Thursday, December 5, 2013

Thoughts on the 9/11 "debate" and its aftermath

The day after the 9/11 "debate" with Mike Delaney and Scott Roberts this past weekend, I had to take my computer to the Apple store for a minor repair. The repair took longer than I expected. A lot has happened since the "debate", and I'd like to take this opportunity to address the "debate" itself and Andrew Anglin's commentary on it. Carolyn Yeager's radio program this past Monday will be addressed in a future blog post.

I would like to thank both Delaney and Roberts, and subsequently both Andrew Anglin and Carolyn Yeager, for providing much needed clarity on their moral standards concerning what they think is intellectually honest discourse.

Agreeing to the "debate" was a total mistake on my part. If we were going to do this properly, we needed to have clear ground rules and an unbiased moderator. In a real debate, each side defends one single specific topic with the other side offering a rebuttal to each argument presented. My intent was to present information on the role of the Jewish media in deceiving the American and world public on 9/11 by broadcasting fabricated or otherwise distorted imagery and testimony. My citation of September Clues was for reference only.

As you heard, Delaney and Roberts had pre-planned to avoid discussing the role of the media on 9/11. This is proven by their preparation of audio clips of Simon Shack making peripheral comments taken out of context in an effort to discredit him and misrepresent his views of 9/11.

The entire "debate" was simply an attack on Simon Shack, coupled with a total distortion of the facts he has brought to light regarding the authenticity of the video and photographic imagery of 9/11, in addition to the serious problems discovered with the alleged "3000 victims" said to have perished on 9/11. I was prepared and willing to discuss all of these details; however, Delaney and Roberts merely wanted to attack Simon's character, claiming he is a Jew, he looks like a Jew, all of the "no planes" researchers are Jews, anyone who considers media fakery on 9/11 as a possibility is a Jew, any who investigates the photographic and video imagery of 9/11 is a Jew or is a fool, anyone who seriously considers the research presented by September Clues is gullible, etc. Delaney and Roberts had prepared clips of Simon Shack on my radio program ready to roll in order to attack him and take his words and research out of context. 

I entered the "debate" with Mike Delaney and Scott Roberts with good intentions and in good faith, thinking we'd actually address Simon's research and my views of 9/11 in an honest, objective way. That's not what happened at all. Instead, Delaney and Roberts just bashed Simon, totally distorting what he has discovered about 9/11. In fact, I don't even think Delaney and Roberts really know what September Clues is all about. Delaney claims to have seen the documentary four times, and if that's true, he simply doesn't understand the information being presented or he is being deliberately dishonest about it. Roberts based all of his arguments off of the interview I conducted with Simon a few weeks ago, and even admitted during the "debate" he had not bothered investigating what Simon and his research team have uncovered about the alleged "victims" on 9/11. I doubt Roberts has watched the September Clues documentary, or read any of the articles on the website and forum. So I was up against two guys that simply didn't know anything about September Clues' research and were hell bent on discrediting Simon Shack as an individual (rather than addressing the facts he has uncovered regarding the 9/11 imagery and alleged "victims").  

Let me start off by explaining where I agree with Delaney and Roberts. There is no doubt that 9/11 was a Jewish operation from start to finish that advanced a particular Jewish agenda both internationally and within the United States (and Western world generally). 9/11 was used to officially initiate the fraudulent international "Global War on Terror", which Jewish intellectuals, propagandists, and strategists have long planned for, and to justify the tyrannical and Orwellian "Homeland Security" agenda within the United States. I began this blog to expose these facts, and do so on a regular basis, both in written form and on my radio broadcasts. 

9/11 was planned, orchestrated, and covered up by Jewish criminals controlling the United States government and media who have direct ties to the state of Israel. That is just a fact, and I agree with Delaney and Roberts that Simon Shack's failure to explicitly state this fact is indeed a problem. September Clues' research focuses primarily on media fakery, deception, and manipulation, and yet, as far as I know, they fail to actually identify who owns and controls the media (Jewish plutocrats and propagandists with direct ties to Israel).

What most bothers me about the failure of Simon Shack and September Clues to properly identify the owners and controllers of the media is that Jews themselves literally admit and brag about the fact that they control the media and Hollywood (and government and Wall Street). Perhaps, due to legal ramifications, Simon Shack does not say these things publicly because of the tyrannical "hate speech" laws in Europe? I simply do not know why Simon and September Clues do not specifically identify the Jewish media as the primary conspirators behind the events of 9/11. But either way, the main points established by his research are sound (by and large), and I have used it to further underscore the central role Jewish criminals played in carrying out and benefitting from the events of 9/11 utilizing their main weapon: the mass media.

Making over-reaching inferential statements like “nobody died” and there’s “nothing to worry about” only serve to discredit their previous work on the media’s role in transmitting manipulated or fabricated imagery and scripted testimony on 9/11, which is another criticism I have of Simon and his work.

At the beginning of the "debate", Delaney criticized many individuals associated with the "9/11 truth movement", and he made a lot of good points. I too have many problems and criticisms of the "9/11 truth movement" and have written about them on this blog. I think many of the individuals associated with the "9/11 truth movement" are promoting disinformation (knowingly or unknowingly), and the vast majority of them are afraid to clearly identify the primary role Israel and international Jewry played in planning, orchestrating, covering up, and benefitting from the events of 9/11.

Delaney and Roberts both repeatedly made the point that the overall Jewish agenda is the destruction of the White race, and that the battle we are engaged in is not merely about money or politics - it is about the Jewish-led assault on the White race. - and I completely agree. The ultimate agenda of the Jews and their puppets pushing for a "New World Order", as I've said repeatedly here and on my radio program, is not merely global governance, a destruction of national sovereignty, and Jewish monopolization of international finance and politics. There is a very real racial agenda as well, and the Jews are aiming to destroy the White race. History can be viewed as the struggle between the Aryan and the Jew. This seems very clear to me, as I'm sure it does to both Delaney and Roberts. 

So there were points made by Delaney and Roberts that I fully agreed with. However, I thought the debate would center around my views of 9/11 and the research September Clues has presented. And it simply did not. Delaney and Roberts were only interested in attacking and discrediting Simon Shack (distorting his views and research in the process), and tying me to him as if Simon is somehow "my leader". Roberts has been going around Facebook and other websites (including my own) claiming that September Clues is "my bible". The basic premise presented in September Clues is correct in that the media transmitted a multi-faceted deception on 9/11. 

That is why I reference their work on that specific issue.

Let me clarify what exactly I am saying about 9/11 and the research September Clues has presented. I am not saying that "there were no planes" or that "no one died on 9/11" or that "nothing hit the towers" or that "nothing happened and 9/11 was a hoax" or that "everything is fake". I am specifically saying that:
  1. There were no hijackings by "Muslim extremists" connected to Osama bin Laden on 9/11;
  2. No large Boeing commercials airliners crashed anywhere on 9/11, including into the WTC towers;
  3. The video imagery broadcast by the Jewish-controlled mass media depicting the events of 9/11 (both the live media footage and subsequent "amateur" videos) is fabricated and is not authentic footage of the day's events, a fact which has been conclusively proven by Simon Shack and September Clues (and other researchers, for that matter);
  4. The Jewish-controlled mass media regularly presents fake images and videos, sometimes utilizing scripted actors, in their on-going psychological and information assault on the global population, which is designed to achieve certain geopolitical and sociocultural goals;
  5. Media fakery and media deception is nothing new; in fact, it is often used in psychological and information warfare, so it should not surprise us that this strategy was employed on 9/11;
  6. Many of the alleged victims said to have died on 9/11 appear to be fabricated identities, and there are very real problems with most, if not all, of the individuals said to have perished that day (from the available evidence, at this time, we cannot be sure exactly how many died or exactly who died as a direct result of the events of 9/11);
  7. The methods used to psychologically and emotionally exploit the American (and world) population on 9/11 follow the same exact template used by Jewish propagandists to instill and perpetuate the fake "Holocaust" narrative of WWII.
The official government and media promoted conspiracy theory explaining the events of 9/11 posits that 19 radical Muslim fanatics hijacked four commercial airliners on the morning of September 11, 2001: American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 175 and 93. Flights 11 and 175 were said to have struck the World Trade Center towers, while flight 77 was said to have struck the Pentagon and flight 93 was said to have crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the alleged passengers "heroically overtook the hijacked airliner." There is no legitimate evidence to support the official story, and much to disprove it.

Col. George Nelson, a retired U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and former pilot, has remarked: "The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft."

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, American Airlines flights 11 and 77 were never even scheduled to fly on 9/11, and United Airlines flights 175 and 93 were de-registered as active commercial flights four years after 9/11. The official story regarding the alleged "hijacked airlines" is not only ridiculous, but demonstrably false.

There is literally no evidence that "Muslim radicals" hijacked commercial airliners on 9/11, much less orchestrated and executed the day's events. Many of the alleged "Muslim radicals" said to have participated and died in the 9/11 attacks were actually alive and well after 9/11. All of the phone calls alleged to have been made by "the passengers" on board the "hijacked airliners" have been proven to be fabricated - entirely fake! Dean Hartwell, author of Facts Talk but the Guilty Walk: The 9/11 No Hijacker Theory and Its Indictment of Our Leaders, explains that "the story of the hijackings was given by the media to the public via fake cell phone conversations and the false use of names and images of Arabs as perpetrators." The official narrative of 9/11 was entirely scripted and designed to exploit our basic psychology and emotions using fabricated images, videos and scripted testimony from actors playing a specific role in this event.

Again, I am not saying that "nothing hit the World Trade Center towers" because something may have. I am saying that the videos depicting "an airplane" (or a poor image of one) hitting the World Trade Center towers are not genuine. I am also saying that the official narrative explaining the events of 9/11, particularly in New York City, is demonstrably false. Perhaps a missile or unmanned aerial drone hit the World Trade Center towers, the type of military technology Rabbi Dov Zakheim's company specialized in producing? Maybe nothing hit the World Trade Center towers, and explosions were placed in the floors where the "hijacked airliner" was said to have crashed? I just don't know, and am open to any of these possibilities. I think they are all interesting theories worth exploring. But the bottom line is that the video broadcast (both the live footage and subsequent "amateur" videos) to the global population by the Jewish-controlled mass media depicting "an airplane" crashing into the World Trade Center towers has been conclusively demonstrated to be unauthentic.

There is no doubt about this anymore folks, all you have to do is sit down and see for yourself. There are so many problems with all of the 9/11 video imagery it is truly mind-boggling. In fact, in the September Clues documentary, Simon specifically points out that the video trickery involved with 9/11 was designed to bewilder and confuse any rational, objective study of it. And he's right.

If you are truly interested in this aspect of 9/11, and I firmly believe it is an important aspect to understanding 9/11 and how we are so easily exploited by the Jewish-controlled mass media, you have to watch September Clues and check out their research into these matters. I am not saying they are perfect or that I agree with everything Simon has said about 9/11; but I think their analysis of the 9/11 imagery is spot on, and I think they raise a number of very real problems with the alleged "3000 victims" said to have died on 9/11.

None of this was addressed in a rational, intelligent, or even coherent manner by either Delaney or Roberts during the "debate". Delaney's main arguments consisted of claiming that:
  1. Everyone who has ever researched and discussed the "no planes" or video fakery aspect of 9/11 research is a Jew (not at all true);
  2. Simon Shack looks Jewish;
  3. Simon Shack is a Jew;
  4. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people would have seen a plane strike the WTC towers (an assumption Mike has made without any evidence or proof - in fact, if you analyze the "eye witnesses" on 9/11 in New York City, you will find that a small group of individuals connected to the media implanted the idea a commercial airliner crashed into the WTC during the live broadcast of the day's events, while many others said they thought they heard or saw a missile, a smaller plane or drone, or nothing at all hit the WTC);
  5. Simon Shack looks Jewish, and all of Denaley's friends think so, too - therefore, Simon is Jewish and all his research is suspect and ridiculous.
The main arguments made by Roberts included:
  1. 9/11 was done by Jews to advance a Jewish agenda (agreed!);
  2. The Jews have no problem murdering non-Jews, therefore they would have no problem murdering real people on 9/11 - so Simon's research into the alleged "victims" is not even worth considering or investigating (Roberts actually admitted during the "debate" he had never studied Simon's research into the alleged "victims");
  3. Simon Shack constantly contradicted himself and made crazy, wild assertions when he appeared on The Realist Report (Roberts, and Delaney for that matter, simply do not know what they are talking about when it comes to the information Simon Shack and September Clues have presented regarding the video imagery of 9/11 and the "3000 victims" said to have perished on that day).
The entire "debate" consisted of ad hominem attacks against Simon, and a total misunderstanding and distortion of his research and the facts he has brought to light regarding the video imagery of 9/11 and the many problems discovered relating to the alleged "3000 victims" of the 9/11 attacks. At about the 25 minute mark of the "debate" (mp3 is here), I read the first main conclusion that September Clues has come to regarding their research into the 9/11 imagery, which is that:
The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'firefighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The '9/11 movie' was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as 'newscasts'. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images - all of which in stark conflict with each other, as now comprehensively demonstrated in every imaginable manner, angle and method.
From what I have researched, I think this is a sound conclusion if you actually analyze the 9/11 video broadcasts. Right after I state this conclusion September Clues has made, Delaney attempts to refute it. Please, go listen to what he has to say. He starts off by asking me (I'm paraphrasing here), "John, do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?" He then proceeds to incoherently ramble about "thousands of people living in New York City" and again launches into an ad hominem attack stating that "Simon Shack is a Jew who blames White people for everything" and goes on to say that "the 9/11 imagery being fake is only a claim" and that "Simon Shack does magic tricks to deceive his audience."

And to think that there are people saying that Mike Delaney "expertly refuted the silly 'no-planer' arguments" and that I "arrogantly dismissed" his refutation is truly amazing to me.

Delaney did not "expertly refute" anything throughout the entire "debate". And neither did Roberts. Delaney even claimed that all of the 9/11 videos are authentic, and that it is Simon who is actually the one distorting them. I simply do not know what to say to such ridiculously ignorant statements. Once Delaney started playing clips of my interview with Simon, I knew this entire "debate" was simply about attacking Simon Shack and distorting what he is saying about 9/11. I should have hung up the moment they started playing the clips.

I'd like to provide a brief excerpt of Simon Shack's article THE RATIONALE FOR THE 9/11 HOAX, which no doubt Delaney and Roberts have not read. I generally agree with much of what is stated here (I cannot say for certain that "no one died on 9/11" but I do think there are very real problems with many of the alleged "victims"); however, during the "debate" we really didn't discuss any of this information. Simon writes:
If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and - of course - a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential.

Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people". Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an inanely fanciful, outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was concocted, to be supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses.

WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the deceptive imagery )
No unauthorized, private imagery was captured on September 11, 2001. Most - if not all - of the imagery we have of that morning’s events is prefabricated and/or manipulated. The September Clues video research – and many similar independent studies - have amply demonstrated the unfettered complicity of the mainstream media – a disturbingly 'reliable' partner in crime. The 9/11 morning broadcasts were, by and large, digital computer-animations and all successive, so-called “amateur” video snippets (featuring crashing planes or collapsing towers) have likewise been methodically exposed as a series of poorly crafted forgeries. The defining time-windows of the day (tower strikes and tower collapses) were certainly not meant to be captured on film - much less aired on television: As it is, no real footage of the real-life morning events is to be found. To be sure, the existence of specific, military-grade technology able to achieve this precise aim is well documented. In all likelihood, electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF) routinely employed in war zones was employed, causing the temporary jamming of all unshielded camera equipment *. With no real footage being captured, the TV networks could ‘safely’ broadcast their substitute, artificial imagery of the morning’s events.

*see: Visual Control

WHAT DID HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the tower collapses )
The ‘ground operations’ in Lower Manhattan called for a coordinated demolition of the entire WTC complex (9 buildings in all). Just what type of explosive forces caused this destruction is hotly debated among scientists galore – yet it is but a secondary and ultimately doomed endeavor - since there is no certifiably authentic rubble nor any authentic imagery to examine. We may however assume (as of the events’ timeline) that the demolition process started a full hour after the alleged “plane strikes”, leaving plenty of time to evacuate the area. The briskly displaced bystanders – as well as more distant eyewitnesses - would have had very slim chances to make out the precise dynamics of the collapses as, most plausibly, smokescreens (military obscurants) started blocking the WTC from view. The time-window of the Lower Manhattan evacuation was filled in with two convenient, yet blatantly phony Distraction Dramas: The Pentagon and Shanksville mock-events. These two diversions also helped sway the attention away from the absurd absence of helicopter rescues at the WTC. As it is, the improbable tale of 3,000 souls trapped for up to 100 minutes in the WTC top floors (with no rooftop rescues - “due to locked access doors") may have a simple explanation: The WTC towers were empty. To be sure, all photographs and video snippets depicting people (or silhouettes thereof) falling down the side of the WTC’s have also been comprehensively exposed as digital forgeries. Only time will tell whether anyone really was killed on 9/11 - and under what circumstances - but, as things stand, the bulk of available evidence suggests otherwise.

Perhaps – and probably - none. A ‘fanciful’ contention? No. Not if measured against the thoroughly fanciful, grotesquely contrived and conflicting 9/11 ‘victim memorials’. A close scrutiny of the numerous available listings of alleged 9/11 victims provides countless indications that they are, by and large, outright fabrications. Most of them are still easily accessible on the Internet by the general public – yet some have been (‘mysteriously’) shut down. Of course, if it’s true that the WTC was fully evacuated, thus follows that the many memorials listing the 9/11 victims must, in turn, be fabricated too. As elaborated below, that is precisely what they appear to be. The 9/11 victim memorials simply do not stand up to scrutiny and comparison. The sheer bulk of inconsistencies and absurdities pervasive in those unseemly listings unveils their true nature : Just another piece of the Grand Deception. [...]
Please read the entire article for more on the problems with the alleged "victims" and the "victim memorials". I hope to have Simon back on The Realist Report in the near future to further explain his research regarding the 9/11 imagery and alleged "3000 victims."

The day after the "debate", Andrew Anglin published Final Showdown: Mike and Scott vs. John Friend on his website, which has received close to 200 comments as I publish this. The article he wrote is incredibly dishonest for a variety of reasons, which I will explain here. He begins by writing:
Though I fell asleep and didn’t get a chance to call in, I listened to the Mike Delaney and Scott Roberts versus John Friend debate about whether or not planes hit the towers on 911. 
I have some comments. 
It was an intense show. It is up to all of you to draw conclusions about what took place, but I will agree with what is the majority view: John Friend got his ass handed to him
Both Scott and Mike were as lucid as I have ever heard either of them be, and John really didn’t seem to have any response to any of the points being brought up, other than to keep citing Simon Shack as some type of unquestionable authority and act as though the only reason anyone would question him is out of ignorance, or an incapacity to understand simple concepts. 
Mike demanded the debate after John’s recent interview with Simon Shack, creator of the September Clues documentary, which puts forward the idea that not only did no planes hit the towers, no one actually died on 911, and the whole thing was staged like a Hollywood movie. He says they shut down all of Manhattan, and everyone present was an actor.
Just to clarify: this debate originated because of a comment I made on Facebook stating that Delaney was not being honest about the research September Clues has presented (and he's still not). Also, Simon does not claim that "they shut down all of Manhattan" - he is specifically saying that lower Manhattan and the immediate area around the World Trade Center complex was shut down shortly after the event began. I'll let the reader judge whether or not "I got my ass handed to me" or if "Scott and Mike were as lucid as they have ever been." In my view, all of Denaley and Roberts' arguments were ad hominem and fallacious, and they failed to actually address any of the research September Clues has presented. Anglin continues:
I have never gone into any of this stuff, as I find it boring and pointless. I think the documentary is obviously retarded, anyone with any basic sense should be able to watch it and observe this, but even if it were true, the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter. Trying to tell people about something like this - even if it were true – makes a person look insane.
Here Anglin admits, like Roberts did during the "debate", that he is totally ignorant of the research and information Simon Shack has presented. And yet, in the very next sentence, says that "the documentary is obviously retarded" and that "anyone with any basic sense should be able" to see this. If he has "never gone into any of this stuff," how can he say the documentary is "obviously retarded"? None of these guys even know what they are talking about when it comes to this information.

Anglin then claims that talking about the research September Clues has presented, even if it were true, "makes a person look insane." Well, we could say the same thing about talking about Adolf Hitler and exposing the fake "Holocaust" narrative of WWII - surely discussing these topics "makes a person look insane," right? There are a lot of topics we have been lied to about, and I'm interested in exposing all of them, no matter how "insane" I appear to some people. The truth is the truth, plain and simple. Anglin continues:
We understand that the Jews were responsible for 911. As Mike says repeatedly, there is no need to obsess over details. It was 12 years ago, and we have much more pressing issues to deal with, such as figuring out a way to get control of the state.

Simon Shack also claims that nuclear weapons do not exist. He even goes so far as to say that there are no satellites in the sky – this too is a part of an elaborate system of hoaxes which is much more complicated than reality ever could be.

Perhaps the best part of the show is when Tom in Connecticut, who was supposed to be John’s partner, comes on halfway through and decides to agree with Scott and Mike that there just isn’t any reason to talk about this stuff, and that Simon Shack is either insane or a shill, as evidenced by his list of insane assertions which is longer than my arm.

I will say here that I do not agree with Scott’s idea that we should talk about everything and let the people decide. If we want to have complicated discussions, we can do so in private, as a hobby. The message we present to the masses must be simple and easily digestible. Scott mentioned that he is now reading Mein Kampf, and I would hope that he will pay particular attention to the chapter on Propaganda. We have spent enough time trying to figure out what is going on in the world, and now is the time to streamline and reduce the message, to say things in a clear and simple manner, so that as many people as possible can understand it and come to our side.

After leaving the show in anger, John went on to write this piece about the debate, and according to Scott, posted it before the debate was even over.
I have to say that I was totally perplexed by Tom in Connecticut's performance during the debate. He did basically agree with everything Delaney and Roberts said, and in no way backed up anything I was saying about the video imagery relating to 9/11 and the many problems associated with the alleged "3000 victims."

And this is where Anglin and I have a fundamental disagreement: a main message I am trying to communicate to the world is that the Jewish-controlled mass media presents distorted or entirely fabricated images and videos to the world in order to systematically deceive us and create a false reality we are forced to operate in. Perhaps Anglin, Roberts, and Delaney do not believe that the Jewish media engages in psychological operations and information warfare involving manipulated imagery and actors? Or, if they agree that the Jewish media does these things, maybe they think it's not that big of a deal and isn't worth pointing out and discussing (it will "make us look crazy")? Well, to me it is a big deal. It is the primary weapon they are using against us at this time, and I want to talk about it and expose it. If they don't, that's fine by me.

And for the record, I did not "leave the show in anger" and post the "debate" article before it was even over. I have a two year old daughter that needed my attention, and the "debate" was just about over with anyways (or so I thought - they actually carried on for another hour or so once I hung up). Anglin continues:
John Friend is a Friend of Mine 
I have said, repeatedly, that anything we as a movement spend time on needs to fit a clear agenda – the agenda being working toward gaining political power and repairing our broken society. Talking about fakery is hobbyism, and does nothing to work toward any agenda at all. 
I consider John a good friend. But this simply has to stop. It is just all so weird and sick, and we have very real issues to be dealing with. 
Again, this is where I completely disagree with Anglin. Exposing the role of the Jewish media in deceiving and manipulating us is a central message I am trying to communicate. This to me is a "very real issue" that must be dealt with. Anglin continues:
This all ties into the YouTube presentations of the gross Jew 108morris108, who comes from the same position that everything is somehow fake, and nothing actually happens. 
John has supported the Jew 108morris, who says that the Woolwich beheading was faked to make it look like Muslim immigrants are violent, and cause people in White nations to turn against the immigrants. He also claims that no one died at Sandy Hook. 
These guys repeatedly claim that I "support the Jew 108Morris108" on YouTube. I believe I posted one video he made about the alleged Woolwich "beheading" and that's it. I do not support 108Morris on YouTube. I don't even watch his videos or really know anything about the guy. But he was right about the Woolwich "beheading" event being a total hoax, so I posted the video he made back in May. And let me clearly state my position on Sandy Hook: there is simply no reason to conclude anyone was murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Apparently, Anglin accepts the Jewish-controlled mass media's version of both Sandy Hook and the Woolwich "beheading" - I do not. Anglin continues:
In all honesty, it sickens me that I am even typing this right now. We are being genocided. Our birthrate is almost nonexistent, and the third-world invasion just keeps intensifying, we will soon be a minority in our own countries. Morality has eroded to the point where it is now referred to as immoral to oppose homosexuality. Religion has collapsed. The Jews are dancing around calling for an end to free speech, everyone is poor, the youth are using drugs on an unimaginable scale, and there is an overwhelming feeling across the board that there simply is no future. 
And the most important thing John can think to do is engage in delusional fantasies about how everything is fake? 
It just makes me sad.
What a totally dishonest thing for Anglin to write. Claiming that all I do is "engage in delusional fantasies about how everything is fake" has to be the most absurd, dishonest thing he could have written. Anglin was recently a guest on my radio program to discuss all of the things he wrote about in the preceding paragraph. I write about and discuss a variety of topics on my radio program, including media fakery and psychological warfare. Here is a list of all of the guests and topics I have covered on The Realist Report since I began broadcasting again on BlogTalkRadio:
  • Dr. Kevin MacDonald - Culture of Critique, White identity, and the future of White America
  • Brother Ryan - Christian Anarchism
  • Andrew Anglin - debunking libertarian shill who attacked him on YouTube
  • Tom in CT - Cass Sunstein and "Conspiracy Theories"
  • Caius Marcus Ideus - The Imperian Manifesto
  • "One Born Free" - 9/11 fakery
  • Clement Pulaski - Christian virtue and political order
  • Tom in CT - Cass Sunstein and "Conspiracy Theories" Part II
  • Andrew Carrington Hitchcock - Synagogue of Satan
  • Simon Shack - September Clues
  • Pat Shannan - JFK and "Two Oswalds"
  • Ace Baker - 9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera
  • Dr. Jim Fetzer - JFK Assassination
  • John Kaminski - The Hitler Test
  • Michael Collins Piper - Final Judgement 
  • Dr. Eric Karlstrom - "Global Warming" hoax and 9/11
  • Tom in CT - Worldviews and Information Warfare
  • JB Campbell - American Defense Party
And yet Anglin claims that all I do is "engage in delusional fantasies about how everything is fake." If anyone is delusional, it is Anglin.

Here is my problem: I have been operating in good faith with everyone I have ever dealt with in this internet-based "movement". I have always tried to be a team player, conduct myself with honor, respect, and dignity, and the sad truth is that almost everyone I have ever dealt with does not act this way. I am not doing what I'm doing for popularity, or to "lead a movement", or for fun and entertainment. I am doing this because I have discovered that I have been lied to about everything I have ever been taught, and there are some very real problems and criminals in our world that need to be exposed and analyzed. I have no agenda, other than the truth. I am not driven by ego or spite or envy or anything else. And I really do mean that. I'm not here to bullshit anyone. Never have been, never will be. I am who I am, and will always remain that way.

Real leadership is predicated on moral decency and integrity, and not deception or juvenile tactics involving character assassination and guilt by association smears. The fact that Delaney and Roberts went out of their way to collect audio clips of Simon Shack in order to play them during the "debate" and attack and misrepresent his positions on 9/11 demonstrate their intent. Those kinds of ambush tactics were designed to avoid discussion of the real issues, namely that the video imagery broadcast to the global public depicting the events of 9/11 is demonstrably fabricated.

The kinds of personal attacks we heard coming from Carolyn Yeager are simply beneath the dignity of any decent person and say more about Carolyn Yeager than about anything else. I will be addressing the statements she made about me in a future blog post.

Perhaps most importantly, the collective position of Delaney, Roberts and Anglin dismissing the role of the media in transmitting intentionally false information to the public as “news” calls their agenda into question. Folks, all three of those guys are actually making statements that essentially provide cover for the Jewish media. Delaney says the video we saw on 9/11 reflected reality and was not manipulated or fabricated. This means that Delaney supports that part of the official narrative of 9/11. Delaney, Roberts and Anglin all appear to support the official narratives of Sandy Hook, the Boston “bombing” and the Woolwich “beheading” event. They are also saying that we should not be looking into the role that the Jewish media plays in systematically deceiving and manipulating the public in order to achieve certain geopolitical and sociocultural goals.

So I'm going to do Mike Delaney, Scott Roberts, Andrew Anglin, Carolyn Yeager, Rodney Martin (go read his comments on Anglin's article at DailyStormer) and their entire "movement" a favor - I am publicly disassociating myself from all of these individuals, and ending whatever relationship I may have had with all of them. I have nothing to do with and want nothing to do with whatever "movement" they are a part of. 


  1. good write up, dude. Like I said in a previous post. You can still be a White Nationalist along with diving into Media fakery. It's not one or the other. Although many in both camps feel you need to takes sides and ridicule if you don't. To me, 911 was not entirely how Shack demonstrates it but neither is the Official Version. The end result should be the same, "who done it" ......anyway... I've read tons of dirt on the pro-think guys, same with Shack and any other "truther" out there. Everyone is always yelling he's a shill or he's a Jew...Most are in this for the money. That's why we never get anywhere. Arrogance and Ego, is why they are winning.

  2. Devastating article.

    I think I saw the flash on the horizon when it hit.

    Great job John,


  3. Very well said John. You are the most honest out of all of these guys. Even if you are honestly wrong (which I don't think you are), you are the only one that is not attacking in an ad hominem fashion and the only one willing to consider all evidence being brought forward.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."


  4. When the “debate” began, I was not introduced into the conversation at all and was not able to join the conversation until well after an hour into it at which point John was forced to leave due to some things that were going on at home.

    My planned role in the discussion was to simply provide an honest description of issues pertaining to how we arrived at our conclusions about 911 and to describe what we know and what we don’t know.

    I was not interested in engaging in a contentious argument with anyone.

    This was to be a fact-finding discussion only.

    Some listeners were apparently “perplexed” by my performance during the radio show. If they were expecting me to engage other White guys for the express purpose of defeating them, they listened in vain. 

    I have no problem doing battle, but I won’t attempt to harm members of my own race or especially guys who are on my side in this war against jewish domination.

    After hearing the hour-plus long “Let’s Criticize Simon Shack Show”, I decided that it was pointless and counter-productive to attempt to go back and redirect the focus of what had been said previously.

    Why? Because, among other things, the prior discussion involved emotional outbursts, people talking over each other and offering illogical arguments.

    I was not interested in taking part in that kind of interaction.

    My strategy at that point was to attempt to introduce material describing deceptive media in general, and specifically how we know it was used on 911.

    I was honest in my presentation and in answering the questions asked of me. 

    The main criticisms of John Friend by Delany and Roberts are that John:

    1. Promotes jews,

    2. Promotes blacks, and

    3. Discusses "crazy", "unproductive" and "confusing" "conspiracy" psychological warfare methods.


I agreed on points that I agreed with. For example, it is true that statements made by Simon Shack that “nobody died” are completely unsupportable and constitute a giant inferential leap that any neutral observer would find ridiculous. In fact, broad-brush statements like that only serve to discredit the foundational claims of deceptive media that are objectively provable.

In retrospect,

    I regret taking part is what turned out to be a very destructive interaction.

    The subsequent personal attacks on John Friend, especially those by Carolyn Yeager attacking John’s physical appearand are simply un-Aryan and deplorable.

    I know John Friend to be a keen intellect and highly principled individual and he has my full support.


    1. What I don't get is Carolyn saying John looks overweight and from tel aviv. John doesn't look fat or like a jew. This woman doesn't get along with anyone. Keith and Rich from truth militia couldn't stand her either. Just the way she talks turns me off to whatever she has to present.

    2. Tom,

      Do you have any real 911 victims family members that you could point out for us? With a performance better than any D rated soap opera actors could do? Would at least like to see 1 tear or 2 from any of these million grieving family members we have heard about. Or is it all just some REPORTS, that have been aired a million times? Without any real victim family members, there could not be any real victims.

    3. El Buggo,

      Yes, I do. One in particular.

      I will provide info.


    4. @Anonymous December 5, 2013 at 5:50 PM

      She tries to hook up with white nationalist men like Lon Kramer, but her relationships always fail. Can't imagine why that's the case!

  5. I understand very well people who promote this media deception is avoiding the correct label for the man behind the curtain. Thst would lead to a two front battle, and take attention away from the deception strategies. Even one front is more than enough. So it may be better in the short term to use the label The Nutwork. Shouldn't be so hard for anyone with a brain to understand what that is a code word for, and the whole label anti-septitick can be avoided to get the message across. If not, the spreading of message on the HUGE media deceptions might stall.

    Media deception is REALLY important. When they control the media they can manufacture the peoples perception of the world, just as the need. That is also the tool for controlling the election process, and indirectly they can make the laws too.

    Don't understand why it is so hard to see that no one died, and no one got hurt in the 911 operation. And this inconsistent view that maybe 50% of the REPORTED victims are real, and about 50% are faked. Sounds like "I don't believe that 6 million were killed by ZyclonB, but maybe 1 million? They couldn't have lied about the whole story? Could they? Really?" Of course no one was killed with ZyclonB - they simply made it up. And the jewish media et al are still promoting that Big Lie. Nothing new with invented victims.

    What a nightmare for the 911 operation to have their own victims family actors on the stage, side by side with some real victim family members. Why haven't we ever seen even 1 tear from any of these REPORTED victims family members? Because they are just some D rated soap opera actors of course. Should also have had million of victims tribute posts on Facebook every anniversary, with some "new photos", etc, but not much to be seen there either, etc, etc, etc.

    1. El Buggo, I very much appreciate your commentary and insights. I'm glad you started commenting on my website.

  6. Mike, Scott, and Andre did a radio program earlier today and they agreed to publicly disassociate themselves from me. So we are all in agreement on this. I have nothing to do with those guys (and Carolyn), and they have nothing to do with me.

    1. That's too bad. I really like you John. I think you do some great work and will continue to listen in the future even if I don't believe in everything you say. Keep up the great work.

  7. I think we all know by now Delaney is a trouble maker and his only claim to fame, 9/11 Missing Links was written and narrated by John Alan Martinson. I believe time is of the essence and we should follow J. Bruce Campbell's advice. By the way Yeager and Delaney were both tied to C.I. which in my opinion either makes them completely insane and / or dumb as a box of rocks....

  8. I'm going to contact Delaney, Roberts and Anglin and recommend they try to get a hold of Gene Rosen so he can tell them what HE knows about media fakery.

  9. Yes they "missed" a big "link" in that planes.

  10. John Friend says - "Also, Simon does not claim that "they shut down all of Manhattan"

    Who said he did? He clearly states on your show (and in the clip I am linking below) that they shut down "3 or 4 streets around the place", and they "just had these smoke screens going all the time", which is ridiculous enough as it is.

    John Friend says - "he is specifically saying that lower Manhattan and the immediate area around the World Trade Center complex was shut down shortly after the event began."

    Are you really going to sit here and tell people now that he said "after the event began", when they can simply listen to the audio and hear otherwise for themselves? Talk about "trickery".

    In his own words, "they closed it off very early in the morning" and "FEMA was there the day before" to "make sure that nobody went in there" before/during the attacks (which never took place, according to you and Simon). When did he say "shortly after the event began"? You just made that up out of nowhere. The audio can be heard here: @1:30

    In fact, the entire premise of his theory is that they wanted to "make sure not to kill ANYBODY". So that would necessitate them "cordoning off the area" PRIOR to the attacks, not "shortly after the event began". An "event" that you are now claiming could have involved "missiles" or something other than a passenger jet... i.e. a real danger to people, where they would have had to of been evacuated prior to the "event" unfolding OR else they may have gotten hurt (a big "no no" when it comes to Jews harming Gentiles) OR they may have witnessed these "giant smoke machines" and/or the "missiles" hitting the building. I mean, what use would "giant smoke machines" be IF they waited to evacuate people and cordon off the area until AFTER the "hoax" began?

    Why wouldn't they wait until the area was shut down and ALL possible witnessed evacuated PRIOR to starting their "event"? I don't understand the purpose in "cordoning off 3 or 4 blocks" AFTER the fact, if it was all "media fakery". It only makes sense, in his theory, that they would have waited until everyone was evacuated and the "smoke machines" were running at full capacity before kicking off the "event"...And Simon clearly stated himself that it was "cordoned off early in the morning" or the "day before" by FEMA.

    So I don't know where you are pulling this nonsense out of. It's just another example of the glaringly obvious inconsistencies of your argument, and the manner in which you claim things were or were not said when we can all hear otherwise for ourselves.

    Really dude, you are once again exposing your own nonsense, as you bounce all over the damn place, AND expect people not to catch on to your wild inconsistencies (which is why you are mad at us for playing those audio clips in the 1st place).

    1. I think the 911 let's roll forum , which is run by one of the original people who got into this 911 conspiracy research area , will have nothing to do with this no planes theory or september clues. they consider it to be total bullshit. i have to concur with that perspective on it. there are many and i do mean many people who sprung up after 911 and suddenly had websites and were spouting off all of these theories. judy wood is one of them. this simon shack is another. dave von kleist is one of the earlier ones. he got a lot of his information to make his video , from 911 let's roll forum and by his own admission made over one million dollars on it and he did not share one penny with anyone else. then we have that russian jew who was going around saying that there were small tactical nukes installed in the basement of the buildings when they were built so they could be demolished when the time came. then we find out this man is personal friends with the mossad chief at the time. then we had that guy named hutchinson running around espousing some nonsense about the hutchinson effect. i remember fetzer at one time talking about some weird beam theories. i am sure there are many more, but let us not forget doctor steven jones and his nano thermite theories. then we find out he supposedly lost his job as a poopfessor at brigham young university which i would have to conclude makes him a mormon. then we find out, that doctor jones used to work at los alamos. which brings two strikes against him. first he is a jew loving mormon and second he has worked for the government which means he has a top secret clearance. on and on it goes. when is this economy going to go in the shitter so we can get this party started? america must die in order to live again.

  11. John Friend says - "The fact that Delaney and Roberts went out of their way to collect audio clips of Simon Shack in order to play them during the "debate" and attack and misrepresent his positions on 9/11 demonstrate their intent."

    I'm not sure how playing an audio clip of someone, where they present their argument in their own words, amounts to an "attack". The guy contradicts and exposes himself all throughout that radio broadcast, which I have linked people to and suggested they listen to in its entirety all along (so they can hear the craziness and contradictions for themselves). I don't want or need to misrepresent this guy's position, he bounces all over the place all on his own (ONE example: "there were no victims or there would have been lawsuits"... just before the two of you list and discuss several of them).

    Fact is, if we didn't quote Simon, you, and Tom or play audio clips of the contradictions you all have made (sometimes immediate, other times from show to show or blog to blog) along with the wild shifts you all continue to make (Tom changing his entire position, whereas you and Simon bounce back and forth on the finer points...for instance: you are now back to claiming there were "probably NO victims" after backing off of it on our show together) , then the average person might not catch on to it.

    Point being, you guys are as inconsistent as can be. All over the damn place. Making things up along the way. Telling stories and building your case on nothing. Then you get mad when people quote you or use your own words against you.

    Also... I am the one who "collected them" (those audio clips), but I didn't have to go far "out of my way" to get them. Nor were they taken out of context. Nor did I "misrepresent his positions". Nor do I have any hidden agenda or whatever "intent" you are implying here.

    Again, listen to the show and you can hear Simon exposing himself throughout (along with John being his "Yes, man" the entire time).

    1. LOL, Scott I just don't know what to say to you anymore other than best of luck to you in your future endeavors. I will be addressing all of this at length in future radio broadcasts. Take care man.

  12. John - You doing greAt work. Glad to hear you are disassociating Delaney and company. I have always felt their is to poison the well of truth. You have my support!

  13. I have to admit I am undecided about the no plane idea, but I appreciate the articulate and spirited debate on both sides. While I respect the tenacity of Scott on making his point on this highly controversial topic, I simply cannot respect anyone who believes in the fake narrative of the sandy hoax or Boston smoke bomb hoax. Either much more research is needed, or a soul searching on just where your loyalties really lie is urgently needed.- Sean

    1. I agree - we have to understand and expose the fact that the Jewish media is routinely faking events and presenting them as if they were real in order to advance particular agendas. The Sandy Hook "shooting" hoax and the Boston "bombing" are prime examples. 9/11 and the fake "Holocaust" are as well. The media is the main weapon being used to control humanity today.

  14. This was a very good article, John. I listened to one Delaney and Scott show before the "debate" wherein they were claiming that you had promised to debate "no planes" with them but were appearing to back out of your promise. You supposedly had told them they could call in on one of your shows, which they considered not the real debate you promised them. They said they were going to make you, or press you to have a full debate with them. From listening to that show, it was very clear to me that these two guys never had the slightest intention of truly debating the one subject - "no planes." To me, they also showed that they little or no knowledge about the "no planes" issue. Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Morgan Reynolds have both written several excellent articles about "no planes" and none of their material was apparently even discussed. When you focus completely on Shack, you confine yourself to the realm of the nonobjective, unscholarly arena.

    I can’t see much relevance of the "3000 victims" issue to a "no planes" debate nor of the Jew, White or Aryan issue to a "no planes" debate.

    What is clear to me also is that our government controls the media and has for at least 75 years. The media and our government are really one entity. So frequent references to our “Jewish media” is not at all the whole story.

    We all need to stop watching mainstream media and TV altogether. We need to stop biting the poison meat they keep throwing at us. And unfortunately, much of the "alternative media" is acting more and more controlled and misinfo/disinfo these days. We just need to be careful what we debate and what we respond to and what we accept as good solid objective documented material.

    There are huge problems with Simon Shack's "theory" and if you wanted to do a true debate about no planes, it would have been better to only reference him along with referencing others who have done more scholarly work on no planes like Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Fetzer.

    It is extremely important to get a tight handle on what an entity's official story is. in order to respond to it, and respond specifically to one discreet part of it, i.e., no planes. It is not possible to do that with Shack's material. His "official stance" is spread out on forums, radio interviews and is papers and videos and seems very hard to clearly identify.

    I think Dr. Fetzer has done more than anyone to look at ALL ideas and views and to give them all a fair hearing and to discuss them reasonably and intelligently.

    It is also important to get a tight handle on what the government's "official story", "official narrative" is of 9-11 that is being responded to in a debate. That too is somewhat difficult, but mainly can be found in the "9-11 Commission Report" and the NIST reports. One may also want to include statements made by Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice and a few others as part of the official story.

    I did not read the Commission Report word for word, and I guess I or someone needs to nail this, but I do not recall anything that may be considered part of the government's "official story" to say anything about the number of victims of 9-11, 3000 or otherwise. That approximate 3000 number comes from the CNN list that Shack group worked with as well as statements made here and there by media talking heads or TV show guests. In other words, when we debate or respond to the 3000 number, we are not refuting the government's official story. We are refuting the mainstream media's "official story." I would like to be corrected about this if I am wrong.

    You are correct in breaking relationship with these people. This adds nothing to the fund of knowledge gathered over the years about 9-11.

    (Simon Shack's real name is Simon Hytten.
    Hoi pilloi’s real name is Max Konardy. )

    1. Thank you for this very thoughtful comment Jeannon, I appreciate your feedback and think you make a number of excellent points here.

    2. one thing is for sure. a lot of jews got involved in "911 truth" after the event happened. i am sure this was for a purpose. what does the Good Book say? A little leaven spoils the whole loaf and so it has. As long as jews run around blabbing in the "911 truth" movement whatever that is, there will be no truth forthcoming anytime soon. that is their reason for being there, of course

    3. we can clear up all of this real quick. has simon shack ever talked about israel as being the main culprit in this 9/11 attack? does he allow any discussion of this on his website? frankly i have never been to his website nor read any of his material. i have heard about him and september clues however.

    4. Scroll down to see Simon Hytten, and the outing of him. This 7 minutes website is focused on the Vatican being in But still, this mark allen website owner is finding out who this Simon Shackestein is.

    5. Markus Allen Goldstein is a joo. He runs that 7 minutes site. lol Scurry little rats, you are being outed.

  15. During the broadcast in question, I mentioned something about a recent controversy about Victoria’s Secret models being photo shopped constituting deceptive advertising. I mentioned that Beyonce had been accused of lip synching during the Super Bowl. I also mentioned something aboutForest Gump shaking hands with JFK.

    If we all understand that CGI imagery and pre-recorded and faked audio are used for entertainment and marketing purposes – why do we think it’s not being used on the news? If we all understand that CGI imagery can be used to deceive and not just to entertain – why do we think its not being used to deceive?

    Isn’t there a lot more at stake when CNN reports on a politically charged event than there is when a Hollywood movie studio tries to drive ticket sales at the theatre?

    Most of us first became aware of the 911 attacks through mass communications channels.

    Most of us did not experience any portion of the 911 event first person with our naked eye. We viewed the entire thing via digital video broadcasts transmitted from news organizations.

    Consider how limited a person’s field of view is when standing on a Manhattan street surrounded by tall buildings. The potential for any specific person to have been in a position to have seen planes hitting buildings or the actual demolition of the various buildings would depend on where they were standing at the time.

    How many “millions of people” do you think could have been in a position to see anything first-person in New York? If you haven’t spent time in New York, you might fall for a claim that seems reasonable – like most people must have been able to see something just by looking up. That’s just not the case. New York City is a maze of tall buildings that block your view in most directions. It would be a simple matter to map out where you’d have to be standing to have been in a position to seen anything. But, New York is not a vast meadow. Go to Google Maps and select “street view” sometime and take a look at what your field of view actually is at any given spot on a selected Manhattan street.

    Even people located directly across the Hudson River in New Jersey who had a direct view of the Towers elected to turn on their televisions to get a better look at what was allegedly happening rather than continuing to look directly at the towers with their own eyes.

    The population has been conditioned to accept and to believe that digital imagery broadcast to them is an accurate depiction of real-life events, except perhaps when viewing an action movie. This conditioning was fully exploited by the planners of the 911 attack scenario.

    We can prove that the 911 event as described in the 911 Commission Report is simply untrue. Logically, this points us to a new investigation.

    I caution anyone to follow Fetzer as though he's an unassailable authority on what exactly happened on 911. As far as I know, Fetzer is pushing a "hologram" theory now. His reasoning on that seems to be supported by digital radar data.



  16. cont'd from above

    We previously rejected the hologram hypothesis because the available evidence supports a different hypothesis better. Specifically, manipulated imagery transmitted to the public as "news".

    Please note that most "leaders" in the 911 troof movement have not accomplished much at all except to generate more controversy and posit theories like holograms. I have a hard time believing that's not by design.

    Fetzer has said a number of very odd things. I don't subscribe to Fetzer because I assess him as questionable. Most recently, his assertion that there were "holograms".

    It would be interesting to see exactly how he arrived at that conclusion. Rational investigators apply Structured Methods on investigation to arrive at conclusions. Interestingly, our own application of Structured Methods specifically identified "holograms" as not sufficiently supported by the available facts.

    We believe that media deception was used. There are many ways it could have been applied that are still consistent with the overall fact pattern we witnessed on 911.

    This basic issue is what needs to be explained to a broader public. Not holograms.


  17. Well, you fat Jew, you...

    Notice how the hag and Prostink mischlings do what I just did... insinuate you are a Jew because you dare disagree with them.

    As I told you (and the few readers at my place) several times... these people have an agenda that is not based upon truth, but irrational hatred of anyone that disagrees with them.

    It is a taint that I personally am glad you are ridding yourself from, as I did early on.

    Us rednecks have a saying:

    F#ck 'em and feed 'em fish heads.

    Now, let's get on to real truth and let the mischlings further their tainted goals without the real truth seekers. Perhaps this will finally put the nail in their stinking coffins of misdirection, thievery, and lies.


    meanwhile back at the ranch. they are dumping more muzzies in europe.

  19. John, you've caught a lot of flack since that debate with Delanely and Roberts and even from Carolyn Yeager. As a recent regular listener to your podcasts I'd like to give you my take on the whole thing.

    First off you come across as a genuine truth seeker, or if not, a damn good actor who should be Hollywood (or maybe not)!

    You also come across as an all-round likable person living up to your namesake. In fact you seem to strive to be so agreeable to your guests to the point of being coming across as being dishonest to your guests in the sense that you say "absolutely" when given what I know of your views you couldn't agree "absolutely".

    In the debate you described your agreeableness as being "professional" and being a "gentleman". Well, I can see the good intention there but there is a line there where it becomes simply too much, spilling over into "yes man" territory.

    Now to the Simon Shack issue and the "no planes and the no nothing" garden path that he leads us down. Where either 3,000 died or no one died. The either or, outcome.

    Take a ride in the Shackmobile and it's all the way to Fakesville where The Truman Show reigns supreme. Where, conveniently, the outcome is that no Americans died on that day, and there is nothing to fear, nothing to see here folks, move along and go about your business. "Bankers" wouldn't kill "Bankers" after all, and so on.

    John, where is the jew in all this? Non existent, that's what. Simon Shack spends all this time and energy telling us we can't believe what we see via the (jew) media without ever mentioning that jews control our media. And that the jews did 9/11. We are not talking about the Holohoax here, it's 9/11. It's still legal to question 9/11 in Europe.

    If Shack was genuine wouldn't he back up his fringe theory that 9/11 is all fake, from woe to go, by explaining it in terms of the jewish control over the media and how the whole event serves jewish power over us? That we are living in a jewish Truman Show world where nearly all jewish TV is fake?

    In total his argument doesn't add up to me. His conclusion is that no one was harmed, it's a big Hollywood production and everyone should go back to sleep. That kind of conclusion is a HUGE warning sign, don't you think, John? Who benefits from such a conclusion? Jews do!

    I haven't dealt with the original issue of planes or no planes for the simple reason that it doesn't really matter. I can imagine that no planes were used, that something else was used, etc, etc. That's the how, the technical details. But we already know the who, and that is what matters.

    We do know is that those building were brought down not by planes. Over 2,000 architects and engineers and simple commonsense tells us that explosives of some kind, whether simple or highly advanced could have easily brought them down. From that we know that 19 Arabs and extras could not have done it. The only real suspects are the jews for multiple reasons. The actual details will be established when the jewish perps and collaborators are finally brought to justice, as they will be.

    As for Delanely, Roberts and Anglin, listening to their latest podcast I think it's fair to say that they genuinely like you, but are dismayed and pissed off that you are accepting of and pushing Shack's snake oil. As for Carolyn Yeager, she's a hard task master who speaks her mind bluntly and often rudely, if you like, in the way that you do not with your guests. I think her speculation about you having some kind of jewish background is misplaced.

    Finally, I think you've been led somewhat down a garden path. But this will all blow over and I think you are a great contributor to the cause.

    1. katana,

      Your views concerning Simon Shack pretty much reflect my own.

      Interestingly, both Simon Shack and Ace Baker offer the same basic concluding message: that there's nothing to worry about "we don't have to fix this", etc.

      I find that to be a very big problem.

      As for the actual mechanics of how the 911 event was performed, we simply don't have enough facts to answer all of the various questions. What we do have is a brick wall of facts with a bunch of holes in it. As it stands now, the wall of facts definitely prove that the official narrative is completely false. It also proves who benefitted from the event.

      The facts we have so far are enough to support the identification of certain persons of interest that need to be arrested.


    2. Hi katana, thank you for the frank feedback, I appreciate it.

      Perhaps I am a bit too "agreeable" at times with my guests? Could you give me a specific example you can think of? Or, going forward, point it out to me in future programs?

      I try to elicit as much information as a I can from my guests, and obtain as deep of an understanding as I can from their perspective and point of view. That is how I approach my interviews.

      As far as your criticisms of Simon Shack are concerned, I believe I address all of what you wrote in the article posted above.

  20. Before tying yourself to Simon and Hoi, you might want to take a look here:

  21. CLARITY:

    The United States has no formal written rules preventing broadcasters from knowingly lying on-air or from presenting intentionally deceptive imagery or audio to an unsuspecting public as news.

    Current FCC news distortion policy does not seem to address the use of CGI and composited imagery or digitally manipulated audio at all. The FCC has never actually published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses.


    We need to bring this issue to the public. Endless talk about holograms is a waste of time, and I think intentionally so.


    Relative to a case involving intentionally deceptive news content dating back to 1969, the FCC’s stated written opinion was that, “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest - indeed there is no act more harmful to the public’s ability to handle its affairs.”

    However, as the Florida Court of Appeals noted in New World Communications of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, in 2003, the commission’s current news distortion policy has never been formally established as a rule, regulation or law.


    Explain to Jew Sixpack that there is simply no rule, regulation or law preventing media from intentionally lying to you. There is literally nothing barring them from airing “Fake News” that can influence public perception and even cause laws to get passed.

    Begin a Petition Campaign. To address this issue, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should establish formal regulations to prevent broadcasters and cablecasters from distorting the news or using digitally manipulated video or audio.

    In addition, to protect the public, the FCC should establish formal regulations preventing foreign ownership, management, production or content control of any domestic news broadcast. The prohibition of the involvement of foreigners in manipulating domestic broadcast news should bar not only foreign citizens but also to those holding dual or even multiple citizenship.

    FCC administrative action is necessary to prevent news distortion and intentional deception operations directed at domestic target audiences by agents of foreign powers.


    Shrugging your shoulders and saying “we can never do that” while referring back to 70 year-old “scholars” whose “leadership” has led absolutely nowhere isn’t the best option.

    We CAN bring this issue to the (m)asses, and we must.


    Nothing changes except the date. Until the next media generated “event”.


    1. Tom, your message of there being no laws against media lies and deception is a most important one. I've brought it up in person to people numerous times and it gets them to think and it is easily verified. I think it's a must talking point.

    2. kenny,

      I can provide rich detail on this issue. Also, it's not divisive.

      It's something we can all get behind.


  22. Hey John,

    Killtown here...

    You aren't promoting Fetzer are you?

    1. Hey Killtown, I really do appreciate all the work Dr. Fetzer has done and continues to do, even though I don't see eye to eye with him on everything.

      I am not familiar with everything that has happened in the past between you, Fetzer, Shack, Ace Baker, etc. so I really have no comment on it. Feel free to email me privately and we can discuss it further. It would be great to have you on as a guest if you're interested.

  23. Thank God the devil mandella is finally dead.

    To hell with him.

  24. From: Andre A
    Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:59 AM
    Subject: Re: Fw: John Friend's Blog

    I feel sad about it. I'm not sure what you want me to answer. All he is doing is restating what he has already said: he believes it is important to talk about things which normal people think are insane, and he doesn't care that normal people think it is insane because he likes talking about it.

    On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM, World Changer wrote:

    Answer this!

    Subject: Fw: John Friend's Blog

    1. World Changer,

      Is it true that "normal people" think that psychological warfare operations in a media setting is "insane"?

      This situation reminds me of when the famous magician Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin (December 6, 1805 – June 13, 1871) went to Algeria as the French Ambassador to bamboozle the Arabs there. One trick he performed involved a box laid upon the floor. Houdin walked over and easily picked it up and set it down. Then, Houdin challenged a strong looking Arab to do the same. The Arab tried to pick up the box but could not no matter how hard he tried. Houdin had hidden an electromagnet underneath the box. The Arabs knew nothing about electricity at the time. This demonstration convinced many of the Arabs of Houdin's "special powers".

      I guess it would be fair to say that most of those Arabs would regard any discussion of how the underlying trick was performed as being "insane".

      In the modern day, certain groups and governments still use basic stage magic methods to further their agenda. Some refer to the practice as "magic and illusionism as Statecraft".

      Today, the primary way that kind of trickery is broadcast to the public is through media channels.

      Do you think that talking about this practice is "Insane"?

      In reality, this practice is one on the main weapons being used against us.

      My question is why anyone would want to avoid discussing these matters and attempt to stigmatize such discussion as "insane".

      Any ideas?


  25. I am most disappointed in Rodney Martin for his comments. The others I have come to suspect the rhetoric, therefore I am not surprised.

  26. "Free thinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless."
    — Tolstoy

  27. By now, most people are realizing that John Friend is probably “more right” than some others.

    Most people probably view the discussion about Simon Shack as being valid. John’s position seems to be more oriented to just finding the truth rather than being tied to any specific personality.

    By now, most thinking people realize that there is something wrong with the official narrative of 911, Sandy Hook, Boston, Woolrich and perhaps a few other highly politically charged media events.

    What patterns are developing here? We have certain factions saying that “all of the video of 911 is reliable”. That seems to lead away from any media role in the 911 deception - doesn’t it? We have certain factions saying they believe the official narrative of Sandy Hook. That seems to lead away from any media role in the Sandy Hook deception – doesn’t it? Same thing with Boston, Woolrich and perhaps others.

    There is a tremendous volume of credible evidence linking media deception to all of those events.

    Why is it “insane” to discuss it? Why is it “insane” to discuss DOD publications that talk about the mechanics of perpetrating political hoaxes on target audiences?

    Who exactly does not want us talking about these things? Are you starting to see a pattern here? Or, am I “insane” for discussing it?

    It is undeniable that a certain faction has formed up around this central issue. Are they just “stupid”? I try not to underestimate anyone. What if they’re not “stupid”? What then?

    Most people would probably agree that going around waving the NS flag will probably get us nowhere fast. Is that the way forward? Most people would probably agree that running around saying “jew, jew, jew” will not open the mind of the average person.

    Reaching a wider audience requires a skillful approach. We think that pushing a public education campaign on media lying and deception is the way forward. This directly assaults the primary weapon being used against us at this time.



    more info for you post it nor not.. but you should do some research on Shack...

    1. I clicked this link out of curiosity, and I must say I don't see what Simon Shack's brother Mario once having been in a race sponsored by bin Laden's brother has to do with anything. My impression of Simon from that thread is that he is quite open about his origins and circumstances. I never knew anything about him till this week, but on that thread he made a good impression character-wise. I'm interested in checking out more of his research.

  29. Friend certainly seized the moral high ground.

    Carolyn Yeager's personal attacks of Friend are despicable. She should be ashamed.

    Why is Anglin accusing Friend of being "insane"? Why is Anglin supporting the idea that the broadcast jewish news does not employ deception?

    Why are Delaney, Roberts, Yeager and Martin all taking the same position - when we KNOW that the broadcast jewish news DOES employ deception?

    What the hell is going on here?

    What this their real agenda?

    1. Precisely. This smells like something coordinated, for all these ad hominem attacks to occur at the same time

  30. Drama-rama John. All this does is divide us which leads to conquering us. Since when is agree to disagree such a bad concept among honest folks? Key word...honest.

    Separating oneself from the well poisoners is an upward move. Concentrating on the common ground the rest of us have is too.

    Hug your kid, tell her you love her and mean it when you say "All of this I do is for you.'

    1. Hey kenny, thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it man. Great to hear from you.

      And yes, honesty is the key word in all of this. I'm afraid most lack it in this "movement" unfortunately.

  31. Why do you suppose Carolyn Yeager is so angry and nasty?

    Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that she never married and never had any children?

    Now, why is that? Could it possibly be due to her nasty disposition and utter rudeness? Or is she nasty and rude because she never married and never had any children?

    Ok - here's the real question: how many cats does she have? 20? 25?


    1. She has repeatedly tried to hook up with white nationalist & revisionist men and failed. One in particular was Lon Kramer. She also emails people in the movement to get them to send her personal information about real and perceived enemies of white nationalism.

      One revisionist I know personally described her as "a nutcase."

      She is a bigot. She proclaims the white motherhood deal while she herself can't even get her hooks into one white man. I think she has a "thing" for Anglin though. She talks about him as though he's the second coming.

  32. "Kenny" whoever you are, you are blaming the victim here, and what effrontery to advise John Friend to love his own daughter.

    I'll squeeze in a plug for my new blog on WHY White South Africa fell, and it was not the old black bolshie Mandela:

  33. "Mike, Scott, and Andre did a radio program earlier today and they agreed to publicly disassociate themselves from me. So we are all in agreement on this. I have nothing to do with those guys (and Carolyn), and they have nothing to do with me."

    Oh my gosh. Those guys (+ Carolyn, amazingly) are really a bunch of juveniles/simpletons/haters. Not able to discuss things in a grown-up manner. Too bad.

    "Either you're with US - or you're an evil JEW!" - "EITHER Muslims are always killing people everywhere all the time non-stop - OR everybody in Woolwich was an actor!" - "EITHER you confirm our version of 9/11 - OR you're a Jew collaborator!"

    If they're this harsh with people who after all are in 90% agreement with them on the big issues - how the hell will they bring the regular Joe & Jane Doe onboard???


    It's like children arguing in a sandbox, hitting each other/the child who's "wrong" with plastic spades in the head. "My truth is truther than yours, JEW-GUY!"

  34. I listened to half of Carolyn Yeager's radio program today, where she addresses some of the things I wrote here. She stated towards the end of the 1st hour that Deanna Spingola told her (Yeager) that she thinks I am Jewish, and that Dr. Jim Fetzer is CIA and also my "handler." I just sent this email to Deanna Spingola, hoping she will clarify whether or not she said this to Carolyn, or believes it to be true.

    From: John Friend
    Date: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 1:01 AM
    Subject: Question
    To: Deanna Spingola

    Hi Deanna, I heard Carolyn Yeager state today that you told her that you think I am a Jew, and that Dr. Jim Fetzer is CIA and is also my "handler."

    I don't want to assume you said these things, but if you did I would like you to confirm so I can address it publicly. If I don't receive a reply from you, I am going to assume Carolyn is telling the truth and you did indeed say these things to her.


    I will be addressing the 9/11 "debate" and its aftermath tomorrow evening on my radio program. It starts at 7pm PST and calls will be taken throughout - so feel free to call in and let me know what you think of the entire situation. I hope we can move on after this show is over with.

    Here is a link to the program tomorrow evening:

  35. Dear John,
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
    There really can be no peace without justice. There can be no justice without truth. And there can be no truth, unless someone rises up to tell you the truth.
    Louis Farrakhan
    Ad hominem attacks are the first refuge of the out-argued.
    Your opponents have revealed themselves to dishonest. You are on the right track.

  36. One thing I will say. The behavior of Delany and co. said a lot more about them than
    anyone else ever could.


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.