I have been living under the assumption this document is true for nearly two decades; the real-world evidence is undeniable that it is plausible if not applicable. Over and over these global events fit right into the stated intentions and closer the endgame creeps. How people live these conventional lives will always be a mystery. I guess you got to be fucking dumb.
The Protocols, whatever their origin, have been dismissed as a forgery since the articles by Irish writer Philip Graves in the London Times in 1921 which were also carried by The New York Times. Graves claimed the Protocols resembled a satire on Napoleon III by French lawyer Maurice Joly called Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ('Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu') published in 1864. This is where the story usually ends. The Protocols were proved to be a forgery in The Times in 1921 - move along now, nothing to see here.
There is, however, other background to consider. Phillip Graves was a captain in British Army Intelligence who worked with 'Lawrence of Arabia', another British agent, who manipulated Palestinian Arabs to drive out the Ottoman Empire and open the way for the new Israel to hijack their land. Graves' uncle was Sir Robert Windham Graves, a British Consul in Turkey and financial advisor to the Turkish government who worked for Civil Intelligence in Cairo, Egypt.
The writer of the articles in The Times was connected to British Army Intelligence and there's more. Peter Grose, a writer with the Council on Foreign Relations, revealed in his 1994 book, Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles, that Philip Graves' 'source' for the articles was a 'Russian emigre' provided to him by ... Allen Dulles. What a coincidence. Dulles, a Council on Foreign Relations stalwart, later CIA chief and instigator of the satanic MKUltra mind control horror, 'discovered' his man while stationed at the US Embassy in post-Ottoman Turkey.
The end of the Ottoman Muslim empire (brought about by World War I) was crucial to the establishment of Israel because it included Palestine. Peter Grose said The Times extended a 'loan' to the 'emigre' on the understanding that it did not have to be paid back. An Internet commentator said of the Allen Dulles 'scoop':
This was quite an accomplishment for a young American embassy employee, to both prove the major anti-Jewish plan for world domination was a forgery as well as unilaterally keeping Lenin out of the United States so he could be transported to Russia to begin the communist revolution. Strange coincidences like this seemed to follow both Dulles brothers during their long careers in 'public service' - or should we say 'serving the Anglo-American interests headquartered in the City of London'.
Dulles and dodgy are interchangeable words and Rabbi Antelman said that the Council on Foreign Relations is America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby group and controlled by Sabbatian-Frankists.
The Times articles that trashed the Protocols were written by a British Army Intelligence operative using an unnamed source provided by the infamous liar and manipulator Allen Dulles and the source secured a loan from the newspaper he would not have to repay. Oh, nothing to question here, then. Now shut up you 'anti-Semite'!
Colin Holmes, a lecturer in economic history at the UK's Sheffield University, claimed to have identified the Dulles emigre as Michael Raslovleff, a 'self-identified anti-Semite', who gave the information to Graves because he didn't want to 'give a weapon of any kind to the Jews, whose friend I have never been'. Surely having a document circulating that was alleged to be proof of a 'Jewish plot' is what an 'anti-Semite' would want rather than seeking to trash its legitimacy? Anyway, that's some background and people will have to decide what they think.
Didn't click on the tweet, but am familiar with things. I've been at things a while, and the protocols may have been the first thing I ever saw on the Internet that was "deboonked".
Notice my use of quotes...and that's my question. Why does fake have quotes around it? Same with Jewish peril. They aren't quotes from the article. The way those quotes are used makes me think the "Jewish peril" is maybe a lie. And "fake" makes me think it was made as a strawman.
One interesting thing to read is current articles about the Protocols...it's like they can't stop talking about it. No joke, there's two things from a Times of Israel article from three days ago (!) that jumped out at me.
One is this quote, "Of course, most importantly, Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine used the main theme of the Protocols – evil Jewish power – to turn the German people from merely not liking the Jews to seeing them as a grave threat to Germany." Now why is it that the author doesn't address why Germans "merely" didn't like the Jews?
Here's another quote: "In more modern times, much of the Arab world continues to circulate the Protocols as part of a long-time effort to delegitimize the state of Israel and seeing inherent Jewish insidiousness as the underlying nature of the Jewish state."
I don't think I've heard a non-Jew use a phrase like "inherent Jewish insidiousness", and also applying this term to the "nature of Israel". Would any of the Hasbara shills here want to dispute the "inherent insidiousness" of the Jewish state? :)
And yet it's so very accurate, even a century later. If I was part of an organized crime syndicate, that masquerades as a religion, and my playbook was exposed to the public, I'd be desperately trying to convince the public that it was fake, too.
When the stuff in the book lines up with what they do every day for 100 years, it's not really refuted. 🤷♂️
I have been living under the assumption this document is true for nearly two decades; the real-world evidence is undeniable that it is plausible if not applicable. Over and over these global events fit right into the stated intentions and closer the endgame creeps. How people live these conventional lives will always be a mystery. I guess you got to be fucking dumb.
"Forgery" which proves itself being true again,again and again...
–David Icke, "The Trigger", 2019
That is no accident.
Didn't click on the tweet, but am familiar with things. I've been at things a while, and the protocols may have been the first thing I ever saw on the Internet that was "deboonked".
Notice my use of quotes...and that's my question. Why does fake have quotes around it? Same with Jewish peril. They aren't quotes from the article. The way those quotes are used makes me think the "Jewish peril" is maybe a lie. And "fake" makes me think it was made as a strawman.
One interesting thing to read is current articles about the Protocols...it's like they can't stop talking about it. No joke, there's two things from a Times of Israel article from three days ago (!) that jumped out at me.
One is this quote, "Of course, most importantly, Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine used the main theme of the Protocols – evil Jewish power – to turn the German people from merely not liking the Jews to seeing them as a grave threat to Germany." Now why is it that the author doesn't address why Germans "merely" didn't like the Jews?
Here's another quote: "In more modern times, much of the Arab world continues to circulate the Protocols as part of a long-time effort to delegitimize the state of Israel and seeing inherent Jewish insidiousness as the underlying nature of the Jewish state."
I don't think I've heard a non-Jew use a phrase like "inherent Jewish insidiousness", and also applying this term to the "nature of Israel". Would any of the Hasbara shills here want to dispute the "inherent insidiousness" of the Jewish state? :)
Seems totally fake to me, but wouldn't it be ironic if by reading it some people thought they could actually use a few of the ideas found within.
It's a fake,an admitted fake at that,that stupid people have been falling for ever since
And yet it's so very accurate, even a century later. If I was part of an organized crime syndicate, that masquerades as a religion, and my playbook was exposed to the public, I'd be desperately trying to convince the public that it was fake, too.