If they let you on, continue with

"By the Jew World Order"

Your retarded... Why do you think they have a 10 second delay? That has to be subtle...

PM me with the script and I see if it works next time....

I called Dennis Prager today on the same subject. Jew Prager has been saying that only Muslims demand that nobody offend their religious sensibilities. So I called in and said that in my view the Holocaust was an article of Jewish religious faith, complete with miracles like geysers of blood shooting out of the earth and multicolored smoke billowing from crematoria. Jews just go berserk when you question the Holocaust, I said. Prager asked me if the Holocaust happened. "Uh, no." Click. Then he said, "I don't know what motivates you but there is something sick in your soul."

I was surprised that I was allowed on the air, given that I had told the screener exactly the point that I was going to make, and I was glad that I got to make it. Now I see that others like Ahmadinejad have been making the same comparison--because it is the obvious comparison to make. Yes, the Jews are intolerant fanatics too.

I am surprised he let you on the air. Must have thought it would be a novelty act.

I know it's way too easy to second guess you in hindsight, but when asked if you "believed the holocaust happened" (which does sound like a religious test of some kind!) the more interesting response might have been to ask him what he meant by "the holocaust", ie, force him to define exactly what it is that you are accused of "denying".

Jews get away with this holocaust scam because they have brainwashed people into thinking they know what the "holocaust" is when in fact they do not. Saying you "deny" the holocaust makes people think you are crazy because they think you are saying that concentration camps did not exist or that Jews did not die, which of course is not what you are saying. We know what you mean; the audience does not.

Since he actually let you talk on air, asking him to answer your question by defining what he means by "the holocaust" keeps the conversation going a bit longer than happened when you simply denied "the holocaust" (whatever "the holocaust" is). And the longer he keeps you on the air and engages in conversation, the more chances you have to score points and slip info past him to the listening audience.

Never accept his terms of debate. Make him specify what he means - this forces the non-braindead portion of the audience to think, rather than merely assume they understand the conversation. There isn't enough time to really undermine the holocaust myth in a single radio show call, but you can sow doubts.

As I said, not intending to criticize. I probably would do worse; I have not called a talk show since the 80's; most are too highly scripted now anyway and are designed to avoid honest conversation - this is especially true of the large syndicated shows like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.

I salute anyone that's got the balls to call a talk show or give an interview publicly stating our positions. I think Rounder mentioned taping interviews, which aftering having seen how the media operate first hand is a wise idea.
:cheers:

I've called into a show before, all these talk show hosts are megalomaniacs, their ego is the only thing in this world they truly care about. They're only interested in 'teaching you' something, putting on a ape-like display of mental dominance.

but use their show to plant a seed in someone's mind, when they hear stuff like that, it makes their senses tingle, but everyone knows something is fucked up but don't know what.

I salute anyone that's got the balls to call a talk show or give an interview publicly stating our positions. I think Rounder mentioned taping interviews, which aftering having seen how the media operate first hand is a wise idea.

A scheduled interview is an entirely different situation than calling their open comment lines. There can be some usefulness to a scheduled interview since the station has committed a certain amount of time to it and has ostensibly agreed to allow the interviewee to state his position. The reins are held tightly on the open comment lines though and once you attempt to explore taboo subjects in any depth it's all over.

They rerun that show in my area from midnight to 2am and I heard you. Great job!!! You made an excellent point but the bootlicking mick put you on mute, said he disagrees with your thesis and then rambled on and on ignoring your point without giving you a chance to bring up the holohoax again. BTW, it sounded like you said holohoax, did you?

God, I hate bootlicking micks!

I know it's way too easy to second guess you in hindsight, but when asked if you "believed the holocaust happened" (which does sound like a religious test of some kind!) the more interesting response might have been to ask him what he meant by "the holocaust", ie, force him to define exactly what it is that you are accused of "denying".

Jews get away with this holocaust scam because they have brainwashed people into thinking they know what the "holocaust" is when in fact they do not. Saying you "deny" the holocaust makes people think you are crazy because they think you are saying that concentration camps did not exist or that Jews did not die, which of course is not what you are saying.

I am aware of all this. There is some advantage in speaking freely without reservation rather than seeming afraid of the question of whether there was a Holocaust. Even if the initial reaction is that it is crazy to say that there was no Holocaust, there will be some of them who will wonder what I could possibly be thinking.

If I had refused to give a direct answer to the simple question he could have cut me off at that point too and I would have looked like a weasel.

My only regret is that I did not emphasize the suppression of revisionism as an act of religious fanaticism resembling the fanaticism of Muslims, instead of mentioning religious characteristics of the Holohoax itself. I got less time than I anticipated, much less than the average caller, and I did not select my points as carefully as I would have if I had anticipated that.

At the same time, I was also surprised that I was allowed on. I think that this might be due to Prager's pretense that he is willing to discuss anything, and having people working for him who think he means it.

Your retarded... Why do you think they have a 10 second delay? That has to be subtle...

PM me with the script and I see if it works next time....

Hey asshole, it's YOU'RE retarded, retard. GO back to school and learn about contractions before you fucking call someone retarded.

When I call in to Bill O'Reilly's show, I think I'll ask him if he's heard any good recipes for Falafel lately. Yes. DIL-DOUGH-REALLY!

Hey asshole, it's YOU'RE retarded, retard. GO back to school and learn about contractions before you fucking call someone retarded.

Easy turbo, we're on the same side. Realize when your on live radio and those asshole have a 10 second delay you have to be more subtle was all I was saying.

I didn't realize that after you said your peace that the dickhead was going to mute me. I was planning on going after the main artery... A leason learned...

I am aware of all this. There is some advantage in speaking freely without reservation rather than seeming afraid of the question of whether there was a Holocaust.

You can speak freely without seeming to be afraid, without however accepting the host's rigged terms of debate.

Even if the initial reaction is that it is crazy to say that there was no Holocaust, there will be some of them who will wonder what I could possibly be thinking.

But they won't do anything about that question unless you can sow ideas in their minds, like, perhaps there is a distinction between putting people in camps versus killing them, or between death by disease and starvation due to wartime conditions versus deliberate genocide, etc. Until the listener is aware that these distinctions actually exist, he will have no idea what you are talking about and won't know what kinds of questions to ask if he does get curious.

If I had refused to give a direct answer to the simple question he could have cut me off at that point too and I would have looked like a weasel.

I didn't say refuse to answer the question; I said answer the question with another question: what does he mean by "the holocaust". If he refuses to answer and instead accuses you of not answering his question, answer him in a way which informs the listener rather than playing into the host's hands: ie, something like "of course I believe that the Nazis put Jews in camps and did other bad things but I do not believe there were gas chambers used to exterminate Jews and the 6 million figure is impossibly large and an exaggeration, so no I don't believe in the Holocaust". At that point he can call you names and cut you off, but you've already planted a seed of vital information in the audience's mind which they can use, thanks to the internet, to learn more if they are so inclined. You can't search for the truth on your own if you don't know where to start: getting the message out to people about what Revisionists actually believe is a key requirement in combatting the Jewish "poisoning of the well" campaign they have been engaged in for the past half century by deliberately misrepresenting to the public what it is that Revisionists are actually arguing.

As I said, I'm not finding fault with you; I probably would have done no better. I'm just speaking in general terms about how this topic is generally "steered" in the media and how we might best not play into the hands of this media campaign while still getting through to the public.

We should have a contest here and see who can get on the most call in shows.

I didn't say refuse to answer the question]
Dude, I got almost no time. I certainly would not have been allowed to continue in the manner that you propose.

In a debate where I would be guaranteed reasonable time to make my points I would discuss the defininitions of words but on Zionist talk-radio you have to make your points fast and simple before you get dumped.

[color="Blue"]Anti-Nazi is a codeword for anti-White.
http://www.national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
http://www.noncounterproductive.blogspot.com
http://www.williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com

 

Great stuff, guys. My only ask is that you record this, so we can put it in feeds.

I'm going to get a digital recorder so you can hear first hand some go-rounds with reporters, so-called, and cops.

"Believe in it?! Hell, I think there were 12 million killed! It's not like jews to exaggerate, or draw sympathy. They're a very modest people, not given to drawing attention to their good works, or ills against them. Like alternative Amish they are, and this goy has nothing but respect for them and their holy suffering."

More of these bits we have on tape and circulate, the more people start to believe what we say about the kahntrolled media.