-Caveat Lector-
----------
>From: Ric Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [CTRL] The Protocols
>Date: Sat, Aug 14, 1999, 1:47 AM
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Howard R. Davis III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >From: Ric Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > From: Howard R. Davis III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >
>> >> My understanding is that the "Protocols" were based upon a book by a
>> >> frenchman named Joley called "Dialogues in Hell between Monteqestue
>> >> and Michaelvelli. I remember that it was published in Belgium around
>> >> 1870s(?) and was an attack against then current French government. He
>> >> was later supposedly kidnapped back to France and spent some time in
>> >> jail. Maybe dying there. (The Russian secret police forged the later
>> >> "Protocals" in an effort to boost one of their own). I think I read
>> >> this in the "Spear of Destiny" by Ravencroft.
>> >
>> > It all boils down to: Which conspiracy would one rather attribute the
>> > Protocols to? Is there a vast Judaic plot that's accurately reflected
>> > by the Protocols? Or is the more prosaic Imperial Russian Secret Police
>> > responsible? Is the existence of the French/Belgian document sufficient
>> > evidence to destroy the Jewish-plot theory, or was it planted by the
>> > Illuminati to distract truth-seekers? Is ANY evidence of alleged
>> > plotters credible, or could it ALL be manufactured? Is 'evidence'
>> > relevant, or will one believe whatever the hell one desires?
>>
>> ... My info on the origin, as stated above, is not certain by any means.
>> I haven't held the supposed original book in my hands and even if I had,
>> it wouldn't have done me much good since I don't read French. However,
>> Ravenscroft seemed to be fairly believable and his story made sense. If
>> it were true, then it would indicate a creation earlier than the Jewish
>> conference which was held in the 1890s. That would tend to indicate that
>> its creation was independent of any Jewish involvement.
>
> My point is, if one assumes that a sufficiently powerful conspiracy
> exists, then intellectual honesty demands that ALL evidence either
> supporting or refuting the existence of said conspiracy, is suspect.
> If one believes that Illuminati / Bilderbergers / Zionists exert
> vast control over finance, politics, communications, then they also
> control the information upon which we base our conclusions about
> their existence - all that information COULD have been tampered
> with, it's not admissible as evidence, toss it out.
>
> For instance, try this scenario: operatives of The Conspiracy have
> followed an agenda crafted untold centuries ago. In the 1870s they
> had the Monteqestue document published; in the 1890's they staged
> the purported Zionist conference and published the Protocols, based
> on the Monteqestue document; neither document reflects accurately
> ANY of The Conspiracy's actual agenda, but they give outsiders some-
> thing on which to waste their time, efforts, resources. All disinfo.
> All manufactured. All just grist for the mills. If The Conspiracy
> controls information, it controls what anyone thinks they know.
>
> I don't buy it. I prefer parsimonious explanations. The Protocols
> are a forgery. Grand Conspiracies are too complex, too baroque, to
> be valid explanations of observed phenomena.
You present an all encompassing conspiracy as the controller of all media
and then treat this straw man as unbelievable and thus assert all conspiracy
theories as too complex. This strawman conspiracy theory may be too complex,
but that does not prove that others are not true. Also, the Joley book never
apparently claimed to be a description of any plan known to Joley, just a
theoratical construct. It may have been constructed from observations of
actions of elites of the time or a projection similar to that of "1984" or
"Brave New World". That Joley was said to later have been imprisoned would
seem to indicate that he was not working for the "conspiracy". However, that
his book might be used by some uncreative Russian secret police operative
seems like a reasonable theory. It would surprize me that they would have
been able to come up with a creative and complex document such as the
Protocals on their own. Or at least it should be admitted that they would
probably have used something as a model. One of the problems of these types
is that they really are not that creative.
Howard Davis
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
