why do people ignore the zionist protocols?

Originally posted by filosophia
.....because let's face it no one really knows if it is true or not seeing as how it is over 100 years old.

And there is the problem right there. The origional author has been identified. The person who plagerized that book and changed things around to create the protocols has been identified. The perosn who plagerized that has been identified.

The research has been done, and is verifiable, that conclusively prove the protocols are not from any Jewish group, and are not from the "zionist congress" as one of the book authors claim.

Even that person was called out, and when confronted with his lies, he changed his story.

What more evidence do you need that shows this book is nothing but a fake, forgery, hoax, not real?

Even the Russian court system, where the book was supposedly written, has ruled its a hoax and anti simetic.

Also, I am not sure how, so maybe you can explain this to me, a person can beleive in the protocols while trying to maintain they are not any jewish / semetic.

If you are using the book for research purposes, then I can see the claim working.

But agreeing with the book, claiming its authentic while ignoring the mountain of evidence thats hows its fake, makes these people what exactly?

bad researchers?
misinformed?
misguided?
confused?

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I am going to save that reply, it is a jewel.
Thanks.
The Protocols, the Quran, and the Christian Bible. What an elite group.

Yup.... Whats even funnier is how that elite group has created such hatred between humans, and paranoia among the week minded who see conspiracies in everything.

please authenticate the Protocols of the elders of Zion.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by filosophia
.....because let's face it no one really knows if it is true or not seeing as how it is over 100 years old.

And there is the problem right there. The origional author has been identified. The person who plagerized that book and changed things around to create the protocols has been identified. The perosn who plagerized that has been identified.

The research has been done, and is verifiable, that conclusively prove the protocols are not from any Jewish group, and are not from the "zionist congress" as one of the book authors claim.

Even that person was called out, and when confronted with his lies, he changed his story.

What more evidence do you need that shows this book is nothing but a fake, forgery, hoax, not real?

Even the Russian court system, where the book was supposedly written, has ruled its a hoax and anti simetic.

Also, I am not sure how, so maybe you can explain this to me, a person can beleive in the protocols while trying to maintain they are not any jewish / semetic.

If you are using the book for research purposes, then I can see the claim working.

But agreeing with the book, claiming its authentic while ignoring the mountain of evidence thats hows its fake, makes these people what exactly?

bad researchers?
misinformed?
misguided?
confused?

well a link would be helpful. You can't say with absolute certainty that some author 100 years ago was identified and proved to be a liar, because they could have placed that blame on anyone to distract from the real source. As I said, I don't even think the protocols are real, only relevant, but you seem to place people in an either "real" or "hoax" category when people have more complex thoughts than just if something is real or not. Movies and fiction is unreal but it can give moral lessons, and in this case the protocols give us an insight into the (im)morality of ruthless dictators. I think everyone should at least read the protocols and then make up their own mind as to its significance.

reply to post by filosophia


I have an interesting quote from The American Hebrew, 3rd June 1938. "We have Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France and that these 'Three Sons of Israel' will be sending the Nazi Dictator to hell." Joseph Trimble.

Yes its written in 1938 but the boast that Russia was a 'Son of Israel' is clear. Jewish infiltration into Russian affairs goes to positions of influence so you could not be certain that the judiciary had not been unduly influenced concerning their findings on the authorship of the Protocols.

Also a read through the Talmud is I would suggest essential reading for everyone on this planet. The Protocols could well be considered quite mild in comparison.

Originally posted by filosophia
well a link would be helpful.

How many times do we have to have the same dsicussion? Seriously.. The links are all over this thread, along with the links the people who beleive the protocosl to be real used.

The debate their is the accuracy of the sources. The ones I used can be fact checked since they provide all the info. The ones they have provided are from sites where its impossible to fact check, because they rewrite history. Before you challenge that, feel free to peruse 2 of their given sources, Storm Front and Neo Nazi websites.

Now, you seem intelligent so I will ask this. Do you think people can seriously take information from a Neo Nazi website that deals with jews / Zionists as anything but biased propoganda?

It would be like having the SS investigate Aushwitz... Do you think the reports they submit will contain any information that is valid and not biased?

Originally posted by filosophia
You can't say with absolute certainty that some author 100 years ago was identified and proved to be a liar, because they could have placed that blame on anyone to distract from the real source.

Again this is the breakdown on your argument. The information provided that shows this is a hoax cqan be verified independantly with the information provided. The origional author than penned a completely unrelated book has been identified. His book had nothing to do with Jews or world domination.

That book was then hijacked and plagerized and twisted into the protocols.

None of that is in dispute by anyone except for those who just simply want to beleive the protocols are true. Example - The sources were given, which contain peoples names, etc etc etc.

Not one person challeneg the info.. what they did do was obfuscate and tried to make a new argument that it does not matter who wrote the book, except to say its real. Anytime they are presneted with information they cant counter, they change their argument. Look at my posts and the responses I get. I ask valid questions, and people ignore them because they cant answer them.

they ask questions, I answer them, they ignore it....

Doesnt exactly project a sense of wanting to learn from them now does it?

Originally posted by filosophia
As I said, I don't even think the protocols are real, only relevant, but you seem to place people in an either "real" or "hoax" category when people have more complex thoughts than just if something is real or not. Movies and fiction is unreal but it can give moral lessons, and in this case the protocols give us an insight into the (im)morality of ruthless dictators. I think everyone should at least read the protocols and then make up their own mind as to its significance.

again, if you think the protocols arent real, then how can they be relevant to aanything except a conversation on the spread of anti jewish material? Your argument in this one area just makes no sense. You cant say something is not real, and then argue its relevant.

as far as getting into the mind of ruthless dictators, read mein kamph... In that book you will find Hitler, as another person pointed out, used the protocols to influence himself and his views / opinions.

To take a book that is not real, and suggest people read it to get into the mind of dictators begs the question - What dictators?

If the book is not real, then how can it accurately portray what a dictator is thinking?

Your argument is circular.. You are trying to seperate the books validity and its acceptance.

The only thing that needs to be added to the Protocols, in addition to threads like this is the following:

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far far away..

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by filosophia

 

I have an interesting quote from The American Hebrew, 3rd June 1938. "We have Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France and that these 'Three Sons of Israel' will be sending the Nazi Dictator to hell." Joseph Trimble.

Yes its written in 1938 but the boast that Russia was a 'Son of Israel' is clear. Jewish infiltration into Russian affairs goes to positions of influence so you could not be certain that the judiciary had not been unduly influenced concerning their findings on the authorship of the Protocols.

Also a read through the Talmud is I would suggest essential reading for everyone on this planet. The Protocols could well be considered quite mild in comparison.

When quoting history we need to be careful about context, specifically a word used in 1938 coulld mean something completely different today...

As for the religious attack veiled in a condescending comment, you can open up ANY religious text and you will find descriptions of actions that would make a steven king movie look like a disney show.

The Jews have a vengeful Hod
The Muslims have a war ongering God who spreads religion by the sword
The Catholics have the same when it comes to the crusades, alone with the number of items a person should be put to death for (handeling a dead pig, working on the sabbath, wearing cmore than one type of cloth, planting crops side by side).

Going to war over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.

Religious paralells aside, its still does not support the claims the Protocols are real.

reply to post by Lynda101

I believe the reason some try to claim the Protocols are a fake, is because of the attention it brings to the bigger picture. A picture that has relevance today.
For example, money buys influence and power. What is money? The dollar is just paper, but it buys the goods and services that allows those that can produce this "money" to destroy entire countries.
Who controls the creation of this "money"? Rothschilds, through debt. "Jews", through debt that can never be repaid because the point is that repaying the debt is not important. The important part of this whole paper money scam is that it BUYS GOODS AND SERVICES, enabling those that create it enormous power.
Look what they are doing with that power.
Look at the Protocols.

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by filosophia

 

I have an interesting quote from The American Hebrew, 3rd June 1938. "We have Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France and that these 'Three Sons of Israel' will be sending the Nazi Dictator to hell." Joseph Trimble.

Yes its written in 1938 but the boast that Russia was a 'Son of Israel' is clear. Jewish infiltration into Russian affairs goes to positions of influence so you could not be certain that the judiciary had not been unduly influenced concerning their findings on the authorship of the Protocols.

Also a read through the Talmud is I would suggest essential reading for everyone on this planet. The Protocols could well be considered quite mild in comparison.

I've heard how the protocols come from the Talmud, but I tried to find in the Talmud some of the more well known quotes, like the quotes about Jesus and charging interest to goys, but do you have a link where I can see in the Talmud where this is actually written? I tried to look once but couldn't find it.

I bring this up because it is impossible to know if the quotes really came from the first edition of the Talmud or it has been altered throughout history, but the meaning behind it is still there, which is the same with the protocols. This whole thread, especially being placed in the hoax section, feels like a book burning of the protocols, so someone has to defend literature even if people think it is anti-semitic.

Originally posted by SirClem
I believe the reason some try to claim the Protocols are a fake, is because of the attention it brings to the bigger picture.

Wrong, the reason is because they ARE fake, just anti jewish propaganda - but jew haters ignore that

Originally posted by filosophia
I've heard how the protocols come from the Talmud, but I tried to find in the Talmud some of the more well known quotes, like the quotes about Jesus and charging interest to goys, but do you have a link where I can see in the Talmud where this is actually written? I tried to look once but couldn't find it.

Changing th words used what you just described with the tax issue on non jews is from the Quran, and its one of their main pillars - the Zakat

Zakāt

Main article: Zakāt

Zakāt or alms-giving is the practice of charitable giving by Muslims based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all who are able to do so. It is considered to be a personal responsibility for Muslims to ease economic hardship for others and eliminate inequality.[24] Zakat consists of spending 2.5% of one's wealth for the benefit of the poor or needy, including slaves, debtors and travelers. A Muslim may also donate more as an act of voluntary charity (sadaqah), rather than to achieve additional divine reward.[25] There are two main types of Zakat. First, there is the kajj, which is a fixed amount based on the cost of food that is paid during the month of Ramadan by the head of a family for himself and his dependents. Second, there is the Zakat on wealth, which covers money made in business, savings, income, and so on.[26] In current usage Zakat is treated as a 2.5% collection on most valuables and savings held for a full lunar year, as long as the total value is more than a basic minimum known as nisab (3 ounces (85.05 g)). As of 2 July 2010, nisab is approximately $3,275 or an equivalent amount in any other currency.[27] Many Shi'ites are expected to pay an additional amount in the form of a khums tax, which they consider to be a separate ritual practice.[28]

There are four principles that should be followed when giving the Zakat:
1.The giver must declare to God his intention to give the Zakat.
2.The Zakat must be paid on the day that it is due.
3.Payment must be in kind. This means if one is wealthy then he or she needs to pay 2.5% of their income. If a person does not have much money, then they should compensate for it in different ways, such as good deeds and good behavior toward others.
4.The Zakat must be distributed in the community from which it was taken.

Non Muslims who fall under Muslim occupation / Rule are required to pay a tax (essentially a bribe in order to not be killed) to the muslims.

reply to post by SirClem

If we are going to go down the idiotic road about money and power, then, once again, please quit seeing ONLY what you want to see, and quit laying 100 percent of the blame on Jews.

The change from a bartering system over to a modern economic system comes from Mesopotamia.....

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by filosophia
I've heard how the protocols come from the Talmud, but I tried to find in the Talmud some of the more well known quotes, like the quotes about Jesus and charging interest to goys, but do you have a link where I can see in the Talmud where this is actually written? I tried to look once but couldn't find it.

Changing th words used what you just described with the tax issue on non jews is from the Quran, and its one of their main pillars - the Zakat

Zakāt

Main article: Zakāt

Zakāt or alms-giving is the practice of charitable giving by Muslims based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all who are able to do so. It is considered to be a personal responsibility for Muslims to ease economic hardship for others and eliminate inequality.[24] Zakat consists of spending 2.5% of one's wealth for the benefit of the poor or needy, including slaves, debtors and travelers. A Muslim may also donate more as an act of voluntary charity (sadaqah), rather than to achieve additional divine reward.[25] There are two main types of Zakat. First, there is the kajj, which is a fixed amount based on the cost of food that is paid during the month of Ramadan by the head of a family for himself and his dependents. Second, there is the Zakat on wealth, which covers money made in business, savings, income, and so on.[26] In current usage Zakat is treated as a 2.5% collection on most valuables and savings held for a full lunar year, as long as the total value is more than a basic minimum known as nisab (3 ounces (85.05 g)). As of 2 July 2010, nisab is approximately $3,275 or an equivalent amount in any other currency.[27] Many Shi'ites are expected to pay an additional amount in the form of a khums tax, which they consider to be a separate ritual practice.[28]

There are four principles that should be followed when giving the Zakat:
1.The giver must declare to God his intention to give the Zakat.
2.The Zakat must be paid on the day that it is due.
3.Payment must be in kind. This means if one is wealthy then he or she needs to pay 2.5% of their income. If a person does not have much money, then they should compensate for it in different ways, such as good deeds and good behavior toward others.
4.The Zakat must be distributed in the community from which it was taken.

Non Muslims who fall under Muslim occupation / Rule are required to pay a tax (essentially a bribe in order to not be killed) to the muslims.

reply to post by SirClem

 

If we are going to go down the idiotic road about money and power, then, once again, please quit seeing ONLY what you want to see, and quit laying 100 percent of the blame on Jews.

The change from a bartering system over to a modern economic system comes from Mesopotamia.....

edit on 20-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Your external link talks about charity towards the poor, but I don't see where it mentions charging interest to non-members. It even says if they can't afford it they should translate it into good deeds towards others. Am I missing something here?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by SirClem
I believe the reason some try to claim the Protocols are a fake, is because of the attention it brings to the bigger picture.

Wrong, the reason is because they ARE fake, just anti jewish propaganda - but jew haters ignore that

Way to lump people you don't even know as Jew haters. I think the whole "Jew hating" thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You want people to hate Jews because then it justifies you ridiculing their theories and research. But guess what, I don't hate Jews

reply to post by Xcathdra


Joseph Trimble's words are crystal clear despite the date. They also mean you can't make a judgement that the Russian judiciary had not been infiltrated - you can't prove the Protocols are not authentic. They have to be left to stand as they are. When you read the Talmud, you cannot fail to link the two in principle.

Talmud: Tosefta, Tractate Erubin V111 -

When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him so that the Gentile will be ruined. For the property of a Gentile belongs to no one and the 1st Jew that pases has full right to seize it.

reply to post by filosophia

I can provide a link that does much more for you than what you request my friend.
Everything about the Talmud and Jewish law
Quite stimulating reading actually.
This is a good site also.
Israel

reply to post by Xcathdra

Nice try.
Keynesian economics came from the Mesopotamia? I don't think so.
Pathetic.

Originally posted by filosophia
Your external link talks about charity towards the poor, but I don't see where it mentions charging interest to non-members. It even says if they can't afford it they should translate it into good deeds towards others. Am I missing something here?

Jiyza - wikipedia

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye; both derived from Pahlavi and possibly from Aramaic gaziyat[1]) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power,[2] (but with specific exemptions,[3][4] From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[5] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8]

When the Sharif system came into place, the exemptions on non muslims were removed.

Application

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book. Slaves, women, children, the old, the sick,[3] monks, hermits and the poor,[4] were all exempt from the tax, unless any of them was independent and wealthy. However, these exemptions were no longer observed during some periods in Muslim history, and discarded entirely by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory.[47] There was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.[16][48]

Though jizya was mandated specifically for other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism), under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims.[49] Thus some Muslim rulers also collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule. The collection of the tax was sometimes the duty of the elders of those communities, but often it was collected directly from individuals, in accordance with specific payment rituals described in the writings of Muslim jurists.[citation needed]

In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were permitted to keep their non-Muslim religion. Their economic and political security was guaranteed by the Islamic state, provided that they accepted Islamic control.[50] They could not serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. If someone refused to pay the jizya, he could be imprisoned.[51] The jizya was used for paying the salaries of state servants, pensions and on charities. In some instances, however, it ended up in "private" treasuries.[5]

Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that the discrimination in the amount of taxation was inherited from the previous Byzantium and Iranian empires.[6][52][53] Scholars differ as to the exact burden imposed by the jizya tax. Documentary evidence, including that found in eleventh-century Cairo Geniza documents, suggest that the burden, at least for the poorer classes, was heavy. As the taxation amount was fixed in gold, it became less burdensome over the centuries.[54]

According to Abu Yusuf, jurist of Harun al-Rashid, those who didn't pay jizya should be imprisoned not to be let out of custody until payment. It is not permissible to exempt one person, while obliging another to pay jizya, nor is jizya to be reduced.[55] Though it was an annual tax, non-Muslims were allowed to pay it in monthly installments.[16]

If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. This punishment did not apply if the person had suffered injustices from Muslims.[56]

reply to post by Lynda101


Ah yes... The old everyting is a conspiracy theory io an effort to discount facts that dont support your view.

I always find it intresting that you guys, using your own sense of conspiracy theories, cant apply that same standard to the protocols.

After all, how do we know the people behind the book werent infiltrated by anti semites looking to blame the Jews for everything in an effort to justify killing them and taking their property?

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Nice try.
Keynesian economics came from the Mesopotamia? I don't think so.
Pathetic.

Then where do they come from all great and knowing oracle?

Or is it your standard now to dismiss and not answer?

Originally posted by Lynda101

Joseph Trimble's words are crystal clear despite the date. They also mean you can't make a judgement that the Russian judiciary had not been infiltrated - you can't prove the Protocols are not authentic. They have to be left to stand as they are.

Bad attempt at deflection Conspiracy theory does not constitute evidence. How about some facts for a change?

reply to post by Xcathdra

John Maynard Keynes.

"His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism".

Keynes

I believe he was accused of being anti-semitic. Why, I don't know.