A forgery or plagiarism, by definition implies an original.
Explain why Bernard, the Dutch banker whose interview was posted on VOAT to great acclaim, urged us to read the Protocols?
As I understand the origins, the Protocols resulted from a series of writings much of it borrowed from other sources,, sometimes word for word, and compiled into a document that purported to be a translation of the original, however no original in its entirety ever existed So the " translation" creates the illusion of an original which of course cannot be found. Plagerism plus forgery equals hoax, I guess. Wikipedia doesn't mention any evidence to the contrary and I'm not going to look for any.
It does not seem like you understand the origins to me, or you would not be picking away at translations.
I have read it in other translations and different languages.
It is the content, the content, the content. We are not talking about Shakespeare here.
For that matter, there are many books authored by members of the same group who confirm even the worst of it, though if you don't have hard copies, it is getting harder to find due to the kind of censorship we see here.
Only Plagiarism implies an original. The forgery was implying this was written by the "Elders of Zion." It was not. The forgers plagiarized a great amount from a french work. That work was not about the Jews taking over the world, it was about Napoleon III. Other parts of the forgery stole from other places.
Why did the Dutch banker urge people to read it? Because it's a classic text for the clinically paranoid, hence the great acclaim. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories go back hundreds of years before it's publication, it's part of a long a tradition. A tradition that a lot of pizzagaters are willing part of, hence the great acclaim again.
Always diversion, and strawman arguments, but never any dispute about the validity of the content or it's corroboration by those who "claim" to be Semitic.
I've read a lot of it, am familiar with it, have seen the banker interview 3 times. All I said was "depends on who you (people) read, research, and trust." I believe they are authentic. Someone here actually quoted Wikipedia to "disprove" the protocols. Which is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not to be trusted. (You notice someone has gone back through all these comments and downvoted them?) Thanks for the comment BTW, I agree w/ Bernard, hope he stays safe.
view the rest of the comments →
RweSure ago
Yeah, this is a well known forgery. Plagiarized a good bit from other works.
Laskar ago
A forgery or plagiarism, by definition implies an original.
Explain why Bernard, the Dutch banker whose interview was posted on VOAT to great acclaim, urged us to read the Protocols?
Pizzalawyer ago
As I understand the origins, the Protocols resulted from a series of writings much of it borrowed from other sources,, sometimes word for word, and compiled into a document that purported to be a translation of the original, however no original in its entirety ever existed So the " translation" creates the illusion of an original which of course cannot be found. Plagerism plus forgery equals hoax, I guess. Wikipedia doesn't mention any evidence to the contrary and I'm not going to look for any.
Laskar ago
It does not seem like you understand the origins to me, or you would not be picking away at translations.
I have read it in other translations and different languages.
It is the content, the content, the content. We are not talking about Shakespeare here.
For that matter, there are many books authored by members of the same group who confirm even the worst of it, though if you don't have hard copies, it is getting harder to find due to the kind of censorship we see here.
RweSure ago
Only Plagiarism implies an original. The forgery was implying this was written by the "Elders of Zion." It was not. The forgers plagiarized a great amount from a french work. That work was not about the Jews taking over the world, it was about Napoleon III. Other parts of the forgery stole from other places.
Why did the Dutch banker urge people to read it? Because it's a classic text for the clinically paranoid, hence the great acclaim. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories go back hundreds of years before it's publication, it's part of a long a tradition. A tradition that a lot of pizzagaters are willing part of, hence the great acclaim again.
Laskar ago
Always diversion, and strawman arguments, but never any dispute about the validity of the content or it's corroboration by those who "claim" to be Semitic.
archons ago
jeez you are on par with that pgizlyketotallyinsane moron now.
rafael5643 ago
Thx for the info shill.
Let me guess, this document is also mysogynistic, homophobic, and white-supremacist?
bopper ago
No it's origin is still quite controversial. It depends on who you read, research, and trust.
Laskar ago
If you read it or anything about it, you would be able to understand why the Dutch banker, Bernard, in his famous interview urged people to read it.
bopper ago
I've read a lot of it, am familiar with it, have seen the banker interview 3 times. All I said was "depends on who you (people) read, research, and trust." I believe they are authentic. Someone here actually quoted Wikipedia to "disprove" the protocols. Which is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not to be trusted. (You notice someone has gone back through all these comments and downvoted them?) Thanks for the comment BTW, I agree w/ Bernard, hope he stays safe.
Laskar ago
It seems the trolls are everywhere, well, have an upvote from me.
bopper ago
lol, your upvote is not showing :) I'll try giving you one.
Laskar ago
I gave you another one. Let me know if it sticks. I noticed there are weird trends in the voting.
bopper ago
It is showing now :) Thanks.
Laskar ago
good you are welcome anytime