>>2764908

I don't know who wrote it. Some say is was the Okhrana but who knows. What we do know is that it's basically another version of a French satirical piece written roughly 40 years prior.
I'm sure there were bilingual Russians knocking about in the Early 20th century. Seems more likely then the Jews playing 4d chess by turning French satire into a Russian pamphlet

Compare the texts for youself and come to your own conclusions.

Are you serious? The Protocols weren't written by some dumb peasants. Russian aristocracy and intelligentsia knew French very well. French was the lingua franca for European aristocracy.

Literally not true at all. I only speak English but my great-grandfather was Russian and he spoke 5 different languages

>Russian aristocracy and intelligentsia knew French very well.

But French never really lost its position in Russian elite circles all the way up to 1917. Even after the invasion of Napoleon, few Russian elites were willing to toss out French in the name of patriotism. One of the professions French POWs had in Russia between their repatriation in 1814-16 was to act as French tutors to elite Russian families. French continued to be a major internal language in various state bureaucracies such as the foreign service. The Entente and the still glowing embers of cultural prestige attached to France ensured that the French language remained an important aspect of Russian elite education long after the Enlightenment.

It's basically a pro-monarchist propaganda. Good old aristocracy defending people from anarchy vs evil Jewish revolution of 'liberty, equality and fraternity'.

Just these two? Any more?

How low-IQ do you think you have to be to accept a fake document as evidence for your argument because "it agrees with me"

>implying they were wrong

French was really in vogue among Russian intellectuals. Knowing French in that period was practically mandatory.

>Guys...how can the russian aristocracy know French and read classic literature? This confirms Jews did it!

So this is the power of /pol/beards....

Just search up and compare "The Protocols" parts 1-19 with Maurice Joly's Dialogues 1-17 within "The Dialogue in Hell".
Some parts have identical phrases while other bits follow the same thought patterns and ordering. If you wish to see more direct comparisions instead just google it.

I love how you guys took the authenticity of the Protocols at face-value but become all skeptical when someone comes in and says this fantastical piece isn't a leaked Jewish plot to takeover the world.

>How was a Russian able to read a book in French and take parts of it?

Well, you got me to reply.

Most of the Russian nobility were not ethnically Russian to begin with.

Many , many karaims in Russia were hereditary nobles.

Karaim, from the Hebrew word קראים, meaning "readers", refers in the literal sense generally to practitioners of the Karaite sect of Judaism. In customary usage, however, it is often used to refer to the distinct Turkic-speaking Karaite community of Crimea and the related community of Karaites living in Lithuania and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, as well as to their language

Karaite Judaism is a Jewish denomination characterized by the sole reliance on the Tanakh as scripture, and the rejection of the Oral Law (the Mishnah and the Talmud) as halakha (Legally Binding, i.e. required religious practice). The word "Karaite" comes from the Hebrew word קְרָאִים (Standard Hebrew Qəraʾim; Tiberian Hebrew Qərāʾîm), meaning "Readers (of Scripture)." This name was chosen by the adherents of Karaite Judaism to distinguish themselves from the adherents of Rabbinic Judaism.Because the Karaims were judged to be innocent of the death of Jesus, they were exempt from many of the harsh restrictions placed on other Jews in Russia.

Baron Joseph Günzburg - Industrialist
Horace Günzburg - Financier, Industrialist
Baron Alexander Günzburg
Baron David Goratsiyevich Günzburg - Russian Orientalist, Jewish Communal Leader
Nicolas de Gunzburg - socialite, editor, actor, producer.

Baron Peter Shafirov (1670–1739), vice-chancellor of Russia, under Peter the Great

Babanin family is a noble family that originated in the Tsardom of Russia.

Grinkrugi
Ephron
Ephrussi family
Kanegissery
Krupa/Kruppa
Polyakova
Dobrowolski Counts (later Dobrow), Russian and Polish family[5]
Gantsmakher
Khaykin
Ransohov
Wertheim (Poland)
Menschikoff

All Jews who were part of the "Russian" nobility.

What does this have to do with anything? Pogroms still happened and strong anti-Jewish sentiments existed in Tsarist Russia.
Just because some Jews were in influencial positions, doesn't equate to Jews as a whole being equal with their Russian counterparts.

The point is, the Protocols are very similar to a French book. Why would Jews remake some random text into anti-Jewish propaganda? Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? And even if a tiny number of Jews held positions of power, they were vastly outnumbered by Russians some of whom would certainly be able to speak French and translate "The Dialogues"

>Why would Jews remake some random text into anti-Jewish propaganda?

>implying it was initially meant to be anti-Jewish propaganda.

That's the perception of it in modern world, but when it was written, that was not the case.

hmmm, thank you for this

>Even when there's blatant evidence to the contrary, /pol/ will always opt for the leap-of-faith and believe that the Jews somehow dunnit

Let me guess, the Talmud is also anti-Jewish propaganda?

You stupid fuck. St. Petersburg at the time was full of Frenchies, Englishmen and Germans.

>especially Russian and French.
Historical illiterate confirmed.

St. Peters(((burg)))

Makes you think

This have nothing to do with the Talmud. It's about the fact that the Protocols are a forgery.
You're like Jews yourselves, jumping from one thing to another

I'm not jumping from one thing or another. We're discussing Jewish texts.

We're discussing the Protocols, not the Talmud.
You're choosing to believe that no Russian can speak French and that somehow it's all the Jews vs. a Russian made the Protocols using "The Dialogue in Hell" which is pretty obvious.
I'm sorry, but your position is retarded

We're already done with the discussion of Non-Ethnic Russian aristocrats being able to understand French. It's you who jumped back.

How do we know Dialogue isn't a copy of the protocols?

Look man, I'm interested in the protocols being real too but its pretty much history 101 that almost all nobility in Europe spoke French and anyone with an education also spoke French.

>The Protocols are a forgery.

of course they are, silly goyim...

Not an argument™

no, jews only had a tiny proportion of capital, even in banking

The Talmud is authentic though? It had a central role in Jewish communities for centuries prior to the Enlightenment.
What I'm saying is, you haven't been able to refute that the Protocols are a forgery. Bringing in the Talmud is completely irrelevant. Nobody questions where the Talmud came from
Because the Protocols were published in 1903 and the Dialogue came out in the 1860s? Maurice Joly wrote it to protest the rule of Napoleon III. He was imprisoned for it.
He actually did plagarise 7 pages himself from the French novel "Les Mystères du peuple" for the Dialogue but this had nothing to do with Jews.
Where would Moly come across this Jewish master plan? And why the would he decide it would be perfect to use it as the basis for some third-rate satirical protest book?
Do you not see how far you're stretching this to fit within your worldview? The narrative you're trying to reconcile with the evidence presented is inconsistent with reality

...

If the protocols are a forgery, why do they so accurately reflect world Jewry's current situation? Checkmate atheists.

>MIdrash Talpioth.
That's not even a volume in the Talmud you stupid fucker.

>If palm readers and tarot readers aren't real, how do they give such accurate readings?

this chapter from this early biography of hitler has a good history of the protocols if you're interested (pic related):
unz.org/Pub/HeidenKonrad-1944-00001

full disclosure author was jewish

>made up nonsense that is palm reading and powerful jews meeting behind closed doors to further their interests as jews are on the same level of believability
false equivalence you kike

They are, especially if their protocols are obviously fake.

Not a protocol

Way to miss the point, you halfwit. They're both true because they stay general and speak to what the audience wants to hear.
The Protocols are true, but that doesn't make them real.

Stormcucks btfo

>The Protocols are true, but that doesn't make them real.
Really? Where are those trains packed with explosives in the subways of every major city in the world in case the goyim tumble onto their "plans"? By the way, what kind of plans don't have timetables? Why is everything expressed in vague "it'll happen someday" terms?

Israel has suitcase nukes in every single one of their embassies and they are quite open about the Sampson option. Israel is an apartheid ethnostate that is explicitly holding the world hostage should their status as a Jewish supremacist ethnostate be challenged.

>srael has suitcase nukes in every single one of their embassies
[citation needed]
>and they are quite open about the Sampson option.
Which is of course why the only 'evidence' of it is the statements of an academic who is not actually affiliated with the Isralei government.

Also, great moving of those goalposts. The protocols don't say anything about atomic weapons, they say that there are trains packed full of explosives.

>Irrelevant drivel

That was my point. I think you're replying to the wrong user.

>jewish ethnostate where 20% of the population is not jewish
really made me think

But they're not true either. They're just vague, rambling bullshit, and what factual statements they do make are objectively wrong.

>Also, great moving of those goalposts. The protocols don't say anything about atomic weapons, they say that there are trains packed full of explosives.
Because they were written way before atom bombs existed. Why are jews so pathetic and pedantic do they really think they can fool the goyim THIS easily?

Sweetie no, take more "how to fool the goyim" courses at the yeshiva.

>Because they were written way before atom bombs existed.
So? I thought all the top scientists in nuclear physics were Jews anyway, are you saying they could plan ahead for how to vaguely socially control the entire world without anyone tumbling onto their secret, but they couldn't figure out the likely technological advances of their own people? Or are you saying that after the nukes were so fortuitiously discovered, they dismantled all their MEGA TRAIN BOMBS (seriously, the entire idea is retarded beyond belief), and managed to move literally tons of TNT or some equivalent into and out of every single major city in the world without anyone noticing?

Here's what I'm saying, just to be clear. The claim of the train bombs in the Protocols is stupid and false. The claim of the Sampson option is completely unsupported. The Protocols, when the book does deign to make factual, specific predictions, inevitably turn out to be full of shit, so the book is just rubbish. You are an immensely stupid man for giving it any sort of credence.

Your whole post is literally nothing, fuck off. The jews replaced the TNT with nukes and you're simply engaging in sophistry and nitpicking.

>I'm gonna write a suicide note about how I'm gonna use a 9mm to kill myself but I'm going to trade my gun in for a 10mm Glock and use that instead therefore I never had an intention of using a gun to commit suicide

Why are jews so fucking pathetic? Is it the circumcisions wreaking permanent life long psychological havok on them?

Same old jeiwsh trick PATHETIC

>The jews replaced the TNT with nukes and you're simply engaging in sophistry and nitpicking.
Prove that they had either TNT or these alleged suitcase nukes everywhere.

>post photographic proof that your local police armory is well stocked with guns and ammo before you do that I'll just assume your local police department is not armed
Schlomo don't you understand the Flynn effect has been in effect for well over a century now? You can't fool the goyim as easily as your stetl dwelling ancestors could.

>False equivalence
>Ad hom
Good job, stormnigger. You've really got this down well.

>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted infographics which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Stormfag had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

>But they're not true either.
I meant in the general sense of Jews controlling the media, controlling finance, influencing politics, and the like.
But otherwise yes, i concur, and that was the crux of my argument.

Classic Jewish tactic of turning the tables and accusing the opponent of using Jewish tactics when you were using Jewish tactics all long!

Never change Moshe!

But treated like second class citizens

Really makes you think

>Oxrana supposedly writes the Protocols based on anti-jew conspiracy theories
>everything in them comes to pass
>jews now run the world
They're prophetic whether you believe they're real or not. Basically, either 19th century conspiracy theories are valid, or the Protocols are real, albeit spruced up, records of jewish plans.

[citation needed]

Jews don't run the world

...

As has been stated many times already in this thread, the Protocols were plagarised off "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" (1864).
Just because they line up with what you think you see in the world today, doesn't change the fact that they're a copy of a French satirical book. You cannot argue with this so you're just grasping at straws

>the author of the protocols of Zion was influenced by a Machiavelli book, therefore it is forgery.

youtu.be/oq-kTNIDQxg

>they're a copy of a French satirical book
No, I see what you're doing, kike.

Ripping two juicy lines off of some book for dramatic effect != copy of that book. The Oxrana probably edited the Protocols to make them appear more wild and sinister.

looks like a leprechaun COINCIDENCE?

>the jews copied their master plan from a book

Not influenced, plagarised. Stop spreading disinfo. The far more likely story is that the Protocols were made by some Russian who basically translated and reworded another book because he didn't like Jews. That's it. I know in your black little heart you wish it were the Jews this time, but it wasn't. Sorry, honey

>3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews it should be obvious to see how destructive these ideologies have been upon the minds of the Goyim.
I hope retarded conspiranoids that think the protocols aren't a forgery also accept that darwinism is a jewish conspiracy.

Go read the Protocols and the Dialogue then if you have doubts

I don't think stormfags can read something longer than 5-6 pages, and even that tires them.

Not him, but I have and overall, they have nothing in common. Sounds like you're the one that needs to read it.

>projecting this hard

>nothing in common
the common material has already been posted in this thread. it's undeniable plagiarism

>Le two sentences means the entire book is forgery

K

even a small amount of copied material makes it plagiarized. why would the jews steal their master plan from what conspiracy theorists thought they were going to do?

Except the small amount of plagiarism had two different context in their respective theme.

Can you imagine the sheer amount of shitposting from /pol/ we would have to endure if machiavelli had been jewish? History has spared us greatly.

youtu.be/9pWshQjwLIw

OY VEY THE SHWARTZAS KNOW! SHUT IT DOWN!

how so?

I didn't take me that long to find one on my browser by just looking at the Loans Section in each.

Protocol 21:
>5. "... By good luck the subjects of the GOY governments, knowing nothing about financial affairs, have always preferred losses on exchange and diminution of interest to the risk of new investments of their moneys, and have thereby many a time enabled these governments to throw off their shoulders a debit of several millions."

Suprise suprise! The 21st fucking Dialogue as well:
>No doubt one would return it, if they demanded it; but very few would care. Stockholders have their customs; their funds are invested; they have confidence in the State; they love to get a few returns on a sure investment. If every one demanded his money, it is obvious the Treasury would be placed in the hangman's noose. This would never happen and one would, by such means, get rid of several hundred millions in debt.

>"If everybody expressed his unwillingness and demanded his money back, the government would be hoist on their own petard and would be found insolvent and unable to pay the proposed sums."
Forgot to add important setence in Protocol 21 before that one

>If palm readers and tarot readers aren't real, how do they give such accurate readings?

That is a legitimate question if it is true that their readings are accurate.

Several actual Jews have told me in confidence on three separate occasions years apart that Jews run the world, no lie irl.

For one, one is a dialogue and the other isn't.

Machiavelli effortlessly outmaneuvers Montesquieu, despite Montesquieu’s awareness of the Florentine’s penchant for cunning and deception. Machiavelli, however, knows to whom he speaks and appeals to Montesquieu’s native patriotism. In order to disarm the baron, he plainly disavows The Prince as a trite tract for the times, reflections simply on sixteenth-century Florence.

Despite his disavowal, Machiavelli returns repeatedly to The Prince and reiterates his teachings. In his words, "all men seek to dominate and no one would not be a tyrant if he could. All, or nearly all, are ready to sacrifice another’s rights to their own interests." Any political theory worth its salt must start from the hard truths: all men, or nearly so, are self-serving "ravenous beasts." Hence the search for social stability can never forgo the need to use force; quixotic abstractions like justice and right merely disarm one and leave one at the mercy of the bad. In the famous words of The Prince, chapter 15, one must "learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity." Machiavelli thereby puts the virtues of morality at a double remove: On the one hand, worry about reputation for the virtues, not the virtues themselves, and on the other hand, worry about whether they are politically useful or dangerous.

Montesquieu, for his part, admits that "force and cunning" are crucial in human affairs, but still he insists that men need principles that invoke "morality, justice, religion." Montesquieu charges Machiavelli with undermining the very society whose stability he wishes to safeguard.

The Protocols of Zion has a totally different theme.

>implying you have read both

farfour pls

The protocols are allegedly secret and brought up at world Jewish congresses. It was published in 1903 but that doesn't say anything about when it was written.

Jews have always had texts in hebrew that most people in europe ignored. Eugene Sue had a book entitled the wandering jew and was clearly interested in Judaism and was ani-catholic and anti monarchy.

And the second addition of the book contained way more plagiarism than the first. That makes no sense.

m8, I will explain how this works.

>prophetic book blames jews
>everything in the book transpires
>book is either 1. based on conspiracy theories or 2. real jewish plots
Now, if it's the first, then those conspiracy theories are actually true and then the origin of the book doesn't matter. So even if it was a complete forgery, which I doubt, the forgers are still 100% right about the jews.

Thy both have the same arguments, practically in the same order, and wording is almost identical in a series of sections.
If you don't see it maybe it's because one if a book that was translated from French to Enlgish while the other was translated from French, reworded in Russian, then translated to English.