The Protocols.. True or False?

[cheree]

A Jewish Weekly "Judische Pressezentrale," published in Zurich, Switzerland, claims in its issue of December 15, 1933, that the "Protocols" were fabricated by the Russian secret police in 1905 shortly after the Japanese war. It is unwise to defend a cause by simply insisting on something, that could easily be proved false. How is it possible that a document, which existed 20 years previously, in three languages, could be concocted in 19O5 a document with which several persons were already familiar?


It has been convincingly proved that the "Protocols" were written first in Hebrew, then in French and last in Russian.

Could we be to afraid of questioning the idea that it is a forgery, simply for the fear of being tagged anti-semite?

Is the simpathy we have for the jewish people after the holocaust blinding us to the truth?

[davo]

Who is saying it's not a forgery? the Protocols have been debunked countless times.

Are you saying that the protocols are real and not a hoax?

[davo]

Dunno the dates you have provided, but it is basically coming from an old novel

http://skepdic.com/protocols.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1797/whats-the-story-with-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-zion.html

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007058

http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html

[cheree]

Who is saying it's not a forgery? the Protocols have been debunked countless times.

Are you saying that the protocols are real and not a hoax?

No, Im just asking the question.

It seems that people, once the protocols were apparently debunked, (as you say 'countless times') just dont want to question it. But there is also a lot of evidence that they were real.

I am just asking the question, is the reason we (and i am also one of these people) dont look into it, because of sympathy for the jewish people, and the sensitivity about being regarded anti-semite.

[davo]

Can you provide any evidence?

[cheree]

Can you provide any evidence?


No... NONE!

All I have are articles and documentaries from both sides of the issue.

Hence my post. Why do we believe 1 side and not the other? We are bombarded with the apparent evidence of it being a forgery. But others claim to have evidence of the contrary.
At the end of the day, I'm not asking if it is or isnt true. Im just asking if it is too sensitive a subject due to the compassion for the jewish people after the holocaust to not question it?

[davo]

I suppose the reasons I don't look into it is it was so categorically debunked so many times, by so many people with so much evidence, and there has not been a shred of evidence (even tho you say there's a 'lot of evidence'), to prove they are real.

[davo]

At the end of the day, I'm not asking if it is or isnt true. Im just asking if it is too sensitive a subject due to the compassion for the jewish people after the holocaust to not question it?

I think as far as it being a major platform for the extermination of the jews by Hitler, and used by groups such as Christian Identity (http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/) yes it is sensitive to pull it out of the air and give it credence, as really the only people that are doing so are racially or religiously motivated.

Saying that, I have no hesitation chastising any religion, tho I look at evidence and reality rather than something historically used to justify bigotry and debunked by so many people in so many countries, over so many years (just recently by russian courts) it's just not worth looking at. I suppose you could say that's being biased or being compassionate to the jewish people, but really it's based on lack of any evidence, and strong evidence that it is just used it's whole existence, to justify bigotry of a race, not a belief system.

[cheree]

I suppose the reasons I don't look into it is it was so categorically debunked so many times, by so many people with so much evidence, and there has not been a shred of evidence (even tho you say there's a 'lot of evidence'), to prove they are real.
Sorry, that was not what i should have written.. I meant that there are those who have claims of evidence.

However, I think that we arent really exposed to any alternatives. Yes there is a shit load of evidence to say its a peice of literary anti semetic prapaganda.

I jut wonder if we are really being shown all the sides of the story.

Even bringing this subject up makes me seem anti semetic. (which im not, just anti all religions, not people)

[davo]

lol no that's cool ;) I know what you mean.

I was just surprised it being brought up, as in discussions with racists over the very topic, not one of them has been able to produce any evidence, just pointed to major bigots writings, that have no evidence just statements saying "it's fact".

I know a fair few 'jewish' folk as well, and they would be massively surprised there was a 'network' conspiracy of jews to take over the world .. it's kinda unfeasible...

Until anyone comes up with any evidence whatsoever that such a conspiracy exists, ignoring even for the moment the 'protocols', the only reason I don't even bother looking at it, is there's no evidence for it at all. there's nothing to look at except 'claims' or 'acceptance' of it being real, coming from racists or religious racists.

[cheree]

lol no that's cool ;) I know what you mean.

I was just surprised it being brought up, as in discussions with racists over the very topic, not one of them has been able to produce any evidence, just pointed to major bigots writings, that have no evidence just statements saying "it's fact".

I know a fair few 'jewish' folk as well, and they would be massively surprised there was a 'network' conspiracy of jews to take over the world .. it's kinda unfeasible...

Until anyone comes up with any evidence whatsoever that such a conspiracy exists, ignoring even for the moment the 'protocols', the only reason I don't even bother looking at it, is there's no evidence for it at all. there's nothing to look at except 'claims' or 'acceptance' of it being real, coming from racists or religious racists.

Glad to see you didnt take it any otherr way than i meant it. I have just seen it being brought up again quite a bit lately... thought it was worth a chat.

lata davo.

[davo]

Glad to see you didnt take it any otherr way than i meant it. I have just seen it being brought up again quite a bit lately... thought it was worth a chat.

lata davo.

worth the chat, it's interesting to see where it is also being brought up a lot, by those with the voice of Allah :

http://news.google.com.au/news?q=protocols zion (http://news.google.com.au/news?q=protocols%20zion)

[davo]

worth the chat, it's interesting to see where it is also being brought up a lot, by those with the voice of Allah :

http://news.google.com.au/news?q=protocols zion (http://news.google.com.au/news?q=protocols%20zion)

Is that being protective of the jews? no ... look at the atrocities isreal is committing. it's all one big bloody mess with religion at it's center

[M0381U5]

While we are kinda on the subject.

I have always wondered....

During the late 1800s there was a large Zionist movement lobbying the british government. This lobby lead to the Balfour declaration.

Later, after the fall of the Otterman empire, the mandate to reestablish Palestine, by the league of nations, was given to the British. a country that had previously declare, with the Balfour declaration, that they wanted to establish Israel in Palestinian territory.

If Im correct in this understanding, I still to this day have no idea why the League of nation, later the UN, would do such a thing. What made them think that the British would fulfill the terms of the mandate, in contradiction with their initial declaration.

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora". http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0%21OpenDocument)

This is essentially the whole reason there is a problem in that region to this day.

Am I wrong in my summary of events, something I have missed, or does this really not make sense???:confused:

[Seamus]

@Davo


I think "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Sion" are more a forgery and deliberate propaganda of the Russian secret police than a hoax. The aim seems to have been to justify the rabidly antisemitic Russian state policy towards the jews .That attitude was common throughout Europe at that time to varying degrees,and especially strong in Eastern Europe.

Context;the infamous Dreyfus Affair occurred around the same time in France.(1894)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair


@Cheree

In my opinion,raising the question a serious issue does not make one a racist necessarily. However,I think it does imply it certain gullibility and mental laziness,considering the vast amount of information available. (no offence intended)


From Wikipedia,a good place to start:




"The original source has been clearly identified as an 1864 book by Maurice Joly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly) entitled The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialogue_in_Hell_Between_Machiavelli_and_Monte squieu), which was written as a satirical attack against the ambitions and methods of French Emperor Napoleon III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III_of_France).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-9) In the book, Machiavelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli) represented Napoleon III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III_of_France), and described a series of steps that he intended to take to become ruler of the world. The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by Eugène Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Sue) entitled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus) instead of Napoleon III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III_of_France). Neither the Joly book nor the Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Sue) book mentioned either Jews or Masons.
Based on evidence repeatedly corroborated by British, German, Ukranian, Polish and Russian sources over a 75 year period, The Protocols, far from being a "discovered" document as it was claimed to be, was in fact deliberately fabricated sometime between 1895 and 1902 by Russian journalist Matvei Golovinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matvei_Golovinski). There are unconfirmed indications that the forgery was created at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Rachkovsky), head of the Paris branch of the Russian secret police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-10)

[davo]

@Davo
I think "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Sion" are more a forgery and deliberate propaganda of the Russian secret police than a hoax.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-10)

Yep, I was referring to hoax being an intention to deceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax), not as a 'joke'. Actually on that point I dunno why wikipedia breaks it up like so :

The Protocols has been proven to be a forgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_forgery),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-3) a fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-5) and a hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax),[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-7) as well as a clear case of plagiarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Sion#cite_note-8)

I mean, really it was a hoax by way of forgery and plagiarism, with the intent to commit fraud ;) hehe

[cheree]

@Cheree

In my opinion,raising the question a serious issue does not make one a racist necessarily. However,I think it does imply it certain gullibility and mental laziness,considering the vast amount of information available. (no offence intended)

hmmm...gullibility and mental laziness??? tell me what you really think.

I think questioning things is a little less gullable and lazy than just accepting the view that is considered true.

At the end of the day, the origins of the protocols is still debatable to some. I doubt raising the question makes me mentally lazy, or gullible.

No one here can say with certainty that they know 100% the true story. All we can do is take the word of the common consensus.
This is basically just a conspiracy theory that im putting up. I know its a sensitive subject. And I know that it's likely to just be bullshit. But i dont think that it should be seen to be a taboo subject worthy of special treatment.
People have used scripture of different kinds as propaganda for centuries. This isnt the first, and i doubt it will be the last.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

Part of a long saga of people having trouble with the Jews, it is.

There are very few dispossessed peoples who have managed to keep intact a large portion of their culture and religion. So, Jews become an identifiable minority of people who "ain't from around here".

Because of their cultural tendency to be studious and thrifty (not a slur: study, mutual help and bailing each other out is built into the religion/culture), and because only some industries were open to them, Jews often became an identifiable minority of people who were doing rather well.

Look at Shakespeare's "Merchant Of Venice": that was playing to populist sentiment. And it wasn't the first, or last, time Jews were treated very badly in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England).

Imperial Russia gave us the loan-word pogrom, along with more history of mistreatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire).

All this before that upstart Austrian house-painter got into the act.

And now, some of those Jews who settled in Israel have taken the lessons they learned from the civilised nations of Europe, and are now applying them to Gaza, the Warsaw Ghetto analogue of the 21st Century.

[Vonnie]

I have never even heard of these protocols! (And I'm glad.)

Vonnie

[cheree]

I have never even heard of these protocols! (And I'm glad.)

Vonnie

Yes... hehe.. I agree..
Im starting to wish I just kept my overactive opinions to myself...

(and I can hear the rest of the members saying YES in chorus) lol

[cheree]

Part of a long saga of people having trouble with the Jews, it is.

There are very few dispossessed peoples who have managed to keep intact a large portion of their culture and religion. So, Jews become an identifiable minority of people who "ain't from around here".

Because of their cultural tendency to be studious and thrifty (not a slur: study, mutual help and bailing each other out is built into the religion/culture), and because only some industries were open to them, Jews often became an identifiable minority of people were doing rather well.

Look at Shakespeare's "Merchant Of Venice": that was playing to populist sentiment. And it wasn't the first, or last, time Jews were treated very badly in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England).

Imperial Russia gave us the loan-word pogrom, along with more history of mistreatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire).

All this before that upstart Austrian house-painter got into the act.

And now, some of those Jews who settled in Israel have taken the lessons they learned from the civilised nations of Europe, and are now applying them to Gaza, the Warsaw Ghetto analogue of the 21st Century.

Reverend Black;)
I have to say I really admire the way you make your responses. I wish I could be as humble and articulate as u seem to be.

thanks for your comment.

[Kid]

http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/well-they-are/

not about the protocols, but Ozatheist has a blog about Israel at the above link; kind of coincidental...makes interesting reading and maybe further discussion.,...

[cheree]

http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/well-they-are/

not about the protocols, but Ozatheist has a blog about Israel at the above link; kind of coincidental...makes interesting reading and maybe further discussion.,...

Hey kid... I just had a quick read. I think what he wrote is how quite a lot of people (atheist especially) think of the situation. Although some of it seemed pretty harshly written. I think he makes some pretty good points. what did you think?

[Seamus]

At the end of the day, the origins of the protocols is still debatable to some. I doubt raising the question makes me mentally lazy, or gullible.


Anything can still be debated.The veracity of the protocol is not one which has been debated by serious scholars at least in my life time.

By all means question any consensus view you like. However,it's a good idea to first find out exactly what it is you're questioning and what evidence has been provided for the consensus. If you disagree,then present your own evidence. EG please provide citations of any reputable scholars who dissenst from the consensus.

In my opinion,that you didn't bother to check easily availbable evidence before posing a serious question does indeed make you both gullible and lazy. But hey, that's just my opinion. It's also also all I have to say to you on the matter. I gues we'll need to agree to differ.

[Kid]

Hi Cheree; not sure if this should start a new thread or not in regards to Ozatheist's blog post 'Well they are' (not sure what the title means either); but I have to agree with him. I've been a critic of Israel for many years (not saying either that Iran etc is innocent) but they do seem to get a free ride from criticism, and that any criticism of Israel or Judaism itself is immediately deemed 'anti-semetic' or even racist and shock and horror soon follow those who do speak out against Israel. (This instant tag of 'racist' whenever anyone from a European White background speaks out against other peoples and their religious barbarity truly galls me).

I saw a documentary a while ago about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and a Jewish woman said; 'God gave us this land'. So in other words, we have every right to be here cos God gave it to us; it's ours, we can do what we want with it."
I also think that the 'god' question in the way Israel occupies parts of Palestine are never addressed.

[davo]

hrmm I seem to have read a lot about Isreal lately regarding specifically their responses, and none of it is easy going. I don't see them getting a 'free ride' except from the right wing media and gov

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

Using phosphorus shells against civilians: I can't seem to find any biblical prophecies to cover that, so anybody who condemns it must be anti-semitic.

(exit Deep Sarcasm Mode, pausing briefly to note that Palestinians are also a semitic people.)

[cheree]

Hi Cheree; not sure if this should start a new thread or not in regards to Ozatheist's blog post 'Well they are' (not sure what the title means either); but I have to agree with him. I've been a critic of Israel for many years (not saying either that Iran etc is innocent) but they do seem to get a free ride from criticism, and that any criticism of Israel or Judaism itself is immediately deemed 'anti-semetic' or even racist and shock and horror soon follow those who do speak out against Israel. (This instant tag of 'racist' whenever anyone from a European White background speaks out against other peoples and their religious barbarity truly galls me).

I saw a documentary a while ago about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and a Jewish woman said; 'God gave us this land'. So in other words, we have every right to be here cos God gave it to us; it's ours, we can do what we want with it."

I also think that the 'god' question in the way Israel occupies parts of Palestine are never addressed.

Its a touchy subject. The thing is, in my opinion, after the hard time jews have had in the past (particularly the holocaust) makes it difficult to say anything challenging their bahaviour (generalisation, i know). I recall the pictures of the jewish children starved and lying at the bottom of a mass grave, and it really does create a lot of strong emotion, and a need to protect them so it never happens again, making us constantly vigilant.

I think that should be the case for all people. i.e. The war victims of Darfur.
But when we have a look at what is going on in the middle east, the plight of the palestinians, what happened in lebanon a couple of years ago, its hard to ignore that.
When you have children throwing rocks against war tanks and missiles???

I think the massive bombardment of anti islamic media we get, (alot of which is appropriate) can give us a very 1 sided view of whats happening. (the iraqi invasion for instance)

The complete denial of palestinian rights by not only Israel, but the world at large.
My problem with all of it, most of all, is the use of their religion to validate their actions and their rights.

ANY religion could lay claim in the same way. As many dictators and crusaders have in history.

[Kid]

Its a touchy subject. The thing is, in my opinion, after the hard time jews have had in the past (particularly the holocaust) makes it difficult to say anything challenging their bahaviour (generalisation, i know)

I agree with this, it does make it hard to criticise Israel's policy towards Palestine, and this doesn't mean anyone who does criticise is anti Jewish. Or anti-Semite which is a quick and easy way to dismiss hearing that criticism and doing anything about it. What happened during the Nazi era was a monstrous human atrocity, but it can't be used to turn away from questioning Israel's actions towards Palestine.

I think when I said 'free ride' that's a pretty throw away term, I admit, but what I meant was the lack of criticism from the major Western Governments; not protests about firing rockets into civilian areas, but the overall Israeli policy towards Palestine, and their own role in the constant wars in that area, the so called 'holy land'. That Israel itself is a part of the problem and that democratic governments really need to address Israel's dominance and seek for new ways, from Israel itself, on totally rethinking the problem. There are protests over this or that action of Israel's, but there is NEVER a complete condemnation or demand for a whole new way of dealing with this terrible conflict. Israel cannot keep on saying, 'god gave us this land', and having it supported by the West. America, the UK, Australia, all seem to see Israel as having more rights in that land than anyone else. the Palestinians have as much right to be there as the Jews. They are basically the same people; they both speak Semitic languages and it's only their religion that divides them so deeply. And when you have Xians in charge of most of the western world's governments, who all believe in the Bible, then I can't see a way out of this.
I guess in the long run, unless the role religion plays in it all is truly looked at, nothing will ever change. And that pretty much goes for everything else that religion gets involved with; once it's in, it's in for life. :mad:

[cheree]

I think when I said 'free ride' that's a pretty throw away term, I admit, but what I meant was the lack of criticism from the major Western Governments;

No, I dont think that was too off the mark to be honest. In comparison to the other counrties in the region, they do get a free ride.

I cant see how anyone can dispute that.