Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
ps: What does Zook think about Zook, third person singular withstanding? I'd love to share it with y'all, good folks, but I fear another charge of narcissism would be hurled in my direction if I did.

Et voila!

Take it away, UncleZook!

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:46 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
Well, there's nothing in this thread for over four years. I guess we are past due to fill in the blanks, since the subject is UncleZook compared to Chico.

UncleZook wrote:
I have a thicker skin than you which is why I am able to counter your arguments with facts and logical consistency...

Chico has thin skin, while Zook has thick skin, ergo Zook's logic triumphs. Pretty convincing argument.

UncleZook wrote:
Unfortunately, your lack of a thick skin has previously triggered you into mocking your debate opponents with spurious charges of sociopathy ... consequently, you pre-empt the possibility of learning from your opponent's arguments because of your fragile skin.

There's no possibility of learning from Zook's arguments if "spurious charges of sociopathy" should enter into the equation. Hmm, interesting concept.

UncleZook wrote:
Chico, you perceived messenger-bashing from me in my opening post because you chose to.

Hmm, I've heard that before, but where? Oh yeah — Neo: "Choice, the problem is choice."

UncleZook wrote:
Your own estimates of sociopathy is about 2% of the population.

Yes, 2% of the general population. If you consider only the population of prolific posters on truth-seeking forums, the percentage is much higher, probably over 50%. It's similar to the situation in politics, where at the highest levels of government (occupied by prolific politicians), sociopaths probably constitute more than 90% of that specific population.

UncleZook wrote:
... addressing the many points of disagreement between your narrative of Hitler and my narrative ... you quickly dismissed my narrative as being "too certain" and "too simplistic" never mind that it has been factually argued at length in the archives here at United People.

That's an observation and critique, not a dismissal. It's too bad you didn't follow the reasoning behind my observation of your tendency to dictate "fact" rather than investigate "fact". It is critical to understanding your behavior and psychology.

UncleZook wrote:
I once started a thread here akin to "Captain Hitler abandoning the Good Ship Germany (like any cowardly captain featured in the annals of naval history)". Chico didn't appreciate that thread. The good folks would be edified in reading that thread.

Here is that thread. I hope people will read it.

UncleZook wrote:
...I started drilling massive holes in Chico's Hitler hypothesis and I guess my presence here as a critical thinker was impeding Chico's promotion of a faulty hypothesis.

Hmm, you certainly are the master of spin, Zook.


UncleZook wrote:
It's kinda funny. Chico's self-proclaimed motto has been: study everything, dismiss nothing.

It's funny how you spin even my motto! It's "question everything, dismiss nothing". Strange how you get that wrong, despite the frequency with which I refer to it.

UncleZook wrote:
So you see, good folks ... Chico is already threatened by my presence again here at United People.

If I were threatened by your presence here at United People, I wouldn't keep leaving the door open for you. I have a faint hope that a sociopath of your caliber can self-reform if given the proper guidance, kind of like the Dutch banker here, who was not really a sociopath, but acted so much like one that you couldn't tell the difference. Of course, he didn't exactly self-reform, but was startled into facing his own childhood abuse and suppressed feelings of empathy when asked to participate in a child sacrifice ceremony. So while your case is different, I often wonder if you too are not really a sociopath (another example of my questioning everything) but are simply stuck in a psychological rut.

UncleZook wrote:
I mean, no one that forcefully disagrees with him is around anymore. Almost like Avalon. Only the kool-aid drinkers are kept around.

Your presence here totally destroys your own argument, Zook. It's amazing that you can't even see this obvious hypocrisy. Well, it would be amazing if you had a normal psychological constitution. But you don't, so rather than being amazing, it is simply more confirmation of your actual psychological constitution. This is why my faint hope for you continues to fade, much to my disappointment.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:13 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
The preponderance of evidence indicts Hitler as a puppet of the Khazarian/Jewish banksters.

It is statements like this that prove you are not a genuine truthseeker, Zook.

Most of what we have been taught about Hitler is a lie. Most of what has been written about Hitler is a lie. So tell me, Zook, how did you determine what constituted valid evidence and what did not? Much of the evidence found in both the mainstream and alternative media is bogus! History books are filled with propaganda, and the Internet reflects this brainwashing! Hollywood is nothing but Jewish theater, especially when it comes to Nazi Germany!

I have seen you do your "research" and present your "evidence", and it is clear to me that you believe whatever supports your predetermined conclusion, and you quickly dismiss the rest. You did this with the story of the suicide of Hitler's niece that we discussed at Inphinet. You have also done this with your "preponderance of evidence" for Hitler being a puppet of the Jewish banksters here at UP and also at Inphinet. You think you hold a preponderance of evidence, yet most of that evidence is not only faulty, but false.

You have been caught several times doing the most cursory and sloppy research on a variety of subjects. You are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in winning an argument, thinking a victory will win you respect. Like any sociopath, this is what really matters to you — your position in the hierarchy.

I personally don't give a care about earning respect (yours or anyone else's) or advancing in the sociopathic hierarchy. My focus really is truth. That is why I have been researching Hitler non-stop for years now. Can you say the same? You can see my work in the thread Hitler -- what is the truth?, which is dense with evidence that I have uncovered in the year and a half that you have been absent. Your last post in that thread is here, on page 3, while my posts continue on for another 33 pages. Where is your work on the subject of Hitler during the last 17 months? What, you have none?! All you are doing here is expressing a self-proclaimed "discerning" opinion, which never changes?! Shame on you, Zook. You really are a fraud.

You are not only a fraud, but a tiresome fraud. I don't really want to hear any more of your oh so certain proclamations and dictates of "real" history that are typically unsupported or, when supported, are propped up by faulty or false information. But I know you can't help yourself and will do nothing but that, i.e. proclaim and dictate. You can present BS far faster than I can clean it up, and so this will be your strategy. It's been your pattern all along, and clearly, you are not about to change now.

By the way, check out this post for an example of how you present fraudulent and false information all while believing with unwavering certainty and superiority that you are slapping me silly with the truth. It is a marvel to observe your arrogant errors, and they should be serious lessons for you to learn, but we both know they won't be. Your psychology doesn't allow it.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:01 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
Zook has left the building! This time, he suspended himself! :shock:

He really did get a severe paddling this time, and evidently had no defense that could appear credible. So he went silent.

I approve your silence, Zook. I am sorry it is necessary to be so hard on you, but it is necessary. Con-artists should be exposed and punished.

I only wish I could do the same to Bill Ryan...



Image
"Trust me, I'm a genuine truthseeker."

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
Zook has left the building! This time, he suspended himself! :shock:


Nope ... you got things wrong again, Chico. I had gotten very busy with life to be bothered with internet forums, in particular the game-playing that is prevalent on them, not least here at United People, and not least with an accomplished innuendo artist as yourself.

You can appreciate someone at my age (55) trying to filter out as much noise as I can from my environment so whatever signals that are out there can be heard. Internet forums, FWIW, have largely devolved into noise chambers. Honesty is at a premium on virtually all the forums out there. And I'm tired of paying the premiums. Fortunately, I don't have to pay any premiums in my daily life.

As expected, you've erected a false premise as pertains to my absence ... and you will defend that premise against the intrusion of reality if I don't nip it in the bud. Then again, you've called me a sociopath using spurious criteria on more than a few occasions, so it won't surprise me to see you defend an invented reality to the bitter end yet again.

You have acquaintance with factual reality, but never a real friendship. I'll leave it at that.

Quote:
He really did get a severe paddling this time, and evidently had no defense that could appear credible. So he went silent.
I approve your silence, Zook. I am sorry it is necessary to be so hard on you, but it is necessary. Con-artists should be exposed and punished.


A con artist is indeed being exposed, Chico. Then again, I'm not sure that you're a con artist as much as a deluded social misfit who doesn't know how to interact with fellow human beings with normal human energy. Another reason I don't frequent this forum anymore is that I recognize your feeble grasp of reality and character flaws. My empathy for your condition then keeps me away for long periods at a time, in the ever-springing hope that by the time I return, you will have healed somewhat from whatever afflicts you.

I no longer think you are a simple case of a gatekeeper plying his trade. I think you're observable gatekeeping is a side effect of your need to defend your invented realities ... such as the invented reality of Hitler. Mind you, unintentional gatekeeping is still injurious to the truths, so don't expect any more empathy from me than what I have already shown you. My extensions of empathy are informed by my vigilance for the truths, and the latter almost always supersede the former.

Quote:
I only wish I could do the same to Bill Ryan...

Image
"Trust me, I'm a genuine truthseeker."


Yes, another one of your games: juxtaposition.

You need to bring my name in proximity to a demonstrable sociopath like Bill Ryan, because you can't establish evidence of sociopathy in my actual nature (your unfounded opinions notwithstanding). I say "you need", because if you don't or can't damage my character and/or integrity, then I will expose the flimsy foundations of your invented realities.

It's all self-contained, really. I present a threat to this forum because I'm not afraid to study the hard truths or speak about them in an unbridled manner ... whereas this forum was founded in the paradigm of the shepherd, the sheep, and the shepherd's staff. You are the quintessential shepherd, Chico.

Alas, black sheep do not fear the paradigm, indeed they threaten both it and the insecurities of the shepherd. Being a black sheep myself, you are threatened by my presence. So something has to give.

Again, I gave you yet another opportunity to discuss the narratives of Hitler and/or the narratives of Q-Anon ... but you once again have diverted things into a cul-de-sac discussion of the messenger. The proof is in the pudding, you took a quotation out of the Q-Anon thread, where it had relevance ... and pasted it here in a thread created to mock and otherwise disparage a messenger, namely, yours truly.

Par for the course, really. And more proof of your gate-keeping. At this point it doesn't matter whether you are offering byproduct gatekeeping or designed gatekeeping. The injury to the truths is the same in both cases.



Pax

ps: I will address your prior post about the Hitler narrative (however misplaced it may be in this messenger-attack thread) later tonite. Just parsing through it now. http://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21637#p21637 All I can see is just more braying about "Zook being a fraud" and what not.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:05 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
You can appreciate someone at my age (55) trying to filter out as much noise as I can from my environment so whatever signals that are out there can be heard. Internet forums, FWIW, have largely devolved into noise chambers.

I can appreciate that.

UncleZook wrote:
Honesty is at a premium on virtually all the forums out there.

It's not honesty that is rare. Lots of people are being as honest as they can (sociopaths excepted), but they simply don't have a good understanding of reality. And how could they, when we live in a world of deception run by sociopaths. For example, knowing you and your shallow research habits, I am sure you believe you are being honest with your "facts" about Hitler. After all, you believed Hermann Rauschning quoting Hitler as saying "Conscience is a Jewish invention". You accepted it as reality without question, because it fit your beliefs concerning Hitler, and it was a good weapon to fling in Chico's face. But you were wrong to believe it, and wrong to build your case against Hitler using it. And this is a common occurrence with you, unfortunately. Your truth-seeking is irresponsible, to say the least.

UncleZook wrote:
... so it won't surprise me to see you defend an invented reality to the bitter end yet again.

No way, Jose. Zook did not leave the building or suspend himself. I was wrong about that. It was wishful thinking on my part. I stand corrected.

UncleZook wrote:
Another reason I don't frequent this forum anymore is that I recognize your feeble grasp of reality and character flaws. My empathy for your condition then keeps me away for long periods at a time, in the ever-springing hope that by the time I return, you will have healed somewhat from whatever afflicts you.

:lol: You made me laugh with that one, Zook, despite the fact that it is the same old tactic you have long used, which consists of copying my original arguments and re-purposing them (inappropriately) against me. Same old, Zook. You never change.

UncleZook wrote:
I no longer think you are a simple case of a gatekeeper plying his trade. I think you're observable gatekeeping is a side effect of your need to defend your invented realities ... such as the invented reality of Hitler. Mind you, unintentional gatekeeping is still injurious to the truths, so don't expect any more empathy from me than what I have already shown you. My extensions of empathy are informed by my vigilance for the truths, and the latter almost always supersede the former.

It doesn't matter what you think of me, because none of this is about me. It's about uncovering the truth. If it's you that uncovers the truth, that works just fine for me. Unfortunately, you are more of an obstacle than an asset when it comes to uncovering truth.

UncleZook wrote:
Yes, another one of your games: juxtaposition.

It's not juxtaposition, it's birds of a feather. But I understand why you need to present it as juxtaposition.

UncleZook wrote:
You need to bring my name in proximity to a demonstrable sociopath like Bill Ryan, because you can't establish evidence of sociopathy in my actual nature (your unfounded opinions notwithstanding). I say "you need", because if you don't or can't damage my character and/or integrity, then I will expose the flimsy foundations of your invented realities.

You are already quite accomplished at establishing the evidence of your sociopathy, Zook. Sociopaths expose themselves. I simply document it.

UncleZook wrote:
It's all self-contained, really. I present a threat to this forum because I'm not afraid to study the hard truths or speak about them in an unbridled manner ... whereas this forum was founded in the paradigm of the shepherd, the sheep, and the shepherd's staff. You are the quintessential shepherd, Chico.

Don't be ridiculous, Zook. You are a threat not for exposing truth, but for putting falsehoods on a pedestal labeled "truth". Then you call anyone challenging your false god a gatekeeper.

UncleZook wrote:
Again, I gave you yet another opportunity to discuss the narratives of Hitler and/or the narratives of Q-Anon ... but you once again have diverted things into a cul-de-sac discussion of the messenger. The proof is in the pudding, you took a quotation out of the Q-Anon thread, where it had relevance ... and pasted it here in a thread created to mock and otherwise disparage a messenger, namely, yours truly.

No, the quotes have more relevance here than they do in the other threads. You are all about strutting around claiming you are the genuine truth-seeker with bona-fide facts while Chico is a misguided gatekeeper. Yet when you come up with supporting evidence, it turns out to be spun, twisted, distorted, fabricated, pulled out of context, or often just plain false.

UncleZook wrote:
ps: I will address your prior post about the Hitler narrative (however misplaced it may be in this messenger-attack thread) later tonite.

That would be a change. Try extra hard not to present bogus information as "genuine truth-seeking" for once, OK? I know, I know... wishful thinking on my part again...

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:08 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
The preponderance of evidence indicts Hitler as a puppet of the Khazarian/Jewish banksters.

It is statements like this that prove you are not a genuine truthseeker, Zook.


Let's look at this logically. If a preponderance exists, then it must either be acknowledged, denied, or left in uncertainty. Any one of those three options is available to the genuine truthseeker. I chose to acknowledge it. So how does that not make me a genuine truthseeker? Do explain. Assertions and opinions are worthless.

If we needed any more proof than making a study of the archives here, we can see right away that you've focused your energy on the messenger in contempt of the message (e.g. the preponderance). You had three options with the preponderance, Chico, yet you chose to ignore all three in lieu of an attack on the messenger. And though you attempt to paint me as not being a genuine truthseeker, you've unwittingly, painted yourself.

Quote:
Most of what we have been taught about Hitler is a lie. Most of what has been written about Hitler is a lie.


No disagreement there. That said, I've been even more forthcoming about the lies taught about Hitler than you have. For I don't stop at just those lies ... I also investigate the available truths about the rise and fall of Hitler.
By contrast, you extrapolate from the lies taught about Hitler and then proceed to go in the opposite direction. In doing so, you don't stop to study the facts available while you are traveling in this opposite direction. You are engaged in binary, oversimplified thinking ... the very stuff you frequently accuse me of.

As evidenced in your narrative and logic, because the mainstream historians tell many many lies about Hitler, then Hitler himself represents the truths. And that is a logical absurdity. Looking at your narrative, it has never occurred to you that both the historians and Hitler himself are selling lies; nor has it occurred to you that both the historians and Hitler are selling mutually antagonistic lies (e.g. to divide the populations of the world into pro-Hitler and anti-Hitler camps); neither has it occurred to you that this is the quintessential strategy of empires to divide peoples into camps and then conquer both camps.

Yet the preponderance of evidence that I present shows exactly that. The Rothschild bankster empire had created Hitler's rise in Germany in continuation of their longterm plan of displacing the existing monarchies of Europe (they had already gotten rid of Czarist Russia prior to HItler's rise, and the major remaining monarchial influence left in Europe was in post-Kaiser Germany, the last Kaiser having officially abdicated in 1918, no doubt after seeing what happened to the Czar and his family in the Russian revolution). But mere abdication was not enough for the Rothschild banksters, they sought the total evisceration of Germany from which they planned to build their own infrastructure from the ground up.

Hitler was a strongman on a string, totally controlled by the tribal bankster conspiracy. I've provided links on this forum and others exposing those links. I won't rehash those links just now, but here's a link that summarizes effectively: https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/hitle ... l-reserve/

beginExcerpt
The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the Central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out a target to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany to control political processes in Central Europe. To implement this strategy it is possible to allocate the following stages:

1st: from 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;

2nd: from 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for national socialism;

3rd: from 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;

4th: from 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.

In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations. After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.

To solve this problem, debtor countries tried to impose a huge amount of extremely difficult conditions for the payment of reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured Marks. The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, which amounted to 578 (512%), when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.

The Anglo-American ruling circles, in order to take the initiative in their own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out: “It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”

The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference. Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”, and then JP Morgan recommended that H. Schacht, M. Norman, and the last of the Weimar rulers. In December, 1923, H. Schacht would become Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial circles.
end


... and further down ...

beginExcerpt
The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.

[...]

As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks. It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attache of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances Hitler was first introduced to Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl (Putzie), a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, rendered him significant financial support, and secured him the acquaintance and communication with senior British figures.

Hitler was prepared in politics, however, while Germany reigned in prosperity, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the crisis.
end


I would read the whole article, Chico. Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not. Go to your own sources and uproot the facts. If you can't, then that means you have no basis for your Hitler narrative, because your narrative is tied to the independent rise of an avenging angel, and does not resonate with a strongman puppet on a string.

I will dissect the remainder of your post later today. But the facts about Hitler's rise need to be discussed first. I think it will save a lot of time, for once the rise of Hitler is understood, the rest falls in place. And there won't be room for mischief (or misunderstanding) ... on your side or mine.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:48 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
I would read the whole article, Chico. Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not.

This is the problem of your "research" in a nutshell, Zook. "Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not." This is both binary thinking and oversimplification, and it is why you are so wrong about so much.

It is statements like this that prove you are not a genuine truthseeker, Zook.

Statements like "Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not." How you can believe such absurdity is beyond me, but it is crystal clear to me from your arguments that you do accept what you read as either 100% true or 100% false. Obviously, when building on such a premise, your conclusions will be untrue. And they are.

UncleZook wrote:
"It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attache of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

My poor Zook, you are so far behind on the subject of Hitler that you shouldn't even be opening your mouth. Not only did I read Truman Smith's book carefully and with great attention, but I posted about it numerous times in the Hitler thread (one example here). Did you even read and digest any of those posts? If you are true to form, you have not, and your ignorance is blinding.

UncleZook wrote:
But the facts about Hitler's rise need to be discussed first. I think it will save a lot of time, for once the rise of Hitler is understood, the rest falls in place.

You have no real understanding of Hitler's "rise" due to the way you research — "Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not." Hitler's "rise" was a long, hard struggle (15 years) of dedicated work and stubborn determination anchored in noble, unselfish values. It was not a financial elevator to the top generously funded by Rothschild bankers ( 1 2 ). You are so faulty with your analysis that you can only spew falsehoods when you post about Hitler (and almost everything else)!

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:49 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
I would read the whole article, Chico. Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not.

This is the problem of your "research" in a nutshell, Zook. "Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not." This is both binary thinking and oversimplification, and it is why you are so wrong about so much.


Investigation is by nature stepwise with each step evaluated in binary fashion. Humans are not parallel processors. We process information serially, in sequence. I gave you some material so that you could comment on the factual nature of that material. Instead of focusing on the material and addressing the veracity of the content, you've decided to attack my research methods and paint the research as binary and oversimplified. That has been your modus operandi every since this forum began, to label people you disagree with sociopaths ... and to avoid facts that perturb your narrative(s) by walking away from them with tactics centered about the messenger.

Again, what part of the article referenced above do you believe is incorrect? I presented them as facts. I took that burden on. Now, if you have evidence to the contrary, then you have three options: (1) uproot those facts; (2) accept them; or (3) maintain an agnosticism about them. But as you've done many times in the past, on many issues, you chose the nonexisting option (4) attack either the messenger or their research methods.

For someone who claims to question everything and dismiss nothing, you sure dismiss quite a lot. Indeed, you've dismissed the entire article that I present above without even a hint of study.

Quote:
It is statements like this that prove you are not a genuine truthseeker, Zook.

Statements like "Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not." How you can believe such absurdity is beyond me, but it is crystal clear to me from your arguments that you do accept what you read as either 100% true or 100% false. Obviously, when building on such a premise, your conclusions will be untrue. And they are.


You're distorting things again. I present my research here for discussion, as I always have. I offer no final conclusions; just intermediate conclusions which are always subject to change if and more data points are found. Being on the outside of a dirty window looking in, I only present probability clouds of what might be on teh other side of the dirty window for analysis, never hard conclusions.

My research methods as such are quite rational ... and very productive in identifying the truths. By contrast, you dismiss facts that go against your fixed narrative(s) without even analyzing the probability cloud pointing to their potential veracity. I asked you to read the entire article precisely so you can study it and look for misinformation or possible errant data points in it, yourself. I didn't make that request so that you could dismiss the entire article and avoid consequences to your own narrative about Hitler, as well as waste both your time and mine.

I expect those who have an opposite narrative to mine to abuse the facts that I present, not to dismiss them. My research as a rule, yields probability clouds that are hard to abuse, and even harder to dismiss. And when someone dismisses my research, I only understand one thing, namely, that that someone could not find evidence to abuse my research so they have sought profit in dismissing it.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
"It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attache of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.

My poor Zook, you are so far behind on the subject of Hitler that you shouldn't even be opening your mouth. Not only did I read Truman Smith's book carefully and with great attention, but I posted about it numerous times in the Hitler thread (one example here). Did you even read and digest any of those posts? If you are true to form, you have not, and your ignorance is blinding.


I've not been reading your Hitler's threads all that closely in the past year and a half. Your contributions on the Hitler topic have been a mix of three-quarter truths, half-truths, one-quarter truths and what not ... you might have even contributed a handful of full truths in the Hitler threads here and there (and zero truths as well). Overall, there are enough nontruths in your narrative of Hitler, that I find your research to be lacking and wanting.

I've also observed that in lieu of rational analysis, you have taken the Hitler discussion into visual media ... imagery can and does stir emotions. How many corpses have you shown on the various Hitler threads in support of your narrative? Are you here to sensationalize your narrative? Or to establish it with facts? In any event, I have recognized the lack of factual analysis in your narrative, so I'm not really surprised that you continue to load the Hitler threads with emotional content.

The data points that inform the rise of Hitler are much more relevant to a factual accounting of Hitler, then say, the corpse of a Nazi party member processed at Nuremberg and executed. The latter no more proves that Nuremberg was a sham, which it was, than proves Hitler was a genuine independent leader of the German people, which he wasn't. So why present the corpse unless you are seeking mob energy to overwhelm the Hitler topic?

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
But the facts about Hitler's rise need to be discussed first. I think it will save a lot of time, for once the rise of Hitler is understood, the rest falls in place.

You have no real understanding of Hitler's "rise" due to the way you research — "Either what is presented is factual ... or it is not." Hitler's "rise" was a long, hard struggle (15 years) of dedicated work and stubborn determination anchored in noble, unselfish values. It was not a financial elevator to the top generously funded by Rothschild bankers ( 1 2 ). You are so faulty with your analysis that you can only spew falsehoods when you post about Hitler (and almost everything else)!


Your opinion is underwhelmed by the data points that do indeed show that Hitler was funded by the banksters; then installed by the banksters to create chaos in Europe; then after the chaos and before the new order of its time (the United Nations subterfuge order), evacuated from the ruins of Germany to a pre-planned safe haven in latin America.

Deal with the evidence, squarely and fairly, Chico, and you'll be set aghast by your own past two plus years of Hitler cheerleading. Hitler was no more independent than any of the current puppets on a string all over the globe (e.g. Trump, Putin, Modi, XinPing, Merckel, May, Macron, etc). The banksters octopus had swallowed the world a few decades ago.

The facts and probability clouds support no other narrative.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:01 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9933
Reply with quote
Post Re: Genuine Truthseekers: UncleZook
UncleZook wrote:
For someone who claims to question everything and dismiss nothing, you sure dismiss quite a lot. Indeed, you've dismissed the entire article that I present above without even a hint of study.

I know you think you are being clever, Zook, but you are simply accusing your opponent of your own malfeasance. Sociopaths do this, as you well know. They also display a great deal of devious intent and malicious manipulation, as you are displaying in your post.

You admit that you haven't examined the evidence in the Hitler thread that has accumulated in the 17 months you have been absent. Then you dismiss that evidence based on my use of "visual media", such as corpses. The corpses are a substantial part of the evidence, my friend! Those very corpses that were used to convince me as a teenager of the veracity of the Holocaust (skeleton-like bodies being bulldozed into a mass grave) also convinced me as an older man that these poor souls were not victims of Zyklon B gassing, thus revealing the lie! And it is not me that introduced corpses into the narrative! That was done by the ruling sociopaths to play on our sympathies as well as traumatize us with "shock and awe". As such, the corpses are essential evidence of the false narrative that is deceitfully sold as the Jewish Holocaust™!

You, my deceitful friend, are employing the same trick the initial perpetrators of the Holocaust Lie used. Your intent is to play upon the sympathies of the readers by pretending to protect them from the "shock and awe" ugliness of "visual media" that you accuse Chico of using in the Hitler thread. Again, I have to remind you that it is not me that introduced graphic images of corpses into the narrative. It was, in fact, an essential part of mind-controlling us to accept the veracity of the narrative.

UncleZook wrote:
You're distorting things again. I present my research here for discussion, as I always have. I offer no final conclusions; just intermediate conclusions which are always subject to change if and more data points are found.

You are a slick Willie, Zook! Bill and Hillary Clinton would approve. In fact, what you claim in the quote is what I have done with the Hitler thread, which you refuse to consider and dismiss with the most malicious of intent. Your strategy is to introduce mainstream disinformation and get me to waste my time negating it, which I have already done in hundreds of posts which you have never read.

UncleZook wrote:
My research methods as such are quite rational ... and very productive in identifying the truths.

And then you have the audacity to boast about your superior research methods, when I have shown you quite explicitly what a crock they are! For example, where is your "mea culpa" for your huge error that I exposed in this post. You ignored it. That post reveals a typical example of your faulty research and your complete failure at identifying truths (exactly the opposite of your arrogant claims).

You really are a nasty sociopath, Zook. If I focus on the messenger in your case, it is because the psychology of the messenger corrupts every message he delivers. Thus there is little to be learned from the message, and much to be learned from the messenger's tell-tale behavior. Keep in mind that my primary interest is studying sociopathy and the behaviors of sociopaths. It is precisely what led me to study Hitler, claimed to be among the world's greatest sociopaths. Imagine my surprise when all the genuine evidence (not so easy to distinguish or find) clearly demonstrated the contrary, that Hitler was no sociopath!

But I'm sorry, Zook, I cannot say the same for you, as much as you would like me to.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:58 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.