In 1905, the Russian secret police released an earth-shattering document. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was promulgated throughout Europe. It purported to be the transcript of a meeting between Jewish leaders in which they plotted to take over the world and subjugate the goyim, the Gentiles, to their rapacious rule.
By 1920, the document was demonstrated to be a forgery, yet many people throughout the world continued to believe it. "The document may be a forgery, but the attitudes it reports concerning Jewish leaders is absolutely accurate," went the logic. Indeed, Henry Ford continued to publicize the document as substantially accurate through 1927. The Nazis used it as a justification for their anti-Semitic policies. The substantial truth of the document is commonly accepted by Middle-Eastern Arabs even today.
Telling these people the document is a forgery makes no difference at all. They live near Jews. They work beside Jews every day. They know what Jews are like. The document is forged but you must believe what the document says. Listen to me. I know.
Take another example. As anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows, the same thing happened with Dan Brown's novel. Sure, his facts are completely wrong - he doesn't get one statement of historical fact correct in his book. But even though he got every fact wrong, forged and invented all the evidence, none of that matters.
We know what those damned papists are like. We've had their ilk infesting this country since the beginning. The novel's description of the Catholic attitude is substantially accurate. The facts in the novel are forged but you must believe what the novel says. Listen to me. I know.
Now for today's headlines. Sure, says Killian's 86-year old former secretary, those documents are forgeries. He never would have typed them himself and my typewriter could not produce these documents. Even if they could, the language is wrong and the format is wrong - I was his secretary and I never would have formatted them that way, but...
But what?
...but the content is substantially correct.
Like the Arabs who live near Jews, like the non-Catholics who live near Catholics, I know the principle people involved. The documents are forged, but the CBS interpretation of the document is true. The documents are forged but you must believe what the documents say. Listen to me. I know.
Faith may be the evidence of things not seen, but faith is based on facts, not forgeries. What the media don't understand is precisely that faith is never a blind leap. If I order a Big Mac from McDonald's, I have made an act of faith. I believe I will get something I want to eat. That act of faith is based on facts: the fact that this is a restaurant, that it has a menu of food items, that people are waiting to take my order, and that it is in business today - a testament to the fact that others have eaten here and been satisfied with the food. These facts all point to the idea that I, too, might be able to get good food here.
Do I know I will? Not with absolute certainty. The cooks might be new today, they might be having a bad day, it may be that my tastes do not match those of other people - I might not like the food. I won't know I do until I bite into the sandwich. The "thing not seen" is that first taste, but I only got to the point of tasting because the preponderance of evidence pointed that way.
If I walked into a hardware store, saw everyone buying tools, nuts, bolts, heard the clerk telling someone how to install a kitchen sink and then asked that clerk for a hamburger, large fries and strawberry milkshake, THAT would be an act of blind faith. I would have absolutely no facts to support my belief that the clerk will feed me. If, in fact, he DOES give me what I ask for, that would be a miracle. No religious believer operates on blind faith. We all operate on informed faith: facts which require us to logically hypothesize that something more is coming our way, something we can prepare for if only we stay in close touch with reality.
The MainStream Media doesn't understand the difference between faith and blind faith. It is deeply ironic that when the MSM gets religion, they push the blind faith version. "Believe us, even if we have no case. Believe us because we tell you that you should."
They think this will work because they think that's how people get duped into religion. As Stalin said, keep repeating the lie until everyone is forced to conclude that it is true. And he must be right. Look how well it worked for the Soviet Union.
9 comments:
Who proved that the Protocols are a forgery? Give me names, and the ethnic and political backgrounds of the people who "proved" the Protocols are a forgery.
Proved several times in open court in Switzerland and South Africa, in the 1930's.
Admitted to be a fraud by no less than Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of propaganda, in 1924: "“I believe that The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion are a forgery."
Henry Ford admits the Protocols are a lie in 1927 and burns all the copies of the book he wrote which promoted the subject.
The US Senate exposes it as a lie again in 1964.
Declared a fraud by a Moscow court in 1993.
Muslims still promote it, but that's largely because Muslims, especially orthodox Muslims, aren't too bright.
Sorry, Blazing, but you should check your history again.
Algebra was invented by the Greek mathematician Diophantus of Alexandria in the 3rd century A.D. The major advance the Muslims added was demonstrating how to write down the equations that had formerly been done on an abacus. It is only in that sense that Mohammed ben Musa al_Khwarazami (d. 850) was the author of the "first book" on algebraic equations. Hindus and Greeks did more to advance math than Muslims ever did.
As for Catholics, Galileo was a staunch Catholic for his whole life, as was Gregor Mendel (a monk), Louis Pasteur, Jerome Lejuene, etc.
On the other hand, essentially all the "Muslims" who are referenced as having advanced human knowledge (such as Avicenna) were apostates.
First university in the world... where was it?
Al Azhar mosque and university. Cairo, Egypt.
Shame youve been looking up to a bunch of kiddy fiddlers.
Blazing,
Nice try.
First university in the world was the University of Constantinople, 425 AD., reorganized in 825 AD.
And sorry about the references to kiddy-diddlers, but it is impossible to talk about Islam without talking about Mohammed. He WAS a pedophile, after all, having married a six-year old Aisha and then having sex with her when she was nine.
And, if I recall correctly, many Muslim countries continue practicing child marriage (Yemen, for instance), if only because the Islamic schools of jurisprudence agree that a young girl should have her first menstrual period in her husband's house.
'The prophet’s marriage to Aisha at her young age was an exception and not a norm of his other marriages. Furthermore ‘a pedophile’s main mode of sexual satisfaction is with prepubescent girls’, which is contradictory to the 91% of prophet’s marriage to women 17 years and over. An unbiased examination of Prophet’s life and his marriages to his wives blatantly rejects the notion of his lifestyle fitting that of a pedophile.'
Child marriage is not the same as sexually abusing children.
Your correct about the university of constantinople, my lack of research, but theres no denying Al Azhar lead the way for advanced academic education.
Oh, blazing, now you're just lying... or, as the Shi'ites say, engaging in the accepted tactic of taquiyya, in order to promote Islam.
You know perfectly well that Mohammed is considered to be sinless by every Muslim and that every Muslim is supposed to model his own life on the life of Mohammed.
The reason Yemen and other Muslim countries have prepubescent ages of legal marriage is precisely because they enforce sharia law, which is meant to keep its adherents walking in the ways of Mohammed and the Qu'ran.
You also know perfectly well that according to Hadith narrator Abu Hurreira, Mohammed liked to suck on the tongues of young boys and girls, especially that of his own daughter, Fatima, and Ali's two boys, Hussein and Hassan.
A hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”
How is that NOT pedophilia?
He wasn't yet married to her, yet he greatly desired her?
And that isn't all. As you know, at least two hadiths in the Sunan Bayhaqi portray Mohammed as having had homosexual tendencies, hugging men and "lifting his shirt so [his male lover] could kiss his torso from his belly button to his armpits."
This comes from your own holy books, blazing.
i am a christian, and i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. and i'll assume you mean well. i would like to respond to so much of what you say here steve, but i have limited time. i'll address just a few points, for your benefit.
no one has "proven" the protocols to be a forgery. if anyone were in a position to prove that the russian government created this document, it basically would have been someone in or around that government, at that time. if the russian government had proof of this "forgery", they would have provided this "proof" in 1917, when the jews took control of said government, or shortly thereafter; say about the time that they outlawed "anti-semitism". surely you don't trust the russian government; few governments in the 20th century have a longer record of lies. you, as an intelligent christian should know better than to trust any government-especially a communist government. truly a godless government, if ever there was one.
you use some good analogies. so what is your point with those analogies. they're good for anyone who's read the protocols. no one in south africa or switzerland has ever been in much of a position to disprove the protocols, not those governments, not the german government, and not ours. and when did you start citing goebbels as a credible witness? he's got about as much credibility as say, i dunno, our government?
i never heard of henry ford burning books. that sounds like a legend to me. i never heard of him destroying books for that matter. where did you hear that, from him? since when did you believe him; since he allegedly changed his views on jews? and when did court declarations become fact? come on, you know better than that.
i read and researched the protocols. there are only 2 entities who might know; the russians, and the jews. and neither of those groups has proven the protocols to be forgeries. and since they haven't been able to up to this point, they probably never will be able to.
you spend a lot of time on the muslims, and what you write on them honestly makes me suspicious. of course when you essentially defend the jews, and then attack the muslims, many people become suspicious. again, what is your point? you may know a lot about muslims, although i doubt if much or any of this information comes from the qur'an. i strongly suggest you spend a little time researching judaism. i started the qur'an some years ago but put it down. it just wasn't that compelling, to me. (i'm about to finish it)
pedophilia is most certainly not part of christianity, and i'm almost certain that it's not part of islam.
christians don't molest children, and i assure you that god fearing muslims don't either. there have been and unfortunately still are some sick psychopaths posing as christians who have and do molest children. if you're interested in religious pedophilia and other "church" sanctioned sexually perverse acts, i suggest you check out the babylonian talmud. this is the jewish bible. you will be positively horrified. i read over 800 pages of it. don't take my word for it, read it.
i've never heard muslims discussing christians who rape children. (i've also never before heard christians talking about muslims raping children.) but of course no jewish discussion of christians, or pedophilia would be complete without a discourse on catholic priests molesting children. continued below, i hope. it'll only take so much text
Hey Kellmayer, i bet you are one of these people who promotes holyhoax too?
Dan Browns book was fiction, very loosely based on reality. Protocols are happening every day as we live. This jesuit bullshit doesn't convince anybody.
What goes to Fords appology, then he later confessed that he didn't even sign the damn thing! It was signed by Harry Bennet, power hungry collaborator with the jews, who took total control over Ford's factory.
Post a Comment