Before reverting to paragraph-by-paragraph address, I shall make a few small but important points:

1. I am not a "self-styled jew"; I am a Jew. You’ll notice the word is capitalized.
2. It seems to me that Jews became the "mortal enemy of the Aryan Race" when "Aryans" came into our land and began mistreating us. This, compounded with the utter stupidity of then forcing us out of our land yet forcing us to live among you, is the root of the "Jewish problem." Had "self-styled aryans" left the Jews alone, you’d have to find some other ethno-religious group to complain about. In short: You have no one to blame but yourselves.
3. I have come to the conclusion about you that you will believe virtually anything your read provided that it casts Jews in a negative light. Your evocation of Freedman, Shahak, and Berger reminds me of Himmler at Posen in October 1943: "Eighty-million Germans, and each of them has his good Jew." You managed to find three; der treue Heinrich would not be pleased. Nevertheless, I gave you a source to show that Shahak is a notorious liar. Did you bother to check it? Apparently you did not.
4. Your points on Marx are half-true. Yes, Marx was conflicted about his Jewishness. But since there were no other "jew commies" around at the time he was writing, and since he envisioned Germany or Britain as the ripe ground for the revolution he imagined, I think the latter part of your statement – Marx’s "lambasting his fellow commie jews" – is a tad inaccurate.
5. I have addressed the issue of why Jews took surnames twice now, and you have responded to my points neither time. Therefore, I shall waste no more time on the issue. I will note the following, however:

• Kerensky was indeed Jewish.
• Lenin took his alias, which means something along the lines of "learning," because he was an enemy of the state and needed to protect himself from the secret police. We’ve already covered his mixed Jewish and Gentile heritage.
• Stalin was not Jewish. The name "Stalin" means "man of steel" in Russian and was taken by Dzhugashvili as a pseudonym because, like Lenin, he was an enemy of the state. You are half-correct in stating that the Georgian ending "-shvili" means "child (of)." However, Dzhuga does not mean "Jew" in Georgian; the correct word is Ebraeli. The word Dzhuga appears, from my research, to be a geographic designation; it is a town name in both Russia and in Azerbaijan. This is all beside the fact that Dzhugashvili spent six years in an Orthodox Christian seminary before being expelled for reading Marx.
• Molotov’s birth surname was Skryabin. His name was never "Hammer." The name "Molotov" is instead a pseudonym that means "hammer." I can think of two other persons in history who took similar names: Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer), the Christian grandfather of Charlemagne, and the Jew Yehuda ha’Macabi (Judah the Hammer). Both became family names. There is no proof whatsoever that Molotov was Jewish.
• That Litvinov’s surname was Finkelstein is suggested only by Christian Identity sources.
• That Andropov’s surname was Lieberman is also suggested only by Identity sources, plus the National Alliance. Neither are particularly good sources as far as historical accuracy is concerned.
• Trotsky was a Jew and was born Lev Davidovich Bronstein. He took the name "Trotsky" from the warden of the jail where he served time for revolutionary activities. It was a way of pissing off the authorities and protecting his identity from the secret police.
• You quote a "Cabalistic" source on name changing but give no text, no page number, and no author. Thus I dismiss your alleged source.

As for Argentine history, I stand corrected – I am more than willing to admit I am wrong when proven so. I will note, however, that Argentina has a grand total of 40,000 indigenous persons living there, whereas the European-descended population numbers nearly 40 million. All this aside, the Jews in Argentina (it is the fifth-largest Jewish community in the world) have kept their European names, as have the Italians, Germans, and other European groups that live there. I actually have relatives in Argentina who don’t have a Spanish surname. I would give you their names, but I prefer that their identities remain protected.

Back to paragraph-by-paragraph discourse:

Paragraph 4: Mr. Thomson is apparently ignorant of the fact that Israel presently has a large problem with Russian immigrants arriving at Tel-Aviv claiming to be Jewish when they are, in fact, not. Evoking the ban against circumcision in the Soviet Union as a religious rite and the suppression of religion there in general, they justify their ignorance of Judaism and gain entrance into Israel. I suppose Russians aren’t "Aryans," though…

You state that "Nationality is biology" and you back it up with your ORION slogan. I say that this theory is bunk. Nationality is one’s status as a member of a nation. This nation might be racially constituted, as in the case of, say, Japan, but most nations are not constituted as such. In particular, the most nationalistic countries of the twentieth century were "biological" fictions. A Prussian shares little genetically in common with a Bavarian. Similarly, a Sardinian can hardly be equated with a Tuscan from a "racial" standpoint. In short, you equate "race" or ethnicity with nation, and that is incorrect.

The vast majority of the world’s population does not fit any "racial" category very well. Look at South America, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, and you’ll see what I mean. That being the case, how can one reasonably equate nation with "race"? I don’t see how.

Paragraph 5: That Rabbi Wise was an important American Zionist leader does not make him an expert on Judaism, particularly since he was a Reform Jew, and during that period, Reform Jews were by and large rather ignorant of Jewish law.

But I digress…Wow: So many crypto-Jews in the world that I’m surprised the statue of Honest Abe in the Lincoln Memorial isn't wearing a yarmulke. William Dudley Pelley (who was about as sharp as a sack of wet mice) tried to label Roosevelt as "Rosenfelt" back in the 1930s and claimed he was a Sephardic Jew of Dutch origin. While it’s true that Dutch Jewry is Sephardic in origin, a Dutch Jew would therefore have a Ladino name (like, say, Baruch Spinoza – probably the most famous Dutch Jew), rather than a Germanic name like Roosevelt. Perhaps you should just give me a list of who’s not Jewish so I don’t make any mistakes. Given your proclivity to see Jews behind every tree, I’m sure the list would be quite short.

You claim Theodore Kaufman’s largely ignored book influenced the Morgenthau plan, yet you offer no evidence. Meanwhile, I can trot out a number of documents that clearly point to an extermination plan against European Jews. Shall I begin with the Max Taubner verdict? How about Himmler’s notes from the aforementioned Posen appearance? Would Goebbels’ diaries suffice? The evidence of an extermination plan is overwhelming; in fact, it is the easiest piece of Holocaust historiography to prove. I frankly don't see the point in denying the Holocaust. It's really the only thing the Nazis accomplished that had any lasting effect. That and handing half of Europe over to Stalin.

Similarly, you cite an alleged ad that appeared in a newspaper. Would you be so kind as to provide a date for this newspaper? May I also suggest that you’re imaging seeing the hammer and sickle in said ad?

Finally on this point, a political philosophy cannot be "Jewish" no matter how many Jews embrace it. Zionism is not even "Jewish," particularly since most Zionists aren’t Jews. (And your dear dead friend Joseph Burg didn’t really hit on much concerning Zionist-Nazi collaboration, considering that I can think of at least three books off the top of my head on the topic, and they were all written by Jews.) National Socialism is not a "German" philosophy. Fascism is not an "Italian" philosophy. Philosophies, by their nature, transcend their creators. If they did not, then I would have to conclude that Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, and Pol Pot were all Jews as well. Perhaps they were: You seem to be the expert on these things.

Paragraph 6: On the issue of standardized tests, you seem to believe that these tests would somehow "discover talent, regardless of wealth, class or race." Funny: I’ve been teaching SAT preparation for four or five years now, and there is an undeniable correlation between wealth/class and SAT scores. It’s larger than the racial or sexual correlations, which also exist.

As you choose to ignore my distinction between psychosis and neurosis, I will similarly ignore your comments on the topic from here forward, except to add to the Jew David Berkowitz the "Aryan" Jeffrey Dahmer, who had a taste for non-white men. Two can paint with the same broad brush, Mr. Thomson.

Paragraph 7: You would prefer to label Cromwell a traitor rather than "Lord Protector," as he was called. That’s fine. I would just remind you that Cromwell did not enact the English Revolution on his own – no man could have. He had the will of the people behind him, and as we both know, with a mandate from the people, a man can accomplish many things. Was Cromwell’s invitation of the Jews into England a bad thing? That depends on your point of view. They never suffered in England post-Cromwell like they did in other parts of Europe. And England thrived as a nation. It seems both parties benefited from the invitation.

Paragraph 8: It would be difficult for Faurisson to refute Pressac, since it was Pressac who refuted Faurisson, Pressac being a former protégé of Faurisson’s. This small fact notwithstanding, you should perhaps investigate my colleague Dr. Richard Green’s studies of cyanide compounds formed on Krema walls at Auschwitz-Birkenau. His arguments have angered the German "revisionist" Germar Rudolf to such a degree that Rudolf is literally foaming at the mouth while being careful to avoid addressing any of Green's scientific points at all. And yes, Green is Jewish.

Keep in mind, also, the following:

• It takes far less cyanide to kill a human than a body louse.
• The four million figure for Auschwitz was never accepted by historians, notably Raul Hilberg, who cited a figure of around one million almost forty years ago.
• The 74,000 figure comes from a Red Cross report. Do you really think Commandant Höss was going to say, "Welcome to Auschwitz! Would you like to see the gas chambers?"
• That inconsistencies – even vast ones – occur in Holocaust testimony does not make everyone a liar nor does it disprove the basic facts.

The situation you propose for the creation of currency is socialist, but you know this. I don't have any qualms with socialism per se, though I find that when it is implemented on a radical basis and not through slow, progressive, and democratic means, the consequences tend to be frightful. Nazi Germany managed to create a strong economy with the nationalization of banking for two reasons: 1) The mark was so devalued in 1933 that it could only go up in value - backing the currency with bullion helped do this; 2) The government disenfranchised major capital holders, robbing them of their wealth, and it locked up any persons or groups that stood in opposition to its policies. In this latter sense, Nazi Germany was no different from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union failed in its socialistic experiment because the United States forced it to spend more capital in the arms race than it could produce, among other reasons.

At any rate, your theory is flawed because it requires either repressive tactics or a wholly compliant populace to implement and be made to work. As for inflation being "theft," I can only respond that inflation actually redistributes wealth from creditors to debtors, because it allows them to pay back debts with currency that has a decreased purchasing power. I would think, being essentially against the notion of credit, that you would appreciate inflation for this reason. As for deflation being "sabotage," I have no idea what you're talking about.

Paragraph 9: The difference between the Messianic age and today is that, in the Messianic age, there is supposed to be a Jewish state in Palestine governed by Torah. No such state exists today; Israel is not governed by Torah, despite the wishes of a small but vocal minority. This, however, does not exempt the Jew from following the rules of the Torah because, indeed, to disobey the Torah will do nothing but delay the Messianic age. That is the viewpoint of traditional Judaism. As you are unable or unwilling to provide a precise (or even general) source for your Talmud quote, I shall dismiss it as false.

Paragraph 10: Er, no. The "talking beasts" do not appear in the King James version of the Bible either. Remember, Mr. Thomson, that I have a Ph.D. in English Literature. The KJV is required reading for such a degree. Here is Leviticus 18:23 as rendered by Lancelot Andrewes, chief translator for James I: "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion." No talking beasts there.

Would you like to try another translation? The Douay-Rheims or, perhaps, the Vulgate? I can translate the original Hebrew for you if you like. Or you can simply concede the point.

Paragraphs 11 & 12: I dislike words being put in my mouth. I do not consider "goyim" to be dumb or Jews to be superior. I merely pointed out that Jewish power in America derives from a non-Jewish electorate. If that is equivalent to stupidity in your book, then that is for you to explain to your "race."

You write, "I do not think that jews are so silly as to let themselves be conquered by the same means they used to conquer the Goyim." That would be hard work and the purchase of things that are for sale? Instead you opt for violent means? If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but you have yet to renounce a violent solution to this problem, and yet you claim to love your race. If you love your race so much, then why are you willing to let their blood be shed?

Paragraph 13: Once again you use the "jewsmedia" when it suits you, and here you manage to commit a double foul by using this source and then making a factually incorrect statement. You write, "He is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who believes in the Zohar, a cabalistic portion of The Babylonian Talmud which posits reincarnation as a doctrine of Judaism."

Mr. Thomson, the Zohar is not part of the Babylonian Talmud. They are separate texts, and while the Talmud, as explained before, is a discussion of the Oral Jewish Law, the Zohar is a book of Jewish mysticism. Consider that we call the Talmud the Babylonian Talmud, implying its composition in Babylon (now Iraq). The Zohar, however, was composed in Palestine, in a town called Tsfat. It was completed three centuries before the Talmud and neither had any influence on the other. That R' Yosef studies both is not uncommon, but it does not make the Zohar part of the Talmud. I hope that I've made this clear.

As for R' Yosef's remarks, I consider them to be idiotic, wrongheaded, and if he were a younger man, I'd probably hit him. But he's old, blind, and senile, so I'll let God take care of him.

Oh, one more nit-pick: R' Yosef speaks for Sephardic Jews in Israel. The Chasidim are Ashkenazic Jews, and many of them come from families destroyed by the Holocaust.

Now for a question: You write, "Israel proves one more time that jews, as they presently exist, cannot live without a host people." What "host people" do you speak of?

Paragraph 14: You write, again citing the laughable Protocols, "The majority members of the American workforce are becoming part-time, minimum-wage workers, without sufficient purchasing power to buy the things they deem necessary." I wonder if you and I live in the same country. We have fewer people on welfare than ever before. We have low inflation. We have greater numbers of students attending colleges. We are in the longest period of economic growth since the Great Depression. Housing starts are up. If you're going to rant like Jeremiah about how doomed we all are, maybe you could offer some figures for this dire picture you paint. But you don't.

As for the 1929 Crash being "planned" by the monolithic Jews, I was always taught that overspeculation and an overly low margin call caused the Crash. Panic selling ensued, driving down prices, causing more panic selling, and so on. Considering that money knows no faith or "race," and in the absence of any statistics that show that Jews profited while Gentiles suffered from the 1929 Crash, I am forced once again to dismiss your argument. My great-grandfather died during the Great Depression a relatively young man and rather unemployed. And he was a Jew. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but what else do I have to work with?

Paragraph 15: I see you've officially dropped the idea of Jewish control over Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Good to see that you have some sense.

Paragraph 16: I stand corrected on Lenin, and not Kerensky, signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It makes sense, after all, considering the man responsible for Lenin's return to Russia in 1917. I won't say exactly who it was, but I'll give you two clues: 1) His name was Wilhelm; 2) His grandmother's name was Victoria. He puts Lenin in a sealed train in Berlin and sends him back to Mother Russia in exchange for a peace treaty once the Bolsheviks oust Kerensky. Smart guy, that Wilhelm. Quite an "Aryan" hero.

You still offer no reliable proof of Yiddish being spoken among the secret police, though you do offer that "Peter Worthington mentioned this fact to my Toronto colleague." In courts of law, we call that "hearsay," and that and a buck-fifty will buy you a bus ride and a free transfer.

Paragraph 17: Your mention of R' Yosef and Meir Kahane is a case of the exceptions proving the rule. Are you aware of the extent to which Israel went to keep Kahane out of the Knesset? First, they pass a law that no person with dual citizenship can sit in the Knesset, and they oust Kahane. So Kahane, in true Carlos Porter style, goes to New York and he renounces his U.S. citizenship. Then they pass a law that no person who has served time in jail can sit in the Knesset, and they arrest Kahane at his next demonstration.

Kahane was an embarrassment to Israel for two reasons: 1) For the left wing, he was a major obstacle to a sensible and lasting peace; 2) For the right wing, he was all too willing to say what they were only willing to think.

On Bernstein, a colleague of mine recently played whack-a-mole with a "revisionist" who claimed, apparently using Ahmed Rami as his source, that Jack Bernstein was assassinated by the Mossad. You claim that he died of cancer. You both state he wrote two books; only one appears in the Library of Congress catalog, and it's the one co-authored by the Posse Comitatus. My conclusion on Bernstein remains that he never existed. I would be happy to admit I'm wrong if shown so. I doubt this will happen.

Paragraph 18: I guess we'll consider this one closed as well. What do you know? We found some common ground.

Paragraph 19: I would advise you not to cite Jewish prayer from memory when debating a man who keeps a prayerbook on his desk for such occasions. Here is the Kol Nidrey prayer [emphasis mine]:

For more information, see Mahzor for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 1972.

You mentioned Ditlieb Felderer: Is he still mailing lumps of fat to Holocaust survivors and asking them to identify the fat as their dead relations? Some upstanding "Aryan" he is. I doubt very highly he was ever Jewish, but if he is, I feel sorry for his parents. And you want me to sent Ernst Zündel my money? I might as well send twenty bucks to Ingrid Rimland while I'm at it. Thanks, but I prefer to get my Nazi apologetics second-hand.

As for circumcision, when you attack the Islamic world for its use of the ritual (that's a half-billion circumcised men), then maybe I'll take your criticisms of it seriously and not merely a manifestation of your dislike for Jews. I notice you dropped the allegation of masturbation of the child before the cutting. Perhaps you realized that this would cause the foreskin to retract, thus making it more difficult to sever?

And yes, I am an individualist and not a collectivist. As I said to Mr. Frenz in a recent e-mail, given the choice between utilitarianism and libertarianism, I will choose the latter every time. I value my rights too much.

Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.