Question to so-called organisers of UK Truth Movement

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

I have a question to the so called organisers / leaders of this UK 911 truth movement .....

Why do you speakers go out of the way to avoid speaking about Zionism and Israel ?

This is a huge topic with many many worrying connections to world events yet you speakers go to great lengths to steer people away from it ?

This 'Leeds Truth Festival' is by no means the 1st Ive been to in the UK but the same thing is going on @ all of them, all you speakers are covering up for ZIONISM and Israel,

Mr Gosling you briefly mentioned Christopher Bollyn but did not clarify his excellent work in exposing the disturbing Zionist connections to a hell of a lot of 911.

If somebody has a question in the audience about Zionism you cant shut them up quickly enough and move the topic on to something else, this is not the first time I have seen you people doing this !

Why is this ????

Why are you so scared to speak about it ????

[rodin]

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . .
this will assist in realization of our plans. . . I have an excellent idea. . .
I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . .
The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews.
The anti-semites shall be our best friends

Diary exerpt from Zionism creator Theodor Herzl (1860-1904)
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/zionismpromotes.cfm


Im still waiting for 1 of these organisers to answer why they are not speaking about it at the meetings...


They are either scared about discussing the subject of Zionism & Israel,

or

Deliberately steering people in the wrong direction !
(Obviously this would indicate the organisers have been bought & paid for)


I am now highly suspicious of the UK movement because its meant to be a truth based organisation
and its missing the biggest part of the truth completely out of the equation.

This movement is continuously going round and round in circles ....
I am beginning to see why.

[ian neal]

This is a discussion forum and does not represent the campaign, but anyone can post on israel and zionisn and indeed a lot has been so the basic premise that these issues are taboo is incorrect IMO

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

I asked about why it is not discussed at the meetings , not on the website

I have seen it for myself with my own eyes too many times now at events linked to this website with your secretary present at each of them

[Snowygrouch]

Z.I.T.E.,
It is often not discussed because most members and campaigners are quite happy to use real factual information to campaign with such as WTC7, ISI funding, no -interception etc.

Speaking from a personal point of view I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in "religions" or other organizations based on semi-mythical grounds.

The phrase "zionism did it" is so vague it is really completely useless.

One might as well suggest that "evil did it" or "bad men did it".

The campaign is not a talking shop (at at least it`s not SUPPOSED to be) it is designed with the express objectives that follow:

1: To wake up as many people as possible to the fact that the official story of 9.11 is nothing short of a farce.

2: To push for an international criminal tribunal (or similar) to find the real perperators.

3: To do factual research of a standard admissable to court in order to futher the last two.

Discussing Zionism (whatever that really exists as in the real world) does not contribute to any of those objectives.

Hence it is not worth discussing in many peoples estimation. Why dont you just ASK the people at the next meeting WHY they dont really talk about it much and find out what they REALLY think rather than posting derogatory remarks on the forum complaining that not enough people agree with you?

Just a suggestion.

C.

PS> If on the other hand you are in posession of new evidence that links Zionists by name to the event of 9.11 then people will welcome that informtion with open arms.

[Long Tooth]

[Craig W]

I have a modicum of sympathy with the thrust of your post, ZITE (nice acronym).

Let me say straight away that I couldn't care less what religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc people have, so long as they don't impinge on the ability of others to live the life they want to live. I don't give a toss whether someone is an anarchist, a Buddhist, a cyberman or a devil worshipper. If they do bad stuff, for whatever reasons, it is out of order:
I am prejudiced against those who do bad.

Back to the thread. While I have no reason to suspect moderators of consciously steering anyone away from these murky areas, I suspect the truth is that the fear of being associated with "anti-semitism" (boo, hiss, burn him!) leads people to be over-cautious and to do a lot of self-censoring.

I know I do it myself. I have several times wanted to post a theory or idea only to think "that won't look very good, I'd better not". That is a reflection of how strong this memetic programming against being seen as anti-semitic is. It's even worse than being a conspiracy theorist for chrissake!

A curious mental trick seems to be at play on the mind of western humanity. We are allowed to speak freely on virtually all matters and there are very few taboos. But say that a Jew (even writing the word makes me feel like I've done something wrong) did something bad or, even worse, that a group of Jews did something wrong, and the world wants us to be ashamed irrespective of the veracity of the statement.

It is a pernicious and strange force and one that I suspect is being deliberately sustained.

Does anyone else feel this or is it just me?

[Dogsmilk]

[John White]

Call me cynical, but with a member name like"ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY" in CAPS LOCKS I have a fatalisitc feeling about how this is going to go

I have no problem with critiquing Zionism, understanding this political movement and its history is a vital aspect of understanding the truth about how the world has become the place it is today: but regretably its very difficult to do so without discussions descending quickly into "ZIONISTS ARE TO BLAME FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING" conspiracy-think that quickly devolves into hate-think. And then it becomes "not on this site"

I'd suggest that a major factor into getting a "shutdown" reaction at public meetings is this dread of unleashing unreason. I certainly don't consider that fair, and consider it a direct consequence of deliberate mass manipulation of subconscious emotion across society. As truthseekers, its nessacary to accept that some truths are more difficult to pursue than others and pursue it with the best qualities that we posses. Anyone doing that who is very careful to check the sources they bring to debate should do fine here: there is certainly more than enough sources, and jewish critiques of Zionism are the most fertile of all: but anyone linking "jewhate" kind of sites should not be suprised to be highly likely to be banned

[kbo234]

[John White]

And there we go, kbo234 walks right into it:

[kbo234]

[ian neal]

Where the boundaries lie in the discussion of zionism are explained here

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=4479&highlight=zioni sm#4479

and numerous other threads

The reason why campaigners rarely (but not never) discuss the subject at public meetings I suspect is largely explained by an awareness of how sensitive this subject and an belief that zionism is a part of the picture but not the whole picture but I am guessing. The campaign has only staged 2 official events: the DRG talk last year and Willy Rodriguez's tour. All other events have been organised by independent local groups.

There is no party line on this. Individual campaigners and groups present the information and topics they see as most important. So if you feel zionism deserves wider discussion the solution is to stage your own events or team up with others who feel the same.

[John White]

[kbo234]

I'm sorry you took my comments personally John. I am aware it is a 'trap' to express certainty where there must be some element of doubt but I walk into it deliberately. Having seen so many MAJOR lies about Auschwitz proven to be untrue including the original claim that the mass extermination of 4 million Jews took place there, I think it is fair to conclude that the evidence presented by David Cole that the 'Gas Chamber' shown to tourists in Auschwitz was fraudulently constructed in 1946 proves that there is NO credible evidence that such an evil crime took place there at all. (although it was an evil place and doubtless many great crimes were committed there, the industrialised extermination of 4 million human beings, the story we were all brainwashed by, is a huge lie....and this is not now even denied by the holocaust industry itself)

What is flabbergasting about all this (and I understand and accept that this is reality), is that while the creators of the collective public mindset can LIE in the most extreme, vile and profuse manner, we are adopting the position that we must only aggressively challenge lies that we can definitely prove to be untrue. Regarding 9/11 and 7/7 we are not required to be so discerning in our presumptions. Once the big lie is established, all the rest is fair game.


I always withdraw from these discussions because I can see moderators getting upset. How effective our media have been to make us like this.

It must have been great in the days of Washington and Franklin when people had the confidence to say what they thought.

[John White]

[paul wright]

Some of us, perhaps many, have reduced our time looking at this forum simply because the known divisive issues are repeatedly presented in a deliberately challenging and divisive way often by those with apparently newly found single issue obsessionalists.
I was in Leeds on Friday, naturally being one of the organisers, and I can't say I noted any covering up of the role of zionism by Tony or Joseph. It simply wasn't much included in their presentations. It does after all require very careful and thought through handling, because of the easy misinterpretation. In fact I think the subject may well be treated with care in the Sunday event.
I'd have thought we have stepped well off-beam and into a wider perspective with the programme that's already in place. We cannot be expected to espouse everybody's pet perspective
"ZIONISM IS THE ENEMY"? - ffs

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

Thanks to everyone who has posted there views

I would like to clarify a few things here..

[John White]

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

[Dogsmilk]

And ironically enough, I feel slightly self-conscious because I always tend to end up posting on this topic from my perspective. But follow the source material for 'revisionism' and you'll more often than not find white supremacists, and I really don't like them.

One thing I don't understand is why the variances in what is said by historians is such a big issue when it's blatantly how history operates across the board. Indeed, it would be far more dodgy if there were a single, unchanging truth. Like the soap thing is generally regarded as originating from rumours that developed during the war. However, I believe there are some who believe it was produced, but in small quantities. Why it should be avoided talking about to avoid hurting feelings is beyond me - historians merrily go on about it being untrue.
The figures regarding deaths change as new sources emerge, old ones get discredited or re-interpreted or new arguments win out. That's academic history. See that as as a benchmark for deception and you'll soon be arguing the middle ages never happened.
Holocaust scholars, like in any other field, disagree with one another over many fundamentals. For example, whether the holocaust was planned from the outset or whether it was an evolution as the war progressed, or whether it was the result of something 'in' the Germans or whether it's comparable to other atrocities and something we're all capable of (I tend to go with the latter on both). As in any discipline, they disagree, sometimes vehemently. Some of the source material (particularly witnesses who get stuff wrong) has proved unreliable and that leads to changing accounts. That's not a conspiracy, it's standard academia. Otherwise, the fact that truthers can't agree on exactly what happened must mean we're all wrong.

All this stuff relies on web-based 'documentaries' and 'papers', but it seems no-one takes the time to look at the voluminous literature that shows how drastically this stuff cherry picks. As far as I'm concerned, it's kind of like the current NPT twaddle invasion (no disrespect to NPT in general here, rather the singleminded attitude of the Fredites) - try to find some 'anomaly' in one area while totally ignoring everything else - e.g. Fred totally ignores the whole of New York saw nothing to back his views, HDs ignore the fact that EVERYONE at the time agreed about the fundamentals of what went down. I'm not so bold as to say I 'know the truth', but without carefully studying the actual literature, there's really no point just believing something you saw on google video or on the IHR website. A lot of this revisionist stuff is very distorted when you dig away at it. The laugh of this is, it's always centred on Jews. Never Gypsies. Or gays etc. People even say gas chambers couldn't have worked - yet they never explain about T4 - signed into operation by Hitler with the document surviving - which pioneered gas chambers. Ernst Zundel wouldn't care, because he thinks exterminating the disabled is a dandy idea. At any rate, to say there is no evidence of gas chambers is plainly false - there are numerous texts offering numerous evidence. It may conceivably be wrong, but I don't see Raul Hilberg getting particularly stressed out about the HD crowd.

It's also worth pointing out that holocaust narratives were simply not 'manufactured' by powerful people. They are quite demonstrably the work of historians. People may use'n'abuse these histories, but those that do most certainly did not write them in the first place.

This stuff about the holocaust replacing christianity I just don't get. I never really heard anyone talk about the holocaust until visiting forums like this. I currently work with young people and, as far as I can tell, they don't care about christianity or the holocaust. I think a fair few probably have only the vaguest idea of what the holocaust was. Christianity is dying in the UK all on its own - I couldn't care less, but I appreciate it bothers some people. I'd reject it's a 'religion' - the average guy on the Clapham Omnibus likely doesn't give the matter a moments thought. Just to be clear though - I totally disagree with banning HD. I like racism and homophobia being taboo, though. They're irrational nonsense, though should probably be ridiculed rather than prosecuted.

Although the holocaust has been (sickeningly) exploited for political ends, there is no inherent link between 'believing' the holocaust and Israel. I don't like Zionism, think Israel is guilty of numerous dire crimes, yet totally believe the holocaust happened. I'm not alone in that.

Oh yeah - I thought David Cole totally retracted his claims a few years ago. but I can't remember and it's too late to go finding out.

I'll leave this subject alone, now. I can't be doing with rooting through numerous texts to debate the 'evidence'.

Just as ZITE is hinting at enormous 'Zionist plots'. Here we go again...

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

[John White]

Oh boy.

[paul wright]

Most people with some experience around these parts know this sort of info.
It's been reiterated so many times
It's not the true or the sole source
It's a complete and created mirage that some foolishly fall for

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

[John White]

[ZIONISM_IS_THE_ENEMY]

[John White]