Arthur Topham and Denis Rancourt on Trial

3
379

steinlight1

…by Jonas E. Alexis

In the fall of 1890, about one hundred years after the French Revolution and forty-two years after the revolution of 1848, Father Raffaele Ballerini, author of Civilta Cattolica, predicted that the “Jewish Question” would inexorably have “economic, moral, political, and religious” implications upon all of Western culture.[1]

If nations in the West fail to address the issue in a moral and religious way, Ballerini perceived, then Western culture would be reduced to what one ought to call metaphysical nothingness.

Twelve years later Civilta Cattolica was written, a Viennese Jew by the name of Solomon Ehrmann confirmed Ballerini’s analysis. Ehrmann envisioned a future in which “all of mankind will have been jewified and joined in union with the B’nai B’rith.” When that happens, “not only the B’nai B’rith but all of Judaism will have fulfilled its task.”[2] According to historian Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California, for Ehrmann, “Jewification equaled enlightenment.”[3]

According to this vision, one ought to be judaized in order to be enlightened. Judaization, in other words, is vitality. As we have seen in the twentieth century alone, this means that one ought to elevate the nation of Israel and generally the Jewish people above the moral law and practical reason.

As a corollary, If there is a conflict between the Jewish people and practical reason, then one ought to elevate the former above the latter, precisely because Jewish life entails divinity. As one rabbi put it:

“If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, and is thus part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…If a Jew needs a liver, can he take the liver of an innocent non-Jew to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something more holy and unique about Jewish life than about non-Jewish life.”[4]

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs for the American Jewish Committee (one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in the United States), stated bluntly,

“I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist…I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.”[5]

Michael Chabon of the New York Times concurs:


“As a Jewish child I was regularly instructed, both subtly and openly, that Jews, the people of Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and Meyer Lansky, were on the whole smarter, cleverer, more brilliant, more astute than other people. And, duly, I would look around the Passover table, say, at the members of my family, and remark on the presence of a number of highly intelligent, quick-witted, shrewd, well-educated people filled to bursting with information, explanations and opinions on a diverse range of topics.”[6]


: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."
“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.”

For over the past one hundred years or so, the Dreadful Few have used words such as “democracy,” “freedom of speech,” “diversity,” and even “human rights” in order to get their ideology on the table. Civilta Cattolica predicted that it was a covert way of destroying Western civilization and anything that sounds like practical reason. With “liberty,” it states,

“they have acquired complete power to subjugate the nations and to ordain that the few might tyrannize the many…Permission of blaspheming and committing sacrileges is converted into a public right; this is equality…In the Rome of the Popes, carrying the Cross of Christ through the streets in a procession is a crime; but carrying the bust of Giordano Bruno or the horns of Satan there is a noble homage paid to the state.”[7]

Civilta Cattolica also predicted that whenever the Dreadful Few happen to take over any institution, then they end up suppressing free speech and plundering those who demand freedom of expression. Civilta Cattolica exposes the racist view of the Talmud and says that

“according to the Talmud, in a case between a Christian and a Hebrew, the Jewish judge must always, as far as possible, let his fellow Jew win….

“The Jew who rapes and kills a non-Jewish woman must be absolved in court, because he has done evil to ‘a mare.’ Maimonides, who is considered infallible in the ghettos, states in his treatise on homicide that the Israelite who kills a goy or a non-Jewish man cannot be punished.”[8]

We have numerous evidence for this. One can say that the evidence is an embarrassment of riches. But we will concentrate on only two here: Arthur Topham and Denis Rancourt.

Topham has been accused of anti-Semitism and racial hatred because he has said and published things that the Dreadful Few do not like.

Keep in mind that in a moral and reasonable universe, things operate according to the laws of logic and evidence.  For example, if Mr. X says that Mr. Y is a thief, then Mr. X is obligated to produce rigorous evidence which proves his case.

In the twentieth century, which Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine has described as “The Jewish Century,”[9] all one needs to do is say that Mr. X is an anti-Semite and that closes the case. Topham’s testimony proves this point:

Today was the day that my counsel began to cross examine the ex police officer Terry Wilson who testified throughout the earlier part of the week. As you may already be aware, one of the online books that the Crown is using as evidence to prove their case is Elizabeth Dilling’s book, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. Anyway, seeing as they introduced it defense was able to argue as to its authenticity (as per the sections of the Talmud that Dilling quotes throughout the book).

“My counsel asked the former detective if he had read the book and he said he had read it (the online version). He asked Wilson if he had read the Talmud. He said he hadn’t. Then asked Wilson if he had checked out the footnotes to the various quotations to ascertain whether or not they were reliable and could be sourced to the actual text. Wilson said he hadn’t done that either.

“After confirming that Wilson hadn’t done anything but read the online text and then concluded that the book was anti-Semitic and hateful, he then established the fact that Wilson wasn’t an ‘expert’ in determining what ‘hate’ was; only that he relied upon the definition used in the Keegstra Case as a guideline.

“This opened up the door for my lawyer to select some of the more gross and controversial instances contained in the Talmud which related to sexual issues, and children, etc. He carefully read them out to the jury and had Wilson acknowledge that each selection conformed to the book. The jury of 8 women and 4 men sat there and listened to the assortment of rather perverse and loathsome behaviours. When my counsel finished reading them, the day’s proceedings ended.

“All the while he was reading them out Crown Counsel sat there squirming and playing with her pen and the Justice and the witness were daunted by the whole episode. Earlier on Wilson had been testifying and lauding the Talmud as one of the Jews ‘Holy’ books and attempting to convince the jury that any negative criticism of it was just pure anti-Semitism and hatred.

“P.S. This afternoon Gilad Atzmon arrived in town. He’s our Expert witness and will be testifying after Rudner on ‘Jewish identity,’ etc. It’s a great honour to have Gilad come half way around the world to assist me in this trial.”

Do you see what is going on here? Wilson says that the book is anti-Semitic without even checking out the sources which are quoted throughout the book. In other words, the Talmud is not racist for saying that the Goyim are beasts, but Dilling is racist and anti-Semitic for quoting the Talmud!

Neal Gabler is not anti-Semitic for writing an entire book saying that Jews control Hollywood,[10] but British journalist William Cash was anti-Semitic for quoting Gabler’s book and saying that Jews control Hollywood.[11]

Michael Jones is anti-Semitic for writing an article about Jewish pornography,[12] but Nathan Abrams is not anti-Semitic for using Jones’ article and saying the same thing.[13]

This is indeed intellectual corruption and perversion. After I’ve read Topham’s account, I realized once again that Civilta Cattolica was ahead of the curve when it declared way back in 1890:

“Once having acquired absolute civil liberty and equality in every sphere with Christians and the nations, the dam which previously had held back the Hebrews was opened for them, and in a short time, like a devastating torrent, they penetrated and cunningly took over everything: gold, trade, the stock market, the highest appointment in political administrations, in the army, and in diplomacy; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands or into the hands of those who were inevitably depending upon them.”[14]


Topham is not alone. We have already mentioned the case of Professor Denis Rancourt in the past. Professor Rancourt is currently fighting for his “family home, life savings and pension” because the powers that be have literally stripped him of his 25-year professorship at the University of Ottawa. Why?

Well, Rancourt has said things that upset the establishment, and “The unpaid costs and damages now total more than $1 million.” What was actually Rancourt’s unpardonable sin?

He attacked the Zionist pillage in the Middle East and the Israel lobby in America:

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.

“My own case is also an example. I was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada’s capital city. I am an internationally recognized researcher and I taught in both the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Arts. 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-Semitic’ nature of my courses, to the great dismay and protests of many of my students.”

Now you can see why the university has now adopted crazy tactics such as Rancourt is a racist for using words such as “house negro” to describe Allan Rock’s, well, “house negro.”

If “negro” is a code word, then we are in deep trouble. Historically, the word negro was not controversial until the latter part of the twentieth century. Black intellectuals during the 1950s and onward had no problem with it whatsoever, and the word was properly used in scholarly and academic works.

Harold Cruse’s influential book is entitled The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual; Henry Allen Bullock’s ground-shaking work was named A History of Negro Education in the South. Claude McKay used phrases such as “Nigger Hell” in his widely-read Home to Harlem. Jewish writer Norman Mailer had a famous essay entitled “The White Negro,” and Norman Podhoretz wrote one entitled “My Negro Problem.”

None of those men could be characterized as racists. Moreover, Cruse was a black professor at the University of Michigan; Bullock was a black historian and sociologist at the University of Texas; McKay was a Jamaican-American writer. The words ‘Negro’ or ‘Nigger’ were not born out of racism, but simply described the language and context of the time.

Knee-jerk reactions in the media do not invite rational discussion. They only promote reverse discrimination and what Rancourt would have called institutionalized or systematic racism in higher learning.

There is a bigger problem here as well. If the word “Negro” or “Nigger” should never be used, then the rap music industry ought to go out of business overnight:


[1] Cited in E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1170.

[2] Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 331.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Quoted in Shahak and Mevvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, 43, 62.

[5] Stephen Steinlight, “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2001.

[6] Michael Chabon, “Chosen, but Not Special,” NY Times, June 4, 2010.

[7] Cited in Jones, Barren Metal, 1172.

[8] Ibid., 1175.

[9] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

[10] Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Anchor Books, 1989).

[11] See E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1035.

[12] E. Michael Jones, “Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos,” Culture Wars, May 2003.

[13] Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004, Number 196; see also The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012).

[14] Cited in Jones, Barren Metal, 1179.


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

3 COMMENTS

  1. Errrr, Paul Becke, you might want to look a little closer at Jonas’s photo before you start lecturing him on the use of the word “person of color”.

    And just for the record, the origin of that word applied to people from Niger.

    Second, it isn’t about Topham’s “heart” it’s about the hand of the state punishing both these people for words. I guess the point of the article just flew over your head?

    • Yehuda_Abraham,

      You are right. I just cannot hold my laughter when I see people start lecturing me about the word “Negro.” What is so amazing is that “paul becke” ignored all the evidence that I presented as if evidence does not matter at all! He is basically not listening. As I said, if the word ought not to be used, why doesn’t he chastise Nicki Minaj and other sluts and whores in the rap music scene? Why is the stellar professor being punished for using it? Isn’t that systematic racism?

  2. Two points :

    Be assured that the word, person of color’ is, and almost certainly always was, an expression of fathomless hatred and cruelty. It separates the people of discernable African descent from the rest of society as different, and to the primitive understanding of most people, not deeply imbued with the Holy Spirit, greatly inferior and contemptible.

    A people that were enslaved, in recent centuries, in a manner that makes the ubiquitous slavery of the ancient world seem relatively enlightened, and were lynched by demonic low-lifes who made such events a picnic outing for their children, right up until after WWII, need to neutralize the venom and hatred with which the word, ‘person of color’ had become invested even in those day. Hence the liberal use of the word by the AA.s themselves among themselves, today.

    The word ‘yid’ is actually yiddish for ‘Jew’. But nobody can be in any doubt that when uttered by a gentile, the word is, and just as important;y, is intended to be, replete with hatred and contempt.

    None of this is rocket science. If it seems so, you need to question your own heart, which is the real seat of our understanding of deeper issues concerning ourselves and our destinies.

Comments are closed.