User:EffK

EffK as brand for anti revisionist-denialism

I say I come in good faith to this organ.

I will verify everything from reputable published sources. I have always done so, but only in the wikipedia wikis, with disastrous results, the which remain worthy of explanation in an organ such as this.

I come here to safeguard reflections upon the extremely dubious historical presentation enforced through the wikipedia's administration. I consider this as dangerous as these organs appear to consider me. i come here as factor of informational disfunction there and only accord it the importance which any concerned socially aware person should. I do not come here to subvert this other organ, or this organ. I come here to place the truths. i may discover that I am not needed, and that others have already placed these truths here, in which case I shall be spared many bills.

I use here the same user name, as I am proud of my assiduity with respect to truthfulness and source. I expect that a consideration based on proof will determine the reactions of your administration here. I have not yet had time to study your organ, and after the experience of this other organ, I have to admit to some jaundiced expectation. I am a person who has been accused of gross impiety- for solely quoting relevant law. Unfortunately I began my research and sourceing of what evidently was impious after reading the words of the Pulitzer Prize winner for 1933, Edgar Ansel Mowrer, possibly the greatest American Foreign Correspondent.

I am not interested in defending attacks made upon my name, but of course will happily do so if requested. I come rather to deal with the exact historical specifics, those which appear to be unacceptable to this large other wiki organ. I would be exceedingly relieved to find that this organ can sustain the truths beyond the level at which wikipedia fails, and should prefer to see it wither rather than prosper at the expense of truth. It has to be the case that wikipedia is the first port of call in a litany of connections, and I hope neither to exceed the regulations of your organ nor the patience of your administration. However if I am not free to enter honestly derived, because proveable, information , then I should best be so informed. If truth is unacceptable solely because it is destabilising to people's mental comfort, then I have no place here.

The problem resides in a qualification of the un-acceptable history (factual truths) as being a conspiracy theory.

These specifics cut to the heart of modern history, and revolve upon the empowerment of Adolf Hitler on 23 march 1933, but evidently see the roots of that day lying in the previous years, and influencing the entire world until even now.

The fact that the subsequent investigation at the Nuremberg Trials qualified the era as precisely being characterised by the term conspiracy ( or 'common plan') sets us boundaries which are vague as to the beginnings and ends of that Hitlerian conspiracy. The conspiracy was also characterised as a rolling opportunistic conspiracy, and whilst it is clear that forces worked to assist it, it would be wrong to set upon them the clear undertsanding of the consequences which can be so clear in this degree of hindsight. However I fight to present the facts, and am shocked that this be necessary. The Trials noted their own impromptu co-ordination and the shallowness of their research capacity, but made clear allusion to organised social and other forces of sinister un-accountable purpose. These are various, and two are almost entirely hidden. They are therefore interesting.

A part of the specifics relates to the involvement of the Roman catholic Church, the which is entirely sourced but which at the Trials was left un-resolved. Another part relates to the forces of catitalism within and without Germany. I have been so forced into investigation of the former that the latter has not received from me the attention which it deserves.

It is evident that the claim that history can only be firmly realised at some remove makes of this conspiracy a present and contemporary understanding. Only recently do authors piece together the puzzle, just in time to enter the enormous facility that the internet and wiki software provides. However the sources that I have provided are essentially clasic by being either entirely contemporary to the events, published before WWII , or entirely conventional. Due to the complexity of the subject, I find that clear conclusions are un-obtainable to these common sources' general readership. The conlcusions are entirely horrific and in line with the qualification by the Trials that the failure to detect the conspiracy cost us all 100 years of civilisation. We are still paying the price, without knowing why or how this came to be. The lesson is vital to our future, as the Trials aslo shewed.

I will best start here by studying this organ in the hope that this organ can work to counterbalance my above criticism.

I request immediate help to allow me to up-load to these my userpages a large body of source and quotation, under fair use/educational allowance. I have some urgency to do this , as a concerted attack upon the visibility of these excerpts is a present response to my entirely good faith and justified analysis of the force ranged against me and against general readers as so easily google-able through wp. I am, however, not technically proficient, and as I am always hard-pressed in self preservation, as now, I never even have time to become technical. I request help particularly with archiving this material.

A central issue of the history needing preservation is that it cannot be placed under one position of namespace, as the threads run deeply into very numerous areas and personalities. I therefore will concentrate here with my own user-space, in preparation for later more particular infusion.

As the history is very shocking, I am often accused of being a 'troll'. I have never met a troll myself, so I cannot recognise this accusation, but in part imagine it stems from multidunious linkage of the one principal subject, as much as from the severe dis-ease it causes people of either political or , sad to say, religious affiliation. I have to ask whether this oragn here is trong enough to withstand the dis-eased reaction liekley consequent upon my appearance and importation of source.

Here I show the time.EffK 19:50, 4 Aug 2006 (EDT)