if i say the evil naacp are running shit, and as a result i am discreditted, does that "prove" that the naacp really is running the show? or that the notion is so offensively absurd that the general population is inspired to distance themselves from my hatefull crazy?

No freecrack, you just don't get it.You wouldn't necessarily be discredited.

Since you like to speak in the hypothetical instead of in reality, let's look at it this way:

In a normal, open, democratic society that values free speech, most honest journalists and rational people would simply ask you to prove exactly why you would make the outlandish claim that the evil NAACP are "running shit" as you say.

And outlandish as that claim is, if you were to somehow produce some evidence to support your claim, then some rational, sane person or hopefully an academic from the NAACP would come out and challenge you to a debate to rebut or debunk your claims.

But the reality is that this isn't a normal, open, democratic society that values free speech, and the NAACP is just as hysterical, pathetic and corrupt as their Jewish counterparts, but they don't run shit as you and I both know.

In a normal, open, democratic society that values free speech, an organization that claimed to be pro-civil rights and allegedly against defamation would not stoop to bullying and defaming the character of a 90 year old woman.

And I respect this interviewer who at least had the balls to have Helen Thomas on to give her side of the story instead of bowing down to the ADL's threats and intimidation.

"Since you like to speak in the hypothetical instead of in reality"

really? says the guy who post's soley on personal suspisions, really?
zionists control our apperatus is fact, but analogous examples that counter it are hypotheticals?

"In a normal, open, democratic society that values free speech, most honest journalists and rational people would simply ask you to prove exactly why you would make the outlandish claim that the evil NAACP are "running shit" as you say."

aside from journalism being dead, does your zionist speak not fall into the same catagory? is it not expected that israel is pulling the strings is equaly outlandish?its just the flip side of the same coin.

"And outlandish as that claim is, if you were to somehow produce some evidence to support your claim, then some rational, sane person hopefully an academic from the NAACP would come out and challenge you to a debate to rebut or debunk your claims."

and do you not cm across a liteny of information countering your claims, as you trudge on regardless of it? wouldnt it also be possible that some claims are so rediculous it doesnt serve the group being attacked to acknowledge the attacks, as it dignifies the absurd? ever notice that no "zionist" organization exists that serves this purpose? does that not equaly suggest that the zionism theories are bullshit as well as possibly a secret shadowy organization?
i mean if reasonable rational thought is where ya want to take this......................

we both know the naacp doesnt run shit, but i hold the same opinion based on the same identical criteria about zionists.racists can pile evidence up to create the notion that the naacp does manipulate our existence to thier ends.the classic rebirth of a nation type stuff all the way to affirmative action with the reperations scare tactic.but i have the sense to recognize its absurdity.the same goes for the idea that the jews are running shit.equaly absurd if not more so.

has it excaped your attention that you are deriving information from a person who has shown to have legitimate antisemitic (in regards to jews) leanings.that you are going on her word and her word alone.does no one ever say rediculous shit as a result of this thougt process.does mel gibsons rant come off as truth exposing, or personal hatred? anyone can say what ever shit they like, it doesnt make it so.if it does, anna nicole smith's kid has five fathers, as they all claimed with full authority they were the one.they said it, so it must be true right? has it also excaped your attention that public media that relies on revenue, not rightious credentials ALWAYS present information according to appeal, not truth?you have this strict judgement in regards to all, except when it comes to the evil zionist's.then it just must simply be true.

helen thomas, just like david duke,or farakan,or mel gibson has the ability to speak freely regardless of the adl.you can try to paint the adl as this fascist force curtailing free speech, but it just isnt the case.if it were you wouldnt even be here right now would you? mel gibson wouldnt still bemaking movies right? david duke wouldnt hold office? farakan wouldnt be able to speak either? you can say what ever rediculous shit you want, but you recieve its fruits.not by the adl, but the public.and the public still want to see mel in movies, be represented by duke,hear farakan, but find helen to be a disgusting pig.no back handed sneaky shit, but public opinion.just like with micheal richards.

There is enough evidence to prove conclusively that America has been subverted in almost all walks of life.

In fact, most of it can be found in Jewish writings especially when you read Jewish publications like the Forward, Haaretz.

Plenty of quotes are out there and perhaps we could discuss a few.

Let's start with this one from Abe Foxman himself:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19/2

"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he said.

Joel Stein, Jewish writer from the LA Times and a Time Magazine contributor:

Instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish," as in "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."

"I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."

There is enough evidence to prove conclusively that America has been subverted in almost all walks of life

it is inherent as a result of being a free democracy.all special interest have thier hands in the cookie jar, with none superceding the other.aipac for israel, opec for the arab states,halliburton for the military industrial complex,various business lobbies for china.noe manipulating us strictly towards thier ends alone, plus we the people get the final say.no matter how influencial any group may become, our system of government insures they cannot over ride our will.

In fact, most of it can be found in Jewish writings especially when you read Jewish publications like the Forward, Haaretz.

the protocols arent jewish writings, nor is haaretz.just as my comments cant legitimately be considered jewish writings, niether is david horowitz's or haaretz.btw most people when finding repetitious information in a publication (such as haaretz or fox) it comes off as propaganda in nature.not repetition cuz it is true, but an agenda being sought.

"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he said

exactly the point ive been making.

"I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."

sound like a conspiracy or a standard business plan employed by all businessmen regardless or religion?

seeing as we are back to the jews in hollywood bit, ill throw you a few pieces of information.

like the fox corperation was one of the first big hollywood studios, and fox was not jewish.

the jews who ran hollywood back in the day made a point to not have it be a good old boys club for jews, and competed against one another, as opposed to working together towards a unified (jewish or not) goal, other than increasing business.

before ww2 broke out, these studio heads knew exactly what was going on in europe as thier contacts in those markets were jewish and told them.they did nothing in terms of jewish solidarity through film.one studio head was able to get a few hundred jewish families out, but that is as far as any hollywood effort went in regards to serving jewry in any way.

they didnt even acknowledge what was going on in europe, as they followed american interest above jewish interest.the american interest of nuetrality.only chaplin bothered to make any commentary, and it was comedic in nature.

a man by the name of selznick (yes jewish) made an attempt at taking business from warner brothers and mgm.regardless of his religion, those studios after losing money, fought back and ruined his name in the business.absolutely no solidarity in ters of judaism, only in business.

then, and now, hollywood has been a business that happened to be dominated by jews.same goes for doctors at one point, as well as kosher butchers.just the same as the auto industry has been dominated by christians as well as every other industry really.to make a religious or ethnic link between the business's and who runs them is racist in nature, as it has absolutely no bearing on anything substative.no jewish agenda promoted in film, just as no one finds jesus by buying a ford.the acknowledgement of who is running these industries is just a means of sewing seeds of division, nothing more.it is irrelevent no matter how one looks at it.just race baiting of the lowest caliber.

What is the difference between dominating and controlling of any one industry?

And also is Jewish-atheist Joel Stein an anti-semitic hate-speech writer that can be compared to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, for saying that Jews "totally run Hollywood," like you compare David Duke and Louis Farakahn?

What is the difference between dominating and controlling of any one industry
dominating is coincidental as opposed to controlling wich is of a plan.
is thier any conspiracy for blacks to dominate or control sports?
is thier a conspiracy for middle easterners to dominate or control the taxi industry?
is thier a conspiracy for christians to dominate or control the delivery pizza industry?

it is coincidence used as propaganda.it is taking innocuous information, and using it to demonize a people.disney was once a home of antisemitism, and is now run by people who happen to be jewish.in another half century it could be run by irish catholics or sufi muslim.it wouldnt mean anything other than those people re the right people for the job.it is using the results of our civil rights and equality as a means to create racism.

i dont compare anyone to nazis, as that is hyperbolic and disrespectfull to all those who suffered at the hands of actual nazis.but to claim that "jews totaly run hollywood" is propaganda, wich was a staple in the third riech's playbook.he isnt hitler, or a nazi based on such statements, but he is a fan of thier brand of bullshit.most likely based on the same hatred of jews and desire to demonize us, and discredit our efforts.as if the world is us versus them.people vs the jews.that is what that line of reasoning always leads to, as it is designed to.

"is thier any conspiracy for blacks to dominate or control sports?"

This is silly. I'm assuming you are referring to basketball, which of course blacks dominate the playing aspect of the game, but they don't control the game.

They are nothing more than chess pieces that are moved around interchangeably.

The actual game of basketball is of course controlled by the NBA Commissioner David Stern (Jewish), who has been in control of the game since 1984.

The Commissioner of the NBA is the chief executive of the National Basketball Association.

The Commissioner of the NBA is the chief executive of the National Basketball Association. He decides on rules changes, ownership, team relocation, trades, fines and punishments.

But that's another story altogether, and somewhat of a distraction from the issue.

The issue here is why does Joel Stein get a pass for saying that "JEWS totally run Hollywood" but Helen Thomas get's ostracized for saying that "the Zionists run Hollywood?"

Why the double standard?

Why didn't the ADL go after Joel Stein, crucify him in the media, call for him to be removed from his job, have all his awards returned?

cuz joel stien made the point that while a shit load of jews are in positions of authority in hollywood, the conspiritorial conotations are not acceptable.helen on the other hand went right for the absolute truth to the conspircay bullshit, thus enforcing a libel.

i thought zionist didnt mean jew? yet you equate the two in the above comment.can ya just fucking admit what your doing.its just sad that ya dont really.especialy as i keep calling ya out on it.

No he didn't, Joel Stein arrogantly reinforced the stereotype.

Here is his direct quote, which is no different than what Helen Thomas said, except he gets to keep his cushy job in Hollywood working for the LA Times and Time Magazine.

"But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."

Notice he uses the word "we," in a collective fashion just like you do!

stien prefaced his statement by stating public opinion didnt matter to him and showed his goal to be the status quoe.it reads more of a business statement than anything else, unless you are racistly looking at the "we" as him talking about jews and not his peers who happen to be jewish.

its a business statement amongs a myriad that you have searched through in order to make a racist play.

im so beyond done with this retarded discussion, as children can grasp this basic concept better than you have.

Along with Joel Stein getting to keep his cushy job for saying the exact thing as Helen Thomas said, Abraham Foxman probably didn't call for organizations to retract Stein's awards and honors.

ahhh yes the realm of probably.where your theories reside

but its not about jews cuz thier is a z.
anyone who were to view this picture woud in no way be lead at all to think the figure on the right represents jews?
the star of david is worn by all people equaly, not by any one group in general?
yarlmulka's are making a fasionable comeback, not worn soley by jews?

but its not antisemitism right?