The principal villains of Brasilian pedofilia crimes (1999-2000)
by Jerry Abbott • Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 11:25 PM
throwaway@yeayea.com

All three of the most notorious pedophile pimps and pornographers in Brazil at the end of the 20th century were Jews.

Aryeh "Arie" Scher was born in Tel Aviv and spent much of his childhood in Netanya, Israel. His father was a Jew from Austria; his mother was a Jewess from Italy. He entered the United States, apparently legally, and lived for a while in San Diego, where he taught Hebrew and worked as an administrator for a vacation resort. In between his visits to California, he spent four years in the Israel Army's "Nachal" corps, a quasi-religious military brigade primarily tasked with harassing and expropriating the Palestinian people. After leaving the IDF, Scher went to Australia for a while, where he networked with Jewish student organizations. Afterward, he returned to Israel to study at the University of Tel Aviv, majoring in Public Administration with a minor in Political Science. After graduating, Scher spent two years in China as an assistant consular diplomat. His apprenticeship completed, Scher was assigned to the Israeli Embassy in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Scher is fond of suntanning on beaches, often naked. Apparently a homosexual, Arie Scher has been known to engage children for sexual relations while making child pornography for sale on the Internet.

Georges Schteinberg came to Brazil to teach Hebrew at the prestigious A. Liessin university in Rio de Janeiro. At least, that's what he told his gullible goy friends. He was the accomplice of Arie Scher (see above), assisting the diplomat in the procurement of children for prostitution and for the making of child pornography. Schteinberg "sampled the wares." When questioned by police, he confessed to having sex with an 11-year-old girl. Schteinberg became the target of a police investigation after another girl, age 17, complained that nude pictures of herself were being shown on one of the professor's pornographic websites. After Scher and the Israeli guests were finished with the young boys and girls, the photos went into Schteinberg's computer and were sold over the Internet.

Leonardo Chaim, then 28 years old, was an apparently respectable man living in the rich part of São Paulo. He had enough money to maintain the appearance of belonging there. He was a charismatic fellow with considerable personal charm who easily beguiled the Gentiles. Chaim took a job as a counselor-medic at a youth retreat, or summer camp, in Brazil. While so employed, he started his own child pornography business, working out of his car and his room at the encampment. He made sexually explicit photographs and videos of children and teenagers for many months, including several months after he was reported to a child-abuse watchdog organization for operating a kiddie phone-sex service. Not only did Chaim publish pornographic images of children, he also produced a small book with the quaint title (roughly translated) "How to Rape a Boy" and another ironically entitled "Code of Ethics of the Boy-Lover." Finally, the Brazilian federal police began to watch him, and they arrested Chaim in 1999, after observing one of his crimes. Chaim is believed to be a lone predator, not connected with the business of Scher and Schteinberg, but like both of the other two men he is a Jew.

www.jabpage.org/posts/brazjews.html

Indymedia has strong ties into the general anarchist movement which is infested with paedophiles.

I've been banned from the FEUO/SFUO University Forum for posting an article summarizing the FBI/DoJ statistics on murder rates, categorized by age and race. Here's the message that I receive when I try to access the board.

Critical Information

You have been banned from this forum.
Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information

The URL for the board is:
http://www.craigcardiff.com/sfuo/phpBB/index.php

The post that resulted in the ban follows.


----- top of post -----

Whites, Blacks, and Murder in the United States, 1995
by Jerry Abbott • Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 05:28 PM

A summary of race-related FBI crime statistics on US murders in 1995.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States (1995), Table 2.6

See: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24

See: http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96statab/96statab.html

Year: 1995

Age group: 9-12
White US resident population (thousands): 12,074
Black US resident population (thousands): 2,349
W/B population ratio: 5.140
murders committed by Whites: 12
murders committed by Blacks: 17
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 7.3

Age group: 13-16
White US resident population (thousands): 11,677
Black US resident population (thousands): 2,301
W/B population ratio: 5.075
murders committed by Whites: 492
murders committed by Blacks: 723
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 7.5

Age group: 17-19
White US resident population (thousands): 8,697
Black US resident population (thousands): 1,647
W/B population ratio: 5.281
murders committed by Whites: 1117
murders committed by Blacks: 1675
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 7.9

Age group: 20-24
White US resident population (thousands): 14,528
Black US resident population (thousands): 2,669
W/B population ratio: 5.443
murders committed by Whites: 1398
murders committed by Blacks: 2067
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 8.0

Age group: 25-34
White US resident population (thousands): 34,027
Black US resident population (thousands): 5,475
W/B population ratio: 6.215
murders committed by Whites: 1733
murders committed by Blacks: 1711
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 6.1

Age group: 35-44
White US resident population (thousands): 35,081
Black US resident population (thousands): 5,088
W/B population ratio: 6.895
murders committed by Whites: 1108
murders committed by Blacks: 771
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 4.8

Age group: 45-54
White US resident population (thousands): 25,852
Black US resident population (thousands): 3,122
W/B population ratio: 8.281
murders committed by Whites: 479
murders committed by Blacks: 302
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 5.2

Age group: 55-64
White US resident population (thousands): 18,355
Black US resident population (thousands): 2,124
W/B population ratio: 8.642
murders committed by Whites: 192
murders committed by Blacks: 115
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 5.2

Age group: 65-74
White US resident population (thousands): 16,822
Black US resident population (thousands): 1,629
W/B population ratio: 10.327
murders committed by Whites: 104
murders committed by Blacks: 48
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 4.8

Age group: all ages, totals and weighted averages*
White US resident population (thousands): 177,113
Black US resident population (thousands): 26,404
W/B population ratio: 6.708
murders committed by Whites: 6635
murders committed by Blacks: 7429
B/W per capita murder perpetration rate ratio: 7.5

*Excludes US residents younger than age 9 or older than age 74, along with any murders perpetrated by persons in such age groups.


Caveat to information, above
by Jerry Abbott • Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 05:37 PM

The population figures and crime totals listed for "White" people include some proportion of non-White persons, such as Latinos, Jews, and Arabs. The U.S. Department of Justice (including the FBI) routinely uses its "White" racial category as a miscellaneous bin for assigning race to criminal offenders.

However, when the same non-Whites are the victims of similar crimes, the DoJ/FBI has no trouble perceiving them as non-Whites, especially when the offender is (or can be described as) White.

Although the FBI's numbers can be roughly corrected to remove the non-Whites from the crime offender totals, this was not done for the data tables in the above post. As a general rule of thumb, about 25% of the crimes officially blamed on White offenders were in fact committed by a non-White of some description.

----- end of post -----


As you can see, I did nothing more than tell the truth without apology. The Canadian mind controllers have a problem with that.

They haven't censored it yet. Quick, go to

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/12305.php

Amazing. They're actually debating. This might be fun.

They haven't censored it yet. Quick, go to

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/12305.php

Amazing. They're actually debating. This might be fun.


Jerry,
I should always be (and wish I was, and strive to be) as clear, effective, and concise in written debate as you are, but I am not.

Anyway just for the hell of it** I tried 3 times to add a post to your censorship thread at Indy, but it did not 'take,' as far as I can see. Perhaps it takes a while, or perhaps the thread is now locked...? I did not see any requirement to register--only name, subject, and text. Did I miss something?

**since I have to wonder if it will have any effect, other than as an excercise for me.
I've read numerous posts of yours from way back at MSNBC, and more recently Courttv and now Indy, and they are most often a joy to behold. But it remains like you say: few will even let their eyes rest for a second on anything which might challenge their pet beliefs, if they can at all avoid it.

I really hate it when somebody like Jerry put up a bulletproof argument or stance on a subject only to be refuted by a lower class intellect like this example:


Jerry thats ridiculous
by jA- Wednesday March 10, 2004 at 07:41 AM


"First of all", academic tests cannot measure "intelligence". They are biased because they are impacted by lots of counfounded factors like culture and socioeconomic status. The reason people in poor neighborhoods score poorly on tests is not because of their skin colour but because they are poor. Compared to rich kids, they may be undernourished, or may not have a good grasp on english yet, or are just too busy trying to survive life in a ghetto to perform in school.

So you see...blah blah blah, neo-nazis are clearly inferior...blahblahblah.....




Quite embarrassing to say the least for this "jA" guy. :D

I really hate it when somebody like Jerry put up a bulletproof argument or stance on a subject only to be refuted by a lower class intellect like this example:

Its the usual canned rhetoric from liberal do-gooders who actually think plate-lipped Nigerians have the same intellect as a British scientist.

Indymedia have editorial guidelines that include censoring things they consider "racist."

Indymedia have editorial guidelines that include censoring things they consider "racist."
I sometimes have some luck in stalling censorship for a while by leading my string of racist posts with this one:

For as long as there have been public debates about race, liberals have tried to restrict the spectrum of allowed speech by declaring their opponents' best arguments out-of-bounds. They often corrupt the governing rules of forums by hardwiring their restrictions into the terms of service or other content policy. Their justification is preventing offense to racial minorities.

Whether racists sometimes make good arguments, in the sense that they include statements that are both important and true, doesn't matter to liberals, who don't consider truth to be a defense. The better a racist's argument is, the more it threatens to expose the wrongs of liberalism, and thus liberals are more inclined to call for the censorship of thoughtful racist arguments than for the censorship of poor ones.

These are the same liberals who argue that anti-Christian themes in movies (such as Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ") and in art (such as Andres Serrano's crucifix in a jar of urine) ought to be protected speech despite their offensiveness to many Christians. What blasphemous themes are to Christians, racist opinions are to liberals. Liberals almost always seek censorship of racist arguments so that they will not have to present opposing arguments that they might not be capable of presenting.

It isn't necessarily wrong to exclude points of view on a board. If the stated purpose of a board is to glorify a particular god, race, political philosophy, or brand of consumer goods then it's perfectly all right for the board's owner or moderator to come along and censor posts inconsistent with the board's mission. You can legally criticize Jesus, but you shouldn't go into a church to do it. If you do, the preacher has the right to throw you out.

But when a board's stated purpose is to engage in debate, for the purpose of arriving at the truth, or at a better understanding of the facts, then a priori restrictions on unpopular points of view are hypocritical attempts to "fix" the debate so that only the popular point of view can seem to win. The advocates of the unpopular point of view (racists in this case) will only be allowed to score small points with their lesser and more oblique arguments, while the liberals can bring forth their whole array of verbiage unfettered by any fear that they will be censored.

To give the liberals grounds for calling for the censorship of racist opinions, the rules of debate are written to exclude them. "Racist remarks" and "hate speech" are ruled illegal, and then that rule is used not only to prevent racial insults but also to censor arguments that the liberals find too threatening to their belief system to deal with forthrightly.

That's how things are in most race-related debates. They are not so much "debates" as controlled pretenses thereof. It's surprising to find a media venue that will host ideas that fall outside the spectrum of opinion that liberals are comfortable with.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 14, 2005 08:10 AM
By showing the liberals the sordid, dishonest, hypocritical, cowardly nature of their censorship, this post sometimes embarrasses them into attempting to debate me on racial issues. But sooner or later, the course of argument reminds the liberals that the wrongness of their position REQUIRES them to choose between censoring and losing -- and then they get over the embarrassment of needing to censor, and they censor me anyway.

Still, I do manage to get in a few good shots this way.

Jerry Abbott

Jerry : Here's a bit of an updated DOJ racial breakdown, from 2002.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Im surprised Indymedia has published any of those ADVs Hadding made with Kevin, although on one IndyUK site they had one of the articles "hidden." I expected anything from a pro-white organization to be banned. The fact that many of those ADVs would be considered "anti-Semitic" by the mainstream made it even more a surprise. They're still up on a number of IndyMedia websites.


The pedophilia thing isn't all that shocking to me. Back when I was a far leftist I used to read all kind of different Socialist/Communist/Anarchist publications and I stopped buying the ICL's Worker's Vanguard when the front page featured an article of why they support NAMBLA. I vomited and hurled the paper into the trash.