Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 24th, 2014 #741
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The ADL Spying Case is Over but the Struggle Continues
Source: Counter Punch | February 25, 2002

The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues

By Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier and Steve Zeltzer

Plaintiffs in the of ADL Spying Case

In 1993, the District of Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel’s policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.

Under great political pressure, Smith later dropped the charges. One wonders what would have happened had an Arab-American or Muslim organization been caught spying with the names of 10,000 people and 600 organizations in their files.

Not only were critics of Israel under ADL’s surveillance,including thousands of Arab-Americans, but labor organizations such as the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, and the Oakland Educational Association, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council and the Asian Law Caucus were also found in the “pinko” files of ADL’s undercover operative, Roy Bullock.

Moreover, Bullock, who had worked, off the books, for the ADL for more than 25 years, admitted that he had been reporting on the activities of black South African exiles and American anti- apartheid activists for South African intelligence.

Bullock, pretending to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, came to the founding meeting of the Labor Committee of the Middle in 1987 at the home of plaintiff Steve Zeltzer, having met Zeltzer at meetings of the Free Moses Mayekiso Defense

Committee, a South African labor solidarity committee in which he also infiltrated under false pretenses.

Having been responsible for exposing Bullock as an ADL agent to the media, we joined together with other Bay Area activists in filing a suit against the ADL for violation of our privacy rights as provided in California law.

Almost a decade later the suit has been settled with a significant cash payment by the ADL and, we wish to emphasize, without our signing any agreement for confidentiality which the ADL had previously demanded. Our efforts to expose the organization’s work in defending the policies of the Israeli government and stifling its opponents will continue, using new information gained in the pursuance of the suit.

The ADL spent millions of dollars preventing this case from coming to trial through costly appeals and exploiting the judicial process but, at the end, it had to give up..

During the course of the suit we learned that:

Bullock, the ADL’s top “fact finder” had sold confidential information to a South African intelligence agent in San Francisco for $15,000.

Ten days before he was assassinated in South Africa, Chris Hani, the man who would have succeeded Nelson Mandela as the country’s president, was trailed by Bullock on a trip through California who reported on it to the South African government.

ADL agent Roy Bullock was discovered to have a floor plan of murdered Los Angeles Arab American leader Alex Odeh and a key to his office.

The ADL supplied confidential information to foreign governments that it obtained from police and federal agencies in the US,

Having infiltrated the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the ADL’s “fact finder” performed a COINTEL-type operation at the convention of the Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review when he put ADC’s literature on convention tables as a way of smearing the committee for “working with anti- Semites.”

The ADL has organized to silence and eliminate all critical voices of Israel from academia and the media and has targeted professors , particularly those who are African American, and who are critical of Israel.

That at least 51% of the activities of its San Francisco office were devoted to defending Israel.

The ADL provided secret files to police agencies when these police agencies were prevented by law from collecting the files themselves,

Many questions must still be answered about the activities of the ADL and it’s non-profit status as an “education organization”. The settlement offered by the ADL is recognition on its part that it could not afford to go to a trial in front of a jury and face the likelihood that more of its dirty secrets would be revealed.

We call on all people to make sure that these practices on the part of the ADL are not allowed to continue and that the double standard that presently dominates this country on issues dealing with Israel be eliminated.

Finally, we wish to thank our attorney, former congressman Pete McCloskey, himself a victim of the ADL and the Israel Lobby, for his years of work on our behalf and his steadfast commitment to the pursuit of justice.

Jeffrey Blankfort can be reached at: [email protected]
Old August 24th, 2014 #742
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The ADL Targets Shortwave Stations
Source: Reprinted from Free Speech - February 1996 - Volume II, Number 2

The ADL Targets Shortwave Stations

By Nelson Rosit

In an article in the September 1995 issue of Free Speech, “The FCC’s Selective Persecution of Dissident Radio,” Kevin Strom reported on the harassment of our shortwave carrier, station WRNO, by the Federal Communications Commission. The vehicle for this harassment was an FCC regulation prohibiting shortwave stations from carrying programs aimed solely at a domestic audience. Of course, the assertion that American Dissident Voices is not intended for an international audience and is directed solely at American listeners is completely groundless, but the FCC demanded that WRNO prove that this was the case.

In their letter to WRNO, the FCC claimed that they were responding to complaints made about four programs aired on Saturday and Sunday evenings. Mr. Strom asked rhetorically, “Isn’t it strange that out of hundreds of programs about which such questions might be raised, all four programs complained about are ones which criticize the role of organized Jewry in contemporary society? Must be a coincidence, don’t you think?”

If anyone had any doubts about the coincidence they should be dispelled by Poisoning The Airwaves: The Extremist Message of Hate on Shortwave Radio, an Anti-Defamation League report put out recently. In this report, which characterizes shortwave as the “CNN for right-wing groups,” the ADL laments that this medium “is cheap, reaches a large audience, and, perhaps most importantly, almost no government regulations are imposed on it.”

Despite this last claim, the ADL goes on to charge that perhaps Federal regulations are being violated since, “there are several shortwave stations that broadcast extremist programs clearly meant for domestic US audiences.” This is the same issue raised by the FCC regarding American Dissident Voices. Thus, it seems likely that the “complaints” that the FCC says it was responding to originated with the ADL or similar groups intent upon intimidating shortwave stations which carry Politically Incorrect programs.

Anyone who has listened to ADV for any length of time knows that we often deal with international issues, issues that concern White people worldwide. We have a stack of correspondence from foreign listeners to prove that we do reach people worldwide, and the ADL, with its vast intelligence network, certainly is aware of this. The truth is, our international reach is what concerns them the most. Narrow racial-nationalist movements are easier to control. However, the prospects of White solidarity worldwide is truly our enemies’ worst nightmare.

National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
Old August 24th, 2014 #743
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The ADL the Drive to Outlaw Free Speech and Thought
Source: This article was originally published in National Vanguard Magazine,
PO Box 330,Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.

The ADL: The drive to outlaw
free speech and thought

Question: What does the current media campaign to outlaw the private ownership of semiautomatic weapons by U.S. citizens have to do with the rapidly growing corpus of legislation dealing with “hate crimes”?

Answer: Success of the first is necessary to insure compliance with the second, and both are the creatures of a quasi-governmental secret-police agency of whose existence most Americans are unaware.

There is underway in America a vast, well-oiled, heavily financed campaign to limit sharply the rights of Americans under the First Amendment to their Constitution and to eliminate altogether their rights under the Second Amendment. It already has scored notable successes in rolling back the most basic American freedoms. It is gearing up now for a drive to achieve total victory in this decade.

The principal instrument in this campaign is a secret-police agency more sinister, more cunning, and infinitely more malevolent than the Soviet Committee for State Security — the KGB — ever was. Its initials are ADL.Those initials stand for Anti-Defamation League, an innocuous-sounding name wholly out of keeping with the character of the organization.

To understand its significance we must look into its origins. The ADL is the action arm of B’nai B’rith, the international Jewish secret society, whose Hebrew name means in English “Sons of the Covenant.” The “covenant” referred to is the one supposedly entered into between the ancient Hebrews and their tribal deity Yahweh more than 3,000 years ago.

Its terms are spelled out in Deuteronomy, the fifth book of Moses. The Jews pledged their allegiance to Yahweh in return for his promise to take them as his “chosen people” and to give them dominion over all the lands and the other peoples of the earth: “Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours.” (Deut. 11: 24) B’nai B’rith sees as its task the taking of all necessary measures for this promise to be fulfilled.

The ADL itself was organized in the United States as a subdivision of B’nai B’rith in 1913, and its ostensible purpose was to counter the “defamation” of Jews, whose public image was even worse then than now. The ADL went about its work in characteristically heavy-handed fashion, bullying and intimidating those who said or published anything the organization considered incompatible with Jewish interests, and lobbying legislators and other public officials to obtain legislation or rulings which would advance Jewish aims. If a prominent businessman, educator, or politician made a public statement the Jews did not like, the ADL would attempt to persuade him to retract it, hinting at economic or political reprisals if he refused. If intimidation failed, the ADL often would turn to defamation, feeding derogatory statements about the target to newspapers under Jewish control or friendly to Jewish interests until he was thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the public.

Typical of ADL efforts in the period prior to the Second World War was its attempt to ban a book, Conquest of a Continent, by Madison Grant, the noted naturalist and president of the New York Zoological Society. The book was published in 1933 by Charles Scribner’s Sons and bore an enthusiastic introduction by Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, the most prominent American paleontologist of his day. In the book Grant outlined the racial history of North America and argued for the reform of immigration laws in order to keep America primarily Northern European in its racial composition.

Jews are hardly mentioned in the book, and in no way can it be considered a “defamation” of them. Jewish policy then as now, however, was to change the European racial character of the United States by cutting off the flow of immigrants (other than Jews) from Europe and increasing the flow from the non-White world.

Consequently the ADL mounted a campaign with publishers, asking them not to review the book or mention it in any way in their own publications, and with booksellers, asking them not to handle the book. A form letter dated December 13, 1933, mailed from the national headquarters of the ADL (then in Chicago), and signed by the then-director of the organization, Richard E. Gutstadt, notified publishers that Grant’s book “is extremely antagonistic to Jewish interests” and added: “We are interested in stifling the sale of this book.”

Grant’s book is only one of many which received the same attention from the ADL. As time passed the organization’s censorship activity became more sophisticated and more effective. Defamation of offending authors, speakers, or public officials became a more often used weapon. In line with this defamation activity the ADL’s undercover investigative capabilities were greatly expanded. A network of unpaid Jewish agents all across the country reported to ADL headquarters, where dossiers were built up on tens of thousands of American citizens. Information from these dossiers, which might contain everything from basic biographical and employment data to rumors about marital difficulties or drinking problems, was used to fabricate defamatory news releases on anyone the ADL wanted to discredit.

By the early 1940s the ADL had strengthened its position as an information source for the news media — the result in part of the increased number of Jews in controlling positions in the media. It also had established informal relationships with a number of local, state, and Federal police departments. It often was the case that when the Federal Bureau of Investigation was interested in the affairs of a person involved in patriotic or “right wing” activity, the ADL already would have a dossier on him as someone actually or potentially hostile to Jewish interests and would happily share the dossier with the FBI. Sometimes the ADL would initiate the contact: if its informants had provided information to headquarters suggesting that an alleged “anti-Semite” might not have paid enough income tax or might have an unregistered firearm hidden in his attic, a tip would be given to the appropriate police agency.

In the past half-century the ADL’s links with the media and with law-enforcement agencies have grown enormously. Today virtually all the controlled news media routinely print anything given to them by the ADL, as if it had come over the Associated Press wire, and they routinely go to the ADL for commentary whenever any news story is being prepared on a person known to oppose Jewish policies.

Likewise, the ADL has become the standard source to which government investigative agencies turn whenever their target is such a person. In the latter case the flow of information goes in both directions: not only does the ADL have the opportunity to peek into the government’s confidential investigative files, but its agents are even invited to accompany the FBI when raids or arrests are being made on a target of interest to it.

The biggest development for the ADL in the postwar period came as a result of the Jews’ land-grab in the Middle East and the formation of the state of Israel. The coordinating center for B’nai B’rith’s activities moved from New York to Jerusalem. Investigating, defaming, and intimidating Americans who did not agree with the Israel-first foreign policy of the U.S. government became one of the ADL’s chief concerns. Patriots who protested Washington’s failure to take reprisals in 1967 when the Israelis deliberately rocketed, strafed, and torpedoed the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171 others, were denounced as “anti-Semites” by the ADL. In 1974, when NATIONAL VANGUARD editor William Pierce sued U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in an effort to halt the flow of U.S. weapons and military supplies to Israel, the ADL jumped into the suit on the side of the government as an amicus curiae.

As early as 1971, in sworn testimony in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a top B’nai B’rith official, Saul Joftes, formerly director general of the B’nai B’rith’s Office of International Affairs, admitted that B’nai B’rith “engages in international politics and more often than not does the bidding of the government of Israel. Its leaders make frequent trips to Israel for indoctrination and instructions.” The issue at stake in the court case was whether or not B’nai B’rith’s U.S. affiliate — and the ADL — should be prosecuted for failing to register as agents of a foreign power under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

The fix was in, however; by the 1970s the ADL and B’nai B’rith had become “untouchables.” Not only did they escape prosecution, they continued to operate as tax-exempt “religious and charitable” organizations.

Silencing and discrediting Americans who disapproved of U.S. taxpayers’ money being used to support Israel’s wars of expansion in the Middle East was not the only ADL activity in the postwar period. The organization worked hard and effectively to advance other Jewish goals: the opponents of increased non-White immigration were attacked, aid was given to the pulling down of the barriers against racial mixing, new restrictions on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms were supported. The ADL played a significant role in every facet of B’nai B’rith’s program to demoralize, dilute, disorganize, and disarm White Americans — all in the name of the fight against “bigotry.”

When, during the madness of the 1960s, the Jews finally succeeded in pushing through a new immigration law designed to bring more non-Whites into the United States, the ADL crowed about its success. The November 1965 issue of the ADL Bulletin, the group’s internal publication, carried an article by the director of the ADL’s law department, Sol Rabkin, who was present at the signing of the new law by President Lyndon Johnson. (Also present at the signing was Benjamin R. Epstein, then the national director of the ADL.) Under the heading “The restrictive national origins quota system is finally abolished — after a forty year fight,” Rabkin boasted: “The Anti-Defamation League is proud of the educational role it played in helping to bring this about.”

The same issue of the ADL Bulletin had a notice of the appointment of the director of the ADL’s Washington office, Herman Edelsberg, to the government post of executive director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he could work more effectively to force the racial mixing of employees in shops and offices all across America. In this regard it is interesting to note that the ADL actually has two “equal opportunity” programs. One — that headed by Mr. Edelsberg in 1965 and by others since then — is to give Blacks and other minorities precedence over Whites in hiring and promotion for blue-collar and clerical employment. The other is to oppose Black demands for precedence in admissions to law schools and medical schools, and for hiring and promotion in certain professional occupations where Jews are heavily over-represented.

By the mid-1970s B’nai B’rith had had very substantial success in virtually every phase of its campaign to undermine White society in America. It still was moving aggressively on a dozen fronts: introducing resolutions to require “Holocaust” indoctrination for Gentile children in the public schools; demanding the rewriting of school textbooks and the reworking of school curricula to make them appropriately “multi-cultural” and eliminate what the ADL complained was the “principally white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon view of America” presented by older texts and curricula; pushing Christian churches, both Protestant and Catholic, to make even further changes in their doctrines, so that their teachings about Jews would consist of nothing but the most fulsome praise; lobbying the government to punish American companies refusing to trade with Israel; asking for more restrictive anti-gun laws; etc.

These ongoing programs were only a part of the ADL’s activity, however. The late 1970s saw a slowing of the frantic social change which had kept America in turmoil for nearly two decades. Much of that turmoil had been planned and instigated by B’nai B’rith. Even before the beginning of the 1980s and the relative stasis of the Reagan era, B’nai B’rith was planning new programs to head off any White backlash which might undo the changes it had wrought in American society. A new emphasis on secret-police activity characterized these programs.

At an ADL banquet in Palm Beach, Florida, early in 1975, as reported in the March 1975 issue of the ADL Bulletin, ADL Chairman Seymour Graubard boasted that the “ADL, to the limits of its financial ability, is expanding its intelligence operation . . .”
The building of dossiers on the opponents and potential opponents of the Jews’ plan for America was no longer enough, however. During times of economic prosperity the old tactics of defamation and intimidation might be sufficient to keep the goyim in line, but a severe and prolonged economic decline could stiffen the spines of White Americans to the point where they no longer would be frightened into silence by the ADL’s power of the smear. It became prudent, in the view of the leaders of B’nai B’rith, to enlist the police powers of government in order to silence and disarm their critics before any substantial backlash developed. To this end the ADL launched a new legislative lobbying campaign of ominous import.

The ADL’s lawyers drew up a series of “model statutes” to be introduced by the organization’s agents into the Congress and state legislatures. Some of these ADL-designed statutes are aimed at a more rapid phasing-out of citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. The ADL always has been a leading advocate of gun control — much more so than the public has realized, because often while other gun-control organizations are out front holding press conferences and making headlines, it is the ADL pulling the strings for them behind the scenes. Beginning in the 1980s, however, there was a new urgency to the organization’s efforts. The rationale used by the ADL now is that new, sweeping anti-gun laws are needed to protect law-abiding citizens from “right-wing terrorism.” The ADL Bulletin has warned that “arms and stores of ammunition are being collected in uncounted numbers, and extremists have made clear that they are ready to use them.” To back up this claim that armed White “extremists” are a growing menace the ADL has fed a steady stream of alarmist reports to the controlled news media. An excellent illustration of the way in which the ADL has carried on its anti-gun campaign is provided by its “model anti-paramilitary training statute,” designed to prevent White patriots from acquiring or providing instruction in the martial arts.

The organization unveiled this model statute in 1980. By November 1981 the ADL Bulletin was able to boast that ADL agents had succeeded in having bills based on the statute enacted into law by the legislatures of California, Connecticut, and North Carolina. By early 1987 the number of states which had knuckled under to ADL pressure had grown to 14. The ADL Bulletin for March 1987 reported on its success in having one major newspaper serve as an ADL mouthpiece in this regard: “In the Atlanta Constitution, ADL’s model anti-paramilitary training statute won editorial words of praise while the newspaper suggested that Georgia should pass such a law.

The article reported that ADL has spotted secret camps from Alabama to California and from Connecticut to Texas which have “a mix of vitriol and violence (that) poses a danger to all peace-loving Americans but particularly to minorities. There ought to be a law against paramilitary camps of this kind — and in 14 states there is,” said the editorial.<

The piece went on to praise the fact that while holding pathological hatemongers at bay, the ADL model aims to satisfy such constitutional considerations as the rights of free speech and free association. “The ADL’s steamroller had picked up considerable speed by 1987, and just three months later the June 1987 issue of the ADL Bulletin bragged: “Now there are 18. The number of states adopting anti-paramilitary training statutes based on ADL’s model legislation has reached 18 with Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia, and Idaho enacting such laws in recent months.”

In a letter to Howard Ross, director of ADL’s Western Pennsylvania-West Virginia Regional Office, West Virginia’s Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr., expressed his appreciation for the League’s cooperation in moving the legislation to passage.

“The ADL also worked diligently to subvert the law-enforcement establishment and to put as many individual law-enforcement officers into its pockets as possible. For the chiefs of big-city police departments, expense-paid “fact finding” trips to Israel could be arranged. For others there were ADL-sponsored “training seminars,” where politically ambitious police officials could be told of the advantages to be had by directing more of their energies and resources to the repression of “White extremists.”

For example, the October 1987 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: “Some 200 law-enforcement officers ranging from FBI agents to chiefs of police, sheriffs, and attorneys general in the 13 Western states from California to Wyoming attended a special seminar on combatting terrorism, arranged by Betsy Rosenthal, ADL’s Western Civil Rights area director, and Harvey B. Schechter, Western States area director.

The Los Angeles Police Academy was the scene of the all-day session. The keynote speakers were Arieh Ivtsan, Israel’s Ambassador to Liberia and immediate past commissioner of the Israeli National Police Force, and Irwin Suall, director of ADL’s Civil Rights Division Fact Finding Department.

Packets distributed to the attendees included ADL’s reports on “Extremism Targets the Prisons” and “Propaganda of the Deed,” the League’s Security Handbook and a list of recent publications on extremism and extremist groups with an ADL-prepared synopsis. “By sponsoring such seminars the ADL has reinforced its image as a quasi-governmental agency, to which genuine law-enforcement agencies are justified in turning for advice and information. Perhaps most important, policemen and police agencies accustomed to thinking of their responsibility as combatting drug dealers, robbers, rapists, burglars, automobile thieves, murderers, and the like are informed that there is a new type of criminal about which they should be even more concerned: the “extremist.”

The ADL, of course, defines the term for them and tells them who fits the definition.

Despite the ADL’s pretense of concern for “Constitutional considerations,” its model anti-paramilitary training law, in fact, totally disregards the rights of free speech and free association. It prohibits certain types of speech, if that speech is involved in training or instruction in the martial arts, and it prohibits association for the purpose of hearing such speech. And the ADL campaign to push its model law through all of the state legislatures is based on fraud, deceit, and political corruption.
The way it worked in West Virginia provides a good illustration. There has not been any paramilitary training in that state — at least, not within the memory of any news reporters or law-enforcement people there spoken to by this writer: no reason, in other words, for even the most timid of West Virginia’s minority citizens (barely two percent of the state’s population) to feel threatened by paramilitary activity — and so not a very good prospect for the ADL’s anti-paramilitary training law. Then, in mid-1985, William Pierce, editor of this magazine and author (using his nom de plume Andrew Macdonald) of The Turner Diaries, a novel about urban guerrilla warfare and White revolution, left his home of 18 years in the Washington, D.C., area and resettled himself on a mountainside in a remote, wilderness area of West Virginia, the better to commune with his God and write the words which need to be written about this troubled era.
That was all the ADL needed to launch its campaign in the state. The only newspaper printed in West Virginia which is circulated statewide is the Charleston Gazette, and it is entirely at the disposal of the ADL. Early in 1986 it carried the first of a series of ADL-sponsored scare stories about Dr. Pierce’s move to the state. He had not come to West Virginia to meditate and to write, the stories claimed, but to build a terrorist training camp. The 360 acres of forested mountain land he had bought were regularly referred to as “a compound.” It was surrounded by an electrified fence patrolled by armed men. One of the buildings on the land was located directly over a “large complex of limestone caverns reported to be heavily stocked with weapons.” It was believed that missile silos were being dug into the mountainside. Supporting these alarmist stories was the local sheriff, who happily provided newsmen with confirmation about the electrified fence, the weapons-filled caves, and the armed men. The “compound,” he asserted, was adjacent to one of the largest wilderness areas in the eastern United States, and he was quite worried about any run-in with Dr. Pierce or his associates which might involve “gunplay.”

The ADL then trotted the sheriff over to the state legislature in Charleston to tell the same story to the state’s lawmakers. West Virginia politics is probably not much more corrupt than that of other states, such as Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. But that’s bad enough, and the ADL was able to enlist the state’s attorney general, Charlie Brown, and its governor, Arch Moore, as well as the aforementioned sheriff, in its campaign to protect the citizens of West Virginia from Dr. Pierce and his terrorist training camp. The attorney general spoke at meetings and seminars organized by the ADL to alert the public to the danger. And as usual the Jewish group rounded up a number of non-Jewish groups to front for it: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the West Virginia Education Association, a board of Presbyterian preachers, the Rainbow Coalition, and several others. The ADL named its collection of front groups “Citizens for Passage of an Unlawful Paramilitary Training Act” and, operating it like a ventriloquist’s dummy, called for the enactment of its model statute in the name of “the citizens of West Virginia.”

There was, of course, not a shred of truth in the stories about electrified fences, weapons-filled caves, missile silos, or training camps of any sort, terrorist or otherwise. But the news media being what they are, and politics being what it is, there were no news stories to contradict those of the Charleston Gazette, and no member of the state legislature saw fit to investigate the matter himself, even to the extent of taking a personal look at the alleged terrorist training camp or giving Dr. Pierce a telephone call to ask a few questions. The ADL’s word on the matter was accepted, and the ADL’s bill was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Sneaking laws against paramilitary training through state legislatures is only one facet of the ADL’s effort to disarm America’s citizens, but it is an important facet because it reveals the political motive behind the ADL’s anti-gun drive. The ADL is not concerned about drug addicts with “Saturday night specials,” but it is very much concerned about armed patriots who might not approve of the Jewish plan for America. The organization has been active recently in fanning the hysteria over “assault” rifles and in instigating the passage of laws at the state and local levels to prohibit their ownership.

Even more dangerous than the ADL’s anti-gun and anti-paramilitary activities, however, is its campaign to establish a new category of crime: so-called “hate crime.” Defined roughly, it is any act or speech motivated by hostile feelings based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Thus, if you are a White man, and you punch a Black man in the nose because you do not like Blacks as a general rule, it is not simply an assault; it is a “hate crime,” and if you are convicted of it in a jurisdiction where the ADL has succeeded in having its model “ethnic intimidation” bill enacted into law, you will be sent to prison for three times as long as if you’d punched your mother-in-law instead (assuming she’s White).

A “hate crime” also occurs if you are a White person who is generally well disposed toward Blacks, but you become engaged in a shouting match with one of them — perhaps a dispute over a parking space — and in the heat of the fray call him a “Black bastard.” That, you see, is “ethnic intimidation,” even if no blows are exchanged, and the ADL would like to send you to the state penitentiary for five years for it. You also commit a “hate crime” if you shout “nigger!” at a Black driver who cuts you off on the highway.

The ADL has been promoting “hate crime” laws for more than a decade. The January 1981 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: “A joint New York State/ADL Committee on Public Policy has endorsed legislation. . . which would make graffitti and harassment based on religion, ethnicity, and race an offense under Civil Rights statutes [emphasis added]. The New Jersey regional office [of the ADL] is working with both the State Police and the County Prosecutor’s Association. At ADL’s initiative an Ethnic Terrorism Bill, which would change the act of anti-Semitic or racial vandalism from a misdemeanor to a third-degree crime has been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature.”Less than a year later, in November 1981, the ADL Bulletin was able to boast: “Gov. Brendan Byrne of New Jersey signed into law an ethnic terrorism bill that makes racial or religious vandalism a crime punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $7,500.

ADL’s regional board called for such legislation in 1979. . . and ADL was in the forefront of the two-year effort to win passage of the bill. “Much of the early ADL propaganda in favor of “hate crime” legislation attempted to cloak the ADL’s true aim behind a pretended concern for protecting places of worship from “religious vandalism.” Thus the February 1982 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: “ADL has developed a model religious vandalism law to provide those states that do not have such legislation with a single, comprehensive, constitutionally sound approach to this problem.

The model statute’s first and second sections create penalties for vandalism against houses of worship, cemeteries, schools and community centers, and also for committing certain crimes “by reason of the race, color, religion or national origin of another person” [emphasis added].”

A year later, in February 1983, the ADL Bulletin was able to claim substantial progress at the state level: “Mr. Perlmutter [then the ADL's national director] expressed the hope that other states would follow the lead of the 12 thus far — Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington — which have enacted laws imposing stiffer penalties for persons convicted of religious or racial vandalism or other acts motivated by bigotry [emphasis added].”

At that time the ADL, however, was still far short of its ultimate legislative goal: a Federal law prohibiting any expression of hostility toward, or any criticism of, Jews or other non-Whites by Whites. In the mid-1980s it shifted the emphasis of its campaign from the state to the national level. Its strategy was two-pronged: first, to condition legislators and publicists and then the general public to accept the concept of “hate crime” as a distinct, new category of crime; and second, to persuade the American people that a new body of legislation is needed to protect them from such crime — needed so urgently, in fact, that they should be willing to sacrifice the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution in order to be safe from a dangerous new breed of “hate criminals.”

To implement the first prong of that strategy the ADL formulated another of its “model statutes”: a hate-crimes statistics reporting statute. Lobbying intensely, the ADL used its media outlets to publicize its own statistics, which not surprisingly showed a sharp rise in “hate crimes” throughout the latter half of the decade. A Federal law was needed, the ADL claimed, to track such crime. In January 1990 the organization reported that “hate crimes” had reached an all-time high during 1989. Leading the list were 1,432 “anti-Semitic incidents” reported by its agents around the country, ranging from swastikas daubed on driveways to arson. In April 1990 the Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the desired law. The new Hate Crimes Statistics Act requires the Justice Department to gather the statistics that the ADL formerly had gathered. All incidents in which hatred or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation is alleged to be a motive will henceforth be subject to special Federal scrutiny and record keeping. If a homosexual in Norfolk, Virginia, makes a pass at a sailor and has his teeth knocked out for his trouble, the Justice Department in Washington wants to know all about it. If a Vietnamese “refugee” in Los Angeles finds a “gooks go home” message chalked on the windshield of his car, the FBI will investigate. It’s the law now.

One might wonder why the ADL went to so much trouble to persuade the Federal government to duplicate one of the Jewish group’s functions. The reason, of course, is not that more crime statistics are needed by anyone, least of all by the ADL; it is that now the Federal government has officially recognized the ADL’s definition of a new category of crime. Now it will be the government, not just some Jewish group with a strange name, investigating and publicizing every hostile word or act based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. That is the first step toward persuading the Congress to enact, and the public to accept, new laws.

There will continue to be a screen of words — “terrorism,” “religious vandalism,” and “hate, hate, hate” — thrown up to disguise the true goals of those pushing for Federal “hate crime” legislation. As a result of this obfuscation the impression in many minds will be that the purpose of such legislation is merely to penalize those who paint swastikas on Jewish tombstones or set fire to synagogues. Who could object to a law against that? What the ADL really has in mind is revealed by an incident which occurred at the beginning of this year in West Milford, New Jersey. A young White man, 22-year-old Richard E. Lindstrom, stuck a three-inch by five-inch, orange-and-black sticker on a traffic sign and was arrested by a policeman who saw him do it. The message on the sticker was: “Earth’s most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it. Write or call National Alliance, …” Ordinarily one would expect someone in Mr. Lindstrom’s position to receive a citation for littering. In 1981, however, the ADL had succeeded in persuading the legislators of New Jersey to enact a so-called “Ethnic Terrorism Law,” and he was charged under that law. He was facing as much as five years in prison and a fine of $7,500 for posting a sticker asking the public to help preserve the White race.

Anyone who understands the B’nai B’rith mentality can see the logic in that. To suggest that the White race (and, of course, one understands that “White” means European, or Aryan, excluding Semites) ought to be preserved is to challenge the Yahweh-given right of the Sons of the Covenant to rule the earth and its peoples as they see fit. That’s clearly anti-Semitic. That stabs terror into the heart of every righteous Holocaust survivor. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom committed an act of “ethnic terrorism” and ought to be put away for good.

Under the circumstances, however, to have tried him on an “ethnic terrorism” charge at this time would have been premature and might even have jeopardized the ADL’s campaign for a comprehensive Federal “hate crime” law. There were vague mutterings from the American Civil Liberties Union, and it was even conceivable that some of the more loosely controlled elements in the news media might publicize the case and cause a White backlash around the country. Cooler heads in the local ADL office eventually prevailed, and the charge against Mr. Lindstrom was reduced to one of littering. Five years from now they might be able to make the “ethnic terrorism” charge stick, but not in 1990.

To ensure that they not only will have the Federal laws in place they are seeking by the end of this decade, but also will be able to make them stick, the ADL and other Jewish groups are coordinating their efforts. For the past few years they have been using the controlled entertainment media in an especially insidious way to condition the American people to accept passively the yoke planned for them. They have created a new film genre — the “White terrorist” film — to persuade the public that there is a growing danger from armed White “haters.”

In 1987 we were hit with Into the Homeland, a film which attempts to convince East Coast city dwellers that the rural heartland of the Midwest is on the point of being taken over by heavily armed Christian Fundamentalists who not only don’t like non-Whites, but who deal murderously with anyone of any hue who gets in their way. Only viewers with sharp eyes will catch the acknowledgement to the ADL among the credits at the end of the film. The film uses the scenario developed in a special report issued by the ADL in 1986, “The American Farmer and the Extremists.”

In 1988 we were treated to a number of other films of the same ilk, the three most notable of them being Betrayed, Skinheads — the Second Coming of Hate, and Talk Radio. The first of this trio, which was the most widely seen, portrays the White “haters” of the rural Midwest as not only heavily armed but also well organized and well financed, with top-level political connections in Washington. Their favorite Saturday-night pastime is to kidnap a Black from a nearby town, turn him loose in the woods, and then hunt him down and kill him.

Skinheads — the Second Coming of Hate is the first in a series of Jewish films portraying working-class urban White youths who affect the skinhead dress and tonsure as viciously depraved, murderous thugs who hate not only Blacks and Jews but the whole world. The guidelines for these films are set in several ADL publications, most notably “`Shaved for Battle’: Skinheads Target America’s Youth” (1987) and “Young and Violent: The Growing Menace of America’s Neo-Nazi Skinheads” (1988).

Talk Radio, loosely based on the 1984 assassination of Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver, allegedly by White revolutionaries, advances the thesis that people who haven’t wholeheartedly embraced the brave, new pluralistic world of racial mixing, homosexuality, and feminism promoted by the ADL — i.e., White racists — are hair-trigger psychotics who may explode with murderous fury at the least provocation. It is the only one of the 1988 films which is even remotely credible to a sophisticated viewer. Most American television and cinema viewers are anything but sophisticated, unfortunately. The Jews already have succeeded in convincing many of them that certain completely legal acts or patterns of behavior are illegal. After seeing so many television episodes in which a hateful Ku Klux Klansman sneaks around like a criminal and is treated like a criminal by the other actors, the viewer can hardly be blamed for having the confused notion that there’s something inherently illegal about being a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1989, among many others, we had Dead Bang and So Proudly We Hail, two anti-skinhead films which distort the skinhead life-style into something far beyond the bounds of reality. Skinheads are depicted as the violence-prone storm troopers of a huge, sophisticated, highly organized neo-Nazi network. The latter of these films was a made-for-TV film written and directed by Lionel Chetwynd of the American Jewish Committee. In a booklet published by the Jewish group in conjunction with the broadcast of the film over CBS-affiliated stations, Skinheads: Who They Are & What to Do When They Come to Town, Chetwynd writes:

“”So Proudly We Hail” is my way of speaking out. Through a fictionalized account based on real events, the film demonstrates how hate can be cultivated and grown into ideology. ”
One can only wonder what “real events” Chetwynd had in mind. The film shows a neo-Nazi organization developed to a level that real neo-Nazis can only dream about. And it drags out old, long-discredited Jewish canards about lampshades made from the skin of flayed Jewish concentration-camp victims and the like. The bulk of the American Jewish Committee’s booklet shows as little regard for the truth as the film itself, consisting mainly of absurdly exaggerated claims of the menace to ordinary citizens from skinheads and exhortations to support various Jewish “model statutes” on “hate crimes” and outlawing semiautomatic weapons.
In 1990, the “White terrorist” genre is expanding to include segments of several popular cops-and-robbers television series, as well as full-length films. And the dual purpose remains: to both repulse and frighten the average American. Racially conscious White men and women must be perceived by the conforming television viewer as both hateful and dangerous.

Within the next few years the ADL hopes to have enforceable Federal “hate crime” legislation in place which, in the name of preventing “religious vandalism” or “ethnic intimidation,” will make it illegal to print, possess, sell, or post a sticker of the sort Richard Lindstrom put on a traffic sign in West Milford, New Jersey, earlier this year. Not just stickers, but also books, pamphlets, leaflets — or any public utterance — offensive to a racial or religious minority or to homosexuals will be outlawed. Whether or not a person was motivated by a dislike for Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or some other officially protected minority when he took some action against one of them will determine his punishment, and anything that he has said or written in the past may be used to infer what his motivation was. “Hate crime” will have become “thought crime.”

Lest there be any doubt that this is what the Jews actually are aiming for, consider the following comments by Jewish lawyer Bruce Fein, who writes on legal topics for a number of publications. The comments come from a feature article by him published in the May 1, 1990, edition of the Washington Times, and the article in turn is based on his remarks at an Oxford-Northwestern Debate in Washington the preceding month:

“Should speech intended to ignite religious or racial animosity be prohibited? Let the answer speak from the weeping cemeteries around the world overflowing with the victims of racial and religious prejudice. …What is the paramount purpose of speech in a civilized society? It is to trigger contemplation, reason and tolerance for competing ideas as the moving force for private and political action. …What is the purpose of racially or religiously bigoted speech? It is to arouse unthinking hatred, violence and intolerance in the audience… In sum, the invectives of the racial or religious bigot are no more free speech than is [sic] the vulgar pornographic ululations of Annie Sprinkle a cousin of the Bolshoi Ballet. If the law supposes otherwise, as Mr. Bumble observed, “the law is a ass, a idiot.” If racially or religiously bigoted speech were innocuous, then it might be ignored by governments. But it is not.
The ugliest marks in the history of the United States have stemmed from the incitements to racial prejudice practiced by Theodore Bilbo, Orville Faubus, the Ku Klux Klan, and the producers of “The Birth of a Nation.” Diatribes of these types create an explosive social nitroglycerine waiting for an epithet or racial incident to spark violence. …It is said that if racially or religiously bigoted speech is squelched, there will be no stopping point to prevention of genuine free speech. Nonsense! The progress of civilization has been the progress of making refinements and differentiations in the law. Prohibitions on racially or religiously derogatory speech have existed in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, and elsewhere without undermining democracy, political dissent or debate. …Prohibiting racially and religiously bigoted speech is praiseworthy because it seeks to elevate, not to degrade, because it draws from human experience, not from woolly dogmas or academic slogans, because it salutes reason as the backbone of freedom and tolerance. Is that clear enough?”

Those “woolly dogmas” and “academic slogans” this smart-mouth Jew boy dismisses with a sneer are the things that the founders of this nation were prepared to defend with their lives, things that men of our race have given their lives for often in the past. He and his fellow Jews evidently believe, however, that the present generation of Americans have had their minds and their spines sufficiently softened by 40 years of Jewish propaganda so that they won’t even look up from their television screens when our freedom to speak our minds is taken away from us and Jewish “reason” becomes the law of the land.

He is correct, of course, in indicating that speech is restricted in many other countries — although hardly without undermining dissent or debate. In Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and Sweden, to mention just a few places, the Jews have succeeded in making it a criminal offense to question their perennially profitable “Holocaust” claims, for example. The German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, whose case has been discussed several times in these pages, has been convicted and sentenced in Canada for that very “hate crime.” In Sweden last December a radio broadcaster was sentenced to prison and the license of his station was revoked because he criticized Israeli actions against Palestinians in a way that Jews considered derogatory.

George Orwell missed the date by a few years — at least, for the United States — but it is clear that if B’nai B’rith has its way the Thought Police will be a fact of life here in the near future, and racism will be a crime — not Jewish racism (also known as Zionism), of course, or Black racism, just racism of the White variety. Mr. Fein and his compatriots in the ADL are counting on having patriotic Americans disarmed by that time, so that they will be powerless to resist those designated by the government to enforce the laws against “thought crime.” Be that as it may, Fein and Company should be aware that there still will be a few White Americans, with or without assault rifles, willing to die for their freedom — but they don’t intend to be the only ones to die. Got that, Jew boy?
Old August 24th, 2014 #744
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Anti Defamation League Censors of the Universe
The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith:
Censors of the Universe

by INAYET NAHVI (a Muslim) | Compiled 1997-2000

THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE (ADL) has spearheaded efforts at censorship against all people who wish to express themselves in a way that by ADL is seen as anti-Zionist or “anti-Semitic”. The Director of the ADL Richard Gutstadt wrote to all periodicals he could find to censor the book, “The Conquest of A Continent”. Mr Gutstadt brazenly writes, “We are interested in stifling the sale of this book”.

The ADL was also instrumental in terrorizing St. Martin’s Press into canceling their contract last year [1996] with David Irving. The ADL recently “hailed” the arrest and imprisonment of a German man who questioned the Holocaust.

The ADL tries to cover its anti-free speech activities by giving out a Free Speech “Torch of Liberty” award occasionally. The most prominent recipient is flesh peddler and woman denigrator Hugh Hefner. Obscene pornographer Larry Flynt is another supporter who has contributed 100,000′s of dollars to the ADL.

ADL’s Criminal and Spying Operations

In 1993 the San Francisco and Los Angeles offices of the ADL were raided for evidence of criminal wrongdoing in many spheres. The raids turned up evidence of the ADL’s compliance in the theft of confidential police files stolen from California police departments. The ADL had been paying Roy Bullock a salary for decades to spy on people and steal police files. He stole files from SFPD through corrupt cop Tom Gerard. His illicit contact in San Diego was white racist sheriff Tim Carroll.

The ADL has been linked closely to organized crime, especially Las Vegas Mafia boss Meyer Lansky. Theodore Silbert worked simultaneously for the ADL and the Sterling National Bank (a Mafia operation controlled by the Lansky syndicate). As a matter of fact the granddaughter of the Mafia boss Lansky, Mira Lansky Boland herself is the ADL’s liaison to law enforcement. (What a convenient arrangement! She used ADL money to treat Tim Carroll and Tom Gerard to an all- expense paid luxury vacation in Israel.)

Another Las Vegas gangster, Moe Dalitz was honored by the ADL in 1985. Another among the shady contributors to the ADL’s supremacist activities is the Milken Family Fund, of “junk bond” fame. The ADL uses its well-oiled propaganda machine to protect their “friends” in the Mafia and pornography industry by shrieking “Anti-Semitism!” at the slightest movement of the law against these perverse interests.

ADL’s Ethnic Intimidation

The ADL has mastered the art of intimidation and blackmailing unlike any of the powerful Mafiosi they are associated with. The ADL has influential contacts in media and politics that can ruin a person or business if they don’t follow ADL’s agenda.

Already mentioned are instances of bad cops falling under the allure of the ADL, ones such as Tom Gerard and Tim Carroll. Yet now good cops and even freshmen cops are being “conditioned” for the type of anti-free speech, anti-cultural diversity, police state that the ADL would like for our country. Throughout the nation the ADL is threatening police departments with all kinds of retribution if they don’t initiate state-funded lectures and seminars for law enforcement given by ADL spokesmen. The ADL rakes in large sums of money for these sessions, boosting their already overflowing coffers. Already ADL men have been seen at the scene of crimes ordering cops on how investigations are to be conducted.

Perhaps at no time in history has any other criminal organization, such as the ADL, been able to infiltrate and influence law enforcement to such an extent, and its tentacles are growing.

Freshmen sheriffs in San Diego are now being personally “trained” to respond to “crimes” by the Southwestern Director of the ADL, Morris Casuto.

The most alarming part -

The ADL is a very powerful, secretive racial/religious supremacist organization, with substantial ties to the underworld of crime and pornography. To burrow their way into the minds of children the ADL has created the “World of Difference” program designed to influence them at an early stage.

In a report to its few, but wealthy supporters in 1995, ADL boasts that it has reached more than ten million students and more are ready to be indoctrinated. The ADL hopes to make children susceptible to the world of crime and vice they and their criminal associates have in store for the USA.

Gallery of The Criminal ADL:

Abe Foxman. National Chairman of the hate group Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. His main job is to write to celebrities and powerful people who say something unkosher and temporarily forget that Jews are a special criticism-proof people. Claims whole family was “holocausted” in the last war.

Roy Bullock. The ADL’s paid informant who rummaged through trash for decades for the ADL, until he was given the sensitive position of being the conduit for stolen police files coming from the San Francisco Police Department by way of Tom Gerard. He was paid $550 per week for his services. Also an associate of racist sheriff Tim Carroll. His existence was discovered after the FBI raids on ADL offices in 1993 and resulted in the publicizing of 750 pages of information on the spying operations of the ADL.

Tom Gerard. San Francisco Police Officer who stole sensitive, confidential files from his agency and gave them to Roy Bullock to assist ADL’s spying operations on Americans. Among files stolen were ones on the Black Muslims, Arabs and right-wing organizations that were in any way critical of ADL. Received an all-expense paid luxury vacation in Israel, courtesy of the ADL.

Tim Carroll. Racist ex-detective in San Diego’s Sheriff Department. Remarked in 1993 that he would like to see “all illegal aliens shot” and “all the niggers sent back to Africa on a banana boat”. An associate of both Roy Bullock and Tom Gerard. He mysteriously retired from the Sheriff’s Department after the raids on the ADL offices at the early age of 54. Also received an all-expense paid luxury vacation in Israel, courtesy of the ADL. Despite his overtly racist nature, he was put in charge of security at the ADL’s National Convention in September, 1997 using strong-arm tactics against participants and visitors. This is interesting considering it was his bumbling confessions to an investigator that led to the raids on the ADL.

Mira Lansky Boland. The “law-enforcement liaison” for the ADL. She arranged luxurious trips to Israel for certain key police officers who could have something to offer the ADL in return. Among these were file thief Tom Gerard and racist Tim Carroll. She is uniquely positioned in that she is the granddaughter of Meyer Lansky, one of the most powerful Mafia figures in US history.

Hugh Hefner. Famous pornographer who was honored by the ADL with its ridiculous “Torch of Freedom” award. From him proceeds protection for all pornography in the US, which is and has always been associated with vice elements like the mob and ADL.

Larry Flynt. This pornographer is a major contributor to the ADL of 100,000′s of dollars. He has been jailed often for “obscene pornography” and the general hideous defiling of women in his Hustler magazine (whose description is beyond the limits allowed on a decent web page).

Theodore Silbert. Mob associate of Meyer Lansky, employee of the ADL and Mafia front “Sterling Bank.” Was simultaneously the CEO of “Sterling Bank” and National Commissioner of the ADL.

Moe Dalitz. Las Vegas mob figure and close associate of Meyer Lansky who was honored by the ADL in 1985.

Michael Milken. Family Fund Billion dollar fund that has given extensively to the ADL, the money of which was made in the “junk bond” scandals.

Morris Casuto. Jewish Southwestern Director of the ADL who personally trains freshmen law enforcement to do the bidding of him and his criminally indicted organization. Morris Casuto is also close friends with white racist Tim Carroll. Boasted in March 1999 that Alex Curtis’ “luck will run out. And he will be sent to prison for a very long time.” Is this a threat from a man whose group has already been criminally indicted for nefarious connections to rogue police agents?

Rick Barton. National Commissioner of ADL . Another racial integrationist who lives on an expensive cul-de-sac in pure white Olivenhain.

Teresa Santana. Deputy DA of San Diego who works with the criminal ADL and prosecutes non-Jews for imaginary “hate crimes” against Jews.

Bill Kolender Jewish Head of San Diego Sheriff’s Office who is a member of B’nai B’rith, the racist secret society that oversees the criminal ADL. The anti-Zionist organisation The Nationalist Observer was raided by the SDSO in April 1999 for political reasons.

Jessica Lerner. Jewish Assistant Director of the San Diego hate office. Morris’ back- up spokeswoman when he is out of town or on his annual pleasure trip to Amsterdam, The Netherlands – sin capital of the world.

Dan Willis. La Mesa Police Department detective who is in close contact with Morris Casuto and has personally raided the home of Alex Curtis and the offices of The Nationalist Observer three times in the last year and a half.
Old August 24th, 2014 #745
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Anti Defamation League of Bnai Brith
Source: Reprinted from Free Speech - October 1998 - Volume IV, Number 10

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

by Dr. William Pierce

Last week I mentioned a recent attack on me by a Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. I gave this as an example of the way the Jews are able to use the mass media in America to serve their purposes. The specific point I made was that it is not necessary for all of the newspaper owners and editors and all of the local television station owners to be Jews in order for all of them to slavishly follow the Anti-Defamation League’s party line. This is a very important point, a point essential for us to understand if we want to have a free society, and I’ll elaborate on it now.

I mentioned last week that when the Anti-Defamation League — or ADL for short — handed out press releases on September 24 to newspapers and other media in which they said that the organization I head, the National Alliance, is “the single most dangerous organized hate group in America,” and that we are “linked” to bank robberies, bombings, and murders all over the country, virtually all of the media simply printed these wild charges without checking them for accuracy. Of all the hundreds of newspapers which printed the ADL’s charges, only one — West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette – even bothered to call me first and ask for my comments. Some of the newspapers, in paraphrasing the ADL’s press release, even managed to exaggerate the ADL’s lies. For example, the Tampa Tribune began its news story on September 25 with the line: “A domestic terrorist group with a following in Tampa poses an ongoing threat of violence, the Anti-Defamation League said in a report issued Thursday.” The ADL’s words “most dangerous organized hate group” have been transformed by the Tampa Tribune into “domestic terrorist group.” That’s a significant change. “Hate group” is an ill-defined term which you can apply to any organization with whose policies or doctrines you disagree. Groups opposed to abortion, for example, have been called “hate groups” by feminists and their supporters. “Terrorist group,” on the other hand, really suggests a group which actually engages in terrorist activity, such as bombings, assassinations, and the like.

Then there’s the Los Angeles Times, which in its September 25 story based on the ADL’s press release stated: “The group’s activities [that is the National Alliance's activities] — including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings — have been uncovered in at least 26 states.” I’ll repeat that: “the group’s activities — including violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.” The Los Angeles Times certainly makes it sound as if I’m the head of an organization which actually commits violent crimes such as robberies and bombings as a matter of course, doesn’t it? That was the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s list of “criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda.” What the ADL’s list actually suggests is that the perpetrators of various bombings and murders may be “linked” to the National Alliance by having read a book or a pamphlet published by the National Alliance or perhaps by having listened to one of my broadcasts. For example, one of the “incidents” in the ADL’s list of “criminal incidents linked to the National Alliance” reads: “December 1995, Fayetteville, North Carolina: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.” As I pointed out last week, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of James Burmeister before he shot a convicted Black drug dealer and the dealer’s girlfriend to death in Fayetteville in December 1995. But it certainly is possible that Burmeister listened to an American Dissident Voices broadcast or read some publication of the National Alliance. There are a lot of our publications in circulation. Burmeister also may have read Reader’s Digest or the Bible or Newsweek magazine, for all I know; there’s certainly a lot of criminal activity described in those publications. Anyway, the Los Angeles Times’ interpretation of the ADL’s claim that the National Alliance is linked through its publications to various criminal acts is that we did it: we committed the criminal acts ourselves. The paper said flatly that our activities include “violent crimes such as robberies and bombings.” And nobody from the Los Angeles Times even bothered to check with me first!

So what am I supposed to do: hire a bunch of lawyers and sue all of these newspapers and perhaps the ADL too? Perhaps I will — but I doubt that anyone who has actually been involved in a libel suit would suggest such a course. The civil litigation system in the United States has been designed for the sole purpose of enriching lawyers, and because of that the system gives an overwhelming advantage to the litigant who has the most money to spend on lawyers. Perhaps some experienced civil-litigation lawyer who believes this is a worthy cause will contact me and offer his services.

But while I’m waiting for that, let me draw a few conclusions from this nasty business. First, I’ll mention that I’m not especially peeved at the ADL about this new report labeling me as the most dangerous man in America. That doesn’t mean I won’t sue them, but at least I know where they’re coming from. The ADL is a professional hate organization. They are hate merchants. That’s the way they earn their living: selling hate. Along with a handful of other Jewish organizations — the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center, for example — the ADL makes its money by persuading Jews and wannabee Jews around the country that they are in great danger from people like me — but if everyone will just send them a nice, fat check today, the ADL will protect these Jews and wannabees from me. And so the ADL — and these other hate merchants — put out deliberately scary press releases to drum up donations. If the newspapers exaggerate things a bit, why so much the better. That’s why the press releases tend to be a little deceptive, why they are written in a way calculated to lead to misinterpretation.

The ADL is the oldest and most powerful of these Jewish hate groups in the United States. It was founded in 1913, after a Jewish factory owner in Atlanta, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and killing a 14-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his factory. The killer was sentenced to death by the court, and there was a great deal of publicity about the case at the time. Powerful Jewish organizations came to Frank’s defense, and in behind-the-scenes maneuvering they were able to persuade Georgia’s governor to commute Frank’s death sentence. This blatantly corrupt act by the governor working in cahoots with his rich Jewish supporters so enraged the populace that a vigilante group of citizens took Frank out of jail and hanged him themselves. The Jews, realizing that they had bungled the Frank affair, organized the ADL for the purpose of handling such matters more skillfully in the future. In the past 85 years the ADL has grown to become the most powerful Jewish pressure group and lobbying organization in America.

Recent ADL lobbying projects have been the promotion of gun control laws and of state laws banning military-style training by patriotic groups. The ADL’s biggest project for this decade, however, has been so-called “hate crime” legislation. Hate crime laws attempt to punish a person for what he was thinking before or during the commission of an offense against a member or a group of members of an officially favored minority. For example, if you set fire to a synagogue because you don’t like Jews, you’re liable for a much more severe punishment than you would be if you were hired by the rabbi to set fire to a synagogue so the congregation could collect the insurance. Arson is no longer simply arson. Now there’s arson, and there’s “hate arson.” And to decide which it is, the government may look into your personal taste in reading material, check into the type of music you listen to, investigate your political and religious affiliations, ask your friends about any expressions of Politically Incorrect opinions you may have made — and then present all of this information in court as evidence against you. The whole concept of “hate crime” is Orwellian. It turns traditional American concepts of law and individual freedom on their heads. But because the noisiest group of people pushing for “hate crime” legislation are Jews, no politician dares speak against it. Bill Clinton is the Jews’ current point man on Federal “hate crime” legislation.

One category of “hate crime” is “hate speech.” In fact, the outlawing of what the ADL people call “hate speech” is their ultimate aim. “Hate speech,” of course, is whatever they find offensive or dangerous to their interests. I find a lot of the films coming out of Hollywood these days offensive, and a lot of television programming, but you can be sure that’s not what the ADL has in mind when it campaigns for laws against “hate speech.” The ADL is especially concerned about the propagation of what they consider dangerous ideas over the Internet and has been working with software developers to develop censorship programs which can be installed on any computer, so that computer users cannot find any Politically Incorrect material on the Internet.

Lobbying to stamp out the Bill of Rights isn’t the ADL’s only activity. They’re also the largest and most effective private espionage organization in America. They have their spies in every community in America where there are Jews or wannabees. Reports go from their regional offices around the country to massive data banks in New York and in Israel, where the ADL maintains dossiers on hundreds of thousands of Americans. For example, if a state legislator somewhere in America makes a speech which a Jewish listener considers unfriendly to Israel, a report goes into the ADL data bank. If a businessman at a Chamber of Commerce meeting makes a joke which might indicate a less-than-worshipful attitude toward Jews, and a wannabee informs the ADL of the joke, that businessman will henceforth have a dossier in the ADL’s files. Then if that state legislator or that businessman ever runs for Congress, say, the ADL will search its files for his name, find his record, and launch a campaign against him as an “enemy of Israel” or as an “anti-Semite.”

And the ADL has not hesitated to break the law in its spying activity. In April 1993 police obtained search warrants and raided the offices of the ADL in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where they found hundreds of stolen confidential police files. Some of these police files were on anti-apartheid activists in the United States, and the ADL had passed copies on to the South African government in return for South African police files on pro-Palestinian groups in South Africa. This caused a stink even in liberal circles, which ordinarily are pro-ADL. And this business of the ADL’s stolen police files is still in the courts in California.

So as I said, I understand where the ADL is coming from. I’m not surprised that they consider my broadcasts dangerous. I’m not surprised that they want to shut me up and are trying to do that with their current smear campaign, claiming that I am “linked” to bombings and murders. I expect that sort of behavior — I expect lies of that sort — from the ADL. What’s really disappointing is the enthusiastic collaboration the ADL receives from the politicians and the media. The two newspapers I cited a minute ago, the Tampa Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, for example, are essentially Gentile newspapers, as far as I have been able to determine. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the editors and publishers of these two newspapers are not Jews. So why do they go out of their way to exaggerate the ADL’s lies about me? Why does the Tampa Tribune call the National Alliance a “domestic terrorist group”? Why does the Los Angeles Times say that the activities of the National Alliance include “violent crimes such as robberies and bombings”? Why did neither of these newspapers contact someone in my office and ask about the ADL’s claims before printing them? Why didn’t any of the newspapers which carried the ADL’s attack on me mention the ADL’s history of illegal activity?

Let me tell you what I think about that. I believe that in general there are two factors at work here. I’ll call them the corruption factor and the lemming factor. Let’s look at the corruption factor first. It’s the factor which motivates virtually all of the non-Jewish politicians, but also many non-Jews in the media. It’s the factor which has led Bill Clinton to pack his cabinet with Jews and to promote every Jewish policy they have presented him with. It’s the factor which has led New York’s Senator Alphonse D’Amato to serve as front man for the Jews’ huge extortion effort against the Swiss. These politicians don’t work for the Jews because they love Jews. Nobody loves Jews. They do it because they’re corrupt, because they’re willing to sacrifice the interests of their own people in order to serve the Jews if they believe that they can advance their careers by doing that. And many businessmen are just as corrupt as the politicians. They will do whatever they think is good for their business, whatever will give them the biggest profit. And some businessmen are in the media business. They understand that Jews buy more advertising than any other group. They understand that Jews own a bigger chunk of the media than any other group. They understand which side their bread is buttered on.

And so when the ADL attacks me these media businessmen are ready to fall on me like a pack of starved Dobermans in order to curry favor with the Jews. But you know, the interesting thing about these corrupt people, whether they’re in politics or in the media business, as soon as they believe that the balance of power is shifting, they’ll jump. They’d as soon tear apart the Jews as they would the enemies of the Jews. That’s something to keep in mind as our struggle proceeds.

Now, the lemmings in the media are more interesting than the corrupt businessmen. I’ve dealt with a lot of media people over the years, and one of the observations I’ve made is that they are the trendiest single occupational group in our society — even trendier than people in police work. I don’t think I’ve ever met a journalist who had an original idea or who didn’t follow the Jewish party line with a truly religious devotion. They all march in ideological lockstep.

I think it wasn’t always this way. Back before the Second World War there were a few journalists in America who could think for themselves. H.L. Mencken is one who comes to mind. Nowadays, of course, the party-line journalists shrink in horror and embarrassment from the mention of Mencken’s name. Mencken — gasp! — didn’t like Jews and occasionally said so.

I can’t say that I really understand why journalists today are such lemmings, but I am sure that it’s more than the fact that Jews are so powerful in the media: I’m sure that it’s more than corruption, as in the case of the politicians and businessmen. I suspect that today’s journalists are people who have been more intensely socialized than most of the rest of the population. They are people who have been subjected to stronger group pressures to conform and have been selected according to how well they adapted to these pressures. Perhaps the journalism departments at our universities don’t accept students who don’t fit the lemming mold. Anyway, journalists certainly do have a very strong tendency to stick close to the herd and to regard with suspicion and hostility anyone who has strayed very far from the herd.

Now, this is an oversimplification, but I believe that the reason so many media people fell in love with Bill Clinton as soon as he appeared on the political scene back in 1991 or so is that they saw him as one of their crowd, their herd. “Bill marched with us for the Viet Cong,” they thought. “Bill partied and smoked dope with us. He’s one of us.”

And they look at me and they think: “This guy Pierce is from the other side of the tracks. Instead of helping us trash the dean’s office, he joined the John Birch Society. He doesn’t belong to our crowd, so let’s trash him too.” Anyway, I believe that there’s an element of that sort of thinking in the average journalist’s mentality.

Now, the bright side of this picture is that people who think like lemmings and have been conditioned by group pressure to have certain views can very easily be conditioned to have quite different views by the simple application of group pressure in a new direction. You won’t be able to change an independent thinker’s opinions this way, but if you put 100,000 typical journalists in a labor re-education camp and then select out 1,000 of them with leadership potential, straighten out the thinking of this 1,000 with two-by-fours, then put them in charge of the others, and put all except the 1,000 reoriented commissars on a diet of 300 calories a day, in a year every journalist in the camp will be reoriented: skinny, but sincerely reoriented. You can turn them loose with complete confidence that they’ll follow the new party line just as slavishly as they followed the old party line, even after they’ve regained their former weight. That’s the way lemmings are.

There’s one other aspect of the ADL’s operation which merits scrutiny, and that is its program of corrupting police departments around the country. At the press conferences they held in their regional offices last month when they promoted me to “most dangerous man” they had a number of local police officials with them. The appearance of these police officials on the platform along with the ADL’s Jews tended to give the press conferences a sort of quasi-official or quasi-governmental atmosphere, and that undoubtedly encouraged the reporters present to accept the ADL’s lies without question.

Some of the police officials were there because they have political ambitions. They’re planning on running for the state legislature some day, and they want the Jews’ backing. Others were there because the ADL has assiduously been cultivating its relationships with police agencies for many years. The ADL offers “anti-terrorist” seminars to police departments and indoctrinates policemen with its hate propaganda under the guise of teaching them how to recognize and combat “domestic terrorists” — such as William Pierce. The ADL gets away with this despite its own record of criminal activity. The ADL has been able to persuade the cops to overlook its having been caught with stolen police files. That’s a little frightening. If we had a government with integrity, the ADL would be dangerous enough. But with a government like we have in the United States today, every decent citizen must regard with horror the subversion of our police agencies by the ADL.

© 1998 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
Old August 24th, 2014 #746
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Changing Role of the Anti Defamation League
Source: The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 1993, Page 18

The Changing Role of B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation

By Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal

Following an April raid on the offices of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) by the San Francisco police, the San Francisco Chronicle broke the story of a nationwide political spy operation. ADL had illegally obtained information from a corrupt police officer, Tom Gerard (who fled initially to the Philippines, which has no extradition treaty with the U.S., but later concluded his life was in danger if he stayed overseas), and Roy Bullock, a political informant and infiltrator on the ADL payroll since 1960. In the ADL offices were files on Arab Americans and members of Greenpeace, NAACP, the Mills College faculty and various other institutions, groups and individuals.

B’nai B’rith, ADL’s parent organization, was founded in 1843 as a Jewish counterpart of fraternal orders then flourishing in America. The new group’s purpose, as described in its constitution, called for the traditional functions performed by Jewish societies in Europe: “Visiting and attending the sick” and “protecting and assisting the widow and the orphan. ” Its founders had hoped that it soon would encompass all Jews in the United States. This did not happen, however, since other Jewish organizations also were forming around the same time.

In 1913 Leo Frank, a northern Jewish executive of a factory in Atlanta, Georgia, was arrested and charged with the murder of a young girl working in the factory. In an atmosphere of mob fury, he was declared guilty, even though the evidence was inconclusive. He was kidnapped from state prison and lynched. This obvious miscarriage of justice and manifestation of prejudice led to the formation by B’nai B’rith of the ADL as the first group organized explicitly to fight anti-Semitism. What exactly constituted anti-Semitism was to receive continually different interpretations. With the creation of Israel in 1948, the meaning of that word was broadened and, eventually, totally distorted.

Because it dealt with a subject of increasing importance to Jews everywhere, and one about which emotions could be aroused easily, the ADL soon emerged as the most powerful Jewish organization in the U.S., even outshining its B’nai B’rith parent organization and the aristocratic, well-financed American Jewish Committee.

Benjamin Epstein and Arnold Forster, ADL’s two most important executives over a 35-year period, wrote a number of widely distributed books, which often received front-page notice even before they were published. These included The Trouble Makers (Doubleday, 1952); Cross Currents (Doubleday, 1956); Some of My Best Friends (Farrar Strauss, 1962); A Danger on the Right (Random House, 1964); Report on the John Birch Society (Random House, 1966); and The Radical Right (Random House, 1967).

ADL can exert enormous influence and intimidation.

The direction which the organization was to take was made clear in the initial book, which described a “secret meeting” between Azzam Pasha, then secretarygeneral of the Arab League, and members of a new organization, the Holy Land Emergency Program (HELP), organized to assist the newly created Palestinian refugees. The book charged that a conspiracy was hatched at the meeting to spread anti-Jewish propaganda. In fact, no such meeting ever took place. At the time of the alleged meeting, HELP already had ceased to exist.

At the very outset of the Palestine question, the Anti-Defamation League’s publication, The Facts, sought to place an antiSemitic label on the activities of such friends of justice for the dispossessed in Palestine as Barnard College Dean Virginia Gildersleeve, U.S. presidential emissary Kermit Roosevelt, and former American University of Beirut President Bayard Dodge.1 The publication’s May 1948 issue charged: “Their espousal of the Arab League cause and opposition to Zionism has been marked by the increasingly hostile attitude toward the Jewish people themselves. While anti-Zionism and sympathy for the Arab cause are not necessarily indications of anti-Semitic prejudice, there are many whose pro-Arab utterances and activities have contained sufficiently expressed or implied anti-Semitism to give cause for genuine alarm. ”

This same strategy to discredit critics of Israel or defenders of Palestinian human rights has been employed by the ADL ever since. “Guilt by association” and “guilt by juxtaposition” -intermingling the names of those who might more accurately be deemed sincere critics of specific policies of Israel or its U.S. lobbyists with those of notorious bigots like Father Coughlin or Gerald L. K. Smith-have become hallmarks of ADL publications and public pronouncements. By using smear tactics to intimidate or discredit opponents, ADL has largely succeeded in impressing its will and interpretation of Middle East events on American public opinion.

The ADL has some 31 regional offices around the country and three in Canada, with an annual budget of more than $32 million. It employs a professional staff of 400, including specialists in human relations, communications, education, urban affairs, social sciences, religion and law. In addition, it has unpaid representatives in hundreds of communities from coast to coast and has compiled thousands of secret dossiers on private citizens in Canada and the United States.

“Notorious” Activities

In 1983, the ADL released a handbook, Pro-Arab Propaganda in America: Vehicles and Voices, projected to be the first in a regularly updated series. Individuals or organizations who voiced the slightest criticism of Israel or Zionism found themselves listed in this volume with a list of their “notorious” activities. All were portrayed as extremists seeking to abolish the state of Israel and/or incite prejudice against Jewish Americans.

Each regional ADL office has its own board of directors drawn from local leaders and prominent citizens, some of them non Jews. In hundreds of communities throughout the nation, according to its own pamphlet, “The ADL is able to cooperate as a neighbor to solve important local problems. ” Through its multiple private and public reports and publications, allegedly directed against prejudice and bigotry, the ADL can exert enormous influence and intimidation, often bordering on blackmail, in organizations and individuals, particularly people in public life. It provides an indispensable backup for AIPAC’s effective lobbying of the Congress and White House on behalf of an ever-increasing economic and military aid to Israel.

As I pointed out in one of my books, The Zionist Connection I (and H), several ADL leaders, including directors Forster and Epstein, Seymour Graubard and the late Dore Schary (playwright, producer and influential figure in Hollywood), have boasted of ADL’s use of undercover agents. Trying to be as inoffensive as possible, Newsweek magazine called the ADL’s methodology “highly selective” and “never a total portrait.” Anyone reviewing the ADL’s reports would have to agree with author and famed Unitarian minister Dr. John Nicholls Booth that the ADL continually “strains to fit the products of its own espionage into the procrustean bed of its own personal predilections.

Many ADL charges against critics of Israel and Zionism are totally inaccurate, questionable, or based upon half-truths. Its secret and confidential reports, widely distributed in liberal circles, often attribute the stock quotation, “but some of my best friends are Jews,” to its subjects, implying anti-Semitism. Odious impressions are created by twisting or distorting a few words, or the contest in which they were uttered.

With the help of the ADL and the plethora of Zionist and pro-Israel groups with which it cooperates, Israeli intelligence has continued to penetrate into every part of the U.S. The Pollard case represented only the apex of this activity. Even synagogues and rabbis have become unpaid vigilantes in the effort to compile files and lists of alleged anti-Semites, and to obtain any information of possible use to Israel or its U.S. operatives. A cynical Pentagon joke was that confidential military memos had to be typed in triplicate: “One for the White House, one for the State Department, and one for Tel Aviv.”

A New Definition of Anti-Semitism

In The New Anti-Semitism, Forster and Epstein’s seventh and final book, a new and stunningly broad definition of antiSemitism was set forth:

“The hostility of the Radical Left, the Radical Right, pro-Arab groups, black extremists, and malingering anti-Jewish hatemongering that has plagued the United States since the early ’20s has allegedly now been augmented by others within the government, the media, the clergy and the arts who are insensitive to Jews and Jewish concerns, particularly to the needs and wants of the state of Israel. The heart of the new anti-Semitism abroad in our land lies in the widespread incapacity or unwillingness to comprehend the necessity of the existence of Israel to Jewish safety and survival throughout the world. ”

In his foreword to the tract, national ADL Chairman Seymour Graubard laid the groundwork for the kind of tactics recognizable in the current revelations from San Francisco:

“While the memory of the Nazi Holocaust was fresh in mind, anti-Semitism was silenced. As that memory fades, however, as Jews are more and more being considered a part of the Establishment, there are new growths of anti-Semitism. They are being nurtured in a climate of general insensitivity and deterioration of morality and ethics, the kind of climate, history reminds us, in which anti-Semitism grows best. ”

The ADL was ever ready to apply the smear and vilification so as to censure and silence, thus building an iron curtain over America that would bar any criticism, however constructive, of Israel, Zionists, or Jews (Judaism is rarely, if ever, involved). The book from which the quotations above were taken led New York Post columnist James Wechsler, a long-time, avid friend of Israel, to write that the latest ADL work “is grievously flavored by an intolerance of their own in equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. ” Calling the presentation “illegitimate and uncivil,” the columnist decried a work which “proceeds from a well-documented dissection of the frenzies of an obvious antiSemite, Gerald L. K. Smith, to a loose indictment of Senator J. William Fulbright and columnists Evans and Novak. They do not explicitly apply the label ‘anti-Semitic’ to the latter three. But the context in which the attack appears-indeed their inclusion in the volume-carries, to borrow their words, ‘an unmistakable message’ and an inescapable ‘innuendo. “‘

It can be said without exaggeration that the ADL is the single most influential organization in the United States. It works closely with the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, and sometimes with the FBI or CIA. Through its multifold activities and ability to crush dissent, it is probably more responsible for American attitudes and American foreign policy toward the Middle East than any other single force.

The annual Washington conferences of the parent organization, B’nai B’rith, draw the presence of presidents and presidential aspirants. No politician with national ambitions will forego the opportunity of doing public battle with the specter of Adolf Hitler. At these conferences, however, ADL itself maintains the lowest possible profile. Few of these same politicians are prepared to associate themselves with its violations of the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, and the letter of America’s Bill of Rights.

1Its January-February 1957 issue devoted its four pages to detailing the “noxious” and varied activities of this writer following the publication of What Price Israel? three years earlier.

Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal is the author of There Goes the Middle East, The Other Side of the Coin, and the monumental The Zionist Connection. He edits the Middle East Perspective Reader.

© Copyright 1995-1999, American Educational Trust. All Rights Reserved.
Old August 24th, 2014 #747
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Corruption of Americas Children by the ADL
Source: U.S. Newswire | October 22, 2001

The Corruption of America’s Children by the ADL

NEW YORK — At this time of national tragedy, children want answers as much as adults do. With that in mind, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Sesame Workshop, creators of the acclaimed series Sesame Street, announce a new and unique anti-bias education project for parents and educators of preschool-age children, The Miller Early Childhood Initiative of A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE(r) Institute.

“While there is no vaccine against hate, we know the only antidote is education, and this project is a great way to begin the fight,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “We cannot think of a better way to relate to children than through the characters of Sesame Street, one of the most beloved and documented resources for teaching children how to accept others.”

“A child responds far better to lessons about tolerance and diversity from someone speaking in their voice who is recognizable to them from the start,” said Gary E. Knell, President & CEO, Sesame Workshop. “Today’s generation of parents, who grew up on Sesame Street themselves, are now watching the show with their own children, who are learning the same lessons.”

Two kickoffs launched the program, one on October 18th at the Carole Robertson Center for Learning in Chicago, and one on October 22nd at the Bright Horizons Family Solutions Center in Manhattan.


Seeing a need for a comprehensive anti-bias training program for early childhood educators, ADL and Sesame Workshop teamed up to collaborate on The Miller Early Childhood Initiative of A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE(r) Institute. The goal of the Initiative is to assist educators, families and caregivers in creating and sustaining bias-free early childhood programs and homes that encourage children to appreciate diversity at an age when the seeds of prejudice can begin to take root. To achieve this, ADL’s trained facilitators will deliver workshops to early childhood educators, families and caregivers while supporting them with three print resources to use in their programs and homes. Research and experience have shown that by preschool age, many children have begun to acquire negative feelings about themselves as well as others. This program will help to address these feelings so children can develop a healthy appreciation of themselves, along with an appreciation of people who are physically and culturally different.

Materials and Resources

All of the resources of The Miller Early Childhood Initiative feature characters created by Sesame Workshop, including Elmo, Cookie Monster, Bert and Ernie and Big Bird. In addition to a poster that supports the discussions and goals that the program highlights, three bias-free foundations workbooks provide further resources to challenge stereotypes and show how diverse people solve a conflict together.

The Early Childhood Activities for Families offers guidance for parents on how to talk to your child, expose your child to diversity, choose toys and books that reflect the world around your child and how to be aware of your own biases when choosing the language you use in front of your children.

The Early Childhood Guidebook for Educators is designed with four goals of anti-bias education in mind. They are:

– Nurturing a child’s construction of knowledge, positive self-identity and group identity

– Promoting a child’s comfortable, empathetic interaction with people from a diverse background

– Foster a child’s critical thinking about bias

– Cultivate a child’s ability to stand up for themselves and for others in the face of bias

Additionally, the guidebook explains to the educator how to review his or her surroundings to ensure the environment in which the program is to take place is prepared to be inclusive to all children and sensitive to cultural differences. Educators and parents will also receive a copy of the Early Childhood Resources manual which contains reading lists, suggested music for children, Internet resources and the references from the two guidebooks for families and educators.


The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was founded in 1913 to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.” ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all. A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups through a network of 30 regional offices in the United States and abroad.

ADL’s A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE(r) Institute, created in 1985, is an international anti-bias and diversity education program used by schools, universities, corporations and community and law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and abroad. A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE(r) Institute programs provide practical, experiential, hands-on training with skills to challenge prejudice and discrimination, to foster intergroup understanding and to equip participants to live and work successfully and civilly in a diverse world.

Sesame Workshop is a not-for-profit educational organization that stands alone in its ability to creatively help solve major educational and developmental needs that affect children around the world. For over 30 years, the Workshop has created innovative and engaging media to help all children reach their highest potential. The organization grounds its work in research to understand how multi-media platforms help children learn, develop and grow. Best known as the creators of Sesame Street, Dragon Tales and Sagwa, the Chinese Siamese Cat airing on PBS, the Workshop continues to break new ground with Noggin, the only 24-hour kids’ thinking channel. Find the Workshop online at

The Miller Early Childhood Initiative of A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE Institute was made possibly through generous sponsorship of the Harvey L. Miller Family Foundation, based in Chicago.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
Old August 24th, 2014 #748
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Corruption of Americas Police by the ADL
Source: Reprinted from Free Speech - November 1998 - Volume IV, Number 11 (Images added)

The Corruption of America’s Police by the ADL

by Dr. William Pierce

Two weeks ago I began telling you about the corruption of American police officials by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith: the ADL. Because this is such an important matter, such an urgent matter, I promised I’d tell you more about it. It is a shocking thing, and I needed time to present the details to you — details which you can check for yourselves, so that you will have no doubt that I am telling you the truth. It’s easy to doubt this truth. It’s easy to believe that the ADL is the so-called “human rights” organization that the mass media say it is. It’s especially easy to believe this when you see ADL officials palling around with prominent politicians and policemen, when you see police chiefs and U.S. senators receiving awards at ADL banquets.

I’m telling you that the ADL is an anti-American gang of racketeers who break our laws with impunity because they have succeeded in corrupting our politicians and many of our law-enforcement people as well. And now I will prove that charge.

First, however, just as an aside, let’s note that the parent organization of which the ADL is a branch is named B’nai B’rith. That name may sound strange to your ears because it is a Hebrew name. B’nai means “sons,” and b’rith — which is often pronounced “briss” by American Jews — means “circumcision.” B’rith — or briss — refers to the ritual circumcision of Jewish males which according to Jewish tradition is a sign of their “chosenness” or their special covenant with the Hebrew tribal deity Yahweh. You probably won’t find “b’rith” in your dictionary with the apostrophe the way it’s spelled by the ADL, but you should be able to find “briss.” So in English B’nai B’rith means the Circumcised Brotherhood. But really, it’s a criminal brotherhood, whose members are marked by circumcision much in the way many Japanese criminals who belong to the yakuza are marked by a missing fingertip, or members of many drug gangs are marked by a distinctive tattoo.

As I told you two weeks ago the ADL was founded in 1913 after a wealthy Jewish factory owner, Leo Frank, was convicted of raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl who worked in his Atlanta pencil factory. The trial of Frank was accompanied by a great deal of very embarrassing publicity for the Jews, and the ADL was organized primarily as a propaganda organization to neutralize such bad publicity: thus its name, Anti-Defamation League. But since 1913 the ADL has been involved in much more than pro-Jewish propaganda. As an arm of B’nai B’rith, which is an international organization with its tentacles in nearly every country on earth, the ADL has expanded its scope of interests and activities to include virtually everything concerning Jews anywhere.

For example, after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in the Jews riding high in Russia, the ADL concerned itself with countering the charge that the Jews had anything to do with communism, which never was popular in mainstream America. After the Second World War, when hundreds of communist spies — virtually all of whom turned out to be Jews — were being rooted out of the U.S. government during the so-called McCarthy era, the ADL worked overtime to discredit anti-communists. To the ADL, anyone who was anti-communist was “anti-Semitic.” Arnold Forster, who changed his name from Fastenberg and who was the ADL’s general counsel for 46 years, wrote in his 1988 memoirs, Square One, about the case of the atomic spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: “Like so many others, Jew and non-Jew alike, I suffered deep pain when the Rosenbergs were executed.”

The ADL had a significant role in the Jewish propaganda effort to portray the flushing out of Soviet agents from U.S. institutions as a “witch hunt.” Today most educated Americans who were born too late to experience the late 1940s and early 1950s as adults actually believe the Jewish propaganda myth that it was a dark period in American history, when everyone was looking over his shoulder, afraid of being denounced as a spy by a government informant. The Jews, of course, who had been almost to a man partisans of the Soviet Union, were looking over their shoulders. But ordinary Americans certainly didn’t feel intimidated by the government’s efforts to rid itself of the Soviet influences which had gained a strong foothold during the war.

In 1948, when the Jews made their first big land-grab in the Middle East after the war, forming the state of Israel with land stolen from the Palestinians, the ADL saw its principal new role as a defender of Israel. The label “anti-Semite” henceforth was applied by the ADL to anyone who was pro-Arab or who did not approve of American support for Israel. Being seen as a champion of Israel rather than as a champion of communism helped enormously with the ADL’s fund-raising efforts. Among others giving large sums of money to the ADL after 1948 were a number of Jewish organized crime figures, who felt a strong sympathy for Israel. These gangsters, including Jews such as Meyer Lansky, Longy Zwillman, and Moe Dalitz, were engaged in the White slave trade, in illegal drug trafficking, and in nearly every other kind of criminal activity imaginable. The ADL’s relationship with Moe Dalitz, one of the most notorious gangsters in America, may suffice to indicate the pattern.

Morris — or “Moe” — Dalitz, like many other organized crime figures before the Second World War, got his start in the illegal booze business during Prohibition. Dalitz was the boss of a criminal organization in Detroit known as the “Purple Gang,” whose principal activity was smuggling whisky across the Detroit River from Canada into the United States.

The controlled media, through popular fiction and films like The Godfather, have given most Americans the erroneous idea that organized crime in America has been almost entirely an Italian affair. Although Sicilians and Italians made up most of the lower ranks of the Mafia and other gangster organizations in the 1920s and 1930s, at the top there were at least as many Jews as Italians. And some of the most notorious and bloodthirsty criminal organizations were entirely Jewish, or nearly so. Murder, Incorporated, is an example of a Jewish criminal gang. Moe Dalitz’s Purple Gang is another example.

Dalitz eventually moved his whisky-smuggling operation from Detroit to Cleveland and joined forces with another group of Jewish gangsters there. They moved so much illegal booze across Lake Erie that it become known popularly as the “Jewish lake.” It’s good to remember that gangsters like Dalitz did much more than smuggle whisky. They corrupted American society and American government. They bribed judges and politicians and police officials on a huge scale. They murdered people: hundreds of people. And when Prohibition ended in 1933 the gangsters simply switched from smuggling to extortion, loan-sharking, and White slavery. After the war they moved into the drug trade.

Toward the end of the war Dalitz and several other Jewish gangsters, including Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky, began investing their ill-gotten wealth in Las Vegas. Soon they were all casino owners. Dalitz was one of the original owners of the Flamingo, which opened in 1946. Dalitz later took over the Desert Inn and became a part owner of the Stardust Hotel. His gang became known as the “Desert Syndicate.” Dalitz and Lansky eventually decided that Bugsy Siegel was cheating them, and in June 1947 they ordered him killed in one of the most spectacular “rubouts” of the postwar period. After that Moe Dalitz was the undisputed “Godfather” of Las Vegas.

Over the years a great deal of Moe Dalitz’s criminal income found its way into the coffers of the ADL — so much so that in 1985 the ADL gave its so-called “Torch of Liberty” award to Dalitz. The award ceremony was a black-tie affair featured on the front page of the ADL Bulletin, in which Dalitz was praised as a “philanthropist” and “deep appreciation” was expressed for his financial contributions to the ADL. And of course, the controlled media were discreet about the relationship between Dalitz and the ADL. There were never any headlines in the New York Times or the Washington Post about the ADL’s ties to the mob, but anyone who has the time to dig back through the issues of the ADL Bulletin at a major library, will find Dalitz on the front page in 1985. Moe Dalitz himself was killed four years later, in 1989, in a gang shootout which also left seven other people dead. But the ADL had plenty of other Jewish gangsters contributing money by then.

The ADL was able to flaunt its relationship with Moe Dalitz and accept tainted money from him and other gangsters — money which was the product of criminal activity — without fear of legal repercussions, because at the same time it had been cultivating its relationships with Jewish organized crime bosses, it also had been cultivating its relationships with law-enforcement officials, especially in the FBI. During the post-war period the Jews spearheaded the effort to force racial integration on America, and they were bitterly resented by segregationist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan struck out at the Jews almost as much as at Blacks. The most newsworthy Klan effort in that regard was the killing of two Jewish agitators, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, in Mississippi in June 1964. The Hollywood propaganda film, Mississippi Burning, was based on this incident.

To get revenge against the Klan for the Goodman and Schwerner killings — and also to put the Klan in its place — the ADL arranged a trap. Working in collusion with the FBI, the New Orleans office of the ADL, headed at that time by Adolph Botnick, paid two leaders of the Klan in Mississippi, brothers Alton Roberts and Raymond Roberts, to initiate a Klan project to bomb the home of Meyer Davidson, the ADL leader in Meridian, Mississippi. On June 30, 1968, two unsuspecting Klan members drove up to Davidson’s home, intending to put a bomb on his front porch. They were Kathy Ainsworth, a young school teacher, and Thomas Tarrants. The FBI was hiding in the bushes, waiting for them, and opened fire on them as soon as they got out of their car. Kathy Ainsworth was killed instantly in the hail of bullets, and Thomas Tarrants lay near death after being shot 70 times by the trigger-happy FBI agents. Clearly the plan was to kill both Ainsworth and Tarrants, execution style, as a warning to the Klan not to mess with the Jews. And as I said, the ADL and the FBI together set up this murder trap: the ADL supplied the cash for the informants and provocateurs, and the FBI supplied the executioners. The killing of Kathy Ainsworth was nothing less than a planned murder by the ADL.

This sort of criminal collaboration between the FBI and the ADL has continued to the present day. The ADL always has been an espionage organization, with much of its activity consisting in the gathering of personal information and the building of dossiers on everyone perceived as hostile to Jewish interests — and also on tens of thousands of other Americans as well, that the ADL might want to apply pressure to at some time in the future.

The FBI is prohibited by law from investigating people unless it has some evidence that they are involved in criminal activity, but the ADL operates under no such restrictions. The ADL hires people to steal the trash from the curbs in front of the homes of people it is interested in, and it engages in many even less savory practices. And the ADL is generally happy to swap information with the FBI, providing the FBI with confidential personal information on people the FBI is interested in but has no legal basis for investigating. The ADL and the FBI do favors for each other.

Occasionally, however, the ADL’s espionage work has gotten it into trouble. In addition to stealing the trash from in front of people’s homes, the ADL has illegally obtained confidential information on thousands of Americans by bribing employees in departments of motor vehicles or in police departments, including the San Francisco Police Department. When the San Francisco police realized that some of their confidential files had been stolen by the ADL, they obtained search warrants. The Los Angeles and San Francisco offices of the ADL were raided by the police twice, first on December 10, 1992 and then again on April 8, 1993. In these raids thousands of stolen police files were recovered. The police also raided the homes of an ADL undercover agent, Roy Bullock; and a sergeant in the San Francisco Police Department, Thomas Gerard. Gerard, who had been stealing the police records for the ADL, subsequently fled to the Philippines to avoid prosecution.

Just prior to the April 1993 raids San Francisco Assistant District Attorney John Dwyer told news reporters: “The ADL is the target. Their involvement is just so great. People have called this the Gerard case. Now it’s the ADL case. Gerard is just their guy in San Francisco. The ADL is doing the same thing all over the country. There is evidence that the ADL had police agents in other cities. The case just gets bigger every day. The more we look, the more we find people involved.”

Although the Politically Correct media in America don’t like to publicize news which doesn’t “fit,” the ADL story was too big to suppress, and you can find extensive news coverage of the ADL raids in the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle in December 1992 and April 1993, including the statement I just quoted by the San Francisco assistant district attorney.

Among the 12,000 files on individuals and 950 files on organizations the police recovered in their raids, were files on the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee — the AADC — and many of its members. ADL employee Roy Bullock had been assigned the task of infiltrating the Arab group, and he had even gone so far as stealing a key to their Santa Ana, California, office. The ADL had an especially strong hatred for the AADC, because it countered the ADL’s pro-Israel propaganda with news reports on Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. On October 11, 1985, the chairman of the AADC, Alex Odeh, was killed by a booby-trap bomb when he opened the door of his office in Santa Ana, California.

It didn’t take the FBI very long to figure out who the bombers were, but the three Jewish suspects fled to Israel before they could be arrested. Even though Bullock had the stolen key of the AADC office in his possession at the time of the bombing, neither he nor any of his employers in the ADL were ever charged in connection with Odeh’s murder. Also in 1985 Jewish activists used a bomb to kill another target of ADL spying and hate propaganda. He was Tscherim Soobzokov, accused by the ADL of having worked with the Germans in the Caucasus during the Second World War. On August 15, 1985, a bomb exploded on Soobzokov’s front porch in Paterson, New Jersey, mortally wounding him.

The ADL used its illegally obtained files in other ways as well, passing some of them to foreign governments. At a court hearing in February 1993, the San Francisco assistant district attorney testified that the file of one American citizen which had been stolen by the ADL had been passed on to the government of Israel. That citizen was Mohammed Jarad, a man of Palestinian ancestry who owned a grocery store in Chicago. When Jarad visited his relatives in Israeli-occupied Palestine in January 1993, he was seized by the Israeli secret police as a result of information supplied to them by the ADL about Jarad’s pro-Palestine activity in the United States.

Morris Casuto, Southwestern Director of the ADL

Now the really disturbing thing about all of this ADL activity is not that the organization accepts money from known crime bosses or that it spies on American citizens and turns some of the information over to foreign governments or even that it sets up assassinations or incites terrorist bombings against its enemies. There are other criminal organizations in the United States even more heavily involved in violent criminal activity than the ADL. What makes the ADL more dangerous than any of these others is its ongoing corruption of police officials. In public ceremonies very much like the one honoring gangster Moe Dalitz, the ADL presents awards to police officials and politicians — including the same “Torch of Liberty” award they gave to Dalitz. The ADL regularly persuades local, state, and national police officials to appear on the speaker’s platform when the ADL is denouncing some new enemy of the Jews, just as they had police officials around the country at their press conferences a month ago when they declared me the most dangerous man in America.

The ADL also offers training seminars to police departments to teach them how to recognize and deal with “right-wing terrorists,” believe it or not. And the police departments take them up on it; they have their officers sit and listen to the ADL, with its history of un-American and criminal activity, tell them about how to deal with people like me.

Why would any American police official accept an award from the same organization which had given an award to Moe Dalitz and praised him on the front page of its monthly publication? Why would any police official be seen in public with members of an organization caught red-handed with stolen police files? Why would the FBI collaborate with such an organization?

I think that in part it is naivete. Policemen tend to be respecters of authority, even more so than the average citizen. If the media praise the ADL as a “respected civil-rights organization,” and if ADL officials are obviously wealthy and well-connected men, with big offices and lots of secretaries, the police tend to feel that they must be all right. The feeling is that nobody who is rich and powerful and gets good press can be bad. The cops either haven’t seen the few media reports where the ADL got caught red-handed or they’ve conveniently forgotten.

But more often than naivete, I’m afraid that corruption is the reason for the collaboration. Certainly that is the case with the FBI. The FBI hasn’t forgotten about Moe Dalitz or the stolen police files or the bombing of Alex Odeh’s office. They certainly haven’t forgotten about the arranged murder of Kathy Ainsworth. And that’s frightening. The ADL alone is bad enough. The ADL teamed up with corrupt policemen all across the country should be a nightmare for every decent American.

Additional Reading: The New Ethnic Mobs by William Kleinknecht (Jewish organized crime). Available from National Vanguard Books.
Old August 24th, 2014 #749
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Ugly Truth About the ADL
Chapter 7


What follows is Chapter 7 from {The Ugly Truth About the ADL,}a soon-to-be published book which exposes the organized crime and drug-running activities of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. {The Ugly Truth About the ADL} will be released nationally before the end of 1992.

This chapter of the book concentrates on the ADL’s vendetta against anti-drug fighter Lyndon LaRouche, and is titled “Railroad!”

In early March 1986, within days of the assassination of Sweden’s Prime Minister Olof Palme, ADL Fact-Finding department chief Irwin Suall was en route to Stockholm. An Oxford University-trained Fabian Socialist, Suall was the ADL’s long-time top dirty trickster. Since 1978, with the publication of the book {Dope, Inc.}, Suall’s efforts had been almost obsessively focused against Lyndon LaRouche, the American political economist who had commissioned the anti-drug study published by New Benjamin Franklin House.

Suall’s transatlantic voyage to Stockholm was in pursuit of that obsession.

Working in tandem with the East German secret police (Stasi), the Soviet KGB, Swedish socialists, and NBC-TV, Suall helped launch the disinformation campaign blaming LaRouche and his Swedish collaborators in the European Labor Party for the Palme assassination.

Just as Suall’s efforts were

beginning to bear fruit with a series

of “LaRouche killed Palme” smear

stories in the U.S.A., Swedish, and Soviet

press, the ADL trickster was suddenly

confronted with a major crisis:

On March 16, 1986, two

LaRouche-backed candidates–Mark

Fairchild and Janice Hart–won the

Illinois Democratic Party primary

elections for lieutenant governor and

secretary of state, respectively. The

victory of the LaRouche candidates was

no fluke. LaRouche-backed candidates

had been winning between 20-40 percent

of the vote in Democratic primary

elections in different parts of the

country since the early 1980s. A

leading Democratic Party pollster had

written frantic messages to the

Illinois state party chairman warning

about a LaRouche upset months before

the election.

Not surprisingly, the upset

victory by the LaRouche slate was

electrifying. The Wall Street and

Freemasonic circles who own the ADL

were shocked into action.

Suall hurried back to New York

City, where he oversaw the preparation

and mass distribution of a violent ADL

smear sheet against LaRouche. Over the

next few months, according to records

of the Federal Election Commission,

over 6,000 copies of the ADL libel–at

a cost of at least $10,000–were

circulated to every member of Congress,

1,580 news outlets, and other government

offices and opinion makers. Tens of

thousands of media attacks against

LaRouche–branding him as everything

from an anti-Semite, to a KGB agent, to

a neo-Nazi, to an international

terrorist–were published in the United

States alone. Among some anti-Zionist

lobby and Third World circles, the ADL

even accused LaRouche of being a closet

“mole” for the Israeli Mossad! The

invariant in all the contradictory

slanders conjured up by the ADL was to

scare people away from the LaRouche

political movement.

The ADL smear campaign was a

panicked and flagrant violation of its

tax-exempt status. It was also a

violation of FEC rules, which prohibit

a tax-exempt organization from engaging

in politicking. On June 16, 1987, the

FEC officially acknowledged that the

ADL action against LaRouche was

illegal; but a few months later, the

commissioners decided they would take

no action against the League.

The smear campaign was meeting

with only modest political success,

although it had a severe effect as

financial warfare. LaRouche-Democrat

candidates continued to do well. In

1988, Claude Jones, a long-time and

well-known LaRouche activist, was

elected chairman of the Harris County,

Texas Democratic Party, shortly after

the Illinois victories. Harris County,

which includes Houston, is one of the

largest electoral districts in the

United States, and a Democratic Party

stronghold. Jones beat a powerful

incumbent to take over the party post.

The {Washington Post} in May

1986–summing up the consensus among

the liberal

establishment–editorialized that

Lyndon LaRouche must be in jail, not on

television, by the time of the 1988

presidential elections.

An Ongoing Frameup Effort

On October 6, 1986–less than

seven months after the Illinois

primary–400 federal, state, and county

police invaded the offices of the

LaRouche-associated Campaigner

Publications in Leesburg, Virginia. FBI

and Virginia State Police special

sniper units were backed up by a

Loudoun County SWAT Team. Helicopters,

fixed-wing aircraft, and even an

armored personnel carrier were held in

reserve at a 4-H fairgrounds a short

distance from the farm where Lyndon

LaRouche and his wife were staying. In

fact, recently disclosed government

documents demonstrate Pentagon

involvement in the Leesburg

raid–specifically the Special

Operations unit of the Joint Chiefs of


The mobilization of an invasion

force larger than that used in Grenada

in September 1983, to serve two search

warrants and four arrest warrants, was

not the result of over-zealous

planning. Since no later than 1982,

Irwin Suall, Mira Lansky Boland (the

Jonathan Jay Pollard-linked CIA

agent-turned ADL dirty trickster), and

an army of other ADL agents and assets

had been engaged in a systematic

campaign to sic the government on

LaRouche. By the time the raid took

place, the govermnent raiding party had

been so jacked up by ADL disinformation

that they were expecting to run into a

terrorist armed camp that would make

the Irish Republican Army green with


The March 1986 Illinois upset

victory provided the ADL and its

collaborators in what became known as

the Get LaRouche Strike Force with the

opportunity and motive to go all-out.

How did it work?

Since the spring of 1982,

according to the ADL’s own published

accounts, Suall and company were

closely collaborating with Henry

Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of

state, and long-time LaRouche hater. In

August 1982, Kissinger wrote to

then-FBI Director William Webster the

first of a series of personal letters

demanding that the FBI move to shut

down the LaRouche political movement.

In a more detailed note in

November, Kissinger’s attorney lied

that LaRouche had foreign intelligence

ties–a lie calculated to activate

government “active measures” under

the guidelines of Executive Order

12333. E.O. 12333, signed by President

Ronald Reagan in December 1981, gave

the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon

intelligence services broad latitude to

investigate and disrupt groups

suspected of working for hostile

foreign governments.

In January 1983, Kissinger’s

allies on the President’s Foreign

Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB)

made a formal request for such an

active measures campaign against

LaRouche. The FBI, operating through

Judge Webster and Oliver “Buck”

Revell, quickly launched such an


Ironically, as the Kissinger-ADL

wing of the national security and law

enforcement apparatus of the federal

government was activating its illegal

war against LaRouche, President

Reagan–with the backing of his

national security adviser Judge William

Clark, Defense Secretary Caspar

Weinberger, and other senior military

and security advisers–was moving ahead

with the Strategic Defense Initiative,

a plan based on a concept advanced by

LaRouche even before the Reagan

administration came into office.

According to court testimony in

Roanoke, Virginia by Richard Morris, Judge

Clark’s NSC security chief, LaRouche

had worked with the Reagan White House

on at least eight national security

projects–including SDI–most of which

are still classified to this day.

Was this a case of the right hand

not knowing what the left hand was

doing? Hardly! The ADL and Kissinger

were painfully aware of LaRouche’s

growing influence within the Reagan

administration, and they were out to

break the rules to shut down all the

LaRouche-Reagan ties.

According to court testimony by

the ADL’s Mira Lansky Boland on May 24,

1990 in Roanoke, Virginia, she was an active

participant from day one in the illegal

government covert operation against

LaRouche that led to the October 1986

raid, and a series of federal and state

criminal prosecutions in Boston; New

York City; Alexandria, Leesburg and

Roanoke, Virginia; and Los Angeles.

The black propaganda aspect of

that covert operation which we picked

up in Stockholm at the beginning of

this chapter was launched at an April

1983 meeting at the New York City

office of Wall Street broker and

self-styled intelligence agent John

Train. Mira Lansky Boland was present

at that secret meeting, representing

the ADL. National Security Council

consultant Roy Godson, a long-time ally

of the ADL, was also present, along

with a dozen journalists and editors

from such organizations as NBC News,

{Reader’s Digest, The New Republic} and

{Business Week.} A CIA funding conduit

deeply involved in the secret

Iran-Contra operations, the Smith

Richardson Foundation, provided the

cash for the orchestrated smear

campaign against LaRouche.

While much of the anti-LaRouche

propaganda spewed out of NBC, {The New

Republic,} the {Wall Street Journal}

and {Reader’s Digest} consisted of

name-calling aimed at scaring off

active and prospective LaRouche

supporters, enough charges of

“terrorism” and “international

espionage” were thrown in to assure

that federal and state prosecutors

would be forced to maintain open

investigative files and, eventually, to

launch grand jury probes.

The “kill phase” of the ADL-led

dirty war against LaRouche was already

well under-way when the spring 1986

events in Illinois took place.

Financial Warfare

The ADL-John Train black

propaganda campaign was not merely

aimed at discouraging voters from

pulling the levers for LaRouche

candidates on election day.

To successfully throw LaRouche in

jail–or worse–the ADL set out to

bankrupt the LaRouche publishing

operations and turn some of LaRouche’s

own supporters and financial backers

against him.

Spending millions of dollars, and

working with groups like the

CIA-spawned Cult Awareness Network

(CAN), ADL dirty tricksters targeted

thousands of LaRouche campaign

contributors, whose names, addresses

and phone numbers were maintained in

public files at the FEC. The ADL-CAN

operators would contact relatives,

financial advisers, and friends of the

LaRouche supporters, and literally

subject them to scare-tactic behavior

modification. The techniques used were

often those developed in the secret

laboratories of the CIA and the FBI for

use against enemy prisoners of war and

captured spies. Through these highly

illegal actions, the ADL built up a

profile list of weak and vulnerable

people, many senior citizens, whose

only “crime” was that they

financially supported the legitimate

political campaign activities of Lyndon

LaRouche. The names of these targets

were passed on to the Department of

Justice’s Get LaRouche Strike Force in

a fashion reminiscent of the worst of

the Nazi Gestapo operations.

In May 1988, after 92 days of

trial, the first federal prosecution of

Lyndon LaRouche and a half-dozen of his

associates came to a screeching halt

when Boston District Court Judge Robert

Keeton declared a mistrial. Evidence of

wild government misconduct–implicating

Oliver North and Vice President George

Bush–had disrupted the trial, so that

the government wanted to be done with

it. As press reports later showed, it

had also convinced the jury that any

criminal activity associated with the

case had been committed by the

government, not by Lyndon LaRouche.

Prosecution claims of credit card fraud

by LaRouche campaign fundraisers and

publications salesmen had been

thoroughly discredited.

The collapse of the first

government effort at framing up Lyndon

LaRouche was a direct blow to the ADL.

Mira Lansky Boland and Boston ADL

official Sally Greenberg had been

virtually integrated into the

prosecution staff of Assistant U.S.

Attorneys John Markham and Mark Rasch.

Although suffering a bad setback

in Boston, the ADL-driven prosecution

strike force had already opened up a

second front in its illegal drive to

wipe out the LaRouche movement.

In April 1987, Loudoun County, Virginia

Deputy Sheriff Don Moore, a Vietnam War

Marine bunkmate of Ollie North and a

secret paid agent of the ADL-CAN, wrote

a patently false affidavit for federal

prosecutors, claiming that LaRouche and

company were getting ready to pick up

stakes and go underground to avoid the

pending federal prosecution and the

prospect of paying large fines. The

Moore affidavit was then used by

then-U.S. Attorney Henry Hudson to

induce a federal bankruptcy judge to

order an involuntary bankruptcy against

three LaRouche-identified companies,

including two publications with a

combined circulation of 250,000

readers. In a highly illegal

“hearing” at which no stenographic

records were made and where no

attorneys representing the three

entities were present, the judge was

convinced to sign the seizure order.

The next day, U.S. marshals padlocked

and seized the same offices that had

been raided six months earlier.

Three years later, the same

federal bankruptcy court judge, after a

full trial of the bankrupty action,

reversed his initial ruling and threw

out the involuntary bankruptcy, ruling

that the government had filed the

petitions in “bad faith” and had

committed “fraud upon the court.” A

higher court upheld that ruling, and

the government chose not to appeal.

Why appeal it? The damage had

already been done!

With the bankrupting of the four

LaRouche companies, federal prosecutors

and FBI agents stepped in to advise

thousands of LaRouche supporters that

millions of dollars in loans they had

made to those companies would not be

paid–unless they cooperated with the

government railroad of LaRouche.

The claim that money would be paid

back if the “victims” played ball

with the government prosecutors was

another Big Lie. Once the printing

presses were shut down, and the

publications discontinued under the

government trustees, the companies were

penniless. No money could be paid

back–because the government had taken

the viable, successful publishing

operations and driven them into the

ground: first, through intensive ADL

propaganda branding LaRouche a monster,

and next through the fraudulent

bankruptcy proceeding itself.

In the majority of cases, the

LaRouche supporters knew it was the

government, not LaRouche, that was

behind the bankruptcy and their

personal losses. The former supporters

who did succumb to the government

pressure tactics were invariably those

whose families, bankers, friends, etc.

were already sucked in by the ADL-CAN

dirty war.

ADL Clearinghouse

Government prosecutors admitted

under oath that Mira Lansky Boland of

the ADL had served as the

“clearinghouse” for trial witnesses

in all of the federal and state

prosecutions of LaRouche and his

associates. Lansky worked from the

outset with Don Moore, the Loudoun

deputy sheriff who authored and signed

the fraudulent bankruptcy affidavit. In

September 1992, Don Moore was arrested

by the FBI for his role in a plot to

kidnap two LaRouche supporters. Moore

was working for the ADL-allied Cult

Awareness Network in the kidnapping

scheme. That case is scheduled to go to

trial at the end of 1992.

When in December 1988, a federal

jury in Alexandria, Virginia convicted

LaRouche and six associates on

conspiracy fraud charges stemming from

the government and ADL-instigated

bankruptcies, Mira Lansky Boland was

the only nongovernment official to

attend the “victory party” at the

prosecutors’ office. The conviction had

been won on the basis of a pretrial

order by Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr.

forbidding defense attorneys from

informing the jury that the government

had been responsible for the


Back in 1987, Bryan had

been the judge who had initially upheld

that bankruptcy action. At the

sentencing of LaRouche and the others

in January 1989, Judge Bryan boasted

that Boston trial Judge Robert Keeton

“owed him a cigar” for ensuring that

LaRouche and the others were so quickly

convicted and shipped off to prison.

The jailing of LaRouche in what

amounted to a thoroughly unjust life

sentence did not end the ADL drive to

destroy LaRouche and his political

movement. The Commonwealth of Virginia, as

part of the ADL’s Get LaRouche dirty

war, had joined in the feeding frenzy

by indicting over 20 LaRouche

associates on state charges stemming

from the identical bankruptcy scheme.

In a series of trials in Roanoke,

Virginia, the ADL was caught red-handed in a

judge-buying effort. State Judge

Clifford Weckstein, a political

protege of Virginia ADL chief

Murray Janus and other top state ADL

figures, was provided with a full

collection of ADL smear sheets on

LaRouche by the league. In a series of

back and forth letters released by

Weckstein in the trial of one of the

LaRouche defendants, it was revealed

that Janus and other local ADL

officials had mooted they would back

Weckstein for a seat on the Virginia

State Supreme Court. The implication

that his handling of the LaRouche

prosecutions would be crucial to his

future career on the bench was

apparently not lost on the judge.

Michael Billington, a LaRouche

associate who had already served over

two years in federal prison as the

result of the Alexandria federal case,

was sentenced by Weckstein to 77 years

in state prison on patently phony loan

fraud charges.
Old August 24th, 2014 #750
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Trapped in a Nazi Fantasyland
Source: The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, CODOH

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith:
Trapped in a Nazi Fantasyland

By Bradley R. Smith

MARVIN STERN, DIRECTOR FOR THE NORTHWEST Regional Branch of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), can’t conceal his bewilderment over what he calls “the growing Holocaust revisionist movement.” Mr. Stern expressed his dismay in a column published in The Oregonian, the largest-circulation daily in the Northwest. His alarm was triggered by the appearance in that newspaper of our ad, “A Revisionist’s View of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.”

Stern lays the blame for the growing influence of revisionism on the “ignorance” and “anti-semitism” of Americans. He appears not to understand that he’s charging tens of millions of American citizens with being ignorant, anti-Jewish bigots (a recent Roper poll reported 20 to 30 percent of adult Americans doubt they are being told the truth about the Holocaust story). Spokesmen for the ADL have propagandized themselves into an empty intellectual corner. Having refused to judge revisionist research on its merits, refusing still to admit that revisionists have any substantive arguments whatever, refusing debate or even an exchange of civility, the ADL’ers are left with no intellectual tools to work with but invective, misrepresentation, slander, and a sickly dependence on playing their “nazi” card.

One result of this intellectually and psychologically stunted behavior is that many ADL’ers appear to be obsessed with nazis and nazism, neo-nazis, intimations of nazism, rumors about nazis and crazy nazi conspiracies to rehabilitate Adolf’s reputation. Some ADL’ers, Stern appearing to be one of them, live in an imaginary nazi wonderland where they fantasize armies of nazis marching toward them from distant horizons, singing songs of conquest, whips in hand, about to leap through the ADL office window to lash the hapless drudges inside and mistreat them sexually.

Such fantasies must be traumatizing for those who suffer them, but to others they can appear comic and infantile. The text of my ad, which prompted Stern’s response, makes at least two claims which admittedly are controversial. It asserts that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum exhibits no proof that homicidal gas chambers existed anywhere in Europe, and no proof that even one child, woman or man was “gassed” at any German camp liberated by the Allies. I flew to Washington, toured the Museum, and that’s my assessment of its exhibits.

Mr. Stern writes that the best response to the “outrageous lies” of revisionism, that is, the text of my ad about the Museum, is to “reiterate the truth” and “repeat the facts.” It’s good advice, but Stern avoids it like the plague. Instead, he reveals the common ADL self-serving obsession with hate movements growing like cancers in American society. He doesn’t even try to assure his readers that the Museum does, in fact, exhibit proof of one gas chamber or one victim of a gas chamber. Why?
The Marvin Sterns and the ADL face a conundrum. They can continue to rail with empty irrationalism against legitimate revisionist research and watch the number of Americans who are increasingly unsure what to believe about the Holocaust story increase year after year. Or they can turn to the orthodox scholars in the field for help in responding to revisionist questions. That would be the adult thing to do. The ADL’ers however, true to form, have chosen to do the childish thing–to substitute schoolyard insults for a grown-up exchange of ideas.

Stern’s article in the Oregonian ran under the head, “Holocaust Revisionists Should Be Challenged, Repudiated With Truth.” Marvin and I are in complete agreement on this one. Do it! Challenge the claims in my ad with truth! That has always been what I’ve asked for. It’s my invitation to the ADL’ers and my challenge to them–and to all others. Respond to my ads with truth. I don’t ever want to run an ad that contains an inadvertent error of fact. Why do the Marvin Sterns talk about repudiating revisionism with “truth” and always evade doing so?

Here’s my guess. While revisionists almost certainly are not right about everything, we’re not wrong about everything either. No one is wrong about everything! That’s what terrifies Marvin Stern and his ADL buddies. The day they admit the possibility that revisionists are not wrong about everything, their psychological world will collapse. They’ll have addmitted that revisionists are human beings, that we eat our soup with a spoon just like they do. And there’s the rub. The ADL’ers can’t afford to admit that revisionists are ordinary men and women–that is, human beings. The ADL committed itself to its nazi devil fantasy half a century ago and has ridden it so long so successfully it can’t get off, no matter how broken down and exhausted the old nag is.

Marvin Stern is probably a nice guy. He’s probably a smart guy. When a smart guy goes over the line and becomes a true believer it’s almost impossible for him to change his mind. When a true believer changes his mind he becomes an apostate. He feels like a traitor. A dumb guy can just change his mind and go about his business. A smart guy who’s become a true believer has to work out a theory explaining how, being so smart, he could have believed something so dumb so long. It’s not easy. I know.

Marvin, I used to believe everything about the Holocaust story you believe now. It’s not a sin to be wrong. It’s human. You have a theory you believe is true, I have a theory I think is true. Let’s talk things over. You know how it goes. I listen to you. You listen to me. We have a beer. We settle the world’s problems.

(Bradley R. Smith is director of Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.)

(This piece appeared in The Albany Student Press, the State University of New York, Albany, on 10 December 93.)
Old August 24th, 2014 #751
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

UC Santa Barbara Students Confront ADL's Genocide Denial
UC Santa Barbara Students Confront ADL’s Genocide Denial

Students Protest Anti-Defamation League’s Involvement in UCSB Matter
Almost two years ago, a group of outraged students at UC Santa Barbara banded together. They united, just as citizens in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had done before them, to get campus and community entities to disassociate themselves with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and its No Place For Hate (NPFH) program.

The students came together in response to the immoral and callous decision by the ADL to issue a statement that they were against the passage of a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide and were actively lobbying against it in the halls of Congress. Armenian Americans and humans rights advocates alike believed then and now that the ADL forfeited any moral authority to sponsor NPFH once it took a stance so inconsistent with such a profound human rights issue.

The road to get campus and community groups to disassociate themselves from the ADL’s NPFH program has encountered many obstacles and bureaucratic hurdles. Berj Parseghian, now a UCSB alumnae, and Garo Manjikian, former community organizer in Santa Barbara and current ANCA Legislative Affairs Director, began the campaign with an intense letter writing campaign aimed at encouraging a handful of campus organizations, which the ADL listed as participants of the NPFH program, to disassociate. Their hard work resulted in two major organizations, the University Religious Center and Empowerment Works, immediately cutting ties with the ADL.

The leadership of the campaign grew to include Amy Kaladzhyan and Shant Karnikian. These two students presented the issue at the Sacramento Issues Awareness Caucus of 2008 and gained the support of legislators such as Assemblymember Pedro Nava and Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, Chair of the Higher Education Committee. Back in Santa Barbara, Parseghian and Manjikian brought the issue to the attention of Chancellor Henry Yang of UCSB, who in turn urged them to continue the campaign and raise awareness of the issue among students because he “expects every community member to adhere to a set of values that include mutual respect, tolerance and civility.”

Fueled by the thoughtful words of encouragement from the Chancellor, a meeting was arranged between the leadership of the campaign and the Dean of Students, Assistant Dean, and the Director of Judicial Affairs, which lists ADL as a resource for students. The students took the opportunity to educate the UCSB administration about various issues surrounding the Armenian Genocide, as well as the importance of disassociating the university from an organization which, because of its opposition to the recognition of a crime against humanity, has no place on a college campus. The Armenian Student Association (ASA) organized a panel discussion to raise campus awareness about this issue and allow the ADL to present its side of the story. The panel was comprised of Shant Karnikian on behalf of the ASA, Antranig Kzirian from the Armenian National Committee-Western Region, and Chris Villavicencio on behalf of STAND: An Anti-Genocide Coalition. The ADL turned down the invitation to be a part of the panel. Oddly enough, the event was hosted at the Multi- Cultural Center, a campus organization that was formerly associated with the NPFH program. The deliberate and well-planned efforts of the students at UCSB have been effective. Presently there are no campus entities that are seeking certification from NPFH.

While the UCSB community has expressed grave concern with the ADL’s hypocritical stance on the Armenian Genocide, with many departments no longer seeking to renew their membership with the NPFH program, the issue has become one that is no longer focused on just the Armenian Genocide. In early March, Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, invited a number of school officials and faculty members to a meeting to urge university officials to investigate charges of anti-Semitism against Professor William Robinson, a sociology professor who drew comparisons between Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the Nazi siege of Warsaw, Poland. The ADL was quick to respond to this incident in an attempt to limit academic freedom and yet they were nowhere in sight when the Muslim Student Association was victim to a print attack in the school newspaper, The Daily Nexus, by David Horowitz accusing them of being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is important now, more than ever, to fight against the ADL’s involvement in academic or even community affairs, especially in the Santa Barbara area. The students of UC Santa Barbara will continue to work to keep the genocide deniers at the ADL off their campus. These students, who are dedicated to human rights, are determined to set an example for other student groups, Armenian Americans and other minorities alike, to take action when they are marginalized by a more powerful entity.

Clearly, no one benefits when the sponsor of a community program diminishes a crime against humanity and denies the historical truth of any genocide. The ADL’s position as deniers of genocide is untenable. In southern California, the ADL has learned, the hard way, that they will enjoy no safe haven to practice genocide denial on the campus of UC Santa Barbara.
Old August 24th, 2014 #752
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Uncomfortable Truths
Uncomfortable truths

The historian Tony Judt has changed our view of postwar Europe, challenged liberal America and provoked controversy with his criticism of Israel

Paul Laity
The Guardian, Saturday 17 May 2008
Tony Judt has never fought shy of questioning long-cherished ideas. Postwar, his panoramic study of Europe after 1945, was loudly acclaimed in part because it dealt so bracingly with the lies and cover-ups on which the rebuilding of the continent depended – the number of Nazis and collaborators who retained positions of power, for instance, and the myths surrounding wartime resistance. Detail after striking detail documented how nations are never honest about their pasts, and how quickly inconvenient truths are buried.

Judt, who teaches at New York University, is known as a combative writer and reviewer, and this reputation is confirmed by his new collection of pieces, Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century, which opens with the trouncing of a recent biographer of Koestler for being, among other things, priggishly obsessed with his subject’s sex life. Over the years, Judt has been notable, in particular, for his acid dismissals of “romantic” communists and their fellow travellers. Many of his targets have been French intellectuals – he has ripped into Sartre numerous times – but in Reappraisals he also, from his own position on the left, accuses Eric Hobsbawm of being a “mandarin” and calls the much loved EP Thompson a “sanctimonious, priggish Little Englander”.

Since September 2001, however, Judt’s articulate polemicism has taken a new direction – one that has transformed his life. Uneasy about the political reaction to 9/11 in the US, he soon began to publish a series of condemnations of Bush’s international policies. But whereas his anti-communism sat comfortably with mainstream liberal opinion in America, his early opposition to the Iraq war threw him out of alignment with his usual allies, who were still rallying around the president following the terrorist attacks. Judt, who was born and has spent most of his life in Britain, began to feel more aware of being European – and different.

He raised hackles by labelling liberal commentators in America – including New Yorker editor David Remnick, Michael Ignatieff and Paul Berman – Bush’s “useful idiots”. But by far the biggest tumults Judt has caused have followed an essay he published five years ago, entitled “Israel: The Alternative”, which opened with the notion that “the president of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line”, and went on to contend that the time had come to “think the unthinkable” – the bringing to an end of Israel as a Jewish state, and the establishment in its place of a binational state of Israelis and Palestinians.

The essay was written for the New York Review of Books, and within a week of its publication, Judt had received a thousand messages of protest. From that time, Judt, who lost close friends over the article, has been regarded as nefarious by a large section of American Jewry.*

Judt’s political instincts can be traced, perhaps too easily, back to his upbringing. He was born 60 years ago into the Jewish community in London’s East End. All his grandparents were Yiddish-speaking Jews from eastern Europe; his parents were “unapologetically Jewish, but secular, and not really Zionist. They were leftwing, even Marxist, but strongly against communism”. On his 12th or 13th birthday, Judt remembers, he was given a copy of Isaac Deutscher’s masterly biography of Trotsky: “Failed communists were acceptable – Deutscher, Trotsky – it was the successful ones who weren’t liked.”

The other books on his shelves at home (the Judt family moved around London, but settled in Putney) were Left Book Club monthly choices and Penguin Specials – hallmarks of “the autodidacticism of the left”. There were memoirs of the Jewish East End, too, but Judt stresses that his parents’ sense of being Jewish – even during the 1950s and 60s, when Zionism had much greater purchase than before the war – was “divorced from anything that people in New York now think of as Jewish identity”.

His own relationship to Zionism is more complicated. “The thing that changed everything for me, at least for a while, was that my parents, despairing of my social life – thinking me too solitary – encouraged me to join Dror, the Zionist youth organisation. Which I did, at exactly the point in a teenager’s life when it’s possible to convince them that they have discovered the way the universe works. From the age of 15 until 19 or 20, I was a gung-ho, utterly committed, leftwing Zionist, which was plausible if you went straight from your bedroom to a kibbutz.” From 1965 to 1967, he was Dror’s national secretary.

Having taken his first set of exams at Cambridge, Judt left again for the kibbutz Machanaim with the six-day war pending and, in response to a call for volunteers from the Israeli army, became a driver and then a translator, joining the forces based on the Golan Heights: “I was 19 and romantic,” he recalls.

But his views on Israel soon began to change. “I started to hear things, in the attitude of young officers above all, that I had never heard before, expressions of nationalism, anti-Arab xenophobia, land hunger – ‘why didn’t we go all the way to Damascus?’, ‘the only good Arab is a dead Arab’ – that sort of thing.” The “conquistador attitude in Israeli officers”, Judt says, “gave the lie to the idea that there was something special about this war, this occupation, this army – myths that many Israelis still believe in … By the time I went back to Cambridge at the end of the summer, I was already pretty critical of Israel: it was clear in my mind that the huge acquisition of land and people as a result of the war wasn’t going to work. What kind of Jewish state was this?”

Judt instead turned his attention to France, and began graduate research in Cambridge on the history of French Marxism. In 1970, he enrolled for a year at the École Normale Supérieure. “That was a gas … a whole bunch of intellectuals coming down to breakfast in their dressing gowns, sipping coffee and eating croissants. They really were intensely smart in a way you don’t find in England, where people tend to camouflage their smartness, for all the obvious cultural reasons. At the École, you had to come up to scratch in every conversation, and it was exhilarating.”

In Paris, he dismissed at first hand the abstruse structuralist Marxism of Louis Althusser (“listening to him, at a crowded and sycophantic seminar, I was utterly bemused”) and was strongly influenced by Annie Kriegel, the charismatic resistance heroine and leading (former Stalinist) historian of French communism.

Judt taught at Cambridge, Berkeley – where he bought himself a Ford Mustang and drove up and down Highway One – and Oxford. “I remained an obscure academic well into early middle age,” he says. The first step towards a fuller engagement in contemporary politics came in the early 80s: “I decided I had lived an insufficiently cosmopolitan life until then, so I taught myself Czech and became involved as a walk-on player in the organisation that was smuggling books in and manuscripts out of Czechoslovakia.” Soon Judt was writing about Václav Havel and the underground. As recounted in Postwar, he was a witness to the velvet revolution, having set off for Prague at the first sign that the state system was crumbling.

“After 1989,” he has written, “nothing – not the future, not the present and above all not the past – would ever be the same.” Judt, who had moved to NYU in the mid-80s, worked hard to bring together eastern European and American intellectuals, and in 1995 founded the university’s Remarque Institute – he is still its director – to promote the study and discussion of Europe in America. It was during a two-year stint in Vienna in the middle of the decade that Postwar began to take shape. In writing it, he was increasingly conscious that a chapter in the history of Europe – an era that a good proportion of its current population had lived through – had come to an end. “As soon as you realise how good it is, this book will frighten you,” commented Neal Ascherson in one review: “This is not just a history. It is a highly intrusive biography … ‘postwar Europe’ is us.”

The “problem of memory” tackled in Postwar – of a past easily set aside – is also a theme of Reappraisals. Judt was alarmed on discovering that, for the first time, not a single student taking one of his classes had read Darkness at Noon (Koestler is one of his heroes). “This set me thinking that we have moved on very fast, not only from people who are seen to no longer matter, but from a set of issues too.” Since 1989, he proposes, public intellectuals have mattered less and less. What’s more, it is still generally and complacently assumed that America “won” the cold war in that monumental year.

Postwar, which came out in 2005, suggested that “what binds Europeans together … is what it has become conventional to call – in disjunctive contrast with ‘the American way of life’ – the ‘European social model’.” Judt is outspoken in his advocacy of north European-style social democracy, and stresses the need to remember why European welfare systems came about in the first place: “We are so busy remembering all the things that active states do badly, we have forgotten what they do well … The Anglo-American model with its cult of privatisation is not only ethically dysfunctional, but will soon be seen to be economically dysfunctional.”

He points out that it would never have occurred to him to write the 2003 essay on Israel had he been living in Europe. But he was frustrated “with the remarkably unbalanced coverage of the Middle East in the States” and was conscious of the cultural prohibition unique to America, whereby “all Jews are silenced by the requirement to be supportive of Israel, and all non-Jews are silenced by the fear of being thought antisemitic”; the result is that “there is no conversation on the subject”. This is especially regrettable because any resolution of the Israel/Palestine question depends on a change of attitude on the part of the US. At the moment, Israel is like an “adolescent”, he argues in Reappraisals: it “is convinced that it can do as it wishes … that it is immortal”.

Judt’s views on the Middle East became headline news in the autumn of 2006 following the cancellation – an hour before it was due to start – of a public lecture he was to give, entitled “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, at the Polish consulate in New York. The Polish consul, Krzysztof Kasprzyk, later acknowledged that he had been contacted by a number of Jewish groups – including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, who were concerned about the subject of Judt’s address. “The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure,” Kasprzyk said.

When news of the cancellation broke, and accusations began to fly, the incident developed into the “Judt affair”. The New York Review published an open letter to Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, signed by 114 intellectuals who felt that Judt’s right to free speech had been abrogated. Numerous articles on both sides appeared in the press and the matter of criticism of Israel in America was – for once – thoroughly ventilated. The implications of the cancellation, Judt believes, were “serious and frightening”, though the affair had its absurd side: the organisers of a talk he was due to give at Manhattan College on October 17 2006 asked him not to mention Israel – not an easy task given that it was a Holocaust memorial lecture, and its agreed title was “The Holocaust in postwar Europe”. (He withdrew.)

Judt says, resignedly, that the adjectives used to describe him in the media have now changed. He has become, in America, “the controversial Tony Judt” and “Tony Judt, well-known critic of Israel”. He finds this “a bore”, especially as his opinions “aren’t regarded as especially unconventional in the rest of the world”. So it made his day when a member of the audience at a lecture he gave recently came up to him afterwards and said, perhaps a little disappointedly: “You’re not controversial, you’re just complicated.”

·*This paragraph was changed on Tuesday May 20. It originally said that just before the essay was published, Robert Silvers, the editor of the New York Review of Books, asked: “You are Jewish, aren’t you?” But Robert Silvers did not ask the question. An editor of the New York Times op-ed pages put the question to Judt, in 2006, in relation to a different essay published by that newspaper.
Old August 24th, 2014 #753
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Were the Spies Journalists the ADL Snoops
Counterpunch February 1999

Were the Spies Journalists? The ADL Snoops

The organization's main "fact-finder" was doubling
as a spy for the white South African government while his
buddy, a San Francisco cop who had tutored El Salvadoran
death squads on the finer aspects of torture, was
providing its officials with personal information on the
organization's putative enemies when the story broke in
San Francisco in December, 1992. The organization was the
Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL claims to be the nation's leading defender
against prejudice and bigotry but in this instance its
targets were members of the African National Congress and
its supporters, and apparently everyone, Arab and
non-Arab, who had the temerity to criticize Israel. This
included some who drove to Arab community events where
the ADL's "fact-finder", Roy Bullock, and the cop, Tom
Gerard, took turns writing down their license plate
numbers, which Gerard turned into addresses thanks to his
access to California motor vehicle records.

Their spying efforts proved to be part of a much
larger intelligence gathering operation that targeted
some 12,000 individuals and more than 600 left-of-center
organizations in northern California.

After the first flurry of publicity, the ADL's spin
doctors successfully kept the story from receiving the
national coverage that the situation warranted. But the
story hasn't gone away.

Last November the California Court of Appeals handed
down a decision that paves the way for a major test later
this year of the ADL's penchant for spying on its
enemies. It was the most significant episode in a
slow-moving class-action case filed in 1993 by 19
pro-Palestinian and anti-apartheid activists who claim to
be victims of the ADL's snooping operations.

The plaintiffs say they were illegally spied on by
Bullock, then considered the ADL's top "fact-finder" by
his now deceased chief, Irwin Suall, and that such spying
constituted an invasion of privacy under the provisions
of the California Constitution.

The ADL's defense, accepted by the court in 1994, is
that the Jewish defense organization is, collectively, a
"journalist" and, therefore, can legally engage in
information-gathering activities regardless of the
source. At question was access by the plaintiffs to
information contained in 10 boxes of files seized by the
San Francisco police from the ADL's San Francisco office
in April, 1993, and placed under court seal where the ADL
has fought fiercely to keep them. In the years since
then, efforts by the court to settle the case have
foundered on the ADL's refusal to allow potentially
embarrassing depositions taken by plaintiffs' lawyer
ex-Congressman Paul (Pete) McCloskey of Bullock, ADL
officials and police officers to be be made public and
its files opened. The plaintiffs have been unwilling to
compromise on either of these issues.

Then, in September, 1997, Judge Alex Saldamondo
ruled that McCloskey's clients were entitled to see what
the ADL had on them in its files. Two plaintiffs, Jeffrey
Blankfort and Steve Zeltzer, co-founders of the Labor
Committee on the Middle East, who had "outed" Bullock as
an ADL spy after he infiltrated their group in 1987,
received an extract of their files from the DA's office
the day before they were ordered sealed. Both contain
illegally obtained information, much of which, say
Blankfort and Zeltzer, is erroneous.

When ADL's appeal of that decision was rejected by
Court of Appeals Judge Anthony Kline, the ADL persuaded
the State Supreme Court to return the case to the full
court for a hearing. On November 15, 1998, the court
reaffirmed ADL's status as a journalist and acknowledged
its right to maintain files and obtain information on all
but two of the remaining plaintiffs on the basis that
they are "limited-purpose public figures" which it
defined as having been publicly engaged and identified in
activities around a particular issue, in this instance
opposition to Israeli occupation and/or South African
apartheid. There is no protection, said the court, for
obtaining information illegally on non-public figures.

The court made an important qualification, however,
ruling that for "limited purpos "figures, the
journalist's shield only applies if the information
obtained is to be used for journalistic purposes. It does
not protect the ADL from charges that it passed
information about the plaintiffs to "foreign governments
(in this instance, Israel or South Africa) or to others"
which is what the plaintiffs claim the ADL has done.

Although the Court of Appeals vacated Judge
Saldamando's decision, it did state that representatives
of the plaintiffs had the right to request a review of
ADL's files to discover possible constitutional
violations, each of which would be worth $2500. While
this may seem a small sum, there are hundreds of
Arab-Americans and anti-apartheid activists whose names
appear in the ADL's files who potentially could collect
if the ADL loses in court or is forced to settle the

The origins of the story are murky. What the press
reported was that the SFPD acted on a tip from the FBI,
which was supposedly concerned about files on the Nation
of Islam that were stolen from its local office, and
arrested Gerard, who allegedly had done the pilfering. In
Gerard's computer they found files on more than 7,000
individuals, many of them Arab-Americans, as well as
information on hundreds of left-to-liberal organizations
filed by Gerard as "pinko". In his locker, they found a
black executioner's hood, a number of photos of
dark-skinned men bound and blindfolded, CIA manuals, a
secret document on interrogation techniques, stamped
"secret" and referring to El Salvador, and numerous
passports and IDs in a variety of names, all with his

This splendid fellow began meeting with Richard
Hirschhaut, chief of the ADL's San Francisco office in
1986, during which, according to a "confidential"
Hirschhaut memo to the aforementioned ADL chief
"fact-finder" Suall, he provided "a significant amount of
information" on "the activities of specific Arab
organizations and individuals in the Bay Area" That memo
hasn't been made public but what was reported created a
nightmare for the ADL when it turned out that Gerard had
been exchanging non-public, personal information from
government files with Bullock, a paid informant for the
ADL since 1954 and whose own computerized "pinko" files
on leftish and liberal folks, when seized by the police,
proved to be a third again as large as Gerard's.
According to police, his computer contained the names of
nearly 12,000 individuals, 77 Arab-American
organizations, 29 anti-apartheid organizations, and more
than 600 "pinko"groups which included such revolutionary
outfits as the NAACP, Asian Law Caucus and SANE/FREEZE,
as well as 20 Bay area labor unions including the SF
Labor Council. There were in addition, files on 612
right-wing organizations and 27 skinhead groups.

According to SF police inspector Ron Roth, 75
percent of their contents was non-public information
illegally obtained from government agencies.

After indicating that the ADL would be charged with
violating the California's Business and Profession's
code, SF District Attorney Arlo Smith did an
extraordinary thing. He made available to the public,
merely for the copying costs, some 700 pages of documents
incriminating the ADL in a nation-wide intelligence
gathering operation run out of New York by Suall. One of
the significant parts of that report was Bullock's
admission that he was paid by a South African
intelligence agent to spy on anti-apartheid activists
(which he was already doing for the ADL.) He had reported
on a visit to California by the ANC's Chris Hani, ten
days before the man expected by many to succeed Nelson
Mandela, returned home to be brutally murdered.

The ADL attempted to portray Bullock as a free-lance
investigator, but no one was convinced, because since
1954 Bullock had been paid through a cutout, an ADL
lawyer in Beverly Hills. After his exposure, Bullock was
put directly on the ADL's payroll. ADL's position on the
ANC was identical to that of the South African government
- they considered it to be a "terrorist" "communist"
organization. At the time, Israel was furnishing arms to
maintain the apartheid regime in power.

In1994, Smith announced that he would not prosecute
either the ADL or Bullock since it would be "expensive
and time-consuming both to the SFDA and the defendants"
a curious judgement considering the overwhelming evidence
in his possession.

In its settlement with the city, the ADL, admitted
no wrongdoing, agreed to restrain their operatives from
seeking non-public data on ADL's enemies from government
agencies and, putting a happy face on the story, promised
to create a $25,000 Hate Crimes Fund and another $25,000
for a public school course.

Another class-action case filed by the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee and other spied-upon groups
such as CISPES, the Bay Area Anti-Apartheid Network and
the National Lawyers Guild, was settled in 1996, also
under conditions favorable to the ADL, but without the
approval of some of the suing groups.

In that instance, again without admitting wrongdoing
or opening its files, the ADL agreed: to remove
questionably obtained information from its files; that
it would not seek non-public information on individuals
from government employees and would pay $25,000 to a
fund to improve relations among Jews, blacks and other
minorities. A similar deal was offered to McCloskey's
plaintiffs but they turned it down since it would let the
ADL off the hook and allow its secrets to be kept intact.

Both sides will be back in Judge Saldamando's court
in March to hear a new discovery motion from McCloskey
and probably to set a trial date, something the ADL has
been trying to avoid, given the embarrassment that would
inevitably ensue, whatever the outcome. Its latest ploy
has been to ask the judge for a summary judgement, in
other words, dismissal of the case, something he is
unlikely to do.

The deaths of veteran journalists Colin Edwards and
George Green reduced the number of plaintiffs by two and
subsequently four others, whose political activities
were relatively limited, were dropped from the case.
McCloskey, himself a victim of ADL attacks and whose wife
Helen is one of the plaintiffs, is pursuing the case pro
bono. Typically he is faced in court by four or five
lawyers for the ADL.

Contributions for the plaintiffs may be sent to Paul N.
McCloskey, Jr. Atty., 333 Bradford St., Redwood City, CA

(For more information see:
E-mail at [email protected])
Old August 24th, 2014 #754
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Who's the Dog Who's the Tail and the ADL
Who’s the dog? Who’s the tail? And the ADL

By Uri Avnery, Gush Shalom
April 22, 2006

I DON'T usually tell these stories, because they might
give rise to the suspicion that I am paranoid.

For example: 27 years ago, I was invited to give a
lecture-tour in 30 American universities, including all
the most prestigious ones - Harvard, Yale, Princeton,
MIT, Berkeley and so on. My host was the Fellowship of
Reconciliation, a respected non-Jewish organization,
but the lectures themselves were to be held under the
auspices of the Jewish Bet-Hillel chaplains.

On arrival at the airport in New York I was met by one
of the organizers. "There is a slight hitch," he told
me, "29 of the Rabbis have cancelled your lecture."

In the end, all the lectures did take place, under the
auspices of Christian chaplains. When we came to the
lone Rabbi who had not cancelled my lecture, he told me
the secret: the lectures had been forbidden in a
confidential letter from the Anti-Defamation League,
the thought-police of the Jewish establishment. The
salient phrase has stuck to my memory: "While it cannot
be said that Member of the Knesset Avnery is a traitor,

AND ANOTHER story from real life: a year later I went
to Washington DC in order to "sell" the Two-State
solution, which at the time was considered an
outlandish, not to say crazy, idea. In the course of
the visit, the Quakers were so kind as to arrange a
press conference for me.

When I arrived, I was amazed. The hall was crammed
full, practically all the important American media were
represented. Many had come straight from a press
conference held by Golda Meir, who was also in town.
The event was to last an hour, as is usual, but the
journalists did not let go. They bombarded me with
questions for another two hours. Clearly, what I had to
say was quite new to them and they were interested.

I was curious how this would be reported in the media.
And indeed, the reaction was stunning: not a word
appeared in any of the newspapers, on radio or TV. Not
one single word.

By the way, three years ago I again held a press
conference, this time on Capitol Hill in Washington. It
was an exact replica of the last time: the crowd of
reporters, their obvious interest, the continuation of
the conference well beyond the appointed time - and not
a single word in the media.

I COULD tell some more stories like these, but the
point is made. I recount them only in connection with
the scandal recently caused by two American professors,
Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the
University of Chicago. They published a research paper
on the influence of the Israel lobby in the United
States. [for a pdf file of this paper, go to

In 80 pages, 40 of them footnotes and sources, the two
show how the pro-Israel lobby exercises unbridled power
in the US capital, how it terrorizes the members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, how the White
House dances to its tune (if indeed a house can dance),
how the important media obey its orders and how the
universities, too, live in fear of it.

The paper caused a storm. And I don't mean the
predictable wild attacks by the "friends of Israel" -
which means almost all politicians, journalists and
professors. These pelted the authors with all the usual
accusations: that they were anti-Semites, that they
were resurrecting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
and so forth. There was something paradoxical in these
attacks, since they only illustrated the authors' case.

But the debate that fascinates me is of a different
nature. It broke out between senior intellectuals, from
the legendary Noam Chomsky, the guru of the Left
throughout the world (including Israel), to progressive
websites everywhere. The bone of contention: the
conclusion of the paper that the Jewish-Israeli lobby
dominates US foreign policy and subjugates it to
Israeli interests - in glaring contradiction to the
national interest of the US itself. A case in point:
the American assault on Iraq.

Chomsky and others rose up against this assertion. They
do not deny the factual findings of the two professors,
but object to their conclusions. In their view, it is
not the Israel lobby that directs American policy, but
the interests of the big corporations that dominate the
American empire and exploit Israel for their own
selfish aims.

Simply put: does the dog wag its tail, or does the tail
wag its dog?

I AM NERVOUS about sticking my head into a debate
between such illustrious intellectuals, but I feel
obliged to express my view nevertheless.

I'll start with the Jew, who went to the Rabbi and
complained about his neighbor. "You are right'" the
Rabbi declared. Then came the neighbor and denounced
the complainant. "You are right'" the Rabbi announced.
"But how can that be," exclaimed the Rabbi's wife,
"Only one of the two can be right!" "You are right,
too," the Rabbi said.

I find myself in a similar situation. I think that both
sides are right (and hope to be right, myself, too).

The findings of the two professors are right to the
last detail. Every Senator and Congressman knows that
criticizing the Israeli government is political
suicide. Two of them, a Senator and a Congressman,
tried - and were politically executed. The Jewish lobby
was fully mobilized against them and hounded them out
of office. This was done openly, to set a public
example. If the Israeli government wanted a law
tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators
(at least) would sign the bill forthwith.

President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the
established American positions regarding our conflict.
He accepts automatically the positions of our
government, be they as they may. Almost all the
American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli
peace activists. As to professors - almost all of them
know which side of their bread is peanut-buttered. If,
in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth
against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few
years - they are smothered under a volley of
denunciations: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi.

By the way, American guests in Israel, who know that at
home it is forbidden to mention the influence of the
Jewish-Israeli lobby, are dumbfounded to see that here
the lobby does not hide its power in Washington but
openly boasts of it.

The question, therefore, is not whether the two
professors are right in their findings. The question is
what conclusions can be drawn from them.

LET'S TAKE the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the

The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which
has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq.
America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo-
Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge
influence on the White House. In the past, some of them
had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu.

On the face of it, a clear case. The pro-Israeli lobby
pushed for the war, Israel is its main beneficiary. If
the war ends in a disaster for America, Israel will
undoubtedly be blamed.

Really? What about the American aim of getting their
hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order
to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of
placing an American garrison in the center of the main
oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between
the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What
about the immense influence of the big oil companies on
the Bush family? What about the big multinational
corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick
Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from
the "reconstruction of Iraq"?

The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American-
Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that
American interests and Israeli Interests are one
(irrespective of whether that is really the case in the
long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle
East, Israel uses the US to dominate Palestine.

But if something exceptional happens, such as the
Jonathan Pollard espionage affair or the sale of an
Israeli spy plane to China, and a gap opens between the
interests of the two sides, America is quite capable of
slapping Israel in the face.

AMERICAN-ISRAELI relations are indeed unique. It seems
that they have no precedent in history. It is as if
King Herod had given orders to Augustus Caesar and
appointed the members of the Roman senate.

I don't think that this phenomenon can be wholly
explained by economic interests. Even the most orthodox
Marxist must recognize that it also has a spiritual
dimension. It is no accident that American (as well as
British) fundamentalist Christians invented the Zionist
idea well before Theodor Herzl hit upon it. The
evangelical lobby is no less important in today's
Washington than the Zionist one. According to its
ideology, the Jews must take possession of all the Holy
Land in order to make the Second Coming of Christ
possible (and then - the part they don't shout about -
some Jews will become Christians and the rest will be
annihilated at Armaggedon, today's Meggido in Northern

At the basis of the phenomenon lies the uncanny
similarity between the two national-religious stories,
the American myth and the Israeli. In both, pioneers
persecuted for their religion reached the shores of the
Promised Land. They were forced to defend themselves
against the "savage" natives, who were out to destroy
them. They redeemed the land, made the desert bloom,
created, with God's help, a flourishing, democratic and
moral society.

Both societies live in a state of denial and
unconscious guilt feelings - over there because of the
genocide committed against the Native Americans and the
horrifying slavery of the blacks, here because of the
uprooting of half the Palestinian people and the
oppression of the other half. Both here and there,
people believe in an eternal war between the Sons of
Light and the Sons of Darkness.

ANYHOW, THE American-Israeli symbiosis is unique and
far too complex a phenomenon to be described as a
simple conspiracy. I am sure that the two professors
did not mean to do so.

The dog wags the tail and the tail wags the dog. They
wag each other.

GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033
Old August 24th, 2014 #755
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Why I'm Leaving After 25 Years
The ADL Pushes ”Tolerance”?

Why I’m leaving after 25 years

Foxman never tires
in his search for
‘hate’ — real or

By Carl Pearlston – MY love affair with the ADL began almost 25 years ago. It has just ended with a curt note from the Board President advising me that I haven’t shown a sufficient “demonstration of commitment to the ADL” to warrant retention on the Executive Committee or the Regional Board.” How did it come to this?

I had been nominated to the Board by a judge with whom I had worked during the heady civil rights years, and then to the Executive Committee by the head of the Speakers Bureau, for which I was very active. Not that the romance had not been rocky. I had always known that my conservative Republican political views were barely tolerated by my overwhelmingly liberal colleagues, and I was tempted to keep them to myself. We were nominally a non-partisan organization, but our meetings frequently felt uncomfortably like those of a Democratic Party club in which it was assumed that all shared a common liberal or “progressive” political worldview and none could, or wanted to, hear a differing viewpoint.

Just after the recent presidential election, our Director accosted me at a meeting with a vehement “You stole the election!” Our positions were usually those of the liberal wing of the Democratic party on issues like abortion, school choice, teacher pay, bilingual education, affirmative action, the homosexual agenda, gun control.

I once cited the comprehensive study by Yale University Law School’s Dr. John Lott on gun laws to the effect that in those states where people could legally carry concealed weapons, crimes against people actually declined, since criminals do not want to take a chance that their victim may be armed. I was met with the sarcastic and dismissive response that “Only John Lott, [talk show host and JWR columnist] Larry Elder and you believe in that study.”

There was not a great tolerance for diversity of viewpoint nor introduction of new information. I was barred from distributing written material which was germane and relevant to issues under discussion; only material from staff could be disseminated. To be fair, a member did once tell me that at least I kept them honest — i.e. they were forced to at least be exposed to — even if not to consider, a different view.

But, it was an uphill struggle.

When I once confessed to our National Director, Abe Foxman, my feelings of just spinning my wheels, he candidly told me that I would have to realize that over 95% of those involved in the ADL were liberal and would be unsympathetic to my conservative views.


Lack of sympathy frequently translated into lack of civility. For example, at several meetings, there were objections that Dr. Laura Schlesinger’s radio program and planned TV program was offensive and insensitive to homosexuals. I pointed out that her views enunciate traditional Jewish values which deserve the support of a Jewish defense organization, and was greeted with derision and intemperate, hostile responses. When it came to the issue of homosexuals versus the Boy Scouts, ADL chose the homosexuals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Then, in its otherwise commendable nationwide partnership with Barnes and Noble in the program Hate Hurts, which sponsors books and educates teachers and young children to fight hate, the ADL endorsed the books Heather Has Two Mommies and Steve Has Two Daddies as suitable tools for teaching tolerance to young children. Teachers’ workshops and children’s reading groups were organized, using these and other books in conjunction with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which had earlier achieved a certain notoriety for its own school workshops wherein teenagers were taught the fine points of “fisting” and other homosexual practices.


In this manner, fighting “hate” became a euphemism for an attack on sexual morality, the traditional family, and the Jewish view that children deserve a loving father and mother, not two fathers or two mothers. It is only through a perverse notion of “tolerance” that support for traditional teaching about the family is intimidated, and condemned.

When Dennis Prager participated by invitation in a panel discussion on church-state issues, some members actually hissed and booed his remarks in a hostile display of intolerance. A respected board member persistently repeated to all who would hear that Prager was insane.

When the organization published its harsh attack on the Religious Right in 1994, I was distressed as were many politically conservative Jews who do not share the ADL view that politically-active conservative Christians are our enemy. As (Jewish) syndicated columnist and JWR contributor Mona Charen wrote, “The ADL has committed defamation. There is no other conclusion to be reached after reading its new report, The Religious Right: the Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America. It is sad that an organization with a proud history of fairness should have descended to this kind of character assassination and name calling.”

A Board member of another affiliate was forced to resign because he publicly expressed disagreement with that report. It seems that the term “religious right” is a talisman used to invoke a reflexive response of hostility without thought. So deep was the antagonism that when Ralph Reed, then head of the Christian Coalition, appeared at an ADL leadership conference and gave a heartfelt apology for past insensitivity, prejudice, and discrimination by Christians toward Jews, the private response by most members to his apology was hostility and distrust.


There was a particular intolerance on the issue of church-state. The theory that freedom of religion require “strict separation of church and state” was transformed into hostility to any public display of religion in general, to Christianity in particular, and even to Judaism. I do not understand the logic of a Jewish organization expending its time and resources to forbid the public display of the chief gift of the Jews to civilization– The Ten Commandments. Nor does it seem appropriate for us to engage in litigation to forbid another Jewish organization (Chabad) from displaying a Menorah on public property. I was told that such a display would encourage other religious groups, including Moslems, to exercise their right to similar displays.

Well, why shouldn’t they? It is implicit in the meaning of freedom of religious expression and religious diversity, a freedom we have so long struggled to attain for ourselves. It is not in our country’s interest for us to demand a naked public square, devoid of any reference to G-d. Our cramped view of religious expression led us to oppose even the observance of a moment of silence in schools as being likely to encourage prayer.

The issue of parental choice in education, either by tax credits or vouchers, met with unwavering opposition based on what I believe is an erroneously perceived constitutional doctrine of “separation of church and state,” along with a strong commitment to the teacher’s unions. At one meeting, I questioned Abe Foxman as to what the ADL would do in the likely event that the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of school vouchers. He said the ADL would never agree and would continue to press the court until the decision was reversed and the ADL viewpoint was adopted.


Then, as he passed the table where my wife and I were sitting, he said to me, “You shouldn’t have asked that question.” I then realized that the bloom was really off the romance.

I had always strongly believed in the ADL’s mission, as defined on a banner frequently displayed at the front of our meetings: “… to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike….” Our efforts against anti-Semitism were without peer. We were a Jewish organization primarily concerned with issues affecting the Jewish community, and secondarily with equality and fair enforcement of laws for everyone. I recall that many times in days past we deferred action on an item on the grounds that it was not related to Jewish community, and was thus beyond our purview.


As years passed, the purview kept increasing along with the budget. While overt, and even latent, anti-Semitism was decreasing, our traditional mission as defender of the Jewish community was expanded to defender of all. We have become just another of many leftist “rights” organizations. This realization was confirmed when I saw a new banner, displaying an unfamiliar mission statement: “…dedicated to translating democratic ideals into a way of life for all Americans in our time.”

This grandiose expansion of mission has had other consequences. The curbing of defamation—an action that has expanded to curbing of hate–a feeling, or emotion, or state of mind. If we can change people’s minds and the way they think, we will not have to control their actions. The program for changing hearts and minds, A World of Difference, was created in 1985 to change prejudiced feelings through “sensitivity training”. It is reportedly very successful, highly commended, and widely used by governmental agencies and many companies.

Unfortunately, my exposure to the program at a leadership conference indicated that teaching the values of diversity, multiculturalism, and cultural relativism resulted in denigrating the values and achievements of Western civilization and the desirability of a common American identity. There is now a nationwide industry of multicultural activists teaching various “sensitivity” programs which increase awareness of racial identity, and result in racial separation and racial hostility.


This focus on eliminating “hate” logically led to the creation of “hate crimes,” in which, a two-tier system of criminality was created: 1) those who commit crimes of violence for any reason other than hate, and 2) those who do injury solely because they hate the status or class of the victim (race, sex, nationality, religion, disability, occupation, sexual orientation, etc), Criminals of the latter class are punished more severely than those of the former, even though both may commit the same violent crime.

The punishment is levied on the thought, or feeling, or state of mind of the criminal and not the action, in keeping with the emphasis on eliminating and punishing hateful thoughts and feelings. Creating preferred classes of crime victims is not a proper function of the American criminal justice system. Nor does it seem desirable to federalize and supplant state criminal law enforcement, which is what results from enacting “hate crime” legislation at the federal level.

The concept of “hate crimes” inevitably leads to that of “hate speech”, in which offensive, insensitive, or hurtful speech is legally banned, as it is in Canada where the criminal law punishes offensive speech as a form of group defamation. A minister was arrested there for publicly preaching, in accordance with the tenets of his faith, that the practice of homosexuality was immoral.


The ADL has properly rejected repeated demands by some of its leaders for adoption of similar group defamation laws as violating our free speech guarantees. At the same time, the ADL has led the effort to abate hateful speech not only in the public, but even the private forum in the interest of “tolerance”. There have been repeated condemnations of various incidents of speech deemed hateful, hurtful, insensitive, or embarrassing to particular groups. All too frequently, however, free speech and the expression of religious belief have been the targets of these condemnations, such as religious references by political candidates, Christian prayers at the inauguration, religious symbolism in comics, expressions of religious beliefs by sports figures, or even expressions of the politically incorrect, as was the case when conservative activist David Horowitz was condemned as racially insensitive for placing ads in college papers denying the wisdom, fairness, and practicality of the growing movement for Slavery Reparations.

The ADL has illogically compared those ads to ones denying the Holocaust, while ignoring the issue of free speech curtailment in the violent reactions by students and compliant acts by college administrators to censor the ads and prevent intelligent discussion of the significant issue involved.


The ADL has always been a firm and loyal supporter of Israel, but it was also an early and naive advocate of the now-defunct Oslo peace process, to the ultimate detriment of actual peace. I frequently complained that we concentrated more on the process than the substance of peace, and that true peace was unlikely to occur since the root problem was not how much land Israel would give up, but Arab refusal to accept a viable Jewish state. All of our “insider” briefings on the Mideast downplayed the risk to Israel posed by an armed Palestinian Authority or Palestinian state, and held out rosy and unrealistic prognostications of peace.

For example, at a leadership conference, we were treated to a talk by an Arab Ambassador urging us to take steps for peace, which translated into urging support for the election of Labor (Peres) over Likud (Netanyahu) in the coming election. It was portrayed, and accepted by many attendees, as a last chance for peace that was almost within our grasp. Most of us now see, in light of the past year’s warfare, that the “peace” being urged was illusory and chimerical. So blinding was this hope for peace that, as reported, ADL had complimented the PA on their new school textbooks without even having read them, completely overlooking the virulent anti-Semitism contained therein. When I questioned our National Director about this, I became the target of attack and public humiliation for bringing up the matter. Nor did I endear myself by dwelling on our National Director’s central role on behalf of the ADL in devising and wangling a pardon for criminal fugitive tax-evader Marc Rich.

When I expressed my views on some of these matters in various letters and articles, in which I was not identified as an ADL Board member, I was rebuked in a stern letter from our President advising that I had publicly taken positions contrary to ADL policy, which was not permitted. I had not realized that, as the price of Board membership, I had given up my freedom of speech on issues on which the ADL had taken a position.

This was much like the old Leninist doctrine of “democratic centralism”, in which debate is allowed only before a policy is adopted, and no dissent is tolerated thereafter. It seems odd that an organization which boastfully espouses and teaches “tolerance” and “diversity”, will not tolerate a bit of dissent and diverse viewpoint in its own lay leadership.

Carl Pearlston, a national board member of Toward Tradition, writes from California. Comment by clicking here.
Old August 24th, 2014 #756
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Witch Hunt At Columbia
June 3, 2005

Witch Hunt at Columbia

Targeting the University


Targeting the university is the latest mission of right-wing forces who have hijacked not only political power and political discourse in the United States but also the very vocabulary that can be used against them. The campaign of the last three years or so to attack US universities as the last bastion where a measure of freedom of thought is still protected is engineered to cancel out such freedom and ensure that scholars will not subvert the received political wisdom of the day.

Some of the major tactics in this campaign have been the launching of witch hunts against specific professors, calling for their dismissal from their jobs, and, failing that, smear their reputation; target Middle East Studies as a scholarly field more generally and cut federal funding to it and place it under governmental supervision, and promote apologists for Israel in the guise of scholars as the only adequate scholarly alternative. While shutting down the educational process in favour of religious theories of creationism and the like has been around for a while, the recent attack on scholars who disagree with US foreign policy and the policies of the state of Israel are the main mobilisational issues of the current campaign.

What is at stake in this assault is not only academic freedom, but scholarship per se, and specifically scholarship on Palestine and Israel, which is the primary target of the witch-hunters.

What makes these anti-scholarship attacks possible and popular is the existence of a major discrepancy, even a radical disconnect, between popular knowledge and media coverage about the Palestine/Israel conundrum and established scholarly knowledge about the topic. It is this disconnect that the witch hunters mobilise against scholarship as proof that it is not media and popular knowledge, which defends Israeli policy and Zionism’s axioms, that is ideological, but rather academic scholarship which has largely uncovered unsavory facts about both. Thus when young American students who come from ideologically charged homes, schools, and environments, attend university classes about the subject, they mistake established scholarship as pro- Palestinian propaganda, a conclusion that is propped up by the likes of Campus Watch, the David Project, and the Anti- Defamation League, all three organisations who make it part or all their business to attack scholarly criticisms of Israeli policy.

Let me provide a few examples of what I mean. All respected scholars in the field agree that most or all Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were expelled directly or indirectly by Israel. The debate that exists is about whether all Palestinian refugees were physically expelled by the Israeli army or that the Israeli army expelled the majority while a minority of refugees fled, not as a direct result of physical force but as an indirect consequence of actions taken by the Israeli army and government which might, or might not, have been deliberately intended to expel them. In contrast, media and popular ideological knowledge in the US still insists that the Palestinians fled on their own, or worse, were called upon to do so by Arab leaders (despite Israeli false claims that Arab leaders called on Palestinians to flee, research has shown that they called upon them to remain steadfast in their homeland) while the Zionists begged them to stay!

Established scholarship enumerates all the racist laws and institutional racist practices in operation in Israel which discriminate between Jews and non-Jews, granting Jews differential rights and privileges over non-Jews, and rendering Israel a racist state by law. Popular and media knowledge, in contrast, depict Israel as a democratic liberal state that treats all its citizens equally. It is also established in scholarship that Israel discriminates against non-European Jews (the majority of the country’s Jewish population) and also against recent Russian Jewish immigrants, and has engaged and continues to engage in a racist discourse about them and in unofficial institutional discrimination against them (witness the most recent case of discrimination against Ethiopian Jews in admissions to Israeli universities). In contrast, popular and media knowledge depicts Israel as a place where all Jews are equal. Scholarly knowledge addresses the question of Israel as a quasi-theological state, where religious law governs major aspects of Jewish life and that only Orthodox Judaism is allowed to have religious authority over Jewish citizens to the exclusion of Reform and Conservative Judaism, let alone other Jewish denominations. In contrast, media and popular knowledge depict Israel as a secular state. These are only a few examples of how scholarly knowledge is drastically different from and contradicts media and popular knowledge about key issues regarding Israeli society and history.

Israel’s apologists and right-wing witch- hunters aim to establish this popular and media “knowledge”, which echo the official positions of the State of Israel and its US lobby, as “scholarly” and dismiss academic scholarship as ideology. It is in this context that many of the organisations and individuals attacking me are under the false impression that what I teach in my classes is a “Palestinian” perspective or narrative. In fact, at the risk of engaging my fanatical critics, whose outrageous claims and inventions should not be given any legitimacy, I do no such thing. In my class on the topic, I teach academic scholarship on Palestine and Israel, which is precisely why the witch- hunters want Columbia to fire me.

As academic knowledge is of no interest to these ideologues, they have marshalled all their resources to transform the university into a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda. They have recently been joined by The New York Times who, in an editorial on 7 April, called on Columbia University to monitor the classroom for “pro-Palestinian” bias. The Times ‘ editors asserted that the (illegitimate) investigative panel that Columbia University convened as part of its own intimidation of its own professors failed to examine the real allegations of pro-Israel students who are allied with pro-Israeli lobbying groups outside the university. These allegations speak of stridently pro- Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias on the part of several professors. The panel had no mandate to examine the quality and fairness of teaching. That leaves the university to follow up on complaints about politicised courses and a lack of scholarly rigour as part of its effort to upgrade the department. One can only hope that Columbia will proceed with more determination and care than it has heretofore.

What the Times ‘ editors mean is that it is incumbent upon Columbia University to bring scholarly knowledge transmitted in its classrooms in line with Israeli propaganda, which the New York Times itself has never found too difficult to disseminate as objective truth anyway. Indeed, Ethan Bronner, the Times’ deputy foreign editor, was quoted in an article on 24 April asserting that as far as United Nations Security Council resolutions on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict are concerned, the newspaper editors “view ourselves as neutral and unbound by such judgements. We cite them, but we do not live by them.” If the Times can ignore so casually UN decisions as unbinding, why shouldn’t scholars do the same? Indeed why shouldn’t Columbia University do the same? The fact that for now at least, Columbia’s administration has not taken steps to monitor the politics of scholarship should not reassure us. Aside from his commitment to the pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian line espoused by the New York Times and manifest in many of his own public statements, Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, has spoken about his concern of a lack of “balance” and the presence of “bias” in some classes on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict taught at Columbia, which he intends to rectify. He even expressed concern that Columbia scholars of the Middle East do not seem to explain “the relationship… between the environmental facts of life in the Middle East and Asia, or its diseases, and the culture there?” Columbia may soon hire Middle East scholars who will attempt to answer this important question!

The production of academic knowledge in American universities was never separable from the overall social, political, and economic requirements of the American state. Links between the university and state policy and the interests of the private sector have a long history and are structurally built into the research agenda of universities, most importantly through the mechanism of funding. I still remember how as an undergraduate in the US, I was always baffled by political scientists who would ridicule Soviet academic scholarship as lacking “independence” due to its being beholden to an agenda set and funded by the Soviet state, while being proud of their own scholarship and discipline, which was hardly “independent” of US government funding as well as funding from the private sector which most often drove US state interests. Despite these structural limitations, however, there remained an important and crucial space in the university where serious scholarship could be produced and which scholars have utilised to produce their work.

This is not to say that scholarship is unbiased. On the contrary, all respectable scholarship about Nazi Germany and the holocaust, to take an important example, is indeed biased against the Nazis, but no one except anti-Semites would dare equate scholarly judgment of Nazi Germany and the holocaust as the “Jewish” perspective or narrative. The same applies to scholarship about South Africa under Apartheid, which is never described as the “Black” perspective or narrative. Feminist scholarship is equally biased against sexism, but is not labelled as “women’s” narrative or perspective. Scholarship on Stalin, on US slavery, on British colonialism, on American racism, on institutionalised sexism and discrimination against women, etc, is always biased, and no amount of lobbying from right-wing groups will force academics to teach the Nazi or slavery perspectives in the interest of “balance.” It is this scholarly space that the university enshrines which the neo- conservative culture commissars want to close off. To do so, what better place to create consensus than the Palestine/Israel conflict on which there is total US cultural agreement echoed by the mainstream and the right-wing and left-wing press. If Fox news and CNN and ABC news can agree on the “facts” surrounding Israel and its policies, as do the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily News, and the New York Sun, then surely critical scholarship on this question will find little popular support. In this regard you can have a civil libertarian Zionist like the Village Voice ‘s Nat Hentoff, liberal Zionist apologists like the Nation magazine, and the New York Sun and the New York Post, join hands to discredit scholars on Palestine and Israel as “dogmatic”, “uncompromising,” “strident” and the like. Ostensible civil libertarian and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has not only joined the campaign in writing for the press, but also by lecturing at Columbia University against “pro- Palestinian” professors whom he accused of supporting terrorism. Luckily, Dershowitz did not advise Columbia on the types of legal torture that it could mete out to “guilty” professors.

This is not to say that there is no disagreement among the members of this unholy alliance. There is. Such disagreement revolves on the division between “good” Arabs and “bad” Arabs. This is not new but harks back to the emergence of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat as the first “good” Arab to be rescued from the lot in the American media. Since then, while the right-wing has had no truck with these divisions, as all Arabs are “bad,” as far as it is concerned, the mainstream and the “left” very much dabble in this division. Thus, Arabs who are seen as “moderate” and who are seen as speaking a language that does not challenge all the received wisdom on Israel are considered “good,” while those who are seen as exposing the hypocrisy of liberal apologists for Israel are “bad” and are described as “extremists.” This is an important strategy for liberal Zionists, as it achieves two important goals: it avoids and pre-empts the accusation of anti-Arab racism while encouraging “moderation” among Arab scholars by offering them much needed public and media praise. Thus, I was recently faulted by the reporter of the left- liberal Nation magazine for daring to call Israel a racist state, even though I base my accurate description of the country on its myriad racist laws that discriminate between Jews and non-Jews, and that grant Jews rights and privileges that are denied to non-Jews. Such laws include the law of return (1950), the law of absentee property (1950), the law of the state’s property (1951), the law of citizenship (1952), the status law (1952), the Israel lands administration law (1960), the construction and building law (1965), among others. What the Nation and Nat Hentoff find objectionable in my characterisation of Israel as racist is that it contradicts media and popular knowledge about Israel, which is the only acceptable measure of knowledge of the country in the US media. Herein lies their complicity with the rightwing on rejecting academic scholarship on Israel. The Nation and Hentoff, among others, made sure to contrast me with other “moderate” Arab scholars whom they praise and do not dismiss.

By using the popular and media consensus on Palestine/Israel as its entry point for the dismantling of the university and its cardinal principle of academic freedom, the pro-Israel lobbyists were able to find allies in the university administration, among the faculty, and certainly among students. Even though the main target of the witch-hunters is academic scholarship on Palestine and Israel, which they want to delegitimise fully as a scholarly endeavour, in favour of accepting the official Israeli government’s representation of itself as academic truth, their efforts have mushroomed into an all out attack on the concept of academic freedom, and the very institution of the University. Their strategy, however, has backfired, as faculty quickly realised that the attack would indeed touch on the very nature of university pedagogy and the production of scholarly knowledge. In this regard, Columbia’s faculty and other faculties around the country have begun to mobilise against these enemies of academic freedom. These enemies of academic freedom do not only threaten junior faculty but all classroom settings and all scholarship.

In light of the organised power and influence of the witch-hunters, the task before academics is not only to continue to insist on writing and producing scholarship about Palestine and Israel, which will continue to expose the true nature of the Israeli state and its oppressive policies, but to defend the scholarly endeavour itself, which can only be ensured if the institution of the university is maintained as a space where academic freedom is upheld. The university, with all its limitations, is one of the few remaining spaces, if not the only remaining one, where critical intellectuals can still live the life of the mind. What the witch- hunters want us to do is to live the life of servitude to state power, as technocrats and as ideologues. This we refuse to do.

Joseph Massad is assistant professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University.

This article originally appeared in Al-Ahram.
Old December 26th, 2014 #757
Samuel Toothgold
Charachature incarnate
Samuel Toothgold's Avatar
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Already in accordance with the future Repulsive Tapir Avatar Mandate
Posts: 4,068
Samuel Toothgold
Default If authentic, further Twain biographies to be released:

Originally Posted by Alex Linder
...this incredible revelation overlooked by playwrights Shaw, Schiller, Anouilh, Peguy, Brecht, Anderson; historians Duby, Pernoud, Michelet, Warner, Contamine, Luce; novelists Twain...

...Twain asked that his publishers not release his autobiography for at least 100 years after his death, which was in 1910. Yesterday, the first of three volumes, or books, that tell Twain's life story arrived in bookstores—and it's already a best-seller...
Old February 4th, 2015 #758
LeoFrank's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 365

Whenever the subject of Nelsen Mandela comes up, please mention this book "Rivonia Unmasked", it chronicles his terrorism. I would download it before it gets deleted.

Rivonia Unmasked
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library:

#1, solar general


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 AM.
Page generated in 0.51909 seconds.