Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum

August 12, 2009, 09:58:AM *

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?

Forever Login

Login with username, password and session length

News: Fish Eaters chat is here! Click "CHAT ROOM"in the menu to sign in.

Search

FishEaters

ForumIndex

ForumRules

HelpSearchCalendarChatRoom

Who'sChatting

LoginRegister

Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum > Archives > Enter the Archives > Zionism, Jewish-Christian Issues, Fundies,Dispies, etc. Archive II > Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion

Pages: [1]

AuthorTopic: Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion(Read 524 times)

stvincentferrer

Fish Factor: 13Posts: 327

Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion« on: January 10, 2009, 05:56:AM »

Part 1

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd1.htm

Israel Shamir:

"Our friend the Australian editor Peter Myers had carried out a recent debate on theorigins of the Protocols of Zion. In my view, the Protocols is a multifaceted andmultilayered composition being re-written a few times by various persons,sympathetic and hostile. Its contents provide a valuable key to understanding themodern paradigm, but its origin is untraceable. That is why I refrained from dealingwith the origins. However, Peter Myers writes: In major US and Israeli media,propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace NotApartheid to the Protocols of Zion. The argument that the Protocols is a forgery isthus used as a shield to fend off all scholarly argument that the Israel lobbydominates United States foreign policy on the Middle East. Thus, an investigationof whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotal to the defence ofCarter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt."

Read his analysis:

Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols ofZion

(1) From: John Bryant

Dear Mr Myers:

A friend recommended that I look at your Protocols writing. My personal prejudice-- or, rather, POST-judice -- is that the Protocols is largely the same as theDialogue, and hence a 'forgery' -- I say 'post-judice' because I had my wife, whomajored in French in college, compare the Protocols with the Dialogue, and it washer conclusion that they were very similar.

(2) Reply to John Birdman Bryant - Peter Myers, July 6, 2008

Dear Birdman,

Thanks for your correspondence.

The claim that the Protocols is a forgery is mainly based on parallel passages withMaurice Joly's book Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu at Machiavel(“Dialogues in Hell”), published in 1864.

When I first read Joly five years ago, my first impression was, like your wife’s, thatthe Protocols was plagiarised from it.

Herman Bernstein, whose edition of Joly I was reading, has a chapter displaying allthe parallel passages side by side. I put the whole text of Joly’s “Dialogues in Hell”on my website, some years ago, here.

All the parallel passages are set side by side here.

If there is a conspiracy for One World Government, then for co-ordinationpurposes it would have to be written down at times, and then some persons wouldhave written accounts of it.

The other explanation, from the forgery one, is that Joly himself may have copiedfrom its text for his book; and that the author of the Protocols also used it, butvarying the meaning.

The Protocols, on its own, cannot be used to establish that there is a worldconspiracy. But if such a conspiracy be verified FROM OTHER SOURCES - suchas H. G. Wells' book The Open Conspiracy and Benjamin Ginsberg's admissionsand the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government: then the Protocols can be re-examined in that light, and compared against the historical record.

That is the only way to evaluate it.

The Protocols predicts that, after a world war, there will be an attempt to form aworld government, secretly orchestrated by Jewish financiers.

This happened at the Treaty of Versailles.

The Protocols also predicted a despotic government in the guise of socialism, onceagain secretly Jewish. This happened when Lenin & Trotsky set up the USSR:

For all the Czar's toughness, his regime was more lenient than Lenin's; when theBolsheviks came to power they were much more inclined to execute seriousopponents.

When Lenin died, power passed to a triumvirate - Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin -of which Stalin was the only non-Jew.

Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky, and allied against him; Stalin was the thirdand least important member of the triumvirate.

But later, Stalin got sole power, and overthrew the Jewish leadership. Zinoviev andKamenev joined Trotsky’s Opposition grouping, but too late. All three wereexecuted (Trotsky when in Mexico).

Solzhenitsyn also depicted Jewish control at first, but their overthrow under Stalin.

The techniques of thought control espoused in the Protocols are as sinister as thosedepicted by George Orwell in 1984. Many people feel that we are approaching thiscondition today. It is reasonable to consider whether there might be any connection.

The Protocols could also be relevant in understanding the crisis in the Middle Eastand exploring possible solutions to it which might avert world war; wars in that areadrag the great powers in.

Consider these four Indicators:

i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (the USSR)aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented byBertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others. Even though some Jewsopposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.

ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewishparticipants came from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew ofthe Jewish role, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g. in the public media, partlyowned by Jews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warnof what was happening.

iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the newregime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.

iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out.Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.

Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other typeof literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted thisconjunction of events.

It is this kind of "coincidence" that keeps the Protocols relevant. Is there any otherliterature that made such a prediction?

If you know of other literature that correctly predicted this conjunction of events,please let me know.

(3) From Birdman:

this essay was triggered by the reactions to my posting of the late Dr Gordon Stein'sessay on the Protocols, found here

Some Common Sense About the Protocols

In 1903 a book was published in Russia which is now known as The Protocols ofthe Learned Elders of Zion, or just The Protocols. It purports to be the Jewishmaster plan for takeover of the world, and a great many people in the present daybelieve that is exactly what it is. The Protocols achieved serious attention theWestern world in 1921, when reviews of it supposedly proving that it was a'forgery' appeared in the British press. In spite of these and many subsequentdenunciations, this book has become one of the most widely-read books in theworld. Henry Ford, the legendary auto manufacturer who became convinced of aJewish world conspiracy by talking with influential Jews who were passengers onthe 'peace ship' which he had chartered in order to help end WW1, remarked that heknew not whether the Protocols was a forgery; he knew only that it had describedthe world situation accurately since the time it had been published.

Critics of The Protocols in the present day usually claim that it is a 'forgery', ormore precisely, a book which has been plagiarized from a much earlier book byMaurice Joly entitled Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu ('TheDialogue'). My own view is that, while I believe that the Jewish establishment isindeed following a master plan to take over the world, and while that master plan

may have many points in common with The Protocols, I believe that The Protocolsdid not originate as such a plan, and that it constitutes what I call an 'MLKplagiarism' of Joly's book, ie, compilation of plagiarized parts, sometimes modified,combined with some original material, much like MLK's doctoral thesis and manyother things MLK supposedly authored. I offer this public expression of my viewsfor the simple reason that I believe it is a serious mistake, both moral and tactical,to accuse the Jews falsely, inasmuch as there are many high crimes and lowmisdemeanors which may be laid at the Jewish doorstep, but to make a falseallegation is to throw the true and valid charges into question, since a false chargeamong the true will invite rejection of both true and false charges because the truecharges are tainted by the false one according to the ancient criterion, "False in onething; false in all. In this sense, then, the promotion of The Protocols -- along withan equally strong demonstration of their falsity -- in fact gives aid and comfort tothe Jewish conspirators, because it effectively paints the stupid goy believers asidiots and ignorants.

So why, then, do I think the Protocols are a 'forgery'? To explain, I begin by notingthat The Dialogue, published in 1864, was in fact a critique of the regime ofNapoleon III. Next, I assert that the Protocols was a plagiarism of the Dialogue, abook published almost 40 years earlier. I say this, not merely on the basis that othercritics of the Protocols have asserted the same, but also -- and most importantly --on the basis that my wife, a 4-year full-academic-scholarship French major and PhiBeta Kappa graduate, compared the Joly text with that of the Protocols andconcluded that the Protocols was a plagiarism of Joly. With these points in mind,then, we see that if the Protocols were lifted from a book which was intended as acriticism of Emperor Napoleon III in the 1860s, as in fact it was, then it is absurd tothink it is a 'Jewish master plan'. That is, if the Protocols was really a pre-existingJewish master plan, then why was it turned into a critique of Napoleon III? This issomething akin to taking a physics book and plagiarizing it to create an exercisemanual -- it just makes no sense. To the contrary, the simplest explanation of thecorrespondence between the Dialogue and the Protocols is plagiarism, and underthe criterion of Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, this explanation must beaccepted unless there is additional data which does not fit this explanation.

The logic of the above argument must evidently stand or fall on whether onereckons that the Protocols was in fact plagiarized from the Dialogue. To someextent this is a matter of judgment, and the argument will probably go on for sometime -- mostly, of course, among those who do not speak both French and English --until the Jews decide that the controversy has served their purpose sufficiently, andthat therefore any remaining copies of Dialogue and the Protocols shall be burned inthe public square by the hangman.

APPENDIX: Statements of Protocols supporters and Birdman responses

HENRY MAKOW, in his article PROTOCOLS FORGERY ARGUMENT ISFLAWED (on the Net) says the following:

In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik Russia andits execration in the West today proves its authenticity.

Birdman response: It proves no such thing. It merely shows that the mostly-JewishBolsheviks and the Western Jewsmedia didn't want criticism of Jews popping upanywhere.

VOLTAIRE/Bill the Hermit describes the above article as a 'point by point'refutation by Henry Makow that Joly and the Protocols substantially differ in toneand content.

Birdman comment: They do differ -- the Protocols is a scaled-down version of theDialogue, reduced in size by about 50%. And we will grant that there aredifferences in tone and content. But that doesn't change any arguments we havemade in this essay.

PETER MYERS thinks the Protocols are genuine, as I understand it, and has postedseveral items on this subject.

(4) REPLY by Peter Myers

Dear Birdman,

In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened JimmyCarter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to Mein Kampf (Jimmy Carter'sKampf) and the Protocols of Zion (The Protocols of the Elder Carter). Thesepropagandists insist that if there is ANY Jewish conspiracy, then it is the sameJewish conspiracy the Protocols describes.

But the Protocols is a forgery. Therefore, all these other books are also wrong.

The argument that the Protocols is a forgery is thus used as a shield to fend off allscholarly argument that the Israel lobby dominates United States foreign policy onthe Middle East.

Thus, an investigation of whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotalto the defence of Carter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt.

Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein, and Norman Cohn (Jewish authors regarded asthe authorities on the Protocols) argue that the Protocols was copied in the mainfrom Maurice Joly’s book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli andMontesquieu, published in 1864.

To counter the propagandists, it is not necessary to prove the Protocols genuine. Itis only necessary to show that the above authorities have not considered certainimportant issues in their proof of forgery.

The propagandists insist that the case is closed; all we need to do is show that theissue is still open.

I put the whole text of Joly’s “Dialogues in Hell” on my website here

I put the Protocols here.

All the parallel passages are set side by side at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bernstein.zip

The last link above includes Bernstein’s analysis.

Zangwill’s material is at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/zangwill.html

And Cohn’s material is at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/cohn.html

Presenting the arguments of Zangwill, Bernstein & Cohn in their own words, I amthe only author of a study of the Protocols who presents both sides.

I was the first person to show that the parallel passages in Joly's Dialoguescomprise 16.45% of the Protocols, by word-count. This is substantial, but still lessthan one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols'extensive coverage of the world finance system, unmatched in the Dialogues.

Even the parallel passages, however, are not the same: the meaning is often quitedifferent, despite the similarity. I give details below.

My argument is that Joly did not create these parallel passages ex nihilo, butmodified an existing revolutionary text (precursor of the Protocols), reworking partsof it to suit his attack on Napoleon III.

Differences between the Dialogues & the Protocols

1 Who are the Machiavellians?

In Joly, the conspirator is the monarch; in the Protocols, the conspirators are thosetrying to overthrow him.

In the Dialogues, Napoleon III is the Machiavellian, preventing the people, led bythe Revolutionaries of 1848, from installing a People's Democracy along the linesof the French Revolution.

In the Protocols, the shadowy leaders lurking behind the Revolutionaries are theMachiavellians. They are tricking the people into trusting their leadership, butwhen in power they will institute the Red Terror.

In the Dialogues, Napoleon (the Machiavellian) is resisting the Revolutionaries; inthe Protocols, the Machiavellians are sponsoring these Marxists, anarchists, andutopian activists.

2 Joly is written "after the event", i.e. to satirise Napoleon's existing regime; theProtocols is written "in advance", anticipating a regime yet to come.

3 Joly's despot is one man; the Protocols' conspiracy has many participants.

4 Joly's despotism is localised to one country and one time; the Protocols' despotismextends widely, over many countries, regimes and decades.

5 The Protocols' conspirators envisages themselves running a World Government,and instituting a new type of regime, unknown to past history.

Compare this with Trotsky on World Federation:

'We are of course talking about a European socialist federation as a component of afuture world federation ... ' (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The EternalRevolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996,p. 209).

6 Joly's despotism is achieved without violence: "violence plays no role" (p. 174); "Iwho have taken as final policy, not violence, but self-effacement" (p. 226); at p. 236the despot says "sometimes of duplicity, sometimes of violence", but Napoleon IIIhad no concentration camps or gulag, no death squads, no mass graves of victimsexecuted by a bullet to the back of the head, no glorifying of violence.

By comparison, Protocol 1 says that the best results are obtained by violence &terrorization; also, "we must keep to the program of violence and make-believe";Protocol 3 advocates "the violence of a bold despotism".

This is much closer to Trotsky's violence of the Kronstadt massacre, and his ordersto use relatives as hostages, with the threat of executing them: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/worst.html.

7 Napoleon (Joly's despot) is for religion; whereas the Protocols says itsconspirators are against religion.

8 Timing & Future-orientation (Teleology)

Cohn admits that the Protocols were ignored until World War I and the BolshevikRevolution, 20 or so years after it was written.

Cohn wrote in Warrant For Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracyand the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1970):

“The myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy would have remained the monopoly ofright-wing Russians and a few cranks in western Europe, and the Protocols would

never have emerged from obscurity at all, if it had not been for the First World Warand the Russian Revolution and their aftermath.” (pp. 14-15)

“The success of the Protocols before the war was in fact limited. Zhevakhov tellshow in 1913 Nilus complained to him: {quote} I cannot get the public to treat theProtocols seriously, with the attention they deserve. They are read, criticized, oftenridiculed, but there are very few who attach importance to them and see in them areal threat to Christianity, a programme for the destruction of the Christian orderand for the conquest of the whole world by the Jews. That nobody believes ...{endquote}” (pp. 124-5)

More at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/cohn.html

If it were a forgery designed to stir up pogroms etc, one would think that the forgershad failed, since it had no effect for 20 years.

Given that these alleged forgers had been stirring up pogroms repeatedly, onewould think that they would be better at it, than 20 years of failure implies.

It was only when World War I (1914-8), the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), theBalfour Declaration (1917) and the attempt to make the League of Nations a WorldGovernment at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919) seemed to bear outpredictions in the Protocols - predictions which are not in Joly's Dialogues - that theProtocols was taken seriously.

The same people who deny Jewish control of the Bolshevik Revolution (until Stalinstole their conspiracy), also deny the authenticity of the Protocols. Therefore,demonstrating this Jewish control is the first step in puncturing their argument:http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/russell.html.

9 Finance

The "forgery" hypothesis says that the Okhrana plagiarised the Dialogues ofMaurice Joly. But the Protocols opposes the policy on government debt endorsed inthe Dialogues.

Joly's despot says, "I will borrow" the funds for government expenditure(Dialogues, p. 209); borrow from the public (p. 215); but pay reduced interest (p.217).

He speaks of the benefits of government debt (p. 214): http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/joly.zip.

The Protocols acknowledges that government debt is a trap; that governments neednot borrow the funds for their expenditure, but can create the money by fiat, as thebanks do (but for which the banks charge interest, in effect a private tax). This wasthe way the finance system of the USSR operated.

Protocol 20 says: "with any form of taxation per head the State is bailing out the lastcoppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners,from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its ownneeds without the additional interest".

In other words, the interest on foreign loans must be paid by the taxpayers.Governments could avoid that interest burden by issuing the money themselves;after all, the banks themselves create it ex nihilo.

The lesson is, that we need a finance system akin to the Communist one.

Protocol 20 also says:

"The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirementsper head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of

money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children alsomust absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth."

This is the way a welfare system operates (child endowment, pensions etc); i.e., thegovernment issues money to parents for the care of their children, either directly via"family allowance" payments, or via additional wages or reduced taxes for workerswith dependents. Yet it's unlikely that in 1897 any state had this type of money-issue.

"... the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it ... With us thestandard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it bereckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance withthe normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth andsubtracting with every death." http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/protocol.html

This accurately describes the sort of finance system the USSR had. I believe that,via such prescriptions, the Protocols contains not only the key to what is wrongwith our finance system, but also the way to fix it.

The conspirators did not want such a solution to be implemented, until theycontrolled the state directly, not indirectly (through other people).

At the time the Protocols was written, Russia was getting deeply into foreign debt:

W. O. Henderson, The Industrialization of Europe 1870-1914 (Thames andHudson, London 1969).

{p. 87} Foreigners also helped to build Russia's early railway lines. Much of thecapital of the Great Russia Railway Company of 1857 was raised abroad. ThreeFrench banks were particularly active in providing money for the company and thenecessary bridges, locomotives and rolling-stock were largely supplied by Frenchfirms.

However, Russia's industrial progress in the 1890s was to a great extent theachievement of Count Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance between 1892 and 1903. Inthe eleven years that he held office Witte pressed forward energetically with hisplans to speed up the pace of industrialization. Since he considered the constructionof a greatly improved railway system the key to future economic progress, he hadthe railways of Russia nearly doubled in length: Moscow was linked with the portsof Archangel and Riga and the textile centre of Ivanovo-Vognesensk; St Petersburggained direct access to the Ukraine, while Kiev was joined to the Donetz valley,and Rostov, on the Don, was linked with the oilfield of Baku. Witte's mostspectacular railway was the Trans-Siberian line, of which well over 3,000 miles hadbeen completed by 1899. Heavy government investment in railways fostered theexpansion of the iron, steel and engineering industries; there was great activity inthe Krivoi-Rog ironfield, the Donetz coal basin and the Baku oilfield; the industrialresources of Siberia and Central Asia

{p. 88} began to be opened up, and even the remote Chinese provinces ofManchuria and Korea were subject to Russian economic penetration.

To finance an enormous programme of public works Witte relied heavily upongovernment borrowing from abroad and upon persuading foreign capitalists toinvest in Russian industrial enterprises. In answer to his critics Witte insisted thatin the past all underdeveloped countries had relied upon borrowed money to assistin financing the early phase of industrialization. But his financial policyundoubtedly placed heavy burdens upon the Russian taxpayers and consumers.Witte's critics complained that prices were rising, that grain was being exportedeven when there was a poor harvest and that 'Witte's system' could survive only solong as foreign - particularly French - investors were prepared to go on buying

Russian State bonds and shares in new Russian joint-stock companies. Theyclaimed that many of the new industries were being run by foreign entrepreneursfor the benefit of foreign investors, and that although some manufacturing regions(such as the Donetz valley) might appear to be flourishing, older industrial areas(such as the Urals) were declining. The critics also argued that if industry were toflourish there must be a heavy home demand for consumer goods.

Towards the end of his term of office Witte began to realize the need for overallState economic planning. With incomparable energy he extended his influence overthe activities of one branch of the civil service after another. But in the Russia ofhis day he could never hope to gain decisive control over all aspects of economiclife. Moreover, he came to see that the peasant problem lay at the root of Russia'sdifficulties in the 1890s. His recommendations for dealing with it fell upon deafears, though they foreshadowed the subsequent agrarian reforms of Stolypin. WhileWitte believed that an autocratic form of government was essential for Russia, herealized that Nicholas II lacked the understanding and will-power needed to carryout the crucial reforms.

{endquote}

The Protocols was written around the same time as Witte was finance minister.

If the Protocols was created by the Okhrana (Secret Police), then this arm ofgovernment was warning of the danger of foreign debt, at the same time as thefinance branch of the Russian government was endorsing Russia's getting deeplyinto that same foreign debt.

10 Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols, to any material on Jews behavingin a conspiratorial way

Cohn could have agreed, like Benjamin Ginsberg (above), that Jews created theBolshevik Revolution (not all Jews, but Jews), and that they largely control the USmedia and government. He could have said, "yes, but", as Israel Shahak does. Thatwould have been an acceptable position.

Instead, Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols of Zion, to any material onJews behaving in a conspiratorial way:

"Stalin in his last years produced a new version of the conspiracy-myth, in whichJews figured as agents of an imperialist plot to destroy the Soviet Union andassassinate its leaders; this was used to secure the execution of Rudolf Slansky andhis Jewish colleagues on the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communistparty in 1952, and it also formed the basis for the story of the 'doctors' plot' in1953." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 15).

Stalin was murdered soon after: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/death-of-stalin.html.

After Stalin, the contest between Zionists and anti-Zionists continued in the USSR.A document called "The Catechism of the Jews in the [former] Soviet Union",circulated in the last decades of the USSR, and was published there in a newspaperin 1990. A copy is at http://abbc.com/zionism/index.htm#catechi; another copy is athttp://www.sullybuttes.net/users/teacher/catechis.htm.

Cohn wrote,

"New forgeries were also produced to supplement the Protocols and bring them upto date. The most celebrated of these was a document said to have been found on aJewish Bolshevik commander in the Red Army, of the name of Zunder." (WarrantFor Genocide, p. 130).

He rejects not only the Protocols, but any claim of Jews acting in a conspiratorialway, treating this as tantamount to the Protocols.

In thus overstating his case, he makes refutation easier. It can be refuted by anydirect evidence, e.g. of Jewish domination of the US media.

Can one disclose such information in public, without being ignored, vilified,subjected to argumentum ad hominem? Then this also provides evidence of who isin power: those you cannot criticize, are those in control.

Cohn's book, and books arguing a similar viewpoint, can be sold in bookshops. Canone get a book arguing that the Protocols is genuine into the bookshops? Why?

11. What Cohn implicitly rules out of the debate:

(a) He does not examine the Jewish domination in the early USSR, except cursorily,or the association between Jews and Revolution admitted by J. L. Talmon.

(b) Cohn does not examine Jewish promotion of World Government at the PeaceConference of Versailles (1919), or in the Baruch Plan for World Government(1946).

(c) He does not relate the Protocols' Jewish utopia to the Balfour Declaration,(Britain's "contract with Jewry" in order to win the First World War), or why theBritish Government might have thought that an alliance with Zionists would get theUS into the war.

(d) He does not relate the above points to the ideas and sense of mission of theJewish religion, i.e. to intention and program. This omission is the more strikingbecause Cohn has written (disparagingly) about nearly every kind of modernmillenialism except the Jewish kind.

(e) He does not relate the above points to the Jewish tradition of Marranism. Inparticular, he does not relate Marranism to the Letter of the Jews of Arles and theReply of the Jews of Constantinople

(f) He does not examine the politics of France before, during and after the reign ofNapoleon III, against which Joly pitched his Dialogues

(g) He does not examine the parallels between Joly's Dialogues and JacobVenedey's earlier book Machiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau

(h) He does not examine the praise of Machiavelli, and appeal to Machiavelli, byRevolutionary writers and activists, such as Rousseau and Babeuf

(i) After saying that the Tsar dismissed the Protocols as a forgery, Cohn does notexplain why the Tsarina had a copy of the Protocols with them at the time of theirdeath.

More at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/toolkit.html

and at at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/hiding.html

Peter

(5) Birdman: “You seem to think ... the Protocols is necessary to proving aJewish world conspiracy”

I am amazed at your logic. You seem to think that proving the validity or truth ofthe Protocols is necessary to proving a Jewish world conspiracy. But the truth isthat the Protocols are not necessary, and in fact are completely irrelevant. As proof,I offer my (inductive) argument of JWC without the Protocols:

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-LtrToIranPres-ThoroughSurveyOfJewishThreat.html

As to the argument 'The Protocols is false, therefore there is no Jewish worldconspiracy', I find this rather silly, tho, as PT Barnum said, 'There's a sucker bornevery minute', and I suppose a few of those would believe it.

(6) Reply (Peter M.):

But I don’t claim to prove the Protocols genuine; I present evidence for itsauthenticity, but I don’t go the next step and make a dogmatic statement that it ISgenuine. However I do assert that the proofs of forgery are not really proofs.

I offer plenty of other evidence of a Jewish conspiracy, or rather two Jewishconspiratorial movements, Zionist and Communist, sometimes at odds but oftenaligned, in conjunction with a British one: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/british-conspiracy.html

It’s the Zionists who make dogmatic statements about the Protocols; they insist it’aforgery. And from that they go on to ridicule other authors alleging Jewishdomination of the US - Carter, Mearsheimer/Walt, Finkelstein.

(7) Why didn’t the Czar use Protocols after failed Jewish dominated revolutionof 1905?

From: Bill <billhermit@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:13:57 -0400

Two points in particular impress me.

(1) The Jewish authors who deny the authenticity of the "Protocols" simultaneouslydeny that Jews exercise any provable international influence at all. That is provablynot true, e.g. the bolshevik revolution, the "minorities treaties" in Central Europe,the League of Nations, the mandate over Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, etc.

(2) If the "Protocols were "forged" to target the Jews, then the effort failed from1901-1917. The Protocols were first published by Nilus in book form in 1901. Whydid the Czarist government not resort to them as a propaganda weapon after thefailed Jewish dominated revolution of 1905? That would have been the ideal time.

( From: Kerry Bolton

The debate on the authenticity of The Protocols has so far neglected to mentionsome salient facts.

1. Cohn et al do NOT mention that Joly was a protégé of Cremieux, head not onlyof the Universal Israelite Alliance, but also of Mizraim and Grand Orient Masonry,and a leading figure in the Gambetta regime. The Gambetta regime was heavilyinfluenced by Masons. Joly himself was a highly regarded propagandist for theregime. Cremieux moreover was bitterly opposed to Napoleon III, therefore theDialogue of Joly would reflect that milieu.

2. Very close parallels exist between passages in The Protocols and documents fromthe Illuminati. There is a direct relationship between the Illuminati and MizraimMasonry via Pasquales, who was a leading Illuminatist (according to BernardLazare) and founder of Mizraim.

3. Internal evidence would seem to argue for a far earlier existence of the Protocolsthan ca. 1900, or for the time period that Czarist agents were allegedly in France'forging' The Protocols. 'Anti-Semitic forgers' would surely have made much ofHerzl's Zionism had the Protocols been contrived in the last part of the 19th orbeginning of the 20th Centuries. Yet the doctrine of the Protocols does NOT seemto be based on Herzl's Zionism or any notion of a "return to the promised land" butrather refers to the dispersion of Jewry as being its strength, the attitude of a certainnon-Zionist section of Jewry, including sections of Jewish banking (e.g. Schiff).Secondly, there is NO mention of the Dreyfus Affair, which surely indicates again

an earlier existence. I find it inconceivable that anti-Semites in France contrivingthe Protocols would not at least make some reference to Dreyfus given that it wasthe cause celebre of both pro- and anti-Semites and convulsed France.

4. There is no evidence for the forging of the Protocols found among the archivesof the Okhrana or of those principals supposedly involved.

5. The Protocols refer to Catholicism and the Jesuits being major foes of theLearned Elders’ plans, along with the Czar. Orthodox, traditionalists Czarists,whether Okhrana agents or Nilus, are not likely to have made such comments. Thepassages on the Jesuits run parallel to those from the Illuminati.

The Protocols are more likely to be a compilation of material from the documents ofMizraim Masonry, the same source that influenced Joly via Cremieux and others.At any rate, the explanations offered by those who dismiss the Protocols as fakehave turned out to be less than reliable, such as the testimony of Princess Radziwillor the farcical trial of the Swiss publishers during the 30s. The question as toorigins at the least remains open, rather than offhandedly dismissed.

K R Bolton

Logged

stvincentferrer

Fish Factor: 13Posts: 327

Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2009, 05:58:AM »

Part 2

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd1.htm

(9) May be counterproductive to bring in the "Protocols"

From: Bill

I agree that the existence of a Jewish world conspiracy can be proved without anyreference to the "Protocols". It can even be argued that it is counterproductive tobring in the "Protocols" as it allows the Jews to confuse the issue by bringing up theessentially irrelevant "forgery" charge. However, I insist that, so far as they go, the"Protocols" are not inconsistent with the thesis. They do, indeed, very closelyparallel what has actually been going on in the world for the last century. As towhether it is tactically wise to use them as the basis of an argument, that is adifferent matter.

The "Protocols" have always scared the tribe. It could be that they are merely scaredabout investigations of Jewish power generally, but there is something specificabout the "Protocols" which scares them even more. When one considers theasonishing predictive validity of the document in so many particulars, it is easy tosee exactly why it scares them.

(10) Reply (Peter M.):

Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer/Walt, and Norman Finkelstein did not use the Protocols,but Lobby writers brought in the Protocols - comparing their books to the Protocols -as a way of refuting these authors.

Therefore, there is no way to avoid the Protocols. One must deal with it as I havedone.

(11) Why the Czar didn't use the Protocols to discredit the 1905 Revolution

From: Kerry Bolton

In reply to the question as to why the Czar didn't use the Protocols to discredit the1905 Revolution; this can be answered on two counts:

1. Stolypin commissioned an enquiry to repudiate the Protocols for the purpose ofdiscrediting the Black Hundreds organisation.

2. Nilus was the target of Court intrigues centered around Papus and Philippe deLyon, heads of Mizraim Masonry from France; i.e. the same form of Masonry ofwhich Cremieux, Joly's mentor, had been head. Therefore, the very repudiation onceagain involves Mizraim Masonry in association with the Protocols. This suggests aconvergence of evidence. That the Protocols were among the final possessions ofthe Czarina would indicate that the Stolypin enquiry of years earlier and other efforsto discredit the Protocols did not continue to hold weight.

(12) Protocols - "That Very Real Subterranean Force"

From: Bill

In musing over the infamous Protocols of Zion, that alleged Czarist forgery, itstrikes this writer that the real cause of concern is not so much the content, althoughthat largely describes the history of the twentieth century, but rather the implicationthat Jews are capable of long term planning over the centuries to achieve groupobjectives. That is the charge which the Jews wish to avoid at all costs. To anyonewho has read the historical record it is obvious that the long conjectured 'Jewishinternational' is a provable reality. There are many examples of it in the history ofthe last two hundred years but one of the best examples is the revolutions of 1848 inEurope. In that year virtually every European monarchy experienced simultaneousrevolutionary upheavals. Coincidence? Not a chance. In all countries Jews played ahighly visible and in many cases decisive role in the upheavals. After therevolutions failed the Jews who had instigated these revolutions fled to England andAmerica. There they became prominent in establishing the newly foundedRepublican Party in 1855. These European Jewish revolutionaries then becameactive in promoting abolitionist sentiment before joining Abraham Lincoln's UnionArmy as generals. After the war, these butchers in military uniform became U.S.ambassadors and diplomats to many foreign countries.

Now, how does all this happen? Are we really to believe that it is just coincidencethat Jews stage a simultaneous series of revolutions in all western Europeancountries, that they flee across the sea and become the founding fathers of a newpolitical party in America, that they happen to become generals in the Union armydespite their total lack of military expertise, that they just happen to become highdiplomats and ambassadors of their adopted country, the United States, after thewar? This sort of thing does not 'just happen'. It happens because of a very real,subterranean force emerging into the open as its interests dictate and require.

None of this directly 'proves' the Protocols of Zion. But the fact that this coordinatedJewish activity was taking place scant twenty or so years before the publication ofMaurice Joly's book and related predecessors is certainly very indicative of a realJewish power at work. The fact that the alleged plans of this power also surfacednot too many years afterward is also very indicative. Coincidence in politics is, morefrequently than not, no mere 'coincidence'. The revolutionary outbreaks of 1848, themovement of the Jewish felons to the New World and their coordinated activitiesthere, and the emergence of Joly's book and Jacob Venedy's book around 1860 and

1850 respectively, about the same time that the communist Jacoby brothers werefounding the first Communist Party in New York simultaneous with the founding ofthe1848'r dominated Republican Party in the same year of 1855, adds up tosomething very ominous. Those who wish for more details should consult the book'Red Republicans', available as a 'print to order' volume, in either hardcover orsoftcover.

(13) Reply (Peter M.):

The revolutionary movement spans centuries, from the French Revolution to KarlMarx, to the Bolsheviks, to our own time. And thus our investigation must delveinto the historical continuity.

The Anarchist leader Bakunin wrote in his paper Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism:

"Babeuf's conspiracy failed; he was guillotined, together with some of his oldfriends. But his idea of a socialist republic did not die with him. It was picked up byhis friend Buonarroti, the arch-conspirator of the century, who transmitted it as asacred trust to future generations".

According to James Billington, in his book Fire In the Minds of Men: Origins of theRevolutionary Faith, Buonarroti was a member of the Illuminati. Billington's bigbook is an account of the secret societies behind revolutions.

The back of the dust jacket of this book reads:

{quote} JAMES H. BILLINGTON has been, since 1973, director of the WoodrowWilson International Center for Scholars ... he received his doctorate as a RhodesScholar at Oxford ...{endquote}

Billington later became Librarian of Congress.

There's no mention in the book of the secret society of Cecil Rhodes for furtheringthe British Empire, which endows the Rhodes Scholarships to this day: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/rhodes-scholars.html.

And despite its size (677 pages, weighing 1.1 kgs), Billington's book manages toomit any Jewish connection to Revolutions.

That Jewish connection is, however, supplied by two impeccable Jewish sources,Benjamin Disraeli and J. L. Talmon.

Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his "novel" Coningsby, in 1844 (5th edition, publishedby Peter Davies, London, 1927):

'that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and whichwill be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yetknown in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almostmonopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. ... ' (p. 264).

Disraeli, writing in 1844, is referring (four years in advance) to the revolution of1848, launched shortly after the appearance of The Communist Manifesto.

In 1852 Disraeli wrote in Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (Archibald,Constable & Co. Ltd., London 1905):

{p. 324} An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, againstreligion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewishreligion, whether in the mosaic or in the christian form, the natural equality of manand the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who formprovisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every oneof them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulatorsof property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the

hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish todestroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whosetyranny they can no longer endure.

When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselvessurprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizingthe occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately havebeen connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as werethe governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But thefiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a longtime the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisionalgovernments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, hewill recognise everywhere the Jewish element. {endquote}

Disraeli's message is: if you don't want Communism, support Zionism. The Westused this strategy in the Cold War.

More from Disraeli at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/disraeli.html.

J. L. Talmon wrote two studies of the revolutionary tradition. The first, The Originsof Totalitarian Democracy, "writes out" any mention of Jewish involvement.

The second, Israel Among the Nations, "writes it back in":

{p. 1} It has for a long time been almost an axiom that The Revolution was the ally,some were even wont to say saviour of the Jews, and that the Jews were the naturalstandard-bearers of the revolution. ... Those who should be most interested,revolutionaries of Jewish extraction, or revolutionaries in general, tend to deny thevery legitimacy of the juxtaposition, 'Jews and revolution'. It is, they argue, men,classes, peoples who rise in revolt against oppression, that many revolutionarieshave {p. 2} been of Jewish ancestry is quite irrelevant and the very desire to see it asrelevant arises out of a sinister intention to discredit the cause of revolution itself ...Then there are those Jews who are unable to ignore the intimate relation betweenJews and revolution, but wish they had never heard of it. ... {p. 69} Three years laterthe Tsar and all his family were helpless prisoners guarded by a Jew and a fewLatvian assistants. ... - 'in the fact that the chief executioner of Tsar Nicholas II andhis family in the Ekaterinburg cellar was a Jew', Jacob Yurovsky.

{p. 21} The great wave of revolutions in 1848, spreading with lightning speed fromcapital to capital, almost from town to town across Europe, was greeted by verymany Jews as proof that all nations were about to enter into a revolutionary worldassociation. {i.e. World Government, i.e. the messianic age}

Not only the democratic and Socialist aspirations, but even the national liberationmovements bore at least in the early phase a distinctly universalist character. Sogreat was the enthusiasm of the Jews that they were prepared to overlook the anti-Jewish excesses ... and even to proclaim that the victory of universal brotherhoodhad put 'an end to any distinct Jewish history', 'for liberty, like love, is cosmopolitan,wandering from people to people'.

There was hardly a revolution - that year of revolutions - in which Jews were notprominent or at least very active.

{endquote} More of Talmon at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/talmon.html.

Engels, in describing the history of the Communist movement, candidly admits therole of secret societies, unlike some later historians who pretend that all thoseuprisings happened purely spontaneously. Engels, History of the CommunistLeague, in Lewis D. Feuer (ed), Marx & Engels: Basic Writings on Politics &Philosophy, 1959, pp. 459-470.

In the same article he states that the revolutionary movement had been underground(conspiratorial) until 1847, when the first Congress of the League of the Just washeld. At this Congress the league was reorganised and renamed the "CommunistLeague", and, coming out of its underground mode, "barred all hankering afterconspiracy, which requires dictatorship".

Acknowledgement of the connection to Weishaupt is implied: "Whatever remainedof the old mystical names dating back to the conspiratorial period was nowabolished".

Such names (Spartacus, Philo, Gracchus etc.) had been a feature of Weishaupt'sunderground organisation, the Illuminati; although Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc. were"new names" in the same style.

The granting of such new names upon conversion to a new faith is reminiscent ofthe way Catholic monks and nuns, on admission to the order, gave up their old nameand used a new, religious, one, that of a saint. Weishaupt, of course, would havebeen familiar with this.

In 1848 the Communist League commissioned Marx and Engels to write theManifesto.

The above is from The Protocols of Zion Toolkit, Part 2: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/toolkit2.html

However, Karl Marx also wrote about a Jewish conspiracy in the Finance system.This must be seen, in part, as an attack on those Jews who refused to join or back theCommunist movement; in today’s terms, the Zionists.

The following is from The Karl Marx Library, Volume 5, On Religion (arrangedand edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover McGraw-HillBook Company New York 1972):

{p. 219} The Jewish Bankers of Europe*

TAKE Austria, for instance - a country which suffers from chronic scarcity of cash.What is she doing at this moment? She proposes to raise money by negotiating themortgage bonds of the landowners of the Austrian dominions. But how is such anoperation possible?

Through the Jewish houses, who, shut out from all more honorable branches ofbusiness, have acquired in this an inevitable degree of aptitude. There are in Viennathe Rothschilds, and Arnsteins, and Eskeles, and the Jew-Greek house of Seria, forwhom the management of a loan of $100,000,000 is a matter of most easyaccomplishment. The way they start at the loan is to get all their correspondents tocanvass their business constituencies, and with the allurements of a particularcommission, their correspondents of course do their best to ensnare their customers.

The broad facts we have pointed out have naturally produced all over Europe,especially in its northern, western, and central portions where the indolence whichprevails in the southern part (as Italy, Spain, and Portugal) is modified by dimate, allmanner and kinds of capitalists, speculators, and jobbers, who have no otherbusiness beyond that of dealing in money. Now there are posted in every point ofEurope Jewish agents who represent this business and who are the correspondentsof other leading Jews. It must here be borne in mind that for one big fish, likeRothschild, there are thousands of minnows. ...

* From "The Loanmongers of Europe," published in the New York Daily Tribune,November 22, 1855.

{endquote} More at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/leftprot.html

The lesson is that there are TWO Jewish conspiratorial movements - Communismand Zionism - sometimes at odds, sometimes aligned. Each appeals to Jews - andnon-Jews - to join it against the other. And there are Jews who join neither.

This mailing list includes people from both the Far Left and the Far Right. Youmight ask, how is this possible? But, to me, it is the only way I can operate. Truthdoes not reside in only one camp. Each camp shines a torch on its’ opponents’ sins,but hides the skeletons in its own closet. By carefully balancing the two extremes, Iremain independent of both.

(14) Protocols & C.H. Douglas’s Social Credit theory of money

From: Iskandar

Do you think that the financial techniques expounded in the protocols could havebeen an inspiration to C.H. Douglas in developing his Social Credit philosophy?

So then, was state creation of fiat money practiced in the USSR during eitherLenin's time or Stalin's time or post-Stalin?

Is 'social credit' or creation of fiat money by the state still a real solution, a kind ofalternative to either third-way high taxation or neo-classical liberal 'new rightism'?

The problem of course is whose agenda will control 'the state'?

Sincere, Iskandar. Wellington, NZ.

(15) Reply (Peter M.):

I expect that Douglas knew the Protocols. It could have influenced his theory ofmoney.

Yes, the USSR created it own fiat money, unbacked by gold.

(16) A more subtle response from Birdman, to my more subtle argument

You have been making a subtle argument for the validity of the Protocols which Ihad not picked up on till now. That argument may be stated as follows:

>>Because the Protocols have predicted important world events that no one else haspredicted, it cannot be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'. Instead, no matter what earlierdocuments it seems related to, the knowledge implicit in its predictions means that itwas written by someone who possessed intimate knowledge of the evil acts andplans of very powerful men which were designed to do the things that werecorrectly predicted.<<

Now that is an interesting argument. And if indeed the Protocols had been a goodpredictor of world events, then it might carry some weight in my mind. Obviously,Henry Ford thought that it was a good predictor. BUT.....what has it predicted thatno one else has foreseen? I have not read much of the Protocols, but I want to see thepredictions. My scepticism of the predictions, indeed, is enhanced by a passagefrom one of your letters. You said the following:

[Begin] i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (theUSSR) aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented byBertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others. Even though some Jewsopposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.

ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewish participantscame from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew of the Jewishrole, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g. in the public media, partly owned byJews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warn of whatwas happening.

iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the newregime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.

iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out.Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.

Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other typeof literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted thisconjunction of events. [End]

My scepticism here is due to two things, one small and one large. The small thing isyour allegation of 'hiddenness': In fact, the edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia putout in the 1920s BRAGGED ABOUT THE ROLE OF JEWS IN THE RUSSIANREVOLUTION. This is not exactly 'hidden', tho one could argue that it would beread only by Jews, hence was hidden from the stupid goys. HOWEVER, latereditions eliminated the bragging, so this makes it look like the coverup is, after all,in consideration of the goys.

Now the large thing which makes me skeptical is that the predictions you cite don'treally predict anything much. Specifically, (i) All regimes want to dominate theworld; (ii) the Jews have always kept their role hidden for fear of causingresentment; (iii) all regimes paint themselves as benevolent; (iv) regimes often aredespotic from day 1.

Or in short, if your paragraphs (i) thru i(v) is a 'prediction' that you wish theProtocols to be judged by, then clearly the Protocols is worthless.

In the same letter you cite two other predictions:

[Begin] The Protocols predicts that, after a world war, there will be an attempt toform a world government, secretly orchestrated by Jewish financiers.

This happened at the Treaty of Versailles: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/wells-lenin-league.html

The Protocols also predicted a despotic government in the guise of socialism, onceagain secretly Jewish. This happened when Lenin & Trotsky set up the USSR: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/lenin-trotsky.html [End]

And while the matter can be debated, I do not regard these predictions to be of muchworth, either. I mean, socialism had been around since before the time of Marx, whowrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, and communist and socialist ideas wereensconced in the public consciousness with not only Marx's activities, but theattempts to form socialist communities such as Brook Farm, which was involvedwith many American intellectuals such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Thoreau,Margaret Fuller and Bronson Alcott; Nashoba (Frances Wright); the workers'commune of Robert Owen; and the Phalanx communities based on the ideas ofCharles Fourier. Thus 'predicting' a socialist dictatorship has about the same ring aspredicting dinner. As to 'predicting' attempts at world government, that can be datedback to Alexander, who was supposed to have broken down in tears on the shores ofAlexandria because he had no more worlds to conquer; or perhaps to Rome, whichgoverned the known world for 1000 years (the first 'thousand-year Reich'). So withsuch ancient ideas as 'predictions', which had no doubt been predicted a thousandtimes before, I really don't think there is any need to be much impressed.

But like I say, 'Show me the predictions/No predictions, no Protocols', echoingRobert Faurisson, 'Show me the holes/No holes, no Holocaust'. And since theargument from predictions is an inductive rather than a deductive argument, yourargument is strengthened the more predictions you can demonstrate that turned outto be true.

Just make sure they predict something a little more substantial than that the sunrises in the morning.

-Birdman

(17) Reply (Peter M.):

It is not that I have made a new argument; rather, you have finally begun to readsome of what I wrote, just when I thought this discussion was over.

You say I argue that

> Because the Protocols have predicted important world events that no one else haspredicted, it cannot be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'.

That’s not quite what I say. I admit that it COULD be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'; I donot assert categorically that it’s not. But I believe, probabilistically, that it’s not.

And I’m quite happy to leave the issue open. You can’t deny that I’ve given you freerein to express your scepticism; for my part, I have no more to add to what I’vealready said.

I read a comment by another writer, “Disagreements generate more than heat - theygenerate light too”. That’s why I welcome debate. Your challenge prompted me toreformulate my response, and I think my composition this time is the best summaryI have done.

Logged

Heinrich

Fish Factor:54

Gender: Male

Personalitytype:MelanchyPosts: 1,198

Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2009, 09:15:AM »

That's a lot of crap to read.

Logged

"What the American people don't know [makes] them the American people." DanAkroyd, Tommy Boy

"And there was no one that triumphed over this people, but when they departed fromthe worship of the Lord their God." Judith 4. 17

voxpopulisuxx

Fish Factor: 81

Gender: Male

Posts: 2,212

Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2009, 02:22:PM »

The BirdMan guy is a complete ass who deserves full Divine retribution even ifhis theorys about Jewish conspiricies are in many ways true. He is a TOTALANTI CATHOLIC...so In my book no better then the zionists he disparages.

Logged

St. John Chrysostom wrote, "He who is not angry where he has cause to be, sins."

"I belong in the service of the Queen.....I belong anywhere but in between"Counting Crows"Glad I didnt waste My vote on Obama or McCain"

Pages: [1]

Jump to: ===> Zionism, Jewish-Christian Issues, Fundies, Dispies, etc. Archive II go

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC