View Full Version : question: what's up with people who say 911truth.org is a gatekeeper site?

05-16-2006, 10:15 AM
I just don't see it

05-16-2006, 10:16 AM
Ignore them.

05-16-2006, 10:20 AM

05-16-2006, 10:46 AM
um -whats a gatekeeper site?

05-16-2006, 10:50 AM
um -whats a gatekeeper site?it means someone who doesn't tell you the whole truth, or at least diverts you from the truth.

for example the whole Democrat versus Republican paradigm, or WWE.

05-16-2006, 10:53 AM
um -whats a gatekeeper site?

A word referred to as news organizations, or people who don't tell ya the whole truth. Amy Goodman has been accused of this, and even some 9/11 sites have been accused of this. Like 911Truth.org.

I was on the Steering Committee for 911Truth.org, and I can tell you beyond the shadow of doubt, that if those people aren't just regular every day American citizens trying to make a difference in the world, then neither am I.

Those within the 9/11 Truth Movement who have sites, and don't post everyone's theories, are eventually labeled as a "Gatekeeper Site".

Could it be because of some of those theories make people think of us as lunatics? Mmmmmmmcould be.

05-16-2006, 10:55 AM
i think the fatman Moore is a good example.

dude wants to chock everything up to 'incompetence'

05-16-2006, 10:58 AM
Yeah... Moore is a "gatekeeper". However, if you watch his movie, and take out Andy Card whispering, "America Is Under Attack" in the President's ear, and replace it with Andy Card whispering, "Everything Is Going According To Plan" in the President's ear, Moore's movie becomes an entirely different animal. ;)

05-16-2006, 10:59 AM
thanks -you guys are quick

05-16-2006, 11:01 AM
i really felt that Moore was doing damage control.

05-16-2006, 11:03 AM
I think Moore's movie was the first taste for a lot of people regarding 9/11 Truth.

05-16-2006, 11:07 AM

THEN AGAIN, that might back up my other theory that 9/11 was not only an inside job, but it was MEANT to be found out?

http://www.smiliesftw.com/x/hsugh.gif http://www.smiliesftw.com/x/hsugh.gif

and now it's just a controlled release?

afterall, Moore is an establishment guy. I'm afraid they have all their bases covered.

we have to remember that the illuminati's goal is to bring it down America, and NOT to fulfill the PNAC nonsense. this will happen after a spectacular crash and burn of course in battlefield of the 'War on Terror'.

curiouser and curiouser.

05-16-2006, 11:12 AM
Let's deal with those we can see.

05-16-2006, 11:14 AM
Let's deal with those we can see.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/sadsmiley.gif

05-16-2006, 11:15 AM
How can we deal with those we can't see? We can't see 'em?

05-16-2006, 11:17 AM
well we can reason.

my take on things is that the ruling elite are so powerful that they control most everything, including the revelation of the truth.

this all makes sense when you realize what their end goal is, and what their tactics are:

order out of chaos.

05-16-2006, 11:20 AM
I hate to break it to you, but we're already there.

05-16-2006, 11:24 AM
I hate to break it to you, but we're already there.at the NWO?

not exactly.

we still need a world governing body and a world currency.

05-16-2006, 11:28 AM
I also want to say that they are much to brilliant to ever rule through 'conquest', but choose 'peace' instead.

they were the ones who promulgated WWI. they were funding both Bolshevism and Nazism. they back both horses in every race.

and yet is it a collosal waste of time and money when both 'lose'?

well of course not.

pheonix from the ashes, they have our consent to form things like "The League of Nations", or "The United Nations".

i imagine WWIII will be used for the same purpose.


05-16-2006, 06:02 PM
funding [...] BolshevismWhere is the eveidence for that?

05-17-2006, 12:10 AM
Where is the eveidence for that?read Henry Makow's articles.

05-17-2006, 02:03 PM
Henry Makow is not a source I have any faith in. Isn't he also a holocaust denier?

I believe he thinks Trotsky was 'The Rothschilds insider' in the early Bolshevik party. Of course, for most of his life he was not even a member of the Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP - and he didn't even join the Bolsheviks when the 1903 split occurred!

However, at the time of the 1917 Revolution (a revolution of the masses of the workers in Petrograd and the other cities with large industrial working class organistations - not some narrow coup d'etat as those on the right like to characterise it) he joined the Bolsheviks - because they had come around in practice to his idea of the Permanent Revolution - that is, that the national bourgeoisie was incapable of even defending the limited liberal-democratic-capitalist reforms achieved in February and that the socialist parties via the soviets (worker-councils) should sieze state power and defend and extend the revolution. It was the working class organistations, notably the Bolsheviks, that defated the counter-revolutionary assault by General Kournilov which aimed at restoring the old regime (or some proto-fascist variant thereof). This assault was not even against the socialist state, but against the capitalist-democratic state that existed prior to the October revolution!

It was Trotsky who negotiated the peace with Germany (Trotsky, Lenin and almost literally a handful of others around Europe opposed and remained opposed to WWI, on the basis that workers should not shed their blood for imperial ambitions). It was then Trotsky who organised the Red Army in defence of the revolution against both the White Guard forces (Russian counter-revolutionaries) and the 14 imperialist armies (including the USA) who invaded during the course of the 'Civil War'. Why were 14 imperial armies invading at this time? Because the socialist state had bascially ended capitalism and were inspiring revolutions and worker militancy all over the world.Now you can argue the merits and demerits of this, but it can hardly be called something that the likes of the Rothschilds would be in favour of!

And of course Trotsky ended up being expelled from the Communist Party, and exiled to Mexico (nowhere else would take him!), and ultimatley murdered by a Stalinist agent - for his unrelenting critique (from the Left) of the Stalinist state.

I also noticed in either a Makow article, or something he linked to, that most if not all of these claims against Trotsky come from 'confessions' obtained in the late 1930s - ie, during the period of the Stalin Show Trials and purges.

There is ample evidence for corporate funding of the Nazis and vocal support for the fascists in Italy and Spain. Having studied Soviet history (both in University and after graduating) for about six years now, I have seen no evidence for such a claim. Which is not to say that the aims of Stalinism and Western Imperialism didn't co-incide from time to time. A good example would be the disgusting counter-revolutionary role played by the Stalinists in the Spanish Revolution/Civil War which let revolutionary Spain fall into the brutal hands of Franco.

I guess its easy (and maybe even somehow comforting) to view the entire process of history as driven by conspiracy - and while conspiracies certainly do happen regulary - I do not view history like this. I view history as the complex process eminating from the struggles between classes in society - the French Revolution (about which we hear similar nonsense of it being a 'Masonic conspiracy') was a struggle between the developing bourgousie with the support of the peasants and urban artisans against the fuedal regime. The Russian revolution was somewhat similar in character, except that by 1917 Russia had highly developed and highly politicised industrial working class which was the engine of the revolution. Lenin, Trotsky nor anyone else, no matter how great a individual they were, could not have 'made the revolution on their own', they needed this engine.

Finally, I will say that the Left-Right divide is not 'fake' - it is very real. Compare for example Hugo Chavez to George Bush. There is however a fake divide between what passes for the Mainstream Left in the USA (ie the Democratic Party and the pro-Democratic Greens) and the US Right. Similarly New Labour, the Tories and indeed the Liberal Democrats in the UK. There is very little differences in policies between any of these groups - all basically agree that Western Imperialism (dressed up in the language of 'neo-liberal reform' and 'spreading democracy') is a good thing.

People, like myself I'm not ashamed to say, on the actual Left oppose Western Imperialism and corporate globalistation. I'm all for internationalism (which I understand to be something of a four-letter-word among those with a conspiracist view of history), solidarity and co-operation - but on an equitable, fair and environmentally sustainable basis.

05-17-2006, 02:24 PM
You're like a European Uber Commandante... all edumacated and everything.

05-17-2006, 02:49 PM
I just read books dude. History fascinates me - much more now than when I was university it has to be said! Niave as this sounds, up until my last year in Uni, I believed history was a pretty much a neutral and unpoliticised subject. Not to mention BORING! Then I started to study 20th Century history. Now I realise history is essentially the journlaism of the past, and the same struggles present in journalism exist in historigraphy.

But thanks.

05-17-2006, 03:18 PM
It's called, "COL-LEGE".

05-17-2006, 03:25 PM
Ah, 'College' in the UK means the place you go from ages 16-18/19. University (or a Polytechnic, which can't issue degrees, just diplomas) is where you go for thrid level education.

(Although I'm Irish, I went to Uni in the UK, Wales to be exact)