"Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

by **Inanna** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:14 am

I don't post here that often, as it seems like there is a disproportionate amount of time given to these type of discussions over accusing people of being anti-semitic. It is very distracting and I don't understand why people cannot sometimes just ignore posts they don't like or find offensive. I second guessed myself earlier in this thread and I should not have. People will see what they want to see, through a perceptual filter. If what someone is looking for around every corner is anti-semitism, that's what they will see, whether it is there or not. Lots of that happens here. What I saw or got out of that thread was to carefully consider 911 sources and question everything, IOW, don't buy anything hook, line and sinker. Far as Israel goes...they get no special treatment from me. They are just another country, with whom I may agree or disagree regarding their policies and how they comport themselves. Same with Palestine, Germany, France, Venezuela, etc. Am I anti-American if I criticize American foreign policy? Clearly not. I may be anti- certain Americans who support Bush and his policies, but that's as far as it goes. I am not going to tip toe around anyone with regards to Israel. There is a huge difference between being a Zionist and a Jew. Zionists can be Christians or Jews or someone of another persuasion. So, I am just letting you all know in advance, as I am not going to get caught up in being accused of something I am not, but I reserve the right to not like the policies of Israel or any other country. I also reserve the right to not like Zionists and say it.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:17 am

Qutb, Thank you for the compliments in the preface. Let me clarify two points. The way the system has worked in England, then the UK since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 is this. All power is vested in the Sovereign, and the duties of the subjects are defined by the Bill of Rights (1689). The duties of the Sovereign are defined by the Coronation Oath Act (1689). That's the deal. The duties of the Sovereign, primarily to uphold the laws of parliament, are sworn to God. That's where the religious part comes in. At some point in the 19th Century Queen Victoria found a way to get around that sacred Oath. She changed her God. From the God of the New Testament to the God of the Talmud. From that point on Masonry really gained power, the British Class System matured and all that pomp and pageantry and ritual became a British characteristic. And Victoria made Herself Empress. So they are Zionists, in my book, for that reason. Second, if you bother to read the Treason Felony Act you will find that it begins with these words: If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, In concluding, let me say this to you. Your calling this "my pet theory" is a mischaracterisation. I have suffered pain that you could not possibly understand. I'm fighting for my life and for my daughters.

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:30 am

Dreams end, Carry on making your little accusations, its doing you no favours, your colours are there for all to see. You accuse me of having copies of protocols, and signed in person by zundel? thats the best laugh i have had today. Do you have any evidence? of course not, just the same wild accusations. The way you are trying to worm yourself out of 'no countries involved', well equally as pathetic. You see when YOU start insulting fellow posters with crackpot accusations and hysteria, sometimes the thread gets into a pathetic name calling squabble. Seems somehow i have been reduced to your level. Mission accomplished again for you? divert attention from the content of articles. Just throw in a few accusations and smoke screens, accuse fellow posters of having signed copies of documents?!!!!! what are you on? Still, at least its all here on the board to see what you actually are. You remind me of your busom buddy, ''''im not posting here anymore'''' and a day later hes got his dummy back and at it again. So i congratulate you once again for diverting attention from the content of articles. maybe not everyone notices eh? PS give my regards to your shill, z. he seems to have come up trumps for you this time eh? There must be something you and your fellow cohorts dont want bringing attention to on the wahtreallyhappened site yesterday, it all makes sense again, half quotes with no proper link to an article, just plain smearing again. PPS, keep it up boy. with your powers of detection im sure you would have found saddams WMD's? maybe you think i have a few signed missles from saddam hiding away in my cellar.LOL

by **antiaristo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:55 pm

Qutb, Since you find what I say about Zionist gatekeepers so humorous I’ll explain it to you in its most extreme guise. A fellow poster here, human, has not been around for a while and got a bit upset when he misunderstood some words about Poppy Bush and some children (if you’re lurking, h, I hope you’re OK). In my early days here human was one of the best posters – some of his stuff was up there with Starman (another loss). Human described himself a a Jew from New York. On a number of occasions – I saw it three times – human tried to raise the subject of “Document X”. His words were that “Document X” made no sense as a Jewish conspiracy, but made a lot of sense as a Masonic conspiracy. Nobody followed up. That’s successful Zionist gatekeeping. Because human is quite correct. Anybody daring to read “Document X” will be struck by the eerie parallels with what is going on today, the concentrations of power. But they don’t dare talk about it. That’s successful Zionist gatekeeping, inflicted on a Jew, hiding behind the blood libel on the Jews. And Dreams End, self-appointed board policeman, excels at it. Any questions? RSVP

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:04 pm

Antiaristo said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>His words were that “Document X” made no sense as a Jewish conspiracy, but made a lot of sense as a Masonic conspiracy. Nobody followed up. That’s successful Zionist gatekeeping. Because human is quite correct. Anybody daring to read “Document X” will be struck by the eerie parallels with what is going on today, the concentrations of power. But they don’t dare talk about it. That’s successful Zionist gatekeeping, inflicted on a Jew, hiding behind the blood libel on the Jews. And Dreams End, self-appointed board policeman, excels at it.<hr></blockquote> Antiaristo, Document X is false and does not make sense as anything. Pointing this out is not "Zionist gatekeeping". Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:18 pm

do you mean that Starman has said he would not post here any longer? Can you tell me, if possible, on what thread he said this? I hope it is not true. He had great insight. Not hijacking the thread, just a side question.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:32 pm

moved to the "Dream's End" thread started by antiaristo as it is primarily about his comments. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 10/17/05 1:56 pm

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Document X is false and does not make sense as anything<hr></blockquote> Perhaps it would be an idea for you to talk about document x - Im sure youre in the clique whom others might consider acceptable, and tell us why with working examples, non of document x is applicable or "doesnt make sense as anything." I read one article of document x, and I have to say, I couldnt bring myself to read the rest. I could have written an entire chapter citing working examples of how it all made sense as something, regardless of who wrote it, or regardless of the "official" reasons why ( hint hint) Im with anti on this one Im afraid. You see it doesnt matter WHO wrote document x, or how some misguided souls seem to apply it to the wrong group of people ( hence our inability to discuss document x rationally ). The question should be, can you see the working practicalities of document x in existence today ?

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Once again, these are not antiaristo's words. Just providing readers of this thread (not slimmouse, sweejack and mm, who will simply call this more evidence of my "blatant" agenda) of how this kind of theory morphs and changes and can often dupe very well meaning folks.<hr></blockquote> Well it sure has hell had me duped for long enough. I can thus understand much of the reaction. Before that is, I came to realise that the state of Israel, and true judaism, as a benevolent tolerant practise, has been very cynically hijacked and manipulated by the above elite so called "Jews", who hate their own ordinary fellows, in exactly the same way as Bush, Her nibs and other elitist religious leaders hate the avge christian, or the Vatican elites have nothing but contempt for the avge catholic, or the Elite leaders of SA, and a gaggle of Middle Eastern dictators have contempt for the average muslim. I think the point is, that at the top of the tree, ALL these elite groups are as thick as thieves. They were taught all this way back when, and have handed the secrets of how to rule the proles through the ages. It actually got me wondering if Document X was actually published by some big mouth, or some repenting elitist, cos from what little Ive read of it, it sure contains many of the methods employed by the PTB, in ruling the proles today. And what better way of course to surpress its revelations by saying "Clan X" wrote it, and watch the often well intentioned gatepeople scurry into a hasty and often wholly understandable instinctive reaction which ultimately protects THEIR - sorry- OUR enemies. Gotta hand it to the PTB. Playing us all, like a fiddle. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/17/05 2:21 pm

by **antiaristo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:11 pm

Qutb, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Antiaristo, Document X is false and does not make sense as anything. Pointing this out is not "Zionist gatekeeping".<hr></blockquote> I no longer read anything about 9/11. So I didn't follow the "controlled demolition" thread, and I don't know the cause for your reaction. But I know this. If you behaved as you have here on this thread, I'm not surprised you got some shit. I have given you perfectly logical replies to questions laced with belittlement. Your reply is two lines of denial. Like I said, I'm not surprised. ps tell your chum Dreams End that I'm not interested in what other people say. I'm interested in what he says. So much so that I've started a new thread.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Im with anti on this one Im afraid. You see it doesnt matter WHO wrote document x, or how some misguided souls seem to apply it to the wrong group of people ( hence our inability to discuss document x rationally ). The question should be, can you see the working practicalities of document x in existence today ?<hr></blockquote> Slimmouse, Document X is a forgery. I'm not going to discuss the "working practicalities" of it. There are limits to what I'll spend my time on. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>hence our inability to discuss document x rationally<hr></blockquote> No, this problem stems from certain misguided people's suggestion that the document in question is in fact not a forgery, but real, and that its content has an, ahem, educational value. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No, this problem stems from certain misguided people's suggestion that the document in question is in fact not a forgery, but real, and that its content has an, ahem, educational value.<hr></blockquote> Congratulations QUTB. You did it. I always suspected you would. You have finally convinced me to read the entire document from cover to cover, and make my own mind up. I guess it all started with the 9/11 Naysayers. And then the "No WMD" naysayers. I did the self same thing with Icke, having been told how bad he was, and always regretted listening to the naysayers. Hey, and whatever you do, dont hope for anything lengthy from me on this, because if I find cause to do so, I will post an ENORMOUS and lengthy appraisal of Document X's practical working applications as used by the the ruling elite. Like ive said a squillion times, I really dont give a shit who wrote it. The fact that it is attributed to clan X is now making me feel even more vindicated about reading it, because I finally understand how clan X are repeatedly used by the PTB to hide behind. You know, get you involved in heated and senseless debate as a deliberate and energy sapping distraction Like I said I fell for all for that myself until enlightened about 12 months ago, by an author ( Icke) whom many of CLANXco were suggesting was some kind of racist nazi - a complete and utter pile of drivel if ever there was any. It was of course Icke who made me realise how the majority of ClanX were being played just like the rest of us. What did I say about "well intentioned gatekeepers" who are actually protecting THEIR enemy by their (often) completely uninformed criticisms about who we should and shouldnt read ? PS. any other suggestions for stuff I shouldnt read ? Ive got rather a lot on my list right now, but I aint afraid to add to it.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>PS. any other suggestions for stuff I shouldnt read ? Ive got rather a lot on my list right now, but I aint afraid to add to it.<hr></blockquote> I would recommend Alfred Rosenberg's Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. And Mein Kampf, of course. I'm sure you'll find them both enlightening. ClanXco say the same things about those as they say about David Icke, but you know how ClanXco are. To clear up any misunderstandings, this is the "document" we're talking about: <img src="http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/zion-protocols/protocols_english.gif" style="border:0;"/> From <a href="http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/zion-protocols/" target="top">Rotten.com</a>: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Intellectual cornerstone of the white power movement, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion serves a crucial role in the personal growth of any heartfelt anti-semite. The book is a long diatribe, exposing the nefarious tactics and goals of a clandestine multinational Jewish cabal that secretly rules the world (in partnership with the Freemasons). It's a must-read for any self-respecting opponent of Zionism. The document purports to be the collected notes from an 1897 conference in Switzerland, surreptitiously convened by this shadowy Hebrew organization. So a better translation of the title would be Minutes from the Meetings of the Zionist Chieftains. The book outlines an insidious Jewish plot for global conquest, which involves subverting whole cultures, manipulating world economic markets, instigating wars... pretty much your run-of-the-mill supervillainy. Precisely why we should believe that a group unable to control the distribution of their own meeting minutes would be capable of controlling international affairs, simply defies reason. But who cares? It isn't like The Protocols is going to convert anyone. Its function is to provide a plausible excuse for a bigot to trade in his existing Jewphobia for overt racism. Most screwballs only tackle this monster after they've already plodded their way through The Turner Diaries and a few dozen photocopied hate tracts. For this reason, it doesn't matter that The Protocols was and is a pathetic hoax. Once a nutjob decides to believe the book is genuine, nothing you can say will ever change his mind. He wants to believe. For the record, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion was proven to be a fake as far back as 1921. That year, a newspaper article in the London Times traced the meat of the book back to a plagiarization of a plagiarization of a work whose original target was Napoleon Bonaparte. The ultimate source, published in 1864, was titled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu (Discussions Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in Hell). The book was a satirical commentary on Napoleon's insatiable lust for world domination. No Jews whatsoever appear in the story. That work was just plain ripped off in 1868 by German novelist Hermann Goedsche, who took out all of the Napoleon references and replaced him with the Jews. His book, To Sedan, contains a chapter called "The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel." It describes a centennial meeting between the Devil and the upper echelons of world Jewry. This section was extracted in 1891 and repackaged as a nonfiction essay titled "The Rabbi's Speech," which became the primary source for The Protocols. The end product was cobbled together in 1895 by an officer of the Russian secret police, Pytor Ivanovich Rachovsky. The book was conceived as propaganda, calculated to rally the Russian citizenry behind the Czar as he took whatever steps would be necessary to fend off the ubiquitous Jewish-Masonic threat. Which is why, even when amongst only each other, the Zionists cannot help but compare themselves disfavorably to their enemy: The people under our guidance have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defence and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage, which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Or how about: The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labour of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in just the opposite -- in the diminution, the killing off of the goyim. Printed copies did not surface publicly until 1905, courtesy of freaky publisher Sergei Nilus. Once the book hit the public, it became a sensation. American industrialist Henry Ford adapted an English translation and distributed thousands of copies nationwide. And needless to say, it was a big hit in Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler was a true believer, and vouched for the book's authenticity in his best-selling autobiography Mein Kampf: To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. . . . Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken. But despite its age, its thoroughly-debunked origins, and most of all its completely preposterous tale, this lousy fake is still popular the world over. Recently, the book has become a sensation in the Arab world. In 2002, Egyptian television broadcasted a 41-episode miniseries called "Horseman without a Horse." This late-19th-century period piece follows the courageous Arabs who discover The Protocols and, despite Zionist opposition, translate and circulate the book to the rest of the world. Egyptian TV broadcasted the episodes daily throughout the month of Ramadan, thereby capitalizing on a huge captive audience. If you read just one classic work of Jew-baiting propaganda this year, make it The Protocols.<hr></blockquote> Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **slimmouse** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's a must-read for any self-respecting opponent of Zionism.<hr></blockquote> Cant say Im big on either the site, or the review, but since any self respecting human being should be in the above camp given what Zionism has come to represent, they twisted my arm. Interesting that it relates Zionism to Judaism, when the reality couldnt be any further from the truth , both in terms of numbers, and the overall goals of the REAL elites as I see it. I notice meanwhile that its another site that appears to give the 9/11 MIHOP a "definite maybe". Readers will no doubt spend hours debating the issues having read this intellectual pap, as opposed to saying it as it actually is and getting off the fence and doing something. Plus of course the customary Icke Bashing. Well I never lol. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/17/05 5:14 pm

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Readers will no doubt spend hours debating the issues having read this intellectual pap, as opposed to saying it as it actually is and getting off the fence and doing something.<hr></blockquote> Doing what, Slimmouse? I take it it's the Protocols that are saying it as it is, and after having read them, people should get off the fence and act, without getting hung up on "intellectual" debates about whether they're actually real or not. Have I understood you correctly? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> notice meanwhile that its another site that appears to give the 9/11 MIHOP a "definite maybe".<hr></blockquote> Yes, they apparently fail your ideological litmus test. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

"Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

My two cents

Re: Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

delirious

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Anti,

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: "Are You Afraid Of The Truth"........

Re: Slimmouse, unmasked

Who is online