Almost everything in the Protocols, much as I hate to say it, is factual. I am not just talking about the blueprint which obviously the Zionists have been using against us in every minute detail - but the observations about human nature and how they tend to be sheep and turn towards sweet words of equality and turn against those who actually try to help them.
This is the part that keeps me up at night:
The GOYIM have lost the habit of thinking unless prompted by the suggestions of our specialists. Therefore they do not see the urgent necessity of what we, when our kingdom comes, shall adopt at once, namely this, that IT IS ESSENTIAL TO TEACH IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS ONE SIMPLE, TRUE PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE, THE BASIS OF ALL KNOWLEDGE - THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN LIFE, OF SOCIAL EXISTENCE, WHICH REQUIRES DIVISION OF LABOR, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE DIVISION OF MEN INTO CLASSES AND CONDITIONS. It is essential for all to know that OWING TO DIFFERENCE IN THE OBJECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY THERE CANNOT BE ANY EQUALITY, that he, who by any act of his compromises a whole class, cannot be equally responsible before the law with him who affects no one but only his own honor. The true knowledge of the structure of society, into the secrets of which we do not admit the GOYIM, would demonstrate to all men that the positions and work must be kept within a certain circle, that they may not become a source of human suffering, arising from an education which does not correspond with the work which individuals are called upon to do. After a thorough study of this knowledge, the peoples will voluntarily submit to authority and accept such position as is appointed them in the State. In the present state of knowledge and the direction we have given to its development of the people, blindly believing things in print - cherishes - thanks to promptings intended to mislead and to its own ignorance - a blind hatred towards all conditions which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the meaning of class and condition.
It makes sense that as long as human nature is sheep-like for the most part, the fact remains that absolute freedom can always be abused by someone to foment the whole enslavement once again.
Is it really the truth that social existence requires division of labour and division of men into classes? Does this change after Great Awakening? Will the consciousness level of all the people get elevated to the point where no one is sheep any more and we can all use our freedoms responsibly even beyond current generations?
It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State: from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.
OR, is it true that even after Great Awakening, we will still require true monarchy - someone who understands the divine plan and enforces it strictly to keep the society from veering back into the enslavement based on liberalism?
Will democracy or constitutional republic ever work foolproof, even when its just people who are responsible to safeguarding it? Or do we need a higher power (divine power) to constantly keep it safe?
I believe this is something Anons need to discuss a lot.
Protocols was written in a couple of versions between 1905 and 1917 by Sergei Nilus, a Czarist in Moscow, who exploited existing anti-Jewish feelings to blame Bolshevism on the Jews.
Conclusively exposed in 1921 by Philip Graves of the Times of London as a blatant plagiarism of Maurice Joly's "Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle" written 1864. This latter was a political satire written in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870 and which actually does not invove any Jewish characters.
Reading Kerry Bolton's monograph "The Protocols of Zion In Context" (Renaissance Press, 2003) it became obvious that Joly was plagiarizing from The Protocols and not vice-versa.
Joly, a Jew whose real name was Joseph Levy, was a lifelong Mason and member of the "Lodge of Mizraim" where the Protocols document originated. He was the protege of Adolph Cremieux (Isaac Moise Cremieux 1796-1880) the head of the lodge, founder of the
Alliance Israalite Universelle and a Minister in the Jewish-backed government of Leon Gambetta.
The plot is described in the Protocols as "centuries-old." It most likely predates "Dialogue." Joly was well versed in the Protocols and borrowed from it to flesh out the unpopular authoritarian position of Machiavelli, which he ascribed to Napoleon III.
Joly, who committed suicide in 1879, was in the habit of "borrowing." He is accused of plagiarizing a popular novel by Eugene Sue, namely "Les Mystares du Paris." (1845) Also, his work is predated by another of Cremieux's proteges, Jacob Venedy, entitled, "Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau." (1850)
In 1884 Mme. Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian General living in Paris, hired Joseph Schorst, a member of Joly's Mizraim Lodge to obtain sensitive information. For the sum of 2500 francs, Schorst provided Glinka with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." He was subsequently tracked down and murdered in Egypt.
I agree with u/Mountaingale that it is a giant tome of hate port, BUT, we cant read it and compare for ourselves what is happening to us. Its exactly the same blue print.
So regardless of who wrote it or where it came from, someone is using it as a blueprint and it is imperative that every Anon reads it fully so they under the minute details and know what to expect.
It certainly isn't, given that Palestinians are a mixture of Sunni Islam AND Christianity (various denominations) but also non-denominational Islam, Druzism, Samaritanism, and Shia Islam and some Jews. In other words - a secular society, much like Syria
So, even as it is framed as a JEwish/MuSlim war it aint'. It is at the end of an Imperialist attempt to rob land from the Palestinian inhabitants who can claim occupation since Ancient Greek times. But the British Royalty and Rothchilds felt that they had the authority to just grant random Eastern European Jews the right to grab the land, and murder the inhabitants. All totally legal I am sure.
True. It is Good vs. Evil.
u/#q2174 u/#q4942 u/#q4642
But who are Satan's little helpers on earth?
Thats right Goy...thats riiiight.
Whoever wrote the Protocols is not human, they are predators. It's basically a giant tome of hate porn.
People who worship space aliens and were dumb enough to keep sacrificing their firstborns to them.
Protocols is fake and ghey.
US Military Intelligence disagrees.
The Protocols of Zion Confirmed To Be Genuine From Declassified 1919 US Military Intelligence Documents.
"The Power and Aims of International Jewry" War Department Investigation Report of 1919.
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/1919-US-War-Dept-Investigation-Substantiates-Protocols-of-Zion-.pdf
Almost everything in the Protocols, much as I hate to say it, is factual. I am not just talking about the blueprint which obviously the Zionists have been using against us in every minute detail - but the observations about human nature and how they tend to be sheep and turn towards sweet words of equality and turn against those who actually try to help them.
This is the part that keeps me up at night:
It makes sense that as long as human nature is sheep-like for the most part, the fact remains that absolute freedom can always be abused by someone to foment the whole enslavement once again.
Is it really the truth that social existence requires division of labour and division of men into classes? Does this change after Great Awakening? Will the consciousness level of all the people get elevated to the point where no one is sheep any more and we can all use our freedoms responsibly even beyond current generations?
OR, is it true that even after Great Awakening, we will still require true monarchy - someone who understands the divine plan and enforces it strictly to keep the society from veering back into the enslavement based on liberalism?
Will democracy or constitutional republic ever work foolproof, even when its just people who are responsible to safeguarding it? Or do we need a higher power (divine power) to constantly keep it safe?
I believe this is something Anons need to discuss a lot.
Bullshit.
Protocols was written in a couple of versions between 1905 and 1917 by Sergei Nilus, a Czarist in Moscow, who exploited existing anti-Jewish feelings to blame Bolshevism on the Jews.
Conclusively exposed in 1921 by Philip Graves of the Times of London as a blatant plagiarism of Maurice Joly's "Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle" written 1864. This latter was a political satire written in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870 and which actually does not invove any Jewish characters.
See: The truth about "The Protocols": a literary forgery https://archive.org/details/truthaboutthepro00londiala
See: The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialogue_in_Hell_Between_Machiavelli_and_Montesquieu
See also: Proven false 100 years ago, antisemitic ‘Protocols’ document is still being exploited https://www.arabnews.com/node/1906891/middle-east
False.
https://www.henrymakow.com/maurice_joly_plagiarized_proto.html
Reading Kerry Bolton's monograph "The Protocols of Zion In Context" (Renaissance Press, 2003) it became obvious that Joly was plagiarizing from The Protocols and not vice-versa.
Joly, a Jew whose real name was Joseph Levy, was a lifelong Mason and member of the "Lodge of Mizraim" where the Protocols document originated. He was the protege of Adolph Cremieux (Isaac Moise Cremieux 1796-1880) the head of the lodge, founder of the Alliance Israalite Universelle and a Minister in the Jewish-backed government of Leon Gambetta.
The plot is described in the Protocols as "centuries-old." It most likely predates "Dialogue." Joly was well versed in the Protocols and borrowed from it to flesh out the unpopular authoritarian position of Machiavelli, which he ascribed to Napoleon III.
Joly, who committed suicide in 1879, was in the habit of "borrowing." He is accused of plagiarizing a popular novel by Eugene Sue, namely "Les Mystares du Paris." (1845) Also, his work is predated by another of Cremieux's proteges, Jacob Venedy, entitled, "Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau." (1850)
In 1884 Mme. Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian General living in Paris, hired Joseph Schorst, a member of Joly's Mizraim Lodge to obtain sensitive information. For the sum of 2500 francs, Schorst provided Glinka with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." He was subsequently tracked down and murdered in Egypt.
I agree with u/Mountaingale that it is a giant tome of hate port, BUT, we cant read it and compare for ourselves what is happening to us. Its exactly the same blue print.
So regardless of who wrote it or where it came from, someone is using it as a blueprint and it is imperative that every Anon reads it fully so they under the minute details and know what to expect.
As Always: u/#q3912
https://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/ProtocolsOfZion.pdf
Yes it's always been good vs evil.
Left vs right, democrats vs republicans, liberal vs conservatives, x vs y = distractions from the real battle.
It certainly isn't, given that Palestinians are a mixture of Sunni Islam AND Christianity (various denominations) but also non-denominational Islam, Druzism, Samaritanism, and Shia Islam and some Jews. In other words - a secular society, much like Syria
So, even as it is framed as a JEwish/MuSlim war it aint'. It is at the end of an Imperialist attempt to rob land from the Palestinian inhabitants who can claim occupation since Ancient Greek times. But the British Royalty and Rothchilds felt that they had the authority to just grant random Eastern European Jews the right to grab the land, and murder the inhabitants. All totally legal I am sure.
This needs to be stickied
Many on this site either unable to see clearly or are here to subvert
I feel evil volunteer to be on this reality to corrupt the weak, to distract you from good and to test your LOVE for life and of GOD.
Always a good reminder. We are so easily distracted from this fact. It's so basic it gets overlooked.
To quote an infamous fellow:
"When you put your faith in dogma, the enemy hides behind it."
I feel evil volunteer to be on this reality to corrupt the weak, to distract you from good and to test your LOVE for life and of GOD.