Originally posted by smallpeeps
"Authentic" means what, exactly?
When in doubt...
Dictionary.com
au·then·tic
adj.
1. Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief: an authentic account by an eyewitness.
2. Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not counterfeit or copied: an authentic medieval sword.
3. Law. Executed with due process: an authentic deed.
4. Music.1. Of, relating to, or being a medieval mode having a range from its final tone to the octave above it.
5. Obsolete. Authoritative.
2. Of, relating to, or being a cadence with the dominant chord immediately preceding the tonic chord.
Let's go with sense 2.
Unreliable But Trustworthy
Originally posted by smallpeeps
BUT, the question becomes this: If it was written by someone else, but the content of the text is based in fact, then one can assume the writer/cobbler of the Prot's has at least as much credibility as George Orwell? I find the protocols to be more insightful than Animal Farm, yet one's a classic and one's not even allowed to be discussed.
We're discussing the Protocols right here, right now, and nobody's stopping us.
The question of their authenticity is very much on-topic, so I don't understand what you mean by "not even allowed to be discussed" -- unless you're referring to Animal Farm, maybe?
I know of no prohibition against either on ATS -- and certainly not on PTS!
The idea of "even if they're fake, they're rooted in truth" seems suspect to me. We went through that with Project Serpo -- the same claim was made ("percentage of truth"). And just like the Protocols, that claim described a fraud.
Why should anyone trust an author or source which deliberately sets out to deceive?
Even if the Protocols are "prophetic" when viewed with hindsight (and I'm skeptical about that claim), that doesn't mean that they were true, merely that it's possible to believe that they predicted historical events -- which is itself a rather specious claim in light of how much of what appears in the Protocols bears no resemblance to any reality, historical or otherwise.
Seven years go in 1999, The Simpsons showed a scene of Sigfried and Roy being mauled by a white tiger ("Viva Ned Flanders").
Just because Roy Horn was actually mauled by a white tiger four years later doesn't mean it happened because a similar scene appeared in The Simpsons, or that The Simpsons somehow caused or predicted the attack.
The same goes for the Protocols, and I hope I'm adequately exposing logical fallacy of this (please let me know if I'm not). The writing style alone gives an awful lot away.
The Protocols read like fiction because they were written like fiction.
A Brief History Of Jews
As for the rest of your comments (yes, I cherry-picked my replies), I think many of them run somewhat afield of this topic and I'd prefer instead to focus on the authenticity of the Protocols.
However, that doesn't mean I'm trying to "suppress" anything.
I think much of what you posted could make for one or more excellent topics in themselves -- on PTS, I hope (try to work politics in there somehow).
There seems to be a perception that I'm out to discourage discussion of Israel/Jews/Zionism/Whatever, but that's not true.
Actually, I don't think there's enough (rational) discussion of these topics, and that this deficit is itself responsible for a lot of problems we could do without.
So please, anyone reading this: if you want to talk about these things, let's talk about them.
Start a thread (on PTS
) and let's get to it! 
P.S. I tend to come off as a bit "crisp" in debate mode, but please don't be put off by that. My posts are too long as it is, and if I took any longer to get to the point, we'd be here until the end of time. So please excuse my bluntness.
P.P.S. I used to feel it myself, so I know the feeling: I know it can be intimidating to get into a hot and heavy argument with a super mod.
Please accept my sincere, heartfelt and highly public assurance that I have not, don't and never will use my position as a moderator to abuse, harass or retaliate against any member for any reason -- especially not for having a different opinion. The Amigos wouldn't just ban me for that, they'd kill me.
So please don't worry about any of that (and file a complaint if you should ever see me misbehaving). If any of us should inadvertently run afoul of the T&C in a moment of passion while discussing such a touchy topic (including me -- I'm human too), we'll try to be cool about it (just try not to post porn or strings of invective, or you know, stuff like that
). No one should feel afraid to express themselves here, even controversial opinions. As long as we do so in accordance with the T&C (and again, we try not to be overbearing about it), we're golden.
[edit on 8/14/2006 by Majic]
