Israeli-Canadian Thought Police Take Aim…. At Me

Vicious Campaign Targets Tenured Prof. Anthony Hall

Frame Job Uses Anonymous Social Media Post

By Prof. Tony Hall
Editor-In-Chief, American Herald Tribune

(September 22, 2016)

In recent days I discovered that the Canadian branch of the Israeli-US-based Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is reporting that I am “well known for using academic credentials to deny the Holocaust.” On August 29, Daniel Leons-Marder mirrored the Canadian B’nai Brith report under the title, “Facebook Allows ‘Kill All Jews’ Post on Wall of Canadian Professor.” In an item Leons-Marder claims has been shared 11,000 times, he asserted “B’nai Brith Canada reported the image, which was ruled acceptable [by Facebook] within two hours, when it was alerted to it having been posted on the Facebook page of Canadian Academic Professor Anthony Hall, who is a holocaust denier.”

The B’nai Brith’s Aug. 29 announcement starts with a bald statement that “Police have launched an investigation into an antisemitic Facebook post that was exposed by B’nai Brith Canada last Friday.” The earlier August 26 statement emphasized the role of Facebook, introducing me in the controversy as being “well known for using [my] academic credentials to deny the Holocaust and promote 9/11 conspiracy theories.”


Under the headline, “Killing Jews Is Now an Acceptable Message, Facebook Says,” the B’nai Brith announced,

“Antisemitism in all forms is rampant on social media, but this is the clearest, most obvious kind of antisemitism one could possibly create,” said Michael Mostyn, B’nai Brith CEO. “The classification of this as antisemitic cannot be challenged, and the fact that this promotes violence towards Jews is beyond dispute. Regardless, Facebook has deemed it acceptable despite its ‘community standards’ containing clear provisions against hate speech. The Jewish community deserves no less protection or respect than any other when it comes to hate speech and threats of violence.”

“Every year, upon publication of our Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, a contingent of detractors accuses us of saying the sky is falling, and that antisemitism does not exist in Canada,” said Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. “Content like this is proof positive that not only antisemitism of a genocidal nature exists in Canada, but the systems that are supposed to protect us from racist hate speech don’t consider hatred of Jews to be problematic.”

B’nai Brith has reported the post to Lethbridge Police Services.


The Canadian B’nai Brith’s post, together with those of others that have mirrored B’nai Brith’s announcement, constitute the first time I have seen myself described in print as a ‘holocaust denier.” What is the definition used by the thought police to decide who is or is not a “holocaust denier? Are there many holocausts or only one? Who owns the term, “holocaust?” If there are exclusive rights, how were they obtained?

In the eyes of the B’nai Brith, is a “holocaust denier” anyone who disagrees with any element, large or small, of its favored historical interpretation? Is the B’nai Brith naturally hostile to anyone that retains independent, evidence-based perspectives on some of the most fraught issues of historical interpretation in contemporary times?

What is behind the creation of the original post that set the controversy in motion? Who created it and why? Is this whole episode an engineered crisis? Is one of its purposes to fend off the criticisms of those that accuse the B’nai Brith and related Zionist agencies of claiming “the sky is falling” with their Orwellian system of Annual Audits of Antisemitic Incidents. Please see below the map published to present cartographic interpretations by the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism.


As shall be explained below, the B’nai Brith has failed to perform due diligence in its handling of this matter. Its officers did not even attempt to back up their provocative characterizations of me with even a shred of genuine evidence. The organization opted instead to exploit for its own political agenda the shock value inherent in the vile contents of an item allegedly posted, apparently very briefly, on my FB page. The item is said to have been posted by Glen Davidson. I did not ever see it on my FB page. I did not invite nor did I even have any knowledge of it until recently.

In its material the B’nai Brith describe the post as a “depiction of a White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew accompanied by a lengthy, violent anti-Semitic screed beside the photograph.” Here is the post, which I first saw sometime early in September as part of a smear piece published about me at “Aussie Dave’s” Israellycool.


To reiterate and to be absolutely clear, I did not post this social media item myself. I did not create it or solicit it. I do not approve of its contents. In fact I of course strongly condemn the message conveyed in both the image and the text. Due diligence demands, however, that I look further into this matter.

The B’nai Brith in Action

My initial research into the item’s content is leading me to the opinion that the image probably emerges from some sort of staged situation, one that seems to include the application of photo shop techniques. The most basic questions that must now be pressed concern the source of the atrocious text. From whence does it originate? Certainly I did not write it. Glen Davidson did not write it. Who did write it and why? Not once yet have I seen this deeper question posed by those who are exploiting the vile item to dramatize a real or concocted dispute with Facebook.

Quite possibly by design, the miniscule, densely compressed text is very difficult to read especially on small digital devices. Could this attribute be because the text was conceived not as a means of winning adherents but rather as a justification for political actions like the B’nai Brith’s current hate speech campaign highlighting my academic position at the University of Lethbridge?

I first saw the item among a number of screen shots all dedicated to “Aussie Dave’s” nomination of me as “Anti-Zionist-Not-Anti-Semite of the Day.”


I remember being particularly interested in the part of the post that mentioned Ryan Bellerose, a Metis man and convert to Judaism who has recently been hired as the B’nai Brith’s new Western Canadian representative. Most of my attention zeroed in on Aussie Dave’s suggestion to his readers that they communicate to the president of my University, Dr. Mike Mahon. I also took note of a screen shot of an item on U of L letterhead where Dr. Mahon responds to “JP.”  Who is “JP”?

I can trace one thread of this matter’s origins to a recorded telephone call I listened to a year ago. Its source was Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. In August of 2015 Ms. Hohmann telephoned the manager of a community venue in downtown Edmonton Alberta. Ms. Hohmann’s aim on behalf of her employer was to shut down a book promotion event. At the time Dr. Barrett along with his wife, two sons, a dog and me were touring Alberta to call attention to an edited text entitled We Are Not Charlie Hebdo. Dr. Barrett edited the volume to which I had contributed an article.

The venue’s manager, Richard Awid, taped Ms. Hohmann’s intervention and subsequently played it back for me. Here is how I described this part of the episode in an article entitled “B’nai Brith Moves to Quash Free Speech in Canada,”

Mr. Awid was somewhat dumbfounded that a small event at his community hall, “one of 100 such venues in Edmonton,” would elicit such an intense response from a very powerful organization in Toronto. He played back to me on his answering machine a recorded message he received at about 9 am on August 12 from Amanda Hohmann. Ms. Hohmann explained that she had received “a few complaints” about “Mr.” Kevin Barrett on the B’nai Brith’s “anti-hate hotline.” (1-416-633-6224; 1-800-892-2624)

Ms. Hohmann asserted that

“Mr. Barrett is a known anti-semite conspiracy theorist, a Holocaust Denier, and 9/11 Denier and all sorts of other things.”

Ms. Hohmann made no effort whatsoever to give background proof of her allegations or to identify the sources of the supposed “complaints.” Nevertheless she proposed to Mr. Awid that he should “cancel the event and let Mr. Barrett know he is not welcome in Edmonton.”


In this telephone call the B’nai Brith’s “human rights” director tried to defame a colleague offering absolutely no proof whatsoever to provide evidentiary backing for her directive from Toronto that Dr. Barrett should not be welcome in Alberta’s capital. I believe the Western world currently supports many Amanda Hohmanns paid very well to target and regularly slander individuals like Dr. Kevin Barrett.

Are the protagonists in these ugly witch hunts ever held accountable for the excesses? Are there any constraints on the increasingly severe incursions of the Zionist thought police? What remedies are or are not available for the likes of Dr. Barrett who is a Muslim man. Along with the rest of the omma, Dr. Barrett and his family are regularly subjected to heavy does of “hate speech” and sometimes worse.

When Richard Awid, a Muslim himself, did not adhere to Ms. Hohmann’s instructions, the B’nai Brith was able to send in a representative of the “hate speech” unit of the Edmonton police. The officer monitored the first part of the event and then left after informing Dr. Barrett that our presentation was not to be deemed hate speech by the police force he represented. I recall wondering at the time, does that bizarre episode foreshadow an era when all university classes will be policed by officials answerable to agencies like the B’nai Brith? Is that where this is leading?

The B’nai Brith has been front and center in Canada’s increasingly notorious record of aggressively policing citizens for supposed thought crimes and speech crimes. The B’nai Brith’s assault on free speech in Canada includes among its objects for criminalization Doug Collins, Malcolm Ross, Jim Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, Terry Tremaine, David Ahenakew and, most recently, Arthur Topham.


The case against Arthur Topham and his Radical Press is still ongoing. By following at a distance the tawdry prosecution of the self-employed reporter, publisher, editor and carpenter in Quesnel British Columbia, I was made aware of a very significant text published in 1941. Theodore Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish outlines an extremely ruthless strategy of genocidal destruction of a whole people. Has this classic description of genocidal intent and methodology ever been given prominence in a school curriculum in Canada?

My reading of an Internet copy of the text, one that became integral to the proceedings of the Topham trial, caused me to reflect on how one-sided the whole discourse on genocide is becoming. The suffering of one group is highlighted and elevated above all others while the suffering and assaults imposed on other groups is often downplayed, ignored or even denigrated. I had no idea before the B’nai Brith-instigated prosecution of Arthur Topham that there was such a detailed plan to annihilate the entire German people.

I only recently have become fully aware of the extent of the murder, rape and pillage of several millions of Germans after 1945 in American prisoner war camps and in orgies of Soviet-instigated ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. Where are the museums to promote public education about these crimes against humanity? Where is the museum to commemorate the horrendous intergenerational genocide of perhaps a hundred million Indigenous peoples in the Holocaust of the Americas since 1492? Will future You Tubers make videos to ask elderly members of today’s generation what they did or didn’t do about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians now underway in order to clear the way for Greater Israel?


Thought Police Wreaking Havoc on Campus

The B’nai Brith is becoming especially aggressive in campaigns to have individuals fired from their work for expounding historical interpretations it does not like. The B’nai Brith boasted menacingly on September 15 of having destroyed the career of Nikolas Balakas, a long-serving lab technician at York University’s Department of Astronomy and Physics. The announcement that Canada’s most ruthless thought police agency had succeeded in its campaign to get York University to fire its employee was written by Aidan Fishman. Mr. Fishman’s Campus Advocacy Coordinator of B’nai Brith Canada.

After counting coup on Mr. Balaras’s dismissal, Mr. Fishman concludes with the following plea that the University of Lethbridge should follow York University’s example. The B’nai Brith official wrote,

“Unfortunately not every administration is prepared to act with such decisiveness [as that of York University], as the ongoing saga surrounding Professor Anthony Hall at Lethbridge University shows. I hope that the administration in Lethbridge can use the excellent example set by York University on this matter, and take appropriate steps to ensure that their students are not similarly subjected to hatred and antisemitism on campus.”

Who is the real author of this “ongoing saga?” Where is the proof as of today that University of Lethbridge students are being subjected “to hatred and anti-Semitism on campus.” I have not once seen this kind of language appear in 26 years of teaching evaluations. Where is there any accountability for floating this kind of vicious agenda? The intrusion into this matter of a B’nai Brith official described as Campus Advocacy Coordinator is, as far as I know, setting precedents at my school. What is the nature of the “advocacy” Mr. Fishman is “coordinating”?

The effort of B’nai Brith’s “campus coordinator” and possibly others of his group to inject themselves into the internal governance of the University of Lethbridge brings to mind a similar controversy brewing at Oberlin College. Oberlin College is a renowned Liberal Arts school in Ohio whose origins long predate the American Civil War. There Dr. Joy Karega has been suspended with pay from her teaching position as a result of a controversy also involving Facebook posts. I have written a lengthy open latter on the matter to Oberlin President, Dr. Marvin Krislov. The text, which has been mirrored on other web sites, was first published at American Herald Tribune.


In my effort to reach out to President Krislov, Dr. Karega and the other students and faculty involved in what has definitely become a fiasco for the Oberlin community, I proposed in my open letter that we all work together to mount a joint academic conference. I proposed that my own Liberal Education program at the University of Lethbridge ally itself with the embattled Liberal Arts College in Ohio to organize an event aimed at bringing thoughtful academic commentary to address a mounting crisis in higher education in North America.

I hereby invite Aiden Fishman to join this initiative and thereby embark on a constructive course rather than the trajectory of negativity implicit in his present preoccupation with hate talk and advocacy for division. Of course Mr. Fishman is far from alone in the type of “advocacy” in which he is engaged. There is a barrage of interventions currently underway from organizations like the AMCHA Initiative, the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Campus Outreach, Hillel, the American Jewish Congress, David Horowitz’s FrontPage and Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch to mention only a few. As currently on full public display at Oberlin College, these well-funded and deeply staffed interventions invariably wreak havoc on the principles of academic freedom and civil academic discourse on campus.

I suggested the following title for the event.

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories:
A Rational or Irrational Phrase in Academic Discourse?

In my research research into the Joy Karega/Oberlin debacle I became aware of the concerted campaign in 2014 to destroy the career of Prof. William I. Robinson. Dr. Robinson is Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Like Dr. Joy Karega, Dr. Steven Salaita, Dr. Hatem Bazian, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Dr. Richard Falk, me and many others, Dr. Robinson includes in the curriculum some focus on the plight of Palestinian people.

Caption: Prof. Richard Falk, Former UN Rapporteur and Princeton University Professor of International Law, speaks on the Issue of Academic Freedom at the University of California at Santa Barbara

The sociologist refused to back down from incorporating in his teaching critical perspectives on the harsh treatment of Palestinians, especially in Gaza and the so-called Occupied Territories. Amidst proliferating Jewish settlements and the constant repressions of the Israeli police state, many Palestinians continue to eke out marginal existences on the heavily militarized lands set aside for them by the United Nations in Resolution 181. Resolution 181, an international instrument calling for partition of Palestine and UN trusteeship over Jerusalem, constitutes the primary law at the roots of the Israeli entity in its present form.



Prof. Robinson has written of his ordeal in August of 2014 on Truthout. In an article entitled “Repression Escalates on US Campuses,” the sociologist explains,

The persecution to which I was subjected involved a litany of harassment, slander, defamation of character and all kinds of threats against the university by outside forces if I was not dismissed, as well as hate mail and death threats from unknown sources. More insidiously, it involved a shameful collaboration between a number of university officials and outside forces from the Israel lobby as the university administration stood by silently, making a mockery of academic freedom.

The disciplinary procedure initiated against me by UCSB officials involved a host of irregularities, violations of the university’s own procedures, breaches of confidentiality, denial of due process, conflicts of interest, failure of disclosure, improper political surveillance, abuses of power and position, unwarranted interference in curriculum and teaching and so on. As I would discover during the course of the ordeal, individuals inside the university and in positions of authority had linked up with agents of the lobby outside the university in setting out to prosecute me.

Will the same toolbox of wrecking instruments deployed at the University of California be shipped in from the United States and unpacked at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada? Will the administration of my own school continue to uphold the University of Lethbridge’s good reputation as an institution of higher education where the vital principles of academic freedom and civil academic discourse are expressed and defended?

On several occasions I have publicly lauded the U of L for creating an environment of academic freedom. I made this observation, for instance, at the University of Lethbridge’s book event when in 2011 my volume, Earth into Property, was launched. In this 900+ page peer-reviewed academic text published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, I incorporate analysis that the B’nai Brith flippantly trivializes as “9/11 conspiracy theories.”

Deeply corrupt agencies like the B’nai Brith have a lot to lose when the basic facts about what really happened on 9/11–who did what to whom—become the common knowledge of the general public. That day may be approaching far faster than those hiding behind the tired old memes about “conspiracy theories” anticipate.

How much longer can the evidence of 9/11 be concealed behind the ruthless kind of ad hominem attacks that have become the well known-specialty of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in all its many constituent parts? How much longer will the public tolerate the hate propaganda and professional assaults that are obliterating the fundamental integrity of so many of our most important institutions?

What other lies and deceptions are being fed to the public on a regular basis? What is the level of public confidence these days in the trustworthiness of society’s key institutions including government, media, police and agencies of higher education? Who can say public confidence in these entities is high?

What is the appropriate role for universities in addressing issues of officialdom’s fraud and malfeasance especially in situations that have large implications for public policy? If even tenured university faculty can be intimidated into shying away from the professional responsibility to distinguish truth from falsehood, but especially in situations that threaten power’s imperatives, who will perform this vital function? Politicians? Talking heads on TV? Who will speak truth to the unaccountable power that the B’nai Brith in its current reckless demeanor so abundantly epitomizes?

Ritual Defamation in the Social Media Circus

To return to the Facebook post that lies at the root of this controversy, I have already publicly condemned the contents of the offending item in the September 16 edition of False Flag Weekly News. I currently co-host this regular broadcast along with one of its founding partners, Dr. Kevin Barrett.

I noticed a reference to my public condemnation of the item in question in the comments section of the B’nai Brith’s own web post of August 29. A commenter going by the name of Andrew Blair observes,

It is important to realize that Professor Hall publicly condemns that image and text. Go to False Flag Weekly, at minute 36, to see and hear his denunciation. When I put on my “fairness” glasses and look at that image I see Tony Hall in the headlock, and the arms locking his head are the image and the text. Does anyone else see that, or are my “fairness” glasses defective?

“Andrew Blair’s” question certainly resonates with me. The B’nai Brith’s description of the image in its news announcements refers to “a White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew.” Is the Orthodox Jew not a White man too? What is there to say that the aggressor in this image is not Cherokee or Mohawk or Palestinian for that matter?

What are the politics of the B’nai Brith’s choice of words in its racialized approach to its public announcement highlighting this inflammatory image? What effect is being sought? Did the image emerge from a real or staged situation? If it was the former, what was the event? Where did it happen? Who took the photograph? Have the investigators in the B’nai Brith-police-hate-crime-complex explored such matters.

Is the B’nai Brith’s emphasis on “police investigations” itself a staged tactic of sorts? Is it meant to dramatize the main story line aimed ultimately at seizing control of strategic instruments of Internet comminication. The subplot, which is certainly intended to harm me personally and professionally, is that crazed and genocidal anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists– even “holocaust deniers”— are running around loose with full Internet access even in Lethbridge Alberta.

My own best best assessment is that the offending social media item seems likely to have been produced by photo shop juxtapositions of different images. The “White man’s” head and the “Orthodox Jew’s” crushed glasses both look like inserts. The white wing of the victim’s crushed and displaced glasses seems to have been drawn in. There are signs of graphic tinkering in the relationship between the huge muscular arm in the forefront and the squeezed face of the suffering victim.

The reversal of Talmudic-style contempt for the Other (the Goy) cries out in the pictured message of Jewish victimhood. The provocative power of the image is reinforced by the B’nai Brith’s very racialized description. In my recent research I have discovered that this image and others images very much like it—images that often feature the same racist “White man”— show up on many Internet posts, even one I found translated into German.



Where the picture provides the main message, the text provides the “evidence” of the antisemitism that the B’nai Brith and its allied agencies are simultaneously engaged in inventing, cultivating, spotlighting and publicly combating. What justification would there be for the existence of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith without the métier of antisemitism? The primary essence of the B’nai B’rith entities is to advance the agendas of the Israeli entity in the Diaspora, in other words in Canada, USA, Britain, France. Australia, and many other countries.

The text in the offending item is perhaps the most appalling excerpt of gutter prose I have ever seen. Its contents are so unacceptable that they demand careful consideration. Like an illegal drug planted by corrupt police on a targeted individual, the reprehensible social media item has been metaphorically put on my digital front door step and then advertised by the B’nai Brith to advance its own political agenda. I am left with little alternative but to respond as decently and as conscientiously to a crime in progress.

The author, it is claimed by the item’s creator, is Ben “Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison. This Garrison person has many nicknames. He is made to exclaim,

“There was never a Holocaust, but there should have been and, rest assured, there WILL be, as you serpentine kikes richly deserve one. I will not rest until every single filthy. Parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered like the vermin they are. The White man has had more than enough of International Jewry and we are fully prepared to smite the parasite for the millionth time. The greedy, hook nosed kikes know that there days are numbered and, unlike in the past, they now have nowhere to run. This time, there will be no kikes left alive to spead around the planet like cockroaches. We will get them ALL into the oven and their putrid memory will finally be erased from the planet once and for all. Like all parasites the Jew will continue to reproduce until every last one has been wiped out. This is why it is crucial that all kikes are ruthlessly and mercilesslt butchered for the good of us all. KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE!” Ben “Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison

What kind of demented mind would come up with such a macabre celebration of envisaged mass murder? What would be the motivation to pen such a blatant incitement to hate and slaughter of a specific people?

My research into the offending item’s origins quickly led me to the many Internet profiles and posts of Ben Garrison. Ben Garrison is apparently a real person who lives in Montana. It turns out that this Ben Garrison, the sole named individual in the miniature text of the offending Facebook post, is also the aggressor in the photo shopped image. Adorned with dark glasses and a cowboy hat, Garrison is pictured (in the words of B’nai Brith) as “the White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew.”

Ben Garrison

The real life Ben Garrison is often described as a libertarian political satirist. He is a prolific cartoonist whose cartoon and personal images lie at the center of an increasingly contentious media circus. Significantly Facebook figures centrally in the many-faceted narrative of Ben Garrison. Perhaps his Facebook connection is a major reason why B’nai Brith and related agencies chose Garrison’s Internet personae as poster boy for its hate speech campaign of fund raising and ritual defamation.

Holocaust Studies experts at Tel-Aviv University are among the most outspoken proponents of the view that Ben Garrison is indeed the kind of bigoted psychopath who would in real life utter provocations to the genocide of Jews. These Israeli academicians would probably argue it is entirely in character for Ben Garrison to have actually declared with sincerity, “Kill All Jews.” The hypothesis that Ben Garrison’s racist screed should be taken at face value is implicit in the wording and headlines of the posts by B’nai Brith, Daniel Leons-Marder’s Everyday Antisemitism and the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism.

The smear campaign’s architects and engineers are attempting a controlled demolition of my reputation in their quest to harness Facebook more fully to their own agendas. These architects and engineers count among their allies the creators and authors at Encyclopedia dramatica, Of Ben Garrison the encyclopedia’s drama experts report, “Scholars from Tel-Aviv University’s Center for Holocaust Studies have ominously described him [Ben Garrison] as the most racist man in the universe, and the biggest existential threat to the Jews since Hitler.”

This characterization runs counter to the dominant view that Garrison is “the Internet’s most trolled cartoonist.” According to a Breitbart article entitled “Ben Garrison: How the Internet Made a Fake White Supremacist”,

Montana-based artist Ben Garrison isn’t a violent Neo-Nazi, or even a white nationalist. He’s a polite, accomplished cartoonist, with no history of overt or covert racism. His true political leanings are libertarian, anti-elitist, and anti-globalist. Garrison is, in fact, the victim of one the most extraordinary and longest-running smear campaigns on the internet.

For a mixture of amusement and spite, in a trolling spree that has lasted over six years, thousands of online pranksters and real neo-Nazis have been remixing his cartoons into racist caricatures. Most Ben Garrison cartoons attack the government, corporations, and political movements.

However, almost immediately after one is published, it is remixed into a new version that attacks Jews, African-Americans, or other minorities. These are rapidly disseminated in troll communities and sometimes become more widely-shared than the originals.



If Breitbart has it right and Tel-Aviv’s Center for Holocaust Studies has it wrong, then the real Ben Garrison could not have written the disgusting text that goes along with the offensive image of the cartoonist putting his victim in a headlock. If Ben Garrison is not to be understood as the kind of person who could have come up with the wording replicated and publicized by Amanda Hohmann, Daniel Leons-Marder,and B’nai Brith’s CEO, Michael Mostyn, then these individuals are involved in a telling case of false flag deception.

Given the nature of their dubious employment in what Norman Finkelstein has labeled the “Holocaust Industry,” I find it difficult to believe that these individuals as well as their bosses, underlings and associates were not aware of the controversy swirling around Ben Garrison. After all, I was able to discover the basic outlines of the Garrison controversy in a few google searches after viewing the posts featuring Mostyn’s, Hohmann’s and Leons-Marder’s comments. Is this group merely incompetent? Are its members part of a concerted agenda to change the public policies of many agencies, including those of the Canadian government, Facebook and the University of Lethbridge, through calculated misrepresentations, frauds and incitements?

In an Internet post entitled “Ben Garrison on Trolls” the Montana cartoonist is said to speak for himself. Interestingly, Garrison’s observations begin with his reference to the very same Facebook reference to “community standards” that supposedly initiated the B’nai Brith’s slander of me.

“This page wasn’t removed. We reviewed the page you reported for harassment. Since it did not violate our community standards, we did not remove it. Thanks for your report.”

This is the message [writes Ben Garrison] I received after reporting a hate page on Facebook. Near the top of the hate page was a statement that encouraged the extermination of all Jews. Along with that statement was a photo of my face and the name Ben Garrison. Trolls had stolen my artwork and photos from my blog, my cartoon site as well as my fine art site and had concocted an entire page devoted to spewing libelous hate. The troll entity called the page ‘Ben Garrison Cartoons—the Official Site.’ The trolls had stamped the name ‘Ben Garrison’ onto as many hateful images as possible throughout the page. How does one stop such blatant libel? Where do these trolls come from? Is it even possible to track them down? Why do they do such terrible things? Why me?

As I found out, it’s not just me. Many others have suffered the same outrageous indignity. It appears that trolls are no longer content merely talk to each other on sordid sites such as ‘4chan’ or ‘Stormfront.’ They want to go mainstream. Therefore, social media are a natural target for them. Do they really believe the vitriolic memes they are shoveling, or are they merely playing an elaborate prank? It doesn’t matter. Their memes of hate must not go mainstream. Facebook must wake up and block the hate before it gets established. Hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech is blind, one-dimensional blackness. It is not reasoned debate. It loudly shouts for the murder of human beings and Facebook is providing them a megaphone for that purpose.
In my view the largest weight of available evidence points to the conclusion that Ben Garrison did not write the “Kill All Jews” commentary. If Ben Garrison did not write the planted text, then who did?

Could the B’nai Brith’s highlighted social media item have been produced by a Zionist group, agency or individual? Why might partisans of Israel do such a thing? Could it be to provide the ammunition for smear campaigns directed against individuals and groups that criticize Israel? Could it be to create incidents to justify appeals for money such as those accompanying the B’nai Brith’s slanderous posts aimed at damaging the reputation of the University of Lethbridge and my tenured academic role in it as a 26-year member of the Arts and Science Faculty?

Worse, much worse, can be envisaged. Could it be that the production and planting of the Ben Garrison post as well as others like it might be deployed to provide “evidence” in thought crime and speech crime litigation, the ultimate specialty and raison d’etre of the B’nai Brith? It is easy to imagine how such an outlandish and extravagant expression of hostility as that said to come from Garrison could be rendered useful to Crown prosecutors serving the Zionist masters.

Regardless of its source, there is no doubt that the Ben Garrison post could conceivably be exploited as a tailor made item to assist Crown prosecutors serving the agenda of B’nai Brith and related agencies. Such an item could definitely be deployed in a litigious assault on designated targets in order to establish webs of connection linking alleged hate speech with genocidal intent as well as the semantic nuke in the Zionist arsenal of weaponized words.

The conspiracy to advance the public perception that the engineered phrase, “holocaust denial,” has any internal and external coherence as an outlawed category of forbidden thought and speech runs absolutely contrary to the intellectual viability of the academy as well as the health of society more generally. The basic premise of the world’s most fraught term creates a false dichotomy that is coming to epitomize the decline of evidence-based rationality beneath the ascent of a new kind of orthodoxy combining both religious and secular elements.

Those that want to entrench and enforce an outlawed realm of forbidden thought and articulation brandish the weaponized term like an ideological sniper on steroids. They have no interest in providing definitions of where orthodoxy ends and where denial begins. As I am discovering by raising even a simple call for “open debate” on the main platform of Zionism’s unaccountable power, there are harsh new authoritarian forces that need to be called to account if we are even to slow down the police state incursions in our post-911 world.

The new configurations of authority are extending to important agencies like the Royal Canadian Legion, Jasper National Park, and the Alberta Society of Fiddlers. Those overseeing these important institutions are made to feel empowered to impose arbitrary sanctions and punishments against an individual who dared to question enshrined orthodoxy.

The message is made clear that the vibrance of art and culture, the wellbeing of veterans as well as the need to protect some of Alberta’s most majestic Alpine environments have become secondary commitments. The treatment in Jasper National Park of violinist Monika Schaefer signals the end of our free and democratic society. Our right and need to express independent thought, the starting point of collective self-determination, has has been sacrificed in order to enforce supine obedience to the sanctification of an historical interpretation that must not be held subjected to sceptical scrutiny and reconsideration.

How many are now being held, including some Canadians, in dark European dungeons for questioning any aspect of the unrelenting vilification of Germany as home of the most the most evil society of monsters ever to walk the face of the earth? Will we ever be able to liberate ourselves from the spell that is causing us to become so blind and unresponsive to the holocausts we ourselves are imposing on the natural world and also on the besieged worldwide community of our Muslim brothers and sisters?

What are the chances that the nuclear holocaust currently being promoted by our governors can be held back when those most intent on making war not peace are so firmly in charge? Is there a connection between the decline of the anti-war movement and the rise of the militarized police state currently deploying false flag-induced fears to constrain our ability to think, speak and act in conformity with the imperatives of survival? What we most require at this moment is simple affirmations of life’s beauty and integrity. Instead we are delivered coercive dictates demanding we deny what our reason and research tells us to be true.

How did we the academics, but especially we the historians, allow it to happen that a whole category of the European past has been declared off bounds to unfettered discussion and critical investigative scholarship? By allowing this development to proceed, a very sweeping and consequential precedent is being set.

How did we the citizens allow the principle to develop that government can declare that whole subject areas of research and publication to have been so perfectly interpreted, so correctly dealt with in every detail, that no revision and modification of existing conclusions can be allowed. What is the role of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith in enforcing the ruthless bulldozing aside of the most basic foundations of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and adherence to rigorous standards of scientific inquiry.

The B’nai Brith and Ben Garrison, the poster boy for the Zionist organization’s hate speech campaign, are exactly on the same page when it comes to Facebook. Both Ben Garrison and the B’nai Brith seek to constrain free speech on the Internet more tightly. Is this convergence of agendas a coincidence or are more calculated deceptions at play here? To publicize his desire that Facebook be more proactive in censoring the Internet, Garrison produced the following cartoon.


Facebook and Israel; Ben Garrison and the B’nai Brith

My FFWN co-host, Dr. Kevin Barrett, has evaluated the evidence surrounding the Garrison post and concluded it was “very likely produced by B’nai Brith itself, or other Zionist extremists of like mind, as a PR operation. No wonder they are “monitoring” the police to make sure they behave themselves.”

Presenting his own version of the B’nai Brith’s highlighted image, Dr. Barrett continues

The absurd rant with its lurid references to “greedy hook-nosed kikes” and so on does not pass the smell test. Whoever created this image obviously did not do so with the intention of convincing the public to take action against Jews and/or Zionists. On the contrary, it appears to have been designed for the opposite purpose: To convince the public that crazed, foul-mouthed, murderous anti-Semites are a clear and present danger.

Virtually every time a swastika is spray painted on a synagogue, the culprit turns out to be a “self-hating” Jewish Zionist trying to conjure up the specter of an “anti-Semitic threat.” Would an investigation of the provenance of this image find something similar?

Dr. Barrett observes that “the manufactured incident smearing Tony Hall may be part of a coordinated program, orchestrated from Tel Aviv, to try to stop the rise of the ever-increasing virtual army of pro-Palestine social media users.”

As highlighted in Telesur, the government of Israel and Facebook have been represented at the highest level in a series of meetings aimed at conspiring to hold back the growing flood of social media posts subjecting Israel’s maltreatment of the Palestinians to sceptical public scrutiny.


This recent development well demonstrates the specious nature of B’nai Brith’s characterization of Facebook as some kind of rogue agency unwilling to act immediately to pre-empt an existential threat emanating from Lethbridge. More likely the B’nai Brith’s alarmist posts in late August of 2016 were, in part at least, a ploy to divert attention from the reality that social media, but especially Facebook, is more and more being harnessed to Zionist goals and agendas.

Was the B’nai Brith’s deployment of the racist side of Ben Garrison’s dual public personae calculated to serve the double purpose of both smearing me and my school as well as leading interested parties to a surprising “libertarian” voice for the suppression of Internet freedom? What should be done about Internet trolls such as those at the B’nai Brith that have shown themselves to be unrelenting in planting lies and innuendo with the aim of silencing criticism of Israel?

tony-hallDr. Hall is editor in chief of American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

24 thoughts on “Israeli-Canadian Thought Police Take Aim…. At Me”

  1. This is a wake-up call to citizens of the US (and the world),
    this is true terrorism in our society to even allow the existence of these Zionist/Jewish terror groups in our midst,
    make no mistake about it, these terror organization who hide behind obfuscation, lies and Jewish supremacy should be public enemy number one

  2. I grew up in the Willamette Valley in Oregon and met my 1st Jewish friend at 18 when I went away to college. Girlfriend, very bright. I attended a Jewish Friday night service with her because I wanted to know a little something of Judaism. The Rabbi invited these bright 12 and 13 yr olds to stand and teach us of their faith. What a wonderful impression that service made on me.

    My next contact with the faith came a couple of years ago when I was accused of being ‘anti-semitic’ because of several posts about WTC7 and its controlled demolition. It seemed a little strange to me that the one behavior would be attached to the Manhattan event on 9/11. I google anti-semitism and a connection to WTC7 and discovered some very frightening things about Israel and that country’s close ties to the events in America, not only 9/11 but every level of our government and most especially our media.

    Now, I am very suspicious of everything “Israeli”. The term “Explosion” completely scrubbed from the dialogue of 9/11 on 9/12 and never in print or TV again. WTC7 never in print or TV in 15 yrs.

    What the heck is going on? Whose history is this? Whenever I hear someone screaming “anti-semite” – I think of the control drama of the victim and “me thinks he protesteth too much.”

  3. This leaves me confused about what the author really really thinks about Ben Garrison. Obviously Garrison is not the one in these photoshopped pictures, nor are these anti-Jew ideas written next to his image anything that he has said or written except in his refutations that he has anything to do with it. His cartoons go viral in taking down Hillary, the NWO/Globalists, Freemasons, Shariah Muslim terrorists, and the Shills in the Media – Enemies, he has a few. What better way to try to discredit him than with this maligning false evilness. Why him? Why not? He is very effective in his message. Garrison is rightly offended by this vitriolic libelous attack, but that’s the breaks, right? Goes with the territory, right? So, if you want to label Garrison a bad guy for wanting to stop these lies, then you seem to be in the same boat .

  4. “How much longer can the evidence of 9/11 be concealed behind the ruthless kind of ad hominem attacks that have become the well known-specialty of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in all its many constituent parts?” The evidence of 9/11 is unique: the video record of the Twin Towers’ terrorist controlled demolition was broadcasted live to the world and unambiguously demonstrates the controlled demolition, to the point that even an individual with an average intelligence can understand its analytical demonstration with only a moderate amount of assistance. Therefore, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is incapable of concealing the 9/11 evidence. It can, at the most, do its very modest part in what is the enormous undertaking of the 9/11 censorship. The 9/11 censorship is the loose and highly inclusive community of all entities with little sympathy for the winners of 9/11: not only western politicians and mass media, but also socialist parties, green groups, moderate Muslim scholars, faculties and professional organizations of engineering, “rogue” governments, etc.

    Therefore, whoever attacks prof. Hall may be a very big monster with a permanent, worldwide and cross-disciplinary presence. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is merely its little visible active tentacle. Fighting the tentacle is futile.

    Whoever controls the above-mentioned bully pulpits can easily launch a smear campaign against a single scholar, unless the subject matter is trivial enough that the target is very difficult to ridicule. Resisting this juggernaut on the non-trivial question of the holocaust being a hoax is extremely difficult, if possible at all. By contrast, resisting it on the trivial question of the interpretation of the Twin Towers’ video is much easier, and may even turn against the attackers, especially by limiting any debate to elementary concepts about Building 7. Modesty apart, kindly refer to my electronic encounter with some self-proclaimed warriors against anti-Semitism:,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20Baby%20Step/_reorganized/jdl/thread.htm


  5. I am going through all of Garrison’s cartoons since he started back in 2009. Sometimes under the cartoon, he will write his thoughts on what inspired the cartoon. This was an interesting read from Jan 2011:

    Terrorists aren’t just some men in turbans living on the other side of the globe. They’re right here in America. In fact, they ARE Americans and they come from Washington D.C. Their targets are fellow Americans and inevitably our freedoms get eroded still more as a result. Oh sure, they always tell us it’s for our ‘safety and protection.’ In reality it’s about power and control–as in more for them; less for us. There are many terrorists in our government. I pared them down to what I consider the top three:
    1. The Federal Reserve. He’s perhaps the biggest terrorist. In 1913 we allowed private, international banks to gain control over our money. Their system is fundamentally flawed and is now teetering on collapse. And collapse it should. Congress can end the Fed, but Congress is largely bought out by Fed money. Meanwhile, the rich elite bet fabulously wealthy while the rest of us lose our money, our jobs and economic self-determination. The Fed sticks us with inflation, austerity and a tyrannical IRS who takes more and more money through increased taxes ostensibly to pay off a debt that is impossible to pay off. Meanwhile, Ben Bernanke and crew continue with low interest rates and a flood of cash that benefits failing banks at the top. Why not aim that money blower at those at the bottom?
    2. War. Inc keeps trying to maintain an empire we can’t afford in both lives and dollars. But since there is money in it for insiders and big defense corporations, we continue to maintain hundreds of bases all over the world. Will the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ever end? Unlikely. Wherever War Inc. sets up shop, it’s there to stay unless defeated. After all, they never left Germany, Japan and Korea. Do we really need hundreds of bases overseas while we can’t seem to summon up the will to defend our own southern border? Ron Paul is right. We must end this crazy idea of empire. We need to stop terrorizing other countries and let them run their own affairs.
    3. Domestic terror is on the increase under Janet Napolitano, aka “Big Sis.” The Nanny State’s nanny, she’s doing our best to keep us all safe. Our president could have ended this nonsense, but Obama refuses to deliver on his promise of “hope and change.” Instead we got hopeless sameness. He did not end the wars. He did not end the insultingly-named “Patriot Act.” He carries on with Bush’s game plan and obeys Wall Street. What a surprise. Government only grows and takes more power until it is stopped. Americans need to push back instead of sheepishly obeying orders. We all know what happened to Germany in the 1930s and early 40s. Are we really going to allow the TSA to aggressively frisk us, our parents and our children? Insiders such as Chertoff got rich from the installation of DNA-scrambling airport scanners. That we pay for! Will we not complain about stepping into these humiliating and harmful naked body chambers? Will we complain when they make us go into camps? Will we really report suspicious behavior at China*Mart? Will we complain when they take our friends and family away? Will we accept the destruction of our Bill of Rights in the name of security?
    If we really want to stop terrorism, let’s begin with our own government. We can do this by means of peaceful protest, reason, persuasion, proselytizing and non-compliance whenever possible. If you must be frisked, at least be angry about it and let them know you are angry. It’s time to get mad!

  6. Finishing up now with reviewing Garrison’s cartoons and commentary on his website. This is a follow-up to his interview with Milo a year ago:

    I had an online streaming YouTube video interview with Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos, a popular and charismatic web personality. I’m not a public speaker, but I tried to very quickly explain my story as well as describe the deleterious results. The vicious trolling has had a negative impact on my career. Many people do not see it as a harmless prank when they use search engines. They believe everything Google tells them as the absolute truth. To be sure, the doppelgänger meme used against me has been a non-stop source of hilarity for many, but to me it hasn’t been very funny. I’m now in a position where I must try to make a living from cartooning and my fine art. The latter is more difficult given I’m no longer represented by a gallery (due to the owner getting attacked by trolls), but I’m not giving up. During the golden age of editorial cartooning, there were over 2,000 PAID cartoonists at newspapers across America. With the advent of TV and then the Internet, newspapers have waned and now there are around 40 paid cartoonists. Most of them are on the liberal side of the fence. They are Pulitzer Prize winners who endorse statism, more government and more taxes. People such as me are impugned as ‘stupid’ and ‘racist’ in their cartoons. Even though some of them are extremely well-drawn, the ideas conveyed in them can often be boiled down to what they are–crude cheap shots. Fortunately cartoonists now have the Internet where their work can be seen free of constraints. Free speech has consequences, however—Internet trolls can freely vandalize the work and ruin the intended message. In my case, the waters have been so muddied that many believe that I really am some kind of white supremacist calling for murder. The only way out is for me to continue to draw them and hope for some support. That said, it’s notoriously difficult to make a living as an independent cartoonist. The support the MSM cartoonists get also means they are muzzled and leashed by their masters. They lead comfortable lives and draw ‘safe’ cartoons in line with what the ruling masters want. When Herblock died he was worth nearly $90 million. Not bad for an artist, but he was at the right paper at the right time. He bought a bunch of stock at the Washington Post early on when it was struggling and it paid off for him. A $50 million fund to help cartoonists was set up after his death. Herblock wanted to sustain cartooning and promote free speech. What happened? You can guess. The awards go to the already-rich Pulitzer Prize winners and statist cartoonists. Almost nothing goes to the needy, young, up-and-coming cartoonists. I’m urging everyone to help support any young cartoonist who speaks out against the fascist state. If you like their talent and message, contribute a $1 per month on their Patreon pages. You can support me, too—and I could use the help considering my commercial art business has dried up. I still have some regular clients, but I can’t get new ones. Not when they see me in a Nazi uniform on Google searches. Thanks to trolls, I must now go ‘all in’ and draw even more cartoons in order rise above the incessant trolling. It will require some tenacity on my part and some help from my friends….

  7. It says comments subject to moderation but there never is any review and both the authors and posters continue with their naive anti-Jewish view on 9/11 and the holocaust. Check out Operation Gladio and you will find the mafia, police, military, Jews and Christians all conspired for it and contemporary events are no different except now you can add Muslims.

    1. The article does not involve “anti-Jewish view[s] on 9/11 and the holocaust [sic]” as much as suggesting how such historical events have been shaped and manipulated in popular discourse via US mass media, much of which it is fairly difficult to dispute has for the past century been virtually owned and/or managed by Jews, as historians such as Neil Gabler have documented. Coincidence? Granted, the Jewish diaspora isn’t necessarily a monolith, as some might argue. Yet there are powerful ideological force and parameters that influence news, entertainment, and as Prof. Hall’s experience suggests scholarship in the West.

      The author in fact explains how as an academic publicly addressing controversial issues and events he has been targeted by Israeli-Jewish forces seeking to harness and direct public opinion against him using among the most powerful symbols and memes, apparently even secretly placing grossly incriminating posts on his “social media person.” This is all pursued in an effectively criminal effort to pressure his university’s administrators to abruptly terminate his 32-year profession in higher education for which he has earned tenure.

      For comparative purposes, see “Sand Hook Massacre: Three Years of Subterfuge and Fraud.”

  8. On a lighter/darker note, I’m amused/alarmed by this quote from B’nai Brith’s Amanda Hohman:

    “Mr. Barrett is a known anti-semite conspiracy theorist, a Holocaust Denier, and 9/11 Denier and all sorts of other things.”

    There’s the conflation of “anti-semitism” with “Holocaust Denier” — a conflation we’ve seen — but now with the addition of “9/11 Denier.” Holy Cass Sunstein!

    Can you imagine someone getting up at a public meeting and shouting: “I deny 9/11.”

    1. I find it amusing that the phrase “Holocaust Denier” is even bantered about by scholars and educated people, this is CLEARLY the politicization of history and a distortion of the facts,
      the whole idea of suggesting someone is politically incorrect (in this case even criminal) because they do not concede a particular point of view (in this case an extreme Jewish Supremacist view that is clearly propagandized and has been largely fictionalized) in history/politics is an insult to educated rational people everywhere
      and represents totalitarianism and thought control


  9. I just found one of those “manipulated” Garrison cartoons in the comments for an article at Blacklisted News about Netanyahu who said something like, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”:

    Here’s the “righteous” cartoon as intended by the self-proclaimed unanti-semitic Garrison, the cartoonist who agrees with B’nai Brith that authorities should curtail free expression and police social media:

    Here’s the same cartoon “manipulated” by dastardly anti-semites who hurt Garrison’s feelings:

    I agree with Hall and Barrett’s assessment of Ben Garrison, that he is constructed as a voice to limit speech from the “alt-right” side of the spectrum.

    1. Perhaps, as it does fit in to a broader narrative. Yet Garrison also maintains that his private business and finances have also suffered as a result of the relentless online attacks on social media and elsewhere.

      1. Perhaps I should listen to the Real Politik interview before judging.

        Still, I can imagine ways that he could benefit from a relationship with B’nai B’rith, especially if he was feeling financial pressure.

      2. Ok, I listened to Garrison’s interview, and it was compelling as the Real Politik interviews usually are. However, I didn’t come away convinced that Garrison was driven to calling for limits on social media speech because of the awful drubbing he’s taken at – where? – 4chan.

        Please. It could be argued that 4chan exists for no other reason than offending sensibilities. 4chan is purposefully not about changing anyone’s mind; it’s about shock. The giddy atmosphere enjoyed by its users is maintained by consciously and viciously violating accepted norms, extra points for humor. As such, I would say it provides a useful service, especially for adolescents.

        I’m not going to write anything like a treatise here, because I’ve not done all the research. But here are a few questions I would explore, had I the time to do it today:

        One, all the violations of Garrison’s work can be handled by existing copyright law, especially if he can prove financial damage.

        Two, the manipulations of Garrison’s cartoons do not resemble other memes. One particular activity on boards such as 4chan and reddit is for users to take an image, and quickly transform it in dozens of ways to humorous effect. For example, check out this image search for the meme using the UC Davis cop who pepper sprayed the protesting students: Copyright is not considered in these contests, nor should it be, as it is satire.

        The images of Garrison’s hijacked cartoons do not resemble these other memes. In fact, as a photoshop challenge, the Garrison’s cartoons manipulations look like one element is simply replaced with another; too many times the caricature of the hook-nosed jew fits conveniently into the space occupied by Garrison’s cartoon subject.

        In short, Garrison’s cartoons have not been taken up by “sewer-dwelling” denizens of the dark side of the web as he charges, but appear to have only one provenance, as they all look the same.

        Three, Garrison maintains that elements of Wyatt Mann’s cartoons were imposed on his drawings. I could find no Wyatt Mann elements in Garrison’s manipulated images, except the famous hook-nosed Jew caricature which appears to be from the 20th century. I wonder if Wyatt Mann was yet another construction of B’nai B’rith’s promotion of anti-semitism.

        Fourth, I’m suspicious of the timeline, from when Garrison started cartooning full-time, to being trolled, to being outraged, to claiming victimhood and calling for censorship in concordance with the view of the very people who excoriated him in the first place. It all happened in pretty quick succession. This is where more research could be directed.

        One thing I’d like to see is Garrison stop calling himself a libertarian. He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

        All of Garrison’s arguments for limiting speech echo the hysterically anxious pronouncements of those opposed to free expression, from Stanley Fish to B’nai B’rith, who declare that “hate speech” is the real censorship, because it violates the monopoly they would like to achieve for their own ideas.

        I’ve argued against this pernicious idea before here at MHB. People who push it, including Ben Garrison, are not concerned about the sanctity of their own thoughts; they want to be the arbiters of what others think.

        1. Garrison complains that his cartoons have been made to appear racist and antisemitic, but he became a target only because he covered up Jewish crimes, blamed Whites and Westerners for Jewish crimes, and bleated about waycism but ignored real systemic racism against White people.

          Hard to sympathize. Grow a pair and start defending all peoples equally, including Whites, that’s if you can’t just be a regular person and defend your own primarily.

  10. Dr. Tony, Dr. Jim, keep fighting! This is a typical staged attack on you that has worked numerous times on others to silence criticism regarding criminal and murderous policies at the most horrendous level. You have been placed in a defensive position with these accusations and you are now in a vulnerable defensive posture. You must go on the offensive by remaining focused on your truthful depiction of what is really going on in the world.

  11. Excellent writing, Dr. Hall! I found this thought particularly penetrating: “Are there many holocausts or only one?”

    In my studies of the great Jean-Luc Godard (himself wrongly accused of anti-Semitism) I find a parallel to this pluri-dimensionality of inquiry. Godard’s magnum opus (and indeed my favorite film of all time) deals extensively with the Holocaust and contains the very nuance of which you speak in its title: Histoire(s) du cinéma.


  12. Just wanted to quickly post a couple of links having to do with Lethbridge.

    Kevin Barrett writes about how manufactured Holocaust denial scandals are viewed throughout the world, asking, “Is ‘the Holocaust’ Eurocentric?”

    And yesterday, B’nai B’rith declared that,”Academic Freedom Does Not Include Holocaust Denial” in a diatribe against Tony Hall, in which they accuse him of advocating for an “open debate on the Holocaust.”

    What kind of monster advocates for open debate on a university campus?

  13. Anthony Hall wrote,

    “What remedies are or are not available for the likes of Dr. Barrett who is a Muslim man. Along with the rest of the omma, Dr. Barrett and his family are regularly subjected to heavy does of “hate speech” and sometimes worse.”

    Muslims are not subjected to ‘hate speech’ from our elites, and when proles hate speech them or ‘worse’ – they are dealt with severely. On the other hand White people are subjected to hate speech by our elites and our proles routinely, and it is almost exactly the very definition of ‘political correctness’. And when ‘worse’ follows, it is covered up, DENIED, even tho it happens in numbers that make headlined White on minority (Jew, Muslim, Black, Asian, Hispanic, whatever) look minuscule.


    There is a big problem here with this dishonest rhetoric. Even for those Westerners who just want to end the Jewish authored War on Muslims, let alone those who are more properly focused on defending ourselves.

    We can only achieve either end if Whites first learn to distinguish ourselves from Jews. So boilerplate anti-racist brainwashing, also self-servingly scripted by Jews is the problem, not the answer.

  14. You can hear some spirited free speech talk on Barrett and Hall’s False Flag Weekly radio show this week. They discuss the issues highlighted in the above article, as well as introduce Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, the man who was thrown out of a Kansas City Library for asking the wrong zionist-related questions.

    This aspect is neglected in the linked article about the incident at the Bill of Rights Defense/Defending Dissent Foundation site. Instead the story focuses on the heroic defense of Jeremy’s free speech by a brave librarian who was then arrested himself. Both men are heroes in my mind; the Foundations less so.

Comments subject to moderation