Christopher Jon Bjerknes
It is clear that Louis Turner fabricated his lies about me in his own head and cannot offer a single fact to support his lies. He is a deceitful smearmonger. He acts like a stereotypical Jew and has shone no remorse whatsoever for lying about me, nor has he made any attempt to mitigate the damage he has deliberately and with malice done to me. Yet Turner would call himself a "Christian".
Louis Turner imprecisely defines "Socialism" as the Soviet Union and the Obama administration; and mistakenly asserts that such a definition is sufficient for the purposes of labeling those Turner recklessly attacks as if "Socialists". I have repeatedly condemned the Soviet Union and the Bolshevism that produced it. I have also condemned Obama and his policies and his government. This proves that by Turner's definitions I am opposed to socialism, yet Louis Turner lies and calls me a "Socialist" by this, his own, definition. Turner writes,
"While 'socialism' today has many meanings that obscure its nature, most of US old timers remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics very well and do not require anybody to redefine what socialism is. And with Obama in office, do we really need to define what socialism is? If we can’t see it now, then there is no hope left except for change – chump change!"
Louis Turner asserts that the Jews do not suck on the circumcised penises of their infants to draw blood to drink. Turner falsely asserts that I, "'imply' that they perform 'fellatio' on each other during Circumcision[.]" I never implied any such thing, but instead provided a verifiable citation to the Jews' religious practice of "metzitzah b'peh". Turner deceptively wrote, grossly misrepresenting my statements,
"So Christopher Jon Bjerknes is NOT a socialist nor is a member of the Aryan Nations eh? And you call me a liar while you bash Jews and 'imply' that they perform 'fellatio' on each other during Circumcision? You sick person! This guy makes it so easy for me its not even funny."
The sexual content of Turner's statements are the products of his mind, not mine, and it is false and libelous for him to attribute his thoughts to me.
Turner also misquotes me by failing to indicating breaks and omissions in the text. He is reckless in his manner of quotation.
Contrary to Turner's thoughts and Turner's perverse and deliberate misrepresentation of my statements, I wrote,
"The Jews believe they can obtain eternal life through the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. When performing circumcision, the mohel sucks blood from the infant child's penis and mixes it with wine which the Jews drink. Jews are strictly forbidden to drink the blood of animals because they believe that the blood carries with it the soul and that drinking animal blood turns the human being into an animal.
The Jews drink their own blood to obtain eternal life, believing that they are themselves god and that by drinking their own blood they obtain eternal life. This is outlined in the Babylonian Talmud in the Tractate Shabbath folio 133. For the Jew, the infant's penis is the Tree of Life."
In my article where I pointed out this Jewish practice, I gave a precise citation to the Jewish religious text which describes and mandates this practice. My statements are demonstrably factually correct. The citation I gave is, "the Babylonian Talmud in the Tractate Shabbath folio 133." This folio is available online from the Soncino translation:
The Talmud states in the relevant part, and I have copied this from the published hard copy of the book,
"MISHNAH. We perform all the requirements of circumcision on the sabbath. we circumcise, uncover [the corona], suck [the wound], and place a compress and cummin upon it. if one did not crush [the cummin] on the eve of the sabbath, he must chew [it] with his teeth and apply [it to the wound]; if he did not beat up wine and oil on the eve of the sabbath, each must be applied separately. we may not make a haluk for it in the first place, but must wrap a rag about it. if this was not prepared from the eve of the sabbath, one winds it about his finger and brings it, and even through another courtyard."--I. Epstein, Editor, "Shabbath", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 8, Part 2, The Soncino Press, (1938), pp. 666-669, at 668-669.
"we suck out, etc. R. Papa said: If a surgeon does not suck [the wound], it is dangerous and he is dismissed. It is obvious? Since we desecrate the Sabbath for it, it is dangerous?—You might say that this blood is stored up, therefore he informs us that it is the result of a wound, and it is like a bandage and cummin: just as when one does not apply a bandage and cummin there is danger, so here too if one does not do it there is danger."--I. Epstein, Editor, "Shabbath", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 8, Part 2, The Soncino Press, (1938), pp. 666-669, at 668-669.
The Jewish religious practice of sucking an infant's penis so as to draw blood to be drunk by Jews is called "metzitzah b'peh". The Jewish Encyclopedia states in its article "Circumcision", under the subsection "Mezizah",
"Mezizah: By this is meant the sucking of the blood from the wound. The mohel takes some wine in his mouth and applies his lips to the part involved in the operation, and exerts suction, after which he expels the mixture of wine and blood into a receptacle (see Fig. 4, below) provided for the purpose. This procedure is repeated several times, and completes the operation, except as to the control of the bleeding and the dressing of the wound.""Circumcision", The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Funk and Wagnells Company, New York, London, (1903), pp. 92-102, at 99.
The Jewish practice of "metzitzah b'peh" has resulted in the spread of herpes and has caused the deaths of infants. See, for example:
Turner falsely claims that I "promote" Edgar J. Steele and provides as sole support the fact that I referred my readers to Cyndi Steele's appeal for help after someone attempted to murder her. In fact, I noted that Steele's wife, the victim of attempted murder, was appealing for help and in no way promoted Edgar J. Steele. I made no brief for Edgar Steele. I will say that Edgar Steele is a lawyer and all people are entitled to legal defense. It is his profession to provide that defense. I do not answer for his choices in his clients, but I will say that being a lawyer for an organization is not equivalent to being a member of that organization, just as a lawyer defending a person accused of committing a crime is not rendered a criminal by providing a due defense to the accused. If Turner has issues with Edgar J. Steele, he should take them up with him. I have no connection to Edgar J. Steele whatsoever.
Turner confounds the Aryan Brotherhood with the Aryan Nations. Turner's assertions are factually incorrect and have nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have never had any connection to the Aryan Nations or the Aryan Brotherhood whatsoever. I condemn both organizations. Louis Turner has no facts to support his lies, but instead conjures up innuendo based on false premises to perpetuate his lies.
Turner falsely claims that I have stated that he, Turner, is Jewish. I instead stated that he acts like a stereotypical Jew. Not all Jews act in this way, and not everyone who acts in this way is Jewish. But, alas, the facts appear to be unimportant to Turner as he fabricates his strawmen.
Turner then goes on to attack Rev. Ted Pike in order to attack me by way of innuendo. I am not a spokesman for Ted Pike and disagree with many of the things he has said, though I do not endorse Turner's accounts of the man and instead disagree with them. I find Rev. Ted Pike's religious views of blacks false and repugnant, and I know that the ultimate source of Pike's Protestant views regarding blacks is the Babylonian Talmud. The racist Jewish (as opposed to merely "Zionist") Talmud states in the Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 70a,
"'Ubar the Galilean gave the following exposition: The letter waw [and] occurs thirteen times in the passage dealing with wine: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. [With respect to the last verse] Rab and Samuel [differ,] one maintaining that he castrated him, whilst the other says that he sexually abused him. He who maintains that he castrated him, [reasons thus;] Since he cursed him by his fourth son, he must have injured him with respect to a fourth son. But he who says that he sexually abused him, draws an analogy between ‘and he saw' written twice. Here it is written, And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father; whilst elsewhere it is written, And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her [he took her and lay with her and defiled here]. Now, on the view that he emasculated him, it is right that he cursed him by his fourth son; but on the view that he abused him, why did he curse his fourth son: he should have cursed him himself?—Both indignities were perpetrated."--I. Epstein, Editor, Sanhedrin 70a, The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 28 (Sanhedrin II), The Soncino Press, (1935), pp. 477-478.
The racist Jewish Talmud states in Sanhedrin 108b,
" Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished—the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mates mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin. [Footnote: I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned.]"--I. Epstein, Editor, Sanhedrin 108b, The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 28 (Sanhedrin II), The Soncino Press, (1935), p. 745.
I find Pike's support of these Jewish ideas counter-productive to his stated aims. I also find Pike's support of certain political candidates counter-productive to his stated aims. That said, Rev. Ted Pike has preserved our right of free speech, revealed much about the Talmud and Cabalah and exposed Christian Zionism as a fraud, among many other valuable contributions he has made at great expense to himself and his family. I wish that he could see that the Old Testament is in places worse than the Talmud. When attributing views to me, Turner should limit himself to my views and cease to misrepresent me as if someone else so that Turner can raise a strawman to knock down.
Turner tries to misrepresent me as if I were a Freemason, which I am NOT. I have never been, am NOT and would never become a Freemason. Contrary to Turner's unsupported assertions, I have written a book devoted to exposing one of Freemasonry's most vile crimes, The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians in which I expose the Freemasonic affiliations of the perpetrators of that crime against the human race, with verifiable facts. I have also exposed Trotsky and Lenin's connections to Freemasonry and the role of Freemasonry in the murderous French Revolution. Turner may not like this because I point out that the pernicious aspects of Freemasonry, its Zionism, call for World government, building a new Temple of Solomon, revolution, genocide, etc. etc. etc. are Jewish in origin, are perpetrated by Jews and serve Jewish interests, and are meant to fulfil Jewish messianic prophecy.
Instead of lying about my views and putting his thoughts as if in my head, Turner should instead ask me to state my views and if he seeks clarification then he should ask for it, instead of lying and fabricating defamatory falsehoods and innuendoes.