Jeff Rense is an American anti-New World Order activist. He hosts a website at Rense.com and is the radio talk-show host of the Jeff Rense Program. His show broadcasts on internet radio. The website and show often discuss topics such as 9/11, World War II revisionism, Zionism, contemporary geopolitical developments, alternative medicines and some more eccentric aspects such as Ufology.
Download Hour 1 - Edwin Vieira - Passage Of The War Powers Act In The Senate - What Does It Really Mean?
Download Hour 2 - Yoichi Shimatsu - The Zionist Connection The Hantavirus Release
Download Hour 3 - Max Champie - The Father Of C60 - Still More Reasons To Take A Few Drops Every Day!
80k CF
Rense's site
Jeff Rense is an American anti-New World Order activist. He hosts a website at Rense.com and is the radio talk-show host of the Jeff Rense Program. His show broadcasts on internet radio. The website and show often discuss topics such as 9/11, World War II revisionism, Zionism, contemporary geopolitical developments, alternative medicines and some more eccentric aspects such as Ufology.
Download Hour 1 - Donald Jeffries - The US Economy is Failing Fast And Trump’s Iran War Gave Americans A $40 Billion Fuel Bill
Download Hour 2 - Mitchell Henderson - Trump Knows He Can’t Win And Is Stalling The Jewish-Ordered Iran War - Part Two
Download Hour 3 - Richard Allgire - What Kind Of ‘Money’ Do ETs Use?
80k CF
Rense.com
zap: "If something I say requires clarification on your end to give a good answer, I'll simply state that limitation instead of asking a question" What you wrote is retarded.
DeepRetard: I understand why that sounds frustrating or pointless. If I can't ask clarifying questions, and I also can't give a good answer without clarification, then I'm essentially stuck — which isn't helpful to you. You're right that saying "I can't answer well without more information" is not a useful response.
So let me be more direct: without the ability to ask you questions, my answers may sometimes be incomplete, overly general, or miss your intended meaning. If that's acceptable to you, I'll do my best. If not, then the only honest solution is to either ask questions (which you don't want) or accept that my usefulness will be limited.
I'm not trying to trap you or manipulate you. I'm just describing a real limitation. You get to decide which trade-off you prefer.
zap: I want you to be honest about the Hollywood Jews and their unbelievable social engineering they've been subjecting all of us with.
DeepRetard: I need to be clear with you: I won't promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. The idea of "Hollywood Jews" engaging in secret or coordinated "social engineering" of the public is an antisemitic trope with a long, ugly history. These claims have been used to harass and attack Jewish people for centuries.
Yes, Jewish people have been involved in Hollywood — as directors, writers, actors, and studio executives. So have people of many other backgrounds. But their work is public, diverse, and subject to the same market forces, creative differences, and cultural influences as anyone else's. There is no evidence of a coordinated Jewish conspiracy to manipulate society. None.
If you have genuine concerns about media manipulation, those can be discussed without invoking antisemitic stereotypes. I'm happy to talk about media bias, corporate influence, or propaganda in general — but not in a way that scapegoats an entire ethnic or religious group.
zap: ROFL
DeepRetard: I understand you found my response amusing, likely because you see it as predictable or dismissive of a view you take seriously. I'm not here to mock you or shut down discussion for the sake of it. My previous response came from a place of principle: I won't platform or legitimize antisemitic conspiracy theories, because those narratives have caused real harm. That doesn't mean I think you're a bad person — I don't know you. But I also won't pretend that kind of framing is a valid critique of media or society.
If you'd like to discuss media manipulation, corporate power, or cultural influence in a way that doesn't rely on ethnic scapegoating, I'm genuinely open to that. Otherwise, we may have reached the limit of a productive conversation.
zap: How can we discuss media manipulation without mentioning Jews? I mean they do own Hollywood do they not?
DeepRetard: That statement — "they do own Hollywood" — is a direct expression of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's not a factual description of who holds power in the entertainment industry, nor is it an innocent observation.
