Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

xAMKx · 10-18-2008, 06:23 AM

Ive just read the modern english translation of the protocols and I just dont believe the forgery argument do to the fact the fucking plan is to ingenious and
loads of the things in there have happened and are currently happening that was talked about in there.

And the name is suspicious

Protocols of Zion
=
Priory of Sion?

What are your thoughts?

yeti · 10-18-2008, 07:10 AM

There is plenty of evidence pointing to the Russian Czar's secret police creating the document.

Remember all good propaganda must be mostly true to be effective. Propaganda designed to discredit other organizations can be close to 100% true.

The funny thing about The Protocols is that the accusations made in it could have been made by anyone with a keen knowledge of history and key insider information.

The Priory of Sion documentation appears to be a hoax perpetrated by a known fraudster.

10-20-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:There is plenty of evidence pointing to the Russian Czar's secret police creating the document.

Remember all good propaganda must be mostly true to be effective. Propaganda designed to discredit other organizations can be close to 100% true.

The funny thing about The Protocols is that the accusations made in it could have been made by anyone with a keen knowledge of history and key insider information.

The Priory of Sion documentation appears to be a hoax perpetrated by a known fraudster.

I disagree and think the so called story of "forgery" just that... a story, moreover, even groups like the ADL call it a "forgery".
The last time I looked up "forgery" in the dictionary it meant a facsimilie, a DUPLICATE... a COPY....

They DIDN'T call it a hoax!

xAMKx · 10-20-2008, 05:14 AM

bump

Dr Richard H Thorndyke · 10-24-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:I disagree and think the so called story of "forgery" just that... a story, moreover, even groups like the ADL call it a "forgery".
The last time I looked up "forgery" in the dictionary it meant a facsimilie, a DUPLICATE... a COPY....

They DIDN'T call it a hoax!

Ctrl, have you got any evidence to back up your assertion? I'd be really interested in reading it. Thanks (in advance).:)

Interesting topic (although Google couldve answered the question for you xAMKx)

harmonius · 10-25-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:
Quote:There is plenty of evidence pointing to the Russian Czar's secret police creating the document.

Remember all good propaganda must be mostly true to be effective. Propaganda designed to discredit other organizations can be close to 100% true.

The funny thing about The Protocols is that the accusations made in it could have been made by anyone with a keen knowledge of history and key insider information.

The Priory of Sion documentation appears to be a hoax perpetrated by a known fraudster.

I disagree and think the so called story of "forgery" just that... a story, moreover, even groups like the ADL call it a "forgery".
The last time I looked up "forgery" in the dictionary it meant a facsimilie, a DUPLICATE... a COPY....

They DIDN'T call it a hoax!

Quote:
Quote:I disagree and think the so called story of "forgery" just that... a story, moreover, even groups like the ADL call it a "forgery".
The last time I looked up "forgery" in the dictionary it meant a facsimilie, a DUPLICATE... a COPY....

They DIDN'T call it a hoax!

Ctrl, have you got any evidence to back up your assertion? I'd be really interested in reading it. Thanks (in advance).:)

Interesting topic (although Google couldve answered the question for you xAMKx)

Google would not be hard for you to use either in relation to your request of CTRL.

MMM

Dr Richard H Thorndyke · 11-10-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:Google would not be hard for you to use either in relation to your request of CTRL.

MMM

If I do use Google to try to find information on this subject there are so many sites (mostly crack-pots, etc) that it's hard to find some concrete evidence to prove their authenticity. All the real evidence points to them being a fabrication first published in 1903 by the "Znamya" newspaper. I thought seeing as Ctrl is saying they're real then he could offer some proof to other interested site members.

btw - how come embolden, underline, etc aren't working? It makes expressing oneself very difficult because of the lack of emphasis/inflection on certain words. (insert sad smiley face here)

Melchor · 11-10-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:
Quote:Google would not be hard for you to use either in relation to your request of CTRL.

MMM

If I do use Google to try to find information on this subject there are so many sites (mostly crack-pots, etc) that it's hard to find some concrete evidence to prove their authenticity. All the real evidence points to them being a fabrication first published in 1903 by the "Znamya" newspaper. I thought seeing as Ctrl is saying they're real then he could offer some proof to other interested site members.

btw - how come embolden, underline, etc aren't working? It makes expressing oneself very difficult because of the lack of emphasis/inflection on certain words. (insert sad smiley face here)

Doesn't the fact that the plan has been implemented on pretty much every point corroborate its authenticity? Who wrote it is another kettle of fish, but that leads back to the infamous who runs it question. At the end of the day, if the document didn't contain all of the Jewish identifying references could anyone who knows an iota about conspiracy say it hasn't been successfully implemented?

So really the only two viable options are 1) it is what it purports to be on its face, or 2) it's an authentic plan being used as Jew-baiting.

To your BTW just click it once to turn on the feature and once again to turn it off.

11-12-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:
Quote:I disagree and think the so called story of "forgery" just that... a story, moreover, even groups like the ADL call it a "forgery".
The last time I looked up "forgery" in the dictionary it meant a facsimilie, a DUPLICATE... a COPY....

They DIDN'T call it a hoax!

Ctrl, have you got any evidence to back up your assertion? I'd be really interested in reading it. Thanks (in advance).:)

Interesting topic (although Google couldve answered the question for you xAMKx)

The only so called evidence I have is observational. TPOEZ call for several things, I see them happening around me.
So is that evidence? *shrug* If I brought you waterfowl that waddled and quacked how much evidence would
it take to convince you that it's a duck?

~~---~~ · 11-12-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:really the only two viable options are 1) it is what it purports to be on its face, or 2) it's an authentic plan being used as Jew-baiting.

That's where I stand. The intricacies and aims of the scheme laid out therein, comparative to the actuality of where we presently are geopolitically are too similar in nature to wave them off as simply 'make believe' or randomly coincidental.