REC #1 HATONN
THU., FEB. 19, 1998 7:36 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 187
THU., FEB. 19, 1998
THE CURRENT JEWISH QUESTION
Why is there always an assumption that when we speak the word "Jew" that we are being disparaging and/or derogatory? I think the problem comes from the MISUSE of the term otherwise. Just as "Semitic" does NOT mean Jew, neither do I nor all other persons who speak on the subject mean the Jewish people. I am speaking of the New World Order World Controllers who seem to gain control of everything from religions to economics. These plunderers will take property in any way required to gain it. THEY call themselves Jews and therefore I, like most writers, have no other suitable term to affix.
If you are of dark skin you are called Black, if you are pale you are called White, if you are Native you are called Red. NONE OF THE TERMS FIT CORRECTLY, NOR DO THEY EVEN MATCH COLOR--BUT NONETHELESS THESE ARE THE RECOGNIZED TERMS.
Semite includes all of the regional peoples, so how can one group claim that others are anti-IT? These are the very things which divide worlds and disallow harmonious interchange. IGNORANCE is the worst offender of any age.
WE GET INSTRUCTIONS
Oh indeed, we get interesting input on our writings, especially my writings. This is good because we do not write just to exercise fingers. However, readers, you would be most surprised at some of the input. We have one highly respected party from a very well known magazine and paper producer who actually claims we are trying to please such as the Jewish ADL for running their propaganda. That is in response to the Protocols no less.
When you REALLY LOOK at Henry Ford's writings you will note that they are observations after researching historical happenings, and from that "he" formed conclusions, nothing more.
What we always aim to achieve is to make people think, wake up to the moment, and see what is happening to the very things you CLAIM to hold dear and, then if and when appropriate, when things are NOT RIGHT, act accordingly. Yesterday you witnessed three Jewish high, high-level Administrators face a roomful of PEOPLE in Ohio. The whole staged plan was to gather with syrup the masses to the notion of bombing to hell Saddam Hussein's innocent citizens. It did NOT go well and one young man, bravely, after having his microphone cut off, said it was a staged CNN show for disinformation and he objected. Well, so many objected that the speakers could not speak. Will it make a difference? Yes, they won't do that again unless they have prescreened attendees better.
The whole thing reminds me of Janet Reno's reason for burning up so many people in David Koresh's home, including all those babies and children--with their Mothers. It was to keep Koresh from "abusing" the children. Well, it is true, he can't abuse THOSE children any more or ever.
I do find myself pondering on just how many CITIZENS would line up in front of Mr. Zipper and these "Jack the Rippers" to save their lives. There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of Iraqi citizens ready TO DIE before you can get to Saddam. Is something wrong with this picture?
What happens to a nation when the GREAT IDEALS are gone? ANARCHY! But the idea that change must come from Combat Revolution is also a misdirection of reason and logic.
It reminds me of the mentality of those who killed "Indians", which is not even the Native American's name. Whole tribes were wiped out like ants (and I don't even condone wiping out ants, for they have a purpose) with a flip of the hand and "they're only INDIANS". So, in Iraq, "they're only Moslems". Well, just as with the ants you invade--they will struggle until they can sting you to death--count on it. And people: IF YOU BUILD YOUR WOODEN HOUSE ON A TERMITE HILL--EXPECT TO HAVE TERMITES. IF YOU BUILD YOUR HOUSE ON FILL-DIRT OVERLOOKING THE "GRAND VIEW" OF THE OCEAN--EXPECT IT TO SLIDE INTO THE SEA WHEN THE STORMS COME! But of the ones needing help, just WHO do you think will get the most assistance from your government? That's right, the ones who can live another day to donate to campaigns and political parties.
And Monica Lewinsky? Why doesn't someone tell the media and poor Gerry Spence WHY THE INTERROGATION OF MONICA'S MOTHER? It is not over a bit of sex in the oval office; it is about hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from Father and Grandfather Lewinsky. Even our good old buddy, Gerry, acts as if DAYS of grilling the "mother" "Lewis" is about the "Big Creep". NO, it is about bribery, corruption and crimes in the White House on up and down. Monica's family bought and paid for her place in the White House, Pentagon, and for Job placements, so who is kidding who? Moreover, THAT is the important "side chatter" ON THOSE TRIPP TAPES that matters.
MORE ZIPPER UPDATE?
(Never mind Linda Tripp-up)
Most people read the findings of Mr. Starr and dropped the thought of problems of Mr. Foster. He went forth and suicided himself, it was decided BY MR. STARR. Well, who cares WHO decided to ignore the facts. The subject only pops in now when you mention Ms. Tripp was the last to see Foster "alive". Well, she worked in or around his office so what might you expect? Nonetheless, some observations continue to be made by astute writers who would like some JUSTICE out of this UNJUST SYSTEM. Vince Foster was murdered. In NEW AMERICAN, March 2, 1998, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp 31-32 is a most interesting article.
The article itself is by William P. Hoar and is a review of Mr. Christopher Ruddy's book for which I will give information:
[QUOTING, NEW AMERICAN, March 2, 1998, (Book Review):]
PINK SLIP, WHITE HOUSE STYLE
The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation, by Christopher Ruddy, New York: Free Press, 1997, 316 pages, hardcover, $25.00. Available from American Opinion Book Services, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913. Add $3.00 for shipping and handling.
According to the Washington Post, author Christopher Ruddy is the White House's new "Media Enemy No. 1." This honorable distinction comes as a result of Ruddy's reports on the deaths of deputy counsel and Clinton intimate Vincent Foster and, more recently, former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Before a national television audience not long ago, White House press secretary Mike McCurry questioned whether Ruddy should even be called a journalist, claiming that he writes "in a very vituperative fashion". [H: Hummnn, same complaints run rampant about us.] McCurry went on to blast Ruddy for using his personal view in ways "that border on hate". [H: Now isn't that typical of the hounds with which we deal at the top? An opinion that "borders on hate"? Well, Mr. McCurry (not his original name) is making some pretty significant bloopers himself lately.]
From the furious White House attacks on Ruddy, one would assume him to be a slashing, sneering polemical hack, belligerent to the truth, splenetic, and choleric to the core. Not so. A touch of the routinely measured and constrained nature of his work may be seen in an earlier interview in this (New American) magazine (December 23, 1996 issue). Well, someone might say, perhaps he is personally well-mannered, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a hate monger, as the President's spokesman suggests. In other words, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster could be simply a collection of lies and half-truths designed solely to embarrass the White House. A perusal of the book quickly puts that notion to rest.
What Ruddy does, and does well, is to point out the parade of errors, misstatements, and seemingly deliberate oversights that occurred following Foster's death in July 1993. This he does with deliberate understatement, buttressed by good, old-fashioned reporting. No, he doesn't say Foster was murdered or posit some mad conspiracy run by President Clinton down through the entire Park Police and medical examiner. But he does lay out hundreds of pages of evidence, concluding his treatise by speculating that Fort Marcy Park, where Foster's body was discovered, "may yet become the symbol of a cover-up conducted by people who have, with the help of the press, placed themselves above the law."
For his troubles, Ruddy has not only been maligned by the Clintonite left, but his book has even been panned in several supposedly conservative journals, by those who are ever quick to quash any hint of conspiracy in public life. [H: I wonder how they describe our Journals and paper? Are we "conservative"? Liberal? Conspirators? Left? Right? Does anyone even know what these terms mean? Absolutely NOTHING; they are terms like "weapons of mass destruction" that are used over and over again until there IS NO MEANING.]
The way to judge Ruddy's book is fundamental: Read it. If, after viewing the facts he carefully outlines, you don't believe there has been an obstruction of justice and a cover-up, please send your name to those raising legal FUNDS for Bill and Hillary so you can be put on their mailing list.
SKEPTICAL OF OFFICIAL FINDINGS
Unless you have followed events closely, you probably didn't know that Miguel Rodriguez [H: WHO?], independent counsel Kenneth Starr's lead prosecutor on Foster's death, left for ethical reasons over the way the probe was being handled. The coverage of the event was minimal. Can you imagine the contrasting uproar if a comparable figure had left, say, the Iran-Contra probe because it wasn't being carried out in good faith?
Sure, the Park Police, Robert Fiske's investigation, and Kenneth Starr's report all assert that Foster simply killed himself. But many other knowledgeable observers are not buying that story. This includes the experts who concluded that Foster's "suicide note" was a forgery. Other skeptics include police homicide experts who determined that Vince Foster's body had been moved to Fort Marcy Park after his death. Ruddy, who is a correspondent with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and a media fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute, doesn't make this up, but merely takes note of it.
Crucial questions remain unanswered: Where is the bullet that killed Foster? Where are Foster's fingerprints if he used the gun at the scene to kill himself? Why were there no fingerprints (Foster's or those of others known to have handled the paper) on the torn-up "suicide note"? How did the note come to be in the briefcase many days after it was thoroughly searched--conveniently just when serious doubts about the violent death were beginning to be aired? Why were witnesses badgered into altering their stories to fit the pre-determined tale? Why, if Foster walked for a distance over the park grounds on that summer day, was there no soil found on his shoes? Why, on the other hand, were there so many carpet fibers on his pant legs, and why were they not checked against the locales where they were said to originate?
Why is there so much evidence that the body was moved after death? What happened during the many unaccounted hours after Foster left the White House until his body was discovered? Why would the Fiske report state that the White House deputy counsel had lost weight, when the doctor's records indicate he had actually gained several pounds? If the White House really wanted to get to the bottom of all of this, why did its personnel rush to Foster's office and make off with Foster's files, then impede the investigation from the beginning? [H: By the way, Tripp is taking a bad bashing and why might that be? Well, she was called to testify in the Foster matter and had to, under oath, tell the truth about things. She KNEW those files just mentioned were immediately CARTED OFF TO THE WHITE HOUSE CLINTON PRIVATE QUARTERS. Don't you like the way the press says: After all, this is not murder (a bit of zipper problems in the Oval Office) or something serious. Well, what happened when there WAS MURDER AND "SOMETHING" SERIOUS? And moreover, there was NOT enough evidence LEFT WHOLE to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Foster was murdered. THAT must be proven by prosecutors, readers, in a court of law.]
Here's a question with an answer: Who was it that called the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock--where Hillary Clinton, Foster, and others had held sway before coming to Washington--to talk about the death. This person, on the evening of the death, told a Rose attorney: "Don't believe a word you hear. It was NOT suicide. It couldn't have been."
The answer: Then-Associate Attorney General WEBB HUBBELL made those remarks. He and others close to Foster obviously feared foul play had occurred. Hubbell later changed his tune over this--much as he did after he unguardedly admitted that he had noted no evidence of changes in Foster's behavior or appearance, nor was he aware that Foster was "experiencing any type of stress". Yet Hubbell would later testify before a Senate committee that "we were all concerned. Vince had lost weight, had seemed to be depressed." The contradiction went unremarked by the senators. Ruddy, however, took notice.
[H: I also take notice. The facts are that Foster did a courier run regularly to Switzerland to attend, at the least, Hillary's accounts in the foreign banks protected from publicity. You will note that within this month SHE had to make a trip (business of course--all first ladies attend foreign council meetings) to SWITZERLAND. She is having to check on and work out a way to get funds for fighting these growing and expensive legal battles. What they dig up THIS TIME could bury them all in prison or have them shot for criminal reasons and treason. This is why Starr keeps going back to Little Rock--not to check out the length of the dress "gift" for Ms. Monica. The target on Starr's back must make his neck itch and I would keep a lot of bodyguards if I were he.]
SLIPSHOD OR WORSE?
The riddles surrounding Foster's death were numerous; so, too, were the discrepancies in the various subsequent probes. The autopsy procedures were, at the very least, careless and inadequate. Crucial X-rays are missing. Key photographs somehow disappeared. The evidence about a possible second wound might have been cleared up by a second autopsy--but it didn't occur. The Strange Death of Vincent Foster sheds enough light on the subject to make you wonder what the proper procedures might have revealed.
Similar doubts were expressed by independent police investigators, who examined the evidence and presented their findings to reporters in Washington, DC (though most ignored or played down the results). Sure, acknowledged the detectives, odd things do happen. Nevertheless, as Ruddy summarized their incredulity over the gun: "It could not be identified by Foster's family as having been owned by Foster; it was an antique gun made from the parts of two or more weapons with no less than two serial numbers traceable to 1913; it had only two bullets in its cylinder (one spent, the other unfired), yet no matching ammunition could be found in the Foster homes; it was found, unusually, in his hand yet with none of his fingerprints and no blood visible on the barrel; no one heard the gunshot; and the powder burns of Foster's hand challenged the idea that he even fired the weapon." [H: There was another BIG problem. There was only one spent bullet--but there WERE AT LEAST TWO BULLET WOUNDS! That takes some effort and the help of a ghost-shooter.]
Among the false assertions in the Fiske report was that "everyone known to have been in Fort Marcy Park on the afternoon or evening of July 20, 1993, also was questioned." As Ruddy explains in detail, there were at least five people whom Fiske did not even identify, let alone interview, among the dozen or more individuals known to have been in the park on the night of the death. [H: Still think nothing important might have been said in the Monica tapes? You know, something like "Talkers and tattlers end up Fostered". Just a thought!]
THE STARR REPORT
[H: One thing about Starr: the White House should never have gone to WAR with Mr. Starr because the way it is now arranged it is either Starr or Clintons and either place is a very hard place upon which to sit. And readers, DO NOT OVERLOOK THE POTENTIAL OF BUTTERFLIES AND PROMISES AND SLAVES AND TRANCE FORMATION OF AMERICA!]
The independent counsel's report, prepared because of the many problems with the Fiske report, was seemingly forever on the verge of being released. Leaked press accounts repeatedly said Kenneth Starr had concluded that Foster had killed himself and that Starr would make public his proofs soon. The inquiry lasted almost three years and cost some $30 million. The publication date for The Strange Death of Vincent Foster was September 22, 1997, and it began to cause waves at once. In short order, the Starr report was issued in the second week of October.
The Starr report is filled with changes in testimony and evidence that attempt to bolster the suicide findings. Yet, as noted by Phil Weiss, a liberal reporter who followed the case closely, those who put together the report were "dishonest" and produced, in toto, a work that was "unbelievable".
Ruddy remains unconvinced, to say the least. Indeed, Ruddy says the Starr report actually proves to him "that a cover-up of significant proportion has taken place involving Vincent Foster's death." Ruddy, lest there be any misunderstanding, also emphasizes that he does not believe independent counsel Kenneth Starr was "in a 'conspiracy' with the White House".
But the independent counsel, comments Ruddy, "has been busy making over $1 million a year at his private law firm, leaving the inquiry in the hands of prosecutors who are White House cronies (Mark Tuohey) and career Justice Department people." As Starr's Washington deputy, liberal Democrat Tuohey was friendly with top members of the Clinton Justice Department (even hosting a party for Janet Reno) and was seen socializing with such interested parties as Webb Hubbell.
The FBI, Ruddy writes, "has played a leading role in the inquiry, and despite the fact its involvement was 'compromised from the beginning', as former director William Sessions has alleged, Starr, over the objections of prosecutor [Miguel] Rodrigez, allowed the FBI to essentially control the inquiry. The Starr report is disturbing because it indicates just how thoroughly the FBI has been controlled and politicized...".
The independent counsel's report, continues Ruddy, is also "frightening". After all, he says, a "high official dies under suspicious and violent circumstances but the press has paid little attention to the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing that has been unearthed in previous inquiries. Now much of that evidence has simply been changed or altered and no one has paid much attention to that either."
If you want to know why the author is considered such an enemy by the Clinton team, buy and read The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. There is a down side, however. After so doing, you, too, will feel even more uncomfortable about the folks in and around the White House. REVIEW: WILLIAM P. HOAR.
[END OF QUOTING]
Outrageous? Indeed! So what else is new in your world today?
I am reminded that continually LaRouche complains that "my enemies are the SAME ones who are out to get Clinton...". Oh? And why would that be, Mr. LaRouche? Could you possibly be Referring to Bush, Kissinger, et al.? Wow.
While speaking of murders, let us consider--AGAIN--the murder of Dodi and Di.
Just some questions to remind you there ARE things you haven't thought about and probably neither has Daddy al Fayed. Why was Mr. Jones the ONLY one in the car with a seat belt on? WHO DROPPED THE "MICKEY" IN MR. PAUL'S DRINK? If you can't believe this then where are you on the topic of Date Rape and Ruffles? Come on people, you-the-people are not THAT asleep. Why has Mr. Jones joined the "adversaries" to sue Mohammed? And why does Mr. Jones have bodyguards and keep as far removed and retired as is possible? Conspiracy? It is so obvious how and who that I marvel at your sleepy observations of chanting the Rose of London without doing anything about the killers of that ROSE. Di was going to marry Dodi and BECOME A MOSLEM! Can you imagine what that would do to the CROWN OF ENGLAND? Does anyone remember that Royal Church of England where even the priests wear the coat of arms of the Windsors? And, while YOU mourn and play with Billy's zipper--the culprits GET AWAY WITH THE CRIME.
Now, I've done it: I've ruined your day? Why didn't I just keep talking about the Jews and let the guilty get away? Because I am weary of God's people being unconscious.
BOMBING IRAQ IS MURDER IN THE WORST DEGREE! DOES ANYBODY HEAR ME? THIS IS INTENTIONAL MURDER OF WOMEN, CHILDREN AND CITIZENS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, WITH NO PICK OTHER THAN WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BRITAIN OVER "OIL" AND INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST YOUR POLITICAL AND MILITARY HIERARCHY WEARING THOSE ADORATION CROWNS YOU PUT ON THEIR HEADS FOR THE LAST MASSACRE YOU PULLED OFF IN THE GULF MIDDLE EAST AGAINST IRAQ. GOOD FOR OHIO STATE AND SHAME ON YOU WHO MONGER FOR WAR!
GOD BLESS KOFI ANAN.
And, Vince Foster was MURDERED!
REC #2 HATONN
THU., FEB. 19, 1998 10:32 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 187
THU., FEB. 19, 1998
JEWS IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
We are accused of being unkind to the "poor poverty-stricken and underling" Jewish people. (????) Has everyone gone insane? The Jews have taken control of your government--is THAT being poverty-stricken and underlings? I cannot imagine how any one group of people have been so clearly SUCCESSFUL. Is THAT an insult? HOW SO?
Brent M. was looking through some information on the Internet and sent us the following list of JUST-the-IMMEDIATE-administration Clinton people. There is no "lower-staff" listed and, of course, ONLY immediate administration personnel. These are the ones who RUN your GOVERNMENT--Clinton is actually A FIGUREHEAD. He is THE NATURAL CITIZEN that allows ALL THE OTHER FOREIGNERS INTO THE RUNNING OF THE GOVERNMENT!: (Let it be further understood that there are plenty of OTHERS but they have used new names and hide identity, i.e., Reno, McCurry, et al.)
Madeleine Albright Secretary Of State
Robert Rubin Secretary Of Treasury
William Cohen Secretary Of Defense
Dan Glickman Secretary Of Agriculture
George Tenet CIA Chief
Samuel Buerger Head National Security Council
Evelyn Lieberman Deputy Chief Of Staff
Stuart Eizenstat Under Secy. Of State
Charlene Barshesky U.S. Trade Representative
Susan Tomases Aide To First Lady
Joel Klein Assistant Attorney General
Gene Sperling National Economic Council
Ira Magaziner National Health Care
Peter Tarnoff Deputy Secy. Of State
Alice Rivlin Economic Advisor
Janet Yellin Chairwoman, Nat'l Economic Council
Rahm Emanuel Policy Advisor
Doug Sosnik Council To President
Jim Steinberg Deputy To National Security Chief
Jay Footlik Special Liaison To The Jewish Community
[H: No Other Group Has A Special Liaison. Good Name For The Job.]
Robert Nash Personal Chief
Jane Sherburne President's Lawyer
Mark Penn Asia Expert To Nec
Sandy Kristoff Health Care Chief
Robert Boorstin Communications Aide
Keith Boykin Communications Aide
Jeff Eller Special Asst. To Clinton
Tom Epstein Health Care Adviser
Judith Feder Nat'l Security Council
Richard Feinberg Asst. Secy. Veterans
Hershel Gober Food And Drug Admin.
Steve Kessler White House Counsel
Ron Klein Asst. Secy. Education
Madeleine Kunin Communications Aide
David Kusnet Dept. Aids Program
Margaret Hamburg Dir. Press Conferences
Mandy Grunwald Liaison To Jew Leaders
Karen Adler Dir. State Dept. Policy
Samuel Lewis Nat'l Security Council
Stanley Ross Nat'l Security Council
Dan Schifter Director Peace Corps
Eli Segal Deputy Chief Of Staff
[END OF QUOTING]
There is a page or so missing from the FAX papers, but I think you get the picture.
AND, DEAR ONES, HOW MANY DO YOU THINK ARE ATTORNEYS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION?
Does this really appear to be a hard-luck grouping of people, whether it be from race, creed, religion, or what? EVERY major world CORPORATION is headed by these same groups of people. Does this really indicate an ABUSE of their rights?
From the U.S. alone, Israel gets $3 BILLION annually in CASH from you in the U.S., and now that has been extended to $6 BILLION in outright payments for NOTHING. Then if you have a skirmish--they get another $10 BILLION for inconvenience, and whammo--you spend a lot on Jews, it seems to me, while your Blacks are underpaid, under-employed, and your White population has become a religious minority of false "christians".
There are more "victims" of the Holocaust RECEIVING PAYMENTS FROM SUCH AS GERMANY, RUSSIA AND YOU, U.S., THAN THERE WERE JEWS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF WORLD WAR II. ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Are FACTS so hard to take, citizens? You allow to immigrate the highest level of controllers right out of foreign lands and into your government controlling offices and yet you have no compassion in separating a child from his mother to deport hungry Hispanics back to Mexico. Is THIS THE AMERICAN "Liberty and Justice for All"?
It seems to me, friends, that this is the most successful, whining, "abused" group of people on the face of the globe.
Let us continue with the articles of Mr. Henry Ford, still using articles from 1920, a very LONG TIME AGO.
FROM: THE INTERNATIONAL JEW--The World's Foremost Problem.
Vol. I: Being a Reprint of a Series of Articles
appearing in the Dearborn Independent
from May 2 to October 2, 1920.
Published by: THE DEARBORN PUBLISHING CO. Dearborn,
Michigan, Nov. 1920.
Republished May, 1976 by:
Liberty Bell Publications, Reedy, West Virginia 25270.
[QUOTING:] PART 7, GLOBAL PARASITES
ANTI-SEMITISM--WILL IT APPEAR
IN THE U.S.?
"To this end we must organize. Organize, in the first place, so that the world may have proof of the extent and the intensity of our desire for liberty. Organize, in the second place, so that our resources may become known and be made available....
"Organize, organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted--counted with us, or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people."
Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the United
States Supreme Court, ZIONISM, pp. 113, 114.
[H: Anyone want to argue?]
Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish Question in the United States or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as an Anti-Semite, in high-brow language, or in lowbrow language, a Jew-baiter. [H: Now you get labeled and prosecuted for being a hate-person or "Jew-hater" instead of baiter. I believe that someone simply misheard the term.] Nor need encouragement be looked for from people or from press. The people who are awake to the subject at all prefer to wait and see how it all turns out [H: And now you know how it all turns out, don't you?]; while there is probably not a newspaper in America, and certainly none of the advertising mediums which are called magazines, which would have the temerity even to breathe seriously the fact that such a Question exists. The press in general is open at this time to fulsome editorials in favor of everything Jewish (specimens of the same being obtainable almost anywhere), while the Jewish press, which is fairly numerous in the United States, takes care of the vituperative end.
Of course, the only acceptable explanation of any public discussion at present of the Jewish Question is that some one--writer, or publisher, or a related interest--is a Jew-hater. That idea seems to be fixed; it is fixed in the Jew by inheritance; it is sought to be fixed in the Gentile by propaganda, that any writing which does not simply cloy and drip in syrupy sweetness toward things Jewish is born of prejudice and hatred. It is, therefore, full of lies, insult, insinuation, and constitutes an instigation to massacre. These terms are culled at random from Jewish editorial utterances at hand. [H: Yes, we have some also.]
It would seem to be necessary for our Jewish citizens to enlarge their classifications of Gentiles to include the class which recognizes the existence of a Jewish Question and still is not anti-Semitic.
There are four distinct parties traceable among the Jews themselves. First, those whose passionate purpose is to keep Jewish faith and lie alive at the cost of any sacrifice of popularity or success [H: Here I am reminded of Zipper Bill who smoked marijuana but didn't inhale, and Madeleine Albright who got to be her age and Secretary of State (U.S.A.) and "didn't know she was Jewish".]; second, those who are willing to make whatever sacrifice may be needed to preserve Jewish religion, but are not so particular about the traditional customs of Jewish life; third, those who have no very strong convictions either way, but are opportunists, and will always swerve in the direction of success; and, fourth, those who believe and preach that the only solution of the differences between the Jew and other men is the complete absorption of the Jewish race by the other races. The fourth is the weakest, most unpopular and least to be considered of all the parties.
With Gentiles there are only two classes, as far as this special question is concerned: those who dislike Jews, they cannot tell why; and those who are disposed to fairness, in spite of the accident of congeniality or uncongeniality, and who recognize the Jewish Question as, at least, a problem. Both these attitudes, whenever they become apparent, are subject to the charge of "anti-Semitism".
[H: I want to give you a reminding example right here. Ekkers moved to Tehachapi and on a Land Purchase Contract bought a house. Payments were made through the prior party (per that party's request). The property went into default and Ekkers were told to go to the sale and get the house at auction. They got all the papers and notifications personally but would not be allowed to even contact the mortgage parties. They went to the sale as advertised, with full purchase price in hand--there was no sale.
When the incident came to court after default was served and the lawyer, Steven Horn, refused to give continuance to get counsel and go to court, guess what the real charge was? The Ekkers are "anti-Semitic" and papers were provided where Jews were simply mentioned in a couple of paragraphs. The Judge Jason Brent and his colleagues in the Superior Court were then given full blown major paper accusations by Jason Brent as to the Ekkers being anti-Semitic as was "Rick Martin" being anti-Semitic (after, of course, Jason has stated in court in front of witnesses that "there is no Rick Martin"). These people, being good Semites--OBJECT.]
Anti-Semitism in almost every form is bound to come to the United States; indeed, it may be said that it is here now, and has been here for a long time. If it be mislabeled now, the United States will not be able to work within it the transformation which has been effected upon so many other ideas that have arrived here in their journey round the globe. [H: Well, oh boy, did it ever come to the U.S. as suggested by Mr. Ford 78 years ago.]
ANTI-SEMITISM IS NOT
It may be a serviceable clearing of the ground to define what anti-Semitism is not:
1. It is not recognition of the Jewish Question. If it were, then it could be set down that the bulk of the American people are destined to become anti-Semites, for they are beginning to recognize the existence of a Jewish Question and will steadily do so in increasing numbers as the Question is forced upon them from the various practical angles of their lives. The Question is here. We may be honestly blind to it. We may be timidly silent about it. We may even make dishonest denial of it. But it is here. In time all will have to recognize it. In time the polite "hush, hush" of over-sensitive or intimidated circles will not be powerful enough to suppress it. But to recognize it will not mean that we have gone over to a campaign of hatred and enmity against the Jews. It will only mean that a stream of tendency which has been flowing through our civilization has at last accumulated bulk and power enough to challenge attention, to call for some decision with regard to it, to call for the adoption of a policy which will not repeat the mistakes of the past and yet will forestall any possible social menace of the future.
2. Again, the public discussion of the Jewish Question is not anti-Semitism. Publicity is sanitary. The publicity given the Jewish Question, or certain aspects of it, in this country has been very misleading. It has been discussed more fully in the Jewish press than elsewhere, but not with candor or breadth of vision. The two dominant notes--they are sounded over and over again with monotonous regularity in the Jewish press--are Gentile unfairness and Christian prejudice. These apparently are the two chief aspects of life which impress Jewish publicists when they look over the line of their own race. It is said in all soberness that it is fortunate for Jews generally that the Jewish press does not circulate very widely among Gentiles, for it is probably the one established agency in the United States which, without altering its program in the least, could stir up anti-Jewish sentiment by the simple expedient of a general reading among non-Jews. Jewish writers writing for Jewish readers present unusual material for the study of race consciousness and its accompaniment of contempt for other races. It is true that in the publications referred to, America is constantly praised, but not America as the land of the American people; America, rather, as the land of the Jews' opportunity.
On the side of the daily press, there has been no serious discussion at all. This is neither surprising nor reprehensible. The daily press deals with matters that have reached the overheated stage. When it mentions the Jews at all, it has stock phrases for the purpose; the effort includes a list of the famous Jews of history, and usually closes with complimentary references to certain local Jews of commendable qualities, whose advertisements are not infrequently found in another part of the paper. Summing up, it may be said that the publicity given the question in this country consists in misrepresentative criticism of the Gentiles by the Jewish press and misrepresentative praise of the Jews by the non-Jewish press. An independent effort to give a constructive publicity cannot, therefore, be laid to anti-Semitism, even when some of the statements which are made in the course of it arouse the resentment of Jewish readers.
3. Nor is it anti-Semitism to say that the suspicion is abroad in every capital of civilization and the certainty is held by a number of important men that there is active in the world a plan to control the world, not by territorial acquisition, not by military aggression, nor by governmental subjection, not even by economic control in the scientific sense, but by control of the machinery of commerce and exchange. It is not anti-Semitism to say that, nor to present the evidence which supports that, nor to bring the proof of that. Those who could best disprove it if it were not true are the international Jews themselves, but they have not disproved it. Those who could best prove it would be those Jews whose ideals include the good of the whole of humanity on an equality and not the good of one race only, but they have not proved it. Some day a prophetic Jew may arise who will see that the promises bestowed upon the Ancient People are not to be fulfilled by Rothschild methods, and that the promise that all the nations were to be blessed through Israel is not to be fulfilled by making the nations the economic vassals of Israel; and when that time comes we may hope for a redirection of Jewish energy into channels that will drain the present sources of the Jewish Question. In the meantime, it is not anti-Semitism; it may even be found to be a world service to the Jew, to throw light on what purpose motivates certain higher circles.
If the above propositions are true, then the term "anti-Semitic", so freely bestowed on this series of articles, betrays a worse spirit in the critics than in the author. But enough of that. There is much yet to do, and what is done must stand on what merit remains after friend and foe alike are through with praise and blame.
GRADES OF ANTI-SEMITISM
Anti-Semitism has unquestionably swayed large sections of humanity at various times, warping the vision, twisting the characters and staining the hands of its victims, but the most amazing statement that can be made of it is that it has never accomplished anything in behalf of those who used it, and it has never taught anything to the Jews against whom it was used.
The grades of anti-Semitism are fairly numerous, and a few of them may be cited here:
1. There is first that degree of anti-Semitism, if it may be so described, which consists in a plain dislike of the Jew as a person, no matter whom he may be. This is often found in people of all grades. It is found mostly, however, in those whose contact with Jews has been very limited. It begins sometimes in childhood with an instinctive dislike for the word "Jew". It is encouraged by the misuse of the word "Jew" as an epithet, or as an adjective generally descriptive of unpopular practices. The feeling is not different from that which eists toward Gentiles, concerning whom the same notions are held, but it differs in that it is extended to the race of unknown individual Jews instead of being restricted to known individuals who may justify such a feeling.
Congeniality is not within our choice, but control of the sentiment of uncongeniality is. Every fair-minded person is compelled at times to reflect that it is not impossible that the person for whom he feels a dislike may be as good and possibly a better person than he. Our dislike merely registers the result of attraction and repulsion as they operate between another person and oneself; it does not indicate that the disliked person is unworthy. Of course, whenever intelligence is joined with this instinctive withdrawal from social contact with members of the Jewish race, prejudice is forestalled, except, of course, in those persons who hold that there are no individuals among the Jews worthy of respect. This is an extreme attitude and is composed of other elements beside natural dislike. It is possible for people to dislike Jews and not be anti-Semitic. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon, it grows more and more common, that intelligent and refined Jews themselves do not relish the society of their own people except in cases of exceptional refinement.
This really calls for some comment on the manners and characteristics of the ordinary member of the Jewish race, the accidents of behavior which stand out most obnoxiously and of which Jews themselves are often the most unsparing critics, but these comments must fall into place later.
2. A second stage of the spirit of anti-Semitism may be designated as hatred and enmity. It should be noted that the antipathy referred to immediately above was not hatred. Dislike is not hatred, nor is it necessarily enmity. One may dislike sugar in his tea without troubling to hate sugar. But undoubtedly there are people who, because they have let their dislikes deepen into prejudice, and perhaps also because of unpleasant experiences with members of the Jewish race (probably a million Americans have been brought to the verge of becoming Jew-haters this winter because of contact with Jewish merchants and landlords) may be classified as, at least, incipient anti-Semites. This is most of all unfortunate for the persons who harbor these emotions. It is unfortunate in that it unfits the mind to consider intelligently the facts which constitute the Jewish Question, and also unfits it to deal with them in a fair and constructive way. For one's own sake, whatever the provocation otherwise, it is better not to let passion deflect the needle of one's mind. Hatred at the wheel means hazard on the course. Enmity lives in the vicinity of the Jews more than of any other race, and the reason for this is one of the puzzles of the ages. The Jewish nature itself, as shown in ancient and modern history, is not without its own share of enmity, and it either evokes or provokes enmity where it comes in contact with those Aryan races which follow their natural impulses unchecked by cultural and ethical influences. This age-long conflict of the Jew has puzzled the minds of students for generations. Some explain it Biblically as the curse of Jehovah [Lucifer] upon His Chosen People for their disobedience to the discipline by which He would have made them the Prophet Nation of the world. If this offense must come, if it is part of the Jew's heritage, an old saying--Christian and Scriptural, by the way--would still remain true: "It must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."
3. In some parts of the world at various times this feeling of hatred has broken into murderous violence, which has roused, as wholesale physical outrage always does, the horror and resentment of humanity. This is the extreme form in which anti-Semitism has exhibited itself, and it is the charge of intending to stimulate it here and elsewhere which every public discussion of the Jewish Question has to bear. There is, of course, no excuse for these outbreaks, but there is sufficient explanation of them. The Jews usually explain them as expressions of religious prejudice, and the Gentiles as rebellion against an economic yoke which the Jews have woven for the people. It is an astonishing fact that, to take one country, the parts of Russia where anti-Semitic violence has been most marked are the most prosperous parts, so prosperous indeed and with a prosperity so unquestionably due to Jewish enterprise that the Jews have openly declared that they have the power to throw those parts of Russia back into commercial lethargy again by simply withdrawing. It is utterly idle to throw denials at this statement. It is confirmed time and time again by men who have gone to Russia full of resentment against the attitude of the Russians toward the Jews, as that attitude is represented in the Anglo-Saxon press, and who have come home with a new light on the cause of these outbreaks, though not excusing their character. Impartial observers have also found that some of the outbreaks have been precipitated by the Jews themselves. A correspondent, known the world over for his trenchant defense of the Jews under Russian persecution, was always bitterly attacked by the Jews themselves whenever he stated the truth about this, notwithstanding his protest to them that if he did not tell the truth when they were in the wrong the world would not be ready to believe him when he said they were blameless. To this day, in every country, the Jews are slow to admit blameworthiness for anything. They must be excused, whoever else may be accused. It is a trait which will have to be disciplined before they can be brought to assist, if ever they can, the removal of those characteristics which arouse the antagonism of other peoples. Elsewhere in the world, it may be said that out-and-out enmity to the Jews has an economic basis. This, of course, leads to the question whether the Jew shall have to become a deliberate failure, or deny his genius, and forego his just need of prosperity before he can win the approval of the other races--a question which will arise for discussion later.
[H: Opportunity, for example, of "blame": How is it that the U.S. UNILATERALLY plans to bomb hell out of Iraq for three or four days and yet, as people such as babies, children, women, and men are MURDERED by YOU (they can't do anything about it and NEITHER CAN SADDAM HUSSEIN--NOTHING), you and your politicians continue to say "We are wonderful and are forced into murdering those innocent people; it is Saddam's fault and their own for keeping him as a leader...". Just HOW are YOU going to explain this to GOD? I certainly DO NOT mean Lucifer.]
As to the religious prejudice which the Jews are, as a rule, readiest to affirm, it is safe to say that it does not exist in the United States. Yet it is charged up to Americans by Jewish writers just as freely as it is charged up to Russians. Each non‑Jew reader is competent to settle this for himself. He can easily do so by asking himself whether in all his life he has ever felt a moment's resentment against the Jew on account of his religion. In an address recently delivered in a Jewish lodge and reported in the Jewish press, the speaker, a Jew, stated that if 100 non-Jews on the street where approached at random and casually asked what a Jew is, the reply of the majority would be, "He is a Christ-killer." One of the best known and most highly respected rabbis in the United States said recently in a sermon that children in Christian Sunday schools were taught to regard the Jew as a Christ-killer. He repeated it in a conversation several weeks later.
It would probably be the testimony of Christians generally that they never heard this term until they heard it in a Jewish complaint, and certainly themselves never used it. The charge is absurd. Let the 20,000,000 now in the Christian Sunday schools of Canada and the United States testify as to the instruction given. There is no hesitation in stating that there is no prejudice whatever in the Christian churches against the Jew on account of his religion. [H: As a matter of fact, the christian churches of today have taken up the Jew's religion for their own and put aside their own religion--you know, readers-- Judeo-Christian. There are no "Christian" religions remaining.] On the contrary, there is not only a deep sense of indebtedness, but a feeling of sharing with the Jew in his religion. The Sunday schools of the Christian churches of the world are spending six months of this year studying the International Lessons which are appointed for the Books of Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel and the Books of Kings, and every year is devoted in part to the Old Testament.
Here, however, is something for Jewish religious leaders to consider: there is more downright bitterness of religious prejudice on the part of the Jews against Christianity than could ever be possible in the Christian churches of America. Simply take the church press of America and compare it with the Jewish press in this regard, and there is no answer. No christian editor would think it either christian or intelligent to attack the Jewish religion, yet any six months' survey of the Jewish press would yield a mass of attack and prejudice on the other side. Moreover, no religious bitterness in America attains within infinite distances to that bitterness visited upon the Jew who becomes a christian in his faith. It amounts almost to a holy vendetta. A Christian may become a Jewish proselyte and his motives be respected; it is never so when a Jew becomes a Christian. [H: Not any more--the Jews now take the leadership roles and call it Zionism.] These statements are true of both the orthodox and liberal wings of Judaism. It is not his religion that gives prominence to the Jew today; it is something else. And yet, with undeviating monotony, it is repeated wherever the Jew takes cognizance of the feeling toward him that it is on account of three things, first and most prominent of which is his religion. It may be comforting to him to think that he is suffering for his faith, but it is not true. Every intelligent Jew must know it.
Every Jew ought to know also that in every Christian church where the ancient prophecies are received and studied, there is a great revival of interest in the future of the Ancient People. It is not forgotten that certain Promises were made to them regarding their position in the world, and it is held that these prophecies will be fulfilled. The future of the Jew, as prophetically outlined, is intimately bound up with the future of this planet, and the Christian church in large part--at least by the evangelical wing, which the Jews most condemn--sees a Restoration of the Chosen People yet to come. [H: Indeed, the Chosen People of LUCIFER.] If the mass of the Jews knew how understandingly and sympathetically all the prophecies concerning them are being studied in the Church, and the faith that exists that these prophecies will find fulfillment and that they will result in great Jewish service to society at large, they would probably regard the Church with another mind. They would at least know that the Church does not believe that it will be the instrument in the conversion of the Jews--a point on which Jewish leaders are tragically misled and which evokes more bitterness than anything else--but that it depends on quite other instruments and conditions, which it is not the function of this article to point out except to say that it will be the Jews' very own Messiah which will accomplish it and not the "wild olive", or the Gentile. [H: Right on, Mr. Ford.]
Curiously enough, there is a phase of anti-Semitism having to do with religion, but not in the way here discussed. There are those, very few in number and of atheistical tendencies, who assert that all religion is a sham, being the invention of Jews for the purpose of enslaving the minds of the people of the world to an enervating superstition. This position, however, has had no effect on the main issue. It is a far extreme.
WHERE ARE WE HEADED?
Now, which of these exhibitions of anti-Semitism will show itself in America? If certain tendencies continue, as they are certain to do, what form will the feeling toward the Jew take? Not that of mass violence, we may be sure. The only mass action visible now is that of Jewish agencies themselves against any person or institution that dares to bring the Jewish Question to public attention.
1. Anti-Semitism will come to America because of the habit which emotions and ideas apparently have of making their way westward around the world. North of Palestine, where the Jews have been longest settled and where they are now in great numbers, anti-Semitism is acute and well-defined. Westward, in Germany, it is clearly defined but, until the seizure of German revolutionary agencies, was devoid of violence. Still farther westward, in Great Britain, it is defined, but because of the comparatively small number of Jews in the British Isles and their coalition with the ruling class, it is more a feeling than a movement. In the United States it is not so definite, but shows itself in a restlessness, a questioning, a sensible friction between the traditional tendency of the American to fair-mindedness and his respect for the cold facts.
Because the Question will assume more and more pressure in America it behooves everyone of foresight to disregard the shortsighted protests of the Jews themselves and see to it that the Question shall not present itself among us as it has done among other people, in its most distressing and confusing forms. It is a public duty to seize this problem at its beginning and train it up, so to speak; that is, so prepare for it that it may be handled here in a manner which will form a model for all other countries, which will indeed supply all other countries with the essential materials for a permanent solution. And this can be done only by exposing and recognizing and treating with the serum of publicity the conditions before which, heretofore, the nations have helplessly foundered because they lacked either the desire or the means to get at the great root of the difficulty.
2. Another cause of the Question appearing here will be the great influx of the Jews which is planned for America. There will probably be a million Jews enter the country this year, increasing our Jewish population to nearly 4,500,000 [H: And that, remember, was 1920.] This does not mean merely an immigration of persons, but an immigration of ideas. No Jewish writer has ever told us, in systematic fashion, just what is the Jew's idea of non-Jews, how they regard the Gentiles in their private minds. But there are indications of it, although one would not attempt to reconstruct the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles. A Jew ought to do this for us, but he would probably be cast out by his own people if he discharged his task with rigorous jealousy for the exact fact.
These people are coming here regarding the Gentile as an hereditary enemy, as perhaps they have good ground for doing, and so believing they are going to model their behavior in a manner that will show it. Nor will these Jews be so helpless as they appear. In stricken Poland, where the Jews are represented as having been stripped of everything during the war, there are hundreds daily appearing before the consulate to arrange their passage here. The fact is significant. In spite of their reputed suffering and poverty, they are able to travel a great distance and to insist on coming. No other people are financially able to travel in such numbers. But the Jews are. It will readily be seen that they are not objects of charity. They have been able to keep afloat in a storm that has wrecked the other people. They know it and they joy in it, as is natural. And they will bring here the same thoughts toward the majority which they have harbored in their present lands of domicile. They may hail America; they will have their own thoughts about the majority of the American people. They may be in the lists as Russians or Poles or what not, but they will be Jews with the full Jewish consciousness, and they will make themselves felt.
All this is bound to have its effect. And it is not race prejudice to prepare for it, and to invite American Jews themselves to consider the fact and contribute to the solution of the problem which it presents.
3. Every idea which has ruled Europe has met with transformation when it was transplanted in America. It was so with the idea of Liberty, the idea of Government, the idea of War. It will be so with the idea of anti-Semitism. The whole problem will center here and if we are wise and do not shirk it, it will find its solution here. A recent Jewish writer has said: "Jewry today largely means American Jewry... all former Jewish centers were demolished during the war and were shifted to America." [H: And readers, THAT WAS BEFORE World War II.] The problem will be ours, whether we choose it or not.
And what course will it take? Much depends on what can be accomplished before it becomes very strong. It may be said, however, that the first element to appear will be a show of resentment against certain Jewish commercial successes, more particularly against the united action by which they are attained. Our people see the spectacle of a people in the midst of a people, in a sense which the Mormons never were, and they will not like it. The Mormons made an Exodus; Israel is going back into Egypt to subjugate it. [H: My goodness, the facts are that the Mormons became the basic functioning ARM of the elite Jewish factions in America--long, long ago, at upstart of the very religion itself. The rituals and sacraments are almost identical in every way and totally based on the Freemason codes and oaths and secrecy and the ultimate Illuminati foundation.]
The second element which will undoubtedly appear is prejudice and its incitement. The majority may always be right, but they are not always initially reasonable. That prejudice which exists now, and which is freely admitted by both Jew and Gentile, may become more marked, to the distress of both parties, for neither the subject nor the object of prejudice can attain that freedom of mind which is happiness.
Then we may most confidently look for a reaction of Justice. It is here that the whole matter will begin to bend to the genius of Americanism. The innate justice of the American mind has come to the aid of every object that ever roused American resentment. The natural reaction with us is of very brief duration; the intellectual and ethical reaction swiftly follows. The American mind will never rest with merely resenting certain individuals. It will probe deeper. Already this deeper probe has been begun in Great Britain and America. We characteristically do not stop with persons when principles are in sight.
And upon this there will be an investigation of materials, part of which may yet be presented in this series and which may possibly be disregarded for a time, but which at a future date will be found to be the clue to the maze. Upon this, the root of all the trouble will be bared to the light, to die as all roots do when deprived of their concealment of darkness, and the Jewish people themselves may be expected to begin an adjustment to the new order of things, not to lose their identity or to curtail their energy or to dim their brilliance, but to turn all into more worthy channels for the benefit of all races, which alone can justify their claim to superiority. A race that can achieve in the material realm what the Jews have achieved while asserting themselves to be spiritually superior, can achieve in a less sordid, a less society-defying realm also.
Issue of June 19, 1920
[END OF QUOTING]
I am going to leave this for your thoughts but I hope that you will take some observations to heart and relate them to what is taking place now, 78 years later. Even last evening in your TOWN HALL debate. When questions were asked like, "What are the plans for Iraq after the bombings?" Talk, no answer other than there seem to be NONE. Then, "What about troops?" "Oh there won't be need for troops," but at the same time there were over 7,000 MORE TROOPS BEING SHIPPED OUT BY AIR TO GET THERE IN TIME FOR THE RAID. Then some taxpayer asked: "HOW MUCH IS THIS COSTING US A DAY?" YOUR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE talked for five minutes and NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION. He actually said it wasn't costing any more, really, than ordinary expenses.
About all I can say is, "LET HIM WHO HAS EARS TO HEAR--HEAR. LET HIM WHO HAS EYES TO SEE--SEE." THESE ARE YOUR BABIES GOING OFF TO A NON-WAR TO MURDER CHILDREN. WHAT WILL BE RESTING ON THEIR SOULS? GOD HELP YOU ALL!
[Editor's note: Please read Commander Hatonn's comments about this incident, that was announced on Thrusday morning 2/19/98, with great care. Much is between the lines, including what several callers-in to Art Bell's late-night radio talk-show pointed out: that isn't it an interesting "coincidence" this happened the day after the Ohio State fiasco to rally support for bombing Iraq. This is a very high stakes chess game and often the pawns being used are the last to know. The moral of the story remains the same: think before you act!]
I am interrupted here and asked to comment on some incident in Las Vegas by some "patriots" or something. As I check into the incident I see that it is going to require observations about "Survival courses", possibility of MASS DESTRUCTION by microbes, etc., a tip-off of some kind that seeing the location is going to involve Col. Bo Gritz and I have played Bo's game for a very long time to hold his COVER. I'm not sure I should dangle him longer. Henderson, Nevada is VERY CLOSE to Sandy Valley.
The rebuttal will be that "We were arrested without cause." Right, and the agents in the arrest VERY CAREFULLY HANDLED THAT LITTLE PROBLEM. This is so possibly dangerous and it involves a man on parole for having Plague specimens which he was tampering with some time ago--so, I'd say this could be another "patriot nightmare" gone crazy. But JUST WHO IS CRAZY? WHAT IF ONE MAN HAS A VIAL OF ANTHRAX (claimed here) and he stumbles and breaks the vile in mid-Las Vegas? Problems? Like, are you all gone insane? I will speak of this later but we have spent too many hours with crossed eyes at this computer today.
DO NOT COME TO US FOR HELP OR EVEN TO PETITION FOR AID. THERE IS NOTHING HERE FOR BIGOTS, IDIOTS OR KILLERS. ANY MILITIA GROUP WHO COVERS FOR THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR IS NOT WORTHY OF DEFENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS OR EVEN YOUR OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES.
What will be actually FOUND? Probably nothing for the ORIGINAL PACKAGE--but PLENTY by the time it is made public. When you first deceive, ladies and gentlemen, you lose your protection--every time.
And THIS is why we don't even have family meetings around here--to stop the assumption and lies that we are some kind of a GROUP. We write, nothing more at this time, and when we have projects under way, they will be farming, good housing, and other very substantial and fundamental construction projects--inclusive of our Native Brothers.
The elements of White Supremacy, and Harris and Levitt have played in that KKK garbage too, are unacceptable. And to my Jewish friends--AND YES, I HAVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS--YOU ARE AT RISK, PRECIOUS ONES--FIRST ON THE LIST TO MAKE A VERY LARGE EXAMPLE! THERE HAS TO BE AN ATROCIOUS EXAMPLE BY WHICH TO BLAME YOUR SEMITE BRETHREN AND ROUSE THE RABBLE TO SILLINESS AND IDIOCY WITH YOUR POP-GUNS AND BLOW-DARTS.
Yes, I will speak of this--later. And, PAY ATTENTION; we all are targets. This is the time of total chaos and it is necessary to cause man to rise against his brother--and murder by any being is MURDER.
The WORST thing coming from THIS incident, however, is that now the Big Boys can annihilate a whole big bunch of you citizens using microbes and your own so-called patriot teammates will GET THE BLAME.
DOES EVERYONE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND ME? THIS INCLUDES THE SURVEILLANCE TEAMS MONITORING THIS COMPUTER.