Mr. Thomson:

I shall begin this response by asking that you please keep your tone civil. I have no intention of getting into a mudslinging match or a name-calling contest. I have been led to believe that you are an intelligent man, so please demonstrate this by rising above gutter tactics.

Your response to me is referenced by paragraph, and I shall follow the same format.

Paragraph 3: You write that I "mislead" readers by stating that you had implied Marx was born with the name "Levi." I had no intention to mislead; you used the name "Karl Levy, alias Marx," which necessarily implies that, at some point, Levy was Marx's real surname. If I misread you, then I apologize.

This notwithstanding, there are several errors in what follows. First of all, since Marx's grandfather never left his office as a rabbi, how exactly would changing his name to "Marx" throw anyone off about his Jewishness? Second, I find it ironic that you would use the late David McCalden (a.k.a. Lewis Brandon) as a source on anything Jewish. A close associate of Willis Carto, McCalden's is no "expert witness" on Judaism. Third, Robert Frenz was kind enough to post a National Vanguard article that cites Chicago's Jewish Sentinel on the issue of Marx's surname. His father, the article notes, was born Hirschel ha-Levi. You may or may not be aware that those Jews descended from the tribe of Levi carry "ha-Levi" as part of their Hebrew names. Marx's father obviously used this as his surname before converting to Christianity and taking the name Marx, which he then bestowed on his son, Karl. What is clear from the Sentinel article, however, is that Marx's rabbi grandfather never changed his name, as you maintained in your letter of July 26.

Two final points before continuing: 1) Jews do not "steal" Gentile names, and even these "stolen" names are universally recognized as being Jewish. As I wrote in my initial response to you, we have been historically forced to take surnames for census and tax purposes. In Islamic countries, this was often not the case, and many Sephardic and Mizrachic Jews kept their patronymic Hebrew names. 2) Argentina is the only country in South America without an indigenous Indian population. Furthermore, the Spanish-speaking people there are, by and large, descended from white Spaniards. And many, many Argentineans still carry German, Italian, Jewish, or other European names that are clearly not Spanish. Thus your example of Argentina is a poor one.

Paragraph 4: Lenin was one-quarter Jewish by ethnicity. While his maternal grandfather, Blank, was Jewish, has maternal grandmother was a German Gentile.

I find it amusing that you use Israel Shahak as a source. He is a demonstrable liar, and in fact the supposed incident that led him to author his "critique" of Orthodox Judaism, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, was exposed as a lie almost immediately. Unfortunately, you do not have Internet access, or I would point you to several articles on the topic of Shahak's credibility. However, find yourself a library that carries the journal Tradition and look up Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits' article "L'Affaire Shahak" that appeared in Volume 8, Number 2 of said journal in 1966. The article appears on pages 58-65.

Back to the point: The State of Israel has defined, under its Law of Return, that any person may be defined as a Jew who has at least one Jewish grandparent and is not actively practicing a faith other than Judaism. Those of Jewish ancestry who are practicing other faiths have the right to settle in Israel and apply for citizenship in due time; they do not receive automatic citizenship, however. The precedent for this decision was the case of a Jesuit priest of full Jewish ancestry who sought to evoke the Law of Return and become an Israeli citizen. Israel's high court ruled he could settle but would not receive automatic citizenship.

I would also remind you that even Hitler himself realized that Jews who served for the Second Reich in World War I were to be afforded different treatment from other Jews of German origin. This would seem to subvert your notion that "Jews are never members of their host nations."

Paragraph 5: Your remarks on Stephen Wise should be taken with a few grains of salt. First of all, since there is no pope in Judaism, the utterance of a single rabbi does not constitute the official opinion of World Jewry. Wise, in fact, was a Reform Jew (at that point, a rather small part of observant Jewry) and did not represent the majority of Jews.

But all this is beside the point: Once again, head to the library and find the interview in Playboy with Commander George Lincoln Rockwell conducted by Alex Haley. It's the April 1966 issue, and Rockwell's admission that the Wise quote in question is fraudulent appears on page 79.

Paragraph 6: To answer your question, my doctorate is in English and American Literature.

However, I spent several years teaching students how to take standardized tests, and I can state with complete confidence that all any standardized test measures (and this includes IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet) is how well a student takes a standardized test. Teach the students the tricks embedded in a standardized test, and they'll score better. I coached a student to an 800 on his Math SAT score once. Was he innately gifted in the field of mathematics? No, he was not. My conclusion therefore remains: Intelligence when measured by standardized testing is a totally arbitrary designation.

As to insanity, there is clearly a difference between neurosis and psychosis, the latter denoting a break from reality. Certainly no intake psychiatrist would mistake psychosis for anything but that. Neurosis, on the other hand, is a very loosely defined term, though neurotic persons do end up in mental institutions. Nevertheless, what strikes one person as neurotic thinking or behavior may strike another as totally normal. Thus the designation is arbitrary.

As to the correlation between intelligence and neurosis, I shall invoke your own advice and ask you to do your own research. It had been my understanding that this correlation was well known. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Paragraph 7: You assert that "Jews invade a host-people's country." I would remind you that Jews were invited into England by Oliver Cromwell in the seventeenth century. Furthermore, Poland, which held the world's largest Jewish population on the eve of World War II, similarly invited the Jews of Germany into that nation in the sixteenth century. That, in the case of Poland, persecution of Jewry followed in subsequent years, does not change the simple fact that Jews were invited to enter Poland. No "invasion" occurred.

You imply that I believe the forcing of Jews to take surnames was persecution. I made no such allegation and merely pointed out that it was for tax and census purposes. You write, "... to adopt a name of a different nationality is an obvious attempt to engage in false pretenses." Well, being that the Jews who were forced to take surnames were, by and large, in Germany, Poland, or Russia, can you blame them for taking names in these languages? Furthermore, many Jews instead took Yiddish names, thereby preserving their Jewish heritage with their surnames and remaining quite obviously Jewish in the eyes and ears of their non-Jewish fellow citizens.

Paragraph 8: I have already addressed the issue of the "invasion" of Jews into Christian countries. You are quite correct that the deicide charge is "twaddle," since, from the Christian perspective, Jesus had to die for salvation to occur.

You make a factual error in stating that not all Jews were deported from England as a consequence of a series of "blood libels." The Edict of 1210 (I may have that date wrong) sent all Jews to the continent without exception. England was Judenrein until Cromwell's time, and since he took in Sephardic Jews, this explains why, before World War II, England's Jewish population (1646-1933) was largely Sephardic, the prime minister Benjamin Disraeli being the most prominent example.

Regarding Jews and usury, you define usury correctly for the time being discussed. Jewish law allows the lending of money on interest, while Christianity (and Islam) does not. Thus were the Jews used by corrupt monarchies like England to be money-lenders, with the interest they collected largely being confiscated by the governments of their "host nations" (to borrow your term).

If you want to argue "revisionism" and the proofs that exist for gas chambers, we can do that, but I prefer to stay on the topic of your original essay. You may, however, want to look at such studies as those conducted by Jean-Claude Pressac and by the Cracow-based Institute for Forensic Research. Further research is being conducted all the time. The truth will out, as they say.

Returning to usury, though, perhaps you can suggest a form of money lending that does not entail interest that would not also bankrupt moneylenders?

Paragraph 9: To clarify your citations (largely unreferenced) of Jewish sources:

1) Jews were only Toraically commanded to commit genocide against the seven tribes inhabiting Canaan, and this was for their idolatry. (You will find similar injunctions against idolatry in Islam, by the way.) This duty fell to Joshua, but he failed. How do we know this? For one thing, the final chapter of Judges tells us that the Tribe of Benjamin married Hittite women (one of the seven tribes). II Samuel tells us that David seized Jerusalem from the Jebusites (another of the seven tribes). II Samuel also tells us that David's general, Uriah, was a Hittite. In short, this commanded genocide was never carried out. Outside of the seven tribes, the Torah sets out rules of war that far exceeded contemporaneous legal systems in their humanity. Jews could not attack a city without first negotiating a surrender. And if this failed, only men could be killed -- women and children were spared.

2) I find it interesting that you are familiar with the Noachide laws. Do you know them? They are, quite simply, to not engage in murder, idolatry, blasphemy, theft, adultery, or cruelty to animals, and a positive commandment to enact courts of justice. Not a lot to ask of non-Jews living in the land of Israel in the messianic age (this is, after all, the only situation of Jewish law in which the Noachide actually applies).

3) You write, "The Babylonian Talmud promises every Jew 2,400 Goy slaves upon the advent of the Messiah." This requires a citation. The Talmud is far too large for me to look this up on my own.

Paragraph 10: Again, your Talmudic "quote" requires a citation. Thankfully, you supply a citation for your next allegation. Here is Leviticus 18:23: "Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion." I see nothing about "talking beasts" in there.

You may find it interesting (or perhaps not) that the concept of the shabbos goy is disputed as far as its legality in Judaism. Many Jews (myself included) disagree with the concept, as it requires the Biblically defined "stranger within your gates" to work on the Sabbath, which is Toraically forbidden.

Paragraph 11: Jewish power and privilege was earned and/or bought and/or bestowed by a 98% non-Jewish electorate.

Paragraph 12: You may or may not be aware that Dr. Pierce was able, via purchase of stocks, to put an anti-Affirmative Action initiative on a stockholders' ballot at AT&T some years ago. What I am suggesting would be difficult, of course, but not impossible. Nor would it require the deaths of anyone -- white people included. Do you love white people so much that you're willing to have them die to free yourself of this imagined "Jewish burden"? Violence begets violence, and that most famous of Jews was correct in saying that "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

Paragraph 13: You mix apples and oranges here. You compare the mistreatment of Palestinians in this non-messianic age to the dicta that I applied to the messianic age, which would require fair treatment of non-Jews.

Your assertions about the Talmud taking precedence over Torah are all completely false. As I stated before, I will state again: The Talmud is a compendium of opinions. Some of these opinions constitute law, but not all or even most. For Jewish law, look to Maimonides' Mishneh Torah or R' Josef Caro's Shulchan 'Aruch. The Talmud is not called "the Law of Judaism." The Torah (Written and Oral) is called the Law. The Talmud is a massive debate on the Oral Torah. The two texts I cite give the majority opinions that therefore constitute the Oral Law.

What I am stating is what I learned in years of study of Judaism at the hands of Jews. I have nothing to hide. Your study of Judaism is limited to what you get by way of Jew-haters. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would not question my knowledge of my own religion. As to my unwillingness to live in Israel, this is because I refuse to carry an Uzi to defend occupied land that I do not view as legitimately belonging to Israel. I do not rule out living in Israel in the future, but not until it stops its illegal occupation of the Palestinian homeland.

Paragraph 14: I have read the Protocols, Mr. Thomson. I read them and I know that they call for the financial ruin of the "host nation," right? Where is this financial ruin? You do not address it in your response to me. Will you address it now?

Paragraph 15: You offer a few token examples of Jewish uprisings against the Romans to imply that the "Jews" controlled the Roman Empire. You ignore the examples of the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the crushing of the Bar Kochba revolt. Similarly, you ignore my statements regarding Greece and Egypt. I suggest you are trying to obfuscate.

Paragraph 16: So much mis/disinformation to deal with here.

You seem to be tying the Yiddish language to the Khazars. The Khazars didn't speak Yiddish, which has its roots in German-Jewish refugees settling in Eastern Europe in the late medieval period -- long after the decline of the Khazars.

And wow! A reporter claims that the Soviet secret police spoke Yiddish among themselves. Well, as we all know, if it appears in print, it must be true.

That I am not an historian does not disqualify me from debate. Are you a trained historian? A yes or no will do. If yes, then you may claim superiority over me in this realm; if not, then I suggest you not question my credentials.

Tsarist Russia did not lose WWI. The Kerensky provisional government that took power after the March 1917 revolution made peace with Germany.

Finally, I must remark with amusement your willingness to use the "jewsmedia" when it fits your agenda. That strikes me as dishonest. Either you trust the media or you do not. Which is it?

Paragraph 17: You avoided my challenge to examine the Israeli Declaration of Independence and find implicit or explicit references to an Arab-free country.

On the issue of "Jack Bernstein," I have strong reason to believe that he is a non-entity, created by the Posse Comitatus to promote an anti-Zionist agenda. Why else would "Bernstein" collaborate with the Posse for this book? The claim has been made that the Mossad for his anti-Zionist views assassinated "Bernstein," yet no one seems to be able to tell me where or when this assassination occurred. And if Bernstein, whose book was published by a tiny little Midwestern press, was such a threat to the Mossad, then why hasn't the Mossad taken out Noam Chomsky or Israel Shahak?

If you buy Bernstein, you've been hoodwinked, sir.

Paragraph 18: Well, for once I agree with you. I agree that it does Jews no good to continue to pursue monetary restitution for World War II crimes. It might interest you that I recently authored a petition asking that the World Jewish Congress not pressure Russia for restitution for Bolshevik seizure of Jewish property.

Paragraph 19: Am I a kosher Jew? Yes, I am. Does the Kol Nidrey prayer allow a Jew to lie under oath? Of course not, particularly since Judaism does not allow Jews to take oaths. The Kol Nidrey prayer is a formula to enact forgiveness between God and man, and between man and man in cases where at least three attempts have been made by one party to resolve a dispute. It does not permit Jews to enter into contracts falsely or lie under oath. This libel is as old as Methusaleh. Do you believe everything you read?

FYI, I will be appearing in traffic court in September. I will not take an oath, but I will rather "affirm" my testimony. The First Amendment affords me this right. Observant Jews are not the only religious group that do this; Quakers (Society of Friends) and Jehova's Witnesses do it also, because it is biblically mandated not to take oaths.

As for the bris milah (circumcision), there is no masturbation of the child. In some Orthodox circles, the mohel, after the cutting, will fill his mouth with wine, suck on the wound, and then spit out the wine and blood mixture in his mouth. This is done to stanch the blood flow and disinfect the wound -- not for sexual reasons. Most mohels no longer do this.

In closing, I could care less what Jews who disagree with me think of my engaging in debate with you. "Organized Jewry" tends to disgust me, as I've stated to Mr. Frenz many times in the past. As a Jew, I am accountable to God alone, and I do not feel that God disapproves of my thoughts or actions. I have nothing to hide from either God or man.

Your ball, Mr. Thomson.

Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.