wrote:
>
> Jim, I missed the story/history of the Weltner/Stenzel relationship/rift.
Could you provide a wikipedia-style description for the curious??? SS
> Sent from A BlackBerry
Okay, fair enough.
There's no real rift between myself and Frank Weltner.
I own his life's-work, jewwatch.com now mainly being
at the right place at the right time.
I met Weltner from hearing his calls on a local
call-in-talk radio station, WGNU 920 A.M., operated
and owned by Charles "Chuck" Norman. "The Old Chuckaroo"
as he was sometimes called believed in the principle
of free speech and put his personal fortune where his
mouth was.
I could go on all day about that. The day-time show fare
was generally people from the community who were not
professional broadcasters. They'd get two hours one
day a week and were expected to take one call after another
and be fair. The callers could call once each show.
At night they had network shows and on weekends various
churches paid for time--and anyone could generally
buy time and have their own show.
Here's a link to more information about Chuck Norman and
WGNU if you're interested:
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2005-04-27/news/the-old-chuckaroo/
Weltner got himself a little show on Fridays discussing
a variety of topics. His show was fairly popular, but
eventually he stepped on the ADL land-mine, discussing
a topical news story at that time about scientific/forensic
challenges to some of the holocaust claims--mainly
against the scope of the disaster, not so much
a total denial of it. He further compounded that "sin"
by matter-of-factly mentioning that communism is a jew
invention. I was shown the letter of complaint they sent
the station and it really seemed they were more concerned
by the latter than the former--just my impression.
At about this time the station's owner was suffering from
health issues and his housekeeper was being given an
increasing amount of control of the station. She responded
to an ADL complaint against Weltner and fired him. A friend
and I called up Chuck on his personal line and informed
him of this fact and he had him reinstated immediately.
After we had, his housekeeper, an Assemblies of God minister,
came on the line and angrily forbade us to "bother" him again.
Chuck's history in these matters had been to respond to
threats of boycotts from such groups by promising them
they were not going to control the content of his station's
programming and he'd make the difference up out-of-pocket
if their boycotting succeeded in lowering the station's
income. Basically I think he wasn't trying to make any
profit for himself--he was well-fixed. Revenues went to the
operating costs and salaries of the off-air staff.
On-air personalities got a certain amount of ad time
they could sell and keep the proceeds of--that was my
understanding.
Most were on-air to grind their particular axe.
A wide spectrum of diverse views were represented.
There was no prior restraint on callers unless they
couldn't control themselves from using expletives,
making threats on-air or personal attacks.
Weltner and I were aware of each other from our calling-
in, and then of course he got to know me better from
my calling his show when he had one. We became
off-air friends as many of the callers and some of the
hosts did. At that station you could call the producer
and ask to have someone's phone number and the next
time that person would call they'd ask if it was alright
and often-as-not you'd get the number. Some callers
were so well known and trusted they'd just give them
the number, especially if the other party had already
acquiesced to most such requests.
A whole network of intersecting friendships and acquaintences
was formed that way. I've been cycling down a road, had
someone honk and motion me over and have it be someone
who knew me from WGNU. I didn't know them, but they
knew it must be me.
I used to talk to Weltner while he was online doing
work on jewwatch--before it became so notorious.
In fact, I used to question the value of even putting
it together--I figured most people already had their minds
pretty-well made up whether or not they approved of
zionism or not and it wouldn't influence anyone much
either way.
He surprised me though, once I saw it. I don't know if it's
going to influence anyone--clearly the zionists think so and
that's why they want it off the internet---but it sure did
provide a one-stop-shopping experience for those seeking
more in-depth and uncensored information on the subject.
As the years flew by he increased his internet presence,
started making streaming radio programs after the ADL
succeeded in having him fired from his radio show and
eventually got into the online videos.
His site became more and more visited.
Evidently there was quite a lot of "buzz" in the zionist
world about what a big threat it must be and that probably
drove the results ranking of it on Google up when
one did a search of the term "jew". That in and of itself
became a huge controversy and source of angst for the
zionists and they began a campaign to drive the
search results ranking down.
They showed their arrogance by demanding google modify their
search-engine so as to exclude jewwatch. They weren't willing
to modify their ultra-successful search algorithms--but they did put up a
search result on the search-term "jew" which was
"fiddled" to appear first from google themselves to "inform"
people that "nice people" don't type the letters j, e, and w
together. "Nice people" include the suffix ish.
If they would do that much, now that there are fifty or
so results before my site on the use of the term "jew",
I tend to wonder if they also didn't pass information to the
owners of some of the sites which are now higher-ranked
on things they could do to cause their sites to
rank higher on that search term. That wouldn't in any-way
compromise the successful nature of their search engine, but
would undoubtedly make the haters of jewwatch's truths
deleriously happy.
As far as I'm concerned I'm on there, my information is available.
Nobody who's looking for a source of information like mine is
going to be satisfied with those others. I have faith that just as I do not
stop in the first "hit" on a page of citations returned
on a search of a certain term, neither will the rest of humanity.
I suppose that's one of my differences of opinion with Frank Weltner.
He was extremely happy to find out his site was ranked #1 on a
page of returns for the term "jew". I can only assume it's
a good thing I took it over before it started sinking in rank
because I'm sure he'd be extremely upset if he were still involved.
Many sites sprung up deriding Weltner. Some sites
offered more supportive mention.
After the ADL was finally successful in having his show
removed from WGNU--that being after Chuck Norman became too
ill and infirm to take an active role in it's operation
and management--he tried to become involved in the
local chapter of the National Alliance. That lasted for
awhile and under his tutelage they distributed many
fliers around the metropolitan area which generated a lot
of "concern" on the part of the usual suspects, which
in-turn generated more of the much-cherished free
publicity.
During those times the main message being spread was to
love your own kind. There was no specification as to what
that kind was. Admittedly there was usually a graphic of
a beautiful young caucasian woman.
Of course that increased the pressure to get him off the
internet. The local newspaper printed a story about
him which pointed out that his door frame has a
jew charm designed to hold prayer for the happiness
of the household--originally conceived I believe as
a sign for the angel-of-death to "pass-over" that
house. Further the reporter managed to ferret-out
that Weltner had originally lived in that house with
and shared expenses with another (at that time)
local playwright who was also a flamboyant
well-known member of the homosexual community in St. Louis.
Much was made of this and I think they achieved their
desired effect of driving a wedge between Weltner and
his National Alliance associates. That was probably
a bad move on their part as they've received just about
no positive publicity after they came to a parting-of
-the-ways with him.
I think over the years all the personal attacks on him
started to show and it seemed as if he was getting
disgusted with the whole endeavor. I think when
the jerks got his videos kicked off you tube it really
discouraged him.
I bought the site with the idea-in-mind of providing him
a respite so that (possibly) he could come back refreshed
and with a renewed sense of purpose. I'm still hoping that
could happen.
I would never have created the site in the first place,
but since it has been done I'm interested in seeing
it continue to be available.
There is no rift, but I don't want to bother him or
be in contact with him so that he can have a total
vacation from the whole issue or anything touching on it.
Even if he doesn't ever take the site back fully, perhaps
he will begin contributing to it again--the videos or
doing articles, or even just suggestions for additions
or ideas on how the site might branch out.
Meanwhile I hope he's having a fine time not being bothered
with the whole issue. I keep tabs on him through mutual
friends. He's doing fine (for the benefit of those
who think my owning the site now means something dire
had happened).
Admittedly when I bought the site I lived in a free
country and thought it would always remain so. Since
seeing the controversy erupt regarding the report
produced by my home state defining even such mild
dissidents as those who supported Ron Paul for President
as potential domestic terrorist threats and considering
our new governor is the same individual who tried to
pull that nonsense on Weltner about the Katrina victims
donations, I'm beginning to wonder if it was such a
good idea to buy jewwatch after-all.
Ron Paul got wind of that report--to be circulated to
Missouri law-enforcement personnel and it angered him.
He made a formal demand that his name be redacted from
the report and the publicity surrounding that made our
new governor/former prosecuting attorney look pretty
silly. He denied knowledge of the report or the personnel
at the state agency which authored it.
Too bad for him someone dug up the fact that his
own office had issued a press release bragging about
how he'd briefed Janet Napolitano on the agency and
it's operation and too bad also the report came out with
his name on the header two full months after he
took office...
This is the quality of the types of people one will
generally find attacking Weltner and his works.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it--and
that's the central issue with the objections
to the site and the information found thereon.
The zionists and their friends and accomplices love
to ferret out destructive information on all those
who might possibly stand between zionism and it's
objectives. In fact, they tend to embellish quite a
bit. John Demjanjuk is a perfect case-study in that.
They embellished that one so badly even their own
kangaroo-courts couldn't uphold the "conviction".
If it had been any fair-minded nation the liars
who nearly put a noose around the poor old guy's
neck would have been prosecuted and convicted.
Then when someone creates a collection of information
about them, some of which is less-than-
flattering and puts it where it's conveniently-available,
you'd think it was the end of the world.
I think it's worthy-of-note when a group exaggerates
it's supposed victimization at the hands of every
other group. On that Frank Weltner and I agree. We
have some areas of disagreement, always have and always
will. We're both of a group which is regularly unfairly
savaged by a wide variety of other groups but all-too
-frequently at the bottom of these savagings of the
reputation of the european gentiles, if one looks
closely one will find jews. It's usually pretty blatant.
I even consider the mere proliferation of "holocaust
museums" inside the borders of that very nation which
brought an end to whatever the true basis of the
holohoax is to be such a disparagement. It's all-
to-obvious that a nation which has played host to jews--
mostly with a great deal of tolerance--since before it
was a nation is being singled-out for attention as a
supposed hot-bed of "anti-semitism". Nothing could
be further from the truth.
A thorough expose on the misdeeds of jews in service
of various jew causes is called-for in order that
the true level of the withholding of just retribution
on the part of most european gentiles and their nations
religions cultures and other groups can be accurately
discerned. It's only in light of the true range of behavior
by jews and zionists to those outside their own group
that the level of restraint by those outside their
exclusive group can be accurately judged.
They wish to control their image.
Neither Frank Weltner nor myself intend to allow that.
We're certainly not the only ones. I'm not certain whether
we're the only ones who won't allow it for precisely
that particular reason.
Whether or not I'm in contact with our benefactor
I try to be constantly guided by him through his
high moral principles.
James R. Stenzel
Missouri
U.S.A.
