Is Rodin a racist?

[rodin]

I never post anything I do not honestly think is on balance true. You can check any of my back catalogue and challenge me on this if you like.

Also I try to avoid ad hominem attacks.

However, I have been on a bit of an enforced vacation for, well, I guess you could say telling it like I see it.

Having been invited back in as my old self I can assure you I will continue as before.

Since much has happened. The credit crunch, further consolidation of power, especially obvious in the UK in the intervening. Still the lie of 911 is the basis for our foreign and domestic policy. And Peter Mandelbrot is now the power broker in parliament par excellence.

Needless to say I will unless silenced continue to expose the criminal cabal, as well as trying to understand their nature, scope, intentions, capabilities, hoaxes, agendas, frauds. To deny certain connectivities between the fake degraded reality shoved down our brains and mouths and ears, and a certain interconnected group, is to avoid looking at blatant evidence.

Oh - yes - evidence

Well that falls into a few categories

1) What we are told to believe - well we here of all people must know we have been fed utter BS and not for nothing - to promote an agenda. So we have to look at the BS and say - Cui Bono - and - scuse me my Latin is not up to much - who is harmed? Then we get at least an indication of who is behind this grand deception

2) Evidence that comes directly from the opposing camp unopposed that damns them is obviously very strong since they are not denying. Therefore if it is on Wikipedia, and it supports our argument versus theirs, you can be pretty sure it is true.

3) Then we have researchers on one side or another. I have no doubt there will be a tendency to be biased in favour of a stance. Nonetheless, certain writers use copious sources in their works and may be genuinely ateempting to be objective.

4) Original source documents. If these come from one camp, and cannot be discredited by the other, they have higher value. But sources, like anything else, can be faked.

5) Forensic evidence - always strong and best if you yourself can examine it. As is the case with the footage of 911 for example.

6) Hiding evidence. Wherever evidence is deliberately moved, destroyed, or in any other way examination of same is prevented, the implication is that the evidence is damning. This is the case with the WTC. It is also the case with the sites of concentration camps formerly run by the Nazis, or so it appears to be.

7) Faked evidence. There are many examples of this. If fakes can be forensically exposed, this becomes strong evidence of a false trail having been laid, and deeply discredits the status quo narrative.

Unbalanced representation. When so called 'impartial' bodies are demonstrably heavily biased either by composition or output once again we have strong indication of who is in charge.

9) When historical documents outlining plans for the future are seen to have been enacted, this suggests that the documents were not mere flights of fancy, whoever wrote them. Furthermore, a power must have been in force in the intervening time to ensure the plan was enacted. This I would argue is true for predictions made by the Freemason Albert Pike and for the scheme laid out in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

10) Personal experience. This only has maximum value to yourself. Anyone relating their personal experience to you must be checked for authenticity - perhaps they dreamed it, or are lying to you. Even one's own experience must be checked, since there is self delusion. Fortunately, after my Oiuja board experiment, the evidence from which I have been suppressing because it did not fit into my world map, was recounted by both parties to a third, who remembers the story. Therefore it was not a product of an overactive imagination.

Any forum worth its salt will approach points of view honestly and cogently expressed, but which are considered erroneous, with intelligence that corrects any misapprehension. Not with accusations as to the poster's character, which may be agenda or personal viewpoint driven.

Truth is impersonal. It does not care what you or I think. It just is.

As far as evidence types goes, I have probably missed something out, and welcome further definitions of what constitutes strong evidence, as well as intelligent rebuttals of or improvements to any of the types I have tried to define.

rodin

[TonyGosling]

Case in point Rodin.

It's amazing that you consider the protocols a historical document because the very well researched academic consensus is that it is a forgery by the Czarist secret police.

If you want to overturn this analysis you have to put forward absolutely solid evidence which you never do.

What makes this even more annoying and break our rules here is that this document was used by the Nazis to justify one of the greatest genocides in history.

As you well know.

So please be sure to give solid evidence when overturning historical facts, particularly when the overtuning you insist on brings you in to line with Adolf Hitler's policies.