Jump to content

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

To the attention of JP Gordon

What is Jew hating non-sense?? Tell me what part of the version 05:49, 20 November 2006 was not true? What is jew hating?? They were all FACTS which makes alot of sense and represents a large number of peoples views in regards to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Apologies if sometimes the truth hurts. But i think we should look at this through 2 eyes, not 1. Please verify any mistakes in that extract if you have spotted any mistakes. If I don't hear from you, I will add it again tonight.

From these discussion pages we should try to reflect everyones views. And adding the resemblance of the protocols is something that is a requirement otherwise it is against what Wikipedia is trying to do. Try to read the discussion pages, and reflect some reality into the article from the other side. The same way many think the protocols are a hoax, many also beleive it is reality which is very well defined in these discussion pages. Why remove it when it is all facts?
Because it was simply a personal essay - unattributed, unreferenced and badly written at that. Any other editor would have deleted it. Paul B 08:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is still a need to show a resemblance of the protocols section. If someones written Paul Wolfowitz is Head of World Bank and is Jewish, I don't think it needs referencing, because if you look up Paul Wolfowitz in Wikipedia, it states his jewish and he is head of World Bank. So to what extent do we need to reference? Should we reference that the each of the words are in the dictionary aswell?
The Protocols do not predict that Paul Wolfowitz will be head of the world bank. The fact that Jews are well represented in senior positions in professional and business life is a result of Jewish cultural and intellectual traditions that tend to generate behaviour that will lead to success in such fields. Such developments were already in evidence when the Protocols were written, so it's not really much of a "prediction". Other aspects of the Protocols bear little very resemblance to modern life. You have to show that notable writers have made these connections and state in an NPOV way what recent developments have been used to argue for the truth of the scheme - but note that the imminent fulfilment of the "plan" was also predicted back in the 20s. Paul B 12:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading the "resemblance" bit sure made some good points which are true, I think its valeuable to the article, but needs brushing up. Its not nonsense at all as the editor/person who deleted stated, on the contrary made alot of sense, paticularly when pointing out how such a small percentage of a population could have so many senior positions. Just needs to be better presented. - Steve, UK
To Paul Barlow, you are partly right and partly wrong. The protocols did not state any names or individuals, but stated jewish protocols to be adhered to for the control of the press, financial institutions and so on, which the writer of the "resemblance" bit tried to get across. The protocols also suggest that "the developments were already in evidence" as you mentioned, by saying that they already had gained control of the press etc. There are many books by "notable writers" pointing out a jewish dominance, whether for the good or bad, which I will point out here. But the problem i think is anyone who tries to draw a link or speak out, even if its a notable writer or a former presidential advisor such as Benjamin Freedman who is Jewish himself, is brushed off by the jewish lobby as "a jewish hater" and with the media alike. There is a taboo around the world today that to critiscize or question Judaism and its followers is bad, which is putting many people off the topic. On another note, its not hard to see how materialistic people have become, the last century has seen more aethists than ever before etc. Its not a secret that the Jewish people have dominant position, which you partly spot on your self, but whether they adhere to the protocols or whether the protocols have a part to play is up for debate - Steve, UK
I'm sorry, you folks seem to have confused Wikipedia and its discussion pages with a blog for antisemites. Please take this bigoted nonsense to another website. See: Conspiracy Theory--Cberlet 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please define what is anti-semitic here? If facts turn out to be anti-semitic, then there must be a problem with the definition of anti-semitism it self. Is identifying an unproportionate number of Jewish people in high positions in relative to their global population anti-semitic, then simply put, anti-semitic means "Shut up" and infringes the freedom of speech.

You keep saying nonsense, what is nonsense about it? Is it wrong to say that there are many Jews in high positions through out Europe and US? It's not something secret, even websites such as http://www.totallyjewish.com/ brag about how many fellow jews are in the media, hollywood, financial institutions etc. Please explain rather than brush something important under the carpet! What is wrong with what was said here? Surely we should be able to critiscize and question the Jewish faith and their people in the same manner we are questioning Christians, Muslims etc. Explain what you mean by nonsense?

  • It's nonsense to imply that your independent research and analysis in any way supports or confirms the content of the Jew-hating forgery that this article is about. By the way, please sign your comments with ~~~~ (that's four tildes.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the disproportionate amount of powerful senior people of the Jewish religion in relation to their population is totally unrelated to "jew hating" as you mentioned in the history of this article. I don't see anything Jew-Hating about the contents of the Protocols of Zion neither. On the other hand, having read the Talmud, I think that will create more hate towards Talmudian Jews than any other literature. It is racist, see's non-jews as insuperior and implies immoral acts. I think you are looking at the Protocols of Zion from the other side, with everything bad always comes some good. I see your point on not using unpublished literacy as content, I will now try to buy some books from Amazon, and the Library to get the point across, that whether a forgery or not, the Protocols of Zion DO resemble part of the world today.

With regards to the Talmud, I would advise you to read just about any religious document written around the same time. Nearly every single one will make similar attributions about those who do not follow its religion. That was a norm. No Jews (or a very, very small minority of extremists) take the writings in the Talmud literally to the point where they believe everyone else to be inferior. And, if you look closer, you will see that there are many instances where other peoples are praised in certain aspects, and many other contemporary Jewish sources do the same. More importantly, with regards to the popular claim that Jews have a "disproportionate" number of representatives in positions of power, I would advise you to rethink your use of the term "disproportionate." Such a term assumes that the only factor in determining how many representatives of a group hold high positions is mathematics: that in a population of 100, if there are 10 positions of power then a group of 10 MUST have only 1 representative. Obviously, this is a gross simplification. Numerous other factors come into play, such as socio-economic background, cultural imperatives, and many others are important factors in determining what "proportion" should be expected. No one claims discrimination when it is pointed out that rural countryfolk in the Deep South are misrepresented in the US Senate, since it is a expected that Senators will come from well-to-do urban origins. Similarly, East Asians and Indians are increasingly filling the US's engineering and medical schools, not because they control the establishment, but because such enterprises are culturally and intellectually encouraged among their societies. Finally, to say that simply because someone identifies with the Jewish faith automatically and irrefutably means they have certain characteristics common to all Jews is simply and utterly racist, and has no place in Wikipedia in any context. Zhankfor
By powerful I don't think he meant "engineering" or "medical" professions, I think he meant international bankers, major party donors, diamond and the weapons industry, major media share holders etc. which he is right about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.45.115 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
OK... You've completely missed the point. Socio-economic and cultural factors are the reasons that so many Jews are in positions of power, not a conspiracy. It's not disproportionate unless you use an exceedingly simplistic definition of the word. And please, sign your posts. Zhankfor

Japanese version in need of attention?

It has been pointed out to me that the Japanese version of this page apparently does not report the fact that the Protocols are forgeries (that is to say, they were not written by any putative Elders of Zion, since none such exist). Is there any way to call the attention of some Japanese-speaking Wikipedians to this fact? Rpresser 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer true. The Japanese version says:
ソビエト時代になると発禁本とされた。現在では、当時反シオニズムを掲げていたロシア帝国のオフラーナ（秘密警察）による偽書であると断定されている。ロシア秘密警察は、ロシア民衆の不満を皇帝からユダヤ人に向けさせるためにこの本を作成した。
Which translates roughly to:
When the Soviet era began the book was banned. It has since been shown to be a forgery by the secret police of the Russian Empire which was anti-Zionist at the time. The secret police of Russia wrote the book to direct Russian people's discontent from the Tsar to Jews.
The edit which introduced this is here. It changes the wording slightly, using "concluded to be forgery" instead of "the theory that it is a forgery is strong" and also saying that its similarity with Machiavel et Montesquieu "has been pointed out" instead of "can't be denied". The latter was moved to its own paragraph later. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 15:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking this up. Looks like the edit was actually made over a month before the person made that assertion to me on Kuro5hin. Rpresser 16:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The book in arabic

well... I think the additon of this part in the topic is a clear pro-israel propaganda...I am an arab...an egyptian....I don't know about the protocol of the elders of zion....and i don't care to know if this is a hoax or has some of truth in it...I know there has been a series that advocates for this in egypt too...it wasn't that much of a series that state information...the idea was vague and stupid..and had no details...but i know form experience that Israel is a loose cannon and very much "spoilt nation" by the west who can commit many documented war-crimes to "defend it self"....I have seen the book in Egypt "the protocol of the elders of zion"...the one they display its cover in the wikipedia topic about "the protocol of the elders of zion"....it is a very stupidly edited, poorly displayed, non-cited book, very brief (few pages)...more close to a poster than a book that's to speak of...I was never attracted to buy or read what is in there, although, I am a part of the struggle-and this is of an intrest to me....and i personally don't think that the jews are bent on world dominion...however zionism was bent on creation of a jewish nation over a land they may have thought that its inhabitants would not mind them creating it on their land or may be if they do, their complaint would not be of a great account for world powers.

Yea, I think the article magnifies up the readership, paticularly regarding the middle east. --81.178.248.22 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Emergence in Russia

In this section, it says:

A Russian translation of Joly's Dialogues in Hell appeared in 1872. After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, an excerpt from the chapter "In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague," containing the alleged rabbinical plot against European civilization, began circulating in Russia as a pamphlet.

Earlier, the article says the "Jewish Cemetary" chapter is from Hermann Goedsche's book, not Joly's, and that Jews are not mentioned by Joly. I assume this is a mistake?--Cúchullain t c 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It sure is. Paul B 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think I fixed it. Can someone with more knowledge on the subject check it out?--Cúchullain t c 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Weishaupt and global domination theory

From what I can see your version of the Protocols is the one sided version in which the document is merely a slander and used as propoganda. While it may in fact have been used as a slander against the Jewish people that does not make the document itself any less a model or blueprint for the strategies and tactics of obtaining and consolidation of power by a small group.

The explaination version I find most plausible is that it was the work of Adam Weishaupt as explained in the investigation work done by David Allen Rivera in his "Final Warning."

Regardless of any slander that may have resulted from the work and who is attributed to being its author, it still seems to be a model that is being implemented. To continuelly dismiss the work as an anti-Semitic document is to cause the work to be ignored completely. To do so is to also miss the point that if you were to look at the entirity of the plan it seems to be the model that is being implemented in world finance and media consolidation.


See: http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/final_warning/illuminati_origin.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsojourner (talk • contribs)

Paste of unfree-copyrighted text removed Jkelly 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be rude, but, What a load of rubbish!! Dave 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out (numerous times) on this very page, whether there is or is not a global conspiracy accurately reflected in the Protocols is irrelevant. The Protocols are a fake, and that's that. --Chodorkovskiy 19:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The Protocols are NOT a fake; to be accepted as a fake you need proof. Allegations of plagiarism are not proof. In actual fact, if you compare Protocols and Joly's Dialogues you will see that there is very little similarity. While the lack off plagiarism does not therefore mean that Protocols IS genuine, the accusations of plagiarism certainly do not amount to any kind of proof that it IS definitively a fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs) .
This paragraph is a complete and blatant lie in each its word. --Yms 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What is a lie? Is it a lie that the Protocols have not been proven to be a forgery? No, it is not a lie. There have been numerous court cases over the years, not one of which has produced the slightest bit actual evidence of forgery. Is it a lie that there is little similarity between Protocols and Dialogues? Nope, likewise not a lie; you only have to go read them to find that out. Have you? Or are you just following the time-honoured modern tradition of spouting off emotively even though you know nothing about the subject at hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs)
Do you think if you write a lie twice it contains less lies? :)) No, it's simply a duplicated lie. --Yms 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That is such a childish comment. In that case, PROVE it is a lie. Likewise, PROVE the Protocols are a forgery. You cannot. And your repeated assertion that "it is a lie" likewise do not make it so. Also, who are you to call me a liar, not once but twice, when I have spoken nothing but the verifiable truth? If you want to portray something as a forgery, you must prove your case. PROVE the Protocols of Zion are a forgery. By PROVE I mean provide evidence. Not the assertions of courts who likewise could offer no actual evidence. Or, stop making childish accusations of lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs)
I believe the prevailing standard of proof is that those submitting a controversial document as genuine are required to provide the proof that it is genuine, not the other way around; or else we would be up to our necks in documents that have not been "proved to be forgeries." of course, anyone is free to have their own standards. Gzuckier 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Anonymous, what you're stating here several times, supposedly after having read the article and other materials, is simple and totally groundless denial of facts and work of hundreds of researchers and investigators who studied the subject for the last hundred years. What else should I prove? When you see it's proved, you say "it's not proved", when you see it's white, you say "it's black". What do you expect of me to call you? I'm your reader and that's enough to call you a liar. (BTW, for people like me, who is a little familiar with the Jewish world, the hoax is obvious immediately during reading the Protocols, they (but only they) need no proof other than reading the text. Even less familiar people, but sane enough, like mentioned Mikhail Menshikov, find it obvious.) --Yms 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to state whether or not this document 'is' a forgery or 'is' "genuine" (if by genuine you mean an actual incitement to world domination). To me it seems like an obvious piece of satire. However, it cannot be stated as fact whether the document is real or fake, and there is no real need to do so.
If the anonymous replier will take a moment to glance at the numerous references cited at the end of the article, he will see that countless studies and investigations have been conducted that conclusively show the Protocols to have no basis in fact whatsoever. To continue, there is a real need o state that it is a forged document in order to demonstrate that the single most cited piece of evidence to prove any sort of Jewish or Zionist conspiracy, whether worldwide or local, is in fact nothing more than a piece of fiction produced by a Russian wishing to advance his own political career.
NPOV aside, it seems to be implicit that Wikipedia has the duty to inform the reader of common wisdom regarding things, despite their being "unproved". Articles about people, for instance, tend to assume they are human beings, despite David Icke et al who would assure you that many prominent people are in fact shapeshifting reptiles. The article about vampires asserts that are mythological, although this is not "proved" to the satisfaction of everyone. The theory that the Earth is flat is not given equal time for veracity. Etc. Gzuckier 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think his anonymous because he fears being labelled anti-semitic for speaking his mind.--81.178.248.22 01:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Red Herring Argument & Forgery Claim

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Jones_Protocols-Neocons.htm

Yet another problem. It is loudly dismissed as a forgery. Hello? It was anonymous, so how can it be a forgery. Who forged what? No wonder the Swiss Appeals Court threw the case out. In that case we can dismiss the Bible as a forgery. And who cares who wrote the Psalms anyway? They stand on their own merits, as does the Protocols stripped of a few provocative phrases here and there, which could have been slipped in by anyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.196.218 (talk • contribs)

? "Forgery" is anything that is not actually written by whom it is purported to be written, whether it is anonymous or not. Since it was not in fact written by the Elders of Zion, in that there are no Elders of Zion, it is a forgery. Gzuckier 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
As noted during the FA nom, "forgery" is only used because that's what Phillip Graves imprecisely called them. I put "fabrication" in the article instead, which is more accurate. Daniel Case 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a hundred dollar bill here which is sort of off-color, and actually the ink is coming off on my hands. However, I do not knowv who actually printed the bill, so I guess you'd say it can't be a forgery. Wanna buy it for $50? Gzuckier 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is a 'featured' best of wikipedia, then wikipedia is a worthless on line effort. i find this article to be heavily censored. who proved this to be a forgery and a fake and who wrote it, who obtained, it, and is it being implemented? i read the protocol after reading this article, and it sure as heck looks like its being implemented, as we head into ww3. wikipedia i wonder if its going to get some of the 385 billion rumsfeld has gotten funding for, for censoring the interent. there absolutely no RATIONALITY in the way this discussion of the protocols of the elders of zion is written. the history of man is nothing but one sordid group after another banding together to enslave others. sadly wikipedia is joining this.


"kind of interesting how Hillary Clinton is Jewish, John Kerry is Jewish, Rumfeld is Jewish, Wolfowitz is Jewish, Pearle is Jewish, Bush has be documented going to Talmud classes by Texe Marrs, Feith is Jewish. If it looks like a duck walks like a duck and talks like a duck its a duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.75.122 (talk • contribs) "
Ohhhkay... I'd like to ask what proof you have of the Clinton, Kerry and Rumsfeld allegations. Also, that Texe Marrs 'revelation' has been proven to be a photoshop hoax. Please don't peddle that bullshit here. --Baltech22 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Jew or nonJew, the fun and informative quiz game for the whole Aryan family. So without further ado, lets start with our first round of questions. These ought to be easy, to get you warmed you up.
Barbra Streisand, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! Woody Allen, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! Ariel Sharon, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! OK, you got those all right! Now on to round two. These are a little harder, so be careful!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! Michael Moore, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! Bruce Springsteen, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct again! OK, you're on a roll here. This brings you to round three, our most difficult level. Take your time on these.
Donald Rumsfeld, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! Richard Cheney, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jew or nonJew?
Jew!
Correct! You've done it! And now for double or nothing, would you like to answer our bonus question; George Bush, Jew or nonJew?
Uh....... Jew?
Correct! You've won all the marbles! Well, I see that we're out of time, so just remember, if the name sounds funny to you, or you just don't like the person, they're Jewish! See ya next week!
Gzuckier 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


LOL! Amen to all of the above. I would add that it IS possible that the Protocols are a fake. However, there is NO proof of such. End of story. Therefore it cannot be asserted authoratively by ANYONE that they are a hoax. It would be more accurate to say that Protocols is a document which is suspected of being a hoax in certain circles. But that still does not constitute proof of any kind.

Fake or accurate

Regardless of whether the Protocols are or are not a fake, there is one thing about them which can not and should not be dismissed. The fact that what they describe seems to be happening about us means that fake or no fake, the Protocols should be examined and investigated thoroughly for all their implications. Sadly, the same Jewish lobby which loudly proclaims that there is no Jewish lobby in the USA screams anti-Semitism at the very mention of the Protocols. Surely however, to anyone who is not a part of the corrupt system, the fact that they scream anti-Semitism so readily should act as a red flag to a bull. In short, methinks they doth protest too hard...! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs) .

I know. The other day, I accused my next door neighbor of murdering his wife and burying her in the basement, and you should have heard him scream about his wife is alive, even brought her out to show me. I mean, he's protesting a little bit too much, if you know what I mean. Gzuckier 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is this Jewish conspiracy to take over the world? What are its effects? So far the Jews have got a scrap of desert in the Middle East and erm... that's it! Stupid fascists! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.239.189 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
Indeed. This "fake but accurate" standard is the same as the one applied by Henry Ford, auto maker and anti-semittic conspiracy theorist. (He didn't have anything against normal jews of course, he was just sticking it to the MAN!) But this talk page is about making a better article, not your nazi discussion board. Getting back to the article, since so many people through history have offered this argument that "it may be a forgery, but it accurately describes what is going on", perhaps that should be noted in the article. --GunnarRene 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, the same Jewish lobby which loudly proclaims that there is no Jewish lobby in the USA screams anti-Semitism at the very mention of the Protocols.
Which one? The article on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, for example, says "Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby..." — ceejayoz talk 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"it may be a forgery, but it accurately describes what is going on", yeah that's it. But a forgery that describres what's going on is not a forgery you know. "So far the Jews have got a [wealthy and good positioned]scrap of desert in the Middle East [that had owners before] and erm... that's it! Stupid fascists!"...my god you're so god damn stupid, seriously.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.35.72.26 (talk • contribs)
Well, it seems you people are debating with no facts. Looking at banking institutions, media tycoons, editors, producers and the overall tone of the media, and having read the protocols of zion, it is very easy to draw a link. It is not a secret that alot of high ranking and powerful american-Jews have a say in America's foreign policy. Even Ariel Sharon in a speech in Israel said "We control America, they know it and we know it". Its not a secret, anyone who is willing to do some research knows this. America's foreign policy is pro-Israel. Israel is not a scrap of land in middle east. Many thousands of people have died because of that piece of land. Israel has one of the worlds strongest militaries, and is quickly becoming an Economic power. Lets look at facts, whether jewish or non-jewish. Lets once and for all openly discuss and verify the jewish dominance without having to fear anti-semitism. Why can we easily critiscize the actions of Iran, Iraq but not Israel? Why can we call people who defend their country and will to keep their culture and system terrorists, but not the US for making thousands permanently deaf by US bombs, the many children without parents because of the US invasion. Why can't we discuss the Jewish religion and the talmud the same way the Quaran and the Bible is being critiscized and questioned right left and centre in the media. I haven't heard one jeek about the Jewish religion in the media, yet, i've heard the criticismz and defamation of almost all world religions from Hinduism, to Zorastrianism, to Christianity to Islam. Its like the Jewish religion is not to be questioned openly. What makes Jews special? Nothing, they are just like any other person. We should be able to question the Jewish faith as openly as we question any other faith. Why have a special term "anti-semitism" when Racism or Prejudism will do just as fine? If there was the Zavinci Code, im sure it will get banned and we wouldn't hear of it, because of the induced anti-semitism phobia, but the Da Vinci Code had to be popularized and forced down our throats even though there was mass protests world wide. 2 million people demonstrated in London against the Iraq war, that is the biggest protest ever since the beginnings of Britian, yet, this democracy failed to listen to its people but went to war. This is NOT democracy, this is MODERN DICTATORSHIP. The only democracy i see is gays and lesbian marriages and a few social critiscisms of the government. But the minute you have an impact you will see limitations. Since when did I get a say in the runing of Britian. Taxes, policies and laws are being implemented without a single call for the public to have their say by voting for these things. All we get to choose is some figurehead to get elected, who will end up executing the same commands as his opposition. There is no point voting. Lets not deny something that is right infront of you like your computer screen, even if your Jewish, break out of that "im special" programming and gel in with the rest of the world.

What is Fake?

Is Bible a fake too? Nobody knows who wrote it and knobody knows if what it describes is true. What is important to remember is that if the Dialogues in Hell is an account of an actual doctrine,professed by Jews for argument's sake, and simply applied to another character to tell a story, and then if some other book retells the Dialogues' account, but applies it to the Jews, does it make the doctrine false, fake, plagiarism?

Is Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ a fake too? Jews certainly don't believe in Jesus and New Testament.

When the word Fake is repeated so often, it creates an impression of denial of truth. Someone is trying a bit too hard.

One may simply look around and see if what is happening is or is not true. Simply pay attention to last names of TV broadcasters, prominent financiers, lawyers, public figures, in short of those who are making the policies today. Pay attention and make your own conclusions. Look at the past state of affairs and at the present, and you will not need anybody to tell you what is the truth.

Do we know for example why is there a recently built Holocaust museum in Washington DC? America did not exterminate Jews. 6 Millon Jews died in Europe from the hands of German Nazis. Why then not build a museum for victims of Communism - tens of millions died in Russia alone. Why is Jewish Paul Wolfowitz, the current president of World Bank, its president? He has no Economics background, unlike the previous president, Jewish James Wolfensohn.

Lets think and not listen to Truth Deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.12.194 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is true. Also, at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, right in the heart of Washington, D.C., paid for by our tax dollars, there is an entire exhibit dedicated solely to dinosaurs. How many brave, mammalian Americans spilled their warm blood for this country and its values so that we could be forced to put up with a monument to lizards - who weren't even Americans - right in the middle of our nation's capital? How did the federal government allow the creation of such a monstrosity? What is its meaning for American policy and for American values? And what must the American people do to regain control of the land their servants in Washington handed over to a foreign interest, and to establish an enterprise thereon, whether a museum or otherwise, informed by and conducted according to American principles and interests? We were victorious in the struggle for natural selection, yet all you hear these days are lizards whining about how extinct they are. I don't see any museum to the dodo, he's just as extinct. How may strains of rainforest vegetation have vanished from the earth - yet has there been even one movie, let alone a sequel? (Jurassic park was produced by the same man who gave us Schindler's List... coincidence?) Amoruso 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha! Nice! Point and match. bladebot 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not reactionary or seditious but a precocious wannabe

I believe the original document, long since lost, must have been the work of a precocious elitist young man, trying to impress his Paris intelligentsia friends. It ought to be stripped of all anti-Semitism and studdied around the world as "The Trouble with Banking Families". It reveals a very real and very modern problem which stretches back to the Robber Barons and beyond, and applies as much to goyim intellectual descendents of J.P. Morgan as to any Jewish descendents of Mayer Rothschild.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.89.84.86 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Please use the Talk pages of articles to discuss improving the articles. This really isn't the forum for opining about the subject of the articles. Jkelly 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Okay then, let's start with the first sentence. "The Protocols...is an anti-Semitic text purporting to describe a plan to achieve global domination by the Jewish people." Here's the problem: the text itself is not anti-Semitic, but rather a forged anti-"Goyim" text proporting to describe a plan to achieve global domination by a secret Jewish elite of financiers. The text has been widely used as an instrument of anti-Semitic propoganda, attributing it to a broad Jewish conspiracy, even though the text states repeatedly that the masses of Jewish people are no more aware of the alleged plot than the masses of non-Jews. The widely held modern notion that the Protocols were fabricated originally by some agent for anti-Semitic purposes has never been, and cannot be verified, and so is itself no more than a widely defended conspiracy theory. The fact that it has been "repurposed" and effectively used toward anti-Semitic ends with deadly results is not in dispute.
If it were not, originally, written for any real conspiratorial purpose, it must certainly have been written by someone for some purpose.... (see original paragraph above for my opining on this question that is still open, but which has not been fairly included or considered in the article.) --165.89.84.86 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC) [rikjoh]
Of course your unsubstantiated opinion (which is contradicted by historical evidence) has not been included or considered in the article. -- Jibal 04:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Jibal, perhaps you took my use of the phrase "must have been" too seriously. I did not ask for my opinion to be included in the article and only gave it as one example of other possibilities, and even so I doubt you can show me evidence to categorically contradict it as you suggest. If I had a good reason to use the phrase "must have been", it was to invite someone to provide such evidence, not to simply claim it exists as you have done.
I do think the assumption that seemed to be made in the article, that the original imagination which compiled the ideas that went into The Protocols was motivated by anti-Semitism, belittles the notion that anything important can be revealed by studing the anti-Democratic methods and mechanisms suggested by that person or persons. If non-anti-Semites (or even pro-Semites) were playing with such ideas in 1884, certainly others could have refined and implemented some of them by now, and it is nonsense for Democratic societies not to try to understand the risks, to identify and evaluate them, and verify whether they are now being properly safe-guarded against. The opinion that the imagination of the original primary author was motivated by anti-Semitism is not substantiated by any historical facts described in the article, as far as I can tell. And yet, I am not making a major criticism of the article, as it seems to agree with the primary sources cited. I am only trying to suggest a POV more neutral than the primary sources could improve it, and that the subject is important enough to warrant as accurate and neutral a presentation as possible. The changes made do seem to improve the article in that regard. Thanks. --Rikjoh 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your lengthy off-topic opinion pieces. I will reiterate that your opinion is not "fairly included or considered in the article" for good reason -- it is unsubstantiated. As for my changes, I'm glad you like them. -- Jibal 12:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Lovely. Peace. --Rikjoh 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the text in the 1st paragraph should be edited. For example, the Russian version says: "a collection of texts appeared in the beginning of the 20th century, claimed to be protocols of some top secret congress of a world-wide Jewish organisation aimed to convert the whole world into a united state governed by Jews.", etc. I liked this approach. There is nothing about anti-Semitism in the 1st paragraph, and, I think, it makes the reader to read next paragraphs without the slightest feeling of bias. --Yms 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
from the other side, the fact that they are used in anti-Semitic propaganda is too important to be omitted in the beginning. --Yms 20:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems reasonable to me, so I took the liberty to remove the word "anti-Semitic" from the 1st sentence. Also, I have reverted today's anon addition of ext. links alleging that "Luciferian Communist Jews set an example for the Nazis." ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That seems more accurate to me. You could even remove "the" in front of "Jews". That accomplished, and I realize this is an inappropriate tangent, but I feel somehow I should mention, my car was totaled by a hit and run (litterally he ran from the scene) last night travelling 70mph on I95. That's my first auto accident in almost thirty years of driving. Personally, I DO believe in coincidence, but on the other hand, if there is any truth behind The Protocols, I guess we are all in some serious trouble. Be careful. --Rikjoh 12:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed "the" as suggested, and toned down "repeatedly proven" to "demonstrated" (with other rewording to improve flow). "repeatedly" was pointless redundancy give "numerous investigations", and "demonstrated" is a less loaded term than "proven" but still asserts a fact. (And your comments are indeed inappropriate.) -- Jibal 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The last individual who made such edits downplaying the "proven" angle was User:Arminius masquerading as User:69.248.237.88. Are you back Arminius? See the bottom of this archived section of talk. Netscott 07:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your statement and question are personal attacks. I am not Arminius, I'm not familiar with Arminius, and I (apparently) don't share Arminius's POV -- you're barking up the wrong tree. I made the changes as a consequence of the discussion on this page. OTOH, your revision comments about "too weak" and "agenda?" make it clear that your changes are the result of a POV agenda, and not a desire to make the article the best possible. After defending numerous times here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion/Archive2, both as Jibal and as my pre-registration IP address, -- 68.6.73.60) against claims that, because there are people who deny it's a hoax, the article shouldn't state that it's a hoax, I changed "proved" to "demonstrated" as a compromise given some objections to "proved" and because proof is a concept in mathematics, not empirical science, and certainly not in historical literary analysis. But, as I noted in the revision comments, "demonstrated" states a fact -- it is only "too weak" to POV-riddled soap-boxers for whom it isn't enough to assert something, it must be hammered home. And I removed "repeatedly" because it's redundant with "numerous" -- numerous studies of course prove/demonstrate the hoax "repeatedly", but the individual studies themselves each prove/demonstrate it once, not repeatedly -- it's just plain bad language -- but that doesn't seem to matter to rabid soap-boxers who treat WP as a political platform rather than as an encyclopedia. But I'll leave it to someone else to get into a revert war with one of the oh so numerous quality-degrading POV-pushers who populate WP. (P.S. I intentionally chose an ID created by taking syllables from my first and last name so as to suggest an ethnicity that isn't mine -- I'm an Ashkenazi Jew -- just to tweak the POV-pushers and bigots. ). -- Jibal 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion/Archive2 I, as User:68.6.73.60, repeatedly countered User:69.248.237.88's suggestions that the article should not assert the Protocols to be a hoax. Obviously, User:68.6.73.60 and User:69.248.237.88 are not the same person. I can assure you that I am the same person as User:68.6.73.60. User:Netscott asserts that User:69.248.237.88 and User:Arminius are the same person. I don't know whether they are, but the reference he gives states I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. Again, InShaneee and I have both stated that we're not sure that they are the same person. Do not make assumptions as assumptions are dangerous. Sasquatch t|c 09:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC). As User:Netscott is now absurdly suggesting that I am the same person as User:Arminius and/or User:69.248.237.88 even though our POV's are polar opposites, he clearly should take User:Sasquatch's advice. It's clear he won't though, given his response to User:Sasquatch: I understand the hesitation of fellow admins ... but Arminius' unblocking of IP 69.248.237.88 counter to InShaneee's block is all the proof I need. The danger of being in error and making false accusations apparently is not one that concerns him. -- Jibal 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Logging out so it should now show my IP address. Repeating what I wrote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion/Archive2 in response to User:69.248.237.88, that shows how absurd, unfounded, and irrational is Netscott 's claim on my talk page that my "edits have the trademark of User:Arminius": Since neither you nor anyone else has provided reason to think it was not proven to be a hoax, there is no "debate". That there are a large number of ignorant racists who are unaware of the proof is irrelevant -- as are those few who are aware of the proof but discount it because of their racism. None of these people's disbelief changes the fact that it has been proven a hoax.
"proven a hoax" and "demonstrated to be a hoax" have essentially the same meaning, but the latter seems to push fewer emotional buttons and is more accurate epistemologically, and thus is better suited to an enclycopedia. To call the latter "too weak" is contrary to fundamental WP policy and philosophy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. -- 68.6.73.60 00:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Origins, Introduction into Russia Section

A Russian translation of Joly's Dialogues in Hell appeared in 1872.(citation) After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the chapter "In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague" from Goedsche's Biarritz, containing the alleged rabbinical plot against European civilization, began circulating in Russia as a pamphlet.(citation) The tsarist secret police found the work useful in their effort to discredit liberal reformers and revolutionaries who were rapidly gaining popular support, especially among oppressed minorities such as Russian Jews.

Recent research by the Russian historian Mikhail Lepekhine revealed that the Protocols were written by a Russian propagandist and an agent provocateur Matvei Golovinski, as part of a scheme to persuade Tsar Nicholas II that the modernization of Russia was really a Jewish plot to control the world.[7](questionable citation, see below...a version was written? or the authentic copy of the Protocols themselves?)Golovinski changed sides after the 1917 revolution, becoming a Bolshevik propagandist. Lepekhine discovered his authorship in Russia's long-closed archives and published his findings in November 1999 in the French newsweekly L'Express. Golovinski had been linked to the work before; the German writer Konrad Heiden identified him as an author of the Protocols in 1944.[8]

Matvei Golovinski worked together with Charles Joly (son of Maurice Joly) at Le Figaro in Paris and wrote articles at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky, Chief of the Russian secret service.[9] During the Dreyfus affair in France, when polarization of European attitudes towards the Jews was at a maximum, the text was edited into its final form and began private circulation as The Protocols in 1897.

Claims regarding Matvei Golovinski...are based only off of testimony by Princess Kayarzyna Radziwillowa (many pseduonyms), a doubtfully trustworthy source and not just because of her criminal record. Also, due to contradictory accounts, disambiguities where multiple parties claim to have seen the transfer of the original manuscript, such as Chayla/Nilus, - it may not have even left France in the first place. It is difficult to put a finger on what actually happened, but this section puts a heavy emphasis on the "straight off the desk of Golovinski story" and no scholar favors Kayarzyna testimony over what others have said, with all of their stories seeming to contradict one another. To just take one story as final just to settle the issue and make the legacy of the Protocols sound less anonymous is effective, but misleading. (Anyway, we are citing an internet newspaper article. What are the columnist's sources?)
-There was no final form in 1897; it keeps changing multiple times up until 1905, when the version published under Alex. Nilus remains fairly consistent and widely disseminated/translated. Three annonymous versions exist before 1905, each with many mistranslations.
-Something should be added about how historical details (i.e. Temple of Solomon and a touch of contemporary "Frenchness") and numbers of chapters change within the text.
-The Protocols first appear in Russia's St. Petersberg daily, 1903 September. Between 1903-1906 five editions hit the mainstream in Russia, after these versions (which appears to be a translation of the French version - did they all have the same French manuscript?) are distributed.
-It seems to be forged in France between 1894 and 1899. Francophone qualities seem to be added AFTER it arrives in Russia, which is a bit strange. Additionally, it has been noted that the text lacked the fluency of a Russian scribe when it was translated and there are a handful of obvious mistakes.
And I don't see why the Jewish population is getting their panties tied up in a bunch about this article being feat...okay, wait I do...But if I'm allowed to give my two cents, if anything, the article clearly shows how the purported "Illuminati" agenda has used anti-semitism. If we believe in any of the stories about Tavistock, it would hold that the Jews are victims of the New World Order, which has been sold as a manifestation of "Jewry" by no coincidence at all.--Hohns3 05:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fact that nobody cares about the actual accuracy of the details in this article and would rather engage in petty quibbles over the use of strong language in the article - netscott - I do wish someone would contribute their input.--Hohns3 07:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not a fact. At least, I care. I mean, if I knew that some fact in this article is inaccurate, I would edit it. Do you know something that is worth mentioning? --Yms 07:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Only what I have mentioned in this talk section :) Yes, it is hard to follow who is signing for what, so for the record, I hereby proclaim my responsibility for all issues brought to the forefront within this discussion topic. (date and sign on the dotted line) --Hohns3 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't have time read it well :) No, the version with Golovinsky is not based only on Radziwill's testimony. First, there is Mikhail Lepekhin's discovery of 1999. I didn't see his formal report, there was an article in L’Express magazine [1]. Lepekhin found some document in the French archive preserved in Moscow (no more details). Second, there is a book by Vadim Skuratovsky (in Russian, sorry), written yet before Lepekhin's results were published. Skuratovsky analyzed Golovinsky's biography and several of his books (writing detailed review of his literary style preserved from book to book while his political views changed radically) and came to the same conclusion.
I didn't hear about the differences between 1903 and 1905 versions. It seems that in 1902, when Joly's son came to St.Petersburg and the Protocols were first mentioned in press, the final version already existed.
This is all I know, I can't tell whether it was forged in late 1890s or in early 1900s. --Yms 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there were several additions published between 1903 and 1905 (three I believe), and the L'Express article mentions this as well. However, it is unclear as to whether they all build off of the same orignial copy, one another or whether there is no pattern at all. Their structure and exact wording changes from account to account and while Golovinski's relationship to the Protocols is evident, casting him as the primary link in the development of the Protocols is misleading. Read "The Non-Existent Manuscript" (2004). It builds off of parts of Mikhail Lepekhin's "discovery" but is open to all accounts with no intentions of closing the debate only for the sake of closing the debate. I read through the L'Express article, but it merely shows Golovinski's relationship to the development of the Protocols, rather than his role as a sole conspirator in its continental transfer and breakout publication. I am not convinced. --Hohns3 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
But if I'm allowed to give my two cents, if anything, the article clearly shows how the purported "Illuminati" agenda has used anti-semitism.
I feel this is an important point (sort of). The document has been fairly well analyzed in terms of the question "hoax or no hoax?", but given that it is clearly a hoax, not much effort seems to have been made in the literature to examine the fact that the early chapters are much more intellectually convincing than the latter chapters (suggesting different origins), and that those banking families who have been involved in financing conflict for centuries (please no one deny they exist) must love to encourage speculation about "illuminati" and "Jewish conspiracies" and "secret police" using documents like this to divert attention from the real causes of war. Although it is true that those conspiracy-type groups exist, and do cause trouble, and also that there are many different banking families with as many differences in character and power, only certain banking families can actually hope to wield the level of influence over modern affairs as is attributed to any of these conspiracy groups. A single member of the Warburg family, or the Rothschilds, especially before WWII, could change the shape of politics and perhaps cause countries (like Israel) to rise or fall. For these people, MIT and the University of London (just two big examples) are like personal playgrounds for building the minds that implement their dominion over the world. It is their money that often largely funds these institutions, and it is institutions such as these that produce the leaders of the world. They are not always evil by intent, and often strive to improve the world in profound ways, but also are human and subject to the same mistakes of judgement and emotion as anyone. So, if anyone can find primary sources examining how the Protocols might shed light on this aspect of power, and especially the real potential abuse of power, I would appreciate reading it and seeing it included in the article. Hey, it's worth asking. And if anyone feels this all has too much of a soap-box tone, well, I'm really sorry about that, but I'm all for soap-boxes. Everyone should have one and use it for something they believe in. But the soap-box should not be confused with the high-horse. I have a real problem with those.--Rikjoh 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

==Cesare G. De Michelis in his THE NON-EXISTENT MANUSCRIPT, claims there are Twelve (12) or Thirteen (13) distinct Russian Language editions before 1906. But he is terribly inaccurate, and vague, about his bibliographic references. I have only been able to identify Five (5) of these as currently available in the major academic libraries of the United States. I challenge anyone to identify more than Half (6) of these sources as IN FACT in existence by giving an exact English language bibliographic reference. Michelis's list is as follows:

EDITIONS OF THE PSM in Russian

EDITIONS OF THE PSM in Russian [from The Non-Existent Manuscript by Cesare G. De Michelis]

1:

K "Programa zavoevanija mira evrejami." In Znamja 1,

• no. 190 (28 August [10 September]): 2; 2,

• no. 191 (29 August [11 September]): 2; 3,

• no. 192 (30 August [12 September]): 2; 4,

• no. 193 (31 August (13 September]): 1-2; 5,

• no. 194 (1 [14] September): 1-2; 6,

• no. 195 (2 [15] September): 1-2; 7,

• no. 196 (3 [16] September): 2; 8,

• no. 197 (4 [17] September): 2; 9,

• no. 200 (7 [20] September): 2.

2:

L Iudejskie tajny. In Ljutostanskij 1904. Vol. 2.

3:

А 1 1905. "Vyderzki iz drevnix i sovremennyx protokolov Sionskix mudrecov Vsemirnogo obscestva Fran-Masonov. " In Koren' nasix bedstvij. St. Petersburg.

4:

А2 1905. Drevnie i sovremennуе protokoly sobraпij "Sionskix Mudrecov." Moscow.

5:

N 1905. Protokoly sobranij Sionskix mudrecov. In Ni1us 1905.

6:

B Protokoly izvlecennye iz tajnyx xranilisc Sionskoj Glavnoj Kanceljarii. In Butmi 1906а.

7:

ВЗ Idem. In Butmi 1906а (3-е izdanie, obrabotannoe).

8:

D Protokoly sionskix mudrecov. In Demcenko 1906.

9:

R1 Tajny politiki (Vyderгki iz recej...sionizma). In Begunov 1996, 102-14.

10:

R2 1905. "Tajny politiki Rec' odnogo iz rukovoditelej...Sionizma)." Mirnj Trud 8.

11:

R3 1906. "Rec' odnogo iz rukovoditelej...Sionizma." Samoderzavie 1-5.

12:

R4 1906. Evrejskaja politika i ее rezul 'taty. Kremencug.

13:

I 1917. Izvlecenie iz protokolov I-go Sionistskogo kongressa. Moscow. In Begunov 1996, 66-71.

Ludvikus 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is cumbersome

Can we improve the first sentence: The PEZ come from a text which purports to expose a global domination conspiracy, most notably characterized by its accusations of exclusive Jewish complicity. - am I the only one who finds it cumbersome? I prefer the previous version of the first phrase: The PEZ is a text purporting to describe a plan to achieve global domination by Jews. I think it would be better to start with saying _what_ it is and continue with _where_ it comes from. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the previous phrase is better. --Sangil 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Not clear.--Cberlet 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Numerous independent investigations

Where are these? They're mentioned in the first sentence, and I think it would be better to list these ones as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 (talk • contribs)

I'm not asking about the whole article but did you see the table of contents? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah I did, it just has very little mention of the "numerous independent investigations." I'm sure there've been many of those over the years, I just think they should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 (talk • contribs)

They are referenced in the article, see the References list in the footnotes and also Further reading. --Yms 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound ignorant, but I still don't see them. The article is extremely long, and its hard to scan through the whole thing to pick out the independent investigations. All I'm suggesting is to add the reference links in the beggining, right in the sentence that mentions them, along with any other independent investigations that are out there. Just so people who want to know more, or the conspiracy theorists earlier on, can find them more easily.

I assumed good faith and made a first attempt to compile a list. It is incomplete yet, but (if we decide to keep it) should improve as we go on. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good job there, I hope to see more info on the other investigations coming soon.

Proven -> Demonstrated

As some editors have suggested in the past, to me the word "demonstrated" seems to be more factually accurate than "proven" when referring to the hoax. While I agree that the PEZ are a hoax, and most objective investigators would also come to this conclusion (either that or accept the textual duplications as amazing coincidences), I think proof is too strong a concept to apply here. It can never be proven 100% (certainly not in the mathematical sense, and there is no cut-and-dried definition in the historical sense) - the most you can say is that it is highly likely a hoax. Therefore, I suggest references to the "proven" hoax be replaced with references to the "demonstrated" hoax. This term is almost as strong, removes any possibility of misinterpretation / bias / POV, is not over-authoritative while still being encyclapedic, while still making the likeliness of the hoax clear. I think it makes a good compromise. Can we have a vote or something? Straussian 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


absloutely not. it's proven without a doubt that this is a complete anti semitic hoax. in fact, I was surprised to see that it's not emphasised enough in the article, that this is simply material used for nazi and anti-semite propaganda, and one of the world's ugliest attempts at justifying genocide. Amoruso 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There are four "proofs" in the reference. A secret Russian investigation with no source. Some newspaper articles. Two others, but the links don't work for me. How about something peer-reviewed? 24.64.165.176 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree, there is no absolute proof that it is a hoax, its patchy, vaguely documented, with no specifics. I agree with the change to a "demonstrated hoax". Its patchy to say its a proven hoax, because the proof itself is hardly proven. But hey, most of the editors or contributors interested in this article are pro-semites, so i doubt they will accept others point of view.--81.178.248.22 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The real truth

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a manuscript for Jewish domination. It is a incorrect reference to the advisors of Tsar Alexander III who were Freemasons. There were six of them and they wielded alot of influence over, arguably, the most powerful Tsar who ever lived. These 6 guys, not all of whom were Jewish, were members of a secret sect of Freemasonry named with a specific reference to 'Sion' not Zion. Sion and Zion are not the same thing. Anti-semetic Russia capitalized on this and the book was born with an altered title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.50.100 (talk • contribs)

If you have verifiable information from reliable sources that can be used to add information to this article, please point us to them. Thanks. Jkelly 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Unplausible: the Russian word for Zion is Russian: Сион "Sion" and not Russian: Цион "Tsion". For the rest, read the article or better yet, a good book on the subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cohn's comparison cut?

I'm unsure why Cohn's comparison was cut. It might not make sense as the first sentence of the section, but I don't know why it doesn't belong in the article. Jkelly 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Cohn's book handy, and not knowing much about The Reply of the Jews of Constantinople I clicked on it and found it awful enough to nominate it for AFD. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reply of the Jews of Constantinople was speedy-deleted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad for not looking at the linked article. Jkelly 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Bibliographic Scholarship Required

Most good souls are aware that the Protocols of Zion was Hitlers "Warrant for Genocide." And we have accepted that the world "must never forget" what happened to the Jews under Hitler.

For this reason I believe a dispassionate study of the publication history of this notorious Plagiarism is essential.

Yet I am disappointed in the sloppy scholarship that persists around this difficult, and painful subject. Nevertheless, I refuse to give up my demand for accurate scholarship.

First of all, lets get rid of the "The" in the title variations, "The Protocols of...'. It--the title involving "Protocols" should always begin as the "Protocols of..".

I have made the corrections--but some Wikipedia editors have over-ruled me and restored the inaccuracy.

Now the uniform subject title used by both the Library of Congress and "WorldCat" is as follows: 

    Protocols of the wise men of Zion

How can I participate in improving the scholarship on the notorious "Potocols of ..."?

We have now available, since 2004, the best--perhaps the latest standard work--on this infamous subject since Norman Cohn's 1970 classic, "Warrant for Genocide". I have in mind the 2004 edition of Cesare G. De Michelis's "The Non-Existent Manuscript." So lets gets to work and truly make an accurate study of this evil which continues to plague the world.

We are told--again and again--that the first, or major, published edition of this fraud occurred in 1903, in Russia, and in the Russian language, in a daily newspaper called Znamya, meaning the "Banner." But I cannot find this 1903 paper in any major scholarly or academic libary in the world whose Catalog is Online. Can anyone tell me ANYTHING about the Existence and/or Availability of this Newspaper? I would very much like to SEE it myself, publish it here, for our edification, and have it accurately translated into English so that the whole world would know exactly what happened, and how, under this "Warrant"?

Can anyone,in the whole world--to whom this wonderful English language Wikipedia is available--help improve the scholarship, and EXPOSE further the Plagiarism that continus to thrive under various titles, translations, and editions? Please respond to this quiry ASAP. Thank you. Oh, and can the unknown Wikipedia editors permit me to improve this article even more?

Yous truly, I am Ludvikus 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that User:Ludvikus already found article Znamya (newspaper) that has some links and began working on Editorial and Bibliographic History of the "Protocols of Zion" and/or Protocols of Zion. Where is the "sloppy scholarship" and how do we unslop it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear M. User:Humus sapiens,

Please read carefully my bibliographic work-in-progess, Editorial and Bibliographic History of the "Protocols of Zion". For your information, I am substantially the author of Znamya (newspaper). Please, also, do not take personally my unhappiness with the quality of the article. I just expected much more, considering the power both of the Web, and now the incredible WP!!!

Notice, also, that I always send everyone to this article--for the content, analysis, and exposition of the subject of the Protocols of Zion.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Editing help

Norman Cohn 1967 Standard Edition

Ladies and Gentlemen, my Dear Fellow Wikipedians: I believe that if our Wikipedian Scholarship is to accomplish its mission regarding the Article on the Protocols of Zion it is essential that we be Precise and Accurate, especially since our Article concerns a Literary Plagiarism, Fraud, and Hoax. Norman Cohn's book, "Warrant for Genocide" is considered among Historians the Standard Work on our Infamous subject. Accordingly, allow me to inform you that it was First Published in 1967, and not in 1966--as is given in the References section.

But I'm not able to access the Article to make the necessary correction.

Can someone do it--or grant me access to do it? Yours truly, Wikipedian Ludvikus 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "grant me access": are you unable to edit? And please, do not make excessive links - see WP:MOS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziedan

Revisiting this article after a long time I'm mildly shocked that the "Ziedan incident" is still covered in the article. Both Ziedan and the Bibliotheca Alexandrina declared the press reports to be unfounded, as as Ziedan clearly stated his opinion that Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book. So the whole incident boils down to false reporting by the press and should be removed from this article. --Pjacobi 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an evidence that the incident didn't occur, i.e. was fabricated? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As per normal policy we need evidence that something happens, not that something didn't happen. Otherwise please provide evidence that no UFO from Aldeberan landed at Nightingale Island 2006-09-06, abducting several Albatrosses, or I'll add the incident to our page Nightingale Island. --Pjacobi 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you see this [2]? Also the Director of the Library of Alexandria, Dr. Ismail Serageldin stated that "Preliminary investigation determined that the book was briefly displayed in a showcase rotating samples of curiosities and unusual items in our collection." ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course. It is reporting the the article and interview in the Egyptian weekly Al-Usbu, of which both Ziedan and Alexandria later stated, that it was a major mis-representation. Please quote in context:
  • Al-Usbu: After placing the book in the museum, many questions suggest themselves strongly, inter alia: why is it placed in the showcase dedicated to divine books? And whether the museum’s administration would be able to stand in the face of the expected Jewish objection?
  • Serageldin: Recent press reports concerning the presence of the first Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in an exhibition in the Bibliotheca Alexandrina deserve a prompt and clear reply. Preliminary investigation determined that the book was briefly displayed in a showcase rotating samples of curiosities and unusual items in our collection. The book was never displayed alongside the Jewish Torah nor has it ever been stated that it is a holy book or the basis for a Jewish constitution. The book is a well-known 19th century fabrication to foment anti-Jewish feelings.
So, both the museum and Ziedan are fine with asserting the consensus view, that the Protocols are a well-known 19th century fabrication to foment anti-Jewish feelings. It was displayed as curiosity, which may be bad taste. The loan writer (not a staff member) of Al-Usbu did make a sensationalist story out of this.
Pjacobi 10:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The rebuttal quotation is in the article, and has been there for months. What is the problem? Paul B 10:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
As it was only a fabricated story it is by far not relevant enought for an encyclopedia article. A good article is not just a conglomerate of press clippings, let alone retracted press clippings. --Pjacobi 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it was displayed is not a fabrication. The fact that it created a controversy and dispute is not a fabrication. The fact that a newspaper apparently used the display to give an official "sanction" to the view that the Protocols is an Jewish sacred text is not a fabrication. I know nothing about Al-Usbu. Is it a notoriously unreliable newspaper? Is it notoriously antisemitic? In the West publishing such fabrications would usually lead to a court-case or a retraction in the paper. Did this happen here? As it is the events are reported here in sequence, and the reader can make up their own mind. More references would certainly be desirable to help us to judge the truth of the matter. Paul B 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The case as I see it: Does the article in one newspaper (which remerkably got picked up all over the world) create enough notability to be included in an encyclopedia? (And as an aside, if so, it should better be reported to be an Al-Usbu-incident than a Ziedan-incident, if it has to be reported here).
I don't want to whitewash somebody neither is this a content POV crusade by me. It is sort of frustration with unencyclopedic approach in many Wikipedia article. See for example Talk:Ethnic bioweapon which I RfCed because some contributors insist, that the article has to contain a rumour only reported by one newspaper.
Pjacobi 12:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The incident seems to be covered in a NPOV way; it ends up making Zeidan look sympathetic, in my view. I think the difference between this incident and the ethnic bioweapon one is the notoriety of the Zeidan incident. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of the wise men of Zion

The above proposed title is the one used by the Library of Congress. It is also the earliest title of this text. The title currently used is a dignified subsequent English language translation of the 1905 title of the appendix of Sergei Nilus' book, whose romanized English language title read:

Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaia politicheskaia vozmozhnost. Zapiski pravoslavnago

Protocoly sobran??ii S?ionskikh mudretsov

(1) protocol
(2) meeting, gathering, assembly, convention, congress
(3) Zion
(4) sage, elder, wise man
Accordingly, that's one source of the English language title.
  • On the other hand, the Library of Congress owns an undated text, which is 64 pages in length--apparently a pamphlet

--and bears the romanized Russian language title:

Protokoly sionskikh mudret?s?ov

This has been translated/transliterate]]d], word for word, into:

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Accordingly, it appears that the longer title derives from the longer Sergei Nilus version of the text

while the shorter title comes from the G. Butmi version.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: I seem to have inadvertantly trunkated this discussion page.

I hope I have not violated any WP POLICY. but if I have I'm quite confident that some [[Wikipedian|WP]diac will be able to easily restore the original--and at the same time, preserve my comments in the appropriate space.

But my question remains--I there any objection to my proposed name-change to the above?
Reference: History of the "Protocols of Zion"--which itself needs a change of name.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
English Wikipedia generally uses the most common English term for something, regardless of what the "correct" translation might be. For better or worse the forgery is referred to in English as "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". For example, that name gets almost 400,000 Google hits, vs. under 1000 for "Protocols of the Wise men of Zion". Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your inputs, User:Humus sapiens and User:Jayjg.
Here's the content of my editing--please ignore the form (grammer, spelling, typos, etc.).
I appreciate your responses.
... and in Russian (Russian: "Протоколы Сионских мудрецов" or "Сионские Протоколы"). The text purports to be a record of a plan (I would put in "alleged plot"} to achieve global domination (I would put in "take over the world" by Jews. Several judicious proceedings [1] demonstrated the text to be a plagiarism, fraud, and hoax. Most notably, a series of articles printed in The Times of London in 1921 exposed the hoax by showing that a substantial portion of the text of the Protocols was plagiarized from earlier political satire that did not even have an anti-Semitic theme, or reference to Jews.

Regarding the above, I prefer "world domination" to "global domination." The word "global" and its variant was used by the "anti-trilateralists". On the other hand, the anti-Semites nameless editors of the expansions of the "Protocols" used the word "world"--- as in "to conquer the world." As one can see (or hear), "to conquer the globe" falls flat. So maybe we need to work on "global domination" as well. Yours truly, ---Ludvikus 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Hey! Maybe some WEB anti-Semites will here this "talk" "world domination" and accuse us of the the "Elders of Zion"? After all, are we not talking about global domination, or world domination? Just kidding! "User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens" has tought me to keep my sense of humor, and to "take it easy."

--- Ludvikus 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that if we don't have an article about trilateralism you Wikipedians will not know what I'm talking about. --- Ludvikus 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stolypin's fraud investigation, 1905

Could we have a source for these secret investigations that were not made public. Preferably a real source, according to WP Policy. Otherwise delete. 24.64.165.176 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Easy. Next? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Trilateralism"

  • It was the Trilateral Commission which engaged in "globalization."
  • And the anti-trilateralists opposed "globalization."
  • One could call the naive, idealists, etc. And the may been radicals to the extreme. But the were not properly to be called "crack-pots." That dubious distinction falls on those who believe that the Jews "plan" or "[[plot]" to "take over the world"--whatever that means.
  • But "to take over the globe is just poor English which these anti-Semites were not guilty off.
  • And even Victor E. Marsden was not a bad writer. I am informed (by Cesare G. De Michelis that the Russian language of the "Protocols" is very poor." Isn't that interesting?
  • Also "World Conquest" is the preferred usage to "Global Conquest." And the fact that there is no WP article on it just supports the idea that it is only within the stupid Protocols that it occurs.

Yours truly, ---User:Ludvikus [Sorry, ... comment was not signed - I was an amateur WP]

Does the Devil have a Torah and a Talmud?

Think of Satan as "uncreative." Whatever God does, the Devil does the opposite.
So we have the "Non-Extent Manuscript" see Cesare G. De Michelis.
Ironically, the true "author" or "Producer", of the Protocols, after 1933, when he comes to power, is the "greatest" anti-Semite of them all--Adolf Hitler himself!!!
This "Book of Satan" (very boring) is first taken out of Russia and brought to Germany in 1919.
Henry Ford effectively serializes it in The Dearborn Independent, turns this material into book form in The International Jew.
By 1934 Zion becomes effectively Zionism.
It really should be follolwed up by a joke:
    "The Protocols of the Stupid Elders of Anti-Semitism"
    by Henry Ford, Adolf Hitler, et al
After all, neither of the former were exactly intellectual giants.

--Ludvikus 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

History of "The Protocols of Zion"

  • Or shall we say, by a "Committee" of the "Okhrana"--the Tsar's secret Police?
and after the Sergei Nilus 1905 publication as an appendix in his second or third :edition of "The Great within the Miniscule" (sounds better in the original Russian}
the "Bad Book" lives on--somewhat as "The Good Book" does.
To be continued ...
Yours truly --- Ludvikus 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
To be continued?
    Oh please, no more of this verbal drooling.
    Paul B 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User Paul Barow--appears to be a Wikipedian since at least October of 2002. I've only become one on August 31, 2006. He says of himself on his "Home Page"'User Page as follows: 

    Hi there, I'm a terrible Wikipedia addict with a rather eccentric list of interests.
    By education and expertise I am a Victorianist and a specialist in art, but my main
    interests here are in the history of scholarly theories in religion, literature and
    ethnology. Hence I tend to contribute to articles about the history of racial
    theories, religious ideologies and – especially – any stuff that combines the two.

My main professional training is in PHILOSOPHY - so apparently my comments went over his head and he could only grasp my words as "verbal drooling." For this I appologize. And I shall try to come down to his level. It appears that the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT does/did not exist--as Cesare G. De Michelis suggests by his title, "The Non-Existent Manuscript", and in the English language at least, Victor E. Marsden, having died in 1920, could not have contributed much to the expanded 1934 edition which still circulates and gets republished as "the Protocols." At the same time, this expanded edition bears some direct relation to its literary ancestor--a book in which it was a mere appendix, a book was ABOUT THE COMING OF THE anti-Christ--a FACT which our wonderful Wikipedia should develope and explore. I wonder if anti-"verbal drooling" Paul Barlow could enlighten us--in a non-drooling fashion of course???

Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You are clearly an extremely silly little person. And by the way, I have taught philosophy at university level, so don't think your naive utterances get anywhere near to being "over my head". Try to write clearly, coherently and to the point when contributing to Talk pages. And please clease your apparently pathological desire to wikify every word. Paul B 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, vaguely serious great person. So you tought philosophy, himmmm..., and at the university level, you say?. Well, thanks for the sound but insulting advise--Prof. Paul Barlow--not to "wikify every word." Regarding clarity, etc., can you identify further the so-called "Patriotic Publishing Co.", which I've identified as operating out of a P.O. Box in Chicago,IL? Could you possibly write something about it? It is/was an unincorporated entity which, in 1934, had [compiled] the 299-page version of the Protocols of Zion which circulate in the USA today??? Thanks, Ludvikus 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in the "Patriotic Publishing co", so why should I or anyone else write about it? There have been and still are lots of small far-right publishers out in the US, from which you can now get CDs of the "SS's Greatest Marching Songs", and other equally desirable products. We don't need to list them all. The puiblishing history of the Protocols is of interest but we don't want to swamp the article with unnecessarily pedantic detail about it. Paul B 17:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

---

  • Good question.
  • Revealing such facts is the way to improve the article.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 11:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. By the way, please stop linking so many words; it doesn't make anything easier to read or follow, especially on talk pages. Instead, it has the unfortunate, and I assume unintended, consequence of making you look like a loon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your observation, jpgordon.
      • If I appear like I "look like a loon," my defense is that I'm less than a month old, having been born a :Wikipedian only on August 31, 2006.
      • Regarding the "linking of so many words," let me say this. I link not words but concepts. By formal training I am, inter alia, a philosopher and a sesquipedalian--or shall I say philo-sesquipedalian?
      • Whether you, or its administrators, say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, its users have made it so.
      • And this linking, which you do not like, just shows you to be "old-fashioned"--like those people born before the "computer revolution," or the , "internet revolution," and now the WIKIPEDIA REVOLUTION.
      • But I appreciate the good intention of your advise.
      • Perhaps you do not like the style of Umberto Eco and his Foucault's Pendulum discourse on the Protocols? Semiotics and all that--it's not to your liking?
      • Yours truly, Ludvikus 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • PS1: See Charles Peirce, perhaps the greatest "American" philosopher, and a great coiner of words to express his precise and unique expression of concepts. Oh, and am I now a "loon" because of my excessive use of "quotes" and italics?
      • PS2: Oh, and is there something more here in my loony word linkage than my not to obvious enthusiasm for WIKIPEDIA?

---

        • Several people have already said you that excessive linking distracts people and hence annoys them. You may do whatever you want, of course, but don't be surprized when people will be snappy. For example, if you address to me with a phrase that links the word "phrase", I may assume that you think that I am an idiot that does not know the word "phrase". Mukadderat 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

agree

I try again (article edit comment)

Tom, I can live with the alteration you've made. Peace. — Xiutwel (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I botched my first attempt, mistakenly reverting your whole edit when I meant to remove only the last part of the sentence. So by 'trying again' I was referring to correcting my own edit, not yours. Thanks for understanding what I meant, rather than what I said. Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

everything it says happened or is happening right now

not bad for a forgery

Heh, there's probably more lies in that article then there are in the Protocols.

Considering Wiki's opening paragragh swears up and down that what is entailed in the Protocals is a lie, then immediately mention how it depicted the world depression. Great job debunking the book, wikipedians!

I'll spell it out for you: the lie is that Jews planned, or caused, the Depression, or any of the other things that the Protocols list. There are no Elders of Zion. There was no meeting. If things have happened in the ensuing years that bear resemblance to this hateful book, then credit the author of the book with prediction, not journalism.
And learn to sign your talk postings. Rpresser 19:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there was no National-Socialist Germany in 1927, making it difficult for Mr. Ford to admire it during that same year.

Make some changes.

The statement re Ford was badly phrased. I've no idea what you mean when you say it "depicted the world depression"? Do you mean predicted? Paul B 11:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies.

How is it explained that a document that is a total forgery lays out a plan that seems to have been followed? Just luck? The Tsarists were really good at history ( prophecy even ) economics, organization, etc...... ( they knew an alien culture to perfection ). How did they know what would happen after they stopped existing?
Because it doesn't and it isn't and they didn't. The modern world has very little relationship to the one envisaged in the Protocols. Paul B 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


RE: links - could you throw in a link to an original - not one edited through NITZOR - hard to tell where the NITZOR commentary ends and the text begins. The techniques in the Protocols are both simple and impressive ( many Biblical proverbs - " the borrowere is slave to the lender", etc ). The protocols, if you read them, almost exactly match today - almost spooky. If you want to control a society, the protocols give the best, virtually the only, way to do it. ( Lend the fools money they can't pay back, control their media, brainwash the idiots, keep them in constant hysteria, ruin their morals, etc - these guys were good. The Czars were far smarter than I thought. Good thing the Commies beat them! )

Nostradamus

The protocols must have been written by Nostradamus. Gzuckier 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Nostradamus. Good reference! Yes, and there is also Asrology,
    & [Gypsie] card reading (fortune-telling) & palmistry!
    And by the way, I like Gypsies,
    though I don't believe in reading cards. Ludvikus 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

George Shanks

It is this [above] named person, a Russian emigre, who, according to Colin Holmes, in his 1978 article for Patterns of Prejudice, first translated the Protocols of Zion in Britain into English.

See: http://har2.huji.ac.il:83/ALEPH/ENG/SAS/BAS/BAS/FULL/0110974
Ludvikus 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deterioration

I noticed that lately this article is steadily deteriorating. Rather than including loads of ill-formatted and barely relevant details, we need to give priority to truly important info and concise encylopedic style. We all worked hard and I do not want it to lose its FA status, so this needs to be fixed really soon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff between post-main page cleanup and the current version. Jkelly 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made some minimal improvements. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is to perform its implied potential function - as the ultimate, all-inclusive encyclopedia of the world - than it must be able to handle popular and complex like this one. When I was a complete novice, I wanted to write about all the major imprints and titles of The Protocols of Zion. I called it Protocols of Zion (imprints). You, Humus sapiens, and/or others, involved with this article, caused it to be deleted, and you advised me to improve this article with the material I was writing.
I propose that you encourage the development of distinct separate articles on issues very closely related to the Protocols.
I never really liked the articled because it was mostly an abstraction from Norman Cohn's 1967 work which had been republished in 1996. I own the book, and I rather read it, than the paraphrases (not plagiarisms) of Cohn's Warrant for Genocide.
Ludvikus 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What I do-and like to do-is go to the scholarly journals! Ludvikus 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And I try now to develop the extremely related subjects--with interconnected lonks.
I think Wikipedia gives the world a wonderful opportunity to explore, and expose, the incredibly complex and important phenomena of this lierary trash.
So look at these various protagonists, and their role in disseminating this paranoid antisemitic antichrist nonsense! Ludvikus 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So if you want this article not to deteriorate, I suggest you join me in incouraging other Wikipedians in developing the related article elsewhere in WP space, like Victor E. Marsden, Boris Brasol, Harris Ayers Houghton, Natalie de Bogory, Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich, etc., as opposed to just the obvious ones like Sergei Nilus, Henry Ford, Adolph Hitler, etc. The is so much to the history of our nonsense--that can and should be develope--and without DEGRADING THE ARTICLE!!! Ludvikus 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is so much, and very interesting, stuf to be told and exposed about this plagiarism and is numerous translations and imprints. And although User:Jpgordon does not tire of discouraging what he perceives as "original research"--the fact is that reporting in WP on material in JOURNALS, or even of material in ARCHIVES--I think is consistent--or ought to be consistent--with WP polcy. I happen to be lucky in having access to such material--and there must be a way to present it without DEGRADING this article! Ludvikus 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point -- just look up Colin Holmes and Robert Singerman and get their articles which are only available, as far as I know, in JOURNALS, such as the American Jewish History and Patterns of Prejudice. Ludvikus 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article deteriorates largely because of the attempt by certain elemnts ( non-goyim ) to attack it before they have even written the article - worse while they are writing it. Any article in wiki that touches on any such subject gets gutted before the first period. - bashful anon who wishes to remain anonymous

The Protocols of the Elders of the Non-Goyim suggests just such a strategy!! Gzuckier 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Am very curious what is meant by the immediately above commentary?
Can someone explain/ Anyone? Maybe? Yours, etc.--Ludvikus 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I clarified who said what. Gzuckier 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You will have to read the Protocols first to fully grasp their genius, then the commentary/ies will be perfectly clear. The Protocols lay out time proven methods of economic, political, social and psychological control of the masses. Whether forged, or not, they are masterful in their insight of these techniques. Any government, or group, can learn a lot from them - as many have. If the Protocols had been written/attributed to any other group other than Jews, they would be given as ultimate proof. ( ie The Protocols of Hitler/Genghis Khan/Bush etc) The extreme sensitivity to the Protocols tells how powerful they are - look at the number of their techniques that are used to control people everywhere in the world - in the past, now and in the future.

Well, it's certainly honest of you to acknowledge your own hereditary/group inferiority to The Jews(registered trademark), and your admiration for their intellectual brilliance. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder why, if their MindControl Technology(registered trademark) is so effective, it would be devoted to the goal of gaining control of a voting majority in twenty thousand square kilometers of burned out wasteland in the middle of a dozen implacable enemy states with 200 million population whose sole uniting creed is "Death to the Jews"; and without any oil, to boot. I mean, you mention Genghis Khan and Hitler; they were after bigger fish than an electoral mandate for a state smaller than New Jersey. Gzuckier 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Israel's just a toe-hold for the overall Zionist plan to first control the Middle East and then the world! The more people say the Protocols are a hoax, the more I'm likely to believe they aren't. Zionists control the banks and the media and engineered the current war in Iraq thru their tool George Bush. The UN had it right years ago - Zionism IS racism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.253.18 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
 Ditto - my people think big ( from Egypt to the Euphartes from the Red Sea to Turkey
 - hell why stop there.) When the world's economy finally merges into one-five corporations,
 guess who is going to control the stock, not you suckers!

Dear User:Gzuckier, 

   What the stupid, nameless, coward above talk demonstrates is that Jews are too soft against these inferiority-complex ridden scum-bag low-lives. I think we SHOULD get together about 12 Wise Jews, have a meeting, but not in a grave yard in Prague like these antisemites would have it, but in a famous hotel - how about the Waldorf Astoria. And after the meeting, let's have our decisions written up. Maybe 24 Protocols would be enough. And then lets publish it in The New York Time. I propose that the First Protocol discuss the Stupidity/jeolousy of these antisemites. My question is this: which characteristic describes their personality better? Are they more stupid, or are they more envious? I'm inclined to think that it's stupidity which charaterizes them more. But I think the envious ones are more dangerous - they want to be so much like the Jews they hate. They also must unconsciously really hate Jesus Christ for (1) being Jewish, and (2) making them feel guilty about all the wicked and evil things they do or want to do! --Ludvikus 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Gosh that's almost word for word why we went to war - they hate us because we are good.159.105.80.141 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Practice What You Preach"

I've began editing the article by linking terms within it to closely related items elsewhere in WP space. I hope you other WPedians approve! That is a way, I think, to keep this article short, while not sacrificing encyclopedic comprehensiveness! Ludvikus 06:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But can I get some help in developing these stubs from you other WPedians???
Ludvikus 07:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dis-Honor Role" of Antisemites

I think Wikipedia gives the world and humanity an opportunity to fight bigotry, racism, crackpots, paranoiacs, antisemites, etc., as it was never possible before.
And this is not at all inconsistent with the--for lack of a better word--the "ojectivist" WPedians.
In particular, it is possible to write, not only brief, accurate, precise, objective, articles, even on such "controversial" topics as the Protocols of Zion. By the way, "controversial" is the term the Library of Congress designates hateful, crackpot, racist, antisemitic, titles or literature--into which The Protocols fall.
So one of the things I wish to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to do is to engage in "original research," in a sense. By this I mean two things: (1) use Scholarly Journals, and (2) use [[Archival] material if possible.
And in particular expose the important minor, often crackpot, or relatively obscure protagonists in the tragic drama of the Warrant for Genocide. Case in point: Howell Gwynne--full name, Howell Arthur Keir Gwynne; clue: he played the role in the Morning Post which William Cameron and/or Ernest Liebold had played in the Dearborn Independent. I'm not, strictly speaking, a historian, but I'm rapidly becoming one on Wikipedia. I have access to Libraries and Archives all over the "Big Apple"--by antisemites the city having been contempuously called "Jewtown", no doubt because so many Russian Jews had fled to after the first pogroms that had been instigated by assassination of the Tsar Alexander II in 1881; see [3].
Anyway, lets expose, as many as possible, of the protagonists who have effectively become "Unindicted Co-conspirators Agains the Jews" (Imade this title up). I think there is too much time spent exposing "conspiracy theory." We should examine the concept of conspiracy. Then the question I like to pose--to my fellow Wikipedians, in what way is it, and in what way is it not (the text of "The Protocols"), evidence of a world-wide "Conspiracy Against the Jews." Can you guys, and gals of course, in Wikipedia Space imagine a book with this as its Main Title, followed by the "The Protocols of Zion"? May I remind you all, or bring to your attention, the lead title, in civilized England (don't get me wrong--I love the Brits, and all human beings, anyone who is a "Mensch" (I know I got my yiddish transliteration wrong on this one).
Anyway, I hope I got accross a spontaneous glimse of my WP efforts in the Rod Sterling-like Fifth Dimension which is wonderful Wikipedialand. Not only can everyone now get their 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Warhol might put it, but everyone has the possibility of being the coiner of a word for a new concept not expressed before.
But more significantly, Wikipedia itself is an incredible innovation--I believe that it is probably as significant as the Guttenberg press, the railroad railroad, the telegraph (the telephone's predecessor), the typewriter (a predecessor to the PC).
So let us all use it with all its novelty potential, inter alia, in a war on bigotry; let's call a spade a spade; are we not "just interest" in conveying the mere cold facts? Is there not an effort here to enlighten the world at large to the malevolence of "The Protocols"? And if that it so, it will not do for us to merely paraphrase Norman Cohn's classic 1967 study, Warrant for Genocide.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Peril & Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd

  • Can you WP experts on the "The Protocols" help me re-size the image below:

Image:1920 The Jewish Peril - Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd - 1st ed..jpg

In 1920 the firm experienced the dubious distinction of being the first to publish, if not in the "King's English," at least in printed book form, the subsequent notorious text, under the title, The Jewish Peril: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

    • Also, do the same at the two (2) aricles above?
Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion/Archive_3&oldid=1256767288"