Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA (Must Read)

by **hmm** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:38 am

i dont know where to begin or end but i'll make a little attempt at clarifying some of this. (i too am searching for a grand unified theory that fits) Communism was seen as the greatest threat to the "powers that be" when it started to gain traction as a philosophy. Marxism-Leninism was portrayed as a jewish plot in some circles and alot of writing that supports this was sponsored by what i can only call fascists. Fascism and Christianity had a common enemy in communism and my feeling is that this is the main reason for it being portrayed as a jewish conspiracy. I would also contend this is why all modern right-wing conspiracies involving the Catholic church revolve around that being because of communist infiltration INTO the Catholic church to deflect focus from the facts relating to the catholic involvement in fascism. The conspiracy that communists infiltrated the church from within poland contradicts that the church co-operated with the cia to undermine the polish state from the outside. To me that is quite amusing if it wasnt so dangerous. You sortof have people to the right of the american adminstration blaming the ills of the last 100+ years of american foreign policy on the people who opposed it. It doesnt help things that since the jewish-communist conspiracies started to surface a 100 years ago the zionists are now a formidable power and aligned with this same "right wing" philosophically as well as practically. This leaves interested observers like us with a strange and complex web to untangle.

by **Qutb** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:39 pm

Hmm and Seventhson: Good posts. Rain: The hogwash you posted is a good example of what I was talking about. Pretty obvious anti-semitic fiction propagating all the tired old myths about the godless Jews who are out to destroy Christianity and all that is good in the world.

by **proldic** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:56 pm

Someone with the time really should look deeper into the background of K. Lassen, publisher of adbusters. He is a Croatian in his late 50's who was in a US re-settlement camp, and transplanted to the US after WWII. This should set off anyone's radar. Questions about any links to the Ustachi-type fascist sympathizing have been brought up before. They were one of the first of the modern left media to really begin the exclusive focus on the crimes of Israel and the Neocon mythology. They actually released this issue where they prominently listed "the 50 biggest neocons", AND THEN PUT STARS NEXT TO THE NAMES OF ALL THE JEWS - 26 OF THEM. Hmm... Also, I think it's very significant that one of their big accomplishments is starting and promoting the "Buy Nothing" meme, a popular modern north american leftist "holiday" which I see being played out as divisive and elitist snobbery. And I also see it tying in to the new "blame middle (read working-class read red state) america" vibe on the left. This is just like Paul Volker's belt-tightening statements during the Reagan downsizing "recession" in 1980. It's a new "austerity" program that is being pushed. Ultimately I believe this is part of getting us to accept forced "downsizing" and "the end of suburbia". Or, as Brian Salter says, getting the left to just lay down and accept a massive transfer/looting of the last remaining relatively unexploited reserves of wealth in the world: working-class america.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:31 pm

Seventhson, It's not about Jews. It's about the Babylonian Talmud. Quth, You should look into the family tree for Queen Victoria's descendents. You should find out about the Treason Felony Act of 1848. And you should draw up a timeline for three queens who held power from 1837 to 2002.

by **Sweejak** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:05 pm

I have a problem with the quote too but there it is. On the other hand I have no problem seeing some conspiracies as multi-generational

by **Sweejak** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:45 am

Seven, I hate to get into this again because I think we are essentially on the same side and also I think determining exact authorship is not possible nor is it so very important. For instance, if no one knew who wrote 1984 would the book be of less value? It would likely be theorized that it was written by an actual prophet. The Protocols origins are inconclusive... my opinion of course. We will probably just have to disagree on this. For instance: <a href="http://sociologyesoscience.com/">sociologyesoscience.com/</a> "Michael Hagemeister, a German expert on the Protocols, has stressed that Heiden's undocumented assertion that someone gave Rosenberg a copy of the Protocols in Moscow and that he then brought them to Germany belongs in the "realm of legend." Seems he is coming out with a book sometime in 2005. Even the Nazi's had a hard time with the origins of them. "He has been in the archives of the former USSR and has made heroic efforts to correct the very tangled and error-ridden record concerning Nilus, Nilus' own writing, and the Protocols (which he certainly did not write). He is working on a full-length study of Nilus and the Protocols. If you can wait until the spring of 2005" "When Rosenberg examined the Protocols in his 1923 book. Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und diejudische Weltpolitik- (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Amish World-Politics), he remained more skeptical than Eckart. He claimed that the famous Zionist author Asher Ginsburg could very well have written the Protocols, but no “conclusive" proof of this existed, so the question of the authorship of the Protocols remained "open." He further noted that there was no "juridicially conclusive proof' for the Protocols either as absolutely genuine or as a forgery. In a manner similar to Hausen, Rosenberg noted that in any case. documents from -ancient times as well as from the most recent past" existed that demonstrated -precisely the same sense" as the Protocols, from "the Talmud to the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt Times) and the Rote Fahne (The Red Flag)." He further asserted that the Protocols stated that which the "Jewish leaders of Bolshevism themselves openly describe as their plan." While he harbored doubts of the Protocols authenticity, Rosenberg internalized what he saw as a profound point of the Protocols, namely -first subversion, then dictatorship."':' The first concrete evidence of Hitler's internalization of information from the Protocols comes in his notes for an August 1921 speech." "Amish World-Politics"?? So the Nazi's thought the Protocols were identical to what the Communists were saying openly in their writings and hence it didn't matter. Further they mention the Talmud which certainly has some very inflammatory passages. The Nazi's saw red, the Communists, unfortunately made up of many Jews at the leadership levels. All Jews are Communists... All Muslims are terrorists... the same old. It is not so simple, it goes beyond the common story of simple scapegoating and to presume the the leaders of the Jews were entirely innocent is unrealistic. Fair or not there are reasons why things happen. The same thing will happen again if we don't look at it and are not allowed to talk about it. Now while looking for new information I came across this post apparently written by you in which you state;" "The .01% lie as blaming it on Jews and Zionists (a fiction - though in truth their were some alleged Jews amongst the financial interests involved ..." Alleged? Anyway, by my calculations it means that you think the Protocols are 99.99% true. That's pretty high. <a href="http://www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic3/474/12.html">www.capitolgrilling.com/c...74/12.html</a> So if this is true which protocols do you see in action today and who do you think is using them? =========== and just some general thoughts: When people look around and see Jews in the USa at the top leadership positions and also as the one's who are most strident about the war and see also that some of these leaders were actually once caught and fired for spying for Israel, just what are the masses supposed to think? Blaming WASPS and Germans won't really cut it. This is why I have said that the Zionists, the current Political Zionism, are only the most visible part of the conspiracy. They get blamed because, well, they are there. I strongly support my Jewish friends and organizations that see this and try to combat it just as I strongly support my American friends who see our leaders for what they are. And since this round of fascism is identified with America (Are we the most visible part?) it is especially incumbent on Americans to speak out, expose and fight back. Am I now a self hating American? That is what Jews are called who expose their hijacked institutions. People also see that the ADL has spied on US citizens and been fined for it, they see President Bush sign in the Noahide laws under the name Education Day. Then they hear that these laws are only for Gentiles to follow. Is that true? This, while we fight about the 10 Commandments? What if Bush signed in elements of the Muslim Sharia and called it Education Day? In short they see the unequal treatment and the special protection that Jews have, and guess what? They will resent it just as they will resent any minority getting special privileges. If we are even going to be here and not repeat history we need to be able to break out of this game. I fear for my Jewish friends just as I fear for the 'self-hating' Americans. I recommend we defend no particular religion, they all seem to be hijacked anyway, no particular race etc. You see why? It is because I can call you anti-WASP or anti-German or anti-American or anti-Aryan when you say: "if one wants to understand precisely what is happening today and how it is an outgrowth of an Anglo-German-American WASP conspiracy". Let me paraphrase that and see how it divides us: "to understand precisely what is happening today ... it is an outgrowth of a Khazarian-Jewish Talmudic Zionist conspiracy". To be sure we have evidence on both sides. If we do find a single organization behind it, well then we have to say who it is but it is likely it is a conglomeration of interests. Like X said in Oliver Stone's JFK (paraphrasing) "no had to give an order, no one had to write it down, everyone knew what to do" Personally, as I have mentioned elsewhere; 'the enemy is us" ================== Regarding Russia, yes, they know from personal experience how a small group can take over their huge country and enslave it. Many Russians see it happening in the US. In Russia it was not WASPs that did it, certainly not on the ground, and the fact is that many Jews were involved and they were way out of proportion to the general population. Of course you could say that educated people were way out of proportion to the general population but that is not what people see. When facts such as these are called disinfo or "clearly unreliable" and are not addressed directly on their merits it only increases the suspicion of conspiracy. <a href="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html">www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html</a>

by **Seventhson** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:15 am

when I hit "post" But will just offer this. IHR is a notrious disinformation antiSemnitic site: The following will provide enough info for folks to do their own homewakr on the Protocols: But my point is that the "Protocols" are first and foremost a fictionalized propaganda document. Just as Brave New World is fiction, that does not mean that it does not have some visionary truths: i.e. the fact is that Machiavellianism and fascism have their roots in hegel and other writers, the "Protocols" mirror these philosophies and thus are very truthful in a visionary sense. The propaganda use of it and the .01% falsehood is that it is a Jewish or Zionist document. The redundant reiteration of this and attaching it to Jews or Zionism seems to me to reek of AntiSemitism. However, that is NOT to say (and I have said this many times) that there are Jewish fascists who are collaborating with the BFEE (which in my estimation is a WASP Naziish conspiracy which will use any ethnicity for its plans just as Naziism did) Anyway, this will get folks started if they are interested in the French fiction which was used as the basis of the fraudulent document now called the "Protocols" which was specifically designed to aid fascism. The truth is revealed In 1921, a journalist of the Times newspaper of London, Philip Graves, who was then in Constantinopolis (Istanbul), found a worn copy of a French book entitled "Dialogues in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, or the Policy of Machiavelli in the 19th Century." The author was anonymous ("By a Contemporary"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> and the printing was done in the press of A. Mertens and Sons in Brussels, in 1864. The book--as the staff members of the Times quickly discovered--had been written in 1858 by Maurice Joly, a French lawyer. In his novel, in the form of a dialogue beyond the grave between Montesquieu and Machiavelli, Joly attacked Napoleon III. The result was that Joly was locked up in prison for 15 months. Graves immediately realized the extraordinary similarity between these Dialogues and the Protocols of Nilus. There were whole paragraphs that had been copied literally, mutatis mutandis by the change between dialogue and monologue. Graves had made a discovery of a greatest importance. In three long articles,16 published in the Times of London on the 16, 17 and 18 of August of 1921, Graves revealed the truth about the falsification of the Protocols. Graves demonstrated that Nilus had simply plagiarized the Dialogues of Joly, changing the original and adding some material (partly copied from Goedsche) to serve his intentions. Many revelations with respect to the fraudulent document were published later. In 1933, a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the texts of Joly and Nilus was published, demonstrating their similarity or identity. Another comparison appears in the appendix of "Questions and answers with respect to the Jews," published by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai-B'rith. In the book of Professor Ferrer Benimeli, already mentioned before, there is a comparison of select paragraphs, that occupies 8 pages (pp. 157-164), demonstrating the parallelism between both texts. Although the Catholic Church has not been generally characterized by its affection either towards Masons or towards Jews, it is a remarkable fact that one of the revelations of the absolute falsification of the Protocols was written by the R.P. Pierre Charles, S.J., published in the "Nouvelle Revue Théologique" of Belgium in January of 1938.17 Kindly take note of the date, we are in Europe on the eve of World War II, the totalitarian regimes of Hitler and Franco (and in smaller degree, Mussolini) has triggered a violent anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic campaign. All those who followed the development of these events realized that war was imminent, and that the German military power would squash its neighbors, including Belgium. Father Charles must have been a man of an exceptional courage, integrity and love of his fellow men, to dare publishing at that time his rebuttal of the Protocols. Also his superiors, who authorized the publication, displayed a sense of justice and humanity very scarce in the Europe of those years. Some parallels Although within the frame of this article it is impossible to make a meticulous comparison between the original French of Joly and the fraudulent version of Nilus, I will give a few select paragraphs to give an idea of what we are speaking about. Those interested can consult the work of Professor Ferrer Benimeli18 or some of the works mentioned at the beginning, where many paragraphs are mentioned showing the parallelism between both works. Dialogue of Joly, p. 75: I will organize, for example, immense financial monopolies, reserves of the public wealth, on which the fate of all private wealth will depend so closely, that they will be absorbed with the credit of the State the day after every political catastrophe. You are an economist, Montesquieu; weigh the value of this combination. Protocols of Nilus, p. 42: Very soon we will organize enormous monopolies--colossal reserves of wealth--in which the wealth of the Christians, even the great ones, will depend on them in such a way, that they will be absorbed with the credit of the States the day after a political catastrophe. Gentlemen here present who are economists, consider the importance of this combination. Dialogue of Joly, p. 77: It is necessary to reach that the State has only proletarians, some millionaires and soldiers. Protocols of Nilus, p.45: It is necessary that the States have only proletarians, some millionaires ... and soldiers. Dialogue of Joly, p. 159: Sila returned deified, nobody touched a hair of his head. Protocols of Nilus, p. 93: Sila was deified (nobody touched a hair of the head of Sila). It is necessary to indicate that sometimes Nilus is mistaken, loses the thread and does not know who is speaking, mixing the contradictory judgments of both characters in the work of Joly. Altogether, there are more than 160 passages in the Protocols, corresponding to a forty percent of the total text, that are evidently based on passages in Joly. In nine of the chapters, the copied text reaches to more than half. A small grotesque detail is the Latin quotation--the only one in the Protocols: Per me reges regnant (By me the kings reign). This is a direct quotation of the book of Proverbs, 8, 15, in its Catholic translation (the Vulgata). It is inconceivable that in the Basel Congress, where many if all the participants spoke or understood Hebrew, they would use a Catholic translation of the Bible, instead of the Hebrew original: Bi Melakhim Yimlekhu. <a href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:HGVR5K-K04MJ:www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9991/protocols.html+%22Protocols+of+the+Elders+of+Zion%">64.233.161.104/search?q=c...s+of+Zion%</a> Use this to do your own goog;e searches for more info on Joly (the original French author)and the others mentioned in the whole text. Mea Culpa: It is Machiavelli and Montesquieu (Not Napolean, which I stated earlier) that these discussions oin hell are attributed to. But I suppose that a discussion of fascists in hell MUST be gospel, eh?

by **hmm** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:40 am

or revolutionary writings?I mean serious left-wing commie anarchist stuff? and if you then go back, with a few history books, to around 1880-1900 and see what life was like for the "have nots". people had to physically fight for rights we see threatened now. and it wasnt white anglo-saxon christian elites that gave us those rights. It was women and african-americans and the unions and communists that fought HARD for that, and quite a few of those where Jewish and that should be a matter of pride. That white anglo-saxon christian elites had jewish elite supporters doesnt mean anything.It matters who had power. The three great powers in the 1880's were Britain and Germany and the Catholic church.I think it is then natural that our first and formost suspicions should be directed at where the power REALLY is? I hold extremely strong views on Israel and Zionism and elites in general but that doesnt lead me to forget real history and on what "side" of history i belong. I'm not saying there is nothing to be learnt from "them" but uncritical swallowing of extreme rightwing christian conspiracies is a dangerous thing,even though i understand that its easier to cling on to conspiracies that mirror our cultural baggage its also in my opinion falling for a trap that was prepared for this purpose.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:52 am

The redundant reiteration of this and attaching it to Jews or Zionism seems to me to reek of AntiSemitism. seventhson, Please enlighten me. I am not a scholar on these matters, but I do have a keen sense for ambiguity. Here is my understanding. There are TWO types of Jew. One follows the Torah, what I would call the Old Testament. The other type follows the Babylonian Talmud. In addition Freemasons are followers of the Talmud, though as Albert Pike tells us, most don't know it. When we lump together followers of the Talmud, Jew AND Gentile, we get Zionists. Zionists need not be Semitic. That being the case, it is not antisemitic to talk about Zionists. It certainly IS antisemitic to talk about 19 Arab hijackers. That's my understanding. Put me right where I am wrong.

by **Sweejak** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>IHR is a notrious disinformation antiSemnitic site: <hr></blockquote> But where is Weber's article in error? IHR does work on other topics, like Pearl Harbor, are they anti-American? --------------------- You might be surprised that some of IHR's writers agree with your thoughts on the Protocols. I don't know of any real historians that use the Protocols as the be all and end all of any argument. I wouldn't. I can believe that that they are a forgery, but, as has been asked, a forgery of what? I'll bring up the debate between Brenner and Makow again. Take a look at the final comment. <a href="http://www.rense.com/general41/prot.htm">www.rense.com/general41/prot.htm</a> Also: <a href="http://www.savethemales.ca/000298.html">www.savethemales.ca/000298.html</a> And research by Michael Hagemeiseter is still ongoing. <a href="http://www.ctw-congress.de/scripts/abs-view/abstract.php?id=19244&topic=144&inkl_ps=Y&kid=24&kid2=25">www.ctw-congress.de/scrip...24&kid2=25</a> You can't call them forgeries, disinfo and crap and be done with it. I think this is our disagreement. Can we agree that they are anti-human documents and then go on with the 99.99% to see who is using them or using similar? We know they were used by the Communists are they being used by the Neo Cons? This certainly doesn't help though: <a href="http://www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/42/">www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/42/</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Seffi Rachlevsky, self-proclaimed expert in Torah thought, has written a big best-seller. True, The Messiah's Donkey is still unpublished, but few doubt that its hot message will find a large audience. The buzz is not hard to figure out. Rachlevsky has written nothing less than a Jewish Protocols of the Elders of Zion. <hr></blockquote> In spite of it's wide circulation it's heartening to see the opposition. Simon Jones: "the major flaw behind the logic of the Protocols is its basic premise - that there is a Jewish race. There is only one race - the human race. Just have a look at Israeli society if you think there is a racial basis to Judaism. But hey! Scientists are discovering that there are genes which are responsible for skin color, that define risk-takers or those susceptible to various diseases Maybe there's a gene for these would-be Elders of Zion. Perhaps the NY Times will post the following soon: The Zionist-neocons now welcome to their fold those who share their lust for capitalist world domination. All those with gene DN145, please sign up here. We are all equal before Mammon. MBA schools will go crazy." Makow: "Graves and Cohn admit that "the Financial Programme" (Protocols 20-24) which the author calls "the crowning and decisive point of our plans" is largely original" Nesta Webster: "The so-called refutation of the Protocols which appeared in the Times of August 1922, tends to confirm this opinion. According to these articles the Protocols were largely copied from the book of Maurice Joly, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, published in 1864. Let it be said at once that the resemblance between the two works could not be accidental, not only are whole paragraphs almost identical, but the various points in the programme follow each other in precisely the same order. But whether Nilus copied from Joly or from the same source whence Joly derived his ideas is another question. It will be noticed that Joly in his preface never claimed to have originated the scheme described in his book; on the contrary he distinctly states that it "personifies in particular a political system which has not varied for a single day in its application since the disastrous and alas! too far-off date of its enthronement." see --- <a href="http://reactor-core.org/protocols/nesta.html">reactor-core.org/protocols/nesta.html</a>

by **hmm** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:00 pm

using the word jew alltogether we would find alot more agreement between us.Zionism seems to be a good practical "coverall" for what we are talking about unless anyone thinks Ashkenazi elites has a certain ring to it or relevance to discussion as separate from Zionists <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> It would save us from repeatedly falling into the anti-semitic semantics trap instead of discussing what i hope we really mean <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> i hope you dont mind i saved this little quote as i really want too use that the next time i get accused of being a anti-semite as im interested if anyone has a good comeback from it: "It's not about Jews. It's about the Babylonian Talmud" (how my militantly anti-fascist stance translates into anti-semitism is beyond me but thats another story)

by **antiaristo** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:09 pm

hmm, Be my guest. Could I ask something in return? I have hanshan's instructions for posting a pictue. What I don't get is the URL part. If I have an image on my hard drive, its location is C\My Documents\whatever. When I try to copy this onto E-Z I get a load of text. This is excruciatingly humiliating as I like to tell people I've been using micros since 1978 (Commodore PET). Can you help me save face?

by **Seventhson** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:13 pm

The problem I have generally with IHR is that it sows too much disinformation for it ever to have reliability. I tend to consider myself somewhat of an expert in disinformation for reasons that I haver stated in other threads here and on other boards, but primarily because I am essentially a second generation opponent of fascism who benefits from a lifetime of opposition (and active particpation wioth the antiNazi underground) of my father, whose role included the job of indentifying fifth column elements and looking for provocateurs and agents. Publications like the IHR (Revisionists who are largely considered to be fanatically antiSemitic due to their "Holocaust is a Myth" meme) DO sometimes contain info related to the NWO scams and lies --- BUT these often are linked to the concept that much of this is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy --- and the IHR has its foundation in the fundamentalist White Christian "right" doctrines. Thaty said, as I repeat often, the most effective propaganda has to be "believeable" for the most part and only needs to have a smidgeon of false spin in order for people to be misled and to swallow most of it whole hog (when it is really hogwash). I would have to debate each element of each fact or assertion as it is raised, being ultra-cautious due to the spin and semantics, in order to give examples: Pearl Harbor is a good example of those who believe in the "conspiracy theory" that FDR (working, according to the IHR and/or similar disinformationists) "let" Pearl Harbor happen in order to get Congress to support our entry into the war against the Nazis. Did FDR (allegedly) do this because he was controlled by Jews who WANTED the war??? Did he do this as a kind of "Reichstag Fire" or BFEE 9-11 because he believed it was "necessary" to protect Jews or to serve the internationalist bankers who wanted to profit from WWII. Did FDR even know it was going to happen at all? Did his generals. These issues are to some extent worthy of debate (if , for no other reasons, to rationally knock down absurd ideas or to examine plausible theories). BUT my point in this ramble is to say that the issues are not as simple as saying "Jews did this" or FDR was a commie dupe or a Nazi collaborator, or it is all about the Zionists. First - Zionism is not monolithic. The settlers have one set of beliefs that are not necessarily too far from the extremist ideas of the Wahabbis, for example (which is certainly debatable). But the settlers are NOT monolithic either. Many are fundamentalists, but many are not necessarily -- they may well be atheist families of Holocaust survivors who believe that Jews need their homeland for survival (and need to expel the Palestinians to protect themselves). These are -- none of these--- easy issues to debate without conflict and unease. But I tend to agree that using the term "Jews" or even Ashkenazis is untenable as it is simply oversimplistic and overbroad and even AntiSemitic because it is like saying "Blacks are this...." or "gays believe that..." or even "undamenalists believe..." If we are to have inteloligent discussion we need to define our terms carefully. But we also need to be aware of the poirfalls and limits of language and loaded terms. We need to discuss specifics (the history of the Rothschiolds here was a fairly useful education, I think). Like the issue of the IHR, it is a publication with many authors and several agendas - not simple to merely dismiss without examination and refutation of specifics, unless one just wants to avoid reasoned debate altogether or paint with the broad strokes and brushes anyone associated with them. Many scholars feel that even joining the debate fuels the fires of AntiSemitism. I tend to disagree, but understand the perspective. But I have examined closely the IHR writings and publications in order to understand the disinformation and how the disinformationists work to scrub or brainwash the minds of the fundies and others who buy their propaganda wholesale. FINALLY, can soimeone summarize for me the whole concept of the Babylonian Talmud. I have googled it and will read the links I found, but in terms of the debate HERE, I would like an explanation of how this concept works ; that the "Protocols" or whatever are somehow related. A capsule explanation or two would help me gain perspective. Thanks, Peace All Seventhson

by **Sweejak** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:40 pm

IHR requires rigorous intuition. I think each article has to be taken on it's own merits including those the question the specifics of the Holocaust. I have rarely seen outright denial of the holocaust and talk about a loaded term; "denial". It is often used for merely questioning. Do these people have another agenda? Maybe, that's what intuition is for and proving intent is pretty difficult so that is why it is better IMO to take each article and confirm or throw it out rather than dissing the whole site. Or better yet add things that are omitted. I think that, along with the 001% or whatever proportion of untruth, is the most used means of making propaganda. I had earlier talked about stopping the use of the word anti-semitism because it is inaccurate and loaded. We don't have to of course, but I'd like to get beyond the semantics and tortured debate. Sometimes the tail will lead to WASPS, Sometimes to others but they all seem to have a "self hating human" aspect to them. Unless of course they are Ickes' reptiles. We just have to take what we find. I never researched the Babylonian Talmud so I'll have to wait on that. We'll be getting into the esoteric... fine with me, probably a relief. But what do you think of the Satanic Cults and Freemasonry, what about Christian Zionism? Are evil human natures codified into a "universal Church"? Are they just a front or is there even such a thing as a Grand Unified Conspiracy. Is that what we are looking for? Meanwhile I do think frequently of Paul Levy's work and get caught up in these semantic debates when I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the issues are getting censored.

by **rain** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:01 pm

seventhson, you could try - 'chabad' 'lubavitch' 'noahide'. and you might want to don your dark glassies. things get a bit frenetic, particularly around Public Law 102-14.

Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA (Must Read)

Re: re:'Grand Unified Theories'

Re: re:'Grand Unified Theories'

Ustachibusters

Looters

Re: Cmdr. William Guy Carr

Re: Horrors

I had added a few comments but they mysteriously disappeared

Re: Horrors,have you read any "liberation theory"

Please Enlighten Me

Re: I had added a few comments but they mysteriously disappe

Re: Please Enlighten Me,i think if we avoid

Bon mots

IHR, Zionists, etc.

Re: IHR, Zionists, etc.

re: Talmud

Who is online