02 May 2002


Orwell observed that "who defines controls". The ZOG and the jewsmedia are prating the above words, and the Goy sheeple are repeating them thoughtlessly, just as our Zionist rulers have learned to anticipate. What do these words mean, in current mis-usage?

"Hate" is what the ZOG hates for Gentiles to say or hear. The First Amendment permits one to write about things which the ZOG hates, but such writings can be used against the author if someone does something the ZOG hates, and is found with written material the ZOG hates in his possession. A jew who possesses The Babylonian Talmud, with all its hateful words about Goyim is not guilty of "hate", but The Talmud in the possession of a Gentile would make him guilty of "hate", for it reveals how hateful the jews are toward Gentiles. This is why North American libraries restrict public access to the 63 volume Soncino Edition of The Babylonian Talmud in English. If your 'public' library has a copy, just ask to have a look at it.

Certain criminal acts are deemed to be "hate-crimes", depending on who commits them. I never considered physical assaults very friendly, but if the ZOG determines one of the accused to be the wrong color (White), his 'jewdicial' punishment may be compounded if "hate" is determined. As we know, flag-burning is "free speech", but cross-burning is "hate". I don't know if Israeli flag-burning would be one or the other, but I am sure ZOG will let us know in due course. I am sure that laws exist in regard to burning anything in public or on private property, so the ZOG could dodge the issue it has created by citing such 'nuisance' or mischief' laws instead. As a White man, I am forbidden to burn a cross on my own property, if anyone can see it. I can burn a flag, but my reasons must be political, or I may be charged under air pollution laws. It would be instructive, were a Black family to burn a cross on their property "to commemorate Black History Month". I'll sure that would be just fine with the ZOG. But if a White person does the cross-lighting for them, that would be a "hate-crime". Now, if someone were to burn a U.S. flag or another's property, without damage to the property owner, would this act fall under the law of "free speech" or of "terrorism"? Since flag-burning is not a "hate-crime", that law doesn't apply, but I might be scared to see a Fort McHenry-size U.S. flag blazing in my front yard, so I would be "terrorized", not only by the fiery flag, but by the lunatic who did such a thing. Again, the ZOG will decide whether terrorist acts by lunatics are "terrorism" or "insanity" and therefore protected by law. White Nationalists are almost always "sane".

"Terrorism" is utterly in the eyes of the beholder, for one side's use of explosives to destroy property and to blow up people is deemed "defence" and the other's is deemed "terror", depending entirely which side one favors. To make a fine distinction, "terrorists" often kill themselves upon the completion of their bomb deliveries, while "defenders" deliver their bombs via cannon and/or aircraft, so they can live to terrorize another day.

As a Cold War kid, my peers defined a "commie" as someone who put bubblegum on cinema seats. A few decades later, such 'evil' matinee-goers were deemed "Nazis", and now they would be "terrorists!", which is much more accurate. The possibility of you and your date going out to see a movie in your best clothes, and falling victim to a huge glob of chewing gum in a darkened theater is indeed scary, and being scared is just like being terrorized, eh kids? We got Terror, right here in River City, and that starts with "T" which rhymes with "G" which stands for GUM!

"Treason" and "traitors" are as American as apple pie, for The United States of America was founded and established by traitors who broke their allegiance to King George III. To make matters worse, they fought their King as rebels and "illegal combatants". Our George II would probably agree with that; however, the American traitors and illegal combatants, who were also "terrorists", sufficiently terrorized the King's men so they surrendered at Yorktown. Because these traitors, terrorists and illegal combatants all hung together, they were not hanged separately, just as Ben Franklin opined.

The ZOG defines "traitor" very selectively and inconsistently. As I have learned, a "traitor" is deemed anyone who leaves the U.S.A. with no intention of returning, regardless of political affiliation, UNLESS one is a commie who evades U.S. military service by moving to Canada or a jew who automatically has Israeli citizenship. The traitor, Pollard, would have been all right, had he left for Israel in time.

The lesson which may be derived from this little lexicon is simple: by definition, there is no substitute for victory!