please read and comment

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:28 pm

havanagila, Your cynicism is well founded. We have a good example in my friend Dreams End. I have identified DE in two ways: Talmud merchant, and Freemason. He likes to cite Talmud merchant. Why is that? Could it be because it is ambiguous? For the record, I don't think he is Jewish. I'm not inquiring. I'm stating what I perceive. I don't think he is kin with you, havanagila. I think he's exploiting you. As is the way with European and North American Freemasons.

by **Qutb** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:32 pm

This is a parody.

by **snowlion2** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:40 pm

par·o·dy P Pronunciation Key (pr-d) n. pl. par·o·dies A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature. The genre of literature comprising such works. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice. Agreed....but not a very good one. I want my money back.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:46 pm

I've told you often what lines are not to be crossed here, and you repeatedly cross them to the point of disruption, even as you ask my indulgence. I've indulged you enough. This is your final warning. One I don't think you deserve. If I see you throwing around a term like "Talmud merchant" again, or asking "Are you a Jew?" or insinuating that a poster is a disinfo agent, you will be banned.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Author Comment antiaristo Registered Member Posts: 687 (10/17/05 1:45 pm) Reply | Edit Dreams End -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the second time. I really think you should deal with this before telling others on this board how to think. It WAS you that said "bring it on". Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Come on, now. Where are all the "DE is a gatekeeper" posts?....The line starts here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, DE, I think you're a gatekeeper. I think you are a gatekeeper for Zionists. But NOT Jews. I mean the Zionists that follow the Masonic religion, and serve the purposes of the British Crown. <hr></blockquote>

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:58 pm

because it's not about all about "Jews"; it's about disruptive personal attacks insinuating members are agents of disinformation, rather than making coherent cases for why their arguments may be invalid. I hope you can see what I'm saying, and can abide by it.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:03 pm

Jeff, I admire what you do, even as I have argued with you in the past. I will abide with what you say.

by **bamabecky** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:13 pm

EVEN THOUGH I said I had no idea how hate filled the man's comments were. He just couldn't resist going at me again. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And bamabecky, can you HONESTLY claim that you don't see the difference between "commenting on anything remotely related to Jews" and the sorts of stuff put out around here about how the Jews run the world? It really doesn't seem that hard to distinguish, in my view.<hr></blockquote> Questioning my honesty??? Sheesh, it's so utterly tiresome and pointless. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> Bama Be the Media! Write a personal essay to your friends and family, telling them what's going on and tell them how and where to find more info.Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=bamabecky>bamabecky</A> at: 3/2/06 5:49 am

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:17 pm

I was going to IM this to you, but its better out here IMO. I can see your position, and understand your point. But how about posters who use a litany of half quotes, misquotes and putting words into peoples mouths et cetera as a pretext for splashing the anti semite/ Fascist slur around ? That of course wouldnt be so bad in itself. But then comes the kicker - "Who, Me ?". I meanwhile posted a coherent and rational example of precisely what I was speaking about via the experience of Joseph Massad, precisely because in so many ways this perfectly mirrored some of the tactics employed around here. Unfortunately that thread got firepitted. Ive had it myself, and seen many others subjected to the same kind of treatment (not the mailbox spamming and the other various forms of intimidation), just the Slimmouse is a Nazi/fascist/ anti semite slur. Do you consider this to be reasonable ?

by **Dreams End** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:21 pm

Why don't you link to the threads in question slimmouse? I either missed the "massad" one or don't remember what it is. But be sure to link only to the ones where people made unsubstantiated claims about you and not about the content of your posts.

by **heath7** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:26 pm

Qutb, nice 'discuss'. Thanks for putting so many words in my mouth. I cannot respond to what is obviously a programmed response, the remotest thing from discussion. ProfessorPan, I appreciate your approach so I will try to respond in complete sincerity: I have never said you were a racist, or a liar, or anything else. I pointed out that your *words* were rather crass, and, in fact, are the same words Nazi apologists hammer into their followers. It's true -- they say "the Holocaust is a lie" ad nauseum. You'll have to excuse me if I see that as a red flag.   That's the continuing problem with many people who post here -- everything is construed as an attack on them, personally. Any attack on the information they bring up is a personal attack. On being 'attacked'... my momma always said 'if the shoe fits'... I didn't appreciate the offer to meet real Holocaust survivors; it assumed that I didn't think there was a Holocaust, and it was derogatory. And I didn't appreciate having my words repeated for me, misrepresented, and accused of changing my story after the fact. I don't take it personally though, the disparagement just serves to fog up what I try to say, and this is a discussion and can be nothing more. As for being crass, well, I wasn't trying to be insensitive, but I'm not much good for sugar-coating either. I feel bad that that's what all the nazis said, but I'm sure little ironies like that occur regularly all through history. I understand your seeing a red flag though. Please do not assume what I read, because that is not where I pick up talking like nazis. I actually stay away from all that shit. My perspective comes from watching how various conversations flow on this board and others, and its obvious watching discussions, where Jews and the holocaust enter the mix, that the open discussion is being actively thwarted, and I'm an out and out rebel against that.  If you would post some examples of what the holocaust lies are, maybe we could address some specific data. Abstractions ("all future wars will be lies and real at the same time"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> don't tell us anyting of relevance about your original premise of the holocaust as a lie. There -- no personal attacks on your or your motives, just a question. What are the lies about the holocaust?  This is a more difficult question. First of all, I don't think its knee-jerk, but responsible to question the history of the holocaust when everything else about history is lied about. It doesn't help matters that nothing from 20th century history is as protected as the holocaust. Alarm bells ring in my head. The bankers (please don't assume that I'm referring to a Jewish banker cabal) financed Hitler, knowing who he was. I think its disingenuous of them to absolve themselves of guilt because they say they 'discovered' what he was doing. That the same bankers financed both sides of the war screams that there was a big game on, and I can only assume that the Holocaust was part of that 'game'. And as I said before, the Holocaust serves as a convenient fog to block the history of what actually happened to Germany in World War I and thereafter. We are not taught about the hardships that Germany suffered while the rest of the world roared throught the twenties, but we're taught more about the Holocaust in American schools than our own Civil Rights era. ...to be continued, hopefully

by **mother** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:55 pm

Being anti-semitic is not charitable. Neither is being anti-catholic charitable. Posters on this board have called my religion "satanic" on this board, posted unending, specifically catholic-hating links and articles, mention that they don't like catholics, etc. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Over and over I have seen trouble makers intimidate people by insinuating or accusing them of anti-semitism, and the accusers generally win. It works so well on this board, very similar to how certain kids always know how to get others in trouble, yet stay on the good side of Daddy. Why do you all forget how many Catholics were murdered by nazis? And Gypsies, and handicapped people, and so on? Funny how antiaristo debeach and I have been the only ones(correct me if I'm wrong) to resist the Catholic bashers....Also, it is very strange that WW2 can not be debated here of all places. The Nazi phenomenom is classic occultic black magick satanist secret society material!

by **Dreams End** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:55 pm

Bama there were several thoughts in my post related to the Mullins thing... The first was that he's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. People post his (thoroughly incorrect) theories on the Federal Reserve and then get UPSET if I bring up what his agenda is. Then they say things like "oh we can't even MENTION anything to do with Jews" or cry censorship. (And I'm sorry about the HONESTLY, in caps. It was supposed to emphasize exasperation...I'd edit it but people would think I was trying to hide my mistake. ) I'm sorry you were duped by him and got banned. A Google search to check him out before you shared with others would have saved you some embarrassment. (Presently, two posts on the first google page link to articles about him and not by him...so it's not hard to find.) But others around here, if instead of getting banned for posting that, had his hateful background pointed out, would attack and cry "censorship." They also would complain that he wasn't saying all Jews were parasites, just some of them and blah blah blah. The second thought was your conflation of posting hatefilled anti-Semitic theory such as Mullins posts and simply "mentioning" anything to do with Jews. It's quite tiresome to have people post such blatant things (not saying you did...but Mullins gets posted here from time to time) and then, when called on it, complain about not being able to say anything about anyone Jewish. The two are not the same and I really can't fathom why it's so hard for people to understand. Wait a second...I take that back. I just did a Google search only on his name. And I see him in interviews on Rense and other places...so the real problem is not just Mullins but the folks like Rense and Truthseeker that continue to promote him without revealing this (very easy to research) background of his. I've also seen him linked on WRH. But if you criticize THOSE sites for promoting these views...you get the same "gatekeeper" response. So really, in some sense, I guess I'm sympathetic to those who get roped in by such stuff. But my sympathy stops as soon as it's pointed out and they continue posting it. I have rarely if ever had to go past Google page one to find out about these guys. Sometimes it takes a little more digging, especially if they have a mainstream presence and have interviews all over. Searching Larouche, for example, is tough because he's published so much you have to narrow your searches carefully. You all won't be able to use the crappy search engine to confirm this, but if you look at my early posts, I got some serious flack for some things I said. For the most part, they didn't get too personal...but the point is...the criticisms of me were correct and my views changed...in some cases very dramatically. But the arguments, though heated, were well thought out. And though I got miffed at the time, I responded by re-examining my own premises. Subjects such as the "New Age" were particularly instructive. I came off sounding like a defender of all things New Age (well, really I just said it was rather harmless) and I've discovered...well, just check out most of my posts on "The Nine" and Heinberg and Dugin, etc. (some as "veritas"). By the way, that's how Veritas got born. The odd writing style I adopted was quite effective at preventing personal attacks on me. despite the fact that much that I posted as Veritas was vehemently opposed by some on this board, it never got personal. I felt dishonest about it and fessed up pretty soon, but it was a very nice time I had being able to post content and not fend off personal accusations.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:56 pm

Dreams end, In one of your parting shots, before re-emerging as Veritas ( where you accidentally posted a link giving my precise details to all and sundry on this board) there was a thread entitled "Ive been fired" or something similar. This was preceded by your initial Framework for research post, in which you suggested that people took care with quotes and check their sources and all the rest of it. This was my favourite, because I believe I responded by saying that I agreed with much of what you said, but asked for a level playing field for such discussion. And right on queue what happens next ? Qutb did a half quote out of context number, which you then repeated, despite the full quote being contained on the VERY SAME PAGE. This was Daniel anti -defamation- league Pipes at his very best. Ive been accused of being a fascist,and all the rest of it with vigour based upon such claims - exactly the same as Massad was. To your credit, when I brought all this up at a later date, you finally sorta half apologised for one of three such infringements of your own guidelines, before ending with some kind of lecture about how it probably served me right anyways. And finally, one of my very first posts on here, way before all this nonsensical stuff kicked off big time , and before yourself and others appeared on the scene, was a polite suggestion to Dark Before Dawn, to look at the forces beyond the obvious before attatching any blame on a particular race - his post refferring to the preponderance of a certain ethnic minority in charge of the US media. I warned him that this was an organised timewasting distraction. For all my failings, I cant imagine anyone could disagree that at least I got that right ! I take it you dont require proof<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif ALT=" >D"> As if that isnt funny enough in itself ( in the context of this discussion), youre gonna love it when I tell you whos writing enabled me to understand that. Mr "Antisemite - Lizard man" himself !

by **Darklo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:25 pm

Jeff, I get your point, although you put it in somewhat circumspect terms. Your guidlines are that posters should not; 1. advocate violence, or 2. espouse hatred for a people based upon their race, religion, gender or sexuality, or 3. suggest a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation. If you have suspicions, IM me. It seems to me that these guidlines are fair, are not preventing a discussion on matters like the holocaust and the official version of events, and are in fact just good manners. I have been put off visiting this board, which is a shame, because of the poor level of logical debate, and a lack of interesting ideas. Two views by example; You could say that the revisionist version of the holocaust has to be actively attacked by the US and its partners as it undermines the very basis of Isreal, the central strategic partner in the middle east. A full member of the nuclear set. Who wants that house of cards to come crashing down? Or you could say that there is a global jewish plot to communise the entire world in wait for the anti-christ. The first view can be argued with as its based on fact, and leads to a conclusion. Fine. The second one is based on an idea, not fact and cant be discussed as its just offensive, so its pointless.

please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

Re: please read and comment

antiaristo

Re: please read and comment

afraid you've missed my point

Re: afraid you've missed my point

See how DE brings out the Mullins stuff word for word

Re: Jeff.

Re: Jeff.

Re: please read and comment

posting regulations

Re: please read and comment

Re: You should be only too aware of that.

Re: please read and comment

Who is online