Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://codohforum.com/
Yes, if placing a powerful country against you, the result of which was territorial, population and commercial disintegration, is not profound hatred, imagine what profound hatred is, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... orld_War_I"An estimated 100,000 German Jewish military personnel served in the German Army during World War I, of whom 12,000 were killed in action. The Iron Cross was awarded to 18,000 German Jews during the war."
I thought the above deserves a repeat…Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 6:29 pm
Many of the points Ryan makes mirror my own thoughts. The point about whistleblowers is a good one: "Someone would come forward."
People often do come forward but more often they get ignored, dismissed, smeared, or worse.
Here's another point I would make:
Governments (all institutions for that matter) have an incentive to lie/obscure the truth in instances where the truth would be embarrassing or conflicts with their interests (which is often). And governments/institutions have quite a bit of control over what information becomes available.
If you dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand unless there is conclusive proof, you would likely be getting only the tip of the iceberg.
However, the problem is that if you try to guess about the hidden parts of the iceberg, things get very speculative. So what you end up with is a situation where "the truth" if it were known would be wildly "conspiratorial" yet at the same time most "conspiracy theories" may be wrong (even idiotic) because there are a lot of them and they are typically based on incomplete information.
What I find interesting is there are many explosive claims that actually do have quite a lot of evidence to support them. And you can even find this stuff in mainstream books. But it doesn't find itself into the mainstream conversation, or into school curricula, or into the mass media.
This goes back to the recent thread "Red-pilled by the mainstream." Scholarly texts (which few people read) can have some surprisingly explosive info.
We are all the victims of a world-wide co-ordinated conspiracy to make us believe that doubting, questioning and critically investigating official narratives is something that only weirdoes, nutcases and ‘conspiracy theorists’ do.Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:00 pm
…saying "conspiracy theories are almost always false" is a meaningless assertion since the definition of "conspiracy theory" is largely subjective and this is a term most often used for defamatory political purposes.
Setting the political definitions aside, the term "conspiracy" simply means "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful", and a "conspiracy theory" is simply any theory thereof.
Thus, when one says "conspiracy theories are almost always false", they are obviously not talking about every conceivable conspiracy theory; only of those which are known through political and social currents as being "conspiracy theories" — in other words, those which the establishment aims to discredit (and any other, especially ridiculous theories which they push into the same margin, to assist with that discreditation effort).
If after reading the above, you still believe no-one — let alone wealthy and powerful jews — ‘conspires’ to misinform, therefore we should NEVER question, doubt or investigate any well-publicised or officialised story, then you are a gullible fool.In 1913 Georgia, a 13-year-old pencil company worker named Mary Phagan was last seen alive visiting the office of factory manager Leo Frank on a Saturday morning to collect her weekly paycheck. Her raped and murdered body was found in the basement early the next morning and Frank was eventually arrested for the crime.
As the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, Frank ranked as one of the most prominent Jewish men in the South, and great resources were deployed in his legal defence. But after the longest and most expensive trial in state history, he was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.
The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... alsehoods/
Our view does not essentially need any grand conspiracy theory, unlike the mainstream one. Without a grand conspiracy theory their view is simply impossible.
It does not essentially need to be some previously planned psychological operation lie. The most important revisionist today, Germar Rudolf, does not think it is....consequently you believe that the claim is a jewish and/or Allied psy-op narrative, then YOU also believe a theory of conspiracy.
Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-10680-001"We conducted two studies (Study 1, N = 86; Study 2, N = 252), in which we found that critical thinking ability—measured by an open‐ended test emphasizing several areas of critical thinking ability in the context of argumentation—is negatively associated with belief in conspiracy theories."
Belief in Conspiracy Theories: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630?ma ... y-theories"Black and hispanic respondents were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than were white respondents."
Dutch study finds minorities are more prone to belief in conspiracies: https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... nspiracies"The new findings, though preliminary and limited by being based in a single European country, suggest in fact it is minorities who are more likely to endorse conspiracy-based explanations."
Losers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, study finds: https://www.psypost.org/losers-likely-b ... udy-finds/“Conspiracy theories are for losers”
“People who are on the outside, people who lost, people who lack control, tend to believe in conspiracy theories.”
The above runs into the same exact problem as already discussed, here:Revision wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 9:51 pmSome interesting information:
Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-10680-001"We conducted two studies (Study 1, N = 86; Study 2, N = 252), in which we found that critical thinking ability—measured by an open‐ended test emphasizing several areas of critical thinking ability in the context of argumentation—is negatively associated with belief in conspiracy theories."
Belief in Conspiracy Theories: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630?ma ... y-theories"Black and hispanic respondents were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than were white respondents."
Dutch study finds minorities are more prone to belief in conspiracies: https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... nspiracies"The new findings, though preliminary and limited by being based in a single European country, suggest in fact it is minorities who are more likely to endorse conspiracy-based explanations."
Losers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, study finds: https://www.psypost.org/losers-likely-b ... udy-finds/“Conspiracy theories are for losers”
“People who are on the outside, people who lost, people who lack control, tend to believe in conspiracy theories.”
Making blanket assertions about "conspiracy theories" exposes the ignorance of the person making them. Believing Jewish organizations are subverting historical narratives and Western institutions is not the same as believing in Bigfoot or that the moon is made of cheese because Earth is flat.Callafangers wrote:...saying "conspiracy theories are almost always false" is a meaningless assertion since the definition of "conspiracy theory" is largely subjective and this is a term most often used for defamatory political purposes. Setting the political definitions aside, the term "conspiracy" simply means "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful", and a "conspiracy theory" is simply any theory thereof. Thus, when one says "conspiracy theories are almost always false", they are obviously not talking about every conceivable conspiracy theory; only of those which are known through political and social currents as being "conspiracy theories" -- in other words, those which the establishment aims to discredit (and any other, especially ridiculous theories which they push into the same margin, to assist with that discreditation effort). There is a reason people often accuse someone of believing "flat earth theory" or a "moon landing hoax", if that person points out Israel's motive/means/opportunity in any given controversial crime or event.
We seek clarity, not confirmation. We do not accept the narratives of those with vested interest — for truth is greater than propaganda.Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 9:57 pm Making blanket assertions about "conspiracy theories" exposes the ignorance of the person making them. Believing Jewish organizations are subverting historical narratives and Western institutions is not the same as believing in Bigfoot or that the moon is made of cheese because Earth is flat.
Many Holocaust revisionists are wrong about that because they focus too much on the 'how' (the Nazi gas chambers) and so neglect the 'what' (the mass slaughter of six million Jews in Europe) and the 'why' (the nullification of the British White Paper of 1939). The Zionists of that time crucially needed an unparalleled martyrdom atrocity story to prevent a full implementation of the British White Paper of 1939 from happening, but they cared little about the tool allegedly used to carry out that unparalleled martyrdom. They would have achieved their goal as well even if the electrocution rooms or the steam chambers had ultimately prevailed over the gas chambers. As soon as WWII broke out, the Zionists even quoted a non-existent Nazi book (Juden und der Weltkrieg by Hans Ziegler) to make people falsely believe that the Nazis had planned beforehand to kill six million Jews in Central and Eastern Europe during the Second World War, what paved the way for the demonization and ultimate failure of the British White Paper policy after the war.
