RI "contributor" to the Truth Seeker?

by **pugzleyca3** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:05 am

I have purposely stayed away from any topics regarding this issue which have been posted on this board, if I have gotten involved in any of them, I stayed far, far away from any discussion about Zundel. Why? It's because I have been a coward and have succumbed to the group think here regarding this issue. I personally have no gripe with the Jews or any other religious or racial group. My whole family is a mixed bag of different colors and religious beliefs spread out far and wide. So, having made that point quite clear, I am going to say what I have been thinking for quite awhile about this board. People are chicken shit when it comes to standing up for what they truly believe in, even in a group like this where the worst thing can happen is that you are banned from the board or the post firepitted. Or rejected by the rest of the group thinkers. I am exactly the person I've described here and I MAKE ME SICK for having played along even for ONE SINGLE MOMENT. Or maybe they truly don't believe in freedom of speech unless it's the kind of speech they approve of. For a period of time, I must be guilty of the same thing. Which also makes me sick. That is NOT freedom of speech. No one should be put in jail for anything they write or say, unless it is a direct threat of bodily harm or murder against someone. If they can do it to Zundel they can do it to any of us. I don't know what Zundel wrote, if it contains death threats or threats of bodily harm to any human on this planet, but that does not seem to be what has gone on with his case. That said, I probably won't return to this board. I should have left when I saw this going on here about this issue and some other issues I've seen along the same vein. This is hard for me to do, because there are a lot of people here who are good people, but there is an undercurrent of watch out or... and I have censored my own speech because of this. I don't need this hypocritical bull shit. And that is exactly what it is. Ok, let the anti-semitic insults begin. I don't care. I am NOT anti-semitic, I am PRO free speech.

by **Qutb** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:12 am

For the record, I don't support the imprisonment of Zündel and Irving. But I think it should be very obvious why Germany and Austria have the laws they have regarding hate speech (hint: it's not about being "under Zionist control"). And make no mistake, writing books claiming that the holocaust is a Zionist fabrication (and fabricating or misrepresenting evidence in order to "prove" it) falls under that category. It's a poison injected into the body politic, and meant to be so. But, I think those laws do more harm than good and are in conflict with the principle of free speech, though nowhere in the world is free speech without any limits, nor should it necessarily trump all other concerns at all times, IMO (unlike many who frequent this board, I'm not a libertarian). As for the question of why this clampdown on revisionists at the moment, it's a good question. I dunno. Could simply be because we're seeing more of it, and certain governments have agreed among themselves to take action, possibly after lobbying from Jewish groups. I don't see anything terribly sinister behind it, though I do find it regrettable. On the other hand, with the advent of the Internet, the amount of bullshit misinformation being disseminated has grown to mind-boggling proportions... and holocaust denial and similar racist poison has seen a renaissance, just as far-right movements are on the rise in Europe yet again and incidences of inter-ethnic violence increasing. Where to draw the line? The libertarian answer is laissez-faire... "everyone's entitled to their opinion". Me, I don't know. Of course, I'm talking about countries whose governments are still under a certain (though dwindling) extent of democratic control, such as Germany, which is where Mr. Zündel has been imprisoned. The current fascist United States of America should not be trusted with any infringement on civil liberties, obviously.

by **Seventhsonjr** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:42 am

You (Qutb)said: The connections between extremist politics and the fringe world of conspiracy/alternative spirituality/UFOlogy/Protect-Yourself-From-the-Dangers-of-Radiation type stuff is something we should probably be more aware of. Just trying to get a handle on this statement: particularly the "protect-yourself-from-the dangers-of-radiation type stuff" As someone who suffers from the effects of being a "down-winder" and whose family is all ill as a result (thyroid disorders which effect our whole bodies) - I am not quite sure what the gist is. Are you implying that P-Y-F-T-D-O-R is right wing blackops disinfo? Just asking. Re: Smoots - I think the problem here is a question of priorities to some degree. When Americans can be imprisoned without trial, and the US can arrest people anywhere in the world, for opposing the policies of this administration, torture them and hold them indefinitely without even telling their families where they are or due process -- then an asshoile like Zundel does not rise to that level where many of us are as upset. The current administration is now murdering people globally as they did in Vietnam or Central America on a scale unlike that ever seen in this country. That just hits higher on our importance level, I would propose, than a hate monger whose words violated the laws of another country which suffered under fascism and genocide in the last generation to the tune of tens of millions dead. I'm just saying. For me the First Amendment is sacrosanct and should not be violated. But the right to life and liberty and freedom from tyranny (altogether) to me is a more sacred right than the right to spread ethnic hatred. Tell me why I am wrong (either of you on the respective points). Shalom/Salaam/Pax Note: I posted this in its own thread accidentally but if you prefer to answer there then that might be better as it is kind of off topic.

by **Peg C** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:02 am

In my humble estimation, these two European imprisonments for "thought crimes" are very calculated and timely. With more and more attention being focused on the make-up of PNAC, the placing of Zionist American/Israelis in the highest positions of power, and the AIPAC spying scandals at DOD, I think our "best friends," the Zionist Likudite faction of Israel, is becoming uneasy. The sentences are sort of friendly little reminders to those for whom Israel, even unbounded and brutally aggressive, is not a shibboleth, that any opposition, even the mildest, is unacceptable.

by **Seventhsonjr** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:12 am

I would hardy call Zundel and Irving the "mildest" opposition. Hate is never "milder" than peaceful opposition to unjust policies without using racist, antisemitic or hateful propaganda

by **Floyd Smoots** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:36 am

Don't give up now. Stay and Fight! Be like me and "antiaristo"! Help us to become a triumvarate, and later, a Mega-Umvarate. I too, "formally" quit this board a few months ago. Antiaristo "quit' a few weeks ago, but we're still HERE, blogging our hearts out. Stick around and help us Kick Some Ass!!! We don't have to give in to the "Pagans That Be" here!!! Jump into the fray and help us out. Because you voluntarily shared with us that your husband recently returned from the Phillipines, I will feel not free, but merely cheap, to assume that you are female. That's great! We need an educated, well-read, distaff take on what is really going on. I appreciate that you had the guts to answer up, concerning freedom of speech. So why quit now, when we can tell the folks here "What's Really Important"? I WILL Be Monitoring this particular post regularly to see "just who" shows up to defend true "Freedom of Speech", who's stoopid enough to attempt to disparage It, and, especially, who or whom "Pretends to be a Friend of Jeff", but cares NOT to weigh in here, concerning this most important ISSUE!!! If some of you DUMBASSES, (and you Know Who You Are), DARE to come to THIS THREAD, attempting to disparage Zundel, FUGGEDABOUDDIT!!!! This thread is NOT ABOUT him. Its title is about "Truth Seeking", and there is NO BETTER way to "hide the truth", than to imprison those who truly believe that they are "speaking it" whether they are right or wrong. It only gives them, right or wrong, the "color of truth", because the government (in ANY era), just, ya know, didn't like what they were saying........ So........now........where are all my freedom-loving "comrades-in-arms??? I'm waiting, and even though I'm old, I've got the rest of my life to see/hear(?) your thoughtful, considered replies........ Live Free or Die, Alexander Franklin Mutter, the last Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=floydsmoots>Floyd Smoots</A> at: 2/25/06 11:19 pm

by **greencrow0** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:56 am

I read thetruthseeker all the time...I go there every day in fact because I like 'Voice of the White House' and some of the other regular items on that site. I also go to Jeff Rense. I also go to waynemadsenreport and I go to WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM. BTW I am an adult and can determine for myself what I 'believe' from each site and what I reject. That's part of being a rational, mature human being. Some people, unfortunately, are not rational mature human beings. They either like their information censored or they like to censor other people's information. That's why we have laws relating to free speech. I know there's a lot of unpleasant stuff on the Internet. I have mistakenly gotten onto a porn site once or twice and been totally disgusted, etc. So I avoid sites that I find disgusting...that's called self-censorship. We can all do that. I personally find the person who came on here and tried to make Jeff feel guilty because his writings had ended up on thetruthseeker personally repugnant. S/he seems like one of those sneaky zionist types who want their own 'stuff' to dominate the media but really get the hairs standing up on the backs of their neck when they see any contrary opinions. So, in summary...I find thetruthseeker to be one of the more interesting and current newsblogs and will continue to visit it. I will also continue to visit the other blogs and any more I discover that pique my curiousity. Anyone who finds fault with that course of action can blow it out of his or her ears. Regards, GC

by **Peg C** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:58 am

Since I am a Jewish convert, I hardly think my post qualifies as "antisemitic." Jews are protesting all over the world against Zionism in its ugliest manifestations. Wake up. And study the history of the "Rothschilds."

by **Floyd Smoots** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:14 am

....Are you or I sitting inside a prison cell right now, for something we wrote or said? I know I'm not (yet), and I suspect that you're not. Please keep in mind here, I'm not trying to defend Zundel's views to you, or to the "worldwide web". I'm TRYING to DEFEND his RIGHT to hold, speak about, and write about those views, without having to be imprisoned in our so-called free Western Democracie's. I thank God every day when a little trouble comes my way, that I don't live (or any longer serve the Military-Industrial-Complex), in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else on planet Earth, that our beloved American Government has "chosen" to Bring Democracy to next!!!!!!!!

by **dragon** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:26 am

".... represents the ugly side of conspiracy theory?" I've been at this for four decades, and I've yet to see a 'shiny' side or a 'pretty' side of conspiracy. The whole damn conspiracy is ugly, and the deeper you dig, the uglier it gets. I never thought I'd agree with Floyd Smoots, but the old boy is more than 100 percent correct about free speech. It doesn't matter what Zundel or Irving said, what matters is that they are in prison for saying it. Like Floyd, my question is 'why'? I think I can answer that question, but some of you won't like it. I may yet do that, later on. But for now, let me just say that you can stand on the sidewalk outside a country music bar in Ft.Worth and pass out leaflets saying that Sam Houston was a black man and the Alamo was a whorehouse, and if you wind up in jail it will be for disturbing the peace, and not because you propagated a lie. They picked Zundel, and Irving, for a reason. And it wasn't because they lied. Now, bounce this around in your cranial cavity. There are two ways, two sure-fire ways to wind up dead or in prison in this country. One is to start curing cancer. The other is to question the holocaust. Now, we all know about Big Pharma and cancer, and understand the motive there. But the holocaust? Why are TPTB [The Parasites That Be] so sensitive about the subject? Could it be that they have something to hide? Lying, big lies, are not without precedent among TPTB. They lied about Pearl Harbor, and it's pretty much common knowledge now that it was a set-up. Ho-hum, is the reaction from the public. Whatcha gonna do about it, is the reaction from TPTB. And everyone knows that Oswald didn't do it, but you don't go to jail for saying that. So what's with the holocaust? If it really happened, then it's no big deal if someone wants to make a fool of themselves by saying that it didn't. There's a Flat Earth Society out there somewhere, making foolish claims. We have a right to be foolish. We don't have an obligation to be foolish, but we do have that right. Except. Except, if you question the holocaust, then you get pounced on by knee-jerk reactionaries who feel they must disagree with you or be perceived as anti-semites, or worse. The one who posits that idea, that the holocaust was a figment, becomes a "jew-baiter", and unless he is as resilient as I am, suddenly finds other things to talk about, and wanders off wondering what the fuss is all about. Holocaust? Six million jews killed? That's the story, or the lie that they settled upon. Figures varied wildly after the close of the war. Six million is the 'official' figure. But think about this: The World Almanac in the pre-war years listed population by race, and in all the countries of Europe that came under Hitler's control, there were only a little more than 3 million jews. It takes over 30 gallons of oil to reduce a human body to about four pounds of ash, according to a feature piece in the Minneapolis Tribune years ago. Do the math. Six million times 33. This, while Berlin was freezing from lack of fuel, and Rommel was distilling alcohol from wine so that he could run his tanks. That much ash would have made a train 180 cars long, and a helluva mountain of ash. Someone would have noticed it by now, don'tcha think? Where's the mountain of ash? I'm not a jew-baiter, I'm not an anybody-baiter. But I don't have any doubt that Zundel, or Irving, was anything less than a beginning. I read about some poor guy who was instructed by DHS that he was not allowed to have his anti-war bumper sticker. The Thought Police are here. When I go by an assumed name, it is usually Winston Smith. Dragon

by **sunny** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:38 am

Freedom of speech is supposed to protect unpopular speech, otherwise, what is the point of it? Here is the perfect test case for those who are constantly talking about it. And don't talk to me about the fact that this is going on in Europe and they don't have a first amendment; if you don't stand up for the right of humanity to speak freely, then don't agitate for it here in America, either. How hard is it to stand up for speech we agree with? Who needs the principle of free speech if we are all supposed to agree? And don't talk to me about anti-semitism, I am completely in solidarity with jews in Israel who feel about their gov't as I feel about mine. I am in complete solidarity with jews who have fought, and continue to fight, for civil rights, workers rights, and the environment here in America, and they are many. First they came for the jews.. And if you don't say anything, who ya gonna call when they finally come for you? And for the record, I think they should have printed those damned cartoons all over the place. The threat of mob violence could kill a lot of speech, could it not? Very handy tool, that. Did you agree that Piss Christ should have been displayed? If so, then what is the difference? For the same reason, publish the latest Abu Graib material everywhere. Free speech is either free or restricted (barring actual and explicit incitement to violence) take your pick. The solution to bad speech is more speech.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:43 am

....If you see any argument in this post right here, please write and let me know. I AM 1/8 Jewish by having one great grandmother in my family who was one of the "People of the Book". Well posted, Mr. "Smith"! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **Floyd Smoots** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:15 am

....sunny, this may come as a surprise/shock or whatever you make of it (Shock and Awe?). I was totally incensed about the piss-Christ artwork! But, until I tell you WHY in the next few sentences, you'll NEVER guess the reason. So I'll make it easy on all of you and reveal it. It's really sort of simple, yet, can be a complex and arguable question. I am a professional sign designer with 26 years experience in "the biz", but I hold a simple B.A. in studio art from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Class of 1979 at the age of 31 if you care to know. That said, here is what fried my buttocks about THAT whole affair. The bastard who made 'n' displayed that piece of F(art), was on a Government Grant, paid for by your (and my) tax dollarsl. I have always held the opinion that "if yo' artistic ASS" is worth a damn, then people will pay you for your work. If it AIN'T, as in "piss-Christ Boy's" case, then yo' ASS ain't a real artist, and you should probably go the heck home and just shoot yourself dead. That is my ultra-conservative libertarian capitalist self blogging to you now, but that's what "Really Scraped the Cheese off my Burger" in that whole sordid affair. Just so's ya know, ya know?? He had a perfect Constitutional "right" to "miscreate" that fartwork, but NOT at my expense!!! I wish I could have hit old Maple-syrup in the head with a big fragging stick, but, alas, the bastard is now dead. And I won't go into the politally correct arena right now to blog about WHY "he's dead, Jim". Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=floydsmoots>Floyd Smoots</A> at: 2/26/06 1:29 am

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Insults and injuries Leader Saturday February 25, 2006 The Guardian Ken Livingstone, mayor of London has behaved arrogantly, intemperately and unfittingly in refusing to apologise for comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard. The adjudication panel for England was right yesterday to say that he acted in an "unnecessarily insensitive way". He certainly did and, even allowing for the decades of bile he has had to put up with from journals owned by the Associated Newspapers group, this is no excuse for the way he behaved and for his failure even to work out a form of words that would have apologised for upsetting Jewish sensitivities while also outlining the provocation he claims he has been subjected to from the Daily Mail and Evening Standard over the years. The mayor is an astute politician and he could have, and should have, defused this affair before unscripted remarks at the end of a party escalated into a major political event. But none of this excuses the action of the adjudication panel in taking it upon themselves to ban the mayor of Britain's capital city from performing his duties for a month. The panel has a surrogate legitimacy in that it was set up by an elected government but this three-person quango, never intended to deal with high-octane issues such as this one, is talking way above its pay-grade in banning an elected city leader. If Mr Livingstone is to be censured in this way then it should be done either by electors at the polls or by his peers in the London Assembly. He has not failed in his duties as mayor. Indeed he has done much better than most of his critics - including this newspaper - expected, especially with transport, one of the few areas where he wields real power. Mr Livingstone has a long history of supporting ethnic and other minorities. No one could seriously call him anti-semitic but there is no doubt that he has upset large sections of the Jewish community with these comments and over his invitation to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the influential Muslim cleric who has justified suicide bombing attacks in Israel as a legitimate response to occupation - while condemning them in London. Nicky Gavron, the deputy mayor, is absolutely right to say that the incident has been "blown out of all proportion". But the main reason for that is Mr Livingstone's stubborn refusal to snuff the fire out at source. As a skilled politician he should have known better. The correct course now would be for the sentence to be thrown out on appeal and for Mr Livingstone to show more humility and understanding. The first may be easier than the second.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1717465,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/leader...65,00.html</a> I've no wish to sidetrack a healthy discussion. My father was in a Japanese concentration camp for just under four years. A marine (who couldn't swim!) who went down with HMS Prince of Wales. When the "hero" returned home broken and riddled with disease he was put to work cleaning lavatories at an office complex in London's Milbank. He never got over it, and his bitterness, which lasted until the day he died at fifty-nine, blighted the three of us children, and made life terrible for my dear mother. What I'd like to know is whether, should someone liken myself to a concentration camp guard, I have the right to expect official sanction against the offender?

by **antiaristo** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:56 am

I believe websites are like newspapers. If you agree with absolutely EVERYTHING there, something is wrong with you. I've noticed regular attacks by the wise ones against this particular website. You have to wonder why that is. The truthseeker publishes, within its portfolio, information that is hard to find elsewhere. A good example was the London bombings back in July, where it took a lead role in discrediting the official story AT THE TIME. Nobody with any brains believes the bullshit we have been fed about this, nor the subsequent ritual assassination of Jean Charles de Menezes. Is it truly a mere coincidence that the originator of this thread, a leading member of the wise ones, is one of those few that give credence to the official story? There is other hard-to-find information there. A case in point is the long running arms to Iran/Iraq/Contras scam, currently reaching its culmination with the sabotage of the Brewster-Jennings counter proliferation operation. The Truthseeker published inside information from one of those actually involved here: <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4113">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...sp?ID=4113</a> <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4116">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...sp?ID=4116</a> <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4128">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...sp?ID=4128</a> <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4135">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...sp?ID=4135</a>

RI "contributor" to the Truth Seeker?

Re: Collapse of Western Civilization???

Re: Words are actions too

Question for Qutb and Smoots

Timing of imprisonments no accident

Re: Timing of imprisonments no accident

Aww, C'mon pugz....

thetruthseeker

7thssonjr

Seventhsonjr....

Floyd, Free Speech and Zundel....

Re: Seventhsonjr....

1984, It's Deja Vu, All Over Again....

Jesus and Uranus....

It's All About Intimidation

Why The Truthseeker?

Who is online