In this article they lump together many different conspiracies as well.
I suppose the truth of that claim depends a bit on how you define "current day." But the certainty that international Jewry was plotting to enslave the world and had even boldly transcribed its plan in a book called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion swept the globe 120 years ago and is, even now, popular in Japan and the Middle East. The manic belief that the murder of John F. Kennedy more than half a century back was the sinister centerpiece of a coup by (take your pick) the CIA, the Mafia, Big Oil, or World Communism is still a planetary obsession. Then there are the 9/11 Truthers, the faked moon landing crowd, and of course the cabal of Freemasons who sank the Titanic. And don't get me started on the cover-up of Paul McCartney's death.
Before GamerGate I barely gave these kinds of things the time of day, but you end up with "If they're trying so hard to slander this one thing I know, what else are the media lying about?" becomes a much more compelling thought. I have since gained the belief that many of those things are not to be dismissed so quickly.
The Protocols are quite an obvious forgery. As for the other things, I no longer doubt that political leaders are morally capable of something like 9/11 - Andrew Cuomo did five of them and barely anyone complained. Though whether they could practically pull it of is another matter.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else, it does not mean a fabrication or inherently false. Either way, you just need to see how much they apply to the modern day or not.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else,
Yeah, from a work of fiction. Or did you really think that Napoleon III had conversations with Niccolo Machiavelli? It would explain why you have enough screws loose to make the Protocols your Bible.
does not mean a fabrication or inherently false.
ROFL. "Fake but accurate".
Even Joseph Goebbels realized that the Protocols were as fake as it gets. But he had a Ph.D. in literature when it meant something, while you are a witless Stormfag.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
In this article they lump together many different conspiracies as well.
Before GamerGate I barely gave these kinds of things the time of day, but you end up with "If they're trying so hard to slander this one thing I know, what else are the media lying about?" becomes a much more compelling thought. I have since gained the belief that many of those things are not to be dismissed so quickly.
The Protocols are quite an obvious forgery. As for the other things, I no longer doubt that political leaders are morally capable of something like 9/11 - Andrew Cuomo did five of them and barely anyone complained. Though whether they could practically pull it of is another matter.
"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else, it does not mean a fabrication or inherently false. Either way, you just need to see how much they apply to the modern day or not.
Yeah, from a work of fiction. Or did you really think that Napoleon III had conversations with Niccolo Machiavelli? It would explain why you have enough screws loose to make the Protocols your Bible.
ROFL. "Fake but accurate".
Even Joseph Goebbels realized that the Protocols were as fake as it gets. But he had a Ph.D. in literature when it meant something, while you are a witless Stormfag.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.