Now that's a funny question to be asking.
Jump to content
Posted 25 April 2016 - 05:35 PM
Why yes, that is precisely whom I mean! My dear old brother in cellulite..
YOU HAVE A FUNNY WAY OF EXPRESSING YOURSELF JUST LIKE THE REST OF CHOSENITES, HERE i GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO READ:
When an international mass circulation magazine like The Reader's Digest decides to run an article on the documents generally known as The Protocols, in which Eric Butler and The League of Rights are critically mentioned, there must be a purpose. About the same time as The Reader's Digest article, which basically regurgitates the view that these documents are either a forgery or a fabrication, the Oxford University Press released a publication, The Right Road, by Dr. Andrew Moore, senior lecturer in Australian history at the University of Western Sydney.
Moore's work is subtitled "A History of Right-Wing Politics in Australia", but its clear purpose is to suggest that it is "The Australian League of Rights" which is the main threat to what is termed "liberal democracy." Eric Butler receives special attention, it being claimed that he exercises considerable international influence. Blatant misrepresentations of the Social Credit movement and historical events are masked by what purports to be a carefully documented academic study.
We will not at this time attempt to analyze either The Reader's Digest article on The Protocols or Moore's work, The Right Road. But by coincidence we have recently received an article from a Canadian, Peter L. Lorden of Calgary, who offers some comments on The Protocols, which are appropriate:
It has been generally asserted for many years past that a document called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a forgery. Supposedly a report of speeches given at the 1897 First Zionist Congress in Basle, it pictures an international Jewish conspiracy to undermine Christian institutions and pave the way for world domination. Gerald Krefetz remarked in his 1982 Jews and Money; the Myths and the Reality that the Protocols - "apparently the plagiarized concoction of a Russian religious mystic"- had long since been discredited as propaganda promoted by the Czarist secret police to justify their own anti-Semitism.
Yet if so long discredited, why have they become what he calls the most successful piece of propaganda in the twentieth century? "For a spurious document", says Krefetz, "it has had a remarkably long and influential life." Could this be due simply to continuing anti-Semitism? Indeed, it is hard to see how this document could have been a genuine record of speeches at the Congress. Would people clever enough to engineer such a global conspiracy as the Protocols reflect have been dumb enough to let an outsider take notes of their proceedings, let alone live to publish them? And is such a plot any more credible now than it was then? The recent decline of some big Jewish houses, coupled with the emergence of wealthy Asian conglomerates, seems rather to spoil the picture for those inclined to fantasize about an unstoppable international conspiracy guided only by Jewish financiers! But of course there has been an even more recent decline of all Asian conglomerates.
A book which became a best seller in 1972 - None Dare Call It Conspiracy, by Gary Allen shows in some detail how they had simultaneously financed both the Soviet Union (page 71) and the Third Reich (page 85), like people fattening birds for a cock-fight. The book is quite even-handed. While it indicts such Jewish luminaries as Rothschild, Warburg and Schiff's Kuhn Loeb and Company, it also assigns prominent roles to many Gentile houses, including Rockefeller's. (But, of course he too is a Jew).
David Rockefeller seems to have had a finger in everything. Many famous names in politics, Nixon and Kissinger, were alumni of his system, whose imperial reach was by NO means confined to the United States. (Apparently the surest way to wealth and power is on the coat-tails of a man who already has these things and will "look after" you so long as you do his bidding. Kruschev's downfall seems to have come about when he stopped doing it). Chase Manhattan Bank was formed by merging Warburg and Rockefeller units. How closely Jewish and Gentile "insiders" worked together is shown throughout the book. For instance, a roster of blue-chip American corporations, along with prominent politicians of both parties, joined the "insiders" in the immensely influential Council for Foreign Relations (page 88).
Allen's book makes a compelling case for the existence of a conspiracy - or at least a close working relationship between financiers of international clout. And an even greater centralization of money-power in the Western world has occurred since 1972. But isn't that inevitable given the current globalization? As to his thesis that the ultimate aim of the "insiders" was to create a totalitarian World Government in which they would control everything as a spider sitting in the center controls his web, we should note that co-operation between international financiers today - whatever it may have been in the past - is not necessarily of evil intent. And that a great many other people have long since come to see some kind of world government as a necessary goal. The next big war may be about who gets to control it!)
A SPURIOUS DOCUMENT?
What light does Allen's book, throw on the Protocols? A negative one, it would seem, in as much as he shows Gentile interests to have as much clout as the Jewish. Yet the Protocols are not to be dismissed so easily. For if they are false in one sense, a reader cannot help feeling that they are genuine in another! What makes them seem genuine is that they are not at all what one would expect from "a Russian religious mystic." They show too deep an understanding both of Gentile weaknesses familiar to us all and of the sort of mind set which might ruthlessly exploit them for sectarian gain. Fictional or not, they were written by somebody who knew very well the kind of men whose utterances they supposedly report. They express a wealth of hard-headed insight in a tone of arrogant superiority which is not unfamiliar to us either. We cannot quarrel with the comment of Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent - which publicized the Protocols in America around 1921 - that the work was "too terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery".
Then who did write the Protocols? We may never know that, but it seems improbable that either a mystic or a bigoted Russian policeman could have come up with an analysis so penetrating, and so unfailingly prophetic. "Spurious" the document may be, historically speaking. But as anyone familiar with current events will instantly recognize, many passages in it show a remarkable prescience.
That a document first published in 1905 should have predicted the collapse of European monarchies, the Bolshevik Revolution and World Wars yielding little change in territory but a big one on the map of international finance is surprising enough. That it should also have anticipated a Great Depression caused by the arbitrary cutting-off of credit, the resurgence of Israel, the current squeeze on countries with large external debt - and even hinted at today's explosion in "derivatives:" trading - has to impress any thoughtful reader. ("That's some "mystic"! Or he might echo the comment made in 1921 by Ford himself: "The only statement I have to make about the Protocols is that they fit into what has gone on in the world situation these sixteen years. They fit it now.)
The Protocols accurately reflect the plans of Meyer Amschel Rothschild, Adam Weishaupt, Albert Pike, Mazzini, etc.
THE PROTOCOLS DIGEST-ED
Since discourse in the Protocols is often disjointed, we have taken the liberty of grouping quotations (from Victor Marsden's 1934 edition) in what seems a logical order of subject. We have also tried to minimize the more offensive ones. Contemptuous references to goyim (the unfortunate Talmudic term for Gentiles, meaning cattle) are scattered throughout the work, as indeed one might expect if the author were a propagandist determined to present a malign image of Jewry. One might have preferred to omit such racism altogether, along with utterances more interesting to students of religious pathology than to the general reader. But the purported speaker's ultimate aim to see "the King-Despot of Zion as Patriarch of the World, is so central to the work that excluding it would give a wholly false impression. For those who ignore that side (as one can easily do by substituting Untermenschen for goyim and some other ideology for the Mosaic), the fascination of the document lies in its Machiavellian practicality, (its being virtually a manual for would-be dictators is probably why Adolf Hitler knew it so well.)
The document opens with a flat statement that all "rights" other than that of "might" are vacuous, that "freedom" is an empty word, and absolute despotism the only sensible form of government.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users