber before plastic surgery intended to make him look less Jewish

Shicklegruber (Hitler) is considered the Founding Father of Israel, since most Jews led a comfortable life in Europe and did not wish to go to a barren strip of land in Arabia , Dolph had to lay a little ‘tough love’ on them. Plus, the Jews had started intermarrying with the Goyim and the Big Jews decided something had to be done to preserve their race. Not to mention all the oil in the area and precious gem and mineral content of the Dead Sea, considered the world’s jewelbox. WW I was awesome for the Jews, it got rid of most of the Monarchies , and gave them control over the Russian people, but it was World War 2 that gave control of the world to the Jews, except for a few stone-throwing Palestinians who the Jews keep around to make it look there is still some resistance.

*This is about as constructive as the Government Motors debacle.*

Canada will contribute nearly $1 million to create a three-year national task force to study and educate Canadians about the Holocaust.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced the task force in Toronto this morning at the start of a conference on the Holocaust that marks the 70th anniversary of Canada’s refusal to let hundreds of Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis from Hamburg, Germany dock in Canada. The ship was forced to return to Europe and the refugees dispersed to various countries. Many would not survive World War II.

Kenney “has broken the traditional Canadian mould” to be an unwavering friend and ally to the Jewish cause, Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B’nai Brith Canada said in introducing the minister. The timing of the task force and conference are critical, Dimant said, as “Canadian universities have become a hotbed of anti-Semitism in the guide of anti-Zionism.”

He particularly commended Kenney and the Conservative government for its decision to boycott the recent Durban conference to review the results of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, which Kenney said “degenerated into open and divisive expressions of intolerance and anti-Semitism.”

The work of the task force applies not just to the Holocaust, said Kenney, but also to the hatred behind the attacks on mosques in Canada. Education is a strong component of the task force, which will lead research and publish a teacher’s manual, a textbook for high school students and a documentary for teachers to use.

“It’s all about fairness to them,” said a Grade 7 teacher from Manitoba who teaches the Holocaust to her students. “Once (students) understand the exclusion of it, they can’t get enough of the story.”

A small group of supporters of the American war resisters in Canada picketed outside the Sutton Place Hotel where Kenney was speaking. Former U.S. soldier Kimberly Rivera has been living in Toronto with her family for two years fighting deportation to the United States. Her three months in Iraq, she said this morning, made her realize “It was wrong for me. Every person, no matter what they wear or what they believe deserves to be treated the same.” Rivera’s next court hearing is July 8.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/643577

MONTREAL – It was only when Bill Surkis sent his computer to a repair shop to check for a virus that police were notified of suspicious videos on his hard drive.

Based on that evidence, the former regional director of B’nai Brith in Quebec was charged Friday with two counts relating to the possession and accessing of child pornography between July and November, 2008.

Surkis, 69, who was also the academic dean of John Abbott College for 22 years, and the executive director of the Holocaust Memorial Centre, spent the night in jail before being released with a long list of conditions Friday afternoon.

He is forbidden from being in the presence of minors or in any park or playground where minors congregate. It was not clear whether this condition also applies to his own grandchildren.

He is forbidden from using his computer or any other equipment to access the Internet except for work purposes, and he is barred from going to Internet cafés.

Surkis has been working recently as a political consultant.

And he was ordered to give up his passport and remain in Quebec unless given written permission by the prosecutor.

Surkis’s lawyer, Steven Slimovitch, said his client was very upset by the charges.

“He understands how serious the accusation is,” Slimovitch said. “We will not make light of this.”

If found guilty, Surkis will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 days and a maximum sentence of five years in jail.

That said, Slimovitch pointed out that Surkis has no prior accusations or history of using child pornography. And althoug the videos were found on his computer, Slimovitch said, his client is not accused of making, selling or trafficking the videos.

Slimovitch, who is also National Legal Counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, said the news will likely come as a shock to the Jewish community.

“He’s a community leader,” he said. “I assume everyone will take a step back and look at this seriously.”

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Former+director+Brith+Quebec+faces+child+porn+charges/1644215/story.html