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.
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
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
"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"
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by wcitizen
No Ex, I didn't ask that at all. Go read the posts again. That was someone else.
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.
Originally posted by wcitizen
So, stop having a go at me, I know you do this on purpose.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Get your facts straight before you take a pop.
Originally posted by wcitizen
You're starting to sound like the thought police.
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)
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.
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 wcitizen
You're being dishonest. Don't play the naive victim.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Except I never asked that.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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??
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]