I post it here, because these are arguments that are exchanged quite often in discussions.
davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks ago1) No, I think Alan Sabrosky is a liar.2) Who were the JEWS who advocated "uncontrolled" immigration? I don't mean liberal immigration policies, I mean no control at all? (Remember YOU used the word "uncontrolled"). Oh, and give your sources.3) I have read Ostrovsky - another liar. He claims personal involvement in all the HIGH PROFILE events - a well-known warning sign. 500,000 dead because of Saddam Hussein's policies and practices - not the sanctions.·
MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoSabrosky's facts on which his opinion is based, are true facts. Where is the lie or mistake? Tell me. 2. The non-jews wanted only European immigrants, the jews wanted immigrants from all countries. Compare this to the Israeli's who cannot live together with the Palestinians.3. Is Ostrovsky a liar? He wrote that the Mossad would make a villain of Saddam who was then still a friend of the West. And that is exactly what happened a year after Ostrovsky's book came out.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoRe Ostrovsky, again we're talking the old truth and lies mixture (that's what intelligence people do). Saddam was a "friend" of the west for pragmatic reasons - on both sides. The Israelis foresaw that he was a fairweather friend but would be a source of trouble in the long-run. They were right. No, he didn't have WMDs. But if he'd been allowed to, he would have got them.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoYes, Saddam was a friend. The pragmatic reasons were that he killed 1 million Iranians, using American and Israeli weapons, which he paid for. Double benefit for Israel: dead Iranians and profit. But that is not all. Through a secret deal the USA was also selling weapons to Iran, to kill Iraqi's. Double benefit for Israel: dead iraqi's and profit.My conclusion: these Neocons and Israeli's are the barbarians of our world. About Saddams WMD's : we speak about 1992-1997.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoSo you hate Neocons, neo-liberals and Communists. Can you tell us what economic system you do advocate?·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoAny system where the government is composed of people of that country, and not by very small minorities - like 2 to 3 % - and where this government tries to have a good balance between the interests of the lower classes and the higher classes, makes me happy enough. It may even be a communist government. Looking back life in Russia also had some appealing characteristics, from the fifties onward, like: stability, predictability, social support.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoIf by "not by very small minorities" you mean no one should have an hereditary or automatic shoe-in to power, I agree. But do you mean that there should be proportional representation of religions/races/genders/body shape/hair colour? If not, then why should not Jews over-achieve in politics? As long as there are free-elections to grant the final decision to the people and freedom of the press to allow debate? And we have all these things in western democracies.So you like Stalinist Russia ;-)·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoWhy don't you try to find out about 'The Israel Lobby' ? See link. Just to have some idea how democratic the USA is ( not ! ) . Show me one scientific thesis that explains how a building can collapse with the speed of free fal. Does not exist, But it happened with WTC7, even officially NIST concedes to this. Study 911 and you will find out: there is no real free press. Ther is a subtle censoring. People have no clue about what is reality in this world. Not in The West.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoThe two main towers didn't fall at free fall speed - even NIST were taken in by that claim. I've watched the videos that purport to prove that they fell at free fall speed. They do things like starting the clock late and fading it out early. You show me even one video with an accurate clock that shows them falling at free fall speed!WTC 7 in fact DOES look A BIT like a controlled demo (inasmuch as it collapsed from the bottom). But there's no evidence of preparation or that it actually was.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoMaybe you should tell NIST that they made a mistake. The free fall is for only part of the traject. This is how difficult it is to bring down a building, even with explosives: google: Oude kantoortoren Philips opgeblazen. Evidence? Why was there not a normal investigation after the collapse, as is commanded by the law? The evidence of this crime scene was immediately shipped out. Everything about 911 points to : inside job.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoI would be more inclined to believe the "Truthers" if I didn't keep catching them out with lies (free fall collapse of WTC 1 and 2, exploding van, Israelis filming before first plane hit) and false science (e.g. projecting holograms into thin air, radio controlled planes).·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoI suppose that the real conspiracists, who have easy access to the Media, will promote all kinds of crazy Truther- theories. Don't take these serious. Read David Ray Griffin. Look at the 911 Experts video's etc. The Israeli's who were filming before the first plane hit did not deny this. They said, months later, on Israeli tv: "We were there to document the event." Big question: How did they know there was going to be 'an event." For the link: 'Dancing Israeli's" in the Description.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoThe Israelis were not filming before the first plane hit. They were filming the smoke pouring from the buildings after the planes hit. That too was the "event". If a news crew are filming the aftermath of a car crash and one of them said "we were there to document the event" would you conclude that the news crew knew in advance that there was going to be a car crash?It is upon this kind of willful misinterpretation of the facts that the "Truthers" build their false and dishonest theories.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoEverybody was filming the towers after the plane hit. But these men were waiting with their camera's in place before the plane hit, and started high-fiving when the plane hit. They had installed themselves on a place that gave them a good free view. But there are many of these phenomena. For example a Dutch woman, Nina Storms, jewish, Goldman Sachs connections, who had earned two hundred million euro with a stockmarket scam, sold all her stocks a day before 911. Arab stockholders did not sell.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks ago1) If you can prove that were filming before the planes hit, you've won the debate. Now all you have to do is prove it.2) You have personally checked every single Arab stockholder and established that none of them sold any stocks in the days before 9/11?·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks ago1. You keep misunderstanding me, deliberately I suppose. I did not say they were filming before the hit. I said they were waiting for the plane to hit the building, and then filmed it and were dancing. People saw this unusual gathering and called the police. Can you give me the example of a group of arab people who were waiting for the plane to hit, then filmed it and danced ?2. Not necessary to check every arab stockholder. You give me a few examples of arabs that sold all stocks then.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks ago1) I didn't see any reports of the people claiming that they were waiting for the plane to hit. The reports said they were filming the buildings after the planes hit and that their mood seemed to happy. Remember that the two witnesses were watching from a distance and hearing a foreign language. Their opinion of what they saw might be right, but puerile behaviour does not translate into prior knowledge.2) I don't monitor thousands of Arab investors. I have better things to do with my time.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks ago----third continuation. If you go to wiki:--- September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories Israel--- you see that one of the five, P. Kurzberg, was a Mossad agent who refused the lie detector test for 10 weeks, and when he did the test, he failed. The fact that the FBI stated later that Kurzberg had no foreknowledge of the 911 attacks is, for me, a little unbelievable. Why did he refuse the lie detector for 10 weeks if he had nothing to hide. What arguments did the FBI have...?·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 3 weeks agoMaybe he had something to hide that had nothing to do with the attacks. Maybe he didn't trust the polygraph (remember it is only confidence in the polygraph that makes it "work"). Failure proves stress not dishonesty.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 3 weeks agoDavid, aren't there a few too many 'Maybe's'in your reasoning? Your logic is also wrong: if he did not trust the lie detector, he would have nothing to fear. That is what you tell me here. So his refusal came from the fact that he had something to hide. It's called a lie detector. Maybe it works by detecting a stress, but then this stress is only there in case the man tells a lie. For me its extra informative that he refused to take the test for 10 days.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 2 weeks agoYou also make presumptions. It is your logic is wrong. The polygraph works by showing stress when the question is answered. A nervous person thinks "what if I the machine registers my stress?" He thus EXPERIENCES stress, which the machine then registers. But your assumption that the subject only experiences stress when lying is false. The name "lie detector" is a misnomer. If a person FEARS that the machine will/may return a false positive, then that fear will CAUSE stress which then registers.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 2 weeks agoIf a lie detector would work like that, I think it would be a worthless invention. I think that everyone who is a suspect, also innocent people, are still in stress for a test like that.May I suggest that we stop discussing these 5 dancing Israeli's. There are dozens of facts that I offered on which you did not reply at all. You may also stop our discussion ( for a certain time) as it takes quite a bit of my time, and I should do other things (but I am addicted to this kind of discussions)·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 2 weeks agoThe polygraph (so-called lie detector) IS a worthless invention. Okay let's forget the five "dancing" Israelis. I note that your original video blamed the Jews for the presence of Muslims in England. I don't know about your country, but in the UK immigration from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh is a legacy of colonialism. Some residents of colonies had a connection with the UK and were allowed to live here, this then allowed the relatives to come.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 2 weeks agoEvery country has full power to close its borders for anyone. Holland has a small Island Curacao, near Venezuela, and they send their uneducated little delinquents to Holland as much as they like. But if a Dutch person want to go and live in Curacao, it turns out that they make it almost impossible ! If a politician wanted to block immigration he was demonised by the press. By the Masters of Discourse. Look at these links: MacDonald, Steinlight, Jewcy, Kaufmann·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 2 weeks agoYou asked Pat Condell a specific question about how the Muslims got to HIS country (and mine). The Kaufmann link carried a health warning so I avoided it. I just read Jewcy and listened to McDonald. A lot of generalizations. Too long to dismantle in detail. But which Jews are responsible for BRITAIN'S immigration laws? i.e. the ones Pat Condell was referring to.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 2 weeks agoONE. I have no idea which jews were responsable for the immigrationlaws in England. I will quote Shamir: Who are the people who own and operate this machine? Are they actually the Jewish Lobby? No, says Shamir. The formidable Jewish Lobby is just the visible tip of the iceberg, while below there are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief editors, their favourite university pundits – in short, the Masters of Discourse. Googgle it for a longer quote.·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- MrHansJanmaat 2 weeks agoTWO. Laws can be changed rather quickly. The Masters of Discourse rule in another way. They create hypes. Fashions. They promote 'views on life' which they can use at that time and place. When the jews were still barred from power they attacked the Power elite by promoting socialism and communism. They supportred to blackks in the USA. They promoted freedom of the press to be able to ridicule the people in power. So their values were: Freedom, equality brotherhood.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- davidkesslerauthor 2 weeks agoAre you seriously asking the Jews to APOLOGIZE for supporting the Blacks in their civil rights struggle? Why is it wrong to have freedom of the press and to use to hold to account those who wield power? There is nothing wrong with Freedom, equality (before the law) and brotherhood. Just as there is nothing wrong with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
- MrHansJanmaat 2 weeks agoThe jews only supported the blacks because it was a way to undermine WASP -power. Ask Malcolm X. He understood it all. If jews were such noble people, then why support the blacks but not the Palestinians? That is exactly what the press should do: criticise those in power. Now they criticise the poor bastards for the crisis, and let the banksters go ahead... The French Revolution (liberté, fraternité, egalité) was NOT done for the masses, but to drive out the elite so that jews could take over·in reply to davidkesslerauthor
- davidkesslerauthor 2 weeks agoOnce again you show your bigotry and hatred by dishonestly claiming that the Jewish supporters of black civil rights were motivated by a negative (opposing WASP power) than a positive (support for human rights). This heads-I-win-tails-you-lose approach to the interpretation of the facts shows your mendacity and malice. Jews supported the black civil rights struggle because they were motivated by a powerful sense of justice - which you lack. I can't ask Malcolm X - he was killed by black muslims.·in reply to MrHansJanmaat
Uploader Comments (MrHansJanmaat)
- Hello David,right now it takes too much of my time - even for an addict it is no longer 'affordable'.I will probably answer later, and I hope I can postpone as long as possible.As you will understand I have good answers to all your statements. But right now I should do other things. Best wishes. Hans Janmaat..·
All Comments (238)
- Murdoch isn't Jewish. He supports Israel because he has a powerful sense of justice.Hearst held sway for many years and wasn't Jewish. Your idea that Jews control the media is a paranoid myth. Jews are ACTIVE in the media (and Hollywood and science, and the arts). But you seem to think that our success is a guilty secret and that we should apologize for it. In fact it is something that we are proud of.
- Google are the Masters of Discourse? It's Google that makes whack jobs like visible to a wider public instead of a Bierkeller.
- I don't know what you "always saw" but I knew that there were concentration camps and then there were death camps.I am not going to piece together all the various testimonies by eye witnesses to the gas chambers, including the soldiers who saw them when they arrived at the camps, the people who weren't gassed, the lower ranking Nazis,etc. Go to Yad vashem and look at the archives there. And please don't reply that it's all lies because they are more reliable than the "sources" you cite.
You're a bitch because you covered your face. If you wont even show your face, don't take advantage of media. Didn't watch.·- It was bad for Israel because it removed a counterbalance to Iran. Also, although the war was bad for Iraq, there are few Iraqis who were sad to see the end of Saddam. We know that Saddam had opponents amongst the ordinary Iraqi people. And in an age of computers and the internet it would not have been hard for them to contact the Americans and persuade them that if the US attacked they would have local support. The Iraqi people are therefore the prime suspect!
- If it collapses from below (due to structural damage by fire and falling debris) it would collapse in the same way as if it were a controlled demolition from below. In order to do an actual controlled demolition, you have to prepare the building. This takes some time and is a very visible activity. It didn't happen. Not by Jews and not by gentiles.Obviously Jews will defend against those who have an obviously antisemitic agenda of blaming them for 9/11.
- How does Greenspan (or the Jews) benefit from an increase in poverty? I don't see any benefit for him or for me or for my fellow Jews. The main beneficiary appears to be the Chinese Sovereign fund. And even that must be offset by the slump in the Chinese economy because their export market has shrunk.
- So now all or most Jewish scientists claim that race and IQ don't exist? Both phenotype and genotype exist, but there are many varieties and some mixtures. That is fact. IQ is a means of measuring intelligence, but there is an ongoing debate about whether enough different variables are measured. That is not false science. That is scientific debate. That is how science advances!
- I apologize to to the Germans - and commiserate with the Dutch.
- Once again you show your bigotry and hatred by dishonestly claiming that the Jewish supporters of black civil rights were motivated by a negative (opposing WASP power) than a positive (support for human rights). This heads-I-win-tails-you-lose approach to the interpretation of the facts shows your mendacity and malice. Jews supported the black civil rights struggle because they were motivated by a powerful sense of justice - which you lack. I can't ask Malcolm X - he was killed by black muslims.
- Read more careful, please. I write that the individuals involved are not conspiring, and have no plan. But that does not mean that their actions are not fitting in some big scheme and create 'world domination'. Just like bees have no idea about their complex cooperation. Neither ants or termites. If you had read better you would have know that I was Dutch. What I remember of Esther is how terribly frightened the Persians were of Mordechai. In their own land ! What happened to them ?
- Oh yes, the old succubi and incubi who possess out souls!!!!! So presumably, when I write a thriller in which the hero is a Jewish lawyer, I am part of this great conspiracy, without knowing it - I am being "used" and I will be "discarded" when they no longer need me? ;-)The Persians weren't frightened of Mordechai: they were frightened of Haman. Read your Bible!BTW ants and bees are genetically programmed to cooperate for SURVIVAL - read Darwin, Mendel, Leakey, Morris, Dawkins et al.
- `Barbara Olsens's telephone call was the only 'proof'that muslims were involved. And even the FBI stated later ( in the Moussaoui trial) that this call was 0 seconds long. Did not happen. What else is there to connect muslims with 911? Atta, who got 100.000 $ from Pakistani intelligence? A miraculous passport that surved it all ? Video's of Osama that were fabricated in Israel by SITE Intelligence ? What evidence for muslim involvement did you read in the 911 Report?
- The protocols dont predict jewish succes. They describe how they will work. How they will use false science to mislead people ( races don't exist. IQ does not exist) How they will use goy frontmen who , most of the time, have no idea what they do. How they will mislead the people about who is really in charge. How they will use banks and money to enslave everybody ( where they just create the money out of nothing ! ) Stupid goyim, indeed! I fully agree with them. Etc. etc. Fascinating.
- I read what some predecessors of Greenspan said: in difficult times you may enlarge the money supply ( by lowering interest) , but as soon as things go better you have to tighten the moneysupply. Greenspan never did that: he supplied too much money for too long: yes, that gives 'good times' until the bubbles burst. And precisely that is what Greenspan wanted: a big crisis. He knew the result: The result is what we see now: poor people, poor governments and powerful bankers. NO MISTAKE MADE !
- If I remember it well it was the first 8 stories. After that it slowed down a very little bit. Of course this can be explained by demolition.The funny thing is this: Everytime I get this discussion about 911, it is invariably jewish people who defend the 911 Commission Report to the bitter end. They are so afraid that it indeed is jewish people who did 911, I suppose. Even many og the 911 Commission members were ashamed of the report and said it was not the 'final word'.
- Fine. Now try to find out for whom the destruction of Iraq was not bad. Ciu bono ?I can only think of Israel. ( And Halliburton c.s). Then look who were the fiercest liers to get America into Iraq: the jewish neocons. The same guys who had been convicted for spying on America (on behalf of Israel) : Perle and Feith(?). Head if the CIA in Rome, mr. Drumheller told on 60 minutes that they told Washington there were NO WMD's, but Washington did not want to listen. It was NO MISTAKE.
- Indeed, there were no gas chambers at Bergen Belsen. But we always saw the Bergen Belsen scenes while the commentator spoke about the gas chambers. So everybody was convinced that these were gassed people. They died of typhus,because they did not want to wait for their Russian ;liberators and ended in very overcrowded camps. Please give me the ultimate proof of gaschambers inside Auschwitz 2. I like to read that book. One old picture wil do. Maybe even one drawing. Just a little proof...
- I did some research a long time ago: I compared Goulds first 'Mismeasurement of man' , published in 1981 with his 'revised' edition of 1996. It turned out to be unrevised. Still the same old lies. As if in those years between 1981 and 1996 there had been no new techniques (MRI) developed to measure exactly the contents of the brains..etc. That is what I remember: Gould is an enormous fraud. And very popular. Must have had some friends in the Media, in high places with the same agenda....
- Try google
- Did you ever find Murdoch criticising the jews? Google Alan Hart: Is Rupert Murdoch ignorant or an agent of Zionist deception?I know too litlle about Rothemere to say anything about him.Is the Hearst press still of any influence? Look at Wikipedia. I suppose they have enough jewish ceo's to not get into any trouble...
- The jews only supported the blacks because it was a way to undermine WASP -power. Ask Malcolm X. He understood it all. If jews were such noble people, then why support the blacks but not the Palestinians? That is exactly what the press should do: criticise those in power. Now they criticise the poor bastards for the crisis, and let the banksters go ahead... The French Revolution (liberté, fraternité, egalité) was NOT done for the masses, but to drive out the elite so that jews could take over
- 99% of the people only read the MainStreamMedia. What they write and repeat is what 'the people' feel is reality. That is what decides their voting. You have to read alternative information on the internet to find out about these Israeli nuclear bombs.Yes, there was debate about Saddams WMD's, because all real intelligence showed he did not have them. But the liers won. Jeff Cohen who worked for Phil Donahue wrote a fine story about it: the Donahue show had to stop, for not collaborating.
- I have read about Israel's nuclear weapons in the mainstream press - and that is how the whole world knows about them. the Israelis may not admit it, but everyone knows - and they knew long before the days of the internet.Look I myself doubted the stories about Saddam's WMDs and opposed the Iraq war - because although he was a tyrant, I knew that it would replace one big dictator with a dozen petty dictators - bad for the Iraqis and bad for the free world.
- For most of Greenspan's tenure America was prosperous. He made some mistakes towards the end.What's Wal-Mart got to do with it? Sam Walton was a Presbyterian and Wal-Mart is not exactly well-disposed towards Jews.Hollywood is a multi-faceted industry. I have to confess that I too am not happy with the direction it has taken (under the influence of Speilberg). But it would be wrong to write-off 100 years of Hollywood because of this.
- Once again, you offer me some one else's opinion to back up yours. Some one else's opinion is not proof any more than yours isYour syllogism is:- The Protocols predicted Jewish success- Jews have become successful- Therefore the Protocols are true.Aristotle must be turning in his grave.
- Note that most of these 1600 architects are already retired. It is really bad for ones career to sign this list. If there are 1,1 million, could you find me one that can explain how WTC7 did fall with free fall speed for about 8 stories? ( As NIST admitted) Only 1 architect. Please, find me one !
- Are you saying it reached free fall speed at the end? Or that it was at free fall speed and then slowed down? If the latter then I don't think ANYONE can explain it - even a controlled demolition doesn't do that!If the architects are retired, that could be interpreted another way. Of course it is bad for ones career to put ones name to a crackpot theory. That's like saying it would be bad for a geography professor's career to sign a statement saying that the world is flat.
- I'm not going to re-hash the evidence. It's already been investigated in the USA and I have no reason to doubt the conclusions. Res Judicata. If they'd put Saddam on trial for all the people he murdered, he'd've died of old age before the trial was over. The sanctions were about his failure to comply with inspection requirements. of course you hare Mrs Albright more than Hitler - Hitler was one of yours.Re the phone call, I've just been reading up, its a complex issue but not impossible.
- The contribution of Greenspan is impoverishment of everybody and more power to the bankers. Just like Carroll Quigley told us would happen. The contribution of Wallmart is jobless people. The contribution of Hollywood is estrangement from normalcy. The contribution of jewish Media is that we attack countries by mistake, and make sure they start to kill each other, while we tell the world it is for their own good (democracy! ) Read Tony Judt in Description about USA 'democracy ' What s scam.
- FOURTEEN. And now for the anti-climax: I am not convinced that all this will happen. I only see that it is possible, and that jews who are able to help this process, are working on it. Hardly any one of them knows about this plan. Maybe some Rothschilds have this plan. But that is not important. Termites also have no idea how to build a nest, but by instinct and by chemicals they do it. Jews did it in Persia (Esther) , in Poland, in Germany and the USA. And: Jaweh orders them to rule The World.
- There is no plan or agenda. Jews are individuals - notwithstanding your Nazi-style analogy comparing them to termites. (Are you a German by any chance?) If you were an individual yourself you would understand this. But as long as you continue to goose step in sync with your jackbooted partners, you will never appreciate what a wonderful thing it is to be an individual. Liberals do - and so do neocons.You cite the legend of Esther - and once again you condemn the Jews for self-preservation.
- I don't think you understand the internet. It is internet headers that reveal where people are - not key words - but so do postmarks on old-fashioned letters. Nothing new there. What you write about controlling everything with robots is paranoid rubbish. There is no "these people" my friend. Please see a good Jewish psychiatrist and get help.
- Correct, I do not understand the internet very well. But I know that each message can be traced back to an IP number, which stands for a house-adress which stands for a person. I know that its quite easy to know which websites I have visited, and wheter I have ever used certain words ( like 'Livia Rokach', for instance) Google: The Web's New Gold Mine: Your Secrets
- That is no different from making a phone call. But you can send anonymous eMails from an internet cafe. Just as you can post an unsigned letter from a mailbox away from your home. BTW there are ways to foil snooping: Mozila Firefox has a secure browsing feature, there is IP and MAC spoofing and there are internet cafes where you can pay cash. Trust me I am as concerned about privacy as you. If and when i want to remain private I can.
- The 9/11 attacks served to kill 3000 innocent people and to cause serious damage to the free world. The attacks were carried out by Muslim fanatics who sought to destroy or at least damage the free world. the free world fought back - albeit making some mistakes in the process. The human rights violations in the west pale in comparison to the genocide carried out by Saddam, Khomaini, Gaddafi and Assad.
- How do you know that muslims did it? Show me the evidence. Did you know that the FBI confirmed that there never was telephone contact between Barbara Olsen and her husband. This was technically impossible. Saddam was sentenced for killing 148 people. The sanctions that were based on lies and caused 500.000 dead children. Mrs Albright thought it was worth it. She is far worse than Hitler, if you ask me. David, believe me: you know hardly anything about what goes on in this world.
- The Protocols was an tsarist forgery based on a satire about Napoleon III. It may predict Jewish success, but it also implies harm to others. In fact Jewish success runs parallel to, not against, the freedom of the people of the free world. Jews are still very much committed to freedom of speech. And in Russia it was two non-Jews - Lenin and Stalin - who presided over the Gulag and the genocide.
- Peter Myers wrote a long study about the protocols. He is not at all convinced that they are not genuine. For me it makes not so much difference. Any succesfull predictor has my attention, and I will value its information more than other theories or predictors. Jews had a lot of succes in the USSR too. Read Slezkine. But it had nothing to do with freedom. Lenin and Stalin, as in Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? Wasn't it Perle, Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, Feith, Zakheim, Wurmser etc. ?
- THIRTEEN. Through internet it is easy to know where the people are that see through the scam, people that understand the Matrix. Just scan all emails and messages for some key-words and you know who and where they are. As all communication goes through internet, it will be easier to controle everything by robots. David, read the Protocolls closely, and decide if these people will need you, or will throw you out as 'potentially dangerous' just like they will do with me. I know the answer.
- TWELVE. The 911 attack served two goals. First: to make it possible to destroy the arab world, which we read about in the Yinon Plan. It happens 'as we speak'. Second: to install the laws and institutions that they need to keep us all - by force- under their rule. We got the Patriot Act and the Fema Camps. And we have organisations in place to controle us: google: top-secret-america a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-
control --- Laws, imprisonment camps, secret services: all a dictatorship needs. - ELEVEN. After you read all 10 points above, it may be useful to read the Protocols of Zion. They predict everything that I wrote in these 10 points. But they also tell us that at some point in time the jewish masters will tell us what the real situation is. From then on no more nice talk about 'freedom of Speech' and 'human Rights'. They will do as they always did when they occupied a country ( think of Russia) : they will kill all the elites and all people who do not behave as slaves.
- TEN. So in the 20th century America and The West became more and more controlled (the media, and by that way also their politics) by jewish people. This had happened in the 19th century to Germany and culminated under the Weimar Republic. We all know what happened after that. But this time jewish power is not only in one country but over many countries, as they controle the Central Banks of a big part of the world. Will we survive if we take that financial power away from them? ( Samson option)
- Again you are attempting to demonize something legitimate - Jewish success! There is no reason why Jews should not own newspapers, magazines, radio stations and TV stations. They have a great deal of success (because they are good at what they do) but they do not have a monopoly. The same goes for the banks.If you think Jews will back off from pursuing success in their endeavours (science, business, academia, etc) because you try to portray it as "control" rather than CONTRIBUTION, dream on!
- Of course you can write about the 1600 architects and engineers who dispute the 911 Comm Report. But don't forget that there are about 1.1 MILLION architects and Engineers in the USA alone. So only about one seventh of one percent dispute the report. That's not a lot.
- NINE. Its is not difficult to see who is in control. As John Derbyshire says in Jewcy: " Rule nr. 1 for every journalist in the USA is: Don't fuck with the Jews." You can also see it if you look at the taboo's that still exist: Mein Kampf cannot be discussed. Protocolls: cannot be discussed. Number of Holocaust victims: cannot be discussed. If yuo want to use your freedom of speech here, you will go to jail. This shows who is in charge. In the olden days it was the Church: they had their Index.
- You can criticize Jews as much as you can criticize Catholics, Episcopaleans, Baptists or anyone else. But if you speak in terms of sweeping generalizations, then you are going to be criticized.
- EIGHT Its in many subtle way that our media are 'steered'. Thousands of articles may be written about Saddams WMD's , which never existed. No articles are written about Israel's 250 nuclear war heads. We hear about the threat of Iran to wipe Israel off the map, again and again. But we never read that this was never said nor meant by Ahmedinejad. We never read about the 33 countries that were bombed by America since 1945. We never read about the many millions that were killed by America.
- If no articles are written about Israel's nuclear warheads, how come you know about them? Ditto for the countries bombed by America. There was much DEBATE about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. The reportage was not at all one-sided.
- SEVEN. Almost anything can be said in the Media. That is not the point. But it cannot be repeated as often as 'we' like. Its the editor who decides if an article is repeated. If a point of view gets looked at again by another opinion leader. Its the headline above an article that gives us information about the interpretation. When a journalist wants to write about the 1600 Architects and engineers who give proof that the 911 Comm. Report is a lie, he will learn that its a bad career move.
- Are you seriously asking the Jews to APOLOGIZE for supporting the Blacks in their civil rights struggle? Why is it wrong to have freedom of the press and to use to hold to account those who wield power? There is nothing wrong with Freedom, equality (before the law) and brotherhood. Just as there is nothing wrong with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- SIX. Then ask yourself: who owns the Media? Who decides what we think, what our likes and dislikes are. Whom we hate and whom we love? For which war we are motivated to fight. In the 'Description' I will give you some jewish people who answered this question. The answer is simple: The jews decide what we think of this world. Whom we see as dangerous and whom we see as friends. Hoe can they do this. Don't we have a free press? Don't we have Freedom of speech? Yes. Still it is possible.
- Murdoch? Lord Rothemere? The Hearst family?
- Who are the Masters of Discourse? Are they anything like the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bildebergers, the Skull and Bones, and the shape-shifting lizards?
- All of your sources appear to be secondary. Do you never do any primary research? Have you got no original thoughts of your own?
- If you don't have a clue who is responsible for those laws, then on what basis did you challenge Condell's comment about the Muslims in the UK?
- FOUR If all people are like a bank slate then there are no reasons to be against immigration, except when a country is already overcrowded. From the sixties on the holocaust-industry became like a religion. We saw the corpses at Bergen Belsen every month, and heard that the were gassed. Not true of course. If a politician or opinion leader wanted to discuss immigration, he was immediately attacked: he was bringing the new Auschwitz, he was preparing for new skeletons being shoveled in a grave.
- FIVE. Read a bit about Edward Bernays, about Propaganda. Remember what Bertrand Russell wrote: "There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action". Think of what Solzhenitsyn wrote: "Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask: by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?"
- They weren't gassed at Bergen-Belsen, they were gassed at Aushwitz 2 (Birkenau). Please don't make a fool of yourself with the old "no gas chambers at Aushwitz" lie - it'll just make you look even more ridiculous.
- Every country has full power to close its borders for anyone. Holland has a small Island Curacao, near Venezuela, and they send their uneducated little delinquents to Holland as much as they like. But if a Dutch person want to go and live in Curacao, it turns out that they make it almost impossible ! If a politician wanted to block immigration he was demonised by the press. By the Masters of Discourse. Look at these links: MacDonald, Steinlight, Jewcy, Kaufmann
- You asked Pat Condell a specific question about how the Muslims got to HIS country (and mine). The Kaufmann link carried a health warning so I avoided it. I just read Jewcy and listened to McDonald. A lot of generalizations. Too long to dismantle in detail. But which Jews are responsible for BRITAIN'S immigration laws? i.e. the ones Pat Condell was referring to.
- ONE. I have no idea which jews were responsable for the immigrationlaws in England. I will quote Shamir: Who are the people who own and operate this machine? Are they actually the Jewish Lobby? No, says Shamir. The formidable Jewish Lobby is just the visible tip of the iceberg, while below there are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief editors, their favourite university pundits – in short, the Masters of Discourse. Googgle it for a longer quote.
- TWO. Laws can be changed rather quickly. The Masters of Discourse rule in another way. They create hypes. Fashions. They promote 'views on life' which they can use at that time and place. When the jews were still barred from power they attacked the Power elite by promoting socialism and communism. They supportred to blackks in the USA. They promoted freedom of the press to be able to ridicule the people in power. So their values were: Freedom, equality brotherhood.
- THREE Yes, several authors described how the jews were behind the French Revolution: Maule, Webster, Scott, Disraeli. and when they want to make the Western world multi-ethnic and multi-religious ( because in a devided country you can put one group up against the other, and they will destroy each other while you can profit) they promoted the non existence of races ( Richard Lewontin) and the non existence of hereditary and measurable intelligence ( S.Jay Gould) and nurture as deciding: F.Boas.
- If you have a real democracy and an open and free discussion, then every people, every ethnic group will always decide that immigration must be either: 1) none, 2) low 3) restricted to the ethnicity of the people already there. But the jewish 'Masters of Discourse' have rediculed our God and our religious leaders, so they have no influence as opinion leaders anymore. And they created the belief that opposing immigration is the same as discrimination and discrimination equals promoting Auschwitz
- Let me look at it from another angle. Suppose Maria saw these people 2 hours after the first impact. Then it still is remarkable: 1. They were Israeli's, not French, American, Mexican or any other nationality. 2. They were celebrating, making jokes. Nobody did this on that day. 3. 40 % of them was Mossad agent. 4. The owner of Urban Moving Company fled the country, back to Israel and accepted a remarkable financial loss. Am I spreading hatred or am I signalling some peculiar phenomenon?
- It is not remarkable that people were filming. That their demeanour seemed (in her opinion) to be happy, reflects badly on them. But hardly that they were Mossad agents who caused. (If you were a secret agent and you accomplished a mission that was liable to make you unpopular, would you celebrate in public?)The wikipedia article claimed that two them were part of a mission to monitor Muslim fundraising in America. They fled because they had outstayed their visas and could get into trouble.
- Making jokes? Can you (or Maria) repeat one of these jokes? Where did she say they were making jokes?
- Quote from the Mail and Globe: "The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture." Quote from the 911myths: What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know. They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.David, you understand that this exchange doesnt have much use for me any longer, at this level.
- Wikipedia writes that the jewish -merican The Forward wrote that the Kurzberg brothers worked for the Mossad. Not 'suspected'.
- Wikipedia?????? :-)·in
