Friday, July 10, 2009

"It would be nice to get the Jews to pay off the national debt, but how can we achieve it?"–Judenfrei

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

"Judenfrei" inquires of me,

"It would be nice to get the Jews to pay off the national debt, but how can we achieve it?"

First place the POWER PARTY in office. The POWER PARTY will enact legislation that will declare all of the assets of all of World Jewry to be attachable, garnishable, seizable, etc. as payment of the government debt. No other payment will be offered until all reasonable measures have been taken to recover our wealth which has been stolen by Jewry. The government will assist in the recovery of these stolen assets by confiscating all wealth and income of American Jews and applying to paying off the debt. The government will also declare war on World Jewry and target the Jewish bankers and their assets as military targets. The government will declare that all the debt held by Jews, Jewish trusts, Jewish fronts, etc. is null and void as the product of a fraud. That in itself will eliminate a large portion of the debt.

The full force of the government will be behind the recovery of this stolen wealth. Holders of government debt will have the means and incentive to recover monies in the courts, and we will enact legislation giving them the means to discover and seize all assets belonging to Jews directly, as well as through trusts, fronts, etc. This will also aid our intelligence gathering operations to end the Jewish war on the human race.

American citizens will receive first payments on the debt, with priority among Americans going first to the least wealthy, then to veterans, then to the youngest members of our society.

Whereas Carmack's proposals which would require 100% bank reserves that would make old Shylock the only means to obtain credit in town, and whereas Carmack's proposals would flood Asia with our currency and give them the incentive to buy our land and businesses and overtake us, not to place that money in failing US banks, as Carmack incorrectly asserts, without any proof of any sort, would happen; whereas Carmack's proposal would destroy our economy, my proposal of attaching the US national debt to the Jews who created it would pit the entire World which holds our debt against the Jews and give the World the incentive to track down and identify Jews so as to recover stolen assets and gain recompense on bonds and bills. I would make the entire World a private investigation force against the Jews. I would make the entire World a means to bankrupt the Jews.

In this way, no new money would be created to pay off the debt until the Jews were stripped of their wealth and their holdings of media and other businesses by means of which they control us and our economies. I would incentivize the destruction of World Jewry with the most powerful incentive known to man, the profit motive.

When closing down a corporation there is a pecking order by which the assets are distributed and from whom they are taken. I would see to it that the Jews receive nothing and the American People are first served.

"Judenfrei" should learn that there is reason why the mob, which does not regulate the money supply, engages in loan sharking. Loan capital is a critical element of survival. Let the Jews ruin the banks with mandated 100% reserves, while offering no State controlled loan capital, and we would all be at the mercy of the international loan sharks known as "Jews". Carmack's proposal would make usury infinitely more profitable in America than it already is, because there would be no banks left to compete with the loan sharks, since the profit motive which reduces interest rates on loans through fractional reserve banking would disappear and with it banks and low interest rate loans. Usury would reign as never before in America and business would disappear.

It Appears That Carmack's Proposal Has Blinded "Judenfrei" to the Flaws and Sophistry Built into Said Proposal

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

I have been attempting without success to explain to "Judenfrei" that Carmack's proposal falsely claims that by paying off the government debt within one year while concurrently requiring banks to hold 100% reserves for their already outstanding loans and for all new loans issued, that the hyperinflationary effects of introducing such massive amounts of money into circulation would be counteracted by the 100% reserve requirement which would suposedly take that new money out of circulation. "Judenfrei" states, quoting from Carmack's fatally flawed proposal:

"Can Bjerknes not read or is he deliberately wasting our time? An illustrative sample has been mentioned in the footnotes of Carmack’s MRA (dated to when the national debt was about $10 trillion). Here it is:

The gross National debt is presently c. $9.9 trillion [Sept. 2008]. The net or Public National Debt portion of that (i.e. net of what the government owes itself) is c. $5.4 trillion, of which the Federal Reserve holds c. $480 billion in the System Open Market Account managed by the NY Fed. There is obviously less urgency in paying off what the government owes itself (i.e., the difference between the gross and the public national debt, owed to different government departments and funds), presently c. $4.5 trillion. The Act provides that the remaining c. $5.4 trillion public debt should be paid off with U.S. Notes issued by the Treasury Department. The only real objection to this is that, under the present law, such action would be hyperinflationary, which is true. This is why the proposed Act requires the simultaneous increase in the required reserve ratios of banks from 10% to 100%, which both fully solves the inflationary issue and ends private bank creation of money. Commercial bank loans in the US total c. $7 trillion. This represents money created by the banks as loans. Increasing the reserve ratio to 100% would require banks to have a source of deposits equal to the needed increase in reserves which would be c. $7 trillion, in order to avoid calling in loans. Paying off the public national debt would provide c. $5.4 trillion of the needed capital. Commercial banks hold another c. $1 trillion in other US government agency securities, which the Act provides would also be paid with U.S. Notes, thus providing a total of $6.4 trillion and extinguishing national debt to the same amount. The Act provides for the gradual payment of the c. $4.5 trillion intra-governmental debt, which shall be timed to provide the balance of the needed reserves (c. $600 billion), and thereafter to provide the 3% growth of the money supply, until fully retired. The intra-governmental debt thus provides a ready and flexible avenue for the Treasury to manage the amount of U.S. Notes created to retire the National debt to match capital needed for the reserve ratio increase. Hence there is no technical obstacle to implementation of this section.

What's so difficult to understand?"

Placing money into circulation does not of necessity send that money into bank reserves and neither Carmack nor "Judenfrei" have offered any proof that it would. Instead, the likely result of Carmack's proposal would be that the money would circulate with even greater velocity than before, because the World would recognize that the dollar was being inflated and would be reluctant to save their dollars but would instead toss them out like hot potatoes. Both the increase in the money supply and the velocity of money which would likely result would definitely hyperinflate the currency of necessity.

Instead of increasing bank deposits, Carmack's hyperinflationary proposal would likely decrease them, which in and of itself would cause the already collapsing banking industry to completely fail. On top of that, Carmack would strap the banks with a 100% reserve requirement that would of necessity cause them to fail even if they issued no new loans, but simply tried to meet the requirement for outstanding loans. With no domestic banks to loan money, and with hyperinflation rampant, who would be in a position to regulate the money supply of viable currencies and loan capital in the United States (a distinction which continues to elude "Judenfrei") other than the international Jewish bankers?

Money supply is not loan capital. The government can simply print debt free currency and hand it out to the citizens, but this will not of necessity improve the economy in a sustainable way, but rather would tend to destroy it by introducing hyperinflation.

Loan capital is a different animal from both money supply and production capital, as Gottfried Feder emphasized. Communism failed, in part, because it focused on capital instead of loan capital. Whether or not the Jews control the money supply, if they continue to control the supply and direction of loan capital, they control the economy. We can have an overabundance of money supply, but if it is simply given out willy nilly, without regard to creating employment geared towards domestic production and Autarky, then it simply results in the long term in hyperinflation.

On the other hand, if the money supply is regulated by means of loan capital, then many positive effects can be generated in the economy to benefit the majority of the citizens, rather than the super rich who profit from exporting our industry and who would profit from "Judenfrei's" proposed valuation of government debt. If the government directs loan capital into production, infrastructure, education, and other productive enterprises, instead of giving the rich money with which to send our production to other nations, then our nation will grow strong and produce a sustainable domestic economy with stable prices, full employment and a high standard of living. Carmack's proposal results in none of these effects.

Increasing purchasing power is great if you concurrently increase domestic production and employment at a commensurate rate. Increasing purchasing power to only send that cash to other nations is a certain recipe for national bankruptcy.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

More Falsehoods From Daryl Bradford Smith & Co.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Daryl Bradford Smith, who recently promoted a mockumentary about allegations that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax as if breaking authentic news; Daryl Bradford Smith, who recently tried to convince us that convicted criminal Bernard Madoff is innocent; Daryl Bradford Smith, who recently posted links to articles attacking Cynthia McKinney's credibility; Daryl Bradford Smith is again spreading falsehoods about what I have said and done.

Daryl Bradford Smith falsely claims that I trashed him for putting out the story of Shabbatai Zvi (which I taught him and which I put out before him to a vast audience, his included), that I trashed him for talking about the Young Turk involvement in the Armenian Genocide (which I taught him and put out before him to a vast audience, his included), etc. What I did do is warn that Daryl Bradford Smith would be likely to discredit those who associate with him. Smith brought us the false story that Christopher Bollyn was either murdered or kidnaped. Smith has been featured on CNN. Smith has viciously attacked many of his former guests without just cause, myself included. My advice that he could potentially discredit the Armenians was and is sound. But that issue, the one I did raise, Smith does not address.

Smith states that I said his name is not Daryl Bradford Smith and that I have other websites making this claim. Smith cannot substantiate this false claim, because I have said no such thing. It is clear that Smith has no real reason to object to what I have said about him, which factual arguments he does not address, so he fabricates reasons to attack me with falsehoods which reveal his thinking, not mine.

"Ognir" of the Disinformation Underground puts his childish language in my mouth. In fact, I mocked his juvenile talk, placing it in quotation marks, and pointed out to him that I had already accomplished my goals with him and that he had grossly misrepresented what had transpired. "Ognir" does not name nor address the reasons why I criticized him and his false statements that we face no problem from Jewry other than Zionism and that Zionism has nothing to do with religion. "Ognir" is not interested in substance, but rather in emotion which distracts from substance. I have already proven that he is wrong, and he has not contested a word of what I have stated. "Ognir" does not criticize Smith for linking to articles attacking McKinney. "Ognir" does not take Smith or "Rafeeq" to task for promoting a mockumentary as if breaking news, most especially on the heels of interviews with Cynthia McKinney. Etc. Etc. Etc. In sum, "Ognir" is not for real.

"Ognir" tries to belittle my blog, but my blogposts linking to his site resulted in far more hits on his nothing site than his own threads generate on their own in his own forum. I notice that my readers are not interested in the collective wisdom caught in the drool bucket which is the Disinformation Underground, and the other postings on that site have received no boost, indicating that my readers were not impressed at all and did not venture outside of that one thread to which I directly linked.

I advise those attacked by the Disinformation Underground, as I have been, that this group prompts its fellows to swamp comments sections in JIDF fashion. This is why they are frustrated that I do not have a comments section on my blog.

"Ognir" complains that I have focused attention on what Daryl Bradford Smith & Co. have recently done on the heels of their interviews with Cynthia McKinney. I can only imagine what would have transpired had I not.

"Ognir" falsely claims that he in some way had "baited" me into revealing that I had visited his website. His claim is nonsense. I made it clear that I had seen his site by the fact that I was aware of how an intermediary, one who has since pushed "Rafeeq's" nonsense about the moon shot very hard, a man calling himself "Lord Lindsey" had arranged "Ognir's" interviews with McKinney–information only to be gleaned from his website. Apparently "Ognir" considers it a mark of shame to have looked at his website, and therefore to have shamed me by smearing me so that I would respond and demonstrate that I was so stupid as to have looked at his website which visit only a fool would make. He considers that smearmongering "bait" to discover whether or not someone has seen his website, since he apparently considers it a shameful act to have visited his website. This is more proof that "Ognir" is a deceptive person by his own self description, in that he claims he sought to bait me with smears, though he should already have known that I had seen his site by my statements about "Lord Lindsey" on 28 June 2009. I have never accused "Ognir" of being intelligent.

On 28 June 2009, I posted the following blog:


Sunday, June 28, 2009

On the Heels of His Cynthia McKinney Interview, Daryl Bradford Smith & Co. Turn Up the Hufschmid "Shtick" on the Moon Landings

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Daryl Bradford Smith & Co. are now promoting old information about the moon shots as if new news. They are going full blast with an Eric Hufschmid style routine about the "Power Hour" and moon landings. I hope McKinney is not affected by this.

She has exhibited terrible judgement working with this crew. It appears that someone going by the moniker "Lord Lindsey" has arranged these interviews.

Smith has also repeatedly interviewed Ralph Nader, who had the effect of a spoiler candidate to elect George Bush. Why would Nader associate with the likes of Smith, who has been featured on CNN? Would not such an association be political suicide? Why haven't Nader and others been associated with Smith in the press as a means to discredit them? I wonder if McKinney will be tied to Smith at the right time."

The audio file from Daryl Bradford Smith & Co. is available here:

The relevant portion begins about 26 minutes, 48 seconds, into the file.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Anthony Hmura States That an "Agent" Has Spoken to His Neighbor, Requests Exposure of the Incident as a Measure of Self Defense

Agents vs Hmura

There is a link to an audio file at the bottom of the webpage. I do not know Anthony Hmura and am not in a position to vouch for the allegations or refute them.

Monday, July 06, 2009

An Addendum to "An Additional Response to 'Judenfrei'"

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

In considering why my statements were misunderstood by "Judenfrei", I believe that the word "taxpayer" caused the confusion. I had said,

"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."

"Judenfrei" correctly noted that the monies used to make the rich richer would not be derived through taxes, but I did not mean to imply that they would. Rather, I was stating that the use of newly created money to make the rich richer came at the expense of the taxpayers who have been paying into the system all of their lives. "Judenfrei" has agreed that Carmack's proposal does not attempt to recover anything from the Jews generally, or the Jewish financiers specifically.

The national debt (and to a large extent personal debt) exists because of the Jews. Taxpayers have been paying the debt all of their lives. The Jews should not continue to profit from the debt. The taxpayers, and by this I refer to those who are not super rich, should be the first to receive cash. However simply doling out cash without fixing the underlying problems of our economy will only generate inflation and profit our foreign competitors. I do not see Carmack's proposal fixing any of these problems, and therefore it is a program to make the rich richer at the expense of the taxpayer and it leaves the Jews in control of money as masters of the banks, loan capital and international finance.

There are many reasons why the existence and direction of loan capital are so vital to our survival. One of them is that it is largely loan capital which finances growth, keeps business running, finances housing, finances State projects, etc. If the State merely prints money and hands it out without regulating both the supply, through taxes and/or other means, and the direction, then there will be powerful inflationary pressures on the value of the currency. Cashing out the debt will not of necessity put all of that money into the banks and out of circulation, and there will be massive inflation if such a plan is implemented. Even if it did, it would be foolish to allow the bankers to continue to control our destiny through the control of our money.

My proposals, which call for Autarky, regulate both the supply and direction of money generally, and loan capital specifically. If you can read German, I suggest you read Gottfried Feder's works.

We should not be paying off the national debt. The Jews who created the national debt should be paying it off. The value of money is a factor of its supply and acceptence. There is a loss to its value when it is given to the rich and not more evenly and equitably distributed, and that price is paid by the average citizen, even if taxes are eliminated. Even if there were deflation, that cost would still be a factor in the value of the currency and it would be even "stronger", all other things being equal, if monies were not created to give to the rich.

Putting money into sustainable economic growth benefits the People, though giving it to the rich harms and disadvantages the People.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

An Additional Response to "Judenfrei"

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

"Judenfrei" proposes that,

"We didn’t mention 'deliberate sabotage.' We said it was a bad idea. [A reference to my online Einstein book] Yes, Hufschmid could not taint Bjerknes except in the eyes of the weak of mind: if Eric makes plenty of good arguments and exercises a rare bad judgment then it doesn't undermine his credibility, and no reasonable person would assume that if Danner is a liar then Bjerknes, interviewed by Eric, must be too. Again, we’re not contradicting ourselves."

Though "Judenfrei" considers my voluminous text on Einstein and related issues a "bad idea", my book has in fact changed the entire study of Einstein, as well as Zionism and the Holocaust, on a universal, international basis. That "bad idea" has in fact done great good.

Eric Hufschmid does not make "plenty of good arguments" nor does he only rarely exercise "bad judgment". He has in fact thoroughly discredited himself, and constantly whines that everyone ignores him. If I were to associate with Hufschmid after he had discredited himself by promoting an obvious hoax, then many reasonable people would tend to reject my work on that basis alone, especially since Hufschmid has so small an audience as for there to be no rational justification for associating with him merely to reach his audience. Jeff Rense promotes many things that I find to be obvious hoaxes, but he reaches a vast audience, so what he is doing has a positive impact, though it also casts doubt on the legitimate work he does in the minds of many reasonable people. There's the rub. Would it be better for him to risk losing his vast audience and stick only to hard fact, or is it better that he maintain his broad appeal and vast audience and supply them with solid information together with what I consider entertainment. This is not an easy issue for me, I assure you. Hufschmid is thoroughly discredited and to associate with him would only spell disaster with no redeeming gains.

Whether or not someone has an abnormally weak mind, the human mind thinks in terms of images and symbols and associations. This fact, which has powerful beneficial effects, can be exploited as a weakness in all human beings. In fact, Neuro-linguistic programming is generally thought to be most effective on people of above average intelligence. When a person associates with a known hoaxster, that is reasonable evidence that said person cannot be taken seriously. Such evidence can be outweighed by other facts, but it is an uphill climb, for the person has already evinced poor judgement in associating with a known hoaxster.

"Judenfrei" asserts that the Sam Danner incident was a "minor issue". This assertion is made in the context of the Holocaust, and in that sense is legitimate, but not in the sense of the conclusions we should draw about Eric Hufschmid and his colleagues over the years. If memory serves me correctly, this came on the heels of his interview with me, which would have directly impacted upon my credibility if I had let it, as I have already explained. Much more importantly, if memory serves me correctly, this came at the time when Israel had attacked Lebanon and the court of public opinion was against Israel. The Sam Danner hoax served as a terrible distraction at that time when we could have made far greater strides discrediting Israel and exposing their atrocities committed against the Lebanese. The Sam Danner hoax was an obvious hoax and the fact that Hufschmid, Piper and Bollyn were promoting it had a disastrous effect on the momentum we were gaining in exposing Jewish crimes against the human race. It was, therefore, no minor issue.

"Judenfrei" yet again speaks in contradictions when asserting without proof that I promote the "Holocaust hoax". "Judenfrei" knows, as proven by its own statements, that my view is that the Nazis were working in the interests of the Zionists to terrorize Jews and transplant them to Palestine. That is not the "Holocaust narrative" as defined by "Judenfrei" and does not in any way profit Jewry, but rather brings terrible shame on the Jews, while in part exonerating the Germans. "Judenfrei" knowing my beliefs misconstrues my statements about the death of European Jewry which demise is a fact he has not attempted to refute. The "Holocaust hoax" is the unproven assertion that six million Jews were systematically gassed in Nazi death camps. I have not espoused that view. Rather I have pointed out that the claims made by Jews of selective murder, and the survival of only the fittest Jews, would have a eugenic effect and are congruous with the documented Zionist Jews' statements that they only wanted a relatively small number of Jews to survive the war, and then only those who would be fit to contribute to the Zionist cause. To be clear, I have published two books on Einstein which do not address Einstein's racism, the other being Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity which has itself universally and internationally changed the debate regarding Einstein's avowed creation of the general theory of relativity.

"Judenfrei" states, "After World War II, millions of Jews eventually moved to Israel, voluntarily." This statement disregards the horrors to which Jews were subjected in Europe, horrors which were designed, financed, led and enacted by Jews. Stating these facts does not help Jewry. It discredits the official "Holocaust narative" and reveals the vile nature of World Jewry.

I note that "Judenfrei" claims that Christopher Bollyn has been kidnaped, which is an unproven and frankly preposterous claim.

"Judenfrei" misunderstands what I mean when I say I haven't specialized in 9/11 research. For me to assert myself as an authority on 9/11 would require that I engage in intensive novel research and contact credible persons on the issues involved. I have seen the video to which "Judenfrei" has referred me. To add to that body of work would require novel research and tremendous effort. I may make that effort, but have not done so yet nor do I have any immediate plans to do so. I agree with "Judenfrei" that 9/11 has the potential to awaken the masses, but so do many other things, things in which I have done intensive research including my intensive research into the Jewish origins of the Nazis. I think far more attention should be paid to Barack Obama and his ties to Jewry than is being paid, with a focus on his rise to fame, which I have partly documented from a novel and demonstrably factual basis. It is not my duty to do everything nor should I be criticized for not doing everything. I have done far more than you or anyone else you can name and for you to cast aspersions on my character and my motives for not covering 9/11 is ridiculous on its face.

"Judenfrei" states that, "The central issue driving Christian Zionism isn’t the Khazarian issue, but the belief that Jews are the Israelites to whom the holy land was promised. Jewish money and Jewish corruption of organized Christianity have gone toward promoting this belief. It’s this flawed belief then needs to be demolished." I disagree. The Israelites, in Christian doctrine uncorrupted by Jews, were dispersed for disobedience to the Jewish god. They have no claim to the Holy Land because they violated the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Jewish law has been fulfilled and the Temple destroyed. Christ is a new covenant. Only a remnant among the tribes is to be restored at the second coming of Christ, in Christian dogma, so your points are false and moot to authentic Christians, and only sponsor Christian Zionist beliefs that Israelites (whom they are convinced are modern Jews, but which group never existed) are entitled to steal Palestine from the natives, in that it reinforces the false claim of the fabricated Torah that any people ever have had the right to genocide the indigenous populations of Palestine. No populace has ever had the right to exterminate the native populations of Palestine or steal their land. Introducing the Khazarian issue would only confuse a powerful presentation to Christians that no one has the right to steal the land of Palestine, that Jews were feared and reviled by Christ and Christians, slew Christ, and hate and want to decapitate Christians today. I will not weaken that powerful presentation with obscure issues, parsing words, or introducing new concepts to an uninformed audience. Again, thanks, but no thanks for your advice.

"Judenfrei" ignores my clarifications as to what is meant by Jesus and Mary being of the Tribe of Judah and I do not intend to ride that unmerry-go-round again.

"Judenfrei" must distinguish what "Judenfrei" is willing to do, and what the World community will be willing to do when led by a political party that informs the World about the truth of the Jewish war on the human race. If the World is willing to form Herzl's World Ghetto, then I think the World will be more than willing and eager to implement more effective and permanent solutions such as those I propose. The impracticality and uncertainty of the solution "Judenfrei" advocates indicate that it is a bait and switch scam meant to fulfill the Zionists' stated desire to use "anti-Semitism" to force Jews to live in Israel. I suspect this is why "Judenfrei" mischaracterizes my stance on the "Holocaust" given that I have exposed the Nazis as working for the same Zionist interests for which "Judenfrei" is obviously working.

There is nothing extreme about defending ones self and the human race from an openly aggressively attack meant to destroy the human race. What would be extreme is to acknowledge this attack and then subvert authentic efforts to counter it by unifying the Jewish People and preserving them for future generations if any there are.

Once again, "Judenfrei" has offered not one scintilla of proof that the banks will have the means to abide by Federal requirements for 100% reserves for the loans which are already outstanding, let alone to write new loans. The American People are deeply in debt, which will soon consume their meager savings, those who have any, that is. American business is failing. Where are the deposits going to come from to create the 100% reserves for the loans which banks must make? Where is the loan capital going to come from, and how are we to direct it so that it does not result in a bubble, nor sail overseas, but instead creates a sustainable economy in America, which at this time does not exist? I still await answers to these questions. Without loan capital directed to investments which create a sustainable economy, we are doomed. Giving the power back to the Jewish controlled banks to regulate loan capital with no intervention from the society or State guarantees that the Jews will remain the masters of the money markets. I think "Judenfrei" fails to understand how an economy functions and does not represent the views nor level of sophistication of Carmack. Money created out of nothing can find its way straight into the pockets of the wealthy, or can find its way into the pockets of a growing middle class and a rising poor, and into the capitalization of projects which build a sustainable economy. Giving the rich money deprives the general taxpayer of that money and puts him at a greater disadvantage to the rich against whom he must compete. I would have thought that would have been easily understood, and rather than try to argue against what I have not said, I suggest "Judenfrei" ask questions so that I can determine where it is that our communications are failing and try to more effectively explain myself to "Judenfrei". If at that point "Judenfrei" wishes to raise objections, then that would be the appropriate time to do so, but I first ask that what I am saying be understood.

How will your proposal guarantee that the money going to the rich will end up as bank reserves, that those reserves will be anywhere near sufficient to meet our national demands, that 100% reserves will offer a viable profit motive, and that the same old Jewish bankers will not remain in control of this loan capital, and thereby the economy of the World? Do you propose we first export the Jews, or first implement Carmack's proposal? If you maintain the banks as masters of loan capital, you maintain the Jews as masters of the economy. If that point eludes you, I will have to take several steps backwards to explain this matter to you, which might not be an unprofitable exercise.

I am not certain whether "Judenfrei's" assertions regarding the valuation of government debt that Carmack wants to close out within one year represent the proposals of Carmack. I think it would be better to receive a response from Carmack as I suspect "Judenfrei" does not understand his proposal and does not speak for it in a way that accurately depicts it. So at this juncture, I will severe the discussion on that point so as not to be unjust to Carmack.

Another Disingenuous Response From "Ognir" of the Disinformation Underground

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

"Ognir" of the Disinformation Underground has again exhibited his bad faith by misrepresenting what I have said, what I have offered, and what has otherwise occurred. "Ognir" writes:

"Disinfomation Underground, I suppose was the best he could come up with"

"Ognir's" response is childish and trite, typical of his juvenile personality. He depends upon emotion to distract from the fact that I have raised substantive issues with him which he has failed to address, instead acting like the overaged punk that he is.

"Listen I was nice in my first answer, however you can go and shite

I have very little free time on my hands unlike some."

In fact, "Ognir" was deceptive and deceitful in his answer and failed to meet the conditions which I had set to engage him in the discourse which he, not I, sought. "Ognir", as is typical for him, evaded addressing any of the substantive issues I have raised, but instead wasted my time with his hysterical emotional responses which are devoid of substantive meaning.

"He said he'd do an audio and show me where I am/was going wrong and kick my punk ass or some other of his usual [vulgarity deleted]."

I have already shown where he has gone wrong and given him the rope with which to hang himself. "Ognir" demonstrates in his own words that he is a punk unable to address substantive issues in a substantive fashion. Though he is too stupid and too disingenuous to admit it, I have already "kick[ed his] punk ass", and believe me, it was very easy to do. I needed to only accuse him of something and wait for him to make false and misleading statements and avoid the relevant issues, while instead issuing forth smears and falsehoods. Indeed, it was easy to show him up for what he is and for what he is not. I needed only give him the opportunity to prove me right with his own actions and words.

As is his habit, "Ognir" grossly misrepresents what I have said, which is,


Tuesday, June 30, 2009

An Irish Clone of Daryl Bradford Smith

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

There is an Irish clone of Daryl Bradford Smith who pretends to be an informed opponent of "Zionism", but who parrots the same garbage as Daryl Bradford Smith, that Zionism has nothing to do with religion, especially not Judaism, nor Jews as a people. Like Smith, this clown contradicts himself by criticizing the highly religious Christian Zionists, and the highest dogma of Judaism, the Talmud; as well as criticizing the Jewish State of Israel which contains some 1/3 of World Jewry, and which is supported by the vast majority of diaspora Jewry.

I am reminded of the thorough infiltration of Ireland by British Intelligence, such as is documented in this article:

Roy the Rat — driver for Gerry Adams, spy for MI5

The Irish have always been handicapped by agents working for British intelligence. Intelligence operatives often engage in smear campaigns, often involving degenerate images and lies. People who sincerely oppose World Jewry face these attacks.

This Daryl Bradford Smith clone tells us nothing new. Instead, like Smith and Hufschmid, he whines about Alex Jones ad nauseam as if that ceaseless mantra is a solution to the Jewish Question. Smith told me he had never read the Bible and never would. I suspect his clone knows next to nothing about Judaism, as well. So on what basis do these ignoramuses conclude that Judaism has nothing to do Zionism? Have they never heard of Abraham, or Moses, or Joshua? Why do they suppose the Jews want to take Palestine and build a temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock?

This clown wrote to me back in May of 2008 requesting an interview. I looked into the interviews he was doing and concluded that he was a new Smith. I warned you about Ron Paul. I warned you about Smith. I warned you about the Timothy McVeigh Team. I am steering clear of this Irish clone of Smith. He contributes no new research. He is painfully ignorant and uninsightful in the topics he pretends to address. He is a smearmonger and a hypocrite. I ignored him before, and am glad I trusted my insticts.

The clown is again soliciting an interview from me. He likes to draw attention to himself. If he agrees, I will interview him on my terms, and delve into the reasons for his parroted delusions of the nature of the Jewish Problem. But first he must demonstrate a measure of good faith and demand that his friend "Muahmmad Rafeeq" tell us his, this "Muhammad's", birth name and the birth names of his grandparents. I also want him to ask "Muhammad" how he came to know such Cabalistic secrets as the process for transmutating the soul of Shabbatai Zevi into the person of a Rothschild, as "Muhammad" has claimed to know.

As is my nature, I will be fair to this snake, who is so unfair to me. Let him explain himself and attempt to justify his parroted Smith routine. I note that Smith and his fellow clown run off lists of names and events, or babble off the same attacks on Jones, or excuses for World Jewry, as if such a recitation constitutes some sort of insight. Such drivel I will not permit. I want to find out what our Irish friend thinks he knows and show him where he is wrong. Then we will discover if he can stop acting like an overage punk and at least try to conduct himself as a decent man, though I do not hold out much hope for that."

"Ognir" has failed to honor the conditions I have set for obliging his desire to speak to me. He has not only failed to act in good faith, he has presented false and misleading accounts of what I have said and has failed to address my substantive complaints against him and his colleagues. He has instead waved his hands without stating anything of value or substance, and shown that he is a childish clown who cannot act in a serious fashion. "Ognir" knows that he has not met the conditions I have set and therefore has backed down from my offer, but he feels obliged to disingenuously fabricate a false history of events to excuse himself and accuse me with falsehoods, which is very childish behavior on his part. He has also failed to retract his previous false statements, which provides yet another instance of his failure to act in good faith, which was one of my requirements.

"Deal with your Ego ya gobshite"

More meaningless emotional smearmongering from "Ognir", which only serves to prove that I was correct in my assessment of his character.

"Put up or shut up"

I have put up, I put up stage and you acted the childish clown on it, instead of seizing the opportunity to refute anything that I have said. You backed out of my offer, "Ognir". You also violated the conditions which I set for acting in good faith. It is you who desire to speak to me, not I who desire to speak to you. I have already long ago disproved your parroted nonsense from Daryl Bradford Smith. You have proven that you are unable to refute what I have said. You have shown yourself for what you are, a disinformation clown. Is that why you beg me to become silent? Keep dreaming, smearmongering, hand waving, disingenuous "Ognir".