[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Chomsky’s a hack. I’ve read plenty of his stuff. It seems all he can come up with is, “Yeah, well the U.S. does it too!” [/quote]
You reduce the Professor’s countless books, articles, and talks to a seven words sentence.
Nice!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Chomsky’s a hack. I’ve read plenty of his stuff. It seems all he can come up with is, “Yeah, well the U.S. does it too!”
You reduce the Professor’s countless books, articles, and talks to a seven words sentence.
Nice!
[/quote]
It takes a bright man to distill Chomsky’s crap down to seven words and yet maintain all his substance.
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Of course, when pressed on how he works at MIT (whose endowment is funded in a huge way by defense) and has substantial holdings in the stock market, the great radical genius replies “whaddyagonnado?”.
“Privilege for me, but not for thee”
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We have those — like Saving Private Ryan, where the arrogant Americans, lots of 'em, die liberating France.
Is that the one where the Americans take all the credit, but the Soviets do most of the work?
[/quote]
Yeah, we let them lead the way into Paris. We’re not fools afterall…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame. [/quote]
Do share proper references instead of throwing baseless accusations.
Where do you fish for such things as investment portfolios anyway?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It takes a bright man to distill Chomsky’s crap down to seven words and yet maintain all his substance.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Of course, when pressed on how he works at MIT (whose endowment is funded in a huge way by defense) and has substantial holdings in the stock market, the great radical genius replies “whaddyagonnado?”.
“Privilege for me, but not for thee”[/quote]
Now we’re gettin’ somewhere. Framing the left/right debate – Ford referred to this as, “splitting society by ‘ideas’” or “divide and rule”.
Noam Chomsky
He describes his family as living in a sort of “Jewish ghetto”, split into a “Yiddish side” and “Hebrew side”, with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up “immersed in Hebrew culture and literature”
“To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions… this is the first secret.” --Protocol 5
Of course I have to mention Zap’s other “favorite” person…
George Soros
The family changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews.
“That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely, we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories…” --Protocol 1
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It takes a bright man to distill Chomsky’s crap down to seven words and yet maintain all his substance.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Of course, when pressed on how he works at MIT (whose endowment is funded in a huge way by defense) and has substantial holdings in the stock market, the great radical genius replies “whaddyagonnado?”.
“Privilege for me, but not for thee”
Now we’re gettin’ somewhere. Framing the left/right debate – Ford referred to this as, “splitting society by ‘ideas’” or “divide and rule”.
Noam Chomsky
He describes his family as living in a sort of “Jewish ghetto”, split into a “Yiddish side” and “Hebrew side”, with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up “immersed in Hebrew culture and literature”
“To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions… this is the first secret.” --Protocol 5
Of course I have to mention Zap’s other “favorite” person…
George Soros
The family changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews.
“That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely, we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories…” --Protocol 1[/quote]
Damn! These Satanists are everywhere!
“Currently, he is the chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute and is also a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations.”
— from the link
I know the CFR is out to subvert American sovereignty and establish a New World Order. No wonder the guy is such a yutz!!
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Do share proper references instead of throwing baseless accusations.
Where do you fish for such things as investment portfolios anyway?[/quote]
Try a Google sometime - even if the results might provide information that challenges your views (gasp!).
[i]One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky?s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the ?massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich? and criticized the concentration of wealth in ?trusts? by the wealthiest 1 percent.
The American tax code is rigged with ?complicated devices for ensuring that the poor?like 80 percent of the population?pay off the rich.?
But trusts can?t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston?s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in ?income-tax planning,? set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam.
He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution?just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: ?I don?t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,? he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.
Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are ?trying to help suffering people.?
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name.
As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those ?open to being ?commodified??that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be.?
Chomsky?s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.
Can?t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches?for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about ?Property Rights?; it will cost you 79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for $12.99.
But books are Chomsky?s mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales. As publicist Dana O?Hare of Pluto Press explains: ?All we have to do is put Chomsky?s name on a book and it sells out immediately!?
Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public.
You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: ?If you look at the things I write?articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever?they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I?m kind of a parasite. I mean, I?m living off the activism of others. I?m happy to do it.?
Chomsky?s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.
He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via e-mail that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press.
His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, the pushlisher had sold the foreign rights in 19 different languages. The book made the best-seller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.
Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. ?When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most,?
Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn?t have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, ?have to do with protectionism.?
Protectionism is a bad thing?especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky?s own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish.
It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?)
And when it comes to his articles, you?d better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky website (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: ?Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.? However, the website does give you the opportunity to ?sublicense? the material if you are interested.
Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.
Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children?s lower rate. He also extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.
In October 2002, radicals gathered in Philadelphia for a benefit entitled ?Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy.? Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left, for a fee of $15 you could attend the speech and hear the great man ruminate on the evils of capitalism. For another $35, you could attend a post-talk reception and he would speak directly with you.
During the speech, Chomsky told the assembled crowd, ?A democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media.? After the speech, Deborah Bolling, a writer for the lefty Philadelphia City Paper, tried to get an interview with Chomsky. She was turned away. To talk to Chomsky, she was told, this ?free, independent, and inquiring? reporter needed to pay $35 to get into the private reception.
Corporate America is one of Chomsky?s demons. It?s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the ?unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.? He has called corporations ?private tyrannies? and declared that they are ?just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.? Capitalism, in his words, is a ?grotesque catastrophe.?
But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.
Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund.
Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a ?what else can I do?? defense: ?Should I live in a cabin in Montana?? he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system.
He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in ?green? or ?socially responsible? enterprises. They just don?t yield the maximum available return. [/i]
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html
You can almost hear Lixy tearing up.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It takes a bright man to distill Chomsky’s crap down to seven words and yet maintain all his substance.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Of course, when pressed on how he works at MIT (whose endowment is funded in a huge way by defense) and has substantial holdings in the stock market, the great radical genius replies “whaddyagonnado?”.
“Privilege for me, but not for thee”
Now we’re gettin’ somewhere. Framing the left/right debate – Ford referred to this as, “splitting society by ‘ideas’” or “divide and rule”.
Noam Chomsky
He describes his family as living in a sort of “Jewish ghetto”, split into a “Yiddish side” and “Hebrew side”, with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up “immersed in Hebrew culture and literature”
“To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions… this is the first secret.” --Protocol 5
Of course I have to mention Zap’s other “favorite” person…
George Soros
The family changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews.
“That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely, we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories…” --Protocol 1[/quote]
Are you quoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is that why you’re quoting Ford so much?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you quoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is that why you’re quoting Ford so much? [/quote]
I’m quoting Ford so much because he saw exactly how things were playing out 90 long years ago.
What Henry Ford wrote about the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”:
[i]"Whosoever was the mind that conceived them possessed a knowledge of human nature, of history and of statecraft which is dazzling in its brilliant completeness, and terrible in the objects to which it turns its powers. If, indeed, one mind alone conceived them. It is too terribly real for fiction, too well sustained for speculation too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery. Jewish attacks upon it thus far make much of the fact that it came out of Russia. That is hardly true. It came by way of Russia.
The internal evidence makes it clear that the Protocols were not written by a Russian, nor originally in the Russian language, nor under the influence of Russian conditions, but they found their way to Russia and were first published there about 1905 by a Professor Nilus, who attempted to interpret the Protocols by events then going forward in Russia.
They have been found by diplomatic officers in manuscript in all parts of the world. Wherever Jewish power is able to do so, it has suppressed them, sometimes under the extreme penalty.
Their persistence is a fact which challenges the mind. Sheer lies do not live long, their power soon dies. The Protocols are more alive than ever. They have penetrated higher places than ever before. They have compelled a more serious attitude to them than ever before. The Protocols are a World Program - there is no doubt anywhere of that - whose program is stated within the articles themselves. But as for outer confirmation, which would be the more valuable - a signature, or six signatures, or twenty signatures, or a 50-year unbroken line of effort fulfilling that program?
The point of interest for this and other countries is not that a “criminal or a madman” conceived such a program, but that, when conceived, this program found means of getting itself fulfilled in its most important particulars. The document is comparatively unimportant; the conditions to which it calls attention are of a very high degree of importance."[/i]
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are you quoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is that why you’re quoting Ford so much?
I’m quoting Ford so much because he saw exactly how things were playing out 90 long years ago.
What Henry Ford wrote about the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”:
[i]"Whosoever was the mind that conceived them possessed a knowledge of human nature, of history and of statecraft which is dazzling in its brilliant completeness, and terrible in the objects to which it turns its powers. If, indeed, one mind alone conceived them. It is too terribly real for fiction, too well sustained for speculation too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery. Jewish attacks upon it thus far make much of the fact that it came out of Russia. That is hardly true. It came by way of Russia.
The internal evidence makes it clear that the Protocols were not written by a Russian, nor originally in the Russian language, nor under the influence of Russian conditions, but they found their way to Russia and were first published there about 1905 by a Professor Nilus, who attempted to interpret the Protocols by events then going forward in Russia.
They have been found by diplomatic officers in manuscript in all parts of the world. Wherever Jewish power is able to do so, it has suppressed them, sometimes under the extreme penalty.
Their persistence is a fact which challenges the mind. Sheer lies do not live long, their power soon dies. The Protocols are more alive than ever. They have penetrated higher places than ever before. They have compelled a more serious attitude to them than ever before. The Protocols are a World Program - there is no doubt anywhere of that - whose program is stated within the articles themselves. But as for outer confirmation, which would be the more valuable - a signature, or six signatures, or twenty signatures, or a 50-year unbroken line of effort fulfilling that program?
The point of interest for this and other countries is not that a “criminal or a madman” conceived such a program, but that, when conceived, this program found means of getting itself fulfilled in its most important particulars. The document is comparatively unimportant; the conditions to which it calls attention are of a very high degree of importance."[/i][/quote]
Ah, now I understand what your belief system is primarily built around. A historical fraud.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Do share proper references instead of throwing baseless accusations.
Where do you fish for such things as investment portfolios anyway?
Try a Google sometime - even if the results might provide information that challenges your views (gasp!).
[i]One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky?s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the ?massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich? and criticized the concentration of wealth in ?trusts? by the wealthiest 1 percent.
The American tax code is rigged with ?complicated devices for ensuring that the poor?like 80 percent of the population?pay off the rich.?
But trusts can?t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston?s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in ?income-tax planning,? set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam.
He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution?just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: ?I don?t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,? he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.
Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are ?trying to help suffering people.?
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name.
As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those ?open to being ?commodified??that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be.?
Chomsky?s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.
Can?t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches?for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about ?Property Rights?; it will cost you 79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for $12.99.
But books are Chomsky?s mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales. As publicist Dana O?Hare of Pluto Press explains: ?All we have to do is put Chomsky?s name on a book and it sells out immediately!?
Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public.
You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: ?If you look at the things I write?articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever?they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I?m kind of a parasite. I mean, I?m living off the activism of others. I?m happy to do it.?
Chomsky?s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.
He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via e-mail that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press.
His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, the pushlisher had sold the foreign rights in 19 different languages. The book made the best-seller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.
Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. ?When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most,?
Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn?t have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, ?have to do with protectionism.?
Protectionism is a bad thing?especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky?s own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish.
It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?)
And when it comes to his articles, you?d better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky website (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: ?Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.? However, the website does give you the opportunity to ?sublicense? the material if you are interested.
Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.
Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children?s lower rate. He also extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.
In October 2002, radicals gathered in Philadelphia for a benefit entitled ?Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy.? Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left, for a fee of $15 you could attend the speech and hear the great man ruminate on the evils of capitalism. For another $35, you could attend a post-talk reception and he would speak directly with you.
During the speech, Chomsky told the assembled crowd, ?A democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media.? After the speech, Deborah Bolling, a writer for the lefty Philadelphia City Paper, tried to get an interview with Chomsky. She was turned away. To talk to Chomsky, she was told, this ?free, independent, and inquiring? reporter needed to pay $35 to get into the private reception.
Corporate America is one of Chomsky?s demons. It?s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the ?unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.? He has called corporations ?private tyrannies? and declared that they are ?just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.? Capitalism, in his words, is a ?grotesque catastrophe.?
But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.
Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund.
Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a ?what else can I do?? defense: ?Should I live in a cabin in Montana?? he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system.
He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in ?green? or ?socially responsible? enterprises. They just don?t yield the maximum available return. [/i]
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html
You can almost hear Lixy tearing up.[/quote]
Thanks for that. Nice.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, now I understand what your belief system is primarily built around. A historical fraud. [/quote]
U.S. War Department Investigation- August 1919
Declassified, 1973
U.S. National Archives Doc. #245-1
THE POWER AND AIMS OF INTERNATIONAL JEWRY
http://www.papurec.org/
(“Fundamental Documents” link)
Meanwhile Bush appoints another Jewish PNAC member to head the World Bank – wow, never saw that one coming…
It’s a fraud…
PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION: TIMELINE
This timeline chronicles The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the most widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times.
The Protocols, supposedly the record of secret meetings of Jewish leaders, describes an alleged conspiracy to dominate the world. The conspiracy and its leaders, the so-called Elders of Zion, never existed. Although the Protocols has been proven a fraud on many occasions, it continues to inspire those who seek to spread hatred of Jews.
1864
French political satirist Maurice Joly writes The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Joly’s book never mentions Jews, but much of the Protocols would be fabricated based on ideas contained in it.
1868
Prussian writer Hermann Goedsche publishes the novel Biarritz, in which the twelve tribes of Israel meet secretly in Prague’s Jewish cemetery. Goedsche’s book, like Joly’s, contains ideas incorporated in fabricating the Protocols.
1897-1899
Although the origin of the Protocols is still a matter of debate, it was most likely fabricated under the direction of Pyotr Rachovsky, chief of the foreign branch of the Russian secret police (Okhrana) in Paris.
1903
An abbreviated version of the Protocols is published in a St. Petersburg, Russia, newspaper, Znamya (The Banner).
1905
Russian mystic Sergei Nilus includes the Protocols as an appendix to his book, The Great in the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth. By 1917, Nilus publishes four editions of the Protocols in Russia.
1920
The first non-Russian language edition of the Protocols is issued in Germany.
1920
The Protocols is published in Poland, France, England, and the United States. These editions blame the Russian Revolution on Jewish conspirators and warn of Bolshevism spreading to the West.
1920
Lucien Wolf, a British journalist and diplomat, exposes the Protocols as a fraudulent plagiarism in The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
1920
Automaker Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent publishes The International Jew, an Americanized version of the Protocols. The International Jew is translated into more than one dozen languages.
August 16-18, 1921
Journalist Phillip Graves exposes the Protocols as a plagiarism in series of articles in London Times.
1921
New York Herald reporter Herman Bernstein publishes The History of a Lie: The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, the first exposure of the Protocols as a fraud for an American audience.
1923
Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg writes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Jewish World Policy. Rosenberg’s book reaches a wide audience, necessitating three printings within the year.
1924
Benjamin Segel, a German-Jewish journalist, exposes the Protocols as a forgery in his Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion, kritisch beleuchtet (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Critically Illuminated).
1924
Joseph Goebbels, later the Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, writes in his diary: ?I believe that The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion are a forgery. . . . [However,] I believe in the intrinsic but not the factual truth of the Protocols.?
1925-26
In his treatise, Mein Kampf, Hitler writes: ?To what an extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. . . . For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken.?
1927
Henry Ford issues a public apology for publishing the Protocols, which he admits are ?gross forgeries.? Ford directs that remaining copies of The International Jew be burned, and he orders overseas publishers to cease publishing the book. Ford’s directives to foreign publishers are ignored.
1933
Nazis rise to power in Germany. The Nazi Party publishes at least 23 editions of the Protocols before World War II begins.
1935
A Berne, Switzerland, court rules against a party of Swiss Nazis charged with circulating the Protocols at a pro-Nazi demonstration. Walter Meyer, the presiding justice at the trial, refers to the Protocols as ?ridiculous nonsense.?
1938
?Radio priest? Father Charles E. Coughlin serializes the Protocols in his newspaper, Social Justice.
1943
An edition of the Protocols is issued in German-occupied Poland.
1964
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee issues a report titled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A ?Fabricated? Historic Document. The committee concludes: ?The subcommittee believes that the peddlers of the Protocols are peddlers of un-American prejudice who spread hate and dissension among the American people.?
1974
The Protocols is published in India under the title International Conspiracy Against Indians.
1985
An English-language edition of Protocols, published by the Islamic Propagation Organization, is issued in Iran.
1988
Article 32 of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) reads: ?The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.?
1993
The Protocols is declared a fraud in a Moscow trial of Pamyat, an ultra-nationalist Russian organization that published the Protocols in 1992.
2002
Egyptian satellite television broadcasts a 41-part miniseries Horseman Without a Horse, which is based largely on the Protocols.
2002
The U.S. Senate passes a resolution urging the government of Egypt and other Arab states not to allow government-controlled television to broadcast any program that lends legitimacy to the Protocols.
2003
A 30-part television miniseries called Al Shatat (The Diaspora) airs on Hizbullah’s Al-Manar TV. The series depicts a ?global Jewish government,? as described in the Protocols.
2003
An exhibition of holy books of monotheistic religions at the Alexandria Library in Egypt includes a copy of the Protocols next to the Torah. UNESCO issues a public denunciation of the Alexandria Library exhibition.
2004
The Protocols is published in Okinawa, Japan.
2005
A edition of the Protocols published in Mexico City suggests that the Holocaust was orchestrated by the Elders of Zion in exchange for the founding of the State of Israel.
2005
An edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information, claims that the Elders of Zion coordinated the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
2006
A typical Internet search for the Protocols yields several hundred thousand sites.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007244
The history of this fraudulent work is fleshed out more in this link.
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~antis/doc/graves/graves.a.html
Or, use this Wikipedia entry. It cites a number of independent investigations that showed the Protocols to be a fraud.
I won’t be following up on any replies JTF makes. It would be pointless, after all. Just wanted to share these with folks interested in a very tragic historical fraud. One which helped shape ideologies responsible for mass murder and conspiracy paranoia.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ah, now I understand what your belief system is primarily built around. A historical fraud.
U.S. War Department Investigation- August 1919
Declassified, 1973
U.S. National Archives Doc. #245-1
THE POWER AND AIMS OF INTERNATIONAL JEWRY
[/quote]
So you’re bringing a document from 88 years ago which believes the protocools(a proven hoax) to be true.
Good work.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s a fraud…
PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION: TIMELINE
I won’t be following up on any replies JTF makes. It would be pointless, after all. Just wanted to share these with folks interested in a very tragic historical fraud. One which helped shape ideologies responsible for mass murder and conspiracy paranoia.[/quote]
Better yet, make up your own mind – read the actual Protocols and compare to real world events.
Meanwhile Jew #7 gets huge Op-ed in Wall Street Journal…
The Case for Bombing Iran
NORMAN PODHORETZ
As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.
…In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents… By that time we shall be in a position to disregard forms in carrying through matters for which our impersonal puppet will be responsible. --Protocol 10
“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight.”
–John F. Kennedy - Nov 12, 1963, Columbia University. Assassinated 10 days later.
[quote]JoshM wrote:
U.S. War Department Investigation- August 1919
Declassified, 1973
U.S. National Archives Doc. #245-1
THE POWER AND AIMS OF INTERNATIONAL JEWRY
So you’re bringing a document from 88 years ago which believes the protocools(a proven hoax) to be true.
Good work.[/quote]
It hasn’t been proven to be a hoax – people have SAID its a hoax. The same people who continue to call the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution a hoax – never mind the facts.
Stalin’s Jews
I guess it would be nice if everybody would just blindly buy into the “anti-semitic, hoax” bit and move along, huh?
Excerpt from PROTOCOL No. 17:
[i]TYRANNY OF USURY
30. What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is - an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty - treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.
Yeah, thats some hoax alright…
Ok, fine, I lied. But, the below Protocol quote was just too funny. JTF, do you realize the Protocols are a bald faced plagiarism? It’s heavily plagiarized from the French, “Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.” This was written in 1858 by Maurice Joly, and had nothing to do with Jews. Nothing. Watch your protocol quote below. Then look at the passage from Joly’s novel.
[quote]
Excerpt from PROTOCOL No. 17:
TYRANNY OF USURY
30. What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is - an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty - treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.[/quote]
Dialogues, p. 250
"How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet it remains debtor for the entire capital sum.
Now, how about a few more illustrations? Some side by side comparisons, if you will.
Dialogues, p. 8
[i]Among mankind the evil instinct is mightier than the good. Man is more drawn to evil than to good. Fear and Force have more empire over him than reason.
Every man aims at domination: not one but would be an oppressor if he could: all or almost all are ready to sacrifice the rights of others to their own interests.
What restrains those beasts of prey which they call men from attacking one another? Brute un-restrained Force in the first stages of social life, then the Law, that is still force regulated by forms. You have consulted all historical sources: everywhere might precedes right. Political Liberty is merely a relative idea.[/i]
Protocols, p.1
[i]It must be noted that people with corrupt instincts are more numerous than those of noble instinct. Therefore in governing the world the best results are obtained by means of violence and intimidation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power; every one would like to become a dictator if he only could do so, and rare indeed are the men who would not be disposed to sacrifice the welfare of others in order to attain their own personal aims.
Dialogues, p. 159
After covering Italy with blood, Sulla reappeared as a simple citizen in Rome: no one durst touch a hair of his head.
Dialogues, p. 141
Machiavelli: Like the God Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country.
Dialogues, p. 207
Montesquieu: Now I understand the figure of the god Vishnu; you have a hundred arms like the Indian idol, and each of your fingers touches a spring.
Dialogues, pp. 135 and 136
I shall extend the tax on newspapers to books, or rather I shall introduce a stamp duty on books having less than a certain number of pages. A book, for example, with less than 200 or 300 pages will not rank as a book, but as a brochure. I am sure you see the advantage of this scheme. On the one hand I thin (je rarifie) by taxation that cloud of short books which are the more of journalism; on the other hand I force those who wish to escape stamp duty to throw themselves into long and costly compositions, which will hardly ever be sold and scarcely read in such a form.
Dialogues, pp. 145, 146
Machiavelli: You must know that journalism is a sort of Freemasonry; those who live by it are bound to one another by the ties of professional discretion; like the augurs of old, they do not lightly divulge the secret of their oracles. They would gain nothing by betraying themselves, for they have mostly won more or less discreditable scars.
Dialogues, p. 43
Machiavelli: You do not know the unbounded meanness of the peoples groveling before force, pitiless towards the weak, implacable to faults, indulgent to crimes, incapable of supporting the contradictions of a free regime, and patient to the point of martyrdom under the violence of an audacious despotism giving themselves masters whom they pardon for deeds for the least of which they would have beheaded twenty constitutional kings.
Ok, I could go on, and on, and on. There are so many more passages like these. The Zion Protocols are a flimsy and clear case of plagiarism twisted into anti-semitic propaganda. End of story. Instead of a satirical swipe at Napoleon III (Joly’s work), it’s the Jews.
Source for the direct comparisons:
Not familiar with the site, but the paper it uses is widely recognized.
Also read this:
Sloth,
Fantastic stuff. We all thought JTF was a worthless conspiracy twerp to begin with, but now that he has been brought out of the closet as a devotee of the sham Protocols, it puts his idiocy into a new, damning light.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It takes a bright man to distill Chomsky’s crap down to seven words and yet maintain all his substance.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You should see Chomsky’s investment portfolio - it puts us regular guys to shame.
Of course, when pressed on how he works at MIT (whose endowment is funded in a huge way by defense) and has substantial holdings in the stock market, the great radical genius replies “whaddyagonnado?”.
“Privilege for me, but not for thee”
Now we’re gettin’ somewhere. Framing the left/right debate – Ford referred to this as, “splitting society by ‘ideas’” or “divide and rule”.
Noam Chomsky
He describes his family as living in a sort of “Jewish ghetto”, split into a “Yiddish side” and “Hebrew side”, with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up “immersed in Hebrew culture and literature”
“To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions… this is the first secret.” --Protocol 5
Of course I have to mention Zap’s other “favorite” person…
George Soros
The family changed its name in 1936 from Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews.
“That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely, we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories…” --Protocol 1[/quote]
It always comes down to the jews with you.