Patriot Letter. Dated 11/9/05.

Archived by k0nsl.

[NOTE: I do not necessarily agree with all the things written by Walther F. Mueller; I merely archive this newsletter because it does contain interesting bits worth saving.]



Dear Fellow Patriot!

Below you will find another one of those real life
experiences that are so important in exposing the
holocaust lies. Heads up to the Martins!

These are the people that I like to work with. many of
you know that I call them “Street Revisionists.” They
are activists on the front, like Chris Miller, Harvey
Taylor, and others. Now add the Martins. So, enjoy:

Jack Martin:


They had a public presentation on the “Holocaust” in
Scottsdale, AZ
this afternoon. Some may find this of interest:

Waltraud and I just returned from a “Cross Cultural
Series” presentation in Scottsdale at:

Community Design Studio
7506 E. Indian School Road
Scottsdale, AZ
The presentation was “Lessons from the Holocaust,”
featuring a talk
by 77 year old “Holocaust” survivor Helen Handler.

They will be having a repeat next week on Nov. 15
(6:00 p.m.) at:
Pinnacle Training Room
7575 E. Main St.

I don’t know if we will go to that one. They might
not let us in – or
maybe even call the local gendarmes.

I think you would have enjoyed it. There were about a
hundred people
there – presumably mostly Jews, a couple of war
veterans, and a bunch
of older people – probably retirees – looking for some
We probably gave them plenty of that.

“Überlebende” Handler droned on for a little over an
hour about her
purported experiences – in a rather subdued and hard
to follow
Did not have very much to say concerning details other
than to remark
in passing concerning the smell and flames from the
burning bodies at
Auschwitz. She did fleetingly mention the “gas
chambers” but did not
indicate that she had actually seen such.

At the end of her talk when the moderator called for
questions or
comments Waltraud arose and addressed “survivor”
Handler thus:

“I understand that the German Government is paying
reparation money
to over 4 million Jewish survivors… are YOU
collecting such payment.”

She allowed that she was. The audience was for the
most part not
favorably disposed to our comments and one or two
indicated objection
to bringing the money issue up when the recipients had
endured such
suffering. I then got up and pointed out that IT WAS
and that,
furthermore, there was no physical or documentary
evidence that “gas
chambers” had existed in any of the German
concentration camps – not
at Auschwitz or Dachau or at Sobibor, Treblinka,
Bergen-Belsen or any

I would add that both of us spoke up with sufficient
volume to be
heard by all present.

A few piped up with their disapproval asking such
irrelevant questions
as: “Were you there?”; “Were you in any of those
camps?”; etc. One
complained about the bombing of London.
I replied that London had not been bombed until after
Berlin had been
bombed seven times by the RAF.
There was much other wailing and gnashing of teeth –
more murmuring
about the bad taste of mentioning the reparations
I again asserted that it was not the money that was
important but the
number of people receiving it. I pointed out again
that if six million
been killed more than sixty years ago… no way could
more than four
million be receiving money as “survivors.”

“DO THE MATH!”, I said

As you may imagine, our participation was not well
received but
many of those present got to hear something that they
likely had not
ever heard before.

One of the kosher krowd pushed Waltraud as she was
walking out
the door, but beat a hasty retreat when I told him to
get his hands off
my wife before I knocked his block off.

All in all, it was kind of a fun event. It most
certainly did not go
according to their plans for it. A good time was had
– but not by all!

It was especially satisfying to do this on the
occasion of the first
Ernst Zündel’s mock trial in Mannheim today. We did
not have the
opportunity to mention that in all the tumult, or the
matter of Germar
Rudolf in Chicago.

Best regards,

Jack & Trudi Martin



Kevin Lyons:


November 05, 2005

“Stalin’s Willing Executioners”?
By Kevin MacDonald

[Also by Kevin MacDonald: Thinking about
Neoconservatism; Was the 1924
Immigration Cut-off “Racist”?; Immigration And The
Question Of Ethnic Interests]

Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century, which
appeared last year to
rapturous reviews, is an intellectual tour de force,
and brilliant, courageous and apologetic. Slezkine’s
accomplishment is to set the historical record
straight on the
importance of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and its
aftermath. He
summarizes previously available data and extends our
understanding of
the Jewish role in revolutionary movements before 1917
and of Soviet
society thereafter. His book provides a fascinating
chronicle of the
Jewish rise to elite status in all areas of Soviet
the universities, professional occupations, the media,
and government.
Indeed, the book is also probably the best, most
up-to-date account of
Jewish economic and cultural pre-eminence in Europe
(and America) that
we have.

The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was
a Jewish
revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially
dominated by Jews
now been largely eliminated from modern academic
historiography. The
current view, accepted by almost all contemporary
historians, is that
Jews played no special role in Bolshevism and indeed,
were uniquely
victimized by it.

Slezkine’s book provides a bracing corrective to this
current view.

Slezkine himself [email him] is a Russian immigrant of
partially Jewish
extraction. Arriving in America in 1983, he moved
quickly into elite
U.S. academic circles and is now a professor at U.C.
Berkeley. This,
second book, is his first on a major theme.

While the greater part of The Jewish Century is an
exposition of the
Russian experience, Slezkine provides what are in
effect sidebars
(comparatively flimsy) recounting the Jewish
experience in America and
the Middle East. Together, these phenomena can in fact
be seen as the
three great Jewish migrations of the 20th century,
since within Russia
millions of Jews left the shtetl towns of the Pale of
migrating to Moscow and the other cities to man elite
positions in the
Soviet state.

Slezkine attempts to understand Jewish history and the
rise of Jews to
elite status in the 20th century by developing the
thesis that the
peoples of the world can be classified into two

The successful peoples of the modern world, termed
Mercurians, are
urban, mobile, literate, articulate, and
intellectually sophisticated.

The second group, termed Apollonians, is rooted to the
land with
traditional agrarian cultures, valuing physical
strength and warrior

Since Slezkine sees Jews as the quintessential
modernization is essentially a process of everyone
becoming Jewish.
Indeed, Slezkine regards both European individualism
and the European
nation state as imitations of pre-existing Jewish
deeply problematic views, in my opinion.

There are problems with the Mercurian/Apollonian
distinction as well.
The Gypsies whom he offers as an example of another
Mercurian people,
are basically the opposite of Jews: having a
low-investment, low-IQ
reproductive style characterized by higher fertility,
earlier onset of
reproduction, more unstable pair bonds, and more
single parenting.

The Overseas Chinese, another proposed parallel, are
indeed highly
intelligent and entrepreneurial, like the Jews. But I
would argue the
aggressiveness of the Jews, compared to the relative
of the Overseas Chinese, invalidates the comparison.

We do not read of Chinese cultural movements
dominating the major local
universities and media outlets, subjecting the
traditional culture of
Southeast Asians and anti-Chinese sentiment to radical
critique *or of
Chinese organizations campaigning for the removal of
native cultural
religious symbols from public places.

Moreover, the vast majority of Jews in Eastern Europe
in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were hardly
the modern
Mercurians that Slezkine portrays.

Well into the 20th century, as Slezkine himself notes,
most Eastern
European Jews could not speak the languages of the
non-Jews living
around them. Slezkine also ignores their medieval
outlook on life,
their obsession with the Kabbala*the writings of
mystics*their superstition and anti-rationalism, and
their belief
in magical remedies and exorcisms.

And these supposedly modern Mercurians had an attitude
of absolute
faith in the person of the tsadik, their rebbe, who
was a charismatic
figure seen by his followers literally as the
personification of God in
the world.

Slezkine devotes one line to the fact that Jewish
populations in
Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural
increase of any European
population in the nineteenth century. The grinding
poverty that this
produced caused an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism
that coalesced
the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth
century, into
political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to
Jewish problems.

By proposing the basically spurious
Mercurian/Apollonian contrast,
Slezkine obscures the plain fact that Jewish history
in the period he
discusses constitutes a spectacularly, arguably
uniquely, successful
case of what I have described as an ethnocentric group
strategy in action.

Slezkine conceptualizes Mercurianism as a worldview
and therefore a
matter of psychological choice rather than a set of
mechanisms, notably general intelligence and
ethnocentrism. He appears
to be aware of the biological reality of kinship and
ethnicity, but he
steadfastly pursues a cultural determinism model. As a
result of this
false premise, he understates the power of
ethnocentrism and group
competitiveness as unifying factors in Jewish history.

This competitiveness was of course notorious in
Eastern Europe before
the 1917 revolution. Slezkine ignores, or at least
does not spell out,
the extent to which Jews were willing agents of
exploitative elites in
traditional societies, not only in Europe, but in the
Muslim world as
well. Forming alliances with exploitative elites is
arguably the most
reliably recurrent theme observable in Jewish economic
behavior over

Indeed, Slezkine shows that this pattern effectively
continued in
Russia after the Revolution: Jews became part of a new
elite. But here boundaries between Jews and non-Jews
were unusually
blurred*in traditional societies, barriers between
Jews and non-Jews
at all social levels were always high.

Slezkine supposes that Jews and other Mercurians
performed economic
tasks deemed inappropriate for the natives for
religious reasons. But
this is only part of the story. Often these were
situations where the
natives were simply comparatively less ruthless in
exploiting their
fellows, which put them at a competitive disadvantage.
This was
especially the case in Eastern Europe, where conducive
arrangements, such as tax farming, estate management,
and monopolies on
retail liquor distribution, lasted far longer than in
the West.

Slezkine also ignores the extent to which Jewish
competition may have
suppressed * arguably sometimes reversed * the
formation of a native
middle class in Eastern Europe. He seems instead to
simply assume the
locals lacked the abilities required.

But the fact is that in most of Western Europe Jews
were expelled in
the Middle Ages. And, as a result, when modernization
occurred, it was
accomplished with an indigenous middle class. Perhaps
the Christian
taxpayers of England made a good investment in their
own future when
they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of
£116,346 in return
expelling 2000 Jews in 1290. If, as in Eastern Europe,
Jews had won the
economic competition in most of these professions,
there might not have
been a non-Jewish middle class in England.

Although in the decades immediately before the Russian
Revolution Jews
had already made enormous advances in social and
economic status, a
major contribution of Slezkine’s book is to document
that Communism
was, indeed, “good for the Jews.” After the
Revolution, there was
active elimination of any remnants of the older order
and their
descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews
benefited from
“antibourgeois” quotas in educational institutions and
forms of discrimination against the middle class and
elements of the old regime, which could have competed
with the Jews.
While all other nationalities, including Jews, were
allowed and
encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the
revolution maintained
anti-majoritarian attitude. (Some might argue that the
parallel with
post ’65 Civil Rights Act America ironic!)

Beyond the issue of demonstrating that the Jews
benefited from the
Revolution lies the more important question of their
role in
implementing it. Having achieved power and elite
status, did their
traditional hostility to the leaders of the old
regime, and to the
peasantry, contribute to the peculiarly ghastly
character of the early
Soviet era?

On this question, Slezkine’s contribution is decisive.

Despite the important role of Jews among the
Bolsheviks, most Jews were
not Bolsheviks before the Revolution. However, Jews
were prominent
the Bolsheviks, and once the Revolution was underway,
the vast majority
of Russian Jews became sympathizers and active

Jews were particularly visible in the cities and as
leaders in the army
and in the revolutionary councils and committees. For
example, there
were 23 Jews among 62 Bolsheviks in the All-Russian
Central Executive
Committee elected at the Second Congress of Soviets in
October, 1917.
Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great
extent they were its
public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top
levels of the Cheka
and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret
police). Here Slezkine
provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in
especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian
Shapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune
to fall
into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance
of finding himself
confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police,
now known as the
NKVD, “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet
institutions”, with
42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time
12 of the 20
directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including
those in charge of
State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement

The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning
in 1930 until
the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst
excesses of the
Great Terror.

They were, in Slezkine’s remarkable phrase, “Stalin’s

Slezkine appears to take a certain pride in the drama
of the role of
the Jews in Russia during these years. Thus he says
they were…

“among the most exuberant crusaders against
‘bourgeois’ habits
during the Great Transformation; the most disciplined
advocates of
socialist realism during the ‘Great Retreat’ (from
internationalism); and the most passionate prophets of
faith, hope, and
combat during the Great Patriotic War against the

Sometimes his juxtapositions between his descriptions
of Jewish
involvement in the horror of the early Soviet period
and the lifestyles
of the Jewish elite seem deliberately jarring. Lev
Kopelev, a Jewish
writer who witnessed and rationalized the Ukrainian
famine in which
millions died horrible deaths of starvation and
disease as a
“historical necessity” is quoted saying: “You mustn’t
give in
to debilitating pity. We are the agents of historical
necessity. We are
fulfilling our revolutionary duty.”

On the next page, Slezkine describes the life of the
largely Jewish
elite in Moscow and Leningrad where they attended the
theater, sent
their children to the best schools, had peasant women
(whose families
were often the victims of mass murder) for nannies,
spent weekends at
pleasant dachas and vacationed at the Black Sea.

Again, Slezkine discusses the heavily Jewish NKVD and
the Jewish
leadership of the Great Terror of the 1930s. Then, he
writes that in
1937 the prototypical Jewish State official “probably
would have been
living in elite housing in downtown Moscow… with
access to special
stores, a house in the country (dacha), and a live-in
peasant nanny or
maid”. He writes long and lovingly detailed sketches
of life at the
dachas of the elite*the “open verandas overlooking
small gardens
enclosed by picket fences*”

The reader is left on his own to recall the horrors of
the Ukrainian
famine, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and the Gulag.

Slezkine attempts to dodge the issue of the degree to
which the horrors
perpetrated by the early Soviet state were rooted in
the traditional
attitudes of the Jews who in fact played such an
extensive role in
orchestration. He argues that the Jewish Communists
were Communists,

This does not survive factual analysis.

One might grant the possibility that the revolutionary
vanguard was
composed of Jews like Trotsky, apparently far more
influenced by a
universalist utopian vision than by their upbringing
in traditional
Judaism. But, even granting this, it does not
necessarily follow for
the millions of Jews who left the shtetl towns,
migrated to the cities,
and to such a large extent ran the USSR.

It strains credulity to suppose that these migrants
completely and
immediately threw off all remnants of the Eastern
European shtetl
culture*which, as Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep
sense of
estrangement from non-Jewish society, a fear and
hatred of peasants,
hostility toward the Czarist upper class, and a very
negative attitude
toward Christianity.

In other words, the war against what Slezkine terms
backwardness and religion” * major targets of the
Revolution * was
exactly the sort of war that traditional Jews would
have supported
wholeheartedly, because it was a war against
everything they hated and
thought of as oppressing Jews.

However, while Slezkine seems comfortable with the
notion of revenge as
a Jewish motive, he does not consider traditional
Jewish culture itself
as a possible contributor to Jewish behavior in the
new Communist

Moreover, while it was generally true that Jewish
servants of the
Soviet regime had ceased being religious Jews, this
did not mean they
ceased having a Jewish identity. (Albert Lindeman made
this point when
reviewing Slezkine in The American Conservative
[article not on line].)

Slezkine quotes the philosopher Vitaly Rubin speaking
of his career at
a top Moscow school in the 1930s where over half the
students were

“Understandably, the Jewish question did not arise
there*All the Jews
knew themselves to be Jews but considered everything
to do with
Jewishness a thing of the past…There was no active
desire to renounce
one’s Jewishness. The problem simply did not exist.”

In other words, in the early decades of the Soviet
Union, the ruling
class was so heavily a Jewish milieu, that there was
no need to
renounce a Jewish identity and no need to aggressively
push for Jewish
interests. Jews had achieved elite status.

But ethnic networking continued nonetheless. Indeed,
Slezkine reports
that when a leading Soviet spokesmen on anti-Semitism,
Yuri Larin
(Lurie), tried to explain the embarrassing fact that
Jews were, as he
said, “preeminent, overabundant, dominant, and so on”
among the
elite in the Soviet Union, he mentioned the “unusually
strong sense of
solidarity and a predisposition toward mutual help and
support”*ethnic networking by any other name.

Obviously, “mutual help and support” required that
Jews recognize
each other as Jews. Jewish identity may not have been
much discussed.
But it operated nonetheless, even if subconsciously,
in the rarified
circles at the top of Soviet society.

Things changed. Slezkine shows that the apparent
de-emphasis of Jewish
identity by many members of the Soviet elite during
the 1920s and 1930s
turned out to be a poor indicator of whether or not
these people
identified as Jews*or would do so when Jewish and
Soviet identities
began to diverge in later years: when National
Socialism reemphasized
Jewish identity, and when Israel emerged as a magnet
for Jewish
sentiment and loyalty.

In the end, despite the rationalizations of many
Soviet Jews on Jewish
identity in the early Soviet period, it was blood that

After World War II, in a process which remains
somewhat obscure, the
Russian majority began taking back their country. One
method was
“massive affirmative action” aimed at giving greater
representation to underrepresented ethnic groups. Jews
became targets
suspicion because of their ethnic status. They were
barred from some
elite institutions, and had their opportunities for
Overt anti-Semitism was encouraged by the more covert
official variety
apparent in the limits on Jewish advancement.

Under these circumstances, Slezkine says that Jews
became “in many
ways, the core of the antiregime intelligentsia”.
Applications to
leave the USSR increased dramatically after Israel’s
Six-Day War of
1967 which, as in the United States and Eastern
Europe, resulted in an
upsurge of Jewish identification and ethnic pride. The
floodgates were
eventually opened by Gorbachev in the late 1980s. By
1994, 1.2 million
Soviet Jews had emigrated*43% of the total. By 2002,
there were only
230,000 Jews remaining in the Russian Federation,
0.16% of the

Nevertheless these remaining Jews remain
overrepresented among the
elite. Six of the seven oligarchs who emerged in
control of the Soviet
economy and media in the period of de-nationalization
of the 1990s were

As mentioned above, Slezkine’s discussions of the
Jewish experience
in the Middle East and America are quite perfunctory
in comparison.

Slezkine views the Jewish migration to Israel as
heroic and believes
the moral debt owed to Jews by Western societies
justifies the most
extreme expressions of Jewish racialism:

“The rhetoric of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic
deportations, tabooed
elsewhere in the West is a routine element of Israeli
political life*
other European state can have as strong a claim on the
West’s moral

He sees the moral taboo on European ethnocentrism, the
designation of
Nazism as the epitome of absolute evil, and the
identification of Jews
as what he calls “the Chosen people of the postwar
Western world” as
simply the inevitable results of the events of World
War II. In fact,
of course, the creation and maintenance of the culture
of the
“Holocaust” and the special moral claims of Jews and
Israel might be
more fairly viewed the intended result of Jewish
ethnic activism.

Slezkine’s caricature of American history is close to
He sees the United States as a Jewish promised land
precisely because
is not defined tribally and “has no state-bearing
natives”. In fact,
of course, the Founding Fathers very explicitly saw
themselves as
Englishmen defending a specific political tradition.
But (somewhat like
the Soviet Union’s Jews in the early decades) they
felt no need to
assert the cultural and ethnic parameters of their
creation; they
asssumed the racial and cultural homogeneity of the
Republic and
perceived no threat to its control by themselves and
their descendants.

And when the Founding Fathers’ descendents did
percieve such a
threat, they reacted powerfully and decisively, with
the Know-Nothing
movement in the 1850s and the Immigration Restriction
(and associated
“Americanization” requirements) in the early 20th
Slezkine’s acceptance of the “Proposition Nation” myth
the triumph of intellectuals and propagandists, many
of them Jewish,
led by Horace Kallen in the 1920s. These succesfully
replaced the
previously standard view by which many Americans
thought of themselves
as members of a very successful ethnic group derived
from Great Britain
and with strong cultural and ethnic connections to
Europe, particularly
Northern Europe.

The fate of Russia in the first two decades following
the Revolution
prompts reflection on what might have happened in the
United States had
American communists and their sympathizers assumed
power. Sectors of
American society might perhaps have been deemed
unacceptably backward
and superstitious and even worthy of mass murder by
the American
counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet
Union*the ones who
journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.

Those “red state” voters who have loomed so important
in recent
national elections would have been the enemy. The
cultural and
attitudes of “red state” America are precisely those
attitudes that
have been deemed changeworthy by the left,
particularly by the Jewish
community, which has been the driving force of the
left in America
throughout the 20th Century.

As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations,
[American] Jews have
viewed religious conservatives with a combination of
fear and

And, as Elliott Abrams had noted, the American Jewish
“clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America,
as a land
permeated with anti-Semitism*”

The dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture
that caused so
many Eastern European shtetl Jews to become “willing
in the name of international socialism is unmistakably
related, however
remotely, to the views of some contemporary American
Jews about a
majority of their fellow countrymen.

Slezkine’s main point is that the most important
factor for
understanding the history of the 20th Century is the
rise of the Jews
the West and the Middle East, and their rise and
decline in Russia. I
think he is absolutely right about this.

If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that Jews
not only became
an elite in all these areas, they became a hostile
elite*hostile to
the traditional people and cultures of all three areas
they came to

So far, the greatest human tragedies have occurred in
the Soviet Union.
But the presence of Israel in the Middle East is
creating obvious
dangers there. And alienation remains a potent motive
for the
disproportionate Jewish involvement in the
transformation of the U.S.
into a non-European society through non-traditional

Given this record of Jews as a very successful but
hostile elite, it is
possible that the continued demographic and cultural
dominance of
Western European peoples will not be retained, either
in Europe or the
United States, without a decline in Jewish influence.

But the lesson of the Soviet Union (as also Spain from
the 15th*17th
centuries) is that Jewish influence does wane as well
as wax. Unlike
attitudes of the utopian ideologies of the 20th
Century, there is no
to history.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology
at California
State University-Long Beach. This article is adapted
from a longer
review [pdf] published in the Fall 2005 issue of The

The articles on are brought to you by the
Lexington Research
Institute and The Center for American Unity. We are
supported by
generous donations from our readers. Contributions are
tax deductible
and appreciated. Contribute…





November 8, 2005
by Charles Coughlin

We have all heard our cowardly politicians claim that
Israel is a “great ally” of the United States. Well,
let’s take a critical look at that claim. Right this
minute the United States is engaged in a war with
Iraqi rebels, who want us out of their country. George
Bush scoured the planet from Micronesia to Mongolia
looking for any nation that would send a platoon of
soldiers in exchange for “who knows how much” foreign
aid. The one nation with a well-trained military,
which has been proclaimed a “great ally” by more of
our politicians than any other and which isn’t
helping, is Israel.

Naturally the apologists for Israel will loudly
proclaim that if Israel sent troops into Iraq, it
would make things worse. Well, if Israel is hated that
much by the Arab world and if we want to continue
occupying Arab states, then maybe we should dump any
association with Israel. After all, if not letting
Israeli troops participate is “good” then not
associating with Israel is “better.” If someone
suggested this to one of our blowhard politicians, he
would no doubt be cut off from any further questions
and branded an “anti-Semite” simply for using logic.

Our relationship with Israel is full of double
standards and unanswered questions. It seems the US is
willing to go to war to defend Israel, but if the US
were attacked by China, Israel would be the first to
declare it’s neutrality. If Israel is such a great
ally, then why do we routinely find Israeli spies in
the Pentagon? Why did Jonathan Pollard steal a
room-full of top secret documents? How many secrets
have the Israelis sold to Red China? One website
devoted to US strategic interests reports “The U.S. is
cutting off financial and technical assistance for an
increasing number of weapons development projects done
in cooperation with Israeli companies. These include
the F-35 aircraft, the Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile
and the Tactical High Energy Laser project. The United
States is not happy with the degree to which Israel is
selling American military technology to China. Israel
has received hundreds of billions of dollars in
military aid from the United States over the years,
and a lot of that was in the form of military
technology that Israel was allowed to use as a basis
for developing additional weapons and equipment. But
Israel had to agree to safeguard the underlying
American technology secrets. Israel has not been doing
this with China, which is notorious for stealing
technology any way it can. Israel and China say that
U.S. tech is not being shipped to China. American
intelligence agencies and the Pentagon say the
Israelis and Chinese are lying.”

And let’s not forget the times the Israelis have
tricked or betrayed us. In the 1950s, the Israelis
carried out the Lavon Affair in which American
establishments were bombed in Egypt in an attempt to
sour US-Egyptian relations. In 1967, the Israelis
mass-murdered 34 Americans on the USS Liberty in a
deliberate attempt to sink that ship. Five out of six
communication frequencies were jammed during the
attack. The Israelis only stopped killing Americans
when an aircraft carrier sent Americans planes to
defend the Liberty. In the 1980s, the Israelis set up
a radio station in an apartment in Libya to send out
false radio communications which tricked President
Reagan into bombing Libya. In the last three years, a
cabal of Zionist neocons in George W. Bush’s
administration have manufactured fake intelligence to
convince Congress that we had to go to war with Iraq.

And what sort of nation is Israel? Why do our
politicians so fanatically support them? Only a short
time ago the Israelis murdered an American peace
activist, Rachel Corrie, and a Briton. Neither the US
nor British government condemned Israel for these
atrocities. Israel has frequently tortured prisoners
and at least once their Supreme Court approved the use
of torture. Israel has dozens of UN resolutions
condemning it for crimes against humanity and other
offenses. And this does not count the dozens of times
the US has blocked resolutions against Israel. Young
women often from eastern Europe are lured to Israel
with legitimate-sounding job offers and then turned
into sex slaves. One news article reports “A special
Knesset committee finds that “3,000 women are sold
each year in Israel’s sex industry, in transactions
with an annual volume of $1 billion.” Exploitation of
sex workers includes imprisonment, and other forms of
rank coercion.” (There has been recent speculation
that Natalee Holloway may have been abducted and sold
into sex slavery. If this did happen, Israel is a
likely destination.)

The Israelis have no real friends. They coerce our
politicians through their powerful AIPAC lobby and the
threat of bad press from the Jewish-controlled media.
All our problems in the Middle East can be traced back
to Israel and their treatment of Palestinian natives.
The Israelis have killed Americans. They have tricked
the US into attacking Muslim nations based on false
information. They have one of the biggest sex slavery
rings in the world. They horribly abuse the natives of
Palestine. Israel deserves no allies, least of all the
United States.



Martin Webster:


Dear All,

Gilad Atzmon is an independent left wing, anti-Zionist
Israeli now living in London. I don’t agree with all
his ideas – and I certainly don’t admire all of the
company he keeps (though I met him in Kensington in
June last year in the company of Israel Adam Shamir,
another anti-Zionist Israeli Jew who recently
converted to Orthodox Christianity, who I admire very
much). Atzmon’s writings are incisive and cut Zionism
to the quick. A thumb-nail biog of him appears at the
bottom. I have other excellent articles by him on file
if anybody is interested.


Sunday 6th November 2005

‘The Plot Against America’,
a book report and a reality check
by Gilad Atzmon*

As it happened, on the day the Iranian President
decided to share his
thoughts regarding the legitimacy of the Jewish state
with some four thousand
students, I picked up Philip Roth¹s latest book. This
was nothing but a mere
coincidence. Already a year ago, I was advised by a
few friends to pay attention to
Roth¹s ŒPlot Against America¹. The chunky hardcover
book was awaiting my
attention beside my bed since last Christmas, yet
somehow I couldn¹t find the time
and energy to launch into a journey through Roth¹s
imaginary world. It was only
a chance occurrence that just when I decided to begin
my solitary walk
through Roth¹s labyrinth, the entire international
community joined forces against
President Ahmadinejad. But it wasn¹t just the
international community that
voiced its indignation on cue, it was principally
every Western media outlet and
even the odd Palestinian opportunist politician who
was probably craving for a
glimpse of CNN exposure.

It wasn¹t easy for me to watch the Iranian president
being bashed from every
possible direction. At the end of the day, I tend
agree with president
Ahmadinejad. In my writings and interviews I keep
challenging the Jewish state¹s
right to exist. This isn¹t to say that the Israeli
people should be wiped out. As
far as I am concerned, President Ahmadinejad was
clearly referring to the
state of Israel rather than its people. Considering
the crimes committed by the
Jewish state, this is rather a fair and legitimate
political comment.

Not only did the president have the right to say what
he said, he was
basically repeating the Western post war ideological
liberal mantra. As we all know,
Western left thinking sees its minimum common
denominator as being against
racism and nationalism. For those who fail to realise
it, Israel is racist and
fanatically nationalist. It is racist because it
legally favours what it
classifies as the Jewish race. Its nationalism is
fanatical because it adopts the
notorious Lebensraum philosophy at the expense of
other nations and peoples. Cl
early President Ahmadinejad had a valid argument at
his disposal. Moreover,
following Western liberal philosophy, the Jewish state
should have been wiped out
a long time ago. But then, rather than supporting the
spirit of the Iranian
president¹s remark, the entire Western world denounced
and condemned him.

While the world was enthusiastically engaged in giving
the Israeli government
a green light to attack the emerging Iranian nuclear
plant, something that
would necessarily lead towards an escalation of the
war against Islam, I was
diving into Philip Roth¹s plot.

Roth is no doubt an astonishing writer but somehow he
has always failed to
convince me. I always had the feeling that Roth is
just too aware of his
enormous talent; something that made him slightly
technical and pretentious at times.
Being a prolific writer, Roth can be slightly
impersonal to my taste and yet,
in his latest book he is free from that. No literary
imposed tactics or
strategies can be traced. In his latest book, Roth is
overwhelmingly personal.
Astonishingly enough, the fictional reality he conveys
is so convincing that I
found myself totally captivated from beginning to end.
So enthralled was I, that
I even managed to forget how depressing the world is
out there. I avoided the
anti-Iranian media blitz. I switched it off for three
days and let the
international community attack the Iranian president
in a single Judeified voice.

ŒThe Plot Against America¹ is a fictional tale that
unwinds like a
historical document enriched with personal detail. Its
theme is: what would have
happened if ace pilot Charles Lindbergh, the man who
made the first solo
transatlantic flight in 1927, the man who later called
Hitler Œa great man¹, and was
decorated by the Führer for his services to the Reich,
had run for the American
presidency against Roosevelt in 1940 and managed to
win? Lindbergh¹s message to
the American nation is a classic Republican
isolationist one. ŒNo more war!
Never again will young Americans die on foreign soil¹.
The year is obviously
1940 and Lindbergh is referring to Europe and the
Pacific rather than Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. In Roth¹s book, instead of
Roosevelt being elected for
an unprecedented third term, Lindbergh wins in a
landslide victory. He then
signs non-aggression treaties with Germany and Japan.
Soon enough the
charismatic Lindbergh is cheered by American society
as a whole. Every American loves
him except of course the Jews who are far from being
happy with a Œpeace
loving¹ president who happens to make business with
the enemies of the Jewish
people. But in fact this isn¹t entirely true, a single
prominent liberal Rabbi named
Bengelsdorf positions himself right behind the new

The narrator is Philip Roth himself, a seven-year-old
Jewish Ghetto boy from
Newark, New Jersey. He tells a story of a Jewish
family encountering a major
disastrous political shift. Young Phil is telling the
story of father Herman,
mother Bess and brother Sandy. It is a story of
collective fear, a story of a
Jewish family¹s reaction to the rise of anti-Semitism.
However, throughout the
book it is very hard to determine whether
anti-Semitism constitutes a real
objective threat or rather something the Jews bring on
themselves. This very
confusion is in my opinion the greatest literary asset
of the book.

Roth is sketching a very deep and complex narrative in
which each family
member responds differently to the Œdevastating¹
historical circumstances. Once
again, Roth managed to convey an interesting image of
the difficult amalgam of
the Jewish identity both psychologically and
sociologically. Like most
American Jews, Herman the father is overtly
pessimistic from the very beginning. He
wouldn¹t give Lindbergh even a single day of mercy.
However, he is a proud
patriotic American. He demands his civil rights. Were
he in our midst, he would
criticise the emerging catastrophic reality applying
to the American liberal
ideology. The mother Bess is far more practical, she
tries to maintain the
family¹s sanity, behaving as if life must go on. More
than anything else, she must
calm down her righteous husband. Phil¹s brother Sandy
is a gifted painter and
assumes a very interesting role. In the summer he
disappears for an
“apprenticeship” with a tobacco farmer in Kentucky. In
a way he makes it into the heart
of America. Later he is joining a new assimilation
scheme by encouraging Jewish
city boys to follow his example. This program is put
together by Rabbi
Bengelsdorf, the devoted supporter of Lindbergh. Sandy
is doing very well,
eventually he is invited to a reception at the White
House. This is obviously far more
than Herman can take. For Herman, the democratically
elected American
president is nothing but an enemy of the Jews and he
refuses to give his son
permission to go to Washington. The tension between
family members threatens the
stability of the family itself, which is on the brink
of falling apart. However, all
that time, America has been kept out of the war.
American boys aren¹t dying
in a far away country. American people are very happy
but somehow the Jewish
Americans aren¹t.

All the way through the book father Herman is
portrayed as a paranoid Ghetto
Jew. He is totally single minded in interpreting
reality, he is overly tragic.
But he isn¹t alone in his obsession. Alongside his
Newark Jewish Ghetto
neighbours he draws a lot of support from the famous
Jewish journalist and
broadcaster Walter Winchell who is spreading his
anti-Lindbergh poison to the nation.
It doesn¹t take long before Winchell is stripped of
his positions as a
journalist, first in the printed press and later in
his prime time radio slot. But
Winchell won¹t surrender; once he loses his job, he
decides to run for the
presidency. Winchell, the Jew, decides to reshape the
American future. In other
words, he is determined to take America into war in
Europe. Within a short time
into his campaign, Winchell is assassinated. Again,
the reader may wonder
whether the assassination is an anti-Semitic act or
rather a punishment Winchell
and the Jews insist upon bringing on themselves.

All the way through most of the book I couldn¹t make
up my mind whether the
plot against America is a Jewish or rather a Nazi one.
Clearly most of America
into war that may serve their cause or if it was
Hitler who employs an agent
in the very centre of the American administration as
the mastermind behind the
plot. When time is ripe, young Phil provides us with a
shadow of an answer.

Towards the very end of the book Lindbergh disappears
with his private
fighter plane without leaving a trace. Mysteriously,
the wreckage of his plane has ne
ver been found. No forensic evidence can suggest what
happened to him.
Foreign governments volunteer their versions: the
Brits blame the Nazis for
kidnapping the president, the Nazis suggest that it
was ŒRoosevelt and his Jews¹ who
abducted the American hero. These suggestions are all
highly charged,
unfounded gossip that are there to serve an
international political cause. However,
Roth deliberately decides to leave us with a very
personal account. We hear
Rabbi Bengelsdorf¹s account told by his wife Evelyn
who happens to be Philip¹s
aunt. Brilliantly, Roth¹s historical narrative takes
the shape of modern
ŒJewish history¹. History is then reduced to a mere
personal account in the shape of
gossip devoid of any factual or forensic reference.

Following Rabbi Bengelsdorf¹s account, we are entitled
to assume that
Lindbergh was indeed a Nazi agent. Anyhow, this is the
time to remind us that Roth¹s
President Lindbergh is a fictional character. In fact
Lindbergh, the real man,
was an American hero, a man who ended the Second World
War as a P38 combat
pilot at the age of 42. ŒThe Plot Against America¹ is
a fictional tale,
Lindbergh wasn¹t a traitor, he was an American patriot
who happened, like many
others, to have admired Hitler for a while. Lindbergh
was an American nationalist
who loved his people and truly believed that his
country should stay out of the
ŒJewish War¹. Roth¹s Lindbergh is indeed imaginary,
but the Jewish collective
paranoia isn¹t. It is very real. Moreover, the Jewish
intent upon shaping
American reality is more than real. Most importantly,
while the Nazi plot to run
America is totally fictional, the Jewish Plot to run
America is now more vivid
than ever. Nowadays, when the American army is acting
as an Israeli mission
force in the Middle East, when Syria and Iran are just
about to be flattened by
Anglo-American might, it is rather clear what the real
meaning of the ŒPlot
Against America¹ may be.

I read Philip Roth¹s book while the entire
international community was
standing shoulder to shoulder behind the war criminal
Sharon. While in Roth¹s book
the Herman Roths and the Walter Wichells were
expecting America to sacrifice
its best sons on the Jewish altar, we are now watching
the entire world joining
the Jewish war against Islam. It is rather depressing
to see our Western
politicians enthusiastically adopting the most corrupt
version of Jewish morality:
a totally blind worldview based on supremacist
endorsement of the justice of
the stronger. Clearly, there is no isolationist
Lindbergh to save us all.
Unfortunately, there is not even a single Rabbi
Bengelsdorf to suggest an
alternative friendly human Jewish morality.

By the time I put Roth¹s book down, the storm around
the Iranian president
subsided somehow. The Jewish world and the Jewish
state had another great
victory to be cheerful about. The UN’s General
Assembly has passed a resolution
designating 27 January as the annual ŒHolocaust
Memorial Day¹ throughout the

Why the 27th of January? Because this is the day
Auschwitz was liberated. The
resolution also rejects any denial that the Holocaust
was a historical event
in which the mass murder of six million Jews and other
victims by Nazi Germany
during World War II took place. Seemingly, the UN has
a new role, while for
years it has been engaged in securing world peace, now
it is mainly concerned
with securing Jewish history. No doubt, a very nice
present for the Jewish
state, a state that holds the highest record for
failing to comply with UN

By the time I put Roth¹s book down I am more or less
ready to learn my
lesson. Once again I failed to acknowledge that
suffering is an exclusive, internal
Jewish affair. No one is allowed entry, neither the
Palestinians of Gaza¹s
concentration camp, nor the massacred inhabitants of
Fallujah and Tikrit. One
million victims of Rwanda are obviously out, two
million in Vietnam are out as
well, so are the innocent civilians of Hamburg,
Hiroshima, Dresden and Nagasaki
and millions of others who were killed in the name of
democracy. By the time
Roth¹s ŒPlot Against America¹ finds its way onto my
bookshelf, I agree with
myself at least: A young Rabbi Begelsdorf is long
overdue. If we are being
Judeified, we may as well take the best of Judaism
rather than its supremacist
brutality, namely Zionism. By the time Roth¹s tome is
resting I realize as well
that the current plot isn¹t just against America. It
is a plot against humanity
and human dignity.

*Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the
Israeli military. He is the
author of the new novel A Guide to the Perplexed .
Atzmon is also one of the
most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. His new
CD, Exile, was just
named the year’s best jazz CD by the BBC. He now lives
in London and can be
reached at:




Franz Seiler:


VierPlusZwei-‘Verhandlungen und Vereinbarung vom
27.und 28.9.1990 am 8.11.2005

Es stellt sich also heraus, daß die ehemaligen
Alliierten bei den “VierPlusZwei-‘Verhandlungen” und
bei der “Vereinbarung vom 27. und 28.9.1990” von der
deutschen Verhandlungsführung verlangt haben, daß die
deutsche Verhandlungsführung anerkennt, daß die
Darstellungen der Alliierten zur Geschichte des 20.
Jahrhundert Gültigkeit haben sollen.

Die deutsche Verhandlungsführung hätte dazu sagen
müssen, daß diese Forderung unbillig ist und daß die
Anerkennung dieser Forderung die Kompetenzen der
deutschen und jeder anderen Verhandlungsführung bei
weitem übersteigt.

Nach dem vorliegenden Material hat die deutsche
Verhandlungsführung diese in diesem Zusammenhang
letztlich gültige Position nicht vertreten, sondern
der Forderung der ehemaligen Alliierten in gewaltiger
Überschreitung ihrer Kompetenzen zugestimmt.

Die Suche nach den Motiven für diese eigentlich
unerklärliche Überschreitung ihrer Kompetenzen durch
die deutsche Verhandlungsführung kann vorläufig anheim
gestellt bleiben.

Einen Teil dieser Darstellunngen der Alliierten zur
Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts haben die Exekutive
und Legislative in Deutschland in gigantischer
Überschreitung ihrer Kompetenzen mit §130 StGB
“strafrechtlich geschützt”, d.h. der Verstoß gegen
diese Darstellungen wird als (Offizialdelikt?)
“Volksverhetzung” strafrechtlich verfolgt. Tatsächlich
gibt es aber auch zu diesem Teil der Darstellunngen
der Alliierten zur Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts
mehrere Versionen. Das bedeutet, daß nicht klar ist,
welche dieser Versionen die richtige ist, deren
Verbreitung nicht mit Strafe bedroht ist.

Außerdem werden zu diesem Teil der Darstellunngen der
Alliierten zur Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts noch
laufend weitere Befunde und Erkenntnisse vorgelegt, so
daß in diesem Zusammenhang seit eh und je und bis zum
Abschljuß dieser Entwicklung kein justiziabler
Tatbestand vorliegt.

Bei dieser Sachlage ist schlecht vorstellar, daß die
Vertreter der Judikative die durch nachweislich
falsches Verhalten von Exekutive und Legislative
entstandene unhaltbare Situation übernehmen und

Die Situation ist unhaltbar, weil dadurch gegen Art. 5
GG und gegen das allgemein religiöse Gebot der
Wahrhaftigkeit, des Bemühens um Wahrhaftigkeit in der
Darstellung wie Menschen gelebt haben, und wie sie
gestorben sind, verstoßen wird.

Mit besten Grüßen

Franz Seiler

PS: Die Vertedigung geht also so, daß man an jedes
Detail der Ereignisse, das man sachlich dargestellt
hat, anhängt.

Um nicht gemäß dem, was oben detailliert gesagt ist,
ein Delikt zu begehen, wird gebeten, daß die im
Zusammenhang mit den eben dargestellten
Ereignissen/Unterlagen gesetzlich vorgeschriebene
Version der Darstellung mir bekannt gegeben werde.
Diese dann bekanntgegebene Version wird von dem
Angeklagten im gesetzlich notwendigen Umfang

Eine Buchveröffentlichung zum Thema in Deutschland und
in anderen Ländern erhält entsprechend die einschlägig
richtigen Erklärungen, so daß´die Auflagen nicht
eingezogen werden etc.etc.





Europa brennt – die Brandstifter sitzen in den
Parlamenten und
Presseclubs –
Die multikulturelle Gesellschaft hat ihren
vorprogrammierten Endpunkt
erreicht: Das brennende Frankreich mahnt zur Umkehr in

Jetzt raus zum Protest: Auf die Straße am 26.11.2005
in Schwäbisch Hall


Wovor klarsichtige, nationale Dissidenten immer schon
gewarnt haben,
nun eingetreten: Frankreich versinkt im Chaos, die
Rassenunruhen in den
Vorstädten und Ghettos weiten sich zu einem
Flächenbrand aus! Die
widernatürliche Verpflanzung Millionen raum- und
kulturfremder Menschen
entlädt sich nun in einem Rassenkrieg, auch wenn dies
von den
anders bezeichnet wird: Von “Jugendlichen” ist da die
Rede, aus “sozial
benachteiligten Schichten”, ja glaubt man der
Journaille, dann müsse
für das Abfackeln von 1.000 Autos in einer Nacht
Verständnis haben, daß
diese “Jugendlichen” – unter denen noch kein einziger
Weißer gesehen
wurde –
ihre “aufgestaute Wut ablassen”. Diese
Schweinejournalisten wagen es
tatsächlich, den französischen Innenminister zu
kritisieren, weil er –
schließlich seine Aufgabe ist – zumindest versucht,
für Recht und
zu sorgen. Sie sind es, die zu einem großen Teil die
tragen, daß Frankreich heute brennt und mit Sicherheit
morgen Europa,
es nicht zu einer radikalen Umkehr kommt. Doch jene
Kreaturen sind noch
nicht einmal dadurch belehrbar, daß sie – wie in Paris
geschehen – von
Farbigen zusammengeschlagen werden, nein, sie fordern
allen Ernstes
mehr Förderung der Einwanderer. Milliardenbeträge
haben diese in den
letzten Jahrzehnten in Anspruch genommen: Ergebnis =
Null! Sowenig man
einem Ackergaul ein Rennpferd machen kann, so wenig
kann man Menschen,
denen ganz andere Verhaltensweisen und ein anderes
angeboren sind, zu Europäern machen. Auch wenn man
ihnen hundert Mal
Paß in die Hand drückt und so tut als ob! Gerade
Frankreich ist das
Beispiel dafür, daß es weder eine Multikulturelle
Gesellschaft noch
Integration von raum- und kulturfremden Ausländern
geben kann – auch
drei, vier oder zehn Generationen nicht! Innenminister
Sarkozy hat das
Scheitern der Ausländerintegration in Frankreich

Sie ist nicht nur dort gescheitert, sondern überall in
Europa – auch in
Deutschland! Aber auch hier wird weiterhin in
verbrecherischer Art und
Weise dem Multikulti-Wahn von gewissenlosen
Journalisten und Politikern
gehuldigt. Diese gilt es als Schuldige für die nun
offen zutage
Katastrophe aufzudecken! Deren Politik der
Fremdenbevorzugung und –
verhätschelung droht in einen Bürgerkrieg einzumünden.
Daher gilt es
hier die Notbremse zu ziehen und eine radikale Umkehr
in der
Einwanderungsfrage einzuleiten. Der erste Schritt muß
die Streichung
Vergünstigungen sein, um Wirtschaftsflüchtlingen den
Appetit auf Europa
nehmen. Gibt es erst mal keine Fleischtöpfe mehr, ist
auch die beste
Grundlage für die systematische Rückführung
nichtintegrierbarer Fremder
geschaffen. Die Streichung des Kindergeldes für raum-
und kulturfremde
Ausländer bei gleichzeitig großzügigster Förderung des
ist dabei ein wichtiges Etappenziel. Daher lautet ja
auch das Motto
Demonstration in Hall am 26.11.2005: “500,– EUR
Kindergeld für jedes
deutsche Kind! – Kein deutsches Kindergeld für Türken!
Nur der eigene
Nachwuchs sichert die Sozialsysteme und Rentenkassen!”

Sollen doch jene, die den Wahnsinn einer
multikulturellen Gesellschaft
befürworten, zunächst den Beweis antreten, daß eine
solche auch
funktioniert. Anderenfalls müssen wir davon ausgehen,
daß sie das, was
sagen, nicht ernst meinen. Wir fordern daher die
Einquartierung von 100
Schwarzafrikanern im linksradikalen Club Alpha 60 in
Schwäbisch Hall.
fordern ferner die Einquartierung von jeweils 10
Schwarzafrikanern –
und männlich, versteht sich – in den Privathäusern des
Oberbürgermeisters Hans-Josef Pelgrim und der
Antifaschisten Jochen
und Siegfried Hubele. Dieses Verhältnis entspricht
dem, was bei offenen
Grenzen und zügelloser Einwanderung aus der Dritten
Welt bevorsteht….

Das nicht mehr zu verbergende Scheitern der
multikulturellen Fieberfantasien muß von allen
Kräften als Fanal für die Gegenbewegung verstanden
werden! Setzen wir
26.11.2005 in Schwäbisch Hall ein Zeichen: Unsere Zeit
kommt nicht mehr

sie ist jetzt da, oder sie ist vorbei! Wenn wir jetzt
nicht auf die
gehen, dann werden wir bald auch bei uns
“französische” Verhältnisse
Wir wollen aber keine brennenden Städte, sondern Recht
und Ordnung, die
nur dann sicherstellen können, wenn wir wieder Herr im
eigenen Haus
Schwäbisch Hall steht dabei exemplarisch für ganz
Deutschland. Deshalb
heraus auf die Straßen mit unserem Anliegen: Stoppt
den Multikulti-Wahn

verhindert Bürgerkrieg und Chaos! Europa endet am
Bosporus! Kein EU-
Freifahrschein für Millionen Türken!
EU-Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der
Türkei sofort beenden!

Her nach Hall am 26.11.23005 – DEMONSTRATION!
Treffpunkt: Marktplatz
Schwäbisch Hall, 14 Uhr! Infos: 01 77 – 224 70 91!

Weitere Infos (Organisatorisches, Auflagen usw.) unter > Aktion

Bitte auch beachten:



















To order, please send a check or money order to:

Community News
PO Box 191677
Sacramento, CA 95819

or e-mail us and we will send you an e-mail bill
through PayPal.


Walter F. Mueller
“The truth is back in business”

The “Patriot Letter” is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *