I cannot imagine how firmly closed your mind would have to be in order to read that entire book without getting anything out of it but a laugh. Congratulations on being a computer.
Oh crap, you're not just running around posting about things you have no clue about are you? Because that could be soooooooooooo embarrassing if someone caught you...
Speaking of reptilians. David Icke speaks with [size=-1]the Great Zulu Shaman and Elder Credo Mutwa about the existence of [/size]reptilians. Or the[size=-1] "Chitauri" as they call them over in Africa.[/size] Video of it here. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6842790718258500975&q=Credo+Mutwa&hl=en
Infinite, in my personal opinion I don't think he is purposely trying to discredit other researchers, I think he just deeply believes in something that many people call him crazy for. He has never backtracked and changed his stories or theories and has always stuck with what he believes so I respect that. I just think right now the entire conspiracy scene needs to step away from EVERYTHING and put all their effort into exposing 9/11, that is to me the most important thing because if you get people to realize 911 was an inside job and that the govt can cover up massive things and lie about them and get away with them, they will realize that much of the other so called "conspiracies" that they were told not to believe unlessthey're crazy could be true...see what im saying?
Ok, that makes a lot of sense, because I hear a lot of people saying that and I wanted to know if they mean purposely trying to discredit Right on!
As I understand it, David Icke claims that a number of reptiles came from another planet and took on human guise in public as they ran the world. He claims that amongst those that present themselves in this way are the British royal family and (I believe) Kris Kristopherson. He adds that this is a defamation and that because they haven't sued him he must be right. In contrast to this, there are a number of groups that are associated with advocating defence of the Jewish faith that when Icke talks about reptiles he is using the word reptile as a proxy for the word Jew and stereotyping the Jewish faith. There was a book called THEM & US by Jon Ronson that came out a few years ago that covered people's beliefs that a cabal of individuals were running the world. It covers a variety of groups, including Icke's, and he came to the conclusion that Icke really believed that reptiles ran the world, even though Ronson himself is Jewish. He wasn't sure about some of Icke's colleagues, but he didn't doubt Icke's motives. I say all that to say this. It's all very well to say someone is closed minded, but as soon as most people hear what he believes, what do you expect them to do?
Incidentally Icke argues that the Protocols of the Elders Zion (an anti-semitic tract that can be traced back to a Russian Czar) are true too.
What do you mean he believes they're "true"? Are you saying they don't exist? They do exist, but their exact origin is unknown. Many people, including myself, believe the author of the protocols was Meyer Amschel Rothschild. But it really doesn't matter who wrote the protocols, all that matters is that almost everything mentioned in the protocols has become a reality in our moden-day society. Whoever wrote the protocols, Jewish or not, at least had inside knowledge. The idea that the protocols are a forgery is simply false.
I don't dispute that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion exist. They were, however, discredited as early as 84yrs ago as an anti-semitic forgery, a finding supported by a Russian historian in 1999. You say they were written by someone else. Based on what evidence? You say that the writer had inside knowledge. Of what? A Jewish plot to take over a capitalist world? Because, lets be clear here, that's what they say. Is that what you really believe? The protocols say, amongst other things that are equally farsical, that they believe in communism, don't believe in God, are going to enslave non-Jews, create a Jewish "SuperPower," "Forbid Christ," and the like. The last time I checked none of those had occured. Finally are you really saying the Protocols aren't false and what do you mean by that anyway?
With the greatest of respect, I try and find out about something before I comment on it, so yes I've read them. I tried to answer the points you raised. How about you doing me the courtesy of doing the same thing rather than just saying I've been spoonfed lies?
Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most well documented forgerys of alll time. It's plagarised from a work of anti-Napoleonic literature written shortly before the Battle of Leipzing. It was a satirical work, the original writters name was Joly Maurice. The original work didn't have any anti-semitic references. It was plagerized by a Russian Czar as work to strenghten the Czars by uniting them aginst the Jews. In the translation the word 'French' was changed to 'Zion', and 'The Emporer' was changed to 'we the jews.' It is very much a piece of anti-semitic plagirism. The original is quite a good work of political satire. Sort of The Colbert Report of Napoleonic France. Heres the original at amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739106996/ref=sr_11_1/102-9358446-8233760?ie=UTF8
http://www.savethemales.ca/000298.html Protocols Forgery Argument is Flawed By Henry Makow Ph.D. December 14, 2003 Next to the Bible The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is perhaps the mostly widely read book in the world. Published in Russia in 1903, it purports to be the leaked master plan for "Jewish world domination." It is the kind of thing that would be studied at secret workshops of an occult society. In different ways, both Zionists and Nazis have made it synonymous with virulent anti Semitism and genocide. But surely Jews should not be blamed for the machinations of a tiny secret society. The vast majority of Jews would disavow this master plan if they believed it existed. Surely one can condemn all racism and genocide in the strongest possible terms and still believe the Protocols are authentic. In my opinion, the equation with anti Semitism is really a ploy to divert attention away from this master plan. The plagiarism claim is part of a propaganda campaign waged by conscious and unconscious collaborators in academia and the media. THE FORGERY CLAIM We are told that The Protocols of Zion is a hoax, a "proven forgery" concocted by the Tsarist Political Police (the Okhrana) to incite anti Semitism and discredit revolutionaries. But the "proof" is far from convincing. It consists of three articles published in The London Times (August 16-18, 1921) by Philip Graves. According to Graves, Protocols is a crude, chapter-by-chapter plagiarism of Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864). It was easy to make this claim while Joly's book was unavailable. Napolean III's police confiscated it as soon as it was published. But it is available now and I invite you to compare the two texts. In my opinion, they are entirely different in tone, content and purpose. At 140 pages, Dialogues is twice as long as Protocols. Most of it finds no echo in the Protocols. The crux of Graves' argument is that certain references and passages in Protocols were lifted from Dialogues. He claims there are 50 of these and produces about a dozen. Their striking resemblance to Protocols leaves little doubt that the author did refer to the Dialogues as part of his research. He had no compunction about borrowing or reshaping a few passages that struck his fancy. Indeed Philip Graves is "struck by the absence of any effort on the part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarisms." That's because he had nothing to hide. He was not Graves' "unimportant precis- writer employed by the court or by the Okhrana" to construct a hoax. He was a diabolical genius crafting an original work. It is simplistic and disingenuous to characterize Protocols as a hoax. POLITICAL PROVENANCE Graves' article smacks of a Zionist propaganda operation. Graves "expose" of Protocols appeared in August 1921 when Zionists were pressing the League of Nations to turn Palestine into a Jewish homeland under British Mandate. Philip Grave tells the unlikely story that a "Mr. X" brought the Dialogues to him in Constantinople where he was the Times' correspondent. Mr. X presented it as "irrefutable proof" that the Protocols are a plagiarism. Mr. X was a White Russian, which seems incredible given the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution. He claims he bought the book from, get this, "a former member of the Okhrana" who had fled to Constantinople. In The Controversy of Zion, (Chapter 34) Douglas Reed, a Times' staffer at the time, provides additional background. In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of The Times, printed an article about the Protocols entitled "The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, A Call for an Enquiry. " It concluded: "An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and their history is most desirable...are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?" Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise it to the Jewish people when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arab residents. Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times of London in 1921 refused to print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired. Somehow Steed was able to have Northcliffe declared "insane" and committed. Later Northcliffe complained he was being poisoned and died suddenly in 1922. Douglas Reed was Northcliffe's secretary but didn't learn of these events until they appeared in the Official History of the Times in the 1950's. Clearly Northcliffe had offended some "big boys" when he opposed the British Mandate in Palestine. Why was it so important? Israel is intended to be the capital of the Masonic World Government. They are already constructing the infrastructure. See "The Roots of Evil in Jerusalem." THE FORGERY CLAIM IN MORE DETAIL Philip Graves and the other apologists are incorrect to claim the Protocols plagiarize the Dialogues chapter by chapter. Graves writes that "the Seventh Dialogue...corresponds with the fifth, sixth, seventh and part of the eighth Protocol. " At eight pages, these Protocols are twice as long as the Seventh Dialogue. They mostly contain material not in the Seventh Dialogue, or anywhere else. I will list a few examples from Protocol Five alone. Protocol Five says "our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions" that it will "wipe out any goyim who oppose us by deed or word." In contrast Seventh Dialogue says, "Death, expropriation and torture should only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states." Protocols Five says we "robbed [the goyim] of their faith in God" and "insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights" thereby undermining the authority of Kings. There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven. Protocol Five says, "we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power [allowing us] gradually to absorb all State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government." There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven. Protocol Five says the "engine" of all states is "in our hands" and that engine is "Gold." "We were chosen by God Himself to rule over the whole earth." There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven. ON THE OTHER HAND The author of Protocols does select a few passages or references from Dialogues that appear unaltered (see Graves) or in different form. For example, the Dialogues' say: " Everywhere might precedes right. Political liberty is merely a relative idea. The need to live is what dominates states as it does individuals." In Protocols this becomes, "From the law of nature right lies in might. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact, and one must know how to use it [political freedom] as a bait whenever it appears necessary to attract the masses ... to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority." (Protocols 1) Graves leaves out the last part to make the resemblance seem greater than it is. Dialogues (7) say, "Revolutionary ferment which is suppressed in one's own country should be incited throughout Europe." In Protocols (7) "Throughout all Europe ... we must create ferments, discords, hostilities." There is no reference to suppressing these in one's own country. The author of Protocols is not a forger creating a hoax, but a conspirator forging an original work. SAME GENRE, DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS Both books belong to the "immoral school" of political theory. Machiavelli pays homage to a long list of rulers "who are progenitors of my doctrine." Both preach might makes right, "good" comes from evil, and the end justifies the means. But the similarity ends there. The tone of the Dialogues is dry and theoretical. It is a debate between fictional political theorists: Montesquieu a champion of democracy and Machiavelli, a champion of tyranny. Dialogues is considered a critique of the reign of Napolean III. Montesquieu asks how to quell the spirit of anarchy in society. Machiavelli prescribes a "monster called the state" which maintains a democratic artifice but is actually controlled by the "Prince." He talks about how to suppress secret societies. On the other hand, the tone of Protocols is frankly conspiratorial and subversive and pays homage to Lucifer. Protocols is a "strategic plan from which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labour of many centuries come to naught." (Protocol 1) We are struck by a sense of relevance when reading Protocols. We immediately recognize its baneful influence in today's world. See "Did Rothschild Write The Protocols of Zion?" "Protocols is the NWO Blueprint" and "Protocols Dominates Our Culture" . PROPAGANDA Since Graves' articles, there have been a few books arguing the "forgery" thesis. The latest is Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide (1970). Graves and Cohn admit that "the Financial Programme" (Protocols 20-24) which the author calls "the crowning and decisive point of our plans" is largely original. For serious researchers, Australian researcher Peter Myers presents pro and con views. Goebbels said that propaganda is effective only when the reader doesn't realize it is propaganda. It follows that dupes write the best propaganda. For example, see Rick Salutin, Protocols of Zion's Critics. CONCLUSION One hundred million people were slaughtered in the last century but no one considers the possibility that the human race might have been subverted. War is hell but no one thinks Satan worshipers might be behind it. I suspect the Second World War was a battle for racial superiority between Jewish and Aryan wings of the Illuminati who in fact are united at the top. The private central bankers of England, the U.S. and Nazi Germany made the war possible. They worked as one at the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. (See Charles Higham, Trading With the Enemy.) The purpose of the war was to degrade, defraud and demoralize humanity. The Holocaust provided a rationale for the establishment of Israel as headquarters of the New World Order. Aryans, Jews and many others were sacrificed and exploited. In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik Russia and its execration in the West today proves its authenticity. Mankind is in the grip of a diabolical conspiracy. In order to make good people do bad things, truth must be tailored to fit the political purpose. This is Communist and feminist teaching. I would like to be proven wrong, but in the case of Protocols, the "forgery" argument is propaganda. See "Protocols of Zion Updated"
If that were true, what would it have to do with The Protocols being a forgery? Maybe I'm secretly a zionist plant. Mwa ha ha. Hahahahahaha!
Of course, Henry Makow also says that a satanic jewish cabal of bankers is working to destroy christianity. I reccomend people read both too.
regardless, these arguments are futile... this article http://www.savethemales.ca/000166.html points out more of the problem... leave "he"(right, pro-semitic, whatever) said, "she" said(left,anti-semitic,whatever) arguments behind...thats the point..... the truth is that this world is so vastly complex that we must stand up, question and see the truth out there...whatever it may be... and be one of the solutions that may "take ten thousand or a million forms." lovinlight adam
