THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.

MR. FREIMAN: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether, prior to continuing with the proceedings, I might quickly raise an issue of some concern. That is, again, with regard to witnesses ‑‑ the order, identity and the opinions of witnesses.

I am given to understand by Mr. Taylor that Mr. Christie is declining at present to notify the Commission as to the identity of any witnesses past this one and one after that. We have some concerns that, clearly, it is not within the 10-day notice provisions envisaged in your order. In fact, the notice we had of both this witness and the next one was well short of the 10-day notice period.

I also have some concerns that at least one of the statements of intended evidence, in fact, does not tell us what the opinion is. It gives a number of areas that are going to be covered, but it does not tell us what the opinion is.

It is very difficult, obviously, to prepare for cross-examination without adequate notice. I would ask that the Tribunal make an appropriate direction. It does not seem as though it will be possible to have this matter resolved in the normal course on the basis of discussions between counsel.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, please.

MR. CHRISTIE: At the very close of the case for the prosecution you made a ruling respecting issues that are very crucial to and fundamental to the response. In light of that, we may have had to consider changing some of our position in preparation for the response. We could not, of course, anticipate that you would necessarily rule that way.

As far as the 10-day rule is concerned, we have given to our opponents the curriculum vitae and opinion of Dr. Jacob in written form. We have given them the curriculum vitae and opinion, as far as it has been able to go at the moment, from Dr. Countess.

The position we take is that there are many aspects to the 10-day rule that can indeed be unworkable, particularly when, as here, we cannot foresee your position vis-à-vis the qualifications of this witness.

It is the habit of the Commission and their supporters not to tell us their position until they announce it, which is their right, and they just announced yesterday that they intend to deny the validity of Dr. Jacob's qualifications and to say that he has no right to even express an opinion. They can, of course, say that because they didn't know that much in advance who Dr. Jacob was. Of course, we don't know how you are going to rule on any position they take in that regard. What we might have to do, depending on that ruling we still don't know.

In light of those circumstances, it is impossible to say precisely who the next witness would or could be, depending upon the scope of the ruling that you might make in relation to their position that there is no entitlement for this particular witness to express an opinion. That, of course, could obviate the necessity for any other opinion. It could indicate that we have to bring opinion evidence from some other source. It could indicate that we have to discontinue the response altogether. It could indicate a number of things which we cannot foresee.

In light of those uncertainties, I think it is a little bit presumptuous for the Commission to demand that we strictly comply with the 10-day rule when we cannot anticipate. We have done the best we could in the circumstances.

The ruling that you made at the close or perhaps the day before the close of the Commission's case was not a ruling that we could anticipate. In fact, it is not entirely clear precisely how that will work in relation to our proposed evidence. We hope that Dr. Jacob will be able to testify about what Dr. Schweitzer said, but even that remains to be seen. I expect we will hear vehement denunciations of his right to testify about anything.

In the face of all those uncertainties, I hope you can accept the proposition that it is virtually impossible to give assurances. Much as we would all like to know in advance what you would rule or what my friends' position might be, neither of those things can be known with any certainty at all, and they have a very fundamental effect on what subsequent evidence is possible.

That is our position.

MR. FREIMAN: Very briefly, it is somewhat surprising to hear Mr. Christie express his views as to the unexpected nature of the intention to cross-examine Dr. Jacob on his qualifications, given that with every witness that the Commission has called that is precisely what Mr. Christie did, and at great length. He can hardly be surprised about that.

He can hardly be surprised about the ruling that you provided on Monday, since that was something that was in the cards for 10 days previous to that. As the Panel had noted to him yesterday, there were only two possibilities. Either the Commission's objection would be upheld or it would be dismissed, and he should have been able to anticipate both those things.

Nothing that he said really touches the central issue. We are entitled to some knowledge ahead of time of who his witnesses are. If he can't call them, then he won't call them, but we are entitled to that notice.

My fear is that the result of all this is to make it impossible to proceed in a timely manner. Clearly, if the Commission and the Complainants and Intervenors do not have adequate notice as to who is coming, what his or her qualifications are and what the substance of their evidence is, it is impossible to prepare for cross-examination, and we will be put into the invidious position of having to ask for an accommodation, which is the last thing we want to do in terms of pushing this forward in a timely manner.

We have not objected to Dr. Jacob testifying, even though notice of his evidence was not provided to us until Monday. We are prepared to deal with Dr. Jacob, but we cannot deal with subsequent witnesses without knowing who they are and what they are going to say.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What notice do you have at this point as to how many witnesses the Respondent is calling?

MR. FREIMAN: We were given at the outset of the proceedings a list of 20 names with the caveat that some of those or all of those might be called or others might be called. Subsequently we were given notice of a witness during the proceedings that we held at the Transport Board. We were given notice of that well within the 10-day period. We were informed on Monday that due to logistical difficulties that witness was not appearing.

We have been given notice of Dr. Jacob and of his opinions on Monday. We were given notice of a second witness and of the areas in which he is to testify also on Monday, but not of his opinions in any of those areas.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Matheson, please.

MS MATHESON: I just want to underscore one point, Mr. Chairman, and that is that these are expert witnesses. I think it is fundamental that, before an expert witness gets in the box, you know what the opinions are that are going to be introduced. It forms the framework for everything.

I accept Mr. Christie's statement that that has been given with respect to the witness who is presently testifying, but that is the only witness with respect to whom we have been provided an opinion. We have been provided a curriculum vitae for Dr. Countess, but we have only been provided with a list of topics upon which he will speak, which is insufficient.

With respect to the individual of whom we were notified two weeks ago, we were given notice of his background but no list of topics nor an opinion of any kind from that witness. That witness is apparently unavailable, so perhaps that is not an issue.

These are experts, and that is the basic information that anyone needs before an expert testifies in any hearing.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, I will hear from you again, but I just want to make a comment.

The Tribunal is extremely reluctant to interfere with the assigned days which we have gathered with great difficulty both from the point of view of all counsel, witnesses and last, and perhaps least, the Tribunal Members who have adjusted their schedules to be here on the appointed days. That was the purpose for the issuing of the practice direction dealing with notice.

We, as Tribunal Members, understand that perfect compliance is not always possible and that there are opportunities to abridge times, et cetera. I wonder what you can do to accommodate the Commission and the Intervenors to make sure that we can proceed next week without interruption.

We have this witness in hand. Dr. Jacob is here and, if he becomes qualified, I assume his evidence will last for an indefinite period of time, maybe a day or many days; I don't know. What comes after that?

MR. CHRISTIE: What I am suggesting is not as Mr. Freiman said, that I am in any confusion about their right or need to cross-examine. Yesterday, in Mr. Freiman's absence, Mr. Rosen indicated that he would object to his being allowed to testify at all.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What is new about that? It happens in almost every situation where a witness is sought to be qualified. They may do that. We here will decide whether he is qualified or not.

MR. CHRISTIE: I understand that, but I was just making the point that Mr. Freiman suggested that I would be wise to understand that he would be cross-examined. I understand that he would be cross-examined. Until yesterday it was not clear that the position would be that he was not qualified. That I simply want to clarify as to my remarks.

As to what was or was not in the cards, we don't necessarily have a means of reading the cards. The fact is that the ruling that you made is subject to the caveat that historical statements of Dr. Schweitzer, for instance on matters of fact, which were given in-chief, could be tested as to their truth. I assume that ruling would apply to all witnesses and, in that context, it requires some consideration of how that would impact and precisely who is qualified in that area and to what extent they would be entitled to testify on matters of fact regarding issues of history. Where he was, can they?

These questions are not entirely at this moment even clear, and it is not going to be easy to resolve precisely how that ruling will impact on those issues.

I have on Monday of this week given Dr. Jacob's précis and curriculum vitae; Dr. Countess' curriculum vitae was given. They are the two intended witnesses. The 10-day rule, as I understand it, means that 10 days before they are to testify there must be some compliance or an attempt at it. Unless there is a reason why it can't be complied with, it would be quite justifiable to demand a reason.

If I understand the present situation, this is Thursday. Assuming Dr. Jacob is qualified, he would be entitled to testify on our behalf for a day, perhaps a day and a half; we don't know precisely what the objections or limits would be. Then we would be perhaps looking at Tuesday before cross-examination began, and we gave notice on Monday. So it would probably be 10 days before Dr. Jacob is through, and we will satisfy the request of the Commission, if we can, to give details of Dr. Countess' opinion.

Due to the difficulties of communication and the issues that are changing from time to time in the case, we have not been able to focus precisely on what areas his opinion could countenance. The limits that are placed on our rights are varying from time to time according to your rulings, and we have to assess those rulings in relation to what his opinion would be allowed to do.

We are going to try today to prepare that and to fax it probably tonight to the parties, as to areas in which his opinion would be tendered and what he would have to say in those areas. That is only possible when we have the opportunity not only to do that, but to assess what the opinion would be allowed to say, at least as far as we are aware to the best of our knowledge.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it your present intention to call two experts?

MR. CHRISTIE: No. I have given notice regarding Dr. Martin. It is our intention to assess the situation on the basis of your rulings, as and when the objections arise and the rulings occur. Certainly nothing in the nature of new witnesses would be, in our view at least, likely within the next 10 days, in terms of experts. The duration of these witnesses' testimony, of course, depends on your rulings.

If we are required to fill the available time with the witnesses that are factual, we would at the first opportunity advise you of those, but they would probably have to come from either out of the country or certainly out of the province and we would have to make arrangements to see how and when they would be here.

I hope it is understandable that these circumstances make it virtually impossible to give hard and fast assurances. Knowing full well how readily my estimates are taken as some sort of misrepresentation if I can't fulfil them, I am not too inclined to put in writing or give assurances things that I cannot guarantee. I can do my best to estimate but, when I do that, I don't want it to be misconstrued.

Until I am sure of something, I don't think it is wise to say anything. In those circumstances, unless I am directed to do something else, I intend to proceed to watch matters unfold as they will and as they must.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess the direction that you might expect from us is that you be ready to proceed with your next witness during the time that is allotted.

MR. CHRISTIE: I understand that. We will have witnesses in the time that is allotted; I am quite sure of that. I don't intend to ask for any adjournments in the time allotted.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You realize that what you have said is sufficiently vague that it makes it difficult to cope with scheduling, even from the Tribunal's point of view. I think the Tribunal has some sympathy with other counsel in the vagueness of your response. It seems to me that in a normal setting the Tribunal would have a list of witnesses and a summary of what they are going to say, so that they can prepare their cross-examination in a timely way.

MR. CHRISTIE: The Tribunal or the Commission?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Pardon me?

MR. CHRISTIE: I thought you said the Tribunal.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal is interested in seeing that there is an appropriate scheduling and compliance with the order of the Tribunal so that we don't have this long discussion.

MR. CHRISTIE: As far as I can see, in the next 10 days the two witnesses will be the present witness and Dr. Countess.

MR. FREIMAN: May I just say that that is in the highest degree unlikely. The Commission and the Intervenors and the Complainants do not foresee themselves cross-examining ‑‑ even in the event that these witnesses are qualified, we do not foresee a cross-examination of the magnitude that Mr. Christie inflicted on Professor Schweitzer.

I just want to add the real point. The real point is that we are not going to get any notice. As I understand the circumlocutions that have preceded, what we will get is announcement of fact witnesses on the day that they are called, with no notice of who they are and what they are going to say. That is not satisfactory either.

The concern the Commission is raising before the Tribunal is that there appears to be a situation created where witnesses will be called with little, if any, prior notice, putting others in the position of either having to proceed to cross-examine blind or to ask for an indulgence. That is just not appropriate in terms of efficient use of this Tribunal's time.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about experts or factual witnesses?

MR. FREIMAN: Both. The Tribunal has stated that even factual witnesses need to be identified. It has made a special ruling with regard to how expert witnesses are to be dealt with. We do need to know the identity of factual witnesses also.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I understood you to say that you have a list of witnesses, including factual witnesses.

MR. FREIMAN: No, we have a list of 20 potential expert witnesses. There are no factual witnesses on that list.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I am going to direct that Mr. Christie deliver a list of the factual witnesses that he intends to call not later than tomorrow, Friday, at five o'clock. I am going to further direct on behalf of the Tribunal that those witnesses be alerted to be here so that there is no interruption in the presentation of the evidence next week and the week following.

MR. KURZ: Mr. Chairman, just dealing with that, the problem still remains with Dr. Countess in that with the notice that we have been given, even if Dr. Jacob is qualified and testifies into early next week, we have not been given a report by Dr. Countess. What we have been given is a document that presumably was prepared by Mr. Christie outlining the issues that he proposes to testify on. We don't have his report.

Mr. Christie indicated, in effect, that the 10-day rule will be satisfied and that Dr. Countess will be able to testify next week. In fact, that is not the case. With Dr. Jacob we received notice on Monday, and we are here today ready to go, but with Dr. Countess it is unclear whether we will get any notice of a report, certainly not 10 days in advance but in any way in advance.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you to address that issue, Mr. Christie?

MR. CHRISTIE: I said that I am going to do my best and I am going to give you in writing, to the best of my knowledge, what he has to say, his opinion. I concede that it is important and, if I could have done it sooner, I would have. I was not able to do so, and I believe that I can now. I said I would do so tonight by fax to all the parties.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Our direction will apply to that as well, by five o'clock tomorrow.

Mr. Fromm, you wanted to say something.

MR. FROMM: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the rules of procedure here. If it would assist the Tribunal, we have indicated that we are prepared to call two expert witnesses, and one of them would be available not this coming week but the following week. I don't know if that would interrupt what the Respondent's lawyer would want to do or how you would wish to proceed, but we could provide on Monday a CV and notice of some of what this witness would have to contribute.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You understand what the ruling is and what the practice direction is in terms of notice. Perhaps the Clerk at the break will give you a copy of the ruling of the Tribunal in that regard.

MR. FREIMAN: I believe what Mr. Fromm is getting at is that he is proposing that the order of proceedings be interrupted so that he could bring his expert witnesses in the middle of the Respondent's case.

MR. FROMM: That is correct.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Why is that?

MR. FROMM: I was suggesting that it might assist the Tribunal if the fear is that there might be an interruption in the proceedings.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would prefer that the Respondent's case be put in and then, if you have evidence to call, upon proper notice we will consider that at that time.

MR. FROMM: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, have you finished your examination of this witness?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think I may have indicated that, but there are a couple of questions I want to ask.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to hear your last statement which I didn't make a full note about, in the course of what you are doing now, as to why he is being called and the burden of his evidence as an expert in what.

MR. CHRISTIE: I said that at the outset.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You said it at the end and, I am sorry, I didn't make a full note of it.

MR. CHRISTIE: Just let me say, in regard to Mr. Fromm's request, that I personally want to put on record that I am not opposed ‑‑ in fact, we consent to the interruption of our case to allow the calling of any of their expert opinion evidence. I have no objection to that. In fact, I would very much like to have the opportunity to go last. Since we are the Respondent, we should be able to address and respond to whatever is before you by way of information and evidence.

Our position is that we would think it appropriate to request the right to go last since my client is the Respondent. If other evidence is to be called, we would like the opportunity to be able to respond to that, not knowing precisely what it is. That is our concern and, for the record, that is our position.

You asked me a direct question. I said that our position is that this is a witness competent to testify on the subject of the history of ideas. He is competent to express views on the subject of antisemitism, its various forms, its meaning, its nuances and its various motives and effects.

In my submission, he will be entitled to analyze and comment on the opinions of Dr. Schweitzer. His essential evidence will relate to the propositions expressed in Dr. Schweitzer's opinion as set out in tab 3, called "Memorandum on Lethal Antisemitism Old and New" and the proposition that all of the Zundelsite material is necessarily related and part of a continuum of lethal antisemitism. That opinion, which was admitted, was admitted on the basis of his qualifications as a historian and as an expert in antisemitism. Our view is that, if it was relevant to express his opinion in that way, which we say in essence was not so, to establish the foundational facts for that, the law being established in the Zundel case that historians could testify to those matters, as a competent student of intellectual history ‑‑ and it is, after all, Dr. Schweitzer's opinion that this is a controversy over the history of ideas ‑‑ this witness is competent to testify on the history of ideas and to analyze the opinions expressed by Dr. Schweitzer from the perspective of his analysis, and that is what we would propose that he be allowed to do.

I hope that is a clear answer to your question.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Fromm, please.

MR. FROMM: I wonder if I might ask Dr. Jacob a few questions regarding his qualifications.

THE CHAIRPERSON: That reminds me that I did say at the outset that I had intended to ask a couple more questions. May I?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF RE QUALIFICATIONS, Continued

MR. KURZ:

Q. Just before I begin, you said something about fears of Jewry. I take it that you are talking about fears of Jews? Could you explain that answer?

A. "The Jewry" means that community of people constituted of the Jews. I meant in particular the Jewry in academics. This is an academic subject, and few publishers will dare to publish a work on Eugen Dühring because there are so many Jews among the publishing houses today, the leading publishing houses.

Q. So people are unwilling to publish studies on antisemitism because Jews run the publishing houses. Is that your evidence, sir?

A. I don't mean to suggest that they run all the publishing houses, but they have important places in most of them. If a book like this were published by a mainstream publisher, the reviews would be devastating because many of the academics who review these books are clearly Jewish, in the history departments and in the political science departments and philosophy as well. So the publishers are fearful.

Q. Publishers are fearful of the reactions of Jewish academics?

A. Yes.

Q. And what the Jewish academics can do to them for publishing these materials, sir?

A. Yes. I can give you a concrete example if you wish.

Q. Please.

A. I published a book in 1992 called "De Naturae Natura: A Study of Idealistic Conceptions of Nature and the Unconscious." It was published by Franz Steiner, a very distinguished publishing house in Stuttgart.

Q. That is at page 2 of your CV?

A. Yes, in the middle of it.

Q. Yes...?

A. As I briefly mentioned yesterday, it contains an appendix on race and philosophical capacity. It has a rather extensive discussion of Jewish thought in comparison to Indo-European.

Q. I am sorry, in comparison to what?

A. Indo-European.

Q. Thank you.

A. When the editors read that appendix, they were very fearful that they would get adverse reaction to the book and pleaded constantly that I drop the appendix because it had references to all these antisemitic, idealistic thinkers and also to Alfred Rosenberg who happens to be a National Socialist thinker, but a very serious one. They thought it dangerous for them to publish a book which included such names and said that it would be much better if I did not have the appendix at all.

It was only on my own insistence that it finally was published in its entirety. I had reactions from several European academics, and they all refer to the appendix in one way or another. That is what immediately catches their attention.

Q. And that is an example of how Jewish academics have tried to stop writing about antisemitic topics?

A. That is how they have deterred non-Jews from writing about antisemitic topics.

Q. So your view is that it is okay for Jewish academics to allow other Jewish academics to write about antisemitism, but that they wanted to stop you from writing about antisemitism because you are not Jewish? Is that the way you feel?

A. Because I have an objective viewpoint that does not immediately denounce European thought and raise Jewish thought in comparison. You will find that there are many Jewish thinkers, historians, sociologists writing about Jewish politics and philosophy, almost in a critical manner. It would seem that they are all anti-Semites, but ultimately the conclusion would be that this is a way to reform the Jewish society or conduct or whatever and, therefore, it is permissible to publish such books.

In my case, I have no interest in reforming. I am not directing my discussion to the Jewry. It is open to the entire intellectual community of which the predominant part has always been the European.

Q. Again, just to fully understand the answer you just gave, your objective view with regard to this European philosophy that you talked about is that you are objective about the antisemitism of these writers. You don't condemn it out of hand. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes, completely.

Q. You feel that the antisemitism of the writers that you are discussing is actually quite useful for reformation. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It helps, in effect, to reform European and perhaps North American society of the Jewish influence. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So that people like Rosenberg, who you said is a National Socialist ‑‑ did you describe him as an ideologue or a philosopher?

A. An ideologue.

Q. A National Socialist ideologue ‑‑ that their ideas were useful to reform western society. Is that right?

A. Yes, and they still are.

Q. When you say Rosenberg was a National Socialist ideologue, was he not a prominent publisher and writer in Nazi Germany?

A. Yes, for the journal of the National Socialist Party.

Q. And he would have been considered one of their prime writers, propagandists. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes, he was. He had that particular designation.

Q. With regard to the appendix ‑‑

MEMBER JAIN: I am sorry, could you repeat the last answer. I couldn't understand what you said.

THE WITNESS: He had that particular designation. He was the Minister for Propaganda.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is this Alfred Rosenberg?

THE WITNESS: Alfred, yes.

MR. KURZ:

Q. And his book, the book that you described in German ‑‑ and, I apologize; I don't have your German knowledge nor do I have your knowledge of almost any other language. That translation is "The Myth of the Twentieth Century?" That is the book you are talking about?

A. Indeed.

Q. That is a book that takes off from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

A. It does not. It takes off from Houston Stewart Chamberlain's "The Foundations of the 19th Century." This is a work of cultural history.

Q. I apologize. If I could go back to something you said earlier, you were talking about how this influence of Jewish academics tried to prevent you from publishing an appendix that dealt with antisemitic authors and that the reason is that they didn't want you, as a non-Jew, to write on that subject. I just want to ask you about that appendix, if I may. I have not had the opportunity to read it.

You did not simply mention the names of these antisemitic writers; would that be a fair statement?

A. No, I discussed their thought.

Q. I didn't hear your answer, I am sorry.

A. I discussed their thought.

Q. You discussed their thought. Would it be fair to say that the problem that these Jewish academics had with your discussion of their thought is that you took an objective view of their thought? Would that be accurate?

A. What Jewish academics are you talking about?

Q. The ones ‑‑

A. Who responded, do you mean?

Q. Yes. My understanding, if I am correct, is that the reason that you told us about this appendix was that it is an example of how Jewish academics try to stop non-Jewish academics from writing about antisemitism. Is that correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: He didn't say that.

THE WITNESS: I suggested that publishers in general are very careful of publishing books that are antisemitic in one way or another or sympathetic to antisemitic authors. This is the evidence I gave of Franz Steiner. At Franz Steiner all the editors are not Jewish; the people I dealt with are Germans. They had a much greater fear than I suppose anybody else would have and so deterred me.

The responses are also not all the time from Jewish authors. In fact, most of them just abstain from reviewing a book like this because they like to ignore it. That is also, in a way, bad for a book because it reduces its popularity and the publicity. If they do review it, if they have the competence to do so, then they would denounce it.

In my case I did get a few reviews. I cannot make out from the names whether they are Jewish or European entirely; they seem more European than Jewish. They all referred immediately to the appendix, even though it is only an appendix and not the major burden of the book. So you can see how strong a reaction I got to such a small part of the book.

MR. KURZ:

Q. The reaction of the reviews, was it positive or negative?

A. Mostly critical and sometimes non-committal. The German academic who wrote about it said, "I should not like to comment on such a position."

Q. Just talking about criticisms and reviews and how important they are, is the problem you have experienced because you write about antisemitism that you don't get reviewed very much? Is that what you are saying?

A. That is certainly one reason. The other reason is that the other books were published more recently, and it takes time for reviews to come out. I am still anticipating.

Q. So not too many of your books have been reviewed. Is that what you are telling us?

A. No. In fact, I have four books reviewed out of eight.

Q. I see. So half the books have been reviewed and half your books have not been reviewed.

A. The others are in the process of being reviewed. Edgar Julius Jung is being reviewed in France and in America.

Q. And you don't know what the review is going to say, I take it.

A. No. One never knows.

Q. Getting back to the book that was published in Germany and your appendix, the criticisms in the reviews, I take it, were with regard to your view of antisemitism. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Criticism is always concentrated on National Socialism. The very name Rosenberg is frightening to people, and they were all surprised that I had included him in my discussion. I had a justification to do that, because of the similarity of his views to many of the more serious thinkers I had earlier discussed in the course of the book.

Q. Are you saying that Rosenberg was or was not a serious thinker?

A. I am suggesting that he was, yes.

Q. You feel that he is an important thinker in terms of understanding problems with Jews. Would that be fair?

A. Certainly. My discussion was restricted to his comments on natural philosophy, because that is the subject of the book.

Q. That is your area of expertise. Right?

A. That is one of my areas. The other is political philosophy, idealistic political philosophy.

Q. I am sorry, the other area is idealistic political philosophy, Doctor? I didn't hear you.

A. Yes, conservatism which is the most clear representative of idealistic political philosophy.

Q. You mentioned Alfred Rosenberg. You are not the only writer who has mentioned Alfred Rosenberg. The fact that you mentioned Mr. Rosenberg isn't the reason that all these people were upset, is it?

A. It was because I was not opposed to his views of natural philosophy and on Jewish thought. Most people who comment on anything to do with antisemitism in the Reich will just comment on it and proceed from there with no sympathy shown to the point of view expressed by a National Socialist, because that is too dangerous.

Q. So the difference between you and the others with regard to Mr. Rosenberg is that you were sympathetic to his views on natural philosophy and the Jews. Is that how I understand your evidence?

A. Yes, on Jewish thought and, in fact, the complete lack of natural philosophy in their tradition. That is what it amounts to.

Q. You are saying that Jews don't have a natural philosophy?

A. No. They have little regard for nature. They have little sympathetic understanding of it, which is even more serious.

Q. I don't understand. Jews have little regard for or understanding of natural philosophy?

A. They have little sympathetic understanding of the inner springs of natural philosophy, of the metaphysical aspects of nature which constitutes its first principles.

Q. You are talking about Jews in general, that they just don't get it, as it were?

A. They lack the insight.

Q. They lack the insight? I am sorry, I don't hear very well and I don't know philosophy very well, so I need you to help me.

A. They lack the insight.

Q. They lack the insight that is necessary to understand something as complicated or as metaphysical as natural philosophy?

A. Yes.

Q. I understand. I take it that natural philosophy is something that requires ‑‑ could I call it something spiritual? Would that be a fair way of saying it?

A. All philosophy is spiritual.

Q. All philosophy is spiritual. Is there something more spiritual about natural philosophy or not?

A. No, only equally.

Q. Do your comments apply to Jewish inability to understand philosophy in general or just in this one area of philosophy?

A. Idealistic philosophy.

Q. I am sorry, I didn't hear you.

A. Idealistic philosophy.

Q. Idealistic philosophy. What is it about idealistic philosophy that Jews lack the capacity to understand?

A. All idealistic philosophy is based on a priori principles, a priori meaning an earlier philosophical intuition of the realm of ideas which are eternal and constant. This is the basis of Platonic philosophy, where there is the idea of the good and the beautiful and the true, and so on. This is what informs all the other conceptions of political philosophy as in a republic or social thought as in the symposium, and so on. It is the basis of neo-Platonism which consolidates Platonic philosophy and it informs all of German idealistic philosophy as well because it is not empirically based. It is based on first principles.

Most Jewish philosophy is empirical and based on material evidence which will not lead to any understanding of nature, because nature is not concrete. It is first ideal before it appears concrete.

Q. So Jews are not really able to understand things that are not concrete.

A. They have shown no evidence of anything but empirical philosophy.

Q. Again, I apologize because I don't hear you very well.

A. They have shown no evidence of anything but empirical philosophy in the course of their tradition, and much of that tradition is not metaphysical at all. Their so-called spiritual tradition is only an ethic that keeps the people together and forces a rule of conduct amongst themselves and vis-à-vis other people. It is not philosophical at all.

Q. So Jewish thought and Jewish religious thought is not philosophical. Is that what you are saying?

A. Yes.

Q. Because it is too concrete?

A. It is too mundane.

Q. I am trying to understand. Why is it that Jews are incapable of doing this? Are we missing ‑‑ and I guess I am revealing myself as a Jew. Are Jews missing something genetic or is it something in the Jewish character?

A. Both. What they are like genetically is revealed in their character.

Perhaps, if you read my reply to Dr. Schweitzer, you will have noticed that I refer to the sharply-developed intellect of the Jews. This, itself, is partly the problem. The problem is that the intellect is that mental capacity which is created precisely to deal with the material world. It is not, as many think, something very metaphysical. It is just an instrument like a computer. This faculty has been passed on from generation to generation. It is a faculty that passes from the mother to the child. It is a feminine quality, in fact.

Q. A feminine quality?

A. Intellect is a female characteristic.

Q. All intellect or Jewish intellect?

A. All intellect.

Q. I understand. Since you preserve the maternal line very carefully, it is not surprising that this intellect has been preserved in its purity through the generations, and this explains the brilliance of intellect. But it also explains that there is little apart from it. The spiritual capacity is a masculine character which is passed from the father.

Q. Spiritual qualities are masculine and intellectual qualities are feminine.

A. Yes, male and female, I suppose.

Q. I understand that ‑‑ I guess.

A. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is not much evidence of this philosophical spiritual quality among the Jews.

Q. So the Jews are smart, like computers, really smart. Is that right?

A. Yes, I don't deny that.

Q. And they are like computers in that they can make, if I can put it this way, cold calculations about material things?

A. Yes. All the evidence of more 'cultural', with inverted commas, activity among the Jews is through participation in the European stock. There have been a lot of admixtures and marriages into European families. Marcel Proust, for instance ‑‑ his mother was a Jewess, but his father was French, so he will have an enormous French quality in his writings, and so on.

All of that is to be attributed to the European part of it, that part which has imbibed the surrounding tradition. It is not native to the Jewish mind.

Q. So Jews who are pure stock Jews, whatever that may mean, really aren't capable of participating in cultural activities. The only ones who have been successful in doing so are people who are from intermarriages. Is that what you are saying?

A. Not the only people; most of the people have that. I have no evidence of a Jew of pure stock ‑‑ I suppose that would be the Sephardic Jews

‑‑ producing anything at all.

Q. So the Sephardic Jews haven't produced any culture at all?

A. No, I am talking of European culture, not Jewish culture which ceased to exist after the Diaspora or something. I am not talking about Jewish culture which I know little about and have little interest in. I am talking about Jewish participation in western society.

I don't have much evidence of a Jew of pure stock producing anything in European society, even if it were Sephardic.

Q. Even if it were...?

A. Sephardic.

Q. The Sephardic are the pure stock, but the Ashkenazic or European Jews are not of pure stock?

A. They are pure insofar as they are closer to their origins, and that is the criterion for purity. The Ashkenazic are much more mixed with Russian and Polish and German elements.

Q. I always thought the Jews were very prominent in the arts, in music and what have you.

A. These are all Ashkenazic, all mixed with European blood and also fully brought up in the European tradition.

Q. So, in effect, it is their non-Jewishness that allows them to participate in culture, the non-Jewish side of them.

A. Yes.

Q. And the Jewish side of them would be the opposite, would be non-cultural. Would that be fair to say?

A. It is not non-cultural. It is not culture that is fruitful on European soil. The Jews themselves may have produced a culture of their own; I have no idea what it was like or what it is like. I have never been to modern Israel. I don't know what sort of culture prevails. It is not the subject of my discussions.

Q. I see. If I could take you back, you talked about Alfred Rosenberg. You feel that he is a serious thinker.

A. Very serious.

Q. A very serious thinker. When you say "serious thinker," you think he is somebody who needs to be listened to. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Rosenberg posited that there are some ways to deal with the Jewish problem. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes, indeed.

Q. Just so that I understand what the Jewish problem is, first of all, tell me: Is one aspect of the Jewish problem that Jews are an exploitive social group?

A. Because they have indulged typically in commercial activity which tends to be of that sort.

Q. That is the computer part of their intellect, their sharp intellect. Would that be a fair statement?

A. It would be. I have never stated that, but the connection is fairly obvious.

Q. I guess it is, from what you are saying. That is something where Jews have a very strong influence in mercantile matters, in the economy, in making lots of money.

A. Yes. By the way ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, will you put your hand down so that I can hear you?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

There are different types of mercantile activity also. Werner Sombart, who wrote that book on Jews and Economics, is a person you should read on the subject.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Who is the writer, I am sorry?

A. Werner Sombart, S-o-m-b-a-r-t. I have not translated any of his works, but I have referred to him in my reply.

Q. Yes.

A. The ideal society that all German thinkers propound is one based on quasi-mediaeval guilds, the corporate system, where there is a close relationship between the leader of an economic enterprise and the apprentices. This is how the tradition is maintained in the guild from generation to generation, through the perfection of technique and expertise.

In such a patriarchal system, there is little scope for exploitation. There is always concern for one another, and this is overturned in the capitalist system which imposes a monetary ethos where money breeds on money. This is a system ultimately deriving from the usury that the Jews were engaging in when they first settled in Europe. Capitalism is simply the offshoot of usury.

Q. So capitalism is an offshoot of Jewish usury?

A. Yes.

Q. So capitalism is really a Jewish invention. Would that be a fair statement ‑‑ if not directly, indirectly?

A. As you probably know, Max Weber has also written a similar book called "The Protestant Ethic and Capitalism". He attributes capitalism, the rise of capitalism, to the Puritans and their work ethic and the Protestant ethic.

I can correct that by demonstrating that the Puritan ethic is a fully biblical one and one that is based particularly on the Old Testament. The entire Puritan revolution was a quasi-Jewish revolution. They all called themselves Israelites and worked for the new Jerusalem, and so on. There is little difference between the original Puritan English ethos and Judaism.

One may say that the modern form of capitalism is a product of the Jewish mind.

Q. And the problems with modern capitalism are that kind of Jewish exploitive aspect. They are in it for themselves; they make lots of money; they don't help others.

A. Through as little work as possible.

Q. Through as little work as possible. That is the real problem with society, at least from a financial point of view. Right?

A. That is not the real problem. The problem is the deterioration of the mind in such a society. The only desire, the only dream, is to gain more and more money.

Q. Talking about the deterioration of the mind, the problem is that the mind has gone toward this Jewish idea, the concrete, rather than something that is more thoughtful or philosophical? Do I understand you?

A. Yes. The entire religious sensibility is eroded. As you can see, there is hardly any religion left in the country or in any country in the west. That metaphysical orientation is lost, quite.

Q. In favour of this Jewish computer-like exploitive economy.

A. Mechanical and commercial.

Q. That is one of the problems facing our society, and that is part of the Jewish problem. Right?

A. It is. It is also the problem pointed to by Rosenberg, if I may add.

Q. Right, and Dühring as well, by the way. Right?

A. Yes. All thinking anti-Semites ‑‑ I mean all philosophical anti-Semites.

Q. I take it you are not just talking for Rosenberg, but you agree with this. Right? This is your view as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Rosenberg, Dühring and yourself would also agree that Jews are over-represented in the halls of power, and that is how they are able to influence things. Would that be a fair statement?

A. If you say so, yes.

Q. I am asking you. I need to understand what you have to say because I am not a philosopher and I really don't understand.

A. That is true. Over-represented, yes. But, you see, when the system of power has already been altered so that it does not represent the ideal society of a true philosopher, then it doesn't matter who represents that system of power. Over-representation is almost a tautology.

Q. It's a tautology because it doesn't matter that the Jews ‑‑

A. It doesn't matter who runs a bad government.

Q. The problem is the government itself, and that the government holds to the wrong ideals. Right?

A. The wrong directions, yes.

Q. Do you think Jews are over-represented in government, or am I wrong about that?

A. They certainly hold very key positions, even if they may not be a majority in numbers. The case of Mendelssohn, a minister without portfolio in the British cabinet, is a case in point.

Q. Tell me about him, please.

A. He is the one who organized the campaign very successfully on lines that were supposed to resemble the Democratic election campaign of Clinton, so you can see there is a similarity and a co-operation, an international methodology, in the political campaigns being conducted. The fact that he occupies a portfolio without any specification indicates the power that he possesses next to the Prime Minister.

Q. Mendelssohn, you are saying, is a British minister who helped Bill Clinton with his campaign? I misunderstood your evidence.

A. He modeled his campaign for the British Prime Minister ‑‑

Q. I see. Finish your answer; I apologize.

A. Even if you have to point to just one person, that will suffice because of the power that that position represents.

Q. You talk about international co-operation. Is that part of the way that Jews have been able to influence governments and obtain power, this international co-operation you are talking about?

A. Yes, because they are an internationally dispersed community. They always have been since the Diaspora. First, their international connections are commercial, the Rothschild family business for instance. Then it becomes political because you gain political power through commercial.

Q. So, because the Jews have these vast networks, they use those networks to help them keep the governments going in the way they like. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes. They have certainly succeeded in doing that when no other community, European or otherwise, has done so.

Q. No other community has done so?

A. Because they have not been so dispersed.

Q. Whether numerically there are too many Jews in government or not, the Jews, through their international networks, have really been able to ensure that governments around the world follow the Jewish interest. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it also be fair to say that, because Jews are so international and they are trying to pull the same strings around the world, their interest is in themselves and not in the countries that they are resident in?

A. Yes.

Q. How did the Jews get to the position? How did the Jews get so much power? Did they do it by earning it, by being elected? How was it that they got there?

A. As I said, it is through financial mastery. Once you have control of the banking system, then it is not difficult to control first princes and then other potentates, prime ministers and just about any senator or any politician with that resource.

Q. So they use their financial acumen and their financial power to exert influence on governments around the world. Is that right?

A. Yes, particularly in America.

Q. Do they do this openly or not?

A. Openly, through lobbying. Anybody who has read Findley's book knows that, about the APAC and its connections to Israel.

Q. If I understand your writings, your criticism of this is, at least in part, from a moral point of view. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. You think what the Jews are doing is immoral. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Not in the way you put it. It is a moral question because it leads to a deterioration of morals in the populations in which they work. It is not immoral because, once the system has been established, everybody behaves in the same way. They are not any worse than anybody else.

Q. So Jews aren't worse than anyone else, but the problem with the Jews is that they keep society in the same kind of degenerate way that it is now. Is that right?

A. They have instituted this form of an unpleasant society.

Q. I am sorry, I didn't hear.

A. They have instituted this form of unpleasant, morally unpleasant, society where criminality is almost glamorous.

Q. So they have helped make a society or they have made a society where criminality is glamorous.

A. The example of Hollywood is so pertinent in this regard.

Q. Help me with that.

A. Anybody who goes to any film that has been produced from Hollywood will be only too easily impressed by the glorification of gangsterism and violence of the most extreme sort, all of this pretending to be true heroism, so that little children imbibe these ways and are indoctrinated right from their earliest childhood. It is not surprising that you have so many cases of child violence.

Q. But a lot of these movies are not made by Jews. I am thinking of "The Godfather" which was made by Francis Coppola, and I think he is Italian; Martin Scorcese made ‑‑ I forget what movie it was, but it was another gangster movie ‑‑ "Goodfellows." What do the Jews have to do with that?

A. The Italians have always been specific, those Italians you have mentioned, with their choice of subjects, and that is the Italian Mafia and their gangsterism which is almost no longer present in its original Al Capone form. They are historical films and relevant to that particular period.

What the other Jewish directors and producers ‑‑ all the producers, I believe, are Jewish ‑‑ make are films projecting cartoon heroes, Batman and this and that and the other, Superman, all represented as American heroes and indulging in the most horrible violence all the time.

Q. That is a Jewish thing as well?

A. Yes. That is only one example. There is no end of it.

Q. Dr. Jacob, do you think the Jews can be reformed, that they can be better, become more philosophical?

A. I have little evidence to that effect. It is really left to be seen.

Q. So you don't have any confidence that such a transformation can occur in the Jews, do you?

A. At the moment, little.

Q. What we have been just talking about for the last little while would be the Jewish question or the Jewish problem. Right?

A. Yes, in short.

Q. Rosenberg talked about a solution to the Jewish problem, and you have described him as a serious writer and he has, I take it, serious solutions. Were they useful solutions, do you think?

A. Yes.

Q. And they were solutions that you would approve?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think of Rosenberg as a moderate National Socialist?

A. A moderate one, yes.

Q. Could I ask you whether the moderate solution to the Jewish problem that Rosenberg suggested and that you approve of would be as follows ‑‑ and I see you are opening your book on Dühring. Maybe you could look to page 44 ‑‑

A. I am pleased to note that you have a copy of it.

Q. I don't have a copy; I just have a couple of pages.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What book is this?

MR. KURZ:

Q. Perhaps you could identify the book that you have, sir.

A. The book is "Eugen Dühring on the Jews," a translation of "Die Judenfrage", the Jewish question from 1881.

Q. We don't have to read from the book ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: By...?

THE WITNESS: Eugen Dühring.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I have it now.

MR. KURZ: That book is the second book on page 2 of your CV.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask him a couple of questions about it. I have copies of the portions, and I can refer the witness to those passages, just talking about what Rosenberg has to say. I can give you copies if you wish. I am in your hands.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR. KURZ:

Q. I understand that Rosenberg had eight legislative ways to deal with the Jewish problem. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes, in an early work that he wrote. This was published before he became a minister.

Q. But this legislative reform that I am asking you about is something that you endorse, though. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Let's just go through the eight legislative reforms that you endorse. Obviously, this applies to Germany and, if you endorse it, you think it should apply wherever the Jews are living. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. "1. The Jews are recognized as a

nation living in Germany. Religious confession or lack of confession play no role."

Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So whether Jews call themselves Jews or not doesn't matter. Right?

A. No.

Q. Whether a Jew converts to Christianity doesn't matter.

A. No.

Q. A Jew could go on and become a bishop, but he would still be a Jew. Right?

A. Certainly for the first few generations of conversion.

Q. It would take at least a few generations to ‑‑

A. And also it would take a few generations of intermarriage to change somewhat.

Q. So, in effect, the Jewish blood would have to be diluted by a number of generations before you would stop calling him a Jew.

A. To resemble something else.

Q. For the first few generations, the Jew that converts to, say, Christianity and lives as a Catholic would still really be a Jew from your point of view.

A. Yes.

Q. Even if that person marries a Catholic and raises his or her children as Catholic, that child would still be Jewish?

A. Yes.

Q. If the process happens again, it would have to happen to the great- or great-great- grandchildren at least before the Jewish blood can be diluted. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. "2. A Jew is one whose parents, whose

father or mother, are Jews by nationality, a Jew is from now on one who has a Jewish spouse."

If someone marries a Jew, whether they live as a Catholic or as a Christian or as a non-believer entirely, they are still Jewish. Right?

A. The one who marries a Jew or a Jewess is to be considered a Jew only by virtue of the offspring that he will produce. The family is to be considered Jewish.

Q. Even if they raise the child in the church, that doesn't matter. Right?

A. No, that doesn't matter.

Q. "3. The Jews do not have the right

to indulge in German politics in word, writing, and action."

Right?

A. Yes.

Q. I guess that applies here, too. If we could take Canada and translate it for Germany, Jews shouldn't be participating in Canadian politics. Right?

A. Certainly not in the predominant way that they do at the moment.

Q. So the Jews should step back from politics.

A. Yes.

Q. When we talk about this as legislation, this is something that you think should be enacted in law. Right?

A. I am not sure how else it can be practised.

Q. So it is not just that the Jews take an oath of honour that they will step back from society and let society heal itself; there should be a law passed to that effect.

A. There should be a custom established.

Q. I see.

"4. The Jews do not have the right to

assume state official positions and to serve in the army either as soldiers or as officers. For that work performance comes into question."

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Kurz, we are going to pause at this point and take our morning break.

‑‑- Short Recess at 11:01 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:22 a.m.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Dr. Jacob, we were talking about the program of Alfred Rosenberg to solve the Jewish problem, which you have indicated that you adopt. We were at the fourth of eight prongs of the program ‑‑ that is, the Jews not serving in official state positions, not being in the army ‑‑ because a question will always arise as to their work performance. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Because there will always be a question of dual loyalty for Jews between their interests as Jews and their interests in ‑‑

A. Yes.

Q. If I could just finish the question ‑‑

A. You understand well.

Q. I am sorry...?

A. You understand well.

Q. But I am not sure that I explained what I understand because I am trying to understand it myself.

The question of dual loyalty will arise because the question is whether they are looking out for the Jews or whether they look out for their host country. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. The fifth one would be:

"The Jews do not have the right to be leaders ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I was at No. 3. Did I miss one?

MR. KURZ: I apologize. No. 3 was:

"The Jews do not have the right to indulge in German politics in word, writing, and action."

I thought I had read in No. 4 just before the break. I will read it again, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR. KURZ: "The Jews do not have the right

to assume state official positions and

to serve in the army either as soldiers or as officers. For that work performance comes into question."

I believe the witness has endorsed that. I will move on to No. 5.

Q. "The Jews do not have the right to

be leaders in political and communal cultural institutions (theatres, galleries, etc.) and to assume professor and instructor positions in German schools and universities."

A. Yes.

Q. You have talked about the problems that you, yourself, have experienced with the influence of Jewish academics. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is part of the problem that you are describing here.

A. Yes.

Q. Again, the Jews will try to turn western culture and western civilization toward this Jewish interest that you described earlier and away from the more classic western motifs.

A. Yes.

Q. You think that the only exception in academia is that Jews can teach on what would be expressly Jewish subjects.

A. Yes.

Q. Like Jewish studies or semitic languages. That is something they could teach because that doesn't put them, in effect, in a conflict of interest between their own interest and western culture. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. In terms of music, you think maybe Jews can be involved, but only as long as they betray their origins, as it were.

A. Only insofar as they do not betray their origins. They could be performers, but not composers.

Q. Isaac Stern would be okay, but Felix Mendelssohn would not?

A. I talk about Mendelssohn at greater length. You could probably read that.

Q. So Mendelssohn is okay because he kind of follows the western tradition.

A. Yes.

Q. But Mahler is not okay even though he converted to Christianity, because he tries to imitate, not properly, the western canons in music. I know I am saying that not as well as you.

A. Because he composed at a time when modern music, modernism in music, was in the forefront of culture. Modern music is experimental and it is mostly destructive of the older tradition, as you will see in the culmination of Schoenberg's music.

Q. So the atonality of modern music is a threat to traditional western music, and that is something that ‑‑

A. It is not a threat; it is a decomposition of it.

Q. And that is something that is Jewish. Right?

A. Schoenberg was a Jew.

Q. I will move on.

"6. The Jews do not have the right to participate in political or communal test-, control-, censorship-, etc. commissions."

In other words, they shouldn't be involved in a decision-making or a limiting role. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. They shouldn't have the roles where they can tell somebody else what to do or what to say.

A. Rather like this Commission.

Q. That is a problem with this Commission, I take it.

A. I don't know about the rest of the operation of this Commission. I just said that is the sort of activity envisaged in that point.

Q. You don't know specifically ‑‑

A. What this Commission is intending to do.

Q. Are you talking about the Human Rights Commission or the Tribunal that is making the decision?

A. The Human Rights Commission. I don't know the scope of their engagements, their activities, so I can't say clearly if it is exactly like that, but it is rather like it. I get the impression that that is what is being meant in that point.

Q. But in terms of making decisions that may censor someone, a Jew should not be making that decision. Right?

A. Sorry...?

Q. A Jew should not make a decision that censors someone.

A. Should not be allowed to participate in such a commission.

Q. Like a tribunal or something like that. They shouldn't be on a tribunal like this. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Part of No. 6, as I read in your book, is:

"The Jews do not have the right to represent the German Reich in economic conventions; they do not have the right either to be represented in the directorship of the state banks and the communal credit institutions."

In other words, Jews should be out of banking and financing.

A. Yes.

Q. Next, No. 7 ‑‑ and Mr. Chair, the previous one is a separate paragraph but within No. 6. No. 7 states:

"Foreign Jews do not have the right to settle permanently in Germany."

We can say Canada, too, if we are looking at our country. Would that be a fair statement?

A. The case of Canada is a slightly different one, obviously, from that of Germany. This is an entirely immigrant country; it has become that. So to insist on the same conditions in Canada would be somewhat unrealistic. If the original foundations, the British foundations and French foundations, had been well preserved, then this could apply here.

Q. So it is something you shouldn't pursue because Canada has become such a polyglot country but, if you could do something about it, it would be a good idea.

A. Yes.

Q. Next is No. 8:

"Zionism must be powerfully supported, in order to promote yearly a certain number of German Jews to Palestine or, in general, over the borders."

Do you feel that as well, that Zionism should be supported so that, in effect, the Jews would immigrate to Israel?

A. Insofar as they do not endanger the Arab population there.

Q. Otherwise ‑‑

A. It is a principle to be adopted, yes.

Q. It is a principle to be adopted, that immigration of Jews to Israel should be encouraged to get them out of western life. Is that right?

A. Yes, if they do not especially abide by the conditions expressed in the earlier points.

Q. If the Jews are not willing to go along with points Nos. 1 through 7, should they be forced to go to Israel?

A. Encouraged.

Q. Encouraged through the government? The government should encourage them to go to Israel?

A. Or they should decide on such a policy themselves.

Q. So the Jews should decide themselves, in effect, to rid western society of their influence.

A. Of their preponderant influence.

Q. Of their preponderant influence. What if the Jews don't take the hint?

A. The status quo, as we have it now, will continue.

Q. But in the best of all worlds, in terms of talking about what should be done to solve this problem, should the Jews be asked to leave if they don't want to leave? Should they be required to leave?

A. I don't think it needs to come to that point at all. If it were established by custom and tradition, if not by law, that Jews are not accepted in large numbers or significant ones into all these political and artistic offices, then they don't have to be asked to do anything, because they do not any longer have that influence which is in question.

Q. So the idea is that some kind of tradition should be established where Jews know that they are not welcome in countries like Canada and they will know that they should make their way to Israel. Right?

A. I believe everybody is welcome everywhere as long as they do not exert an influence which does not correspond or which exceeds their capacities.

Q. But aren't you just creating one big state, like a prison where you put all the bad prisoners in one prison? Aren't you doing the same when you put all the Jews in Israel?

A. All Indians are in India mostly, and it is not a prison there.

Q. I guess I wasn't very clear. If you are putting all these ‑‑

A. I am sorry if you think Israel is a prison for Israelis.

Q. But what I am trying to understand ‑‑ and, obviously, I didn't give you a very good analogy, and I apologize for that. The idea of putting all these troublesome people in the same place, doesn't that create a problem for the rest of the world? They are all there together.

A. It does not. It is their natural home, or I should think it is. I should think that a Jew would be happy in Israel.

Q. If I understand your evidence, the general malaise of western society ‑‑ and we have gone through it, and I won't repeat it ‑‑ has a lot to do with Jewish influence, and one of the best ways to solve those problems is to rid western society of Jewish influence.

A. To reduce the influence, yes.

Q. Until recently, one of the alternatives, I suppose, to western society has been communism.

A. One of the recent what?

Q. One of the alternatives has been communism. You talked about the Jewish influence in western life. How about in communism? Do you think Jews are very predominant in communism and Marxism and that that also is ‑‑

A. Marx was a Jew, so the question is answered. So was Trotsky and several other officials in the early revolution and after. I don't have to support that; everybody should know it, I think.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer. Could you state it a bit more clearly?

A. It seems self-evident that most of the Russian revolution was directed by and supported by Jews.

Q. The solution that you are suggesting, which would be Rosenberg's moderate suggestion, has not yet been accepted and was not accepted by the Jews. Right? The Jews have never agreed to it.

A. No, and they never will, it seems to me.

Q. Rosenberg suggested this, if I understand your evidence, before World War II started. Correct?

A. This was 1920.

Q. So this was before the National Socialist party even came to power.

A. Yes.

Q. But the Jews didn't take the hint then either. Right?

A. No.

Q. The problem was that, even in Nazi Germany, they were not able to fully solve the problem. Isn't that a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this a quote from what you have said about this problem in Nazi Germany ‑‑ and, if you want to look at your book, it is at page 42:

"The real tragedy of the second World War, however, is that the failure of the Nazi movement and the discovery of the Nazi attempts to eliminate the Jewry in Germany have only succeeded in handing over the sympathy of the public to the very elements which formed the pivotal issue of the war."

A. Yes.

Q. You said that and you believe that?

A. Yes.

Q. "The corruption and degeneration that

Dühring and the Nazis attempted to check have proceeded with redoubled vigour after the war, and the enslavement of the European peoples to the Jewish baseness and vulgarity has become almost complete."

A. Yes.

Q. "The danger of ‑‑"

And this is where I want to get you to as well, to what happens if your reasonable proposal is not accepted.

"The danger of another reprisal against the Jews is therefore greater now than fifty years ago. The lesson to be drawn from our study of Dühring's prophetic philosophical work on the Jewish character can thus be only a cautionary one, for the conditions of Jewish mastery of society today are clearly more predominant at the turn of this century ‑‑"

And we are talking about the end of the 20th century. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Not Dühring's century. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. "‑‑ than they were at the end of the

last. If the Jews do not voluntarily agree to such restrictions of their influence on European society and culture as the deepest and most humane philosophers have already

recommended ‑‑"

Let me stop there.

You are talking about Rosenberg, Dühring and the other antisemitic philosophers. Right?

A. Yes, and also philosophers not connected with politics at all, like Fichte, Schopenhauer and so on.

Q. Yes, thank you. I apologize for not being complete.

"‑‑ it is fully within the realm of possibility that they will expose themselves ‑‑"

This is the Jews. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. "‑‑ once again to the revenge of the

masses when the latter are awakened to the exploitation, intellectual as well as material, that they inevitably suffer from the Jewish financial manipulations. If the steps suggested from a genuinely Conservative and Socialist standpoint are not followed, then the only alternative that the Jews will face will be the more drastic steps taken by demagogues, who may find in Dühring's final solution of the Jewish problem a more lasting remedy of the problem of social exploitation by middlemen."

A. Yes. That, of course, needs comment.

Dühring's final solution is expressed toward the end of the book. I should explain further that Dühring himself produced several editions of this book, and in the first few editions he had propounded a series of steps similar to those suggested by Rosenberg on how to solve the problem of the Jewry in Germany, and that was by removing them from public office.

In one of the last editions of this book he suggested that, given the persistence of Jewish power and presence in Germany, and influence, it seems better that we create societies in which there is no room for Jewish society any more. That is his final solution.

Q. How is that to be done?

A. I suppose by not allowing them to settle in the land any more.

Q. But there actually is a physical danger to the Jews if they don't listen and accept the solution that you have described. There is a physical danger to them if they don't accept it because people could get very angry and rise up against them.

A. As we have seen from the experience of the Second World War and also through numerous other episodes of pogroms and so on conducted in Russia and elsewhere in Europe. There always has been a threat of physical danger experienced by the Jews.

Q. And those threats have arisen because, in effect, the Jews have been unwilling to follow the reasonable prescriptions of Rosenberg, even before or after he made them. They have been unwilling to keep themselves out of western life.

A. Yes.

Q. So that is really the cause of all of those pogroms and other areas in which Jews have been exposed to violence. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the same thing with regard to what Nazi Germany did during World War II. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. What Nazi Germany did in killing Jews was a reaction to their unwillingness to follow Rosenberg's prescription. Fair enough?

A. Yes.

Q. And your quote with regard to the tragedy, the tragedy is that it didn't succeed. The Nazis didn't succeed in doing what they wanted to do, which was to rid the western world of Jewish influence.

A. No. The tragedy is that, whatever steps they may have taken ‑‑ and I am not approving of every step that they took ‑‑ did not succeed in bringing about the result that they intended.

Q. I see. I am going to move on to your résumé, and I have some questions about your résumé, sir.

I take it ‑‑ and, Professor, I don't know much about the halls of academe ‑‑ I apologize, Dr. Jacob. I don't know much about the halls of academe, so maybe you can help me.

By having a Ph. D, I take it that you consider yourselves an academic. Would that be a fair description of you?

A. Yes, and also by virtue of my publications.

Q. In view of your Ph.D and your publications. Academics prepare CVs all the time to submit for publication, for departments, and what have you. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. It's a commonplace thing. Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you prepared the CV that is now before the Tribunal. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is a CV that you used before. You submitted it to other departments in universities. Would that be a fair statement? Or did you just prepare it for this Tribunal?

A. I have not actually submitted it recently to many departments, certainly not the University of Toronto. I have submitted to one other place in America.

Q. Where is that?

A. Some college in the south that I was interested to work for.

Q. In other words, you made an application for a job to a college in the south?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the name of that college, sir?

MR. CHRISTIE: Why is that relevant? I know what the objective is, but I don't see the relevance.

MR. KURZ: If he applied for a job, I would like to find out what happened with the application.

MR. CHRISTIE: That is permissible.

MR. KURZ: Right, but I have to find out what college it is.

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, no, you don't. To find out what happened, you don't need to know the college.

THE WITNESS: Then I won't say.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just wait, Witness, until the Tribunal rules on it. Do you have anything more to say, Mr. Kurz?

MR. KURZ: No.

THE CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that this is a legitimate area of cross. Continue.

MR. KURZ:

Q. What college did you apply to, sir?

A. I have applied to ‑‑ I should correct what I said. Recently I have applied to colleges in Toronto also. I have not applied to the University of Toronto, but I have applied to other community colleges in Toronto such as George Brown and Seneca College. I also applied to a college in the south of America; it is called Montclair or something, which somebody told me had a position in English.

Q. When did you make these applications, sir?

A. The ones to the community colleges in Toronto in December, I believe, and the one in America more recently, last month or something.

Q. Were you offered a job by any of those institutions?

A. Not in Toronto, no, because they have many applicants for positions, English teaching and that sort of thing. I did not expect to hear from them, and I did not. I don't regret it very much either.

Q. You don't regret having applied. You knew you probably wouldn't get a job there. Is that what you are saying?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. You don't regret having applied to the community colleges in Toronto because you knew that you probably wouldn't get a job? I am sorry, I just can't hear.

A. I don't regret that I did not get a response from them, because I do not think very much of these colleges, so not working in them does not affect me.

Q. You don't think well of the colleges that you applied to, so the fact that they didn't offer you a job doesn't really bother you.

A. No. I just tried it. I had never applied to a community college before. This was the first time I did it. I did it in Canada, in Toronto, and in America, and I don't have any feeling about it. It is a matter of indifference.

Q. It's a matter of indifference whether you got the job or not. You just simply applied.

A. Yes, because I thought I had to. With my qualifications, I should do what most others do, but I know that I am in a different position on account of my views. I have always noticed that when I gave my talks at the University of Toronto.

Q. I apologize, because I really can't hear everything you are saying.

A. I said that it is almost a matter of indifference whether these colleges responded favourably or not. I did the application because most others in my position do, people with far fewer publications than I have, so I thought I should also apply to one of these colleges.

Knowing my experience at the University of Toronto when I gave my talks on these subjects, including political and philosophical, I am not surprised by the lack of response and am not affected by it in any way.

Q. You said, sir, that you felt that you had to apply. I don't understand that. Am I missing something?

A. Simply because most others in my position do. I just wanted to see what sort of response I would get, if they went by merit or by preference. Most of the preference these days is for minorities and women and people who subscribe to the present socialistic doctrines and academics, political correctness, and this and that. I just wanted to see if anything would turn up from the efforts; that's all. It was a matter of curiosity.

Q. So people with what you feel to be your qualifications have applied for and obtained jobs ‑‑

A. With much less qualifications.

Q. People even less qualified than you are are getting jobs, and you felt that because of that and with political correctness, having to hire minorities, you wanted to see whether they would give you a job as well with all of that. Would that be a fair summary of what you just said?

A. Yes. I just wanted to see if they went by merit and would take me rather than those people whom they prefer for political reasons. But it did not happen and it doesn't matter to me.

Q. The reason they didn't take you was for political reasons? Seneca and ‑‑ what was the other one, George Brown?

A. George Brown or something, of no significance whatsoever. Sorry, go ahead.

Q. I don't want to interrupt you; I want you to answer fully.

A. Yes.

Q. The reason that Seneca and George Brown did not offer you a job despite your superior qualifications was because of your political views?

A. I believe.

Q. How were they communicated to George Brown and Seneca? Did you tell them what your political views were?

A. I have the feeling that communication is not a problem at all in present-day society. It is just a matter of gossip and word of mouth and telephonic communication.

Q. So you didn't tell them anything about the political views you have described before the Tribunal today, did you? Would that be a fair statement?

A. No, but you can see from my publications that they are all to do with that period of German history that is most controversial.

Q. But lots of people write about those areas without being denied jobs. There are professors in universities who write about antisemitism, aren't there, or who write about More?

A. There are lots of them. My talks at the University of Toronto were public ones, and they certainly know my position from those talks. Academics is not such an open community as you imagine; it's a closed one. There are contacts between the University of Toronto and other colleges.

In any case, for whatever reason they may not have responded favourably to my application, it is of no interest to me. I am surprised that it is of some interest to you, or any interest to you. What I do with my spare time is my concern.

Q. I understand. I understand that you applied to an American university. I am not sure if you told me what the name of that university was.

MR. CHRISTIE: Again, I object as to the relevance. I can only see one purpose, and that would be to communicate in some way with that institution and do him some harm, and I don't think that would be a good purpose. I know my friend is in cross, but can he explain another reason why this is relevant, what institution he applied to to seek employment? Why is that relevant?

THE CHAIRPERSON: He is in the process of testing the credibility of his CV, but counsel may wish to ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: It is not in his CV.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me finish please. Counsel may wish to consider whether he has gone as far as he need usefully go with this particular line.

MR. KURZ: Fair enough, Mr. Chair. I will move on.

Q. When you prepare a CV, Dr. Jacob ‑‑ before I move on, just one last question.

When you made the application you talked about, did you use the CV that I have and that the Tribunal has?

A. Yes. I do not believe I included "Eugen Dühring on the Jews" because it is a very recent one and also controversial, and I thought it might prejudice the case. That is the only difference there might have been.

Q. Would it be fair to say as well that you published almost entirely this CV in your Dühring book that we have just read from?

A. Yes.

Q. As an academic, I take it that you have a very strong responsibility when you prepare your CV to be scrupulous.

A. Yes.

Q. To be absolutely accurate. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Because in academic life honesty is the hallmark. Wouldn't that be a fair statement?

A. Yes. But if a book is not yet in circulation, then I do not have to include it.

Q. Believe me, I am not in any way attacking you for that, sir.

A. All right.

Q. Right now, I am just asking you about the process of a CV and what goes into it and how important it is to you and as an academic how important it is.

People who see these CVs rely on them and usually assume the honesty of them. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. In academic life, fudging things is not allowed. It's the kiss of death, isn't it?

A. If I wish to direct the attention of the committee to those books that they are most interested in, then I can choose to do so. If I have published something elsewhere that they have no interest in and which is not related to the subject that is being considered, then I don't have to do it.

In any case, "Eugen Dühring on the Jews," which is what I suppose you are referring to, is a book that came out very recently and is not yet in circulation. That is the reason why I did not include it.

Q. Sir, I want you to understand that I am not in any way questioning your inclusion or exclusion of that book.

A. Oh, I see. Otherwise, as a rule, yes.

Q. I am asking you right now as a general rule. I want you to understand that I will be making no submissions that you did anything improper by including it or not including it in a CV; I want to put your mind at ease about that.

A. I wonder at the question at all and its relevance to this interrogation.

Q. In academic life, if it is ever found that somebody fudges on things, whether it is in a CV or in a paper or whatever, basically they won't be believable any more. Wouldn't that be fair to say?

A. No. It depends on the particular case.

Q. So in some cases it's okay to fudge? Is that what you are saying?

A. I don't know what you mean by fudging.

Q. Not telling the truth.

A. If it is a major omission, a major misrepresentation of the facts of one's career, yes.

Q. Let me ask you ‑‑ and I will start on page 1 of your CV. I see you have a B.A. in English Literature?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is from the University of Madras in India.

A. Yes.

Q. And then your M.A. is also in English Literature. Right?

A. Yes, but the focus is already philosophical. Many of the English poets are philosophical.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, will you put your hand down and face me a little more. It helps me to understand you when I can also have the added advantage of reading your lips.

MR. KURZ:

Q. It is philosophical, and that is really one of the ‑‑ the literature and the philosophy, for you, almost tie in together. That is one of the more important things of your academic life. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, your Ph.D thesis on the history of ideas really ties in both the philosophical and the literary.

A. Yes.

Q. Henry More ‑‑ again, perhaps you can help me. I understand that he is a 17th century philosopher, poet, and perhaps we can call him ‑‑ I don't know whether "Renaissance man" is the right word.

A. Baroque.

Q. Baroque man, but a man of many skills. Right?

A. Yes, like Isaac Newton who was his contemporary.

MEMBER DEVINS: I am sorry, I didn't hear.

THE WITNESS: Like Isaac Newton who was his contemporary and friend at Cambridge.

MR. KURZ:

Q. "A Platonick Song of the Soul," which was the subject of your Ph.D on the history of ideas, was, in fact, a long poem. Is that right?

A. Yes. How did you know?

Q. You know what? I have just told you about everything I know. That is why I need your help. Am I right?

A. Yes.

Q. Somebody told that to me.

A. This is how communication is so easily conducted, and you wonder that one college would not know about another.

Q. I don't know whether that is the case, since no college has ever called me to ask about you or anybody else.

A. However, you do know about my long poem.

Q. I am sorry...?

A. But you know enough about the length of this poem.

Q. All I know is that it is long. How long is it?

A. It is extremely long. I have just published an edition of this long poem for the first time in 300 years, and it is 700 pages long.

Q. My goodness, that is a long poem. This is a philosophical poem. Right?

A. A neo-Platonic one.

Q. You talk about neo-Platonism and the Cambridge neo-Platonist. I know who Plato is. Who are the Cambridge neo-Platonists?

A. Neo-Platonism is that doctrine that was propounded by Plotinus in Alexandria. That is Hellenistic Greek philosophy. He consolidates the Platonic precepts in a systematic manner, so that you might say that neo-Platonism is the official form of Platonism. Platonism, as you know, is based merely on the dialogues of Plato, which are not systematic. They are more literary than philosophical in the modern sense.

Platonism first becomes a philosophical system in the work of Plotinus, and that is the most complete form of Platonism. That is the system followed by the 17th century thinkers, Christian thinkers in particular, of Cambridge, called the Cambridge Platonists of which the leading exponent was Henry More.

Q. In your Ph.D thesis on Henry More, you obviously relied on him; you would have relied on Plato, Aristotle, and I am sure there are many others.

A. The Stoics.

Q. The Stoics. Anyone else?

A. On contemporary philosophy, Descartes who was a correspondent of Henry More's, and Spinoza. I have written a book on Henry More's refutation of Spinoza and Leitniz. These were all contemporaries.

Q. How did Henry More refute Spinoza?

A. In much the same way Rosenberg did, by pointing to the materialistic focus of his system.

Q. What religion was Spinoza?

A. A Jew who converted to Catholicism, I believe, and changed his name to Bernard or Barnard Spinoza.

Q. In terms of the ideas that Spinoza espoused, they are the kinds of classical Jewish ideas that you talked about earlier in your evidence. Would that be a fair statement?

A. His own system is rather stoic in complexion and it may have also been influenced by the cabala which was very popular at that time among biblical scholars, Christian and otherwise.

Q. But other than this issue of More and Spinoza, really the issues of antisemitism and Jewish thought didn't play a role in your Ph.D. Would that be a fair statement? You came to it later?

A. No. I was interested in the Jews ever since I studied Indian philosophy, in India before I went to America to do my doctorate. It was my interest in Indian philosophy ‑‑ which incidentally resembles neo-Platonism and hence my interest in neo-Platonism. It was my interest in that philosophy which prompted my investigation of the Jews.

Q. So you were interested in the Jewish question at the time that you wrote your Ph.D thesis, but your Ph.D thesis itself dealt with More, not with issues of the Jewish question.

A. Because the subject I had chosen was already chosen, and I could not change that in any way. When one does a Ph.D, one is doing courses in so many other philosophical subjects. One is doing idealistic philosophy and so on, so already I had encountered the German preoccupation with Judaism and so on during my Ph.D studies.

Q. But it wasn't in any way incorporated in your thesis. Right?

A. No.

Q. If I can touch on your academic positions ‑‑ and I am going to start at the bottom and move up, so I am going to move in chronological order. Just give me one second, if you would, sir.

I see in your CV that you that you have obtained seven academic positions. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The first academic position is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies at the University of Toronto.

MR. CHRISTIE: Excuse me, I am sure my learned friend didn't mean to mislead the witness. Unless I am totally ignorant, I count six.

MR. KURZ: I apologize, I can't count.

MR. CHRISTIE: I know I can't. That is why ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I didn't count these things at all.

MR. KURZ:

Q. You started off as a Senior Fellow in 1988-1990 at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies at the University of Toronto.

A. Yes.

Q. What does a Senior Fellow do?

A. It is a post-doctoral Fellowship and has the status of a Visiting Professor.

Q. It has the status of a Visiting Professor?

A. All post-doctoral Fellows have that position.

Q. Really?

A. Yes.

Q. As a Visiting Professor, did you in that period of time teach any courses?

A. No. It's a research engagement, and I am allowed to do my research on my own because I don't need guidance any more. Then one is obliged to give a talk to the graduate faculty and the professors. Since I was there for two years, I gave two talks.

Q. Over the two years you gave two talks. Is that what you said?

A. Two or three, as you can see.

Q. Just looking at the talks that you gave on the last page of your CV, in that period of time as a post-doc, in 1989 you say you presented three colloquia. Those were all on More. Correct?

A. No, they are not all on More, as you can see. The first one is. The second one is also on More, but the third one is on German philosophy, which is entirely distinct.

Q. Were you talking about antisemitic German philosophy at that time?

A. No.

Q. You were just talking in the context of natural philosophy. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. I understand. In 1990 you also presented a colloquium at the Department of Philosophy. Was that when you moved to the Department of Philosophy or not?

A. Yes.

Q. I will get to that. You didn't teach during that period of time when you had the status of a Visiting Professor. In fact, your only teaching experience occurred while you were working toward your Ph.D. Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes, and it is because I have had so much time to do research that I have been able to publish so much as well.

Q. And you have taught two undergraduate courses?

A. Yes.

Q. And those were at Penn State?

A. Yes.

Q. How much did they pay you during the period of this near-Visiting Professorship?

A. Just an honorarium. They were all honorary positions. I had my own funds from home and from friends.

Q. So they didn't pay you anything, did they?

A. These were all honorary positions.

Q. In other words, you were not paid.

A. No, under the faculty.

Q. So, even though it has the status of Visiting Professor, as you say ‑‑

A. A Visiting Professor is also not paid. If he were a Visiting Professor literally, then he would be paid by the college from which he is visiting.

Q. The department or the Centre did not offer you an office, did they?

A. I can't remember. The Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies didn't have an office. The Department of Philosophy didn't have one. The Department of the Philosophy of Science at York University did.

Q. I want to go through them one at a time. I am just asking about this particular, what you call, academic position as a Senior Fellow.

A. They do not have office space for every visiting scholar, so one gets a mail box with the rest of the faculty. One gets library cards and library privileges. No, they don't have office space.

Q. Basically, what you obtained as a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies was a library card and the right to call yourself a Senior Fellow. Right?

A. The privilege.

Q. The privilege, I apologize; the privilege ‑‑ I think that is the right word ‑‑ of calling yourself a Senior Fellow. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were not on the staff of that Centre.

A. No.

Q. You said that it was equivalent to a Visiting Professor, but it wasn't a Visiting Professorship.

A. If I were visiting from another college, it would be called a Visiting Professorship. The term is Senior Fellow, but it would be described as a Visiting Professorship. The status and the privileges are the same, whether one is visiting from another college or not.

Q. So the difference between you as a Senior Fellow and the equivalent position of Visiting Professor is that you would have the same privileges, but you would be visiting while on staff from another university. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is the definition of a Visiting Professor. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. So that professor would be on the staff of another university. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Moving on, I see that you were, in fact, a Visiting Professor at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto.

A. That is the title Professor Sumner first gave. Then ‑‑ yes. That is the title I have included.

Q. That is the title that they gave you, Visiting Professor?

A. Yes.

Q. You are sure of that?

A. In the letter of invitation, that is the term he used.

Q. Who gave you that title?

A. Professor Sumner.

Q. Who is he?

A. He was the head of the department at that time.

Q. When was he the head of the department?

A. During that time.

Q. And he said to you that you should call yourself a Visiting Professor?

A. In his letter of invitation that is what he wrote.

Q. Do you have that letter with you?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Could I just show you something, Dr. Jacob. Tell me if you can identify this. It is a photocopy of a letter from Frank Cunningham, Acting Chair of the Department of Philosophy, addressed to you, c/o the Department of Philosophy and dated August 14, 1991. Did you receive that letter?

A. Possibly. I don't remember this.

Q. Take a moment to read it.

A. I have a letter from Professor Sumner earlier than this letter using the term.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before we go any farther, can you identify the letter? Did you receive that letter?

THE WITNESS: I may have; I don't remember. I remember this man, Cunningham, and he was always hostile to me in the department. He may have acted as department head for a while and caused a problem about the designation. I don't have a copy of this, I don't think.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Frank Cunningham was, in fact, the Acting Chair of the University of Toronto Department of Philosophy on August 14 ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: I rise to object. If the undertaking is being made to call the doctor to prove the truth of this alleged fact, I don't object. But if the statement is being made as a fact by counsel, then it is my understanding that it would constitute an undertaking to call this evidence. I object to it being put in the way it is.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You can put to the witness a certain state of facts and see if he agrees with them.

MR. KURZ: That is what I am attempting to do, Mr. Chair.

Q. Mr. Cunningham was the Acting Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto on August 14, 1991, was he not?

A. I dare say, yes. That was toward the end of the engagement. The term "Visiting Professor" is in a letter written to me first by Professor Sumner and, hence, the confusion.

Q. Do you have that letter with you, sir?

A. No, not with me. It may be at home, but even that I cannot be sure of. They may have records in the Department of Philosophy.

I remember there was a question about the term "Visiting Professor" and it was changed to "Visiting Fellow" or something as a result of some interference by a Jewish librarian in the Department of Music. They saw fit to change it to "Visiting Fellow" or something. "Visiting Fellow" and "Visiting Professor" are of equal status, so I retained the first version.

Q. Because of the lobbying of a Jewish librarian, the Department of Philosophy changed your designation from Visiting Professor to ‑‑

A. Visiting Fellow.

Q. ‑‑ Visiting Fellow.

A. Right.

Q. You, yourself, have said that the designation of "Visiting Professor" properly goes to someone who is visiting an academic institution while on the staff of another academic institution.

A. Typically, but if the department chooses to call a visiting scholar a Visiting Professor, that is his choice and prerogative.

Q. But the fact is that the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto chose not ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: Again my friend says "But the fact is ‑‑." If my friend is going to undertake to prove that as a fact, I don't object. It should be put not as a fact otherwise.

MR. KURZ: He has admitted it.

MR. CHRISTIE: No, he hasn't admitted it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Put it to him as a proposition.

MR. KURZ:

Q. I suggest to you that the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto changed your designation and told you that you were not a Visiting Professor but, instead, a Visiting Fellow. Correct?

A. Yes, something like that happened.

Q. And that was your designation at the time ‑‑ do you remember when they told you that?

A. During the last part of my engagement there, toward the end of it.

MEMBER DEVINS: I am sorry, sir, could you repeat that, please. I didn't hear it.

THE WITNESS: In the very last part of my appointment there. As you can see, it is dated August 14, 1991. It is the end of the academic year. For a full year I had this designation, and that is what I abide by. If this interfering person wished to change the name, that is his problem.

MR. KURZ:

Q. By the time you finished your term at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, you had been officially informed that you should not use the ‑‑ I am suggesting to you that you had not been ‑‑ I will rephrase my question, I apologize.

I am putting to you and I am suggesting to you that by the time you finished your term at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto you had been informed that you should not use the designation "Visiting Professor" to describe your term, but instead to describe it as a "Visiting Fellow."

MR. CHRISTIE: Could I see that letter?

MR. KURZ: We haven't put it in evidence yet.

MR. CHRISTIE: But the witness is being cross-examined on it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: It is before the witness. I would show it to Mr. Christie.

MR. CHRISTIE: I don't know if it is being fairly represented, having never read it. Could we just pause for a second so that I can read it.

MR. KURZ: Mr. Chair, may I continue?

THE WITNESS: I was supposed to answer.

MR. KURZ: Yes.

THE WITNESS: This man Cunningham might have instructed me to do so, but it occurred in the most unpleasant manner at the instigation of a conniving Jewish librarian. I appealed to Professor Sumner about this, and his decision was conducted in accordance with all of these other petty officials and secretaries and so on in his office. I did not see it as professional that he should change his own classification, so I abide by his original.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Sumner was not the Chair any longer or the Acting Chair of the Department of Philosophy.

A. In fact, this change occurred during Sumner's professorship. I don't know when this man wrote me a letter and why.

Q. Which man?

A. This man Cunningham.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, do you now recognize the letter? You seem to be referring to it.

THE WITNESS: The change in the designation was made during Sumner's presence as head of the department.

THE CHAIRPERSON: That was not my question.

THE WITNESS: But I don't understand the occasion for this letter by Cunningham who is Acting Chairman. He has enclosed a letter which I don't have a copy of, so I don't know what letter he is referring to.

MR. KURZ:

Q. The letter that he makes reference to?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me show this to you, sir.

Could we make the first one an exhibit, Mr. Chair?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Could I see a copy of that letter, please?

MR. KURZ: Yes.

Q. Just to make clear, the letter says:

"Enclosed is a letter that you might find of use. On reviewing our files, I find no evidence that you are a 'Visiting Professor' as that term is conventionally understood in the North American Academy. and hence I cannot designate you as such."

That is what the letter says. Right?

A. Yes, but I still don't know what this letter is that he is referring to.

Q. This may assist you. Could we mark that as an exhibit?

THE REGISTRAR: The letter dated August 14, 1991 to Alexander Jacob, signed by Frank Cunningham, will be filed on behalf of B'nai Brith as BN-1.

EXHIBIT NO. BN-1: Letter dated August 14, 1991 to Alexander Jacob, signed by Frank Cunningham

MR. CHRISTIE: There is one aspect of relevance to this in terms of credibility that has not yet been covered ‑‑ and I think, Mr. Chairman, you addressed this question ‑‑ and that is whether or not the witness acknowledges receipt.

MR. ROSEN: The witness should step out, because my friend is advising the witness.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment.

MR. CHRISTIE: I agree that that is necessary. I do have a submission.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Would the witness please step out for a moment.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, please.

MR. FROMM: Mr. Chairman, at the break, almost as soon as you and the committee left the room, the same person who took photographs the other week again took photographs in defiance of your order, and I would like to bring that to your attention.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Photographs of persons in the room?

MR. FROMM: Yes, sir.

MR. FREIMAN: Perhaps I can assist the Tribunal. My understanding is that Professor Schweitzer was given a dispensation to take pictures in the morning. At the break he asked for a picture with me, and I believe a gentleman took a picture of Professor Schweitzer and me. I understood that that had been permitted. Madam Registrar came over and informed us that the dispensation had just been for the morning. The picture was taken over there. The only individuals who were in the picture were Professor Schweitzer and myself. It was done at the request of Professor Schweitzer.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The clear intent of what I was saying is that there should not be pictures taken of persons in this room without permission. I did receive a request to take a picture after the room had cleared, and I had no problem with that.

The rule stands on that basis. There should not be any pictures of anyone who has not consented to have their picture taken.

MR. FREIMAN: The people whose pictures were taken had consented. It was Professor Schweitzer and myself. If I was in error in thinking that there had been a dispensation, I apologize to the Tribunal. I understood that there had been permission given.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Kurz, please.

MR. KURZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Q. Mr. Jacob, you asked me this morning about the letter that accompanied the letter that I showed you earlier, dated August 14, 1991. I am going to show you this letter and ask if it will assist in refreshing your memory. It is a "To Whom it may Concern" letter.

A. I have to comment on this immediately. I don't understand the correspondence of Frank Cunningham at all. The change from "Visiting Professor" status to "Visiting Fellow" status ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Witness. I want you to move your chair about a foot and a half clockwise and speak directly into the microphone.

MR. CHRISTIE: I think we earlier had agreed that, before this line of questioning could be pursued, some clarification has to be accomplished that really makes it relevant in terms of credibility, and that is to identify as we discussed. I am not going to go into detail. I am sure my friend forgot.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought that was what his questioning was directed to.

MR. CHRISTIE: It's a new letter.

THE CHAIRPERSON: It is the enclosure with this letter, and I assume it is tendered for the purposes of assisting his memory as to whether he can identify the first one.

MR. KURZ: That is correct. My understanding of the evidence of Dr. Jacob was that he was wondering what the enclosure was. I am showing him what I believe to be the enclosure.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR. KURZ:

Q. You were saying, Dr. Jacob, that you didn't understand this enclosure that I have handed to you.

A. Let me comment on it, and then you can ask me further questions.

I don't understand the participation of this man Cunningham in this affair at all. The change from the status of Visiting Professor to Visiting Fellow was made during Wayne Sumner's chairmanship of the department as a result of that interference which I mentioned earlier on the part of a Jewish librarian.

When this was brought to Professor Sumner's notice and I requested that his original appellation stand ‑‑ that is, that of Visiting Professor ‑‑ he said, "I have to go by the rules and change it to Visiting Fellow" or whatever he had decided. That was already settled then when he was still the Chairman.

I don't understand a further letter from Frank Cunningham on this matter at all. I don't have any memory of it and I don't know why he sent it. "To Whom it may Concern" puzzles me. I don't know to whom this letter is addressed and why he would give it to me.

Whatever it is, I have retained the original title that Professor Sumner gave me because it reflects the initial intellectual recognition that he saw fit to grant me. Since I had held that title for most of that year that I had the visiting engagement, I have retained it by preference, not because I wanted to obscure any facts but because I did not want to submit to this intrigue that I was subjected to, engineered by a Jewish librarian and this Cunningham who is also, I think, a communist and related to Jews. I think he is married to somebody in the Law Society, and their activities have been reported in a report published by the Mackenzie Institute.

This sort of hostility is precisely the case that I was referring to when I said that I had unpleasant experiences at the university. This is the reason that I do not apply generally to universities. It doesn't matter one way or the other to me whether the term is Visiting Professor or Visiting Fellow. It can be changed with no change of significance whatsoever, because academic qualifications are based on one's work. This is the reason why it made no difference whatsoever to any of the further appointments I had, because all of those heads of department who considered my application did not worry whether I was a Visiting Professor or a Visiting Fellow. They just went on the basis on my publications.

If it is a matter of a change of name, it doesn't matter to me. I retained it because I have more regard for Sumner than for this man Cunningham.

Q. It doesn't matter to you whether you keep that designation or not. That is what you are saying?

A. Yes, because the significance, the status, remains the same. If I had indicated that I was a Visiting Professor from the Pennsylvania State University, for instance, then that would have been a falsification of facts.

Q. But, in fact, it did matter to you because, when Professor Sumner told you that you could not use that designation, you nonetheless kept the designation in a series of CVs that you have issued since Dr. Sumner or Professor Sumner told you that you should not use it.

A. He never puts it that way. He is not a Jew, and he has a different emotional response to these matters. If he sought to change it, it came toward the end of the term, in which case I would have to have two items for that particular year saying "Visiting Professor" and then "Visiting Fellow" in the same department. It is too complicated and cumbersome. Besides, I went by the original offer of a Visiting Professorship that Professor Sumner had given me because I thought, and still think, that reflects his original regard for my work.

Q. But it was Professor Sumner himself, not communist Professor Cunningham, who took away the designation. Isn't that correct?

A. He did not take it away; he just changed it.

Q. He changed the designation from Visiting Professor to Visiting Fellow.

A. Yes.

Q. You said earlier in your answer that the reason that you didn't change it was that it didn't matter to you and, also, you didn't like the idea of this communist and outsider, Professor Cunningham, interfering when it was Professor Sumner who originally offered you the title.

A. Yes.

Q. But now you are telling us that it was Professor Sumner who ‑‑ you don't want to call it "took it away" ‑‑ changed the title.

A. He changed the title on the basis of an intrigue engineered by a Jewish librarian. He saw my card which had "Visiting Professor" on it, and then he decided to ask questions about my status and where I was visiting from and reported the matter to Professor Sumner who then could do nothing but follow the rules, or whatever. So he said he had to change it.

Q. So you went around the university with a card with your name on it, with the designation "Visiting Professor." Is that ‑‑

A. For about ‑‑

Q. Just let me finish the question, and then I will ask you to fully answer it.

That is what you were doing before Professor Sumner changed your designation. Is that correct?

A. Yes, and then I had a different card, "Visiting Fellow" or something. I did not go around flashing this card; it is just an ordinary card with just a different name on it. It is just a library card, and nobody puts it on one's jacket to show that one is a Visiting Professor or anything. It is a matter of the least significance.

Q. This matter of least significance ‑‑

A. Was blown up into significance by this Jewish librarian.

Q. This matter of least significance is obviously significant to you because you have refused to accept the change in designation.

A. Simply because it was engineered by Jews.

Q. So, if the Jews engineer something, it is not significant.

A. It is not.

Q. I see.

A. It has really no academic significance either. As I said, all Visiting Fellows have the status of a Visiting Professor.

Q. If that was the case, then why would Professor Sumner take the trouble to change your designation?

A. Because he has to go by the majority opinion in his department. He even listens probably to secretaries ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are moving much too quickly for me. We have to hear what you say. Because...?

THE WITNESS: Because Professor Sumner does not act independently. He is obliged to do things on the basis of the pressure applied on him by lesser members in his office ‑‑ secretaries, people who gossip, Cunningham who was then assistant head of department who was always hostile to me when I went to pick up my mail there. Then, when the question was raised by another Jewish librarian, he had to succumb and change it to please everybody there.

I did not like it at all. I felt betrayed by him, that he had not stood by his original offer. Since it was toward the end of the term, I just resigned myself to it and then went on to another department where there was no further problem regarding any professorship or fellowship or anything. Nobody cares about these things there.

Q. When you got your other Fellowships, nobody cared what your previous academic designation was. Is that what you are saying?

A. Nobody ever did.

MEMBER JAIN: Could I ask a question of clarification.

What was the exact date, in 1990-91 ‑‑ the academic year is from what month to what month?

THE WITNESS: The beginning of the term, which would be September 1990, until 1991.

MEMBER JAIN: When in 1991?

THE WITNESS: It would be ‑‑ I don't remember now any more. Late August ‑‑ is that when the summer term comes to an end?

MEMBER JAIN: I am confused. They usually run to the end of June.

THE WITNESS: There is a summer term as well.

MEMBER JAIN: You were also there during the summer term?

THE WITNESS: Yes. This is probably when it happened.

MEMBER JAIN: Thank you.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Dr. Cunningham, though, also got involved in this issue. Even after Professor Sumner changed your designation, Dr. Cunningham also spoke to you about the use of that designation, did he not, sir?

A. Apparently. These letters, which I don't have any memory of, suggest that. His interest in the matter I can well believe, given the hostility that he showed me when I met him briefly in the department. What he says to me or writes to me in the last few days of my term there are of no importance whatsoever, since I was leaving that department anyway.

Q. He did write to you, though, did he not, sir ‑‑ and I am putting this to you as a suggestion. He did write to you and tell you not to use the designation "Visiting Professor", did he not, sir?

A. He did. But, as I said, I chose to use that title which I had had for the most part of my visiting engagement and also because I had a preference for the congenial manner, intellectually congenial manner, in which Professor Sumner offered the term first, rather than for the conniving way in which it was changed by Jews like that librarian and whoever this is.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You said that he did write to you. Is the letter before you?

THE WITNESS: I have a copy here, but I don't have the original and I don't recall the occasion of it. Why would he write this "To Whom it may Concern?"

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me go back. We have been dealing with this for some time.

Do you have before you the letter dated August 14, 1991, addressed to Alexander Jacob, c/o Department of Philosophy? Is that you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE CHAIRPERSON: And it is signed by Frank Cunningham?

THE WITNESS: It is.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that a letter that you received?

THE WITNESS: I don't have any memory of it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you identify the contents of the letter and does that refresh your memory as to whether you received it or not?

I don't want to waste time of the Tribunal if you ‑‑

THE WITNESS: He may have written it to me. Perhaps he became Acting Chairman in the very last part of that year.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you telling me that you cannot identify this letter or you can?

THE WITNESS: Identify it in the sense that it is addressed by him to me? Yes, but I have no memory of receiving it. I do have a distinct memory of the occasion of the change of the status, and that happened when Professor Sumner was there.

Perhaps, when this Cunningham became Acting Chairman, he was in a hurry to get rid of me. That is the only explanation I can give of a letter that has no occasion. I have not corresponded to him or indicated to him that I wanted this Visiting Professorship retained or anything.

MR. KURZ:

Q. But, sir, whether that is the actual letter that you received or not, you do remember getting a letter from Professor Cunningham telling you not to use the designation because ‑‑

A. I don't ‑‑

Q. Let me finish the question.

MR. CHRISTIE: I object. It is a total misrepresentation of this letter of August 14 to say that it tells him not to use the designation.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Use the wording of the letter, please, Mr. Kurz.

MR. KURZ: Thank you. I apologize.

Q. Whether or not this is the actual letter you received, you were told by Professor Cunningham that he finds no evidence that you are a "Visiting Professor" as the term is conventionally understood in the North American Academy, "and hence I cannot designate you as such." You received a letter to that effect from Professor Cunningham, did you not, sir?

A. This is precisely what I have been saying many times over. I cannot remember receiving this letter, and I don't remember this man as Acting Chairman while I was there. I do remember him as assistant head of the department, which is when I got the impression that I have of him. The occasion of the change of the term was something which occurred during Sumner's chairmanship.

This change of mail box and so on ‑‑ it is so long ago I don't remember. It seems like he is just trying to get rid of me or something.

It had no effect on me at all because it came so late, and I did not even need that mail box any longer.

Q. You are saying that you received no letter from Professor Cunningham?

A. I cannot say one way or the other whether I received it or not. I have no memory of it. It seems like a letter written by him to me. If I had the original, then it would mean that he actually sent it to me. I have no recollection or interest in this correspondence.

Q. So you neither deny nor confirm that you received such a letter.

A. I cannot, given the fault of memory which persists.

MR. KURZ: I will move on, Mr. Chair.

MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I have desisted on a number of occasions from commenting on the repeated loud words spoken by Mr. Rosen.

MR. ROSEN: I was trying to ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, Mr. Rosen. One at a time.

MR. CHRISTIE: I was just going to say that I understand that Mr. Rosen has intense feelings, but I would like Mr. Rosen, as I have avoided making any public comment on this issue before, to tell us why he keeps doing this and tell us why he thinks this is really in the necessary service of either the Hearing or ‑‑

MR. ROSEN: Actually, I was trying to catch Mr. Kurz' attention to tell him that the basis of admissibility in these proceedings, as I understand it, is the probability that this witness got the letter. Given his equivocation, I was trying to catch his attention to move to file the letter as an exhibit.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You could pass him up a note, Mr. Rosen.

MR. ROSEN: Thank you. I will next time.

MR. CHRISTIE: I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that, if Mr. Rosen feels he has some submission to make on the law, he has every right to stand up and make it so that we can all hear it, and then we will know what it is and the record will be clear. That is what I would like to suggest. If he has an argument or a point to make in law, he is as much entitled to do that as I am.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Kurz, please.

MR. KURZ: Frankly, I am ready to move on. I have no comments, and I am happy to move on.

THE CHAIRPERSON: That is why I was calling on you.

MR. KURZ: I thought you were asking me to comment.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't want any more speeches.

MR. KURZ: I don't want to waste any more of your time. I am going to move on.

THE WITNESS: Could I just make a further comment.

If I did receive it and read this article and did not change the title, it is only because I had so little regard for this man and so much more for Professor Sumner who first gave me the original title. You can put that on record.

MR. KURZ:

Q. So it is quite possible that you did receive it.

A. As I said, yes, it is possible, but I have no memory of it.

Q. You have no memory of it, but it is quite possible that you received it.

A. Entirely possible.

MR. KURZ: Based on that, Mr. Chair, I am asking that it be made an exhibit. He gave it back to me, in effect.

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I don't think so.

May I submit that a possibility is not a probability. Before evidence becomes relevant on this peripheral issue, it would have to be on a balance of probabilities that it was received. More probably it was not.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I am going to allow Mr. Kurz to continue. We will deal with whether it goes in or not later.

MR. CHRISTIE: Technically, it is already in.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You delayed your objection and, technically, it is there, but I will suspend it as an exhibit for the time being.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Your next position was in 1992-93?

A. 1991-92.

Q. After you were at the Department of Philosophy, you moved to the Centre for Philosophy of Science at York University.

A. I am sorry, I think I went to the Centre for Religious Studies.

Q. My apologies. You were a research reader at the Centre for Religious Studies at the University of Toronto in the years 1991 to 1992. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it be fair to say, sir, that, as a research reader, your position was pretty similar to that of a Fellow?

A. Yes. All the positions listed are similar.

Q. You were not a member of the staff.

A. No.

Q. You didn't teach anybody.

A. I just gave a talk to the graduate faculty and professors.

Q. You gave a talk about your research at that time?

A. Which is listed also in the list of seminars and colloquia.

Q. That was a paper on "Science, Religion, and Politics in seventeenth century England: The case of Isaac Newton"?

A. Yes.

Q. Isaac Newton was an anti-Semite, I take it?

A. No, he was a philosemite.

Q. He was a philosemite. But that wasn't the subject of your talk. Your talk was about the philosophy of science. Right?

A. It was also about religion and politics, and it was also his philosemitism.

Q. I see. Then you moved the next year to yet another department or centre. Why did you keep moving all these years?

A. Because all of these Fellowships last only for a year. I wanted to finish my research, and I had to move to another congenial department to do so.

Q. You weren't able to stay on at any of these departments. Is that what you are saying?

A. It is not possible to extend a Visiting Fellowship for more than a year, typically. The two-year term I had at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies was an exception.

Q. Have you ever requested ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: I realize that it is not my friend's fault, and I know that it is perhaps of no concern to others, but I would like to hear the last of the witness' answer. He does, of his own volition, tend to trail off. I wish it would be possible to ask him to finish. Maybe he is trying and maybe he isn't, but he should finish the sentence.

MR. KURZ: I am sorry, I am not in any way trying to interrupt you.

MR. CHRISTIE: I agree, but could I ask if we did get the answer.

THE WITNESS: Sir, I was saying that all Visiting Fellowships last typically for a year, and they are not extended because one has to make place, especially in the mail room, for other visiting scholars. This is why they have all lasted for a year. It is an exception that I stayed for two years at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies. They just had the space available.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Have you ever requested that one of these one-year Fellowships be extended?

A. I have, and I have not always succeeded in extending them.

Q. You, in fact, were turned down at the Department of Political Science, weren't you?

A. Not ‑‑ we have moved to that one now, have we?

Q. Just on that subject, since you raise the subject ‑‑ I will get back to the Centre for Philosophy of Science. You have mentioned the Fellowships being one year. What I am asking is: I see that in 1994-95 you were a Visiting Fellow at the Department of Political Science at U of T. What I am asking is whether you asked to have your Fellowship renewed for a year and whether that request was turned down.

A. This is a similar case to what happened in the Department of Philosophy. The Fellowship was offered by a non-Jewish Canadian, Professor Matthews, and with the same cordiality that Professor Sumner's had evinced when I first approached him. He said, "All right, I will grant you a Fellowship for this work on Edgar Julius Jung readily. We would be pleased" and so on. He had made that last for 10 months or something, because that took it to the end of the calendar year, I think, or something like that.

Then, when I had finished that term, I wanted to extend it, hopefully, for another full academic year but, by that time, he had left and there was another Acting Chairman who also happened to be Jewish, I think. I can't remember his name now.

Q. Robert Vipond?

A. Yes, indeed. He said, "No, it is not possible." I said, "I have serious work to do. Could I still extend it because I am not really imposing on you financially or anything?" He said, no, it couldn't be done. He nevertheless extended the term for the remaining two months of the year so that it would make a complete academic year. He did that without too much difficulty, fortunately.

Q. So Jewish Professor Vipond refused your request to extend your Fellowship in the Department of Political Science for an extra year. Is that right?

A. For an extra year but, by the terms of the department ruling on Fellowships, he had to extend it for another two months to make a full year, and that he did.

Q. But just in answer to my question, you did make the request and he did refuse it, the request for a one-year extension.

A. Yes, but he did make an extension of a smaller sort.

Q. Yes. You said that you were a Fellow at the Centre of the Philosophy of Science at York University. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. Philosophy of science is that discipline which focuses on the philosophical underpinnings of scientific experiment and investigation. As you probably know, the beginnings of modern science in the Renaissance in the 17th century are all focused on personalities who were at once religious thinkers and scientific investigators. Because the church was so influential ‑‑ and you know of the problem of Galileo ‑‑ and because the learning of that time was necessarily a clerical one, they were all trained in religious learning. Isaac Newton is a supreme example of that. Henry More, too, is a Christian thinker also interested in scientific thought and wrote about Robert Boyle and other scientists of the time.

That is what one does in a department for the philosophy of science.

The University of Toronto has a similar department but, when I applied there, I got no positive response because there, too, the head of the department is Jewish, someone called Levire. The head of the Centre for the Philosophy of Science at York University is Indian, and I got in there without much difficulty.

Q. I am hearing that all of the roadblocks in your academic career have been erected by Jews.

A. Yes, and this is why I do not actively pursue an academic career, because I anticipate the same hostility that I have always felt at the University of Toronto.

Q. I see. Who runs the Centre for the Philosophy of Science at York University?

A. It is part of the Department of Philosophy, headed by Professor Hattiangadi, an Indian but trained at Oxford.

Q. Can I suggest ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: Could we have the spelling?

MR. KURZ:

Q. How do you spell his name?

A. H-a-t-t-i-a-n-g-a-d-i.

Q. Sir, the Centre for the Philosophy of Science at York University, is that an accredited official centre for study at the university? Is it an accredited research organization within the university?

A. It is a research centre. I don't know exactly what their academic activities are. If they granted degrees, it would come under the Department of Philosophy, I believe, because there is no separate director or chairman for this particular centre.

Q. Can I suggest to you, sir, that there is no official research organization within York University that is called the Centre for the Philosophy of Science? Would that be correct?

A. No, no. He appointed me Fellow of the Centre for the Philosophy of Science. That was the only place in Toronto that I had an office of my own.

Q. My understanding is that the Centre for the Philosophy of Science at York University is in fact a sign outside of Dr. Hattiangadi's office that designates it as the Centre for the Philosophy of Science and that there is no one else involved in that research organization and that it is not an accredited research organization, as an independent one within York University.

A. Then I suppose I should have added after Centre for the Philosophy of Science, "comma, Department of Philosophy, York University." I did not know that. Again, this is a matter of indifference to me.

Q. It is a matter of indifference. If your résumé is not correct, why should it be a matter of indifference? You have told me earlier how important scrupulousness is to academics, and you have agreed as well that the requirement of scrupulousness applies to curriculum vitae.

A. But he appointed me ‑‑

MR. CHRISTIE: Hold that thought. Maybe you will have to answer and maybe you won't.

My concern here, sir, is that this has become a hypothetical question on the qualifications of the expert as to what would be the case if it was as my learned friend says. I don't know if it is as my learned friend says, and the witness hasn't said that either. Maybe the witness should step outside.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you step outside, please, Witness.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

THE CHAIRPERSON: Once again, Witness, please keep your hand down and get close to the microphone, and please help us understand what you are saying by talking slowly and as articulately as you can.

THE WITNESS: I have an energetic mind.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Sir, I am putting to you that there is no independent Centre for the Philosophy of Science at York University. Do you accept that?

A. It is possible. I have never interested myself in the matter. The letter offering the position to me says: We should be pleased to offer you a year's appointment as Fellow for the Centre for the Philosophy of Science. I never bothered to investigate whether this was accredited or not. If I did do that, perhaps I would have added "Department of Philosophy" which is even more impressive, but I did not because I have no interest whatsoever in status. This is something you should understand.

Q. This is status, not a position. Right?

A. No, you don't understand my response. I said I have no interest in status that I occupy at any time. It is only the work that I am allowed to do that I am interested in.

Q. So you did nothing to determine whether an independent centre ‑‑

A. No, I did not. If you want me to change that, I will readily. It makes no difference whatsoever to me.

Q. Is there anything to the Centre for the Philosophy of Science at York other than Dr. Hattiangadi's office?

A. I don't know. I did not spend all my time there. York is very far from where I live downtown. I used to go there mostly to pick up my mail. I did not even occupy the office that I was given, the office room that I was given, because it is too far to go there to work. I just used the library resources, and then I gave my talk as Fellow of the Centre for the Philosophy of Science when I was requested to. That also transpired in the official manner, as it always has since I came to Toronto, at the university here.

Q. Do you have that letter with you?

A. I may have copies at home. I don't carry these letters around every day with me.

Q. We talked about the Department of Political Science. Your Visiting Fellowship there, I take it, was along the same lines as we have discussed before. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you moved on in 1995-96 to Visiting Scholar in the Department of English, University of Toronto. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So, again, you went to another and different department at the university.

A. Because I was working on this recent edition of "A Platonick Song of the Soul" which was then commissioned by Bucknell University Press. I found it appropriate to work in the Department of English because that particular work ‑‑

MEMBER DEVINS: I am sorry, sir, I can't hear you. Could you perhaps start again.

THE WITNESS: I went to the Department of English because I was at that time working on my most recent publication, which is the edition of Henry More's "A Platonick Song of the Soul," which happens to be not merely a philosophical work like most of his other works, but also expressed in poetical form and, so, of interest to scholars and students of 17th century English poetry.

MR. KURZ:

Q. You went to the Department of English because you were working on a literary work. Correct?

A. Yes, literary as well as philosophical.

Q . Literary and philosophical. I take it you told them that that was what you were doing, that you were planning to work on a literary and philosophical work that year?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told them, didn't you, that you specialized in the philosophy of Henry More and that you were working on a critical edition of his book?

A. Yes.

Q. That is what you told them, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And what they offered you was, again, the same status and the same privileges that we have discussed before. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Nothing more. Right?

A. No, nothing more.

Q. You have described in your CV each of these offers of status and privilege as academic positions.

A. These are positions because one has the status of a Visiting Professor and the significance of that person, only one is not part of the faculty and not paid. It is a visiting position.

Q. But isn't a professor somebody on staff?

A. Yes, a professor is somebody on staff.

Q. You were never on staff anywhere.

A. No. So...?

Q. So to say that you had the status of Visiting Professor is not true because you were never on a university teaching staff.

A. I have already explained this matter, and I cannot go over it 100 times to make you understand.

Q. You have nothing further to say about that?

A. I have explained that already, the conflict that arose and the reason for that particular item.

Q. But what I am suggesting to you now in this line of questioning is that to call any of those offers of status and privilege an academic position is misleading.

A. No, it is not because these are positions. You are positioned in that particular department for a whole year, so it is a position. It is not a job. I have never described them as academic jobs or anything of the sort.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask you, Witness: For each of these positions which you describe under "Academic Positions," are they made orally or do you receive a letter from the university authorities?

THE WITNESS: A letter from the department head. I would have these at home, I believe. I have never consulted them in a long while, but I might have these at home.

MR. KURZ:

Q. You have nothing on your CV that indicates any academic work other than writing of books after 1995-1996. What did you do after you left the Department of English at the University of Toronto?

A. I worked briefly next door.

Q. Where is next door?

A. Next door.

Q. Next door to what, sir?

A. To us, at the Mackenzie Institute for the Study of Terrorism.

Q. What is the Mackenzie Institute for the Study of Terrorism?

A. It is antiterrorist studies. It is headed by John Thompson. It focuses on potential sources of danger to the security of the nation. I had a research fellowship there for a year. I do not include it because something dramatic happened there.

Q. What dramatic happened there, sir?

A. I was there for one term working in their offices. The subject I had chosen for my research was Jewish terrorism, the JDL in particular. The article that I wrote as a result of my research also happened to include the ADL, which is the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. Since it included this category of Jewry as well in its discussion, the Director thought it difficult to publish the article, which he would have done for any research fellow there.

Because of the nature of the article and his connections also to B'nai Brith, I believe, which he uses as a research resource, not only was the article not published, but he also wrote me a letter saying that he found it difficult to collaborate any further. So it ended very abruptly.

Q. Didn't it go farther than that? Didn't he discontinue your retainer with the Mackenzie Institute?

A. No. He said, "You can continue to get letters here," and I used to get letters long after I left it through his assistant, Ms Mitchell. The relationship was very cordial except for this political reason.

Q. I am suggesting to you, sir, that he terminated your relationship when he saw the draft of this book or this article. Is that right?

A. Yes. I am agreeing because that is exactly what I told you.

Q. And, in fact, he wrote a letter of apology to B'nai Brith, didn't he?

A. No, that I did not know. I don't believe B'nai Brith had access to my article at all.

MR. CHRISTIE: I couldn't hear that answer.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you repeat your answer clearly and distinctly and carefully.

THE WITNESS: I said that I did not know at all, because I have no knowledge of his having corresponded with the B'nai Brith at all on this matter because I did not realize that they were knowledgeable of what was going on at the Mackenzie Institute and what subjects their research fellows were writing about. I am surprised, shocked even. There is no need for this because the B'nai Brith is not part of the Mackenzie Institute, or should not be.

MR. KURZ:

Q. But the reason that B'nai Brith would have known about it, I am suggesting to you, is that you actually attended at the offices of B'nai Brith to do some research in the preparation of this paper. Isn't that true, sir?

A. Yes, but why should he apologize to them for my using their library?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, try to answer the question.

THE WITNESS: I am trying to sort this out in my mind. The whole thing is so surprising to me.

You are right; I did go to the B'nai Brith library to get some materials.

MR. KURZ:

Q. What did you tell B'nai Brith when you went there?

A. That I was working for the Mackenzie Institute as a research fellow and wanted to research some materials.

Q. You told them that you were researching the Jewish Defence League, didn't you?

A. I can't remember exactly what I said, but I might have said that or I might have just said that I was interested in the ADL and this organization generally.

Q. When you say "this organization," which organization generally?

A. That is the B'nai Brith ADL, or whatever it is called.

Q. Just to stop for a second, ADL means the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is the American organization of B'nai Brith; is that correct?

A. The ADL is called the League for Human Rights here, I suppose. I just said ‑‑ I can't remember exactly what I said. I said I was researching the JDL perhaps or the League for Human Rights itself to see the scope of their activity.

Q. Did you tell them anything about the philosophical inclination that you have described today? Did you show them anything about that aspect of your inclination, sir?

A. No. They never asked me, and they did not have any right to do that.

Q. I would like to show you something and ask if you can identify it.

I am handing this for your assistance, Mr. Chairman. I know that they have yet to be made exhibits.

Do you recognize the document, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it, in fact, the document that you wrote for the Mackenzie Institute that led to the termination of your relationship with them?

A. Yes. I hope this is a photocopy and not a rewritten one. It is probably a photocopy.

Q. I want to make sure that you don't feel in any way that I altered the document. Why don't you take a minute to look at it with the consent of the Chair and make sure that I or no one else has made a change to your work.

A. Yes, it is the article.

Q. And, based on your review of it, it is not an adulterated version of the article?

A. Just going very quickly through it, I don't believe so.

MR. KURZ: Mr. Chair, may I make this an exhibit?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: There is no title to this document.

THE WITNESS: It is called "Expanding the boundaries of terrorism."

THE REGISTRAR: The document entitled "Expanding the boundaries of terrorism: The Jewish Defence League and the Establishment Jewry" will be filed as B'nai Brith Exhibit BN-2.

EXHIBIT NO. BN-2: Document entitled "Expanding the boundaries of terrorism: The Jewish Defence League and the Establishment Jewry"

MR. KURZ:

Q. Would it be fair to say, Dr. Jacob, that the thesis of your paper is, in effect, that there is little real difference between a fringe Jewish group like the Jewish Defence League and mainstream groups like The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada and the Anti-Defamation League and that all are, in effect, terrorist organizations?

A. They are not of a similar sort. They have similar interests in defending the Jewish people and Israel, but the methods they employ are quite different.

Q. In this paper did you not consider both sets of groups to be terrorist?

A. Yes, one using physical violence and the other psychological.

Q. Both using violence, one using physical violence ‑‑ that is, the Jewish Defence League ‑‑ and the more mainstream Jewish groups as using psychological terror. Is that what you are saying?

A. Yes.

Q. I am going to try to lead you through a few excerpts from this paper.

Mr. Chair, I apologize, I have not tried to alter it in any way by numbering the pages and, frankly, I didn't have enough time to highlight for you the portions I intend to read in. I believe that the only useful way of numbering the pages is to refer at the bottom to notes. I will just simply attempt to refer to the first note at the bottom of the page. I know that is not the proper page, but at least it identifies it.

I am going to turn to the second page which has Note No. 3, and I am going to look at the top paragraph. It is not a full paragraph, and I am going to start four lines from the bottom of that top paragraph:

"Both the JDL report and the ADL one, however, reveal the bluntness of the Jewish hatred of anyone that exposes the exploitative social and economic methods employed by the Jews."

Do you have that before you, sir?

A. I can't locate it.

Q. If I may approach, I am reading this right here, sir. I will read it to you again.

"Both the JDL report and the ADL one, however, reveal the bluntness of the Jewish hatred of anyone that exposes the exploitative social and economic methods employed by the Jews."

I am not going to go into what those reports are, but this is your view about Jewish hatred as people who use exploitative economic and social methods; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I am going to move on to the page that has Note No. 8 on it, Mr. Chair.

The last paragraph at the bottom states:

"However, it is clear from a study of the Jewish 'religious' dogmas themselves that Judaism is not a system of universal ethics (let alone metaphysics, to which it has not the least resemblance) but rather a tribal code for the preservation of a people despised and exiled from the beginning of their recorded history, that is, from the time of the settlement of Abraham's tribe in Sumeria."

That is your view, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. "Given the animosity between the Jews

and their several host peoples ‑‑"

Let me stop with that term, "host peoples." Who are the Jews' host peoples, sir?

A. The Chaldeans.

Q. I don't understand your answer.

A. C-h-a-l-d-e-a-n-s, the Chaldeans.

Q. You are talking about Josephus here.

A. Yes.

Q. You are referring here to ancient Jewish history.

A. Starting from them, and then there is the Egyptians also, but that is generally the time frame.

Q. When you are referring to Jews and their host peoples, are you simply referring to ancient Jewish history or are you talking about modern Jewish history as well, for example Jews now in Canada?

A. No, I am thinking of their more ancient history because that is the time that they composed the Old Testament and the Talmud.

Q. So you are referring there to ancient Jews and the ancient host countries. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. "‑‑ it is not surprising that Judaism,

both in its Old Testament and Talmudic forms, is preponderantly a quasi-religious glorification of resentment and hatred."

Let me stop there.

This is not your view simply of Judaism as practised thousands of years ago, but Judaism today as well. Correct?

A. Has it changed much since then?

Q. I am asking you your view, sir, and how it is reflected in this work.

A. What I am saying here is Judaism, both in its Old Testament and Talmudic forms, as you can see.

Q. Do you believe that Judaism now still encompasses the same Judaism that you are describing here?

A. It certainly encompasses that, yes.

Q. So you are talking about both Judaism now and Judaism in the past.

A. No. In this sentence I am talking about Judaism past, as you can see. Whether it has remained exactly the same is not an issue in this sentence.

Q. But you accept that it is, in fact, the same.

A. It is essentially the same, but it has undergone modifications. There is reformed Judaism, and this, that and the other. I am not talking about all the modern forms.

Q. Aren't you referring to modern Judaism in the next sentence:

"Kahane himself half admits to this fact when he remarks that ‑‑"

And I am just going to stop there.

Kahane is Rabbi Meir Kahane?

A. Yes.

Q. He is the founder of the Jewish Defence League?

A. Yes.

Q. Just to be clear about what the Jewish Defence League is, could you tell me what that organization is.

A. It is an organization employing terrorist methods to counteract any opposition to the Jewry. It began as a defence against the negroes, I believe, in New York and then went on to counter Soviet repression of the Jewry and then Arab and Palestinian. That, in brief, is the scope of their activity.

Whether they are also targeting White nationalist groups I don't know. More recently, they have been comparatively dormant, I believe.

Q. What you are saying, though, is that Rabbi Meir Kahane is accepting, at least half admitting, what you are saying for today's date. Is that correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think, to put it in context, you would have to read the quote.

MR. KURZ: I am going to get to it.

MR. CHRISTIE: Mount Sinai didn't happen recently. Those remarks are about Mount Sinai, I think.

MR. KURZ: Fair enough.

Q. Let's read it.

"It was at Sinai that the creation of a peculiar and separate Jewish people took place, having a unique and different way of life; that there was an inevitable cultural clash with their neighbors and with those conquerors who attempted to impose a different way of life upon them."

A. You have to continue to read.

Q. Is the rest still Rabbi Kahane's quote?

A. Yes.

Q. I apologize.

"A little earlier he even points out that the rabbis have traced the etymology of the name 'Sinai' to the Hebrew sinah:

Why was (the mountain) called Sinai? Because, from there, came forth hatred (sinah - Hb.) to the world. The question that immediately arises from an understanding of these peculiar Jewish origins is how a people ‑‑"

A. That is mine.

Q. I am sorry...?

A. The text is not formatted properly here. "The question that immediately arises" is my comment on that.

Q. So we are now talking in your voice.

A. "hatred to the world" is the end of his quote.

Q. Your comment then is:

"The question that immediately arises from an understanding of these peculiar Jewish origins is how a people whose ethnic distinctiveness arose from animosity can ever claim to act as a Solomonic arbiter of international politics."

You are talking about today now.

A. Yes, now I am talking of today.

Q. Would you go to the page with Note 11 at the bottom, the last paragraph that begins: "The confiscation of anti-Nazi comics ‑‑."

Just to put this passage into context, you talk in the previous paragraph about how Germany seized certain anti-Nazi materials around the time of the writing of your paper. Is that a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. So you are commenting on the fact that Jews in Germany complained about the confiscation by the German police of these anti-Nazi materials. Is that a correct context to put that passage in, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. You say:

"The confiscation of anti-Nazi comics and posters is certainly a reason for consternation on the part of the Jews, but the JDL reporter does not consider for a moment that there might have been a justification for the raid. The crucial significance of this event indeed consists in the fact that the peddling of vulgarly popularised homosexual literature and children's literature which blatantly subverts the morals of young people was conducted by the same people who disseminated popular representations of the Nazi excesses of the Third Reich."

Are you talking about the Jews here, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. "Interestingly, the fact that, both in

Germany and elsewhere in the west, it is the Jews who pander most flagrantly to the lower passions and tastes of the public was hinted by Kahane himself in his work, Time to go home:"

Unless I am asked to continue, I will stop right there.

Is that your view, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Going down to the next full paragraph beginning "The recent incident in Germany ‑‑", halfway through the paragraph it states:

"What Kahane failed to remark in his writings is that the Jew does not forsake the commandments of the Old Testament and the Talmud because the liberality of western democracy encourages him to do so but, rather, it was his inherently immoral nature that forced the early Jewish leaders to institute a religion of commandments and legalistic minutiae in the first place."

This is your view, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me go to the next page. There is one large paragraph ‑‑

A. Can I say something about the previous passage?

Q. Sure.

A. I said that because there is no example of a similar religion of a similar people in the history of the world. It is peculiar only to Judaism and the Jewry.

Q. There is no other religion that has done the terrible things the Jewish religion has done.

A. I have not talked about terrible things. I have talked about the nature of the religion, which is made up of legalistic commands and rules of conduct. This is not peculiar to any other European religions which are metaphysical in nature. It is typical of the Jewish and to a certain extent, I suppose, of the Islamic. Islam is just an added variant of the Jewish original and, hence, it retains the form. The original form is peculiar to the Jews and their character, and to nobody else.

Q. This ties into what you talked about this morning, the difference between Jews and the rest of western thought.

A. Yes.

Q. Moving on to the next page with Note 12 on it, five lines down it states:

"We may remember that it was precisely the Jewish attempts at assimilation that spurred the first major philosophical antisemites in Germany such as Richard Wagner and Eugen Duehring to an antisemitic stance by, since the participation of Jews in traditional European culture invariably brought about the decay of the latter."

In other words, it was because of what the Jews did that the philosophical anti-Semite had to come forward and take the position that they did. Is that right?

A. Yes. If you are aware of the history of that period, you will remember that all these antisemitic philosophers and thinkers began their writings shortly after the emancipation of the Jewry in Germany around 1860 or so. Up until then, there is not that spate of literature that you find after the emancipation.

Q. So those people were responding to what the Jews were doing. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. In effect, it is the Jews' fault that they came forward and had to deal with the problem that the Jews raised.

A. Yes.

Q. I am going to ask you to move partway down the page, about a third to halfway down, to the sentence that begins "This spiritual emasculation ‑‑."

"This spiritual emasculation of the European mind is the inevitable effect of Jewish assimilation and, if we remember Kahane's account of the ancient historical origins of Zionism, the ultimate purpose of it."

The ultimate purpose of what Jewish assimilation is about is spiritually emasculating western thought. Right?

A. Yes. There is so much evidence to prove this. All the anti-aristocratic revolution, starting from the 18th century, the Socialist revolution of 1848, the terrible atrocities of the Russian revolution against the Tsar and his family, and the disruption ‑‑

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are dropping your voice a little.

THE WITNESS: The terrible destruction of the Romanov dynasty, the carnage in Germany, the revolution in the sixties in America against the establishment, and on and on and on. The process never stops.

MR. KURZ:

Q. What do you mean by emasculation, sir?

A. I told you. European thought is characterized by a superior metaphysical capacity, faculty, which the Jewish personality has shown little evidence of. This is precisely what is being effected ‑‑ that is, the equation of the European to the level of the Jewish intellect. That faculty which is superior in the European man is allowed to fade and, as I say, wither away completely.

This is emasculation, and it goes on every day in the universities.

Q. That is what happened to you?

A. No, no, they can't do anything to me. They do it to unsuspecting young students.

Q. But they can't do it to you because you know about their power. Is that a fair statement?

A. Not power; it is not a power. It is their method.

Q. You are aware of Jewish methods, so they can't get you.

A. No. One who is already fully developed intellectually cannot be affected by any methods or power. It is only querying individuals, those who are still learning, who are affected by the texts that are presented to them and taught to them. I have never been forced to study anything at any university here, so the question is inappropriate.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Kurz, the Tribunal, as usual on the last day of the week, rises a little earlier to accommodate travel plans. We are going to take a 10-minute break, but we will be rising at four o'clock.

‑‑- Short Recess at 3:15 p.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 3:30 p.m.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Sir, I am not going to continue to read in any more from that paper.

You will admit to me that, based on the quotes that I read in through you that your paper is antisemitic, isn't it?

A. Intellectually so.

Q. And it is that intellectual antisemitism that is included in your paper that is the reason that the Mackenzie Institute terminated its relationship with you. Isn't that correct?

A. No. The reason, so far as I can perceive a reason, is that I included the ADL and, let's say, The League of Human Rights ‑‑ that is, the rest of the Jewry ‑‑ in my discussion. He was prepared to accept a paper on just the JDL which also would be antisemitic if it had been written or published.

Q. You told him you were going to write an antisemitic paper on the JDL, the Jewish Defence League?

A. No, you have distorted my response entirely. You asked me whether this was not accepted because it was intellectually antisemitic. In fact, he was prepared to accept a paper on the JDL which, if he did, would have meant that he would have accepted an antisemitic paper also, because the JDL represents the Jewry in its purest form. He was willing to do that. He was only not willing to accept the criticism of the rest of the Jewry.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Thompson, the head of the Mackenzie Institute, before you wrote this paper and before you were, as it were, retained by the Mackenzie Institute, of your view toward the Jews, the views that you have expressed today so articulately?

A. No. I did indicate my dislike of the present state of society, the capitalist society as it prevails today. When I immediately after that indicated my interest in researching Jewish organizations or a Jewish organization, I should have thought that he made a connection between the two statements. But I did not go into any detail whatsoever regarding my comprehensive views on the subject.

Q. You told him you were going to write a paper about the ADL. Right?

A. About the JDL.

Q. The JDL, I apologize.

A. In fact, about Jewish terrorism.

Q. About Jewish terrorism, and you referred specifically to the ADL. Right?

A. The JDL.

Q. I have the ADL on my brain, I apologize. You referred specifically to the JDL.

A. Yes.

Q. I am going to move on now.

One question I didn't quite understand ‑‑ and I know that you asked me to move on from this subject earlier, Mr. Chair, but it is one question that I think is relevant.

You talked about making applications to various community colleges and universities. What positions did you apply for?

A. Some basic position as lecturer. I just called George Brown and Seneca and said, "Do you have any teaching positions?" and they said, "There might be an opening in English" or something; I can't even remember what subject, Humanities probably. So I applied there for an entry level position as a lecturer.

Q. At George Brown you applied for an entry level position in English or Humanities. How about Seneca College?

A. I can't remember exactly what the position was that I applied for, but it was a similar one. These are small colleges and they don't have very developed research facilities, so it wouldn't have made any difference.

Q. Any university positions, sir?

A. University positions, no. I have asked colleagues whom I was acquainted with during my various Fellowships in various departments whether there was a possibility of teaching there, and they always said "no", especially since German political philosophy is not popular and there are no positions for that. There are a lot of positions for environmental philosophy and women's studies.

Q. Environmental philosophy and women's studies?

A. Yes.

Q. Those are obviously not positions that you feel suited for and those are not positions you applied for.

A. No, I did not apply at all.

Q. When you applied to the American university, as you told us ‑‑ and I never did get the name of the American university ‑‑ what department did you apply to?

A. It is a small college, in the Department of English.

Q. I am going to ask you about Mr. Zundel.

Did you first come into contact with Mr. Zundel when you were asked to testify in this Hearing?

A. No, I have known him for about four years now.

Q. You have known him for about four years. How have you come to know Mr. Zundel?

A. Through my interest in German politics.

Q. Did you contact him or did he contact you?

A. I contacted him.

Q. Have you done any work for Mr. Zundel?

A. Yes. I have given a talk on Eugen Dühring to an audience that he invited at his home. I have also made video films for him on German history, social philosophy and culture.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Repeat that, please.

THE WITNESS: I have also made video films for him on the subject of German history, social philosophy and culture.

MR. KURZ:

Q. Were you paid to do that?

A. Yes, he has helped me, compensated me.

Q. How has he compensated you?

A. With money. How?

Q. What rate? How did he determine the rate of money that you would be compensated?

A. It was normally $10 an hour or something.

Q. So Mr. Zundel paid you $10 an hour to be on these videos and to give a talk to a group at his home about German philosophy. Right?

A. Not to be on these videos. These videos were prepared by me. I prepared the talk, and I was paid for all the time I spent doing this preparation, and then it was filmed, and all of that was paid for.

Q. Did you write anything for Mr. Zundel?

A. No, I have never written anything in his newsletter or the Internet or anything.

Q. He never asked you to do that?

A. No, he does it very well himself.

Q. I see. Have you spoken to Mr. Zundel about your views?

A. All the time.

Q. And you have had discussions with Mr. Zundel about your views?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have been frank with him about the views that you have expressed today?

A. Yes. He has a sympathetic mind, as you will have noticed already.

Q. He agrees with what you have to say, doesn't he?

A. Yes. He has not actually watched all of the films I have made because he is too busy to do that, but I am sure he agrees. I hope he does.

Q. You have told him, in essence, what your view of the Jewish problem is and the solutions to the Jewish problem. Isn't that a correct statement?

A. No, he has heard the talk on Eugen Dühring which I gave at his home, insofar as I have discussed all that matter. It is the same matter that you have discussed at the beginning of this examination. He knows about them, yes.

Q. And he approves of it, doesn't he?

A. I dare say. He never tells me, "Yes, this is what we should do," because he knows we cannot do anything.

Q. He has never told you he disagrees with you?

A. He might have, but he has never made that the focus of the conversation. He is naturally sympathetic to all German thought, philosophical and political.

Q. He is naturally...?

A. Sympathetic to all German thought, philosophical and political, particularly from that time period.

Q. You made a tape on Dühring that encompassed the views that you described this morning about the Jews. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Zundel paid you to make that tape?

A. Yes.

Q. And, as far as you know, Mr. Zundel distributed that tape after he saw it?

A. He leaves the distribution of all tapes to his assistant who is a videographer.

Q. Who is that?

A. Eugen Neiman. He broadcasts them through satellite television and public access television and that sort of thing. All the technicalities of that I have no precise information about.

Q. After you made the tape on Dühring that described the views that you have described this morning, Mr. Zundel broadcast the tape. Is that right?

A. At some time. I don't know if it was done immediately after or when. I am under the impression that it has been broadcast. I know one of the tapes was definitely broadcast because I got a response from somewhere in California regarding that.

Q. And he has never told you that he is going to withdraw the tape or he has a problem with the tape?

A. Never.

Q. He owns the tape, doesn't he?

A. Sorry...?

Q. He owns the tape. He paid you for it and now he owns the tape.

A. Yes, he owns the tape. I have copies myself.

Q. You have copies yourself, but the original is Mr. Zundel's.

A. Yes.

Q. And he is still free to distribute them as he sees fit.

A. Yes.

Q. And he hasn't withdrawn them from circulation, to the best of your knowledge. Isn't that correct?

A. To the best of my knowledge, but I have not asked him about this distribution at all.

MR. KURZ: Those are my questions, sir. Thank you.