Christopher Jon Bjerknes
"Judenfrei" again opens its attack on me with contradictory claims. On the one hand, "Judenfrei" argues that I have deliberately sabotaged my own book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein with valid arguments that Einstein was a racist and that Jews have always been a racist people; while on the other hand, "Judenfrei" declares that it espouses the views of Eric Hufschmid because they are supposedly legitimate and cares not what anyone thinks of that; and "Judenfrei" declares that Hufschmid could not taint my work by immediately promoting a bogus story on the heels of interviewing me about my book. I, in contradiction to "Judenfrei", am consistent. I tell the full truth about Einstein and am prepared and fully able to defend that truth. Unlike Eric Hufschmid, I have not promoted a hoax. My book on Einstein has been downloaded by hundreds of thousands of readers and received vast attention across the internet. "Judenfrei's" contention that I have somehow made a mistake by presenting a thorough and scholarly account of Einstein's plagiarism and his racism is thereby proven false. In addition, "Judenfrei" discounts the fact that I have published two books and various articles on Einstein's plagiarism, which do not address his racism. Was this also a supposed "trick"?
In respect to the Holocaust, "Judenfrei" has failed to quote where I have stated that the "Holocaust narrative" as defined by "Judenfrei" is true. Instead, "Judenfrei" agrees with what I have said in that "Judenfrei" agrees that European Jewry has been displaced.
Rather than argue with "Judenfrei" over the issue of 9/11 and its importance to exposing the crimes of World Jewry, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the facts regarding the Jewish involvement in 9/11 with someone who has proven themselves knowledgeable and credible on the issue and in general. I in no way seek to cover up the facts regarding the Jewish involvement in 9/11 or the crime in general. I have not addressed it in detail because I have not specialized in this area and do not wish to be associated with the nonsense of Hufschmid, Smith and Jones. I do agree that the facts should be broadly known to all and I agree to facilitate the exposure of these facts by credible means. If "Judenfrei" can facilitate such an opportunity, I would be grateful.
Contrary to "Judenfrei's" contentions, the central issue driving Christian Zionism is Jewish money and the Jewish corruption of Christianity, not the issue of the Khazarian origin of Ostjuden. The Khazarian Jews never had any legitimate claims on Palestine, but nor did or do the Berber or Arab Jews, nor did the Babylonian "Israelites" ever exist, nor did the Babylonian Judeans, by their own admissions, have any claim on the lands in which they were, by their own accounts, "strangers". Giving primary or even secondary importance to the Khazarian question is misrepresentation by omission of the Berber, Arab and Babylonian question, which hold no appeal to Christian Zionist who hold the Jewish Torah to be the written word of their Jewish god. However, quoting that god in the form of Jesus, and quoting the Jews on their hatred of Jesus has been a proven means of shaking Christian support for Jews who would and have subverted Christianity. "Judenfrei" fails to provide any examples where its approach has proven successful, let alone more successful than mine.
"Judenfrei" has understandably misunderstood what occurred between Hufschmid, Smith and me. Smith was booted off of GCN, for, by his accounts, my having raised the issue of Chabad Lubavitch on his show. I suspect it had more to do with his critiques of Alex Jones, but this is unimportant. I suggested to Smith that we start a network including him and Hufschmid, and that the shows we presented be distinct. In this way, should one of us be discredited, the others would not be a part of that specific show. In this way, undiluted points of view could be presented and a broader audience could have been reached. Smith and Hufschmid have misrepresented this fact as if I were trying to drive a wedge between Hufschmid and Smith, when in fact I was trying to create a network to compete with GCN and RBN. Smith wanted to make a certain "Nina" a part of this network and tried to interest me in her, but I found her of no interest. I did indeed first warn Hufschmid that the Sam Danner story was not credible and I then warned Smith that those who aligned themselves with this story would be discredited. "Judenfrei" wonders why someone would be discredited for promoting Sam Danner's story, and for having been interviewed by someone who promoted Sam Danner's story, but "Judenfrei" need only look to the arguments of Hufschmid himself for an answer.
"Judenfrei" fails to understand the natural defenses normal human beings have against the Jews. The stereotypical Jewish phenotype is repulsive to Northern Europeans, who depicted such persons as devils throughout the history of European art. The Christians have always viewed Jews as guilty of deicide. Europeans have always waged campaigns against the aggressive Jews, and until very recently kept the Jews locked away in Ghettoes. There is no sympathy for the Jew, other than in the mad eyes of deluded Christian Zionists, and Rev. Hagee has brought an end to much of that support. The World hates the Jews and always has, because the Jews have always hated the Goyim. The Zionist[s] at "Judenfrei" parrot the same dogma as the Zionists of old, that Jews can be cured of their mental diseases by segregation and nationhood. Just like their Zionist predecessors, "Judenfrei" advocate the segregation and nationhood of the Jews, which has already proven disastrous in the modern world. The Zionists of old lied to us and claimed that the Jews would be cured of their mental disease should a Jewish State be formed somewhere, anywhere. "Judenfrei" repeats this proven false contention. The Jews of Israel are even sicker and more perverted than their predecessors in Europe, America and Asia. "Judenfrei" promotes disproven Zionist theories, while criticizing me for proposing effective solutions. Other than from Zionist "Judenfrei" I am not aware of any criticism of my proposals. "Judenfrei's" arguments echo Herzl's arguments.
"Judenfrei" claims that my proposals mirror the Jewish doctrine of exterminating the human race. "Judenfrei" does not offer any evidence to support such a false claim. Rather, unlike the Jewish aggressor, I propose we solve the issue of Jewish aggression once and for all times. There is no equivalence between the defense from aggressive attack and that aggressive attack. There is no equivalence between the promotion of noble human cultures and people, and the promotion of subversive and perverse Jewish culture and people.
My questions are not answered in the "Monetary Reform Act" promoted by "Judenfrei", though "Judenfrei" claims they have been. Nor have I yet asked all of my questions. Does this reform act propose that the debts of the US be paid in full on a full term basis or prorated, or without any interest at all? Will a bond holder redeem his bonds at full value within one year from the passage of the act, or at a prorated rate, or simply recover his initial investment? I still await proof of any kind that Americans will deposit enough money in banks to cover the 100% deposit requirement made by the act for existing loans, let alone enough to cover the needed loan capital to sustain and grow our economy. "Judenfrei" may be oblivious to these flaws and omissions, but I am not.
Simply producing currency does not create growth. It instead creates inflation, there being more dollars chasing the same goods and services. Loan capital is a very different animal from money supply, though there can be not sufficient loan capital without sufficient money supply in one currency or another, and/or fractional reserve banking. This is why I fault the Utopian proposals which "Judenfrei" advocates. There needs to be addressed how loan capital will be provided and directed at growing the middle class and the economy. Gottfried Feder, for but one example, focused on the real economic necessities of building a viable economy, as opposed to Carmack's proposals, which appear only to profit the rich at the expense of the taxpayer. Paying off the debt to the debt holders without recouping what has been deliberately stolen denies the taxpayers loan capital and real assets with which to build and maintain the economy, and thereby comes at their expense. If the government gives Peter trillions of dollars, and leaves Paul with nothing, than Paul has been shortchanged by his government. In addition, Paul is expected to fight, or provide children to fight, to protect Peter and the land and holdings Peter has. This comes at Paul's expense.
I still await straightforward answers to my questions. I intend to show the inflationary pressures of closing out the debt in the course of one year, while demanding 100% backing to loans in bank reserves. I intend to show that this will give the Jews absolute control over the money markets and the supply of loan capital and afford them the opportunity to ruin America as America has never been destroyed in the past.