ICfreely wrote:
I see where you’re coming from Jumpy but I’m afraid CM’s take is closer to the truth. I’ve read Turner Diaries and in my opinion it’s the work of militant rabbis (similar to Might is Right or 'The Survival of the fittest' By Ragnar Redbeard). It’s a saber-rattling work meant to attract revolutionaries & lead them off a cliff.
Critical Mass wrote:
Indeed.. although I will point out that an additional lesson of finishing a book that one has 'started reading' has also been highlighted.
Guys, I can take criticism, but at this point I think you are forgetting one essential thing: I didn't write a post about "The Turner Diaries"! I just mentioned it as an example (together with "Hunter", which luckily you guys don't seem to have read either) of Pierce exploring the fictional possibility of an armed revolution, that's all. For me only the fact that he dared to think of such a possibility, even in a fictional way, was the strong position. I didn't go into details that I didn't know. And I don't think I have to finish reading, or even start to read, every book I mention just in passing.
So I'm sorry, "professor" CM
, but I can't take the additional "lesson" you'd like to give me.
Allow me to tell you something instead. I'm not sure what you did was really fair. My reference to "The Turner Diaries" was just in passing, as I said, and didn't constitute the "meat" of the post, which regarded what Pierce had to say about Jewish media control. But you chose to focus your attention on this marginal part of the post and used it, consciously or not, to imply that we should be cautious with everything Pierce has to say. This is called a "character assassination" attempt in my vocabulary, although it was maybe unconscious on your part, I don't know.
Anyway, it doesn't work for me, because I don't need somebody to be a saint, or to have done everything right in his life, to recognize when he's saying something that sounds true to me, as in Pierce's case.
And I think you're also off the mark when you compare Pierce to Simon, because the latter is an essential pioneer of media fakery, while Pierce wasn't denouncing media fakery, but just Jewish control of the media, something I believe Simon had not done here or anywhere else before I started this thread.
So the two are not in competition but complementary to me: Simon has opened my eyes on media fakery, while Pierce is helping me in gaining a deeper understanding of the effects of Jewish control of the media. And the fact that Simon didn't write a novel in which the world population is wiped out by psychopatic Cluesforum members, as you say, is a good thing for him but, once again, totally irrelevant to the good points Pierce makes when he doesn't wear his fiction writer cap.
ICfreely wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:
They didn't write books or plays, they didn't paint or compose music, they didn't clog up our universities, they didn't run for public office, and of course, they didn't have television studios or newspapers or advertising agencies. And so to a large extent they lived their lives, and we lived ours.
WTF was this guy smoking & where can Uncle IC score some of that wacky tobaccy? Seriously, help a brother out!
ICfreely, I know you can be funny, but I prefer when you express clearly what you have to say, as you can do so well. So please, tell me what you think is wrong with that particular Pierce quote, because it sounds just right to me.
ICfreely wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:
Some people still talk darkly about international Jewish bankers — and of course, there are such animals today, just as there also are international bankers who are not Jews — but the control of the media is the key to Jewish power today, not control of banking.
JIGGA wha? Control of banking is (and has always been) the KEY!
To this I can respond, although I don't know what "Jigga" means
. Control of banking is essential in the sense that you can buy the media (in addition to all the rest), but other than that I agree with Pierce that the media are the key to Jewish power today. In fact, as he says, with money you can buy the rulers, but not the sympathy of the people. I mean, Jewish were rich and often powerful in the past too, but few people liked them, so they resented their power. It's only through their control of the media that now they can brainwash common people into liking them, and even defending them as "victims", instead of resenting them as oppressors.
ICfreely wrote:
At the risk of catching the wrath of Jumpy, I think there's a whole lot of truth to brianv's Fuck it! We're all "jews".
Well, at least you already knew what to expect
Speak for yourself, buddy! I'm most certainly NOT a Jew! Not in the racial sense, and especially not in a moral sense, because my values are the opposite of those Jews as a whole have demonstrated to uphold throughout their history. I'm not going into details here, because probably it would take another post, but I think you can guess what I mean.
I imagine (or maybe hope) that yours is mostly a provocation, IC, but for me whoever really thinks that "We're all Jews" deserves JPMs as their masters.