It sometimes seems like a fight against windmills.
In the discussions about 9/11, only once, for example, there are some well-intentioned, hard-working people, of which but few are really well trained, an armada of professional, well-supported and paid Desinformanten - often even believing it, the real evil are the "Truther" - opposite.
And it starts already with little things, that the "Truther" advised regularly in an instant into a disadvantage.
Namely, if only by the term "Truther" itself.
This word roughly as "Wahrheiter" sounds already in English, a poorly established neologism, acts in the German unfortunately certainly put on and quite ridiculous.
I know, I know, the Göllerlifte rides again on the language around, now some say, everybody knows what is meant as a petty nitpicking.
I answer the hard that you said this kind of psychological cardinal error, especially in a so-called "information war", especially when one has, apart from their own education and intelligence, otherwise far inferior resources, as far as possible should not allow himself up.
Or correct them as quickly as soon as they are noticed.
They offer namely splendid starting points for the scorn and derision of those who "Truther" which permanently as a loose band of paranoid, half-educated, any nonsense believing "conspiracy theorists" (recently even "conspiracy fans" - a giant rubbish the other side!) Are sent to represent.
I am now a drink at the pub.
Please keep times about it, your love "Truther".
And the rest, if he has such an activity just lust, of course, be happy too.
- Advertisement -
Tags: Truther
I see it as you do. Language selection is not by chance. I give myself basically trouble this ... (just best explained with the famous "global awakening" rate, ie indirect) to give a name, because this awakening deserves no name, and I mean this in a positive, but kindly nameless and formless somehow should remain.
At the beginning of what the word ... and Truther or Verschwörungsfan as it did the traditional conspiracy theorists are ridiculous-making terms - where to nail us.
I notice it also eager discussion about Charlie Veitch, even if much nonsense is spoken, there is also a lot of thinking. The conspiracy theorists have been ennobled by mankind. By reality. In 2011, it's safe to talk about the Bilderbergers and often be surprised how many think about it.
What I want to present is deep dark but the "global awakening" is not explained away. Meanwhile I find in the mainstream media titles photos for demos with banners "Fight the NWO".
The issues that we diligently behind closed doors - and via the Internet so in the big wide world - discussed and still discuss are stops from the mainstream shortly. This global Awakening is therefore not a morbid Bilderberg joke, but a reality.
This circumstance must include one and then such naming for "us" appear really ridiculous. You can see the Bilderberg not with a little play on words wegposaunen example. No ass thinks the Kaffeekranz theory.
PS:
I am the way, personally noticed in recent months that increasingly emerged that in any case they need a part of this, we call times "movement of awakening" leader, I mean stars, people they can follow, even in thought. Whether Alex Jones, Freeman, Veitch etc. etc. they all are now being traded as stars in the "scene". There is in this movement the whole range from individualistic wayward viewfinder to let's call it conspiracy populists, the rather hapless, although it also wakes up, but role models, heroes, leaders just needed through the thicket. The benefits and dangers of this development seems to me worthy of mention. I might as global account for about 30 figureheads of the conspiracy scene and the "fascinating" are always the "blind" fans ...
@ Armin
As a matter of fact.
Good thing you aufbringst it from You: It is now maintained a dubious hero cult.
Very questionable that.
I will now first do not say anything more, because a real one for me and really just completely that have become friend died a few days ago that I first learned earlier, but my statements this should not deteriorate confused now saved.
If I have made myself what Siegfried wished determined baldestmöglich, more.
LG
Magnus Wolf Göllerlifte
Yes, the cult of the hero is an important issue. Dealing with this issue, I think a lot depends on. I'm very sorry, that's your good friend died.
@ Armin
"Truther" is not only something ridiculous, but even religious-Community itself.
We, the "Flower-Powerer".
Of course I know very well that I with such critique on the page, which I obviously total zuneige much more than, say, the Bilderbergers, not necessarily everywhere einhandele more sympathy.
Such feelings We grind on and descend into the soul; only to understand process.
I do often really not very sure who "we" is actually.
Now I will not mention any names of characters who seem to me somewhat to very dubious.
But I know what criteria I accreting it.
Perhaps the most important is to look closely what is omitted deliberately, always avoid what things of undeniable importance of people as good as possible.
That the so-called "Truther" is undermined movement, wherever it goes only, can hardly be disputed.
Therefore, it is questionable as to establish a quasi unconditional sense of community.
It's not a question of any suspects identical to each other and herumzukeulen as Blucher, but that any time a clear, objective criticism must be possible without the Kritikant (or happen to an agent) stands the same as traitor.
It is of course also get a peace among us all Joy Pancake strategy to be then taken from the opposite side loosely because each Bloödsinns collectively ridiculous can.
I think this is just not wise and therefore make it even with.
I will not be held responsible for the statements of others.
The order still to be added, often much truth, at least for thought in the world use, but in between a lot so questionable that I said can not connect me so easily.
And heroes far I only know very few in this context, and do not call it just now just right, only that one of those that makes a long-time outstanding work recently explicitly recommended a shape again, in their statements and occurrence I can put together over your head than your hands.
Trauschauwem.
Whether "Truther" or "Liar," I am dagegenfür in any case.
I once had a friend, whose name was Mitt decoding. He liked in the middle, even if it was brenzelig, but especially. To protect him a little, I took him between us and then others could already look from afar at the face, which had motives to move, however, prompted us. There are really good friends very rare where even the names work well together: Hinford Mitt Dier Obrigkaid. Do you have to make the words more?
Mitt Dier but eventually got a load of pepper spray on, he was accidentally charged, then loaded into a vehicle, and I never saw him again. They're gone, you miss the most.
@ HO
Halal Obrigkaida?
@ Magnus
"Halal Obrigkaida?"
Still open door and hinge Islamism? They sit in a glass house already.
The "a" at the end I can prune it has charged my humble self to extremist.
@ Uncle HO
Learn extremist load: You have my sympathy.
I'm Mitt II decoding.
after the truther, info warriors, truth movement belonging initially, myself included, have so vehemently against a left or right labeling because of the associated light stigmatization and deskreditierung by the enemy's propaganda, they have at the end shot a eigentor by himself all alone now have impressed and proud with a new label, namely "truther, info warriors, truth movement". Now you need not come with the old cull ala left and / or right-wing extremist, it is enough now already the insult truther or info warrior, and you're excluded from any serious discussion. I myself would actually no longer be called truther or info warrior, because it cavort in fact too many frivolous and gullible fellow man tangled up in our movement, too much idiocy is widespread. I would claim on the basis their own experience that the freak-share (and I count myself to do so) in the wahrheitsbwegung is above average. but if you want to talk about and analyze the things that it is not entirely without concepts and labels, obviously a dilemma ...
how we should therefore call? "Those who do not want to fit into one category?" but that would be yet another category. ;-)
People who are in search of the truth, but not a label that stuck wird.Immer this pigeonholing need.
The intersection, for example, connects me with others who question is, sometimes larger, sometimes tiny.
Just like the most normal thing in the world that should be actually think for themselves and each draws his own conclusions.
With the labeling scheints then again only be a certain species is then either hyped up together or dressing down together.
So why search for a new term?
@ Ricar
The old term, just as clearly described, at least not happy.
Whether one should here a new search, however, is exactly that account as you test it broke onto the table, the very question.
In this case, I tend - for now - to not put new.
Otherwise you will not keep me from any time to search for the right words and words for describing things and to find if possible.
@ Claus
No matter alswie winzpfitzig you like to shoot is an introduction to the normal usual case would advance no error.
It is an error but certainly (I personally think the above already for one) is to let the left-right crap in the sense just andudeln fortiori, that flees from him into nothingness.
I do not give a shit if someone calls me or kinks dechts.
I'm not putting my ideas according to the specifications of others, but himself.
Just get up.
@ @ Klaus and all
"So how should we call?"
How about a Nazarene?
http://www.suite101.de/content/asldkfj-aoeldfkj-aajf-adfaeloej-aaeoejf-aaesdloefj-af-a47052
John 14: 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way and the truth and the life; No one comes to the Father but by me!
It is a sign of very strong personality, if someone called itself as THE TRUTH. What then to make of this person, of whose life little is known, is a different matter. Since much has since been lied and bent, modified and written to. And it is still written to, as if you have been there.
http://www.cidnews.de/?p=2524
"Part three planned: Pope writes book about the childhood of Jesus - What for?"
What we know about THE TRUTH, comes mainly from the Bible. But who exactly reads, which can discover a lot of inconsistencies. For example:
Acts 10,39Und we are witnesses of all that he has done in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; they have hanged and killed him on a tree. 40Diesen God raised up the third day and caused him to be revealed, 41nicht all the people, but to us, the witnesses chosen before of God, we ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Who wrote the book of Acts, is not sure. It is believed, it would have been Luke, a staff member / companion of the Apostle Paul.
Above the rates reported to have said Peter, and he emphasized that the resurrected Jesus did not see all the people, but only the disciples. If Mary Magdalene was not a disciple of the Lord, she was there but that has been first at the empty grave (John 20.1).
So who's seen it all, in contrast, the Risen Lord to Paul writes in 1 Corinthians:
"3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, 4and that he was buried according to the Scriptures, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6Darnach he published more than five hundred brethren at once, most of whom are still living, but some are fallen asleep also. 7Darnach he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Zuletzt but of all he appeared to me an untimely birth I am to speak. "
So Paul says that Jesus after his resurrection had seen a lot of people more. So what is the truth?
Paul also believes that Jesus the Twelve, is first then later appeared to James, then to all the apostles first reported. Was James, or Cephas (Peter) none of the Twelve - how many apostles were the Twelve as a whole?
Paul never met Jesus during his lifetime. So, yes, Paul also says in all honesty, he only passes on to others what he himself has received "according to the Scriptures."
How do the teachers today? They also give only relays what is in the curriculum and what they have received even from books. Doctors try to cure people of illnesses, with their knowledge based on what other doctors / medical scientists tried them on before people and have written down for posterity.
What happens at the end means that all wisdom is based on writings. To continue with the example of Jesus, He probably knew the Old Testament by heart, but he himself has not fixed a set of writing. Why not? Who lives, who lives his life and looks best not only in some typefaces how he should live. So Jesus lived not more along the lines of learning by doing? And He did not try to communicate to others constantly, that they should make it that way. For in the situations where it really matters, since you can not look up long in any writings to seek advice and help, because that is just helps spontaneity. And it is in these crucial moments, most of the errors of our people are committed. About you then as a patient after most annoyed when one has responded incorrectly.
We leave every day those who think about us having power, do it, and if they did, what touches us all in a negative way and what they exert great influence on our lives, then we are angry. Then we propose might look for in writings (books, internet, "Truther" pages) to explore what we have done wrong. But until then, we have found that out, because the whole thing repeated. We do not come from the Search and fathoming out our mistakes and meanwhile the powerful always take longer ride on and then soon the whole mass of people no longer. So it goes with the government.
Jesus did not search long for answers and advice in books, he lived his life and that He thrust his opponent on the head and it actually felt duped by him often. So much so that even the Pharisees, the teachers of the Jewish people called Him Master. In Jesus, these people had really found their master.
When Jesus was then on, the first writings about him were eventually written. We tried to capture what means living life. Even today, 2000 years later, people still live strictly according to the Scriptures (Bible). Try at least. But they really live?
Jesus taught us not rather to savor every moment of our life fully and to show the utmost spontaneity to be prepared for each of zun rightful problem? Jesus was never at a loss for an answer. But when He asked questions, then others were very quickly at a loss for an answer.
We, however, let us always from the dictate our lives what others have written for us, the self but also know nothing for certain. That's why our life is more life from the dead. We miss it too often, not only to respond adequately, but especially true in really crucial moments. To learn people eg in a driving school to calculate the stopping distance of their vehicle. But when it really comes down to it once, then for a long time for such calculations there? If it has once popped, then certainly one that you have been still in the process at the crucial moment, unconsciously to calculate the stopping distance.
Jesus foretold his braking distance and impact (his crucifixion and resurrection) have long since did not even no what he was talking about. Jesus lived just really, and he said to the dead. This he does in my opinion, by the way still.
Strange that the Pope looks capable of writing a book about the youth of Jesus. But the pope must be fairly safe, easy to sell all the people at the "truth".
The "Truther" mean it to be, as well as the purchased press. And they all have their fans. But taken as a whole, we all still moves us a single millimeter from the site. We are practically still on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus. The next moment can happen to us all the same, but who among us is unlike Jesus really prepared to be able to see his fate is in the eye? Or to other people who want a leather ans to say at the crucial moment - You can contact me again!
Life is more!
Sorry, but what armor do I need to "paid Desinformanten" so to counter that it's not hurting you?
I can not even think why this article was written here, and somehow I smell hubris ...
There was a provocateur who has made fun of a contribution, more or less skillfully dodged a discussion and just waiting to score with his Jewish confession, which he always digs out the "Truther Dissblog" when it seems appropriate. Since this did not work, he lost interest - easy it was to him not determined ... And you celebrate this event now so and visibility of these people in the vicinity of paid Desinformanten ... The be pleased that the life of such title pretensions, for earning the truth they probably do not weary euro and its main drive is to provoke and to ask naive questions to entice any naive people to a yard long posts to which they respond with pleasure _not_ then. In that respect I may have gone a bit the little man on the glue, but certainly not in the way he would have liked.
It may be that there are other examples were with unglücklicherem output, but here grad urges the time to ... Leaking Barrel or what?
Because the other was not in the mood, I can even check your professionalism when the permit is under religious fanatics ...;)
For a statement of the provocateur I would like to be treated once by a professional: "The discussion about the sense and nonsense of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a completely different question. Basically, it is once again under the complex Twoofer-approach, which to throw everything into a pot. "
Is it a completely different question? And what is under complex from seeing these events related?
@ Heinz234
If you preferably with religious fanatics maintain traffic, you are lost here is clearly and welcome to your home to unloved Jews.
Time to go looking for something real hubris?
Whether you who poured it here to my knowledge nowhere existing "Twoofer" quote in the tea, I do not know.
I do not care.
I will reply you in any case only in the event that your speech coherent and comprehensible whole arrives.
I forgot the quotes around the phrase, sorry.
No, I'm not religious, and my religion is my interlocutors matter as long as they do not want me to convert. I care for the individual to consider - and not the drawers or categories in which you would love to put ...
The quote comes from a comment on the blog post with the "true stories", which was probably your contribution basis and is not of me.
I repeat the question herewith.
@ Heinz234
My post first appeared.
Unique.
If what content probable, but all legitimate (well, you could refer to my article), you kupferte only appeared a little off to me.
Refine your question.
Unmistakably, and best in a sentence.
http://therealstories.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/aufruf-von-oliver-janich-zur-911-demonstration-in-karlsruhe <– was added on July 3 and most of the comments written before and on 6 July. The contribution here is July 6 <- so I assumed that it refers to the "discussion" there.
And since you have shown there as very competent, I would like to know what to say on the above quote as well-armed 9 / 11- skeptics - and as ever should take a well-armed 9 / 11- skeptics into battle ... That you yourself should not be called Truther is clear that I agree with the post here to complete.
Very good has discussed the facts Christoph Hoerstel in a circular e-mail, and I quote: "Our" scene "is fragmented, there is a good part of people who occasionally confuse what is happening on the Internet with real life. Others think they would do themselves a favor and when they call another and another as "Truther" or as part of a "truth movement". The term is sometimes perceived by outsiders as arrogant, I feel it is also as dangerous: The vast majority of people try to honest information, I think; the truth known only to God. So I prefer to talk about "information movement", because who does the truth lay claim, is in danger of violating civil liberties. "
@ Heinz234
No, the article was referring to no other post, but I just jumped once again the stupid word "Truther" eye.
The fact that a Christoph Hoerstel as previously dranwar, I did not.
What do you mean by "the above quote," I do not know already.
But I can respond to you as to how to proceed than 9/11 skeptics in my opinion ("do battle" - you may have meant it figuratively ...) should.
It will be loose, contained only on assumptions established claims as far as possible.
It will offer no surface by NWO general drivel.
You will comply with the irrefutable physical facts.
You will not be enticed by agents provocateurs.
It is steadily and calmly point out the manifold inconsistencies in the official version.
There are two or three or even more "tricks" that I mentioned leave now because they brighten by reading my forward explicitly relating as well as other texts.
I, it was granted me, wants to have read thoroughly and often.
And here on my side.
Not where they have been completely stolen again.
Yeah, that one can probably let them stand. And let's see what I can take through self-study of the blog yet so ...;)
I meant a quote from another blog: "The discussion about the sense and nonsense of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a completely different question. Basically, it is once again under complex "censored" approach, which to throw everything into a pot. "
Personally, I see it as either as a completely different question, nor do I want me therefore be accused of "under complex approach". What comes to mind?
@ Heinz234
Those who believe the official 9/11 version, likes to say something.
But then why he says in such a context, anything at all?
You had to Afghanistan besatzen and invaded Iraq because almost only louder Saudis were in those airplanes, but is logical Waswas?
Usually it is a troll, an idiot, a jammer, a Purchased regardless.
When he talks often (but difficult to identify because of all the nicks, etc.), one finds that, if you will, almost certainly out.
But it is not really worth the trouble.
Nonsense is nonsense rausgeschwätzt rausgeschwätzt, and ready.
These wars were justified by 9/11.
So they have to do with it.
For this logical conclusion one must not even be able to count up a blind eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVZRgKZefCk
@ Dude
I've just watched the video of Jasinna Linked from you. (Saw earlier one ever.)
The end to this pseudo-Hitler followed Embracing somewhere in America has me a bit confused here. Even more to the portrait that spreads the lady in the network itself. Lip piercing, coupled with what is commonly called a diabolical look. I do not know what this is; it is probably the Guy Fawkes tour. Whoever presents itself well. It is after all still young.
Magnus
I know your view on Jasinna well. However, I would not compare their performance with Guy Fawkes. You know, it does not tick all decent, honorable and likeable individuals like you (would imagine). ;-)
And as Charlie Chaplin. It's not about the character, but the content imparted in the speech message which I write 99%!
In addition, you must remember that they only relatively shortly before ever began with the video arts and crafts, and has begun since 2008, ever look behind the scene, so you're alone with respect. Latter nen decisive advantage, while bearing in mind the former their video quality are phenomenal. :-)
[...] Just is noticed by readers Dude zu https://unzensiert.zeitgeist-online.de/2011/07/06/truther-mit-dem-begriff-lauft-es-nicht/comment-page… a link hired a "Trutherlink" [...]
@ Dude
You see, I have just again made the case for a cause.
I am annoyed precisely so because I do what Jasinna, just to younger people thinking largely looks like.
It is now times highly irritös (and I just do not mean in a good way) when you hear this sympathetic voice that fraternization scenes at the end looks, then to a clear portrait on black trimmed get it.
Why not a happy, smiling face? She's pretty! It would indeed be quiet a bit punk or hippy or something undone. Why not?
I would not spontaneously embrace with the looks, they ask possibly why I, as it presents itself with full intention now was. Hopefully I got it from participating followers not constitute an offer to be able to collect me a few punches.
If someone does not like my face, so the reasons that except perhaps by a lit night (sometimes a boozy, OK) to moor at those scars that I have now times. Has
Here someone wants resolved, dangerous, ruthless act, terrible. This may, as I said, be due to the immaturity of youth, perhaps even the presumably such better rising marketing concept of the young lady, looks for me but klariter so deliberately stupid she is not, and therefore I criticize it as not effective.
"Fraternization scenes looks at the end, then to a crystal clear on black trimmed likeness gets it."
How do you know because they just did for a very reasonable and understandable reason to you (and I) are simply not arrived yet? How dare you currently mE sometimes just a little too far into the baseless room addition. I do not have to remind you where already happened ... the appropriate article incidentally already includes 16 A4 pages and is still a lot longer ....
“Warum kein fröhliches, lächelndes Gesicht? Sie ist doch hübsch!”
Das kannst Du gar nicht wissen! Oder seh ich etwa aus wie Jeff Bridges? ;-)
Ich schlage also vor, Du fragst sie einfach mal. Notfalls per Youtube-Kommentar mit Hinweis auf Deine epost-adresse, die ja eh öffentlich ist.
Ich würde ihr jedenfalls keinerlei boshafte Absicht unterstellen wollen.
Ps. Deine “Weltall-Artikel” erachte ich im übrigen wenn, dann eher noch als wesentlich weniger zielführend als Jasinnas Werke.
@ Dude
Na denn.