This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
What is Jew hating non-sense?? Tell me what part of the version 05:49, 20 November 2006 was not true? What is jew hating?? They were all FACTS which makes alot of sense and represents a large number of peoples views in regards to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Apologies if sometimes the truth hurts. But i think we should look at this through 2 eyes, not 1. Please verify any mistakes in that extract if you have spotted any mistakes. If I don't hear from you, I will add it again tonight.
You keep saying nonsense, what is nonsense about it? Is it wrong to say that there are many Jews in high positions through out Europe and US? It's not something secret, even websites such as http://www.totallyjewish.com/ brag about how many fellow jews are in the media, hollywood, financial institutions etc. Please explain rather than brush something important under the carpet! What is wrong with what was said here? Surely we should be able to critiscize and question the Jewish faith and their people in the same manner we are questioning Christians, Muslims etc. Explain what you mean by nonsense?
Pointing out the disproportionate amount of powerful senior people of the Jewish religion in relation to their population is totally unrelated to "jew hating" as you mentioned in the history of this article. I don't see anything Jew-Hating about the contents of the Protocols of Zion neither. On the other hand, having read the Talmud, I think that will create more hate towards Talmudian Jews than any other literature. It is racist, see's non-jews as insuperior and implies immoral acts. I think you are looking at the Protocols of Zion from the other side, with everything bad always comes some good. I see your point on not using unpublished literacy as content, I will now try to buy some books from Amazon, and the Library to get the point across, that whether a forgery or not, the Protocols of Zion DO resemble part of the world today.
It has been pointed out to me that the Japanese version of this page apparently does not report the fact that the Protocols are forgeries (that is to say, they were not written by any putative Elders of Zion, since none such exist). Is there any way to call the attention of some Japanese-speaking Wikipedians to this fact? Rpresser 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
well... I think the additon of this part in the topic is a clear pro-israel propaganda...I am an arab...an egyptian....I don't know about the protocol of the elders of zion....and i don't care to know if this is a hoax or has some of truth in it...I know there has been a series that advocates for this in egypt too...it wasn't that much of a series that state information...the idea was vague and stupid..and had no details...but i know form experience that Israel is a loose cannon and very much "spoilt nation" by the west who can commit many documented war-crimes to "defend it self"....I have seen the book in Egypt "the protocol of the elders of zion"...the one they display its cover in the wikipedia topic about "the protocol of the elders of zion"....it is a very stupidly edited, poorly displayed, non-cited book, very brief (few pages)...more close to a poster than a book that's to speak of...I was never attracted to buy or read what is in there, although, I am a part of the struggle-and this is of an intrest to me....and i personally don't think that the jews are bent on world dominion...however zionism was bent on creation of a jewish nation over a land they may have thought that its inhabitants would not mind them creating it on their land or may be if they do, their complaint would not be of a great account for world powers.
In this section, it says:
Earlier, the article says the "Jewish Cemetary" chapter is from Hermann Goedsche's book, not Joly's, and that Jews are not mentioned by Joly. I assume this is a mistake?-- Cúchullain t c 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see your version of the Protocols is the one sided version in which the document is merely a slander and used as propoganda. While it may in fact have been used as a slander against the Jewish people that does not make the document itself any less a model or blueprint for the strategies and tactics of obtaining and consolidation of power by a small group.
The explaination version I find most plausible is that it was the work of Adam Weishaupt as explained in the investigation work done by David Allen Rivera in his "Final Warning."
Regardless of any slander that may have resulted from the work and who is attributed to being its author, it still seems to be a model that is being implemented. To continuelly dismiss the work as an anti-Semitic document is to cause the work to be ignored completely. To do so is to also miss the point that if you were to look at the entirity of the plan it seems to be the model that is being implemented in world finance and media consolidation.
See:
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/final_warning/illuminati_origin.htm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mjsojourner (
talk •
contribs)
I'm sorry to be rude, but, What a load of rubbish!! Dave 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Jones_Protocols-Neocons.htm
Yet another problem. It is loudly dismissed as a forgery. Hello? It was anonymous, so how can it be a forgery. Who forged what? No wonder the Swiss Appeals Court threw the case out. In that case we can dismiss the Bible as a forgery. And who cares who wrote the Psalms anyway? They stand on their own merits, as does the Protocols stripped of a few provocative phrases here and there, which could have been slipped in by anyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.196.218 ( talk • contribs)
If this is a 'featured' best of wikipedia, then wikipedia is a worthless on line effort. i find this article to be heavily censored. who proved this to be a forgery and a fake and who wrote it, who obtained, it, and is it being implemented? i read the protocol after reading this article, and it sure as heck looks like its being implemented, as we head into ww3. wikipedia i wonder if its going to get some of the 385 billion rumsfeld has gotten funding for, for censoring the interent. there absolutely no RATIONALITY in the way this discussion of the protocols of the elders of zion is written. the history of man is nothing but one sordid group after another banding together to enslave others. sadly wikipedia is joining this.
Regardless of whether the Protocols are or are not a fake, there is one thing about them which can not and should not be dismissed. The fact that what they describe seems to be happening about us means that fake or no fake, the Protocols should be examined and investigated thoroughly for all their implications. Sadly, the same Jewish lobby which loudly proclaims that there is no Jewish lobby in the USA screams anti-Semitism at the very mention of the Protocols. Surely however, to anyone who is not a part of the corrupt system, the fact that they scream anti-Semitism so readily should act as a red flag to a bull. In short, methinks they doth protest too hard...! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 ( talk • contribs) .
Is Bible a fake too? Nobody knows who wrote it and knobody knows if what it describes is true. What is important to remember is that if the Dialogues in Hell is an account of an actual doctrine,professed by Jews for argument's sake, and simply applied to another character to tell a story, and then if some other book retells the Dialogues' account, but applies it to the Jews, does it make the doctrine false, fake, plagiarism?
Is Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ a fake too? Jews certainly don't believe in Jesus and New Testament.
When the word Fake is repeated so often, it creates an impression of denial of truth. Someone is trying a bit too hard.
One may simply look around and see if what is happening is or is not true. Simply pay attention to last names of TV broadcasters, prominent financiers, lawyers, public figures, in short of those who are making the policies today. Pay attention and make your own conclusions. Look at the past state of affairs and at the present, and you will not need anybody to tell you what is the truth.
Do we know for example why is there a recently built Holocaust museum in Washington DC? America did not exterminate Jews. 6 Millon Jews died in Europe from the hands of German Nazis. Why then not build a museum for victims of Communism - tens of millions died in Russia alone. Why is Jewish Paul Wolfowitz, the current president of World Bank, its president? He has no Economics background, unlike the previous president, Jewish James Wolfensohn.
Lets think and not listen to Truth Deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.12.194 ( talk • contribs)
I believe the original document, long since lost, must have been the work of a precocious elitist young man, trying to impress his Paris intelligentsia friends. It ought to be stripped of all anti-Semitism and studdied around the world as "The Trouble with Banking Families". It reveals a very real and very modern problem which stretches back to the Robber Barons and beyond, and applies as much to goyim intellectual descendents of J.P. Morgan as to any Jewish descendents of Mayer Rothschild.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.89.84.86 ( talk • contribs)
A Russian translation of Joly's Dialogues in Hell appeared in 1872.(citation) After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the chapter "In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague" from Goedsche's Biarritz, containing the alleged rabbinical plot against European civilization, began circulating in Russia as a pamphlet.(citation) The tsarist secret police found the work useful in their effort to discredit liberal reformers and revolutionaries who were rapidly gaining popular support, especially among oppressed minorities such as Russian Jews.
Recent research by the Russian historian Mikhail Lepekhine revealed that the Protocols were written by a Russian propagandist and an agent provocateur Matvei Golovinski, as part of a scheme to persuade Tsar Nicholas II that the modernization of Russia was really a Jewish plot to control the world.[7](questionable citation, see below...a version was written? or the authentic copy of the Protocols themselves?)Golovinski changed sides after the 1917 revolution, becoming a Bolshevik propagandist. Lepekhine discovered his authorship in Russia's long-closed archives and published his findings in November 1999 in the French newsweekly L'Express. Golovinski had been linked to the work before; the German writer Konrad Heiden identified him as an author of the Protocols in 1944.[8]
Matvei Golovinski worked together with Charles Joly (son of Maurice Joly) at Le Figaro in Paris and wrote articles at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky, Chief of the Russian secret service.[9] During the Dreyfus affair in France, when polarization of European attitudes towards the Jews was at a maximum, the text was edited into its final form and began private circulation as The Protocols in 1897.
==Cesare G. De Michelis in his THE NON-EXISTENT MANUSCRIPT, claims there are Twelve (12) or Thirteen (13) distinct Russian Language editions before 1906. But he is terribly inaccurate, and vague, about his bibliographic references. I have only been able to identify Five (5) of these as currently available in the major academic libraries of the United States. I challenge anyone to identify more than Half (6) of these sources as IN FACT in existence by giving an exact English language bibliographic reference. Michelis's list is as follows:
EDITIONS OF THE PSM in Russian [from The Non-Existent Manuscript by Cesare G. De Michelis]
1:
K "Programa zavoevanija mira evrejami." In Znamja 1,
• no. 190 (28 August [10 September]): 2; 2,
• no. 191 (29 August [11 September]): 2; 3,
• no. 192 (30 August [12 September]): 2; 4,
• no. 193 (31 August (13 September]): 1-2; 5,
• no. 194 (1 [14] September): 1-2; 6,
• no. 195 (2 [15] September): 1-2; 7,
• no. 196 (3 [16] September): 2; 8,
• no. 197 (4 [17] September): 2; 9,
• no. 200 (7 [20] September): 2.
2:
L Iudejskie tajny. In Ljutostanskij 1904. Vol. 2.
3:
А 1 1905. "Vyderzki iz drevnix i sovremennyx protokolov Sionskix mudrecov Vsemirnogo obscestva Fran-Masonov. " In Koren' nasix bedstvij. St. Petersburg.
4:
А2 1905. Drevnie i sovremennуе protokoly sobraпij "Sionskix Mudrecov." Moscow.
5:
N 1905. Protokoly sobranij Sionskix mudrecov. In Ni1us 1905.
6:
B Protokoly izvlecennye iz tajnyx xranilisc Sionskoj Glavnoj Kanceljarii. In Butmi 1906а.
7:
ВЗ Idem. In Butmi 1906а (3-е izdanie, obrabotannoe).
8:
D Protokoly sionskix mudrecov. In Demcenko 1906.
9:
R1 Tajny politiki (Vyderгki iz recej...sionizma). In Begunov 1996, 102-14.
10:
R2 1905. "Tajny politiki Rec' odnogo iz rukovoditelej...Sionizma)." Mirnj Trud 8.
11:
R3 1906. "Rec' odnogo iz rukovoditelej...Sionizma." Samoderzavie 1-5.
12:
R4 1906. Evrejskaja politika i ее rezul 'taty. Kremencug.
13:
I 1917. Izvlecenie iz protokolov I-go Sionistskogo kongressa. Moscow. In Begunov 1996, 66-71.
Ludvikus 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we improve the first sentence: The PEZ come from a text which purports to expose a global domination conspiracy, most notably characterized by its accusations of exclusive Jewish complicity. - am I the only one who finds it cumbersome? I prefer the previous version of the first phrase: The PEZ is a text purporting to describe a plan to achieve global domination by Jews. I think it would be better to start with saying _what_ it is and continue with _where_ it comes from. Thoughts? ← Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Where are these? They're mentioned in the first sentence, and I think it would be better to list these ones as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 ( talk • contribs)
Uh yeah I did, it just has very little mention of the "numerous independent investigations." I'm sure there've been many of those over the years, I just think they should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 ( talk • contribs)
Not to sound ignorant, but I still don't see them. The article is extremely long, and its hard to scan through the whole thing to pick out the independent investigations. All I'm suggesting is to add the reference links in the beggining, right in the sentence that mentions them, along with any other independent investigations that are out there. Just so people who want to know more, or the conspiracy theorists earlier on, can find them more easily.
Yeah that's a good job there, I hope to see more info on the other investigations coming soon.
As some editors have suggested in the past, to me the word "demonstrated" seems to be more factually accurate than "proven" when referring to the hoax. While I agree that the PEZ are a hoax, and most objective investigators would also come to this conclusion (either that or accept the textual duplications as amazing coincidences), I think proof is too strong a concept to apply here. It can never be proven 100% (certainly not in the mathematical sense, and there is no cut-and-dried definition in the historical sense) - the most you can say is that it is highly likely a hoax. Therefore, I suggest references to the "proven" hoax be replaced with references to the "demonstrated" hoax. This term is almost as strong, removes any possibility of misinterpretation / bias / POV, is not over-authoritative while still being encyclapedic, while still making the likeliness of the hoax clear. I think it makes a good compromise. Can we have a vote or something? Straussian 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a manuscript for Jewish domination. It is a incorrect reference to the advisors of Tsar Alexander III who were Freemasons. There were six of them and they wielded alot of influence over, arguably, the most powerful Tsar who ever lived. These 6 guys, not all of whom were Jewish, were members of a secret sect of Freemasonry named with a specific reference to 'Sion' not Zion. Sion and Zion are not the same thing. Anti-semetic Russia capitalized on this and the book was born with an altered title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.50.100 ( talk • contribs)
I'm unsure why Cohn's comparison was cut. It might not make sense as the first sentence of the section, but I don't know why it doesn't belong in the article. Jkelly 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Bold text
Most good souls are aware that the Protocols of Zion was Hitlers "Warrant for Genocide." And we have accepted that the world "must never forget" what happened to the Jews under Hitler.
For this reason I believe a dispassionate study of the publication history of this notorious Plagiarism is essential.
Yet I am disappointed in the sloppy scholarship that persists around this difficult, and painful subject. Nevertheless, I refuse to give up my demand for accurate scholarship.
First of all, lets get rid of the "The" in the title variations, "The Protocols of...'. It--the title involving "Protocols" should always begin as the "Protocols of..".
I have made the corrections--but some Wikipedia editors have over-ruled me and restored the inaccuracy.
Now the uniform subject title used by both the Library of Congress and " WorldCat" is as follows:
Protocols of the wise men of Zion
How can I participate in improving the scholarship on the notorious "Potocols of ..."?
We have now available, since 2004, the best--perhaps the latest standard work--on this infamous subject since Norman Cohn's 1970 classic, "Warrant for Genocide". I have in mind the 2004 edition of Cesare G. De Michelis's "The Non-Existent Manuscript." So lets gets to work and truly make an accurate study of this evil which continues to plague the world.
We are told--again and again--that the first, or major, published edition of this fraud occurred in 1903, in Russia, and in the Russian language, in a daily newspaper called Znamya, meaning the "Banner." But I cannot find this 1903 paper in any major scholarly or academic libary in the world whose Catalog is Online. Can anyone tell me ANYTHING about the Existence and/or Availability of this Newspaper? I would very much like to SEE it myself, publish it here, for our edification, and have it accurately translated into English so that the whole world would know exactly what happened, and how, under this "Warrant"?
Can anyone,in the whole world--to whom this wonderful English language Wikipedia is available--help improve the scholarship, and EXPOSE further the Plagiarism that continus to thrive under various titles, translations, and editions? Please respond to this quiry ASAP. Thank you. Oh, and can the unknown Wikipedia editors permit me to improve this article even more?
Yous truly, I am Ludvikus 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read carefully my bibliographic work-in-progess, Editorial and Bibliographic History of the "Protocols of Zion". For your information, I am substantially the author of Znamya (newspaper). Please, also, do not take personally my unhappiness with the quality of the article. I just expected much more, considering the power both of the Web, and now the incredible WP!!!
Notice, also, that I always send everyone to this article--for the content, analysis, and exposition of the subject of the Protocols of Zion.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Editing help
Ladies and Gentlemen, my Dear Fellow Wikipedians: I believe that if our Wikipedian Scholarship is to accomplish its mission regarding the Article on the Protocols of Zion it is essential that we be Precise and Accurate, especially since our Article concerns a Literary Plagiarism, Fraud, and Hoax. Norman Cohn's book, " Warrant for Genocide" is considered among Historians the Standard Work on our Infamous subject. Accordingly, allow me to inform you that it was First Published in 1967, and not in 1966--as is given in the References section.
Can someone do it--or grant me access to do it? Yours truly, Wikipedian Ludvikus 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Revisiting this article after a long time I'm mildly shocked that the "Ziedan incident" is still covered in the article. Both Ziedan and the Bibliotheca Alexandrina declared the press reports to be unfounded, as as Ziedan clearly stated his opinion that Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book. So the whole incident boils down to false reporting by the press and should be removed from this article. -- Pjacobi 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The above proposed title is the one used by the Library of Congress. It is also the earliest title of this text. The title currently used is a dignified subsequent English language translation of the 1905 title of the appendix of Sergei Nilus' book, whose romanized English language title read:
Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaia politicheskaia vozmozhnost. Zapiski pravoslavnago
Protocoly sobran??ii S?ionskikh mudretsov
--and bears the romanized Russian language title:
Protokoly sionskikh mudret?s?ov
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
while the shorter title comes from the G. Butmi version.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope I have not violated any WP POLICY. but if I have I'm quite confident that some [[Wikipedian|WP]diac will be able to easily restore the original--and at the same time, preserve my comments in the appropriate space.
Regarding the above, I prefer " world domination" to " global domination." The word " global" and its variant was used by the "anti- trilateralists". On the other hand, the anti-Semites nameless editors of the expansions of the " Protocols" used the word " world"--- as in "to conquer the world." As one can see (or hear), "to conquer the globe" falls flat. So maybe we need to work on " global domination" as well. Yours truly, --- Ludvikus 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Hey! Maybe some WEB anti-Semites will here this " talk" " world domination" and accuse us of the the " Elders of Zion"? After all, are we not talking about global domination, or world domination? Just kidding! "User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens" has tought me to keep my sense of humor, and to "take it easy."
I just realized that if we don't have an article about trilateralism you Wikipedians will not know what I'm talking about. --- Ludvikus 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Could we have a source for these secret investigations that were not made public. Preferably a real source, according to WP Policy. Otherwise delete. 24.64.165.176 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yours truly, --- User:Ludvikus [Sorry, ... comment was not signed - I was an amateur WP]
" The Protocols of the Stupid Elders of Anti-Semitism" by Henry Ford, Adolf Hitler, et al
-- Ludvikus 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, no more of this verbal drooling. Paul B 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User Paul Barow--appears to be a Wikipedian since at least October of 2002. I've only become one on August 31, 2006. He says of himself on his "Home Page"'User Page as follows:
Hi there, I'm a terrible Wikipedia addict with a rather eccentric list of interests. By education and expertise I am a Victorianist and a specialist in art, but my main interests here are in the history of scholarly theories in religion, literature and ethnology. Hence I tend to contribute to articles about the history of racial theories, religious ideologies and – especially – any stuff that combines the two.
My main professional training is in PHILOSOPHY - so apparently my comments went over his head and he could only grasp my words as "verbal drooling." For this I appologize. And I shall try to come down to his level. It appears that the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT does/did not exist--as Cesare G. De Michelis suggests by his title, "The Non-Existent Manuscript", and in the English language at least, Victor E. Marsden, having died in 1920, could not have contributed much to the expanded 1934 edition which still circulates and gets republished as "the Protocols." At the same time, this expanded edition bears some direct relation to its literary ancestor--a book in which it was a mere appendix, a book was ABOUT THE COMING OF THE anti-Christ--a FACT which our wonderful Wikipedia should develope and explore. I wonder if anti-"verbal drooling" Paul Barlow could enlighten us--in a non-drooling fashion of course???
OK, vaguely serious great person. So you tought philosophy, himmmm..., and at the university level, you say?. Well, thanks for the sound but insulting advise--Prof. Paul Barlow--not to " wikify every word." Regarding clarity, etc., can you identify further the so-called " Patriotic Publishing Co.", which I've identified as operating out of a P.O. Box in Chicago,IL? Could you possibly write something about it? It is/was an unincorporated entity which, in 1934, had [compiled] the 299-page version of the Protocols of Zion which circulate in the USA today??? Thanks, Ludvikus 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
---
---
---
Tom, I can live with the alteration you've made. Peace. — Xiutwel (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
not bad for a forgery
Heh, there's probably more lies in that article then there are in the Protocols.
Considering Wiki's opening paragragh swears up and down that what is entailed in the Protocals is a lie, then immediately mention how it depicted the world depression. Great job debunking the book, wikipedians!
Also, there was no National-Socialist Germany in 1927, making it difficult for Mr. Ford to admire it during that same year.
Make some changes.
Yes, my apologies.
RE: links - could you throw in a link to an original - not one edited through NITZOR - hard to tell where the NITZOR commentary ends and the text begins. The techniques in the Protocols are both simple and impressive ( many Biblical proverbs - " the borrowere is slave to the lender", etc ). The protocols, if you read them, almost exactly match today - almost spooky. If you want to control a society, the protocols give the best, virtually the only, way to do it. ( Lend the fools money they can't pay back, control their media, brainwash the idiots, keep them in constant hysteria, ruin their morals, etc - these guys were good. The Czars were far smarter than I thought. Good thing the Commies beat them! )
Nostradamus. Good reference! Yes, and there is also Asrology, & [Gypsie] card reading ( fortune-telling) & palmistry! And by the way, I like Gypsies, though I don't believe in reading cards. Ludvikus 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It is this [above] named person, a Russian emigre, who, according to Colin Holmes, in his 1978 article for Patterns of Prejudice, first translated the Protocols of Zion in Britain into English.
I noticed that lately this article is steadily deteriorating. Rather than including loads of ill-formatted and barely relevant details, we need to give priority to truly important info and concise encylopedic style. We all worked hard and I do not want it to lose its FA status, so this needs to be fixed really soon. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There is so much, and very interesting, stuf to be told and exposed about this plagiarism and is numerous translations and imprints. And although User:Jpgordon does not tire of discouraging what he perceives as "original research"--the fact is that reporting in WP on material in JOURNALS, or even of material in ARCHIVES--I think is consistent--or ought to be consistent--with WP polcy. I happen to be lucky in having access to such material--and there must be a way to present it without DEGRADING this article! Ludvikus 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Another point -- just look up Colin Holmes and Robert Singerman and get their articles which are only available, as far as I know, in JOURNALS, such as the American Jewish History and Patterns of Prejudice. Ludvikus 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The article deteriorates largely because of the attempt by certain elemnts ( non-goyim ) to attack it before they have even written the article - worse while they are writing it. Any article in wiki that touches on any such subject gets gutted before the first period. - bashful anon who wishes to remain anonymous
You will have to read the Protocols first to fully grasp their genius, then the commentary/ies will be perfectly clear. The Protocols lay out time proven methods of economic, political, social and psychological control of the masses. Whether forged, or not, they are masterful in their insight of these techniques. Any government, or group, can learn a lot from them - as many have. If the Protocols had been written/attributed to any other group other than Jews, they would be given as ultimate proof. ( ie The Protocols of Hitler/Genghis Khan/Bush etc) The extreme sensitivity to the Protocols tells how powerful they are - look at the number of their techniques that are used to control people everywhere in the world - in the past, now and in the future.
Ditto - my people think big ( from Egypt to the Euphartes from the Red Sea to Turkey - hell why stop there.) When the world's economy finally merges into one-five corporations, guess who is going to control the stock, not you suckers!
Dear User:Gzuckier,
What the stupid, nameless, coward above talk demonstrates is that Jews are too soft against these inferiority-complex ridden scum-bag low-lives. I think we SHOULD get together about 12 Wise Jews, have a meeting, but not in a grave yard in Prague like these antisemites would have it, but in a famous hotel - how about the Waldorf Astoria. And after the meeting, let's have our decisions written up. Maybe 24 Protocols would be enough. And then lets publish it in The New York Time. I propose that the First Protocol discuss the Stupidity/jeolousy of these antisemites. My question is this: which characteristic describes their personality better? Are they more stupid, or are they more envious? I'm inclined to think that it's stupidity which charaterizes them more. But I think the envious ones are more dangerous - they want to be so much like the Jews they hate. They also must unconsciously really hate Jesus Christ for (1) being Jewish, and (2) making them feel guilty about all the wicked and evil things they do or want to do! -- Ludvikus 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Gosh that's almost word for word why we went to war - they hate us because we are good. 159.105.80.141 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've began editing the article by linking terms within it to closely related items elsewhere in WP space. I hope you other WPedians approve! That is a way, I think, to keep this article short, while not sacrificing encyclopedic comprehensiveness! Ludvikus 06:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:1920 The Jewish Peril - Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd - 1st ed..jpg
In 1920 the firm experienced the dubious distinction of being the first to publish, if not in the " King's English," at least in printed book form, the subsequent notorious text, under the title, The Jewish Peril: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
What is Jew hating non-sense?? Tell me what part of the version 05:49, 20 November 2006 was not true? What is jew hating?? They were all FACTS which makes alot of sense and represents a large number of peoples views in regards to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Apologies if sometimes the truth hurts. But i think we should look at this through 2 eyes, not 1. Please verify any mistakes in that extract if you have spotted any mistakes. If I don't hear from you, I will add it again tonight.
You keep saying nonsense, what is nonsense about it? Is it wrong to say that there are many Jews in high positions through out Europe and US? It's not something secret, even websites such as http://www.totallyjewish.com/ brag about how many fellow jews are in the media, hollywood, financial institutions etc. Please explain rather than brush something important under the carpet! What is wrong with what was said here? Surely we should be able to critiscize and question the Jewish faith and their people in the same manner we are questioning Christians, Muslims etc. Explain what you mean by nonsense?
Pointing out the disproportionate amount of powerful senior people of the Jewish religion in relation to their population is totally unrelated to "jew hating" as you mentioned in the history of this article. I don't see anything Jew-Hating about the contents of the Protocols of Zion neither. On the other hand, having read the Talmud, I think that will create more hate towards Talmudian Jews than any other literature. It is racist, see's non-jews as insuperior and implies immoral acts. I think you are looking at the Protocols of Zion from the other side, with everything bad always comes some good. I see your point on not using unpublished literacy as content, I will now try to buy some books from Amazon, and the Library to get the point across, that whether a forgery or not, the Protocols of Zion DO resemble part of the world today.
It has been pointed out to me that the Japanese version of this page apparently does not report the fact that the Protocols are forgeries (that is to say, they were not written by any putative Elders of Zion, since none such exist). Is there any way to call the attention of some Japanese-speaking Wikipedians to this fact? Rpresser 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
well... I think the additon of this part in the topic is a clear pro-israel propaganda...I am an arab...an egyptian....I don't know about the protocol of the elders of zion....and i don't care to know if this is a hoax or has some of truth in it...I know there has been a series that advocates for this in egypt too...it wasn't that much of a series that state information...the idea was vague and stupid..and had no details...but i know form experience that Israel is a loose cannon and very much "spoilt nation" by the west who can commit many documented war-crimes to "defend it self"....I have seen the book in Egypt "the protocol of the elders of zion"...the one they display its cover in the wikipedia topic about "the protocol of the elders of zion"....it is a very stupidly edited, poorly displayed, non-cited book, very brief (few pages)...more close to a poster than a book that's to speak of...I was never attracted to buy or read what is in there, although, I am a part of the struggle-and this is of an intrest to me....and i personally don't think that the jews are bent on world dominion...however zionism was bent on creation of a jewish nation over a land they may have thought that its inhabitants would not mind them creating it on their land or may be if they do, their complaint would not be of a great account for world powers.
In this section, it says:
Earlier, the article says the "Jewish Cemetary" chapter is from Hermann Goedsche's book, not Joly's, and that Jews are not mentioned by Joly. I assume this is a mistake?-- Cúchullain t c 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see your version of the Protocols is the one sided version in which the document is merely a slander and used as propoganda. While it may in fact have been used as a slander against the Jewish people that does not make the document itself any less a model or blueprint for the strategies and tactics of obtaining and consolidation of power by a small group.
The explaination version I find most plausible is that it was the work of Adam Weishaupt as explained in the investigation work done by David Allen Rivera in his "Final Warning."
Regardless of any slander that may have resulted from the work and who is attributed to being its author, it still seems to be a model that is being implemented. To continuelly dismiss the work as an anti-Semitic document is to cause the work to be ignored completely. To do so is to also miss the point that if you were to look at the entirity of the plan it seems to be the model that is being implemented in world finance and media consolidation.
See:
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/final_warning/illuminati_origin.htm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mjsojourner (
talk •
contribs)
I'm sorry to be rude, but, What a load of rubbish!! Dave 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Jones_Protocols-Neocons.htm
Yet another problem. It is loudly dismissed as a forgery. Hello? It was anonymous, so how can it be a forgery. Who forged what? No wonder the Swiss Appeals Court threw the case out. In that case we can dismiss the Bible as a forgery. And who cares who wrote the Psalms anyway? They stand on their own merits, as does the Protocols stripped of a few provocative phrases here and there, which could have been slipped in by anyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.196.218 ( talk • contribs)
If this is a 'featured' best of wikipedia, then wikipedia is a worthless on line effort. i find this article to be heavily censored. who proved this to be a forgery and a fake and who wrote it, who obtained, it, and is it being implemented? i read the protocol after reading this article, and it sure as heck looks like its being implemented, as we head into ww3. wikipedia i wonder if its going to get some of the 385 billion rumsfeld has gotten funding for, for censoring the interent. there absolutely no RATIONALITY in the way this discussion of the protocols of the elders of zion is written. the history of man is nothing but one sordid group after another banding together to enslave others. sadly wikipedia is joining this.
Regardless of whether the Protocols are or are not a fake, there is one thing about them which can not and should not be dismissed. The fact that what they describe seems to be happening about us means that fake or no fake, the Protocols should be examined and investigated thoroughly for all their implications. Sadly, the same Jewish lobby which loudly proclaims that there is no Jewish lobby in the USA screams anti-Semitism at the very mention of the Protocols. Surely however, to anyone who is not a part of the corrupt system, the fact that they scream anti-Semitism so readily should act as a red flag to a bull. In short, methinks they doth protest too hard...! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 ( talk • contribs) .
Is Bible a fake too? Nobody knows who wrote it and knobody knows if what it describes is true. What is important to remember is that if the Dialogues in Hell is an account of an actual doctrine,professed by Jews for argument's sake, and simply applied to another character to tell a story, and then if some other book retells the Dialogues' account, but applies it to the Jews, does it make the doctrine false, fake, plagiarism?
Is Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ a fake too? Jews certainly don't believe in Jesus and New Testament.
When the word Fake is repeated so often, it creates an impression of denial of truth. Someone is trying a bit too hard.
One may simply look around and see if what is happening is or is not true. Simply pay attention to last names of TV broadcasters, prominent financiers, lawyers, public figures, in short of those who are making the policies today. Pay attention and make your own conclusions. Look at the past state of affairs and at the present, and you will not need anybody to tell you what is the truth.
Do we know for example why is there a recently built Holocaust museum in Washington DC? America did not exterminate Jews. 6 Millon Jews died in Europe from the hands of German Nazis. Why then not build a museum for victims of Communism - tens of millions died in Russia alone. Why is Jewish Paul Wolfowitz, the current president of World Bank, its president? He has no Economics background, unlike the previous president, Jewish James Wolfensohn.
Lets think and not listen to Truth Deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.12.194 ( talk • contribs)
I believe the original document, long since lost, must have been the work of a precocious elitist young man, trying to impress his Paris intelligentsia friends. It ought to be stripped of all anti-Semitism and studdied around the world as "The Trouble with Banking Families". It reveals a very real and very modern problem which stretches back to the Robber Barons and beyond, and applies as much to goyim intellectual descendents of J.P. Morgan as to any Jewish descendents of Mayer Rothschild.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.89.84.86 ( talk • contribs)
A Russian translation of Joly's Dialogues in Hell appeared in 1872.(citation) After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the chapter "In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague" from Goedsche's Biarritz, containing the alleged rabbinical plot against European civilization, began circulating in Russia as a pamphlet.(citation) The tsarist secret police found the work useful in their effort to discredit liberal reformers and revolutionaries who were rapidly gaining popular support, especially among oppressed minorities such as Russian Jews.
Recent research by the Russian historian Mikhail Lepekhine revealed that the Protocols were written by a Russian propagandist and an agent provocateur Matvei Golovinski, as part of a scheme to persuade Tsar Nicholas II that the modernization of Russia was really a Jewish plot to control the world.[7](questionable citation, see below...a version was written? or the authentic copy of the Protocols themselves?)Golovinski changed sides after the 1917 revolution, becoming a Bolshevik propagandist. Lepekhine discovered his authorship in Russia's long-closed archives and published his findings in November 1999 in the French newsweekly L'Express. Golovinski had been linked to the work before; the German writer Konrad Heiden identified him as an author of the Protocols in 1944.[8]
Matvei Golovinski worked together with Charles Joly (son of Maurice Joly) at Le Figaro in Paris and wrote articles at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky, Chief of the Russian secret service.[9] During the Dreyfus affair in France, when polarization of European attitudes towards the Jews was at a maximum, the text was edited into its final form and began private circulation as The Protocols in 1897.
==Cesare G. De Michelis in his THE NON-EXISTENT MANUSCRIPT, claims there are Twelve (12) or Thirteen (13) distinct Russian Language editions before 1906. But he is terribly inaccurate, and vague, about his bibliographic references. I have only been able to identify Five (5) of these as currently available in the major academic libraries of the United States. I challenge anyone to identify more than Half (6) of these sources as IN FACT in existence by giving an exact English language bibliographic reference. Michelis's list is as follows:
EDITIONS OF THE PSM in Russian [from The Non-Existent Manuscript by Cesare G. De Michelis]
1:
K "Programa zavoevanija mira evrejami." In Znamja 1,
• no. 190 (28 August [10 September]): 2; 2,
• no. 191 (29 August [11 September]): 2; 3,
• no. 192 (30 August [12 September]): 2; 4,
• no. 193 (31 August (13 September]): 1-2; 5,
• no. 194 (1 [14] September): 1-2; 6,
• no. 195 (2 [15] September): 1-2; 7,
• no. 196 (3 [16] September): 2; 8,
• no. 197 (4 [17] September): 2; 9,
• no. 200 (7 [20] September): 2.
2:
L Iudejskie tajny. In Ljutostanskij 1904. Vol. 2.
3:
А 1 1905. "Vyderzki iz drevnix i sovremennyx protokolov Sionskix mudrecov Vsemirnogo obscestva Fran-Masonov. " In Koren' nasix bedstvij. St. Petersburg.
4:
А2 1905. Drevnie i sovremennуе protokoly sobraпij "Sionskix Mudrecov." Moscow.
5:
N 1905. Protokoly sobranij Sionskix mudrecov. In Ni1us 1905.
6:
B Protokoly izvlecennye iz tajnyx xranilisc Sionskoj Glavnoj Kanceljarii. In Butmi 1906а.
7:
ВЗ Idem. In Butmi 1906а (3-е izdanie, obrabotannoe).
8:
D Protokoly sionskix mudrecov. In Demcenko 1906.
9:
R1 Tajny politiki (Vyderгki iz recej...sionizma). In Begunov 1996, 102-14.
10:
R2 1905. "Tajny politiki Rec' odnogo iz rukovoditelej...Sionizma)." Mirnj Trud 8.
11:
R3 1906. "Rec' odnogo iz rukovoditelej...Sionizma." Samoderzavie 1-5.
12:
R4 1906. Evrejskaja politika i ее rezul 'taty. Kremencug.
13:
I 1917. Izvlecenie iz protokolov I-go Sionistskogo kongressa. Moscow. In Begunov 1996, 66-71.
Ludvikus 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we improve the first sentence: The PEZ come from a text which purports to expose a global domination conspiracy, most notably characterized by its accusations of exclusive Jewish complicity. - am I the only one who finds it cumbersome? I prefer the previous version of the first phrase: The PEZ is a text purporting to describe a plan to achieve global domination by Jews. I think it would be better to start with saying _what_ it is and continue with _where_ it comes from. Thoughts? ← Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Where are these? They're mentioned in the first sentence, and I think it would be better to list these ones as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 ( talk • contribs)
Uh yeah I did, it just has very little mention of the "numerous independent investigations." I'm sure there've been many of those over the years, I just think they should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 ( talk • contribs)
Not to sound ignorant, but I still don't see them. The article is extremely long, and its hard to scan through the whole thing to pick out the independent investigations. All I'm suggesting is to add the reference links in the beggining, right in the sentence that mentions them, along with any other independent investigations that are out there. Just so people who want to know more, or the conspiracy theorists earlier on, can find them more easily.
Yeah that's a good job there, I hope to see more info on the other investigations coming soon.
As some editors have suggested in the past, to me the word "demonstrated" seems to be more factually accurate than "proven" when referring to the hoax. While I agree that the PEZ are a hoax, and most objective investigators would also come to this conclusion (either that or accept the textual duplications as amazing coincidences), I think proof is too strong a concept to apply here. It can never be proven 100% (certainly not in the mathematical sense, and there is no cut-and-dried definition in the historical sense) - the most you can say is that it is highly likely a hoax. Therefore, I suggest references to the "proven" hoax be replaced with references to the "demonstrated" hoax. This term is almost as strong, removes any possibility of misinterpretation / bias / POV, is not over-authoritative while still being encyclapedic, while still making the likeliness of the hoax clear. I think it makes a good compromise. Can we have a vote or something? Straussian 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a manuscript for Jewish domination. It is a incorrect reference to the advisors of Tsar Alexander III who were Freemasons. There were six of them and they wielded alot of influence over, arguably, the most powerful Tsar who ever lived. These 6 guys, not all of whom were Jewish, were members of a secret sect of Freemasonry named with a specific reference to 'Sion' not Zion. Sion and Zion are not the same thing. Anti-semetic Russia capitalized on this and the book was born with an altered title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.50.100 ( talk • contribs)
I'm unsure why Cohn's comparison was cut. It might not make sense as the first sentence of the section, but I don't know why it doesn't belong in the article. Jkelly 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Bold text
Most good souls are aware that the Protocols of Zion was Hitlers "Warrant for Genocide." And we have accepted that the world "must never forget" what happened to the Jews under Hitler.
For this reason I believe a dispassionate study of the publication history of this notorious Plagiarism is essential.
Yet I am disappointed in the sloppy scholarship that persists around this difficult, and painful subject. Nevertheless, I refuse to give up my demand for accurate scholarship.
First of all, lets get rid of the "The" in the title variations, "The Protocols of...'. It--the title involving "Protocols" should always begin as the "Protocols of..".
I have made the corrections--but some Wikipedia editors have over-ruled me and restored the inaccuracy.
Now the uniform subject title used by both the Library of Congress and " WorldCat" is as follows:
Protocols of the wise men of Zion
How can I participate in improving the scholarship on the notorious "Potocols of ..."?
We have now available, since 2004, the best--perhaps the latest standard work--on this infamous subject since Norman Cohn's 1970 classic, "Warrant for Genocide". I have in mind the 2004 edition of Cesare G. De Michelis's "The Non-Existent Manuscript." So lets gets to work and truly make an accurate study of this evil which continues to plague the world.
We are told--again and again--that the first, or major, published edition of this fraud occurred in 1903, in Russia, and in the Russian language, in a daily newspaper called Znamya, meaning the "Banner." But I cannot find this 1903 paper in any major scholarly or academic libary in the world whose Catalog is Online. Can anyone tell me ANYTHING about the Existence and/or Availability of this Newspaper? I would very much like to SEE it myself, publish it here, for our edification, and have it accurately translated into English so that the whole world would know exactly what happened, and how, under this "Warrant"?
Can anyone,in the whole world--to whom this wonderful English language Wikipedia is available--help improve the scholarship, and EXPOSE further the Plagiarism that continus to thrive under various titles, translations, and editions? Please respond to this quiry ASAP. Thank you. Oh, and can the unknown Wikipedia editors permit me to improve this article even more?
Yous truly, I am Ludvikus 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read carefully my bibliographic work-in-progess, Editorial and Bibliographic History of the "Protocols of Zion". For your information, I am substantially the author of Znamya (newspaper). Please, also, do not take personally my unhappiness with the quality of the article. I just expected much more, considering the power both of the Web, and now the incredible WP!!!
Notice, also, that I always send everyone to this article--for the content, analysis, and exposition of the subject of the Protocols of Zion.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Editing help
Ladies and Gentlemen, my Dear Fellow Wikipedians: I believe that if our Wikipedian Scholarship is to accomplish its mission regarding the Article on the Protocols of Zion it is essential that we be Precise and Accurate, especially since our Article concerns a Literary Plagiarism, Fraud, and Hoax. Norman Cohn's book, " Warrant for Genocide" is considered among Historians the Standard Work on our Infamous subject. Accordingly, allow me to inform you that it was First Published in 1967, and not in 1966--as is given in the References section.
Can someone do it--or grant me access to do it? Yours truly, Wikipedian Ludvikus 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Revisiting this article after a long time I'm mildly shocked that the "Ziedan incident" is still covered in the article. Both Ziedan and the Bibliotheca Alexandrina declared the press reports to be unfounded, as as Ziedan clearly stated his opinion that Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book. So the whole incident boils down to false reporting by the press and should be removed from this article. -- Pjacobi 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The above proposed title is the one used by the Library of Congress. It is also the earliest title of this text. The title currently used is a dignified subsequent English language translation of the 1905 title of the appendix of Sergei Nilus' book, whose romanized English language title read:
Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaia politicheskaia vozmozhnost. Zapiski pravoslavnago
Protocoly sobran??ii S?ionskikh mudretsov
--and bears the romanized Russian language title:
Protokoly sionskikh mudret?s?ov
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
while the shorter title comes from the G. Butmi version.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope I have not violated any WP POLICY. but if I have I'm quite confident that some [[Wikipedian|WP]diac will be able to easily restore the original--and at the same time, preserve my comments in the appropriate space.
Regarding the above, I prefer " world domination" to " global domination." The word " global" and its variant was used by the "anti- trilateralists". On the other hand, the anti-Semites nameless editors of the expansions of the " Protocols" used the word " world"--- as in "to conquer the world." As one can see (or hear), "to conquer the globe" falls flat. So maybe we need to work on " global domination" as well. Yours truly, --- Ludvikus 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Hey! Maybe some WEB anti-Semites will here this " talk" " world domination" and accuse us of the the " Elders of Zion"? After all, are we not talking about global domination, or world domination? Just kidding! "User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens" has tought me to keep my sense of humor, and to "take it easy."
I just realized that if we don't have an article about trilateralism you Wikipedians will not know what I'm talking about. --- Ludvikus 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Could we have a source for these secret investigations that were not made public. Preferably a real source, according to WP Policy. Otherwise delete. 24.64.165.176 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yours truly, --- User:Ludvikus [Sorry, ... comment was not signed - I was an amateur WP]
" The Protocols of the Stupid Elders of Anti-Semitism" by Henry Ford, Adolf Hitler, et al
-- Ludvikus 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, no more of this verbal drooling. Paul B 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User Paul Barow--appears to be a Wikipedian since at least October of 2002. I've only become one on August 31, 2006. He says of himself on his "Home Page"'User Page as follows:
Hi there, I'm a terrible Wikipedia addict with a rather eccentric list of interests. By education and expertise I am a Victorianist and a specialist in art, but my main interests here are in the history of scholarly theories in religion, literature and ethnology. Hence I tend to contribute to articles about the history of racial theories, religious ideologies and – especially – any stuff that combines the two.
My main professional training is in PHILOSOPHY - so apparently my comments went over his head and he could only grasp my words as "verbal drooling." For this I appologize. And I shall try to come down to his level. It appears that the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT does/did not exist--as Cesare G. De Michelis suggests by his title, "The Non-Existent Manuscript", and in the English language at least, Victor E. Marsden, having died in 1920, could not have contributed much to the expanded 1934 edition which still circulates and gets republished as "the Protocols." At the same time, this expanded edition bears some direct relation to its literary ancestor--a book in which it was a mere appendix, a book was ABOUT THE COMING OF THE anti-Christ--a FACT which our wonderful Wikipedia should develope and explore. I wonder if anti-"verbal drooling" Paul Barlow could enlighten us--in a non-drooling fashion of course???
OK, vaguely serious great person. So you tought philosophy, himmmm..., and at the university level, you say?. Well, thanks for the sound but insulting advise--Prof. Paul Barlow--not to " wikify every word." Regarding clarity, etc., can you identify further the so-called " Patriotic Publishing Co.", which I've identified as operating out of a P.O. Box in Chicago,IL? Could you possibly write something about it? It is/was an unincorporated entity which, in 1934, had [compiled] the 299-page version of the Protocols of Zion which circulate in the USA today??? Thanks, Ludvikus 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
---
---
---
Tom, I can live with the alteration you've made. Peace. — Xiutwel (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
not bad for a forgery
Heh, there's probably more lies in that article then there are in the Protocols.
Considering Wiki's opening paragragh swears up and down that what is entailed in the Protocals is a lie, then immediately mention how it depicted the world depression. Great job debunking the book, wikipedians!
Also, there was no National-Socialist Germany in 1927, making it difficult for Mr. Ford to admire it during that same year.
Make some changes.
Yes, my apologies.
RE: links - could you throw in a link to an original - not one edited through NITZOR - hard to tell where the NITZOR commentary ends and the text begins. The techniques in the Protocols are both simple and impressive ( many Biblical proverbs - " the borrowere is slave to the lender", etc ). The protocols, if you read them, almost exactly match today - almost spooky. If you want to control a society, the protocols give the best, virtually the only, way to do it. ( Lend the fools money they can't pay back, control their media, brainwash the idiots, keep them in constant hysteria, ruin their morals, etc - these guys were good. The Czars were far smarter than I thought. Good thing the Commies beat them! )
Nostradamus. Good reference! Yes, and there is also Asrology, & [Gypsie] card reading ( fortune-telling) & palmistry! And by the way, I like Gypsies, though I don't believe in reading cards. Ludvikus 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It is this [above] named person, a Russian emigre, who, according to Colin Holmes, in his 1978 article for Patterns of Prejudice, first translated the Protocols of Zion in Britain into English.
I noticed that lately this article is steadily deteriorating. Rather than including loads of ill-formatted and barely relevant details, we need to give priority to truly important info and concise encylopedic style. We all worked hard and I do not want it to lose its FA status, so this needs to be fixed really soon. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There is so much, and very interesting, stuf to be told and exposed about this plagiarism and is numerous translations and imprints. And although User:Jpgordon does not tire of discouraging what he perceives as "original research"--the fact is that reporting in WP on material in JOURNALS, or even of material in ARCHIVES--I think is consistent--or ought to be consistent--with WP polcy. I happen to be lucky in having access to such material--and there must be a way to present it without DEGRADING this article! Ludvikus 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Another point -- just look up Colin Holmes and Robert Singerman and get their articles which are only available, as far as I know, in JOURNALS, such as the American Jewish History and Patterns of Prejudice. Ludvikus 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The article deteriorates largely because of the attempt by certain elemnts ( non-goyim ) to attack it before they have even written the article - worse while they are writing it. Any article in wiki that touches on any such subject gets gutted before the first period. - bashful anon who wishes to remain anonymous
You will have to read the Protocols first to fully grasp their genius, then the commentary/ies will be perfectly clear. The Protocols lay out time proven methods of economic, political, social and psychological control of the masses. Whether forged, or not, they are masterful in their insight of these techniques. Any government, or group, can learn a lot from them - as many have. If the Protocols had been written/attributed to any other group other than Jews, they would be given as ultimate proof. ( ie The Protocols of Hitler/Genghis Khan/Bush etc) The extreme sensitivity to the Protocols tells how powerful they are - look at the number of their techniques that are used to control people everywhere in the world - in the past, now and in the future.
Ditto - my people think big ( from Egypt to the Euphartes from the Red Sea to Turkey - hell why stop there.) When the world's economy finally merges into one-five corporations, guess who is going to control the stock, not you suckers!
Dear User:Gzuckier,
What the stupid, nameless, coward above talk demonstrates is that Jews are too soft against these inferiority-complex ridden scum-bag low-lives. I think we SHOULD get together about 12 Wise Jews, have a meeting, but not in a grave yard in Prague like these antisemites would have it, but in a famous hotel - how about the Waldorf Astoria. And after the meeting, let's have our decisions written up. Maybe 24 Protocols would be enough. And then lets publish it in The New York Time. I propose that the First Protocol discuss the Stupidity/jeolousy of these antisemites. My question is this: which characteristic describes their personality better? Are they more stupid, or are they more envious? I'm inclined to think that it's stupidity which charaterizes them more. But I think the envious ones are more dangerous - they want to be so much like the Jews they hate. They also must unconsciously really hate Jesus Christ for (1) being Jewish, and (2) making them feel guilty about all the wicked and evil things they do or want to do! -- Ludvikus 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Gosh that's almost word for word why we went to war - they hate us because we are good. 159.105.80.141 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've began editing the article by linking terms within it to closely related items elsewhere in WP space. I hope you other WPedians approve! That is a way, I think, to keep this article short, while not sacrificing encyclopedic comprehensiveness! Ludvikus 06:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:1920 The Jewish Peril - Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd - 1st ed..jpg
In 1920 the firm experienced the dubious distinction of being the first to publish, if not in the " King's English," at least in printed book form, the subsequent notorious text, under the title, The Jewish Peril: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.