You are absolutely right jack. The various powers that be quickly realized that it was way easier to confiscate than compete, so they used the Christ Killer, blood libel, conspiracy theories and accusations of usery etc., to steal jewish wealth. Wealth that they built despite the open bigotry they were constantly exposed to. Remarkable really. Seems they were able to build commercial empires by supplying the very people who hated them with religious fervor. I see you've put a lot of thought into it. Given that the industrial revolution didnt start until the 19th century, I guess jews before that couldn't be manufacturers. They were limited in where and what types of land they could buy. Lots of them were subsistence farmers like their goyim neighbours - the concept of industrial farming was a few centuries away. Knowledge based professions such as finance, law. engineering and medicine were readily available to them there was a pressing need because the education systems prior to the late 19th century couldn't turn out enough quality goyim professionals to meet demand. This also extended to import/export wholesale and retail where they had an advantage that ironically was an artifact of their persecution - after all persecution leads to insularization. They were able to tap into an informal readily available, and very effective network of jewish suppliers and customers throughout Europe and the middle east that other "traders" had to develop on their own. As to this old myth of usery. Can you tell us when the first credit rating service came on line? Ever hear of anyone who was happy with the interest rate he was paying? do you have any inkling at all of how the financial markets worked in the 1300's or the 1600's or the 1800s? Sorry of course not. paid 4000% on a loan jack? Of course anyone taking advantage of the poor, ignorant, stupid and desperate are dispicable parasites. I some how doubt that that is the exclusive domain of jews however. Didn't the concept of sweatshops and working poor originate in your fair country? Shall we begn to list the negative cultural traits of the british that enabled them to be revel in supremacism (make the top three list of all time white/british power bigots) and loot almost 1/3 of the world? What was that biblical quotation about throwing stones? If you blame the jews for their past sins, I think it only fair that every other ethnic/national group get blamed for theirs and your list is even longer than the jews and accumulated in a way shorter time period.
I think that this thread has been appropriately re-named by the mods and is now correctly reflecting its real intention. Bravo Mods!
Good morning, Marlowe. The predecessor of the Protocols can be found in the pamphlet "Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu," published by the non-Jewish French satirist Maurice Joly in 1864. In his "Dialogues," which make no mention of the Jews, Joly attacked the political ambitions of the emperor Napoleon 3 using the imagery of a diabolical plot in Hell.
Blablablabbedy (*)(*)(*)(*) bla, what we know for sure is that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are word for word plagiarisms of Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu or (Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu) by Maurice Joly. You learn to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing read yet sport or are you have trouble with the plain English again the author is Maurice Joly of whose work the Protocols are word for word plagiarisms.
This OP is about the Iranians calling for the extermination not of Israel or Zionists (they do that as well) but the extermination of world Jewry, so wtf is your point in bringing up the fact that some people call others antisemites in order to shield Israel from criticism? Are you saying that calling for the extermination of the Jews as did the Iranians in the OP is not a genuine example of antisemitism and if so what exactly would qualify in your book?
Yes. That says it all, from you. Not able to say anything more, not able to debate me, point by point. Well done, Docco.
Why does anyone care what Iran said about Israel. Its not like Israel doesn't reciprocate in the absurdness.
Not at all...the doc is doing his normal, defending the indefensible, but what does that matter to the like of you lot, are you paid well to defend the Talmud degenerates?? For the life of me, I cannot understand anyone regurgitating this nonsense! We all know it to be just Nazi Talmud stories for those Goy, which is totally acceptable to you, as animals have no rights. But we will not bend to your bigotry, not all have seen the light, we no longer do most accept the 4 billion jews dead, or the 6 million Jews dead in the first world war or the 6 million Jews dead in the second world war in the various stories your lot perpetrates as historical facts! Genocide happened, but I for one would like to know the true facts of the case! And anyway, what now gives your thugs the right to go around the world committing genocide assassinations murder and torture, Hitler would be proud how much further you took the concentration camps designed by Churchill and perfected by Hitler. Just as the Genocide is happening against the Iranians, the Libyans, the Afghans, the Yemenis, the Iraqis, the Lebanon's, the Somalis, the Syrians and all thanks to your AIPAC senators owned and sold, sold out the nation of America! Highlander
I think it is you and people who think like you, that Hitler would be proud of. Ahmanutjob hates jews, as all Islamonazi losers do, and he is serious when he says he wants to destroy them. Only leftists have a problem with understand violent intent.
Don't make me laugh! Do I support genocide as your Obama and prior to him Bush previously does? No! Do I support torture of even American's or women and children? No! Obama does and Bush did! America always found water boiard a method of torture until these degenerates crept and slithered into American political office! Do I support the mass murder of human being with the indiscriminate use of drones? No! Obama does and Bush did! Even the USS Liberty and all those American murdered? And still you defend these AIPAC Talmud parasites! You need to remove your head from that dark place and accept your AIPAC degenerates victimisation of defenseless nations as well as YOUR OWN! Even Americans are murdered and you still defend the Talmud supporters, do you to get paid to protect those reprobates destroying the American nation? Or are you a product of the educational cuts, or care in the community? Either way, your work is a discredit to your own nation! Highlander
Good question. Answer. We don't. But it is forced on us. Last time I looked, words never killed anyone, anyway. Actions do. And the actions of 'Israel' have accounted for way more death, than Iran, in 60 yrs.
Just because YOU say something is a 'lie' does not make it so. Your entire 'state' is built on a lie. Come back to me, when you have a real economy, which doesn't rely on conning Americans out of their money, and conning Germans out of their money. Shalom..
Me also. Try having that discussion on here, see how long it lasts, and is allowed to last, before it is trolled, flamed, taken off topic, and see how long it would be before, constant whining by PM, got it closed. People call the Iranian President a 'holocaust denier'. I don't think he is, per se. I put a vid up of him on another thread, maybe elsewhere on this one, and he is speaking to some American anchor about this slander placed on him. If anyone listens to him speak to that man, there can be NOTHING he said in it which is 'wrong'. Nothing at all. Imo, and this is just my perspective, there are a LOT of things about the 'holocaust', which, imo, seem very suspicous to me. For one thing, when you have the Zionists (LEHI), wanting to fight for the NA, against the allied forces, that seems v strange indeed, to me. When you then have their leader becoming an 'Israeli PM', I find that very suspect indeed. Political Zionism was a Hertzl construct - Der Judanstat. It actually did not curry favour, among Jews, a century or less ago. But these Zionists (who were atheists), they were demented that their vision would be made a reality. In his own diary, TH said that 'we must induce anti semitism, to serve our (Zionist), ends'. And that 'Jews must suffer for our gains', I find that very dodgy, esp when, not so many years later, the NA were little more than a minority party, they really weren't taking off. Yet. Within a decade, they had not only taken off, they were in full control of Germany. I think they were helped. Financially, and otherwise. Imo, Zionist Jews basically set up the Jews of Europe, who were not Zionist. Then there are all the sick and demented people, that have made claims about the 'holocaust', that have been proven to be lies. Exhibiting soap as being 'made from Jews'. Get out of my face, that was always BS, and yet, for long enough, until it was debuked, you and I would have been 'deniers', one week before the soap was shown to be ....just soap. Listen to some of these stories, by these peope, also. They are lying. Sometimes, they totally lie, and were never interned at all. Sometimes, they may have been interned, but they have totally played up the story, usually for money gain. Look....http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/251909-elie-wiesel-cons-world.html
*Laughs* 'Leftists'..??? Were Communists 'leftists'. You do know, yes, that Communism was a primarily Jewish political construct. You do know how many lives, Russian Christans, were butchered, at their hands, yes? Approx 30million. Do they not matter?
I fully concur with your post, and its honesty, its not anti semitic or racist as those with an agenda would like to represent your submission! Regards Highlander
For me, it is utterly absurd, anti democratic, and pretty much what the NA would have approved of, for ten nations in Europe, to have laws which actually make criminals of their own people, and why? For so called 'holcaust denial'. That, for me, is absurd on so many levels, and if any American comes by and supports it, then they are, in practice , contradicting the free expression that they apparently believe in, as much as gun ownership. Firstly, what even IS 'holocaust denial', and who had the authority to give us a sort of catch all definition? What makes them think they are like gods, able to define something for us, that we must take as gospel, or what......be made criminals out of??? Why is it, that anyone is allowed to write, blog, publish a book, etc, about any other part, of any other part of history, in all of mankind.....just not this one. Not only does that seem v wrong to me, but if you are going to make criminals out of people for that, then you must also make criminals out of anyone, that challenges the orthodox view, of any historical event. Are you are denier, if you say the Bolsheviks killed around 20 mill Russian Christians, and not 30mill? It happened, so if you chose the lower estimate of 20mill, does that make you a denier, for erasing one third of the dead? When so much effort goes to creating draconian laws, to place barbed wire around a given subject, I really feel uneasy about that. Naturallly, you ask why. It cannot be to avoid offence, since, as I have said, anyone can challenge anything, from any other part of history, that may have a gruesome history. Logically, if you looked at this suppression and criminalisation through honest eyes, you conclude that there are matters that they simply do not want to be questioned on, or written about. Ultimately, what it does, is lends itself to a resentment. It has taken some time, in various Euro nations, but I think people who have not done anything, are getting fed up with their fellow citizens being made criminals out of, for daring to write something contrary, to the 'offical narrative'. When does it become 'denial' anyway? You would have been called a 'denier' had you once said soap was just soap. It WAS just soap. You would have been a denier, if you had called the author of the Painted Bird a liar. Yet he was a liar. Would you be a denier to delcare that there was never any written order, from the Fuhrer (and the Germans loved a written order), that specifically called for the worldwide extermination of all Jews? No. It is the truth. No such order, for whatever reason, was ever written. Naturally, people were interned etc, all of that is true, but is it true to state as fact that the Fuhrer gave a specific order, as policy, to exterminate ALL Jews? No. Because the order does not exist. 'Confessions' by those at the NWT must be deemed as suspect, at times, given that confessions were often signed, after torture and ill treatment. I really do not see why it is impossible to have a mature dicussion about ONLY this ONE thing, without the hysteria. Had it not been for the good work of men that believe accuracy is important, many of the myths and hoaxes that were debunked would have happily attached themselves as 'fact'. There is something VERY wrong when you criminalise that. Jack
People are easily manipulated..... it doesn't take much to make a dog bark! But the facts are out there for anyone that has a conscious a moral fibre in there body a to take some stand against the degenerate behavior of those not fit to be outside a prison wall! http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21144 its not only frightening, its disgusting that they can get away with genocide! Murder! Assassination! Torture! Sodomy! Its a disgrace to the American nation! Regards Highlander
Watching the interplay between two resident jew haters is rather amusing. Seems they can't get out of each other's way in denouncing jews/zionists, and their dastardly covert control over the US, not to mention apologizing for Nazis/Hitler. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with jews.
Bullsh&t!! http://www.savethemales.ca/000298.html EXCERPT: 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.
J4F. I believe that earlier, someplace on this thread, I gave him a summary of each, and said, that given that it was written over a cenury ago, let's at least look at each 'protocol', and see for ourselves, if it can apply today. So, in the interests of potential accuracy, or otherwise, I listed each. I then gave a brief account of each one, and how I see it as relating to the modern world. Natch - he did not wish to even debate or look at that, instead, just ignored that, dig your heels in, repeat till fade... You can look at the summary, and my comments, they are someplace on here. Leaving aside all arguements about who wrote them, or whatever mix, what we do know is that they were written, over a century ago. If one does read the summary of them, either what was written was a coincidence of epic proportions, a prophecy, or the basis of a plan. That is how accuate each one is.
So the forger added some of their own (*)(*)(*)(*) but the fact remains is that parts of the two works are identical proving that the work is a plagiarism and a fraud: 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%, 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 it remains debtor for the entire capital sum. — Montesquieu, Dialogues, p. 209 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%, then in 20 years the Government would 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 as an unpaid debt. — Protocols, p. 77 Like the god Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country. — Machiavelli, Dialogues, p. 141 These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion. — Protocols, p. 43 Now I understand the figure of the god Vishnu; you have a hundred arms like the Indian idol, and each of your fingers touches a spring. — Montesquieu, Dialogues, p. 207 Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State. — Protocols, p. 65 I guess it's just a coincidence.
that is how unaccrurate spurious, salacious and slimely twisted your interpretation and justification of what is clearly a forgery of dispicable intent and proportion, is.
