The Zionist enterprise on the land of Palestine succeeded by means of lies and myths, from the myth of the 'Chosen People' and the 'Promised Land' to the lie about the burning of the Jews in the Nazi gas chambers during World War II. When these means were scientifically examined, it was proven that they were untrue, that their reasoning was weak, and that they cannot withstand the test of solid fact.

What interests us here is that this lie [about] the burning of the Jews in the Nazi crematoria has been disseminated throughout the world until our time in order to extort the West and make it easier for the Jews of Europe to hunt [sic] Palestine and establish a state on it, in disregard of the most basic principles of international law and the right of peoples to independent life without occupation. [This lie] was raised [also] so that [the Jews] would receive financial, technological, and economic aid from the West.

During the past 50 years, Germany alone gave a total of some $100 billion. Many European countries began to amend their laws so that they would be compatible with the Holocaust myth … and they toughened the regulations, resolutions, and laws convicting anyone who mocks this lie or tries to [state that] the number of victims was smaller – as happened to Muslim philosopher Roger Garaudy in France.

This entire situation has turned the Holocaust – that is, Hitler's operation of burning the Jews in gas chambers – into a drawn sword at the necks of historians and serious researchers in the West, and even in the East. At the same time, [the Holocaust] became profitable goods for the Zionist entity…

Dan Rodricks, in the Baltimore Sun (May 13, 2004):

"THERE is no such thing as a multicultural society that can sustain itself, in my view, and I think history teaches us this lesson." Thus spake the lettered historian, Robert Ehrlich, in his denunciation of what angry white males like to dress up as a profound threat to the American way of life and our precious bodily fluids -- multiculturalism. The governor of Maryland called it [multiculturalism] "crap" and "bunk," getting down with his right-wing pals on the radio show of a man who a few years ago referred to Hispanic immigrants as "wetbacks" and refused to apologize for it.

It's a great country, no? Our governor attended Gilman and Princeton. Schoolchildren see his name on the bumpers of their parents' SUVs. A new generation of young, engaged Republicans looks to him for leadership and even progressive thinking. And he'll be on national television Saturday at the Preakness. But any time he wants, he can sound like just another Joe Sixpack, letting off steam about America being overrun with people who no speaky the English. No need for a lot of intellectualizing here; when Bobby Governor feels the need to shore up his conservative bona fides he goes on a radio talk show and preaches to the choir. Crap! Bunk! Pow!

He can say, "There is no such thing as a multicultural society that can sustain itself, in my view, and I think history teaches us this lesson," in the face of two centuries of American experience to the contrary, and probably feel downright serene about the whole thing. The choir will say, "Yeah, right on, Bob," and never mind how one particularly grand experiment in the "nonmulticultural society" (the Third Reich) stands as modern history's most stunning travesty.

"Every time you walk into this church," Father Joe Muth has been known to tell his parishioners at St. Matthew Roman Catholic Church in Northeast Baltimore, "you stand against the threat of what Germany was becoming in World War II, the homogenization of a society."

Muth's parish has families from 40 countries. The church has an immigration center, providing counseling and legal services to men and women who are new to the United States.

The center grew out of parish development talks about seven years ago. The people of St. Matthew's recognized Baltimore's growing immigrant population and heard many of its new parishioners speak of the fears they experienced as they stepped into American culture and tried to make a living and learn a new language. "That fear was revealed to us, exposed, and it was profound," Muth says. "It was decided that the church needs to be in the middle of that fear, to walk with (immigrants) and to break them of that fear."

Fear is an interesting dynamic in this discussion. It seems to be what fuels the anti-multiculturalists, those who believe "diversity" is a dangerous word and multicultural education a grave threat to the society.

But who knows? I don't think Ehrlich even knows what he's denouncing. I suspect he has an idea of multiculturalism, probably garnered from talk radio, as some kind of liberal conspiracy to balkanize the provinces by encouraging Americans to celebrate their ethnic and racial diversity to an extreme and to refrain from assimilating into the culture.

Even as the economy becomes more global, as young Americans embrace a new world of opportunity created by the Internet, as more and more people cross ethnic and racial lines to marry, as new immigrants take low-paying jobs many Americans refuse to take, we have grouches complaining about -- what? -- bilingual signage at fast-food joints?

This started last week with classic, attention-grabbing babblings of William Donald Schaefer. He supposedly ran into an employee at a McDonald's -- supposedly the McDonald's at Ritchie Highway and Robinson Road in Severna Park -- who he said didn't speak English. And apparently this created some sort of inconvenience for the easily annoyed state comptroller and delayed his Happy Meal...

So Schaefer has another tirade, gets some supportive e-mail and, within a day or so, Bobby Governor is calling multiculturalism "crap" and "bunk." The talk-radio crowd loved it. But to the rest of us out here, who grew up in immigrant families and who still believe ethnic diversity is one of the coolest aspects of American life, this sounds like old-fashioned immigrant bashing.

Lesson for Bobby Governor: A young, promising Republican shouldn't take his cues from a cranky Democrat past his political prime and out of touch with a changing world.

From Ireland On-Line (May 7, 2004): A respectable history teacher “at the top of his profession” was starting a jail sentence tonight for his secret role as the linchpin of a network of violent football hooligans.

Dave Walker, head of year at a Birmingham boys’ school, was in fact a “bedroom general“, building up contacts with hooligans and putting disparate groups of yobs in contact with each other.

The lifelong Southampton and England fan dubbed himself “Three Lions” and played a key role “organising the troops and the fighting” across the country.

Walker, aged 37, a married father, who was described as an “outstanding teacher” with an “exemplary record“, received glowing tributes from pupils and staff at the school where he worked.

But he was jailed for two years and three months at Kingston Crown Court today for orchestrating a violent brawl along a platform of a busy railway station.

He posted messages on internet forums setting up the confrontation between 30 Charlton supporters and 15 Southampton fans before a match in London.

Passengers fled in fear and children were heard screaming as the mob rampaged through the station wielding and hurling broken beer bottles.

A total of 17 men have now been imprisoned for a total of 38 years following the two-minute clash at Maze Hill, south east London, in April 2002, dubbed the “Battle of Maze Hill“, which left three men in hospital.

Police believe many of those jailed had been planning violence ahead of this summer’s European Championships in Portugal.

Following the hearing today, Detective Inspector Karl Skrzypiec, who led what was one of the largest ever investigations into football hooliganism, described Walker as a “key organiser of violence across the country“.

“Without him, this particular violence would have never happened, he was crucial to putting the rival supporters in touch with each other,” he said.

“It’s hard to believe considering his position and he will pay a great cost.

“He was virtually at the top of his profession and should be a role model - but in the background he secretly organises football hooliganism.”

Walker was suspended from his job at Turves Green Boys’ Technology College in February 2004 after charges were brought against him.

The school’s governors would now decide whether Walker should be sacked, Birmingham City Council said.

Walker, of Weston Road, Stafford, had pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit violent disorder.

Judge Mitchell reduced his sentence by half as a result of his guilty plea, but branded him a “bedroom general” and said: “One cannot help but feel revulsion for your part in this conspiracy.

“There you were talking about the way you would fight and incite others to do the same when it is clear that you would not move from your computer.”

Bruce Craig, in the weekly newsletter of the National Coalition for History (March 4, 2004):

It is certainly well known that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) likes to keep agency secrets secret. But the CIA has reached a new high (or low point depending on one's point of view) in its secrecy policy. Not only is the agency denying access to information such as"unclassified" speeches but also access to what are unquestionably"public" speeches made by its officials.

A short time ago, in the Federation of American Scientists on-line publication SECRECY NEWS, editor Steven Aftergood reported on the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) implementation of what Aftergood characterized as the"tenth exemption" to the Freedom of Information Act" --"I don't wanna tell you." Aftergood was seeking a copy of an unclassified speech delivered on 11 February to agency officials by Jami A. Miscik, Deputy Director of Intelligence. The speech was delivered to agency officials.

Copies of the speech were provided to the Washington Post and the New York Times. When Aftergood sought a copy to post on the federation website, a CIA spokesperson stated that Mr. Bill Harlow, head of CIA public affairs, had determined that he was denying Aftergood's request for the stated reason of"exercising his discretion not to give it to you." Aftergood characterized Harlow's action as"the a petty act of a minor bureaucrat bent on stifling criticism of his troubled agency."

It so happens that this reporter was working on a story focusing on the role of historians in a 10-11 September 2003 CIA-sponsored conference,"Intelligence for a New Era in American Foreign Policy." (for the story on the conference see next issue of the NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE) and believed that Miscik's speech would be a useful document to reference. A call was placed to the CIA public affairs office requesting a copy.

A CIA spokesperson queried"which speech was being requested" as Miscik had delivered two recently -- the 11 February one and"a speech in Utah, before a public audience on the 22." Copies of both were requested, and the request was immediately denied. The spokesperson refused to divulge any information about either speech including Miscik's 22 February public speech and even initially declined to give the CIA's FOIA office telephone number.

After a few phone calls to other news sources and a basic Lexis-Nexis search, verbatim transcriptions of relevant portions of both speeches were located on the web. Eventually, Aftergood also managed to obtain and copy of Miscik's 11-page speech without the assistance of the CIA Public Affairs office and posted it at: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/021104miseik.pdf;.

The 11 February speech indeed was a significant policy-related speech. The 22 February speech, however, was delivered to a group of students at the University of Utah and had no policy ramifications whatsoever. It is best characterized as a"puff speech" in which Miscik explains"how the CIA keeps policy makers informed."

From this rather bizarre incident, it is clear, that, in contrast to the CIA's responsive History Office, the agency's Office of Public Affairs exists for one and only one purpose -- to throw up barriers to information in an effort to screen the agency from public scrutiny and ultimately public accountability and not to provide information to the public and its legitimate news sources and watchdog organizations.

From Jim Romanesko's media column (Feb. 9, 2004):

Pentagon tells clipping service to ignore critical news stories Washington Post (reg. req.)

Pentagon bosses have ordered the department's clipping service to exclude articles critical of the military and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , reports Howard Kurtz . Last October, clipping service staffers were told to eliminate all newsmagazine articles, but the Pentagon press office has waived the newsmag ban for some articles that senior managers deem positive, says Kurtz.