We Don't Need the Fake Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Prove Zionist World Takeover

There has been, over the years, an onslaught of Zionist debunking of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Certainly, they could have been written by racists or by political operatives who borrowed from legitimate works. They are a proven literary forgery.

The protocols appealed to conservatives in Russia. They counted certain government actions, such as helping the poor, as being immoral.

The Protocols were likely, according to http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm, an explanation of Napoleonic thinking for world control:

A Russian in Constantinople, who had bought some books from an ex-officer of the Russian Secret Police, found among them one in which many passages struck him by their resemblance to the "Protocols." Our Correspondent, whose attention was called to the matter, found on examination that the "Protocols" consisted in the main of clumsy plagiarisms from this little French book, which he has forwarded to us. The book had no title-page, but we identified it in the British Museum as a political pamphlet directed against NAPOLEON III. and published in Brussels in 1865 by a French lawyer named MAURICE JOLY, and entitled "Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu." The book was published anonymously, but the author was immediately seized by NAPOLEON's police and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. A second edition was published in Brussels in 1868, with the author's name and a note on his imprisonment.
So, then, the protocols are likely French, but it is well known that the French and Russian revolutions did have Zionist participation. It is likely, then, unable to prove certainty that Zionists were not involved in the original French publication, but it appears unlikely. 

But what must be pointed out is that the Zionists, who are now much more multiracial and who have some control of national governments in the West, have borrowed from Nazis, and are more than capable of borrowing from from the French! We know that one of the stated goals of the neocons, who are Zionists, is for one superpower. That sounds like world domination to me.

With this desire comes the Ukraine regime change and all the regime changes everywhere in the world that Yinon spoke about. We have a strong understanding of Zionist goals even if the Protocols are as worthless as dirt. We understand the one superpower ideal, as it was in the news in the 1990's with the demise of the Soviet Union. We understand from Shahak that the media in America is predisposed to Zionism, and that is easily observable. We know that Cheney just warned of a Zionist coup, and that JFK was likely replaced by a Zionist coup, with LBJ being the operative.

The list goes on and on readers.

Certainly the Napoleonic desire was to do away with democracy, called Liberalism. Despotism is the preferred method of rule because democracy doesn't work. Zionist neocons like the father of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, said that you keep the shell of democracy and lie to the masses. Not much democracy in action there.  

We have lots of proofs of the efforts of the Zionists, and if you throw in 9/11 conspiracy and the Sandy Hook Hoax, and stated desire for more control of the currency, already mentioned in this book, it looks like the multiracial cabal of globalist Zionists is really trying to consolidate power, both in the political and economic realms.

Just remember, those ideas of helping the poor are more recent governmental activities. Social security or welfare or any such thing is not within the scope of the old writings of Napoleon. There are people who use the fake Protocols of the Elders of Zion (or the Napoleonic source) to further their own conservative agendas, like stopping social security and the like. Libertarians have used these ideas for their own perverse ends.

There is nothing to be gained from this thinking, and the idea of trimming government to the bone will actually weaken the middle classes and make the division between the rich and poor even greater. It is not immoral to get old. It is not immoral to be poor. I take Will Rogers' view, that you help those who are in need due to financial mistakes of the rich, like in the Great Depression, which he experienced firsthand. 


Popular posts from this blog

Learn Economics

The Unholy Alliance of Big Banking, Neocons, Big Media and Israel

John Mauldin Discusses What Could Go Wrong