Talk:Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory

translating

Translating from es:Conspiración Judeo-Masónico-Comunista-Internacional. Any help welcome ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- commons- es)} 11:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From memory, Luis Carrero Blanco had published on the conspiracy even in the 1970s. If you can confirm, it can be added as evidence of the persistence of the theory even in late Francoism. --Error (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipolicy on synonyms in lead??

Just curious, do you know off hand which wikipolicy allows you to write:

The International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic Conspiracy, sometimes called the international-marxist-judaeo-masonic conspiracy, or simply the judaeo-masonic conspiracy

I assume you have at least one or two wp:reliable sources for each alternate use? Just wondering. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" are not synonyms, as has been explained to you over a week ago on the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is curious that communist/marxist element of conspiracy is missing in the title of the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, what a coincidence Jayjg should be editing on this page. So I guess Jayjg is saying that "International-Communist-Judaeo-Masonic Conspiracy", sometimes called the "international-marxist-judaeo-masonic conspiracy", or simply the "judaeo-masonic conspiracy" are NOT synonymous - or I should say he's saying that you have to have reliable sources saying that the first two are "also called" "judaeo-masonic conspiracy"? Guess I'll have to look at the sources for that when I get a chance. According to Jayjg's rules, you will have to delete them without a reliable source. Even if you find 700 mainstream WP:RS articles that USE them interchangeably. Hey, I could spend the rest of my time on wikipedia deleting such nonreferenced synonyms in leads. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RE edit war with DonaldDuck on alleged "Russia renewal"

The link http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5374_13.htm you have provided is hearsay as it doesn't prove where exactly such article exists. Please try to show the proof itself. I tried to google http://www.pravda.ru but got no relevant results.

The same goes with http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html, where Max-Who-Weber tells something about private opinion of one scandalous person. That's not a proof also.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/belarus.html -- Republic of Belarus is independent from Russia since 1991, not sure why its problem attribute to Russia. Also Klimov is U.S.citizen.

The page http://www.nationalka.ru/2006-3-5-93-95-/v.v.-kozhinov-tsarj-iudeyskiy.html doesn't mention conspiracy or blood at all. Why have you put it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volodymir k (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per source #1:"� Russia: The Web site of Pravda newspaper published an article arguing that French, German and Italian leaders are advocating a bailout of European banks to benefit "Rothschild, Kuhn Loeb, and other banking magnates," a reference to well-known Jewish banking families. The article continued, "The trouble is most of Europe is sick of their Zionist puppet governments, the wrecking of the universities and the flood of third world immigration. Another Hitler, running a united Europe, could be elected in a heartbeat."Galassi (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Max Weber is a major revisionist and neonazi. His opinion certainly counts in this context.Galassi (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Source #3 talks about Oleg Platonov:"the Pravoslavnaia Kniga bookshop was selling, in addition to candles, icons, crosses and other Church objects, antisemitic literature, including the volumes Myths and Truth about Pogroms and The Mystery of the Zion Protocols: A Conspiracy against Russia, both by Russian writer and revisionist historian, ultranationalist, antisemite and Holocaust denier Oleg Platonov (Moscow, 2003; 2006). The first claims that Judaism is hostile to Russian civilization and Christianity, Jewish capital controls banking and stock markets, early 20th century pogroms were a Zionist provocation, and the Jews murdered the Russia leadership and inflicted terror in Soviet times. The second deals with the secret development of Jewish power in Russia, Spain and Israel; the Talmud, the Russian Church and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the 1935 Bern trial of the Protocols and the world Jewish conspiracy; the Protocols in the history of Israel; the Holocaust myth; a comparison between Hitler and Ben Gurion; and the 1975 United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism."Galassi (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The source #4 takls about Jewish conspiracy to foment repressions in Germany in order to displace Palestinian Arabs [sic!].Galassi (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

masons

I'm not so sure if this article does a good enough job in explaining how masons specifically are tied into all of this. It seems more like just flat-out jewish conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.62.189 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarities with Alex Jones etc?

To me, some of this has frightening similarities with the line pushed by the Alex Jones nuts, - the global Communist-Zionist-Bankers-Liberal-Illuminati-NWO-Masons-Mexican Immigrants-Environmentalist-UN conspiracy-Vaccins-etc-etc to kill our grandmas and take away our freedom and enslave us to the NWO etc. Or more moderately the Rush Limbaugh line which sticks to the Communist-UN-Bankers-Liberal-Environmentalist conspiracy to take away all that we work for and kill our grandmas. It would be of interest if there is any source talking about the current right-wing conspiracy theorizing rage movement in the United States and the similar kind of rhetoric that was used by Franco and the Nazis and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor Article

This article gives almost no information about the actual theory, and instead just seems like a long effort to discredit and mock the anyone who considers or considered it, and tries its very best to conflate it with "anti-semitism" (which presumably means anti-jewish, even those jews and semites are not identical terms). Poor article.--82.43.47.6 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Laugh

Thanks for the laugh. This article is so funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pull the article

This is worth the square root of bugger all as reference, it's a poorly constructed parody piece that needs a big flashing ORIGINAL RESEARCH sign at the top if not outright deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.253.102 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence re Count of Artois and many Masons being royalists

I've removed the sentence that said that many Royalists were Freemasons, among them the Count of Artois, later King Charles X. The reason I removed it is because the source does not say many Royalists were Freemasons. To the contrary, it says that it was "remarkable" that Artois became a Freemason because of his conservatism, noting masonry's radical reputation. It also says, on the following page, that "Artois was not the only reactionary Freemason", also mentioning de Maistre - the clear implication being that conservatives and royalists were not likely to be Freemasons. I also think the sentence is of dubious relation to the subject. It doesn't really deal with the issue of the conspiracy theory. Mamalujo (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

I've never seen so much rubbish on Wikipedia. Hardly any of the sources are reliable and the whole piece seems a fabricated work intended to push some silly agenda. Vexorg (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at it, it is simply poor treatment of an important topic. You have hit on the point, though, which is that it pushes a "silly agenda". Said silly agenda has led to several dictatorships and multiple millions of deaths. The agenda may be silly, but the results are not. I have cleaned some of this article up, as it meanders far too often, but it does need a lot of work and may need to be stripped down further and rebuilt. MSJapan (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the source for a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory? The only real sourced stuff I see is about anti-Semitism, which should be included in the Anti-Semitism article. Where is this alleged "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory" responsible for "several dictatorships and multiple millions of deaths" ? anti-Semitism yes, but not a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Anything of any substance and notability in this article should be put in the more appropriate article and this article deleted. Vexorg (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

MSJapan (talk) said: "Said silly agenda has led to several dictatorships and multiple millions of deaths. " - what nonsense. You cannot even come close to providing evidence for that absurd claim. Vexorg (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the article should be deleted, then the appropriate thing to do is to propose its deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That would be a good place for you to explain your objections to the article. If you are going to propose that the article should be deleted, I suggest that you propose that it be redirected to the article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. My impression is that the Protocols is the major source for belief in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source

[1]

What about the guidelines regarding reliable sources? Vexorg (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't give me a diff, but a revision, so I don't know what it is you're talking about, but how exactly does whatever source it is you're taking about not meet reliability? MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See the wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. Vexorg (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's a revision, not a diff, so every source is present. Which source are you talking about? MSJapan (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source [2]

[2]

This is not a reliable source. Vexorg (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section "Extension to Zionism" because it is contentious and unsourced. Per WP:V "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." The first paragraph in the section was sourced to a blog called sweetliberty. Self-published blogs are not reliable sources per WP:BLOGS. The second paragraph is completely unsourced. Please discuss here before restoring this material. Thank you. Brmull (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy or conspiracies?

As I've not been associated with this article before I thought I'd try to make some radical changes before I get bogged down in RS arguments. The issues I think that the old article had was:

• It talked about a single conspiracy theory, when in fact it is a type of conspiracy theory. Certainly it is a common theme, and so notable, but the theories change quite substantially over time and is different in differnt places.
• This is a magnet for original research, opinion and synthesis. I can imagine that's going to be a continual problem. It's not a reflection on any individual editors.
• A lot of tangental stuff in here that was not about any perceived link between Freemasonry and Judaism. I've tried to go through it.

JASpencer (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to delete other people's original research.

You are not welcome to remove citations to reliable sources so as to make it look as if the claim for the existence of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory is original research.

This article is about the theory of an alleged Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. Yes, I know this is a small subset of insane anti-semitic theories - but this article is about the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy - a reliable source calls this Judmas - and has been cited. So do not move the citation somewhere else and then stick a citation required label against it - that is called bad faith editing.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Judmas

re: Toddy1's comment that "a reliable source calls this Judmas"... Actually, I have to question whether the term "Jumas" comes from a reliable source. Unless I am missing something, it was coined by an adherent of the theory (Admiral Domvile)... and that single adherent seems to be the only person who uses the term. There is no indication that it was picked up and used by other adherents to the theory (much less scholars studying the phenomenon of the theory) or that anyone else uses the term. At best, the term needs to be presented with in text attribution and mentioned later in the text (ie moved out of the lede sentence). It's a question of WP:Undue weight. Unless the term is commonly used by other adherents of the theory, I don't think it should be mentioned as an alternative name for the theory (and especially not in the lede sentence). Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of section on "Origins in the French Revolution"

I propose the deletion of the section on the Origins in the French Revolution. There are sources linking this to masons. But the only source linking it to a combination of Jews and masons merely says that "in 1806, Barruel circulated a forged letter, probably sent to him by members of the state police opposed to Napoleon Bonaparte's liberal policy toward the Jews, calling attention to the alleged part of the Jews in the conspiracy he had earlier attributed to the Masons." (Source: Commentary on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Dr. Daniel Keren.) The source does not state why Barruel circulated the letter - maybe he agree with it, maybe he circulated it to show the kind of insane rubbish that people sent him - we do not know.

Unless people can provide something better than this, this section is best deleted, along with the unsourced sentence in the introduction that summarises it.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that it needs to be deleted... but it certainly needs to be re-worked. I think it is worth noting that the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory is a blending of two older (and separate) branches of conspiracy theory ... a) Anti-Masonic conspiracy theories and b) Anti-Semetic conspiracy theories... but we should note that this blending is primarily a 20th century invention, influenced by the publication and popularity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is actually a key linkage, because there are a few things at play. One is Barruel, because he is pretty much the source for every Masonic conspiracy theory, and I believe it is through his writing that the Masons were blamed for the French Revolution and The Illuminati were popularized. If Barruel also had material that led to The Protocols, then it's obvious he needs mention. MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If it can be established that Barruel's material led to The Protocols, I would agree. So the question becomes, are there reliable sources that establish the connection (ie reliable sources that discuss how Barruel's claims against Freemasonry developed into the claims made against the Jews in The Protocols). Without establishing that connection, it would be synthetic OR for us to make the connection ourselves. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that the cited source (an abstract from Dr. Danny Keren - who seems to be member of the Department of Computer Science at Haifa University (ie he is not a historian) states that Barruel was the "conceptual inspiration for the Protocols"... not that there was any direct connection between the two. I think we may be making more out of his abstract than it deserves (?) Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Domvile recommends The Secret Powers Behind Revolution: Freemasonry and Judaism, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, as a textbook on the alleged conspiracy. I suggest that you look there - the book is available on Amazon.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a different issue... if Poncins says something relevant, we can certainly note what he says and cite him. Right now we are talking about using Keren as a source. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the idea that "it" all started with Barruel is two fold. (1) It didn't - there were plenty of anti-Masonic screeds before and (2) Barruel's work did not seem to originally have an anti-semitic theory. I would say it is still important and worth mentioning - but in Barruel's case it really was a merger of two perceived conspiracies as Blueboar says and one that relied on fooling the author at that.

As far as the protocols go, this was a Tsarist fabrication aimed at showing Jewish control. Sure they mention Freemasonry, but Freemasons are about as important as they are to Jack Chick (who thinks you are all puppets of the Vatican), in short FMs are seen as important but secondary players. The protocols are essentially from a well stocked anti-semitic stable - and I would be amazed if Barruel had any more than a walk on part. So as surprised as I am, I agree with Blueboar.

That said the Protocols do mention Freemasonry quite a bit, and they are well commented on so there should be some discussion on the role of Freemasonry in the protocols that would meet Reliable Sources.

JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... the whole section is WP:SYNTH... stringing together a bunch of sources that don't directly relate, to state or imply a conclusion that is not actually in any of the sources. That is what we in Wikipedia call Original research.

Here is where we currently stand... we have a source of questionable reliability (Keren) that argues that Barruel (who was writing about Freemasonry) inspired the protocols. And we have another section that discusses how the Protocols mention Freemasonry)... If this section is to stay in the article, what is needed is something to tie these together... a source that make all the connections... that directly ties Barruel's 1797 treatise to the protocols and thus to subsequent Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theories. Keren does not do this

The stuff from the GLBC&Y website are good rebuttals to Barruel's anti-masonic claims, but again, what is missing is how they relate to the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. (As an aside, I will note that GLBC&Y also has a page about the protocols... that may have relevance or not... i have not looked at it yet). Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Keren is, I think, reliable enough on the idea that Barruel started latching Judaism to his anti-Masonic conspiracy theory in 1806. That's simply retailing a fact. However I'd like a better source. On the opinion that it inspired the Protocols - well that's simply an opinion from someone who is not a particular expert on this. JASpencer (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If Keren is the only source, we need to stick closely to what he says. Keren says that Barruel's anti-masonic writings inspired the Protocols. He also says that in 1806 Barruel circulated a letter he received, and that this letter linked the Jews to the Masons. Keren did not say that Barruel modified his anti-masonic theory as a result of the letter.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Keren does not say that the letter linked Jews to Masons... he says the letter attempted to link Jews to the French Revolution. Karen's point is to trace the history of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory... and he is saying that the letter (essentially) said: "Dear Barruel, you got it wrong... the Masons didn't cause the French Revolution, it was the Jews". The only connection between between Barruel's claims about the Masons, and the letter's claims about the Jews is that both were published by Barruel. That's a very weak connection. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is even weaker than I thought.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So re-write... or just omit? Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of section on "Francoist Spain"

I propose the deletion of the section on Francoist Spain. The section has no sources to back up the claim that General Franco and his government believed in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. It claims that the Franco regime was against freemasons. That is not enough to establish relevance to this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. There is no doubt that the Franco regime was both anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic... but that is not quite the same as saying that they combined the two with belief in a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is more to this, for example look at Arriba (newspaper). JASpencer (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of extraneous information that would go into an article about "What Franco thought of Freemasons", but this article is not about that. JASpencer (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the remnants of this section.[3] It was completely uncited, insubstantial and controversial. It could be summarised as: In the Spanish Civil War, one side sometimes made claims about the other side being linked to a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

If you wish to put this section back in the article, please make sure that it has citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Star of David used frequently with Masonic Symbols/Buildings

Instead of dismissing everything as conspiracy, can someone explain why the Star of David is used on Masonic buildings, or sometimes in conjunction with the Masonic compass? There must be a good explanation for this. Examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36488502@N03/8017667719/ http://www.giftshop.uk.com/masonic-star-of-david/masonic-star-of-david-pocket-watch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.184.134 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that the usage is common, when it is not. In fact, very few masonic buildings include a six pointed star anywhere in the building. That this particular Masonic building does include one is an exception more than a rule. As to why it was used... my guess (and it is a guess) is that the designer of the building wanted it to echo King Solomon's Temple (which plays a part in Masonry's allegorical history).

As for the pocket watch... there are all sorts of companies that make what I call "Masonic Bling"... watches and watch fobs, rings, cuff links, ties and lapel pins... etc. The designers of these items are not necessarily Masons, and so they don't always accurately depict Masonic symbolism. I think this is the case here... certainly I have never seen a star (of any shape) inside the square and compasses before. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not frequently used at all, and FYI, the building is here, and the window and star were later additions. MSJapan (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. A simple google search will prove that Masonry is replete with 'The Star of David' imagery. Please feel free to doubt the credibility of anyone who tells you otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.63.250 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The real term

The real term should be "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism". That is the term used by Fr. Coughlin and others. It is in Catholic texts. Masonry and Bolshevism or International Socialism have the same goals "To build a One World". That is the goal of both. That is why the adjective "international" is in front of the term "socialism" for. Bolshevism is Jewish ideology and Masonry was instigated by the Jews. Scottish Rite Masonry has many references from the Kabbala. One World is a necessary ingredient for the Messianic Age to occur. In order for the Jews to have their Messiah, they must have the Messianic Age. Here is a talk by an orthodox Rabbi: The Messiah It means that World Peace has to be established, and for the supposedly Unity of Man to be restored. And so it is up to the Jews to create this "Messianic Age".

Masonry and Communism/Marxism/International Socialism/Bolshevism, are about establishing this World Peace and Unity of Man. This is why it is a conspiracy. The Unity of Man is an evil. The Tower of Babel. Later I will gather and post the pertinent links for the people creating this article. But the real term is "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism" for both Masonry and Communism had Jewish origins or influence and both accomplish for the Jews their goal of a One World and World Peace. WHEELER (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Muslims

"Anti-Semitism is widespread within Britain’s Muslim community. Polls have shown that 46 percent of British Muslims think that the Jewish community is “in league with Freemasons to control the media and politics.”"Britain’s Anti-Semitic Turn"

This text is sourced to FrontPage Magazine which is not a reliable source, and is know for an "anti-islamist" POV. It does not even say what polls they are referring to. We need a reliable secondary source to comment on polls. What is the likelihood that 46% of British Muslims have even heard of freemasons?

Therefore I will remove the edit.

TFD (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Churchill Article on International Jews in the International Daily Herald

Surely this is a highly relevant source. A hugely influential mainstream politician claiming elements within Judaism were behind the French Revolution. And he never retracted it. I would suggest reference to this belongs in the lead.46.233.116.225 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Except ledes aren't meant to be that detailed. Donald Trump claimed Obama was a Muslim and didn't retract it, either. The existence of the statement doesn't mean it means something. Politicians say a lot of things. Having read the article (which I had to find, and it's the Illustrated Daily Herald in 1920), it's only one line out of a much larger piece that says a lot of different things about Jews. Lastly, I'm not sure David Irving's website is a "reliable, non-neutral" source, considering his history. MSJapan (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

if not in the lead then surely in the article. Churchill's article is about different kinds of jews and is by perhaps the most preeminent western politician of modern times and a nobel prize winner for both peace and literature. Also who meantioned david irving? i didn't. Are you using this to try and discredit? I drink beer. irving drinks beer therefore i should be judged as somehow akin to irving?.. good grief... furthermore i don't realy think what you have written has much merit in this discussion. Trumps utterances, whilst relevant on a page about Trump Obama interactions are not on the same level as Churchill's published essays. I move we think about ways to include Churchill's opinion.81.153.115.134 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we move for consensus to add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.115.134 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get it. I don't think it belongs in the article and can't find it mentioned in any scholarly works. I don't think he discusses the topic of this article in any case. Doug Weller (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think consensus to change this page will be possible either. Even primary evidence by perhaps the most famous politician of the C20 is no match for the people who seem to be protecting this page. Perhaps we should ask the JIDF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.15.128.174 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Churchill clearly states his source as Nesta Helen Webster, who was an anti-semitic nutter. Any questions? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, many, but I'll start with this one. If criticising the Jews in any way automatically invalidates ones opinion and renders one an antisemite, does that make it impossible for them as a group to do anything wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.63.250 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not the point. The question is the validity of the source, which Churchill clearly states to be Webster, an antisemitic fantasist. There's a difference between criticism and unjustified slander. This tissue of lies isn't criticism. The question of why Churchill wrote it is admittedly fascinating, and needs addressed if this material is going to be included. Now we can look back at Churchill as a great Prime Minister, and a prize winning historian. When he wrote the article, he was still the idiot who screwed up Gallipoli, staking his place on the political ladder. Might be better in Winston Churchill as historian. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticizing "the Jews" invalidates one's opinion because it presupposes they act with a common purpose and have collective responsibility. TFD (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Does this standard apply to news agencies who say "Washington said" or "Beijing announced"? TimothyforGod (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Every non-idiot knows that those are placeholders for "the government located in that city". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so why do you think such doesn't apply to the Jews? I agree with your statement on common responsibility, but there needs to be neutrality. Your statement doesn't refute my point. TimothyforGod (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion about the reason for the fact that "the Jews" is not a common wording for some government does not matter. It is still a fact. And I did not mention common responsibility. Please remember that this page is for improving the article. It is not a chatroom. --Hob Gadling (talk)

• We have to remember that this article is not about every conspiracy theory involving Jews … it is about a specific sub-theory that states Jews and Freemasons are conspiring. Given that Churchill was himself a Freemason, I doubt his comments included the anti-Masonic element that would make them relevant for inclusion in this article. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I get it. But still the other points I made are still relevant. There still needs to be restructuring of this article. TimothyforGod (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits...

The material is irrelevant and incorrect. Please explain why it needs to be in the article, and "because Albert Pike said it" doesn't count. Pike speaks for himself only, no one else. MSJapan (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doug... On the edits, I have to agree with MSJapan. Yes, Pike is respected (although less so today than he used to be), but what he says in Morals and Dogma represents one man's opinion, and not mainstream Masonic thought or ideology. Some of his statements are considered quite Fringe. Not a good source.

I am always wary whenever someone quotes Pike... His style of writing so rambling that it is easy to quote things out of context - he may say something on page 402 that he does not get around to clarifying (or even contradicting) until four or five pages later. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111153423/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/belarus.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/belarus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729103854/http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf to http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Too vague for a source

There's a mistake in the legend of the first picture, from the Augustin-Joseph Jacquet's book, it's not an "Aryan" it's a Gaul. The character has the symbolic equipment, typical of Gauls, in representations. The book should be quoted "in a book" is not a reference. It's not encyclopedic, sources must be mentioned, not vague "a book". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a mistake, if the illustrator felt that Gauls were “Aryan”. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Reading through this article, I feel it should be deleted. It violates NPOV and just tries to mock the very idea of this theory. The fact that this type of unencyclopedic nonsense was able to make it thus far may be an indictment on calling the subject matter a conspiracy. TimothyforGod (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You should actually read WP:NPOV since you misrepresent what it says. Especially the WP:FALSEBALANCE part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I actually have read it and it contains no provision for this type of behavior or article. It's quite sad that this is the way it is. Reading through the talk page, I noticed also every part of the article is scheduled for serious restructuring or deletion. That is an indication that something is seriously wrong with it. TimothyforGod (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

UM… the majority of complaints on this talk page date to 2008 - 2011… over 10 YEARS ago… when the article was still in early development. The article has been substantially re-written since then… and a lot of the issues raised back then have either been addressed, or are now moot. And the fact that over 10 years have passed without a lot of comments and complaints makes me think the article is now in fairly good shape.

However, we can always improve further. So… What are the concerns that you have with the current state of the article? I would be happy to go through them one by one to see if they can be addressed.

And, if you really think this deserves to be deleted, see WP:AFD on how to go about nominating it.Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As Blueboar says. Handwaving is not enough. You need to explain which part of the article violates NPOV in your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Banker, Freemason and Jew

The description of the Caran Dache.gif could be improved: it describes a banker, a Freemason and a Jew sitting on the peasant's shoulders, but the banker and the Jew are obviously both the same person, the one on top. The bottom guy, with the striped trousers, may be the military. The source is not accessible to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm… I would agree that the bottom figure is military (besides the stripe on the trousers, he has a sword, and his coat is of military cut with a sash around the waist)… however, given that this was drawn during the Dreifus affair (when lots of people were concerned about supposed Jewish influence in the French military), I still think that figure is supposed to be “the Jew”. Or… Perhaps they are ALL supposed to be Jews. My take anyway. I also don’t have access to the source. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)