why do people ignore the zionist protocols?

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by patternfinder

 

Comparison on where parts of the elders were taken from and changed.

actually give us a quote from them not what someone else's opinion is.....show us a quote that you think would prove them as a hoax

all that proves is that a man tried to bring them out in the form of a fictitious novel.....he even says it in his forward of the book......


www.a... rchive.org/stream/DialogueInHellBetweenMachiavelliAndMontesquieu/DialogueInHellBetweenMachiavelliAndMontesquieu_djvu.txt

One better judges certain facts and certain principles when one sees them outside of the framework in which they habitually move before our eyes; the change of optical perspective sometimes terrifies the eyes! Here, everything is presented under the form of fiction; it would be superfluous to provide the key in anticipation. If this book has an import, if it contains a lesson, it will be necessary for the reader to understand it and not have it given to him. Furthermore, such reading will not fail to have quite lively distractions; it is necessary to proceed with it slowly, as is suitable with writings that are not frivolous things. One will not ask where is the hand that traced out these pages: a work such as this is, in a certain way, impersonal. It responds to an appeal to consciousness; everyone has conceived it; it is executed; the author effaces himself, because he is only the editor of a thought that is in the general sense; he is only a more or less obscure accomplice of the coalition for good. [Maurice Joly] Geneva, 15 October 1864

wow, you'd think i pissed off the devil and now everyone's scattering ha ha.....

mostly because people are conditioned to 'believe' they are false, forged or a simple fabrication.
Unfortunately, this ? debunking ? (far from it) occurred so long ago (1921) that many find it easier to buy into the program rather research its origins.

Personally, i've never read them but i did refuse residence in a zionist enclave in the 70s.
i really don't have any need to read them, the Rosenthal interview was enough for me.
however, i can tell you that the protocols date back much further than the 1800s.

Charles I, ring any bells? 1600s
how 'bout the title "Coningsby" ? 1845ish
Hertzl or some of his famous quotes? or perhaps his diary entries -- 19th century
Rosenthal - 20th century

and two things i always find hilarious is the reference to the content being borrowed from a book published years later Goe .... what's his face (Russian dude) ... and that somehow, in the history of the World, these protocols only just appeared in the 19th century ??? does anyone really believe that?

now, i've not researched that far back but it is said (in several sources) that the protocols date back to Solomon and if that's even remotely true, then the debunking is kinda bunk isn't it ?

** i will add this, the Russian version referenced in the Wiki links previously posted was indeed written by a professional propagandist at the propaganda machine of the Trotsky/Lenin (ummm, jew murdering jews) regime and subsequently translated, replicated and distributed. However, that doesn't make it 'false' ... propaganda sure, however, much propaganda is true, just marvelously sensationalized.

Also, considering this pamphlet emerged during the Bolshevik rise to power and fueled the revolution, it is no wonder that today, it is greatly ignored regardless of its content.
And on a side note ... for a piece of work that is supposed to be 'inconsequential', it sure has been vehemently protested for centuries ... i wonder what all that's about?

ohhhh almost forgot --> prvs posters reference both Graves & Ford ... did it ever occur to those who follow Graves, that his 'debunking' published August 1921 ... remarkably, just 6 months AFTER Ford published his famous quote in February 1921 ... (damage control ???)

"The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW"

***** and, if you pay close attention, even his quote is seriously wrong considering the prior distribution in and before the early 1900s.
so, as history is written by the winners of the battle, take a look around you and realize who leads what and how many of those what(s) effect your everyday life.

should you choose to give yourself a headache, explore this ...
each attendance list from the last meetings of both CFR and Bilderberg (?spelling) ... you will be amazed how many are of jewish descent.
now i'm not saying they are the 'controllers' but we all know both groups make decisions that effect all of us ... hence, these are the 'leaders' making world impacting decisions, regularly.

being aware of your surroundings is a healthy pursuit.
i offer no angst, aggression or hatred toward any person of jewish descent
but as a seeker of truth, this subject has been glossed over for far too long.

Even if they are a hoax the information is pertinent. Just like 1984 is a work of fiction but that doesn't mean it should be banned from discussion or tossed aside as irrelevant.

To answer your question, the truth is always ignored for the same reason, because it would devastate the lie. Protocols are ignored because people would immediately understand the mentality of the government. I mean a document written over a 100 years ago that is more disturbing than a modern day horror movie, and yet it is ignored in universities and schools? The feds really do have a lot to hide.

reply to post by patternfinder


Thats why I posted the image. It shows that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were lifted from the book called dialogue in hell.

Some more info -

For the record, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion was proven to be a fake as far back as 1921. That year, a newspaper article in the London Times traced the meat of the book back to a plagiarization of a plagiarization of a work whose original target was Napoleon Bonaparte. The ultimate source, published in 1864, was titled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu ("Discussions Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in Hell"). The book was a satirical commentary on Napoleon's insatiable lust for world domination. No Jews whatsoever appear in the story.

That work was just plain ripped off in 1868 by German novelist Hermann Goedsche, who took out all of the Napoleon references and replaced him with the Jews. His book, To Sedan, contains a chapter called "The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel." It describes a centennial meeting between the Devil and the upper echelons of world Jewry. This section was extracted in 1891 and repackaged as a nonfiction essay titled "The Rabbi's Speech," which became the primary source for The Protocols.

Also here is a link to National Geographics who also looked into the situation. They have also stated that its not real.
National Geographics

Highlights -

In 1921 the Times of London published convincing proof that The Protocols were largely plagiarized from books published decades earlier—primarily The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, by Maurice Joly (1864) and Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (1868).

In subsequent years similar exposés appeared in Germany and the United States. A U.S. Senate committee declared that The Protocols were bogus. And in 1993 they were officially declared fraudulent by a court in the country of their origin—Russia.

Even a Nazi went on record stating it waqs a hoax. That Nazi - Joseph Goebbels

Even Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels believed The Protocols were a fraud, though this did not stop Goebbels and the Nazi regime from employing the writings for their own ends.

"I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery … [However,] I believe in the intrinsic, but not in the factual, truth of The Protocols," the future Nazi powerbroker wrote in his diary in 1924.

The charter of Hamas actually refers to this book to help justify their goals. Scholars from the Middle East have also reviewd the book and have come to the same conclusion - It was a fraud / hoax / not real.

reply to post by wcitizen


I have read the book and it is nonsense. Pathetic attempt to attack Jews. When I joined ATS, I never expected so many posters to believe that crap and hate Jews. But it serves the elites' purposes to have us looking the other way.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I have read the book and it is nonsense. Pathetic attempt to attack Jews. When I joined ATS, I never expected so many posters to believe that crap and hate Jews. But it serves the elites' purposes to have us looking the other way.

Thatks for such a non-contribution to the thread. How about actually explaining why you disagree with it, and actually doing what the OP suggests - show which part of the protocols you believe are a hoax.

The 'jew hate' responses are soooooo predictable and add nothing at all to any intelligent discussion.

That in no way changes the fact that, imo, the Protocols are accurate in detailing what has happened to our world and what is happening today....like I said, it's like the Zionist Illuminati blueprint.

reply to post by wcitizen


So let me ask.. You ask for people to explain why its a fake, and you ask for evidence to support it. That was provided and you still think they are real?

Out of curiosity exactly what type of info did you want?
Secondly, imo, why ask for info if you were just going to dismiss it?

Just curious.

Would you mind showing us proof that the book is real?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by wcitizen

 

So let me ask.. You ask for people to explain why its a fake, and you ask for evidence to support it. That was provided and you still think they are real?

Out of curiosity exactly what type of info did you want?
Secondly, imo, why ask for info if you were just going to dismiss it?

Just curious.

Would you mind showing us proof that the book is real?

No Ex, I didn't ask that at all. Go read the posts again. That was someone else. I simply answered your question about why I thought they were real.

So, stop having a go at me and get your godamn facts straight before you take a pop.

You're starting to sound like the thought police.

reply to post by Xcathdra


If it is real or not, a matter of faith.
If it's much older as stated, a matter of faith.
If it is telling the truth? A matter of checking the facts against the writings.
Coïncedance?, a matter of faith.

I absolutely believe the protocols.
The protocols are treated like any "alternative" explanation of historical events, much like the killing of JFK, 911, the OKC bombing, and literally thousands of other less significant events...there is no room for the truth.
The protocols are nothing less than an blueprint, perhaps a bit outdated, but I am quite sure modified by now. These so-called "Jews" are crafty, they invented the monetary system that controls us. Few know the extent of the control they wield. They have attacked anyone of any significance that have tried to get the truth out.
Anything these beasts say is false, I will always take a second look at.

Originally posted by wcitizen
No Ex, I didn't ask that at all. Go read the posts again. That was someone else.

Uhhm.... ok
So this was not you? - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thatks for such a non-contribution to the thread. How about actually explaining why you disagree with it, and actually doing what the OP suggests - show which part of the protocols you believe are a hoax.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I simply answered your question about why I thought they were real.

Right I got that.. I was asking if you could provide sources that state its true. I asked because you asked for proof that it was a hoax. I was curious what sources you had that supported it.

Originally posted by wcitizen
So, stop having a go at me, I know you do this on purpose.

I have not ben rude to you and I have taken the time to contribute to this thread. I merely asked you the same question you asked the other poster - which was to explain why you think its valid and to show some sources supporting that argument.

Im not entirely sure why you think thats a go at you.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Get your facts straight before you take a pop.

I did, and I pointed out where you asked the poster to prove it was not a hoax.

Originally posted by wcitizen
You're starting to sound like the thought police.

Is it possible for you to to debate a topic without resorting to dismissal and name calling? As I said, ive been respectful and provided info to support that its a hoax.

All I asked was for you to explain why you think they are valid and to show supporting sources.

So yeah... Not sure why your getting all bent out of shape here.

Originally posted by EartOccupant
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If it is real or not, a matter of faith.
If it's much older as stated, a matter of faith.
If it is telling the truth? A matter of checking the facts against the writings.
Coïncedance?, a matter of faith.

edit on 10-8-2011 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)

The "facts" were checked, which is what resulted in the book being labeled as a hoax / not true.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by wcitizen
No Ex, I didn't ask that at all. Go read the posts again. That was someone else.

Uhhm.... ok
So this was not you? - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thatks for such a non-contribution to the thread. How about actually explaining why you disagree with it, and actually doing what the OP suggests - show which part of the protocols you believe are a hoax.

That's your misinterpretation. You just can't wait can you, to try hassle people. I did NOT ask why they thought it was fake, I asked someone else - NOT you - to make a more intelligent contribution to the discussion and suggested that they answer the OP's question - NOT mine.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I simply answered your question about why I thought they were real.

Right I got that.. I was asking if you could provide sources that state its true. I asked because you asked for proof that it was a hoax. I was curious what sources you had that supported it

Originally posted by wcitizen

So, stop having a go at me, I know you do this on purpose.

I have not ben rude to you and I have taken the time to contribute to this thread. I merely asked you the same question you asked the other poster - which was to explain why you think its valid and to show some sources supporting that argument.

Im not entirely sure why you think thats a go at you.

You're being dishonest. Don't play the naive victim.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Get your facts straight before you take a pop.

I did, and I pointed out where you asked the poster to prove it was not a hoax.

Except I never asked that.

Originally posted by wcitizen
You're starting to sound like the thought police.

Is it possible for you to to debate a topic without resorting to dismissal and name calling? As I said, ive been respectful and provided info to support that its a hoax.

All I asked was for you to explain why you think they are valid

It's called goading people.

And I answered that question twice already. And below I answer it again. That's three times. If that's not clear enough there's nothing more to be said on my side If you can't understand it that's your problem not mine.

and to show supporting sources.

What do you want, a brain scan so you can see my thought process? Because the sources are the document itself and my observations of history and the current world situation.

So yeah... Not sure why your getting all bent out of shape here.

I believe they are true based on my observation of what they say and what has happened and is happening to our world. Is it possible that now I've said this three times you might actually understand what I'm saying?

I'm not remotely interested in engaging in a ciruclar discussion about whether they are a hoax or not, and, moreover, even if I were, I wouln't engage in such a discussion with you Ex. I have no intention of replying to your interrogations and engaging circular, never-ending, pointless arguments. You obviously enjoy that but it's not my thing.

I'm not getting bent out of shape, I'm saying enough is enough of your kind of nonsense. If there was an ignore button I would use it...but there isn't. So - just so you know, I will be ignoring all posts of yours in future.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh bull.
Anyone can put a label on anything, much like you are doing now. The protocols will be around long after you are gone.
And that is the issue here. Zionists always deny what they are doing, but the fingerprints are all over many of the worst acts ever perpetrated my man. Every day, more people become aware of the control they exert on how people interpret history as well as present events. They are cunning and ruthless.
It is no longer conspiracy, it is simply fact. IN fact, the old folks knew these things, but the kids bought the propaganda.
Not any more.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Someone posted that it was written much sooner than any of the writings you mention..

Wouldn't the starting point be to find out if that is true and WHEN the Protocols (if real) were written??

Man why are you getting all bent out of shape on this?

quote]Originally posted by wcitizen
That's your misinterpretation. You just can't wait can you, to try hassle people. I did NOT ask why they thought it was fake, I asked someone else - NOT you - to make a more intelligent contribution to the discussion and suggested that they answer the OP's question - NOT mine.

Yes you asked someone else, and I answered the question as well.

Originally posted by wcitizen
You're being dishonest. Don't play the naive victim.

Im not being dishonest nor am I playing a naive victim. As I stated all I did was ask why you felt the book was real and simply asked to show some sources that supported that position.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Except I never asked that.

Then who asked this -

Thatks for such a non-contribution to the thread. How about actually explaining why you disagree with it, and actually doing what the OP suggests - show which part of the protocols you believe are a hoax.

Originally posted by wcitizen
It's called goading people.

Im not goading you at all. I asked a question and you are getting bent out of shape or no reason.

Originally posted by wcitizen
And I answered that question twice already. And below I answer it again. That's three times. If that's not clear enough there's nothing more to be said on my side If you can't understand it that's your problem not mine.

Yes you stated you think they are real. I was asking for you to provide a source that supports the concept they are real. Again, its just a question. If you dont have any sources thats fine to, just say so. As you and others are fond of pointing out that western media / sources arent always reliable, a request for sources to support your side of the argument would give me and others a better idea of why people thinks its real as well as any information that western sources have left out.

IE im asking you to show me your side of the fence so I have a beter understanding of the basis for you position and thought process.

Originally posted by wcitizen
What do you want, a brain scan so you can see my thought process? Because the sources are the document itself and my observations of history and the current world situation.

I was asking for sources that could challenge the western media version of the books. As I stated above, you and others are critical of western media. Is it wrong to ask for information from the opposing view so I can learn?

Originally posted by wcitizen
I believe they are true based on my observation of what they say and what has happened and is happening to our world. Is it possible that now I've said this three times you might actually understand what I'm saying?

Well, since you keep missing the point of my question, we might as well move on.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I'm not remotely interested in engaging in a ciruclar discussion about whether they are a hoax or not, and, moreover, even if I were, I wouln't engage in such a discussion with you Ex. I have no intention of replying to your interrogations and engaging circular, never-ending, pointless arguments. You obviously enjoy that but it's not my thing.

If you arent intrested in debating if they are real or not, then why are you posting in this thread? The topic is why do people ignore the zionist protocols.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I'm not getting bent out of shape, I'm saying enough is enough of your kind of nonsense. If there was an ignore button I would use it...but there isn't. So - just so you know, I will be ignoring all posts of yours in future.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by SirClem


Personal attack aside, how are you coming to the conclusion that I am labeling anyone? All I have done was to answer a question and showed sources for my answer.

I then asked why people think its real, and asked for information supporting that argument.

Seriously, no need to get bent out of shape or attack me. They were questions I asked and nothing more.

You think they are real and that is fine. Any chance you could throw some sources / incidents that occured in the real world that the book talked about?

Thanks

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Someone posted that it was written much sooner than any of the writings you mention..

Wouldn't the starting point be to find out if that is true and WHEN the Protocols (if real) were written??

Yes and no..

The book that was plagerized was written in the late 1800's. Another book that was written in the mid 1800s is also linked as a source.

Those 2 books were plagerized to create the book the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That is why people dont buy into the protocols. People are free to beleive what they want. All I wanted was to get a view on the opposite side of the fence to see if there is information that is not included in the research I did that can call it into question.

Here is some info about its creation - Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Wiki

The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. It was originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police, and unknown others.[2][3]

Source material for the forgery consisted of an 1864 novel by the French political satirist Maurice Joly entitled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu or Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu,[4] and a chapter from an 1868 book of fiction entitled "Biarritz" by the antisemitic German novelist Hermann Goedsche, which had been translated into Russian in 1872.[5]

With the info above, whats your take on the book?

Do you think its valid, or do you think its possible it could be a fake?

Thanks