Truth Does Not Need Protection

Just posting this on the day David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in Austria for the thought crime of 'Holocaust Denial' for a speech he made 16 years ago.

How do we distinguish Truth from Lies?


And how do we determine who to trust?


After I wrote about the deception in the 9/11 movement, some people have been ask me, "How can we figure out who to trust?"


The truth can be placed in the open; exposed naked to the entire world. The truth does not need any laws to protect it, and it does not need secrecy to protect it. The truth does not need evidence destroyed, nor does it need videotapes to be confiscated.

Only lies need secrecy; only lies need protection from laws. Only lies benefit from fear, secrecy, blackmail, gossip, and confiscation of evidence.

For example, to determine the truth about the 9/11 attack, we only have to bring out all of the video recordings, the photographs, the rubble from the World Trade Center, the seismic data, and the testimony of the witnesses. By letting us see everything, we will eventually figure out what happened and who is a liar.

However, the media and government are suppressing some video recordings, witnesses, scientific analyses, and people (such as myself). The government also destroyed most of the rubble from the towers, and there are accusations that they destroyed other evidence also. This destruction of evidence is proof that they are hiding something.

Nobody destroys evidence or suppresses people if they are trying to spread the truth. The truth is supported with evidence. The more evidence we have, the more we can be certain of what the truth is. Therefore, to spread the truth, expose all evidence.

By comparison, if somebody is promoting a lie, he must suppress the particular people and information that expose the lie.



The Incubator Babies

Do you remember the stories circulating in America in 1990 about the evil Iraqi soldiers who were throwing babies out of their incubators?

There were eyewitnesses to this atrocity, such as this adorable girl who is holding back tears as she tells the world about those horrible Iraqis.

Millions of Americans were enraged that the evil Iraqis would behave in such a savage manner, and this anger helped to bring support for the war in Iraq. The glorious, righteous Americans charged off to battle and slaughtered the evil Iraqis.


Am I allowed to ask, how many babies were thrown out of the incubator? Am I an incubator baby denier for asking such a question?

Some people claim that zero babies were thrown out of incubators, and that the entire story is a hoax in order to enrage the Americans. Here are two articles about it, in case you never heard of this:

www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html
and:
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html

Are the people who make these accusations Incubator Baby Deniers? Should they be arrested? Should they be told to shut up?

The truth about the incubator baby story does not need laws to protect it. There is no reason to tell anybody to be quiet about it. The truth about the incubator babies will come out when we expose all evidence, not when we tell people to shut up.



Ignore the pressure to hide evidence

Lots of people and organizations claim to be "truth seekers" in regards to 9-11. However, if they were truly honest, they would encourage people to look at all of the evidence.

For example, the MoveOn organization ignores some of the most important evidence of 9-11. The Air America radio network also ignores lots of critical information and people.

It is the ordinary, unknown citizens who pass out videos, books, and web sites. If this world improves, it will be because of those unknown citizens who are ignoring the large organizations and passing out the suppressed information to their friends and neighbors.




Should I keep quiet on some issues?

Occasionally somebody will advise me to stop talking about one or both of these issues:

# The Apollo moon landing

# The Holocaust


Why should I ignore those two subjects? How does the truth on those subjects benefit by suppressing discussions of them?

I have been given two, completely different sets of reasons as to why I should remain quiet, depending on whether the person telling me to keep my mouth shut promotes the official story. The two groups of reasons are:


1) The people who tell me that Apollo astronauts really did land on the moon, and the official Holocaust story is 99% accurate, tell me to shut my mouth because...

# I will ruin my reputation.

# I will hurt everybody else's reputation in the 9-11 movement.


2) The people who tell me that Apollo and the Holocaust are indeed hoaxes tell me to shut my mouth because...

# Most people are too stupid to understand these issues, so I would be wasting time that could be put to more productive uses.

# The Zionists will attack me, maybe have me arrested, maybe kill me.


Now let's consider whether I should follow their advice and keep quiet about these issues.


Case 1: The Apollo astronauts really did land on the moon, and the official Holocaust story is at least 99% accurate.


Consider the issue of mercury dental fillings. The official story is that these fillings are safe. Will I ruin my reputation for asking questions about their safety?

Well... I will ask some questions, and then you can let me know if I just ruined my reputation.

Questions about mercury dental filling:

# Don't molecules from the fillings tear off once in a while? If so, do those molecules pass through our digestive system without bothering us?

# If some mercury does get into our bloodstream, will it cause any problems for us?

# Have these fillings been proven to be 100% safe, or were they considered safe by corporate executives simply because the amount of mercury they gets into us is so small that they decided not to worry about it?

# Who has done the scientific investigations on this issue? Were any of the investigations conducted by scientists who had no connection to the corporations that profit from these fillings?


OK... I just asked some questions about mercury dental fillings. Did I ruin my reputation?

Let me now ask some questions about the Vietnam War.

Questions about the Vietnam War:
I know a man who is a few years older than me. He was drafted and sent to fight in the Vietnam war. However, he had no desire to kill Vietnamese. He did not understand why he should consider the Vietnamese to be his enemy.

He told me that in his small group of about six men, only their leader was interested in the war.

He told me that when their leader took them out into the forest, they had to pretend that they were interested in fighting the war, but often their leader would send them out on their own. This group of about 6 young men would go out into the forest, find a nice tree to sit under, relax, and often play cards.

When evening came, they would go home and tell their leader that they had killed a few Vietnamese.

There are many significant lessons to learn from this man. Two of them are:

1) Many of the deaths reported during the Vietnam War may have been phony. Some news reports claim that the American military killed 3 million Vietnamese. For all we know, most of those dead Vietnamese were "killed" by soldiers who were actually playing cards.

2) The American military believes that they were chased out of Vietnam because there was not enough support for the war among the American people, but they may have been chased out of Vietnam because most American soldiers had no interest in the war.

Now I am ready to ask my questions about the Vietnam War:

# Did Americans really kill 3 million Vietnamese?

# How many Vietnamese were killed by Americans, and how many were killed by other Vietnamese?


Am I anti-Vietnamese for asking those questions? Have I ruined my reputation or the reputation of other 9/11 researchers for asking those questions? Am I anti-American for asking those questions? Am I a Vietnam War Denier for asking those questions?

If it is acceptable for me to ask questions about dental fillings and the Vietnam War, why can't I ask questions about Apollo or World War II?


Case 2: Apollo and the Holocaust are indeed hoaxes.

It should be obvious that if these are hoaxes, then the pressure on me to shut my mouth is to prevent me from exposing the lies.




The truth does not need suppression

The US military has no reason to hide information about the Vietnam War... if they want the truth about the war to be known.

However, if they want to hide the truth, then they will need to suppress people, questions, and evidence. The same applies to the North Vietnamese and Chinese governments. The only way we will really know what was going on with that war is if all of the governments stop their suppression of information.

Governments justify their suppression of information on the grounds that they are protecting national security. In reality, every government is protecting their incompetence, their criminal activity, and their embarrassing mistakes.



It is OK to discuss the Vietnam War

There is nothing wrong with asking questions about the Vietnam War, and there is nothing wrong with asking how many people died.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions about the Civil War, either, and there's nothing wrong with asking if George Washington really did have his missing teeth replaced with pieces of wood, and whether he really did chop down a cherry tree.

So why is it wrong to ask questions about what was going on inside those Nazi prison camps? Why is it wrong to ask how many Jews died in those prison camps? If Jews have nothing to hide, why are they trying to stop people from discussing this issue? Why don't they proudly announce to the world,


"Go ahead and look closely at the Nazi prison camps. You will find that we Jews have been honest about them; that we have been telling you the truth."



I don't see how we are helping the human race by remaining silent on any issue.

How about if you look into Apollo and the Holocaust, and you decide for yourself if they are hoaxes. I have some documents on my Internet site to get you started, such as this page, which is one in a series of articles here..

 

Haha, he got jailed for saying the holocaust didn't happen.

 

Nursey said

:lol:

There is not [/u]one truth. Just like there is not one lie. The different players have truths that relate to eachother. And the shadows were lies appear are not one evil.

The story you mention where that cute Kuwaiti princess, allready in London, plays the part was a strategical mediamove on behalf of a clan. Sorry ! Country. They acted in selfdefence.

The truth can not stand on the playing field. Someone will kill it imediately.
The truth needs guards and certain truths/lies are said to hold a hell of a lot of bioware. If the wrong truths face the right lies we do no longer speak of theories of democratisation and a level look at the human developement index.

 

Tut! Is that what your 'handlers' told you? :? No wonder you're so fragmented, you poor soul.

 

There are many lies, but only One Truth.

 

That's hardly very trendy or post-structuralist of you, Nursey.

 

I know. Terrible, isn't it? It was fun when people thought i was cool. :|

 

But the general unification theory aside. .... There are interpretations that do not fit eachother. Differences of perception that ,( if not objectively true ), are at least true as memes. Representing truth for billions.

There is only one G-d and Muhammed is his profet ( peace ) and Israel is his choosen people. and so on and so forth.

Here is one truth:
By keeping poor societies artificially alive, we create more suffering since those unable to adapt still reproduce. Humanitarian aid creates suffering ad infinitum and is a disaster for wildlife.

 

So what you're trying to say is that there is no fact XerxesX. Don't be a fool. Either it happened or it didn't. The fact that people argue over details menas that people are petty and subjective. That doesn't mean that "objective" truth doesn't exist, if just means you have your head to far up your ass to see it.

 

Diogenes wrote

Ther are indeed facts. But the facts arent allway those if niceties and who did the most bad in what order.
To argue over details is not neccesarily petty and subjective. I the real world, seeing everything throug the eyes of a newly awakened theoritician is an exercise in subjective analytical wanking. ( Or having ones head to far up...)

The truth of facts must include the room were we can not yet speak. And attempts to raise the silence must start with the softest voices. Like cartoons of Muhammed and Holocaust. ( I have seen JesusChrist%Co, A good atheistic cartoon about christianity ).

Another kind of fact is the difference in logistical power and coherrence of response between the paramilitary jihaadi-mujjaheddin parties, and all their ( potential ) enemies.
Exept those in the Darfur of Sudan and civilians in Indonesia.

 

As for it either happened or it did not. That is right. But in the world of proof and politics its different, and we were discussing truth in a political sense I believe.

The science of history shows good examples of this. The focus changes with interpretation, and the percieved truth along with it.
( For 90% of recipients of interpretation ) Those of the one truth
( Perception ) are most likely to dominate policymaking and beliefe in that one truth then is a sure recipe for aggression.

 

That's hardly a "truth". More of a theory, or a prediction.

Your inhumane determinism aside, weren't we discussing whether or not an event (e.g. Holocaust, moon landing, plane into the Pentagon) has actually happened? Rather than what might happen if we perform or refuse to perform certain actions?

 

Thanks for the reminder
The Apollo-ten money went somewere else ( I believe ).
Holocaust-denial is booring. Cant someone denie Nacht und Nebel ? Damn !
I should have found better "truths"
:?

 

The truth does not need protection? The truth seems to be one of the more elusive things around these days. And the truth is under more attack than most. The best way to protect the truth is education of the people and a built in ability to reason for ones self rather than be influenced by fringe web pages.

 

I thought it was "leftleaningmainstream media" ?

 

another way of looking at it, I would not argue against.

 

XerxesX wrote...

There is no truth in politics. Only spin.

 

I think it is beneficial to defend some irrefutable truths. Interesting though Nursey that you sarcastically attack this while defending everything the Muslims do. Muhammad was a sick pervert this is a truth. So go ahead to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Uzbekistan... running out of countries off the top of my head where openly walking around and proclaiming this truth would be a fatal action but you get the point and I'm sure your understand why.

Notice I said fatal action not fatal mistake. Dying for a good cause that is “true” is only a mistake if it has no positive effect and was simply a waste. But if they corralled me out into the town square and asked me to proclaim Islam as my faith or face a beheading as they often do to non-Muslims I would like to think that I would take the beheading. Dying with my honor and dignity would be a good reason.

However the crap you are talking about here does not even compare. Do you subscribe to a theory that the Holocaust never happened?

 

Truth doesn't need 'defended'. Honoured, maybe. But truth is truth whether it is defended or not. People can attempt to distort it, but you can't actually change truth, just hide it or confuse the paths that lead to it. But that still won't change it or make it go away.

Huh? I attacked nothing, and was totally unsarcastic. I just posted an article which mirrors concepts that make sense to me.

How do you know? Is that what Anne Coulter says?

This thread is primarily about the principles of truth and imprisoning someone for their views, not the validity of the official estimated numbers killed in the holocaust, or whether there was a holocaust which should have a thread to itself. But since you asked, on the information i've amssed so far, my belief is that nasty stuff happened, to all sorts of people including Jews, but that the nasty stuff has been used and manipulated for a political groups ulterior aims. Which is as disrespectful to those who perished as the disrespect Zionists accuse anyone who questions the version Zionists promote of being.

Example of my 'inbuilt ability to reason for myself'...written sometime last year:

Well gosh! Isn't that saying more or less the same as the article on truth i posted at the beginning of this thread one year later? So, does that mean i've to think for myself unless that results in me arriving at the same conclusion as any 'fringe webpage' / 'left leaning media'?

 

Dio wrote

We used to have democracy ! We still have good people working in foreign offices in the western world. Your argument is cowardly. It just slaps all the pieces from the board.

Joe ! Muhammed might be a sick pervert. And Jesus might be a weak masochist commie. But so what ?