Skunkie has had some trouble with his server and some of the links are broken.
The site is now defunct; good riddance.
To see just how nuts he really was, look for "http://judicial-inc.biz" on the Wayback Machine or some similar archive.
I have never denied I may have some Jewish blood, but I consider Mengele my real
father. My mother, was a gyspy 7th day adventist, and a lesbian, who knew Sister
Edith Stein, was mistaken for a Jewess. Some people emptied their bowels during
gassing, but my momma gave birth to twins.
An SS Guard yelled 'Utten Juden Nien Tweens' which meant 'The women who said she was a gypsy just had twins', so Mengele runs in (held his breath) and grabbed me and Shem. Next he ordered Gertha Bothe to whip out her breast and give us a shot of live giving milk.
I consider my self to be german.
...The limit of my response was one page where I said Porter was a great historian, but disagreed on what I considered minor things [!]. 99.9% of the time I use original picture, but when I spend hrs looking for Dillinger's 1928 model-T, can't find it, then I use a stock picture [!]
[COMMENT: Yeah, like a university science building or a promo pic from a 2006 film.
Of course, fake pics are not the only problem.
For example, if Skunkie wanted to prove that "pygmies mate with elephants in Darkest Africa" (borrowing an example from the film "Little Big Man"), you would get a huge mass of info on "pygmies", together with a huge mass of info on "elephants", all jumbled up, and half of it wrong, but with dozens of "pictures", while the essential matter to be proven -- i.e., that they allegedly "mate" -- would simply be assumed or glossed over.
In this case, of course, he could use "stock pictures" all he wanted, and nobody would care, because the pictures were being used to illustrate and not to prove.
The article would be worthless anyway, but there is a difference. - C.P.]
Pyglie-wigglie pic (stock)
As for spelling, and punctuation, I just am not the brightest [!].
What I do know is, if I got into a battle royale with a poster, or Carlos Porter, or VNN, Stormfront, etc etc, it would not serve my goals. I watched Wing.tv go on and on for days about who is phony, and I just got bored.
You have the Iraq war, Israel massacring children, the decay of the educational system, the Lebanon massacre, and really important things, so why waste energy on catfights.
[COMMENT: Translation: every time he gets caught in a lie, he changes the subject and pretends he can't understand what you are talking about. It is obvious that his credibility means nothing to him. Either the whole site is a put-on, or he simply cannot think properly. Maybe both. -C.P.]
Carter's [!] position on Leo Frank (he was innocent) is his opinion. Regards the Lindbergh case, my opinion is the 'Purple Gang' out of Detroit did it, Carter [!] disagrees.
[COMMENT: The significance of the "Porter/Carter" confusion is that it proves that these postings are authentic. Skunkie is dyslexic and so is the person posting these messages. -C.P.]
So we have two different opinions. Most of the time I lay out the facts [!], and create a possible scenerio. The reader decides whether there is any logic to it.
...Everyone hates me because I am Jewish [!!]. At stormfront they say my wife is a black, but she is Italian.
Laconas calls me names everyday, and at VNN they laugh at my matramonial bliss. My first date, oral sex behind a dumpster cost me $20, but she was no hooker. If you take a girl out to dinner you pick up the check, so does that make her a hooker?
-Quotes from Skunkie postings on libertyforum, pages 1 and 2. What else is there to say? -C.P.
See also here
If it's any consolation, Skunkie's sister site,
http://www.iamthewitness.com, is even worse.
http://www.iamthewitness.com has "Jewish" written all over it. First, there is an Inner Party or Group of Elect, consisting of exactly three people ("Smith", Bollyn, and Hufschmid), with whom one must agree 100%, without the slightest deviation or difference in emphasis or point or view; there is a super-complicated, ever-changing "Party Line" which must be adhered to 100%, or else they are 100% against you (for example, you cannot be a "real" anti-Zionist unless you believe the moon landings are a hoax; you cannot believe that 911 was a US government inside job without any help from the Zionists; Zionists must be blamed first, last, foremost and 100% for absolutely everything at all times); third, there are endless excommunications and anathemata expressed against everybody on the face of the earth who fails to adhere, conform and comply with their Party Line (David Irving, David Duke, Alex Jones, even Ernst Zündel, etc. etc., with a load of lies; last, it is endlessly complicated and confusing, like the Talmud. It reminds me of Communism under Stalin or Objectivism under Ayn Rand. More Jewish than that, and you might as well be in a synagogue. Not only is it confusing, it is unpleasant. Reading Skunkie is a pleasure by comparison. Both sites are registered with exactly the same web server [or were -- Skunkie has now been declared a "non-person"]
Update April 2009:
For what it is worth, Bollyn is Jewish, has lived in Israel, speaks fluent Hebrew and Arabic, and married a Jewish woman in Israel. Hufschmid is half-Jewish.
They write some good stuff, OK, so does "Smith", but you can always spot a Jew.
By their writing style ye shall know them.
I consider both sites the work of the same organization, but not necessarily the same person.
How can a revisionist like Zundel possibly have an opinion on the moon landings? What does that have to do with it? And so on. It's also heresy to think that Oswald shot Kennedy, or even that you don’t know. And so on, ad infinitum.
You can always spot a Jew (or Jew mind-slave) by his dogmatism, Revealed Truths, and allergy to factual or logical objections. This is how I knew Skunkie is Jewish.
Every Jew thinks he is Jehovah speaking from Mount Sinai. Facts and logic are irrelevant, it's always just their ex cathedra ipse dixit, their arbitrary assertions that count.
If the Jews pulled off the Entebbe hijacking and the Lavon Affair; if they can finance Hamas and then Al Fatah; if they can set up phony "Nazi" parties and "Klan" groups; if the USA can finance Osama bin Laden, then Saddam Hussein, and now Sunni militia groups, then why wouldn't they set up a few moronic "anti-Zionist" sites to make anti-Zionists look like fools and run down our leaders?
Of course, provocation is a dangerous game, but it is one to which the Jews are addicted, and which they are very good at. For example, I do not believe in the authenticity of the "Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion" but I do not believe they were forged by the Czarist secret police. I believe they were faked by the Zionists to cause a reaction and force more Jews to emigrate to Palestine.
The "Protocols" were inspired by Macchiavelli's answers in the "Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" by Maurice Joly, usually available (in many languages) from http://www.abebooks.com (or click here).
("Macchiavelli" is spelled with both one and two "c"s. The modern spelling seems to use only one. If you spell it with two "c"s you won't find it.)
One of the few really useful ideas I ever gleaned from the Protocols is that, in the society of the future, the Jews will fill the world with so many contradictory ideas that there will be endless confusion.
(In actual fact, like most of the "Protocols", this idea is borrowed from Maurice Joly; see below.)
It is obvious that, to our enemies, confusion is an end in itself, a sort of intellectual "divide and conquer" policy.
The content of the ideas is irrelevant.
This is why there are so many people blaming all our problems on the Vatican; the "Illuminati"; the Freemasons; the British Royal Family; the Jesuits; blood-drinking lizards in human shape, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Many of these people criticize the many ways in which Jewish power manifests itself, without ever mentioning the Jews themselves. This is like discussing syphillis without mentioning the spirochete.
Some of what these people say may undoubtedly be the truth; but the main point is the confusion. One of the few people writing intelligently about both the Jews and the Illuminati is Christopher Jon Bjerknes, a Norwegian Jew, at www.jewishracism.com. In one of his files someplace he points out that in every movement referred to as forming part of the "Illuminati", the idea-men, the inspiring thinkers, are Jewish.
Dr. Henry Makow Ph.D says the "Illuminati" put Hitler in power; Barry Chamish says the "Illuminati" are plotting to destroy Israel; it's like a football.
No country has laws prohibiting criticism of the "Illuminati", and I don't see any Presidential candidates promising unconditional support to the Jesuits.
My personal favourite among these sites is http://vaticanassassins.org, where we learn that Hitler and Stalin were both Jesuits and conspired to gas the Jews; that the Jesuits killed Kennedy, shot Lincoln, pulled off 9/11, sank the Titanic [!!!], etc. etc. etc. etc., and so on and so forth. Skunkie is almost an amateur by comparison.
Personally, I don't care who killed Kennedy; what bothers me is that there are any of them left.
By some curious coincidence, these sites almost always contain something favourable to Jews.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, www.vaticanassassins.com has at least one excellent file, or so it seems to me:
It is certainly the truth that John Paul II was never anti-Communist.
Nor were any of the other Western leaders.
There may well be some truth in almost anything, so perhaps it is best to read everything and see if you can find it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the obvious problem in American political life is Israel, AIPAC and the ADL, which means Zionists and Jews. Everything else is secondary (even if half of it is the truth). Anybody who won't admit this is simply part of the problem.
"That he which hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart".
I like a lot of Skunkie's stuff. He has an instinct for the jugular which makes him, in his way, an excellent writer (or would, if he had any integrity). But he is sloppy. How can one possibly believe anything written by somebody who writes like that?
If he is sincere, I want him to clean up his act so I can believe what he says. I don't care about anything else.
("that will never be", say the bells of whatever-it-is)
PS. One of the reasons some of Skunkie's stuff is so good is because it is plagiarized wholesale from other people, without credit.
For example, the Skunkie Auschwitz file (search the mirror archive and ye shall find)
was simply lifted from Dr. Töben's Adelaide Institute revisionist site (deleted under Jewish pressure; presumably it's still on the net somewhere).
Another example of the amazing similarities between "judicial.inc.biz" and "iamthewitness.com" is the Skunkie "Loose Change" file, further indication, although not proof, that both sites are of identical origin.
"Loose Change" is one of the most prominent September 11th "debunking films" ever made. One of the producers, Korey Rowe, is an Irak/Aghanistan veteran who was recently arrested for "desertion" even though he was given an honourable discharge years ago; yet Skunkie calls him a "college student"!
If Skunkie doesn't like the film, why doesn't he tell us what is wrong with it?
In the meantime, the Marc Dutroux file is still there in all its glory (for comparison, click here).
Of course, there are many paths to the truth. Nobody has to be perfect.
Of course, there is a lot of rubbish in the world, even among the 911 debunkers.
For example, it is simply not true that "the National Socialists burnt the Reichstag".
It would make a great analogy with September 11th if it were true, but it isn't, and no serious historian believes it.
William L. Shirer is not a serious historian.
Sorry about that.
(Please see THE REICHSTAG FIRE by Fritz Tobias, published in English in 1964.
In the 75 years since the fire, and in the 45 years since the publication of this book, not one shred of credible evidence has ever been found indicating that Marinus van de Lubbe did not, in fact, act alone, exactly as he claimed, and as the National Socialists implicitly admitted by acquitting all the other defendants.
A newer publication, available only in German, by the same author in collaboration with a number of other respected German historians, is Reichstagbrand - Aufklärung einer historischen Legende [Reichstag Fire: Explanation of an Historical Legend] (ISBN: 3492030270 / 3-492-03027-0), by Backes, Uwe / Jansse, Karl-Heinz / Jesse, Eckhard / Köhler, Henning / Mommsen, Hans / Tobias, Fritz); same conclusion.)
The "attack on the Gleiwitz radio station" yarn is another load of rubbish.
(The German-Polish crisis lasted from October 1938 until September 1, 1939, and involved an extensive exchange of notes between the Germans, the Poles, the British, the Italians, and the French. Voluminous records of these attempts at negotiation still exist, intact, and there is no discrepancy between them. Most of the problems involved Polish refusal to recognize the rights of the various national minorities in Poland -- not just ethnic Germans, but Ruthenians, White Russians, Czechs, Jews, and Ukranians, etc., for twenty years. Hundreds of thousands of ex-Polish Ukranians emigrated to Canada, became British subjects, and continued to file complaints with the British government. These problems were very well known and received extensive publicity throughout the 1930s. The German attitude was that if the problems involving Danzig, the Corridor, and the minorities were not solved, Germany would be compelled to resort to war. The German attack date in 1939 was postponed no less than three times to give the Poles a chance to negotiate. In each case, they refused. Even after the initial German attack, on September 2, 1939, Hitler offered to stop his armies right where they were, on the spot, if the Poles would negotiate (which was extremely dangerous, because if the Poles had done so, and had then stalled until the beginning of the rainy season, the German army would have been nearly immobilized by mud; there were no good roads in Poland). The British refused, demanding unconditional, unilateral German withdrawal, with no concessions or negotiations in return. So Hitler went ahead, the British involved their colonies and dominions while attempting to involve the United States, and 50 million people were killed. The "Gleiwitz radio station" was NEVER MENTIONED AT ANY TIME IN 1939. The claim, therefore, is that for six years, nobody knew what the whole war was about, until 1945, when somebody named "Alfred Naujocks" signed an "affidavit" at Nuremberg, and disappeared forever! He never appeared as a witness for cross-examination. It is obvious that this tale was invented to obfuscate or conceal the real causes of the war. Why fake a trivial incident if you're never going to mention it when you go to war? This is a typical example of Nuremberg "evidence". Best sources: KRIEGSURSACHE -- KRIEGSCHULD, by Helmut Schröcke; DER KRIEG, DER VIELE VÄTER HATTE, by Gerd Shulze-Rhonhof; and THE FORCED WAR, by David Hoggan. This information is also widely available elsewhere.)
So is the myth of "Nazi Gun Control".
(The National Socialists relaxed gun controls passed by the Weimar Republic and even encouraged people to own firearms. Jews were allowed to own firearms, too, but were prohibited from dealing in guns. When the victorious Allies demanded the surrender of all privately-owned weapons in 1945, they were astounded at the variety of weapons turned in by ordinary citizens. One peculiar feature of National Socialist gun control legislation was that a hunting permit also functioned as a concealed carry permit. The full text of the relevant law, translated by William L. Pierce, is widely available in an inexpensive booklet, printed side by side with the original German text. For further information, order Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945, by William L. Pierce, from www.amazon.com)
These things are so well known that they hardly require refutation by somebody like myself.
Nor were the Germans ever accused of "waterboarding", as far as I know.
The Japanese were, but not the Germans.
Oh well, let's blame the "Nazis" for everything.
I like whatreallyhappened.com and prisonplanet.com, I like them a lot, but it must be admitted that what they know about Hitler and National Socialism would fit up an ant's ass, although whatreallyhappened.com is openly sympathetic to revisionism.
That's OK, that's not what I read them for.
ant's ass, bottom left and upper right respectively
Latest news is that www.iamthewitness.com claims that I "promote the official Kennedy assassination lie" because of a SINGLE LINK. How intolerant can you get?
Naturally, this disqualifies me as a revisionist.
It also proves I never did any original revisionist research and also proves I am a Zionist.
It's like the joke where if a Soviet artist fails to return to Russia, it means he no longer has any talent.
If that doesn't prove my point, what does?
More to the point, if they want me to think the website I linked to is wrong, why don't they try to disprove some of the stuff it says?
That's the way adults go about these things.
I am a little bit surprised that factual matters of this sort should be treated as if they were matters of religious orthodoxy.
I don't care, if they can prove it, fine, if not, not.
The latest laugh is the claim that "it takes 19 seconds to fire 3 shots with a bolt action rifle".
The bolt action is the most popular design of rifle ever invented.
Millions of people have fired these things, including myself; everybody knows what the rate of fire is (regardless of what Wikipedia says).
Click here here or here or here GOOD LINKS 10 December 2016
To cock and fire a Mannlicher-Carcano takes about 1-2 seconds. The question is whether you're going to hit anything. If he'd missed, nobody would think the rate of fire was remarkable.
here GOOD LINKS ditto
(See also the gun magazine article,"How Did Such a Good Rifle Get Such a Bad Reputation?") GOOD LINK
Obviously, the plausibility of using the Mannlicher-Carcano as an assassination weapon does not, in itself, prove that Oswald was necessarily guilty (and/or necessarily guilty acting alone); but it does prove that a lot of people are writing irresponsible literature, which is part of the problem.
In my view, the best way to settle this aspect of the matter -- from a purely scientific point of view -- would be to experiment using an identical rifle and scope, but on a different President.
At least that way, we get rid of another scumbag even if we still don't know who did it.
See also JFK: Sexual Sociopath and Political Faker
JFK: Racial Destroyer of America
An Introduction to Alternative Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories
JFK For Masochists
Incidentally, I think Michael Rivero (whatreallyhappened.com) is entirely too dogmatic about attacking those who maintain that there was "no plane at the Pentagon" or even "no planes at the WTC".
It is natural that there should be many theories about any unsolved crime, and that they would all contradict each other; that is in the nature of things.
That many or most of them will look or prove ridiculous is inevitable; look at the Jack the Ripper case.
But it is probably best to discount nothing.
For example, between 3 and 6 women were killed in Northern England just because the police decided that the Yorkshire Ripper didn't speak with a Yorkshire accent.
After all, they had "tapes" "proving" he spoke with a "Geordie" accent.
As for "no planes on 911" no one has yet answered my own simple question:
"Why is the hole in the Pentagon round in shape"?
That should be easy to do. How about it?
Search www.youtube for the following:
Lies - 911 Octopus 8
911 TV Fakery
CNN fake footage
911 fake footage
etc. etc. etc.
(these videos tend to get deleted and then reposted under different names; search for them)
There also appear to be some serious problems with the New York landscape in the most famous of these videos.
For example, a 37-story building built in 1931 is simply missing in one of them. Plus, from where the video appears to have been shot, the WTC would not have been visible, due to large trees.
For example, see:
The person who allegedly took one of the videos is a "diamond dealer" (i.e., almost certainly Jewish) who refuses even to say where he was standing when he took it, and says "Talk to CNN". Hmmm.....
The question is not so much whether or not the government could fake gigantic flying "holograms" to fool people into thinking they "saw" something which they did not; the question is the reliability of human perception and memory, and whether or not human perception and memory can be manipulated later, by suggestions and images shown at a later time.
Many experiments have been performed proving that this can be done very easily.
For example, BY WAY OF DECEPTION by Victor Ostrovsky, has the following to say, on pp. 57-58:
"Toward the end of the first week, Riff announced that we would be learning about personal security. He had just begun his lecture when the classroom door was noisily kicked in and two men leapt into the room. One carried a large pistol, an Eagle, the other a machine gun, and they immediately began shooting. The cadets drove for the floor, but both Riff and Ran. S. fell backward against the wall, covered in blood.
"Before you could say Jack Robinson, the two guys were out the door, into a car, and gone. We were in total shock. But before we could even react, Riff stood up, pointed at Jerry S. one of the cadets, and said, 'OK, I was killed just now. I want you to give us a description of who did it, how many shots were fired, any information at all that would help us track down the killers'.
"As Jerry gave his description, Riff wrote it on the blackboard. He then consulted the rest of the cadets, then went outside to summon the two 'killers'. They didn't look anything like our description. We didn't recognize them at all."
You can imagine how their eyewitness "recollections" would have been distorted if they had been shown fake "security camera" footage of the two "murderers" as being, for example, giants, dwarves, or Watusi wearing Santa Claus suits, before being introduced to the two "killers".
As it turned out, the "killers" were top offials at the school, whom they probably already knew, one of whom resembled the well-known actor, Telly Savalas! Nobody noticed this. And these "eyewitnesses" were Mossad cadets, people trained to be observant and alert at all times!
Another example is the film SWINDLER'S MIST, which shows water flowing from the shower heads in what the film characters and film goers fear is a "gas chamber". Many film goers failed to notice this and thought the scene depicted a "mass gassing"! They refused to believe otherwise until it was pointed out to them and the scene was replayed.
Even if these are all authentic videos shot on the street by passers-by, we can be sure that, today, they are copyright and owned by the major news networks. How do we know they haven't been manipulated since then? In short, we have what would be known in law as a "chain of custody of the evidence" problem.
I don't pretend to know what the truth is, except that we live in a society in which anything is politically, psychologically and audiovisually possible; but not physically.
See also The Psychology of Crowds by Gustav Le Bon, originally published in 1896.
"Anybody can be conned. It's just that a sucker will bet money thinking he can't be."
- professional conman
"Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see."
- professional gambler
"Nothing in this world is as you are being told."
- former CIA agent
17 August 2007