TIJUANA HOBO

The Hero, Yachannan bn Yachannan Israel Bernays, Descandant of Rebbi Isaac bn Jacob Bernays, Founder of MODERN RABBINICAL MOVEMENT,Hamburg, Germany, 1850's.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

HIDDEN FROM HISTORY
The Canadian Holocaust
Through the Canadian residential school system, the Christian churches along with state authorities, the judiciary, doctors and the police implemented a policy of genocide against the native population.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 9, Number 2 (February-March 2002)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com by Rev. Kevin D. Annett, MA, MDiv
© 2001 The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada
Email: kevinannett@yahoo.ca
Email: kevin_annett@hotmail.com
Website: http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org

(The following is an edited extract from the report, "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust - The Untold Story of the Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples by Church and State in Canada - A Summary of an Ongoing, Independent Inquiry into Canadian Native 'Residential Schools' and their Legacy", by Rev. Kevin D. Annett, MA, MDiv. The report is published by The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada, a public investigative body continuing the work of previous Tribunals into native residential schools: The Justice in the Valley Coalition's Inquiry into Crimes Against Aboriginal People, convened in Port Alberni, British Columbia, on December 9, 1994, and The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities Tribunal into Canadian Residential Schools, held in Vancouver, BC, from June 12-14, 1998. Editor.)
FOREWORD
The Holocaust is continuing
PART ONE: Summary of Evidence of Intentional Genocide in Canadian Residential Schools
Article II: The intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group; namely, non-Christian aboriginal peoples in Canada
Article II (a): Killing members of the group intended to be destroyed
Exposure to Diseases
Homicides
Article II (b): Causing serious bodily or mental harm
FOREWORD

Jasper Joseph is a sixty-four-year-old native man from Port Hardy, British Columbia. His eyes still fill with tears when he remembers his cousins who were killed with lethal injections by staff at the Nanaimo Indian Hospital in 1944.

I was just eight, and they'd shipped us down from the Anglican residential school in Alert Bay to the Nanaimo Indian Hospital, the one run by the United Church. They kept me isolated in a tiny room there for more than three years, like I was a lab rat, feeding me these pills, giving me shots that made me sick. Two of my cousins made a big fuss, screaming and fighting back all the time, so the nurses gave them shots, and they both died right away. It was done to silence them. (November 10, 2000)

Unlike post-war Germans, Canadians have yet to acknowledge, let alone repent from, the genocide that we inflicted on millions of conquered people: the aboriginal men, women and children who were deliberately exterminated by our racially supremacist churches and state.

As early as November 1907, the Canadian press was acknowledging that the death rate within Indian residential schools exceeded 50% (see Appendix, Key Newspaper Articles). And yet the reality of such a massacre has been wiped clean from the public record and consciousness in Canada over the past decades. Small wonder; for that hidden history reveals a system whose aim was to destroy most native people by disease, relocation and outright murder, while "assimilating" a minority of collaborators who were trained to serve the genocidal system.

This history of purposeful genocide implicates every level of government in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), every mainstream church, large corporations and local police, doctors and judges. The web of complicity in this killing machine was, and remains, so vast that its concealment has required an equally elaborate campaign of cover-up that has been engineered at the highest levels of power in our country; a cover-up that is continuing, especially now that eyewitnesses to murders and atrocities at the church-run native residential "schools" have come forward for the first time.

For it was the residential "schools" that constituted the death camps of the Canadian Holocaust, and within their walls nearly one-half of all aboriginal children sent there by law died, or disappeared, according to the government's own statistics.

These 50,000 victims have vanished, as have their corpses - "like they never existed", according to one survivor. But they did exist. They were innocent children, and they were killed by beatings and torture and after being deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other diseases by paid employees of the churches and government, according to a "Final Solution" master plan devised by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Catholic and Protestant churches.

With such official consent for manslaughter emanating from Ottawa, the churches responsible for annihilating natives on the ground felt emboldened and protected enough to declare full-scale war on non-Christian native peoples through the 20th century.

The casualties of that war were not only the 50,000 dead children of the residential schools, but the survivors, whose social condition today has been described by United Nations human rights groups as that of "a colonized people barely on the edge of survival, with all the trappings of a third-world society". (November 12, 1999)
The Holocaust is continuing

This report is the child of a six-year independent investigation into the hidden history of genocide against aboriginal peoples in Canada. It summarises the testimonies, documents and other evidence proving that Canadian churches, corporations and the government are guilty of intentional genocide, in violation of the United Nations Convention on Genocide, which Canada ratified in 1952 and under which it is bound by international law.

The report is a collaborative effort of nearly 30 people. And yet some of its authors must remain anonymous, particularly its aboriginal contributors, whose lives have been threatened and who have been assaulted, denied jobs and evicted from their homes on Indian reserves because of their involvement in this investigation.

As a former minister in one of the guilty institutions named in our inquiry - the United Church of Canada - I have been fired, blacklisted, threatened and publicly maligned by its officers for my attempts to uncover the story of the deaths of children at that church's Alberni residential school.

Many people have made sacrifices to produce this report, so that the world can learn of the Canadian Holocaust, and to ensure that those responsible for it are brought to justice before the International Criminal Court.

Beginning among native and low-income activists in Port Alberni, British Columbia, in the fall of 1994, this inquiry into crimes against humanity has continued in the face of death threats, assaults and the resources of church and state in Canada.

It is within the power of the reader to honour our sacrifice by sharing this story with others and refusing to participate in the institutions which deliberately killed many thousands of children.

This history of official endorsement of, and collusion in, a century or more of crimes against Canada's first peoples must not discourage us from uncovering the truth and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

It is for this reason that we invite you to remember not only the 50,000 children who died in the residential school death camps, but the silent victims today who suffer in our midst for bread and justice.

(Rev.) Kevin D. Annett
Secretary
The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia, February 1, 2001
PART ONE: Summary of Evidence of Intentional Genocide in Canadian Residential Schools

Article II: The intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group; namely, non-Christian aboriginal peoples in Canada

The foundational purpose behind the more than one hundred Indian residential schools established in Canada by government legislation and administered by Protestant and Catholic churches was the deliberate and persistent eradication of aboriginal people and their culture, and the conversion of any surviving native people to Christianity.

This intent was enunciated in the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 in Upper Canada, and earlier, church-inspired legislation, which defined aboriginal culture as inferior, stripped native people of citizenship and subordinated them in a separate legal category from non-Indians. This Act served as the basis for the federal Indian Act of 1874, which recapitulated the legal and moral inferiority of aboriginals and established the residential school system. The legal definition of an Indian as "an uncivilized person, destitute of the knowledge of God and of any fixed and clear belief in religion" (Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960) was established by these Acts and continues to the present day.

Then, as now, aboriginals were considered legal and practical non-entities in their own land and, hence, inherently expendable.

This genocidal intent was restated time and again in government legislation, church statements and the correspondence and records of missionaries, Indian agents and residential school officials (see Documentation section). Indeed, it was the very raison d'être of the state-sanctioned Christian invasion of traditional native territories and of the residential school system itself, which was established at the height of European expansionism in the 1880s and persisted until 1984.

By definition, this aim was genocidal, for it planned and carried out the destruction of a religious and ethnic group: all those aboriginal people who would not convert to Christianity and be culturally extinguished. Non-Christian natives were the declared target of the residential schools, which practised wholesale ethnic cleansing under the guise of education.

As well, such "pagans" were the subject of government-funded sterilisation programs administered at church-run hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoriums on Canada's west coast (see Article IId).

According to an eyewitness, Ethel Wilson of Bella Bella, BC, a United Church missionary doctor, George Darby, deliberately sterilised non-Christian Indians between 1928 and 1962 at the R. W. Large Memorial Hospital in Bella Bella. Ms Wilson, who is now deceased, stated in 1998:
Doctor Darby told me in 1952 that Indian Affairs in Ottawa was paying him for every Indian he sterilised, especially if they weren't church-goers. Hundreds of our women were sterilised by Doctor Darby, just for not going to church. (Testimony of Ethel Wilson to International Human Rights Association of American Minorities [IHRAAM] Tribunal, Vancouver, BC, June 13, 1998)

According to Christy White, a resident of Bella Bella, records of these government-funded sterilisations at the R. W. Large Hospital were deliberately destroyed in 1995, soon after a much-publicised police investigation was to open into residential school atrocities in British Columbia. Ms White stated in 1998:
I worked at the Bella Bella hospital, and I know that Barb Brown, one of the administrators there, dumped sterilisation records at sea on two occasions. Some of the records were found washed up on the beach south of town. That was just after the cops opened their investigation into the schools, in the spring of 1995. They were covering their tracks. We all knew Ottawa was funding sterilisations, but we were told to keep quiet about it. (Testimony of Christy White to Kevin Annett, August 12, 1998)

Legislation permitting the sterilisation of any residential school inmate was passed in BC in 1933 and in Alberta in 1928 (see "Sterilization Victims Urged to Come Forward" by Sabrina Whyatt, Windspeaker, August 1998). The Sexual Sterilization Act of BC allowed a school principal to permit the sterilisation of any native person under his charge. As their legal guardian, the principal could thus have any native child sterilised. Frequently, these sterilisations occurred to whole groups of native children when they reached puberty, in institutions like the Provincial Training School in Red Deer, Alberta, and the Ponoka Mental Hospital. (Former nurse Pat Taylor to Kevin Annett, January 13, 2000)

Of equal historical significance is the fact that the Canadian federal government passed legislation in 1920, making it mandatory for all native children in British Columbia - the west coast of which was the least Christianised area among aboriginals in Canada - to attend residential schools, despite the fact that the same government had already acknowledged that the death rate due to communicable diseases was much higher in these schools and that, while there, the native children's "constitution is so weakened that they have no vitality to withstand disease". (A. W. Neill, West Coast Indian Agent, to Secretary of Indian Affairs, April 25, 1910)

That is, the Canadian government legally compelled the attendance of the most "pagan" and least assimilated of the native peoples in residential schools at precisely the time when the death rate in these schools had reached their pinnacle - about 40%, according to Indian Affairs officers like Dr Peter Bryce. This fact alone suggests a genocidal intent towards non-Christian aboriginals.

Article II (a): Killing members of the group intended to be destroyed

That aboriginal people were deliberately killed in the residential schools is confirmed by eyewitness testimonies, government records and statements of Indian agents and tribal elders. It is also strongly suggested by the bare fact that the mortality level in residential schools averaged 40%, with the deaths of more than 50,000 native children across Canada (see Bibliography, inc. the report of Dr Peter Bryce to Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, April 1909).

The fact, as well, that this death rate stayed constant across the years, and within the schools and facilities of every denomination which ran them - Roman Catholic, United, Presbyterian or Anglican - suggests that common conditions and policies were behind these deaths. For every second child to die in the residential school system eliminates the possibility that these deaths were merely accidental or the actions of a few depraved individuals acting alone without protection.

Yet not only was this system inherently murderous, but it operated under the legal and structural conditions which encouraged, aided and abetted murder and which were designed to conceal these crimes.

The residential schools were structured like concentration camps, on a hierarchical military basis under the absolute control of a principal appointed jointly by church and state, and who was usually a clergyman. This principal was even given legal guardianship rights over all students during the early 1930s by the federal government, at least in west coast residential schools. This action by the government was highly unusual, considering that native people were by law the legal wards of the state, and had been so since the commencement of the Indian Act. And yet such absolute power of the school principal over the lives of aboriginal students was a requirement of any system whose killing of aboriginals had to be disguised and later denied.

The residential schools were constructed behind this deception in such a way that the deaths and atrocities that constitute genocide could be hidden and eventually explained. In the Canadian context, this meant a policy of gradual but deliberate extermination under a protective legal umbrella, administered by "legitimate and trusted" institutions: the mainline churches.

It should be clarified from the outset that the decisions concerning the residential schools, including those which caused the deaths of children and resulting cover-ups, were officially sanctioned by every level of the churches that ran them and the government which created them. Only such sanction could have allowed the deaths to continue as they did - and the perpetrators to feel protected enough to operate with impunity for many years within the system, which they universally did.

Exposure to Diseases

In 1909, Dr Peter Bryce of the Ontario Health Department was hired by the Indian Affairs Department in Ottawa to tour the Indian residential schools in western Canada and British Columbia and report on the health conditions there. Bryce's report so scandalised the government and the churches that it was officially buried and only surfaced in 1922 when Bryce - who was forced out of the civil service for the honesty of his report - wrote a book about it, entitled The Story of a National Crime (Ottawa, 1922).

In his report, Dr Bryce claimed that Indian children were being systematically and deliberately killed in the residential schools. He cited an average mortality rate of between 35% and 60%, and alleged that staff and church officials were regularly withholding or falsifying records and other evidence of children's deaths.

Further, Dr Bryce claimed that a primary means of killing native children was to deliberately expose them to communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and then deny them any medical care or treatment - a practice actually referred to by top Anglican Church leaders in the Globe and Mail on May 29, 1953.

In March 1998, two native eyewitnesses who attended west coast residential schools, William and Mabel Sport of Nanaimo, BC, confirmed Dr Bryce's allegation. Both of them claim to have been deliberately exposed to tuberculosis by staff at both a Catholic and a United Church residential school during the 1940s.

I was forced to sleep in the same bed with kids who were dying of tuberculosis. That was at the Catholic Christie residential school around 1942. They were trying to kill us off, and it nearly worked. They did the same thing at Protestant Indian schools, three kids to a bed, healthy ones with the dying. (Testimony of Mabel Sport to IHRAAM officers, Port Alberni, BC, March 31, 1998)

Reverend Pitts, the Alberni school principal, he forced me and eight other boys to eat this special food out of a different sort of can. It tasted really strange. And then all of us came down with tuberculosis. I was the only one to survive, 'cause my Dad broke into the school one night and got me out of there. All of the rest died from tuberculosis and they were never treated. Just left there to die. And their families were all told they had died of pneumonia. The plan was to kill us off in secret, you know. We all just began dying after eating that food. Two of my best friends were in that group that was poisoned. We were never allowed to speak of it or go into the basement, where other murders happened. It was a death sentence to be sent to the Alberni school. (Testimony of William Sport to IHRAAM officers, Port Alberni, BC, March 31, 1998)

Homicides

More overt killings of children were a common occurrence in residential schools, according to eyewitnesses. The latter have described children being beaten and starved to death, thrown from windows, strangled and being kicked or thrown down stairs to their deaths. Such killings occurred in at least eight residential schools in British Columbia alone, run by all three mainline denominations.

Bill Seward of Nanaimo, BC, age 78, states:

My sister Maggie was thrown from a three-storey window by a nun at the Kuper Island school, and she died. Everything was swept under the rug. No investigation was ever done. We couldn't hire a lawyer at the time, being Indians. So nothing was ever done. (Testimony of Bill Seward, Duncan, BC, August 13, 1998)

Diane Harris, Community Health Worker for the Chemainus Band Council on Vancouver Island, confirms accounts of the murders.

We always hear stories of all the kids who were killed at Kuper Island. A graveyard for the babies of the priests and girls was right south of the school until it was dug up by the priests when the school closed in 1973. The nuns would abort babies and sometimes end up killing the mothers. There were a lot of disappearances. My mother, who is 83 now, saw a priest drag a girl down a flight of stairs by her hair and the girl died as a result. Girls were raped and killed, and buried under the floorboards. We asked the local RCMP to exhume that place and search for remains but they've always refused, as recently as 1996. Corporal Sampson even threatened us. That kind of cover-up is the norm. Children were put together with kids sick with TB in the infirmary. That was standard procedure. We've documented thirty-five outright murders in a seven-year period. (Testimony of Diane Harris to the IHRAAM Tribunal, June 13, 1998)

Evidence exists that active collusion from police, hospital officials, coroners, Indian Agents and even native leaders helped to conceal such murders. Local hospitals, particularly tuberculosis sanatoriums connected to the United and Roman Catholic churches, served as "dumping grounds" for children's bodies and routinely provided false death certificates for murdered students.

In the case of the United Church's Alberni residential school, students who discovered dead bodies of other children faced serious retribution. One such witness, Harry Wilson of Bella Bella, BC, claims that he was expelled from the school, then hospitalised and drugged against his will, after finding the body of a dead girl in May 1967.

Sadly, the two-tiered system of collaborators and victims created among native students at the schools continues to the present, as some of the state-funded band council officials - themselves former collaborators - appear to have an interest in helping to suppress evidence and silence witnesses who would incriminate not only the murderers but themselves as agents of the white administration.

A majority of the witnesses who have shared their story with the authors and at public tribunals on the west coast have described either seeing a murder or discovering a body at the residential school he or she attended. The body count, even according to the government's own figures, was enormously high. Where, then, are all these bodies? The deaths of thousands of students are not recorded in any of the school records, Indian Affairs files or other documentation submitted thus far in court cases or academic publications on the residential schools. Some 50,000 corpses have literally and officially gone missing.

The residential school system had to hide not only the evidence of murder but the bodies as well. The presence of secret gravesites of children killed at Catholic and Protestant schools in Sardis, Port Alberni, Kuper Island and Alert Bay has been attested to by numerous witnesses. These secret burial yards also contained the aborted foetuses and even small babies who were the offspring of priests and staff at the schools, according to the same witnesses. One of them, Ethel Wilson of Bella Bella, claims to have seen "rows and rows of tiny skeletons" in the foundations of the former Anglican residential school of St Michael's in Alert Bay when a new school was built there in the 1960s.
There were several rows of them, all lined up neatly like it was a big cemetery. The skeletons had been found within one of the old walls of St Mike's school. None of them could have been very old, from their size. Now why would so many kids have been buried like that inside a wall, unless someone was trying to hide something? (Testimony of Ethel Wilson to Kevin Annett, Vancouver, BC, August 8, 1998)

Arnold Sylvester, who, like Dennis Charlie, attended Kuper Island school between 1939 and 1945, corroborates this account.

The priests dug up the secret gravesite in a real hurry around 1972 when the school closed. No one was allowed to watch them dig up those remains. I think it's because that was a specially secret graveyard where the bodies of the pregnant girls were buried. Some of the girls who got pregnant from the priests were actually killed because they threatened to talk. They were sometimes shipped out and sometimes just disappeared. We weren't allowed to talk about this. (Testimony of Arnold Sylvester to Kevin Annett, Duncan, BC, August 13, 1998)

Local hospitals were also used as a dumping ground for children's bodies, as in the case of the Edmonds boy and his "processing" at St Paul's Hospital after his murder at the Catholic school in North Vancouver. Certain hospitals, however, seem to have been particularly favourite spots for storing corpses.

The Nanaimo Tuberculosis Hospital (called The Indian Hospital) was one such facility. Under the guise of tuberculosis treatment, generations of native children and adults were subjected to medical experiments and sexual sterilisations at the Nanaimo Hospital, according to women who experienced these tortures (see Article IId). But the facility was also a cold storage area for native corpses.

The West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni not only stored children's bodies from the local United Church residential school; it was also the place where abortions were performed on native girls who were made pregnant at the school by staff and clergy, and where newborn babies were disposed of and possibly killed, according to witnesses like Amy Tallio, who attended the Alberni school during the early 1950s.

Irene Starr of the Hesquait Nation, who attended the Alberni school between 1952 and 1961, confirms this.

Many girls got pregnant at the Alberni school. The fathers were the staff, teachers, the ones who raped them. We never knew what happened to the babies, but they were always disappearing. The pregnant girls were taken to the Alberni hospital and then came back without their babies. Always. The staff killed those babies to cover their tracks. They were paid by the church and government to be rapists and murderers. (Testimony of Irene Starr to Kevin Annett, Vancouver, BC, August 23, 1998)

Article II (b): Causing serious bodily or mental harm

Early in the residential schools era, the Indian Affairs Superintendent, Duncan Campbell Scott, outlined the purpose of the schools thus: "to kill the Indian within the Indian".

Clearly, the genocidal assault on aboriginals was not only physical but spiritual: European culture wished to own the minds and the souls of the native nations, to turn the Indians it hadn't killed into third-class replicas of white people.

Expressing the "virtues" of genocide, Alfred Caldwell, principal of the United Church school in Ahousat on Vancouver Island's west coast, wrote in 1938:

The problem with the Indians is one of morality and religion. They lack the basic fundamentals of civilised thought and spirit, which explains their child-like nature and behaviour. At our school we strive to turn them into mature Christians who will learn how to behave in the world and surrender their barbaric way of life and their treaty rights which keep them trapped on their land and in a primitive existence. Only then will the Indian problem in our country be solved. (Rev. A. E. Caldwell to Indian Agent P. D. Ashbridge, Ahousat, BC, Nov 12, 1938)

The fact that this same principal is named by eyewitnesses as the murderer of at least two children - one of them in the same month that he wrote this letter - is no accident, for cultural genocide spills effortlessly over into killing, as the Nazis proved so visibly to the world.

Nevertheless, Caldwell's letter illuminates two vital points for the purpose of this discussion of mental and bodily harm inflicted on native students: (a) the residential schools were a vast project in mind control, and (b) the underlying aim of this "re-programming" of native children was to force aboriginals off their ancestral lands in order to allow whites access to them.

To quote Alberni survivor Harriett Nahanee:

They were always pitting us against each other, getting us to fight and molest one another. It was all designed to split us up and brainwash us so that we would forget that we were Keepers of the Land. The Creator gave our people the job of protecting the land, the fish, the forests. That was our purpose for being alive. But the whites wanted it all, and the residential schools were the way they got it. And it worked. We've forgotten our sacred task, and now the whites have most of the land and have taken all the fish and the trees. Most of us are in poverty, addictions, family violence. And it all started in the schools, where we were brainwashed to hate our own culture and to hate ourselves so that we would lose everything. That's why I say that the genocide is still going on. (Testimony of Harriett Nahanee to Kevin Annett, North Vancouver, BC, December 11, 1995)

It was only after the assumption of guardianship powers by the west coast school principals, between 1933 and 1941, that the first evidence of organised pedophile networks in those residential schools emerges. For such a regime was legally and morally free to do whatever it wanted to its captive native students.

The residential schools became a safe haven - one survivor calls it a "free fire zone" - for pedophiles, murderers and brutal doctors needing live test subjects for drug testing or genetic and cancer research.

Particular schools, such as the Catholic one at Kuper Island and the United Church's Alberni school, became special centres where extermination techniques were practised with impunity on native children from all over the province, alongside the usual routine of beatings, rapes and farming out of children to influential pedophiles.

Much of the overt mental and bodily harm done to native students was designed to break down traditional tribal loyalties along kinship lines by pitting children against each other and cutting them off from their natural bonds. Boys and girls were strictly segregated in separate dormitories and could never meet.

One survivor describes never seeing her little brother for years, even though he was in the same building at the Alert Bay Anglican school. And when children at the schools broke into each other's dormitories and older boys and girls were caught exchanging intimacies, the most severe punishments were universally applied. According to a female survivor who attended the Alberni school in 1959:

They used the gauntlet on a boy and girl who were caught together kissing. The two of them had to crawl naked down a line of other students, and we beat them with sticks and whips provided by the principal. The girl was beaten so badly she died from kidney failure. That gave us all a good lesson: if you tried having normal feelings for someone, you'd get killed for it. So we quickly learned never to love or trust anyone, just do what we were told to do. (Testimony of anonymous woman from the Pacheedat Nation, Port Renfrew, BC, October 12, 1996)

According to Harriett Nahanee:

The residential schools created two kinds of Indians: slaves and sell-outs. And the sellouts are still in charge. The rest of us do what we're told. The band council chiefs have been telling everyone on our reserve not to talk to the Tribunal and have been threatening to cut our benefits if we do. (Harriett Nahanee to Kevin Annett, June 12, 1998)

The nature of that system of torture was not haphazard. For example, the regular use of electric shocks on children who spoke their language or were "disobedient" was a widespread phenomenon in residential schools of every denomination across Canada. This was not a random but an institutionalised device.

Specially constructed torture chambers with permanent electric chairs, often operated by medical personnel, existed at the Alberni and Kuper Island schools in British Columbia, at the Spanish Catholic school in Ontario, and in isolated hospital facilities run by the churches and Department of Indian Affairs in northern Quebec, Vancouver Island and rural Alberta, according to eyewitnesses.

Mary Anne Nakogee-Davis of Thunder Bay, Ontario, was tortured in an electric chair by nuns at the Catholic Spanish residential school in 1963 when she was eight years old. She states:

The nuns used it as a weapon. It was done on me on more than one occasion. They would strap your arms to the metal arm rests, and it would jolt you and go through your system. I don't know what I did that was bad enough to have that done to me. (From The London Free Press, London, Ontario, October 22, 1996)

Such torture also occurred at facilities operated by the churches with Department of Indian Affairs money, similar to the sterilisation programs identified at the W. R. Large Memorial Hospital in Bella Bella and the Nanaimo Indian Hospital.

Frank Martin, a Carrier native from northern BC, describes his forcible confinement and use in experiments at the Brannen Lake Reform School near Nanaimo in 1963 and 1964:

I was kidnapped from my village when I was nine and sent off to the Brannen Lake school in Nanaimo. A local doctor gave me a shot and I woke up in a small cell, maybe ten feet by twelve. I was kept in there like an animal for fourteen months. They brought me out every morning and gave me electric shocks to my head until I passed out. Then in the afternoon I'd go for these X-rays and they'd expose me to them for minutes on end. They never told me why they were doing it. But I got lung cancer when I was eighteen and I've never smoked. (Videotaped testimony of Frank Martin to Eva Lyman and Kevin Annett, Vancouver, July 16, 1998)

Such quack experimentation combined with brutal sadism characterised these publicly funded facilities, especially the notorious Nanaimo Indian Hospital. David Martin of Powell River, BC, was taken to this hospital in 1958 at the age of five and used in experiments attested to by Joan Morris, Harry Wilson and other witnesses quoted in this report. According to David:

I was told I had tuberculosis, but I was completely healthy; no symptoms of TB at all. So they sent me to Nanaimo Indian Hospital and strapped me down in a bed there for more than six months. The doctors gave me shots every day that made me feel really sick, and made my skin all red and itchy. I heard the screams of other Indian kids who were locked away in isolation rooms. We were never allowed in there to see them. Nobody ever told me what they were doing to all of us in there. (David Martin to Kevin Annett, Vancouver, November 12, 2000)

A recurring and regular torture at the residential schools themselves was operating on children's teeth without using any form of anaesthesia or painkiller. Two separate victims of this torture at the Alberni school describe being subjected to it by different dentists, decades apart. Harriett Nahanee was brutalised in that manner in 1946, while Dennis Tallio was "worked on by a sick old guy who never gave me painkillers" at the same school in 1965.

Dr Josef Mengele is reputed by survivors of his experiments to have worked out of Cornell University in New York, Bristol Labs in Syracuse, New York, and Upjohn Corporation and Bayer laboratories in Ontario. Mengele and his Canadian researchers, like the notorious Montreal psychiatrist Ewen Cameron, used prisoners, mental patients and native children from reserves and residential schools in their efforts to erase and reshape human memory and personality, using drugs, electric shocks and trauma-inducing methods identical to those employed for years in the residential schools.

Former employees of the federal government have confirmed that the use of "inmates" of residential schools was authorised for government-run medical experiments through a joint agreement with the churches which ran the schools.

According to a former Indian Affairs official:

A sort of gentlemen's agreement was in place for many years: the churches provided the kids from their residential schools to us, and we got the Mounties to deliver them to whoever needed a fresh batch of test subjects: usually doctors, sometimes Department of Defense people. The Catholics did it big time in Quebec when they transferred kids wholesale from orphanages into mental asylums. It was for the same purpose: experimentation. There was lots of grant money in those days to be had from the military and intelligence sectors: all you had to do was provide the bodies. The church officials were more than happy to comply. It wasn't just the residential school principals who were getting kickbacks from this: everyone was profiting. That's why it's gone on for so long. It implicates a hell of a lot of top people. (From the Closed Files of the IHRAAM Tribunal, containing the statements of confidential sources, June 12-14, 1998)

Such experiments and the sheer brutality of the harm regularly inflicted on children in the schools attest to the institutional view of aboriginals as "expendable" and "diseased" beings. Scores of survivors of 10 different residential schools in BC and Ontario have described under oath the following tortures inflicted on them and other children as young as five years old between the years 1922 and 1984:

* tightening fish twine and wire around boys' penises;
* sticking needles into their hands, cheeks, tongues, ears and penises;
* holding them over open graves and threatening to bury them alive;
* forcing them to eat maggot-filled and regurgitated food;
* telling them their parents were dead and that they were about to be killed;
* stripping them naked in front of the assembled school and verbally and sexually degrading them;
* forcing them to stand upright for more than 12 hours at a time until they collapsed;
* immersing them in ice water;
* forcing them to sleep outside in winter;
* ripping the hair from their heads;
* repeatedly smashing their heads against concrete or wooden surfaces;
* daily beating without warning, using whips, sticks, horse harnesses, studded metal straps, pool cues and iron pipes;
* extracting gold teeth from their mouths without painkillers;
* confining them in unventilated closets without food or water for days;
* regularly applying electric shocks to their heads, genitals and limbs.

Perhaps the clearest summary of the nature and purpose of such sadism are the words of Bill Seward of Nanaimo, a survivor of the Kuper Island school:

The church people were worshipping the devil, not us. They wanted the gold, the coal, the land we occupied. So they terrorised us into giving it to them. How does a man who was raped every day when he was seven make anything out of his life? The residential schools were set up to destroy our lives, and they succeeded. The whites were terrorists, pure and simple. (Testimony of Bill Seward to Kevin Annett and IHRAAM observers, Duncan, BC, August 13, 1998)
Editor's Note:

To obtain a copy of "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust", contact The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada, c/- 6679 Grant Street, Burnaby, BC V5B 2K9, Canada, telephone +1 (604) 293 1972, email kevinannett@yahoo.ca or kevin_annett@hotmail.com, or visit the website: http://annett55.freewebsites.com. See review, NEXUS 9/01.
AREA 51 RALLY ON 6-6-6
June 6th at 6am...1999
Because of the nature of the BEAST........ i decided to make a trip this summer to the Rally at Area 51........ many events happened that were quite significant for both myself and the participants who came for the event.... there were four speakers who presented material dealing with the Dracos and Lizards whose religion is what we commonly know as Satanism. .. or that is the term they use for us HUmans ....MON_KEYS.. who are used in their Sacrificial Rites... or maybe we should just call this how to EAT A MONKEY and HAVE A CEREMONY...i had been to Area 51 about 7 years ago.. and had experienced bizarre events, so i knew before i arrived that would be the case .... very soon after i arrived at noon on the 5th... i listened to Anthony Hilder( his website- by Enoch Schemna..is another major problem as Anthony's Draconian Nazi-covert Webmaster.). this presents a whole new problem .... and can perhaps explain why there are red and black logos..all over his website done by ENOCH.( he has since taken them down!)since Anthony's web is AGAINST the red and black Satanic Ceremonies. . hmmmm interesting? ... i think so ... very very interesting indeed.. what is the famous saying.. "oh,what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive"
http://www.freeworldalliance.com

ANTHONY HILDER made the introductions for the speakers who included TED GUNDERSON. who was speaking from his position of authority, having been an ex-FBI chief and retiring after 27 years of service.......they began by showing a small segment of a true film( from Thomas C. who gave his life for us to have the information ) on both the creatures that were being created at Area 51 from our human DNA... and the Sacrificial Rites called Satanism.... in which our fellow humans are slaughtered..
LINK TO MORE ON TED GUNDERSON
Area 51 at the Last Gate before Jail or Death.




About 2PM.. on the same day..after listening to Ted i decided to buy several books on Satanism from him and went back to my car in back of the Little Alien Inn during an intermission...... inorder to read and rest for a few moments... i had just positioned myself into a comfortable reading position in the back of my 4-runner. and my hatch door was completely open to the breezes that would come in from the hot desert...... i looked up for a moment and saw the strangest site that caused me to wonder what was taking place... near the ground and the back of my truck i saw what resembled to me a flying mechanical black bat or spider.. at first i couldn't tell as it was further away.. but when it seemed to flap its artificial wings... to move closer to me and my truck ....my first impression was that this was someone's toy... it proceeded to move very quickly and move under my truck.. i looked under the truck but didn't continue to see it.....the black bat was quite easy to see during the day because the desert brush is mostly tan and light beige.. so the Bat stood out clearly.... it wasn't until the end of the conference the morning of the 6th that i heard Anthony speak about the bats at Area 51....... and then i definitely knew what it had been... a spy to simply see what i was doing... and be an attachment probably somewhere under my truck... that would indicate my position the ensuing night of the Draco..the Draco in transmission called himself the "Death Defier"..who stalked me that evening.... all night... and some of the best books relating to the Death Defier Dracos can be accessed at this address if they are still available.... i would recommend them for any serious Draco Dragonslayer... interestingly these books were handed to me for free from Avendar Dragon when he was in Phoenix..... i guess they like a good fight......... so be it...
The Dragon's Emanations.by Avendar Dragon.... from THE QUEST FOR FREEDOM PRESS P.O. BOX 418 N.Y.C., N.Y. 10032 (212-923-7954).......4 books........

One of the most interesting aspects of my experiences at Area 51 was the high strangeness that included the Dracos themselves and their Pets. ... in the Photo below, where during the morning of 6-6-6- Anthony and Ted are talking near the Forbidden sign... it is a barrier both for the Dracos and the Humans....as you shall soon see.. on the Left is Anthony and on the Right is Ted .. now at Ted's right shoulder you should be able to see the "Invisible-Mode Draco" with his ominous teeth and near his nose is a funny little reptile Pet.... with a long nose and nostrils... they were obviously watching us as we were them( well some of us) .... I'm not going to outline them, because in teaching people how to SEE these critters ....you must begin to work for the knowledge yourselves.... good luck..... towards your work...


.......................................................................................................Draco up ^^here.....and lizzy
Above Draco looking at Ted and Anthony to Ted's right shoulder
Below the large teeth and eyes of the Crocodile Draco at Ted's shoulder..wonder if he wants to EAT HIM?



Below the Little Pet Lizard with the Red Eyes and long snout like a crocodile looking at the other people present


This is the best i could do to blow these guys up and take them out of invisible mode for you.. hope you can begin to see them... below a lighter version




This part of the major photo below of Ted and Anthony by the sign, is what i would call a Meditation in "Critters"... see if you can find first the green pig like animal with the long snout directly back of Anthony's neck. ..and at the top of the photo the little green elf.. or is it ALF? There are many bigger & smaller critters in this photo enlargement........
have fun..


This is exactly what you are to do when you meditate in nature .. see what is really there.. not demons supposedly from the Bardo......but life... lots of life... opening the VEIL>>>> in various dimensions. .. all about life
The next two photos are from the same area where Ted Gunderson was speaking with Dr. Jack Ringley..... Ted has the cowboy hat and Dr. Ringley is facing him and has glasses.. now the interesting part comes when the Watchers are being Watched.. this must have been a great event for all curious to view each other.. only apparently the Humans were mostly oblivious to these events. .. again thanx to the art of photography we can begin to see the invisible. ...that has been kept from us by technology from beings who have controlled us NOT of the Earth.....
Ted Gunderson and Dr. Jack Ringley talking amongst the Lizards


look at the green tree area between the man with the ponytail and the man with the hat on the right


Can you begin to see the three beings near the green tree? ...One light beige, one skinny one and one green hybrid..this is exactly what they do at area 51... they create new lifeforms from our DNA and then the hybrids as they grow older come out to view us on this "Special " for them NOT US!! .. 666 day...... btw.. i proceeded during the ceremony to give them the finger of TRUTH..!!. altho to be quite honest.. these beings that they have created and control.. we must have compassion for.... as i'm sure if they were given the chance they would rather belong to the Earth as other lifeforms and NOT DRACO controlled LIFEFORMS...but for many of them it will be necessary to give them BACK to Earth to begin again., and give them a chance to become a better lifeform...not being controlled with many implants..... ..
this next will be quite difficult for you to see and especially understand..and my question to myself has been should i try to explain this to them.? will anyone out there understand?... well i debated and said to myself ....... yes, as a human i owe the people of this planet.... or as the DRACOS would say "MON_KEYS"( btw that is a draco misnamer.. humans are NOT MON_KEYS!!)an explanation..... maybe someday they will be able to comprehend what this actually means.. .. the ability for a photograph to capture multiple dimensions of time and space...which includes thought forms in time and space....
SO HERE GOES..........


THE WYRM WATCHING US and thinking about the time he ate a man


Again. this pic above is part of the same large picture where Ted and Jack are talking.. ..and off to the top right above the man on the far right... above his hair.... now this blowup is going to be a "stretch" ... as i have already mentioned.. .. i have altered the color to yellow to show you more detail... of the wyrm. ... which is a large wyrm with a reptilian hawk beak ... .. now this wyrm is in a "time frame".. where the wyrm is in time eating a man directly below the beak ... with its mouth open and the man about to be swallowed... good luck also in seeing this one.. and in essence this is a "bleed through" of the thoughts of the wyrm.. eating a man....as the Wyrm is watching the humans below. ... this is exactly what 4-D and 5-D is... thoughts manifesting into form..... the large hawkbilled wrym is thinking of the food below.... him >>> US!!!> and it was captured in the photograph.........present time and past thought form time....this is quite similar to what you experience as you know it as DREAM TIME> thoughts manifesting as form and substance in your dreams.... remember how you have told a friend..
"MY DREAM it was just so REAL"
****** here is a living example above.... of a creature who lives in both worlds ( if he eats your blood that is) and maintains his 3-4D status ..... like the DRACS..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This next photo is what i call the Jolly Green Snooping Man with the green cap by the bush ...... peering at us with great interest.. near the White "Do Not Go Further " Jeep...


Now you see him..........................................Now you don't
Here is a LINK to another page of these reptilian lifeforms who were watching and participating in our "retrograde" ....666 ceremony...


NO_HOME_FOR _ME_AT AREA_51!!

TED GUNDERSON


First let me say that Ted Gunderson, while i was at Area 51 and took pictures was very helpful and informative and i do NOT like lies that have been printed on various websites and message groups that are NOT ACCURATE about what i said about GUNDERSON...


On this website below : I would like a retraction ASAP!! from kate@grid.net
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/gunderson.htm


June 6, 1999 - I DID NOT IMPLY THIS AT ALL=GUNDERSON GETS INTO ALIENS, THE LIZARD TYPES WHO EAT HUMAN DNA, AT AREA 51 AND CONNECTS IT TO SATAN!

NOR DID I IMPLY THIS!!=Gunderson speaks about aliens taking DNA from children at Area 51: Source: Click to read all: http://www.wiolawa.com/area51.htm


I DID SAY THIS WHICH IS NOT CLOSE TO THE ABOVE!!
"...speakers who included Ted Gunderson.. who was speaking from his position of authority, having been an ex-FBI chief and retiring after 27 years of service.......they( Anthony Hilder and Ted Gunderson)began by showing a small segment of a true film( from Thomas C. who gave his life for us to have the information ) on both the creatures that were being created at Area 51 from our human DNA... and the Sacrificial Rites called Satanism.... in which our fellow humans are slaughtered..."

Furthermore, i would like to say that in talking with Ted.. i related some of my problems with people breaking into my house and threats to my life and my family... Ted was most helpful and told me techniques i could use to counter those KREEPS.... as example, by using a Medico lock on my doors... He also told me that he had 6 attempts on his life.... and since i was on the list of Robert Stephens website SHADY PINES .. with Art Bell and group.... he could not discuss the litigation between BELL AND HIMSELF.... .. exactly as Ted has stated on other sites..... I am extremely tired of Art Bell going after some of the best people who are going against the Satanists/Illuminati/Lizards... EXTREMELY TIRED OF ART BELL!!
another example is David Oates.... who Art Bell literally helped drum out of this country... there is hardly anyone the government lying thieves fear more than David Oates and his REVERSE SPEECH.. this is another flagrant example of BELL CAMPITIS...
TED also helped me by allowing me to camp in my 4runner near the Little Alien Inn trailer that he was staying in.. i had my gun.. but was very aware all night of being stalked by the LIZARDS..( actually every 15 minutes!!). Ted woke me up in the morning at 5 am.. and we went to the area i photographed- the LAST GATE.... which might also be called LIZARD CITY 51.... i appreciate his expertise in his discussion of his investigation into the Satanic Atrocities that he encountered in his films of a Satanic Community House Ceremony, that he and his FBI agents investigated and found a beheaded man only 1 hour old with 27 other bodies.... that report and film was given to the CIA .. or the CIAKARS and squashed!!..... he is a very brave man... and i appreciate his writing and help to all HU_MANITY to counter these horrible beings....who KILL in the name of RELIGION....

.. WIO LAW A

home is not lying humans working for the dracs Professional Experience


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979-Present
TED L. GUNDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Santa Monica, California, Founder, owner and operator of this international security consulting and investigation firm in 1979. Investigator for F. Lee Bailey, Esq. Mr. Bailey describes Ted Gunderson as "a person with investigative skills that are unsurpassed by anyone I know or have known."
1981-1982
CALIFORNIA NARCODICS AUTHORITY Consultant appointed by Governor Jerry Brown

1984
LOS ANGELES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE - Anti Terrorism Consultant

4/79-8/79
PAN AMERICAN GAMES, San Juan, Puerto Rico - Security Coordinator - Special Appointee of United States Attorney General Griffin B. Bell

12/51-3/79
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

1977-79 Senior Special Agent-in-Charge, Los Angeles, California
1973-77 Special Again-in-Charge of Memphis, Tennessee and Dallas, Texas
1973 Chief Inspector
1965-73 Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge, New Haven, Connecticut and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1960-65 Special Agent Supervisor, FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
1951-60 Special Agent
At the time of his retirement, Ted L. Gunderson had over 700 persons under his command and operated a $22 Million budget
PUBLICATIONS:
How To LOCATE ANYONE ANYWHERE Without Leaving Home - Penguin, 1989

EDUCATION:
Bachelor of Science Degree, University of Nebraska

AWARDS:
Distinguished Alumnus Award from the Californians for Nebraska Chapter of the University of Nebraska in Recognition of Distinguished and Devoted Service to His Country, 1979 Alumni Highest Effort Award in the Field of Law Enforcement from the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Social Fraternity, 1977 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award from the AFL-CIO Metal Trades Council Los Angeles, California, 1977.


An Unnecessary Explanation

The future of Christianity rests in the protection of a people to practice their religion in a safe environment. When unsaved folks are about, the environment becomes "unsafe." Why would an unsaved person want to go to church anyway? To do bodily harm to the people of God? To cause dissension within the body of Christ? To steal something? Church is not a place for unsaved people. It is a place for Christians to gather and be edified in Bible teaching. It is a place for Christian worship and fellowship. An unsaved person wouldn't feel comfortable in Church. They shouldn't - for does the Devil feel free to bask in the sweet light of God's glory? Nay! If you want to get someone saved, do it outside of the church. It's called 'evangelism.' We are tired of being criticized for our Godly policies! We evangelize over 50,000 souls a month outside our church! There is absolutely no reason for an unsaved person to be in church (the only exception would be janitorial, funeral, or matrimonial attendance).

Q: Would you allow a convicted rapist on parole to speak to your daughter after Sunday services?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow an atheist who knew sign language to interpret your pastor's sermon to the deaf?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow a former priest expelled from his parish by the archdiocese due to complaints about "inappropriate conduct with youngsters" to serve as a guest teacher of your child's Sunday school class?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow a mentally ill street person who speaks to himself in loud voices to sit on the front row during Sunday services?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow an abortion doctor to moonlight as your youth director?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow a Deacon to usher with alcohol on his breath?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow Michael Jackson to serve as a counselor for your church's summer camp for boys?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow O.J. Simpson anywhere in your church?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow an AIDS-infected homo with lesions to sit in the pew next to your child with a cold?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow a smoking section in your fellowship hall?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow gang members to lounge on your church steps, cleaning their guns and listening to offensive ghetto music?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow an illegal alien who hasn't bathed in weeks to sit in front of you during services?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!

Q: Would you allow the Reverend Louis Farrakhan to preach in your church?
A: No! Unsaved are NOT welcome!


Now, we hope your ignorant minds are finally satisfied with the truth. If you have read this article and you are unsaved, go to hell!
Yahoo!My Yahoo!MailYahoo! SearchSearch:Welcome, elijahradioprophe...
[Sign Out, My Account]Mail Home -Mail Tutorials -Help

Mail | Addresses | Calendar | Notepad Mail For Mobile - Mail Upgrades - Options Check MailCompose Search Mail: Search MailSearch the Web


TRY Blockbuster

for FREE!

Folders[Add - Edit]
Inbox (15) Draft Sent Bulk[Empty] Trash[Empty] My Folders[Hide]
BobbiAnnette CL Notes CraigsList (907) DATER Gmail HOMELESSNESS Joined Sites blog
Search Shortcuts
My Photos My Attachments

See your credit

score - free

Earn a degree

in less than 1 yr.

Find Any

Email Address

Degrees for

working adults
Please register your mobile phone to activate this feature.
Register your phone to receive a text message when you receive Mail from particular senders.

Previous | Next | Back to Messages Call or Instant Message boxcarro
DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Printable View This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:53:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "YHVH EL ha YISROIEL" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Fwd: Universtity Accredited COURSE in PROPAGANDA!!!
To: "Tony Bell" , boxcarhobo_a1@yahoo.ca, boxcarro@netscape.net, elijahradioprophet@lycrosmail.com, elijahradioprophet@yahoo.com, freighttraindomain@yahoogroups.com, freighttrainjohnny@yahoo.com
--- YHVH EL ha YISROIEL
wrote: > Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:54:36 -0400
(EDT)
> From: YHVH EL ha YISROIEL
> Subject: Universtity Accredited COURSE in
> PROPAGANDA!!!
> To: mack@mackwhite.com
>
>
>
> SPCOM 150: Persuasion and Propaganda
> J. Michael Hogan
> Fall 2002
> TR 1:00-2:15
> 122 Thomas Course DescriptionPropaganda, in its
> common, everyday usage, is a
> deliberate, systematic attempt to manipulate
> beliefs and emotions, usually
> through methods considered deceitful and
> unethical. Persuasion, on the other
> hand, is an everyday activity in our personal,
> social, and civic lives.
> Persuasion is considered acceptable, even
> necessary in a free society. This
> course will explore the distinction between
> propaganda--in the pejorative
> sense-and persuasion, with an emphasis on
> developing the critical skills
> necessary to distinguish between the two.
> There are many different definitions of
> "propaganda," and the term often is used
> to label and discredit political opponents. In
> this course you will develop a
> more precise understanding of "propaganda" and
> the techniques of the
> propagandist. In more practical terms, you will
> learn to recognize, describe,
> and evaluate propaganda in all of its various
> forms and contexts. Toward this
> end, we will study the history of propaganda,
> as
> well as contemporary cases of
> public advocacy that raise questions about the
> differences between persuasion
> and propaganda. Office and Office HoursOffice:
> Room 234 Sparks Building. Office
> hours: 11:00-12:00 TR and by appointment. Phone
> numbers: 865-3461 (office) or
> 364-3296 (home, no later than 5:00 p.m.). You
> may
> leave a message with the
> departmental secretary at my office number;
> there
> is an answering machine at the
> home number. E-mail may be used for most
> routine
> questions and correspondence:
> jmh32@psu.edu. TextsThe required text is: Garth
> S. Jowett and
> Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion,
> 3rd edition (Thousand Oaks, CA:
> Sage Publications, 1999). Additional readings
> will be available on-line or
> placed on Electronic Reserve in Pattee Library.
> Assignments1. "Commissions on
> Persuasion and Propaganda." Each student will
> participate in a group
> investigation of persuasion and propaganda in
> one
> of the following arenas:
> international relations and war, election
> campaigns, public policy campaigns,
> corporate public relations, advertising, or
> entertainment media and popular
> culture. Each student will investigate a
> specific
> aspect of the more general
> topic, and the group as a whole will coordinate
> these investigations and report
> its findings to the entire class in a
> fifteen-minute formal presentation. Each
> student will then write a two-page report
> summarizing the work of the
> commission, including an assessment of each
> member's contributions to the group
> project. Further details on this assignment
> will
> be provided in a separate
> handout.
> 2. Research Paper. Students will write an 8-10
> page paper expanding on their
> own, specific area of research for the
> Commission
> on Persuasion and Propaganda.
> Further details on the research paper will be
> provided in a separate handout.
> 3. Examinations. Students will write both a
> midterm and a comprehensive final
> exam.
> GradingCommission Report 20%
> Research Paper 30%
> Midterm Exam 15%
> Final Exam 25%
> Attendance 10%
> Attendance will be taken daily, and seven
> points
> will be deducted from your
> attendance grade for each unexcused absence.
> Students with no unexcused absences
> will receive a score of 100% for attendance,
> those with one unexcused absence
> will receive 93%, those with two unexcused
> absences 86%, and so on.
> All grading will be on a numerical scale, and
> the
> final course grade will be
> computed according to the following scale:
> A 93+ B+ 87-89 B- 80-82 C 70-76 F 0-59
> A- 90-92 B 83-86 C+ 77-79 D 60-69 Course
> Policies1. Plagiarism and
> Academic Dishonesty. The University Faculty
> Senate Policies for Students, in
> Section 49-20, defines academic dishonesty as
> follows: "Academic dishonesty
> includes, but is not limited to, cheating,
> plagiarizing, fabricating of
> information or citations, facilitating acts of
> academic dishonesty by others,
> having unauthorized possession of examinations,
> submitting work of another
> person or work previously used without
> informing
> the instructor, or tampering
> with the academic work of other students." In
> this course, cases of academic
> dishonesty will be handled in accordance with
> the
> procedures outlined in Section
> 49-20. You may access the University Faculty
> Senate Policies for Students from
> the university home page for more details.
> 2. Student Disabilities. Penn State encourages
> qualified persons with
> disabilities to participate in its programs and
> activities. If you anticipate
> needing any type of accommodation in this
> course
> or have questions about
> physical access, please let me know as soon as
> possible. Course SchedulePart I:

THE NEW FACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM
By Robert Wistrich - March 14, 2004
The ways Zionism is attacked are identical to anti-semitism of the nazi era
Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were initially two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1967) have tended to converge.

The more radical forms of anti-Zionism that have emerged with renewed force in recent years display some striking analogies to fascist and racist anti-Semitism preceding the Holocaust. There is, for example, the call for a scientific, cultural and economic boycott of Israel, which arouses grim associations and memories among Jews of the Nazi boycott that began in 1933.

To this, we might add the ways in which Zionism and the Jewish people have been demonized in recent years that are virtually identical to the methods, arguments and techniques of Nazi anti-Semitism. Even though the current banner might be "anti-racist" and the defamation is being carried out in the name of human rights, the same desire to stigmatize and defame the Jewish collectivity is in evidence.

"Anti-Zionists" who insist on comparing Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, are de-facto anti-Semites, even if they vehemently deny the fact. For if Zionists are Nazis and Sharon really is Hitler, then it becomes a moral obligation to eliminate Israel. That is the bottom line of much contemporary anti-Zionism.

The exhibit in Stockholm in which an Islamic Jihad bomber is idealized as Snow White sailing on a pool of blood has nothing to do with "preventing genocide." It is an invitation to perpetrate another massacre of Jews, whatever the artist might claim.

Israel is the only state on the face of this planet that such a large number of disparate nations, political groups and individuals (including self-hating Jews) wish to see disappear - a chilling reminder of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s.

The most virulent expressions of this exterminationist anti-Zionism come from the Arab-Muslim world, the historical heir of earlier 20th century forms of totalitarian antiSemitism in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is echoed even by "moderate" Muslim statesmen like Mahathir Mohammad who publicly repeat the classic anti-Semitic myth that "Jews rule the world" without eliciting any objections in the Islamic world.

The more radical Islamists from Al-Qa'i

THE NEW FACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM
By Robert Wistrich - March 14, 2004
The ways Zionism is attacked are identical to anti-semitism of the nazi era
Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were initially two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1967) have tended to converge.

The more radical forms of anti-Zionism that have emerged with renewed force in recent years display some striking analogies to fascist and racist anti-Semitism preceding the Holocaust. There is, for example, the call for a scientific, cultural and economic boycott of Israel, which arouses grim associations and memories among Jews of the Nazi boycott that began in 1933.

To this, we might add the ways in which Zionism and the Jewish people have been demonized in recent years that are virtually identical to the methods, arguments and techniques of Nazi anti-Semitism. Even though the current banner might be "anti-racist" and the defamation is being carried out in the name of human rights, the same desire to stigmatize and defame the Jewish collectivity is in evidence.

"Anti-Zionists" who insist on comparing Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, are de-facto anti-Semites, even if they vehemently deny the fact. For if Zionists are Nazis and Sharon really is Hitler, then it becomes a moral obligation to eliminate Israel. That is the bottom line of much contemporary anti-Zionism.

The exhibit in Stockholm in which an Islamic Jihad bomber is idealized as Snow White sailing on a pool of blood has nothing to do with "preventing genocide." It is an invitation to perpetrate another massacre of Jews, whatever the artist might claim.

Israel is the only state on the face of this planet that such a large number of disparate nations, political groups and individuals (including self-hating Jews) wish to see disappear - a chilling reminder of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s.

The most virulent expressions of this exterminationist anti-Zionism come from the Arab-Muslim world, the historical heir of earlier 20th century forms of totalitarian antiSemitism in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is echoed even by "moderate" Muslim statesmen like Mahathir Mohammad who publicly repeat the classic anti-Semitic myth that "Jews rule the world" without eliciting any objections in the Islamic world.

The more radical Islamists from Al-Qa'ida to the Palestinian Hamas fuse indiscriminate terror, suicide bombings and a Protocols-of-Zion-style of anti-Semitism with the ideology of jihad. They embrace a total demonization of the "Jewish other" as the "enemy of mankind." The same demonizing stereotypes can be found in "moderate, pro-Western" Egypt (home to the anti-Semitic soap opera Rider without a Horse) secular Baathist Syria, conservative Wahhabite Saudi Arabia and Shiite fundamentalist Iran. This is an ideological anti-Zionism that seeks both the annihilation of Israel and a world "liberated from the Jews" - the ultimate final solution.

The danger has become especially grave because such annihilationalist anti-Zionism is spreading under the mask of anti-Israelism and hatred of Ariel Sharon to Western Europe, America and parts of the Third World. It has found grassroots support in the Muslim diaspora among radicalized youth and strong echoes among anti-globalists, Trotskyists, and far-right groups not to mention parts of the mainstream Western media.

The mobilizing power of anti-Zionism derives primarily from its link to the Palestinian cause. Since the 1960s, the PLO has worked hard to delegitimize Zionism and this policy has largely succeeded. Palestinian anti-Zionism involves a negation of Jewish nationhood and any legitimate Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Israel; a denial of any historic link between Judaism and Zion, or of the very existence of two Jewish temples in Jerusalem. No wonder Israel has never existed on any Palestinian maps even during the Oslo peace process. Nor should it be forgotten that the Palestinian Authority has frequently combined anti-Semitic motifs - including Holocaust denial, updated blood libels and Jewish conspiracy themes - with a more general incitement to jihadist violence.

Palestinian anti-Zionism has helped to infect Europe with an old-new version of anti-Semitism in which Jews are turned into rapacious, blood sucking colonialists. They are depicted as alien, rootless and imperialist invaders who conquered Palestine by brute force. Zionists are modern crusaders with no legitimate rights to the soil - an alien transplant in the region, which cleverly manipulated Britain and then America to achieve its goals. This is an Arab anti-Semitic narrative of which Hitler might have approved.

The popularity of the Protocols is one of the most telling symptoms in the Middle East of the complete merger between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Zionism is also vilified in some mainstream Western media as being criminal in essence as well as in its behaviour - another classic anti-Semitic stereotype. This flows from the left-wing mantra branding Zionism as a racist, colonialist and imperialist movement - the only empire in history whose waistline is about 10 miles wide.

Israel's military actions offer Europeans the tantalizing temptation of saying that "the victims of yesterday have become the Nazi perpetrators of today," and the opportunity to present Zionism as heir to the darkest pages of Western colonial history - i.e. Algeria, Vietnam, South Africa.

Such comparisons are not always anti-Semitic in intention however false they are in practice. But through endless repetition they become an ideological rationalization for dismantling Israel. This is a major aim of "progressive" anti-Zionism that insists on its moral purity yet turns a blind eye to so-called suicide bombings that are literally crimes against humanity.

Such anti-Zionism is fundamentally discriminatory in negating even the possibility of a legitimate Jewish nationalism while idealizing the violent nihilism of the Palestinian national movement. The anti-globalist crusaders against Zion regularly justify the terrorism, jihadism and anti-Jewish stereotypes to be found in Islamic fundamentalism. For most of the Western left, Palestinians can only be victims. Hamas bombers are militants engaged in legitimate resistance. They are never perpetrators of any crimes or responsible for their actions. Only Israel is to blame.

On the far left as well as the far right, contemporary anti-Zionism freely exploits stereotypes about the "Jewish/Zionist lobby, Jewish criminality and Israeli warmongering" that are deeply anti-Semitic. This world-view has penetrated the mainstream debate to the point where 60 per cent of Europeans regard tiny Israel as the greatest threat today to world peace.

Anti-Zionism is not only the historic heir of earlier forms of anti-Semitism. It is also the lowest common denominator between anti-thetical political trends in Europe and the Middle East - the only point on which they can agree. It is a bridge between the left, the right and the militant Muslims; between the elites, including the media, and the masses; between the church and the mosque; between an increasingly anti-American Europe and an endemically anti-Western Arab-Muslim Middle East; a point of convergence between right-wing conservatives and left-wing radicals and a connecting link between the generations.

Anti-Zionism is no longer an exotic collection of radical chic slogans that somehow survived the debacle of late 1960s counter-culture. It has become an exterminationist, pseudo-redemptive ideology in the Middle East which has been re-exported to Europe with devastating effect.

Robert Wistrich is director of the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of AntiSemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.



PAT BUCHANAN ANGERS PETER PETERS THE NEW "GOD" OF MENACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM
December 12,

I have it on good authority that Barbara Branden is spending a good portion of her time lately brooding about the Arising menace of anti-Semitism." Poor Barbara; like all Randians, she is perpetually out of sync. There is indeed a menace in this area, Barbara, but it is precisely the opposite: the cruel despotism of Organized Anti-Anti-Semitism. Wielding the fearsome brand of "Anti-Semite" as a powerful weapon, the professional Anti-Anti-Semite is able, in this day and age, to wound and destroy anyone he disagrees with by implanting this label indelibly in the public mind. How can one argue against this claim, always made with hysteria and insufferable self-righteousness? To reply "I am not an anti-Semite" is as feeble and unconvincing as Richard Nixon's famous declaration that "I am not a crook."

So far, Organized Anti-Anti-Semitism has been able to destroy, to drive out of public life, anyone who receives the "anti-Semite" treatment. True, "anti-Semitic" expression is not yet illegal (though it is banned in many Western "democracies," as well as increasingly – as with other "hate speech" – serving as grounds for expulsion, or at the very least compulsory "reeducation," on college campuses). But the receiver of the brand is generally deprived of access to organs of influential opinion, and is marginalized out of the centers of public life. At best, the victim of the brand may be driven to abase himself before his persecutors, and, by suitable groveling, apologies, and – most important – the changing of positions of crucial interest to his enemies, he may work his way back into public life – at the expense of course, of self-emasculation. Or, if, by chance, the victim manages to survive the onslaught, he may be induced to exercise due caution and shut up about such issues in the future, which amounts to the same thing. In that way, Organized Anti-Anti-Semitism (OAAS) creates, for itself, a win-win situation.

The major fount of OAAS is the venerable Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), the head of what the grand Old Rightist John T. Flynn referred to during World War II as the "Smear Bund." (Flynn was forced to publish himself his expose of the orchestrated smear of isolationists in his pamphlet, The Smear Terror.) Since the end of World War II, the key strategy of the ADL has been to broaden its definition of anti-Semitism to include any robust criticisms of the State of Israel. Indeed, the ADL and the rest of the OAAS has formed itself into a mighty praetorian guard focusing on Israeli interests and Israeli security.

Ever since August 2, Israel and what Pat Buchanan has brilliantly called its extensive "amen corner" in the United States, has been beating the drums for immediate and total destruction of Iraq, for the toppling of Saddam Hussein, for destruction of Iraqi military capacity, and even for a "MacArthur Regency" to occupy Iraq quasi-permanently. Pat Buchanan has distinguished himself, from the beginning, as the most prominent and persistent critic of the war on Iraq, and as the spokesman for a return to Old Right isolationism now that the Cold War against the Soviet Union and international communism has ended. Hence, it is no accident that the ADL picked the occasion of Buchanan's hard-hitting critiques of the war hawks to unleash its dossier, to issue and widely circulate a press release smearing Buchanan as anti-Semitic, which was then used as fodder for an extraordinarily extensive press campaign against Buchanan.

The campaign was kicked off by one of OAAS's big guns, the powerful and well-connected editor of the New York Times, who now writes a regular column of such tedium and downright terrible writing that it usually serves as a far better soporific than Sominex. If you can classify Rosenthal ideologically at all, it would probably be "left neoconservative," one of my least favorite ideological groupings. Rosenthal rose from his usual torpor in his column of September 14 to deliver a hate-filled, hysterical, and vituperative assault on Buchanan, likening him to Auschwitz, no less, the Warsaw ghetto, and "blood libel." Rosenthal winds up with a blasphemous and fascinatingly self-revelatory twist on Jesus's words on the Cross: "Forgive them not, Father, for they know what they did." Compare the contrasting ethics offered to the world by Jesus Christ and A.M. Rosenthal, and shudder.

Albert Hunt, defending Pat Buchanan on The Capital Gang, sternly declared that Abe Rosenthal has "forgotten how to be a reporter." This is all the more true when we consider the curious point that what touched off Rosenthal's ire was a statement by Pat on the McLaughlin Group, which Rosenthal oddly referred to as The McLaughlin Report. (Whaddat?) The mystery clears when we note that the ADL's press release on Buchanan, issued shortly before the Rosenthal column, makes the self-same error, twice referring to Pat's appearance on The McLaughlin Report [sic]. Pat's instincts were absolutely sound when, in the marvelous rebuttal in his syndicated column, he referred to Rosenthal's blast as a "contract hit" orchestrated by the ADL.

In a just society, Rosenthal's rabid tirade would have been laughed out of existence. Instead, it touched off a spate of editorials and columns throughout the country, almost all backing Rosenthal, accompanied by calls from the ADL, and the official Israeli lobby, AIPAC, to newspapers carrying Buchanan's column, urging them to cancel. (Probably the best single compendium of the anti-Buchanan smears and their various nuances is Howard Kurtz's front-page article in the Style Section of the Washington Post, Sept. 20, "Pat Buchanan and the Jewish Question.") Clearly, what we are seeing is neither a friendly nor even vigorous debate over issues crucial to the American Republic. What we are witnessing is nothing less than a venomous attempt to suppress dissent, to eliminate Buchanan's fearless and independent voice on the social and political scene.

Examining the attacks on Buchanan by Rosenthal and the others, we find a variant of the old shell game. On the one hand, even Rosenthal feebly concedes that it is theoretically possible to criticize Israel and not be an anti-Semite. Oh? And how does one tell the difference? For Rosenthal it is simple: "Every American...should be alert to smell the difference." So now we have to rely on Rosenthal's ineffable schnozzola! How are we supposed to distinguish one man's sense of smell from another? Some criterion! Interestingly enough, Rosenthal and the rest of the jackal pack carefully omit from their screeds the concession made even by the ADL: that Pat has often been a strong supporter of Israel! No facts, I suppose, can be allowed to get in the way of a successful smear. As a matter of fact, Pat explains the point in his rebuttal column: he confesses to having been an "uncritical apologist" of Israel until 1985; but an accumulation of facts since then, including the Pollard espionage case and the brutality against the Palestinians of the intifada, have led him to change his mind. Changing one's mind, if it is in the wrong direction, can obviously not be tolerated.

The shell game, then, is to say, first, that Pat is not necessarily anti-Semitic because he is critical of Israel, but that Rosenthal's proboscis tells him that Pat is an anti-Semite. Before writing his hate-Buchanan column, Rosenthal says that he consulted none other than Elie Wiesel, the professional Holocaust survivor, who pronounced the magic words: "Although I very rarely use the word antisemite'" (Hah! That'll be the day!), opined Wiesel, "I feel there is something in him that is opposed to my people." Well, that's it: Who can quarrel with Wiesel's ineffable "feelings"? Between Wiesel's inner oracle and Rosenthal's nose, no one has much of a chance.

But can Elie Wiesel's mystical insight really be relied upon? After all, this is the selfsame Wiesel who, in the early 1980s, pronounced his feelings to be favorable to none other than the monster Ceausescu. Why? Because of Ceausescu's pro-Israel foreign policy, naturally. Any man who confers his blessings upon one of the most savage butchers in the past half century, is scarcely qualified to hurl anathemas at anyone, much less at Pat Buchanan.

It is significant that all of the hostiles who know Buchanan personally concede that he is a great guy. Thus, take Mona Charen, who worked under Buchanan at the Reagan White House, and who provided the neat Et tu, Brute? touch by launching the anti-Semitic canard even before Rosenthal. Charen concedes that "Pat is the sweetest human being on a one-to-one level that you'd ever meet, an incredibly gentle, warm, sweet man." And yet, by launching the assault, the good deed that Pat performed by saving Mona Charen's job at the White House was not allowed to go unpunished.

The shell game on Buchanan is unwittingly illuminated by the neocon Fred Barnes, of the New Republic, and a colleague of Buchanan's on The McLaughlin Group. Asked by Howard Kurtz whether Pat is anti-Semitic, Barnes replies, with seeming judiciousness, that it all depends on one's definition. (Yes, and cabbages can become kings by definition.) "If your definition is someone who is personally bigoted against Jews," says Barnes (but what else is anti-Semitism, Fred?), who "doesn't want them in the country club" (Note the way Barnes trivializes genuine anti-Semitism), "then I don't think Pat is that." By this time we are trained to look for the explicit or implicit "but." But, adds Barnes, "If your definition is someone who thinks Israel and its supporters are playing a bad role in the world, Pat may qualify." Aha! So Pat is not anti-Semitic personally, is not a "country club anti-Semite," but he is critical of Israel, so he qualifies under that particular shell. In short, criticism of Israel, despite one's personally not being anti-Semitic, at last puts one into the dread category. The Zionist definition maximized! If you can't hook a guy as an anti-Semite under one shell, you get him under the other, as the definitions shift endlessly.

To paraphrase a wonderful comment that Joseph Schumpeter once wrote about left-wing intellectuals and their hatred of capitalism; the verdict of this loaded jury – that Pat is anti-Semitic – is a given, it has already been written in advance. The only thing a successful defense of the charge can accomplish is to change the nature of the indictment.

Putting his two-cents worth into this witches' brew is a pseudo-scholarly article by philosophy professor John K. Roth, apparently an expert on semantics and hate (John K. Roth, "Sticks, Stones, and Words," L.A. Times, Sept. 20). Amidst the usual invocations of Hitler and Auschwitz, the professor defines anti-Semitism as "the hostility aroused in irrational thinking about Jews," and says it is part of the "same hate-filled family" as "racism" and "sexism" and of "irrational thinking" about "blacks or Asians or women." Interesting categories; but why does the professor say not a word about "irrational thinking" and generalizations, and consequent hostility, toward whites, Christians, or men? Are the omissions an accident? Or does he think no such phenomenon exists? If the latter, he is invited to pick up the latest issue of his daily paper, or of the latest scholarly journal.

The only new element added by Professor Roth is ominous indeed. "One need not consciously intend anti-Semitism, racism or sexism to do or say things outside legitimate criticism." Roth then has the gall to quote the New Testament about "You shall know them by their fruits," in defense. Then comes the material about Hitler and Auschwitz. But whether he knows it or not, Professor Roth is really raising the spectre, not of the New Testament, but of the notorious Stalinist concept of "objective" crimes. When Trotsky and other Old Bolsheviks were accused of being "fascist agents," the Stalinists had a fascinating rebuttal to those who complained about the patent absurdity of the charge: that Trotsky and the others were "objectively pro-fascist" because they were undermining Stalin's rule. So – even though by any rational criterion Buchanan may not be anti-Semitic, he can be called "objectively anti-Semitic." Why? Obviously because he opposes many Israeli policies, and we're back again to the shell game.

There also runs through many of the criticisms of the anti-Buchanan pack a black thread of hatred of Christianity – a hatred, we have seen, that Professor Roth managed to omit from his litany. In Rosenthal's infamous article, one of the pieces of "evidence" for Buchanan's anti-Semitism was his frequent attacks on the "de-Christianization" of America, which Rosenthal apparently interprets as a code word for anti-Semitism.

Well, I have news for Mr. Rosenthal. Unlike Rosenthal, most Christians don't walk around thinking only about Jews. "De-Christianization" is not a code word for anything: it means what it says: the growing secularization of our society, our culture, and our school systems. Christians who oppose this are anti-secular, not anti-Jewish, and, in fact, most orthodox Jews join in much of this anti-secular and pro-religion position. Why is this a world where such elementary propositions have to be patiently pointed out?

Then there is Leon ("The Weasel") Wieseltier, the favorite theoretician of the New Republic. Pat Buchanan was upset when, two years ago, international Jewish groups led a campaign against the convent of Carmelite nuns at the site of Auschwitz. Apparently, they held it to be a desecration for Carmelites to pray for all those murdered at Auschwitz, Catholics as well as Jews. Wieseltier wrote a particularly odious article on the subject, denouncing Catholic defenders of the Carmelites as anti-Semitic, and Buchanan fired back, correctly pointing out that "anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual. Let's hope the nuns at Auschwitz are praying for him (Wieseltier). He needs it."

The Kurtz smear article now gives The Weasel the chance to get in the last word. "A hater's rhetoric," he opines. Wieseltier goes on to assert that there "can be in a religious Catholic a theological basis for anti-semitic emotion...The roots of some of this man's feelings about the Jews may be theological." Although Wieseltier covers his rear by hastening to add: Athough I emphasize that not all religious Catholics are anti-semites." How gracious of The Weasel! I am sure that Catholics everywhere are grateful for his nihil obstat.

Meanwhile, the New Republic has, predictably, made itself the GHQ of the anti-Buchanan movement among the periodicals. An editorial accused Buchanan of anti-Semitism, because, in the few seconds he could originally deal with the problem on The McLaughlin Group, he mentioned only Jewish names among the pro-war leaders. The New Republic editorial then continues with what it thinks is the clincher: referring to the much smeared Charles Lindbergh, who, in his famous Des Moines speech in August 1941, was "anti-Semitic" because he mentioned Jews as one of three groups that were agitating for the U.S. to enter World War II: the other two being the British and the Roosevelt Administration. In other words, Lindbergh was "anti-Semitic" because, in identifying the forces for war, he identified Jews as only one of several groups. In short, you can't win.

The culminating smears – so far – came in the next issue of the New Republic, in which Jacob Weisberg ties all the threads together, and adds a vile Freudo psycho-babble twist of his own. (Weisberg, "The Heresies of Pat Buchanan," New Republic, Oct. 22, pp. 22-27) After dragging in 1930s irrelevancies such as Lindbergh and Father Coughlin (the Catholic motif!), Weisberg discusses Buchanan's personal history, as gleaned from his autobiography, Right From the Beginning, and concludes that Buchanan is a brute and a proto-fascist because he liked to get into fistfights as a kid. (So much for a large chunk of the male population!) The clincher on Buchanan as brute and proto-Nazi comes with Buchanan's suggested slogan for his abortive Presidential campaign in 1988: "Let the bloodbath begin."

Let us contemplate smear-artist Weisberg for a moment. Is he really that much of a boob that he thought that Buchanan's phrase was serious? Does he really not realize that Pat was delivering a jocular and satiric thrust, aimed precisely at such serioso dunderheads as Weisberg? It is hard to know which is a sadder commentary on current American culture: whether Weisberg was cynically trying to use any smear tactic that came to hand; or whether he is really that much of a humorless left-Puritan blockhead.

Meanwhile, on the left (or should I say, the lefter), there is John B. Judis, the resident conservatologist for the Marxist weekly, In These Times, who has written a surprisingly favorable biography of Bill Buckley (or come to think of it, as we shall see, maybe not so surprising). Judis, too, admits that Buchanan is not personally anti-Semitic: "Indeed, from the few encounters I've had with Buchanan, he has always struck me as loyal, generous, personable without a trace of snobbery and willing to say what he believes – whatever the consequences." (John B. Judis, "Semitic Divisions Engulf Conservatives," In These Times, Oct. 3-9) Sounds admirable. But...then comes the knife-job, with vague references to the Old Right, and "Rothschild conspiracy" views with which Judis, in the venerable smear tradition, tars every isolationist of the 1930s. (Sorry, John, Buchanan was not even alive in those days, much less sentient.) To Judis, Buchanan's position "represents a kind of Freudian return of the repressed." (Again!) So now we have an unholy combo of Marx and Freud on the attack! In his peroration, Judis commits a real whopper, somehow linking Buchanan to the "pre-Civil War anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish and anti-immigrant Know-Nothings." Since Judis has some pretensions to scholarship, one might guess he would stop and think before linking up this ardent Catholic with historic anti-Catholicism; but, I suppose that time's a-fleetin', and one reaches for whatever smear brush may be around. (Parenthetically, while the Know-Nothings were indeed one of the most odious groups in American history, I would be very surprised to find any anti-Semitic expressions by them. As Protestant pietists, the Know-Nothings were fanatically anti-Catholic, believing that the Pope was the Antichrist and every Catholic his conscious, dedicated agent. The only "immigrants" they were concerned about, furthermore, were Catholic immigrants.)

Speaking of Bill Buckley, where does he stand on this? He is back at his old stand, a kindly but firm monarch doling out positive and negative brownie points, and trying to keep his conservative subjects from squabbling. Revealingly, Buckley is an old and close friend of Rosenthal while scarcely knowing Buchanan. Rosenthal he treats with affection, like a kid with a temper tantrum: always ready for "footloose emotional gyrations" with resulting explosions "that know no conventional limits." Buckley concludes: "I deem his attack on Pat Buchanan to be an example of Rosenthal gone ballistic." By focusing on Rosenthal's hopped-up personality, Buckley manages to avoid the main issues: the orchestrated and concerted attack upon Buchanan.

If Rosenthal is excessively emotional, Buchanan is not anti-Semitic, but of course – let's hear the chorus " I-N-S-E-N-S-I-T-V-E." (The Buckley article is entitled, "Insensitive Maybe; Genocidal, No," L.A. Times, Sept. 20) The stern admonition: "The Buchanans [Who are the other Buchanan's?] need to understand the nature of sensibilities in an age that coexisted with Auschwitz." And Mona Charen, in her second time at bat, and trying, perhaps guiltily, to call off the war she launched, still maintains that even if our current culture "slides into priggishness: on ethnic comments, our ethnically diverse society requires "a fastidious sensitivity." (Mona Charen, "Accusations," Washington Times, Sept. 27)

But not long ago, America's diverse society was glorious precisely because people were unafraid to be candid, to speak their mind, to engage in ethnic humor. Besides, what happened to Harry Truman's well-known dictum that he who can't stand the political heat should get out of the kitchen? A free and diverse society requires candor and vigorous debate, which is what we had in the United States until left-Puritanism did its work, and we are all required to be silent and mouth the Party Line. Interestingly enough, former National Review publisher and long-time Buckley colleague Bill Rusher has a different, and far healthier, view. Although Rusher, like Buckley, takes the ultra war-hawk position on Iraq, Rusher, in his column, gently reproves Buckley's comment on Buchanan and sensitivity, and reminds us that "American politics is a robust game, and it is fair to ask how long commentators on it must continue to tiptoe past the Israeli Embassy." (William Rusher, "and sensitivity," Washington Times, Sept. 27) How long, indeed?

In contrast to the standard bromides, what this country is suffering from is not "insensitivity" but hyper-sensitivity, what the shrinks in the Neanderthal days used to call "neurasthenia." It strikes me that the most effective cure for hyper-sensitivity, as for phobias in general, is the one proposed by the behavioral-shrinks: desensitization. Repeated exposure to the neurotic stimulus will gradually desensitize the patient so he no longer goes ballistic at the sight of a cat or...at reading articles by the likes of Pat Buchanan.

ANTI-SEMITISM DEFINED

Organized anti-anti-Semites will get away with their odious calumnies until they are finally forced to define their terms, to set up some rational criteria for this serious charge. It is high time that they be called on this loathsome tactic. So all right, just what is anti-Semitism: if we can get beyond vague and ephemeral "feelings?"

It seems to me that there are only two supportable and defensible definitions of anti-Semitism: one, focusing on the subjective mental state of the person, and the other "objectively," on the actions he undertakes or the policies he advocates.

For the first, the best definition of anti-Semitism is simple and conclusive: a person who hates all Jews. But here Buchanan is clearly vindicated by everyone who has ever met him, since all agree he is not "personally" anti-Semitic, has many Jewish friends, saved the job of Mona Charen, etc. Here I also want to embellish a point: All my life, I have heard anti-anti-Semites sneer at Gentiles who, defending themselves against the charge of anti-Semitism, protest that "some of my best friends are Jews." This phrase is always sneered at, as if easy ridicule is a refutation of the argument. But it seems to me that ridicule is habitually used here, precisely because the argument is conclusive. If some of Mr. X's best friends are indeed Jews, it is absurd and self-contradictory to claim that he is anti-Semitic. And that should be that.

But perhaps it might be contended that X is at heart, down deep, anti-Semitic, and that he duplicitously acquires Jewish friends to cover his tracks. And how, unless we are someone's close friend, or shrink, can we know what lies in a person's heart? Perhaps then the focus should be, not on the subject's state of heart or mind, but on a proposition that can be checked by observers who don't know the man personally. In that case, we should focus on the objective rather than the subjective, that is the person's actions or advocacies. Well, in that case, the only rational definition of an anti-Semite is one who advocates political, legal, economic, or social disabilities to be levied against Jews (or, of course, has participated in imposing them).

Let us then consider Pat Buchanan. Never – and the smear articles themselves are effective testimony to this fact – never has Pat Buchanan advocated any such policies, whether they be barring Jews from his country club or placing maximum quotas on Jews in various occupations (both of which have happened in the U.S. in our lifetime), let alone legal measures against Jews. So once again, it is absurd and a vicious calumny to call Pat anti-Semitic. If Pat passes any rational subjective or objective "litmus test" with flying colors, what else is there? It is high time and past time that the anti-anti-Semitic Smear Bund shut up about Buchanan and, while they're at it, reconsider their other vilifications as well.

But am I not redefining anti-Semitism out of existence? Certainly not. On the subjective definition, by the very nature of the situation, I don't know any such people, and I doubt whether the Smear Bund does either. On the objective definition, where outsiders can have greater knowledge, and setting aside clear-cut anti-Semites of the past, there are in modern America authentic anti-Semites: groups such as the Christian Identity movement, or the Aryan Resistance, or the author of the novel Turner's Diaries. But these are marginal groups, you say, of no account and not worth worrying about? Yes, fella, and that is precisely the point.





The Virginia Quarterly Review


The New Anti-Semitism
Jack R. Fischel


In the years preceding the establishment of Israel in 1948, Jews opposed to the creation of a Jewish state clashed with Zionists on how best to protect Jewish life in the wake of the Holocaust. Zionists contended that the Nazi extermination of the Jews conclusively proved the failure of assimilation in Europe, because anti-Semitism, in the words of Leon Pinsker, was a hereditary disease that could never be cured. Anti-Semitism, the argument went, would only disappear when Jews were secure in their own homeland. Contesting this conviction were not only assimilated Jews, frightened by the prospect of being accused of dual loyalty, but also those who identified with the universalism of the Left, whose ideological orientation viewed the nation-state as the source of a multitude of evils, and who regarded Zionism as yet another form of chauvinistic nationalism. They predicted that the creation of a Jewish state would lead to conflict with the more numerous Arab population, thus further exacerbating the already volatile situation that faced the Jewish settlements in Palestine. The Left, which included both Communists and Socialists (but not Labor Zionists), argued that the solution to centuries of anti-Semitism was not the creation of a future Israel, but for humankind to confront bigotry and eliminate the evils of prejudice, which included not only anti-Semitism in particular, but racism in general.

The divide between Zionists and “universalists” did not vanish with the formation of Israel. Subsequently, many on the left continued their opposition to Israel, calling instead for the creation of a democratic Palestinian state consisting of Arabs and Jews but shorn of its Jewish identity. At the same time, a coterie of hostile opponents, which included the Arab world, right-wing extremists, such as neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers, as well as traditional anti-Semites, rejected the very legitimacy of Israel and, as remains the case with Palestinian extremist groups, such as Hamas and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, called for the destruction of the Jewish state. As Alan Dershowitz points out in his The Case for Israel, ever since its founding, Israel has had to defend its legitimacy in ways not required by the immigrants who settled Australia, or those who came to the United States and displaced the native American population. Dershowitz labels this double standard anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism.

What is new about the “new” anti-Semitism, according to a spate of recent books, including Dershowitz’s, is that the hatred of Jews has been cloaked behind a virulent anti-Zionism which holds the Jewish people everywhere responsible for the policies of the Israeli government in its conflict with the Palestinians. Phyllis Chesler, in her book The New Anti-Semitism, finds this especially prominent on the left, especially among her comrades in the feminist movement, where the new anti-Semitism masquerades as antiracism and anticolonialism. She concludes that inasmuch as anti-Jewish violence is justified by opposition to Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, it has become politically and psychologically acceptable to be anti-Semitic, despite increasing reports of the burning of synagogues and the vandalizing of cemeteries in Europe. Added to this situation is the silence of leftist intellectuals in response to suicide bombings in Israel, which reached endemic proportions during the past decade.

Yet in the years following World War II we could talk about the waning of anti-Semitism in the wake of our unfolding knowledge of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. Sympathy for Jews became widespread, as did support for Israel, which was viewed as a modern David fighting the millions of Arab Goliaths bent on its destruction. Empathy for Jews and support for Israel, however, slowly began to erode in the aftermath of the 1967 war, when the Jewish state defeated the combined attack of six Arab nations, conquered the West Bank and Gaza, and unified Jerusalem . Subsequently, however, when Israel commenced the building of settlements in the conquered territories, it was condemned not only by the Arab world, but also by segments of the Left, both in Europe and in the United States, as a colonial army, whose maltreatment of the Palestinians was viewed as no better than the Nazi brutalization of the Jews. This condemnation of Israel as a “settler” nation, not unlike the Afrikaners in apartheid-era South Africa, had little appeal among the mainstream on both sides of the Atlantic, but on the left and the radical right, the castigation of Israel was steady and unyielding and began to find fertile ground among cultural elites, among faculty and students on university campuses, and among a core of politicians, especially in Europe, whose sympathy for the cause of the Palestinians became ever more public. Increasingly, negative attitudes toward Israel and Jews in general found their way into public discourse. (The French ambassador to Great Britain, Daniel Bernard, for example, was reported to have referred to Israel as “this shitty little country” in a conversation with the wife of media baron Conrad Black.) It is in response to this assault that Dershowitz argues that criticism of Israel may at times be justified, but the absence of comparable denunciations of equal or greater violations by other countries creates the impression “currently prevalent on university campuses and in the press that Israel is among the worst human rights violators in the world. . . . It is not true, but if it is repeated enough, it takes on its own reality.” Thomas Friedman of the New York Times adds that “criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international censure—out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East—is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”

In Europe during the past decade an unlikely alliance of leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing anti-Semites, committed to the destruction of Israel, were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general. It is the forging of this unprecedented coalition of enemies that makes the “new” anti-Semitism unique, an unprecedented configuration of forces whose militant, uncompromising support for the Palestinians makes little distinction between Israelis and Jews. Ironically, as the French philosopher and political scientist Pierre-André Taguieff notes in Rising from the Muck, in the last three decades, Judeophobia based on racism and nationalism has given way to an anti-Semitism based on antiracism and antinationalism, wherein, among the Left, Israel has come to personify the preeminent apartheid state. How is it, however, that opposition to Israel’s existence has linked all Jews as targets of the enemies of the Zionist state? Taguieff explains that repulsive anti-Jewish traditions have merged with anti-Zionist rhetoric in the following syllogism: “Jews are all more or less crypto-Zionists. Zionism is a form of colonialism, imperialism and racism. Therefore Jews are colonialists, imperialists and racists, whether overt or covert.” This view that all Jews are in some fashion Zionists is not merely Taguieff’s hypothetical construct. He cites the words of Emile Algohri, the Jordanian minister of social affairs, who stated, “It is our firm belief that there is no difference at all between Jews and Zionists. All Jews are Zionists and all Zionists are Jews, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking logically. We consider world Jewry our adversary and enemy, as we do imperialism and all the pro-Jewish powers.” By presenting “Zionism” as the incarnation of evil, an anti-Jewish vision of the world reconstituted itself in the second half of the 20th century that replicates the vicious stereotypes about Jews which laid the propagandistic groundwork for the Holocaust. The widespread dissemination of these anti-Zionist beliefs has resonated especially among many intellectuals in France and Germany, countries with large Muslim populations. The result, states Taguieff, has been an unconditional support for the Palestinians among many of the European cultural elite:

To denounce Israel and glorify the Palestinians in general has become the proper and most comfortable thing to do. This new political-intellectual conformism has been to establish itself through the routinization of what is conveniently known as “the struggle against racism.” . . . The so-called anti-racist organizations . . . have become, in many respects, temples of “political correctness” one of whose new faces—Islamic correctness is encouraged in Islamic studies that is almost openly apologetic about radical Islamism.”

In the aftermath of September 11, the spread of anti-Semitism reached threatening levels. Jewish spokesmen, such as Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), warned that Jews everywhere “currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s—if not a greater one.” The situation in Israel was no less critical as the insecurity of Israeli civilians intensified in the wake of suicide bombings that threatened the very fabric of the Jewish state. Subsequently, delegates from 55 member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe met in Berlin in April 2004 to express their determination to combat anti-Semitism, which had been widely reported in the form of large increases in violence against Jews in some European countries, many of these cases being attributed to the growing Arab population in their midst.

The violence is not limited, however, to physical attacks alone. The vehemence of the new anti-Semitism also manifests itself by an insidious effort to deny not only the legitimacy of Israel but Jewish history as well. This verbal assault rejects the Jewish claim to the territory of Israel as having no basis in history, tradition, or law, and demands that the Jewish state either abandon its legal and political status as a nation or cease to exist altogether, a position not relegated to the beliefs of Arabs alone, but also shared by many on both the left and the radical right. Indeed, Jewish identity itself is called into question, whereby the descent of contemporary Jews from the Hebrews of ancient Israel is denied.

The rise of the “new” anti-Semitism has again raised the question of whether the creation of Israel has made Jewish life in the diaspora any more secure than during the Nazi years, let alone in the Jewish state, where its citizens face an even greater threat in the form of suicide bombers. Are Jews any safer today because of Israel? For its enemies the answer is a resounding no; indeed, its presence given anti-Semites the pretext, as well as the opportunity, to again threaten the existence of world Jewry. For most Jews, however, the very existence of Israel guarantees that the conditions that led to the Holocaust will not be replicated. Israel has come to represent an “insurance policy” insofar as the Jewish state constitutes a safe haven should the ugly specter of genocide once again threaten the existence of the Jewish people.

In the wake of September 11, American Jews braced themselves for a resurgence of anti-Semitism. Unfounded rumors circulated that Israel’s Mossad was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, warning Jews who worked in the building to stay at home on the day of the assaults. This canard was promoted by anti-Semites and continues to have wide currency on the Internet. More insidious, however, was the facile contention that al Qaeda’s attack on September 11 was driven by America’s support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, a policy which was unduly influenced by the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). Even among those not necessarily antagonistic toward Israel, this uninformed understanding of the causes for the terrorist assault continues to resonate among segments of the population, despite evidence to the contrary (see Holy War, Inc., by Peter Bergen, Free Press, 2001). More surprising is that even those who should know better have accepted this false argument. Phyllis Chesler, for example, writes, in regard to September 11, “Osama Bin Laden . . . explained that the twin towers had fallen because of American support for Israel.” Peter Bergen argues that the assault on the Pentagon and the twin towers was bin Laden’s response to America’s support for the Saudi royal family and the Mubarak government in Egypt. It was only after the September 11 attacks that bin Laden added the cause of the Palestinians to his list of grievances against the United States.

The effort to associate the events of September 11 with Jewish influence on United States support for Israel caught the American Jewish community by surprise, inasmuch as only several years before, many Jews had celebrated the nomination of Joseph Lieberman, the first Jewish candidate to be selected by a major political party for vice president. A historic moment in American Jewish history, Jews hailed Lieberman’s appointment as conclusive evidence that anti-Semitism in the United States was no longer a serious problem, although they recognized its existence in many other parts of the world. After September 11 many Jews were relieved that Lieberman had not been elected, fearing that had he been in office at the time of the terrorist assault, political pundits would have linked the terrorist attack to Arab frustration over a Jew being selected for the vice presidency.

Although much of the renewed outbreak of hatred and suspicion toward Jews is unprecedented in its nature and composition, a great deal of the new anti-Semitism is also old. This is particularly true in regard to the application of conspiratorial design as a means of explaining American policy in the Middle East. Following America’s invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was accused of leading the country to war due to the influence of a cabal of neoconservatives who conspired to oust Saddam Hussein, not simply to advance democracy in the Middle East, but to primarily eliminate a major threat to Israel’s security. That many neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, and Douglas Feith, were Jewish only added credence to the belief of political personalities such as Patrick Buchanan and Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia that Jewish influence was behind the decision to invade Iraq. Absent from this libel was the defensible argument that a by-product of overthrowing Saddam’s dictatorship was not only the opportunity to establish a democratic Iraq in the Middle East, but also the conviction that the “road map” to peace in the Middle East ran through Baghdad and required the removal of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was an obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, inasmuch as he not only rejected the very existence of Israel, but provided funds for the families of the suicide bombers who attacked Israeli civilians.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of the neoconservative publication Commentary, finds the biased belief in undue Jewish influence on American foreign policy widely held among important segments of the media and in academia. In his book The Return of Anti-Semitism, Schoenfeld cites, for example, the comments of Fred M. Donner, a professor at the University of Chicago, who complained in a column in the Chicago Tribune that the “rosy scenario for the upcoming war against Iraq was a vision deriving from Likud-oriented members of the President’s team—particularly Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith.” The trio also figure prominently in the thinking of noted political scientist Stanley Hoffmann of Harvard, who referred to them as “a loose collection of individuals who look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: is it good or bad for Israel?”

Jewish influence on Bush foreign policy can also be found in the columns of Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, who often refers to (Jewish) hawks such as Perle, Feith, and William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, “as the clique of neo-conservative intellectuals pushing for war.” Syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer has written that “the ‘Get Iraq’ campaign . . . emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as . . . Paul Wolfowitz and . . . Richard Perle.” Finally, there is the bile associated with the rhetoric of political personalities such as Patrick Buchanan, who accused Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and Elliott Abrams of wielding disproportionate power and of being, according to Buchanan, “fundamentally disloyal to the country.” According to Schoenfeld, the accusation that the real agenda of American Jews in the Bush administration is to serve the interests of Israel is vigorously promoted by the politically active Muslim population in the United States, which relentlessly circulates the notion of a Jewish cabal determined to push the United States in the same direction as Israel’s right-wing policy.

Schoenfeld’s tome also notes how the European press is selectively biased in its reporting on Israel. As the unpopularity of America’s war against Iraq fanned outrage against the Bush administration in much of Europe, it was also coupled with worldwide denunciation of the Sharon government’s policy of protecting its citizens from terrorist attacks by launching military strikes at perceived terrorist strongholds in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as targeting leaders of Hamas for assassination. Israeli incursions into Palestinian cities such as Jenin brought about public condemnation throughout much of Europe, as Israel was constantly compared to the Nazis and the Sharon government accused of genocide. The British press, in particular, showed its animus toward Israel in its reporting on Israel’s incursion into Jenin in the spring of 2002. Schoenfeld describes how the British press publicized Israel’s “slaughter” of the Palestinians in Jenin and cites the historian A. N. Wilson, who wrote in the London Evening Standard that “we are talking here of a massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide.” The Guardian compared the battle of Jenin to the attack on New York on September 11, and a reporter for the London Times wrote that “Rarely, in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life.” Although the British press stated that thousands of Palestinians had been killed in Jenin, subsequent investigations revealed a total of 52 Palestinian deaths, most of whom were guerilla fighters, while the Israeli army lost 23 soldiers. Absent from this type of reporting were Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties, at great risk to its own men, by sending in reservists on foot as well as prohibiting the deployment of attack helicopters.

Schoenfeld also notes the prevalent role that Jews on the left have played in the dissemination of anti-Semitism. He finds that the “anti-Semitic Left in the United States is largely a Jewish contingent.” Jewish radicals, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, but also Jewish progressives, such as Rabbi Michael Lerner, Susannah Heschel, and Marc Ellis, are described as “preening left-wing Jews” who by their one-sided support of the Palestinians have tacitly promoted anti-Semitism in their criticism of Israeli social and political policy. Schoenfeld locates this Jewish self-hatred in “the murky waters of the psycho-social, as individual Jews try to deflect the poisonous arrows coming at their fellow Jews from larger hostile forces.” (This criticism was directed at Jewish intellectual Tony Judt following the publication of an article in the New York Review of Books, where he called for the end of Israel as the Jewish homeland and the creation of a democratic binational state of Jews and Palestinians.)

Whereas Schoenfeld and Chesler find much of the new anti-Semitism emanating primarily from the Left, Foxman views the peril equally from both the Left and the radical Right. All of the authors, however, agree that the menace of Islamic fundamentalism poses the greatest long-term danger to Jewish survival in general and to Israel in particular. The evidence of a “new” anti-Semitism in these books, however, is at times misleading. Anti-Semitism in its modern form is a case of old wine in new bottles. Although the political conditions which have led to a rebirth of anti-Semitism are different from the past, nevertheless, much of the negative rhetoric that is written and believed about Jews is familiar. In the Islamic countries, where historically Jews were considered as dhimmis or inferior to Muslims, there was never the intense hatred that existed in Christian Europe. Foxman’s description of the evolution of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world reveals that many of the contemporary stereotypes about Jews and Israel are imports from the West, ranging from the medieval canard of child ritual murder to, most significantly, the widely held acceptance of the fabrications in the forgery known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

A staple belief of anti-Semites, the Protocols purports to reveal the existence of a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. The Protocols first appeared in czarist Russia during the reign of Nicholas II to divert attention away from reform by blaming Jews for the revolutionary ferment that ultimately led to the collapse of the monarchy. The collection of essays that make up the Protocols were inspired by a novel written about Napoleon II in the mid-19th century but subsequently rewritten by a Russian monk, who claimed that the work was an eyewitness account of a meeting of Jewish elders plotting strategies that would lead to the Jewish conquest of Christian Europe. The Protocols later found its way to the United States, where Henry Ford published it in his Dearborn Independent. Hitler believed the Protocols explained the “Jewish-Bolshevik” revolution in Russia, and it became mandatory reading among Nazi officials in the Third Reich. Despite having been proved in a court of law to be a forgery, the Protocols continues to be distributed by anti-Semites, who continue to assert that Jews influence all aspects of American life. Our own native-born terrorists, such as Timothy McVeigh’s Aryan Nations and Matthew Hale’s World Church of the Creator, promote the belief that the power of the Jews emanates from their control of the entertainment industry, the news media, and the international banking system, a strategy that is discussed in the Protocols. Native-born American anti-Semites, in fact, refer to the United States government as ZOG, an acronym for Zionist Occupation Government.

The Protocols have also become ubiquitous throughout the Middle East as anti-Semitism has become a weapon among Arabs in their conflict with Israel. The work is used to encourage Palestinians and other Muslims to engage in murderous attacks against Israelis and Jews. Foxman notes that some suicide bombers have been found with copies of the Protocols and “were obviously convinced they were conducting a struggle against a Jewish-world-embracing conspiracy that poses a direct threat to the Muslim nations.” Recently, Egyptian television produced a “documentary” on the Protocols. The 41-part series, Horseman Without a Horse, fostered the theme that Jews were engaged in secret machinations to take over the world, or that Jews already control the world, a view that is increasingly believed in the Arab world. The program was shown across the Middle East during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The Muslim world is filled with divisions, but regardless of its rivalries (Osama bin Laden versus the House of Saud, for example), the hatred of Israel is the single issue on which the most determined Islamic fundamentalist and the most dedicated secularist can find common ground. This explains why governments in the Muslim world continue to use anti-Semitism as a convenient and useful tool to deflect attention from their populations’ profound poverty and economic problems. The Protocols, note Taguieff, Foxman, and Schoenfeld, is one of the many weapons in the Muslim arsenal of propaganda used against Israelis and Jews.

A staple of Nazi propaganda, the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been resurrected in Europe as well as in the Muslim world. As Taguieff notes, Jews in Europe are charged by their enemies with a will to dominate global economies (George Soros as an elder of Zion) or a plot to control the world. Thus the world of Nazi fantasy in regard to Jews is reborn more than fifty years after the death camps but, as Taguieff notes, with the difference that the “new anti-Semitism” now translates into “the Zionists are guilty, or Israel is guilty.” The result is a resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism, bent on the elimination of the Jewish state and the perpetration of violence against world Jewry. A resultant casualty of the new anti-Semitism is that it has blurred the distinction between those with a legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and those who seek its destruction.

Because of modern communication systems such as the Internet, the Protocols is widely disseminated throughout the Muslim world and has reached audiences larger than at any time in its sordid history. Through the distribution of the Protocols, Muslim leaders encourage a delusional conspiratorial view of the world which fosters hatred of Jews and Israel. Accordingly, the new “Elders of Zion”—Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and Elliott Abrams—are identified as the actual formulators of Bush foreign policy, which serves not only Israel’s interests but also those of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The renewed prominence of the Protocols exemplifies the increasing threat of the “new” anti-Semitism, which will remain a threat in the foreseeable future, regardless of the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.