PDA

View Full Version : Protocols of the Elders of Zion's authenticity?



Al-Indunisiy
07-10-2010, 03:48 AM
Protocols of the Elders of Zion

"The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now." --Henry Ford, 2-17-21, whose newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, cited the Protocols as evidence of an alleged Jewish threat until at least 1927
"To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion...." --Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery made in Russia for the Okhrana (secret police), which blames the Jews for the country's ills. It was first privately printed in 1897 and was made public in 1905. It is copied from a nineteenth century novel by Hermann Goedsche (Biarritz, 1868) and claims that a secret Jewish cabal is plotting to take over the world.

The basic story was composed by Goedsche, a German novelist and anti-Semite who used the pseudonym of Sir John Retcliffe. Goedsche stole the main story from another writer, Maurice Joly, whose Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864) involved a Hellish plot aimed at opposing Napoleon III. Goedsche's original contribution consists mainly of introducing Jews to do the plotting to take over the world.

The Russians used big chunks of a Russian translation of Goedsche's novel, published it separately as the Protocols, and claimed they were authentic. Their purpose was political: to strengthen the czar Nicholas II's position by exposing his opponents as allies with those who were part of a massive conspiracy to take over the world. Thus, the Protocols are a forgery of a plagiarized fiction.

The Protocols were exposed as a forgery by Lucien Wolf in The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (London: Press Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies, 1920). In 1921, Philip Graves, a correspondent for the London Times, publicized the forgery. Herman Bernstein in The Truth About "The Protocols of Zion": A Complete Exposure (1935) also tried and failed to convince the world of the forgery.

The Protocols were published in 1920 in a Michigan newspaper started by Henry Ford mainly to attack Jews and Communists. Even after they were exposed as a forgery, Ford's paper continued to cite the document. Adolf Hitler later used the Protocols to help justify his attempt to exterminate Jews during World War II.

The Protocols hoax continues to fool people and is still cited by certain individuals and groups as the cause of all their woes.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Al-Indunisiy
07-10-2010, 03:57 AM
:sl:

The text I got from The Skeptic's Dictionary. What do you think about the documents? Is it authentic or is it hoax?

I myself tend to regard it as hoax.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
07-10-2010, 04:30 AM
HOAX. Plain and simple.
Reply

syed_z
07-10-2010, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by Al-Indunisiy
:sl:

The text I got from The Skeptic's Dictionary. What do you think about the documents? Is it authentic or is it hoax?

I myself tend to regard it as hoax.

NOT A HOAX!

It underlines rather the Plan of Global Domination by Group of Evil men, whose Effects can be seen around the World today clearly, if you have not read the Protocols read it...

Check this Link...


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


Who was Sergei Nilus...

The book in which the Protocols are embodied was published by Sergyei Nilus in Russia in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner's of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.



Who translated them from Russian in to English ?


Victor E Marsden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_E._Marsden


He was a Journalist in Russia during the Revolution of 1917. He had been a correspondent with the Morning Post. Posting many things about the revolution singled him out as the enemy of Revolution. He was sent to Peter Paul Prison and after serving his term went to England. There he under took the task to translate the Protocols in to English.


So The Question is who initiated these Protocols ?



Protocols were issued at the First Zionist Congress held at Basel in 1897 under the presidency of the Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl.

A secret investigation ordered by the newly-appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers Pyotr Stolypin (Russian Prime Minister), when Sergei had published them in Russia, soon determined that the Protocols had first appeared in Paris in antisemitic circles around 1897–1898.


Theodore Herlz is the initiator of Political Ideology of Zionism, which is followed by most of the Modern European and North American Leaders, and that is why they blindly support the Ruthless Government of Zionist Jews in Israel in the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians. It can also be understood as to why European Forces are stationed in Muslim lands, because to neutralize the Muslim countries and do whatever it takes to destroy them and weaken them so a State of Israel can be formed from River of Nile to River Euphrates, occupying all lands on the way. Now we can see ANOTHER reason why Iraq (Euphrates) was Conquered, even though there has been NO proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction!

It was the World's 1st Zionist Congress which led to the Idea to Establish a Home Land for the Jews in Palestine. It was after that event that events of World War 1 took place, and British was able to occupy the Land of Palestine and break the Ottoman Caliphate and occupy the land till Jews arrive and become new occupiers!



Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York WORLD, February 17th, 1921, put the case for Sergei Nilus tersely and convincingly thus:


"The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW."


Mr Henry Ford also wrote the now Book called "International Jew" , which is not to be found in its original Version, i think other than excerpts here and there. He clearly explained how the European Jews who are followers of Political Zionism, want to take over the major key posts in the World or set up puppets at those posts, so that their dream to dominate the World can come true. He also warned USA against participating in the World War 1, but the European Jewish Media influence at that time, did their best to shut his Voice.






Muhammad (Saw) clearly warned us about the Coming of the Anti Christ Dajjal, False Messiah. He will rule the World and will dominate the World, and have Thousands of Jewish Followers. Also that He (Anti Christ) will be killed by Jesus Son Mary , after his Descent, in the Land of Palestine. These are all prophecies of Muhammad (Saw) preserved in the Hadith Literature, and so we can easily see why this whole plan for NEW World Order, which is being worked at throughout the Middle East. It is to achieve the Object of forming a State of Israel , which will be an Imposter State of False Messiah and NOT a True Kingdom of Heaven on Earth!

NOT a Hoax... Wake up!


P:S One important thing to know, that NOT every Jew is a Zionist, rather there are many Jews in the World, who are against the Formation of Jewish country in the Holy Land of Palestine, by occupation and massacre!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Al-Indunisiy
07-10-2010, 02:22 PM
Two responses, equally emphasised by means of letter capitalisation.
Reply

جوري
07-11-2010, 02:10 AM
I think one needs to look at the new world order and superimpose it on the contents of those so-called protocols to make up ones mind if true or fiction..

:w:
Reply

Dagless
07-11-2010, 02:42 AM
Iron Lion Zion... Iron Lion Zion... Iron Lion Zion
This is all I have to say on the matter.
Reply

syed_z
07-11-2010, 05:31 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I think one needs to look at the new world order and superimpose it on the contents of those so-called protocols to make up ones mind if true or fiction..

:w:

Exactly... it seems clear as to where the world is going and why the world is like that, when one read the Protocols and compares them with the Major World events which have taken place in the past 50 years or more...
Reply

Trumble
07-11-2010, 06:42 AM
The 'Protocols' have long been established as a hoax on the basis of historical fact, not wishy-washy cr*p about comparisons with world events. They are FAKE - hatemongers, get over it.
Reply

syed_z
07-11-2010, 06:52 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
The 'Protocols' have long been established as a hoax on the basis of historical fact, not wishy-washy cr*p about comparisons with world events. They are FAKE - hatemongers, get over it.

why you scared cuz we know the Truth ? :)
Reply

جوري
07-11-2010, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
The 'Protocols' have long been established as a hoax on the basis of historical fact, not wishy-washy cr*p about comparisons with world events. They are FAKE - hatemongers, get over it.
I guess we are just so amused that life imitates 'fiction'-- better than anything Nostradamus could have come up with!

all the best
Reply

titus
07-11-2010, 04:37 PM
Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Reply

جوري
07-11-2010, 04:38 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
good call!

all the best
Reply

syed_z
07-11-2010, 07:24 PM
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya



“Hegemony is as old as Mankind…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor
The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.


New Middle East Map
Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”1 Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.



The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the "New Middle East" had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon --which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London-- have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders,” and that “creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, ‘an awesome revolutionary force’ for (…) creative destruction…”2
Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)
Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as “Russia’s Southern Tier” or the Russian “Near Abroad.”
Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia (“Russia’s Southern Tier”) to be the vulnerable and “soft under-belly” of the Russian Federation.3
It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.




The Map of the “New Middle East”
A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”




MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST



Note:
The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.


This map of the “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.
The map of the “New Middle East” was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public onJuly 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5
It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.
It has been written that Ralph Peters’ “four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles,”but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?
The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a “humanitarian” and “righteous” arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peter’s:
International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.
Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.
Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.
Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6

(emphasis added)
"Necessary Pain"

Besides believing that there is “cultural stagnation” in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are “draconian” in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.


Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7
The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a “New Middle East” and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas.
Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.



Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing. Western-style "Democracy" has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington's political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere.
Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine.



Please view the rest here....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=3882




The above article is exactly in alignment with the Protocols of the Zion!



Allah/God's Message for those Who are plotting against Muslims and Islam (The True Religion)


(3:54) And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.

(13:42) Those who lived before them also devised many a plot, but the master plot rests with Allah. He knows what everyone does. The deniers of the truth will soon come to know whose end is good.






Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!