It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mein Kampf and the Protocols

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Hi all

The ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’ is said to be a hoax and ‘Mein Kampf’ is said to be the ramblings of a madman - generally discounted as such. I have recently finished reading these Protocols, and am currently wading through Mein Kampf. It has been a couple months of, lets say, mind-rending research.

The Protocols summarize a plan of global despotism by one group using, essentially, lies and economic control. Whether or not this text is valid is not up to me to decide, but I look at the ideas written and much in the world now makes greater sense.

I read Mein Kampf as being about one person’s desire to stop the ‘degradation’ (for lack of a better term) of the race and society to which he belongs, and to stop what he sees as these same ideas (ie - global control by one group) cited in the Protocols from taking fruit.

These two texts would appear to be separate volumes of one set (not in the sense of being by the same author, but dealing with the same idea).

From ‘Mein Kampf’ – “International Jewish world finance needed these lures to enable it to carry out its long-desired plan for destroying the Germany which thus far did not submit to its widespread superstate control of finance and economics”.

And the Protocols document well these plans.

Subsequently, if the Protocols are a forgery, wouldn’t ‘Mein Kampf’ then, be a forgery as well ?

I have done much research into this area too, in the mind-rending last few months. As I have come to no concrete conclusions, I would like input from this audience – from both sides – to answer what would appear to be the fundamental root of the majority of the problems plaguing mankind today.

PS – and please, if I see it’s raining and say your shoes are getting wet, that does not class me as anti-anything. If anything I am anti-anti – I am anti-hate, anti-oppression, anti-killing, anti-greed, anti-aggression.

I believe we are all one, maybe not so happy, family – ie, we are all ‘chosen’.

And I don’t ‘deny’ anything. Contrarily, I was not even concerned about this history until it was deemed ‘illegal’ to question it, for all this tells me is that this body has something to hide.

So, without further adieu - bring it !!

[edit on 3-7-2007 by effinlunatic]




posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
There is another theory... Protocols were written by Jesuits working for Vatican, they also financed Hitler and Mussolini. Goal was to ignite antisemitism and to move Jews out of Europe, which they did. Another goal was to crush Orthodox Church in Russia, which they did.

It's just a theory but it makes some sense, especially if you check out this interview.

Always ask yourself, who had most power in past 1000+ years and what their interests are. They surely didn't abandon that power, you can count on that.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
You do realize that the Protocols and Mein Kampf were written by different people at different times, right?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
You do realize that the Protocols and Mein Kampf were written by different people at different times, right?



Yes I do.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sb2012
There is another theory... Protocols were written by Jesuits working for Vatican, they also financed Hitler and Mussolini. Goal was to ignite antisemitism and to move Jews out of Europe, which they did. Another goal was to crush Orthodox Church in Russia, which they did.

It's just a theory but it makes some sense, especially if you check out this interview.

Always ask yourself, who had most power in past 1000+ years and what their interests are. They surely didn't abandon that power, you can count on that.


Yes I am familiar with this theory and I look back more than 1000+ years

Thank you for your post



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I haven't read the Protocols, never had quite that much time on my hands, but I have read Mein Kampf and I can sympathise - doesn't have much 'flow', does it? I don't however understand how it could be a hoax though - you may need to elucidate on that for me. Mein Kampf is more of a manifesto for the group to which Hitler belonged and a highly-glossed biography of his life.

Hitler's personality is captivating in my opinion and well worth closer study. I personally feel that he believed in his own 'divinity' and Mein Kampf can be seen as a proclamation of this. i do not think in any shape or form that this makes him a mad-man, and i do not see Mein Kampf as the 'ramblings of a mad-man' - just ramblings....



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I don't however understand how it could be a hoax though - you may need to elucidate on that for me.


Meant in the sense that it describes the ideas cited in the protocols and offers a resistance precisely to these ideas. And if the protocols are deemed as a hoax, it would then follow that the ideas in Mein Kampf are the result of a hoax - subsequently a hoax in itself.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I am pretty sure that it was Alfred Rosenberg who was responsible for disseminating the "protocols" in greater Germany, he certainly was later when the Reich was in full bloom but I am almost sure that he brought it from Russia to Germany. Rosenberg was involved in counter-revolutionary activites in Russia and was a supporter of the White Russians. He was chased out of Russia and like so many of his persuasion ended up in Munich in 1919 where he met Hitler, Hess and Eckart (among others). If you have read "Myth of the Twentieth Century" by Rosenberg(Yawn...even worse writer than Hitler) you will again have seen that there are very similar themes to Mein Kampf and presumably to the Protocols (as i said I haven't read this so cannot comment specifically.

As far as Mein kampf is concerned it is propaganda, and the most lucid arguments in Mein kampf concern this topic and Hitler's absolute faith in its uses and abilities. Hitler was highly suggestible, this is confirmed by a number of sources, most notably Hermann Goering, so it would make sense that he was influenced by Rosenberg and his enthusiam for the Protocols. It is equally likely that Rosenberg knew that the Protocols were a hoax, but saw the vision within and how it could be used to construct absolute power.

It is also possible that Hitler believed that the Protocols were true, as I said he was suggestible and looking for a reason to hate the Jews. There is little evidence in his early life of any obvious anti-semitism, it is not until the end of the war that he had fallen in with the idea of the Jews being responsible for the Versailles Treaty (or the "November Criminals" as the Nazis liked to refer to them).

Though I do not see Mein Kampf as a hoax in the same way as the Protocols were, they are both constructed for propaganda purposes so there is a similarity. In another thread it was discussed that a Jesuit Father Bernard Stempfer assisted Hitler in writing Mein Kampf (as did Rudolf Hess) so there is a similarity of providence.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Adolf Hitler and Jesuits...


Italian dictator Benito Mussolini with church members...


No comment...



So Vatican created Nazis and put Mussolini and Hitler in power?



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sb2012So Vatican created Nazis and put Mussolini and Hitler in power?


Do you honestly think the Vatican works alone ?



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Well, they don't need to do all the banking and business, just command top of the pyramid, direct most influential people and that's pretty much enough to achieve world domination.

You think Jews/Zionists are at the top? It's a common belief but i doubt it.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I read Mein Kampf when I was 21. I was drawn to reading it at a time in my life when I was reading other great works such as The Prince by Machiavelli and the works of Locke, Hume and Rousseau, Communism and the New Left and the history of early Russia. Anyway, I began reading Mein Kampf with a presupposition which was the result of my early indoctrination in the american south and ended with a different view entirely. I found the book well written, mind stirring and became somewhat disturbed. I burned the book as I was ashamed to have found much of its content logical and undeniable. Just my take on Mein Kampf. I don't know much about the Protocols of Zion.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
In case you want to read it again or want to check out Protocols:

Protocols Of Zion (pdf)

Mein Kampf (pdf)

Zweites Buch ("Second Book")(pdf) or read it online

The Zweites Buch ("Second Book") is a transcript of Adolf Hitler's unfiltered thoughts on a number of topics that was never published in his lifetime. wiki

Use 'Save Link As...' to save PDF on your hard disk for offline reading.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sb2012
The Zweites Buch ("Second Book") is a transcript of Adolf Hitler's unfiltered thoughts on a number of topics that was never published in his lifetime.


I read a little of it, different styles and ideas. I think it was written by others - the same 'victors' that wrote the history books, IMHO.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by effinlunatic
I read a little of it, different styles and ideas. I think it was written by others - the same 'victors' that wrote the history books, IMHO.


Well, it was dictated, unedited and Hitlers own work, not influenced by Jesuits or Hess. I think Mein Kampf was polished a bit, not the other way around. Ideas are not that much off, he speaks of international strategy and similar stuff USA does today in the name of peace.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by sb2012]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

...I personally feel that he believed in his own 'divinity' and Mein Kampf can be seen as a proclamation of this.


Bravo, you got it dead on the first time. Were you taught this or was this just your understanding of it? Do you understand the nature of his divinity and why he felt that way? It is all in the book if you read it, there is one overiding theme in Hitler's writings...

Evolution, his Religion.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius
I found the book well written, mind stirring and became somewhat disturbed. I burned the book as I was ashamed to have found much of its content logical and undeniable.


In 1923 Hitler was an idealist, he had a huge passion and desire to see the nation that he loved be great and united again. He was in the true sense of the word a Nationalist, though Austrian by birth, he felt that his soul was German and he felt it his duty to return Germany to its full potential. To find admirable qualities (hopefully anti-semitism aside) in such a man is a good thing, to then look at how that idealism became twisted, corrupt and murderous is a lesson in how absolute power should be avoided at all costs.

In 1923 when he wrote Mein kampf he was on the cusp of a wave, he was driven to achieve a following and he knew that to do so he needed to appeal to the spirit of Germany. Mein Kampf is propaganda, it is written to entice the reader, that you were enticed is a demonstration of how good Hitler was at this right from the start. Never doubt that Hitler had an incredible ability to reach people, he believed in himself and he expected others to do likewise. And they did, by those around him, men and women, he was deeply loved.

That he can still have that power is nothing for you to be ashamed of, just something to be aware of.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Were you taught this or was this just your understanding of it? Do you understand the nature of his divinity and why he felt that way?


This has actually developed over time for me. It was raised some time ago in another thread and I have given it increasing thought since then.

As you say Mein Kampf 'My Struggle' does lay out the doctrine. By 1923 he had already formulated himself as a saviour or messiah. Mein Kampf is his gospel and it became the 'Bible' of the religion of Fuehrer.

At the beginning of Leni Reifenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will', the shadow of a plane on the clouds form a cross that rises up behind Hitler (amazing film well worth watching). Throughout this film the symbology of christ is superimposed upon Hitler and the rapture on the faces of his devotees is obviously genuine.

Hitler certainly had help, but it was because of his single-minded determinism and absolute self-belief that they all signed up. He had one goal and he was willing to accept any help along the way. Any promises made could be later broken.

But, the question for me is whether Hitler actually BELIEVED he was 'divine'....

Hitler was described by those who knew him in the first war as an able soldier, he recieved the Iron Cross for bravery and carried out his orders with determination. This future leader, was considered by all who knew him, including his officers, as not having the qualities necessary for leadership. Did they miss something or did something about Hitler change?

I recently read a very interesting book which speculates on a possible connection. In 1919 at the end of the war he was caught in a gas attack by the British. This caused temporary blindness. What Mein Kampf doesn't tell us is that he was diagnosed as 'hysterically blind'. The hospital that he was sent to at Pasewalk was only for 'hysterical' or perhaps more kindly, psychological injured soldiers.

A Neurologist, Dr Edmund Forster found Hitler to be a unique case, unlike others who were seeking escape from the front, Hitler desperately wanted to return to his unit and the war. The Dr concluded that Hitler was unable to face the prospect of Germany surrendering and that to counter this mental block he must appeal to Hitler's sense of heroism. He had listened to Hitler bemoan the want of strong leadership and his wish to see a strong leader emerge and save Germany from the influence of the Jewish capitalists (Aryanism was a later influence to his aspirations, influenced by Rosenberg et al).

In a fictional account based on Forsters notes, the Dr is said to have convinced Hitler that his blindness was actually permanent and irreversible. There was nothing that he or any other doctor could do for him.

When Hitler had absorbed this information, Forster casually mentioned that he had of course heard of extraordinary cases where people have used their will to draw the hand of god. Forster continued, that only the most extraordinary will power can create such a miracle. Hitler began to see light and then shapes, 'miraculously' his sight was restored.

Although it is a speculative theory, it makes a lot of sense to me. Hitler's actions and responses are indicative a man who had truly come to regard himself as infallible.



[edit on 5-7-2007 by KilgoreTrout]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
All this from those who never knew him.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius
All this from those who never knew him.


no kidding - is there anyone out there that doesn't realize their own 'divinity' ? lol, just kidding, i can see sufficiently



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join