BillBrtn wrote:

Jerry Abbott: I do, however, blame the Jews for costing me an additional $1500 (or thereabout) for foreign aid.

How do "the Jews" cost you for foreign aid? Try blaming YOUR CONGRESSMAN!!! "The Jews" (who ever these UNamed, mysterious individuals are) do not write law in this country. The line item veto was struck down therefore no individual can write law. So who writes the aid to Israel? A REPUBLICAN controlled house and senate - explain that!

I've heard that canard so many times that it makes me yawn to read it yet again.

The United States is a big country. Its population is too large for the candidates to campaign directly. They cannot go out and shake everyone's hand and explain, in person, their vision of where the nation should go and what their program is for getting there. That information must come to the voter by means of a mass distribution medium.

The Jews have acquired control of the vast majority of such media: newspapers, television, publishing houses, and the like. They control the movie-making industry too, so they can assign the starring roles in films with actors who resemble the Jew-approved candidates for senator or president (etc.), while actors resembling disfavored candidates would get the part of the shoeshine boy who cheated his customers or that of the drunken lout who farted in the elevator.

Everything that the voters know, or think they know, about the people who occupy and campaign for the public offices of their government comes to them by way of the mass media. They have no other means by which to know these men and their intentions. By way of a thousand tricks, only one of which is outright lying, the media can shape public opinion about the candidates to public office and more-or-less ensure that their favorite, or anyway one of their favorites, always wins.

The media can play games with camera angles. A candidate's weight or an unusual facial feature can be elevated to political significance when a television reporter deliberately chooses his "bad side."

The media can play games with zoom lenses. If the candidate is disliked by the media bosses, the camera will zoom in when the candidate wipes his nose, but zoom out when he's talking. If the candidate is one of the media bosses' favorites, however, the opposite will occur.

The media can play games with focus. Those games are similar to the ones with the zoom lenses.

The media can play games with sunshine & shadow or with studio illumination. TV reporters often choose their lighting strategy with reference to the interviewee's politics. Disfavored candidates are lit from one side with a concentrated source of bluish-white light, making them look sinister. Favored candidates, on the other hand, are treated to more diffuse and warmer-colored light, making them appear friendly and "human."

The media can play games with "technical difficulties" (please stand by). There are cartoons that jokingly refer to the use of a "technical difficulties" screen as a cover for all sorts of ridiculous behavior that might otherwise be broadcast to TV viewers. But this kind of editorial cheating does occur in real life, too.

The media can (by giving appropriate instructions to their famous spokespersons) use facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language to convey whatever subtext they desire to their viewers. This subtext can imply that the interviewee is someone with great insight who should be taken very seriously, or it can imply that the interviewee is a buffoon who was lucky that the reporter even noticed him.

The media can choose who gets priority for the camera or the microphone when several different people are talking at the same time. Having one of their own boys in a political discussion, plus having control over the microphone/camera, gives the Jews an easy way to deflect attention away from anyone who might attempt to mention inconvenient facts. For example, if there is a debate on gun control, and an NRA representative makes a very good case that gun control laws increase violent crime rates, then the Jews' agent in the debate will abruptly start talking, and the media technicians will obey this signal to focus attention on him.

The media can choose only dignified-sounding sound-bites from favored candidates.

The media can choose only silly or grouchy sound-bites from disfavored candidates.

The media can "characterize" a candidate's statements. For example, a TV anchorman can call those statements "ignorant" or "foolish" without bothering to give any reasons as to why he thinks so. Or he can hail a candidate's statements as being "profound" or as evidence of great statesmanship, again without explaining why. TV watchers are not usually alert to this sort of dishonest labeling.

The media can "interpret" a candidate's statements. In other words, they can explain that the candidate meant something other than what he said while pretending to explain what he said.

The media can publicize allegedly "expert" and so-called "third-party" opinions about a candidate's statements. For example, the ADL may be called upon to give advice on the candidacy of a nationalist Republican nominee who has strong views on the rights of people to own guns.

The media can use emphasis to set their favorite of two equally skilled debators above the other, in terms of the impression that the audience will receive. Or alternatively in case their favorite is the less skilled debator, to create a false impression that the debate involved approximately "equal give-and-take" by both sides.

The media can, now and then, tell a little of the truth in order to create a false appearance of complete openness and fairplay. This trick is sometimes combined with another: allowing the truth to be told, but only under circumstances that will cause it to be disbelieved.

The media can tell only those parts of a news story that will create an impression favorable to Jewish interests, but leaving out the parts that the American people most need to hear to be able to act in their own interests. That is, the media can deceive by omission, by giving tantalizing tiny bits of truth in such a way as to invite the audience to "fill in the gaps" themselves with plausible, but nearly always incorrect, speculation.

There are many sly tricks that the media can and does use regularly, and they all amount to partisanship, which, in the present situation, is Jewish partisanship. That is well-understood by the leaders in both of the major American political parties. They know that if their nominee is not someone approved by the Jews, they will lose the election because the Jews control the media and the media control the information that can become available to the voters. It's that simple. If the candidate does not please the Jews, the candidate will lose the election, and the political party will lose influence, supporters, and money. Hence, every nominee by either political party in every election is one that has been approved by the appropriate Jewish representatives.

Once in office, a public official understands that his career depends on his supporting the Jews' agenda and never incurring their displeasure. No matter what the majority of the voting citizenry would advise the official to do if they could speak to him directly, the official must do the Jews' bidding, and he must not use his office in the service of his constituants in any matter of importance to the Jews, if there is any conflict of interest.

To conceal that fact, there must be a large number of diversionary issues to draw attention away from Jewish concerns. Such diversionary issues also serve to keep the Gentile voters divided against each other, so that they cannot organize in accordance with their own common interests, which might generate so much political force that the Congressmen might, now and then, guess wrong about whether it is politically wiser to serve the Jews or to serve the majority of the people. Hence, it does not matter that each citizen gets one, equal vote: the Jews rule regardless. When a senator votes to increase American foreign aid to Israel, he is acting upon his knowledge that the Jews run America, despite the formal pretense to democracy in the United States.

Jerry Abbott

(1) "The media can, now and then, tell a little of the truth in order to create a false appearance of complete openness and fairplay. This trick is sometimes combined with another: allowing the truth to be told, but only under circumstances that will cause it to be disbelieved."

Since I wrote the above post, I found a web page that illustrates the Jewish technique of speaking the truth through a mouthful of crap, so that it comes out with a stinking odor, while issuing the most brazen lies with pretty ribbons of faux respectability tied around them.

Have a look at http://www.halcyon.com/burghart/nazintro.html. On that page, you'll find that propaganda technique in full play, with the author pretending to a lofty "objectivity" while describing what only "neo-Nazis and anti-Christian racists" think. That page avoids any real discussion of the issues of Jewish political power, Holocaust revisionism or racial differences. Rather, the idea is to use fear (the fear of being tainted by association with "undesirables") to induce uncommitted White persons to toe the line of Political Correctness and not even think about what the nationalists are trying to tell them. The subtext of a page like "nazintro.html" is that everything has now been explained, and anybody who doesn't accept the explanation is a bad person who deserves to lose his job, his friends, his reputation, and his rights.

The Jews have realized that they aren't going to get the power to censor the Internet anytime soon, and so they've modified their tactics. In the past, they were able to "stonewall" ideas that they didn't approve of, such as Holohoax exposès and the Jewish hypocrisy in relation to human rights. But now, since they can't prevent people from hearing the truth, they have decided to "manage" it in such a way that you won't believe it, no matter where it comes from. To do this, the Jews create pages like "nazintro.html", which essentially tell you "Nazis and racists say..." [put the truth here], "...however we all know that..." [put the lies here].

In a related debate, Dr. Jack wrote:

Do you realize how anti-semitic those comments are? They sound hauntingly familiar to Mein Kampf.

Jerry answers:

Yes, Dr. Jack. But perhaps you do not realize how little being called anti-Semitic bothers me. Many Jews are anti-White or anti-Arab -- I could produce quotes to prove it -- so they are not in a good moral position to point fingers. Their control of the media gives them the ability to point fingers anyway, but it is pure hypocrisy when they do.

What I wrote does indeed sound similar to certain parts of Mein Kampf. But what's important is not whether they sound familiar, but whether they are true. And they are. My earlier post was my own work, however much it might have reminded you of Hitler's writing.

Since you mentioned Adolf Hitler's book, and since it is one of the things about which the Jews lie incessantly, I will post the first four chapters on the web. Interested persons may find them here:

http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/historical/mkv1ch01.htm
http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/historical/mkv1ch02.htm
http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/historical/mkv1ch03.htm
http://members.theglobe.com/Jenab/historical/mkv1ch04.htm

Mein Kampf is a book of great political and social insight, and it is not at all difficult to read -- quite the contrary. And although Mr. Hitler does not go out of his way to play the comedian, he does occasionally flash his wit when he begins characterizing his political opponents or social ideas that he does not approve of. I howled with laughter when I read the part (in chapter 3) where Hitler invited us to imagine an Austrian parlimentarian, equivalent to our Congressmen, as admitting ignorance on a subject upon which he was considering making a law. He was right on, and he made his point in about the most effective way possible.

I may post more chapters, if anyone expresses an interest in them. The entire book is online, but I am cleaning up punctuation, spacing, and spelling errors in the chapters that are posted on "crusader.net" or "The Occidental Pan-Aryan Crusader" website.

Dr. Jack wrote:

By holding forth such a view of obvious distaste for a particular religious sect, especially one so terribly persecuted because of their success despite constant barriers thrown up to retard them, you are taking a stand that is quite the polar opposite of conservatism.

Jerry answers:

Dr. Jack, you are in need of correction on three points. First, I am not "a conservative," I am a racial Nationalist. As such, I do possess certain conservative impulses, but it is my people, the White race, whom I would conserve, protect, and advance. I share that feature with the National Socialists, although I do not share their socialism.

Second, I did not show any "distaste," whether obvious or otherwise, for the Jews. I have observed that they have power. I know how they hold and exercise that power. And I know, in general, what the results of their use of power is. My opinion about the Jewish power and its exercise is not based on abstract moral "shoulds" and "should nots," but on what affect that power has in regard to the well-being of members of the White race. Every spiritually awakened race will compete for power and advantage. If the Jew does this more than the Aryan, it is not the fault of the Jew. Rather, it is a flaw in the moral philosophy held by most Aryans.

Third, the (Ashkenazi/Khazar) Jews have, collectively speaking, harmed my race far more in this century than my race has harmed theirs. The Soviet Union was begun by Jews. The Bolshevik Revolution was brought off through the funding of Jews, some of whom lived in New York City. Most of the communists prominent in the early Soviet government and Communist Party were Jews, including Leon Trotsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Gregori Zinoviev, Karl Radek, Maxim Litvinov, Lev Kamenev and Moisei Uritski. In 1918-19, of the 555 most important functionaries of the Soviet government were: 35 Letts, 17 Russians, 15 Germans, 11 Armenians, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 2 Ukrainians, 1 Hungarian, 1 Karaim, and 457 Jews. Jews were 82% of the early Soviet Communist leadership. The first soviet of Ukraine consisted entirely of Jews, except for three: one Latvian, one Pole, and one Ukranian. Once the Jews had thus subjugated one-sixth of the Earth's land surface under their political authority, they set about killing between 20 million and 60 million White Russians (the numbers are disputed) in purges, in politically induced famines, and in various massacres such as in Vinnitsa in Ukraine or in the Katyn Forest in Poland. They are not the persecuted little darlings you seem to think they are.

Dr. Jack wrote:

As a matter of fact, at the risk of offending my liberal friends, you push the envelope of becoming a liberal with such views, replacing Caucasian males with the Jewish people as the brunt of the blame for society's ills.

Jerry answers:

You need imagine nothing so advant garde. Nationalism has been around for a long time, and you are surely familiar with its philosophy. I am not some new species of Liberal. At one time, I was a very "orthodox" Liberal, but then I learned what I had not previously known about history -- and subsequently I underwent a very profound change in ideology.

A Liberal is someone who does not know why Marxist socialism won't work and needs to read "Atlas Shrugged" to improve himself.

A Conservative is someone who does not know why anyone would advocate Marxism while every evidence of that philosophy's destructiveness hangs before the promoter's eyes. The Conservative should read "Mein Kampf" to improve himself.

Dr. Jack wrote:

True, the media controls what and how people see things. The media distorts and molds events to its own concept of what these events should be in their jaundiced judgment. Should we indict a particular sect because of their membership in that sect, which coincidentally has members in the media? Or would we be better off pinpointing the source of the views that jaundice this judgment?

Jerry answers:

Dr. Jack, the Jews do not merely control the media in the United States. They hold the bulk of it in many European countries as well. And their control of the media is not coincidental; it was a deliberate series of acquisitions beginning around the end of the 19th century. These acquisitions of the press and, later, of the broadcast media, were motivated by a Jewish understanding of the dynamics of mass democracy. Americans have never been, in their masses, anywhere nearly as astute about political subjects as the Jews have been. I guess that Whites were too busy farming the land, laying railroad tracks, and making things for sale. Neglecting politics in favor of industry, at least to the extent of this neglect, was White America's error. There will always be governments and guns in this world, and since that is so the Libertarian idea of utopia is as unattainable as the Marxist one.

Replying to Jerry's answer to Dr. Jack, Bob said:

Calling all Jews liars just because some Jews may lie is like calling all whites racist because you are. Neither is true. As for Hitler and Mein Kampf, you can admire him if you want, but be prepared to meet him face-to-face in HELL!

Jerry answers:

I must disagree with your comparison, but not to the extent of going to the opposite extreme. Everybody lies now and then, and different people lie for different reasons. One of the commonest reasons to lie is to avoid causing hurt feelings. Another very common incentive for lying is taking selfish advantage of someone else's trust.

Whites as well as Jews lie. But unlike Whites, Jews have a religious ritual in which they get (so they believe) God's permission to disregard their oaths, to swear falsely, and to break their promises, for an entire year. It's called the Kol Nidre, and no White religion, whether it be Asatru or Christianity, has anything to compare with it.

Most of the world's 20 million Jews are "good little Jews," in the sense that they are not the movers and shakers of the International Zionist Conspiracy (which does exist) although they may be the Mossad's little helpers, or sayanim, occasionally. The movers and shakers are mostly the Big Bad Jews, along with a small number of very wealthy White and Asian gentiles. Besides these, there are a few Excellent and Honorable Jews, such as Benjamin Freedman and Israel Shahak, who give us valuable insight into the inner workings of the Zionist manipulators.

I had written a much longer answer to your post, including some ways in which the "good little Jews" assist the Big Bad Jews, but I realized that it would become tedious. I can provide you with links instead, if you want them. But I want to get right to your comment about Hitler.

In 1933, one of the Big Bad Jews, Samuel Untermeyer, went on the radio and said:

"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

The Germans had done what the Jews (the Big Bad Jews) consider to be an unforgivable sin: ending their power to control and exploit. As punishment, the Big Bad Jews were going to organize globally, in an officially announced operation of the International Jewish Conspiracy, to starve the German people into submission. But instead of submitting, the Germans fought back, and Adolf Hitler led them in their fight against the Jewish manipulated armies of an entire World.

See Hitler in Hell? No indeed. I'll see him in Valhalla. He'll be there beside Eva Braun and Hannah Reitsch.