Other Archives by Subject

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
juandelacruz's picture

Hi G, Can I request a

Hi G,

Can I request a similar compilation on the Pentagon and what hit it.

gretavo's picture

yep, will do...

Probably tonight, thanks for reminding me!

Tahooey's picture

trying to search, lotta hiccups

Hi Gretavo -

I was trying to search the site for some past discussions I vaguely recall regarding the protocols of the elders of zion, but not having much luck with the search function - lot of hiccups.  is there any way you could link to the past discussion / debate?  I'd be interested in re-reading what was written here on the topic.

In any event, thanks for your ongoing dedication - despite my mostly silence, i appreciate your efforts very much.

gretavo's picture

hey Tahooey

Nice to see you, and no, I have not assumed that you had abandoned us! Here's a link to a Protocols thread:


I link directly to a comment I made in response to PSM in which I make clear my take on the authenticity of the Protocols, or rather on the kind of inauthenticity they seem to embody...

gretavo's picture

and just because i like the sound of my own voice... :)

I'm reposting my more detailed take on the "PEZ"... (oh the mischief that brings to mind....)

Thanks for posting this, Laz, and thanks for your commentary, which was hilarious in parts (move to Prothinktown! hehe)

I couldn't NOT post a comment here though to frame what may well turn into a big debate. Let me just enumerate some thoughts that I have on this mysterious document!

I am not sure that the Protocols are entirely genuine nor am I sure that they are entirely fradulent. Arguments made to the effect that they are plagiarized from Joly's book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesqiueu I find problematic since Joly's book is an enigma unto itself, seemingly discovered after the publication of the Protocols and showing very few signs of itself being a genuine document. I have the book and have read enough of it to conclude that even if the Protocols was copied from it it vastly improved on the original in terms of sheer interest and readability. Every modern reprint of Joly's book is of course sold and prefaced as "the book the Protocols was forged from" which also says a lot I think.

As for how genuine the Protocols themselves are, we shouldstep back and differentiate between the content and the document. The content could well include much truth without being a genuine document. The provenance of the document itself--that it was discovered when a courier of the elders was struck by lightning, is enough to make me have serious doubts about the document. In other words I think it may have been MEANT to be discovered, such that we should not feel like the purported authors goofed or are in any way upset that their master plan was leaked.

What I find more likely is that given the undeniable relevance of much of the content to our world, and the way that the Protocols so accurately convey what is indeed a robust, cynical, and truly Machiavellian view of achieving and wielding power, the Protocols are something akin to the Eric Hufschmidesque pièce de resistance of the turn of the 20th century. To clarify what may seem like an obscure reference to some, let me explain what I mean by that. Eric Hufschmid was one of the first people to come out with good convincing works about 9/11, including a book and a video. Those who proceeded to look at Hufschmid's website discovered a whole lot more than just 9/11. While not all of this other material was wrong or deceitful (though some surely seemed like it could be) that isn't the point. The point is that far from providing the 9/11 truth movement (which did not really exist at the time) with a solid foundation for growth into something with mass appeal--i.e. something effective--it saddled the embryonic movement with a ton of baggage that in many ways hindered its development. Clowns like Penn and Teller could feature Hufschmid on their show, mention in passing that this was a "leading representative" of something called 9/11 revisionism and proceed to portray hima nd his entire body of work as insane. Not only would this discourage people from taking 9/11 revisionism seriously, people who found themselves questioning 9/11 naturally felt that they should distance themselves as much as possible from Hufschmid and all of his ideas, whether related to 9/11 or not. An appropriate analogy would be someone putting a delicious chocolate confection in the refirgerator inside of a stool specimen container so that no one would eat it, or even come close to it.

We need not take the Protocols at face value to find them worth studying. If indeed they are the most vile form of defamation, that is enough reason for the entire world to read them so as to better understand the forms that vile defamation , especially such a successful example as the Protocols, can take. Interestingly, those who most violently oppose the content of the Protocols are the same people who most violently oppose anyone actually reading them. Now I can understand that people wouldn't want them published in comic book form and marketed to young people as fact, like say the fradulent and vile defematory 9/11 Commission Report, but study of the text by open minded critical thinkers should be de rigeur, and not in a setting that tries to impose a dogmatic view of them.

So I encourage everyone to take this opportunity to become familiar with this most controversial of subjects. I hope that it goes without saying that having the text published here does not constitute a blanket endorsement of the document at face value. I also hope that people will respect different views on this question, so long as they are presented responsibly and in a spirit of intellectual detachment, not bombastically or in any manner suited to proselytizing.

juandelacruz's picture

an old thread for you

gretavo's picture

good find, jdlc!


Tahooey's picture

Thanks Gret and Juan

Just got back home and catching up on web stuff; after someone brought this up in my presence the other day, I remembered some discussion here and had tried searching the site with no luck.  thanks for following up with the old links, I appreciate the perspectives!

whitey's picture

Gret can you put up links to

Gret can you put up links to the research you have regarding the 3 separate time periods where the 6 mil. holocaust figure was pushed. Like 1906 and 1916 or 1919 I think... I try to search but the darn hiccup thing happens.

Hope all is well with you. I've been busy w/ projects and school.

gretavo's picture

here you go, W


That link is the text of the introduction to a book called "The First Holocaust" which you can download a complete version of (among a virtual library of other free downloads of important holocaust revision books) at http://vho.org/dl/ENG.html .