Why is Hankey always so damn irritable.
Why is John Hankey always so darn irritable? Because he's Irish and he's a Catholic. And guess what....so am I. Being always so darn irritable goes with the territory. So watch your mouth, pal unless you want your fucking head in a sling.
my my jas, did i hurt yr feelings?incidentally, i am irish and was catholic, and it is absolutely inaccurate to characterize the irish people in that way. nor would the great majority of irish approve of u or yr threats. there is a spiritual gentility to everyday irish life, sorry u didnt get the right genes...know any of the old language jas? here's yr first lesson.conos a tatu, sasanach.
Your Irish is priceless!! Cá bhfuair túdo chuid Gaeilge?!! Where did you get your Irish? You don't know Irish!!Níl Gaeilge ar bith agatsa!! You can't even spell it right!! It's " Conas atá tú? " NOT your "conos a tatu, sasanach " crapola!! I'm not English!! You Anglo-Saxon "Fryett" cunt!! Is Éireannach mise!! You're one of those Anglo-Saxon turncoats who changed his name from Fry to Fryett to make it look and sound more French after the Norman Invasion in 1066. You're nothing more than the spawn of collaborators!! A fucking Benedict Arnold traitor and fraternizer.I hope your Irish is better than your snake oil German. Slán anois!! A striapach!!
Great interview from both parties!! Combative and feisty. This is what we want! This is what we need!! Give us blood on the walls, guys!
I like Hankey and I liked his JFK video, but it is annoying to hear a researcher talk about "the holocaust" as some sort of real event. I used to believe in "the holocaust", and I used to cry at the movies and get enraged at the "Nazis" until I actually studied "the holocaust". There are many interesting web pages, videos and books on the subject. I would recommend reading "Lectures on the Holocaust" by Germar Rudolf. A good series of videos to watch is "1/3 of the Holocaust". I am not interested in defending charges of "anti-semitism" by those who are unable to use their God-given sense of reason. Historical facts of this magnitude are easily proven or disproven. Neither do I wish to discuss this matter with those who hold "the holocaust" as a religion, beyond question, and defended by self-righteous hostility.
HEllo Jim,I am wondering whether you could do an episode dealing the use of cancer as an assassination tool:Chavez from Venezuela?Jack Layton from Canada? (US stands to benefit large from two-party system in Canada)Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner from Argentina?Several others from Latin America?Steve Jobs? (Google, a CIA outfit, stands to benefit large)etc.I know it's a bit speculative, but very interesting.Thx.
Agreed about the likelihood of Layton's death and possibly Jobs'. But of course, Layton drove himself hard and didn't eat well ...Though sometimes cancers can change quickly, however, Layton's final type or phase of cancer was HIGHLY convenient in timing, wasn't it?Of course, when I saw Olivia Chow, his wife, I didn't say any of that.
Are you speaking from experience here as regards your views on cancer? Are you a doctor? Can you provide some data?
@Jakob Do you mean me?
Constructor:Whoever wants to kick the can down the street. You're welcome.
I was merely saying:** On the one hand, the sudden onset of fast-moving cancer could have come from his depletion of immune-support foods on the campaign trail (burgers and hot dogs are not a highly nutritive Gerson organic juice diet, high in immune supports such as long-chain sugars, etc.). And I was also merely saying that sometimes treatments deplete people's immune system (chemotherapy can kill the patient as well as the cancer).** But on the other hand, the timing was highly convenient and politically the most significant person who could have died right then. Layton was garnering support and likeability on all fronts; he was acting somewhat like a new FDR in popularity and economic program of recovery. He even challenged (then publicly withdrew talk of) ending our "National" bank (not a National Bank in the proper sense).No one else talked of such things. So, he may have been offed, or helped along. That's all I was saying.
It is very interesting. I'm thinking the same Construtor. A bit strange that all the 'good guys' get cancer and the scum never do.. If Jim can find a guest for this subject that would be great. If I find a show on the subject somewhere else I'll post the link here.
I am thinking that the key issue here is that when people think about this topic, they have a hard time imagining how one could induce cancer. However, since different carcinogenic agents are well known (chemicals, radiation), to me its not a stretch to think of these being somehow concentrated in an intelligence lab to dramatically increase their 'efficacy.' After this, any mental hurdle regarding inducement of cancer for the purpose of assassination, should disappear, since these compounds could then be delivered to the target as per normal poisoning procedure. I by no means have any proof of this, I'm just following my own line of reasoning. If Jim could track someone down with real knowledge on this topic, that would be great.
There are many ways of inducing cancer. One way is to confuse the cells through carcinogenic chemistry, yes; another is through carcinogenic virus disruption of normal cell behaviour; another is with electro-magnetic/light (e.g., x-ray) energy, which disrupts cell behaviour; another is to reduce certain nutrients a person gets or can process, so that the person's immune system cannot repair the body properly.
The most suspicious / coincidental incidence of cancer to me is in Jugo Chavez who was / is making real strides to unify / enable south america. This represents a real threat to US control. If they blatantly assassinated him, it would be too much of a distraction from the real front, which is Iran / the middle east. So the best option is to just remove him in a way that doesn't distract the world / doesn't make a martyr out of him...just pure speculation of course.
Well, just listen to my interviews with Ed Haslam, Dr. Mary's Monkey, and with Judyth Vary Bakery, Me & Lee. She was involved in the development of a rapidly-acting cancer, which I believe was first used on Jack Ruby. I have no doubt at all that it has been used on Hugo Chavez, whom I admire greatly. So check out those earlier programs about this very subject.
OK, thanks Jim. I will do that.
No doubt any galloping cancers are highly suspicious. Jim has done excellent interviews with Judy Vary Baker and its clear the weapon is out there. Never thought of Jack Layton and Steve Jobs in that way til now.
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: