Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Not a direct quote, no.
And just one thing. Alot of people like to "debunk" the Protocols. Some call it a forgery, others say they are total lies.
I will entertain this type of discussion only with those who have read and understand the Protocols. One of my pet peeves is when people call something false without know what is in it.
When I read them, because of the content I got the distinct impression that they werre not meant to be made public, unless of course they actually are a forgery or some other red herring. However this same content brought me to another conclusion. That is that they were written by someone with very high intelligence and alot of insight.
Basically my point is, I don't care if they were written by anti-Semitic elements in Tsarist Russia, the Nazis or space aliens for that matter. The portent within speaks volumes, because if they had been written yesterday that would be one thing, but considering their age, one gets the impression that there was a plan.
Assuming it is not a forgery for the moment, it's intended audience is a very powerful group, and it is some basic guideline for manitaining that power. I also got the impression that they were also saying "you know what to do", and this document was written just to be sure eveyone is on the same page, figuratively.
It is not easy to read and understand fully. It is obviously a translation as indicated by how certain words are used. One has to have a literal sense of the definition of words to get the meaning.
For example (not in the Protocols), in the Nine Charges Of Odinism, they have "I shall fight the enemy in the field, nor be burnt in my own house". Normally the word nor means a certain thing, like a nor gate or akin to the word 'neither'. However in that translation it is obvious that the word nor means not and or at the same time.
The Protocols are not light reading by any stretch. It's worse than the Bible. If you undertake to read them, be prepared for some double takes, going back and rereading, all that. You should save it and print it section by section. Take it to bed, to your morning contitutional on the throne etc. You'll burn your eyes out trying to read it on the PC monitor.
It is not that it is so convoluted, like some documents, it is just the way the author(s) put things. For example :
". . . Putting aside fine phrases we shall speak of the significance of each thought: by comparisons and deductions we shall throw light upon surrounding facts. "
And one of my favorite passages from the whole thing, also on the very first page of part one :
"It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?
In the beginnings of the structure of society they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards-to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.
Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears: the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new author merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.
In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of Gold. Time was when Faith ruled. The idea of freedom is impossible of realisation because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self-government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganised mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which soon develops into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes. "
STOP HERE FOR ONE MINUTE AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER THAT STATEMENT.
_________________________________________________________________
Now look at the world around you. If you understand that quote, you know to accept broader meaning for certain words, 'classes' being the prime example.
If this is a forgery I would really like to see the original.
But back to the OP, part of the point is that they seem to want to make so many laws that they can put everyone in jail.
Then to rule despotically of course they just enforce selectively. Automatic priveledged class, and they won't step out of line either because then we can just take their priveledges away, and put them in jail. If they disagree they are gone.
In one part of the Protocols they describe how political candidates are chosen. That they prefer those with skeletons in the closet so to speak, so they have something hanging over their head. If they act up these skeletons are simply brought into the light of day, ruining or seriously damaging a politician's career.
Yes folks, I don't care who wrote the thing, it is a pretty good guide to truly taking over the world. The author(s) of course know that one person can't do it, one army can't even do it, in the conventional sense. Their soldiers are accountants, politicians, lawyers and so forth.
It is also put forth in their document that they deserve to rule, simply because they can, that is they control the force of nations' armies etc. Right lies in might.
So was it written by them or their enemies ?
Stop now, if you even consider the question just posed, that means that you acknowledge that there is a 'them'. Who 'they' are is irrelevant.
Is there a 'they' or isn't there ?
T
|
Not specifically the patriot act - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread