…by Jonas E. Alexis
After reading Lasha Darkmoon’s brilliant article on Arthur Topham, whom she describes as a “Canadian patriot and freedom fighter…[who] has spoken out eloquently about the war crimes of the state of Israel and published books on his website which are regarded as offensive to many Jews,” I immediately felt that Topham has been or will be another victim of the Dreadful Few. His fate will be decided in October of next year.
It is common knowledge now that you simply cannot criticize the regime without putting your life or career in jeopardy, most particularly in Canada.
But Topham is far from alone. Denis Rancourt, a former physicist at the University of Ottawa who has published over 100 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, is another case in point.
Rancourt has widely talked about how some scientists have manipulated the data to catapult the global warming propaganda for years and has never gotten into trouble for it:
But Rancourt’s career came to an abrupt end when he started defending the defenseless, namely precious Palestinians who have been literally slaughtered by the Israeli regime. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor and his scientific articles are highly technical.
Rancourt was simply asking for trouble when he took the Zionist regime to task. One man against the most powerful and nefarious kingdom in much of the Western world? Well, you could imagine how that went.
“I was publicly critical of the university president’s paid trip to Israel. I invited Palestinian speakers into my classrooms to talk about Gaza, and geopolitical analysts who were critical of Israel.
“These moves led to condemnation of me in the Zionist mainstream media, and to discipline, which was overturned. In 2008, a new university president – Allan Rock – who is a staunch and unconditional supporter of Israel and who had been Canada’s Zionist ambassador to the UN, became immediately motivated to fire me, tenure or not, and irrespective of my popular courses and my large science research funding.
“With the help of an entire team using specially-hired union-busting lawyers, after contriving for years including intensive covert surveillance of me using a hired-student spy to monitor my every spoken and written word and my every activity on campus and at other university campuses, the university finally settled on the false pretext for dismissal of alleging that I had improperly assigned high grades to all 23 students in an advanced physics course.
“They needed a ‘clean’ pretext that they hoped would be supported by public opinion and that would not bring out all of their dirt.
“When public opinion and some mainstream media sided with me instead, a high-profile Zionist columnist at the New York Times suddenly wrote not-one but two articles to discredit me, and was invited to Canada to falsely defame me, regarding my teaching, on a trend-setting Canadian TV talk show whose producers are Zionists.
“Even after I was fired, as I continued to be publicly critical of the institution, the university funded a large defamation lawsuit against me which, after almost four years, has entirely washed-out my personal savings, and over which I was ordered to pay a total of legal costs and damages in excess of one million dollars, that I can never pay.
“I am presently struggling to generate the funds to pay the costs of court-transcripts for the appeal that has been filed. My funding campaign is endorsed by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, which also has a campaign that condemns the university’s unlimited funding of the lawsuit against me using public money.
“Although the university had many and mixed unstated and illegitimate reasons for wanting to fire me – such as my defiance and outspokenness in several areas, my popular courses and public events, and my support of student and community activism, I have no doubt that I was fired because the new Zionist university president Allan Rock – former Ambassador to the UN, and former Canadian federal government minister – wanted me out and silenced at any cost, and knew that he could count on support from the Zionist establishment.
“Under cross-examination, the dean testified that the pre-dismissal lockout of my graduate students and I from our laboratory was directed from above by Allan Rock. This president knew my firing would be seen as a good dead by the powerful Zionist establishment that he is part of.
“Years before I was ultimately fired, it had already been pronounced in the media that my firing was necessary and was desirable because of the “anti-Semetic” nature of my courses, to the great dismay and protests of many of my students.
“After I was escorted off campus in handcuffs by police and charged with “trespassing” while I was still a tenured professor, and since my firing in 2009, Allan Rock has been systematically transforming the University of Ottawa into an institutional instrument at the service of Canada’s accelerating ‘globalist’ agenda, and at the service of legitimizing Israel’s role in that agenda — rather than actually prioritizing the learning environment for students in Ottawa, an environment that is in dire need of an overhaul.
“Allan Rock needed me out of the way. The Empire needs critics of the Empire out of the way. And the Israel Lobby needs anyone who threatens the acceptance of Israel’s crimes out of the way.”
Rancourt continued to say,
“Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation.
“Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners.”
If you don’t believe this, call Israeli historian Benny Morris and he will probably tell you the same thing. Morris declared unapologetically:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.
“It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
The extermination process continues to this very day, and prominent Norwegian medical doctors such as Erik Fosse had to learn that the hard way. And decent Israeli men like Miko Peled had to learn that from growing up in a Zionist family:
There was no way for Rancourt to survive the Zionist tsunami. In a cogently satisfying way, he recently stripped the Zionist mafia of their political and ideological clothes and then said,
“The Israel Lobby has the role of chief-whip for the US military-economic-finance empire; Empire, for short. That is, the Lobby ensures doctrinal discipline among Western, that is, US-aligned politicians, intellectuals, and the media, regarding the Empire’s Middle East policy. I mean ‘intellectual’ in the broad sense of any professional who has influence, and ‘media’ in the broad sense of anyone who communicates to others.
“The Empire’s main geopolitical focus presently is the Middle East, where the Empire is dedicated to actively and continuously prevent liberation and coalescence of Arab nations, so as to keep control of the territory and the energy resources.
“To achieve this, the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel, which is charged with continual war and sabotage against all Middle Eastern entities that would vie for independence from the Empire.
“Thus, the Empire, via Israel, is embarked on a vicious and murderous project without an end in the Middle East, and this unsavory project must be sold to the Empire’s home populations, including both managers and ordinary citizens. That is the role of the Israel Lobby; to sell Israel and the continuous and deliberate carnage as acceptable and unavoidable.
“That is why the Israel Lobby is actively engaged is creating Islamophobia, in exaggerating anti-Semitism, in constructing Nazi-holocaust remembrance, in suppressing academic freedom, in suppressing freedom of the press, in ‘finding’ and pursuing alleged ‘terrorists,’ in developing anti-speech [or] ‘anti-hate’ laws, in promoting cultural ties with Israel, in attacking Muslim associations, and so on.
“As such, the work of the Israel Lobby includes hundreds of ongoing campaigns to intimidate, discipline, fire, and vilify academics who dare to be critical of Israel or of US Middle East policy.
“The list of shut-out and targeted academics is a long one and includes the well-known cases of Joel Kovel, Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Terri Ginsberg, William Robinson, David F. Noble, Steven Salaita, Iymen Chehade, and many others. The more an academic is threatening to the Lobby, the more aggressively that academic is attacked.
We have been saying for the past few months that mainstream media is an accomplice in propagating the Zionist agenda, and Rancourt again agrees:
“The mainstream media is a highly perfected arm of the Empire’s propaganda apparatus, as are Hollywood, the music industry, video games, and so on. The barely-maintained illusions of freedom of the press and of artistic freedom only make the propaganda more effective.
“The propaganda apparatus is an integral part of the Empire’s military structure. The Israel Lobby is an added structure for direct and forceful control of politicians and intellectuals concerning the role of Israel as the Empire’s main thug in the Middle East.
“The Empire’s Israel-based violent control in the Middle East, in turn, gives control over energy and wealth, via both the energy itself and energy transportation routes, and helps to ensure that the US-dollar remains the petro-dollar and, thus, the World currency, which the US prints at will.
“In this way, the Empire both maintains its main instrument of global exploitation, namely finance-extortion based on the US-dollar and enforced with military might, and suppresses the development of its main competitors by strategically controlling the energy market via sanctions, pricing, and directed profits.
“That is the Empire’s working theory, which is realistically achievable thanks to absolute military dominance.
“Within this scheme, the Israel Lobby at home is in a symbiotic relation with the Empire. The two are inseparable as long as the Empire’s main geopolitical focus is the Middle East, and as long as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel. This is why one finds a strong and visible Israel Lobby satellite in every Western nation that is aligned with the Empire: Canada, France, Australia, and so on…
“Thus, the Israel Lobby has to a large extent overrun the US democracy. It is not presently possible for US politicians to objectively and freely discuss Israel’s role and the Empire’s foreign policy. Virtually no US politician has the backbone to do so. US critics of Israel who are sufficiently threatening are crushed, and the US establishment fully participates in these mobbings.”
Saying disturbing things like that certainly does line up with the Zionist ideology, which always promises “diversity” but inexorably ends up delivering thought-control in academia and the media. Remember what happened to people like Norman Finkelstein? Remember what happened to Norman Davies of Stanford? Remember what happened to Rick Sanchez? And Professor Steven Salaita? And the late Jewish scholar Tony Judt?
Rancourt is still paying a huge price for his unpardonable sin. He recently told me, “Costs and ‘damages’ of over $1M have been ordered against me, whereas I have NO money or assets whatsoever.” If readers would generously like to contribute to this cause, please do so here.
But I was quite surprised with his hasty response to my previous article. He subtly and irrationally seemed to have made the point that Crowley’s maxim—“Love is the Law, Love Under Will”—is just about love and nothing else. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Crowley really meant that his celebrated maxim was just about love, what are we supposed to do with books like The Book of the Law? Are we supposed to ignore them and just concentrate on the morally incongruent maxim?
Topham’s incoherent system could be explored in other territories as well. If some Catholic priests talk about love and then molest children, are we supposed to say that those priests should not be put on trial? Here’s what Crowley explicitly said:
“Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.”
Isn’t that a vital contradiction? Where is “love” when you “stamp down” what you claim to be “the wretched & and the weak”? Don’t they deserve our love and respect?
Furthermore, if Topham wants to defend Crowley and then turns around and says that Israel is wrong about massacring the Palestinians, then Topham is living in contradiction. And obviously he has his moral feet firmly planted in mid-air. Far be it from me to persuade him to abandon his cherished territory.
In addition, why should he be upset when the Israeli regime stamps down the Palestinians? According to the Israeli regime, aren’t the Palestinians weak? What if the Israeli regime starts playing the political game and saying that they got their doctrine from Crowley?
Or, what if the Israeli regime says that Crowley’s view on the “weak” is compatible with Talmudic reasoning? How would Topham go about convincing the Israelis that their ideas are wrong and Crowley’s are right?
It gets worse. Crowley says,
“But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best.”
That’s just the beginning. Crowley specifically tells his followers how to sacrifice a male child in his highly read text Magic: In Theory and Practice. He writes,
“For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence.”
Are we supposed to believe that Crowley loved those children so much that he was willing to sacrifice them? And if Topham does not like Crowley’s assertion here, he needs to quarrel with him and not with Jonas E. Alexis. If he did not mean to defend Crowley, then why can’t he join me in fighting Crowley’s wicked ideology?
If Topham wants to remain rational, he needs to deal with Crowley’s weltanschauung contextually and completely. Since he has explicitly said that he has “studied Crowley’s works for years,” then we are hoping that he will review those works and seriously provide a rational explanation as to why Crowley should be viewed in a positive light.
Topham also needs to seriously dissect what Crowley actually practiced. Unless or until he does that, then it is safe to say that he should not be taken seriously on this issue. And if that is my “dark countenance,” then I take that as a compliment.
Finally, it is not enough for Topham to say that this or that statement is “a lot of rubbish” without rigorous backup and rational depth. I can play the same game by saying that Topham’s critique is “a lot of rubbish,” but is that by itself a substitute for evidence and rigorous examination?
If Topham wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do a better job. Let us hope that he will not continue to disappoint us on this particular issue.
 Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law (Boston: Weiser Books, 1976), 31.
 Aleister Crowley, Magick: In Theory and Practice (Create Space, 2014), 137.