Anti-Neocons

As I said, Kerr also reported him to the police on Christmas Eve and on other occasions, claiming that he was "harassing" him. And as Makeham says, Kerr is just a dirty grass. And where is the proof that Makeham was dealing drugs? "Honest Jim" said so?



I know where Kerr lives but he doesn't know where I live. And as we saw, it's because of his personality disorders that I received that information. I don't keep falling out with people I know, who then get their own back by going to rival webmasters to provide their side of the story. So Kerr loses two points, I gain two.



Pictures of the house are not tantamount to knowledge of the address. The only people capable of recognizing the house would have been his neighbors, and Kerr is demonstrably aware of that by virtue of the fact that he linked to a page of mine that displays an image of his house. It would take an inordinately long time to find it on Google Street View by having to go through all the streets in Sheffield. On the other hand, I was able to locate Brendon's former Maylands home using Google Street View within hours.



Kerr lost on that, because my operation provided information about who he was working with as of December 2007. There was no evident connection between him and Brendon or Daryl Bradford Smith at that time, but Kerr was still associated with Eric Hufschmid, who alerted him to the possible discovery of his address. This followed Kerr's March 2007 admission that he had a "close" association with Hufschmid.



Source



Source

Further evidence was revealed by Kerr himself when he released this email correspondence between him, Michael Stewart and Hufschmid from November 2007. There are some gems there, such as Kerr and Stewart telling Hufschmid what they thought about Brendon.

Stewart said to Hufschmid:

"I'm curious as to why you link to the proven liar and liability Brendon O'Connell's video."

"In a nutshell, O'Connell is not going to assist you in your credibility or work and I'm sure I don't need to send you the mountain of evidence clearly demonstrating that this person is bad news all around."

Kerr said to Hufschmid:

"Surely you recall that the Brendan Man was the agent-provocateur responsible for instigating the infamous NOLAJBS fight? The Brendan woman would have been a more description. I would have thought that such a sharp mind as yours could not possibly fail to remember someone who had 'emailed you quite a bit.'

Do you not recall the Brendon hermaphrodite making an 'official' statement in your name on the NOLAJBS forum? How could you not remember the man who claims to have "persuaded" Daryl Bradford Smith to dissociate himself from PlanetQuo - an idiot who uses Poseidon as a reference point, spouts the the same propaganda and 'suddenly' turns-up on Wake Up From Your Slumber to create distractions when Poseidon is taking a hammering? Go figure Eric. This isn't rocket science.

If you do not trust Brendon O'Connell then why have you promoted two of his videos? You correctly point-out that the secrecy surrounding enemy operatives needs to be eradicated yet here you are lending credibility to someone who operates under a multitude of pseudonyms. Are you aware that you are promoting a proven liar who has conversations with himself then has the effrontery to disparage me as a 'nut'?

An odious racist who 'respects' Henry Makow and believes Alex Jones is NOT working for the Zionists. Someone who openly boasts on public forums of being a convicted 'major level' drug-dealer and former pimp with connections to local and Federal-level Australian policemen, as well as current and retired agents of the Australian and British intelligence services."

"My first piece will be published over the weekend. In it, I will be addressing the O'Connell issue. Given what has been revealed to you within this correspondence, you would appear foolish if I were to quote you on what you have said regarding O'Connell. In view of this, I therefore invite you to clarify your position prior to publication. Perhaps you might like to take this opportunity to state that you too have become wise to O'Connell's lies, deception and trickery. The choice is yours Eric."

"If you choose to link to videos produced by a proven liar who boasts of having contacts in the intelligence community, then that is your business. Don't be surprised then, when people ask 'what the fuck is Eric doing linking to O'Connell?'"

"I exposed O'Connell months ago, Eric."

"O'Connell is highly-dubious...I would've thought that to be stating the obvious!"



Thus, evidence suggests that Kerr's weird, inverted reality, in which he perceives the honest truth tellers as shills and the bogus 'researchers' as genuine, is a result of disinformation he was fed from Hufschmid. That's assuming he's not a paid shill or a Jew. And Stewart probably played a role in priming Kerr, too, unless Stewart was himself a dupe of Hufschmid. Kerr says he hooked up with Stewart in early 2007, which is the same time that Kerr turned from anti-Zionist asset to anti-Semitic straw man and Jewish asset.

Note by the way how Jim "hypocrite" Kerr described Brendon as an "odious racist". When I used the word "racist" (and in a fairly humorous piece that was poking fun at Kerr), Kerr claimed it 'proved' I was a "fake" white nationalist. Kerr tells his pal Hufschmid that O'Connell is an "odious racist", yet when he wants to grab his share of the limelight from the WNs who've been fooled by O'Connell, Kerr poses as a Jew-hating extremist. That also confirms Makeham's claim that Kerr is a big phony. And O'Connell reinvents himself, from someone who in 2007 described Muslims as "stupid", "retards" and a "bunch of cretins", to a "non-racist" who is merely opposed to Judaism.

Also in that correspondence, Kerr requested Hufschmid's permission to use information provided to him by Hufschmid for an attack piece that Kerr was writing on Suzette.

Kerr said:

"There is something I would like to ask you Eric. How did Whippette work her way into your favour? Would you consider her to be a Zionist agent? The reason I ask is because your former associate is about to be blown out of the water, and I thought I'd offer you the advance opportunity of covering your ass. Believe me Eric, there are going to be very serious repercussions regarding the deception Whippette and her associates are perpetrating, and I would prefer that you didn't get hit with any shrapnel since she is the target and not you."

After Hufschmid replied with some information and told Kerr, "I don't care if you expose her", Kerr requested, "Thanks for the information Eric. Would you have any objections to me using some of what you have told me in a forthcoming article?". Hufschmid replied, "I don't mind if you want to use what I say about Suzette."

In another part, Kerr demonstrates his underhand tactics of ingratiating himself with forum administrators, and squealing and whining - in police informant style - in an attempt to prevent his opponents from debunking him. Kerr wrote:

"Although I am prepared to give Qrswave the benefit of the doubt, I am, however most displeased with how the owner allowed Poseidon, Linton, Whippette and O'Connell to continually attack Michael and I, and with the response she gave me when I complained. The attacks stopped only after I wrote to her in September and warned of the consequences that would ensue should she continue to permit Poseidon and his team to use her website as a missile base. Now that WUFYS has been closed to them, they've relocated to YouTube and MySpace. Without forums to operate out of, Poseidon and his ilk become redundant.

I will be contacting Qrswave again in the near future inviting her to clarify her position vis a vis Poseidon and Linton as I did you regarding O'Connell and Linton."

Kerr is "most displeased". Who does he think he is, God Almighty?

More recently, Kerr attempted to marginalise Michael Collins Piper, a stalwart of the nationalist, anti-Zionist, anti-Judaic movement for decades who, unlike Bollyn and O'Connell, has authored plenty of books.

Michael "Fugazi" Stewart admitted to having "spent 3 months solid" creating CDs to promote Hufschmid's 'work', and confirmed that Jim Kerr was part of that operation.



Source

In April 2007 Brendon O'Connell admitted that he emailed Hufschmid "quite a bit".



Source

Trond Halvorsen, who posts as trond or TrondH, revealed that he'd suggested the phrase "9/11 was a Jew Job" to Hufschmid, who replied that it had a "nice ring" to it.



Source

Carlo Vogels posts some truth whilst parroting Hufschmid's disinformation such as "Willis Carto, ADL agent" and "Hufschmid and Bollyn are beyond reproach".



Source

Notice anything that these buffoons - and Christopher Bollyn - have in common?



Now you are pretending to be as stupid and delusional as Trond Halvorsen.


Unless you have telepathic contact with him, you know O'Connell was lying, and you play the role of an imbecile who fell for his hoaxes.



Where the hell is your proof that Brendon exposed a Mossad agent and bodies started piling up around him? Or for "Gentiles ruling Jews in the NWO pyramid"? Or that the Gentile Knights of Malta, not the Jews, run the media?



Along with plenty of other people who have been following O'Connell's antics over the last 21 months, such as this commentator.





Source



Maritime law? ROTFLOL! Brendon's supposed crimes were committed in Perth, not on the high seas.

Let's get this straight. You think "the Jesuits" are behind everything, the "Gentile Knights of Malta" run the media, Steven Jones is "controlled opposition", you 'accidentally' failed to spot that Christopher Bollyn called the cops to get himself arrested on purpose and spent the next five years lying about it, you think the Bollyn family was kidnapped, that Eric Hufschmid, Eric Phelps and Joe Vialls are credible sources, that Ron Paul is a Vatican agent, you spout irrelevant tinfoil conspiracy bullshit about "maritime law" in a weak attempt to get O'Connell off the hook, you think contrails are part of a global government or Jesuit / Gentile Knights plot to poison people, you think the 9/11 planes were faked and September Clues is "pretty probable", you think Willis Carto, Mark Lane, David Irving and David Duke are Zionist agents and Mike Piper has an ADL "controller" named Phil... You calling anyone else a "moron" is like Jacob Rothschild calling a beggar rich.

A Jew apologist / "Jesuits did it" guy championing so-called "anti-Semites" like Bollyn and O'Connell. Herzl certainly identified the Zionists' best friends. A similar phenomenon was R.J. Hender's promotion of Bollyn.

You're F-U-C-K-E-D, Drew J. Fake Unregenerate Conspiracy Kooks' Elaborate Deceptions. You're a disinformation agent playing the role of a cretinous conspiracy kook. Of that there can be no doubt. You are almost certainly Jewish. And the fact that O'Connell, Bollyn, Hufschmid, Kerr, etc, enjoy the support of Zionist disinformation agents who blame the Jesuits, claim "chemtrails" are real, the WTC planes were faked, Hitler was a Zionist Jew, Eric Clapton's son was murdered, there are aliens on Mars, Victor Thorn is a high-level Mossad executioner, the WTC was nuked, etc, is revealing indeed.

No you're fucked because I'm not Jewish. You make another mistake. What is pathetic about you is that while you link back to the prothink owns vatican assassins topic, you ignore the parts where I agree with EndAllApartheid that Eric Phelps' has fallen victim to the Scofield Protestant Bible bullshit. I can disagree with his religion but agree on history. The two aren't connected because the historical events Phelps tracks existed long before he (and therefore his brain states and beliefs within them) existed.

What I find interesting is that you claim I have no evidence to support Gentiles owning the media at the end of the day, and yet you refuse to hyperlink to the actual parts where I posted the articles proving such. Of course you're new here and can be forgiven. However, here are the articles in question.

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot7.htm
http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/200 ... -jews.html

So your next step is to refute it with something better. I'm waiting.


Once again, you show your ignorance because you don't understand how we have been fucked and actually have no common law anymore and you don't understand what it means to say "Yes I am mister so and so." Either study my massive maritime admiralty law thread in politics or kindly shut the fuck up. You're making yourself look foolish to people who really know what has happened with the law. This is your homework for the next little while.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23498

The reason you, an ignoramus, attack this is because if you don't, and I win on this maritime law point, then your previous conspiracy theory goes out the window. As I said before,

The claim that O Connell wanted to lose, you always connect to a conspiracy theory of yours that he wanted to destroy your legitimate anti Zionist (not anti jewish) activism in Perth. Then you connect this by claiming now that O Connell's trial is over, you guys will be next. However, if I can prove you guys won't be next and never will be, then it sort of demolishes the rest of the claims that connected to it as I just showed. I have already proven you guys won't be next, because in all your years of activism while this statute that O COnnell was charged under was in place, nothing happened to you. Again, Keyser said at trial the friends of palestine was anti Zionist and not anti Jewish. In other words, you guys don't hate Jews. Therefore you couldn't possibly be charged under the statutes that O Connell was charged under.

CONSPIRACY CLAIM BY POSEIDON AND LINTON REFUTED!!!

If the admiralty maritime law conspiracy is real (and it is), then it means the challenges O Connell brought up were relevant to his right to be tried under common law as a natural human person rather than under maritime law as a corporate entity, because that's what you are due to having a birth certificate in CAPITAL LETTERS. This is clearly over your head, but it's all in my maritime law thread which you clearly need to study. The point is, since O Connell was right to bring up the matters of common law and certain constitutional challenges, then it means he was out to save himself and not get himself in trouble. Hence your bullshit conspiracy theory, BASED ON YOUR OWN LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE MARITIME LAW MATTER goes out the window.

You do know don't you that the judge ingored every correct challenge Brendon brought up in terms of the legitimacy of the court and its jurisdiction and the judge's misbehavior at ignoring Brendon's correct concerns about maritime versus common law and other things I can't remember from the transcript? And that because of it, Brendon had to say to the jury many times, especially every time he called a new witness, something like, "My name is Brendon of the O Connell family and I am operating under duress and fear of injury or loss." That is what a natural man under common law says. If he were to instead say here was MISTER O CONNELL or that he has a LAST NAME of O Connell, he would be speaking in corporate terms because those things in capital letters are corporations. And if you say in law you are a corporation (and thus don't need to be judged under true common law anymore), then that's your fault. The roman maxim in law 'let he who would be deceived, be deceived,' is very true. Again this is all in that thread on a subject you clearly know dick about.


No, he called the cops because he was afraid of the suspicious vehicle, which due to his paranoia, he thought was targeting him. Which is why he left the house temporarily to go to the store because he was hoping to drag them away from his family. It was okay. They had a man there to protect them. His brother was at home. Remember? Or did you forget that part when you were claiming he was a coward to leave his family behind in what he perceived to be a dangerous situation? Is Bollyn to be condemned for trusting his brother? I don't see why.

As for Eric Hufschmid, he is not without mistakes. He claims Zundel is a Zionist agent which I never agreed with, but Hufschmid is right about Irving. He is right that others who did original research into Irving ARE RIGHT. In other words Hufschmid who isn't without problems, managed to see the rigid logic and evidence of OTHERS who looked into Irving and saw fit to pass their work around. If it weren't for Eric, I wouldn't have heard of Baron's or Kolcheck's exposures of Irving. At the very least I give Hufschmid credit for that AND THAT ALONE since that is the only thing we are talking about right now. It was good of him to pass around research of uncompromised individuals who are almost unknown and yet were curious enough about Irving to look into him and publish their findings.

As for Phelps, I already told you that I don't agree with his religion, and I already explained that his religious beliefs have no logical connection with his historical views since many already made such views before him and he simply quotes a lot of older, classical history books that were also saying things before his religious beliefs were formed, because they came before he was born. So nice try on that one again.

As for Ron Paul, I have problems with him because Jews (working for the international Jews, the Rothschilds) are infiltrating libertarian movements
http://watch.pair.com/synarchy-6.html
and pushing that bullshit gold standard which is what the bankers want.
http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... nt-to.html
and
http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/nwo/6549
Does nobody remember the cautionary words about Bill Still in the money masters about returning to a gold standard?
I have tried to post on this numerous times, only to have that stuff moved to the just dumb section. Ron Paul, if not an agent for the Vatican, is surely masonically connected. What? You didn't know that?
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008 ... eemasonry/
I thought being connected to freemasonry was bad. You certainly used that logic when you attacked the Jewish creator of coreofcorruption for being a mason.
And Ron Paul has been messing around with kabbalistic signals.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=ron ... =&aql=&oq=
Kind of like what Alex Jones was caught doing recently.
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=24308
Using that Luciferian, kabbalistic symbolism in his v for victory campaign. Funny how birds of a CIA-Mossad-Mason feather seem to stick together. I urged Brother Nathaniel to use this to expose Alex Jones further but he never did. I wonder why. Perhaps he was bored of writing about Alex Jones? I dunno. I figured he'd like it.


Once again you show your ignorance and how little you have studied the matter, and also why you should shut the fuck up since you know so little. I will debate you on things like O Connell until the cows come home but I will not debate you on maritime law because you clearly have not read up on the matter as much as you have with O Connell, Kerr, Bollyn, etc. I don't waste my time with you on issues you have no clue about and no curiosity to study. As for claiming it was irrelevant, again, it shows your ignorance about the constitutional work of O Connell and his mentor and friend, former cop and judge turned activist Wayne Glew. Since you attacked Bollyn for some connection to the Queen of England, I can assume you hate her. Hmmm. Fair enough, but I figured someone who hates the Queen would have figured out the admiralty maritime law scam bullshit. Guess not. Guess you don't know everything. And yes, I do question the 9-11 planes. However as I said, it is strange is it not that flights 11 and 77 didn't actually exist that day.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm
As I said, AT THE VERY LEAST, it proves those weren't American airliners. However if there was other evidence to go along with it and pile up, it could also be used to argue that those planes were faked.


So you're a chemtrail denier too? Now I know you're really ignorant.

Oh and by the way, I never said Thorn was proven to have committed that murder. However at the least, he was shown up to be an ADL agent. I recommend you not put words in my mouth. I notice you don't have the ability to give a hyperlink to a post of mine where I claim WITH CERTAINTY that Thorn committed that murder. Probably because you know it doesn't exist. Because I never said anything that definite or explicit. BUSTED. I also never said there were aliens on Mars either. You must be confusing me with somebody else. BUSTED AGAIN!

I also don't recall saying Carto was a Zionist agent. I do recall that I quoted a Daryl Smith topic where Mullins himself was on the Smith radio show and he himself had only some UNANSWERED QUESTIONS about Carto. THAT IS AS FAR AS I EVER WENT WITH CARTO BECAUSE THAT IS AS FAR AS MULLINS WENT WITH IT. Unanswered questions. Agnosticism. I have never spent a lot of time pondering about Carto so I never made an opinion on the matter. I sat on the fence and reserved further judgement. Of course no one reading your posts WITHOUT CHECKING THE HYPERLINKS would get that impression. You love to make pronouncements and give out many hyperlinks to make it look like you've done ALL your homework, when actually many of those hyperlinks don't bear out what you imply in yours posts they do. I looked into Carto later in life long after my time on opposingdigits and as you will see down below in my post, the Sayanim network took him out and used Weber and others to destroy the IHR. Once again, you put your foot in your mouth because you falsely assume you have the whole story about me and my opinions about people like Carto.

Could you find a hyperlink to go with that text of yours or are you going to retract such a statement because I honestly don't remember saying such a thing. Second of all, if you don't think Irving is an agent, then what about the work of men such as Kolcheck or Baron, all quoted in here?
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived ... topic=2625

You can voice your disagreement on my views of these men all you like. But until you actually can find fault with the work of men like Karl Kolcheck and Alexander Baron, and even english politician Neil Turner who claimed Irving was a compromised pedophile (whose really only worthwhile books where on the Hungarian Revolution in the fifties and the attack on Dresden in my opinion), then I can easily ignore you and say, "Okay, where is your proof to back up your opinion that Irving is okay, because I have come across a lot that says he is not okay?"

If you think I'm taking it too far to think that many anti Zionists are in fact bad guys or at least compromised guys, then maybe you can tell me why others have gone public, written articles, AND NEVER BEEN SUED for claiming how the IHR was penetrated and how many involved, including Mark Weber were caught in a bid to cooperate with the ADL.


This is from wikipedia. If what he says is a lie and can't be proven, why hasn't he been sued?
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/TOK/Whistleblower.html

This one's a good read too.
http://www.williscarto.net/html/evidenc ... rsion.html

Ingrid and Ernst Zundel had some unkind words for Weber too.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpos ... count=1445

Check this out too.
The Mossad (Andrew E. Allen) set up a coup d’État against Willis Carto, Liberty Lobby and the IHR, with the help of ADL and CIA agents, writer Mark Weber (tied to CIA man Jared Taylor), and even Scientologists (Greg Raven, Tom Marcellus).
See Willis Carto giving a public lecture on the media (Bronfman. etc.):
Is the Major Media Controlled? - Willis Carto
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... 0096995057

As for the WTC, nukes were used.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived ... opic=39597
The science is in. I like Dimitri's work. I think Vialls was correct on some things but wrong on others. Eat the meat, spit out the bones. I've done that with your work at times - kept some and told others about some - believe it or not. However, Dimitri does mention heavy Isareli involvement and I admire that. He named Israeli spy Michael Harari as one of the main string pullers and pulling off 9-11.

Breaking news special: Did Mossad agent Mike Harari brag of organizing 9/11? _on a Special Edition of The Kevin Barrett Show. This show was broadcast February 10, 2011.

DIMITRI KHALEZOV - ISRAELI INTEL NUKES THE TWIN TOWERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKhdZTeaZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3kcks259t0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZf8X7MTlBg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-0t0isVF78

Don't forget this.
9-11 ISRAEL CONNECTION: Gordon Duff
Interviews Russian Intelligence Operative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aGY5oWffas

Israel did 9-11? Yes. Israel has nukes? Yes. Doesn't really seem far fetched does it? At least not prima face.

Your only hyperlink to claim I'm a jewish apologist is a link back to my post where someone asks me for proof that Rettinger was a jesuit and a mason and the real power behind Bilderberg. And I proved it. They had to admit I did. So I don't know what your problem is. Just throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping it will stick I guess.

As for claiming I support Eric Hufschmid, by linking back here to a board I post on, (that you obviously know since I have posted links back to that site on here before where I exposed A.L. as a Zionist Jew or because you are going through all my posts after hitting PROFILE on me), you would see I was quoting Eric Hufschmid at trying to expose the Zionist deception that Alex Jones was engaging in because people were trying to expose how Iran won't attack America next, that US-Israel will, and in that case they would need to work out a new enemy.
http://www.dogeatdogsite.com/doghouse/v ... 3954#p3954
So I only quoted Eric Hufschmid where I agree with him. Explain to me why I would quote Eric Hufschmid when I don't agree with him you moron.

Quit trying to make it seem like everytime I quote somebody I have to argree with EVERYTHING they say. That's the only argument you could make if you wanted to be consistent when trying to condemn me for daring to quote Hufschmid AT ALL. However, if you don't hold to the claim I have to believe everything a person says or else believe in everything a person says in order to quote them, then you can't condemn me for being careful and selective enough to quote Huhfscmid when he's right that Iran may not be the next one to take the blame if lying to the American public about Iran doesn't work. However, it just may be as they are, according to Ryan Dawson, trying to claim Iran is attempting to get yellowcake. Gee, where have we heard that Israeli inpsired bullshit line before? Oops. Israeli war hawks. I just answered my own question.

But that's the only way you can attack me isn't it. Attribute things to me that I never adhered to. Or imply I believe everying someone says just because I quote them on a certain issue once or twice. Eric Hufschmid may not be perfect but his logic in that dogeatdog topic I quoted is impeccable and he asks good questions.

P.S.
That's one more post where your silence means you have no problem with Linton, an alleged exposer of evil Zionists, refusing to attack Lieblich, who is likely a sayan ringer for the Mossad riddled Verint. As I said, your silence and his pathetic excuses for his inexcusable inaction on the matter reveals a lot about you both.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Drew J has far past lost the status of someone worth wasting time on, but I'll address one quick point.



I'm deadly serious about my offer. Kerr now has the opportunity to come to Australia and meet O'Connell's local supporters, and perhaps even help them organise his appeal. If Kerr can't afford his half of the fare, he could appeal to the other supporters to help him with it. It's only a few hundred dollars. My only condition is that Kerr go to the office of Steve Lieblich and confront him on video camera, as he has challenged Johnson and myself to do.

Asking me, of all people, to do O'Connell's "work" for him is ridiculous, and both Kerr and Drew J know it. Kerr's "challenge" is bogus, and was never designed to inspire real activism. Any one of O'Connell's Perth's supporters can do what Kerr has "openly challenged" me to do. Will they though? Time will tell. I say go for it.

Just because O'Connell is a liar, it doesn't mean Lieblich is not involved with Israeli intelligence. At the very least, Lieblich is a rabid Zionist and deserves to be given a good, hard time, even if only for being the Zionist criminal that he is -- Mossad sayan or not.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

The ex-disinformation agent Drew J. is quickly taking on salt water, but thrashes around in an attempt to save himself.

You introduce a straw man by claiming that I accused you of having "to argree (sic) with EVERYTHING" else that's asserted by the various disinformation agents whom you quote. No. I have supplied links to prove that you purport to think "the Jesuits" are behind everything, the "Gentile Knights of Malta" run the media, Steven Jones is "controlled opposition", you 'accidentally' failed to spot that Christopher Bollyn called the cops to get himself arrested on purpose and spent the next five years lying about it, you think the Bollyn family was kidnapped, that Eric Hufschmid, Eric Phelps and Joe Vialls are credible sources, that Ron Paul is a Vatican agent, you spout irrelevant tinfoil conspiracy bullshit about "maritime law" in a weak attempt to get O'Connell off the hook, you think contrails are part of a global government or Jesuit / Gentile Knights plot to poison people, you think the 9/11 planes were faked and September Clues is "pretty probable", you think Willis Carto, Mark Lane, David Irving and David Duke are Zionist agents and Mike Piper has an ADL "controller" named Phil.

No amount of backing down with a counter argument that you don't believe everything your fellow disinformation agents say can save you. The above list, and the fact that you attack genuine truth tellers whilst supporting fakes such as O'Connell, Bollyn, Hufschmid and Kerr, is sufficient proof of intent to deceive. When a shill plays the part of an "idiot", they forget that even an idiot would be expected to get something right once in a while, would support some genuine truth tellers, and would attack some fakes. A pretense at being concerned about Hufschmid's Murdoch connection and Bollyn's self-admitted "marriage of convenience" with an Israeli Jew who worked for the military in Herzliya, and then citing them as reliable sources whose logic is "impeccable" and whose questions are "good", just ain't gonna cut it.

You exhibit remarkably similar tactics to those of the Masonic Jewish disinformation agent Jonathan Elinoff. When he's got his "I'm here to help expose Zionism" hat on, he concocts deceptions such as a claim that art students in the WTC were involved in 9/11. The Israeli-Mossad fake "art students" were obviously connected with 9/11, whereas the real art students in the WTC had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or the WTC demolitions. And the real art students were not Jewish. This is how Elinoff attempts to confuse and deceive.

Then, at other times, we find Elinoff acting in his role as a Zionist denier. Elinoff attacks genuine researchers such as Michael Piper, who concentrates on the facts:

"Michael Collins Piper, a reporter for the American Free Press, seems to advocate Israeli Mossad as being the 'All Seeing Eye' at the top of the pyramid. The research put fourth (sic) by Piper and many others, is extremely bias (sic) and focused on identifying Jewish names in all the conspiracy theories, and then building an argument from that, rather than presenting any evidence. It is weak, reckless and poor to suggest that there is a Jewish conspiracy based solely on the findings of Jewish names in different areas of power and then accusing them of crimes there is no evidence of."

Elinoff goes on to claim that "there is sufficient evidence of a Catholic Church conspiracy, Illuminati Cabbalistic Conspiracy (which is not the same as a Jewish Conspiracy), a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Conspiracy, and a general Group Mentality Conspiracy". He expands on these claims here:

"So far to date, there has never been a single confession from any source that Israel or Jews are at the top of the pyramid, only speculation. The only confessions we do have say that the Catholic Church is, the Bilderbergs are, and Occultist Satanic worshipers are placed at the top. By Rothschild's own admittance, they were given the monopoly on money from the Catholic Church, to whom they hold allegiance with the Illuminati Bloodlines. These are the confessions. The Bilderbergs give orders to the Federal Reserve and central bankers, not Israel."

Drew J. frequently claims that Jews are not at the "top of the pyramid". For example:

"Anti Zionists focus on only one aspect of the global conspiracy. They focus on Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists. They are on the right track but they mistakenly think Jews sit at the pyramid when it is Gentiles. Do not look to Israel. Or even the British Banks which are controlled by Jewish families like Rothschild and Oppenheimer. Well you can but don't think you have reached the top of the pyramid. Look to Rome. That is where the real power is."

Source

"Saying one group sits at the top of the pyramid does not preclude one from blaming others in lower compartments. Eric Phelps rails against the Talmudic Masonic Labour Zionist Jews for example. The papal COURT JEWS. The HOFJUDEN."

Source

"Real truthsayers like Eric Phelps, Sherman Skolnick (when he was alive) and Barry Chamish would never nor will they ever get on television because they have figured out who sits at the top of the pyramid."

Source

"The UN was a bad idea as it was spawned from the Rockefeller, Colonel House, British controlled RIIA, United Nations organization. The UN is anti private property and anti private gun ownership. You may not like Alex Jones' avoiding Zionism, but Zionists are not at the top of the pyramid. The occult stuff Jones talks about is very real. His anti UN film AMERICA DESTROYED BY DESIGN is a must watch."

Source

Yeah, those last two quotes provide some very reliable sources - NOT! Eric Phelps, Sherman Skolnick, Barry Chamish and Alex Jones. It should be becoming clear to the reader that Drew J. caters for ignoramuses who haven't yet fathomed out which truth tellers are for real and which of them are fakes. Here's some more:

"I would give you some more resources on who runs the world and who sits at the top of the pyramid but I suspect you would be too lazy to look them over like you clearly did not when it came to the other stuff in my first post. The fact that you don't know a damn thing about the Romans, or the maltese, or the work of John Coleman or even Carol White's book which talks about the Pallavicini Jesuit family controlling the Cecils (oh, I bet you didn't know about them either, man) shows how lacking in knowledge you are about how widespread this NWO thing really is and how many people it really involves. But I will give out a superlink with many resources in it anyway incase another reader happens upon what I have written and actually has the intellectual fortitude to sit down and read it all before slagging it off like they know what they are talking about."

Source

"Plenty of evidence at the Unhived Mind says otherwise. If Israel and Zionists were at the top of the pyramid, how is it that the Vatican has the deed to Jerusalem thanks to Peres, a jesuit trianed Polish jew? Why is it that Peres can get away with playing a role in murdering Rabin and cabbaging Sharon because the former wanted to reconnect with Judaism and stop Oslo and save Israel and expose how the Likud was bankrolling Hamas, and the latter kept refusing to pull jews out of gaza and was also slow with giving the Vatican land they wanted? Why is the Mossad subordinate to British Foreign Intelligence? Why is there more blood on their hands (jesuits, not zionists when it comes to the murder of Lincoln and Kennedy? All roads lead to Rome. The most powerful jews you see are hofjuden, court jews. Cloakanddagger has no problem exposing zionist misconduct. The jewish Rothschilds themselves are only guardians of the papal treasury according to the jewish encyclopedia. The runner of that Unhived Mind site once quoted an article of yours Ryan in the Zionist Masonic Jews section about Marc Rich. We all know that there are powerful jews. But others know that they are not sitting atop the pyramid of the world."

Source

And so on... What people are interested in is the fact that Jews orchestrated 9/11, Jews lied about homicidal "gas chambers" in Poland during WWII, Jews try to silence their real opponents such as Edgar J. Steele and Germar Rudolf, and Jews are delighted whenever someone such as Brendon O'Connell comes along to serve as a straw man who they can easily dismiss as a paranoid "anti-Semite" and "nut case", who helps to inspire the creation of a Friends of Israel group, and who helps to make the case for restricting free speech. Not Zionist denier disinformation which cites other disinformation sources as 'evidence' and falsely claims that the group that carries out the biggest crimes is not at the "top of the pyramid".



Source

Note: Lest Kerr claims "Poseidon has got 'Conflating Individuals Syndrome'; he says Drew J. is Jon Elinoff", I am not claiming Drew is Elinoff, I'm merely showing similarities in their modus operandi. And at least, Drew J. is careful to distance himself from Elinoff.

I originally joined in this thread to defend myself after Drew J. had accused me of being a "Jew". Have you ever seen a Jew debunk the "Holocaust", the official story of 9/11 (without going into nonsense about "no planes" or "Bush / the Vatican did it"), and the prosecution's case against Edgar Steele?

Jim Kerr amusingly provides his own account of events: he says that Linton and I came here to "attack" him, and he merely came to "defend" himself. The fact is that Kerr posts disinformation on his websites alleging that I'm a "Jew", a "Jew-shill", a "Judas Goat", part of a Zionist "team", etc. This was then parroted by Drew J, along with other misleading claims of Kerr's. If Kerr doesn't want to see people criticising him, he should stop posting defamatory disinformation on his websites. It looks like he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

As for Infensus challenging Steve Lieblich, the fact is that Infensus has already provided more useful information, such as here, here and here, than Drew J. has in over 1,600 posts at this forum and many others elsewhere. And Infensus isn't a Judas Goat who tries to trick people into thinking the Vatican is at the "top of the pyramid". Why should Infensus be expected to do all the work, when O'Connell's supporters in Perth have the opportunity to confront Lieblich and prove O'Connell right if they can?

By the way, Drew J., I am not alleging that you claimed Victor Thorn was a "Mossad executioner". My final paragraph in my previous post said: "And the fact that O'Connell, Bollyn, Hufschmid, Kerr, etc, enjoy the support of Zionist disinformation agents who blame the Jesuits, claim "chemtrails" are real, the WTC planes were faked, Hitler was a Zionist Jew, Eric Clapton's son was murdered, there are aliens on Mars, Victor Thorn is a high-level Mossad executioner, the WTC was nuked, etc, is revealing indeed" was about claims by "agents" (plural). The first two claims (Jesuits and "chemtrails") are attributed to you; the remainder are all specific assertions by the other disinfo agent Quasimodo, some of which you also subscribe to.

And yes, Drew J. finally sees that he's overdone the "attack every honest researcher and protect all the fakes" bit, and admits that Mark Weber is a fake. Yes, he's a known Zionist asset and bogus "revisionist". However, Christopher Bollyn cites Mark Weber as a credible source:



Source

The value of this thread is in demonstrating how the Zionist disinformation agents support the bogus truth tellers who serve as Zionist assets. First we had the Quasimodo character who supports O'Connell, Kerr and Bollyn, and posts disinformation that claims the WTC planes were faked, Hitler was a Zionist Jew, Eric Clapton's son was murdered, there are aliens on Mars, Victor Thorn is a high-level Mossad executioner, and the WTC was nuked. Now we have Drew J. the Zionist denier, Alex Jones and Eric Phelps supporter, who believes the WTC was "nuked", that "chemtrails" are real, that the "Gentile Knights of Malta" run the media, that Steven Jones is "controlled opposition", etc, who tries ever so hard to defend the fakes O'Connell, Kerr, Bollyn and Hufschmid.

The science is in. The WTC was not "nuked". And no, Dr. Steven Jones isn't "disinformation", although the disinfo agents will tell you he's a "CIA operative" or similar nonsense in the knowledge that many of their readers won't understand the science.

It's also worth noting how the shills such as Quasimodo were originally attacking O'Connell, e.g. here. As soon as they realised he could serve as a Zionist asset and perform as Steve Lieblich's "anti-Semitic" straw man, they started swooning all over him and pulling out all the stops to promote and defend him.

One thing's for sure, Jim Kerr will never live this down. At least Quasimodo pretended to be a Zionist exposer. Now we have the spectacle of Jim Kerr, the great Zionist exposer and truth teller, being supported by an Eric Phelps-promoting Zionist denier and obfuscator who claims that "all roads lead to Rome". ROTFLOL!

Drew J. was a supporter of Alex Jones, but has recently made an abrupt about-turn, albeit too late.

Never mind, in 2004 Jim Kerr was promoting Alex Jones and the ideas that Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, the Freemasons and the Illuminati were behind the New World Order and the global elite's plans to rule the world. He was telling us such gems as "The internet has turned out to be the greatest advancement in the history of paedophilia". Ironically, he did a copy-and-paste of a piece about "internet addiction disorder". He was also telling us that "Bush is insane", and touted himself as "Dr. Quo" who offered a "Head Repair And Mind Maintenance Centre".

In contrast to the many people (such as Brendon O'Connell) who have freely provided their opinion that Kerr is a bit of a narcissist, Kerr actually solicited donations for his website as he was using it to promote Alex Jones and practice psychiatry without a license.

Drew J. was provided with enough rope to hang himself, and he duly obliged. The multi-faceted ex-disinformation agent is not worth wasting any more time on.

Ouch.






No, that sinking feeling isn't "mind control" coming from "high tech weaponry", Drew. You just got well and truly nuked.

_________________
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/

http://crimes-of-zion.blogspot.com/

There you go again passing the buck like the chicken you are. You are the closest and you don't have to spend money. You bring up the challenege so you can waste time while Kerr gathers the money because you want Lieblich to remain unharrassed. Why would you want to help out a Zionist sayan like that? Agent or fool? One or the other. Either way, you fail once again.

[qupte]Asking me, of all people, to do O'Connell's "work" for him is ridiculous, and both Kerr and Drew J know it.[/quote]
Oh I see you are trying to make me seem like a hypocrit because I said Roberto demanding I get into the Polish archives to prove a holocaust when he was the one interested in doing so is like me saying you do O Connell's work. Well nice try but this is an apples and oranges comparison because I have no interest in trying to prove the holocaust in Belzec because I am already a revisionist. In other words Roberto and I don't share similar beliefs and ambitions and so therefore I can't be expected to do his work because we aren't on the same time. Now you and O Connell for instance, that's different.

"But wait Drew J, we're enemies. We're not on the same team."

Yes, your personalities have clashed, however, you guys both claim to be anti Zionists and should therefore be willing to do anti Zionist work. You will notice that hateblogwatch hates the crowd at holocaustcontroversies, and yet they are both haters of revisionists and they do their own pro holocaust work. So that means that what it all comes down to is not PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, but PERSONAL BELIEFS. Only a true anti Zionist would get in Lieblich's face when it is so easy for him and so quick to do and a true anti Zionist would not make excuses and make a stupid challenge to Kerr to try and raise money so that he can further waste time in not doing a simple task that any true anti Zionist would do. As I said, your continued inaction protects Lieblich. If you were a true anti Zionist you would not want to protect any sayan rat.


This is where you create a false dilemma. You have given no deductive argument claiming how it's logically impossible for anyone OTHER than O Connell's supporters in Perth to go after Lieblich. But do you see the problem you have locked yourself in now? If you think it's okay for YOU to challenge others to confront Lieblich, that means it is okay for others to expect you to rise to the challenge. You can't advance a deducitve argument proving it would be a logical contradiction (like saying it's raining in spot A and it's not raining in spot A) to say that only O Connell supporters can confront Lieblich. Therefore, what I have said earlier stands. You can do it as well and you won't. You are passing the buck. Do you not remember what I said earlier? SHOULDN'T YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE AND GET IN LIEBLICH'S FACE TO SHOW KERR AND US O CONNELL SUPPORTERS THAT MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T QUESTION YOU ANYMORE? DON'T YOU WANT TO SHOW US UP?

It's like what the revisionists keep asking the exterminationists. Don't you guys want to open up the polish archives and really let us show Kola's work on Belzec? Why are you hiding it and continuing to? What are you afraid of?

But it's clear you don't and it's clear you are trying to get out of a challenge we laid upon you because you are trying to pass the buck. You were challenged first because your motives and anti Zionism and possible status as an agent were brought up. So you should respond to at least settle those initial doubts. Your refusal to help your own case continues to make us suspicious (not least of which who those two people were O Connell filmed you living with) and gives us every right to ask questions and point out how you are acting like a coward who brings up a fundraising challenge that you know will take time so you don't have to expose Lieblich. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING HE WANTS. NOT TO BE TOUCHED. So you are helping a Zionist sayan.


Big man talking like Lieblich needs to be brought down. So do it since you received the first challenge and can do it at no cost AND ALSO NO FUCKING TIME WASTING. Your refusal to do the simplest task that would accomplish and expose perhaps the most shows what a fucking phony you are and how you REALLY AREN'T going after the big dogs. The Jews and sayanim know your exposures of the occupied terrorities through groups like FRIENDS OF PALESTINE are safe. Keyser said so. Being a big fish in a little pond is nothing to be proud of. Get in the face of the real threats. Oh that's right you won't. You are doing all you can to keep Lieblich out of the limelight which you claim he needs to be in. Cognitive dissonance from an idiot, or tactics from an agent who was caught rooming with two middle eastern looking types?

Linton you make excuses and act like you aren't. When you do the easiest thing that would cause the most damage, confronting LIeblich by yourself, then I will take you seriously.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

So now you deny the existence of mass masonic groups and how they overlap with intelligence agencies who are into the occult and also into ritualistic abuse (which some cases have been documented in courts where judges WEREN'T corrupt and trying to keep things under wraps)? And you also deny mind control? Just a few more things you are ignorant about on top of the admiralty maritime law conspiracy. Until you study the works of Fritz Springmeier, Salvi, Cathy O Brien, Ted Gunderson, Stew Webb, John DeCamp and Brice Taylor in depth as I have for years, then you are not fit to comment. Just because you are ignorant, is no reason to cast your doubting opinion (which is heavily uninformed due to your ignorance) as fact. I bet you didn't even know that the original of mind control project MK ULTRA was a masonic, kabbalistic Jew, did you? I won't tell you because it's time you learn about that kind of shit yourself you ignoramus.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Let see who's really the one in desperation. It's you as we will see below.


As I tried to explain, but which your mind obviously could not comprehend, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY you can sustain your attack on me by typing this from earlier.


Now what was the hyperlink for the Eric Hufschmid thing? I already talked about it. Now we must quote from MY past.


As I said, you attacked me for supporting Eric Hufschmid as a credible source. CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR WHAT? You don't specify. You use vauge, unfinished language like that because you know if I prod you to be more narrow and precise, your attack on me for linking to Hufschmid falls to the ground. And you just can't stand that. So to piss you off and expose you, I'm going to finish what you didn't have the guts to start because it would fail for you.

When you quote someone, you are usually doing it because you are agree with what they say. Now someone may take the attitude that you agree with them on everything, however that does not logically, necessarily follow from someone quoting someone else on one topic, which is what I did in that dogeatdogsite topic. I only quoted Eric because the LOGIC of his ARGUMENTS were sound on how the CIA-Mossad axis would have to create a new enemy if the Iran bashing would ever start to fail. In other words, Eric was credible IN THAT ONE ISOLATED ARGUMENT HE WAS MAKING. To say "Drew J thinks Eric Hufschmid is credible" doesn't tell the whole story. Credible about what? The Iran Syria Alex Jones thing I mentioned in that dogeatdogsite topic? That Alex Jones covers for Zionism? That Ernst Zundel is an agent of the Zionists? Which thing or things do I think Eric is credible on? You should ask me Poseidon before you make general pronouncements with vague language that don't tell the whole story but you seem to indicate a whole story that I support all of Eric's work. If that was not your intention to argue such, because you know that I don't necessarily support everything Eric would say, then you can't complain when I quoted Eric that one time because the LOGIC of that one isolated and particular ARGUMENT was good in terms of the Iran Syria Alex Jones thing. In other words, you are once again throwing spathetti hoping it will stick to the wall.

Now when I lastly hinted at how I can disagree with someone on some things and quote them on others because their LOGIC and ARGUMENTS are more important than the likely questionable MAN making them, that threw a wrench into your attack on me for daring to quote Hufschmid on one isolated matter instead of on other matters where I don't agree with him (as to why I would do such a ridiculous thing, nobody can explain). So since YOU are the one drowning, YOU are attempting to save face by simply reposting your previous batch of stuff that includes the attack on me for linking to Eric Hufschmid WHICH I JUST REFUTED IN THE POST BEFORE THIS ONE I AM MAKING NOW AND APPARENTLY HAD TO DO AGAIN, JUST IN MORE DETAIL BECAUSE YOUR PUNY BRAIN CAN'T GRASP IT.




Repeating the same bullshit I already refuted and explained. And you think I'm the one who is in desperation with nothing left.


Saying you have given links to beliefs of mine that I never denied having, isn't the same as showing me other links disproving my links claiming the maltese mafia owns the media. Will you do that, yet?


Funny, I thought you accused me of making a straw man against you. Let's refresh your words for the benefit of the reader.


So if you claim you never intended to argue as such by attacking me for say, quoting a Hufschmid piece on that dogeatdogsite, then why are you complaining here of me daring to quote Hufschmid at all.


If you admit that I don't have to agree with everything a person says just because I quote them on one thing I do agree with them on, then you can't act like it's a real problem when I quote something from someone because I agree with the logic of their arguments irrespective of who they are as a person since the logic can be spouted by anyone and can stand on its own. Sorry Poseidon, but you can't have it both ways. Ergo your attack on me of "no backing down with a counter argument that you..." fails on logical grounds. NEXT!



There you go again claiming I support Hufschmid. SUPPORT HIM HOW? In everything he says. I don't. And you seemed to admit I don't have to when you said to me I should be careful about making a strawman against you saying you would think that about me. Remember?



So then if you admit that I don't have to agree with everything a person says, then you are admitting that a person who can be quoted has to be right about some things and wrong about others since obviously no one is perfect. That logically follows. Therefore, if you make the implicit admission I don't have to agree with everything a person says, then you can't pull a one eighty and attack me for daring to quote somebody, WITHOUT EXPLAINING TO THE READER WHY I QUOTED THE LOGIC OF THEIR ARGUMENTS THEY WERE MAKING in the first place. You use general vague language because if you get specific and start asking questions like you should such as, "What is Eric Hufschmid saying in this instance that makes Drew J want to quote him? What are his arguments and does his logic stand up when he attacks the Zionst network for having a backup fall guy in case the Iran smearing fails?" If you get specific like this, you will see my whole tirade above is logically sound when I say I can quote someone on matters I agree with BECAUSE THEIR LOGIC AND ARGUMENTS ARE IMPECCABLE ON THE GIVEN SOLITARY ISSUE THEY ARE SPEAKING ON AT THE TIME, and also have the freedom to refuse to quote them on a matter because I DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR LOGIC AND ARGUMENTS ON THE GIVEN SOLITARY ISSUE THEY ARE SPEAKING ON AT THE TIME.

In other words, your failure to burrow deeper and make better use of lanauage means you haven't really sustained an attack on me for daring to link to that one argument of Hufschmid's on the iran-syria thing. After my use of philosophy above, it shows how you utterly fail when you use vague, general language such as "supports Hufschmid" or "thinks Hufschmid is credible."



This is the same bullshit and I am not going to repeat myself all over again except to say the main conclusion or essence of all my combined premises. There is no logical contradiction between quoting someone on some issues because their logic is good and arguments are sound (often because they too are borrowing from the logical of impeccable sources) and not liking their personal connections in life. Unlike you Poseidon, I don't get ad hominems mixed up with real attacks on the logic and evidence of someone's argument. Since it is logically possible for people with strange connections to dispense bits of truth, it doesn't logically mean we can't quote them and still be aware and make otheres aware that that is their job as agents. To seem good by dispensing bits of truth.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.