http://nukeisrael.com/nsmradio/rossinterviewswhite.wma

fixed your link for you.

Actually, it isn't fixed. There is a space between nsm and radio...if you click on your link it won't work...best thing to do is to copy and paste in the command line of the URL I published or go to my blog.

I didn't create the file...I NEVER put spaces into filenames or subdirectories...makes it really difficult.

Amazing job Bill did. Still listening, and 19:00 minutes into it. Bill, call more radio stations.

No. 3: Since the Jewish Conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for 1,000 years, with a continuous presence in the land for the last 3,300 years."
Soon afterward, he is talking to a caller about the Israelis' claims on Jerusalem and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. He says, "You know, the Jews have owned this land for 3,000 years. The Palestinians don't really have a claim on it. And what they lost is war booty. Sorry, but that's life."

"There isn't one historian, or even one educated Jew, who believes that.
The Palestinians are the ones who lived on the land continuously," beginning with the civilization of the Canaanites, in 1250 BCE, said Goldman.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:cyiNS8Ge4uMJ:www.atljewishtimes.com/archives/2002/051002cs.htm+neil+boortz%2Bjewish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7

Thanks, I will listen to it.

Try to download the show by rightclicking here and save link.

He was up against a seasoned interviewer (one of the best in the biz-who has a knack for painting those he interviews in a corner). I doubt ANYONE could have done as well in this interview situation, and this is why Bill White is the NSM spokesman.

Bill did a great job, but.....

Dave Ross asked Bill, “What constitutes a white person?”

Bill seemed to get bogged down trying to answer that.

Here is the simple way to answer such an absurdity:

The U.S. has no difficulty giving casinos to Indians, job quotas to niggers, etc. The government has no difficulty distinguishing between races. Your pathetic attempt to obscure the issue has failed. Next question?

I listened to this interview and I don't think Bill did a good job. He stumbled, got pissed at a few places, and let the interview set the context. Good try though.

Everything is a learning process.

Bill White stood his ground. The radio host though was an obnoxious arshole. He kept asking question after question like a little kid while evading the simple truth.

TheKWA is such in deep-shit that that using the Nazis policy of 1933 is a little too late and absurd anyhow. Eric Thomson’s point-plan for the sorry state of affair KWA is rational, and would be generally accepted to all.

-----------

Eric Thomson

Illegal immigrants would be deemed enemy invaders, and dealt with accordingly. The amalgamation of Mexico with the U.S.A. would be stopped and reversed, with positive and negative incentives. Citizenship would require the performance of duties, first, before rights. Birth would not automatically confer citizenship. You get my drift.

Obviously, freedom of association would be restored. In little Rhodesia, this freedom existed on a practical basis. Half the country was reserved for Blacks, and non-Blacks had to have permits to enter Black territory. Blacks could, however, enter non-Black territory, although The Land Tenure Act permitted Whites, Asians and Coloureds (mixed race) to live in their own areas, like Blacks, so they could be amongst themselves. Public places, like pubs and hotels,were segregated on a star-rating basis. Two-star hotels, for example, were restricted to Blacks, Whites, Coloureds or Asians, but 5-star hotels were open to everyone who cared to enter. Such places were frequented by the upperclass Blacks, Whites, et al. Naturally, 5-star establishments maintained certain standards of decorum in terms of dress and behavior. Regardless of race, no scruffy persons were admitted, and no rowdies allowed. The same applied to schools. No one was required to mix with racial aliens, and he was free to mix or not, as a matter of personal taste.

The festering problem of so-called Indians in the U.S.A. would be dealt with swiftly. Tribes would retain their present lands, but all Indians would be deemed citizens and the tribes would be deemed corporations, not sovereign governments with extra-territorial rights. Tribe members would become shareholders, under their elected boards of directors, whatever they wish to call them. The Great White Father would get out of the nanny business, and the "Indians" would stand or fall as adult members of U.S. society.

All legal persons would pay no more than 10% of their total annual incomes, but I would go one step further than Forbes: legal persons would include all corporations and trusts, which have so far enjoyed exemptions.

The penal system would be reformed quite simply, by changing the emphasis from punishment and rehabilitation to redemption, in which the offender earns his way back into society. The motto would be: "Work Makes You Free!" Capital punishment would be enforced on the basis of equality: if one is sufficiently competent to murder someone, he is sufficiently competent to be tried as a sane, responsible adult. Mental incapacity and age would no longer be licences to kill, as they are now. Race would not be considered as any exemption from one's responsibility and culpability.

As president, I would require no additional laws. The Genocide Convention would be enforced against inter-racial crime and race-mixers, since it is a treaty and has the same power as The U.S. Constitution. The crime of advocating genocide via murder and race-mixing would merit the same punishment as meted out to those accused of genocide at Nuremberg: death by hanging.
On matters of foreign policy, the U.S. government will not put Israel first, nor any interests whose loyalties do not put the U.S. people first. On domestic matters, there will be created, for the first time in U.S. history, a public interest, as expressed in The U.S. Constitution and various state constitutions. This means that "the general welfare" would take precedence over individual welfare, at the expense of the general welfare, as we see now, from top to bottom of this anti-social, Jeffersonian-anarchist society. The public interest will supersede short-term profiteering at public expense.

Wages and prices will be brought into line, for it is in the public interest that workers enjoy a civilized standard of living. Food, clothing, shelter and automobiles have NEVER been cheaper to make than they are today, so these products of the workers will be affordable, without the worker becoming a debt-slave, simply to acquire those things he has produced. The oil racketeers would be deemed economic saboteurs and dealt with as we would deal with those who wage war upon our people and our economy.

The Constitution would be restored with the abolition of the privately-owned Federal Reserve. The U.S. government would take over the entire banking system, in terms of the relevant articles. Lending money at interest privately would be deemed counterfeiting and punished accordingly, with cash rewards to informants. All loans would be made in terms of the general welfare. Upon this basis, the banker would decide whether we need a school or a casino, for instance. By taking over the creation of money, which is done by lending as well as by printing, the U.S.A. would be a sovereign country at last.

These are a few of the solutions which come immediately to mind, and I'm sure my advisors could think of many more ideas toward achievement of the common good, the common defence and the general welfare. Do I fantasize? Not at all, for if these programs are not implemented, there will not be a U.S.A., either in law or in fact, but even if things devolve along present lines, ORION will remain our ultimate goal.

Obviously, dual citizens, including sheenies, would have no place in U.S. government, either, on behalf of our sovereignty and our nationhood. Under my presidency, the U.S.A. would become a nation as well as a democracy, for the first time in its history. The predatory, parasitic plutocracy will go the way of ZOG, down the toilet of history, if the U.S.A. will exist in fact and in name.

With our present demography, the territory now called The U.S.A. will naturally be divided along ethnic lines. I would favor a peaceful separation, unlike that which created the states of India and Pakistan. People have a natural tendency to be with their own kind. As for those who want to be with other kinds, they would be free to do so, as long as the others want such people in their midst. The Rhodesian example would work here. Once biopolitical territories were formed, they would be self-governing and self-supporting. The U.S. Government would function on behalf of mutually-acceptable policies, and any biopolitical territory could exercise its veto by secession.

I also think Bill White did a nice job in this interview, although I do have a healthy distrust of Mr White. Also, I'm quite unhappy he advocated calling the police on other white Nationalists in the recent squabble between Vinlanders and the NSM. He also called three other white groups that were there "criminal gangs". That really pissed me off. I'm no advocate of the KKK(degenerating into a "white rights organization" rather than a terror group back in the day), or Christian Identity hicks that only want to debate the bible all day, but calling the other groups "criminal gangs" sounds a bit too much like our enemies!

The KKK was never a "white rights organization", and the original Nazis were stormtroopers, not fags that called the police to rescue them from their opponents. I can surely understand why the Vinlanders wanted to kick Bill Whites ass, and some of the other NSMers. There are too many white pussyboys, even in the White Nationalist circles.

I'm quite unhappy he advocated calling the police on other white Nationalists in the recent squabble between Vinlanders and the NSM. He also called three other white groups that were there "criminal gangs".

I think Bill White's assessment is correct. There are zoglings and thugs in those groups.

Bravo Bill White! :cheers:

aryan warlord, he now claims that one of the main Vinlander guys was/is an FBI informer:
http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9489

Jody Lee Mathis, Vinlander and current leader of the "Florida State Skinheads", pled guilty to weapons charges and "agreed to cooperate with federal authorities" according to an October 4, 1999, news article in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. Mathis' cooperation included testifying against six other Creators who were arrested in the federal sting.

The Creativity Movement, just last month, attempted to obtain a copy of the plea bargain and government records on Mathis' cooperation, and was told that the information could not be released because of "compelling government interest", i.e., that Mathis was still an active FBI asset.

.
http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9483

...a third Vinlander leader was recently reported to be a long time Southern Poverty Law Center informer.

A Look At The Dave Ross Interview
And Technique

6/21/2006 1:47:48 PM
Discuss this story in the forum
Bill White

Commentary -- I've been reading some commentary on the Dave Ross interview and how I performed on it, and I wanted to offer some of my own critique and analysis to help comrades perform better in interviews in the future:

Overall, I did pretty well against Ross. The first segment of the show I set the pace by taking the discussion away from racialism and towards economic and social issues on which Ross and I were in agreement. The last segment I got the pace mostly back, after losing it somewhat in the second interview segment.

The second segment bogged down as Ross tried to set up straw men hypotheticals which I kept, deliberately, side stepping to draw him out and hopefully make him look foolish -- forcing him to ask questions his audience didn't care about. However, he stuck to those questions more tenaciously than a sensible person would have, and I ended up having to try to conjure new talking points on the spot -- making the conversation rather disjointed.

What also disturbed the conversation is that his sound engineer kept screwing with my mike -- at one point it sounds like I'm shouting as the engineer cuts the sound back up and hits it to high when I start to talk. This is a standard "I don't know how to debate so I'm going to cheat" technique. Its a "shoutfest" technique used to give the host an unfair advantage -- its nearly impossible for someone not in studio to "win" a radio shoutfest. Thus, I was left in the second segment trying to quickly duck points in between accusations. That's also why I ended speaking faster than I should have -- if you're going to hang in a conversation like that, you have to move quickly.

Unfortunately, since I didn't know when my mike was going to be cut back on -- he'd ask a question, I'd start to answer, then he'd realize he'd set me up with a softball, cut my mike, and talk over me -- I wasn't getting my jabs in as effectively -- I was just swinging constantly and hoping something connected. Still, I think I got some good soundbites. Any frustration in my voice was just his constant cutting of the mike.

I think, in second segment, he came off sounding like an asshole -- after all, did he really need to ask me ten times how I define race? I mean, is that a point you think most members of his audience were confused about?

When you listened to that interview, did you think "God, I don't know what white people are?" People argue that, but its a Sophistic point, and it seemed to me by discrediting the question and having him stick to it tenaciously he would alienate or bore many of his listeners -- and make himself sound annoying, which is how I'd say about three quarters of the people who heard that portion send he sounded.

In the first segment, I took control of the interview form him by turning to economic issues and the Jew -- and there is a portion of the interview, not heard on the tape, where he introduces the NSM saying people are complaining to him that a terrorist hate group is developing in the Seattle area -- that's why I initially went off his race question into an attack on our opponents. I thought the "racialist" versus "racist" question was a set up to get me to start babbling about some technical difference most of his listeners wouldn't car about, so I dismissed it and went into what I wanted to talk about.

Keeping him on economic issues and the war, and stressing that we were a socialist group, also threw him off guard, since he had brought me on to set me up with some pre-prepared questions on race, and he was having to think on his feet -- something he didn't do well. He also based his questions on Jim Ramm's website, not mine, which also threw him.

When he asks me the "NukeIsrael" question, I really didn't have any idea what offensive or disrespectful language he was talking about, unless he meant the name "NukeIsrael" itself, so my answer addressed that -- and he clearly didn't understand my answer. I think the fact I wasn't about to launch into some silly tirade and didn't know what he was talking about also threw him off, though it set the tone for the second segment, where he kept trying to draw out of me answers he thought I had and which I didn't.

By forcing him to start accusing me of things and playing the "I don't know what you're talking about" attitude, the interview became annoying, but it was him who looked bad. The trouble with this tactic, though, is that a lot of audiences want to see an interviewer "play tough" with Nazis and thus its hard to "play innocent" against that tactic. Like, the standard technique when an interviewer starts playing overly aggressive is to do a little old innocent me play -- like a "Why are you attacking me, I haven't done anything? What are these ridiculous accusations?" However, when you are a stereotypical "bad guy" that's hard to do -- though the set up in the first segment where I connected with the audience made it easier in segment two to do that.

I didn't like the cattle car thing, and he clearly couldn't understand what I was talking about with the displacement of peoples. The beginning of my statement on Germans displaced by the Soviets, where I was arguing "people like you have no problem rounding up and deporting us by the millions, why should we have a problem rounding up and deporting you" went way over his head. In fact, in the third segment of the interview, I'm not even sure he understood what we were talking about anymore.

His last bit on how the government can do to us what we would do to others also went over his head -- and thus the interview sounded disjointed. It wasn't like he would make a point and touche', I would respond. It was more like he would make a point, I would respond, and he would have no clue what I was talking about, think I said something irrelevant because he didn't understand the relevance, then respond with another question on the same lines as the first.

The general opinion I've heard on this is that "it seemed like he didn't know what you were talking about" -- which is good -- making the host sound dumb, and making it sound like the host doesn't realize how dumb he sounds -- is a good thing.

So I did make some mistakes in the interview by letting it become bogged down and letting the host direct it. Of course, with the dirty tricks I was taking from him, I couldn't redirect the focus of the interview, because he was just unable to understand what I was talking about -- and while he was ignoring me and thinking he was beating up on me, he was making himself look like an ass.

In any case, he set aside 15 minute for callers in this segment, took a total of two callers, played ten minutes of commercials, then shut the phones down because, as his producer was saying, they were not going to put NSM supporters on the air.

All in all, I'd say the interview was a success, though there were some low moments in it.

Thanks. The controlled media usually pulls stuff like closing the microphone, editing words out, and other tricks the listener/viewer isn't aware of.

Also, at 22.11, it seems Bill White is cut off.

Jared Taylor is a far better speaker. Bill is pretty knowledgable, but he let the interviewer unsettle him.