User talk:Theblackbay

Check out my mildly interesting news section
Mildly interesting news

Also see a questions and answers in "Explain Away" below.

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict
Hey Samhook you think I live in a fantasy world then try this for size:

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict solved:

Any western individual that wants to be real with them selves cannot deny that a state such as Israel has the absolute right to exist just as all other states exist.

The parallels to any other conflict in which a country was conquered and land annexed is obvious England showed the same trend worldwide.

Also any western individual that believes that the Palestinian peoples are or do have parallels to say the Australian Aboriginals or other conquered people such as the American Indians would be sadly sadly mistaken.

This conflict is one that should be viewed much closer in western understanding terms to a fight between England and France.

And seeing the conflict in and at that point of view we begin to understand that for all the centuries of battles England is still and Island of the Coast of Europe and France is still a country in the south of Europe.

At some Point in the Future and I firmly believe this both sides will come to this kind of understanding because neither just like the English or the French really wishes the other wiped out or exterminated from the planet.

And with that in mind here is my strategic solution to the Palestinian and Israel conflict I’m welcoming any and all comments because I believe I’ll make many errors but the basic solution should be one that solves the problem for all sides:

First a Map of Israel and Palestine: The argument:

Israel definitely does not want to give up any more land that it has now, and the Palestinians want a State and with a flag and full independence if you read this solution to the end you will see that both can be achieved almost politically also. The solution makes basic sense and all of the land pointers are there for this solution's existence.

Palestine Creation
Now first it requires the creation of a Palestinian State out of the land held in the west bank and the Gaza strip.

This is important because for this state to function it needs a Sea Port and a Land base this is achieved by the Gaza strip being joined to the West Bank and Jerusalem split east west Germany style with a large four or six lane raised freeway connecting the Gaza strip with the West bank, this should have it’s entry point at the Palestinian side of Jerusalem and be the sovereign ownership of the Palestine State.

It would not disturb the ongoing economy of the Israeli State as it would be elevated on pillars with free access and under passes. Also on the West bank side obviously the Palestinian State still has access to the Dead Sea also and all land is kept with the same borders but all Israeli Settlements are dismantled as are they in the Gaza Strip.

So there we have the Palestinian State if you are a supporter of Israel you have probably stopped reading well that’s a shame because there is a solution here.

Israel Compensation
Now obviously Israel would not want to cede the land to the Palestinians but remember we are in my fantasy world here so they some how do, but they need to be compensated for the land lost in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Were do we take it from well you might call me crazy but this happened a lot around the first and second world wars in Europe a little land shifting.

Also there will need to be economic concessions given based on the net economic land “value”

So here goes:

Israel is expanded in the south mostly on the Jordan side but also a small strip right down the Egyptian border also.

The west Strip it would start at Elat and wedge out almost 3/14 of the way to Ra’s An Naqb then extend into a straight line upwards then wedging inward at the bottom of the dead sea so that full access is still on the Jordanian side but the strip needs to be enough to cover in Square meters the land given to the Palestinian State from the West bank.

Also the strip on the Egyptian side would cover the land given in square meters to the Palestinian State in the Gaza Strip or more but would stop at the border line where the Gaza state started giving the Palestine a full border with Egypt.

Everybody still has Water and sea access.

See image 1.2

Jordan Compensation
Any readers from Jordan feeling pretty angry right now, as you would but lets see how your country can be compensated by the loss of your land to the east now 90% of Jordanians are Sunni Muslims, this would mean that it would be possible under an Iraqi Sunni / Shia Government to cede land to the value of the West bank from Iraq if it was politically and economically viable that is to say:

Well in the physical sense it would be easy to do the land would be extended along the Jordanian border to the Square meter value of the West bank.

But the Economics are a little more complicated for some of the land to the east has more net Value than that of the West which is primarily desert and semi desert:


 * Massive Russian, European and US Farm trade incentives and general trade incentives to Jordan to cede the land to the east for land to the west.


 * A construction deal to turn some of that arid semi desert land in the west into viable agricultural land.

General Economic incentives and Politics
There would also need to be more European trade Incentives for Israel to cede the west bank area but all could be arranged if the political will did exist.

Economic Incentives would come at the right time to an Iraqi government that might need the help after a US withdrawal.

This could be offered by Russia and Iran and the EU if they could come to an agreement to help prop up the Iraqi Government for the cessation of the Land in Jordan’s favour.

Also it would be a matter of Pride to both the Sunni and Shia Government to know that it was their good deed that enabled the end to hostilities in this age old conflict also it would put a new legitimacy to the Iraqi Government that it did not have previous.

Or Perhaps there would be much more viable land at the wedge at the Top of Saudi Arabia, perhaps Jordan could be compensated by a split between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, maybe the divide could be 70% Saudi 30% Iraqi  with also Large economic incentives going to the Saudi’s from the EU and Russia in the form of new Technologies. It would not take a lot of US pressure and the Saudi government would agree to cede a small amount of land to Jordan, likewise Iraq.

The Political Situation is such that it is now possible that the Two countries that can give Jordan enough incentive to shift it's borders to compensate for a Palestinian Country are the Two countries that the US has a lot of influence in One it occupies and owns a puppet Government with Iran and the Other has a long long history with the US.

Of course to some this might sound a crazy idea but I have to tell those people that I think the idea of trying to kill each other down to the point of extinction is a little zany also, plus now with the new tension in the Mid East perhaps belligerents will decide they can ill afford another major war, that is both sides I mean.

I think the intelligentsia is leading that way.

SO a solution will HAVE to be Found…. and one that Compensates Israel and Palestine for land they fought and died for.

Jordan in turn gets a great deal in this solution and is the one that makes the biggest change but I’m sure between the EU Russia and the US Jordan could be given enough incentive and (I mean Trade incentive) to make that concession. If Jordan would agree then the whole deal works.

Saudi Arabia and Iraq only lose a very small piece of land in relation to the overall percentage of land mass, but get that back much more in New trade and incentives.

Everybody wins so everybody can now go and grow crops and build new homes on their new land and between the US Russia and the EU they would only have to give out a tiny % of their GDP for incentive purchases to Jordan perhaps they could stop putting money into the UN for all the good it does?

=Mildly Interesting News from Moscow, especially the paragraph Death"=

Anna Politkovskaya Samhook 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty sick and low blow Samhook what are you trying to say? I'd like to say I hope President Putin and the Russian Government do all thay can do to catch the murders, and bring them to justice.

Actually Samhook I'll take that back about that comment being sick and a low blow i don't want to take the moral high ground I said I’d be straight and I am being so, it's just not a relevant story, there are many murders all around the world everyday, journalists that spoke about the "oligarchs" don't have a particularly long life span in some cases... but it's all irrelevant if the implication was that the Government was some how involved I don't see the connection, or evidence or motive,

Samhook Weak desperate governments and people resort to this type of tactic.(as i spoke about in the last part of our discussion)

None of which the Russian government is. Criminals do this sort of thing. Do you think the Russian government fits the archetype of a typical criminal government?

I see it as a government of law with a good leader, you may not but it’s silly to think that they were involved in this sort of thing, it’s a smear campaign and it shows me how weak the opposition is.

It's the type of thing CNN or FOX news would just love, not really the thinking persons view though.

Russia — In a statement in Dresden, Germany that came three days after the murder, President Vladimir Putin promised:

"Whoever has committed this crime," Putin said, "and whatever their guiding motives, we should state that this is a horribly cruel crime. It must not remain unpunished, of course."[51] According to Putin, Politkovskaya's influence on Russian political life was ";very minor."[52] Politkovskaya was a critic of the authorities, Putin noted, and her influence should not be overestimated. "It was minimal," he concluded. "She was known among journalists and in human rights circles and in the West, but I repeat that she had no influence on political life. Her murder causes much more harm than her publications did. Whoever did it will be punished." Two hours later, at the session of the St. Petersburg Dialog, the subject arose again. "Those people who are hiding from Russian justice are willing to sacrifice anyone to create a wave of anti-Russian feeling," Putin said.[49]

I feel the same way.

Polonium 210, fresh from the reactor
Any thoughts on the murder of another Putin critic? It seems to me that either he ordered the hit or his KGB is out of control. How does it seem to you? Samhook 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As has now been proven there is no evidence for this claim what so ever, it is so silly to think that the Russian government goes around killing people in this manner, like I previously stated...look towards desperate people and/or governments to take this sort of criminal action.

[It is an elementary rule of logic that you can't prove a negative. You need to prove a positive that excludes the negative. In this case, you need to prove that some instrumentality other than Putin or his Gestapo carried out this murder of a critic. If you can prove that someone else did it, be my guest. Remember that whoever did it had access to Polonium-210. Of course it's just a bizarre coincidence that public critics of Putin tend to turn up murdered.]Samhook 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Criminals did you about the new Casino coin house law?

President Putin and team have passed a Law to ban Casino houses and/or other criminals by 2009, well actually they are designating them to some outpost that amounts to the middle of Siberia or the like.

What a man what a country!

Please Samhook, try to think outside the western media Box, Pr Putin and government rates continuing 70%+ support that's because he is a genius and one of the greatest men that have lived.

But not just that…believe it or not he cares about the Russian people.

Could you say your government cares about you? and/or is acting in your interest? Please ask yourself that question.

You said to me "How does it seem to you?"

To me Samhook this man stands out like a light in an otherwise darkening world.

A world where in 2008 all US and most AUST get micro chipped cards with our info on them.

A world where our governments talk a lot but do little, and they don't care about us.

A world where little men have big grand idea's about "one world government".

A world where you have to live under permanent debt to get a higher than standard education.

A world that will sell you out before look you in the eye. I’m not a religious man so sorry if that sounded Christian but it's just how I see it.

Explain Away
Explain away. Samhook 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :

"I wish you would consider the possibility that I may be quite as educated as you on this subkect, albeit I've come to different conclusions."

Sir I cannot, I don't believe you that cold.

(Putin discussion moved to bottom of page) - Samhook 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as you seem to imply, being arrogant on this matter,(i'm sorry if i appear so) I have no formal training in history and as such do see that as an advantage, but i would not say that i'm arrogant, but i will say I wish to take you the final steps from the darkness of this issue to the light as it is, but not the light of the "truth" just an even exchange of our common knowledge so that we both may know more of the subject, So in that case i rescind my earlier comments about "education" and wish to tell you that this has nothing to do with "Bonds" in the real sense of the word, but everything to do with Issuance and the Interest paid on it, the "Bond" is just the trick.... the word in which we will think the processes that is oh so very simple, complicated.

First off let me say I'm not going to argue the finer points of what an "Empire" is


 * I was not disagreeing with you on the definition of "empire" but as to whether England had am empire in any sense before the founding of the Bank of England.

if you say it is so, then let it be so, but A tally stick is by definition Currency, A universally accepted form of payment that was of high demand because is was good for the payment of Kings tax, therefore in all senses of the word, "a currency" to be traded for goods and services.

This is about Fraud, you as you have said, purchased some bonds, well... lets look at this transaction:

You gained currency by whatever means, usually a unit of work or labour and you purchased the bond with money.

you had interest paid back and you used the roads that were Purchased with the money... the end. All is right with the world?

No...

I'm uploading a picture:



Point 1. The Government Wishes to Raise money for a Giant Hospital In the Middle of an Island of the Coast of the USA Now there is no Road so a Bridge must be built etc etc.

The Government can not for whatever political Reason Raise the Taxes for this, so it does as it has done so many times before it Raises the money through the Central Bank. (now I’m going to purposely leave gaps in this story so that if you come to your own questions ask them) I will say this, all money is Issued from the Central Bank.

How does it do this?, well look at the picture it raises a Bond it just prints this from nothing.

Point 2. The Bond Exists it is for (1 Billion dollars) the Central Bank "Purchases" this Bond, look at the picture the Bond is going to the Central Bank.

Now Samhook how did you pay for your bonds? did you expend a unit of your of your energy working for currency at your job?, did you take orders from someone else when you worked for that money?, did you steal it? no better still did you just go home and Print it out of your HP printer?

Well Sir The Central Bank payed for it's bond by creating the money from thin air, this NON-government organisation that has private stock and does not Pledge or claim to represent the Public's or citizen's interest in any shape or form, created money from a printing press or an electronic digit.

then paid for a 1 billion dollar bond.

Point 3 Look again at the picture, the bond is paid for that is the first Fraud, but wait between you and me Samhook what is the use of printing your own unit of wealth to be paid back with the same unit you printed quite frankly zero,

so we need to think of some way we can gain actual units of "energy" "wealth" "Real Wealth".

Enter Interest:

The Central Bank charges "interest" on that money it just created from nothing look at the Picture the money Bears interest, the Central Bank "Loaned" fake money and charges interest on the principal that interest Samhook is the following:


 * Your memories


 * Your Time


 * Your Energy


 * Your Will


 * Your life


 * Your Children’s Memories


 * Your Children’s Life


 * Your Children’s Time.

What i am saying is the Wealth that is paid back as interest comes in the form of Human labour, your direct taxes part of the way to pay this interest, but further on from that ALL money is created this way not just Gov spending. So that encompasses nearly a humans total energy.

Point 4 The money goes to the Gov the Gov spends it on the project(s) the money is paid to contractors and workers which they deposit, then the whole thing gets multiplied by ten through the commercial "sluts" repeating the process with the local deposits in their possession, all creating money from nothing with interest attached:

But That interest has to be paid back, With Real Wealth.

Now think of this...... If you accept that ALL money is created in this way in a system such as this, then you see that if one charges interest on the issuance of the whole money supply: ] 1. Becasue the interest is charged at the point of issuance.

2. Then there is no doubt, more debt than there is money.....

if you paid back the debt as it is issued you pay back ... well you can't because there is more debt than money ....

Our human energy pays the interest, more debt more interest...

now watch this.....>>>>>>>>> as I lift the darkness for you

As a Human Country expands it needs more money to facilitate the expanding economy the more money under this system means the more debt because the issuance of money is into debt, because the interest is charges at the issuance, the more the debt the more interest the more human energy is needed to facilitate the interest. Because that is where wealth comes from a service or a labour. a unit of energy.

so lets break that down...

The larger an economy becomes under this system the more human energy is drained from them and transferred to the "state", and the "Central Bank" which is the destination of the interest and as such the wealth.

The energy/wealth is not Transferred to each other the energy/wealth is drained and concentrated at the top.

now one can understand why their Children’s children may say, the news says our economy has grown at 5% and wealth has increased by 10% but Why won't I ever be able to afford a land to toil and house to put on it?

Well son, don't aspire to own land, own just the house let the "state" own the land ???????????

What is that Samhook? .

The new Order of the ages. it's better than that old "in your face" communism.

Samhook Response
•	These are cruel people, beasts in human disguise.

About Chechen rebels during a press conference in The Hague while paying a state visit to the Netherlands (2 November, 2005)


 * Does this reference to Chechnya have anything to do with the question at hand? Samhook 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with what is at hand great quote though don't you think?

I'm not as you seem to imply, being arrogant on this matter,(i'm sorry if i appear so) I have no formal training in history and as such do see that as an advantage


 * I'm going to try to respond to you here bit by bit as time permits, but I do wonder whether we have enough common ground for a discussion of our disagreements. If you really see your lack of historical background as an advantage, you seem to have adopted one of the three mottoes of the Party in 1984: "Igorance is strength."  As I see it, this lack of yours makes you a ready victim to lying charlatans like Benjamin H. Freedman. You do not understand that his claims are contradicted by millions of documents in thousands of libraries.  I  would be glad to hear your view on this matter before proceeding further.   Samhook 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You misrepresented my words not on purpose but because I believe you have had such education, I said "Formal Training in History" that is to say I was not Re-educated post WW2 like so many others.(include yourself)
 * please we have a lot of common ground here
 * Now here you provide the greatest abstract example of exactly what I’m talking about when I talk about "mass education"

"you seem to have adopted one of the three mottoes of the Party in 1984: "Ignorance is strength.""

Let me give you an example of the world that I witness through my eyes: your example was wasted because you misunderstood my words; A better example of that sort of opposite "newspeak" is calling someone who is Semitic and is anti-Zionist an "Anti-Semitic" a nonsense word.

Or better still how about the abstract, how about calling people "Anti-Semitic " because they oppose the use of cluster bombs?

Which is kind of funny in a really twisted way, because cluster bombs landing on those Semitic people in Lebanon is anti-Semitic very anti-Semitic!.

What about "Invading Iraq for Peace" that's a good one!, or maybe "they hate us because we are free" i like that one as well.

hey, hey no i have it ......... "The Patriot Act" how's that? hard to beat i know.


 * What's this all about? Have I suggested that anyone who opposes the use of cluster bombs is an antisemite?  Crazy idea.  But there is no reason why antisemites cannot oppose the use of cluster bombs, and so on.  Anti-Semite is a dubious term, simply because the only accepted definition of "Semite" is a speaker of a Semitic language.  This includes speakers of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, but by now a minority of Jews.  This is why I always use the spelling "antisemite."  But let's replace it with a more honest term:  Jew-hater.   Jew-hating goes back to the Middle Ages, but let's start with the 20th century, when Russian Jew-haters produced the crude and shabby forgery known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, still being circulated by Jew-haters today.   In the 1920s, the Jew-hating Naxi party arose in Germany.  When it came to power, it promptly deprived Jews of their German citizenship and banned them from all the professions.  When it had conquered Poland, Ukraine and western Russia, it deported the western European Jews and murdered them in their millions--men, women, and children, simply because they were Jews.   You think you can erase this history with word games? Samhook 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I never claimed you were connecting the opposition to Cluster Bombs with being an "antisemite" but someone did and it was a good example of nonsense speak, which was a response to your original example.


 * I would argue that Fraud, Usury and slavery hating goes back to the middle ages something that seems inextricably connected to a few amongst the people you might count into the "Jewish" group of people.


 * B H Freedman would argue that the feelings against Jewish people at that time was brought about by, the systematic destruction of Germany in the first World War, and the feelings that they were "sold out" by a group of people inside their nation, furthermore the more I study your famous "jew-hating" it seems to be less and less aimed at "Jews" and seems to be more and more aimed at Bankers, Central Bankers, "Money Changers", coin house owners and other powerful people that tend to treat others in a disrespectful demeaning way.

To suggest the "Jew-hating" just exists in a vacuum in spite of all the evidence of which some has to be attributed to B H Freedman is just quite silly really, in fact it's stupid.

Like Freedman says: it's not that all of a sudden in 1919 or 1927 Germans decided that Jewish blood tasted better that coca-cola like he says it was all economic anything but Religion.
 * Good heavens. The history of Jew-hating in Europe--including Germany--goes back centuries.  On most of the Crusades, the armies heading East paused to murder Jews in their masses along the way.   In the 14th Century, Jews were blmed for causing the Black Death and murdered in their masses across Europe.   If Freedman did not know this, he was unbelievably ignorant.  If he knew it, he was unbelievably dishonest.  Samhook 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of Backwards thinking


 * Sorry. I'm not dyslexic.  Samhook 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

leads a misguided individual to the idea that people just "hate" Jews it's the same sort of uneducated over-emotional thinking that leads one the idea that Hitler had a "magic" spell over the Germans and that's the reason he was so loved in his country from that period.

When the truth sits somewhere closer to the fact that he stood on a corner with a the Treaty of Versailles in one hand and a copy of the Balfour Declaration in the other. and that's about all he needed.

So spare me your key automatic triggered emotional response because The Japanese don't misuse it.... they have grounds to be a little paranoid also wouldn't you think considering one race tried to firebomb them out of existence and then nuked them into oblivion.


 * Do you ever look at what you read before you send it out into cyberspace?  "Nuked them into oblivion"?   Japan, you mean?  You mean it's gone?   Where are Toyotas made, then?

Samhook 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As to "automatic triggered emotional response," spare me this cheap psychologizing. If you don't want to argue ideas, just say so.

B H freedman says the U.S mass media was controlled by Zionists/Jewish : broad statement hey?

Well as I noted that is certainly the case in the USA today you can look that up if you like, on wikipedia. And if the AP was created Primarily by a man named "Moses Yale Beach" 1846. so lets look at this from the top.

B H freedman said that all of the mass media, so lets say most of the Mass media was Jewish/Zionist controlled:

that is the Case now in the USA and the Associated Press was set up by Moses Yale Beach


 * Do you have any evidence whatever that Moses Yale Beach was Jewish? If you have none, and you are honest, you will withdraw this claim.  Samhook 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

in 1846 so that leads be to believe that there is more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that B H Freeman was correct.

His Speech about the Deal that was made, three words "The Balfour Declaration". but of course that is only scratching the surface.

so yes we can talk about Central Banks and The Fractional Reserve system anytime.

I don't believe B H Freedman was a liar, just a little angry sometimes i couldn't really blame him though.

Blocked by SoothingR
Why has my IP address, which is 202.7.166.163 Been blocked by the admin "SoothingR" he gave the reason "keeps 'apple chapeling'" What is "apple Chapeling"?

When you “put the Periods on the i” by blocking me what was the reasoning Tim?
 * Frankly put, I don't know what 'apple chapeling' is either. 'Apple chapel' seemed to be a phrase which was put into the Knox Grammar School article many times (Check these links if you need any evidence:, , , , , , ). I blocked the IP address from which the vandal was editing, as this is a clear case of vandalism. If you ever bump in such a situation again, I suggest that you research a little before starting to pull out irrelevant issues whilst using that as a base to engage in a personal attack against me. Cheers. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted, fair comment sorry i've been made aware of the situation, i'll try to be more educated on the matter in the future.

Sorry.-Theblackbay 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Benjamin Freedman.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Benjamin Freedman.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
Hi. I've removed your reference to deaths related to the sanctions against Iraq from Holocaust denial, as it appears to be original research. If you want to put it back in, you'll need to cite some reliable source asserting such a connection. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the Benjamin H. Freedman discussion page
I've recently checked with the guidelines for disccussion pages, and it seems clear that our current discssion of our ethnicities is way off the grounds. I'm going to make one more public response to you and will then say no more on the topic and limit myself to precise suggestions on how your article might be made more accurate. As long as I have your attention: I have no doubt that Benjamin Harrison Freedman existed. I have considerable doubts about some of the texts attributed to him. I know that much of what he said is flatly false on the record.

Samhook 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the discussion page for Freedman, you said:

or i could be reading too much into it, in that case no problems, I’ll tell you I’m not Jewish but you know what if tomorrow Israel made a statement and it went something like this:

"We have reviewed our Political Stance in the World and we have decide that at it's cause a large problem in the world seems to stem from Fractional Reserve Banking and the Bonds system in which money is Created from nothing an then interest is paid on that, we have review and found this system to be inequitable and unfair, so Therefore and henceforth we have renounced this system, and have decided to raise an army to liberate the world of this system which is in every country on earth, we will start by requesting counties change that system then we will go from there"

and i believed it was true, I’d sign up and join in one second flat. I'd start waving the Israeli Flag out front of my house and eat Kosher food.

that's how i feel about the corruption in the system, and i hope that the Jewish people see it too, because they are being used I believe.

There are two questions here I don't really understand. First of all, just what is really wrong with fractional reserves? I don't mean that I have not heard many complaints about the practice. One cannot have studied political extremism as long as I have without coming across many indictments of the practice. But what is wrong with the practice in practical terms? Since the modern era of banking began, the economies of the developed world have, over time, enjoyed continued expansion. There have been interruptions from the business cycle and wars, of course, but the world is very much richer now than it was in, say, 1890.

The other question is what this has to do with Israel. Do you see Israel as somehow especially responsible for world banking practices.

Samhook 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thought on the Freedman discussion page. As time permits, I'm going to go through it and remove such of my contributions as I now think are off topic (leaving placeholders as appropriate) and also re-arranging some of what I've said that is in topic but eccentrically formatted.

You might wish to look in as time permits and see whether you want to remove or shift anything of yours that my changes have left hanging in air.

Samhook 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samhook

Obviously you wish to delete the quote of B H freedman's no?

Not in the least. I don't want to cemsor. I do want to counter lies, however. Btw, what is the quote [sic] you are talking about here? - Samhook 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should not it is directly related to the subject you made many a statement leading to the idea that B H Freedman was "Anti-Semitic" I showed you a quote that disagreed with this idea, so the statement must stay.

It is an important historical reference as to why he is not Anti-Semitic but that aside please do not go though and delete at will this important discussion everyone should have the right to read, you should not decide that these people do not have this right to read this discussion.

Sorry. Under Wikipedia rules I have the right to delete whatever I have posted, especially when I think I posted contrary to policies. This is not "at will" bu under the rules. Do you have a problem with that? Samhook 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

your questions:

just what is really wrong with fractional reserves?

very good but what i must state firstly to you is that you missed the question i said:

"Fractional Reserve Banking and the Bonds system in which money is Created from nothing an then interest is paid on that"

now I’m not sure why you left out the central banking issue? are you clear on the Bond system and you agree with me that it is the fundamental flaw and blot on modern human history?

No, I do not agree with you om this. To the contrary, I think that central banking--created in the last decade of the 17th Century in the Bank of England--is ome of the great achievements in moderm history. What is your evidence to the contrary? Samhook 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fractional Reserves, after money is issued from nothing by the federal reserve buy buying a bond that was issued from nothing by the government the "money" that is issue or borrowed (basically from the Fed) is then deposited into the many accounts in Commercial banks across the country, yes? well because of the "Magic of Fractional Reserve Banking" these account holders can now lend out money at a Ratio higher than the money that is on reserve, with me?

Money was issue from Nothing out of thin air that bears interest, then it gets deposited into commercial accounts to get loaned out at nearly 10 times the amount that those deposit accounts hold, now that also all bears interest.

Tell me what to think is the first problem you could see that may arise from this process?

If you said Cheese you where wrong if you said Inflation you were on the money you could have also said instability based on inflation.

but i would say instability created by inflation and the will of a few people at the top that create the issuance of the money and they can:

"..cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest." Charles August Lindbergh.

I ask once again: what are the practical results here? For example, was C.A> Limdbergh right?

And second, are you goimg to answer my query about the relevance of Israel here? I hope you will.

Samhook 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks Blackbay. Makes me know somebody cares :) I was really shocked when I saw that Leidesdorf and Freedman lived on the same block in 1918, I wasn't expecting that at all.  And then when I accidently stumbled on Freedman's death index entry filed under "Freeman".  Now maybe we have an actual chance at getting his obit out of Garden City, NY. I already checked the New York Times, but no luck there.Wjhonson 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

First question
Yes I will that is Simple The reference to Israel was in context to the discussion we were having at that time nothing more the discussion was revolving around B H Freedman and his perceived "Anti-Semitic" tag. although it must be said that many Zionist seem to support the bond system, in the end though I care not whom supports or not, if you support such a system I believe you are 1. confused about the nature of the system 2. are involved in it therfore have no need to oppose it.

Are you saying that Israel is somehow more involved in central banking than, say, Germany? And are you really simply opposed to the issuance of bonds on principle? My involvemnt in bonds is limited and general. I own a modest stock of US savings bonds, on which the government has always paid the promised interest. I use various public faciities, e.g., highways and bridges that were funded at least in part by bonds. - Samhook 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Central Banking
It worries me that you think that way about the Bank of England I will agree that as such "central banking" in it's self is not at all a problem, what you will see as you are educated on the subject is that this bond system when relating to interest bearing issuance of currency supports nothing but the concentration of Wealth into a non-representative form of dictatorship of the elite ruling from the top down.

I wish you would consider the possibility that I may be quite as educated as you on this subkect, albeit I've come to different conclusions. - Samhook 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You see let me undertake the task of proving this, do not forget that The English Empire was Built on a Form of currency that was essentially a Stick of wood split in half. Called the Tally sticks

You don't need to "educate" me on the question of tallies. My graduate training was as a medieval historian. Tallies were not really currency but a proof of debt that could be traded precisely as bonds are now. Until this century the English/British money system was based on gold, supplemented by notes issued by the Bank of England. There was, by the way, never any such thing as the "English Empire." The development of an empire started when England and Scotland were united, first in 1603 by having the same monarch, and then by the Union of 1707 that created Great Britain and abolished the separate states of England and Scotland. - Samhook 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

what I’m trying to emphasis here is that the Bank of England was no great positive reform. And in fact the cause of all instability of the currency. you see The Bank of England has a little catching up to do in this sense The tally stick system was basically in place for 726 years. It was arguably the most successful and stable forms of currency in recorded history

Can I explain? Then i will give you a chance to say if you agree with this system it or not:

Response to your message on my user page
Hi Samhook

Obviously you wish to delete the quote of B H freedman's no? I think you should not it is directly related to the subject you made many a statement leading to the idea that B H Freedman was "Anti-Semitic" I showed you a quote that disagreed with this idea, so the statement must stay.

It is an important historical reference as to why he is not Anti-Semitic but that aside please do not go though and delete at will this important discussion everyone should have the right to read, you should not decide that these people do not have this right to read this discussion.

your questions:

just what is really wrong with fractional reserves?

very good but what i must state firstly to you is that you missed the question i said:

"Fractional Reserve Banking and the Bonds system in which money is Created from nothing an then interest is paid on that"

now I’m not sure why you left out the central banking issue? are you clear on the Bond system and you agree with me that it is the fundamental flaw and blot on modern human history?

Fractional Reserves, after money is issued from nothing by the federal reserve buy buying a bond that was issued from nothing by the government the "money" that is issue or borrowed (basically from the Fed) is then deposited into the many accounts in Commercial banks across the country, yes? well because of the "Magic of Fractional Reserve Banking" these account holders can now lend out money at a Ratio higher than the money that is on reserve, with me?

Money was issue from Nothing out of thin air that bears interest, then it gets deposited into commercial accounts to get loaned out at nearly 10 times the amount that those deposit accounts hold, now that also all bears interest.

Tell me what to think is the first problem you could see that may arise from this process?

If you said Cheese you where wrong if you said Inflation you were on the money you could have also said instability based on inflation.

but i would say instability created by inflation and the will of a few people at the top that create the issuance of the money and they can:

"..cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest."

Charles August Lindbergh.

Thanks for the award
I appreciate it. I've JUST yesterday found the obit for Conde McGinley. That guy is hard to track! But I've recently found some more stuff on Ben in the New York Times. I've got to collect it and will publish it soon. Wjhonson 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the AFD heads up
Thanks for the posting on my talk page about the G. Edward Griffin AFD debate. If you like, you can read my comments at Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin. If you have any other AFD recommendations, feel free to let me know. - Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Sena_Cases
Hi - could you take a look at this - could use another opinion on this :). RN 10:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Please get into the habit of adding new comments at the end, not the beginning, of talk pages. When you neither sign your comments, date your comments, nor put them at the end of the talk pages, it both makes your comments hard to follow in context, and it makes it much less likely people will read them at all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

no problem thanks -Theblackbay 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

=Vladimir Putin=

Can I Quote President Putin:

•	These are cruel people, beasts in human disguise.


 * As a long-time KGB officer, Putin ought to be an authority on cruelty. Samhook 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your speculation and hearsay,


 * Are you seriously claiming that Putim was not a lomg-time KGB officer?  Try looking at Vladimir Putin. which actually quotes his campaign biography on the point.

I however, prefer to judge people on their actions


 * Putin's actions include starting a long career in the Soviet Gestapo, the suppressiom of elected regional governments in Russia and imposing state control om the news media. Are these the actions you admire?  If not, what do you admire him for??

and President Putin rates about a 9 of 10 in my books. a modern day genius if ever I have witnessed one. in my opinion history will record this man one of the greatest in the world. -Theblackbay 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, another one of your now famous English misinterpretations, a was saying that your inference that President Putin Should be an authority on cruelty because of his association with the KGB, you see that is a silly term which is hearsay and speculation and association, well it's just like saying:

"well thank you officer for pulling my son out of that flaming house, I didn't think you would do it! because your in the L.A. police, instead I thought you would beat me up like you did that good man King."

or

"oh really, you worked for the NSA, how many people do you kill in a day?"

etc etc... -Theblackbay 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you actually think that the LA Police and the NSA and the KGB are comparable organizations, you are even more ignorant than I had thought. Samhook 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets weigh up the comments...

 * Putin's actions include starting a long career in the Soviet Gestapo, (Say Gestapo so we can associate what I call the old N connection the old Nazi connection it's a winner in a lot of info wars) (you also could have made the F connection which is Fascism you should have gone with that it's easier to argue and there is a lot evidence that modern Russia is more moving more F than N well not in the negative term but actually and in the positive, under some determinations.)

 the suppression of elected regional governments in Russia so... lets see your talking about the current situation in the South? after Beslan school hostage crisis?.


 * No. I am talking about Putin's suppression of elected regional governors and their replacement by appointees from Moscow.

Because if you are your talking about a system that is very similar to the American system of governorship to regions, and even on the very same day Pr Putin announced that he supported a plan by the Central Elections Commission for the election of Duma deputies based only on proportional representation" hmmmmm....

also lets see the reaction of the Russian people and people outside the world to that situation?

Putin won his second term with ..... 71 percent, well 71% I wonder if we together could think of an American President that has won 71% in this or last century?

Well that's just the Russian People I hear you say?... what about the rest of the world Certainly our mass Western media is having some effect in turning our docile populations against this damned Russian that keeps improving his country and standard of living for his people!

Well like i said maybe 20 years ago but unfortunately (for them) only the most docile are buying it, (obviously not enough fluoride in the water humans are very adaptable!)

I point you to the joint Poll by World Public Opinion report and the Levada Centre, you will find as well as Massive Russian support that Pr Putin still has a majority of support throughout the World also.

and last but not least :

and imposing state control on the news media.

Well lets see, I suppose we have a choice here on one hand we have the Russin Government under President Putin that has taken over lets say indirectly 70% of the T.V. market, none if any Newspapers, and none if any (outside official) online news sites, and none if any Radio stations....

So the choice is this government that is very popular and represent(s) (well most of them) the people of Russia, or we could have the U.S. system where by a magic of the corporate ladder about four(4) people and a small group of lackey run the U.S. media and most of the "International" media, oh you say, is this the group that never claimed to represent the U.S. citizens interest when displaying the "news", well Samhook I choose the first option thank you.

And gee I hope they do something about getting a bigger share online! oh wait up in this fairly free media, the President is already unbelievably popular so He doesn’t need to lie and propagandise.

Are these the actions you admire?

For being informed, "fighting Terrorism" and protecting his country and interests, yes absolutely and totally and the media you say, yes absolutely firstly it's an exaggeration and secondly, look at the alternative:

The U.S situation?,

The Western Media?

If it was up to them we would be most informed citizens on cats up trees and sport, thank god or whoever you like for the NET! That’s what I say, but!, Samhook, there are still people trying to delete history and news from the Net would you believe Samhook?! They will never win.

“If not, what do you admire him for??”

Should I start with A?

No seriously I’ll cite a few major issues:

Well for a number one There is fighting Crime! there was the successful criminal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

then, well there was the Social reforms, particularly the pension reform for Public transport, that was ingenious that created more circulation of currency in the market something essential for a healthy economy.

Oh how could i forget paying off the Soviet era "Paris club" debt 14 years early saving billions in Interest, I liked that.

Promotion of Peace stance against the middle east Iraq war.

A million others the massive promotion of small and middle sized business.

Then how could i forget the acquisition of the oil and natural gas for the state so as to keep these precious natural resources for Russian interests.

The converting a vast amount of Russian reserves to Gold before it tripled in price, there is something for admiration.

Should i go on....? -Theblackbay 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I guess you really shouldn't. With someone who admired state control of news media amd admires a president who jails political opponents, I have no real common ground.


 * No problem, no I admire the protective action The President and his government has taken towards the media, I believe a much better alternative is the systematic break-up of the media with legislation written so as single corporation or their parents no matter how far removed can no longer control significant blocks of media, that would be the greatest option, and I dare say, if i had to look at the record of President Putin it would not surprise me one bit if in the future that is exactly what the Russian Government does. but in the short term yes absolutely I agree and admire the alternative protective action.


 * I also admire a President that can take action against Thieves and Tax cheats, as you said I’m not sure if we have any common ground if you’re a person to condone Tax fraud, do you support the Enron administration also? I suppose that's your right but I’d just say keep it quiet the penalties are high.

Several Questions
^1. What is your evidence that Moses Yale Beach was a Jew?

well the news is still not all in on that one His father was a Puritan, I'm no expert on Religion so i don't understand fully what that is, i'd be more inclined to want to know what was his ideological beliefs are? also it's relevant to note that through further study Moses Yale Beach sold out pretty quickly within a year or so, i'll try to find out to whom he sold.


 * I see. An honest person would have simply admitetd that he had no evidence whatever that Beach was a Jew.   Not yout way, though.

now your turn :

Is there a disproportionate percentage of "Zionist" or people with Zionist leanings in the current US media Ownership structure?


 * You might begin by defining "disproportionate." However, since the overwhelming proportion of U.S. media outlets are publicly owned and as far as I know there is no accounting of the ethnicity or religious or political opnions of the shareholders. I am unable to address your question.  Do you have any information on shareholder profiles?

If you agree that there is, do you believe that this has an effect on Main stream Media in the US particularly relating the News stories that cover the issues and related stories that directly effect Zionism and/or Zionist idea's and objectives?


 * Why do you spell "affect" as "effect"?  Why do you punctuuate "ideas" as "idea's"?   Since I have no reason to know the composition of US media ownership, I can't guess what the effects might be.  Samhook 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" a crude Jew-hating forgery?

Not sure? certainly the consensus is that it is, perhaps you can educate me on this subject do you think it was real? I always love a conspiracy if you think it's real give me the evidence. that's the best way to asses a conspiracy.


 * The consensus outside the Jew-hating community is that the "Protocols" are a forgery.  But of course many of the beliefs you state here are very far from any consensus, including the lies of Benjamin H. Freedman and your fringe notions on banking.   You're no consensus-monger.   Moreover, you constantly cite material to Wikipedia from Jew-hating websites that peddle the Protocols as authentic.  So: do you really believe that the Protocols are forged?  Samhook 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. How many Jews--roughly--did the Nazis murder in WWII?  Samhook 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think i'd fall for that loaded question, so it's true you really do think I’m stupid, I wouldn't like to arrogantly focus on just one particular race i'd say a lot of people died in WW2 mostly by running at a person that is firing some sort of projectile at them or standing under one that is dropped from a plane and starvation and disease.

Why? where is it relevant?

If you are trying in some round about way to argue against "History Revisionism" let me give you shocking Proof of it's continued success:

Mass Grave of Massacred Poles Found in Ukraine -12th.08.2006

You See this story is a little tale about how the: "Ukrainian government erected a monument in May 1988" which blamed the "Nazi's" for the massacre of around "200,000 to 300,000" Poles.

Everything ok there, I mean they were NAZI's I'd blame them too! i mean who needs evidence for these sorts of things I mean it's only mass murder and everyone knows the NAZI's are the best at MASS murder aren’t they?

Well sorry not in this case...

"The villagers in December forced Ukrainian authorities to establish the commission, saying three previous investigations had covered up the truth by blaming Nazi troops."

THREE you say, commissions? so there were 3 Previous investigations into this mass murder, and three (3) times the answer was the NAZI's did it?

Well how could this be? oh that's right! Massive Corruption of Soviet era accusations and massive Media manipulation, well if the Soviets have been proven liars again and again, what other lies did they tell about the Second world war?

What other fanciful "Facts" has the world been told, that's the job of a revisionist and I believe it's an important one.

“The commission's conclusion supports the testimony of elderly witnesses in the nearby village of Bykovnia, who said they saw trucks dripping blood en route to the site in the 1930's, before the Nazis occupied the area”.

'''I'll tell you what Samhook and jpgordon (just between us three) if things were right in the world these damned "elderly witnesses" wouldn't be able to blab their mouth off just so much, ya know what I’m saying, I little “persuasive subjectivity” that's all I’m talking about, you know a little "warning" some Jail time perhaps, just so they "re-evaluate" their "position" on this "far from conclusive" subject. wink wink know what I mean?'''


 * Let me restate the question: Do you believe that the Nazis mounted a massive campaign to murder as many of the Jews--men, women and children--as they had under their control simply because they were Jews?


 * Let me give you a straight answer to that: NO! However many of the poltitruks and partisans were Jewish. So it's no coincidence that many Jews got killed by locals or German troops.


 * The fact that the Communists engaged in massacres of Poles and then blamed them on the Nazis, e.g., Katyn Forest, is neither here nor there.  Samhook 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

-Theblackbay 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a winning follow up question for yourself Samhook:


 * Do you beileve it correct and Right to Jail a Person for his thoughts or feelings on a subject specifically in regard to the Jailing of many History Revisionists that questioned aspects of the Second world war?

can't wait for your answer:

blackBay pictures Donald Rumsfeld with hands in front doing little circular waves with one hand making and "inch" measure symbol:

surprise.
 * Your song and dance here about Rummy is a classic example of your deeply prejudiced approasch. Without the slightest evidence, you think you know how I will answer.  You don't need evidence, do you?  Of course not, no more than that you needed evidence for your idiotic statement that I was "obviously" a Jew.  Well,


 * I think it is wrong--any time, any place, for any reason--to put people in jail for what they believe and say.
 * I think David Irving is a vicious lying creep, but his imprisonment in Austria is a worse scandal than anything he has said.  I travel in Europe a good deal, but I won't go to Austria while Irving is in jail there.   I regard all such laws--which deface the legal systems of many otherwise civilized states, e.g., Canada, the UK, Germany, &c., as more obscene than the opinions they try to control.  I glory in my good fortune in having been born in the one country in the world where no law can be passed controlling opinion.  Samhook 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you seee..... it's like kinda this.. it's like a freedom issue.... that's not to say it is a freedom issue .... but you see it's like a freedom issue.....you see the nazi's where bad men...... mumbleing ...... take over the world.......um.. well your looking at this all the wrong way..... your in the wrong perspective, in 1927..... Hitler was a bad person i think we all agree on that and lots of killing happened.... (then he gains some momentum) so you see we need to put these people in prison now because of the power of Nazism you can see how even today the Islamofascists are taking up the cause oh and don't forget the leftists in South America, I mean we have recently compared nearly every leader to Hitler at some time that's the power of this "Magic" that Hitler had, so if we let people just walk around thinking any old thought that "Hitler" Demon, well you see it's not an actual "Demon" as such, more of a Magical "Idea".... well the point is it could jump in there and Bam it's 1939 all over again...

No Rummy would do this: "Not my question ask the EU ...next."

Put your answer HERE:



Needing further clarification here
'I think it is wrong--any time, any place, for any reason--to put people in jail for what they believe and say. I think David Irving is a vicious lying creep, but his imprisonment in Austria is a worse scandal than anything he has said. I travel in Europe a good deal, but I won't go to Austria while Irving is in jail there. I regard all such laws--which deface the legal systems of many otherwise civilized states, e.g., Canada, the UK, Germany, &c., as more obscene than the opinions they try to control. I glory in my good fortune in having been born in the one country in the world where no law can be passed controlling opinion. Samhook 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the reason for my song and dance about Rumsfeld was that he is a funny man, I could watch hours of his footage just talking when the man talks he is a walking encyclopaedia, explaining some sort of abstract psychology it's amazing to watch and i find it amusing the link to you of course is that Rumsfeld manages to say one thing and lead the listener to think he is saying another thing altogether when in fact he is saying nothing.

And that is exactly up until now what you have done Samhook you have said nothing. until right here:


 * 'I think it is wrong--any time, any place, for any reason--to put people in jail for what they believe and say.

Then I say to you Samhook you can't divert this enthusiast of the great master of the "talk" Rumsfeld:

The next and only obvious question I was going to ask was this:

Then WHY? Samhook is that law there?, why does it exist? if there is no conspiracy regarding WW2, please explain to a simple "barley literate" student of the world why this Law exists it SEEMS to me (I might be reading too much) like there is a conspiracy to hide something?

Tell me if I’m being a bit over the top here but it seems like THAT law is there to stop ANY investigation into this matter, what an unusual situation?

Let me quote you:

"I could go on at tiresome length detailing Freedman’s falsehoods, but absent popular demand, I will not do so, relying on his own standard that when someone lies once he is not to be trusted"

Here you claim we can not trust Benjamin fredman based on the "fact" that he lied about sailing on a boat, so then we can discount all of his accusations which fit exactly the theme and evidence as in the Balfour declaration and motive and people.

Well I say “fair enough” if you want to do that based on contention about sailing on a boat, so be it.

It seems to me that you have a problem with being caught up in non relevant side issues, or perhaps it's a desperate grasped at an attempt to finally discredit B H Freedman for your own sanity and the "thousands of library books" sake.

But that aside you can claim that but lets be consistent here Samhook.

Regardless lets apply your own application of B H Freedman’s original Quote just here:

"The fact that the Communists engaged in massacres of Poles and then blamed them on the Nazis, e.g., Katyn Forest, is neither here nor there. Samhook 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

Well I’ve got to say Samhook I'm CONFUSED!

Lets look at this from the top:

The Soviet Communists, lied about a relevant subject again and again and again, then when they were forced to re-examine the issue they lied again, three more times then when they are out of power finally the truth comes out.

So based on your equation of calling B H Freedman a outright Liar that we can not trust a word of, that is that if he lied once about sailing on a ship then all his accusation are by default devoid.

We need to be consistent Samhook or I fear you will look like quite the hypocrite, lets also a apply this to the Soviet Record on WW2 and we see lie after lie, then lets add to this equation that famous law Protecting the questioning of the details or evidence from that original source "the Soviets" "the Proven liars" on the subject.

And it all starts to look a little well… what's the word, "strange".

You have some choices now:

I’ll assume of course you will be retracting the statement that the Soviets repeated lies about this WW2 evidence subject at hand should be discounted or are “neither here nor there”, and that in fact they can't be trusted on this matter at all or at least their details, evidence and accusations about the Nazi’s need close close examination.

Or

You can confirm that statement that it's all irrelevant, and that they only lied officially on all those issues because they "didn't like the Nazis" but they are completely trustworthy otherwise and stop calling B H Freedman a liar.

But

You can't, I fear, do both.

You’d need to be called Donald Rumsfeld to pull that off. And while I credit you with I’m sure many arts "half talk" is not one of them, you seem to be pretty familiar with "diversion" but it's nothing like what I’ve witnessed before.

So what is it, the Soviets were Liars on many accusations of Nazi atrocities and we need the examine the Evidence on the ground for their accusations about the Germans of that period, or B H Freedman is not a liar and you retract those statements.

or what's behind door three:

You some how try to divert this piece of writing and not answer the questions and then say that my idea(s) are "fringe" like my idea's on "banking" and "bonds".

I trust you already have, but go and talk to any economist the best they can often do is: "oh yeah, well your right but hey this system works for me I made a packet of money last year"

My theories on Bonds are not fringe just because you can't (read don't) want to understand them. They are the accepted facts.

they can be tested there is no Law (yet) that throws one in jail for questioning the Bonds system.

-Theblackbay 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bond Argument, moved to the bottom

 * I’ve tried to state this somewhat less bluntly but failed. Your understanding of bonds is almost hopelessly confused.


 * Have you ever bought a bond?  I thought not.

I respectfully ask you to re-read the passage that I wrote with picture included, and failing that I respectfully ask you to get a dictionary so that you may understand all of the words


 * This is an unbelievably arrogant remark. You are so convinced of your own rightness, not to mention your literary skills, that you believe that if someone disagrees with you, it must be because he can't read very well.  I think the apogee of your arrogance is the suggestion that I need to "get" a dictionary.  I wouldn't have one, of course.  You do not, in my opinion, have much to be arrogant with in this respect.  You constantly mispunctuate, your prose is often barely subject to parsing, and you don't understand the meaning of such elementary terms as "evidence."  You know that tag at the head of the Freedman article about copy editing?  Guess whose writing led to that?  Samhook 02:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * oh don't be so offended, I only said that to get your attention, I planed it in advance, my literary skills are far far from perfect and I have a tendency to write knid of well.. bacwkards, I get around it with a bit of good editing... I had to say something that would shake you out if the hypnosis you apparently seem to be in...


 * The only thing that you can say to me that could have any effect whatever would be the citation of documented facts. Your notion that I am in "hypnosis" is one more example of your arrogant assumption that you are right and that there is something wrong with anyone who disagrees with you.  This saves you the intellectual work of joining in debate, but it should not be confused with reasoning. Samhook 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fact = You now understand how A government Issues a Bond and A Central Bank Buys it but Purchases it by Fraud.

^^I understand no such thing.
Try to get over the bizarre assumption that your merest assertion amounts to a coclusive proof.


 * I offered A conclusion and you did not disagree with me, excuse me if I find that conclusive.

Fraud is a legal term. The complex machinery by which the Federal Reserve Banks issue U.S. currency, which is an obligation of the U.S. Treasury, is spelled out in great detail in a series of legislative acts now going back nearly a century.

Yes Yes, well it's interesting that you say it is the "obligation of the Treasury" if this is a government Treasury obligation why does a quasi private independent organisation Print the legal currency?


 * You really ought to get the simplst facts straight. The currency is printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, a federal agency.  It is issued by the Federal Resarve Banks.  The reason why is very simple:  that's what the law requires.   This is how the system works.   It does not work perfectly, of course. You can't repeal the business cycle.  But you sure can smooth it out, and since the 1935 revisions, this is just what the federal reserve system has done, even if it was imposed on us by Jewish conspirators. Samhook 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * well that ends my argument! "talk it" on "details" which ever way you want. fact is Samhook you now understand the info..., you didn't want to know but you do now, no going back from here welcome to my world.


 * why Samhook? why print a Bond then purchase it with currency and charge interest on that currency, remember Benjamin Franklin's comment on this?


 * Well, actually, I don't remeember this, because I very much doubt Franklin ever said this. He didn't write in late 20th century English.   I find this quotation all over the web on economic crank sites, but never with a citation to a real source.  I think it's bogus, just like the antisemtic quotation from Franklin you find all over the web.  But I may be wrong.   (You ever wonder whether you may be wrong about anything?) You can prove me wrong by providing a citation to an original document or a reputable historian.  Samhook 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"That is simple. In the colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Script'. We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control it's purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one."

and what about The late Thomas A Edison specifically on Bonds:

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes a bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: But one promise fattens the usurers (interest collectors) and the other helps the people."


 * This quotation comes from a joint interview with Henry Ford. Edison and Ford were each in their own spheres geniuses, Edison by far the greater.

bB - Agreed generally

Neither was an economist. bB - Disagree totally what is an "economist" that is a weak attempt to make the source of the quote look naive not convinced here at all read on.

Ford was a deeply ignorant man on many issues. He credulouly believed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and circulated them widely. I can't comment on that becasue I haven't studied them. I'm not sure of the ignorance of him elsewhere?

He was an admirer and supporter of Hitler. I don't know whether his friend Edison shared such views,

bB- Again yes not sure about Edision as far as Hitler goes look into the mind of a million educated people and tell me the percent of admirers of Hitler, in his first meeting so was Chamberlan and the English foreign secretary, just off the top of my head Charles Lindberdgh Jr, Nobel laureate Dr Alexis Carrel, most Germans in from 1939 to the end of the war, most germans today, lots of French, what is the point? He was on the cover of Time, he was very admired.

but he was on the evidence of this quotation economically naive.

bB - uh oh here's where you've come undone you could have said, "I believe based on other comments of his that he was economically naive" or "he seems to have pegged that comment but, in his other comment he was naive" but not:

This comment is naive, becasue the obvious next question from me the "not an economist" that considers himself an economic genius (not becasue he has or thinks he has a higher level of understanding but becasue everyone else has or seems to have a lowering of understanding on the subject)

Sorry Samhook but if i tried to articulate the comment any better i'd have to learn some other more discriptive language, the comment is an economic FACT. I can and will if you like go through it section by section to explain it. it's as fact as a human is writing to you from a computer somewhere. the walls in your room. the atoms that make you. i just can't explain it any further, be sure that when he says "Broker" he means a party to the currency issuance not a "share Broker" that's the only thing i could think is of the smallest contention in that factual comment.

He (and Ford) wanted the gocernmentto fund the Muscle Shoals dam project by issuing fiat money. Fiat money was not a new idea: it ha been used during the French Revolution and again in Europe after both World Wars. The result was invariable: runaway inflation. The main function of the bonds in a modern currency system is to provide a brake on how much money can be issued, and this prevents hyperinflation. Samhook 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait Wait wait stop there, the U.S. Currency is a fiat currency nothing backs it, the bond does not back the currency the bond is a piece of paper like the currency it is issued from a fiat base it is baseless.

The result of a fiat currency is not runaway inflation never has been and never will be.

The best example I can give is....um you are familiar with Tallies, Step into my Fantasy world:

Tallies and A fiat Currency
Alexander was absolutely sick to death of carrying around this stupid big stick and being an assertive guy he went to the king and told him just that… So the king instead of off with his head listened and made his government let all the people of the land deposit, no save that he MADE them deposit the Tally sticks in a giant Vault and printed a Fancy receipt for the corresponding tally stick and held them in that vault:

So that is to say if the stick had five notches it was taken and the receipt was printed it looked like a piece of paper with fancy print of a stick on it so not to be able to be copied and the NUMBER 5 for five notches.

The people loved their King because they could now carry around this small and lite receipt and trade that for goods and services knowing that at any time they could take that receipt and get their "precious piece of wood" if they so wished.

Time went on and the receipts to put it in Pink Floyds’ terms "it's a hit" these receipts were so successful that the economy was growing very well and what a bonus after a while the King accepted them for all taxes new sticks were carved based on the expansion of the population and "business" "flow" but these never left the vault they just printed new receipts and issued them as if they were the "precious stick". so no one really ever really demanded the stick for payment.

And as a result the "Tally stick currency" is born...

BUT, THEN one day all of the Precious sticks in the vault burnt! and the King was the only witness! a spark spontaniusly started and after that they just went up like, well, WOOD. soon these ultra valuable peices of stick were tranformed into useless ash.

Being a genius of "obviousness" he wisely decided it was very much NOT in his best interest to inform the happy prosperous people that they now had absolutely no backing for their currency!

and.............He didn't ... and .......Nothing changed.

They knew no better and understood even less nothing changed, new currency was printed based on the expansion of the economy and the price level and all was absolutely the same as before the currency was by definition absolutely fiat. no inflation unless of course some absolute idiot had a motive or will to start to print masses of receipts for no reason what so ever (other than his gain) and circulate them, but for that to happen the King would have to be Retarded or have the wool pulled over his eyes in a large way.

Inflation is the illusion of price rises because it takes more receipts to buy the product because they the receipts or the backing goods are becoming worthless. currency Bonds do nothing for this, if the Central Bank started Purchasing any bond it could get anywhere it could inflate the economy to a massive amount, look at the US currency it's Pegged to Oil but Backed by nothing of worth. Bonds can and will be issued come free rain. David Bowie issued his own bonds for a time check it out. It’s the Fraud of purchasing them with made up private money that is the issue, then charging interest on that money.


 * Now for your strongest point in the argument:


 * You really ought to consider the obvious fact that for nearly a century the currency and banking reforms initiated in 1913 have continued to work and this country has continued to be the most prosperous in the world. But I suspect you won't do that but will prefer to live in the world of your paranoid conspiracy fantasies.

Which i have to say Samhook, is really not very strong at all..

The Record of the Federal Reserve on Currency stability is on paper and in your own terms in "thousands of libraries" and i have to say it's not good, lets asses where this system has taken us the world and the U.S. a century of Wars to start with lets see the 1929 crash, then the many "corrections" afterwards. I will agree that the U.S. has prospered but that is a narrow narrow view of the world Samook the system is set up so that if someone prospers someone else has to loose the U.S has Prospered mostly on Debt and the back of the destruction of many other economies this is great for the Central Banks because they make a bonanza the history of a "successful" America is a History of DEBT, but alas dear Samhook you can only keep borrowing if your big enough to own the game so that you may pack it up when things don't go your way.

I fear Dear Samhook that the U.S will be packed up instead.

In the End Samhook all i have to do to Prove my "conspiracy" is say...well where is the U.S. right now? And why has it arrived where it is? By the manipulation of the leaders of the U.S. and that is most definitely the Central Bank Board and Numerous other non Government organisation that collude with them.

Massive U.S. Dollar inflation combined with a falling house market, followed by a falling stock and sales market plus rising interest rates. then we add to that the weak position the U.S is in because of a war that was started to stop Iraq from shifting their currency to Euro and selling Oil in Euro, but we have to keep adding because the Iranians are now also opening an Oil Exchange and will be selling Oil in a Basket of Currencies including Euro. With the US dollar pegged to Oil what will the effect be?

You can try to spin it any way you like, you are only convincing yourself because Samhook this conspiracy theorist likes to look at the evidence.

Something apparently you can't or won't do.

-Theblackbay 09:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I showed you, and your silence on the matter tells me you now understand.


 * To the contrary. My silence can at most tell you two things.


 * Answering you is not my highest priority.


 * You are far from the first Federal Reserve fantasist I have come across. Remember, I have been studying political extremism for half a century.  People in the grip of this fantasy rarely respond to rational argument but prefer to deal in personal abuse.  You've been no exception to this rule so far, and my patience for polemical lost causes, although considerable, is not limitless.

But that's not to say I’m negative I’m a hopeless optimist that's why i have spent so long trying to show you the deception, i will show people one at a time if i have to, because it's only through this understanding that anything can and will be done.
 * The only person living in a “World Fantasia” is yourself Samhook, that is if you can not relate the obvious relationship of disconnecting the U.S currency from Gold and pegging it to oil in the form of a "petrodollar" to the current and very large problems the U.S. and the world is in right now, you live in the fantasy that everything is alright you are at that place where the economy is just sweet, you have your house so everything is fine never mind the future generations we'll let them fight that out, if you think our western civilisation is secure for the future of the next two Weeks save the next two generations that's your fantasy and I’ll let you live in it, hell roll in it if you want, but leave me well out of it, here outside the Matrix it stinks like shit and corruption and everywhere I look I see filth.

it's not political It's not Economics It's not Money

It's Education and information.

And I say Welcome Samhook because you can't Unlearn what you have learnt, my seemingly arrogant slaps in the face spiked your curiosity enough that you actually discussed this matter now you understand the best you can now do, is struggle to in some way deny it in your own mind and tell yourself that it's all a "conspiracy" and the world is really ok. or you can accept that it is filth and hope it changes and educate someone about it.

In Summation you call my Idea's "Fantasy" but can not argue one point.. NOT ONe POINT against them, that's not the strongest of cases Samhook. oh you don't have the "time" of course your busy I understand. then don't make stupid accusations about well known facts being "fantasies" unless you can disprove at least a little of the argument. -Theblackbay 10:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fact = You and many other "intellectuals" Refuse to address this fundamental core and cause of nearly all corruption.

The many hundreds of words on here now prove that, you did not address this issue once.


 * Fact = You and many other "intellectuals" will talk about anything EXCEPT this issue, you will avoid at all costs discussing this fundamental Fraud, partly because it has foundation shaking ramifications to your belief structure and Partly through Pride and a feeling of charisma for the "time gone by", Meanwhile back on Earth humans are loosing their homes and being enslaved and systematically corrupted by a Central Bank system combined with a Media Machine, designed for their specific De-education, in short all the bad aspects of a worse than Communism system.

'''...is one more example of your arrogant assumption that you are right and that there is something wrong with anyone who disagrees with you. This saves you the intellectual work of joining in debate, but it should not be confused with reasoning.'''

Um.... Samhook for you to disagree with me there would need to be and argument.... and if there is one I haven't seen it? Maybe I missed it? You haven’t told me you disagree with the system also you have not told me you disagree with my assertions about the System,

I don't believe there is one thing wrong with you or anyone else that disagrees with me; to the contrary I see a Good argument an opportunity to learn something.

Please don't confuse Hypnosis with an intellectual disability, you could be quite smart for example the Scientists and physics’ Professors that assure "Everybody" that the WTC7 building just Pancaked to the ground, of course for this to have happened all supports would have had to break at the base simultaneously, now this is just common knowledge.. but a:


 * 1. Strong will to believe and
 * 2. The Right Images and symbols and sounds
 * 3. Pressure from without and
 * 4. Finally Acceptance.

Makes possible for even the most intellectual Physics Science Professor to Hypnotically dismiss blatant evidence that disproves their accepted theory. Things like the fact that ACCURATE computer models can't reproduce the same effect, and the fact that a fall in that speed and manner without the simultaneous support destruction, swings against lots of basic laws of physics, in fact a lot of these Professors would rather change the laws of physics than agree that what they propose is impossible.

I could site a hundred other cases, in short anyone and everyone can be hypnotised it does not mean you are not "smart".

I was talking about fact that I explained one thing to you and you blatantly misunderstood it then arrogantly attacked my understanding of the subject, don't be misguided I understand how this comes about, I have seen it many times, it's this seeming "mind control" that I endeavour to break in a quick sentence about "Dictionaries" to a "trained linguistic" it's just a small slap in the face to say, millions have been spent on your de-education of SOME specific subjects, break out of the box and see the deception.


 * You keep talking about my education. I respectfully submit that you know nothing whatever about my education.   You can of course refute me by answering the following questions:

No I said millions have been spent on your De-education of SOME specific subjects, that is a fact it's not up for argument because to prove this all we have to do is look around, look at economic education books, look at the Media, anywhere it's like the biggest fraud and cause of many of today’s problems does not exist according to the "Western World" and "Education System".

Having said that you can disagree or agree I don't care either way, but if you disagree you need to tell me you did understand this system the Central Bank Bond Fraud before this conversation and did understand the world shaking consequences of it's continued existence.

You can say something like : "I knew all about this system I understand the essentially independent Central Bank issues net "Currency" by purchasing bonds and paying for them with fraudulently Printed currency.. AND THEN charges interest on this "Funny Money" oh I also have always understood that the interest is Primarily garnered from Human energy that is to say Production through many taxes and inflation, yes I knew all of that but I disagree that it's a bad thing and think it's a good thing because........etc."

Or : "No you are totally wrong the system you describe is fictional and does not exist, here let me quote "economics now" (or anyone) when they cover just this subject .... etc etc.."

.

_Theblackbay 18:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When and where was I born?


 * Where id I go to primary school?


 * Where did I go to secondary school?


 * Where I receive my undergraduate education?


 * What postgraduate degrees have I pursued and earned?


 * In what countries outside the US have I lived and studied?


 * Besides Emglish, what languages do I speak? Read?

Get a B+ on this quiz, and maybe I'll listen to your views on my education. Samhook 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

and Smahook it is a deception.

The world is not the world you grew up in, something went very wrong but balance will be found again (through education).

because there is obviously some sort of English misunderstanding here......... can i edit into your text.... my text is bold so you can see it:

I'll use FRB for Federal Reserve Bank and Gov for Government


 * There are, at the start, two parties: The Gov and the FRB...... issuer Gov and buyer. FRB (If the bond is later traded, the seller FRB replaces the issuer Gov, but the seller’s FRB only obligation is to hand over the bond, and the issuer’s obligations remain.) in any case is not as important as our core isssue here.


 * The buyer FRB lends the issuer Gov the price of the bond. And Prints that federal currency From Nothing (the fraud Samhook) If, for example, one The FRB buys a US savings bond of Series EE priced at $100,000,000,000 that’s what you FRB (lets say the FRB pay to the Treasury to get the bond.   You’ve lent the governmentGOV $100,000,000,000  (the Central Bank lent the Government Money yes that's right) In this series, the treasury agrees to pay interest at a rate that will in time make the bond worth $200, which is its face value. (well in this series the Central Bank Lent Gov and yes the Gov has to pay the interest, the light that is obviously to bright at this point and clouding your vision is the one that should be revealing the fact here, and that is, you Samhook Can't Print your own CURRENCY and pay for a bond with it. agreed. i.e. you can not Print Currency Purchase a Bond lend that Fresh printed currency and charge interest on it. can you?


 * Please note that contrary to your claim, the issuer does not charge interest on the bond: the issuer pays interest and the buyer collects it.

Very good The Issuer The GOV (see the picture) is paying the interest. agree? the Buyer (see the picture) is the Central Bank FRB it's the one fraudulently printing currency to pay for the bond. ok agree?


 * This is a public bond. Let us consider the case of quasi-public and private bonds.   In the former case, a quasi-public entity, let us say the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, wishes to build some major improvements for which it cannot pay out of current tolls.   It issues bonds on which it promises to pay—not charge—interest as well as principal.   Members of the public, often through brokers, buy these bonds.   The Authority pays the bonds off out of its long-term revenues.   This is a process analogous to a mortgage to buy a house one cannot pay for out of a year’s (or five years’, &c., salary.  The improvements get built, the investors—the bondholders—make a profit.  Everyone wins.


 * It’s the same process when a private entity—say a university—wants to put up a building and finances it over time through bonds.  In no case does the issuer charge interest.  In every case the issuers pay interest.


 * I respectfully suggest you learn the simplest facts about finance before you propose to enlighten me on these matters.  I used to know a guy named "Peacey."   Any relation? Samhook 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No relation no -Theblackbay 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC) please re-read above.

someone is confused about currency issuance and it's most of the world, i however am not, please try to understand this very important aspect of fraud

Is Benjamin H. Freedman a Reliable Source?
Let’s try an experiment here. Let’s try to have a focused discussion on the question of Benjamin H. Freedman’s reliability as a source. I’ll start with a compact but detailed statement of his unreliability as I see it. I’d hope you’d come back with a detailed rebuttal, preferably with documented sources to back up your assertions.

Here goes.


 * 1. Freedman claimed that in his war message to Congress (April 2, 1917)  Woodrow Wilson claimed that a German submarine had sunk a cross-channel ferry, the Sussex, with loss of American life.  The text of this speech is widely available and there is no mention whatever of the Sussex.   One cannot call this claim a lie on Freedman’s part, because we do not know whether he believed it.  But it is certainly a falsehood and raises questions about his reliability.

blackBay answers B H Freedman and The Honorable Francis Neilson and the BY University are not liars

 * Samhook States:

1. Freedman claimed that in his war message to Congress (April 2, 1917) Woodrow Wilson claimed that a German submarine had sunk a cross-channel ferry, the Sussex, with loss of American life. The text of this speech is widely available and there is no mention whatever of the Sussex. One cannot call this claim a lie on Freedman’s part, because we do not know whether he believed it. But it is certainly a falsehood and raises questions about his reliability.


 * bB- you speak of this text?

"When President Wilson asked Congress to declare war against Germany, President Wilson was in effect and in fact conspiring to pay the debt he obligated himself to pay to the Zionists. Congress only declared war against Germany because President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of international law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship. After General Pershing's troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was used as the "pretext" to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no United States citizens had lost their lives. The United States was now at war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. That is what Great Britain and the Talmudists of the world conspired to achieve in their crooked diplomatic underworld. The discovery of the hoax by the British Navy shocked many honorable Englishmen. A large segment of the British public were shocked to learn the S.S. Sussex had not been sunk. The S.S. Sussex was available for anyone to visit who might care to do so to see the S.S. Sussex for themselves with their own eyes. In that war the United States mobilized 4,734,991 men to serve in the armed forces, of whom 115,516 were killed and 202,002 were either injured or maimed for life. The Right Honorable Francis Neilson, a member of Parliament, wrote a book in England called Makers of War (pp. 149150). Mr. Neilson's book created such a sensation that Mr. Neilson was compelled to resign his seat in Parliament. Things became so intolerable for Mr. Neilson in Great Britain as a Result of the exposures in his book that he was compelled for his personal safety to flee from his home in Great Britain and to make his home in the United States. In Mr. Neilson's book Makers of War (pp. 149-150), he discloses many unsuspected and undisclosed reasons for the outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914. With reference to the alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel, Mr. Neilson emphasizes: "/n America, Woodrow Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in the 'sinking' of the Sussex in mid-channel. Someone invented a yarn that American lives had been lost. With thus excuse he went to Congress for a declaration of war. Afterwards, the Navy found that the Sussex had not been sunk, and that no lives had been lost. " This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was the figment of an over-worked Zionist imagination. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was conceived in the imagination of a Zionist to facilitate the purpose planned and successfully executed."

Samhook can yo explain exactly where in that above text B H Freedman Claims that Woodrow Wilson only spoke to the Congress or Congressmen once about this matter... in fact does it even state that B H Freedman is talking about the war message to Congress (April 2, 1917) or could B H Freedman be talking about any time after the Sussex was Struck March 24th 1916 until April 2nd and then from 6 April 1917 the time that The USA declared war?


 * The number of occasions when Wilson spoke to joint sessions of Congress is a matter of public record, as are the texts of what he said. Neither Freedman nor Neilson nor you has cited a single one of these as containing the claim that the Sussex had been sunk and that American lives had been lost.   If such a text exists, where is it? If you know of an example when a President asked for a declaration of war more than once, it would be interesting to hear the details.  Samhook 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that Neilson is telling the truth?  He provides none. Samhook 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, Freedman's description of Neilson's career displays his well-known incompetence with the facts.  I have a copy of Neilson's Makers of War.  It was published in 1950 (when Neilson was over 80 and blind); Freedman says that its publication led to Neilson being forced to resign from Parliament during WWI.   Nice tricl, even better than the Federal Reserve Act leading to the XVI Amendment.  As a matter of fact, an MP cannot be forced to resign.  Neilson, a pacifist, resigned on principle in the first year of the war.   He did not need to flee to America--he simply returned to the country where he had been living for several decades. Samhook 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * bB- As for the Federal Reserve quote see the below comment about how your desperate attempt to gain one single point in this argument clouded your view:


 * You know, you are good for the occasional laugh, and the idea that you have the intellectual candlepower to cause desperation in anyone is one of those moments that induce a giggle. As I have explained to you before, your basic delusion about the FRB is something I first read decades ago.  You've said nothing new.  Nor have you said anything persuasive.  And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  My theory is that for a comspiracy theory to endure there must be a continuing supply of credulous dimwits who will fall for it.   I don't often get a chance to explore the mental processes--if that is the phrase I want--of one of those dimwits.  Samhook 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * bB- well, Look at Samhooks New intellectual Confidence He has been aware of this "conspiracy" nonsense for decades yet he mixed up the basic principal of the Feds open market operations, got it backwards in fact, then of course there is the believing that a fiat currency causes inflation, then there was the illuminating piece of writing where you believed that the modern US dollar was backed by gold and that Bonds keep the money supply stable.


 * Well, to begin with, please cite where I have said that I believe that the modern US dollar is backed by gold.  Either you cannot read or you are a liar.


 * Your problem is that you combine stultifying ignorance with am astonishing confidence that you know everything. For evidence that fiat money can cause hyperinflation, see assignat and Economy of the Confederate States of America.  Federal Reserve notes are not fiat money because although they can be made legal tender, no one cam be compelled to by treasury bonds.  Hence the amount of currency that can be issued is constrained by the value of bonds that cam be sold.  The hilarious thing about FRB conspiracy theorists is that they are oblivious to the obvious fact that federal reserve notes serve as an effective currency and that inflation, especially in the last quarter of a century, has been tightly controlled.   Tell me, are there Reserve Bank of Australia nutters also?  Samhook 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

so in summing up I would not be so quick with the enduring confidence of a "Conspiracy Busting" intellectual, rather than the dimwits you speak of, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly humans can bounce back from the process of de-education that the modern Education system including the MSM spends millions on each year, that's the thing that keeps me optimistic.

But it’s good to laugh it is good for your health so stay happy but you need to seriously look at the facts a little further before indulging in an old belly giggle on this one.

It is a Fact that Direct Personalised Income tax came about as a result of a Centralised Individual for Profit Issuance of money by the Federal Reserve Act,


 * Ah. If it is a fact, there muust be some evidence beyond your saying so.  Or do your delusions define reality? Samhook 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As a first stop I’d check out "the Money Masters" you could have viewed it on Google video with a broadband connection but alas the copyright monster got them. you can still buy the DVD, I own one I recommend it.


 * Sorry. Since I can read, I only take books seriously.  Depending on videos is one of the marks of the consipracy theorist.  Samhook 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

if you choose to live in "Funnyworld" and believe that a direct income tax would have sailed in easily or that there would even Need to be an income tax without The Leech that is the current Federal Reserve System, then I can't do any more?, you can't see it you'll go on the rest of your life thinking that way while people like Aaron Russo and others myself include will fight life and limb to change the system.


 * My word! With you on the case, how long do you think the Fed has got? Samhook 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh probably a few years yet, I guess we'll see, as I said more likely it will just collapse under it's own weight if you like... it's really not such a world changing event will probably come in the form of a monetary reform act, how old are you I hope your(uh oh that's (you are or you're)) around to see it dismantled.. otherwise what is the point of winning this argument.

Then when the System either collapses of it's own accord

 * A helpful hint: "it's" is a contraction for "it is."  To check whether you have used "it's" correctly, ask yourself whether "it is" would mean the same thing.  In this case, "of it is own accord" would be nonsense.  Or do you know what nonsense looks like?  Samhook 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * bB thanks for the helpful hint.

(likely) or it's changed a direct personal income tax on human energy will be deleted, life will be better for everyone but nothing will change for you with regards to this argument because you'll still be wrong you were wrong when you started the argument and you will still be wrong when you finish it.

You say Neilson was 80 and blind very relevant Samhook, well I’m done, I’ve see better attempts at character assassination in the Eastern European version of Itchy and Scratchy, you were well acquainted with Nelison were you Wow, you even knew why he moved to America are you related or something?


 * Far from engaging in character assassination, I was exculpating. Neilson--as quoted by Freedman and then by you--claimed that Wilson was "desperate" to find a way to get the US into WWI.  To anyone not pathetically ignorant of the basic facts about Wilson--like you--this claim is hilarious in its falsity.  Wilson--as abundantly documented--was to the conttrary--obsessed with keeping the US out of the war so that he could mediate a peace.   I was suggesting that Neilson's idiotic claim might have been the work of an assistant.  Blind authors must trust their assistants to put their works through the press.   Samhook 02:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * bB- Samhook this is all a bit worrying you are showing those "we would rather change the laws of physics than admit that WTC7 was imploded" signs, I’d say your case isn't as bad as that but keep an eye on it.

So you would rather believe that Neilson was blind and that some diabolical pen assistant thought it would be in the interests of the "Grand Conspiracy" to edit a somewhat unknown and obscure piece of writing knowing, in fact believing that in the future it could be used as a reference to prove the crazy delusion he originally had.

Wow.

You call me a conspiracy theorist, have you ever thought about publishing any of this fiction.

It's all very weak and unconvincing to me Samhook. I'm sure the Friendly Media over there were right behind Mr Neilson I’m sure it was like a little revolution Nelison and the Papers unite hey? but I’m just speculating about the Pressure on Neilson I don't know him.


 * Why yes, by all means speculate. Don't look into the facts.  The facts might get in the way of your quasi-religious faith in a world run by the Elders of Zion.  We can't have this vision--which allows you to make a sort of demented sense out of a complex world--challenged, can we?  Samhook 02:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you see the difference is my speculatoin is based on some simple congitive activity, you know past and future instances like say the Cindy Sheehan of our times and there are many many cases around the 2nd world war of opponents being "pressured" by certain goups in the government or "press", this is the brain activity that Many many people (except you) are able to undertake, it's called an estimation and heres another one.... your hurting becasue you can not explain the obvious gulf of credability I have exposed the one that you have to keep forgetting to support your German hating idea's and your half educated version of the 2nd world, that's to say missing the first half (the 1WW).


 * Amusing, being called "ha;f-educated" by the uneducated. I'm still waiting, by the way, for your defemse pf Freedman's hilarious account of WWI.  Samhook 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute? I have to trust Samhook's assertion about Neilson leaving England and the Pressure on him at that time or B H freedman’s' ..... Freedman was well acquainted with the various politicians of that time and attended the 1919 peace Treaty ...

Freedman definitely lied when he claimed in a famous speech that the media of the United States had been pro-German up until October 1916 and then suddenly turned anti-German because of Jews seeking the Balfour Declaration which came about a year later. While I have no interest in defending the Zionist movement or in crossing out altogether the more authentic cases where they've used media influence, in this particular instance is way off target. In fact the US media was firmly pro-British right from the very outbreak of war in 1914 and there was never an issue of needing Jewish influence to turn a pro-German media into an anti-German one. If people are interested in details then Walter Milles, THE ROAD TO WAR, is a good place to begin looking. Millis makes it clear that the media of the United States was immediately influenced by powerful interests such as the Morgan family of Wall Street who had close connections with London and that there was never a break in the pro-British stance of the media. George Seldes also recounted in THE FACTS ARE... how when he was working as a newspaper man in that era his editor decided on a policy that to be balanced they would have the British beat up the Germans 6 days a week and on the 7th day the Germans would be allowed to win. There was never any pro-German trend in the media for Jewish influence to reverse and Freedman's claim that all Americans had been pro-German up until October 1916 because of media control by pro-German Jews does not stand up, I'm sorry to say. I can understand that after so many lies told from Israel and by its supporters people may have felt honestly relieved to come across Freedman as an alternate source, but the man's record of fabricating such testable, checkable claims about the First World War means we must cast doubt on everything else which he has ever said that can not be immediately checked.

Freedman the Self-Documenter
Freedman claimed to be well-acquainted with politicians but he did not provide evidence. He claimed to have been at Versailles without providing any evidence. Despite the fact that I have documented many false claims by Freedman, you continue to support his veracity by quoting his own claims. Do you rely on him because he supports your Jew-hating paranoid delusions? Samhook 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Samhook Believe that opposition to the factual working of the Federal Reserve system are a conspiracy and has a book on Neilson.......

No sorry Samhook that poor cheap shot won't work, I would believe what I believe about the world even if I was born a Jew
 * You don't have to rust me on anything. All you meed do is to research the facts.  What os your evidemce that Freedman was at Versailles?  He says so.  What is your evidence that he was "well known to many politicians of the time"?   He says so.  You believe him--despite his catalog of falsehoods--because he supports your Jew-hating vision of the world.  Samhook 02:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. I suppose that if you were born a Jew, and as stupid as you ate, and remained as ignorant as you are, you might believe what you do now.  Freedman was born a Jew and seems much more intelligent than you are and was certaon;y better educated, yet he became a Jew-hater.  Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Samhook he ate a particularly nasty pepperoni pizza one night and went to bed and WAM he woke up the the NExt day and he was "Jew Hater!". just like the Germans waking up one morning and saying out loud the coca-cola quote then going on a vicous rampage, you really do ahave a cartoon view of history Samhook.

it's easy to label anyone that studies History a "Jew hater"


 * You? You study history?  Give me a break.  Your ignorance of history is astonishing.  Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * that's Right Me, Me, study history there is a world of it out there for our governments to cover up, that's what makes it so much fun. if Germany had of won the 2nd world war and they were covering history I’d be supporting the people uncovering that also, openness is the way of the future.

or "anti-Semite" it's really no different than writing a law against them thinking or saying thoughts on the subject.


 * No, it is not. The First Amendment protects the right of anyone--even the most stupid, hateful and ignorant, to think what he does and say what he does.   It protects even your rights in the matter in my country.   I don't know what rights people like you have in Australia, but I hope you have the rights of Americans.  Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Samhook think again if you fall into the loose definition of a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" then kiss those laws goodbye, peace protesters could be terrorists, I saw if i recall once in a FEMA or was it a homeland security training manual that "people that quote the constitution a lot" could be terrorists.:

See USA PATRIOT Act

I believe him despite the fact that he said he sailed on a ship and Samhook can't determine when he did, Yes pretty much.

Of course I could believe you and join in calling him a lying charlatan but then you haven't explained you continuing belief for Soviet post 2nd World War Lies,


 * As you perfectly well know, I have repeatedly said here that I do not trust Soviet sources and that I rely on my belief that the Holocaust happened on German sources.  I have repeatedly cited Adolf  Eichmann's admissions that he was engaged in a project to murder millions of men, women, and children simply because they were Jews and his defense that he did it because he was told to.  You simply ignore this issue.  You don't have the courage to deal with it. Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

if your intellectual ability is so easily corrupted on this subject, what am I to think of your assertion that B H freedman is a liar?


 * Stop lying about me. I have repeatedly rejected Soviet sources.  Stop this disgusting hypocrisy in which you impugn my integrity.  Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When someone goes on believing the evidence from known liars REAL Liars even when there is contradictory evidence to the subject, that tells me that person has a strong will to believe and That will to believe has to be driven by something, in the 2nd world war subject I’d have to say I can only believe you are a German hater, that is if you continue to believe lies because it is convenient to your world opinion, contrary to even stating that you know the evidence is false and the "Facts" are lies.


 * It would be odd if I were a German hater. Ethnically speaking, I am more than half German.   My mother's ancesrry is all German.  My childhood was swathed in German culture.   Maintain your disgusting smear if you wish, but don't preen yourself as a moralist.  By the way, are all the citizens of Germany who accept the Holocaust also "German haters?"?  Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then of course there is this little piece from the Obvious Conspiracy Theorists the Brigham Young University entitled:

19 April, 1916 Wilson on the Sussex Case
'United States, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., House Document 1034. President Wilson's remarks before Congress concerning the German attack on the unarmed Channel steamer Sussex on March 24, 1916.'

''"...I have deemed it my duty, therefore, to say to the Imperial German Government, that if it is still its purpose to prosecute relentless and indiscriminate warfare against vessels of commerce by the use of submarines, notwithstanding the now demonstrated impossibility of conducting that warfare in accordance with what the Government of the United States must consider the sacred and indisputable rules of international law and the universally recognized dictates of humanity, the Government of the United States is at last forced to the conclusion that there is but one course it can pursue; and that unless the Imperial German Government should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of warfare against passenger and freight carrying vessels this Government can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the Government of the German Empire altogether.

This decision I have arrived at with the keenest regret; the possibility of the action contemplated I am sure all thoughtful Americans will look forward to with unaffected reluctance. But we cannot forget that we are in some sort and by the force of circumstances the responsible spokesmen of the rights of humanity, and that we cannot remain silent while those rights seem in process of being swept utterly away in the maelstrom of this terrible war. We owe it to a due regard to our own rights as a nation, to our sense of duty as a representative of the rights of neutrals the world over, and to a just conception of the rights of mankind to take this stand now with the utmost solemnity and firmness...."''


 * This is part of the speech Wilson made to Congress reporting on the ongoing negotiations with Germany over the torpedoing of the Sussex. Nowhere in this speech does he say that the Sussex was sunk or that American citizens had lost their lives.  20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course this lead to the Sussex Pledge of May 4th 1916.

Then when Germany repealed the Pledge war was declared 6th April 1917.

Where Did B H Freedman Lie?


 * Freedman (why do you insist on callimg him "B H Freedman"? On the evidence, he neother so signed himself not was so called in his lifetime) lied, so far as I can see, when he said, in supporting his claim that the Sussex was was not sunk, that he had sailed om it many times.  For details, see below.

Do you know what was said to President W Wilson after that Incident to cause him to make that Speech after all if Americans were not Killed and the Liner not sunk why the Speech and the big deal that resulted in the (in my opinion) more than fair pledge from the Germans. (as it has been said that under international Law it was in Germany's Right to take that action if they thought a third party was giving "Aid and Comfort to the Enemy" against neutrality laws.)


 * The history of the Sussex is elaborate and well-documented, as is the history of Wilson's attempts, right up to Germany's final proclamation of unlimitied submarine warfare as of February 1, 1917, to keep the US out of the war.  Consult the third, fourth, and fifth volumes of Arthur S. Link's biography, Woodrow Wilson (Princeton University Press)for a detailed and thoroughly documented account of the diplomatic history of the time.  Anyone who tries to discuss America's entry into WWI without a firm grasp of the facts in these volumes is living in funnyworld.

so is it fair to ask that if the original big deal was not made about the Sussex incident in which no Americans were killed and it wasn't sunk would that speech have been made? And would Germany made the Pledge that ultimately caused the Entry of the USA into the War?


 * I'm not sure whether it is fair, but it is sure ignorant.


 * In summary Based on the evidence and the short time from the incident to the Speech, If it is the opinion Of B H Freedman and "The Right Honourable Francis Neilson" that President Wilson was told that the Sussex was sunk or even that President Wilson told others in congress that the Sussex was sunk and Americans killed in that relatively short time from the incident to the speech (less than one month) then I’m inclined to believe based on his record of truth and honesty that Rumours where abound to that like.

You don't have to believe that Samhook, that's the great thing about the west (outside the EU) you can think and even say what you want. But however.. that does not make B H Freedman and Francis Neilson liars in fact I’d say they were in a better position to know at the time than you or I.


 * Neilson and Freedman, in their extreme old ages, both made undocumented claims that are refuted in great detail in newspaper accounts and government archives.  The only reason you cite them is that they support the paranoid delusions that are so important to you/

As you will note the Speech does not Particularly state the irrelevance of the French steamer being hit and not killing any Americans it does not play that incident down, it refers to it also it does not state anywhere in there that the Sussex was not Sunk, you'd have a good case if it had done that, but alas you have a weak case based on hard to determine opinion and who said what to when.


 * The NYT story of March 16 states that the ship was towed into Boulogne. (It also states that unnamed Americans were lost, but as soon as the casualty list was established, this mistake was corrected.)  I need not prove that Wilson said that the Sussex was not sunk:  you need to prove that he said it was sunk.

And in that case I go with the peoples opinion that count the most to me (lacking any hard scientific evidence of a blatant written contradiction) those people that were around at the time and that was B H Freedman.:


 * And why does Freedman's opinion count with you, aside from the fact that he feeds your belief that that world is manipulated by a malign comspiracy of Jews? His statements are crammed with major factual errors.   Even if he was honest, he was hopelessly wrong on the simplest questions of fact.   Samhook 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Once of 309 W 86th.

Samhook Says:
 * 2.  To show that the Sussex had not been sunk, Freedman says that he had crossed the channel on her many times.  He does not give any dates, but they would necessarily have had to be after April 2, 1917, the date when Freedman claimed (falsely) that Wilson had claimed that the ship had been sunk.   As it happens, the vessel was torpedoed but not sunk on March 24, 1916.  It was towed into port badly damaged and it was never put back into service as a channel ferry.  It was scrapped in 1922.   That is, Freedman did not sail on Sussex after April 2, 1917 because he 'could not have.'   Assuming that he was sane at the time he made the claim, he knew it was false and hence the claim is not merely a falsehood but a lie.   Freedman’s own standard is that a single lie prevents a witness from being believed on anything.

blackBay - "To show that the Sussex had not been sunk, Freedman says that he had crossed the channel on her many times. He does not give any dates, but they would necessarily have had to be after April 2, 1917, the date when Freedman claimed (falsely) that Wilson had claimed that the ship had been sunk."

Totally incorrect and wrong you had it right when you said He didn't give any dates so that's the end right there the rest you just made up... you say well it would have had to be after April the 2 no I say it could have been any time.


 * Let's try this one step at a time.


 * Freedman says (without evidence) that Wilson told Congress that the Sussex had been sunk and that Americans had been killed and that this claim led to the declaration of war.
 * Freedman tries to refute Wilson by saying that he had crossed on the Sussex many times.


 * If Freedman had crossed on the Sussex every day from its launching until it was attacked on March 24, 1916, that would be neither nor there.


 * The only point in his claim is that he had crossed on the Sussex many times after Wilson's April 2, 1917 war message. Since we know from many sources that the March 24, 1916 attack put Sussex out of  service and she never returned to the cross-channel ferry, Freedman could not have so traveled, and the claim is a lie.

Furthermore you don't even site the time or link a page to where he was supposed to say this??? If it was a Publishers note then it can be thrown out the window. Give me a link.


 * Jesus. What do you smoke when you post here?  Freedman's claim is in the passage you yourself quote above:  "This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex."  Samhook 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why Do you think i was so bummed out by the "Alcoholism" being the First Protocol in the old Elders book? if next time your talking to the elders can you tell them of my disapproval?


 * I can't speculate as to the "mental" processes of someone who is sufficiently igmorant and stupid to take the Protocols seriously. Perhaps if you could quote the passage you are talking about and exolain why it is relevant I might be ableto comment.  Samhook 03:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So your talking about that one line?

I don't even know why I’m arguing this? It's clear Samhook it's a general line to show familiarity with the Ship, There IS NO DATE YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT...... NONE. move on ....

At best you have an exaggeration Charge. at worst nothing as there is NO DATE.


 * All this jigging and prancing on your part, besides showing your inability to follow the simplest logic, ignores the fact that neither you nor Freedman has provided any evidence whatever for his claim that Wilson told Congress that the Sussex had been sunk. An honest person would begin to wonder whether his claim was true.  But you don't wonder:  You just arrogantly tell me to move on.  Samhook 03:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This just clearly shows your inability at judgment and I’m glad it has happened because based on that flimsy evidence you call B H Freedman a Liar but the details of the Holocaust are FACT (according to you) based on Continuing Soviet lies? (according to you) as you have admitted yourself.


 * Why do you ignore the immense non-Soviet evidence for the Holocaust? These include many confessions by those who took part in it.  Is it because like most Jew-haters, you find the Holocaust an inconvenience because it showed the world what Jew-hating leads to? Samhook 03:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are happy to keep believing that there are no problems with WW2 evidence in regard to the Holocaust, but you know and have admitted that Soviets a habitual Liars in this regard?

But B H freedman is a Liar and we can't trust a word he say based on the fact that he sailed on the Sussex and said that Wilson Said to the Congress that Americans were killed (as did the NY times) and that it was sunk.

Samhook in my opinion the Holocaust might not need a Draconian Law to protect it if the Soviets had been as straight with the Truth as Benjamin Freedman. On this subject your Credibility lacks.

Not very convincing so far and I don't feel well for the future either.
 * 3. Freedman’s account of the state of WWI in August 1916 is as follows.   Submarines had swept the convoys from the seas (but the convoy system was not adopted until 1917); the UK had no ammunition left (if this were true, the war would have been over); the UK was down to one week’s supply of food (if this were true, famine would have begun a week later, yet Britain did not impose food rationing until almost two years later, and even then in response to hoarding problems, not scarcity);  Freedman claimed that the French Army had mutinied (although some units of the French Army did mutiny, they did not do so until late April 1917);  Freedman claimed that Russia was effectively out of the war in August 1916 (yet Russia had just completed its most spectacular success of the war, the Brusilov Offensive.)   So: each of his claims is false.  We cannot know whether he was lying or just being ignorant, but in either case, his reliability is devastated.


 * 4. Freedman claimed that Germany, having won the war, then offered peace to the UK on the basis of a return to the status when the war broke out.   Freedman provides no evidence for this offer, and indeed there is none.   All the diplomatic archives have been open for decades, and there is no mention of any such offer.  Again, he may be lying or he may be ignorant, but in either case he’s not to be relied on.
 * 5. Freedman claimed that unnamed Zionists approached the British government and offered to embroil the United States in the war on the Allied side in exchange for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.   He says that the U.S. then went to war to carry out the Zionist side of the bargain.   As usual, Freedman offers no evidence whatever for this claim.   He also ignores the complex history of Wilson’s attempts to stay out of the war and the increasing problem of Germany’s refusal to recognize neutral rights on the sea.   Given Freedman’s documented record of spreading falsehoods, his unsupported word cannot be accepted with regard to these alleged Zionist machinations to get the U.S. into the war.


 * I’d be very glad see your documented responses here.


 * no problem will do.


 * Please deal with paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above. Samhook 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

=QUESTION=

Why are you ignoring patagraphs 3, 4, and 5 above?  Samhook 03:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring them, I haven't answered them yet I don't have to rush Samhook I believe that the history is one my side in this one.


 * Why do you believe this? You obviously haven't the faintest idea how to answer these points, which strike deeply at Freedman's reliability.   Samhook 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike your Fantasy version of history.. the one where People just hate people because "they just do" were there is some Universal hate magnet that singles out the Jewish people, and it's just the way of the world, the one where Germany doesn’t exist as a real country before 1939 and if it did it the things that happened there were not very important anyway.

They certainly didn't lead to the 2nd world war not in your special mind Samhook, in Your (and some others) half educated view of the 2nd world war all of a sudden the Germans did wake up one day and said "you know what I think Jewish blood would taste better than coca-cola!"


 * Your pathetic ignorance of history deprives you of any knowledge of the lomg history of German antisemitism, famously embodied in Martin Luther's scurrilous attacks on Jews. You are just the sort of pigeon Freedman was looking for:  someone so ignorant of history that his preposterous claims would be believed/   Samhook 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's how your mentality comes across to me when you talk about "Jew Hating" and "Jews have been hated for centuries".

Do you see how stupid it looks?


 * Why do you think I would care whether anything I say looked stupid to a dimwitted, credulous creep like you? Being called stupid by you is like being called ugly bu a toad.   Samhook 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No i didn't say you were stupid I said it sounds and looks stupid, there's a difference.

And, oh by the way, as long as I have your attention, three quick questions (yes or no answers will do just fine):


 * Do you personally believe that the Protocols are forged?

Answer my questions on the validity of Soviet information regarding the Nazi's and the Paradox of applying this equation to B H Freedman, and I’ll tell you that I frankly didn't find it important enough to study a lot, congratulation Samhook you have now changed that I will now look at this document, will you look further into the Federal Reserve System? and the issue of Fraud that exists oh sure torture is backed up by Law in the U.S also that makes it legal I suppose.

the Answer is I don't know enough about it. can you suggest some starting points?


 * Do you believe that the Nazis carried out a massive and successful attempt to murder millions of Jews?

Certainly the consensus is that they did.

But I have a lot of problems with the consensus. i'll lay them out for you. you tell me if they are fair or not.


 * firstly, one of the biggest suppliers of information and witnesses has been proven to be a liar again and again "the Soviets".
 * One gets thrown into jail in a lot of EU countries / states? For questioning the "Soviet" Lies.
 * One gets thrown into jail for scientific investigation.
 * In some counties one would wish he was thrown in jail, after an examination of details on this subject for his political or social and work environment has been dramatically changed because of his at first innocent investigation. (The list of people that have had this experience is growing daily.)
 * A lot of the stories don't seem to match up with scientific fact. (I could be wrong please I’m welcome to education on this matter)
 * There seems to be a motive in the Wider MASS media to "educate" people to the ultimate "Fact" of this issue despite the fact that it is illegal to question that "Fact" and when the education is undertaken it's done so in a manner which is far far below the standards of scientific or balanced learning.

> to add to this point there also seem to be a disproportionate amount of Films, Documentaries, etc etc about this part of history mainly contributed to the American Press, correct me if I’m wrong but Americans were not Massacred were they? Why not the same amount of information about the....(lets be relevant) “Armenian Genocide"? (They are in the news) Please name some Hollywood blockbusters about the Armenian Genocide if you were going to say “Suleyman's List” yes yes I already know about that one, but I’m talking about any others plus that was a once off!

That's probably most of the big issues that just pop into my mind.
 * oh also there seems to be a lot of politics involved because of the over use of the term Anti-Semitic or however you want to spell it, it seems that this issue is being abused and “pulled out” for gain in other area’s and other times not relevant to the original issue.

Are they Fair Samhook? or am I and lots of other people just really confused on this one?

Note: aslo on this one as much as this all shows "how powerful" "we" are (we I mean the groups that collude to make this situation, the ADL and many others) it is not very good for the actual incident itself i fear Samhook it goes right back to that old Equal and opposite reaction I was talking about earlier.

If you want credibility to shift and slide on this issue keep on the same path, that's what i'd say to them, but if you want to get back to some sanity and or credibility open the records and let the issue be resolved and agreed upon.

Sadly Samhook that will never happen, you probably think that the people that question the Holocaust are "simple" or "uneducated" and that they should be ignored I’ve heard this so many times another is to call them "loonies" or "conspiracy Nut(s)".

Well I have to say I laugh a lot when I hear this being thrown at a maybe young keen to learn individual I think to myself "welcome to a one way ticket to less credibility" because when this accusation is made or even a threat or an insult, it's a fact that this systematically drives those learning and curious individuals to where they can get some facts and evidence, no matter what the website or credibility of the author.

opposites Samhook.


 * Do you still claim that I am a Jew?

If I recall you said you were not, so i'd say your probably the best judge of that and if you say your not then i'm not (failing some pretty hard DNA evidence, joke :) ) inclined to argue the point with you.

so No.

Can i follow up with a few simple questions that will be answered:

Are you a Great supporter of Israel?

and regrdless of your answer

What do you think about the CFR inviting the Iranian Presidant Mahmoud Ahmandinejad to dinner? for a "Talk"? See my "undergound" news section on the front page for the story.

Responses from Samhook

 * Do you personally believe that the Protocols are forged?

Answer my questions on the validity of Soviet information regarding the Nazi's and the Paradox of applying this equation to B H Freedman,


 * -sh- My short answer is that I would not trust Soviet information on anything.  More to follow below.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

-bB- great so you are answering the question, to say that you do not believe any of the Soviet Holocaust Evidence, you believe only the evidence that is not Soviet based, and mainly the witnesses that you listed below? yes? no?

-bB- and I’ll tell you that I frankly didn't find it important enough to study a lot,

authenticity is an important question? 168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * -Sh- The issue is quite important, because the Protocols are all being peddled on those Jew-hating websites—the ones where you found Freedman, and which you keep using a reputable sources.  And they are constantly used to support the paranoid fantasy that “the Jews” are organized to rule the world, using, among other devices, the FRB.   The Protocols remain a primary device by which the Jew-haters justify mass murder.  And you don’t think their

-bB- Samhook I have to tell you I laughed a lot at this response not in a sarcastic or demeaning way but in a genuine feeling of amusement at the obvious gulf of idea's that separate someone like you (the minority) to someone like me (the majority) on this issue.

''Yes, there is a gulf between us. You have such problems writing your native language--Emglish is your native language, right?--that you have no idea what the apostrophe is for, and so you write "idea's" when someone literate in English would write "ideas." '' Samhook 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"And they are constantly used to support the paranoid fantasy that “the Jews” are organized to rule the world,"

-bB- can i lift the mystery on my amusement? Well Samhook it might not be very obvious to yourself but to about 80% of the worlds population that actually thinks,

''Ah. Please explain what you mean by "actually thinking." Also please explain how you have ascertained the opinions of 80% of this population. '' Samhook 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

it is very very obvious, you see to me and them (i'm blatantly speaking for 80% of the worlds population, that think.) the abstract "Protocols" don't seem very important because if we wanted to see a sample of "Zionist" power in the modern world all we would have to do is look around:

Some things that are obvious to thinking people (but not you) and lead to evidence of "Zionist" power in/over the earth:


 * 1) A GIANT DRACONIAN LAW IN OTHERWISE "FREE" EUROPE THAT MAKE THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS THAT QUESTION DETAILS OF THE HOLOCAUST PUNISHABLE  BY JAIL TIME.

''You maintain that there is a single law covering all of Europe that controls not merely public expression but thughts. Please specify by what legislaive body this law was passed and when. Also please specify its relation to qhat happened in Europe between 1939 and 1945. '' Samhook 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) '''A HARVARD UNIVERSITY WHITE PAPAER By JOHN J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt  what? you didn't know about it

''Harvard University does not issue "white papers," which is a function of governments, especially that of the UK. when they wish to explain a policy failure. This is just a scholarly paper writen by two professors, one of whom is at Harvard. It has no particular status beyonf any of the myriad essays published by college professors. I was, of course, well aware of it. I begin my day by going to my front porch, collecting the NYT and the Boston Globe, and reaing both through. During the day I collect news from a variety of other sources. '' Samhook 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

abstract:'''

"In this paper, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government contend that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. The authors argue that although often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby." This paper goes on to describe the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." Lets not mix word here JOHN J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are saying that people outside the US control parts of it's government those people are the “Israel Lobby". disproportionate number of "Zionist" owners and controllers of media outlets in the US and around the world.'''
 * 1) The obvious to every other thinking person (but not to you) disproportionate number of biased media new stories in the US and around the world geared at a positive view of "Zionist idea's".
 * 2) '''The obvious to every other thinking person (but not to you)

''Please specify the ownership of the primcipal newspapers and television outlets in the United States and around the world. Remember that most of these in the United States are publicly owned corporations, so you will need to get hard data on the opinions of all of the shareholders. '' Samhook 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

the SYSTEMATIC DELETING AND EDITING FROM HISTORY of anything that seems to CRITICISE this GROUP of "powerful" People
Samhook Says: ''If you can give evidence, why don't you? Be my guest. '' Samhook 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me tell you a story Samhook This is the Story of some Adventurous Fox News (of all people) reporters that done a whole four part series on well you should check it out:

Part 1

Guess what Samhook then the whole story was Pulled from Fox News and never heard of again except on a free media outlet such as You tube of course: The Story was even Pulled from The Fox Web site it was as if the Fox Guys believed their own Propaganda a little too much, it seems when making this they got excited and forgot just who was running the show.

IT was all pulled it doesn’t exist Samhook, ask around off the net. Let me tell you some further info It was even pulled from Google video, but here some bright person recorded the whole thing and persistently keeps posting it on You tube. Guess what Samhook when you get some Broad band you will be able to watch the whole four part series:

I won’t spoil it for you… it’s too amazing.

I'll tell you some relevant Info they turned up at my house also, I’m not sure if it was a joke or a threat or what, I really don't care I contacted ASIO and others, and told as many people as I could.

But really Samhook in the end you are really lucky in your ignorance Samhook your "truth" which is really just pre-digested Media speak is no "threat" to anyone.

But what about people that don't agree with the "truth" you and your like tell?

WE get Threats and abuse. And sometime we just get deleted? I never in my life have I threatened anyone (outside school) because as soon as I was able to think after a blood transfusion I got some pretty direct lessons in “Karma” or whatever else you want to call it, but I learnt pretty quickly that the one’s that resort to threats and violence first are the weakest.

Kolin Thompson Evans.

disproportionate disproportionate adj 1: out of proportion [syn: disproportional] [ant: proportionate] 2: not proportionate

Can you see where thinking people might not need some abstract Russian document to feel the light of understanding warm their face to the above point of view that there is a group of powerful people that do have powerful influence on the nations of the world and these people seem to be pro-Zionist?

Of course you can't, but that does not matter that's what makes us different and it’s fun to argue wouldn't you say?

congratulation Samhook you have now changed that I will now look at this document, will you look further into the Federal Reserve System? and the issue of Fraud that exists


 * I don’t think I’ve been clear on this point.  If you believe that you have brought these claims about the FRB to my attention, you are badly mistaken.   If I have led you into this error, my apologies.  I have been reading conspiracy theories about the FRB for more than half a century.  I have learned—literally—nothing new from anything you have said on the subject 168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then i'm afraid to say you are either Lying or you are stupid, dull, dim etc Samhook:


 * 1) You said above that I was confused on Bonds.
 * 2) you said above that you were not very familiar with bonds.
 * 3) you explained in detail with examples to me, what I was explaining to you, then you claimed that I was confused on the issue.... which showed that you were confused on the issue... which BTW is not a problem at all as you first stated that you had not had that much to do with bonds in the first place, that same could be said of me and ancient Egypt.....
 * 4) Then I explained how money is issued into debt by the purchase of a Bond with money from "thin air" and then the charging of interest on that "funny money" to make it born into debt.
 * 5) You understood but did not before you proved that by the misunderstanding.
 * 6) so to say to me that you have learnt nothing, not..one..thing is a lie, or you are unbelievably dim.
 * 7) I don't believe you are stupid so I’d say, a "mistruth" due to Pride was at the core of the comment.


 * oh sure torture is backed up by Law in the U.S also that makes it legal I suppose.


 * To the extent that torture is backed up by law, it is legal. That doesn’t make it moral.   The FRB is firmly backed up by law.  That doesn’t make it a good idea, although it does keep it from being a fraud.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the Answer is I don't know enough about it. can you suggest some starting points

 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

bB-- Wow thanks for the link, gee it really sucks that Alcoholism is the first protocol i've done some of my best work drunk or recovering, I think the Russian cover is the best. The more I start reading the article it starts to seem like a case of Art imitating life, what do you think? definitely in the US anyhow.


 * Do you believe that the Nazis carried out a massive and successful attempt to murder millions of Jews?

Certainly the consensus is that they did.

But I have a lot of problems with the consensus. i'll lay them out for you. you tell me if they are fair or not.


 * firstly, one of the biggest suppliers of information and witnesses has been proven to be a liar again and again "the Soviets".


 * But one need not depend on it in this case.  The Nazis documented their crimes in great detail.  Moreover, many of the architects of the Holocaust confessed these crimes.   Adolf Eichmann’s trial was broadcast on television.  His defense was not that he had not committed the crimes with which he was charged, but that he had committed them under orders.  After  his release from prison, Albert Speer  wrote in detail about how the Holocaust interfered with his plans for slave labor.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not depend on the Soviet Union for information on anything. samhook.

I can then take from you that the above comment refers to the Auschwitz camp and the reconstruction of the "Gas Chamber" by the Soviets. something that is illegal to investigate.

heres a quote from a French magazine this is also common knowledge:

The fact that the Auschwitz "gas chamber" on show today is a reconstruction has been confirmed by the mainstream French magazine, L'Express, when its writer Eric Conan visited Auschwitz in January 1995. According to L'Express, the gas chamber shown to tourists was built in 1948, three years after the end of the war, by the Polish communists. The Auschwitz staff now admits this. As Conan wrote in L'Express "Tout y est faux"--Everything in it is fake." (Eric Conan: AUSCHWITZ: La mémoire du mal, L'Express, Paris, Paris, 19 janvier 1995).

I'm glad we agree on this at least.. as dangerous a truth it is to tell.

and the Treblinka "extermination camp" of which information is solely Soviet and it is illegal to investigate.

There is a memorial there at Treblinka just like the one Found in Ukraine, that was the one that yet again was blamed on the Nazis, so I agree with you on this one…. You and I are right there together.

I mean I know what you are saying I have no great love for Germans of all people, if I was able to see the evidence in the clear light of day and I turned out to be true I’d be the first to admit that whole lot of them can go to hell.

it's just that dam law that make investigation illegal.
so we can move on now we agree on all the above.... about the Soviets being liars on this matter:

'''Adolf Eichmann’s trial was broadcast on television. His defense was not that he had not committed the crimes with which he was charged, but that he had committed them under orders. After his release from prison, Albert Speer  wrote in detail about how the Holocaust interfered with his plans for slave labor.'''

I can say that I would rather preference solid Scientific evidence (especially in view of the other evidence) over any eye witness accounts for example:

if man A shot man B in clear daylight on an English street in the city of London, but all the witnesses that come forward said that Man A didn't do it, what would you believe when it got to court:


 * 1) The six camera's original recording that saw him do it (it was England after all)
 * 2) And the sole DNA evidence on the handgun that was Man A's
 * 3) And the Bullet match to the barrel of the gun that was in his hand.

Or

The witnesses no matter how credible they seem?


 * People have tried to do Scientific studied of these places they keep getting thrown in jail or threatened Samhook, the eye Witness stories however balanced or not balanced because of "frendliy" Persuasion will not have a lot of cred until that situation is changed.


 * One gets thrown into jail in a lot of EU countries / states? For questioning the "Soviet" Lies.
 * One gets thrown into jail for scientific investigation.
 * In some counties one would wish he was thrown in jail, after an examination of details on this subject for his political or social and work environment has been dramatically changed because of his at first innocent investigation. (The list of people that have had this experience is growing daily.)


 * The issues discussed above reflect serious violations of free speech and free enquiry. But they do not bear on the reality of the Holocaust.  If all these laws were repealed tomorrow-as they should be—the reality would be the same.   168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

bB--Would it really? do you believe that Samhook, do you really believe that? I dissagree totally, I agree that Reality would be the same but I don't believe the accepted reality of the this specific issue would be the same and that, Samhook is why the Law is still there.

A lot of the stories don't seem to match up with scientific fact. (I could be wrong please I’m welcome to education on this matter)

 * You’ll have to be clearer about what you mean here before I can respond.   168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bb- like the one's that you and I agree on...the topics of Soviet Evidence, (btw did you know that it's illegal for you to have such thoughts in many EU countries) like the Treblinka story and the rebuilt chamber etc etc, for example the Evidence does not seem to add up in such cases, like latest evidence done at Treblinka.

Bb- the Re-building of the "gas Chamber" by the soviets and the hiding of that fact by the camp admin at Auschwitz doesn't seem to make logical sense. also the lack of "Prussian Blue" staining on the walls of the "Chamber" I learnt about most of this from a documentary by Jewish student he even got an interview with the camp scientist (pretty amazing) very fair and reasonable documentary. seems to lead to the fact that the chamber was creatively re-built, i don't know any better it's illegal to do any study in there, I do know that had the Doco maker not been Jewish he would be in Jail now.

Bb- you know all the other Soviet Stories about "Soap" and "lampshades" etc etc.


 * There seems to be a motive in the Wider MASS media to "educate" people to the ultimate "Fact" of this issue despite the fact that it is illegal to question that "Fact" and when the education is undertaken it's done so in a manner which is far far below the standards of scientific or balanced learning.


 * Discussions of the Holocaust in this country proceed without any legal restraint whatever. If you have detailed objects to how this discussion proceeds, please be more specific. 168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to this point there also seem to be a disproportionate amount of Films, Documentaries, etc etc about this part of history mainly contributed to the American Press, correct me if I’m wrong but Americans were not Massacred were they?


 * What would you call “proportionate?” The Holocaust was one of the greatest crimes in the history of man.  Arguably, it was the greatest.  How does the fact that few American citizens were among the victims affect the “proportionate” amount of discussion?  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please name some Hollywood blockbusters about the Armenian Genocide if you were going to say “Suleyman's List” yes yes I already know about that one, but I’m talking about any others plus that was a once off!
 * Why not the same amount of information about the....(lets be relevant) “Armenian Genocide"? (They are in the news)


 * The Armenian massacres were a horrible crime but they were not an attempt at genocide. The Turks attacked only that part of the Armenian minority that lived near the front, where they were in a position to aid the Allies.  Armenians living far from the front, e.g., in Constantinople, were left alone.  It is as if the Nazis had not deported the Jews of Berlin or Frankfurt.  But I fail to see what possible under-reporting of the Armenian massacres have to do with the reality of the Holocaust.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * oh also there seems to be a lot of politics involved because of the over use of the term Anti-Semitic or however you want to spell it, it seems that this issue is being abused and “pulled out” for gain in other area’s and other times not relevant to the original issue.

That's probably most of the big issues that just pop into my mind.
 * Could you be more specific here? It’s hard to understand what you mean, much less refute it.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they Fair Samhook? or am I and lots of other people just really confused on this one?


 * No, to the extent that I understand you, these issues are not fair, and yes, you and the rest of the Holocaust deniers are either very badly confused or malevolent. 168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: aslo on this one as much as this all shows "how powerful" "we" are (we I mean the groups that collude to make this situation, the ADL and many others) it is not very good for the actual incident itself i fear Samhook it goes right back to that old Equal and opposite reaction I was talking about earlier.


 * These needs to be clarified before I can make any response. 168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want credibility to shift and slide on this issue keep on the same path, that's what i'd say to them, but if you want to get back to some sanity and or credibility open the records and let the issue be resolved and agreed upon.

Sadly Samhook that will never happen, you probably think that the people that question the Holocaust are "simple" or "uneducated" and that they should be ignored I’ve heard this so many times another is to call them "loonies" or "conspiracy Nut(s)".

Well I have to say I laugh a lot when I hear this being thrown at a maybe young keen to learn individual I think to myself "welcome to a one way ticket to less credibility" because when this accusation is made or even a threat or an insult, it's a fact that this systematically drives those learning and curious individuals to where they can get some facts and evidence, no matter what the website or credibility of the author.


 * I am afraid I can’t make head nor tail of the preceding paragraphs. Can you be more specific?   168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

opposites Samhook.


 * Do you still claim that I am a Jew?

If I recall you said you were not, so i'd say your probably the best judge of that and if you say your not then i'm not (failing some pretty hard DNA evidence, joke :) ) inclined to argue the point with you.

so No.

Can i follow up with a few simple questions that will be answered:

Are you a Great supporter of Israel?


 * I’m not sure what this means. I support the right of Israel to exist behind defensible borders.  I think Israel should be judged by the same standards applicable to other nations.  For example:


 * It is settled international law that after a war, the losing side is responsible for its refugees.  That is, after 1945, the many ethnic Germans expelled from Central Europe and the Soviet Union were resettled in Austria and Germany, where they became citizens and found work.  The same is true for the Finns expelled from Southern Karelia and the Japanese expelled from Sakhalin.  But with regard to Israel and its wars, the Arab refugees have been kept in squalid camps and denied either citizenship or the right to work in their host countries.  (Jordan is the honorable exception to this rule.)   The requirement that Israel resettle refugees on its territory is unique.


 * One of the requirements of sovereignty is that a sovereign state is responsible for military attacks launched from its soil. For years, Lebanon permitted a succession of terrorist groups to fire missiles into Israel from its territory.  When Israel responded to an escalation by Hezbollah last summer, it was only exercising a right held by any sovereign state.  If Canada shielded terrorists rocketing Detroit from southern Ontario, the case would be the same.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

agree on all points - in principal. and regrdless of your answer

What do you think about the CFR inviting the Iranian Presidant Mahmoud Ahmandinejad to dinner? for a "Talk"? See my "undergound" news section on the front page for the story.


 * I see no reason why the CFR should not invite anyone to dinner whom they choose. It’s a free country.  I do not, by the way, share your Mr. Griffin’s paranoid delusions about the CFR.  168.122.12.236 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say that the CFR could not invite anyone anywhere at anytime, I asked your opinion it must be said though that the ADL and other Jewish groups do seem to share my and "Mr. Griffin’s paranoid delusions about the CFR" they were furious if you had of read the story.

also something that was a little amusing:

The New York Times, which had a reporter who is a CFR member at the private meeting, said Ahmadinejad spoke "with a tone that oozed polite hostility." He entered with "a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence" and ended the evening by asking Council members "whether they were simply shills for the Bush administration," the newspaper reported. It said there were no introductory handshakes before the talk began.


 * It just goes to show how different... how many worlds apart these two groups are here's Ahmadinejad asking "whether they were simply shills for the Bush administration," with "with a tone that oozed polite hostility." when the ADL and the Bush admin totally disagree with the Meeting.

So what's going on? that tells me worlds, either the CFR wanted to know if they could wheel and deal or if Ahmadinejad is even really holding the dice so to speak.

turns out he's not. well not totally, which makes the whole situation more complicated, it almost seems as if Iran's Power structure set up is like a copy of the USA with no real central point, and constant crossed and mixed messages being released. Here Ahmadinejad is thinking that the CFR crew are "...shills for the Bush administration," when i'm sure back home other Iranians are much more aware of the CFR.

I'd love to get a full copy of the minutes.

Samuel D. Leidesdorf
Now here's something very interesting. As I was humming along adding citations to both articles I happened to fall upon this obscure fact. On the WW1 Draft Registration Card of Leidesdorf he says he lives at 340 W 86th. Ok. On the WW1 Draft Registraction Card of Benjamin H. Freedman he says he lives at 309 W 86th. Very cozy. Wjhonson 23:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this invaluable piece of information I read your article on Leidesdorf pretty amazing as usual an amazing find of yourself, not sure how you do it? I suppose you just get out there the world needs more people like yourself, be careful though if your to good a historian they will lock you up. just a joke.

The more I think of that information the more amazed I am.


 * 'Even more amazing: the clubhouse of the Upper West Side Elders of Zion was at 321 W. 86th'*  Samhook 00:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interview With Aaron Russo
'''I'm between broadband suppliers at the monment, so videos are a pain. Has Mr. Russo set out his views on the Fed in text? In any event, if they are comparable to those of Mr. Griffin, then he is certainly a conspiracy theorist. My first researces into Mr. Russo indicate that he thinks there are no federal laws enforcing the payment of income tax. That suggests that he is either a con-man or a nutcase. I am not. by the way, inclined to open a new front with you until you respond--as you said you would--to the questions I raised above under "Is Benjamin H. Freedman a Reliable Source?" ''' Samhook 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No new front Needed Samhook this Semi-literate enthusiast of reality is suggesting based on the text above you should be cutting any deal you can get. Balfour style.-Theblackbay 09:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No Samhook (sigh) he just simply believes that the Federal Reserve should not be Issuing the State / country's currency from nothing into debt, really quite simple.

(You know… the belief you can’t argue a point against because you know it’s right. The one that stands against “Usury” or whatever you want to call it weather it be in 1820, 1913 , or 2006 it is “Usury” by any name.)

He has come to this belief after a lifetime of success, he seems like a man of Action to me, I like his determination and believe he will succeed in bringing this subject out to thousands more people.

As he has said time and time again his argument is not about the 16th amendment it's about the Fact that the 16th Amendment gave the Government No NEW Taxing power, something that the High Court has ruled on again and again.

But Samhook want the real dirt on this one??

The Income Tax is all a side issue (as true as it is) in an Artistic term it's called a "hook" the "hook" for the Film America: From Freedom to Fascism (as is the Title) is the Fact that the 16th came about as a result of the 1913 Federal Reserve act and it's need to Tax individuals income, or energy as I explained to you above before.

The Individuals behind the 1913 Fed act needed to secure their position; this could only be done by a direct income Tax on individuals, very ingenious. The 1913 Federal Reserve Bill and the 16th Amendment are inextricably linked.

Of course in such a consumer driven de-educated world what could wake our sleeping friends in the USA up,……..What?? Income Tax Should be Illegal! That matters to Joe American Samhook.

In free information exchange system information flows in multiple direction at once, that could be bad for Liars and thieves.

that's the point, the heading on the petition on Aaron Russo's Web site reads something like "help shut down the Federal Reserve system." you have no idea how happy that makes me feel, all the years I’ve been studying I never thought i 'd ever see a film like this in Theatres or a phrase like that on a relatively "Main Stream" site, I don't know about you but I’ll be dedicating my time to spreading the word everywhere I can.

This is amazing Samhook! it looks like this conspiracy disease is spreading.

OR ! could it be that your wrong about the Federal Reserve System (as you can’t say the system does not work as I say it does) and it’s in need of a correction.

Further to Samhooks Claims of Federal Reserve Success since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act
People called it the Great Depression because:

Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn which started in 1929 (although its effects were not fully felt until late in 1930) and lasted through most of the 1930s. It centered in North America and Europe, but had damaging effects around the world. The most industrialized countries were affected the worst, including the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, and Australia. Cities around the world were hit hard, especially those based on heavy industry. Unemployment and homelessness soared. Construction virtually halted in many countries. Farmers and rural areas suffered as prices for crops fell by 40-60% [1] Mining and logging areas were perhaps the hardest hit because demand fell sharply and there was little alternative economic activity. The Great Depression ended at different times in different countries; for subsequent history see Home front during World War II.

News alert:

Federal Reserve Board of Governors Chairman Ben Bernanke now famously is credited with the quote "Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry." referring to the Federal Reserve System, and it's monetary supply manipulation. see Federal Reserve System

Also now most other economists, other, of course than the paid shills admit now that the Federal Reserve System caused a Great Impression with the causing of the the Great Depression.

Maybe a little look into the future if the old US dollar doesn’t hold out and "in the rollback of the US empire" a depression starts in the US, I think this time it's going to go down worse Samhook.

'''I do agree Samhook that the Federal Reserve System has been a monumental success... It’s just we disagree at what that success Was:'''

The Federal Reserve Success Story:

1. The making of a few people very rich and powerful.

2. The slow and gradual enslavement and deprivation of the rest with the globe in mind for its long term projection and centralisation.


 * Without details and evidence  what goes before is simply hysterical nonsense. Samhook 17:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Further on the Income Tax
Said theblackbay:

“it's about the Fact that the 16th Amendment gave the Government No NEW Taxing power, something that the High Court has ruled on again and again.” Here is the relevant language:
 * Fact: this is, in a narrow and irrelevant sense true.  The government had the theoretical right to impose taxes on income, but ‘’only in proportion the population of each state. ‘’  That is, to be constitutional an income tax would have to raise amounts within each state proportional to the population.  If state A had twice as many people as state B. then total income tax collections in state B would have to be one-half total collections in state A, regardless of the incomes involved.   There is no practical way to levy a federal income tax under such conditions, and Amendment XVI repealed the apportionment requirement of Article 1,. Section 9.

Article I, Sec. 9: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Amendment XVI The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Said theblackbay:

“the Fact that the 16th came about as a result of the 1913 Federal Reserve act and it's [sic] need to Tax individuals income, or energy as I explained to you above before. The Individuals behind the 1913 Fed act needed to secure their position; this could only be done by a direct income Tax on individuals, very ingenious. The 1913 Federal Reserve Bill and the 16th Amendment are inextricably linked.”
 * Fact: Amendment XVI was ratified in the last month of the Taft administration, before the Federal Reserve Act was even introduced.  The Amendment had been proposed in the first months of the Taft administration.   The Federal Reserve Act was not signed into law until the end of 1913, nearly a year after the ratification of the Amendment.  You have simply reversed the order of the two pieces of legislation.   As I have noted before, your deep ignorance of history and apparent inability to do the simplest research outside of conspiracist books and videos makes you terribly vulnerable to all sorts of intellectual fraud.  Samhook 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It has become apparent to me that the only intellectual fraud that is going on Samhook seems to be inside your head, I will grant that I should have rephrased that to read something like "The 16th came about as a result of the need for a centralised issuance of the currency,".

Your desperate attempt to gain a point in this argument has clouded your view also your desperate attempt to see this as some sort of conspiracy and your continuing ignorance or dismissal of the evidence of individuals that are involved in the system; such as current Governor of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke or Nobel Laureates like Milton Freedman is just worrying.

But in that bigger picture you need to have a bit better memory, it is one of Andrew Jackson about 70 years earlier than 1913 fighting out the issue and gaining a partial victory with the destruction of the 2nd bank of America you can read the very thin Wiki version of events here: Andrew_jackson, what, but of course you knew all of this, What Samhook of course it’s all a conspiracy.

The eventual response of Jackson’s Victory was the 1913 Act which needed to spread the limited power the banks had clawed back and linked to this was the need to Tax the citizens individually, and those two principal foundations; 1. Currency Issuance and 2. personal Income Tax are the ONLY reasons that the system has survived as long as it has. It’s nothing new really it’s just a new spin on the same old system of the Kings taxing the subjects into oblivion after borrowing excessively themselves.

It will not survive much longer (as the time scale goes) as it has become apparent to me that because of new technologies the slow centralisation of wealth is becoming more and more an issue.(to most people).



=How Ignorance Disables Theblackbay=

As quoted by Freedman (accurately, for once) Neilson says "Woodrow Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in the 'sinking' of the Sussex in mid-channel."

For anyone with the simplest understanding of the Wilsom administration, the laughter starts at the phrase "desperate to find a pretext to enter the war." To the contrary, right up to Germany's final proclamation of unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral states, Wildon was obsessed with the importance of keepimg the US out of the war so that he could mediate the peace. This is spelled out in scores--perhaps hundreds of historical studies; the five volumes of Arthur S. Link's Woodrow Wilson are the best survey of the issue. But any historical account will show that Neilson was either a cool liar or a demented comspiracy theorist.

Let me try to suggest an analogy adapted to your understamding. Given your pathetic struggles with the Emglish language, you seem to have been ill-served by your education. But surely you were taught something about the history of your country or at least picked something up on television. So suppose you came across a writer who claimed that the Europeam colonizatiom of Australia began in the 15th century when Bulgarian tobacco farmers arrived and began to plant the vast tobacco fields that now cover the Outback. And suppose that said that the Australian wine imdustry dates from 1702, when the first wave of Hugenot vigneroms from Britanny landed at Port Darwin. And suppose that he claimed that the First Fleet of 1788 was made up of Abos who rafted from their homeland of Antartica. And to top it off, he claimed that in WWI, the Australian govermment refused to have anything to do with the ill-advised Gallipoli scheme, that Australia is a republic whose official anthem is "Waltzing Mathilda."

I suspect that even you would see that such a writer was full of applesauce, as we say down here. Or maybe not, if he was also a Holocaust denier and a believer in the Protocols. But if I'm wrong about that, and you would think such a person a liar or an idiot or a senile object of pity, that's how I see Freedman and Neilson.

Your ignorance makes you prey to such vicious quacks as G. Edward Griffin, the promoter of the fraudulent cure "B-17." Too bad. Samhook 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How Samhook Believes in "Holocaust Deniers" and "Jew haters" in the real world, and how this shaded cartoon version of the world seems to cloud his (and most others like him) understanding of the details and real reasons that events occurred.

This specific retardation on is a real thorn in your side Samhook, you otherwise seem a pretty intelligent guy.


 * I cannot tell you how flattered I am by this accolade from someone of your apparent IQ. Samhook 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I can't really make head or tail of your alternate version of Australian history, but I do know this..


 * I dare say you can't make head nor tale out of it, because it's preposterous. Just like Neilson and Freedman.  Samhook 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

B H Freedman made a lot of statements about WW1 and WW2 now I’ve let you argue the side issues for countless pages now, so I’ll get to the Point he claims that the USA was brought into the war on the English side for the promise of support for a Jewish homeland that was given to Zionists ..IN the Form of the Balfour Declaration.


 * Yes, yes. I know he claims this.  The Point, as you might put it, is that he provides no evidence for the claim that the USA was brought into the war by a Zionist conspiracy.  None.  Nada. Rien. Zilch.   Why do you believe him?  Samhook 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now unfortunately for people with this special disability, (the one you have), were by you can't see thing(s) that are in front of you (we call it a type of Hypnosis).


 * What a useful, if idiotic, concept. Anyone who dares to disagree with you and asks for evidence for your ideas, is hypnotized.   Much easier for you than actually thinking.   Samhook 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Balfour is a sore sore FACT, a little fact that is harder to explain away, oh of course history can be deleted up to a point but this Balfour declaration it stayed.


 * Let me try to say this one more (and last) time.  No one doubts the existence of the Balfour Declaration.  It's history.  The disagreement is over whether, as Freedman claimed, Zionists promised to embroil the USA into WWI in order to get the Declaration.  Freedman offered no evidence for this, nor have you.  Look:  I don't know whether your problem is stupidity or dishonesty.  But one or the other.  Either provide evidence for the Freedman claim that Zionists promised to embroil the USA in the war, or admit that there is no reason ro believe Freedman.  Samhook 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now when it was produced at the 1919 peace conference it caused a lot of resentment, by the German Group towards the Zionist Group. because they felt they were sold out, by wealthy and powerful citizens of their country. (the Zionists)......


 * Any evidence for this? Why do you believe this? The only plausible answer is documented evidence, not a return to Freedman or your usual feeble and surly personal abuse of your opponent.   Samhook 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

... am i going to quick here?


 * Lovely. In one sneering comment of six words. you commit three simple errors of English.  Samhook 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See when I was (how old are you when your in year 6?) maybe 11, I was drawing on a book and I drew a strange symbol I had no idea what was and what meant it was a Swastika, my teacher said you should find out what that symbol means you should understand it and everything that goes along with it, then you wouldn't draw it.

So I took his advice... my parents had a large 7 volume readers digest of the history of WW2, and Samhook to make a long story short by the time I was 12 I understood that things did not add up.....

I even heard things like the story (you probably believe) Hitler was turned down from Art class and that's what started the second world war...


 * It's a matter of public record that Hitler was turned down twice by the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. Perhaps if the committee had acted differently he would have had a more benign career.  Who can tell?  From your perspective, of course, the Jews would have found some other way to cause WWII without a Hitler.  Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But me at 12 Samhook even then I knew that people don't just wake up one day (as Freedman said) and say well you've been living in our country with no problems since it was brought together from individual states and you've done so well, but now we want to drive you all out of our country??? just because we feel like it or it's in our genes.??

^As I have pointed oit here again and again (and you have never tried to refute) amtisemitism in Europe generally and in Germany in particular goes back centuries. It difn't just happen after WWI. You can't deal with this fact, of course, so you just ignore it. Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

SAmhook excuse me for viewing that as a retarded view of history and with that thorn that you desperately have to believe in the Half view of history, with that thorn you will never be able to speak with authority on this subject.

because you have to Make up Cartoon Fantasies to believe that Germans are Just blood thirsty criminals because you can't believe that WW1 lead to WW2 and that a lot of resentment that lead to a Hitler lead government came about by the details that lead back to the Balfour declaration and the Selling out of Germany by the Zionist.

^Please quote my words in which I made this claim about the Germans. It's a faor statement, by the way, of my postion on the Nazis. Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So you have to believe anything else and that's how we end up with the Hitler Failed Artist story or the Powerful Hypnotic speaker he was, or any of the other propaganda bullshit that you eat.


 * The proceeding paragraph is beyond ignorant and silly. Demented is the word that occurs to me.   Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By the Way SAmhook you are a "Holocaust Denier" how does it feel?


 * How does it feel to have a dimwitted, ignorant, hate-filled Antipodean call me a 'Holocaust Denier?" Well. I feel mildly amused by such an idiotic claim.  Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not except Soviet Evidence as you said that Means you do not except that the Auschwitz "Gas Chamber" that was rebuild by the Soviets was legit, also you do not except the stories about Treblinka, and lots of other pieces of evidence.


 * Helpful hint #2: "except" means, roughly, to exclude.  "Accept" means, roughly, to include.  You appear to be confused by your Readers' Digest education.

. *yes it let me down there


 * But to more important matters. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Holocaust is amply documeted in German records.  I have noted that Adolf Eichmann did not deny that he had been engaged in carrying the Holocaust out, and defended himself on the ground that he was acting under the orders of your spiritual mentor Hitler.   You have never responded to this argument of mine.  You have simply ignore it.


 * you are very competent at writing perhaps not so good at reading though, I did respond to that argument it is above let me go get it.: (and add to it)

I can say that I would rather preference solid Scientific evidence (especially in view of the other evidence) over any eye witness accounts for example:

if man A shot man B in clear daylight on an English street in the city of London, but all the witnesses that come forward said that Man A didn't do it including a high court judge and a Duke, what would you believe when it got to court?:


 * 1) The six camera's original recording that saw him do it (it was England after all)
 * 2) And the sole DNA evidence on the handgun that was Man A's
 * 3) And the Bullet match to the barrel of the gun that was in his hand.

Or

The witnesses no matter how credible they seem?

Plus you do not contest that the Soviets were lets say more than creative when re-building the "chamber" at Auschwitz and More than creative it their Treblinka Stories those two incidents alone nearly account for about 90% the supposed millions killed in WW2, don't be angry at me Samhook I’m just saying what about 80% of all other (thinking people) are thinking.
 * People have tried to do Scientific studies of these places they keep getting thrown in jail or threatened Samhook, the eye Witness stories however balanced or not balanced because of "friendly" Persuasion will not have a lot of credibility until that situation is changed.

They do because over the years due to the good work of Revisionists the number of camps with so called "gas Chambers" in them has been shrinking right down to about three two of them are listed above that you and I know are primary products of Soviet lies.

You are a simple fool if you believe that Hitler was my spiritual mentor, you've no idea how hurt I was to know about all the censorship that was carried out by (some) Germans at the time the book burning etc, if this was all true (I’m still studying) it's a clear sign of weakness and disability just as is the many laws in the EU area against thought and speech. Particularly Wilhelm Reich's suppression is interesting because he left Germany after his books such as Character analysis, |The function of the Orgasm and mass psychology of Fascism, were all burnt by (some) Nazis. Interestingly though he left Germany went to the USA and then in 1956 had American Government agents confiscate and burnt tons of his books again basically under the orders of the FDA.

What was everybody trying to cover up there? I'm going to look into that further.

It's easy really Samhook Censorship = Weakness or theory decay .

I begin to suspect that you are an intellectual and moral coward who believes and says things he cannot defend. A suggestion: the great Fremch philosopher Descartes said the the key question was "que sais-je?" On the outside chance that you don't read French easily, this means "What do I know?" (He would have emphasized "what," not "I.") Look, you appear to hold some pretty passionate beliefs, but you display not the slightest evidence of caring whether they are right are not. Sit back, take a deep breath, and ask yourself what you know. Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do every Day.

What blackbay Knows:

 * Counties such as England do not pen official documents expressing a particular view in support for particular people having a homeland in an area for no reason, or just because it was a good idea. (some disabled people think so)


 * The Balfour Declaration exists


 * encyclopaedia Encarta 2001 expressed that the primary reason for the Balfour declaration was to gain foreign support for the war it mentions particularly the USA.


 * Some powerful people don't want any further investigation into the "Holocaust" in the Soviet area's or anywhere else.


 * Powerful people inside Banking and Financial groups were in control of the Issuance of US money since the 1913 act.


 * Mandell House was Woodrow Wilson’s closest "aid"


 * one particular group "Zionists" control a vast and majority block of the US media today.


 * B H Freedman said that he was a the 1919 Peace conference and that the Balfour declaration was produced when EU was being cut up.


 * immigration was started into the area that would become Israel soon after the Declaration and the War.

(retarded people with a disabled view of history first tried to claim he was a fraud or did not exist, they don't now.)
 * B H Freedman was associated with powerful people in positions of power at the time and he was who he says he was (thank you WJhonson)


 * There are Powerful individuals in Europe and outside that do not wish there to be any further investigation of the areas that are involved in the so called Holocaust they have pushed for a Law to ban this.


 * Powerful people inside Europe and abroad want to hide something about the holocaust.

Things blackBay can use common brain activity to work out:

Or would you sit on it?
 * The Balfour Declaration would have certainly been produced at the 1919 peace conference B Freedman said it was, why wouldn't you if you had it issued to you would you produce it?


 * Mandell House and his associates are going to do what is in their interest, they did not pledge any allegiance to the USA like the President did.


 * The Balfour Declaration was the receipt for the US involvement into WW1.


 * Germans Resented that Fact (of course a million+ starved after world war one Samhook?) and the environment was set up for ww2.


 * The whole fact had to be covered up and so the Propaganda machine was set on 11 and the Germans propaganda never stopped at the end of the war it continues to this day, (some people even continue to believe it) the Law is to cover that fact that most of the story is bullshit, and that war crimes did in fact happen but on all sides including Germans and Jews, no gas chambers existed and their was not a campaign to wipe out all Jews.

Heres something else I Know

Samhooks version of a "Hate filled person" is someone that does not hate Germans, so anybody reading this ask yourself do you hate Germans if you don't then you're "Hate filled" you have been filled with the Hate of not Hating Germans.

To remedy this just Hate Germans, then you will be able to believe the Massive anti -German Propaganda that never stopped from the second world war and you won't be called Hate filled by Samhook or anybody else with a half educated version of history.

You are a "Holocaust Denier" by definition


 * Very well then. You define me as a Holocaust Designer, therefore I am one.   I define you as a stupid, ignorant, hate-filled, intellectually and morally dishonest creep.  By your logic, therefore, you are a "stupid, ignorant, hate-filled, intellectually and morally dishonest creep" by definition.   Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not my definition Samhook ask the Guys that legislated the Law.

Amygdalin
Samhook what in fact do you know about Amygdalin or Laetrile... or could it be that you actually know nothing and your as usual just shooting your mouth off....


 * I have been studying the various quack cancer cures for some decades. Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Samhooks [sic] answer will be something like this:

"I know all I need to know about Amygdalin and that is that the FDA that’s right the US Food and Drug Administration and the American Cancer Society officially called it "Quackery"..."


 * Please. Don't write my responses for me.  It is painful to see your illiterate prose attributed to me.  Among the things I know is that "laetrile" was given both Phase I and Phase II tests by the FDA.  It passed the Phase I test, which is meant to establish whether it causes harm.  It failed the Phase II test, meant to establish whether it has any therapeutic effect.  It had none in any of the patients.  100% failure rate.   End of story except to the loonies for whom conspiracy theories are more interesting than reality.  I mention no names.  Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

blackBay answers : "oh, so you know actually nothing about the substance then? but you read that the American Cancer Society called it quackery."

blackBay continues : "well i can't say I’m shocked it seems your understanding of this subject is right on par with other entries into history"

"Let me tell you that if you had of done even the smallest amount of research you would have seen that Dr Dean Burk didn't think it was quackery? strange that he was the Head of the National Cancer Institute? but that is all speculation that's just his Conspiratorial view..... Well what about the FDA?

The FDA Let me link you to something that sums the FDA up for me:

FDA Bayer
even you should be able to watch that it's only 3 min long.

SAmhook when you show me that you even know the Basics of the Process then we will argue the validity of your statement up there.

Happy study.


 * Try to disabuse yourself of the idea that videos are the equivalent of writing. I know that given your reading problems, it's easier to look at the tube, but I prefer deeper research.

It appears from the New York Times and other print sources that Bayer may or may not have failed, in the earliest days of the AIDS epidemic, to have perfectly screened blood used to produce an anti-clotting agent for hemophiliacs and that thereby some may have become HIV+. The jury appears to be out on this issue. But what does this have to do with Mr. Griffin and all the other vicious quacks who promote laetrile? If there were Nobel Prizes for irrelevant argument, you'd be a shoo-in, year after year. If you had any evidence that laetrile works, you'd cite it, rather than this red-herring from YouTube. Samhook 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(but in most cases really only believes):
*I think you’ve missed Descartes’ point here. Perhaps my fault:  I didn’t add the obvious corollary that you need to ask yourself how you know. This is a list of things you believe to be true, but in most cases you show know evidence of having asked yourself why you “know” these things. Let’s go through the list in easy steps. Samhook 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Counties [sic] such as England [sic: there has been no state called England since 1707] do not pen official documents expressing a particular view in support for particular people having a homeland in an area for no reason, or just because it was a good idea. (some disabled people think so)
 * This is reasonable enough with regard to “for no reason,” but how do you “know” that no state ever does something on the belief that it’s a good idea?

bB- Because common sense tells me that England or any other state does work in their own interest, or if you want to be patriotic they work within the interests of the citizens resident there. If there was no advantage for doing so they would not have done so.


 * The Balfour Declaration exists
 * Yes, of course. Who ever denied it?

bB- never claimed anyone did you asked me to ask myself "what do I know."


 * encyclopaedia Encarta 2001 expressed [sic] that the primary reason for the Balfour declaration was to gain foreign support for the war it mentions particularly the USA.


 * This judgment by an encyclopedia writer may or not be true, but it is certainly plausible, even likely.  How do you know that this writer was right?  I believe that he was, but I do not know it.

NO I did not say that, I said I know that encyclopaedia Encarta 2001 expressed that opinion, I did not say "I Know it to be true" see "Things blackBay can use common brain activity to work out:"


 * Some powerful people don't want any further investigation into the "Holocaust" in the Soviet area's [sic: and what are the “Soviet area’s” or anywhere else.
 * Who are these powerful people, and how do you know—as opposed to strongly believe—what they think on the matter?

bB- I can firmly say I know that to be true as a fact because people are arrested and put into jail for undertaking scientific investigation and if that is not enough people and organisation such as the ADL use childish terms like "Holocaust denier" or "anti-Semitic" that somehow stick to ruin peoples lives if they speak out.


 * Powerful people inside Banking and Financial groups were in control of the Issuance of US money since the 1913 act.
 * And these powerful people are who? And how do you know they are in control of the “issuance of US money”?   Speaking merely as a citizen of the United States, permit me to observe that we have the right to choose any monetary arrangements we wish and prosper or suffer accordingly, whatever some Australian thinks on the matter.   My private view is that the RBA’s brief flirtation with calling the new decimal unit the “royal” was an embarrassment, and its subsequent adoption of “dollar” was highly unoriginal.   I’d have gone for “Matilda,” but look, mate, I’m just a yank and my opinion doesn’t matter.

bB- The banking groups that owned the member banks that chaired the board of governors of the Federal Reserve system, and associated like Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer etc, see B H Freedmans speech he was known to many of them. that's the who and for the your last paragraph all respect to you and as a "Yank" I do value your opinion actually but I’m just talking about "what I know"

To find out who exactly, look at the Board of governors and the Member banks of the Fed system. That’s how I know it's in black and white.


 * Mandell House [sic] was Woodrow Wilson’s closest "aid" [sic]
 * You refer, I presume, to Edward Mandell House.  Curtis B. Dall at least allowed him his first initial, “E.”   I suspect that both you and Dall truncated the name by which he was known, “Edward M. House,” because you and he assume and assumed that House was a Jew.   Sorry.   He was a Presbyterian.   Do you “know” that he was also a Zionist?  If so, please explain how you “know” this.

bB- Please remember my earlier statements about joining up and becoming a Zionist and waving the flag every day if i genuinely thought that they opposed the Federal Reserve system, I’m not referring to Mandell house the scheming Zionist I’m talking about Mandell House the person that helped pick the members of the Federal Reserve Board the Mandell house of the Round table society, the Mandell house that President Wilson saw as his alter ego and would listen to


 * one particular group "Zionists" control a vast and majority block of the US media today.


 * Please explain how you “know” this.

bB- Because I have a brain and at least a dial up speed modem, Samhook even if my research did not much extend past wikipedia i would be able to consistently prove this, i posted some research on the B H Freedman page and Jpgordon deleted it, probably rightly I was just making a point anyway.


 * B H Freedman said that he was a [sic] the 1919 Peace conference and that the Balfour declaration was produced when EU was being cut up.
 * Well, yes, he did say that he was at Versailles. Do you have any reason for believing him?   Where did Freedman mention the European Union?   It’s a very recent creation, dating long after anything Freedman published.

•	B H Freedman was associated with powerful people in positions of power at the time and he was who he says he was (thank you WJhonson)
 * immigration was started into the area that would become Israel soon after the Declaration and the War.
 * I presume you mean Jewish immigration. Not started after the Declaration.  Jews had been settling in Palestine all during the 19th Century.

Bb- No, major immigration into that area started that is a fact.


 * What is your reason for believing Freedman’s claims about who he knew?  All WJohnson has established is a series of facts about the existence of Freedman, for which all of us who are concerned with the reliability of Wikipedia must be grateful.
 * (retarded people with a disabled view of history first tried to claim he was a fraud or did not exist, they don't now.)
 * Your source Kevin Alfred Strom said that even some fellow Jew-haters thought Freedman too good to be true. But not me.  On the other hand, no one has established Freedman’s veracity on his crucial claims.   You can’t, and you don’t have the simple honesty to admit it.

And just as I was reading how some fellow German-haters that you seem to look up to, believe that the EU law was a real credibility gap, and that they are acting no different to a Nazi or FDA type book burning policy.

I believe B Freedman Samhook you do also but you just can't push yourself that little way to admit it.

You believe he is primarily correct because all the hard evidence such as the Balfour declaration leads that way. (you said it above) and you add to that all of the circumstantial evidence such as witnesses and events Mandell House and the many organisations rooted in EU, then plus you add to that, that he, Ben Feedman had no primary motive to say and put his life and wealth into what he said and it all leads to his assertion to be correct, you know it, i know it, you won't say it.

I'm being straight here Samhook you're diverting the argument a lot and splitting hairs.


 * There are Powerful individuals in Europe and outside that do not wish there to be any further investigation of the areas that are involved in the so called Holocaust they have pushed for a Law to ban this.
 * Who are these powerful individuals?  How do you know that they have done this?   As I’ve said before, I despise any law that regulates freedom of speech.  On the other hand, several countries inside and outside the EU have passed—through democratically elected governments—restrictions in this area.   Their right to be wrong.   By the way, try criticizing the Protocols in an Arab state, say Saudi Arabia.

No problem the whole country is set up backwards as I understand, I could be wrong? they put little effort into new research and the economy is still very based around Oil, they are a strict locked down plutocracy that has been stacked up by the US time and time again, they Sell Oil in US dollars or else. They preach one way and act the other they are a puppet state oh and you can't get a good vodka there either.

But how many western Europeans live there Samhook? how many Slavic or European tribes? I don't want to live there do you? The laws against free thought and speech passed in the EU counties could and HAVE partially been exported to other "western" nations and that's a step down the Saudi Kings road.

That's right out of the Saudi ye o'l book O repression, what next will be banned? the historical investigation of the Vietnam war? maybe the Korean war first? .

I'm alway consistent Samhook no on is calling for the dismantling of any state especially Israel I don't hear it do you? but the lies need go on no longer.. everyone should call a halt and say... right we done this this and that, you guys acted and we done this as reaction.... we hurt each other but we still exist.. I’m sorry but so are you, lets move on, lets respect each other's civility and common human law.

These lies are based on the Paranoia that the principal of the foundation of Israel will be brought into question it won't ever be, that's the same as saying any land gained by the English from the French should be given back and vice verse.

People are just sick of their cognitive function being insulted.


 * Powerful people inside Europe and abroad want to hide something about the holocaust.
 * Who are these people and what do they want to hide and how do you know it?


 * Things blackBay can use common brain activity to work out:

Or would you sit on it?
 * The Balfour Declaration would have certainly been produced at the 1919 peace conference B Freedman said it was, why wouldn't you if you had it issued to you would you produce it?
 * No one has ever suggested that the Balfour Declaration became known almost as soon as it was issued. It was incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres, which ended the war between the Allied and Associated Powers and Turkey.    What does this prove?
 * Mandell House [sic] and his associates are going to do what is in their interest, they did not pledge any allegiance to the USA like the President did.
 * Who were the associates?  And why do you keep calling him “Mandell House”?   And how do you know what “Mandell House” and his “associates” did or did not do?


 * The Balfour Declaration was the receipt for the US involvement into WW1.
 * How do you “know” this?
 * Germans Resented that Fact (of course a million+ starved after world war one Samhook?) and the environment was set up for ww2.
 * Yes, yes.  The notion that the Jews betrayed Germany is crucial to the idea that WW2 and the Holocaust were justified revenge for WW1.  But how do you know that the Jews betrayed Germany?  I understand that you believe this, but Descartes’ insight is the difference between what one believes and what one knows.

[Huh?] and the Germans [sic] propaganda never stopped at the end of the war it continues to this day, (some people even continue to believe it) the Law is to cover that fact that most of the story is bullshit, and that war crimes did in fact happen but on all sides including Germans and Jews, no gas chambers existed and their was not a campaign to wipe out all Jews.
 * The whole fact had to be covered up and so the Propaganda machine was set on 11
 * So how do you “know” this?

Samhooks version of a "Hate filled person" is someone that does not hate Germans, so anybody reading this ask yourself do you hate Germans if you don't then you're "Hate filled" you have been filled with the Hate of not Hating Germans. To remedy this just Hate Germans, then you will be able to believe the Massive anti -German Propaganda that never stopped from the second world war and you won't be called Hate filled by Samhook or anybody else with a half educated version of history.
 * Heres something else I Know


 * This previous passage is barely intelligible. Look, you’ve got more problems than the FRB or the Jews.  You need to learn to write more or less intelligible English.   But if your theory is that in order to believe in the Holocaust you must hate Germans, then by this logic in order to believe in your Jewish conspiracy theory, you’ve got to hate Jews.


 * bB- yes it's silly isn't let me clarify it....I’m talking about the people you look up to and others that claim people are "hate filled" because they investigate into history particularly if they do believe the Soviets told lots of lies post WW2, your "German-hater" friends term anyone not believing the Holocaust" Story in it's whole entire form as "hate filled" as a result people just shut up and keep their thoughts to themselves, communism style.

they in this way act typical of any human under the duress of threat and intimidation the intimidation of being called a 'Hate filled" "anti-Semite" or the implied physical threat of Jail or death, because they are "no better than Nazi's" if they don't believe in the mind of these insane insulting people.

they are the archetype of a sick world where people are labelled or thrown in jail for not believing in their "religion" the "Holocaust" I put "German-Haters" in comma's because they are not German haters they are insane people in a desperate situation and they will hurt anyone who gets in there way, not a good founding for a healthy state or world.

this has been a great argument welcome to the internet Samhook and welcome to the future. -Theblackbay 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Further News on Freedman's Veracity Straight from Francis Neilson
It will be remembered that Freedman claims that Neilson was forced to resign from Parliament and driven by threats of violence to flee to America.

Today I have acquired the first volume of Neilson's memoirs (My Life in Two Worlds, Appleton, Wisconsin, 1952). It ends with his 1915 return to America, and there is nothing in it about being driven out of Parliament or any threats. As he explains it, his writing career was in decline (MPs were not paid in those days) and his wife, an American, and his children, both born in New York, had long wanted to return to America. Then Neilson began to experience health problems. And so he decided to return to the country where he had lived for 20 years and where he had been very successful in the theatre.

Freedman's account is simply made up, as is so much of what he says. Do you still believe him on anything? Samhook 01:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis Neilson
Ref1 - Wikipedia: Francis Neilson:

"He resigned from parliament when his pacifist beliefs conflicted with the First World War. From there he returned to the United States, where he became a citizen in 1921; and pursued what came to be the most prominent of his works, his writing career."

Samhook 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) :''This is consistent with his memoir but contradicts Freedman's claims. Which side are you arguing on?''

Then there is this interesting piece of info:

"His first book, titled How Diplomats Make War, was dedicated only six weeks after his resignation from parliament; and went through several printings and translations...."

Wow which meant that the book was finished but Neilson had "resigned from parliament when his pacifist beliefs conflicted with the First World War" six weeks before releasing that Book????

Samhook 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC) :''He may have finished the book and written the dedication is 1914, but the book was not published until he had moved to the U.S., where it was published. Hence the idiocy of Freedman's claim that he was driven from England by publication of the book. And oh, yes, Freedman also said that the book was "The Makers of War," which was not published until 1950 ''.

How strange Samhook?

Ref2 - Bio

"entering the House of Commons the following January. Here he remained for six years, until World War I led him, as a pacifist, to resign. Bent now on a literary career, he returned to America and became a United States citizen in 1921."

Bolding added by myself.

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : ''This passage also contradicts Freedman. Again I ask you, which side are you on? Have you switched sides> ''

Also for good measure I like this quote from Francis Neilson: in "The Great Parliamentary Conspiracy" found here:

The Great Parliamentary Conspiracy

"There was no such thing as a poor law in England until the people were driven away from the lands to make room for the sheep. A commission of the year 1517 reports wholesale depopulation, owing to the break-up of the villages and the spread of sheep farming. An act of Parliament of the time refers to "greedy and covetous people who accumulate in their hands such great portions of the lands of the realm from the occupying of the poor husbandman, because of the great profit that cometh from sheep". Poor law legislation was enacted in the days of Elizabeth as a means of coping with the evils of poverty. Is it a mere coincidence that legislation against "cutthroats, thieves, and vagrants" was enacted about the time it was found necessary to introduce palliative measures dealing with the poor?"

and :

"After the time of Cromwell the ruling class began to speed up the political means and for the next hundred years the work of destroying every vestige of economic liberty was carried on without much protest"

Perhaps Samhook if you studied a little more of this type of work and a little less "History Channel" you would understand the roots of those childish terms such as "Jew Hater" "anti-Semitism" etc.

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : ''Your amusement value has been declining in recent posts, but this one raises it slightly. To begin with, I taught medieval studies in a major university for several decades. I have thus been familiar with the economic history of England for a long time--perhaps before you were toilet-trained. You're the History Channel type. I've never watched it. I can and do read books. I certainly hope you don't watch the History Channel, since on your own theories it is Owned by the Jews. It's never easy to make out just what you are arguing for, but this quotation seems to be saying that antisemitism is the justified result of Jewish oppression in England during the late Middle Ages (in a passage you don't quote, Neilson refers to 14th Century labor laws) to the late Renaissance. Hobbled as you are by your pitiful ignorance, you are unaware that there were no Jews in England between 1290 and the middle of the 17th century. So whoever Neilson is talking about. it ain't the Jews. ''

History of the Jews in England
Samhook I really want to state that your amusement factor has never left me. For all of your pretentiousness about "I taught medieval studies.." and comments on my literacy skills you are really are one arrogant fool my friend.. let me show you the typical symptoms of arrogant ignorance:

1. One can not admit when one is wrong. 2. One cannot admit they did not know something and now understand it based on information provided.

Let me tell you I did not go and edit the History of the Jews in England check the edit history.

First lets see...

Oh also I want to admit I knew nothing of the fact that Cromwell was involved in "readmittance" of "Jewish" "usurers" but I will remember it as a fact from now on. I haven’t taught “medieval studied” but I can at least interpret information when it is given to me perhaps that’s your disability Samhook?

You have been trained not to process information correctly?

Hypnosis?

"After the time of Cromwell the ruling class began to speed up the political means and for the next hundred years the work of destroying every vestige of economic liberty was carried on without much protest" .Neilson

History of the Jews in England The first written records of Jewish settlement in England date from the time of the Norman Conquest, mentioning Jews who arrived with William the Conqueror in 1066 although it is believed that there were Jews present in Great Britain since Roman times. The Jewish population lived in England from the Norman Conquest until they were expelled in 1290 by a decree of King Edward I. England had no official Jewish presence, save for isolated individuals who practiced Judaism secretly, until the reign of Oliver Cromwell.While Cromwell never officially readmitted Jews to Britain, the small colony of Sephardic Jews living in London was unmasked in 1656, and, because of Cromwell's need of their financial assistance, they were allowed to stay. While the Jewish community in Britain remained comparatively small until the late nineteenth century, there had long been efforts to legally integrate Jews into British life.

Oh how interesting that we match up these two Quotes up, listen Samhook I can't help it if you can't get over your weird and unhealthy paranoia that people "Hate Jews" perhaps you could go see someone lay on the sofa for a while take an aspirin maybe.

Perhaps you can understand.. no perhaps you can start to think outside the limited space that is obviously occupying your thoughts on this matter and ask yourself, why did the "Jews" (but really just some “Jews”) get expelled from England in 1290 lets test that "medieval studies" of yours Samhook, and with the limited readmittance by Cromwell because he "needed their financial assistance" why did the Neilson quote (that I did not know of before reading it a week ago) match so well with his opinion of the state of decline of England from that time on? are you really that stupid Samhook? Is it a co-incidence again?

I’m going to have to start calling you a “co-incidence theorist” Samhook.

Did it ever become apparent to you that a Jew has never been persecuted (outside idiot isolated accounts) on account of their religion..... B Freedman even said that.

Show me one general national case if you can do that I will tell you that you are right and I’m wrong...

They were involved at that time in England in all the aspects of what used to be called "USERY" Samhook, now I’m sure as hell that there were Jews that were involved in “Crop Growing” that are happily still living in England today without a problem in the world or a history of a problem in the world.

It’s your weird sick paranoia that leads you and others to believe that the world has something against Jews, as I said you should really see someone about it.

Samhook before I was toilet-trained you were probably still a confused old man.

How about as an alternative:

"Slavery Hater" and "Economic deprivation Hater" and "individuals that treat other humans like animals, hater" or "Usury Hater"?

What about “land owner that abuses his position…Hater” or “Lender that aggressively forecloses on the signed contract … Hater”?

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : ''Ah. Now maybe we're getting somewhere. Is it your position that these various misbehaviors are more common among Jews than non-Jews? This is a very important question, one that I hope you will do your best to answer as fully and honestly as you can. '' You may see that the world LOVES Jews but Hates repression and disrespect.

Are you still buying all the details of that Holocaust story?

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : ''Are you still ignoring the massive non-Soviet evidence for the Holocaust from purely German sources? These include the evidence of the Wannsee Conference, the trial of Adolf Eichmann and much else. Every time I bring this up, you ignore me. Every time you bring up the question of Soviet evidence, I promptly say that I don't rely on it. The neutral observer would not have much trouble in deciding who is the honest man here. ''

I'm the one laughing out loud Samhook you linguistic genius, i have answered your question in that regard twice now please give me just a little break... Please...

If it was not for the Good work of independent journalists at news agents and papers like haaretz daily and the IHR, you would be plainly and confidently be telling me how the Nazis turned people into soap and or other household products... of course if you do that now people (that can process information) just think your a little confused or maybe a victim of some well spent propaganda.

I have many times witnessed people of the older generation (the WW2 Propaganda Generation) people of about 55 60 yrs old that were not involved personally in the war tell harrowing stories about how the gas came out of the shower heads in Bergen-Belsen??

Is that what happened Samhook?

That is the bigger disrespect to the genuine victims of disease and maltreatment of the time. People like these (well really the source of the Propaganda) are the people that bring disrespect to this issue Samhook by cheapening the whole event

-Theblackbay 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will also note that the absence of the presence of an Authors opinion about one particular detail in a narrow view such as an abstract does not negate it's obvious existence on account of the other surrounding evidence in reality.

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : ''ROTFALOL. I wasn't citing an abstract. I was citing the first volume of a two-volume memoir running to more than 600 pages. And is there any "other surrounding evidence in reality"? Besides, of course, Freedman? Is there any evidence whatever that could convince you that Freedman's claims are false? If so, what? If not, then you are in a philosophical and scientific double-bind. If something cannot be proven false, it cannot be proven true. ''

My Life in Two Worlds by Francis Neilson Review author[s]: R. C. Music & Letters, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 63-65

"In Parliament he was a left-winger-- not a socialist, he makes clear, but a constitutional Radical and Pacifist.

This is not the Place in which to discuss his political activities: enough to say that he lays the blame for the 1914 war on the Allies rather than the Central Powers and stills refers to his old liberal chiefs as warmongers, with undiminished rancour against Grey.

In 1915 he decided to leave his native soil and, with his wife and family, sailed in a Dutch ship for America.

There he found Patronage for his lectures among the Irish-Americans and Germans, and became and American Citizen."

blackBay sums up : So let me see this from the English Governments point of view:

we have in 1914-1915 a "left-wing" "constitutional Radical" that "lays the blame for the 1914 war on the Allies rather than the Central Powers and stills refers to his old liberal chiefs as warmongers" whom finds patronage for his lectures with "Irish-Americans" and "Germans" and moved to America.

Yes Samhook I’m sure he was given every respect by that friendly English Media, just like that good lady that lost her son and is against the Iraq war in our modern time also just like all those peace protesters against the Vietnam war were treated with respect and dignity.

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : ''There was, of course, no "English governmet" in 1914-15. Ebgland ceased to exist as a state in 1707. There might be a History Channel program on this, but I wouldn't know. The Amusement Quotient in your posts just went up in any case. theblackbay as spokesman for the UK government. LOL at least. But you're being a good conspiracy theorist here. You don't know jack about Neilson's leaving England, but you sure can assume. ''

Yes Samhook maybe in your world? Reality is a different thing but.

Samhook 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) : Reality is a different thing but. My favorite example of your assault on the Emglish language. A sentence that ends with a conjunction. Is English really your native language? Your "reality" is whatever you want it to be. Mine is grounded, as best it can be, in fact. You are still evading my statemen that Freedman's account of the state of WWI in the summer of 1915 is contradicted by all the records. This is, so I believe, because you can't bear to see your reality challenged. But hey, prove me wrong.

''

Questions 3,4 and 5 Answered by blackBay
First the Questions:

3. Freedman’s account of the state of WWI in August 1916 is as follows. Submarines had swept the convoys from the seas (but the convoy system was not adopted until 1917); the UK had no ammunition left (if this were true, the war would have been over); the UK was down to one week’s supply of food (if this were true, famine would have begun a week later, yet Britain did not impose food rationing until almost two years later, and even then in response to hoarding problems, not scarcity); Freedman claimed that the French Army had mutinied (although some units of the French Army did mutiny, they did not do so until late April 1917); Freedman claimed that Russia was effectively out of the war in August 1916 (yet Russia had just completed its most spectacular success of the war, the Brusilov Offensive.) So: each of his claims is false. We cannot know whether he was lying or just being ignorant, but in either case, his reliability is devastated.

4. Freedman claimed that Germany, having won the war, then offered peace to the UK on the basis of a return to the status when the war broke out. Freedman provides no evidence for this offer, and indeed there is none. All the diplomatic archives have been open for decades, and there is no mention of any such offer. Again, he may be lying or he may be ignorant, but in either case he’s not to be relied on.

5. Freedman claimed that unnamed Zionists approached the British government and offered to embroil the United States in the war on the Allied side in exchange for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. He says that the U.S. then went to war to carry out the Zionist side of the bargain. As usual, Freedman offers no evidence whatever for this claim. He also ignores the complex history of Wilson’s attempts to stay out of the war and the increasing problem of Germany’s refusal to recognize neutral rights on the sea. Given Freedman’s documented record of spreading falsehoods, his unsupported word cannot be accepted with regard to these alleged Zionist machinations to get the U.S. into the war.

First off Thank you Samhook for giving me the opportunity and motivation to explore further this piece of history, all petty insults aside I hope to answer every question and to prove that you are misguided and incorrect on nearly all counts in the above 3 questions and statements.

Answer number 3:
Comment:

Let us look at what B H Freedman said on this subject:

“World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened? Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.”

Diversion and distraction from original obvious intention

I have to say Samhook again if your argument is trying to stand on the fact that Freedman quoted “Within two years Germany had won that war” I think that your version of defining Freedmans general comment down to the month will be looked upon by any third party as the stupid distraction method that it is:

I will note that he clearly states the French had lost 600,000 in the defence of Verdun he clearly states that Russians and French were defecting.

He is clearly talking about late 1916 early to Jan Feb 1917 as any school child could see.

You see Samhook just because Mr Freedman say generally “Within Two years” does not mean that reality changed and that the War did not happen?

The Facts are the facts and lets look at them:

Samhook Said: “Freedman claimed that the French Army had mutinied (although some units of the French Army did mutiny, they did not do so until late April 1917); Freedman claimed that Russia was effectively out of the war in August 1916 (yet Russia had just completed its most spectacular success of the war, the Brusilov Offensive.)”

The Russians were effectively out of the War by the end of 1916 so you are incorrect and B H Freedman is correct again.

What Freedman Says:

“The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar.”

Oh by the way further to your “within two years” interpretation I will note that The Russians did not fight with toys and I don’t think they regarded the war as a play time game (maybe you have other evidence?) Also you will note you are incorrect about the French Mutiny the French began to resist after the Verdun Offensive. When the combined counter offensive against the German Army ground to a halt by Dec 1916 and they began to realise that they had lost 1.3 million soldiers or so, and gained very little ground let alone won the War as they had been promised by their superiors. The Facts: Russia

From

“The offensive finally wound down after the seizure of Bukovina and Galicia (shaded in yellow). These accomplishments brought Russia just as many casualties as their defeats of the previous year, and discipline began to slide downward. To make matters worse, Russian industry proved unable to continue manufacturing new equipment in sufficient quantities to replace such staggering losses, especially in small arms and ammunition. All of this may have been inevitable given the trend of the war at that point. In late 1916, several nations across Europe began to suffer from mutinies and revolts as troops became disillusioned with the profligate loss of life. As the bad news at home mounted, Russia slowly edged toward open revolt and the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary edged toward complete dissolution”

“By 1917, the Russian Army's officer corps was increasingly demoralized by the poor progress of the fighting.”

Submarines
What did Benjamin Freedman Say ?

“The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean”

Generally Correct the German Submarine was a surprise to the world to which the English had No Answer to what so ever, not just Submarines although it must be said they had no idea how to counter another new device Marine mines.

All bolding of Text will be mine:

First how much Shipping did the U-boats sink up to 1916?



“1916 would see this lull come to an end. On 13-Mar-1916 the German military issued orders which loosened its stance on sinking without warning. Their U-boat commanders would be able to fire on British ships in home waters as long as they did not appear to be of the passenger variety. The UB 29 violated this convention by sinking the passenger liner Sussex on 24-Mar-1916 which once again resulted in American loss of life. On 24-Apr-1916, for the second time, U-boat commanders are instructed not to sink without warning. This was done amid threats of America breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany. None the less, allied and neutral losses continued to climb throughout the second half of 1916, rising from 37,000 tons in Jun-1916 to 180,000 tons by Dec-1916.”

This particularly matches well for the proof of Chronic shortages of Ammunition and rations that the English faced in France which is an accepted fact, in fact the Allies faced shortages from the beginning of the war in 1914 up until the US were suppling them in mid 1917. It is a well documented Fact that England and France Generally did not have the industrial means to fight a Modern war full stop.(without USA Aid) (you will note they are mostly going backwards until the US is suppling them liberally)

As it was not until mid to late 1917 that the US with it’s non-neutral anti-German policy of funding and supplying the Allies had shown any results.

SO did the English navy have an answer in 1915 -1916 for the German U boat? Answer No not at that time:



13th-27th May - Three British Battleships Lost - On the night of the 12th/13th, the old British battleship "GOLIATH" (1900, 13,200t, 4-12in) is at anchor off Cape Helles, providing close gunfire support for the Allied troops deadlocked on Gallipoli. The German-manned, Turkish torpedo boat "Muavenet" (or "Muavenet-I-Miliet") torpedoes and sends her to the bottom with over 500 seamen.

The first German U-boat to sail into the Mediterranean is now in the Aegean. Lt-Cdr Hersing in "U-21" left Germany in late April, reaching Cattaro in mid-May. A week later, he headed on for the Dardanelles and the Allied ships laying off Gallipoli, the larger ones protected by net defences against expected submarine attack. On the 25th, he torpedoes British pre-dreadnought "TRIUMPH" (1904, 12,000t, 4-10in) while she is firing her guns in support off Gabe Tepe, midway between Suvla Bay and Cape Helles. She capsizes in a short time with the loss of some 70 men.

Two days later, on the 27th, Hersing catches the old British battleship "MAJESTIC" (1895, 14,800t, 4-12in) in the same area and role as "Triumph", and torpedoes her twice. She turns over and sinks within seven minutes, but casualties are not heavy. "U-21" later passes through the Dardanelles and reaches Constantinople in early June.

She is joined in the Mediterranean by smaller "UB" and "UC" boats which travel overland to Pola for erection, while larger U-boats later sail directly to the Mediterranean to add to the few Austrian submarines.

'''1915 Dardanelles offensive losses. Note mostly to U-boats and Mines.'''

British and French Capital ships and lesser ships sunk and lost Totals 10 with 5 of them being Major Ships.

So in summary and to conclude Answer 3
B H Freedman was correct the war was very much in the Favour of Germany by the end of 1916 without one foreign soldier on her soil Germany Had held her line which is all she had to do to win the war. There was no Major German Mutiny and there was a rampant desertion and moral destruction in both the French and Russian armies.

Germany Had brought another revolutionary weapon to the war that is not spoken about so much but was probably one of the most significant.

The Large Field Gun

Manufactured by Krupps Factory which outnumbered the French and British combined by about 10 to 1, up until late 1916, well in fact the French only really had at that time small 75mm field guns which could not do the devastating damage to the front trenches that the German mammoth guns did in fact do.

It was all a testament to the fact that only one nation (in the WAR the other being the USA) at that time could fight a modern war with modern equipment an that was Germany for whatever reason she had the Industrial power at that time which is why the French and the British wanted to as Freedman said “Slap her down”. Match these Guns and the German position with the devastating British loss at the Dardanelles and Gallipoli which caused the fall of the liberal government and the call for the sacking of Winston Churchill it is very understandable that when Germany offered Peace the English were considering it.

Basically the Allies were going backwards on all fronts. with a giant deadlock in the middle which amounted to a backward step for the Allies because this deadlock was always in the German Favor as it was not German Land but occupied land.

When Germany for Reasons offered Peace the Allies considered.

-Theblackbay 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Peace on the Table From Germany
"Freedman provides no evidence for this offer, and indeed there is none. All the diplomatic archives have been open for decades, and there is no mention of any such offer. Again, he may be lying or he may be ignorant, but in either case he’s not to be relied on."

Sorry incorrect He is not lying the Germans offered Peace twice at least...

Here from Historian and Novelist Thomas Fleming:



"TF: There is ample room for disagreement on this contention. I don't make it with absolute assurance. It is no more than a probability. The German peace offer of early 1917 did not make any demand for retaining the occupied areas of Belgium or France. They also supported the Pope's peace initiative of mid 1917, which called for a return to prewar borders. There was a strong peace party in France, led by former premier Joseph Caillaux. In the Illusion of Victory, I narrate how close they came to exiting the war in late 1917 after America had come in. Only in 1918, when Ludendorff and his fellow generals took over the German government, and reasonable men such as Chancellor Bethman-Hollweg were discarded, did a Deutschland Uber Alles policy emerge in the treaty of Brest Litovsk and a determination to retain Belgium and portions of France. German war aims until this point were relatively modest -- basically a recognition of Germany as the dominant power in Europe -- a status she occupies today."

And you will note that the Second peace offer is for original pre-war borders- this is at a time when the French Army is in almost Full mutiny?? those ruthless Germans!?

So in summary B H Freedman is correct and Samhook is incorrect and or hasn't seen "All the diplomatic archives".

Benjamin Freedman is proven once again to be telling the truth.

Question 5 answered
"He also ignores the complex history of Wilson’s attempts to stay out of the war and the increasing problem of Germany’s refusal to recognize neutral rights on the sea. Given Freedman’s documented record of spreading falsehoods, his unsupported word cannot be accepted with regard to these alleged Zionist machinations to get the U.S. into the war."

First the Back half..

Again lets ask the Experts?:

Was President Wilson so Neutral?

Historian and Novelist Thomas Fleming

EMail Interview

"TF: Under Wilson's presidency there was no such thing as true neutrality. He abandoned the freedom of the seas doctrine, but in only one direction. He never seriously objected to the British blockade of Germany. He only objected strenuously to the German blockade of Great Britain. Millions of ethnic critics, notably the Irish-Americans and the German-Americans, spoke out against this travesty. So did Democrats such as William Jennings Bryan and Republicans such as Robert La Follette. Wilson's response was to accuse the ethnics of "pouring poison" into the veins of our national life. He accepted Bryan's resignation as secretary of state -- and he pursued a vendetta against Senator La Follette which resulted in silencing him for most of the war."

interesting?

"TF: The Zimmerman telegram probably made war unavoidable for America. Although a president who said he was "too proud to fight" after the Lusitania was sunk probably could have finessed it. The same thing might be said for unrestricted submarine warfare. As Senator Henry Cabot Lodge said in an acerbic letter to Theodore Roosevelt, if Wilson was right about going to war in 1917, everything he had done for the previous two years was wrong. All this begs the fundamental question. Wilson's sham neutrality had produced these 1917 decisions in Berlin. The Germans regarded the United States as a de facto enemy -- '''with good reason. American industry had become an adjunct of the British war effort. Of the five million pounds the British spent on weaponry and supplies each day, two million pounds, 10 million dollars, was spent in the United States. This comes to $986 million a week in 2002 dollars. British Munitions Ministry agents operated in hundreds of U.S. factories, rode freight trains and supervised loading at U.S. docks to prevent sabotage. If you were a German, what would you think of all this?"'''

Why was the USA so one sided? why not give Material Support to Germany? why to a Traditional Enemy such as England Samhook? What has happened? it almost seems like Traffic light changed?

"There were lots of questions as to what President Wilson was thinking when he asked Congress to declare war? For instance, did he have reports from independent observers (e.g. US military attaches) on the battlefield situation and did he anticipate the nation would eventually be mobilizing 4.7 million men and the entire economy? Did the President grossly underestimate the national sacrifice required?"

"TF: The answer to the latter end of this question is yes. Wilson underestimated the political and military realities of the war to an almost incredible degree. He assumed the war was as good as won. There is no evidence of reports from military attaches or other observers. Wilson seems to have relied for information on Colonel House, his unofficial representative abroad, and newspaper reports. The British and French propaganda machines strove mightily to give the impression that they were winning. American newsmen reporting from the German side of the lines complained their dispatches were suppressed or mutilated by British censors. Thanks to severing Germany's Atlantic cables, the British controlled almost all communication between Europe and America."

Oh and Samhook Look at this!?

"Not until month after America declared war did the British and French send military missions to Washington, who told the truth: The Germans were winning. As one French general put it, "We want men men men!" Wilson was also strongly influenced by a message from the American ambassador to England, Thomas Nelson Page, a blatant anglophile, that Great Britain would be bankrupt within two weeks, if the U.S. did not enter the war and provide her with funds. Also in the picture were cables from the U.S. embassy in Paris, warning that French morale was cracking. I deal at length with Wilson's mindset, which was shared by everyone in his cabinet and Democratic leaders in Congress, in the early chapters of The Illusion of Victory."

Thomas Fleming

-Theblackbay 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Fleming
'''The statements you quote from Fleming are without substantiation. His academic specialty, by the way, is not history but Greek lyric poetry, and he is a Neo-Confederate, i.e., he thinks the wrong side won our Civil War and is in favor of a second secession. But I don't dismiss him out of hand. I've ordered his book, which presumably has documentation of his positions, and when I've read it, I will return to address these issues in detail. ''' Samhook 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As for your first statement in Question 5:

"Freedman claimed that unnamed Zionists approached the British government and offered to embroil the United States in the war on the Allied side in exchange for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. He says that the U.S. then went to war to carry out the Zionist side of the bargain. As usual, Freedman offers no evidence whatever for this claim."

I have addressed the strong circumstantial evidence to this end and also the existence of the Balfour Declaration and its Particular motives to which you also have basically already admitted. But never the less I look forward to finding further evidence and will post it on here as soon as I do so. If there is direct evidence out there it will be found.

after all you contended that there was no Peace offer and there was two Peace offers one directly German and the other supported by Germany you did not know about these, so how can you confidently assume in the face of all the circumstantial evidence that there is no direct smoking gun evidence for this assertion?

I would say there has to be.

-Theblackbay 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

''' No, I do not assume there is no smoking gun. I simply note that neither Freedman nor you nor anyone else has produced one. The ball is in your court. There is, of course, no circumstantial evidence whatever that Zionists promised to embroil the US in WWI, much less a smoking gun. And since Freedman's claim leads to a dreadful chain of justification for the Holocaust (The Jews Conspired to Defeat Germany in WWI>The Germans were justifiably outraged at the Jews>The Nuremberg Laws>The Deportations>Eichmann) it must be matter of crucial evidence to any decent person to find the smoking gun and to show that it was known to Germans in 1918 or after. Or to stop circulating this disgusting lie.'''

'''Btw, not even Hitler cited Freedman's claim. His equally lying claim was that the Jews in the German government asked for the Armistice when the German army was still competitive in the field. ''' Samhook 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Update
Well Samhook all argument aside the term Zionist is thrown around a lot and you know what on moderate reflection I’m not even sure if Zionist is the Best term to describe these people involved in all of these events...

I just can't quite understand if they are Zionist then why treat their own people in such a disgusting manner such as the Zionist Government treats it's own people?

Constant war.... Propaganda......

you know peace is not always a weakness, sometimes it leads to economic improvement and trade relations.

By the way are you proud of being a witness to the digitalindustry predictions of years earlier:

Notice Housing slipping in the US domestic market and notice under a "normal" economy then a Rates Cut would be in order notice now Samhook that as soon as that is mentioned your US dollar goes into free fall?

the Aust dollar is currently 83c to the US if your not in Australia that does not mean much to you but it used to be 55 - 59c oh but more importantly the EUro 1.30+ US.

Thus now we are talking about a Rate rise?? oops double bind. if rates rise then what happens to the already depressed housing market?

Recession indeed, so you can choose between Inflationary recession or deflationary recession.

It's a fact Samhook the US does not have the Durable goods; the infrastructure any longer, your country now needs to share the pie with the rest of the world.

That can be painful for the rest of the world… or apocalyptic depending on who you ask.

Replaceable fair use Image:Griffin_Ed_G.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Griffin_Ed_G.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MM logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MM logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Common sense freedman.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Common sense freedman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

land to sell
hi a

Headline text
m from jordan i have so{| class="wikitable" border="1" ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3
 * row 1, cell 1
 * row 1, cell 2
 * row 1, cell 3
 * row 2, cell 1
 * row 2, cell 2
 * row 2, cell 3
 * }me lands to sell
 * row 2, cell 3
 * }me lands to sell

hi a

File:Speaker-blkbay.gif missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Speaker-blkbay.gif is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)