The Protocols of the Learned elders of zion

kinglizard,

hey we agree?

yeah that is a constant theme in the new testament, love your neighbour as you succinctly point out here. I even see parallels in the Koran with this philosophy even though infidels are said to deserve special attention (that is if it is interpreted correctly by us).

but the old testament is hard core no doubt about it.

I know nothing about the Koran, but I�m willing to learn.

Originally posted by Hamilton

Yes, and how on Earth he is able to twist this to mean that it is a commandment is only understandable if he is one of those people who has broken out of some cult which says that every word of the bible are commandments of God. Also, his ignorance is more than evident when he likeways says that a prophecy or a warning of great trouble should be read like a law. And to complete his folly, he adds and twists as he sees fit. Good to see that atleast some here knows how to read the books.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Are you some kind of nut or just some arrogant, self appointed prophet... dont include me in your future conversations with yourself

Originally posted by Tamahu
lol!

I remember the debate we had about something similiar(I think it was you anyway).

I am normally able to proove and back up my offensive translations and visions of holy books. He just poors out mud.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Ashlar
Are you some kind of nut or just some arrogant, self appointed prophet... dont include me in your future conversations with yourself

I am obviously your pain in the ass and I intend to keep spanking you until you stop turning the Word of God into the whore of mud. You obviously don't understand it or you are biased by hate towards something you hav eonly come to know through rumors and destructive arrogance towards something you know most people in this world concider a holy book, for that's what your last contributions to this thread have reflected anyway. And plain dead ignorance.

By the way, do you mean nut as in crazy or nut as in Nut of Egypt or just a nut like a nut like in a shielded seed?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 16-2-2004 by Hamilton]

i realize this was posted several years ago, but why do all of your references come from the same anti-semitic organization? broaden your references and you may have a legitimate argument but you are using a completely biased standpoint.

Originally posted by Seekerof
"The Protocols Of Zion - A Literary Forgery"
www.rense.com...
www.h-net.org...

Seems Freemasonry, in general, thinks its a forgery also:
"History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
freemasonry.bcy.ca...

"Forgeries"
www.sniggle.net...

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
en.wikipedia.org...

"Forgery, Fraud & Forensics Profile"
www.caslon.com.au...

Exceprt:
"Forged scriptures or religious documentation appears to be less common.

A salient example is the antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, manufactured by the Tsarist secret police but lovingly propagated by Henry Ford and the Nazi Party among others. The Protocols are discussed in Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy & the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (London: Paladin 1976) and A Lie & A Libel: The History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Lincoln: Uni of Nebraska Press 1997) by Binjamin Segel.

Regrettably they're still being peddled by neo-Nazi groups and appearing in major newspapers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nations."

"Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
www.epwijnants-lectures.com...

Excerpt:
"The Protocols were first proven to be a forgery in 1921 and are now almost universally recognized as such. Yet their dubious authenticity has never substantially reduced their effectiveness as antisemitic propaganda, and they have been used to support anti-Jewish conspiracy theories from their first appearance around 1900 right up until the present day, perhaps most famously and most tragically in Nazi Germany."

"The Left Flank of the Protocols"
users.cyberone.com.au...

Exceprt:
"Cohn's greatest failing is that he does not ask the question, "Is there any independent evidence that there is a one-world conspiracy; and if so, how might the Protocols be related to it?"

"FORGERY OR GENUINE DOCUMENT?(new authentication methods)"
www.findarticles.com...

Excerpt:
"In 1993 a Russian court finally ruled that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were forged by Tsar Nicholas II's secret police, the Okhrana. The decision was made by a three-member panel of academic `wise-men'. After extensive inquiries, they concluded that the book, which suggested a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to overthrow Christian civilisation, was a reworking of an original text containing no such claims."

"The Elders of Zion and the Masters of Discourse I"
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

"Warrant for Genocide"
www.interlinkbooks.com...


In such, I guess it boils down to "belief", as with anything else, right Ashlar and NEO? NEO mentions:
"What matters is outcomes, PERIOD!"
I beg to differ and provide this as example:

"To the extent that the Protocols seem to have correctly predicted the trend of events, this implies some constancy of intent. Even if so, things have not always gone to plan; there are other forces at play. History books may be 99% accurate, but the 1% they omit makes all the difference. When "writing in" that 1%, one might give the impression that the other 99% does not count; but, of course, one is merely correcting what has been omitted or distorted."

In such and in all fairness, I'll provide this for those who agree with the Protocols not being forgeries:
"Evaluating the arguments that the Protocols of Zion..."
users.cyberone.com.au...




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-2-2004 by Seekerof]

bumping this thread and quoting this post due to the fact that if I am ignorant of facts then so must a lot of other people.

Its all one big ruddy hoax and waste of (*swear) ruddy time.

WTF if its a hoax does every second person rave on and on about the Protocols of Zion???

Farout... thats two farouts in one week!

Seems to me the Protocols of Zion were a planned line of events that were made to happen. Kinda creepy. Has any one seen the movie Protocols of Zion? Is it any good?

Haven't seen the movie, but I know one thing: the book appears to be authentic.

After reading through the book, it should be obvious that it is not plagiarism from books like Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell.

reply to post by bazurko
The British also bought into the Protocols at first as being authentic. No less personage than Winston churchill even fell for the hoax that the Ohkrana had pieced together to set up a pogrom against the Jews in Russia. Later, Winston churchill was forced to apologize publicly for having proclaimed the Protocols of the Lerned elders of Zion a true conspiracy of Jews for World Domination. It is easy to get caught up in stuff that has long ago been proved to be a forgery. Even I have fallen for stuff like that at times.

Originally posted by sunode
Haven't seen the movie, but I know one thing: the book appears to be authentic.

After reading through the book, it should be obvious that it is not plagiarism from books like Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell.

So how do you explain the sections of the Protocols that are word-for-word exactly the same as text in Dialogue in Hell?

Time travel?

The stance is that the Protocols are plagiarism from 'Dialogues in Hell' by M. Joly.

Investigate for yourself between the two books:

Dialogues in Hell
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

It's quite fascinating: there is no proof of exact word-for-word copying between the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Dialogues in Hell, except in one passage:

A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5 per cent., then in 20 years the Government will have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice, and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain an unpaid debt. – "Protocols," p. 77. MONTESQUIEU,-- "How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet ir remains debtor for the entire capital sum." – "Geneva Dialogues," p. 256.

That's insufficient to talk of plagiarism.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by sunode]

Originally posted by Ashlar
people need to acknowledge the difference between
being an "anti-semite" and being "anti-zionist"

There is a difference, which can be plainly seen.

Those who label others "anti-semite" are Zionists engaged in deflection.

Originally posted by DaTruth
they also had a training manual about "Silent Weapons for a Quiet War"

That is a good read.

You can find it in the torrent "EBOOK COLLECTION (PART6) [CSI][H33t]" along with some other good educational materials.

It escapes me as to why such an obvious forgery can still be accepted as "gospel truth" roughly 100 years after first surfacing in Tsarist Russia. In these so-called 'enlightened times,' some people would rather still engage in semantics which are as closed minded as closed mindedness can be. Sure, a Russian court in 1993 proved that the Protocol's were a forgery. But so did several earlier Russian Courts prove it as a forgery. Even Kruschev himself admitted in was a forgery. The only ones who claimed otherwise were anti-Semites like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and others of their ilk. It is in my own humble opinion that this subject should be closed off by the moderators as being detrimental to the health of healthy debate hear at ATS. I hope I am not out of line in suggesting that course of action. But then again it is just a suggestion and I will not mention either this suggestion or talk about the Protocols myself her on ATS/BTS.

Judging by your signature, your views on this could be coloured...

Compare M. Joly and Protocols and give me proof of plagiarism. Prove your point.



[edit on 25-5-2009 by sunode]

Wally, tell me why it matters who wrote them, or where they came from.

Have you noticed that what they say is what has been and still is happening?
Have you noticed that they are almost completely fulfilled?

reply to post by OhZone

It is not the Jews who have fulfilled them. Rather, it is the non-Jews, as repreneted by the Rockefellers, et al, who hav fulfilled them. Yet everyone insists that it is "the Jews" who are the evil minded people out to enslave us. It is the Rockefellers and others of their ilk who are enslaving us as part of the NWO program.

Originally posted by sunode
The stance is that the Protocols are plagiarism from 'Dialogues in Hell' by M. Joly.

Investigate for yourself between the two books:

Dialogues in Hell
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

It's quite fascinating: there is no proof of exact word-for-word copying between the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Dialogues in Hell, except in one passage:

A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5 per cent., then in 20 years the Government will have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice, and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain an unpaid debt. – "Protocols," p. 77. MONTESQUIEU,-- "How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet ir remains debtor for the entire capital sum." – "Geneva Dialogues," p. 256.

That's insufficient to talk of plagiarism.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by sunode]

So what do you call it? Astounding coindicence?

Helen Darville/Demidenko only plagiarised very small sections of text for her book "The Hand That Signed the Paper", yet she was still found to have plagiarised.

The Protocols are plagiaristic and a literary forgery.

It is depressing that people still believe it to be legit.

Helen Darville was found to have plagiarised