Can you say “BULLSHIT”?

22 thoughts on “Can you say “BULLSHIT”?”

1. Whoa! I just came over from subvertednation out of curiousity and found this post. I always knew something was wrong with that little asshole. Good job David! Now let me start over here on the right foot with a verbatim post I originally left over there;

   Its been a long road to find this site, first I found Jesus, by reading the Bible for myself, then I got stuck in the fake freedom movement, ie AJ,Ended up at BROther N, finally, what YOU say is everything I found out on my Own. I have been a Target for a long time, now I am just Pissed. Thank You for having the Balls to tell the TRUTH, I am telling anybody that will Listen.

   mark –

   • One reason sites like Subverted Nation exist is to add fire to the flame within the jew clan. That’s how they keep their hatred for gentiles alive and thereby are able to dismiss having any compassion or empathy.

     And David’s right about the religious side of that site, that little bitch loser Adam attacks religion to promote loss of faith by anyone who goes there. This is a common tactic being used by satanists/jews everywhere. It’s part of the demoralization program just like promoting homosexuality and drugs. They don’t want anyone going around believing in God, spreading the truth or doing good works!

     Also note that anyone new to this subject of satanic jews would likely close their browser upon hitting any of the pages at his site due to his blatant hate spewing. As most are well aware, it’s best to feed “milk before meat” on this subject. You’ve got to approach this “satanic jew” stuff a little at a time to get past the programming.

     If not, whoever you’re trying to educate will just puke it back up and nothing will be accomplished. That’s how they get away with having the sites out there without actually doing much harm to themselves.

     • I just posted this over at Suberted Nation for the heck of it. I’m sure it won’t be allowed.

       

2. This makes so much sense I can’t believe I didn’t already have it all figured out. ALL OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE INFILTRATED BY SATANISTS AND THE INTERNET IS EXACTLY LIKE THEIR MEDIA, ONE BIG LIE! EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW THESE FACTS!!!

   • Yep, this really connected the dots for me, government leaders around the world are all on the same team at war with the common men and women of earth. Wow. These sick fuckers need to pay!

3. Very, very real. Here’s some rock solid evidence in the form of “THEIR” operations that anyone can see are being applied against us. Reading it should be very useful in helping everyone understand we really are in a life or death war. Time to Wise Up!

   Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

   Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

   1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

   2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

   3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works
   especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

   4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

   5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
   6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

   7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
   8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

   9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

   10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

   11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

   12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

   13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
   which forbears any actual material fact.

   14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

   15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

   16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

   17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

   18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

   19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

   20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

   21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

   22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

   23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

   24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

   25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

4. Thank you Missy! That was going to be another post in and of itself but you saved me the effort. FYI; it’s called “Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)” by H. Michael Sweeney. He’s likely a satanic jew who’s doing his job of informing us Goyim of things so that we can “consent by doing nothing”. NO. I do not consent. How about you dear reader?

5. NO WAY, I DON’T CONSENT EITHER!

   • Yep, I’ve learned enough already. Fuck these worthless kikes.

   • This is obviously some very, very serious stuff, if it’s true, which I can’t believe, I believe is the case. I think David’s hit it on the head and can see why “they” don’t like him. It’s quite a badge of honor that I will be happy to enjoin in wearing.

     • Thanks guys, God willing, I think we’re going to do this thing. And from EVERYTHING I’ve been able to ascertain, God is willing!

       • That’s obvious. There’s something strikingly unique about all of these sites and Unidigi that I simply can’t believe is solely the work of 2 people. The UNF alone should have taken a team of a dozen or so people to conceptualize, design and implement. You’re obviously being guided by a “higher source”, I for one would love to hear more about the background behind things. Might I recommend, you need to do an “about page”.

         • I agree, Newsletters #000 and #110 were really great but I’d like to know more about you guys too. I will say one thing, my deepest thanks go out to David and Peggy. Thank God they’re still here and doing this incredible work!!! God is Great!

           • Thanks to everyone for the kind words AND MENTION OF GOD!!! We’re not in this thing alone, none of us are. I hope #666 and #119 will prove that for anyone who’s in doubt of the existence of a creator.

             It also has a short autobiography of sorts that will give you some more info about me (more than you care for probably!)

             • I found this to be very good as well. It’s the 38 Dishonest Tricks of Argument (taken from “Straight and Crooked Thinking” by Robert H. Thouless, Pan Books, ISBN 0 330 24127 3, copyright 1930, 1953 and 1974). Much discourse in public and personal life is filled with these mental tricks… Note the useful “Approach” for how to deal with each trick;

               Emotional Language
               (1) The use of emotionally toned words (pp 10-25)
               Approach: Translate the statement into words emotionally neutral

               Faulty Distribution
               (2) Making a statement in which “all” is implied but “some” is true (pp 27-38)
               Approach: Put the word “all” into the statement and showing that it is then false.

               Invalid Sampling
               (3) Proof by selected instances (pp 32-37)
               Approach: Dealt with (a) dishonestly by selecting instances opposing your opponent’s contention or (b) honestly by pointing out the true form of the proof (as a statistical problem in association) and either supplying the required numerical facts or pointing out that your opponent has not got them.

               Reductio Ad Absurdum
               (4) Extension of an opponent’s proposition by contradiction or by deliberate misrepresentation (pp 39-43)
               Approach: State again the more moderate position which is being defended.

               Evasion of Truth
               (5) Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical formula or other distracting method (pp 41-44)
               Approach: Analysis of the formula and demonstration of its unsoundness.

               Distraction
               (6) Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection (pp 44-48)
               Approach: Refuse to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue.

               Non Sequitur
               (7) Proof by inconsequent argument (pp 49-50)
               Approach: Ask that the connection between the proposition and the alleged proof be explained, even though the request for explanation may be attributed to ignorance or lack of logical insight on the part of the person making it.

               Lesser of Two Evils (false dilemma)
               (8) The argument that we should not make efforts against X which is admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed (pp 50-52)
               Approach: Point out that this is a reason for making efforts to abolish Y, but no reason for not also making efforts to get rid of X.

               Appeal to Moderation (Hegel’s Fallacy)
               (9) The recommendation of a position because it is a “golden mean” or “consensus” between two extremes (pp 52-54)
               Approach: Deny the usefulness of the principle as a method of discovering the truth. In practice, this can most easily be done by showing that our own view also can be represented as a mean between two extremes.

               Appeal to Casuistry
               (10) Pointing out the logical correctness of the form of an argument whose premises contain doubtful or untrue statements of fact (p 58)
               Approach: Refuse to discuss the formal logic of the argument but point out the defects of its presentations of alleged fact.

               Formal Fallacy
               (11) The use of an argument of logically unsound form (pp 58-64)
               Approach: Since the unsoundness of such arguments can be easily seen when the form of the argument is clearly displayed, an opponent who does this can be dealt with by making such a simple statement of his argument that its unsoundness is apparent. For one’s own satisfaction when reading an argument of doubtful soundness, it will often be found useful to make a diagram.

               Circular Reasoning
               (12) Argument in a circle (p 64)
               (13) Begging the question (pp 65-66)
               Approach: Both 12 and 13 can be dealt with in the same way as 11; by restating your opponent’s argument in such a simple way that the nature of the device used must be clear to anyone.

               Ambiguity
               (14) Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both (pp 67-77)
               Approach: Point out how much of the question at issue is a difference in the use of words and how much (if at all) it is a difference as to fact or values.

               Tautology
               (15) Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgment (pp 71-72)
               Approach: Point out that the statement is necessarily true from its verbal form.

               Speculations
               (16) The use of a speculative argument (pp 78-83)
               Approach: Point out that what is cannot be inferred from what ought to be or from what the speaker feels must be.

               Equivocation
               (17) Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument (pp 88-94)
               Approach: Get the term defined or by substituting an equivalent form of words at one of the points where the term in question is used and seeing whether the use of this form of words will make true the other statements in which this term is used.

               False Dilemma
               (18) The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented (pp 103-105)
               Approach: Refuse to accept either alternative, but pointing to the fact of the continuity which the person using the argument has ignored. Since this is likely to appear over-subtle to an opponent using the argument, it may be strengthened by pointing out that the argument is the same as saying, “Is this paper black or white?” when it is, in fact, a shade of gray.

               False Continuity
               (19) The use of the fact of continuity between them to throw doubt on a real difference between two things (the “argument of the beard”) (pp 105-108)
               Approach: Point out that the difference is nevertheless real. This again may be made stronger by pointing out that application of the same method of argument would deny the difference between “black” and “white” or between “hot” and “cold.”

               Inadequate Definition
               (20) Illegitimate use of or demand for definition (p 109)
               Approach: If an opponent uses definitions to produce clear-cut conceptions for facts which are not clear-cut, it is necessary to point out to him how much more complicated facts are in reality than in his thought. If he tries to drive you to define for the same purpose, the remedy is to refuse formal definition but to adopt some other method for making your meaning clear.

               The True Believer
               (21) Suggestion by repeated affirmation (pp 111-114)
               (22) Suggestion by use of a confident manner (pp 114-115)
               (23) Suggestion by prestige (pp 115-118)
               Approach: The best safeguard against all three of these tricks of suggestion is a theoretical knowledge of suggestion, so that their use may be detected. All three devices lose much of their effect if the audience see how the effect is being obtained, so merely pointing out the fact that the speaker is trying to create conviction by repeated assertion in a confident manner may be enough to make this device ineffective. Ridicule is often used to undermine the confident manner, or any kind of criticism which makes the speaker begin to grow angry or plaintive.

               Invalid Authority
               (24) Prestige by false credentials (pp 115-118)
               Approach: When practical, expose the falsity of the titles, degrees, etc, that are used. The prestige then collapses.

               Use of Technical Jargon
               (25) Prestige by the use of pseudo-technical jargon (pp 116-118)
               Approach: Ask in a modest manner that the speaker should explain himself more simply.

               False Humility
               (26) Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige (pp 118-119)
               Approach: Provide another explanation.

               Interrogation Tactics
               (27) The use of questions drawing out damaging admissions (pp 199-120)
               Approach: Refuse to make the admissions. The difficulty of this refusal must be overcome by any device reducing one’s suggestibility to the questioner.

               Appeal to Authority
               (28) The appeal to mere authority (pp 122-125)
               Approach: Considering whether the person supposed to have authority had a sound reason for making the assertion which is attributed to him.

               Getting to “Yes”
               (29) Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones (pp 128-130)
               Approach: Knowledge of this trick and preparedness for it are the best safeguard against its effects.

               Appeal to Prejudice
               (30) Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought- habits or the prejudices of the hearer (pp 133-135 and p 157)
               Approach: A habit of questioning what appears obvious is the best safeguard against this trick. A particular device of value against it is to restate a questionable proposition in a new context in which one’s thought-habits do not lead to its acceptance.

               Faulty Assumptions
               (31) The use of generally accepted formulae of predigested thought as premises in argument (pp 161-166)
               Approach: The best way of dealing with predigested thinking in argument is to point out humorously and with a backing of real evidence that matters are more complicated than your opponent supposes.

               Appeal to Ignorance
               (32) “There is much to be said on both sides, so no decision can be made either way”, or any other formula leading to the attitude of academic detachment (pp 166-167)
               Approach: Point out that taking no action has practical consequences no less real than those which result from acting on either of the propositions in dispute, and that this is no more likely than any other to be the right solution of the difficulty.

               Mere Analogy
               (33) Argument by mere analogy (pp 169-178)
               Approach: Examine the alleged analogy in detail and pointing out where it breaks down.

               Bad Analogy
               (34) Argument by forced analogy (pp 178-179)
               Approach: Expose by showing how many other analogies supporting different conclusions might have been used.

               Incite to Anger
               (35) Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly (pp 146-147)
               Approach: Refuse to get angry however annoying our opponent may be.

               Special Pleading
               (36) Special pleading (pp 154-156)
               Approach: Apply the opponent’s special arguments to other propositions which he is unwilling to admit.

               Appeal to Selfishness
               (37) Commending or condemning a proposition because of its practical consequences to the bearer (pp 157-158)
               Approach: Form a habit of recognizing our own tendencies to be guided by our prejudices and by our own self-interest, and of distrusting our judgment on questions in which we are practically concerned.

               Ad Hominem Attacks
               (38) Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one’s opponent (p 159)
               Approach: Point out that other prejudices may equally well determine the opposite view, and that, in any case, the question of why a person holds an opinion is an entirely different question from that of whether the opinion is or is not true.

             • Hi David, I find it strange that you wear a satanic goatee which is popularized by satanic jous for the herd. Of course the herd is way too STOOOPEFIED, cuz their pea brains been holoco$ted from cradle to grave, and the DEAD ‘food’ they ingest is chemically LOBOTOMIZING them. They also exist in FEAR of course, so they too find the need to make themselves look tough with satanic tattoos, etal. (The men are just as bad too! lol) It’s curious how those who oppose the JWODOR, also support it 100% with their SATANIC DEATHstyles. Of course, that is all part of the protocols.
               BTW, I know Austin is a shill. I was communicating with him about 20 years ago, and he went BERSERK on me bc I am VEGAN, and speak out for animals who do not have a voice. I quickly learned what a COWARD POS AA is. I have been researching the ETERNAL ENEMY of the world for over 30 years. The DIFFERENCE is….I LIVE THE SOLUTIONS, when jou don’t know what the solutions are. Jou ALSO DON’T WANT TO KNOW, bc that means jou would have to make appropriate changes in your DEATHstyles. Every ‘white nationalist’ site/forum I go to is the same. It’s populated by DUMMIES, and or traitors/shills. There is little to no CONSCIOUSNESS there.
               BTW, I took a very rigorous BC Corrections “leadership” outward bound “REALTY THERAPY” program when I was 20 years old. I thrived on the challenge, while most others were whining like bitches. We started with 13 in our group, and only 7 graduated. I was the top athlete in the camp (Boulder Bay) of about 80-100 men, and 2nd fastest runner. My POINT is, I am NOT one of those faggot-like/left wing vegans that seem to be so prolific today. I am the ONLY redneck(jew-wise) vegan you will ever meet. I know, bc I been looking for another one like me for 30 years. I also do NOT support this KIKE-invented SATANIC DEATH culture that most enjoy. Of course jou will NOT comprehend any of this. I know from years experience it is all CHINESE to those who dwell in the lower order of consciousness with the jous. So, I will bid JOU adieu. I’ll leave y’all to DEVOUR each other.

               • Greetings Russ,

                 FYI; the “circle beard” (it’s not a goatee) was just my attempt at a managable grow while living a solitary lifestyle, it was not to impress nor make a statement to anyone. Regardless, I try not to stereotype folks, if you were wise, you’d do the same. For if not, you’re sure to make a fool of yourself!

                 But then again, you already have in more ways than one. You’re also evidently a racist searching for comrades in those “white nationalists” groups you mentioned. I’m not into division, that’s what the jews are all about. Why are you doing this? Did you not comprehend the article you’re commenting on???

                 Contrary to what you claim, there are MANY good hearted people out there who are adapting vegetarianism and veganism into their lifestyles and it almost always begins with “truthing” in one venue or another. As far as I’m concerned that STARTS with an education on jewry which many have yet to recieve.

                 Being the fact that you are at the Goyim Gazette, the worlds’ most truthful (and therefore most despised by jews) site on the net, you’re sort of preaching to the choir about the enemy wouldn’t you say? Have you even been to our portal site http://www.ItsASign.com??? I don’t think there’s any equal to it in terms of truth about kikes.

                 And on that note, since you like calling me a “jou”, we have yet another proof source of your foolishness and ignorance to boot! Since you’ve spent 30 years researching jewry, one would assume you would know there’s no such thing as a Judahite or Judean (aka jew) today. You see, our little tag line of “Real News From Real Jews” has went right over your little head hasn’t it?! Well, http://www.ItsASign.com will help you connect the dots which have obviously alluded you for 30 years.

                 Curious, what have you published or done to expose/defeat the enemy? Where is the fruit of your amazing 30 years of research? Is this is? Put downs, division and hatred towards those who are obviously NOT the enemy? Me thinks you’re a fool or a shill!

                 But if not the latter, I recomend reading Peggys’ “What is Evil” post here to gleen a bit of what we’re about in terms of animals, children and the earth. You could also skim our “About Us” page to see how we live.

                 As to your “living the solutions”, I’m not so sure of that. You’re condesending, egotistical and abrasive towards a fellowship of people here who are obviously opposing the enemy. Again, aside from a fool, which is obvious, what does that make you?

                 Also, I see no mention of, nor inclination towards God in your comment which often says everything one needs to know about someone. Maybe you just forgot about Him?

                 Hmmmm.

                 Well, it just so happens that thanks to God All Mighty we now have the cure for what ails you and any other disbeliever in that regard. See Issue #119 here. If your attention span is too short to handle the whole enchilada, just read pages 5 through 11 for now. Then come back to read the entire article and commentary as many times as it takes to overcome whatever/whoever is in control of your head.

                 Good luck and . . . Peace, David

6. This is the 1st web site I’ve come across where it doesn’t come off as racist, it’s refreshing to see. It all makes sense that the jews created the kkk and all the other humanity segregation groups, to make us divided, confused and in a constant state of fear just like you said. Thanks for another dose of truth!

7. Here’s a few solid facts on Alex Jones;

   1.) Alex Jones has a Jewish wife named Kelly Rebecca Nichols, and he has three(3) children with her.

   2.) Alex Jones and his Jewish wife and children all qualify for Israeli citizenship under Israel’s “Law of Return”.

   3.) Alex Jones has at least twenty(20) Jewish sponsors and advertisers that financially support his radio show and websites.

   4.) Alex Jones’ flagship radio station, KLBJ AM, in Austin, Texas, is owned by Emmis Communications, a media conglomerate based in Indianapolis, Indiana. The founder, chairman, president, and CEO of Emmis Communications is the dual Israeli citizen Zionist Jew Jeffrey H. Smulyan.

   5.) Alex Jones’ radio show is broadcast on Sirius XM Radio. The chairman of Sirius XM Radio is the Jew Eddy W. Hartenstein. The CEO of Sirius XM Radio is the Jew Mel Karmazin. The President of Sirius XM Radio is the Jew Scott Greenstein. Of the six(6) senior executives of Sirius XM Radio, five(5) are Jews.

   6.) Alex Jones has a Jewish lawyer named Elizabeth M. Schurig who is also the lawyer for Holly Lev Bronfman, the sister of Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Thus there are only two degrees of separation between Alex Jones and the Bronfman family, one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish Zionist families in North America.

8. Alex Jones is definitely a disinformation agent and a propagandist. Just study Propaganda Techniques and you’ll see Alex Jones uses many of these. Alex Jones is 100% Psy-Op. And I believe he is CIA or a very close equivalent. ie Army Intelligence. Notice Michael Aquino’s MINDWAR (infowars – THINK!!).

   Alex Jones’s Direct Connection to Project Mockingbird: It is well known that the CIA have been allowed by our past Presidents and members of the congress to operate through our News sources and media and do mind control experimentation on the public (Operation Mockingbird, MK ULTRA). Congress and the President is supposed to have over site of the CIA so they are responsible for whatever the CIA does.

   Remember, it was The OSS/CIA who worked with the satanic AshkeNAZI jew war criminals right after WWII and helped them escape war crime tribunals and brought them into the CIA via operation paperclip. As also the Vatican helped the AshkenNAZIs escape being punished through the Vatican ratlines.

   So here we have a Jesuit Creation (The OSS/CIA) working together with the Vatican and Jesuits during the most horrible inquisition (“holocaust”) the world has ever known.

   And now it seems that this is a continuation with the same sort of people who are working together now to destroy America through their orchestration of the events we saw unfold on 911 and the assault of our constitutional rights in America in the name of combating these terrorists that originated from them in the first place. Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset at one point wasn’t he? YES!!! Yet the US are still very close with his family even allowing them to depart this country without question right after 9/11.

   So these people who have worked through our mainstream media have also completely infiltrated the alternative media and as this excellent post points out, even much off the net and it all starts with our own government doing mass cointel psyops on we the People! Indeed, propaganda is obviously their most important asset across all spectrums, we’re living in a world of satanic jew BULLSHIT.

   Finally we have the truth, this war is on!

9. Hi All, for an excellent example of how jews work on Facebook, see the following. It’s a very eye opening conversation from my facebook account with a “friend” named Scott Swanson and his kike pals who turns out to be a crypto-jew; https://www.goyimgazette.com/SwansonCult/Scott%20Swanson%20-%20Scott%20Swanson%20shared%20a%20link.htm

   Comments are turned off or may not get posted because we no longer have time to waste on spammers, trolls and shills.

   For in depth discussions on these subjects enjoy using our private, TROLL Free forum inside Unidigi.com

   Or email us at “info – AT SIGN – unidigi.com”

    

10. I’m not sure if this site is still active but I just wanted to say that my family has had the misfortune to live across the street from adam austin for the last 2 yrs. He is truly a PSYCHO and has terrorized our family! He runs ultrasoft pressure washing with his two sons. He has verbally and physically attacked my family including my elderly father who is a veteran. This man and his family are evil in the worst way! The police hate him around here and refer to him as the “sovereign psycho” yet they say he knows just enough about the law to not cross the line to get arrested. The only thing that comes out of his mouth is filth & lies!!!!!! We have talked to our neighbors and they all say there is something wrong with him and they will not speak up because of what he has done to my family! And yes that pic you have is him but obviously a MUCH younger him!