A "threat" is an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage.

Is it a "threat" by legal standards? Depends.

A declaring of one’s intention to cause harm or loss to another’s person or property or to limit one’s freedom to act in a lawful voluntary manner (a threat to kidnap). A threat may be made by innuendo or suggestion, as well as by explicit language, and may be the basis of criminal or civil liability. Mere words, however, have been held not to constitute an assault.

In most jurisdictions, a "threat" needs to be "credible".

Could the person be arrested based on what was said? Probably.

Convicted? Maybe.

Well either way, the law legal issues aside, I figured it's best not to have such a person on our site, and I also don't like threats being made against fellow WN's.

What would you do if someone gave you a rep point right now threatening to rape and kill you, and hell, maybe even rape your kid?

Would you report it? Would you call the police? Would you want that person to remain on the same board as you? Would you blame me for banning him Ann?

Maybe you'd "bust out laughing" like you usually do?

I would report it to the mods and go about my life. I wouldn't be crying on a message board like some of the so called men are doing.

You keep saying you banned him for threats, but the truth is, you banned him for saying something about eNat that you didn't like on SF. Why can't you admit that?

Sorry guys but I dont consider talk on the net to be a threat. Its just someone trying to sound tough. When you have had someone stick a gun in your mouth and pull the hammer back,thats a threat. PM`s,posts, that is just shit talking on the net.

Threads get deleted all the time. That thread was an embarrassment and needed to go to thread heaven. Also, deleting a thread is not admitting an error.

There's nothing wrong with admitting an "error". I find more fault in a man who attempts to conceal his "mistakes", than one who lives up to them and has the fortitude to admit when he is wrong.

The only people who go around deleting threads, in this manner, are those who have something to hide. They do so as a last ditch effort to save face or conceal certain facts they would rather not have disclosed (since they have no real rebuttal/defense to offer). VERY Jew like behavior indeed.

So no, threads do not get "deleted all the time". Case in point, I have never deleted any such threads on my site, even when I have been mistaken or proven wrong. Your "logic" is so seriously flawed that it sounds like nothing more than a poor excuse offered on behalf of those you are so desperately trying to defend (they would be better off if you decided not to do them any "favors").

Here's a novel idea... Why not let them defend THEMSELVES? Oh wait, I almost forgot, they don't feel the need to offer any defense, they just DELETE any of the incriminating evidence against them.

I would report it to the mods and go about my life. I wouldn't be crying on a message board like some of the so called men are doing.

You keep saying you banned him for threats, but the truth is, you banned him for saying something about eNat that you didn't like on SF. Why can't you admit that?

I've gone over this Ann in my previous posts. Yes I tried giving him the benefit of the doubt, I tried reasoning with him, and I wasn't sure how seriously I should take it at first. Then months went by, and the SHTF on SF, and we get a ton of new SF refugees, one of which [STZ] says that Cactus is a troll, and that he threatened to kill him over his opinion on ZOG's army.

So now it's another person who Cactus threatened to kill, I already knew about Paryan from those PM's. So I wasn't sure what to do, but I figured if this guy really wants to kill fellow WN's then he shouldn't be on this site. So I banned him.

The next day I reinstated his account, to give him a chance to defend himself, and as an attempt to get them to bury the hatchet; Cactus made no such attempts. Then my account's reinstated on SF, so I log on, go to SM, and I see Cactus talking shit behind our backs, which I took as a slap in the face, a kick in the nuts.

So I said fuck it, I tried, but he is no friend, he is an enemy. So fuck it, he must go. And that's when I brought up the PM's, following his quotes from that private SF forum and so on.

I believe everyone that was banned deserved it. If I had been treated like JB was in that thread, then I sure as heck would have banned them also.

I just don't understand why someone who is so unhappy on a website wouldn't just leave and find another.

Honestly, if they were that unhappy, then why the heck did they have to be banned before they would leave? Hmmm....

You know Ann I was fine until the banning of member's for little to no appearant reason..... By voicing my opinion; is what caused me to be banned also.

Several like myself; called nobody any names, but, had to hear Jack make degrading comments directed at pretty much everyone that disagreed with his decision of banning members for voicing there opinion. I agree some; "like many of his comments", may have been taken as an insult.... but for crying out loud, 3,000 murdured; with Israelis celebrating as they were dying, billions of dollars extorted by Jews, the network of Jewish involvement, and it perpetraited for all to see. This makes it a subject that many would like to have the freedom to discuss. Especially on a WN forum that is supposed to support the white race. To discredit those that have actually put together the pieces of this crime that our government would not; should be praised by everyone that wishes to see justice.

Here we have a case of JB's defense for the race that has done everything in it's power to destroy us.???...and you believe we should be banned for our objection?

Sorry guys but I dont consider talk on the net to be a threat. Its just someone trying to sound tough. When you have had someone stick a gun in your mouth and pull the hammer back,thats a threat. PM`s,posts, that is just shit talking on the net.

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/InternetToughGuy.jpg

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/successoryinternet400.jpg

:hflol very true Fred.When you make threats on the net,your making yourself look stupid as you have no idea who the other person is or what they look like. You do not know where they are either, hell you could be threatening your neighbour for all you know or the kid down the road. Or you could be threatening a REAL PSYCHOPATH who just might come looking for you.

[QUOTE=Fred O'Malley;1207611]http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/InternetToughGuy.jpg

Does that guy have "man boobs"?

Yikes...that is one dorky looking dude.

Yikes...that is one dorky looking dude.
That is Donnie in Israel a/k/a kosherkommando. :)

I knew I had a picture of wolfgang in here someplace.

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/CamelPeeShower.jpg

What alblum would be complete without George?

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/rasta-monkey.jpg

That is Donnie in Israel a/k/a kosherkommando. :)

With posts like this, I do believe everyone can see why you were banned.

No, he was banned for being a perverted old man. You know, I even felt bad for him at first, because I know that one of the women involved was leading him on. However, when I found out about another one, that I know there was no way in hell she ever asked for it, then I knew I was wrong about Mick.Okay, so Mick is a fucking perv, what went on in PMs should not have been spied upon and spread around by the moderators.

What about Suepeace? She got off from being banned when she was sending nasty PMs to a married woman's husband. It was Muad Dib that got banned over that fiasco.

Stormfront is ran by a bunch of inbred lying two-faced wife swapping convicted felon scheisters.

Stormfront is not a White Nationalist site, it is a fraud through and through.

There is no difference between Hal Turner, Don Black or David Duke, they are all scheisters and frauds.

And who be Derrick Black's real daddy?

With posts like this, I do believe everyone can see why you were banned.
Lighten up there tubbo! Just having a little fun at the trolls' expense. ;)

What would you do if someone gave you a rep point right now threatening to rape and kill you, and hell, maybe even rape your kid?

Would you report it? Would you call the police? Would you want that person to remain on the same board as you? Would you blame me for banning him Ann?

Maybe you'd "bust out laughing" like you usually do?Not even a filthy shit-skinned Nigger would want to rape ShittyBritches. Unless they were into fattys, fecal play and necrophilia. Besides, you can't rape the willing.

Simo, check messages.

Okay, so Mick is a fucking perv, what went on in PMs should not have been spied upon and spread around by the moderators.

Defend the perv. Two peas in a pod and all that.

What about Suepeace? She got off from being banned when she was sending nasty PMs to a married woman's husband. It was Muad Dib that got banned over that fiasco.
You are a disgusting little worm. Sue Peace was never sending nasty pm's to a married man. Anyone with half a brain can look up why MD was banned.


Stormfront is ran by a bunch of inbred lying two-faced wife swapping convicted felon scheisters.

Said by the guy who was a contributing member up until he was moderated.
Stormfront is not a White Nationalist site, it is a fraud through and through.

Said by the guy who had an ax to grind after being put on moderation. Funny how all was fine and dandy until then. *wink wink*

There is no difference between Hal Turner, Don Black or David Duke, they are all scheisters and frauds.

SEE ABOVE RESPONSE

And who be Derrick Black's real daddy?
Coming from a twisted, slimy worm like you, I expect nothing else. I feel so sorry for your wife.

Also Robert...you need to take it easy. You're going to have another heart attack at this rate. I would just hate to see that happen.

Lighten up there tubbo! Just having a little fun at the trolls' expense. ;)

What a coincidence...so was I. ;)

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/blahblahblahyy5.gif

Ya don't say.

And another thing, Ann, since you want to insult me by asking whether I am "a man or a mouse". Jack Boot banned a WN for posting an image similar to this on some nigger's profile on SF:

http://www.reasonpad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Lawrence-Beitler-Lynching.jpg

So you want to give me shit about Cactus, then maybe you should give Jack Boot shit about that. Ask him if he is a "man or a mouse".

This guy insulted a nigger and gets banned, Cactus threatened two WN's, and talked shit about us behind our backs. That's the difference.

This happened about a year or so ago, but I have a good memory.

So go on now "bust out laughing" at Jack Boot. Let's see how long you'll last on there.

Sue Peace was never sending nasty pm's to a married man. Anyone with half a brain can look up why MD was banned.You are right. I wasn't married at the time. However, she was. They weren't nasty but they were inappropriate for a married woman to send. That was JB's justification for banning me "with extreme prejudice." He accused me of spreading rumors. Since SP was the one that complained about me, I told him (JB and only JB) about her PMs. Had he not chosen to make a false accusation to attempt to justify himself, SP could have kept her little secret.

JB lied then as he is lying now. DB lied as well.

Tell me ... why was I banned?

Ok maybe Mick flirted too hard, but he's a good man. He'd knocked that off months before it was brought up as an issue. So I believe the real issue with Mick was something other than his flirting, erotic messages to what appeared to him as willing women. Ok, it wasn't appropriate for a married man to be doing that, but cancer in a marriage can be and often is a crazy making thing. Sue Peace apparently being another example of that.

Rest assured all of that has been set aside permanently. Maybe that was a lesson I needed to learn, and was in just the right place to learn it. Thanks. Glad that lesson is over.

And since the bastards at Stormfuckingfront did NOT have the guts to allow Mick to defend himself, or respond to any of the charges, or any of the crap that he supposedly said, how in the hell do you know if any of it is true?

So Ann, you can shit all over Mick if you want, but Mick still isn't going to blow crap all over you. All you've done is made yourself look like an asshole.

Outside of that, reading the past few pages, Cactus sounds like a PTSD'd vet who's getting a bit overheated.

My regards to Robert and those who stood up for me on Stormfront.

JB lied then as he is lying now. DB lied as well.

Tell me ... why was I banned?

Kelso, and I don't know who else, was mad at you for being harsh
and claimed you were 'driving people away from Stormfront'.

Anything else was a pretext, in my opinion.

And another thing, Ann, since you want to insult me by asking whether I am "a man or a mouse". Jack Boot banned a WN for posting an image similar to this on some nigger's profile on SF:

http://www.reasonpad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Lawrence-Beitler-Lynching.jpg

So you want to give me shit about Cactus, then maybe you should give Jack Boot shit about that. Ask him if he is a "man or a mouse".

This guy insulted a nigger and gets banned, Cactus threatened two WN's, and talked shit about us behind our backs. That's the difference.

This happened about a year or so ago, but I have a good memory.

So go on now "bust out laughing" at Jack Boot. Let's see how long you'll last on there.

Well, I apologize for the man or mouse comment. It was rude, but I was frustrated at you saying that I was hysterical..seemed like a cop out response IMO.

Actually, I'm not giving you crap about Cactus. I just found it ironic that you banned him for the same thing you had been doing for at least the last year.

Also, the "threats" weren't important until you saw what he said on SF.

However, ban away. It's your site, and I can appreciate you have a rule about that.

As far as someone being banned over a pic, I know nothing about that. There was probably a lot more to the story than what we know about. Thanks, but I'll withhold judgement.

Look, I never said I agreed with everything that goes on at SF. Shoot, JB made me mad as a hornet once. Lycia once gave me an infraction even for defending a friend. Did I deserve it? Probably...even though I was ticked off about it. But, I got over it...something that many in this thread can't seem to do.

Am I the only one that finds it creepy that Mick has started talking about himself in third person again?

Am I the only one that finds it creepy that Mick has started talking about himself in third person again?

Ann, maybe you could come over and help wash the shit off my near comatose wife's ass. Have you got the guts for that? Fecal play? You'll have a ball. It can be a real scat fest.

And you want to be on my fucking ass for writing something sexy to someone?

Kiss my White Ass!!

I find you and your addled brain 'creepy'. That's what's creepy around here.

My regards to Robert and those who stood up for me on Stormfront.

Yes Mick...funny how they stand up for you being a perv, but seem to be able to ignore the fact that you stand up for jews and black. Oh, let us not forget how you saved the life of a muslim nigger.

Don't feed them.

If you don't feed them, all you'll hear is the sound of one hand clapping.

Don't feed them.

Never wrestle with a troll. You'll likely end up with the troll's dirt on you, and the troll likes it.

Coming from a twisted, slimy worm like you, I expect nothing else. I feel so sorry for your wife.

Also Robert...you need to take it easy. You're going to have another heart attack at this rate. I would just hate to see that happen.Twisted slimy worm? Sounds like you are fantasizing again, ShittyBritches.

No need to feel sorry for my wife. I have given her three blond-haired blue-eyed children and have kept her quite happy for 23 years.

As far as me having another heart attack, I am sure that Don Black will have another stroke and end up like Ariel Sharon long before that happens. I would hate to see that happen. :rolleyes:

Defend the perv. Two peas in a pod and all that.How do you know that Mick is a perv? Could it be that the Stormfront Moderators shared the PMs sent with you? No, they wouldn't do that, would they? :rolleyes:

And since you are suggesting that because I defend Mick over this issue, that I am somehow a "perv". I guess that means that since you are defending Suepeace, you must be a whore?

You are a disgusting little worm. Sue Peace was never sending nasty pm's to a married man. Anyone with half a brain can look up why MD was banned.Yes, she did. Although the thread in which the comments Suepeace made on Stormfront has been deleted, as usual, the archives exist here on VNN.

Said by the guy who was a contributing member up until he was moderated.
I was a contributing member until they attempted to extort me. Get your facts strait, CheesyBitches.

Said by the guy who had an ax to grind after being put on moderation. Funny how all was fine and dandy until then. *wink wink*No, everything wasn't all "fine and dandy" then.

As I have said numerous times before, once I realized that Scamfront wasn't a real WN forum, and that it was simply a means to pay for European ski trips and the Derrick Duke/Don Black radio program, that is when I decided to leave.

The attempt to Extort me for money was the final straw. I am actually glad that they did so. It proves that Stormfront is operated by fucking THIEVES and LIARS!

And lets get this straight, I am still ranked #9 at Shitfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/memberlist.php?order=DESC&sort=reputation&pp=100), and I was never a fucking moderator. Other members weren't repping me for brownie points, they were repping me because they agreed with my perceptions and positions.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - Philip K. Dick

I am not going away, I will continue to expose Stormfront for the scam that it is, until the THIEVES and LIARS that operate it end up in prison (again), or dead.

how are you doing.

Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond

Several things are very clear to me from a careful assessment of both official and critical evaluations of the 9/11 attacks. First, the striking aircraft alone simply could not have brought down either of the two buildings in the manner in which they fell, much less a third building which was not hit by a plane (I expect the one intended to do that as a "cover" had ended up in that Pennsylvania field), given the available physical evidence and a wealth of expert testimony. This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.


Second, only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel's Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the “who benefits” principle: Mossad. And that incentive dovetailed perfectly with the neo-con’s agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars, using American military power to destroy Israel’s enemies.

Only the unexpected strength of the Iraqi resistance kept Syria and Iran from being attacked in the second Bush Administration. Thus, the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq run from PNAC, AIPAC and their cohorts; through the mostly Jewish neo-cons in the Bush Administration; and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential reality. Terms such as treason, betrayal and deceit do not overstate the case against them.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23460.htm

Yes Mick...funny how they stand up for you being a perv, but seem to be able to ignore the fact that you stand up for jews and black. Oh, let us not forget how you saved the life of a muslim nigger.


Ann, you need to come up for air. Seriously.

I come from a far different environment than many here do. I live in semi wilderness. We don't have hordes of strangers in our faces day in and day out, and that makes a difference in how people view one another.

Around here we consider, judge, others by how they behave, rather than their color or their religion, what they drive, what they wear. It's a different world and I like it.

I've always realized that there are good and bad among all nationalities, races and religions. That's held true for me in my life. I have no reason to look down upon, or hate anyone because of their color or even their religion.

Since around here we treat our neighbors as we'd want to be treated, a lot of that stuff doesn't count. What counts is what kind of a person they are, and being here we can't blend in with the crowd. People can and do know each other in some very deep ways here.

Yes, there are decent Black people, decent Mexicans, decent Jews, decent Asians, and decent White people. I think you already know that.

And yes, I gave Lois Farrakhan a heads up when I came across someone, a Muslim who doesn't like Nation of Islam's brand of Islam, who was going to kill Minister Farrakhan. I offer no apology for that, and would do it again today if the same circumstances were in place.

Is that a problem? Would you want someone to give you a heads up if someone was planning to do harm to you?

Around here we consider, judge, others by how they behave, rather than their color or their religion, what they drive, what they wear. It's a different world and I like it.

I've always realized that there are good and bad among all nationalities, races and religions. That's held true for me in my life. I have no reason to look down upon, or hate anyone because of their color or even their religion.



Yes, there are decent Black people, decent Mexicans, decent Jews, decent Asians, and decent White people. I think you already know that.

And yes, I gave Lois Farrakhan a heads up when I came across someone, a Muslim who doesn't like Nation of Islam's brand of Islam, who was going to kill Minister Farrakhan. I offer no apology for that, and would do it again today if the same circumstances were in place.

Is that a problem? Would you want someone to give you a heads up if someone was planning to do harm to you?Yes it is a problem,it seems you like niggers and jews and other non White scum. Why did you warn a nigger that another nigger was going to kill him? If niggers want to kill each other then we should let them. Lois Farrakan is anti White.

Hate when people assume race is merely skin color. Especially on a WN site.

Yes it is a problem,it seems you like niggers and jews and other non White scum. Why did you warn a nigger that another nigger was going to kill him? If niggers want to kill each other then we should let them. Lois Farrakan is anti White.He just explained it himself. He doesn't live around Niggers and Wetbacks.

He lives in the Emerald Forest where the fantasy of a grand world existence enveloped by multiculturalism and diversity comes from a bong and a very long dream, as seen on TV.

He doesn't have them tagging his street signs and mail boxes with gang graffiti, he doesn't have them selling crack next door, he doesn't have them breaking into his home and robbing, raping and murdering his family. He doesn't have them at his place of work or telling him what to do.

Yes it is a problem,it seems you like niggers and jews and other non White scum. Why did you warn a nigger that another nigger was going to kill him? If niggers want to kill each other then we should let them. Lois Farrakan is anti White.


Some are ok, some aren't. There's only one Black person I know. He buys things for his wife in my shop, is a hard working and well respected person. In general I distrust and do my best to stay away from Blacks. I prefer living around those of my same race.

It's darn seldom I use the word "Nigger" as I know it's offensive to others. What would offend another, I try not to do, as long as they're not offending me.

Louis Farrakan wants things to be decent for Black people, he's not nearly as anti White as he once was. My talking with him may have had some influence in that.

There's plenty of White Nationalists who associate, and make alliances with Black Separatists. Dr. Brock being one of the Black Separatists that comes to mind.

At the 'No More Wars for Israel Conference', Dr. Bock and his group were there. His daughter was saying they want the White people to lead, if they're in charge, then why are things as they are?

I thought that was a good question.

He just explained it himself. He doesn't live around Niggers and Wetbacks.

He lives in the Emerald Forest where the fantasy of a grand world existence enveloped by multiculturalism and diversity comes from a bong and a very long dream, as seen on TV.

He doesn't have them tagging his street signs and mail boxes with gang graffiti, he doesn't have them selling crack next door, he doesn't have them breaking into his home and robbing, raping and murdering his family. He doesn't have them at his place of work or telling him what to do. I dont live around niggers or wetbacks either but I know they are the enemy of my race and would never describe any of them as being decent. Nor would I allow a jew into my home. I dont understand,everyone here has a go about jackboot describing jews as ok yet this bloke allows a jew into his home to cook dinner...WTF.. and no one says a word.

Louis Farrakan wants things to be decent for Black people, he's not nearly as anti White as he once was. My talking with him may have had some influence in that.

There's plenty of White Nationalists who associate, and make alliances with Black Separatists. Dr. Brock being one of the Black Separatists that comes to mind.

Any White person who makes alliances with niggers is not a WN.

I've already said what I thought about the so called threat. How it was said and to whom it was said to is completely different that just making some statement out of thin air.

Ok, keep avoiding the question and trying to defend the undefensible.

Ok...I understand...STZ was absolutely terrified over a rep point comment. Did he report it? Did he call the police?

Lol no, I didn't. I've heard worse from ZOG troops before though. And ironically, the last Jew tard soldier to threaten me before Cactus was a negro. :D

Okay. I went back on SF and checked my rep and it was gone, probably because I ignored him before I left. Anyway, to set the record straight, we got into a big argument about the military and he sent me a rep sarcastically inviting me to visit him in Reno. He said something along the lines of "You'd like it out here, Reno is nice. Could you believe they say the Mafia used to bury dead people out in the desert here? Shame about what they say about us. You could bury someone out here in the desert and nobody would ever find them. ;)"

It was clearly a sarcastic remark towards me which he claimed was just a jokingly invitation to visit him. I said it was a threat posing as a sarcastic comment/rep to me and the Mods sided with him. It wasn't an actual threat to kill me like he said to Paryan but the premise was the same. He knew what he meant. I barely knew the guy and our only conversation was a heated argument that resulted in name calling but now he wants to meet me and take me out to the Nevada desert and show me around? Lol right..

It's over with though. I don't care about SF or Cactus and I'm done with this flaming crap back and forth. I'll be over on eNat if you need to contact me and do not have my email.

What would you do if someone gave you a rep point right now threatening to rape and kill you, and hell, maybe even rape your kid?

Would you report it? Would you call the police? Would you want that person to remain on the same board as you? Would you blame me for banning him Ann?

Maybe you'd "bust out laughing" like you usually do?

Maybe she has that kind of sexual deviant mind where she would fascinate about having a man rough up and tie her. In which case she should look up Cactus. Why else should she keep ignoring the question and defending Cactus, unless there is a little something going on we don't know about :)

I most certainly do defend SF with a perfectly clear conscience. I believe everyone that was banned deserved it. If I had been treated like JB was in that thread, then I sure as heck would have banned them also.

..................................................................................................................................................

No, I absolutely believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that the majority whining in this thread are SF rejects with sour grapes. Honestly, if they were that unhappy, then why the heck did they have to be banned before they would leave? Hmmm....





I disagree with what you are saying.

Thank you very much for the info.

I can tell you totally have your shit together. I'm glad you're here. Please help guide things so we can help snap people out of their trance.


Well thank you for the encouragement.

At niggermania, we operated on the premise that individuals accomplish small things, teams accomplish big things. We seldom had arguments or pissing contests. There was a guy whose internet handle was "Fatelvis" - he coined the phrase "typical nigger behavior...TNB" I told him, "Fatelvis, you're a White God - there must be a million people out there who know the phrase TNB." He said, "I'm as proud of that as anything I've ever done, but it's not the sort of thing you can put on your resume."

The point being, you can have an impact on people through internet communication, but if you're doing it for money or personal glory, you're probably going to be disappointed.

Is this Lycia?

Its Sugarbritches, and she needs to quit riding the staves of the SF staff.

I'm done with this flaming crap back and forth. I'll be over on eNat if you need to contact me and do not have my email.

Why don't you stick around here and help make this forum better?

He just explained it himself. He doesn't live around Niggers and Wetbacks.

He lives in the Emerald Forest where the fantasy of a grand world existence enveloped by multiculturalism and diversity comes from a bong and a very long dream, as seen on TV.

He doesn't have them tagging his street signs and mail boxes with gang graffiti, he doesn't have them selling crack next door, he doesn't have them breaking into his home and robbing, raping and murdering his family. He doesn't have them at his place of work or telling him what to do.


Very close, Bilderboogieman, very close. As I was saying we have probably a total of ten Black people among the the 6 or 7,000 people in the southern half of this county. There's more an hour to the north, but that's like another world when we go there.

There are a few more Mexicans, since some growers are too lazy to grown their own cannabis. They haul them in and use their labor. Some like it here, and stay.

There can be serious problems with outside Blacks coming in. When the addage 'Don't deal with Blacks' is violated, often TSHTF.

We've had some home invasions by Blacks from the city who come up. We've had teen aged kids murdered by Blacks they were selling their pot to. And of course that's annoying as hell, cause then the White kids go to the city and make things as equal as possible. Lessons do get learned the hard way sometimes. The real hard way.

Meth is more of a problem here than Crack, though one can get anything want on the street faster than going to a doctor and getting a prescription, so I understand, being an AOD counselor part time.

What else would you like to know about the Emerald Triangle??

Why is America Hated?

Open your Mind, Open Your Eyes, Don’t Lie to Yourself
Terrorist and Jews

http://reasonstohateamerica.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/terrorist-and-jews/

We should all fear the terrorists in this country.

But who really are the terrorists? Osama Bin Laden? The late Saddam Hussein? All of those guys with bandannas covering their faces wielding AK-47s?

No, the real terrorist are the 5.3 million Jews who live in Israel and their murderer leader who terrorizes and kills the poor rightful owners of the land.

Not that a single asshole American really cares what goes on in anybody else’s life other than their own, but this terrorist state in Israel and all the Jew backers are just another reason to hate America.

This illegal seizure of the land of Palestine has created something which may even be worse than Jews themselves, middle eastern, Persian, and Arab people, who shall be solely referred to as terrorists exist as a direct result of the Jews and the Jew backers.

The main reason for the illegal state of Israel is the so-called holocaust. The holocaust was a made up, false event used to give sympathy for the Jews. There is absolutely no debate about this.

WORLD WARS claim many victims. All the money in the world couldn’t save all the Jews who died in the war. Five times more Russians died and yet Jews are remembered.

If the money grubbing cowards stood up and fought, perhaps less would have died. Now the Jews resort to using American firepower to kill the innocent terrorists of Palestine and the rest of the terrorist world.

This brings the main point of this blog. Reasons to hate America. The small minority of Jews in this country serve no purpose to the rest of the populace. They only care about the survival of Israel which does not have any right to exist other than to steal land and murder the native people of the land.

This does not leave out terrorists. Which is worse? The rat that carries bubonic plague or the flea who transmits it? They both should be destroyed and so is the case with the terrorists which the Jews have created.

Middle eastern people aka terrorists have no reason to live in this country. They have no other interest other than to rape the United States and its people of money and resources to bring back to Arabia and fund terrorism to fight the Jews.

America has simply become a middleman in between a war of the illegal state of Israel and the rest of Terrorist lands.

The whole situation and the downright scum which is Jews and Terrorists warrants another 2 reasons to hate America.

Clearly throughout this thread Donnie From Israel has dictated that he wants a "gutter" fight with ALL of us not just Fred here Alex.

No, not by a long shot. The opposite is clear. Your side initiated the insults and the personal attacks.


We've all seen this and Scott Roberts who I'd argue is more intelligent than the grand majority of WN has seen this yet you my friend remain blind to Donnie's trollish nature.

The problem is, you define troll as someone who disagrees with you - about anything.


I've thought of why that might be and can only think that maybe he's "acted" like a pure WN everywhere else on VNN and thus fooled the boss (you) or perhaps its just this chummy comraderie he's slyly built up with you over time thats created this "aww shucks" Donnie's alright mindset, but when it comes to the most critical important issues for Jews to try and discredit like say the 911 topic Donnie From Israel does exactly what his counterparts Mikhaelis/Secret Agent 008/JohnJewTree/exnihilo and other yids and pro yid supporters on KosherFront do namely whatever they can to create distractions that ultimately ruin good threads about critical issues to lead the dissent away from the Jew.


Well, believe it or not, VNN existed before you were banned from Stormfront. And during that prehistory, we had a huge, long thread on '9/11.' In which Donnie never posted. That's interesting. Cuz if we go with your theory, that he's a "troll" whose mission here is to push the government line on 9/11, then it would seem to me, just off the top of my head, that our original massive 9/11 thread would have been a really good place for him to post massive numbers of posts to accomplish his mission. And I feel pretty sure that's how most rational people would see it.


Donnie From Israel would love nothing more than for all of us to start blaming boxcutter wielding muzzies for the 911 attacks and mindlessly waving our flags looking for some "gawdamned ragheads to kill".

There's nothing outside your head that would lead anyone to think that. I seem to recall Donnie saying either way he hated jews. He even said he wouldn't be surprised if they were watching 9/11 plot unfold, if I recall correctly. That's not the behavior of the average neocon, troll, or Official Theory backer, it's actually quite a ways towards our position, that the Mossad not only oversaw it, but produced the event.


As for Fred lashing out at others? I've only seen him do this towards Wayne when Wayne made an unproductive post that came off as attacking Fred for defending himself against Donnie From Israel when rather what Wayne probably should've done is tell Donnie From Israel to go stuff it. Wayne telling Fred that everytime Fred argued with Donnie that it made him skip over Fred's posts may have been Wayne attempting to be helpful but all it really did phrased like that was come off in support of Donnie From Israel whose been nothing but a troll of the highest shabbos goy order all throughout this thread and I understood completely when Fred told Wayne: "he could care less what Wayne thought" over that misguided post of Wayne's.

We have a different culture here than SF. We aren't into the whole she-said she-said thing like you guys are. Usually when you come into a new place, you take a look around, and try to figure how to fit yourself into it. Well, if you want to go full bore here from the start, that's fine. But we will be watching you and drawing our judgments. When a newbie comes here and starts attacking a solid, loyal, rational, self-controlled long-term member with juvenile insults -- ie Donnie from Israel and suchlike -- we draw the reasonable conclusion. We have higher standards here than Stormfront. We expect people here to act like serious adults. If they don't, they don't last real long.


Hyper Fred may be in his delivery but to me Fred's behavior is that of a man who is desperately trying to get the truth out there to a lurker audience. Now is he going to be right every time or correct with every article he posts? Hell no as we ALL make mistakes from time to time but whenever Fred or anyone else here thats a true WN makes a simple mistake you can expect almost on cue for pro yid supporters such as Donnie From Israel to jump on that mistake with wild abandon in typical kike theatrics blowing said mistake out of all proportion and emphasizing it for maximum pro yid "lets discredit these WN" effect.

You are the one shrieking with wild abandon in "typical kike theatrics," as you put it. And I guarantee that how everybody here but your 3-4 friends from SF sees it.


"I'm sure the vast majority of readers, who might benefit from the information and discussion and arguments in this thread would appreciate it."

What people would appreciate is you removing trolls like Donnie, Wolfgang, Ann2 and all others like them that may crop up from this discussion.

Yeah, see, we don't do that here. If you little boys want your own treehouse where you can scream and throw poo at each other, feel free to leave. There are millions of forums out there. They're real easy to set up. What you want is that no one be able to question anything you say, and if they do, you want to be able to every possible lie and epithet to shout them down, since you haven't he wherewithal to outargue them. See, we don't do that here.

Keep in mind I say this on your side and against Donnie's, when it comes to the WTC demolitions. I mean, you guys have blown a winning hand. Donnie has beaten you from the wrong side. That's impressive. What I mean is, if I'm a neutral, watching you guys interact, several of you have straight out lost the argument due to your nearly insane proclivity for shrieking insults and responding hysterically to simple questions. That's my view when I AGREE WITH YOUR SIDE. I'm beginning to consider more seriously that you guys are the trolls, out to make the 'truth' side look bad. After reviewing this thread, it makes far more sense to me that the hysterical nutbags are trying associate solid facts about 9/11 with paranoid-violent-hysterical-insane people with absolutely zero self control.

I want to thank Alex for taking me off moderation.

Do I have to post 50 post before I come off this?

Thanks for the info in advance!

Soon as we see you're responsible (a post or two) we put you in as regular user. Wouldn't need any barrier, except the jew-bolsheviks like to porn-spam from time to time.

Hate when people assume race is merely skin color. Especially on a WN site.

Could you explain that statement a bit more, Varg? What do you mean by that?

Could you explain that statement a bit more, Varg? What do you mean by that?

J. Phillip Rushton is the foremost researcher in race studies. I suggest you read his works. He is not bound by political correctness, but goes where the unvarnished evidence leads him.

http://www.euvolution.com/library/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html

IF they care enough about the message they are trying to get across, IF they are willing to stand behind it, and IF they are man enough take this simple step towards gaining some credibility, then the problem has a very simple solution.

ALL that any of you would have to do is to make a PRIVATE video for someone like Alex, where you simply show yourself and tell him whatever you feel would gain you that much needed credibility. Do you trust Alex? If so, then NOTHING would be lost in doing this. At least then we'd have SOME reason to trust you. Relying on Alex's word and judgment would carry a hell of a lot more weight than relying on the word of an anonymous person, who in the very least lacks the courage of his convictions (I could think of many other labels that apply beyond just calling you a "troll").

There's no need for videos. All people have to do is act like adults. And follow the few simple rules we have here, which basically amount to not lying about serious stuff.

What some of you don't seem to understand is that Donnie is an old-timer here. A known and reliable entity.

Now, I have no met Donnie. I know that he is ex-military. I keep alive in my head the possibility that he just might be keeping tabs on WN rather than a real WN himself. I don't think that's the case, but it's better to err on the side of
excessive suspicion, all experience has shown.

All you guys need to do to prove something to me is...show some self control. Like Stonewall. I can tell in a couple paragraphs the guy is solid. Has nothing to do with me knowing his real name or who he is.

Because that would only matter (big point #2) if we had a real group. This, VNNF, is not a real group. It is an online discussion forum. BIG difference. In a forum, it only matters that people follow the rules. It doesn't matter what race the posters are, just that they FOLLOW THE RULES which exist to facilitate discussion. And since the forum owner is WN, and believes WN arguments can beat all others in a fair fight, no special treatment for anybody is required. This is how we do it, and it works. It's worked for ten years.

So all these calls for unity, and and end to infighting are wrong, even ridiculous. Because they confuse two ENTIRELY different things: a real-world political group (1) and an online discussion. Two ENTIRELY different things with different purposes. Now, the one may lead to another, and of course people are welcomed and encouraged to use this forum to develop relationships that might culminate in such, but that doesn't change the need to grasp the concept that a forum is not a party. Yet the chasm between is continually papered over by people talking about fighting and using other martial analogies, and carelessly, thoughtlessly talking about "we" and "us" and "our" without ever stopping to realize there ain't no such thing.

Some of you must be playing online games or something. I don't where that mentality comes from, but it doesn't help at all. A very, very strong distinction should be made between the real world and the online world, and a discussion chamber vs a real-world organization. I'm not downtalking the values of the online world or forums in general. They are valuable. Wouldn't be hosting this if it had no significance. But hearing dullards scream for "unity" gets tiresome.

We're not in the UNITY phase yet, we're in the COMPETITION phase. No one agrees who WE are or what we WANT. Is Jared Taylor one of us? I say no. I say he's our enemy. Some here would say yes. So what's the point of unity between these sides? I want to destroy those who think Jared Taylor is us, and his people on our side. I want drive them from the field. I want people who think like me to triumph. And after we have triumphed, made it clear there is no other option, THEN is the time for unity. When the intellectual/political competition has a clear and undeniable winner. Not sooner.


On the other hand, here you are, as an ANONYMOUS "contributor" on a website...Who has given us NO reason to trust you (based on your highly suspicious words), and no reason to take you at your word (we don't even know who the hell you are), yet you get pissed off when someone calls "you" out on YOUR behavior? Suspicious behavior + lack of credibility = NO reason to trust you. Sorry, but that's just the way it works.

I fail to understand the logic or even the emotion behind this. IF I were using a name like "Aryan Warrior" and posting highly questionable points, then why on Earth would I take offense to someone suggesting that I am a "troll" or anything else? It is JUST an online persona, who cares? If I wound up losing all credibility, I'd simply start over with a new account (one of the clear benefits of being a "troll").

Who cares? Well, IF I cared, then there would be a simple solution to having people take me more seriously. 1st, I might use my real name. But then again, I would realize that a "real" sounding name could be made up just as easily, so I wouldn't expect too much trust or credibility to come out of taking such a basic step. So if I really wanted to establish some credibility and be taken a bit more seriously, then I would take the simple step of showing myself! It would only have to be a ONE time thing, IF this was the motive for doing so. I might post a video on some unknown YT channel and point to it anytime someone called my bloodline into question. That would effectively put an end to everyone calling me into question or calling me those sorts of names. In the very least, they would know I was White. Based on my message, they would still have the right to judge me, but at least the focus would then be on the message rather than on me (for the most part at least).

Yes, true, but the thing is, Donnie has been here a long time. And worked with us on different projects. He has always been stable and reliable. And from what I see, and I believe most rational people would see it the same way, he did not initiate the personal insults. SOME ex-SFers did. We don't do groupthink here, it's that simple. I'm not even preventing people from albino-chimpouts, I'm simply pointing out how most people here will respond.

Here's another example. The way SOME of the ex-SF are throwing around Don Black's background. Well, these people knew all that stuff when they were posting at Stormfront. So if they care about it now that they're banned, why didn't they care about before they were banned? That is unprincipled. And it is seen as unprincipled by the good people here. Do you think for a minute we don't realize, if we ban some of these people, they'll run off and accuse us of being jews and censoring, etc.? So why in the world would we ever trust them? Serious men don't act the way some of these people are acting.

I don't have a problem with people discussing anything. But when they blot out threads with repetitive, known information, there's only one way to interpret it: they have serious character problems. Just like your own background, Scott. Or Rounder's. You've told the world about your past. The world can make a judgment. But, as a mod, I'm not tolerating a rehash of that stuff by people who want to attack you/Rounder with it in every single thread, or thread in which they disagree with you. If they seriously want to talk about it, they can start a thread in TC. But we don't need that shit reposted 500x. Again, simply maturity and self-control takes care of this problem. The fact that you are using your real name definitely helps your credibility, as it does with anyone. I have struggled for years wondering whether or not I should simply make it a rule for new signups: either use your real name, or don't sign up. I guess I still think it's better to allow anyone interested in the door, but, boy, there is a lot to be said for the other way.


How seriously do you take yourself? How far will you go to get your message across? Don't feed me this line of bullshit that you "don't have time" or that you "don't have anything to prove", because that will only lead to more suspicion. You obviously have the time to keep returning to this thread. And if you don't feel you have anything to prove, then don't complain when someone calls you a "troll" or even a "Jew". What's the difference anyway? YOU are being judged on YOUR words and you have given us NOTHING more to go on, so what else would you expect? Blind faith and trust? NOT going to happen!


It's a discussion forum. He posed simple questions. Didn't insult anybody until he was insulted. These SF people misplayed their hand. Again, Donnie is known to us, and we trust him. The approach some of these people took was completely wrong. The superheated chimpout response to simple points and simple questions very much suggests that the insult-flingers don't believe their own case, which is a shame (assuming it's not intentional), because I believe they are fundamentally correct that '9/11' was a Mossad production. But grown men don't act like some of these newcomers do. I understand many SF are used to a partyline where anyone who doesn't toe it can be shouted down and banned by contacting a mod, but we don't do it that way here. This is the adult forum. If you want kiddie kindergarten hour, that's SF and many other forums.


There is NO ONE to blame for YOUR lack of credibility beyond the man in the mirror.

He does have credibility with me. And, if you ask around VNNF, you'll find he is credible with everybody here with the exception of some of the recent SF expellees. I've said this repeatedly. I guess you people think I'm joking. Go ahead and post a poll or something. See how people respond when you ask them about Donnie. We're not unfamiliar with hidden agendas and troublemakers. We've gotten rid of them over the years. We pretty much know who is who.


Especially since we all KNOW that a LARGE percentage of those claiming to be White Nationalists are in fact JEWISH "trolls", who are desperately trying to lead the dissent. Again, the solution is SIMPLE! Not without risks, but SIMPLE! Either do what is necessary OR lower your expectations and demands.

Really? A "large percentage"? How do you know that? I don't think there are that many infiltrators here, at this point. Most people here are anonymous for the same reason they're anonymous other places.


Anonymous people online SHOULD be treated like "2nd class citizens". As men we should only expect to get out of something as much as we put into it. We should also expect to lose a "fight" when we tie our own hands behind our back. Don't like being called a coward, a troll, or a Jew? Then the burden falls on YOU to do something about it. Until then, don't expect to be taken seriously, since you don't even take yourself seriously enough to establish any credibility on your own behalf.

I wouldn't put it negatively like that. I would say that people operating under their real name get additional points, rather than anonyms get subtracted points. Because in many countries, the things we post here get people thrown in jail because there is no freedom of speech. In fact, antis are the people with the least to lose by using their real names, which in a way actually makes people who do use their real names more suspicious. All we really need from anyone is that they follow the rules. Assuming the forum or whatever it is is run by a true WN and the rules are the correct ones to facilitate whatever online typing can do to advance the cause.

Is anyone aware that there have been nine threads bitching about Stormfront over the past week?

Time to get over it and get busy in developing VNN into a better place for fellow Whites to get their news and views.

Just my two cents.

Check out my thread on Rural Hunger in general discussions. "A ticking time bomb..." is also worth reading.

Bloggers are just now paying attention to something that has increased dramatially over the past 6-9 months, rural poverty, look for more articles.

White people are getting angry out there.

Do you really think that they give a damn about personalities within the White Movement? They come to forums like VNN for answers.

Is anyone aware that there have been nine threads bitching about Stormfront over the past week?

Time to get over it and get busy in developing VNN into a better place for fellow Whites to get their news and views.

Just my two cents.

Check out my thread on Rural Hunger in general discussions. "A ticking time bomb..." is also worth reading.

Bloggers are just now paying attention to something that has increased dramatially over the past 6-9 months, rural poverty, look for more articles.

White people are gettin angry out there.

Do you really think that they give a damn about personalities within the White Movement? They come to forums like VNN for answers.

Now this is the best post in this thread posted by an ex-SFer.

Do you really think that they give a damn about personalities within the White Movement? They come to forums like VNN for answers.

I agree that personalities don't matter. But who is running a major WN forum, and to what end, is important to know. It's a shame that the ex-SFers can't ALL stick to the facts about what's going on there the way the better ones do. Stonewall, for one, does it the right way. Why not follow his example?

I agree. Donnie is a solid VNN member and he's been involved in a bunch of activism projects. He's supported and distributed our newspaper projects (http://www.govnn.com/newspapers), our last edition of The Aryan Alternative (http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn-newspapers/aryan-alternative-newpaper/) is probably one of the most anti-jew pieces of literature you've seen. Why would he support this if he wasn't a WN? He's even taken initiative and started his own activism projects too.

If you put a bunch of White Nationalists in a room together, with no jews for miles, do you think they'd all agree on the same things?

Of course not. It's ridiculous to claim anyone who disagrees or is wrong about something is a jew or an infiltrator/agent.

I think he's wrong about 9/11. But there's no need to be hysterical about it or claim he isn't one of us.

How many of us can say we knew the holocaust was a lie our entire lives? Do you think it would it be ridiculous to claim we were a jews at the time?

I thought we were using the 911 attacks as a tool to reach non-awakened whites to jewish control. How effective will your method of "You're a jew if you don't agree with me" be when you're trying to convince white lemmings? You'll just look like a psychopath. You already come off like that, and that's to people who already know about jewish control. Now imagine how convincing your debating style will be to people who are already lied to about us in the media.

I agree. Donnie is a solid VNN member and he's been involved in a bunch of activism projects. He's supported and distributed our newspaper projects (http://www.govnn.com/newspapers), our last edition of The Aryan Alternative (http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn-newspapers/aryan-alternative-newpaper/) is probably one of the most anti-jew pieces of literature you've seen. Why would he support this if he wasn't a WN? He's even taken initiative and started his own activism projects too.

If you put a bunch of White Nationalists in a room together, with no jews for miles, do you think they'd all agree on the same things?

Of course not. It's ridiculous to claim anyone who disagrees or is wrong about something is a jew or an infiltrator/agent.

I think he's wrong about 9/11. But there's no need to be hysterical about it or claim he isn't one of us.

How many of us can say we knew the holocaust was a lie our entire lives? Do you think it would it be ridiculous to claim we were a jews at the time?

You're right.

In my own case, I only became aware of the Holocaust Lie as a direct result of independent research into the Nuremberg Trials and associated materials. Those revelations led to other places, which led to other places still.

I don't know what Donnie's background is. I don't know if he has any experience in performing criminal investigations, or doing scientific research or not. However, if he applies Deductive Reasoning within the framework of the Scientific Method with respect to the 9/11 Lie - he may change his mind. In fact, he will have to change his mind.

The 9/11 atrocity needs to be tried in a Court of Law with rules and procedures specifically designed to find fact. Trying the 9/11 atrocity here in the court of the internet replete with disinformation is not going to result in Justice.

If anyone examines the available evidence in a disciplined way - they WILL conclude that the official story is a lie. Not a mistake. A lie.

Is anyone aware that there have been nine threads bitching about Stormfront over the past week?

Time to get over it and get busy in developing VNN into a better place for fellow Whites to get their news and views.

Just my two cents.

Check out my thread on Rural Hunger in general discussions. "A ticking time bomb..." is also worth reading.

Bloggers are just now paying attention to something that has increased dramatially over the past 6-9 months, rural poverty, look for more articles.

White people are getting angry out there.

Do you really think that they give a damn about personalities within the White Movement? They come to forums like VNN for answers.

This is after all a thread about SF, and it's only a small part of this forum. Certainly those interested in what took place over there will be drawn here, and it's good there has been so much uninhibited discussion elicited by these ongoing events.

Some of what has been said is junk, some of it's interesting. I don't personally care about Derek's DNA and petty crap like that, for instance. It has no consequence. What made the deepest impression on me was probably Yehuda leaving out of principle and doing so with the utmost of dignity. Actions, not words. Principles. Loyalty.

This one was just passed on to me...
YouTube - [SPECIAL] Scott Roberts and 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtDWsot_7j4)


Their angle (summarized):
Scott is a nigger..
9/11 doesn't matter...
Scott is a race traitor (which is it? am I a "nigger" or a "race traitor"?)..
Shut Up...Stop talking about Jews and 9/11
9/11 doesn't matter...
Scott isn't even White...
Shut Up.. Stop talking about Jews and 9/11
9/11 doesn't matter...
Scott is a wigger...
9/11 Doesn't matter..
Shut Up...Stop talking about Jews and 9/11
Scott is poor and lives in an apartment..
9/11 DOESN'T MATTER..
Scott grew up in the "hood"..
Scott is a race traitor..
Scott is African..
Scott is Asian..
9/11 DOESN'T MATTER..
9/11 DOESN'T MATTER..
9/11 DOESN'T MATTER..
SHUT UP! GO AWAY!

Well, apparently 9/11 DOES matter or you wouldn't spend so much time worrying about our 9/11 discussions (you could just call us "truthers" and leave us be), and you wouldn't shift the entire focus onto the messenger (as you obviously feel the need to do).

Why all the discussion about me suddenly (they weren't so concerned over my "checkered" past all these years)? Why all of the exaggerations, assumptions, and flat out lies about me and my past (if you must talk about ME, then at least stick to the facts..which should be easy, since I have disclosed all of this information voluntarily)? Why are all the spoof videos popping up all over the place (shifting their focus from labeling me as a "racist" to a "race traitor")? Most importantly... Why can't they ever just stick to the facts?

I noticed this podcast on the Jett and Jahn website: White Nationalism and 9/11.

Then this morning a youtube video was linked by Scott Roberts on his website , and again by Mr. Roberts on VNN.

Yet VNN members do not even acknowledge the J&J video (why is this?), and one of the reasons I have begun visiting the J&J website on a regular basis. Seems Linder has had his own banning frenzy in the past. Ya know, the same thing they falsely accuse the Boot of doing. But I digress....

Scott looks like an Asian halfbreed. Those don't look like the eyes of a White man.


No one was ever banned on Stormfront because of their 9-11 beliefs. They were banned for their blatant lies and attacking mod Jack Boot who is himself a 9-11 Truth believer to some extent.

The people who were banned were banned because they were going around LYING that Jack Boot banned a member for saying 9-11 was an inside job. In typical CTer fashion they created this straw man and blatant LIE and kept repeating it with every breath in a thread despite the obvious truth being stated time and time again why the member was banned. In the end their repetitive lies and strawman typical tactics of the CTer movement on this board earned them their own bans.

Now why would genuine, honest, white men engage in blatant LYING post after post if they weren't really trying to create division and support their own agenda which had nothing to do with WN.

Two more members last week of the CTer crowd tried to ressurect this lie, and the "PM Posse' of CTers once again came to the thread and started repeating the whole lie again. One of these members was the Mishko Novel they refer to in the video. Which earned more members bans, and rightly so.

They are talking about you Scotty.:D

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t761320/

They are talking about you Scotty.:D

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t761320/

Why is KosherFront avoiding discussions of
The 9/11 Liehttp://hain-celestial.ca/media/files/health/kosher_symbol.pngWhy?

Is anyone aware that there have been nine threads bitching about Stormfront over the past week?

Time to get over it and get busy in developing VNN into a better place for fellow Whites to get their news and views.

Just my two cents.

Check out my thread on Rural Hunger in general discussions. "A ticking time bomb..." is also worth reading.

Bloggers are just now paying attention to something that has increased dramatially over the past 6-9 months, rural poverty, look for more articles.

White people are getting angry out there.

Do you really think that they give a damn about personalities within the White Movement? They come to forums like VNN for answers.

Yes. It's good to see you making a contribution here, rather than just bitching about SF. We who were not regular posters here have imposed upon Alex's hospitality to get a load off our minds. This off-loading should not consume more that a week's time, even in the most severe cases.

Your Scotch-Irish realism allows you to understand that if one's goal were to expose Boot/Black, repetitive charges of "He's a jew," etc. become counter-productive. Those who intend to devote a large part, even a majority of their online time to VNN should get over the divorce and start trying to post something meaningful here. I intend to be no more than an occasional poster, although I have rarely missed a week coming here to glean the jewels which are always available on the site.

Some of us recent SF cast-offs seem not to realize that Alex is sharp enough to deduce that we have been "Using" his board. He is, believe me. I do not intend to make VNN my primary home on the net, for the reason previously iterated, to wit, I can't send my granddaughters here to read my stuff. Nevertheless I will not insult long time posters here, nor will I continue to harangue readers with my bitches about the other site. It''s counter productive.

Wayne and I talk on the phone regularly, usually for at least an hour. Wayne has not belabored me with his enmity toward SF. We have many more profitable things to discuss.

If Jack Boot is what I/we think he is, he will continue to self-destruct in plain view of the WN world, with no help from us. He is currently the most hated gentile among WNs, and going downhill fast. Unfounded allegations by us SF rejects will not speed him along. He will do himself in quite soon enough, without any help from us.

I don't mean to be too hard on those who are so obviously torn up about their banishment, since I fully expected to be a short timer from the time Bjarni closed the Steele thread, and was ready to go. My only problem was with the method of my expulsion, and not the fact of it.

I came to the one place where I knew I could state my complaint and have it read by most of the people I wanted to see it. I was mad as hell, and probably overstated the case, but it had a cathartic effect.

I appreciate Alex's graciousness in allowing me to do so. Therefore I will not litter his board with a lot of whining. I intend to continue to lurk occasionally, and post when I think it might be positive. The majority of my time will be spent on another board, where my granddaughters will not be subject to barracks language, should they want to read Grandpa's musings. I will not use VNN to advertise that site, since most who need to know where I'll be already know.

In closing, please think before you post. Most of you are capable of much better posting than has been apparent here recently.

Be more like Scott, and less like Fred.

Either way, I really don't care as much about "Officer Hendricks" credibility as HE should, so he will still be judged accordingly on the back end. Based on his decisions, his actions and his WILL to follow through. So upon failing to follow through, he has NO reason to complain when someone calls him a "troll", a "Jew", or if we fail to take him seriously. Which was my basic point.




It's not important to me if you or anyone else takes me seriously, Scott. I don't value your opinion. I'm not saying that to sound like an ass, I'm just being honest.

I don't complain about anonymous people I don't know calling me a troll on the 'net. If you read through this thread, you will see I treat such baseless accusations with the levity they deserve.

Incorrectly labeling people as Jews however, whether it be a poster online or LBJ or whomever, costs us precious credibility with the people we are trying to reach with our positions.

There are far too many real Jews, both historically and in the present day, doing horrible shit that we don't need to invent them where they don't exist. I makes the claimant look foolish, and once again, based on the stridency of the claim, possibly delusional.

Jews aren't Freddy Krueger, they're far worse. Because they're real.

That's honestly how I feel.

You have said you don't think such details are important in the bigger picture, I can only assume to maintain the image of a united front by not questioning or criticizing another White Nationalist, regardless of the dubious nature of the claim.

I disagree on that.

Attention to detail is extremely important, and I personally believe it's a very good indicator of future potential success. It's not the only thing one needs, of course. But it is vital.

Detail-oriented people tend to get shit right, whether on the battlefield, in business or in life. It's the sign of a winner.

It's not important to me if you or anyone else takes me seriously, Scott. I don't value your opinion. I'm not saying that to sound like an ass, I'm just being honest.

I don't complain about anonymous people I don't know calling me a troll on the 'net. If you read through this thread, you will see I treat such baseless accusations with the levity they deserve.

Incorrectly labeling people as Jews however, whether it be a poster online or LBJ or whomever, costs us precious credibility with the people we are trying to reach with our positions.

There are far too many real Jews, both historically and in the present day, doing horrible shit that we don't need to invent them where they don't exist. I makes the claimant look foolish, and once again, based on the stridency of the claim, possibly delusional.

Jews aren't Freddy Krueger, they're far worse. Because they're real.

That's honestly how I feel.

You have said you don't think such details are important in the bigger picture, I can only assume to maintain the image of a united front by not questioning or criticizing another White Nationalist, regardless of the dubious nature of the claim.

I disagree on that.

Attention to detail is extremely important, and I personally believe it's a very good indicator of future potential success. It's not the only thing one needs, of course. But it is vital.

Detail-oriented people tend to get shit right, whether on the battlefield, in business or in life. It's the sign of a winner.

Good points.

I agree that personalities don't matter. But who is running a major WN forum, and to what end, is important to know. It's a shame that the ex-SFers can't ALL stick to the facts about what's going on there the way the better ones do. Stonewall, for one, does it the right way. Why not follow his example?

I agree. Donnie is a solid VNN member and he's been involved in a bunch of activism projects. He's supported and distributed our newspaper projects (http://www.govnn.com/newspapers), our last edition of The Aryan Alternative (http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn-newspapers/aryan-alternative-newpaper/) is probably one of the most anti-jew pieces of literature you've seen. Why would he support this if he wasn't a WN? He's even taken initiative and started his own activism projects too.

If you put a bunch of White Nationalists in a room together, with no jews for miles, do you think they'd all agree on the same things?

Of course not. It's ridiculous to claim anyone who disagrees or is wrong about something is a jew or an infiltrator/agent.

I think he's wrong about 9/11. But there's no need to be hysterical about it or claim he isn't one of us.

How many of us can say we knew the holocaust was a lie our entire lives? Do you think it would it be ridiculous to claim we were a jews at the time?

I thought we were using the 911 attacks as a tool to reach non-awakened whites to jewish control. How effective will your method of "You're a jew if you don't agree with me" be when you're trying to convince white lemmings? You'll just look like a psychopath. You already come off like that, and that's to people who already know about jewish control. Now imagine how convincing your debating style will be to people who are already lied to about us in the media.

Well, I don't necessarily believe that there is a right way or a wrong way to promote WN. I may not agree with everyone's opinions and beliefs, or the way they convey their ideas or conduct themselves. Everyone has their own personality and should have the right to express themselves freely and openly. Which is something that one cannot do at Stormfront.

Tow the Stormfront line, drink the Kool Aid, repeat the mantra, jump when told to jump, shut-up when told to shut-up, donate when you are told to donate, any discussions or topics that do not conform to Stormfront's demagoguery will simply not be tolerated.

It is inevitable that a forum, whose purpose is strictly homogeneous in it's agenda, will quickly grow stagnant under such conditions. To use an old euphemism, it is like preaching to the choir.

It is the personalities that make up any forum. Any loss of the basic human elements that restrict the expression of real human emotions and feelings, on any topic or subject, is bound to become stagnant.

And that is what is happening to Stormfront, it has grown stagnant, dull and disinteresting, and is becoming even more stagnant due to the direction that it is being taken - mainstream conservatism, politically correct - with a slight tinge of racist ideology that is quickly fading into the abyss.

I hear many complaints about individuals posting "irrelevant" or off-topic subject matter, but the reality is, that it is such subject matter that keeps people interested and returning to a site.

Such matter doesn't change the fact that the purpose of a forum is specific in nature, only that those who participate are in agreement to the basic tenants for their gathering in one place.

An internet forum is a safe harbor, a common ground, where like minded individuals can share their own ideas and opinions amongst themselves, and to hopefully work together in the real world to accomplish whatever it is that they set-out to do.

Whether it is a political movement, a rock band or a corporation, their success depends on the personalities and the people behind it.

Stormfront, like a bunch of egotistical morons, just kicked out many of their major personalities, others left in disgust. Would the Beatles have been as successful without John Lennon? Would Microsoft had been as successful without Bill Gates? Would the US have been as successful without George Washington?

Stormfront is not successful because of Don Black, Stormfront is successful because of others who made it an appealing gathering place.

The reason why Stormfront's success will always be limited, is because those who distinguish themselves among their peers, are quickly vanquished due to petty jealousies and egotistical power mongers.

Now exists an opportunity for VNN to profit from Stormfront's stupid mistakes. Take advantage of the situation!

Be more like Scott, and less like Fred.
I accept your challenge. Thank you for your kindness.

Well, I don't necessarily believe that there is a right way or a wrong way to promote WN. I may not agree with everyone's opinions and beliefs, or the way they convey their ideas or conduct themselves. Everyone has their own personality and should have the right to express themselves freely and openly. Which is something that one cannot do at Stormfront.

Tow the Stormfront line, drink the Kool Aid, repeat the mantra, jump when told to jump, shut-up when told to shut-up, donate when you are told to donate, any discussions or topics that do not conform to Stormfront's demagoguery will simply not be tolerated.

It is inevitable that a forum, whose purpose is strictly homogeneous in it's agenda, will quickly grow stagnant under such conditions. To use an old euphemism, it is like preaching to the choir.

It is the personalities that make up any forum. Any loss of the basic human elements that restrict the expression of real human emotions and feelings, on any topic or subject, is bound to become stagnant.

And that is what is happening to Stormfront, it has grown stagnant, dull and disinteresting, and is becoming even more stagnant due to the direction that it is being taken - mainstream conservatism, politically correct - with a slight tinge of racist ideology that is quickly fading into the abyss.

I hear many complaints about individuals posting "irrelevant" or off-topic subject matter, but the reality is, that it is such subject matter that keeps people interested and returning to a site.

Such matter doesn't change the fact that the purpose of a forum is specific in nature, only that those who participate are in agreement to the basic tenants for their gathering in one place.

An internet forum is a safe harbor, a common ground, where like minded individuals can share their own ideas and opinions amongst themselves, and to hopefully work together in the real world to accomplish whatever it is that they set-out to do.

Whether it is a political movement, a rock band or a corporation, their success depends on the personalities and the people behind it.

Stormfront, like a bunch of egotistical morons, just kicked out many of their major personalities, others left in disgust. Would the Beatles have been as successful without John Lennon? Would Microsoft had been as successful without Bill Gates? Would the US have been as successful without George Washington?

Stormfront is not successful because of Don Black, Stormfront is successful because of others who made it an appealing gathering place.

The reason why Stormfront's success will always be limited, is because those who distinguish themselves among their peers, are quickly vanquished due to petty jealousies and egotistical power mongers.

Now exists an opportunity for VNN to profit from Stormfront's stupid mistakes. Take advantage of the situation!

Great post Robert.

Is anyone aware that there have been nine threads bitching about Stormfront over the past week?

Time to get over it and get busy in developing VNN into a better place for fellow Whites to get their news and views.

Just my two cents.

Check out my thread on Rural Hunger in general discussions. "A ticking time bomb..." is also worth reading.

Bloggers are just now paying attention to something that has increased dramatially over the past 6-9 months, rural poverty, look for more articles.

White people are getting angry out there.

Do you really think that they give a damn about personalities within the White Movement? They come to forums like VNN for answers.

I agree , but at least keep one thread at the top for a while longer to warn the web browsing public of the massive scam that's going down over there.

Yes. It's good to see you making a contribution here, rather than just bitching about SF. We who were not regular posters here have imposed upon Alex's hospitality to get a load off our minds. This off-loading should not consume more that a week's time, even in the most severe cases.

Your Scotch-Irish realism allows you to understand that if one's goal were to expose Boot/Black, repetitive charges of "He's a jew," etc. become counter-productive. Those who intend to devote a large part, even a majority of their online time to VNN should get over the divorce and start trying to post something meaningful here. I intend to be no more than an occasional poster, although I have rarely missed a week coming here to glean the jewels which are always available on the site.

Some of us recent SF cast-offs seem not to realize that Alex is sharp enough to deduce that we have been "Using" his board. He is, believe me. I do not intend to make VNN my primary home on the net, for the reason previously iterated, to wit, I can't send my granddaughters here to read my stuff. Nevertheless I will not insult long time posters here, nor will I continue to harangue readers with my bitches about the other site. It''s counter productive.

Wayne and I talk on the phone regularly, usually for at least an hour. Wayne has not belabored me with his enmity toward SF. We have many more profitable things to discuss.

If Jack Boot is what I/we think he is, he will continue to self-destruct in plain view of the WN world, with no help from us. He is currently the most hated gentile among WNs, and going downhill fast. Unfounded allegations by us SF rejects will not speed him along. He will do himself in quite soon enough, without any help from us.

I don't mean to be too hard on those who are so obviously torn up about their banishment, since I fully expected to be a short timer from the time Bjarni closed the Steele thread, and was ready to go. My only problem was with the method of my expulsion, and not the fact of it.

I came to the one place where I knew I could state my complaint and have it read by most of the people I wanted to see it. I was mad as hell, and probably overstated the case, but it had a cathartic effect.

I appreciate Alex's graciousness in allowing me to do so. Therefore I will not litter his board with a lot of whining. I intend to continue to lurk occasionally, and post when I think it might be positive. The majority of my time will be spent on another board, where my granddaughters will not be subject to barracks language, should they want to read Grandpa's musings. I will not use VNN to advertise that site, since most who need to know where I'll be already know.

In closing, please think before you post. Most of you are capable of much better posting than has been apparent here recently.

Be more like Scott, and less like Fred.

Well said, as usual, Oldman.

I agree that we are imposing on Alex as we use his forum as a free ride on the bandwagon to the Stormfront Bitchapalooza.

I feel as though I have siphoned-off more than my unfair share of fuel in this thread.

That doesn't mean that I will ever shirk my responsibility as a conscientious objector to speak against Stormfront whenever the opportunity arises.

This fiasco is losing it's steam though, as Jack Boot must have finally realized that if he continued purging SM's, there wouldn't be a Stormfront left to moderate.

I am also guilty of going far beyond my usual decorum in attacking those who I feel are deserving of scorn.

To those I have offended, I apologize. To those on Stormfront who I have attacked, Fuck You!

I understand your concern about VNN not being a "family friendly" forum, but I would still hope that you continue to participate here.

I would try to be more like Scott, but after fifty paragraphs, I am usually ready for a nap. :D

"Why would he support this if he wasn't a WN? He's even taken initiative and started his own activism projects too."

How do Jews subvert nations, forums or WN movements to begin with?

They involve themselves with you, they race mix with your people, they have a portion of their people attempt to blend in.

They become your (seemingly) loyal friend, maybe become your spouse, maybe they become that hardcore activist that seems so solid and trustworthy who you'd never dream of second guessing.

And while you're trusting them they're busy inching the knife ever closer to your back.

The below Cicero quote applies to Donnie From Israel types:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

Now maybe by some chance Donnie actually is a true WN and trustworthy but it can never be verified 100% in an online medium so the solution is to simply judge others by their words and deeds.

Supposedly by Donnie's VNN deeds he's WN but by his words in the Stormfront 911 thread he's a yid or pro yid supporter via his words.

Maybe thats explainable in the sense that he just fought back for being insulted first but you'd think if he was this solid guy that Alex Linder is putting him across as, this mentally stable ex military type he'd of gotten over the insult after a few exchanges and moved on to helping VNN in other threads and ways like you'd expect of a mature adult man.

Instead he simply continues to troll the thread and NOT get over whatever insult he deemed started his trolling onslaught in that thread to begin with.

Doesn't sound very mature to me.

Arguments are constructive - you state your position, the facts as you perceive them, and the internet allows you to offer your evidence in a quick and efficient manner. Some people present their case in a shocking and radical fashion, others prefer to be more restrained, but it's the substance that matters.

Mere insults and poop flinging are a distraction and a waste of time. It may be fun, but nobody is going to read it or care about it except the flingers.

No one was ever banned on Stormfront because of their 9-11 beliefs. They were banned for their blatant lies and attacking mod Jack Boot who is himself a 9-11 Truth believer to some extent.

Oh yeah? How did Successionist attack mod Jack you prick?

He said that AryanPatriot14 was "suspect", so Jack Boot banned him. Then he tried to change it to Fred saying "jewnited snakes of amnesia" as being the reason - as if that's a better reason to ban someone.

So Successionist was in there, trying to talk about 9/11 and he gets banned for some bogus reasons. Then it escalated from there, and that's why others insulted Jack Boot calling him a jew and so on...

Get your facts straight jewboy.

The people who were banned were banned because they were going around LYING that Jack Boot banned a member for saying 9-11 was an inside job.

Why was he banned? Why wasn't Successionist allowed to discuss 9/11 on there? Are you telling me he was banned because he said that AryanPatrot14 [someone who SF had to remove from their site later anyway] is "suspect", or was it "jewnited snakes of amnesia"?

I see both of those reasons as bogus, as covers, as excuses for removing Fred from that site because of what he was saying about 9/11 and ways of making people "confess".

I don't view either excuse that Jack Boot gave [i.e. suspect/jewnited snakes of amnesia] as legitimate reasons to ban Successionist. The logical reason why he was banned was simply to remove him from that thread, to shut him up.

Had JB not done so, then the others would NOT have called him a jew and so on...


In typical CTer fashion they created this straw man and blatant LIE and kept repeating it with every breath in a thread despite the obvious truth being stated time and time again why the member was banned.

Yeah we know why the member was banned, saying "jewnited snakes of amnesia" is always a good reason to get banned from a 'free speech' site. :rolleyes:



In the end their repetitive lies and strawman typical tactics of the CTer movement on this board earned them their own bans.

You're the only lying CTer kike, faggot, STFU.

There are no lies, Successionist was banned for a BS reason, and it escalated from there. JB's to blame.

Now why would genuine, honest, white men engage in blatant LYING post after post if they weren't really trying to create division and support their own agenda which had nothing to do with WN.

Two more members last week of the CTer crowd tried to ressurect this lie, and the "PM Posse' of CTers once again came to the thread and started repeating the whole lie again. One of these members was the Mishko Novel they refer to in the video. Which earned more members bans, and rightly so.

I can't even stand answering the rest of that point by point.... fuck it.

JB even threatened to ban White Rights for suggesting that Israel could have been behind 9/11 without Bush knowing about it.

Don't believe me, look up the thread, if it's still there. I'm no fucking "CTer" or whatever the fuck smear word this faggot kike wants to use, I'm a fucking realist, and I call it like I see it.

Was Yami also calling JB a "jew"? Why was he banned? Give me a fucking break.

"Why would he support this if he wasn't a WN? He's even taken initiative and started his own activism projects too."

How do Jews subvert nations, forums or WN movements to begin with?

They involve themselves with you, they race mix with your people, they have a portion of their people attempt to blend in.

They become your loyal friend, maybe become your spouse, maybe they become that hardcore activist that seems so solid and trustworthy who you'd never dream of second guessing.

And while you're trusting them they're busy inching the knife ever closer to your back.

The below Cicero quote applies to Donnie From Israel types:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

Now maybe by some chance Donnie actually is a true WN and trustworthy but it can never be verified 100% in an online medium so the solution is to simply judge others by their words and deeds.

Supposedly by Donnie's VNN deeds he's WN but by his words in the Stormfront 911 thread he's a yid or pro yid supporter via his words.

Maybe thats explainable in the sense that he just fought back for being insulted first but you'd think if he was this solid guy that Alex Linder is putting him across as, this mentally stable ex military type he'd of gotten over the insult after a few exchanges and moved on to helping VNN in other threads and ways like you'd expect of a mature adult man.

Instead he simply continues to troll the thread and NOT get over whatever insult he deemed started his trolling onslaught in that thread to begin with.

Doesn't sound very mature to me.

Some people are like an old married couple, they simply argue for the sake of arguing due to boredom or indifference.

I get tired of the constant Jew-this and Jew-that blustering. As though some people believe that the Jews have nothing better to do in their lives than "infiltrate" WN websites, and thus, so where better to attack them?

It eventually boils down to reveal the fact that some people are just fucking insane.

Some people are like an old married couple, they simply argue for the sake of arguing due to boredom or indifference.

I get tired of the constant Jew-this and Jew-that blustering. As though some people believe that the Jews have nothing better to do in their lives than "infiltrate" WN websites, and thus, so where better to attack them?

It eventually boils down to reveal the fact that some people are just fucking insane.

That was uncalled for, I don't see how his post warranted such a response from you.

Yes. It's good to see you making a contribution here, rather than just bitching about SF. We who were not regular posters here have imposed upon Alex's hospitality to get a load off our minds. This off-loading should not consume more that a week's time, even in the most severe cases.

Your Scotch-Irish realism allows you to understand that if one's goal were to expose Boot/Black, repetitive charges of "He's a jew," etc. become counter-productive. Those who intend to devote a large part, even a majority of their online time to VNN should get over the divorce and start trying to post something meaningful here. I intend to be no more than an occasional poster, although I have rarely missed a week coming here to glean the jewels which are always available on the site.

Some of us recent SF cast-offs seem not to realize that Alex is sharp enough to deduce that we have been "Using" his board. He is, believe me. I do not intend to make VNN my primary home on the net, for the reason previously iterated, to wit, I can't send my granddaughters here to read my stuff. Nevertheless I will not insult long time posters here, nor will I continue to harangue readers with my bitches about the other site. It''s counter productive.

Wayne and I talk on the phone regularly, usually for at least an hour. Wayne has not belabored me with his enmity toward SF. We have many more profitable things to discuss.

If Jack Boot is what I/we think he is, he will continue to self-destruct in plain view of the WN world, with no help from us. He is currently the most hated gentile among WNs, and going downhill fast. Unfounded allegations by us SF rejects will not speed him along. He will do himself in quite soon enough, without any help from us.

I don't mean to be too hard on those who are so obviously torn up about their banishment, since I fully expected to be a short timer from the time Bjarni closed the Steele thread, and was ready to go. My only problem was with the method of my expulsion, and not the fact of it.

I came to the one place where I knew I could state my complaint and have it read by most of the people I wanted to see it. I was mad as hell, and probably overstated the case, but it had a cathartic effect.

I appreciate Alex's graciousness in allowing me to do so. Therefore I will not litter his board with a lot of whining. I intend to continue to lurk occasionally, and post when I think it might be positive. The majority of my time will be spent on another board, where my granddaughters will not be subject to barracks language, should they want to read Grandpa's musings. I will not use VNN to advertise that site, since most who need to know where I'll be already know.

In closing, please think before you post. Most of you are capable of much better posting than has been apparent here recently.

Be more like Scott, and less like Fred.

I just Mailed two letters. This is the one I sent to Alex Linder.

Dear Alex Linder

Please accept this small donation of ten dollars.
My nome du plume is Alea Iacta Est.
I would like to donate it in the names of Don Black and Jack Boot.
Please donate one dollar in Don Black's Name and
nine dollars in Jack Boots name. To your wonderful site.
If you could publicly acknowledge This small Thank you to
Don Black and Jack Boot.
It would realy make myself and may other Former members of
The web site who's name we dare not speeks day.
It might inspire others to Give a small donation in Don black and
Jack Boot's name. To show their true appreation for Don Black and
Jack Boot's recent actions to further White Nationalsim.


In BrotherHood.
Bill carson.

The Oldmans new home received a similar donation.

I hope others follow my leed.
It is the Gentile thing to do.

That was uncalled for, I don't see how his post warranted such a response from you.
You wanna piece of me? T.J.B.

:D

You wanna piece of me? T.J.B.

:D

A little something to cheer everybody up. ;)

YouTube - Andrzej Fonfara KO

"No, not by a long shot. The opposite is clear. Your side initiated the insults and the personal attacks."

Oh so its a "he started it dad!" type of thing then? So that makes it ok??

So much for VNN taking the high mature road Alex.

"The problem is, you define troll as someone who disagrees with you - about anything."

Wrong.

I define a troll as someone who is only in a thread to disrupt and piss people off.

Which is exactly what Donnie was doing for page after page after page.

In anycase what also proves you wrong on this is that I had a knock down drag out debate with Celtic Patriot earlier on in this thread as we both disagreed on what is the best method at this point in time to save the white race from extinction and because he disagreed with me I didn't go screaming to you that HE was a troll and to ban him did I?

No, of course not because simple disagreement is not what I'm against.

Once again Donnie has been declared a troll by more posters than just myself so there's a common consensus there.

I'm not just imagining things about him or trying to get even with someone who disagrees with me as you are trying to make it out to be.

Donnie has resorted to the typical troll tactic at times of criticizing someone's spelling. Do you think that kind of petty troll shit forwards white nationalism in any way shape or form?

Do you think that if Donnie got put up on CNN in a live debate before a live audience with zionist Jew Wolf Blitzer and Donnie made sure to criticize Wolf for his spelling, the way he was dressed and any other petty shit he could think up...do you think anyone in the audience or people watching at home would take Donnie seriously for that kind of shit and think anything about him other than his being a troll/asshole?

"Well, believe it or not, VNN existed before you were banned from Stormfront. And during that prehistory, we had a huge, long thread on '9/11.' In which Donnie never posted."

Yeah the Donnie account.

"That's interesting."

Not really. People can hop on proxies, go to their neighbors house etc. Plenty of other ways for Donnie to make extra accounts to troll with that you'd never suspect.

"Cuz if we go with your theory, that he's a "troll" whose mission here is to push the government line on 9/11, then it would seem to me, just off the top of my head, that our original massive 9/11 thread would have been a really good place for him to post massive numbers of posts to accomplish his mission. And I feel pretty sure that's how most rational people would see it. "

We're in an online medium here Linder. People can create accounts to appear genuine in one sense and then create a whole slurry of accounts under proxies to do their dirty work with.

Can I prove Donnie did this with other accounts? No.

Does his behavior in the Stormfront 911 thread make me suspect him of this?

Yes.

"There's nothing outside your head that would lead anyone to think that."

There's his behavior in the Stormfront 911 thread so wrong again.

"I seem to recall Donnie saying either way he hated jews. He even said he wouldn't be surprised if they were watching 9/11 plot unfold, if I recall correctly. That's not the behavior of the average neocon, troll, or Official Theory backer, it's actually quite a ways towards our position, that the Mossad not only oversaw it, but produced the event."

You know who else claims to hate Jews or at least Zionist jews?

The group "Jews Against Zionism" but those of us in the know about the Jews subversive sociopathic nature realize that this is just a manipulation and seeing as how you're the same guy that bought Hal Turner's bullshit line about being a genuine authentic dyed in the wool white nationalist I'd say you're not exactly the best judge of character here Alex.

You have proven you can be fooled.

"When a newbie comes here and starts attacking a solid, loyal, rational, self-controlled long-term member with juvenile insults -- ie Donnie from Israel and suchlike -- we draw the reasonable conclusion. We have higher standards here than Stormfront. We expect people here to act like serious adults. If they don't, they don't last real long."

He was and is called "Donnie From Israel" as a result of his words and behavior and has no one to blame but himself for that title.

We didn't come here and IMMEDIATELY START calling him this.

He interacted with us, began trolling us and THEN he started being called "Donnie From Israel" since the title fits.

"Hyper Fred may be in his delivery but to me Fred's behavior is that of a man who is desperately trying to get the truth out there to a lurker audience. Now is he going to be right every time or correct with every article he posts? Hell no as we ALL make mistakes from time to time but whenever Fred or anyone else here thats a true WN makes a simple mistake you can expect almost on cue for pro yid supporters such as Donnie From Israel to jump on that mistake with wild abandon in typical kike theatrics blowing said mistake out of all proportion and emphasizing it for maximum pro yid "lets discredit these WN" effect."

"You are the one shrieking with wild abandon in "typical kike theatrics," as you put it. And I guarantee that how everybody here but your 3-4 friends from SF sees it. "

What brand of hallucinogenics/psychadelics were you on before reading this reasonable explanatory post excerpt of mine that could somehow cause you to engage in the twisted mental gymnastics necessary to perceive it as "typical kike theatrics" or theatrics of any kind?

I'd really like to know.

"Yeah, see, we don't do that here."

Yeah I get that.

You Alex Linder personally gain some sick sort of entertainment out of watching people troll and be unproductive so you let them do so in order that you can get your daily dose of giggles in.

I understand.

Watching forum flame wars can be fun but it does nothing towards furthering the WN message or cause.

"Donnie has beaten you from the wrong side. That's impressive."

The point I was trying to get at in my past posts in this thread which I believe you thoroughly failed to understand is that I find Donnie to be a troll NOT because he disagrees with you and I over the 911 issue Alex but because he came at us with his disagreement in a hostile condescending manner and seemed to be working to simply throw the thread off topic with his further posts rather than contribute out of a need for genuine disagreement and putting his alternative beliefs across.

Its the CONDESCENSION over all which led me to believe he's not on our side.

Do you understand now Alex?

And maybe we were wrong and CONDESCENSION at times is just the VNN way but its the condescension more than anything that I believe turned our opinion towards Donnie as not on the side of WN. The hostility too but hey both can maybe be explained if he truly did get insulted by one of us ex SF first...yet still this doesn't explain how this supposedly mature stable military man can't get over an attack on his person after a few exchanges and move on to something more productive and worthy of his time.

"The problem is, you define troll as someone who disagrees with you - about anything."

Wrong.

I define a troll as someone who is only in a thread to disrupt and piss people off.

Which is exactly what Donnie was doing for page after page after page.



See, there's two sides to the pissing-off equation. You don't seem to get that for some reason.

Also, you seem nuts.

Edit: I wonder if your wild assertions are a projection of your own situation onto another.

"See, there's two sides to the pissing-off equation. You don't seem to get that for some reason.

Also, you seem nuts."

I was a moderator on several big boards in the past dude.

I know what a troll is and how boards are run smoothly.

Insane by VNN standards= sane to the rest of the world.

So whatever.

"See, there's two sides to the pissing-off equation. You don't seem to get that for some reason.

Also, you seem nuts."

I was a moderator on several big boards in the past dude.

I know what a troll is and how boards are run smoothly.

Insane by VNN standards= sane to the rest of the world.

So whatever.

Yeah, me too. Hence my assertion.

you seem nuts.
He isn't nuts, he's angry. IMO he is justified. He stated his case clearly and respectfully about donnie's own actions in attacking good WNs in this thread.

He should have taken a few minutes to support his argument with cites and quotes from donnie's posts. Donnie has been attacking me since about page 35 of this thread, he has been relentless and obnoxious without any reasonable justification for it. In short, he has been a troll of the worst kind. His insults and attacks have not been limited to me, he has spread them around to everyone posting in this thread and has done his utmost to derail every conversation and insert himself as a staunch supporter of the enemy, for no reason other than to piss off as many as he could.

Nobody attacked Donnie, except in retribution for his assaults on them. If he can't be respectful of other WNs, if he has to try to destroy their conversations and attack them as relentlessly as he has in this thread, how can you expect anyone here to have anything but animosity toward him? He has brought all of our anger against himself, and he did it on purpose.

I'm just surprised that Alex hasn't taken the time to review Donnie's posts in this thread, to see why everyone in here is pissed off at him.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4067/nylabone.jpg

He isn't nuts, he's angry. IMO he is justified. He stated his case clearly and respectfully about donnie's own actions in attacking good WNs in this thread.

He should have taken a few minutes to support his argument with cites and quotes from donnie's posts. Donnie has been attacking me since about page 35 of this thread, he has been relentless and obnoxious without any reasonable justification for it. In short, he has been a troll of the worst kind. His insults and attacks have not been limited to me, he has spread them around to everyone posting in this thread and has done his utmost to derail every conversation and insert himself as a staunch supporter of the enemy, for no reason other than to piss off as many as he could.

Nobody attacked Donnie, except in retribution for his assaults on them. If he can't be respectful of other WNs, if he has to try to destroy their conversations and attack them as relentlessly as he has in this thread, how can you expect anyone here to have anything but animosity toward him? He has brought all of our anger against himself.

I'm just surprised that Alex hasn't taken the time to review Donnie's posts in this thread, to see why everyone in here is pissed off at him.

Yeah, but see, you did the same thing to me x-thousand posts ago that I see ya'll doing to Donnie. You saw what you wanted to see, took something completely out of context, and ran with it like a retarded dog into a brick wall.

There's a crazy church (to be redundant) element to much of the ex-SF posting. If someone doesn't Amen the foggiest, ill-formed assertion, they become the enemy--even if they're not against you!

It's cultish.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4067/nylabone.jpg


:hflol:hflol:hflol:hflol:hflol

Yeah, but see, you did the same thing to me x-thousand posts ago that I see ya'll doing to Donnie. You saw what you wanted to see, took something completely out of context, and ran with it like a retarded dog into a brick wall.

There's a crazy church (to be redundant) element to much of the ex-SF posting. If someone doesn't Amen the foggiest, ill-formed assertion, they become the enemy--even if they're not against you!
Well, what do you expect?

Cryptic posts which are hardly clear, and which appear to be better posted in OV, while hostilities are as high as they have been in this thread, will surely lead to misunderstandings.

If someone takes what you say the wrong way and you don't try to reveal your honorable intent, who's fault is that?

I admit that I read things in the frame of mind which I happen to be in at the time, and sometimes I mistake a friend for an enemy when that wasn't the intent. I'm not above an apology if I'm wrong, so you shouldn't be above a little clarification if I mistake your meaning.

Some of you guys try to be too clever in your posts, just grazing what you're really trying to say. It should be easy enough to understand that we don't know you well yet, and we have been dodging trolls like rice at a wedding.

When you are hypersensitive to biting remarks (easy to get that way on SF), it is easy to misjudge someone's intent.

I can assure you, that these folks from SF (not the trolls who followed) are strong supporters of WNism and are genuine men and women who are gun shy. We didn't come here looking for a fight, but we got one anyway, from the likes of George, Donnie & Wolfgang.

Do you expect us to be insulted and attacked without responding in kind? We are here, and we intend to rationally contribute to the forums. It matters not, that some of the "been here" folks don't like the "come here" folks, we are supposed to be on the same team.

Once again, we agree on much more than we disagree on, and the differences of opinion are minor. So I will only respond to certain points:


There's no need for videos. All people have to do is act like adults.

Agreed! There is no "need" for it, but it was a simple suggestion for those who are looking for a solution to their problem. As individuals, they can take it or leave it.

I had a couple dozen people on my site either share an introductory video of themselves publicly or just privately "introduce" themselves to me. Naturally, they were taken just a bit more seriously from that point on. Simple enough.

On the other hand, I wish we ALL demonstrated that simple WILL. To not cower in fear to their "laws" or their other means of control over us (jobs, reputation, etc). Perhaps I am being too "idealistic" again, but imagine the message that it would send out if we all simply stood up, as men, and refused to cower to them? Now THAT'S a "movement" I would be happy to join, if I were a person looking for solutions. A movement lead by MEN of WILL and one that is comprised of MEN who are willing to follow that lead. Both our allies and our adversaries would take us a whole lot more serious.

Bottom line, until we get serious about this, we have NO reason to expect any positive results or change.

You point out all the time that this is "just the internet", and I agree. However, the fact that this is only "just the internet" and people are still holding back(due to a long list of excuses), gives me an even greater cause for concern. Could I count on these people once the ball started rolling in the real world? Hell, can we even get the ball rolling at all, with "men" who are pulling up short already?

Again, perhaps I am being a bit too "idealistic", but I would like to see more will, enthusiasm, and a sense of urgency from EVERYONE in this "movement". And until that WILL is demonstrated, this "movement" will not even get off the ground.


Now, I have not met Donnie. I know that he is ex-military. I keep alive in my head the possibility that he just might be keeping tabs on WN rather than a real WN himself. I don't think that's the case, but it's better to err on the side of excessive suspicion, all experience has shown.

Yes, true, but the thing is, Donnie has been here a long time. And worked with us on different projects. He has always been stable and reliable. And from what I see, and I believe most rational people would see it the same way, he did not initiate the personal insults. SOME ex-SFers did.

"Donnie" is not worth the attention he has gotten in this thread anymore than I am (not suggesting that he wanted it). We are just a couple of individuals and the issues themselves are obviously bigger than any/all of us. SOME of his comments/tactics were highly suspicious to me, but YOUR vouching for him carries some weight (which was one of the points I made). Now, you admit that it's based entirely on his history as an anonymous member of your site, but your OPINION of him still carries a certain amount of weight with it. Still though, certain comments he has made in this thread just don't quite sit right with me, even if he was Hitler reincarnated.

Who started the back and forth nonsense you are referring to? I don't even recall or care to, but you are absolutely dead on accurate in your assessment that BOTH sides have gone too far with it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if people on both sides were opportunistic Jews piling on and taking advantage of the opportunity that was handed to them on a silver platter.


Here's another example. The way SOME of the ex-SF are throwing around Don Black's background. Well, these people knew all that stuff when they were posting at Stormfront. So if they care about it now that they're banned, why didn't they care about before they were banned? That is unprincipled.

Absolutely!

I have struggled for years wondering whether or not I should simply make it a rule for new signups: either use your real name, or don't sign up. I guess I still think it's better to allow anyone interested in the door, but, boy, there is a lot to be said for the other way.

There certainly is a lot to be said for QUALITY over QUANTITY. Especially when you take into consideration the fact that MOST people will only "lurk", regardless of the standards we set. In my opinion, those people are still the primary focus, so most of the "garbage" that fills threads like these could be eliminated if we were to raise the bar a bit higher. We could essentially clean it up and get it out of their way. Why cloud their vision any further than is already is?

On the other hand, even if the primary focus shifted to communicating with the other "3%ers", I would still want men of WILL, and men who gave me at least SOME reason to trust them, rather than a bunch of anonymous people who are putting forth a half ass effort (at best).

So there is definitely a strong argument to be made for us to choose quality over quantity. I think it's best if people like you and I were to raise the bar a bit. What do you think? Worthy of thought or a possible change/adjustment of policy?

Really? A "large percentage"? How do you know that? I don't think there are that many infiltrators here, at this point. Most people here are anonymous for the same reason they're anonymous other places.

I broke this down earlier in the thread, but the fact is that most Whites visiting sites like ours are just here to read along. Of those who do participate, some are extremely misinformed, others fail to grasp the true extent of the danger that Jews represent to Whites, and even fewer are willing to stand up and call it like it is. On the other hand, Jews are NOT here to be shy or to simply read along. They are here to actively engage in leading the dissent. Anyone who has even an idea of the true scope of Jewish crimes, would fully understand their need to lead the dissent, and to actively engage in misleading or confusing people at every step along the way.

Even amongst that minority group of Jew-Wise Whites who know the truth and who can recognize these Jewish angles, most are too damn afraid or selfish to do anything about it… So basically, in a nut shell, these Jews have demonstrated more WILL to tell, enforce, and conceal their lies, than we have to simply speak and stand behind the truth.

So on websites like these, the Jewish “position” is grossly overrepresented, even if their tactics are not easily recognizable to the layman (they obviously were not meant to be easy to spot, so only a trained/experienced eye can pick up on it). I am NOT doubting YOUR ability to "spot" them, but in the end, neither you nor I could ever really know whether an anonymous member of our site is who they claim to be. In time they usually expose themselves, but until that time comes, we can't know for sure.


All we really need from anyone is that they follow the rules. Assuming the forum or whatever it is is run by a true WN and the rules are the correct ones to facilitate whatever online typing can do to advance the cause.

Following and enforcing rules are an obvious necessity. Your rules are about as simple and easy to follow as mine are.

However, I must point something out. The MSM never allows for a dissenting point of view to be expressed (not unless it is controlled dissent, of course). So perhaps we should consider taking a similar approach as well. Why should we merely facilitate an environment that might lead to an advancement of the cause, when we can see to it that EVERYTHING typed or spoken on our sites represents the TRUTH? They have NO problem presenting their lies, so why should we even hesitate on the other end and why should we allow their lies to INFECT our websites?

This is an open ended question, and one that I am currently mulling over myself. I am looking for some feedback, not telling YOU what to do.

My hangup is that I have been all about fighting censorship, so to turn around and actively engage in it myself, would be hypocritical (on a personal level). I openly invite Jews to post on my site. Of course they never do, not openly at least, but the offer has stood.

The danger in taking such an approach is that it becomes the "Scott Roberts" way or the "Alex Linder" method, rather than an open discussion. So on the surface that sounds bad, even Jew-like in nature. On the other hand, perhaps we should not allow anything we KNOW to be counter to the truth. Why allow the "trolls" or misinformed Whites to mislead or confuse our audience? Again, the MSM doesn't allow for it, and for good reason, but perhaps we can learn a thing or two from that approach.

Of course, I would still allow for conversations on..... let's say religion, despite that not being a focus of MINE, because I recognize the desire to discuss such things by many of our fellow Whites...AND I would only consider cutting out the obvious disinformation... BUT why should we allow these ridiculous arguments about 9/11 to be made (for instance)? You and I both know these politically correct points are flawed or flat out lies, so why allow them to interject such poison into the discussion?

I believe we could take a "common sense" approach, if we decided to go this route, and I am certainly considering it at this point. People are confused enough as it is, so why allow them free reign to spread their lies even further? They don't extend us the same courtesy on the MSM, and our task of debunking all the politically correct bullshit is daunting enough as it is. Allowing them to openly post on our sites only makes it that much more difficult to combat their massive efforts to mislead our people.

I am thinking that we should probably set some new parameters as to how far we will allow our members (or guests, since I allow guests to post on my site) to stray from what you and I know to be the truth (about everything, not just 9/11).

Just thinking aloud.. Thoughts?

You have said you don't think such details are important in the bigger picture, I can only assume to maintain the image of a united front by not questioning or criticizing another White Nationalist, regardless of the dubious nature of the claim.

I disagree on that.



I don't recall saying any such thing. As a matter of fact, I have stated clearly that NO ONE is off limits. Not only stated it, but made several videos, written many articles, and commented countless times on the exact opposite of what you are now admittedly assuming I meant. Whether intentional or not, you went on to respond based on this strawman argument.

It's not important to me if you or anyone else takes me seriously, Scott. I don't value your opinion. I'm not saying that to sound like an ass, I'm just being honest.

As for "valuing" my opinion. It really doesn't matter whether you place any value on me or my "opinion". But personally, I value any opinion, position, or point that provides valuable information, even if I don't care too much about the messenger. That's just me though. Then again, I could get into a nasty bar fight with someone and then buy them a drink right after. A single difference or even a series of differences does not lead me to automatically write someone off. But I digress, YOU can shut people off entirely IF you feel the need to do so.

"Donnie has been attacking me since about page 35 of this thread, he has been relentless and obnoxious without any reasonable justification for it."

Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley:

"Donnie, Witz-Gall, and Gibson, this post was meant for your consumption, with the hope that you would be less obvious in exposing yourselves through your agenda."

"That is Donnie in Israel a/k/a kosherkommando"

"Jews ain't white, kosherkommando, however I would like a chance to boil your pussy lips in semen for all eternity."

Originally Posted by Donnie in Israel (spoofed post by Fred)
"I would submit that I am smart."

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio (spoofed post by Fred)
"I love sucking jewish cock."

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio (spoofed post by Fred)
"I was blowing a nigger the other day and a cop caught me. Honeychild, that cop beat be so bad, it was so much fun, I creamed in my jeans."

"No, kosherkommando, it isn't a zionist/JIDF site.
Is everybody in your family as stupid as you?"

"Only a kosherkommando would say such a kosher thing."

"Look motherfucker, the proof is in this thread, go look for it."

"Donnie is a worthless fucking troll and you're just like him"

"Why don't you and Wayne crawl back under Donnie's cardboard desk and suck his nuts until he's ready to send you on another mission in defense of israeli trolls?"

"IN TYPICAL TROLL BEHAVIOR THE PIECE OF SHIT POSTS"

"Go aggrivate [sic] someone who thinks better of you, I'm convinced you're just a common piece of shit"

"Donnie, George & Shitskin have been exposed over & over in this thread, but they refuse to allow anyone to speak against their jew criminal brethern."

"More worthless jewspeak, nothing of any substance whatsoever from you, donnie or shitskin, just a continual flow of unending jewspeak and shit-breath and not a single post which could even be considered contributary."

I don't recall saying any such thing.


Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio:

Scott, do you honestly think it is "impossible" to prove that Lincoln, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ & Bill Clinton were not Jews?

Originally Posted by ScottRoberts:

It hardly matters

Originally Posted by ScottRoberts:

Please, my friends, DO NOT allow them to get you hung up on points like these that are not only impossible to prove/disprove, but they are ultimately IRRELEVANT!

Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley:

"Donnie, Witz-Gall, and Gibson, this post was meant for your consumption, with the hope that you would be less obvious in exposing yourselves through your agenda."

"That is Donnie in Israel a/k/a kosherkommando"

"Jews ain't white, kosherkommando, however I would like a chance to boil your pussy lips in semen for all eternity."

Originally Posted by Donnie in Israel (spoofed post by Fred)
"I would submit that I am smart."

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio (spoofed post by Fred)
"I love sucking jewish cock."

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio (spoofed post by Fred)
"I was blowing a nigger the other day and a cop caught me. Honeychild, that cop beat be so bad, it was so much fun, I creamed in my jeans."

"No, kosherkommando, it isn't a zionist/JIDF site.
Is everybody in your family as stupid as you?"

"Only a kosherkommando would say such a kosher thing."

"Look motherfucker, the proof is in this thread, go look for it."

"Donnie is a worthless fucking troll and you're just like him"

"Why don't you and Wayne crawl back under Donnie's cardboard desk and suck his nuts until he's ready to send you on another mission in defense of israeli trolls?"

"IN TYPICAL TROLL BEHAVIOR THE PIECE OF SHIT POSTS"

"Go aggrivate [sic] someone who thinks better of you, I'm convinced you're just a common piece of shit"

"Donnie, George & Shitskin have been exposed over & over in this thread, but they refuse to allow anyone to speak against their jew criminal brethern."

"More worthless jewspeak, nothing of any substance whatsoever from you, donnie or shitskin, just a continual flow of unending jewspeak and shit-breath and not a single post which could even be considered contributary."
Damn Fred....you're meaner than I am. :o

I'm just surprised that Alex hasn't taken the time to review Donnie's posts in this thread, to see why everyone in here is pissed off at him.


"Everyone" or just a few of the recent Stormfront dead?

Yes, thanks to Alex for having us here, and to Varg for being here and being so allowing as our minds free themselves of past conditioning and bondage.

I appreciate you having us here very much.

They become your (seemingly) loyal friend, maybe become your spouse, maybe they become that hardcore activist that seems so solid and trustworthy who you'd never dream of second guessing.



I'm cool with being a loyal friend and hardcore activist, but I draw the line at marrying Alex.

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio:

Scott, do you honestly think it is "impossible" to prove that Lincoln, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ & Bill Clinton were not Jews?

Originally Posted by ScottRoberts:

It hardly matters

Their DNA does not matter ("hardly matters"), but their ACTIONS absolutely matter. Whose interests their ACTIONS are serving matters even more.

I made that clear. And despite your attempts to belittle me for writing too much, are you telling me that my point still somehow went over your head?

This:
I can only assume to maintain the image of a united front by not questioning or criticizing another White Nationalist
was still a baseless assumption on your part. I'm not even sure how you tied the two things together and came to such a conclusion at all. It was in fact a WILD assumption, to say the least.

How does my suggesting that the ACTIONS of the ex presidents should be our focal point and not their DNA, get twisted so badly that you "assume" that I am trying to "maintain the image of a united front by not questioning or criticizing another White Nationalist"? These were ex presidents, not White Nationalists, AND I never said we shouldn't question or criticize ANYONE. NOBODY is "off limits" as far as I am concerned, and I have stated this more times than I can recall.

So again, where the hell did you come up with that? The above quote does NOTHING to explain your assumption. Are you willing to admit that you assumed too much or do you have some basis for your assumption to support it? It has to be either one or the other.

Fact is, I have NEVER even came close to suggesting such a thing. I have in fact spent a great deal of time pointing out the EXACT opposite of what you are now (admittedly) assuming. So good luck supporting this assumption of yours.

The only question remaining is whether or not you will stick to your "guns" or simply admit your mistake and move on?

Damn Fred....you're meaner than I am. :o

:) Notice he didn't post the crap he'd said just before that which justified those responses?

I'm cool with being a loyal friend and hardcore activist, but I draw the line at marrying Alex.I know you would never leave your wife, Donnie, but you got to admit Alex is a 'catch'.:D

Their DNA does not matter ("hardly matters"), but their ACTIONS absolutely matter.



Of course their DNA matters if they are being labeled as Jews by WN.

They were not Jewish, and claiming they were discredits us.

I am honestly perplexed as to why you can't see that.

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio:

Scott, do you honestly think it is "impossible" to prove that Lincoln, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ & Bill Clinton were not Jews?

Originally Posted by ScottRoberts:

It hardly matters

Originally Posted by ScottRoberts:

Please, my friends, DO NOT allow them to get you hung up on points like these that are not only impossible to prove/disprove, but they are ultimately IRRELEVANT!

I see you went back and added another quote .

Well, keep digging, but you will never come up with ANYTHING that even comes close to supporting your assumption.

I have clearly stated the exact opposite of what you are now claiming... literally hundreds of times (if not thousands). I have been redundant about it actually, so you can dig all you want, but ultimately you can save yourself time and face by simply admitting that your little assumption was not only a wild one, but completely inaccurate as well.

This is but ONE instance of my calling our "leaders" into question: http://theforbiddentruth.net/videos/1357/leadership.html There are many others, where I called out specific individuals, but do I really have to post hundreds of examples to counter your assumption? I think one is sufficient enough.

Of course their DNA matters if they are being labeled as Jews by WN.

They were not Jewish, and claiming they were discredits us.

I am honestly perplexed as to why you can't see that.

What if it's YOUR error that discredits us?
Genealogical and historical evidence strongly suggests that the 36th US President and his wife were secretly Jewish. This is highly significant when one considers that President Johnson joined America and Israel at the hip, a policy that has now been in place for nearly 40 years, and a policy which most of the world does not understand or endorse. The following sections will hopefully shed new light on this taboo subject:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson_highlights.htm

JWeekly
Friend, ally, savior: Revealing LBJ’s Jewish ties
by lenny ben-david
Research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather "Big Sam" and father "Little Sam" seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. Johnson's speechwriter later stated, "Johnson often cited Leo Frank's lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism."http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/36262/friend-ally-savior-revealing-lbj-s-jewish-ties/

J-Post article sheds new light on motivation behind LBJ’s treasonous Israel first policy

“In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.”

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.”

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.

What if it's YOUR error that discredits us



Sigh...

"Lyndon Baines Johnson was born near Stonewall, Texas, on August 27, 1908, in a small farmhouse on the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys: Johnson and his brother, Sam Houston Johnson (1914–1978), and sisters Rebekah (1910–1978), Josefa (1912–1961), and Lucia (1916–1997). The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas was named after Johnson's father's cousin, James Polk Johnson, whose forebears had moved west from Georgia. The Johnsons were originally of Scots-Irish and English royal ancestry. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his 11th-grade class. He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924 having participated in public speaking, debate, and baseball.

Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored some eight churches in Texas as well as others in Arkansas and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of Baylor University during the American Civil War. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson (1881–1958).

Johnson's grandfather Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr. was raised as a Baptist. Subsequently, in his early adulthood, he became a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). "

Of course their DNA matters if they are being labeled as Jews by WN.

They were not Jewish, and claiming they were discredits us.

I am honestly perplexed as to why you can't see that.

It is a pointless debate to engage in.

I am honestly perplexed as to why YOU can't see that I was actually AGREEING with you on this point. As I pointed out earlier, I was suggesting to those who appear to be on my side of THIS argument ("my friends"), that they should NOT get caught up in a debate OR even worry about the DNA of those who ultimately and obviously served Jewish INTERESTS. Jews and "Benedict Arnold's" alike should be held/viewed in equal contempt. Chalk it up as a misunderstanding, but I think I was clear (even redundant) in making my point.

Being redundant, yet again:
In other words, "my friends" should not go around falsely labeling ANYONE as a Jew. That should not even be a point of contention. It is ultimately a waste of time AND it can only serve to discredit us when we fail to prove our (inconsequential) claims, as you pointed out. The focus should be on THEIR words and THEIR actions, not their DNA.

It is ultimately a waste of time AND it can only serve to discredit us when we fail to prove our (inconsequential) claims, as you pointed out. The focus should be on THEIR words and THEIR actions, not their DNA.



Agree 100%.

The troll factor over on that VNN thread is so bad, it's as bad as being silenced at SF. I don't think I ever saw a more fucked up thread in my life, due to provacaturing jews, and those who pretend that there's nothing wrong with SF. Gees .. I guess it was all my imagination. Now, naming the troll brings in more of the VNN gang to protect the troll. Anyone who hangs in there for 4000 posts working to disrupt a thread by being disagreeable with just about anything WNs have to say, is a troll. How do you get passed it? The mother fucker needs to be removed for trolling.

I agree. Something has to be done here. We waste too much time going in circles with them and playing their little games (that thread is a perfect case study). More importantly, our allowing them to roam/post freely only leads to confusion and chaos (a desired outcome on their part and something we simply cannot afford to have). Order MUST be restored, even if the open dialogue needs to be sacrificed a bit in the process.

I am going to record a video tonight in order to pull out a couple of points from this discussion and get some feedback on the change of approach that I am now contemplating (and suggesting to Alex).

Agree 100%.

See, that wasn't so painful, was it? Agreeing with someone, even if you don't care for them or value their opinion, is not all that hard to do. ;)

Sigh...

What would you expect "the official story" to say?

What if it's YOUR error that discredits us?

Genealogical and historical evidence strongly suggests that the 36th US President and his wife were secretly Jewish. This is highly significant when one considers that President Johnson joined America and Israel at the hip, a policy that has now been in place for nearly 40 years, and a policy which most of the world does not understand or endorse. The following sections will hopefully shed new light on this taboo subject:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson_highlights.htm

JWeekly
Friend, ally, savior: Revealing LBJ’s Jewish ties
by lenny ben-david
Research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather "Big Sam" and father "Little Sam" seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. Johnson's speechwriter later stated, "Johnson often cited Leo Frank's lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism."http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/36262/friend-ally-savior-revealing-lbj-s-jewish-ties/

J-Post article sheds new light on motivation behind LBJ’s treasonous Israel first policy

“In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.”

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.”

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail.

Sigh...

"Lyndon Baines Johnson was born near Stonewall, Texas, on August 27, 1908, in a small farmhouse on the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys: Johnson and his brother, Sam Houston Johnson (1914–1978), and sisters Rebekah (1910–1978), Josefa (1912–1961), and Lucia (1916–1997). The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas was named after Johnson's father's cousin, James Polk Johnson, whose forebears had moved west from Georgia. The Johnsons were originally of Scots-Irish and English royal ancestry. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his 11th-grade class. He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924 having participated in public speaking, debate, and baseball.

Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored some eight churches in Texas as well as others in Arkansas and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of Baylor University during the American Civil War. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson (1881–1958).

Johnson's grandfather Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr. was raised as a Baptist. Subsequently, in his early adulthood, he became a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). "

If you "agree 100%", then why are you playing along? Honest question.

Make your point (the one in which you agree with me on), by letting him know that it's a pointless and counterproductive position to take, and then move on. In other words, rather than attempting to prove that LBJ was not a Jew (taking that position does NOT look good at all), simply make it known that it DOES NOT even matter, since he ultimately and clearly served Jewish INTERESTS.

The back and forth volley is more damaging than a simple response to let everyone know that it doesn't even matter. Quite frankly, it makes people from BOTH sides (of this particular issue) look bad, and assuming that we are all ultimately on the same side here, that's not good. Would you not agree with this assessment as well?

It would read like this:
John Doe: LBJ was a Jew.
You: Whether he was or not is irrelevant, since Jewish interests were ultimately served. Getting caught up on his DNA will only undermine our argument, so let's not engage in such trivial debate.

Instead of like this:
John Doe: LBJ was a Jew.
You: No he was not.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.
John Doe: Yes he was.
You: No he wasn't.

John Doe: You're a Jew.
You: No, You Are!
etc...

Getting caught up on his DNA will only undermine our argument, so let's not engage in such trivial debate.

Sorry, Scott, I refuse to be labeled by someone in error, then having the error multiplied and used as an excuse to go on some witch hunt of defamation.

I agree that the question is moot. It's only value is that placed on it by him at my expense. The argument goes beyond the question.

See, that wasn't so painful, was it? Agreeing with someone, even if you don't care for them or value their opinion, is not all that hard to do. ;)



Believe it or not Scott, I don't dislike you. I'm not your enemy. /shrug

I don't even know you, so I am ambivalent on the matter of your opinons.

It's nothing personal.

Sorry, Scott, I refuse to be labeled by someone in error, then having the error multiplied and used as an excuse to go on some witch hunt of defamation.

I agree that the question is moot. It's only value is that placed on it by him at my expense.

Well, someone is going to have to be the bigger man and drop that particular debate. Both of you have essentially admitted that it is pointless/moot/counterproductive, so all that remains is for ONE of you to bow out and move on. Unless I am missing something here?

The argument goes beyond the question.

It often does.

If anyone tried to read this thread from scratch, the importance of it would probably be lost in between the 4 or so derailments inside. The main topic is (was?) about those of us who have witnessed the alarming developments at SF which pointed to something much more sinister and dangerous then a mere disagreement of approach.

Since then, so much confusion has poisoned the central discussion who knows if it can recover at this point.

It would read like this:

John Doe: LBJ was a Jew.

You: Whether he was or not is irrelevant, since Jewish interests were ultimately served. Getting caught up on his DNA will only undermine our argument, so let's not engage in such trivial debate.



I don't think the point is irrelevant. The truth matters.

Calling a non-Jew historical figure a Jew makes us look like kooks.

If you "agree 100%", then why are you playing along? Honest question.

It is indisputable that LBJ acted in favor of The Jewish Nation.

It is indisputable that LBJ placed The Jewish Nation before the US.

It is indisputable that LBJ did tremendous damage to the US.

I don't care if some jerk wants to spend time attempting to draw others into some idiotic circle jerk about which president was a Jew or not.

None of that changes the facts regarding LBJs actions.

At best, LBJ was a "Shabbos Goy".




Yes, people do exist who suffer from mental illness. It's best not to engage them once identified.

If anyone tried to read this thread from scratch, the importance of it would probably be lost in between the 4 or so derailments inside. The main topic is (was?) about those of us who have witnessed the alarming developments at SF which pointed to something much more sinister and dangerous then a mere disagreement of approach.

Since then, so much confusion has poisoned the central discussion who knows if it can recover at this point.


Yes. And we know why this is.

If anyone tried to read this thread from scratch, the importance of it would probably be lost in between the 4 or so derailments inside. The main topic is (was?) about those of us who have witnessed the alarming developments at SF which pointed to something much more sinister and dangerous then a mere disagreement of approach.

Since then, so much confusion has poisoned the central discussion who knows if it can recover at this point.

No doubt, this has become a case study of what I believe to be Jewish tactics (of derailment) on display. Regardless of who the "Jews" were/are.

Still, a lot of good can still come of it all. Even if a single Jew never posted in this thread (hypothetical, since that was certainly not the case, IMO), and it was all just a train wreck of White Nationalist "infighting", we can still come together on certain points, learn from it, and move on more productively in the future. Other than throwing our hands up in frustration, that is the only practical way to look at it.

Well, someone is going to have to be the bigger man and drop that particular debate. Both of you have essentially admitted that it is pointless/moot/counterproductive, so all that remains is for ONE of you to bow out and move on. Unless I am missing something here?
It often does.

It may have started as a mere disagreement based on differing sources of data, It was turned into a contest of honor and strength of will.

Donnie seems to try to get everyone to believe I torpedoed WNism by stating what I believe, through research, to be true. I don't think he believes that, but it was a good excuse to destroy this thread and show his distaste for the newbies. His is a fraudulent disposition based in what I believe to be malicious intent.

I don't think the point is irrelevant. The truth matters.

Calling a non-Jew historical figure a Jew makes us look like kooks.

Really? Then address the data, civilly, and we can clear this BS up.

Genealogical and historical evidence strongly suggests that the 36th US President and his wife were secretly Jewish. This is highly significant when one considers that President Johnson joined America and Israel at the hip, a policy that has now been in place for nearly 40 years, and a policy which most of the world does not understand or endorse. The following sections will hopefully shed new light on this taboo subject:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson_highlights.htm

JWeekly
Friend, ally, savior: Revealing LBJ’s Jewish ties
by lenny ben-david
Research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather "Big Sam" and father "Little Sam" seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. Johnson's speechwriter later stated, "Johnson often cited Leo Frank's lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism."http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/36262/friend-ally-savior-revealing-lbj-s-jewish-ties/

J-Post article sheds new light on motivation behind LBJ’s treasonous Israel first policy

“In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.”

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.”

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.

I don't think the point is irrelevant. The truth matters.

Calling a non-Jew historical figure a Jew makes us look like kooks.

Arguing back in forth over matters that are RELATIVELY meaningless is what makes "us" look like "kooks".

There are countless other "truths" that matter a whole hell of a lot more than the DNA of LBJ. Either way, THIS is certainly not the place for THAT discussion. It comes off as an attempted derailment, as Griften just pointed out.

No doubt, this has become a case study of what I believe to be Jewish tactics (of derailment) on display. Regardless of who the "Jews" were/are.

That tactic is called "Point Scoring".

Central to Point Scoring is attempting to disguise it by giving the impression of genuine debate.

This is indeed a tactic taught to supporters of The Jewish Nation.

People who use that tactic are being intellectually dishonest.

In the cases you're referring to - we can't say with certainty what the motive is. But, as soon as you identify a person using that tactic - call them out on it.

Only the most unsophisticated reader can't see the pathetic manipulations of Point Scoring.

Guys,

My suggestion is to stop engaging Donnie.

He has been using Point Scoring techniques.


The overall effect has been to derail the thread.


Donnie's actions speak for themselves.....just as LBJs did.

This thread is not an activism thread, guys.

Alex has made that clear.

The thread is located in the Nutzpah Lounge. It is impossible to derail a thread in Nutzpah, because just by virtue of it being heer, there is no such thing as an "off-topic" post.

Guys,

My suggestion is to stop engaging Donnie.

He has been using Point Scoring techniques.



And the score is 47-0.

This thread is not an activism thread, guys.

Alex has made that clear.

The thread is located in the Nutzpah Lounge. It is impossible to derail a thread in Nutzpah, because just by virtue of it being heer, there is no such thing as an "off-topic" post.
Doesn't his refusal to address the data, shadow-boxing around the facts, side-stepping honor and truth to hurl insults and BS like this post demonstrate an evil intent?

This post clearly demonstrates that he is here to derail and troll.

Doesn't his refusal to address the data, shadow-boxing around the facts, side-stepping honor and truth to hurl insults and BS like this post demonstrate an evil intent?

This post clearly demonstrates that he is here to derail and troll.


What data, Fred?

I posted the proof that LBJ was not a Jew (multiple times), you simply ignored it.

Anyone reading the thread can easily see that.

And what part of "impossible to derail a Nutzpah thread" don't you understand?

What data, Fred?

It is YOUR EVIL and MALICIOUS INTENT that discredits us?
Genealogical and historical evidence strongly suggests that the 36th US President and his wife were secretly Jewish. This is highly significant when one considers that President Johnson joined America and Israel at the hip, a policy that has now been in place for nearly 40 years, and a policy which most of the world does not understand or endorse. The following sections will hopefully shed new light on this taboo subject:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson_highlights.htm

JWeekly
Friend, ally, savior: Revealing LBJ’s Jewish ties
by lenny ben-david
Research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America. As a young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather "Big Sam" and father "Little Sam" seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta. Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. Johnson's speechwriter later stated, "Johnson often cited Leo Frank's lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism."http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/36262/friend-ally-savior-revealing-lbj-s-jewish-ties/

J-Post article sheds new light on motivation behind LBJ’s treasonous Israel first policy

“In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and military assistance can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.”

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.”

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.

In ten years of frequenting forums, I have never used the ignore function. I'm making an exception in your case.

What data, Fred?

I posted the proof that LBJ was not a Jew (multiple times), you simply ignored it.


No, you posted an excerpt from Wikipedia, that's hardly solid "proof".

It is YOUR EVIL and MALICIOUS INTENT that discredits us?



No, your hysteria does that quite well, Fred.

This is the last time I am going to post this, as I realize you seem to be descending into Celtic Patriot mode, and no one wants to see that.

I just want the readers to understand that you are ignoring the following:


"Lyndon Baines Johnson was born near Stonewall, Texas, on August 27, 1908, in a small farmhouse on the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys: Johnson and his brother, Sam Houston Johnson (1914–1978), and sisters Rebekah (1910–1978), Josefa (1912–1961), and Lucia (1916–1997). The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas was named after Johnson's father's cousin, James Polk Johnson, whose forebears had moved west from Georgia. The Johnsons were originally of Scots-Irish and English royal ancestry. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his 11th-grade class. He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924 having participated in public speaking, debate, and baseball.

Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored some eight churches in Texas as well as others in Arkansas and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of Baylor University during the American Civil War. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson (1881–1958).

Johnson's grandfather Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr. was raised as a Baptist. Subsequently, in his early adulthood, he became a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). "

Is this who I think it is?
http://www.vnnforum.com/search.php?searchid=2610493

Sigh...

"Lyndon Baines Johnson was born near Stonewall, Texas, on August 27, 1908, in a small farmhouse on the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys: Johnson and his brother, Sam Houston Johnson (1914–1978), and sisters Rebekah (1910–1978), Josefa (1912–1961), and Lucia (1916–1997). The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas was named after Johnson's father's cousin, James Polk Johnson, whose forebears had moved west from Georgia. The Johnsons were originally of Scots-Irish and English royal ancestry. In school, Johnson was an awkward, talkative youth and was elected president of his 11th-grade class. He graduated from Johnson City High School in 1924 having participated in public speaking, debate, and baseball.

Johnson was maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored some eight churches in Texas as well as others in Arkansas and Louisiana. Baines was also the president of Baylor University during the American Civil War. George Baines was the grandfather of Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson (1881–1958).

Johnson's grandfather Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr. was raised as a Baptist. Subsequently, in his early adulthood, he became a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). "


What is the source of this information, Donnie??

Who provides us with all the information? Of course, the jews, the most subverssive, deceitful cock-suckers ever to have walked this earth. Supposedly, jew-watch, a website that actually investigates the lies jews puts out, is not a reliable source of information, but for jew friendlies, only sources manned by jews are reliable sources. :rolleyes: Now, tell me how that works on a WN site? Probably works well in the OV. HOw could any WN take information provided on a jew information site as gospel? I certainly don't know if LBJ was a jew or not, and I wouldn't die on that hill, but for damn sure FDR was and he did incalculable damage to the White race, but you won't find out that very ominous fact by looking on jew sanctioned websites.

What is the source of this information, Donnie??

Wikipedia.

As I have stated before, it hardly qualifies as solid proof.

Everybody knows jews would never imitate gentiles in order to escape detection and help destroy whites.

Wikipedia.

As I have stated before, it hardly qualifies as solid proof.

You have just provided the understatement of the year. And this guy (donnie-dickhead) says jew-watch is unreliable? At least jew-watch is manned by people like us exposing jew atrocities. Wikipedia is manned by jews to cover up jew perfidy, and that's a fucken fact!

You have just provided the understatement of the year. And this guy (donnie-dickhead) says jew-watch is unreliable? At least jew-watch is manned by people like us exposing jew atrocities. Wikipedia is manned by jews to cover up jew perfidy, and that's a fucken fact!
I can't see his posts, but none of the sources I cited was Jew Watch, if that's what he is trying to discredit. I doubt he has any sincerity, he's evil & malicious.

I thought he lambasted jew-watch in one of his posts as not reliable. It didn't have to pertain to one of your links, but the point being, that this guy has the gall to post shit from jew controlled wikipedia, and that's his proof of whatever? Why should Wikipedia have more credibility than a site run by those who know what the jews are? Christ! If someone is Catholic, it says so in Wikipedia, but if they're a jew, but don't happen to have a typical jew name, they leave all reference to religion or ethnicity out of it. This is not just wikipedia, but across the net. You can't find out anything the jews don't want you to find out. They don't want anybody to put the puzzle pieces together. What is unreliable is any site controlled by jews. Any WN should understand that.

I define a troll as someone who is only in a thread to disrupt and piss people off.

Which is exactly what Donnie was doing for page after page after page.


You're the only one who sees it that way.

It's looking more and more, in fact, like you are the troll.


Donnie has resorted to the typical troll tactic at times of criticizing someone's spelling. Do you think that kind of petty troll shit forwards white nationalism in any way shape or form?

Attention to details doesn't matter - the eternal cry of the born loser.


"Cuz if we go with your theory, that he's a "troll" whose mission here is to push the government line on 9/11, then it would seem to me, just off the top of my head, that our original massive 9/11 thread would have been a really good place for him to post massive numbers of posts to accomplish his mission. And I feel pretty sure that's how most rational people would see it. "

We're in an online medium here Linder. People can create accounts to appear genuine in one sense and then create a whole slurry of accounts under proxies to do their dirty work with.

Can I prove Donnie did this with other accounts? No.

Does his behavior in the Stormfront 911 thread make me suspect him of this?

Yes.

Yeah, I can check, and he's not. It's your type that does that sort of thing.


The group "Jews Against Zionism" but those of us in the know about the Jews subversive sociopathic nature realize that this is just a manipulation and seeing as how you're the same guy that bought Hal Turner's bullshit line about being a genuine authentic dyed in the wool white nationalist I'd say you're not exactly the best judge of character here Alex.

I told people Hal Turner was a liar earlier than virtually anyone else in the game when I told them he was lying about his hosting costs. So you come up with a quote where I said anything else. He was long TC'd here and ignored, and any threads dealing with him moved into the clown forum.

So, either you don't know this, or you're lying.

I think you're just plain lying.


You have proven you can be fooled.


Anyone can be fooled. In the case of Hal Turner, I was proven correct.


"When a newbie comes here and starts attacking a solid, loyal, rational, self-controlled long-term member with juvenile insults -- ie Donnie from Israel and suchlike -- we draw the reasonable conclusion. We have higher standards here than Stormfront. We expect people here to act like serious adults. If they don't, they don't last real long."

He was and is called "Donnie From Israel" as a result of his words and behavior and has no one to blame but himself for that title.


You're a clown.


"You are the one shrieking with wild abandon in "typical kike theatrics," as you put it. And I guarantee that how everybody here but your 3-4 friends from SF sees it. "


What brand of hallucinogenics/psychadelics were you on before reading this reasonable explanatory post excerpt of mine that could somehow cause you to engage in the twisted mental gymnastics necessary to perceive it as "typical kike theatrics" or theatrics of any kind?

Ok, that does it. You're out of here.

We're not tolerating blank character smears, folks. If you want to spew lies about people, defame their character, question their motives, I hear Don Black has a little website.

Who provides us with all the information? Of course, the jews, the most subverssive, deceitful cock-suckers ever to have walked this earth. Supposedly, jew-watch, a website that actually investigates the lies jews puts out, is not a reliable source of information, but for jew friendlies, only sources manned by jews are reliable sources. :rolleyes: Now, tell me how that works on a WN site? Probably works well in the OV. HOw could any WN take information provided on a jew information site as gospel? I certainly don't know if LBJ was a jew or not, and I wouldn't die on that hill, but for damn sure FDR was and he did incalculable damage to the White race, but you won't find out that very ominous fact by looking on jew sanctioned websites.

Frank Weltner has a BA in Library Science. For being a college educated archivist, Jew Watch sure is a complete mess.

Funny thing, he also has a Mezuzah hanging outside of his front door. Several years ago I asked him about it and he gave me his explanation, can't remember what it was, and I moved on.

Can someone do me a favor? Make sure the Editor and Queef of Shalomfront gets a link of this:

Tell him its from Whitepwr88 :D

But I take no credit for making it.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7843/jackot.jpg

Yes. It's good to see you making a contribution here, rather than just bitching about SF. We who were not regular posters here have imposed upon Alex's hospitality to get a load off our minds.

It's not an imposition. It's part of the reason this forum exists. We believe in criticism of all who deserve it. Traditional WN culture covers up problems at the top. VNN has always been a place where the leaders of NA, now SF, or any other group could be discussed. And I make sure the criticism stays rational and doesn't get too far into the personal - unless the facts are there. White men should never be afraid to speak the truth, especially about important things.


Your Scotch-Irish realism allows you to understand that if one's goal were to expose Boot/Black, repetitive charges of "He's a jew," etc. become counter-productive. Those who intend to devote a large part, even a majority of their online time to VNN should get over the divorce and start trying to post something meaningful here. I intend to be no more than an occasional poster, although I have rarely missed a week coming here to glean the jewels which are always available on the site.

The facts about Black et al are enough. No need, as you say, to make up lies. And equally no need to dredge up the past when we all know about it and have made up our minds.


Some of us recent SF cast-offs seem not to realize that Alex is sharp enough to deduce that we have been "Using" his board. He is, believe me.

Well, yeah. But it's a discussion forum. It's made to be used for discussions. Hopefully productive ones. This discussion has been productive, altho it has gone beyond that at points.


I do not intend to make VNN my primary home on the net, for the reason previously iterated, to wit, I can't send my granddaughters here to read my stuff. Nevertheless I will not insult long time posters here, nor will I continue to harangue readers with my bitches about the other site. It''s counter productive.


Fair enough.


I don't mean to be too hard on those who are so obviously torn up about their banishment, since I fully expected to be a short timer from the time Bjarni closed the Steele thread, and was ready to go. My only problem was with the method of my expulsion, and not the fact of it.

This Steele thread closing is probably the single shabbiest thing in the entire trove of complaints about SF, in my opinion.


I appreciate Alex's graciousness in allowing me to do so. Therefore I will not litter his board with a lot of whining. I intend to continue to lurk occasionally, and post when I think it might be positive.

We certainly enjoy and benefit from reading your posts, and hope you will continue posting from time to time. The social services thing I guess Kelso is doing is an excellent thing to be involved with.

Well, I don't necessarily believe that there is a right way or a wrong way to promote WN. I may not agree with everyone's opinions and beliefs, or the way they convey their ideas or conduct themselves. Everyone has their own personality and should have the right to express themselves freely and openly. Which is something that one cannot do at Stormfront.

Tow the Stormfront line, drink the Kool Aid, repeat the mantra, jump when told to jump, shut-up when told to shut-up, donate when you are told to donate, any discussions or topics that do not conform to Stormfront's demagoguery will simply not be tolerated.

I agree. On a forum, uniformity is not desirable. A forum is not a book, which needs perfect layout and editing. Forums are by their nature looser. People should be free to express themselves, as long as they are not spewing lies about other people, but are working honestly on the question under discussion. Too many people, and of course some are veiled antis, want to use forums to character-smear and spread lies. Free speech is never absolute anywhere. Here it is subordinate to what is "good for Whites."


It is inevitable that a forum, whose purpose is strictly homogeneous in it's agenda, will quickly grow stagnant under such conditions. To use an old euphemism, it is like preaching to the choir.

It's more like Sunday School. The SF admins are the teachers, and the members are the students. They don't want a group of self-directed adults, but a bunch of sheep, just like the low-rent Christians they resemble demographically. The best way to understand tradtional WN culture is as a Southern Baptist church run by semi-corrupt pastors more concerned with the contents of the collection plate than the character of their charges and clergy. WASP culture is also implicated. Lies, polite smiles, hypocrisy - the WASP ways are a very large part of the reason, second only to jewish activity, that whites have failed as yet to develop formal organizational resistance to the jew. The Anglo way of politicking, where virtually everything the candidate says is a lie, and a lie for which the candidate will never be personally called to account, has a mirror in the scumsludge's enjoyment in using an anonymous means of sliming his betters.


It is the personalities that make up any forum. Any loss of the basic human elements that restrict the expression of real human emotions and feelings, on any topic or subject, is bound to become stagnant.

True. And the non-political stuff serves to build a real virtual community. It helps indirectly. A joke is not an argument. It is better than an argument. The argument is SO OBVIOUSLY TRUE it doesnt have to be expressed.


And that is what is happening to Stormfront, it has grown stagnant, dull and disinteresting, and is becoming even more stagnant due to the direction that it is being taken - mainstream conservatism, politically correct - with a slight tinge of racist ideology that is quickly fading into the abyss.

And what is most interesting to non-SF people, and most relevant to our cause, is precisely why this is. But the why seems much less interesting to former SF people than random cursings against various mods and personalities. The rest of us really don't care about that stuff much.

Originally Posted by Jake Heke
Clearly throughout this thread Donnie From Israel has dictated that he wants a "gutter" fight with ALL of us not just Fred here.........
I define a troll as someone who is only in a thread to disrupt and piss people off.
Which is exactly what Donnie was doing for page after page after page.

I have had a change of heart, I'm sure Donnie wouldn't do that just to stir up animosity on the thread , he is obviously above reproach.

(from page 143 this thread)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Liberty
Another gem of wisdom and great contribution to the Stormfront is a kike run operation thread.


Posted by Donnie
Nigger please.
Like your drivel reads like Chaucer.

And what is most interesting to non-SF people, and most relevant to our cause, is precisely why this is. But the why seems much less interesting to former SF people than random cursings against various mods and personalities. The rest of us really don't care about that stuff much.

I took my share of attacking some SF mods and personalities as many others have done, because what they did to me bothers me. That's probably how they hope I feel, since I know I bothered them by showing a lot of Sustaining Members what's really going on there. But I hope you've noticed that I've done more than that. To get into the why part about Stormfront's situation, I'll add this to the discussion:

I would say that there are multiple factors which cause "moderate" and "mainstream" movements or groups to be less interesting and therefore incapable of recruiting more people.
I've seen some people argue (and I think it's a good argument) that it indicates that you are dishonest or half-hearted about your position and efforts. Obviously, anyone who gets that impression is likely to not listen to you if you're a "moderate".
It seems also that since moderate or mainstream politicians, whether racialist or not, are not very inspiring and usually don't gain the kind of interest a movement aiming for serious change would want, imitating already moderate or mainstream politicians won't have very good results.
Another thing I would argue is simply that the more "extreme" or radical ideologies are more interesting. I know that I myself was drawn to National Socialism because it was something people seriously believed and fought for. It wasn't some kind of uninteresting political attitude, it was something that had people going to battlefield and fighting to the death for. Well, there was also Hitler's amazing charisma. But it's not only National Socialism that has this effect, various ideologies and religions work in the same way.
Essentially, radical/revolutionary/extreme ideologies or religions provide a full and serious worldview and aim for real change. Moderate/mainstream idealogies are weak and less interesting simply because of what they are.

It's definitely true that being "moderate" actually helps recruite new people that otherwise wouldn't have been recruited (although it turns some away), since many Whites are now weak and "moderate". But those people are likely to stay moderate, rather than move on to something serious, and are therefore not useful for the true White Nationalist movement. We want youthful, energetic, and radical-minded believers in our movement, not weak moderates who would probably not be willing to fight if they had to.

If we look at Hitler, Codreanu, Mosley, Mussolini, Franco, Rockwell, etc., which of these people made serious use of moderates? None of them, because a movement aiming for real change requires people who will accept the attitude of that aim.

How interesting that Stormfront has some books collected in a certain section, including Rockwell's White Power. Let's all take the time to read the chapter 12 where Rockwell explains how "moderates" and "conservatives" had been trying for decades to win but never could really make it:

http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ns/WP/WP12.html

I could have linked any other site with that book's chapter, but I wanted to use Stormfront just to remind everyone at SF that at some point they were really White Nationalists, not some kind of NeoConservatives with a bit of racialism mixed in.

Some argue that the German National Socialists were "mainstreaming". That's not true, they were very revolutionary, they just knew how to use propaganda to effectively reach the masses (charismatic leaders also helped, of course). It was the same with Rockwell, who was on his way to a success that most racialists are just dreaming about. He knew how to reach the American people with effective propaganda and how to convey a radical idea, National Socialism, to them.

What many people fail to realize is that now we aren't in the right conditions, especially in terms of economic conditions, to make a successful movement (at least not in most countries, but some like Russia could manage it). People can try all the "mainstreaming" methods they want, but it won't work when in the end the ZOG holds control over what's really mainstream. We are up against the most powerful propaganda system in history, and in addition to that most Whites still have enough luxuries to be cowardly and materialistic. We probably need to wait until the economic conditions worsen before we can really spread our movement to the masses. At that point, inflammatory propaganda will likely be the most useful tool to make people listen to and understand our message.


But what I said applies mostly to real-life movements, though it partially applies to the Internet too. When it comes down to just forums, I think it's best to be radical in outlook at least to some extent (it certainly would gain it more attention). It will also be useful to have educated people who are willing to take the time and effort to educate others, especially the newbies. Stormfront is losing both of those right now because of their moves to make their forum more "moderate".

This thread came to my attention a few hours ago. I admit at SF I normally stick to the news and not much else. But I came across a thread talking about banned people, and given that I'm not on SF as often or as widespread as I used to be, I'm sorry to see all this.

Now the lead up to my question: I am struck at the resistance I'm seeing towards questioning the official version of the 9-11 question. 9-11--an inside job; a demolition, not a pancake theory; the Jews had something to do with it. Frankly, I thought these things all the way back in September of 2001. I remember on 9-11-01 sitting in front of the tv, and when building 7 was afire, there was so much focus on it, and then it fell. I swear it's in my memory that the building had been deliberately detonated and that it was stated as such, I believe by CNN, at the time it fell. Perhaps that was when Silverstein said "pull it", which was later argued to mean, pull the emergency people out of there, not the building.

We've heard the debates.

What puzzles me is the resistance to the rejection of the official version of 9-11, by those at the top of Stormfront. I won't go into details, but this rejection goes much deeper than is seen on SF.

What I'm seeing on this thread is the accusation that the reason for this stance to go along with the official version of 9-11 is because SF is "Jewish controlled". I think that is too simplified, and may or may not be accurate.

I'm looking for some answers that are not about hurling insults, but offer some real insight. Maybe no one here knows the real answer to my question.

But I think the character of this situation is very odd. What is most striking to me is the level of fear that seems to accompany the rejection of the non-official versions of 9-11. There are even some spaces where 9-11 is not to be explored publicly. But in those areas my intuition gives me cause to avoid asking for a real reason why 9-11 discussion is hushed.


That's the word--hushed. 9-11 discussion is hushed.

WHY? Why are some of the more well-known WN silencing that discussion? Who would even care about all the debates appearing in these spaces, since they do everywhere else anyway? Why am I picking up a sense of nervousness over the idea that the discussion should not be public?

In other words--what in the hell is REALLY going on?

Maybe it's really an issue about how some people reject the official version, others reject the unofficial versions simply being unconvinced people, and the nervousness is over a fear in causing a lot of animosity between people who should support each other otherwise. Maybe it's an attempt to keep a powder keg from causing a breach between White people. That would be logical. But my intuition is waving a red flag. It feels like something else is there, and that something else has not been stated. The underlying nervousness about the situation is loud and clear to me.

Any ideas?

On the other hand, I wish we ALL demonstrated that simple WILL. To not cower in fear to their "laws" or their other means of control over us (jobs, reputation, etc). Perhaps I am being too "idealistic" again, but imagine the message that it would send out if we all simply stood up, as men, and refused to cower to them? Now THAT'S a "movement" I would be happy to join, if I were a person looking for solutions. A movement lead by MEN of WILL and one that is comprised of MEN who are willing to follow that lead. Both our allies and our adversaries would take us a whole lot more serious.

I agree, but I think this fits a party. A website is not a party. Yes, people are a little more serious if they make a video, use their real name, but still, if there's no formal organization, the practical effect is to expose good people to unnecessary risk. I make a very clear distinction between real political work and writing/discussing. One supports the other, but they don't shade into each other.


Bottom line, until we get serious about this, we have NO reason to expect any positive results or change.

True. But we can be serious and have the wrong strategy. First I say we define who we are. Then what we want. This is the single most important thing we can do today, and real/fake names are irrelevant to it. Once we have a minimum number agreed on the problem and the solution (1) and how we are going to attack it organizationally/technically (2), then is the time to start the party (3) and use real names and background checks (3a).

So as I see it now, the main thing is persuading others the strategy I'm advising is correct. That involves discussion. Doesn't matter whether people use their real names or not in that discussion.


You point out all the time that this is "just the internet", and I agree. However, the fact that this is only "just the internet" and people are still holding back(due to a long list of excuses), gives me an even greater cause for concern. Could I count on these people once the ball started rolling in the real world? Hell, can we even get the ball rolling at all, with "men" who are pulling up short already?


Who knows? Most people are here for some mild chatting and education-flavored entertainment. But I don't underrate that. Like I say, let's first get the who and what down, and then worry about the rest. I'm not too worried that the right people are out there.


Again, perhaps I am being a bit too "idealistic", but I would like to see more will, enthusiasm, and a sense of urgency from EVERYONE in this "movement". And until that WILL is demonstrated, this "movement" will not even get off the ground.

Energy has to be harnessed to do something productive, move in a straight line, otherwise it just buzzes around like an emptying balloon. Who are we? That's the first question. It matters more than anything, but no one is trying to answer it. They ASSUME it's obvious who we are, when it isn't obvious at all, but it IS essential. And it doesn't require any will or movement or anything but thought to figure it out. And then it does take work to get a quorum to agree on it. Things have to be done in their proper order, not just at random. Who is the "we" we thoughtlessly mention. You can't build a movement out of an unclear antecedent.


"Donnie" is not worth the attention he has gotten in this thread anymore than I am (not suggesting that he wanted it). We are just a couple of individuals and the issues themselves are obviously bigger than any/all of us. SOME of his comments/tactics were highly suspicious to me, but YOUR vouching for him carries some weight (which was one of the points I made). Now, you admit that it's based entirely on his history as an anonymous member of your site, but your OPINION of him still carries a certain amount of weight with it. Still though, certain comments he has made in this thread just don't quite sit right with me, even if he was Hitler reincarnated.

That's fine. I have said that the very fact that someone DOESN'T think the Mossad was behind 9/11 is enough to switch them to a different category in my mind. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start braying like a jackass about someone who disagrees. The right way, if the person has a solid background, as Donnie does, is gently to probe the reasons for his disagreement.


Who started the back and forth nonsense you are referring to? I don't even recall or care to, but you are absolutely dead on accurate in your assessment that BOTH sides have gone too far with it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if people on both sides were opportunistic Jews piling on and taking advantage of the opportunity that was handed to them on a silver platter.

This forum is not that huge. We know who most of the people are, if not literally or personally, than by long habit and established reputation. The only person we've had who consistently has been against our Mossad interpretation of '9/11' is Jonoleth Stiltskin, who is not known to me personally, but, until I placed the real-name restriction on the thread in general, virtually never posted here except in our original WTC demolitions thread. Which raised a red flag, of course. I have not seen any truly trollish behavior re 9/11, certainly not Donnie's, in fact the closest I've seen comes from the people arguing in favor of it. It's like they're trying to associate the Mossadi explanation with their own hysterical smearing. That's just devious enough it could be the case. More like they're just lacking in control, but the other possibility is open. So, I can't tell you for sure that Donnie or Fred O'Malley are white and on our side. I can only judge by what I see posted, and trust the picture that emerges over time.


There certainly is a lot to be said for QUALITY over QUANTITY. Especially when you take into consideration the fact that MOST people will only "lurk", regardless of the standards we set. In my opinion, those people are still the primary focus, so most of the "garbage" that fills threads like these could be eliminated if we were to raise the bar a bit higher. We could essentially clean it up and get it out of their way. Why cloud their vision any further than is already is?

Most threads are garbage free. Anything I deem especially important is stickied, and I edit those threads for that reason. As for the SF stuff and 9/11, it's kind of gotten mixed up, so at this point it's ok as it is. And with the modest restriction on 9/11 thread in general, and the other stickied one, we have it all there for whoever needs it.

Forums are a bit trickier to judge than other things re quantity/quality. I think we have things set about right. The problem is that if you go real names only, the number of posters drops off, which decreases the lurkers, since there's less to read. That's not good. In my judgment, that's less "good for Whites" than allowing anonymity and the resulting knuckleheads. I'm not unhappy with where we are. Ultimately, the real names is for the political org, if someone ever gets it going. I mean a political org as I define it, not another conservative grouplet like CCC.


On the other hand, even if the primary focus shifted to communicating with the other "3%ers", I would still want men of WILL, and men who gave me at least SOME reason to trust them, rather than a bunch of anonymous people who are putting forth a half ass effort (at best).

I'm telling you there is a big, big, big -- did I say big? -- BIG -- difference between a forum and a political group. Anything that even hints they're the same thing is treading into the marshy quicksand of fantasy. What I mean is, the value of a forum has little to do with whether the posters are using their real names. In a political PARTY or ORGANIZATION, of course, the members are all important.


So there is definitely a strong argument to be made for us to choose quality over quantity. I think it's best if people like you and I were to raise the bar a bit. What do you think? Worthy of thought or a possible change/adjustment of policy?

See above. Imo, the drop in number of posters, hence posts, hence attraction to self-educating lurkers, outweighs the potential gain in honorable behavior. You may see it differently. Personally, as I say, the main task, as I see it, if not others, is what I described above. And that doesn't require use of real names. Who are we? What is our goal? Those are the questions we need to answer before ANYTHING else. Anonymity, beside those questions, is a minor irritant, and one we've successfully dealt with here through behavior standards for posters.


I broke this down earlier in the thread, but the fact is that most Whites visiting sites like ours are just here to read along. Of those who do participate, some are extremely misinformed, others fail to grasp the true extent of the danger that Jews represent to Whites, and even fewer are willing to stand up and call it like it is. On the other hand, Jews are NOT here to be shy or to simply read along. They are here to actively engage in leading the dissent. Anyone who has even an idea of the true scope of Jewish crimes, would fully understand their need to lead the dissent, and to actively engage in misleading or confusing people at every step along the way.

I agree. But I don't think we see that here. I'm very alert to it. I have seen 2-3 attempts to establish a neocon beachhead here, which seemed very much in the way you all are describing SF being taken over. The poster was banned. People think because we have more free speech here than other places that free speech is our highest value. Not so. What is "good for Whites" is the #1 concern of this forum, and free speech is subordinate to it.


Even amongst that minority group of Jew-Wise Whites who know the truth and who can recognize these Jewish angles, most are too damn afraid or selfish to do anything about it… So basically, in a nut shell, these Jews have demonstrated more WILL to tell, enforce, and conceal their lies, than we have to simply speak and stand behind the truth.

Yes. Well put, and true.


So on websites like these, the Jewish “position” is grossly overrepresented, even if their tactics are not easily recognizable to the layman (they obviously were not meant to be easy to spot, so only a trained/experienced eye can pick up on it). I am NOT doubting YOUR ability to "spot" them, but in the end, neither you nor I could ever really know whether an anonymous member of our site is who they claim to be. In time they usually expose themselves, but until that time comes, we can't know for sure.

That's true. And believe me, I keep an eye on things. But keep in perspective - a forum is a forum. A jew troll in a membership group is a VITAL problem; a jew troll on a forum is a nuisance. Also note there are multiple ways to attack the problem. Getting people to use their real name is only one solution, and even then, no guarantee, as the FBI has long used non-jews to infiltrate and lead/destroy white groups. Another way to exercise control is to have the right rules, and not be overly concerned about the true names of the posters. That's how we do it here. We don't even mind if jews, nigs, muds/assorted, queers, sign up here, as it helps underline that this is NOT a party or group. Which DOES need underlining. And yet all these non-whites and whites under fake names, do not detract from our mission. Only those who don't follow rules have something to worry about here. We don't PRETEND to be what we're not, nor do we pretend to be able to verify what we can't.

And there's a further point. Lots of people believe they can identify jews by their look or other physical characteristics. Or by their style. A lot of these people are not nearly as good as they think. Their true expertise lies in kidding themselves. Kidding oneself seems to go hand in hand with not appreciating chasmic gulf between an online discussion forum and a real-world political organization. Just like morons can prove anything with their bible, other morons can recognize a jew by their own idiosynchratic calculus. It is to laugh at.


However, I must point something out. The MSM never allows for a dissenting point of view to be expressed (not unless it is controlled dissent, of course). So perhaps we should consider taking a similar approach as well. Why should we merely facilitate an environment that might lead to an advancement of the cause, when we can see to it that EVERYTHING typed or spoken on our sites represents the TRUTH? They have NO problem presenting their lies, so why should we even hesitate on the other end and why should we allow their lies to INFECT our websites?

We shouldn't - on our webpages. But forums are different. They are FOR discussion. So some degree of interaction with prevailing lies is necessary, including, in my opinion, allowing exponents of those lies to make their case. Why have a forum if you're going to also have a party line? When you do that, you end up with ten people talking to themselves, and what's the point of that? If you're going to do that, you might as well start a party and try to make the change you want, rather than talking to yourselves about it.


My hangup is that I have been all about fighting censorship, so to turn around and actively engage in it myself, would be hypocritical (on a personal level). I openly invite Jews to post on my site. Of course they never do, not openly at least, but the offer has stood.

We've never had more than a couple here, at least that admitted to it. And none lately that I can think of.


The danger in taking such an approach is that it becomes the "Scott Roberts" way or the "Alex Linder" method, rather than an open discussion. So on the surface that sounds bad, even Jew-like in nature. On the other hand, perhaps we should not allow anything we KNOW to be counter to the truth. Why allow the "trolls" or misinformed Whites to mislead or confuse our audience? Again, the MSM doesn't allow for it, and for good reason, but perhaps we can learn a thing or two from that approach.

Why have a forum at all if you know the real and full truth? Why not found a cult and find willing sheep. If Manson can do it, any man with the slightest amount of charisma can do it.

In part VNN, which is all I can speak for, is meant as as virtual demonstration of White society that has been lost to jews. You can, on VNNF, find Indians arguing with niggers, and sex deviants making fun of Solutreans listening to Willie Nelson. Freedom is strange. What I like most about it is its lack of uniformity. But only white men, it seems, are capable of freedom, and self-reliance, and decentralization. I don't like being treated like a child. I don't like being bossed around. I don't like a huge centralized government. VNNF reflects what people do and say when they're not forced to be Politically Correct. You can't get that if you try to eliminate all disagreement. But if you think there's nothing to discuss, then why have a forum at all? A forum allows some disagreements, some genuinely worthwhile diversity (not racial, just diversity of views, experiences, backgrounds) and some discussion. And since it so happens the forum's politically oriented, coming out of a political website, it also offers some serious strategizing for a White future. We talk about the change we want, but we also, in a small and virtual way, ARE the change we seek, LIVE the change we see, EXEMPLIFY the change we seek. It's not just what we say, but our little online virtuality that makes our meta-case.


Of course, I would still allow for conversations on..... let's say religion, despite that not being a focus of MINE, because I recognize the desire to discuss such things by many of our fellow Whites...AND I would only consider cutting out the obvious disinformation... BUT why should we allow these ridiculous arguments about 9/11 to be made (for instance)? You and I both know these politically correct points are flawed or flat out lies, so why allow them to interject such poison into the discussion?

I don't know for absolute sure. I believe Mossad did it, but there's at least a tiny chance I'm wrong, and I don't know precisely how they did it either. All I need is to make sure no one can stop me saying the Mossad did it, and that's enough to win. As a general rule, the dumbest people are the ones who are most sure of things. That's why the bible is so appealing to morons - absolute certainty.

But again, if you don't want discussion, then a forum is hardly the right form. You want to do an article, book, or found a political group. The whole point of a forum is spreading news and exchanging views. Trying to make everything on it perfect is at odds with the nature of the thing.


I believe we could take a "common sense" approach, if we decided to go this route, and I am certainly considering it at this point. People are confused enough as it is, so why allow them free reign to spread their lies even further? They don't extend us the same courtesy on the MSM, and our task of debunking all the politically correct bullshit is daunting enough as it is. Allowing them to openly post on our sites only makes it that much more difficult to combat their massive efforts to mislead our people.

But you think Donnie is one of them, I don't. Being sure is not all that easy. And, to my way of thinking, doesn't matter all that much in a forum. If you wall off the forum, you lose outside interest, which is the reason it exists. Going to do that, might as well start a cult. Have to mix with the bad and the liars to win the minds. And if you/we control the arena, we can see to it we're not mistreated.

Again, with a party I take an entirely different view. Parties have to be extremely carefully vetted, because the enemy has demonstrated repeatedly he can infiltrate and destroy them from within. Forum is a different beast, it loses its juice when you make it into a clockwork orange.


I am thinking that we should probably set some new parameters as to how far we will allow our members (or guests, since I allow guests to post on my site) to stray from what you and I know to be the truth (about everything, not just 9/11).

Just thinking aloud.. Thoughts?

I don't think I know the truth about everything. I just think I can outargue anyone. Hence VNNF's policies. :D

Wikipedia.

As I have stated before, it hardly qualifies as solid proof.

Nor does what I posted about the Johnsons being Jewish upthread prove they are either. This conflicting information indicates further research is necessary, or it may not be, as Johnson certainly served Jewish interests during his term.

I'm cool with being a loyal friend and hardcore activist, but I draw the line at marrying Alex.

Line well drawn, my man. :D

Yeah, but see, you did the same thing to me x-thousand posts ago that I see ya'll doing to Donnie. You saw what you wanted to see, took something completely out of context, and ran with it like a retarded dog into a brick wall.

Yep, that's exactly how it looks to me. The tiniest whiff of disagreement and hysteria ensues. Exactly what we don't want here.


There's a crazy church (to be redundant) element to much of the ex-SF posting. If someone doesn't Amen the foggiest, ill-formed assertion, they become the enemy--even if they're not against you!

It's cultish.

Yep. They may be in VNN, but they truly are Stormfront material.

It is indisputable that LBJ acted in favor of The Jewish Nation.

It is indisputable that LBJ placed The Jewish Nation before the US.

It is indisputable that LBJ did tremendous damage to the US.

I don't care if some jerk wants to spend time attempting to draw others into some idiotic circle jerk about which president was a Jew or not.

None of that changes the facts regarding LBJs actions.

At best, LBJ was a "Shabbos Goy".

No one's disputing any of these. None of us likes LBJ. The sole issue is why he's being called a jew if he's not. Fred has provided some evidence. The question is whether his evidence is reliable, namely the source he uses. Fred has also asserted that Woodrow Wilson is a jew, because his family changed its name from Wolfson. I don't believe that. I don't think there's the slightest bit of evidence that's the case. It comes down to Fred's ability to sift evidence. Generally those who can't judge one thing are going to misjudge another. Mixing the false with the true is a time-honored jew technique. Is it possible jews are devious enough to mix the truth about '9/11' with lies about the jewish heritage of presidents?

There are too many in WN who are willing to accept any claim that someone is a jew at face value, which is exactly the wrong way to go. Just because some idiot claims someone is a jew doesn't make it true. And people should not be called jews unless they actually are jews. There are plenty of racially whites who serve the jew, they're called sellouts and traitors.

It may have started as a mere disagreement based on differing sources of data, It was turned into a contest of honor and strength of will.

Donnie seems to try to get everyone to believe I torpedoed WNism by stating what I believe, through research, to be true. I don't think he believes that, but it was a good excuse to destroy this thread and show his distaste for the newbies. His is a fraudulent disposition based in what I believe to be malicious intent.

Here's the problem, Fred. You're calling people jews on the basis of highly dubious sources. And then when someone raises even the tiniest objection, you run off on a hysterical rant about them being the enemy. That approach makes basic communication extremely difficult.

I haven't researched Johnson much, but just to comment on Woodrow Wilson, he was clearly not a Jew. He was basically trained and guided by Jews in high positions and was a fool until much later in his life. Here is an interesting quote from him after he started realizing what was really going on:

“Since I entered politics I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom

I'll give a quote from Professor Revilo Oliver's work here:

"On the training of Wilson by the Jews, who boasted that their satrap, Baruch, "leading him like [sic] one would a poodle on a string," taught Fido to sit up and bark ideals for political bonbons, see Colonel Curtis B. Dall's F.D.R. (2d ed., Washington, D.C. 1970), especially pp. 134-38. Wilson seems not to have been entirely devoid of conscience, for he is reported to have lamented, "I have ruined my country!" before his mind broke down in 1919, perhaps under the strain of realizing that he, a supreme egotist, had been merely a fantoche in the hands of his masters. His insanity was, of course, concealed from the American boobs, whose government continued to be conducted in his name until 1921. He partly recovered his reason before his death in 1924, but left, so far as is known, no confessions. His election to the presidency in 1912 was, of course, contrived by stimulating the vanity of Theodore Roosevelt and inciting him to form the "Progressive Party" and thus split the Republican vote and punish William Howard Taft for his lack of alacrity in kowtowing to the Jews. As Colonel Dall notes, the Jews laughed over their manipulation of Theodore Roosevelt, their "other candidate" for control of the United States"
- Revilo Oliver, The Enemies of Our Enemies, Part 3, note 16

Wilson was just another useful goy to use as a figure for the Jews who were really in charge. As for Johnson, while I haven't done any research about his background, I would say that it hardly matters. My ultimate conclusion on Franklin D. Roosevelt is that he's probably not Jewish by blood (the Delano line was originally de Lannoy, a French Flemish family that wasn't Jewish at all). But with either of the two it doesn't matter what their descent is. FDR was married to a Jewess and often called "The New Moses" by Jews, despite him having little or no Jewish ancestry. (Switching to Johnson here) Even Revilo Oliver admits in one of his works that while Lyndon Johnson was married to a Jewess, he was no more than a degenerate Aryan/White.

That should be the end of this matter, unless someone can provide serious evidence for Jewish descent. If someone became Jewish in spirit but has no Jewish blood, you'll just have to get over the fact that that repulsive and corrupted person was not biologically Jewish.

The hysteria is bad enough, but the elevation of trivialities, many of them actually false, makes it worse.

The man who has his finger on the Red Button that can blow us all to kingdom come has a jew standing literally over each shoulder, telling him exactly what to say or do. The man who controls our money, and thereby our economic lives is a jew. Knowing that, why would we waste time trying to say a man born in Blanco County Texas in 1908 was a jew? As I said, it is highly likely that no jew had ever set foot in Blanco County in 1908.

The facts are so overwhelmingly on our side that I just can't understand folks reaching into some parallel world for ammo to use against the jews. We can make our entire case, using their OWN words, just as Duke does in his books, yet we see posted all over the net the spurious "Ben Franklin to the Constitutional Convention" quote.

I am 100% convinced that the Ben Franklin quote is jewish in origin. It has the little twists in it that titillate the Levantine mind. Picture in your mind a meeting of the Elders of Zion, where we hear the following:

The Rebbe: "Let's come up with something that we can hand out to the net-nazis that is so outrageous that every time they post it on one of their chat boards, any educated person will think they are nuts."

Rabbi Weisenstein: "I have it. We know that, of all the principal founders, Franklin was the most philo-semitic, having contributed a goodly sum of money for the building of the first Hebrew school in Philadelphia. We all know that of the second tier of founders, Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina was our greatest friend, having, as governor, pushed through legislation allowing us to vote and hold office. So let's cook up a "Quote" from Franklin, and say it came from Pinckney's Diary, which we know does not exist."

It worked, because hardly a day goes by that someone on our side does not post that ersatz "Quote" somewhere on the net.

Then we have the SF situation. If one believes that SF is no longer a WN forum, as I do, then all we need to do is adduce facts that show that to be the case. We could say that his Black's wife helps little colored chilluns, so he must be a jew. Never mind that anyone working in Public Relations for a large corporation will be doing a lot of that, or the business will be bombarded with legal actions by the diversity police.

What we should do is things like juxtaposing the words of Dr. Sabrosky with those of Jackboot, which prove the case to any intelligent observer. Sabrosky, who has been on the faculties of both West Point and the Army war College, said: "9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period . . . And the Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise, because if they lose this one, if the American people ever realize what happened, they're done."(bolding mine)

This learned man, who has spent most of his life in the veritable belly of the beast says what TheOldman repeatedly said on SF, to wit, 9/11 is one of the real vulnerabilities of the enemy, and he must be attacked there, because to succeed in that attack means he is finished.

Paradoxically, we see Jackboot, who, as a WN is supposed to be doing everything in his power to bring about the day when we can say, "They're done," fails to grab the ball from Professor Sabrosky's hand and run with it. Instead, he posts for all the world to see: "By no means does the administration of Stormfront subscribe to the notion that the attacks on the WTC were carried out by Israel or by official sanction of the American federal government."

We got the facts, comrades, why don't we stick to them?

This thread came to my attention a few hours ago. I admit at SF I normally stick to the news and not much else. But I came across a thread talking about banned people, and given that I'm not on SF as often or as widespread as I used to be, I'm sorry to see all this.

Now the lead up to my question: I am struck at the resistance I'm seeing towards questioning the official version of the 9-11 question. 9-11--an inside job; a demolition, not a pancake theory; the Jews had something to do with it. Frankly, I thought these things all the way back in September of 2001. I remember on 9-11-01 sitting in front of the tv, and when building 7 was afire, there was so much focus on it, and then it fell. I swear it's in my memory that the building had been deliberately detonated and that it was stated as such, I believe by CNN, at the time it fell. Perhaps that was when Silverstein said "pull it", which was later argued to mean, pull the emergency people out of there, not the building.

We've heard the debates.

What puzzles me is the resistance to the rejection of the official version of 9-11, by those at the top of Stormfront. I won't go into details, but this rejection goes much deeper than is seen on SF.

What I'm seeing on this thread is the accusation that the reason for this stance to go along with the official version of 9-11 is because SF is "Jewish controlled". I think that is too simplified, and may or may not be accurate.

I'm looking for some answers that are not about hurling insults, but offer some real insight. Maybe no one here knows the real answer to my question.

But I think the character of this situation is very odd. What is most striking to me is the level of fear that seems to accompany the rejection of the non-official versions of 9-11. There are even some spaces where 9-11 is not to be explored publicly. But in those areas my intuition gives me cause to avoid asking for a real reason why 9-11 discussion is hushed.


That's the word--hushed. 9-11 discussion is hushed.

WHY? Why are some of the more well-known WN silencing that discussion? Who would even care about all the debates appearing in these spaces, since they do everywhere else anyway? Why am I picking up a sense of nervousness over the idea that the discussion should not be public?

In other words--what in the hell is REALLY going on?

Maybe it's really an issue about how some people reject the official version, others reject the unofficial versions simply being unconvinced people, and the nervousness is over a fear in causing a lot of animosity between people who should support each other otherwise. Maybe it's an attempt to keep a powder keg from causing a breach between White people. That would be logical. But my intuition is waving a red flag. It feels like something else is there, and that something else has not been stated. The underlying nervousness about the situation is loud and clear to me.

Any ideas?

Is there any answer other than Don Black's being pressured?

Is there any answer other than Don Black's being pressured?

Perhaps it's simply because it reduces the overall "moderateness" of the place. Jack Boot himself called the people who asserted that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the Mossed "raving fools" who they don't want "speaking on their behalf":

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t753009-17/#post8646256

I haven't researched Johnson much, but just to comment on Woodrow Wilson, he was clearly not a Jew.

I've never heard he was. But Fred is willing to put his reputation on the line by asserting that Wilson was a jew. Or perhaps Fred thinks it's ok to use any old website to prove whatever he wants to prove at the time. Fred?


“Since I entered politics I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom

I'll give a quote from Professor Revilo Oliver's work here:

"On the training of Wilson by the Jews, who boasted that their satrap, Baruch, "leading him like [sic] one would a poodle on a string," taught Fido to sit up and bark ideals for political bonbons, see Colonel Curtis B. Dall's F.D.R. (2d ed., Washington, D.C. 1970), especially pp. 134-38. Wilson seems not to have been entirely devoid of conscience, for he is reported to have lamented, "I have ruined my country!" before his mind broke down in 1919, perhaps under the strain of realizing that he, a supreme egotist, had been merely a fantoche in the hands of his masters.

I've seen this before, and it rings true. If white men do have a racial failing as a sex, it is that supreme egotism. I used to see this in the corporate world, when I was in my 20s. A certain type of white man in middle age, say 45 and up, doesn't hear anything. Because he's seen it all. So nothing new you say to him ever breaks through. It's very, very common among middle-aged white men. A related failing is white men's being very easily manipulated by making them think someone else's plan was their own idea. Jews and white wives manipulate white men this way all the time.


Wilson was just another useful goy to use as a figure for the Jews who were really in charge.

True, but he had plenty of insanity on his own, even apart from the jews. He was the worst sort of WASP - euphemism and 'high'-mindedness were second nature to him. He was the type of do-gooding crusader always talking in terms of democracy, progress and other such ridiculous cant.


As for Johnson, while I haven't done any research about his background, I would say that it hardly matters. My ultimate conclusion on Franklin D. Roosevelt is that he's probably not Jewish by blood (the Delano line was originally de Lannoy, a French Flemish family that wasn't Jewish at all). But with either of the two it doesn't matter what their descent is. FDR was married to a Jewess and often called "The New Moses" by Jews, despite him having little or no Jewish ancestry. (Switching to Johnson here) Even Revilo Oliver admits in one of his works that while Lyndon Johnson was married to a Jewess, he was no more than a degenerate Aryan/White.

That should be the end of this matter, unless someone can provide serious evidence for Jewish descent. If someone became Jewish in spirit but has no Jewish blood, you'll just have to get over the fact that that repulsive and corrupted person was not biologically Jewish.

Yeah. Just don't call people jews unless they are. And if they are, don't ever call them anything but jews.

Perhaps it's simply because it reduces the overall "moderateness" of the place. Jack Boot himself called the people who asserted that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the Mossed "raving fools" who they don't want "speaking on their behalf":

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t753009-17/#post8646256

Read what the woman says. Yours doesn't account for FEAR.

Where does the FEAR she picks up on come from?

I can't say re SF, only guess. But I can say that a FEAR exactly like she described was evinced by an Oklahoma State Senator (charles key?) at a conference I went to years ago. He basically said, if not in direct words, that the local/state authorities investigating the Oklahoma City bombing were INTIMIDATED out of doing their proper jobs by the feds. He left the impression, by intention, that there was some very dark stuff going on. The impression he left on the audience seems very similar to what R. Rose describes.

Something else that is interesting, is people don't seem to be donating as much money to SF anymore. Just take a look at December for example:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t762178/

The last donation was the 8th, now maybe Don took a vacation since then, its possible, but they say it is updated daily, which means someone else besides Don would have access to update it.

This means, that the people aren't happy with SF, and they put their money where their mouth is, and when they see some bullshit going on and don't like it , they hold back with their donations, and I think there is some evidence of this happening to them right now. They get what they deserve.

According to that, nobody has made a donation since the 8th, almost a week without anyone tossing them a dime. I say keep it up and don't give these douche bags any more money.

Great job SF, in running out all the real intelligent WNs, and replacing them with JJT clones. Once Al Kelz jumps ship they will be left completely out to dry and that $7500/month quota will start to look increasingly ridiculous.

I guess Derek won't be having another ski trip this year.

The hysteria is bad enough, but the elevation of trivialities, many of them actually false, makes it worse.

The man who has his finger on the Red Button that can blow us all to kingdom come has a jew standing literally over each shoulder, telling him exactly what to say or do. The man who controls our money, and thereby our economic lives is a jew. Knowing that, why would we waste time trying to say a man born in Blanco County Texas in 1908 was a jew? As I said, it is highly likely that no jew had ever set foot in Blanco County in 1908.

The facts are so overwhelmingly on our side that I just can't understand folks reaching into some parallel world for ammo to use against the jews. We can make our entire case, using their OWN words, just as Duke does in his books, yet we see posted all over the net the spurious "Ben Franklin to the Constitutional Convention" quote.

I am 100% convinced that the Ben Franklin quote is jewish in origin. It has the little twists in it that titillate the Levantine mind. Picture in your mind a meeting of the Elders of Zion, where we hear the following:

The Rebbe: "Let's come up with something that we can hand out to the net-nazis that is so outrageous that every time they post it on one of their chat boards, any educated person will think they are nuts."

Rabbi Weisenstein: "I have it. We know that, of all the principal founders, Franklin was the most philo-semitic, having contributed a goodly sum of money for the building of the first Hebrew school in Philadelphia. We all know that of the second tier of founders, Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina was our greatest friend, having, as governor, pushed through legislation allowing us to vote and hold office. So let's cook up a "Quote" from Franklin, and say it came from Pinckney's Diary, which we know does not exist."

It worked, because hardly a day goes by that someone on our side does not post that ersatz "Quote" somewhere on the net.

Then we have the SF situation. If one believes that SF is no longer a WN forum, as I do, then all we need to do is adduce facts that show that to be the case. We could say that his Black's wife helps little colored chilluns, so he must be a jew. Never mind that anyone working in Public Relations for a large corporation will be doing a lot of that, or the business will be bombarded with legal actions by the diversity police.

What we should do is things like juxtaposing the words of Dr. Sabrosky with those of Jackboot, which prove the case to any intelligent observer. Sabrosky, who has been on the faculties of both West Point and the Army war College, said: "9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period . . . And the Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise, because if they lose this one, if the American people ever realize what happened, they're done."(bolding mine)

This learned man, who has spent most of his life in the veritable belly of the beast says what TheOldman repeatedly said on SF, to wit, 9/11 is one of the real vulnerabilities of the enemy, and he must be attacked there, because to succeed in that attack means he is finished.

Paradoxically, we see Jackboot, who, as a WN is supposed to be doing everything in his power to bring about the day when we can say, "They're done," fails to grab the ball from Professor Sabrosky's hand and run with it. Instead, he posts for all the world to see: "By no means does the administration of Stormfront subscribe to the notion that the attacks on the WTC were carried out by Israel or by official sanction of the American federal government."

We got the facts, comrades, why don't we stick to them?

Great post. The mere fact that SF is kicking out people who write so lucidly and pointedly ought to tell any onlooker all he needs to know.

The NewYork Public Library, in their Jewish section has some interesting records of who the early Jews and their closest allies were here in America.

Jewes in America: Conquistadors, Knickerbockers, Pilgrims, and the Hope of Israel (http://legacy.www.nypl.org/research/chss/jws/jewes/)

It's paints an interesting picture of who they were and what they did.

Several current and former SF associated posters here have never posted anything extensive about Mossad doing 9/11.

Just to discredit MuadDib and show his complete lack of credibility, here he is calling a Greek poster "Sybil". MuadDib/Wayne/Quetzalcoatl, whatever his screen handle is this week, lives in a fantasy world.

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g423/sent_1/MuadDibcallsBehelitSybil.png

Stormfront has always banned members who posted about Jews doing 9/11.

Don't hold your breath. I personally banned you several times and I was fired in 2005.

You start somewhat lucid and slowly melt. Your meltdown has started on this one.

I'm not a fan of Don Black and he doesn't care for me. When it comes to you, we agree.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t250489-241/#post3823846

Has MuadDib, Derek Black or Don Black ever posted any extensive details about the Mossad connection to 9/11? No, yet they have attempted to slander WN's who do.



.

If Jack Boot really upsets anyone why don't they get together and ............

You know, I am far from being one of those "violence is wrong" pussy types, but are you seriously suggesting beating up a man because he's banned people from a forum?

How fucking pathetic is that?

Is there any answer other than Don Black's being pressured?


That's entirely possible.

Black runs the highest profile White Nationalist website in the country, perhaps the planet. That is going to draw steady attention from the alphabet agencies who keep a watch on such things, be it the FBI, SPLC or the ADL.

I guarantee that the birthing of VNN coupled with a deftly-wielded rapier wit and seemingly effortless combination of eloquence & lampoonery has earned you similar scrutiny, my dog.

Of course we don't know the intensity of that attention, or what myriad forms it might take.

The attention no doubt increases whenever anything occurs that White Nationalist could even remotely be possibly connected to, the Leftkow murders or the Holocaust museum shooter story come to mind.

My guess is that it's generally pretty passive, just monitoring the various sites, perhaps observing which tactics/issues are being discussed. Despite seemingly unanimous agreement otherwise, I don't think actual government/ADL/SPLC infiltration is that big of an issue online.

I doubt there are a couple guys wearing suits & aviators sitting outside Black's house in a nondescript beige sedan w/binoculars and a zoom-lens camera on anything approaching a regular basis. It's just not warranted.

Then again what would Don Black, David Duke or, and I am not trying to put you on the spot here man, Alex Linder do if four tall White linebackers sporting fresh crew cuts & off-the-rack blue suits replete with enamel American flag lapel pin flashing Berettas a-hip show up at the doorstep with a suitcase full of crisp new c-notes and/or overt threats of lengthy incarceration or termination of them and their families?

People can often be heard saying "I would die for X." X can be any number of things, from a particular person, to drugs or money or grizzly bears to something less tangible, like an idea or worldview.

I believe the question "What am I willing to risk my life and potentially die for"? can only be answered in the moment.

To my eyes after the most cursory review, it seems that the "mainstreaming" of Stormfront is a rather obvious attempt to better showcase the site as attractive (and donation worthy) to the newly-minted Tea Party types, which do seem to be ascendant this cycle. There is gold in them there hills.

I admit to being somewhat surprised upon learning the amount of cash Stormfront is earning in monthly donations.

Not that I begrudge Black or anyone else from making an income from their site. There is nothing wrong with soliciting donations as long as one does not misrepresent either themselves or their intentions.

People donate of their own free will, I am assuming. If you don't agree with whatever, just don't sign the checks.

I for one didn't take a vow of poverty when I became a White Nationalist, and I don't think very many of you did either. We should be supporting those who are out front and providing a service for our struggle. I'm mailing a Grant out today to Alex and a few others as a small token of my appreciation of their efforts in 2010. If you believe an individual/organization warrants it, you should do the same.

There are current SF posters who say that Jew-crit has in no way been curtailed there. I think the next few months will tell the tale in that regard.

To my eyes after the most cursory review, it seems that the "mainstreaming" of Stormfront is a rather obvious attempt to better showcase the site as attractive (and donation worthy) to the newly-minted Tea Party types, which do seem to be ascendant this cycle. There is gold in them there hills.

If that was the case and 9/11 polls show the public don't believe that Arabs did 9/11, wouldn't it be wise to conform to the views of the public?



.

I've never heard he was. But Fred is willing to put his reputation on the line by asserting that Wilson was a jew. Or perhaps Fred thinks it's ok to use any old website to prove whatever he wants to prove at the time. Fred?

Actually, I didn't claim Wilson was a jew, I posted a quote by a jew claiming that he was.

I haven't done enough research into it to know one way or the other. I believe my disagreement with another poster is about the maternal succession of LBJ. I think that line of reasoning is pretty clear.

If someone is against violence then they should just shut the fuck up right now and stop bitching. Just bend over and take it up the ass.



If someone is stupid enough to advocate specific violence online they might find themselves in the exact same position in the D-Block showers.

If that was the case and 9/11 polls show the public don't believe that Arabs did 9/11, wouldn't it be wise to conform to the views of the public?




Who compiled those results and do you have a link to the polls?

I don't personally know a single individual that believes anything other than hijacked planes were involved, not that it is often a topic of discussion. /shrug

Several current and former SF associated posters here have never posted anything extensive about Mossad doing 9/11.

Just to discredit MuadDib and show his complete lack of credibility, here he is calling a Greek poster "Sybil". MuadDib/Wayne/Quetzalcoatl, whatever his screen handle is this week, lives in a fantasy world.

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g423/sent_1/MuadDibcallsBehelitSybil.png

Stormfront has always banned members who posted about Jews doing 9/11.



Has MuadDib, Derek Black or Don Black ever posted any extensive details about the Mossad connection to 9/11? No, yet they have attempted to slander WN's who do.



. Wayne has never said anything about my posts on 9/11 or anything that I can recall. Either here or on SF when he had the account Quetzalcoat. You seem to have a problem with Wayne..take it elsewhere,this thread is not about him.

Something else that is interesting, is people don't seem to be donating as much money to SF anymore. Just take a look at December for example:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t762178/

The last donation was the 8th, now maybe Don took a vacation since then, its possible, but they say it is updated daily, which means someone else besides Don would have access to update it.

This means, that the people aren't happy with SF, and they put their money where their mouth is, and when they see some bullshit going on and don't like it , they hold back with their donations, and I think there is some evidence of this happening to them right now. They get what they deserve.

According to that, nobody has made a donation since the 8th, almost a week without anyone tossing them a dime. I say keep it up and don't give these douche bags any more money.

Great job SF, in running out all the real intelligent WNs, and replacing them with JJT clones. Once Al Kelz jumps ship they will be left completely out to dry and that $7500/month quota will start to look increasingly ridiculous.

I guess Derek won't be having another ski trip this year.

I've considered this a long time, and I cannot see the justification for SF changing directions on a dime, other than pressure.

We all know "they" can get to anyone, given enough time. Having seen JB's gut-wrenching reactions first hand, and having his "reasons" fail the sniff test, I can only conclude that there is money or fear behind his actions.

Since other SMs have provided for some statements out of the DB camp that "they can't believe how much SF brings in," leads me to conclude that the "pressure" isn't a financial one. I believe it may be Derek's skeletons or some other type of power being brought to bear on the admin.

I'm kind of in agreement with R. Rose, that there is the smell of fear over there. WR14's track covering notwithstanding.

If that is the case, then I believe we aren't being charitable enough to them. We don't have enough data at this time, other than what Stonewall posted. We have those facts but we don't have the actual motivation behind them.

Wayne has never said anything about my posts on 9/11 or anything that I can recall. Either here or on SF when he had the account Quetzalcoat. You seem to have a problem with Wayne..take it elsewhere,this thread is not about him.

I was posting fine in this thread. It was Wayne who attacked me. Go back and check. He is lying. I'm telling the truth. You should not side with the corrupt liars.

Even in this thread I have posted data about Mossad and 9/11.

Check back through this thread and compare my posted data relevant to Mossad 9/11.


.

Who compiled those results and do you have a link to the polls?

I don't personally know a single individual that believes anything other than hijacked planes were involved, not that it is often a topic of discussion. /shrug

New York Times.



.

AussieWN, has Wayne ever bothered to post any data about Mossad doing 9/11?

No he hasn't, he only cares about any possible power vacuum. He doesn't stand for truth, only the corruption of power.

I have posted in this thread very relevant content:

This thread is about WN's who were banned from Stormfront because they posted the data that Jews did 9/11. Jews hate that the truth is getting out.



Judge Hellerstein's Unethical Connection to Key Defendant in 9-11 Lawsuit
Updated May 10, 2010

9-11 Judge is Connected to Rothschild-Funded Mossad Culprit ICTS

It is very crass and it probably will come back to be critical of me, but there is an expression that is sometimes very useful, 'Money is the universal lubricant.' It makes it easier to go on with one's life.
- Alvin K. Hellerstein

This bastard judicial system is so corrupt.
- 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani


http://www.bollyn.com/public/Hellerstein_close_up_in_hat.jpg
Alvin K. Hellerstein is the judge who handles all 9-11 litigation.

His son is an Israeli lawyer who emigrated to Israel in 2001 and whose law firm works for and with the Rothschild-funded Mossad company responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks. This presents a clear case of criminal conflict of interest and explains why Hellerstein has protected the Israeli culprits of the false-flag terrorism of 9-11 by preventing a trial and blocking any legal discovery of what really happened. (NYT photo)

"He can't understand our loss. He sees the solution in a very cold and pragmatic way - in dollars and cents. He thinks everybody should take the money and go away."

- Mike Low, father of Sara, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11


U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, the Orthodox Jew who oversees all 9-11 related cases, is seldom discussed in the news. While his name does appear occasionally in the press, for example when he sentenced a "terrorism financier" to prison in April, the secretive judge who handles all 9-11 tort litigation is virtually unknown to most Americans. This is intentional, of course, because any discussion of the Bronx-born judge would reveal his Zionist roots and close relationship to the state of Israel, where his son Joseph Z. Hellerstein lives on a Jewish settlement on the West Bank and practices law with one of Israel's most important law firms, Amit, Pollak & Matalon.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Hellerstein_Joseph.jpg
Joseph Z. Hellerstein

Judge Hellerstein is the subject of a recent article in the New York Times. The May 2 article by Mireya Navarro, "Empathetic Judge in 9/11 Suits Seen by Some as Interfering", is an overly positive ("puff") piece written for a sympathetic newspaper (i.e. one which is involved in the 9-11 cover-up) yet Hellerstein "declined repeated requests for an interview" with the Times. Why would "the compassionate jurist" who has "shepherded" the 9-11 litigation process for years, and who is said to be "driven by a sense of social responsibility", refuse to be interviewed by the New York Times? Why is such an important judge avoiding the national media at such a critical point in the 9-11 saga - and U.S. history?

The "puff piece" in the New York Times went so far as to end with a quote saying that Judge Hellerstein "is now like Elvis in the 9/11 community." The article is clearly designed to cast Hellerstein in a glowing light before an increasingly skeptical public (before he closes the book on the 9-11 tort litigation - without a single case going to trial). If Hellerstein were truly motivated by "a high standard of morality and decency" as his former co-partner at Stroock, Stroock & Lavan said, why is he so unwilling to discuss the 9-11 tort litigation? There is, of course, only one reason for him to avoid the media - he has something to hide and wishes to avoid the spotlight. Alvin Hellerstein is certainly not a hero. He has completely obstructed justice for the 9-11 relatives - for eight years - by blocking any discovery and preventing the families from getting the one thing they all wanted - an open trial to find the truth of who was responsible for the terror attacks that caused the loss of their loved ones. Hellerstein has played a key role in the 9-11 cover-up by blocking legal discovery and preventing a trial from occurring.

Having worked for years on the hypothesis that Israeli intelligence was involved in the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11, I have pointed out in my online book, Solving 9-11 - The Deception that Changed the World (and numerous articles) that the key players in the 9-11 saga are all closely connected to Israeli intelligence (i.e. Mossad). Michael Chertoff, for example, supervised the non-investigation by the F.B.I. in which more than 99 percent of the steel evidence from the World Trade Center was hastily shipped to China and other Asian nations to be destroyed. Chertoff, an Orthodox Jew who is affiliated with the same Zionist organizations in New York as Hellerstein, is an Israeli national whose mother was one of the first agents of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency. Hellerstein, who has presided over the 9-11 litigation process, has a similar connection to the Mossad through his son, Joseph.

This is of crucial importance because one of the key defendants in the 9-11 wrongful death tort litigation process is the Mossad-controlled airport security firm named International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) N.V., which is the owner of Huntleigh U.S.A., the passenger screening company that checked the passengers that boarded the aircraft at the key airports on 9-11. The Israeli-owned ICTS is one of the aviation security defendants responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks. Any 9-11 trial would require ICTS and Huntleigh to provide evidence and explain who ran their security checkpoints on 9-11 and how the 19 terrorists got on the planes in spite of the fact that their names were not found on the passenger lists. Judge Hellerstein has prevented a trial and effectively blocked any discovery that would reveal what really happened on 9-11.

Hellerstein has a clear conflict of interest in the 9-11 tort litigation because his son is a lawyer with Amit, Pollak & Matalon, the law firm that works for and is closely connected with Cukierman & Company, the parent company of ICTS. Cukierman & Co. is headed by Roger Cukierman and his son Edouard. Previously, Roger was CEO of the Edmond de Rothschild Group and chairman of the Israel General Bank. He has also served as the chairman of several venture capital funds established by the Rothschild Group. One of these funds, the Catalyst Fund, is run by Boaz Harel, a managing partner of private equity at Cukierman & Co. - and the head of ICTS at the time of 9-11. The Rothschild/Cukierman Catalyst Fund is also invested in a company called Cyalume, which is run by several of the SCP Partners of Ehud Barak. The Israeli Mossad corporate network may seem large but it always involves the same small group of people at the top. Many of the names are easily recognized by a researcher who is familiar with the Zionist criminal network. One of the head people of the Catalyst Fund and Cyalume, for example, is Yair Shamir, the son of the well-known terrorist-cum-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Harel_Boaz.jpg
Boaz Harel of ICTS is a partner at Cukierman & Co.

Judge Hellerstein's son, Joseph, works for a firm that represents and works with the company that owns one of the key defendants in the 9-11 tort litigation. This presents an obvious (and probably criminal) conflict of interest that cannot be ignored or allowed. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges has a checklist for financial and other conflicts of interest that is very helpful in understanding Hellerstein's conflict(s) of interest in the 9-11 tort litigation. Through Judge Hellerstein's connection(s) to Stroock, Stroock & Lavan (who represented Silverstein when he acquired the World Trade Center) and through his son, whose Israeli law firm (Amit, Pollak, Matalon & Co.) works closely with (and represents) Cukierman & Co., the parent firm and employer of Boaz Harel and ICTS, key defendants in the 9-11 tort litigation.

Both Alvin Hellerstein and his son Joseph worked for the well known Jewish law firm of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan before moving to the positions they now hold. President Bill Clinton appointed Alvin Hellerstein to the U.S. District Court in New York in 1998 and Joseph moved to Israel in 2001. They both know that the conflict of interest exists, which is why they don't want to be interviewed by the media. Stroock, Stroock & Lavan played a key role in the setting up of 9-11. They represented Silverstein Properties when Larry Silverstein acquired the lease for the World Trade Center in July 2001. They also represented Goldman Sachs, A.I.G., and Cerberus Capital Management, three of the key fraudulent companies involved in the trillion dollar bail-out of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Stroock has a long history of representing the Rothschild's and other high-level Zionists:

Firm historian Jethro Lieberman wrote: 'It was the 'Our Crowd' German-Jewish clientele for which the firm was mostly, and justly, noted in those days.' That included Otto H. Kahn, Felix M. Warburg, Walter N. Rothschild, and Jacob Schiff. The three early Jewish partners contributed to many Jewish organizations, such as the Educational Alliance founded in 1889, the Montefiore Hospital for Chronic Invalids, the Jewish Board of Guardians, the Federation for the Support of Jewish Philanthropic Societies of New York City, and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America [where the Chertoff family is deeply connected].

Judge Hellerstein's close family connection to the Rothschild-funded Mossad company responsible for the terror attacks of 9-11 explains why he was chosen to handle the 9-11 tort litigation. He was chosen to manage the 9-11 litigation to protect the 9-11 deception - and the guilty - by blocking discovery and preventing a trial. When Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein closes the book on the 9-11 litigation having settled all the cases out of court without a trial, I suspect he will have to retire in Israel. Knowing very well how he and his Zionist cronies have obstructed justice for so many people, his fear will not let him live in peace among those he has wronged so grievously.

Please see references.




.
________________________________________________________

References

1. Bollyn, Christopher, "The Murderous Mossad and 9-11", March 23, 2010
http://www.bollyn.com/mossad-madness-and-9-11

2. Bollyn, Christopher, "Is 9-11 Judge Hellerstein Working for Israel?" October 23, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=111821

3. Bollyn, Christopher, "The Judicial Hijacking of the 9-11 Victim Lawsuits", April 14, 2006
http://www.bollyn.com/the-judicial-hijacking-of-the-9-11-victim-lawsuits

4. Bollyn, Christopher, "9-11 Judge Hellerstein 'Slams' 9-11 Widow Ellen Mariani", December 6, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=114654

5. Bollyn, Christopher, "Judge Forces Families to Settle Out of Court", September 9, 2007
http://www.bollyn.com/judge-forces-families-to-settle-out-of-court

6. Bollyn, Christopher, "Elbit - The Hellerstein Connection to 9-11", August 3, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/elbit-the-hellerstein-connection-to-9-11

7. Bollyn, Christopher, "Michael Chertoff's Childhood in Israel", October 26, 2007
http://www.bollyn.com/michael-chertoffs-childhood-in-israel
Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Checklists for Financial and Other Conflicts of Interest
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/checklist.pdf

8. "Empathetic Judge in 9/11 Suits Seen by Some as Interfering", By Mireya Navarro, New York Times, May 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/nyregion/03judge.html


9. Guide to Judiciary Policies & Procedures, Chapter 2, especially on Conflicts of Interest
http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch2a.html


10. "NY man sentenced in terrorism financing case", By Colleen Long, Associated Press, April 19, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iYB6tT4cqRZDhGZAS86TkTtfhw_AD9F6FTA81
"Silverstein Seeks Unsealing of Property Damage Deal", by Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, April 16, 2010
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202448140032&Silverstein_Seeks_Unsealing_of_Property_Damage_Deal&hbxlogin=1

11. Website of Amit, Pollak, Matalon & Co. on Joseph Z. Hellerstein
http://www.apm-law.com/3attorneys/joe_hellerstein.htm

12. Website of Catalyst Fund on Boaz Harel and Cyalume
http://www.catalyst-fund.com/index.php?page_id=24
http://www.catalyst-fund.com/index.php?page_id=77

13. Website of Cukierman & Company on Roger Cukierman and Boaz Harel
http://www.cukierman.co.il/content.php?id=140
http://www.cukierman.co.il/content.php?id=128

14. Website of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan
http://www.stroock.com/index.cfm


15. http://www.bollyn.com/9-11-archive-2010

http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1201774&postcount=2231



.

This is PrisonPlanet quoting NY Times:

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

MSNBC: Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories?


...it appears that there are a lot of people in this country who are willing to let mass murderers go free simply because they don't want to be called conspiracy theory nuts. They have been brainwashed by our Zionist-controlled media to the point they will not even answer this poll.

If those people had done any research they would know that no concrete evidence has been supplied by our government to back up their version of what happened. This means their official story is also a conspiracy theory--the most unbelievable one of all.
Comments (http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/26/4566509-do-you-believe-any-911-conspiracy-theories#comments)

New York Times.



Are you referencing this poll?


"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"


Those results could be interpreted any number of ways. Question #2 is particularly vague. "Hiding something" could be anything. Hell, I would have voted for #2 myself.

Not to mention the fact that polls don't occur in a vacuum.

Bush was an extraordinarily unpopular president by the time that poll was taken in 2008. I'm sure that colored the opinions of more than a few who responded.

And nowhere in that poll are Arabs even mentioned, so claims that those who responded to this poll and think the Bush administration was lying support "Arabs didn't do it" theories are baseless.

Not to mention the fact that polls don't occur in a vacuum.

Bush was an extraordinarily unpopular president by the time that poll was taken in 2008. I'm sure that colored the opinions of more than a few who responded.

Do you have any statistics to back up your claims?

The polls represent actual statistics. Polls have a margin of error, but other than that are indicative of the views of a population. The "Truth" of the Bush Administration was that "Arabs" did 9/11.


.

Poll: Jordanians, Egyptians don't believe Arabs carried out 9/11

A recent poll shows that anti-Jewish sentiment remains overwhelmingly high in Muslim countries, and that solid majorities in Egypt and Jordan said that they do not believe that groups of Arabs carried out the September 11 terror attacks.

A deep divide between Muslims and the West was clearly illustrated in the findings of a new 15-country poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Muslims view people from the West, especially the United States and Europe, as selfish, immoral and greedy. People from the U.S. and Europe view Muslims as arrogant, violent and intolerant, the poll showed.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/poll-jordanians-egyptians-don-t-believe-arabs-carried-out-9-11-1.191266

Many in Islamic world doubt Arabs behind 9/11

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

A sweeping poll of attitudes in the Islamic world shows that most Muslims don't believe Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and disapprove of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. The Gallup Organization poll, released Tuesday, is the most comprehensive survey of Muslim countries taken since Sept. 11. It confirms anecdotal evidence of a huge gulf between the West and Muslim nations that existed before the attacks and remains deep.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm

International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11
(This is a clear rejection of the official CT)
September 10, 2008
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php

Do you have any statistics to back up your claims?



The claim that Bush was an extraordinarily unpopular POTUS?

Check the White House.

The claim that Bush was an extraordinarily unpopular ....

No your claim was the following:


Those results could be interpreted any number of ways.

Not to mention the fact that polls don't occur in a vacuum.


Cite the evidence and the statistics for your claims.

You can't. You have no data. The poll has the data, you don't.

.

CP, forgive my arrogance, but it clearly doesn't matter what anyone but each of us personally believes.

Belief = faith, and I have no faith in the credibility of the U.S. government and its various agencies, the media in particular, or their agent provocatuers.

I believe the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the official CT is a lie.

The polls reflect the opinions of a vast sum of folks who've never cared enough to review the evidence, so they therefore lack credibility. Those who disbelieve have actually quenched their thirst for knowledge by reviewing facts and rejected opinions.

Those who disbelieve have actually quenched their thirst for knowledge by reviewing facts and rejected opinions.

According to the New York Times, most people don't believe the official ZOG Federal government story, which is that "Arabs" did 9/11.

Credibility, what facts people decide are credible and valid.

As Suepeace of SF says it should be in Theology, because the Jews want to make 9/11 a religion of terror.

There are other polls in Australia showing 75% don't believe in the "Arabs" story.

.

No your claim was the following:



Cite the evidence and the statistics for your claims.

You can't. You have no data. The poll has the data, you don't.


Yea, the fact that polls don't occur in a vacuum is self-evident. Hence the fact that poll results change, often drastically, due to external realities.

As for the results being interpreted any number of ways, that too is self-evident.

I see those percentages differently than you do, which proves the point.

Polls, especially online ones, are also notorious for being "loaded" from one ideological side or another, skewing results even further.

Ask President Paul.

Who compiled those results and do you have a link to the polls?


76% of Australians, in a poll, don't believe the Jew lie.
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=30382&page=74

"Mr Bracken sparked outrage yesterday when he told Jon Faine's ABC talk-back program the attacks were not the result of terrorist activity.

He said the story was a conspiracy that "didn't stand up" to scientific scrutiny."

Results: 9/11 attacks

This poll is closed.
Do you think Kevin Bracken's comments were reasonable?

* Yes 76.8% (8277 votes)
* No 23.2% (2501 votes)

Total votes: 10778
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/trades-hall-president-kevin-bracken-calls-911-conspiracy/story-e6frf7kx-1225941158523


.

... the Jews want to make 9/11 a religion of terror.

I think this has been clear, to anyone paying attention, for a long time. It is total control they want, and they mistakenly believed they could achieve it via 9/11. Seems most Americans aren't as fearful or gullible as they first thought.

Hence the fact that poll results change, often drastically, due to external realities..

Polls are about external realities.

The person administering the poll is external to the person being polled.

That's why polls are more real than personal opinions.


.

I think this has been clear, to anyone paying attention, for a long time. It is total control they want, and they mistakenly believed they could achieve it via 9/11. Seems most Americans aren't as fearful or gullible as they first thought.

The chutzpa of the PNAC retarded think tank might have achieved what Czar Nicholas failed to get done, the irradication of jews worldwide.

This is the jew propaganda version of history.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/the_czars_and_the_jews/

Notice how very few were needed to change the course of history for the worse. The malignant jews have always been a catastrophy to the white race.


http://library.flawlesslogic.com/orion_2.gif

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins."


Contemporary Voices of Warning
Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/tsar_1.htm

What is this about?

http://susan1219.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/don-black-and-stormfront/

Don, this is my letter to you and I am calling you out. Once I get the notice of action from my husband, where it has your website listed in print for the reason why my husband will be doing 15 more years, I want to hear your reply; however, in the mean time, I need to vent my anger. Months ago, when my husband called me and told me about the hearing and the internet posts, I contacted all the people that had websites that were mentioned on the Notices of Action. You, Don Black, and Metzger were the only two to give me problems. Metzger finally took down the posts but probably too late since he is still listed on the reason why Gary Yarbrough will not be released until 2025. However, you, Don Black, would not even attempt to help Gary and I because you know the feds get info about people off your website and that is money in your pocket. And you have the balls to call yourself a White Nationalist, when you ought to be hanging your head in shame. You ought to be protecting your folk, not letting them be on a forum where a large percent of the posters are cops or federal agents looking to set up the posters. When I get this Notice of Action, where they decided to give Gary 15 years based on Storm Front and Tom Metzger’s website, I will post it all over the internet and put it in everybody’s hands. Yes, Don Black, it is now my job to wake up these White Nationalists you are fooling and taking their money.

What is this about?

http://susan1219.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/don-black-and-stormfront/
Obviously, there exists a connection between SF and the prosecution. I have been told that SF was a government run site, but I viewed it a speculation or conjecture. This leads one to believe there might be some merit to that juxtaposition.

Obviously, there exists a connection between SF and the prosecution. I have been told that SF was a government run site, but I viewed it a speculation or conjecture. This leads one to believe there might be some merit to that juxtaposition.

"Don, this is my letter to you and I am calling you out. Once I get the notice of action from my husband, where it has your website listed in print for the reason why my husband will be doing 15 more years, I want to hear your reply; however, in the mean time, I need to vent my anger.

Months ago, when my husband called me and told me about the hearing and the internet posts, I contacted all the people that had websites that were mentioned on the Notices of Action.

You, Don Black, and Metzger were the only two to give me problems. Metzger finally took down the posts but probably too late since he is still listed on the reason why Gary Yarbrough will not be released until 2025.

However, you, Don Black, would not even attempt to help Gary and I because you know the feds get info about people off your website and that is money in your pocket. And you have the balls to call yourself a White Nationalist, when you ought to be hanging your head in shame.

You ought to be protecting your folk, not letting them be on a forum where a large percent of the posters are cops or federal agents looking to set up the posters.

When I get this Notice of Action, where they decided to give Gary 15 years based on Storm Front and Tom Metzger’s website, I will post it all over the internet and put it in everybody’s hands.

Yes, Don Black, it is now my job to wake up these White Nationalists you are fooling and taking their money."


Hm........and David Duke is closely associated with Don Black.

As Lenin said "The Best Way To Control The Opposition is To LEAD IT".

Just a thought.

The idea that SF is a ZOG site, that they are drastically changing directions to a more ZOG friendly, mainstream rebirth.

The skeletons in Derek's closet, and his political aspirations.

The sense of fear & pressure on admin.

The obvious alignment with the prosecution above.

Could it be that many posters, particularly those recently banned, might be the target of some DHS witch hunt?

Could it be, that the deletion of posts and threads is meant to provide a jury with a better picture of what SF is?

They wouldn't put on a show for the media and/or a jury, would they?

They couldn't be trying to reinforce (in someone's mind) that ex-SFers are domestic terrorists, could they? After all, we don't believe the "official story" on 9/11. We MUST be dangerous to America, right?

Probably full of shit, but there is definitely a nigger in the woodpile.

How is it that Gary Yarbrough is doing time, and David Duke is free, given that Duke is a far greater threat to ZOG than Gary?

Recent posts concerning Gary Yarbrough: http://freeamericanscommunity.com/blogs/entry/Gary-Yarbrough

"Don, this is my letter to you and I am calling you out. Once I get the notice of action from my husband, where it has your website listed in print for the reason why my husband will be doing 15 more years, I want to hear your reply; however, in the mean time, I need to vent my anger.

Months ago, when my husband called me and told me about the hearing and the internet posts, I contacted all the people that had websites that were mentioned on the Notices of Action.

You, Don Black, and Metzger were the only two to give me problems. Metzger finally took down the posts but probably too late since he is still listed on the reason why Gary Yarbrough will not be released until 2025.

However, you, Don Black, would not even attempt to help Gary and I because you know the feds get info about people off your website and that is money in your pocket. And you have the balls to call yourself a White Nationalist, when you ought to be hanging your head in shame.

You ought to be protecting your folk, not letting them be on a forum where a large percent of the posters are cops or federal agents looking to set up the posters.

When I get this Notice of Action, where they decided to give Gary 15 years based on Storm Front and Tom Metzger’s website, I will post it all over the internet and put it in everybody’s hands.

Yes, Don Black, it is now my job to wake up these White Nationalists you are fooling and taking their money."


Hm........and David Duke is closely associated with Don Black.

As Lenin said "The Best Way To Control The Opposition is To LEAD IT".

That's right Pat Healy. It doesn't get any more incriminating than that.

[The woman asked me to not post these document scans, so I took them down (they used to be posted here somewhere). Please do not repost them. I'm not a big fan of some of The Order members in light of their behavior toward Rounder, but if she thinks it will help her husband, then I'm willing to help her that far. -A.L.]

So Don Black and Metzger both refused to take down the edited copies of the alleged Yarbrough letters.



While The Order were putting Whites first. Don Black was putting Niggers first, by putting Nigger Prime Minister Patrick John in charge of a nation.

Yarbrough gets another 15 years in prison. Don Black spent only 2 in prison. Now he supports the Zionist Jew tale of 9/11.



.

That is one huge denial of Due Process! He should have grounds to succeed on appeal, though he must exhause administrative remedies before going into court. I would think he could get relief on appeal, not in any trial court.

It looks like they will slow walk him for another couple of years. ZOG is a merciless adversary.

He has a solid case, under 42 USC 1983, deprivation of rights (due process) under color of law.

We can see Derek Black's own clothing website and his Mexican hottie here:

http://white-pride.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/model4_couple.jpg

http://white-pride.org/


When he's not skiing in Switzerland that is.


The Order might say "Son of a Snitch" about somebody.



.

That is one huge denial of Due Process! He should have grounds to succeed on appeal, though he must exhause administrative remedies before going into court. I would think he could get relief on appeal, not in any trial court.

It looks like they will slow walk him for another couple of years. ZOG is a merciless adversary.

He has a solid case, under 42 USC 1983, deprivation of rights (due process) under color of law.

Most people don't know how the "law" works.

You do though.

Most people don't know that the actions of an administrative agency have the force and effect of "law". That when dealing with an "agency" all "administrative remedies" must be sought first.

Bottom line: you don't want to become entangled in "The System". "The System" can and will swallow you up.


I think you have unearthed enough information to lead a reasonable person to conclude that David Duke is not who and what he wants you to believe he is. In fact, I suggest we start a specific "David Duke" thread - and summarily dissect him.

I think there is evidence that David Duke is a tool of the enemy. Remember, as Lenin himself said: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it".

I submit that David Duke may be working directly with the enemy to try to channel and direct the more "Jew-Wise" elements of White America. While, people like Rush Limbaugh work with the enemy to channel and direct the less aware American.

What can the enemy hope to gain through David Duke? At the very least, a list of names of people to arrest when the time comes. Maybe more.

Duke's close association with Black cannot be ignored.

I think the issue is worth a reasoned examination.

This provides a little clearer picture of what we are up against.

Derek's Mom works helping Latino Mexican "students".

Why shouldn't Derek get a little Mexican pussy?

http://white-pride.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/model4_couple.jpg

http://white-pride.org/

Mommy brought home a 5 foot tall Mexican beaner for Derek to fuck.


.

We can see Derek Black's own clothing website and his Mexican hottie here:

http://white-pride.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/model4_couple.jpg

http://white-pride.org/


When he's not skiing in Switzerland that is.


The Order might say "Son of a Snitch" about somebody.



.

Disgusting

Disgusting

I can see the Sustaining Membership thread at Stormfront now, with Sugar Britches going hysterical about the "unmentionable filth" that is being posted on VNN nutz lounge. Boot: "Well what did they say?"; Sugar Britches: "I can't even repeat it. Talking about Derek Black and Mexican Pussy."



.

Loyalties on display. Questions?

http://white-pride.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/model4_couple.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/03/article-1031496-026D1A45000004B0-836_233x373.jpg

Derek Black and James May, of Top Gear fame

Totally Look Alike

Does Don still claim to be his daddy?

She doesn't look like a wetback to me. :confused:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

She doesn't look like a wetback to me. :confused:

No. Not a "wetback". "Wetbacks" are aztec mixes (Mestizos).

She does not look "White" though. Some sort of mix....

She doesn't look like a wetback to me. :confused:

Redheads don't tan. Mexicans are 5 ft tall.



,

Thoughtful post, Fred...I'm impressed.

Thoughtful post, Fred...I'm impressed.
Me too, but you wouldn't like my impression. I was being polite.

Redheads don't tan. Mexicans are 5 ft tall.



,

She could be a mexican.

Look closely at her eyes.

Thoughtful post, Fred...I'm impressed.

Welcome to the Truth of VNN, Blanche. So do Redheads tan and are they 5 ft tall as beaners are?


.

She could be a mexican.
I live near the border, she's mexican or cuban with negro mixed.

I live near the border, she's mexican or cuban with negro mixed.

We have a winner!!!!!!!

Is this the post on Kosherfront they are talking about that Don Schwarz has left up?


The following is a direct appeal from Order POW, political prisoner and LibRA member Gary Yarbrough. You may write to Gary at:
Gary Yarbrough, 09883-016
USP Admax
PO Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t439255/

Welcome to the Truth of VNN, Blanche. So do Redheads tan and are they 5 ft tall like beaners are?


.

Fuck the truth.

Truth is a term of disparagement. You're a "Truther".

I can tell by reading your writings that you're interested in "truth".

Why can't you align yourself more closely with "Lies"?

No. Not a "wetback". "Wetbacks" are aztec mixes (Mestizo's).

She does not look "White" though. Some sort of mix....

I guess there's a possibility that she could be mixed, but I'm not entirely convinced.

She looks sort of odd in that pic, but not in a "WTF?? That girl's not White!" way. JMO, of course. :)


@ CP....redheads can tan if they dye their hair red. That's not necessarily her natural hair color. ;)

I guess there's a possibility that she could be mixed, but I'm not entirely convinced.

She looks sort of odd in that pic, but not in a "WTF?? That girl's not White!" way. JMO, of course. :)


@ CP....redheads can tan if they dye their hair red. That's not necessarily her natural hair color. ;)

Fred has it right.

Enlarge that picture and look closely at her. It's quite obvious.

I guess there's a possibility that she could be mixed, but I'm not entirely convinced.

She looks sort of odd in that pic, but not in a "WTF?? That girl's not White!" way. JMO, of course. :)


@ CP....redheads can tan if they dye their hair red. That's not necessarily her natural hair color. ;)

Do you think she's one of the saucy Cuban Latina-Mestizos from Mommy Schwarz's latino underprivileged school?

Did Mommy Schwarz bring her home for Derek to FUCK?

.

Do you think she's one of the saucy Cuban Latina-Mestizos from Mommy Schwarz's latino underprivileged school?

.

You think like a detective.

I would look at exactly that association. They probably met there...thru mom.

Reasonable probability.

Welcome to the Truth of VNN, Blanche. So do Redheads tan and are they 5 ft tall as beaners are?


.

LOL...thanks for the welcome, CP. :)

I addressed the redhead part of your question & I've no idea the average height of redheaded ladies, I'm afraid.

As far as White ladies in general, 5 feet tall is well below average, but it's not unheard of. Ever heard of a statistical outlier?

LOL...thanks for the welcome, CP. :)

I addressed the redhead part of your question & I've no idea the average height of redheaded ladies, I'm afraid.

As far as White ladies in general, 5 feet tall is well below average, but it's not unheard of. Ever heard of a statistical outlier?

Thank you Blanche for helping to build this thread beyond 111,000 views.

http://white-pride.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/model4_couple.jpg

If she is 5ft, then Derek is 7ft. it is more like she is 4 ft 8 inches.

The poor underprivileged Cuban-Mestizo child growing up hungry in poverty stunted her growth. Mommy Maria never had enough food on the table. Or a diet of beans and no protein for a dozen millenia like most beaners.



.

Do you think she's one of the saucy Cuban Latina-Mestizos from Mommy Schwarz's latino underprivileged school?

Did Mommy Schwarz bring her home for Derek to FUCK?

.

I really don't know, CP. I've not seen a lot of Cubans besides Ricky Ricardo.

Mexicans, guatemalans, el salvadorians, every 3rd world country in Central & South America I've seen lots of.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of sexual tension between the two in the pic, so I wouldn't bet on them FUCKing. :D

LOL...thanks for the welcome, CP. :)

I addressed the redhead part of your question & I've no idea the average height of redheaded ladies, I'm afraid.

As far as White ladies in general, 5 feet tall is well below average, but it's not unheard of. Ever heard of a statistical outlier?

OK, you've got a grand total of 6 posts here on VNN. And you zeroed on on this thread that talks about the fact that kosherfront has gone to the dark side.

So, we can conclude that you came from StoreFront. What are you doing here? Have you read thru this thread?

Do you know how fucked up DB is?

Are you aware of the administrative actions that have been taken by KosherFront?

Are you on the KosherFront payroll?

She might be running the Derek Black dating service. :D

OK, you've got a grand total of 6 posts here on VNN. And you zeroed on on this thread that talks about the fact that kosherfront has gone to the dark side.

So, we can conclude that you came from StoreFront. What are you doing here? Have you read thru this thread?

Do you know how fucked up DB is?

Are you aware of the administrative actions that have been taken by KosherFront?

Are you on the KosherFront payroll?

Blanche evidently volunteered under Sugar Britches call for help in SF's SM section this AM.


.

She might be running the Derek Black dating service. :D

Her avatar shows her to be a wasp-waisted smoker. And she describes herself in French as : "I am diabolical". "Diabolical" means: "of, relating to, or characteristic of the devil."

Is she really wasp-waisted? Or, more likely, is she a "curvy" 240 pounder?

Whats with the devil thing?

Very odd.

OK, you've got a grand total of 6 posts here on VNN. And you zeroed on on this thread that talks about the fact that kosherfront has gone to the dark side.

So, we can conclude that you came from StoreFront. What are you doing here? Have you read thru this thread?

Do you know how fucked up DB is?

Are you aware of the administrative actions that have been taken by KosherFront?

Are you on the KosherFront payroll?

Yes I have read through the thread.

No, I'm not on the payroll.

As for the rest, I have my thoughts on the matter & respect others' right to theirs. I agree with some points & disagree with others.

I've always been more of a reader than a poster.

Her misgivings about the heritage of Derek's "babe" means she doesn't get out much, she has an agenda, or she has never seen a mexican/spanish-negro mix.

Let the poo flinging begin! :hflol

There doesn't seem to be a lot of sexual tension between the two in the pic, so I wouldn't bet on them FUCKing. :D

Do you think she is an underprivileged Cubana Latina-Mestiza who was recruited by Mommy Schwarz's latina school to pose for Derek's failed clothing line?


.

Her misgivings about the heritage of Derek's "babe" means she doesn't get out much, she has an agenda, or she has never seen a mexican/spanish-negro mix.

That's right Fwed.

Anyone with a difference of opinion is "suspect".

You truly are a putz.

Do you think she is an underprivileged Cubana Latina-Mestiza who was recruited by Mommy Schwarz's latina school to pose for Derek's failed clothing line?

.
You mean he's trying to follow his real father's line of work?

As far as Duke goes...he is a piece of crap also. His so called prison time here in Louisiana was done at the "daycare camp" which leads me to believe he did give up that list of names in the 70's. Also, my husband, Gary Yarbrough, has filled me on many details about Duke, including his taste for very young women ( no wonder the need for the face lifts). Well, as they say birds of a feather do flock together...and Black is married to Duke's ex-wife :) Like I said in previous posts, I begged Black to take down those posts about Gary time and time again and nothing. I even went to Duke and he also ignored me. Those notices of action posted in this thread, look at the dates...that is how long I have been working on this for Gary. Gary has in the mail to me the notices of action states specifically that Don Black and Stormfront and Tom Metzger ARE THE reason why they decided to hold him until 2025. I will post it as soon as I get it. I will be sure to let the WN communities to know the truth about Black...Gary also is including a letter about Black and the truth he knows about him...so watch out Black all your dirty laundry is fixing to be exposed....you should have simply took down the post for a man who was trying to come home...

That's right Fwed.

Anyone with a difference of opinion is "suspect".

You truly are a putz.
I gave 3 alternatives, as I see them. Do you have another explanation, flame-thrower?

Yes I have read through the thread.

No, I'm not on the payroll.

As for the rest, I have my thoughts on the matter & respect others' right to theirs. I agree with some points & disagree with others.

I've always been more of a reader than a poster.

Do you believe the "official US government sanctioned version" of the 9/11 atrocity?

putz.
How yiddish of you!

Any bets on how long before Fwed starts going crazy and screaming jew at the top of his lungs?

5

4

3....

:D

Do you believe the "official US government sanctioned version" of the 9/11 atrocity?

I don't know what I believe as far as 9/11 is concerned. I'm still pondering things.

Why does it matter, as far as my presence here is concerned? I haven't argued about it, one way or the other...nor will I.

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt139/ZioSlayer/blahblahblahyy5.gif

No desire to call you a jew, just pointing out your jewfamisms.

Any bets on how long before Fwed starts going crazy and screaming jew at the top of his lungs?

5

4

3....

:D

Nah, he's just into accusing me of not knowing what a wetback looks like (for now, anyway).

I could've sworn I knew...having grown up & lived in Southern California for most of my life. :rolleyes:

I don't know what I believe as far as 9/11 is concerned. I'm still pondering things.

Why does it matter, as far as my presence here is concerned? I haven't argued about it, one way or the other...nor will I.

It's been 10 years Blanche. Do White women in France have a problem with Muslim males? Do they want to blame 911 on Muslim males?




.

Nah, he's just into accusing me of not knowing what a wetback looks like (for now, anyway).

I could've sworn I knew...having grown up & lived in Southern California for most of my life. :rolleyes:
Aw shit! Are you my wife posting under that Frenchie psuedo?

It's been 10 years Blanche. Do White women in France have a problem with Muslim males? Do they want to blame 911 on Muslim males?




.

I wouldn't know, CP.

@ Fred: Ummm, no. LOL

I just got the news. Tragic, itz!


JAKE HECK
publicist-sycophant-beloved pet
Nov 3 2010 - Dec 14 2010



We hardly knew ye.

Does the phrase the September that never ended mean anything to anyone?

Stormfront is already on the attack
http://susan1219.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/my-reply-to-stormfront/

Does the phrase the September that never ended mean anything to anyone?

Does Telnet and FidoNet mean anything?



.

I don't know what I believe as far as 9/11 is concerned. I'm still pondering things.

Why does it matter, as far as my presence here is concerned? I haven't argued about it, one way or the other...nor will I.

The 9/11 question is central to the theme of this thread you stupid sweathog.

Your avoidance of the question identifies you as either a retarded kwan or a Jew.

Your agenda is obvious to all. Fuck you, Fuck DB.








BTW, how much do you weigh again?

The 9/11 question is central to the theme of this thread you stupid sweathog.

Your avoidance of the question identifies you as either a retarded kwan or a Jew.

Your agenda is obvious to all. Fuck you, Fuck DB.








BTW, how much do you weigh again?

Wow...that really hurt, Pat.

I did enjoy your Welcome Back, Kotter reference. :)

The 9/11 question is central to the theme of this thread you stupid sweathog.

Your avoidance of the question identifies you as either a retarded kwan or a Jew.

Your agenda is obvious to all. Fuck you, Fuck DB.



I fear the long dark will be coming soon, Pat.