[rerevisionist]

Google nuclear conspiracy theory results - Sept 12 2011

You've been told "somebody doubts nuclear weapons exist". You want to check, but haven't heard of this site. What would you do? Probably google 'Nuclear conspiracy theories', or something similar. Would this site show up? ... Well, just about...

Here's the Top 13---
GOOGLE WEB
1 Wikipedia 'List of conspiracy theories' - virtually nothing nuclear
2 mking60 blog - virtually nothing on nuclear matters & obviously planted climate stuff
3 A site on 'Fort Calhoun' issuing official information which may or may not be correct
4 A piece on 'earthquake' too long to spend time on, but with no nuke scepticism
5 Youtube on Haitian earthquake - does have nuclear conspiracy theory in the title, but isn't sceptical
6 Link which goes to piece 4 (formatted and coloured differently)
7 Blog on Russian plane crash deaths - conspiracy ideas about deaths, not about nuclear issues
8 '14 conspiracy theories admitted to be true' - the only piece from this Nukelies site
9 9/11 and other ordinary naive material mentioning underwater 'nuclear tests'
10 'Daily Telegraph' British newspaper (usual quality) - Iran has lots of conspiracy theory minded officials
11 Another youtube on Haiti
12 Unintelligent piece on the BBC site (Dec 2000) with nothing useful. No nuke references
13 'Above top secret' site - 'Benazhir Bhutto Carried Nuke Secrets On CDs'

GOOGLE NEWS note: these online news sources are obviously Jewish-dominated - and misrepresent these nations
1 Reuters piece Sept 11 2011 by S Waxman - Oliver Stone's son on Iran and nuclear weapons. No scepticism
2 The 'Post Chronicle' (?) Sept 11 2011 list of top 10 conspiracies - nothing nuclear
3 Guardian (British-Jewish rag) on an 'expert' on thorium power - nothing about conspiracies
4 Pakistan news website: conspiracy ideas re USA, but nothing nuclear
5 Hindustan Times on 9/11 and conspiracies about that
6 Piece (rather good) on the cowardice and lies of 'skeptics' about 9/11; but nothing nuclear
7 Pakistan 'The Nation' unfocussed piece on 9/11 and US bombing. Nothing on nuclear conspiracies
8 Iranian.com on Iran not wanting 'nuclear weapons' - nothing sceptical
9 Islam Online net - '9/11 is marked by prayers' - obvious garbage site
10-13 'News archive results' - ragbag of articles on on Australia, nuclear power, Obama etc

GOOGLE VIDEOS
1-13 Just irrelevant junk

I'm disappointed that 'nuke skeptics' and variants don't come up with much, either. Yet.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Doesn't wikipedia have a second about there was no moon landing? I've considered starting a section on no nuclear weapons. Wonder if they would allow it on jew controlled wikipedia? There would probably be no way that the jewish connection could be discussed.

[NUKELIES]

Doesn't wikipedia have a second about there was no moon landing? I've considered starting a section on no nuclear weapons. Wonder if they would allow it on jew controlled wikipedia? There would probably be no way that the jewish connection could be discussed.

FCS Please do this. This would be an excellent experiment. You should be able to put a link to our site at the bottom of the Wikipedia page as a reference or link.

[rerevisionist]

Dirty tricks include the blocking of sites from computers in institutions; and might include obstructing or delaying file downloads from some sites

Fairly obvious points which I suppose may as well be included. David Irving's website fpp.co.uk is a typical example of a site that's often blocked. The Public Record Office (in Kew, London) used to block his site from their online computers, and probably still do. Just an example - there must be huge numbers of blocked sites.

And I expect some sites get priority in downloading - if they pay, this may be reasonable enough. But it must be easy enough to slow down access to disapproved sites.

[rerevisionist]

Links
Links to this site are an easy way to increase search engine rankings - I'd ask anyone who either agrees with this site, or thinks on free speech lines that it's important, to put links out there. www.nukelies.org should be fine.

[rerevisionist]

New Youtube Rule on Long Videos

Youtube recently (late 2011 I think) changed its rules to allow anyone to post long videos - longer than 15 minutes.

However they don't seem to allow this if a user isn't in 'good standing', which includes 'copyright strikes' and also no global bans. If I've understood this properly, it seems to mean that if any country in the world blocks someone's video, the Youtube won't allow that perosn to post long videos. I hope this interpretation isn't right, as of course any country could then prevent long videos being hosted that they don't like.

It also allows hostile people to prevent long videos being posted by challenging copyright, which Youtube will not contest - it's not their business of course. Once the video is removed, so is the 'good standing'. Annoying as this happened to me when I posted a video for which I had firm, written copyright permission from the copyright owner. They just took down a very good video I made on the Shakespeare authorship issue.

I suppose I could put it up in 15-minute segments.

[rerevisionist]

Not of great importance. Googling 'Proof Nagasaki was not A-bombed' the #1 position is 25 Questions and Answers about the "Atomic Bomb" written, or credited to, Alan Lustiger. (The link is on the MIT site, part of material by Dave Policar who is some sort of 'information architect' - some IT/computeresque grandiose title. His ten-year old 'Resume' is online).

http://stuff.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/netsam/revisionist_history.html

What interested me was the fact that it seems to have been uploaded on 18 Oct 2000, along with a batch of other material, unless someone altered the file date. It seems to be a satire on 'Holocaust revisionism', relying on what the author assumed to be the obvious fact that Japan was bombed by nuclear weapons. It reminds me of 'Jews for Jesus', where a bunch of self-obsessed Asians who imagine they are descended from some tribe also believe in writings attributed to someone who never existed... a tangled web.

[rerevisionist]

Irritating Wikipedia thing - Nuke Skeptics Deletion

I put this on 'metapedia'---

The Nuclear Skeptics (or Nuclear Sceptics) movement is relatively new, dating from about 2005. There are two main divisions - doubts about nuclear weapons, and doubts about nuclear power.

Nuclear Weapon Skeptics examine technical issues, such as the Manhattan Project, the bombings of Japanese towns including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the alleged existence and testing of both atomic and hydrogen bombs.

Political issues include: why the USA might have made up the idea of atomic bombs, whether the Cold War was a fiction, Jewish elites of both the USA and USSR and satellites, money made from weapons, and the use of such hypothetical weapons in power politics, as for example the case of Vanunu, and as a casus belli when a war is desired in the Middle East.

Nuclear Power Skeptics examine the technical issues of whether such power has ever existed: there appear to be no places anywhere in the world supplied by nuclear power; and conversely China appears to be solely constructing coal-fired power stations.

http://www.nukelies.org

And I put more or less the same on Wikipedia. Someone from Wiki deleted it prontissimo and I got this message---

The article Nuclear skeptics has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki [NB this claims to be a person who's made 180,000+ contributions to Wikipedia] (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone else would like to try posting on Wiki?

[voerioc]

I was quite sure that it would be deleted after just one or two days max. I wrote something about abiotic oil a long time ago on the French Wikipedia. It was deleted just after few hours. I put it again. Same thing.

Jews keep Wikipedia under surveillance (often called Jewpedia in nationalist circles) night and day, and only most known dissident movements are cited quickly (Aids for example, and maybe 9/11) ; that is, the ones they can't avoid talking about. And of course, they always say that the dissident theory has been proven wrong.

[rerevisionist]

I'm a bit disappointed I can't get onto PrisonPlanet Forum. It's just another controlled thing, presumably by Jews again.

However, the frantic censorship does show they have a problem. I wonder if the USA will be suckered again by Jews?

[rerevisionist]

I posted a few times on an Iran and probable US & Israeli invasion, allegedly over Iranian nuclear sites, on 'The Occidental Observer' http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net which is a white American site run or related to Kevin MacDonald. I was amused to see my nukelies brief explanation and links immediately followed (1 or 2 minutes) by very long and incredibly unimportant material, mostly about other posters and their spelling/ possible middle east ancestry of the original poster, and even taste in pop songs and new age style stuff on all being the same person. There was even an email on 'aliens' from space soon arriving.

Like Wiki, they must have external posters poised to remove/ dilute/ oppose stuff. It's a pity their moderation is so bad.