Saturday, December 31, 2011

The Protocols of Zion explained by Dr. William Pierce

'They' say its a forgery. But if it's a forgery there must be an original copy ? This Youtube video is well worth a look.


Anonymous said...

Long live the mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the powers of triumphant Zion!

Anonymous said...

A forgery is a document that tells a lie about itself.

A forgery might well be a copy and often is, but it is not always and inevitably necessary for it to be a copy.

For example, a forger called Mr. Smith might forge a cheque to draw money from the account of Mr. Jones. Mr. Smith does so by copying the signature of Mr. Jones onto the cheque. That cheque then tells a lie about itself, namely that the signature is really that of Mr. Jones.

That cheque is therefore a forgery.

There is no original cheque from Mr. Jones. Instead there is on the cheque some writing (ie the signature) that pretends to be something that it is not.

The statement that if the Protocols of Zion are a forgery, then there must be an original is wrong.

This is just confusing the difference between a copy and a forgery.

The reason that the Protocols of Zion are said to be a forgery is because the document claims it is the record of a plot by Jews to take over the world.

If it is not such a record, then it is a forgery.

If it is such a record, then it is not a forgery.

The trouble with the Protocols is that they originated from a play, 'Conversations with the devil', written in France in the mid 19th century.

The Tsarist secret police (Okrana) would have been familiar with French literature, because the language of the Russian Tsarist Court and aristocracy was French, not Russian.

The Okrana then composed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as though it was written by the Jewish conspirators.

Hence it is a document that lies about itself.

The Okrana could have translated the French play and openly claimed that it accurately described what Jews were doing and plotting.

Instead they lied about the origins of their document.

The document that is called the Protocols are undoubtedly a forgery.

Whether the contents of that document are a true record of Jewish intentions and actions is another matter.

Anonymous said...

Are World Wars Orchestrated?

Anonymous said...

Dismantling Churchillian Mythology.

Colonel Wilberforce Buckshot said...

What the detractors and nay sayers always fail to see and understand is that the protocols were written aforetime. Very few of the tenets contained in it had yet come to pass. It was in essence a prophetic work, and a stunningly accurate one at that.

Each and every aspect of the protocols has been fulfilled to the letter. To have possessed such foresight or foreknowledge in writing such a book would have been remarkable even for a work for which the provenance was unequivocal. To suggest the same of a forgery or to suggest it is perhaps just coincidence is absurd.

Anonymous said...

Basically, the naysayers are launching an 'ad hominem' attack rather than discuss the content.

Anonymous said...

The destructive myth of equality.

Anonymous said...

For the protocols to work you must control banking the rest is easy.

Anonymous said...

The decision to attack Syria was made at a Camp David meeting on 15 September 2001.

Henry said...

Anonymous said...

''A forgery is a document that tells a lie about itself..''

I'm not going to make a case for the Protocols either way but I would like to say a few words about the theory, yes that's all it is, that the Tsar's secret police cooked it up to stir up trouble for the Jews.

1. Philip Graves while an editor at the Times in 1921 identified the close similarities between the Protocols and Joly's drama.

2. He did not prove that the forgery originated with the Russian police.

3. Just as the Russians were not so stupid as to copy almost verbatim extracts from Joly's work so too were the Jews certainly smart enough to produce a ham fisted work to give to the Russians and then later spring their trap.

I've never read the Protocols in the French and I could never read them in Russian but I've always been struck by how ridiculous and wooden they sound in English. However, this in itself is no indication that it was not written by clever literate Jews, for Marx's Communist Manifesto is equally wooden and many other examples of genuine Jewish text would not look out of place alongside the Protocols.

I'll cite just one interesting example and let you be the judge.

It is claimed that the Protocols were written between 1893-1903, possibly in Paris.

In 1895, Theodore Herzl, who was the father of modern Zionism, was the Paris correspondent for Neue Freie Presse, covering the Dreyfus Affair, and he also wrote his foundation work, Der Judenstaat, (The Jewish State) at that time. This book was written in a frenzy in late 1895, and published February, 1896.

I don't know if you have read Herzl's diaries (six vol) but I have and can tell you from studying them that the syphilitic Herzl was almost certainly insane. That much at least is clear from the contents of his diaries..

Here I reproduce just one of Herzl's diary entries. It is something factual and not in dispute.


Following a meeting with the powerful Jew, Baron de Hirsch on June 6, 1895, Herzl began drafting his address to the Rothschild 'Family Council' hoping to gain their support for his proposed Zionist Movement.

This is what he wrote please compare it with the language of the Protocols:

''To the Rothschild 'Family Council'...If there should then be attempts to impede the free passage of the Jews, we shall know how to mobilize the public opinion of the world (liberals, socialists, anti-Semites) against the imprisonment of the Jews.

Then too, our diplomats will be at work (we shall make financial concessions in the form of loans and special gifts).

Once we are outside we shall put our trust in our army, our purchased friendships, and a Europe weakened and divided by militarism and socialism.

This is Jewish emancipation.''


That was from Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism at the time the Protocols were being written.

I hope you agree that this reads very much like what is found in the Protocols, and which causes so much ridicule, yet this is definitely written by Herzl.

Anonymous said...

Dr Pierce was a leading physicist linked with the atom bomb project at Los Alamos.

He was certainly no idiot.

If he had a problem about the word forgery, then it's certainly a problem for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

The guy who played Jesus in Mel Gibsons THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST has been unable to work since due to jewish pressure.

Anonymous said...

The jew David Cameron has given an award to crook and ex-criminal and fellow jew GERALD RONSON in todays New Years honours list.

Anonymous said...

Theodor Herzl's diary...

This is just what we need to focus on, NOT the Protocols.

Whether the Protocols are genuine or a forgery are irrelevant to nationalists.

What is relevant is the effect on our nation and culture.

The Protocols do not enlighten anyone, they only serve to confuse because they can be so easily written off as a forgery.

While we are worrying about the Protocols, we ignore Herzl's diary.

The contents of Herzl's diary are plain, but only if you read them.

Hence the controversy over the Protocols.

This is precisely the same technique used by Griffin. To draw attention away from Martin Webster's claims about having a relationship with Griffin, Griffin puts out a gotesque story about him having sex with 2 donkeys. Obviously false and ridiculous. The outrage and ridicule caused by this story meant that few people then noticed the rather more credible Webster claims.

So it is with the Protocols.

Herzl's diary cannot be denied. It openly claimed that Zionists had the power to control the press and public opinion. By the early 20th century the public could judge for itself whether such a claim was true or not. So, to prevent the risk of public reaction, the Protocols appear.

The Protocols are way over the top. Far too obvious. Caused outrage and controversy at first, only to be written off as a forgery...leaving Herzl's diaries in obscurity.

Just compare them to Herzl's diary. Herzl does not directly say "We will control the press etc", but instead he refers to Zionist power to control the press while discussing another point. He thus reveals that Zionists ALREADY KNOW how to do things. So, if they are genuine, what would the purpose of the Protocols be? They just cannot be a genuine record of Zionist schemes, unless they predate Herzl's diraries by several decades if not several centuries.

Just consider how Jews refer to things indirectly in a knowing way. What they refer to is well known within their ranks. A series of assumptions on how the world is and how they need to react to it. Never openly discussed with outsiders. So it is with Herzl's diary.

The Protocols are a forgery...but Herzl's diary is not.

It is Herzl's diary that we should consider.

Henry said...

''It is Herzl's diary that we should consider''

'Anonymous' you have a perfect understanding, I'm heartened and gratified.

The man who succeeded Herzl after his premature (and mysterious) death was the chemist Chaim Weizmann.

Weizmann's papers run to 27 volumes and I'm currently reading them. They too are revealing in a 'protocols' kind of way.

Weizmann was the worlds leading expert on Botulinum toxin and a surprising number of people who came into dispute and then into contact with him suffered mysterious deaths with symptoms often characteristic of sever food poisoning.

In fact his 'gift' to the British prior to the Balfour declaration involved the idea and technique for industrial scale production of acetone (a solvent needed for cordite) being obtained from the fermentation of grain (and chestnuts) using a strain of Botulinum bacteria as the catalyst.

In my forthcoming book I detail the death of Lord Northcliffe, which was dealt with earlier in two books by Douglas Reed, but I'm now able to add to Read's research by placing two notorious characters, long known to conspiracy theorists, in the company of Northcliffe as he became ill and descended into a gruesome death.

Watch this space....

GWR said...

I did have a book some years ago which I bought circa 1981 which also revealed the inside power of organised zionism.

It was written by Nahum Goldman, who was at one time the Worlds leader of zionism.

As happens I lent it out and it was never returned.

Anonymous said...

Why do we need the easily ridiculed and thus making us look ridiculous...when we have Nahum Goldman and others?

Anonymous said...

Nahum Goldmann's book.

Google Nahum Goldmann, click on wikipedia and towards the bottom of the page is a list of his published works.

Probably you can buy them on Amazon, but I have not looked yet.

Henry said...

The Goldmann book mentioned by GWR is almost certainly 'The Jewish Paradox' which is widely available on the Net and also now available as a pdf here:

That's his most revealing book. His other main book is 'The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann;: Sixty Years of Jewish Life.' which was published nine years earlier than 'The Jewish Paradox' in 1969.

It's less revealing than the later 1978 book but still worth having.

I'm posting one or two quotes from the Jewish Paradox on a Telegraph debate about removing the Holocaust from British schools. It's for a doubting German and so I'll link to the pdf for British teachers to also look at it, as the comments page is in the Telegraph's 'Education' section.

Henry said...

Sorry but that pdf is in French so unless you can read French it won't be of much use.

Here's a cheap copy of 'The Jewish Paradox' from the States to buy:

Zundel uses some of the most notorious quotes from the book here:

Anonymous said...

Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World.

Henry said...

''I'm posting one or two quotes from the Jewish Paradox on a Telegraph debate about removing the Holocaust from British schools. It's for a doubting German and so I'll link to the pdf for British teachers to also look at it, as the comments page is in the Telegraph's 'Education' section''

I did as I said I would but my post was removed almost immediately and I can't post anymore (a temporary ban which will last for about two weeks) all of which gives a good indication as to what information they really fear.

Anonymous said...

HENRY SAID "I did as I said I would but my post was removed almost immediately and I can't post anymore (a temporary ban which will last for about two weeks) all of which gives a good indication as to what information they really fear.

3 January 2012 23:03
Henry, congratulations for upsetting the White-race-hating jew bastards controlling the media - when I posted two innocuous but factual comments about two separate black-on-black murders aired on Mail Online, readers began Green Arrowing me up - till Fail/Wail/Mail Online decided on pulling my comments and permanently banning me from posting on their shite site due to complaints - no doubt from the nigger-loving agitation wing of the marxist-liberal self-loathing anti-white White racists.

Heroes of London Bridge including banker who lost his life confronting jihadis with a skateboard and nurse who died running towards dange...