While archaic mediots still brag about how we're the bastian of free speech, it's THEY
who are the grandest defenders of the state religion--the deity of jews, the cross of the
holocaust, and the immaculate conception of "Israel". While they brag that
the first amendment right to free speech applies to them [which it does not], it's THEY
who denigrate we the people, and in particular we the sovereigns [to whom free speech DOES
apply], for slighting the state religion. While vociferous about their bragging
rights, it's THEY who cheer, at least silently in their cold hard black hearts, when men
like Ernst Zungel and Germar Rudolf and David Irving are imprisoned for infringing on this
state religion. Their treachery knows no bounds, and their punishment will be in
accord with "equal protection under the law".
Michael Tsarion has it right when he calls this bombardment
of the American public with this state religion "satanic". While this
satanic religion continues to spread, having reached France now and almost Russia, you
still don't have to travel very far to escape from it--a three day vacation to most parts
of Mexico, a week in Russia or Ireland [the Republic of], or one DAY in Japan, where this
satanic religion is still laughed at and pride in one's race sticks out like a sore thumb,
is all it takes to restore the psyche of the self-respecting White man. The problem
is--coming back to the fold.
Many people experience this decompression and recompression of the state religion, but
can't articulate what it is and just how adversely it affects them. The sooner they
understand that God's Law requires us to silence the state religion, once and for all, the
sooner they'll quit apologizing for being White men, and the faster this putative
Christian nation will recover from its current social pathology.
Our WHITE, CHRISTIAN, Founding Fathers spilt BLOODto protect this right, and we're not
about to roll over and play dead while the jewsmedia proclaims from the rooftops that it
applies only to them, and not to us. The U.S. Constitution does NOT give jews a
right not to be insulted as they claim, and they
will NEVER gain that right. Long before that happens, they will be exiled along with
the niggers, as we will forever reserve the right to
criticize and insult anyone, anything we choose, including their state religion.
This blood covenant will be protected at all costs, no matter how much these
alien enemy foreign agents whine and scream about it.
It's doubtful that many Americans "hate" anyone in the media just because
they think they're stupid. So when a "reporter" starts out using a word
that second grade girls use when somebody throws sand on them in a sand box, or feminists
or "liberals" use whenever someone disagrees with them, it's difficult to take
the rest of their writing seriously. Nonetheless, let's debunk the rest of your story,
just for sport.
We all recognize that you're a member of the "free press" which is now
engaged in a full press propaganda campaign against Afghanistan, just as you were when the
US government was attempting to get peace loving Americans to go to war against Germany
prior to WWII, so this will be taken into account in this critique.
It's not a fait accompli that that Osama Bin Ladin was behind 9-11, particularly since
he denies that he was, and particularly since the "evidence" that he was exists
only in the minds of the same people who brought us Waco and Ruby Ridge [read: they claim
they have the proof but refuse to present it because it's classified, which is
non-proof]. It's also not a fait accompli that bombing dirt farmers in Afghanistan
into a stonier age will accomplish your objectives, much less will it endear us to the 1.2
billion Muslims in the world who could easily replace any "terrorists" we might
manage to include in our massacre of Afghan civilians. And regardless of the polls
conducted by advocates with a heinous agenda, it's not a fait accompli that most Americans
even agree with this silly strategy [read: mediots might accept this on blind faith, but
most normal Americans don't].
OK, so if you want to insist, if we think you mediots are stupid for
accepting such a ludicrous story about Afghanistan, and for omitting all
references to the hundreds of other terrorist organizations who could just as easily have
been behind 9-11, and for obscuring the connection between this war on Afghanistan and the
oil pipeline across the country, and for telling us what we want in the types of questions
asked by other reporters who aren't so sucked in by the mass hysteria, that we
"hate" you, knock yourself out. Go ahead and live and think like a
mushroom. Keep on promoting the mass hysteria about the "6 million jews who
died in the Holocaust", while ignoring that there were only 600,000 jews in all of
Germany then, and that we KNOW that 48 million Christians died even more horrible
deaths. But don't tell us that we don't want reporters asking the hard questions,
because we demand that they DO ask them!
You personally should do your own investigation into the holocaust mythology so
that you can confidently sort truth from fiction, because as it stands right now, the
majority of Americans know that you're a far better propagandist than Goebbels ever hoped
The Hard Line
Why Americans Hate The Media ... Again
By R. Cort Kirkwood
November 2, 2001
(AgapePress) - In one quick soundbite, David Westin, president of ABC News,
again demonstrated why Americans don't trust what they see on television or
read in papers, and why many believe journalists have no values, no
patriotism, and worse, no common sense.
Given that journalists most assuredly know this, you'd think they wouldn't
give voice to remarks that enrage just about everyone.
But alas, however much hope springs eternal in the average American's
breast, a journalist always proves his profession might be hopeless.
The Latest Outrage
Westin's remark came on Oct. 23 in a speech to a journalism class at
Columbia University, in answer to a fairly simple question: Was the
Pentagon a legitimate target for terrorists on Sept. 11?
It was a no-brainer, for anyone but a lawyer or a newsman. Said Westin: " I
actually don't have an opinion on that and it's important I not have an
opinion on that .... Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be,
and when we get into the job of what ought to be, I think we're not doing a
service to the American people."
Huh? Westin quickly apologized, but his wheedling won't help. Anyone who
saw the remarks on C-SPAN, or even reads them, will believe Westin meant
what he said.
They will always believe Westin and other journalists can't tell right from
wrong, or good from evil, and can't make intelligent judgments.
The Isaacson Debate
Happily, a memo from the chairman of CNN to his foreign correspondents
relieves some of the pain from Westin's kick in our shins. Walter Isaacson
told them to evaluate, carefully, the subtle messages they might send in
reporting on civilian casualties of American bombing in Afghanistan.
"We must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply
reporting from their vantage or perspective," he wrote. "We must talk about
how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have
harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent
Isaacson's point is well taken: Some reports, particularly interviews with
Taliban officials, will merely televise the regime's propaganda. Yet the
memo triggered an immediate salvo from other news executives, who should
know enough to shut up.
Said a honcho from CBS: "Our reporters are smart enough to know it always
has to be put in context."
Are they? Just this week a reporter from NBC, another network, admittedly,
asked the Taliban ambassador in Pakistan this kind of question: "How do you
respond to the American's government's allegation that ...."
But let's put Isaacson's point in historical context to grasp the import of
what he said.
Imagine a reporter asking Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels this:
"Now, Mr. Goebbels, the United States says Germany started this war, and is
actually enacting policies that are anti-Semitic. How do you answer that?"
Sounds like a Westin question.
It's precisely this kind of "reporting" that has wrecked the news media's
reputation with Americans, and this kind of "reporting" spawns from
Westin's creed, the mantra of amorality, which is chanted with bovine
inanity in journalism schools and newsrooms across the land.
Isaacson is right: Don't repeat the enemy's propaganda. A journalist
needn't sacrifice his impartiality and professional standards to make
intelligent judgments; nor must she ignore the difference between good and
evil to ask the tough questions and produce balanced work.
In short, you can't report "objectively" on Sept. 11 anymore than you can
report "objectively" on Auschwitz.
Westin and his cohorts better figure that out, lest they destroy what
little credibility the news media has left.
R. Cort Kirkwood is a syndicated columnist and managing editor of a daily
newspaper. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
� 2001 AgapePress all rights reserved.