History became legend and legend became myth… and those things which should not have been forgotten… were lost…

by Betty Luks
“Mith or (old fashioned) mi-th: an ancient traditional story of gods or heroes”. The modern word also contains the meaning of: “a commonly held belief that is untrue.” Chambers English Dictionary.

One of our readers asked for comments on an article he had come across: “Secrets of the Bank of England – Revealed”, in which, the following claims are made: “In 1620, the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, They were Protestant Christians sent out by that great Scot -- King James VI (of Scotland) and (became) James I (of the United Kingdom). “They were the chosen people and God gave them the best land in the world because He always saves the best for last and as a heritage because they came to seek God…not Gold”.
The article continues: “Most of the Pilgrims were poor and brought very little money with them from the Old World.”

Because of the diligent work of writer Anthony Cooney, (“Social Credit Aspects”), we now know that the myth, many of us believed, that the ‘pilgrim fathers’ were Quakers, is historically untrue. It would seem the person/s who wrote about The Secret of the Bank of England , also suffer the same illusion -- or they are deliberately intent upon propagating the myth.

An accompanying picture depicts the ‘pilgrim fathers’ as wearing Quaker costumes. Just as, as Cooney relates, Alun Villiers did in the re-enactment of the Mayflower crossing. He was Captain of the Mayflower replica which crossed the Atlantic in 1957, and attended a civic reception at Plymouth wearing Quaker costume. Cooney believes such an illusion suggests a source, and a source suggests a policy. The purpose of such a policy is not difficult to determine. The Quakers were tolerant and quietest, the Puritans were not.

Let’s consider some of the claims and the facts of history: ? The Pilgrim ‘Fathers’ landed at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, 1620. George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends, (Quakers) was not born until four years after the Mayflower voyage?

These “Protestant Christians”, the Pilgrim ‘Fathers’, were sent out to the New World by that great Scot, King James VI & I. The background to British North America is that Jamestown and “The Old Dominion” of Virginia was established in 1607, thirteen years before the Mayflower sailed. The Mayflower’s intended destination, in company with a supply ship which had to return to port, was Virginia, and the purpose was to reinforce the Puritan element there. In 1619, the Episcopalians had deposed Argall, the Puritan governor of Virginia, and there was clearly a determination to reverse this set-back to the Whig-Puritan cause.
The “Pilgrims” left not England, where they were restrained, but Holland, where the Puritans enjoyed power. The intention was not to escape religious intolerance but to establish it in the New World?

As a ‘chosen people’…. God gave them the best land as a heritage. The Mayflower’s destination was not the barren coast of Massachusetts, (the ship was blown off-course) nor was the intention the founding of a new colony?

Because they came to seek God not Gold… Most were poor and brought very little money with them from the Old World. In fact, the six hundred families who trace their descent from the Mayflower’s passengers now constitute an American ‘aristocracy’. Obviously they found ‘gold’ as well as God. The word ‘Fathers’ suggests originators, and not surprisingly there is a widely held belief that the Mayflower’s passengers were the first British settlers and hence the “Founding Fathers” of British America.

Anthony Cooney’s following observation is so relevant to these days of ‘liberal’ Judaeo-Christianity: “The triumph of Puritanism in America through the Mayflower myth is still resonating. Hybridised with secular Liberalism your common or garden Puritan of today need have no Christian beliefs whatsoever … he has moved effortlessly to the prohibition of tobacco, and from there to the prohibition of flirting, flattery, gallantry and thought itself by the dogmas of “Political Correctness”; a charter for the bigot and the bully which the Mayflower’s cargo would have understood perfectly.”

Editor’s note: We have touched on but one of the ‘myths’ in the article, “Secrets of the Bank of England – Revealed,” over time we will deal with some of the other myths it circulates. For a more factual account of the history of the Bank of England and the Money Changers the following books are recommended: “The Enemy Within the Empire” by Eric D. Butler; “The Tallies, a Tangled Tale & the Beginning & the End” by David Astle (contains a copy of the virtually suppressed document, the Charter of the Bank of England”; “The Creature of Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin; “A History of Monetary Crimes” by Alexander del Mar; “I Want the Earth plus Five Per Cent”, author unknown.

CANADA’S ‘HATE’ LEGISLATION AND FREE SPEECH

by Wallace Klinck
There is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of Canada's anti-"hate" legislation has little or nothing to do with promoting legitimate and beneficial social ends. The legislation was not brought in because of any popular demand and almost certainly was the result of specific small minority pressure. Its seeming intent, and practical effect, is to penalize and intimidate anyone who has the temerity to speak out against establishment domestic and internationalist policies, and in favour of the preservation of national sovereignty, etc.

Most especially it has the effect of making perfectly justifiable and relevant criticism of "public" policy, all too often initiated by minority pressure, an "illegal" act. In other words it means the suspension of open and meaningful (or even non-meaningful, for that matter) political debate -- in effect the end of the democratic process.

Over time it virtually guarantees the erosion of the existing culture -- not by natural evolutionary change but by "legal" force imposed from "on high," regardless of the actual desires of the general public. I and other citizens do not need the state to tell us what to think. As citizens the responsibility rests upon us to think independently and to give instructions to our representatives -- not the reverse.

"Hate" is a subjective matter and the courts can hardly read an individual's mind. Further, one person's "hate" may often be another person's "love." Again, if we can know love, we must be able to distinguish and criticise that which is in opposition to it. Such criticism may actually be rendered out of genuine consideration of the best interests of those criticized and/or of society in part or in whole. To brand this as "hateful" and therefore criminal is pure nonsense, deceit and/or hypocrisy--a mischievous strategy enabling the elimination of political opponents before an issue is even subject to public consideration.

The interests who promote this sort of outrageous policy appear to assume that their position of power is impregnable and that their moral and intellectual infallibility justify the assumption that "might makes right."

If the state interferes with the free flow of information, it, in effect, attempts to control what citizens think because without access to all available information one cannot make realistic assessments. The whole concept of democracy is therefore subverted. This is blatant totalitarianism -- more than reminiscent of Bolshevism.
In Canada, Human "Rights" Commissions, effectively kangaroo tribunals (where the accused does not have the usual Constitutional, common law and historic rights of defence provided in regular courts), assist in this totalitarian process by rendering arbitrary judgements and penalties on unfortunate selected citizens deemed to have spoken or acted in a "politically incorrect" manner. These Commissions respond to complaints lodged by individuals who claim to have been subjected to "insult", "discrimination" or whatever (or who may just wish to neutralize someone they do not like for political or other reasons) -- similarly to the communist "peoples'" courts.
So corrupt and desperate have Human "Rights" Commissions become that in the face of their absurdity and injustice, they have recently declared that truth is no defence for a defendant in their hearings!

Bureaucratic decree based upon the specious or tenuous notion of "a balance of probabilities" replaces "proof beyond doubt."

Breathtaking arrogance
Of course, Canada's Anti-"hate" legislation has given Canada Customs the power to intercept a wide selection of political, theological, historical and philosophical books, tracts, audio and video recordings, etc. -- which they regularly do, either delaying or prohibiting delivery. Needless to say most of these Customs’ personnel are not educationally or intellectually qualified to assess the merit of such publications even if they had a legitimate right to do so. They are sent to an office in Ottawa where one or perhaps several "experts" pronounce on the validity or acceptability of the content of these publications -- apparently as if they know the final truth of matters, which real experts and amateurs have debated for centuries. The sheer arrogance of all this is breathtaking!

Canadian "Human Rights" legislation is a violation of citizens' rights and protections derived essentially from Christian principles and going back to the British Constitution as evolved from the Common Law, from the Magna Carta, the British Bill of Rights, etc. Much effort and sacrifice has been expended over history to secure these rights and protections and to let them go by default is a betrayal of everyone present and of those who struggled historically to secure them.
Canadian criminal and civil law has long been established with adequate measures to deal with anyone who perpetrates or advocates violence or fraud against any individual or individuals. Individuals and groups who take part in the political process must have their policies and actions open to full public scrutiny.

The suggestion that Canadians are so irresponsible, ignorant and fundamentally vicious that they cannot be allowed to access information and debate matters which relate to public policy is simply outrageous. It is a denial of even a pretence of recognizing the full democratic process as a legitimate and proper function and right of the citizenry. Such a position allows the possibility for a minority to usurp, without critical examination and with impunity, the rights and powers of citizens to determine policy in a democratic state.

Canada: a Constitutional Monarchy with Representative Government
Technically, in Canada, of course, we do not have a "democracy" but rather a Constitutional Monarchy with Representative Government. This in no way negates the validity of the above comments, however. I know that recent developments in the United States have created similar, if not identical, problems in your own country -- problems resulting, in my opinion, largely from seriously flawed and ill-advised, if not outright illegal foreign policies and aggressive military action. We Canadian citizens, of course, have a responsibility to manage our own affairs and it is embarrassing that citizens from other nations should have to come to our assistance.
The failure of our educational system to impart to students a thorough understanding of our past Constitutional and Common Law history and institutions has led to an inability to defend them. That is our problem. Nevertheless, I wish to thank you for your very positive input to the nature of the totalitarian policies with which we are beset -- policies which not only rob our citizenry of their rightful freedoms, but which in the end lead to increasing cynicism which discredits those very historic constitutional, legal and political institutions which should protect us. This is evidenced by the growing popular disillusionment and contempt for politicians and the political process in general.”

HISTORIAN’S JEWISH LINKS

from the pen of Germar Rudolf
Court certified ‘anti-semitic’ historian-David Irving’s mom was Jewish. http://vho.org/tr/index.html, Volume 2 number 2, Page 122, May 2004.

“Herr Munnier inquired about this in disbelief, but David Irving happily confirmed it; yes, his mother was Jewish, but he was never interested in this fact, nor was he raised within the Jewish tradition. He therefore never considered it to have any relevance. Thus, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple. The interesting question...Why was it not raised during Irving’s libel case against Lipstadt? I bet all sides knew that an atheist Jew (Irving) was fighting against orthodox Jews (Lipstadt, van Pelt, and others). It was, and continues to be, a case of Jewish in-fighting, if you wish to label it that way. Of course, Holocaust promoters can have no interest in advertising that the “main exponent” of “Holocaust Denial” is a Jew. Oy vey, what a publicity disaster that would be! (Even though Irving is, strictly seen, not even a Holocaust revisionist, but merely a benevolent observer.) At the end of the day, one can argue that it doesn’t matter what heritage Irving’s mother had, at least not in regard to where the historical truth is to be found. But for many individuals it might make a difference in their personal attitude toward revisionism. For me personally, this is only an interesting, curious, ironic footnote, the most interesting aspect being the reaction of others to this revelation.” Germar Rudolf, chp@vho.org