- While few moderns have read them, most contemporaries
concerned with Middle Eastern politics have heard of the Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion. They are completely discredited in the West, tho
occasionally they make a cameo appearance in the Muslim world, where right
wingers, totally lacking anything resembling a scientific method, convince
themselves that the Protocols explain Zionism.
-
- In fact, the Protocols were exposed as a fraud in 1921
by the London Times. Again, while serious scholars have heard of the exposé,
very few have read it. This is understandable, given that the Protocols
are in such disrepute in the West. But as a couple of recent notes on Al-Awda
Unity touched on the Protocols, this is a good opportunity to again bring
the Times exposé to the scholarly world's attention. It appears
below.
-
-
-
-
- 'The Truth about the Protocols: A Literary Forgery'
-
- By Philip Graves The Times of London August 16-18, 1921
-
- Preface I. A Literary Forgery II. Plagiarism at Work
III. Some Conclusions Leading Article
-
- (Editor's Note: Page references in brackets such as [p.
3] refer to the original pamphlet's pagination. Page numbers in parentheses
such as (p. 3) are those made by Graves himself, referring to various books
which he used. Note that the Preface is not by Graves, but by an unnamed
author. Note also that the original British-English spelling has been retained,
as well as certain oddities of the period; e.g., "Sion" instead
of the more familiar "Zion".)
-
- PREFACE
-
- The so-called "Protocols of the Elders of Sion"
were published in London in 1920 under the title of "The Jewish Peril."
-
- This book is a translation of a book published in Russia,
in 1905, by Sergei Nilus, a Government official, who professed to have
received from a friend a copy of a summary of the minutes of a secret meeting,
held in Paris by a Jewish organization that was plotting to overthrow civilization
in order to establish a Jewish world state. The "Protocols" attracted
little attention until after the Russian Revolution of 1917, when the appearance
of the Bolshevists, among whom were many Jews professing and practicing
political doctrines that in some points resembled those advocated in the
"Protocols," led many to believe that Nilus's alleged discovery
was genuine. The "Protocols" were widely discussed and translated
into several European languages. Their authenticity has been frequently
attacked and many arguments have been adduced for the theory that they
are a forgery.
-
- In the following three articles the Constantinople Correspondent
of The Times presents for the first time conclusive proof that the document
is in the main a clumsy plagiarism. He has forwarded to The Times a copy
of the French book from which the [p. 4] plagiarism is made. The British
Museum has a complete copy of the book, which is entitled "Dialogue
aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou la Politique de Machiavel
au XIX. Siècle. Par un Contemporain," and was published at
Brussels in 1865. Shortly after its publication, Maurice Joly, a Paris
lawyer and publicist, was arrested by the police of Napoleon III. and sentenced
to 15 months' imprisonment.
-
- I - A LITERARY FORGERY.
-
- "There is one thing about Constantinople that is
worth your while to remember," said a diplomatist to the writer in
1908. "If you only stay here long enough you will meet many men who
matter, and you may find the key to many strange secrets." Yet I must
confess that when the discovery which is the theme of these articles was
communicated to me I was at first incredulous. Mr. X., who brought me the
evidence, was convinced. "Read this book through," he said, "and
you will find irrefutable proof that the "Protocols of the Learned
Elders of Sion' is a plagiarism."
-
- Mr. X, who does not wish his real name to be known, is
a Russian landowner with English connexions. Orthodox by religion, he is
in political opinion, a Constitutional Monarchist. He came here as a refugee
after the final failure of the White cause in South Russia. He had long
been interested in the Jewish question as far as it concerned Russia, had
studied the "Protocols," and during the period of Denikin's ascendancy
had made investigations with the object of discovering whether any occult
"Masonic" organization, such as the "Protocols" speak
of, existed in Southern Russia. The only such organization was a Monarchist
one. The discovery of the key to the problem of the "Protocols"
came to him by chance.
-
- A few months ago he bought a number of old books from
a former officer of the "Okhrana" (Political Police) who had
fled to Constantinople. Among these books was a small volume in French,
lacking the title-page, with dimensions of 5 1/2 in. by 3 3/4in. It had
been cheaply rebound. On the leather back is printed in [p. 6] Latin capitals
the word Joli. The preface, entitled "Simple avertissement,"
is dated Geneva, October 15, 1864. The book contains 324 pages, of which
numbers 315-322 inclusive follow page 24 in the only copy known to Mr.
X, perhaps owing to a mistake when the book was rebound. Both the paper
and the type are characteristic of the "sixties and seventies"
of the last century. These details are given in the hope that they may
lead to the discovery of the title of the book [see Preface]. Mr. X. believes
it must be rare, since, had it not been so, the "Protocols" would
have speedily been recognized as a plagiarism by anyone who had read the
original.
-
- That the latter is a "fake" could not be maintained
for an instant by anyone who had seen it. Its original possessor, the old
Okhrana officer, did not remember where he obtained it, and attached no
importance to it. Mr. X, glancing at it one day, was struck by a resemblance
between a passage which had caught his eye and a phrase in the French edition
of the "Protocols" (Edition de la Vieille France, 1920, 5, Rue
du Préaux-Clercs, 5, Paris 7th Arrondissement). He followed up the
clue, and soon realized that the "Protocols" were to a very large
extent as much a paraphrase of the Geneva original as the published version
of a War Office or Foreign Office telegram is a paraphrase of the ciphered
original.
-
- Before receiving the book from Mr. X, I was, as I have
said, incredulous. I did not believe that Sergei Nilus's "Protocols"
were authentic; they explained too much by the theory of a vast Jewish
conspiracy. Professor Nilus's account of how they were obtained was too
melodramatic to be credible, and it was hard to believe that real "Learned
Elders of Sion" would not have produced a more intelligent political
scheme than the crude and theatrical subtilties [sic] of the Protocols.
But I could not [p. 7] have believed, had I not seen, that the writer who
supplied Nilus with his originals was a careless and shameless plagiarist.
-
- The Geneva book is a very thinly-veiled attack on the
despotism of Napoleon III in the form of a series of 25 dialogues divided
into four parts. The speakers are Montesquieu and Machiavelli. In the brief
preface to his book the anonymous author points out that it contains passages
which are applicable to all Governments, "but it particularly personifies
a political system which has not varied in its application for a single
day since the fatal and alas! Too distant date when it was enthroned."
Its references to the "Haussmannisation" of Paris, to the repressive
measures and policy of the French Emperor, to his wasteful financial system,
to his foreign wars, to his use of secret societies in hi s foreign policy
(cf., his notorious relations with the Carbonari) and his suppression of
them in France, to his relations with the Vatican, and to his control of
the Press are unmistakable.
-
- The Geneva book, or as it will henceforth be called the
Geneva Dialogues, opens with the meeting of the spirits of Montesquieu
and Machiavelli on a desolate beach in the world of shades. After a lengthy
exchange of civilities Montesquieu asks Machiavelli to explain why from
an ardent Republican he had become the author of "The Prince"
and "the founder of that somber school of thought which has made all
crowned heads your disciples, but which is well fitted to justify the worst
crimes of tyranny." Machiavelli replies that he is a realist and proceeds
to justify the teaching of "The Prince," and to explain its applicability
to the Western European States of 1864.
-
- In the first six "Geneva Dialogues" Montesquieu
is given a chance of argument of which he avails himself. In the seventh
dialogue, [p. 8] which corresponds to the fifth, sixth, seventh , and part
of the eighth "Protocols," he gives Machiavelli permission to
describe at length how he would solve the problem of stabilizing political
societies "incessantly disturbed by the spirit of anarchy and revolution."
Henceforth Machiavelli or in reality Napoleon III, speaking through Machiavelli,
has the lion's share of the dialogue.
-
- Montesquieu's contributions thereto become more and more
exclamatory; he is profoundly shocked by Machiavelli-Napoleon's defense
of an able and ruthless dictatorship, but his counter-arguments grow briefer
and weaker. At times, indeed, the author of "L'Esprit des Lois"
is made to cut as poor a figure as - parvum componere magno - does Dr.
Watson when he attempts to talk criminology to Sherlock Holmes.
-
- The "Protocols" follow almost the same order
as the Dialogues. Dialogues 1-17 generally correspond with "Protocols"
1-19. There are a few exceptions to this. One is in the 18th "Protocol,"
where, together with paraphrases of passages from the 17th Dialogue ("Geneva
Dialogues," pp. 216, 217), there is an echo of a passage in the 25th
"Geneva Dialogue," viz: -- "Quand le malheureux est opprimé
il dit 'Si le Roi le savait'; Quand on veut se venger, qu'on espère
un secours, on dit 'le Roi le saura.' " This appears on page 68 of
the English edition of the "Protocols" (4th Edition, published
by "The Britons," 62, Oxford-street, London, W.) as "In
order to exist, the prestige of power must occupy such a position that
the people say among themselves, 'If only the King knew about it,' or 'When
the King knows about it.' "
-
- The last five "Protocols" (Nos. 20-24 inclusive)
do not contain so many paraphrases of the "Geneva Dialogues"
as the first 29. Some of their resemblances and paraphrases are, however,
very striking, e.g., the following: -- [p. 9]
-
- A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails
an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum
of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5 per cent., then in 20 years the
Government will have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the
loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice,
and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain an unpaid
debt. - "Protocols," p. 77.
-
- MONTESQUIEU,-- "How are loans made? By the issue
of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate
to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the
State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital.
When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet
ir remains debtor for the entire capital sum." - "Geneva Dialogues,"
p. 256.
-
- But generally speaking "Protocols" 20 and 21,
which deal (somewhat unconvincingly) with the financial programme of the
Learned Elders, owe less to the "Geneva Dialogues," Nos. 18-21,
than to the imagination of the plagiarist author who had for once in a
way to show a little originality. This is natural enough since the "Dialogues"
in question describe the actual financial policy of the French Imperial
Government, while the "Protocols" deal with the future. Again
in the last four "Geneva Dialogues" Machiavelli's apotheosis
of the Second Empire, being based upon historical facts which took place
between 1852 and 1864, obviously furnished scanty material for the plagiarist
who wished to prove or, very possibly, had been ordered to prove in the
"Protocols" that the ultimate aim of the leaders of Jewry was
to give the world a ruler sprung from the House of David.
-
- The scores of parallels between the two books and a theory
concerning the methods of the plagiarist and the reasons for the publication
of the "Protocols" in 1905 will be the subject of further articles.
Meanwhile it is amusing to find that the only subject with which the "Protocols,"
deal on lines quite contrary to those followed by Machiavelli in the "Dialogues"
is the private life of the Sovereign. [p. 10] The last words of the "Protocols"
are "Our Sovereign must be irreproachable." The Elders evidently
propose to keep the King of Israel in good order. The historical Machiavelli
was, we know, rather a scandalous old gentleman, and his shade insists
that amorous adventures, so far from injuring a Sovereign's reputation,
make him an object of interest and sympathy to "the fairest half of
his subjects."
-
- II. - PLAGIARISM AT WORK.
-
- While the Geneva Dialogues open with an exchange of compliments
between Montesquieu and Machiavelli, which covers seven pages, the author
of the Protocols plunges at once in media res.
-
- One can imagine him hastily turning over those first
seven pages of the book which he has been ordered to paraphrase against
time, and angrily ejaculating, "Nothing here." But on page 8
of the Dialogues he finds what he wants; the greater part of this page
and the next are promptly paraphrased, thus:
-
- Geneva Dialogues, p. 8.
-
- Among mankind the evil instinct is mightier than the
good. Man is more drawn to evil than to good. Fear and Force have more
empire over him than reason . . . Every man aims at domination; not one
but would be an oppressor if he could; all or almost all are ready to sacrifice
the rights of others to their own interests....
-
- Protocols, p. 1 ("The Britons" edition).
-
- It must be noted that people with corrupt instincts are
more numerous than those of noble instinct. Therefore in governing the
world the best results are obtained by means of violence and intimidation,
and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power; every one would
like to become a dictator if he only could do so, and rare indeed are the
men who would not be disposed to sacrifice the welfare of others in order
to attain their own personal aims.
-
- What restrains those beasts of prey which they call men
from attacking one another? Brute unrestrained Force in the first stages
of social life, then the Law, that is still force regulated by forms. You
have consulted all historical sources; every where might precedes right.
Political Liberty is merely a relative idea....
-
- What restrained the wild beasts of prey which we call
men? What has ruled them up to now? In the first stages of social life
they submitted to brute and blind forces, then to law, which in reality
is the same force, only masked. From this I am led to deduct that by the
law of nature right lies in might. Political freedom is not a fact but
an idea.[p. 12]
-
- The gift of liberty to the Machiavelli of the Geneva
Dialogues, of self-government according to the Protocols (page 2), leads
speedily to civil and social strife, and the State is soon ruined by internal
convulsions or by foreign intervention following on the heels of civil
war. Then follows a singular parallel between the two books which deserves
quotation:
-
- Geneva Dialogues, p. 9.
-
- What arms will they (States) employ in war against foreign
enemies? Will the opposing generals communicate their plans of campaign
to one another and thus be mutually in a position to defend themselves?
Will they mutually ban night attacks, traps, ambushes, battles with inequality
of force? Of course not; such combatants would court derision. Are you
against the employment of those traps and tricks, of all the strategy indispensable
to war against the enemy within, the revolutionary?
-
- Protocols, p. 2.
-
- ... I would ask the question why is it not immoral for
a State which has two enemies, one external and one internal, to use different
means of defence against the former in that which it would use against
the latter, to attack him by night or with superior forces?...
-
- Both "Machiavelli" and the author of the Protocols
agree (Prot. P. 3, Geneva Dialogues, p. 11) almost in the same words that
politics have nothing in common with morality. Right is described in the
Protocols as "an abstract idea established by nothing," in the
Dialogues as an "infinitely vague" expression. The end, say both,
justifies the means. "I pay less attention," says Machiavelli,
"to what is good and moral than to what is useful and necessary."
The Protocols (p. 4) use the same formula, substituting "profitable"
for "useful." According to the Protocols he who would rule "must
have recourse to cunningness (sic) and hypocrisy." In the second Dialogue
(p. 15) Montesquieu reproaches Machiavelli for having "only two words
to repeat - 'Force' and 'guile.' " Both Machiavelli and the "Elders"
[p. 13] of the Protocols preach despotism as the sole safeguard against
anarchy. In the Protocols this despotism has to be Jewish and hereditary.
Machiavelli's despotism is obviously Napoleonic.
-
- There are scores of other parallels between the books.
Fully 50 paragraphs of passages in the Dialogues are simply paraphrases
of passages in the Dialogues. The quotation Per me reges regnant, rightly
given in the Vieille France edition of the Protocols (p. 29), while regunt
is substituted for regnant in the English version (p. 20), appears on p.
63 of the Geneva Dialogues. Sulla, whom the English version of the Protocols
insists on calling "Silla," appears in both books.
-
- After covering Italy with blood, Sulla reappeared in
as a simple citizen in Rome: no one durst touch a hair of his head. Geneva
Dialogues, p. 159. Remember at the time when Italy was streaming with blood,
she did not touch a hair of Silla's head, and he was the man who made her
blood pour out. Protocols, p. 51.
-
- Sulla, who after the proscriptions stalked "in savage
grandeur home," is one of the tyrants whom every schoolboy knows and
those who believe that Elders of the 33rd Degree are responsible for the
Protocols, may say that this is a mere coincidence. But what about the
exotic Vishnu, the hundred-armed Hindu deity who appears twice in each
book? The following passages never were examples of "unconscious plagiarism."
-
- Geneva Dialogues, p. 141:
-
- Machiavelli.-"Like the God Vishnu, my press will
have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different
shades of opinion throughout the country."
-
- Protocols, p. 43:
-
- "These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will
be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse
of varying public opinion."
-
- Geneva Dialogues, p. 207:
-
- Montesquieu:-- "Now I understand the figure of the
god Vishnu; you have a hundred [p. 14] arms like the Indian idol, and each
of your fingers touches a spring.
-
- Protocols, p. 65:
-
- "Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu.
Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery
of State."
-
- TAXATION OF THE PRESS
-
- The Dialogues and the Protocols alike devote special
attention to the Press, and their schemes for the muzzling and control
thereof are almost identical - absolutely identical, indeed, in many details.
Thus Machiavelli on pp. 135 and 136 of the Dialogues expounds the following
ingenious scheme:
-
- "I shall extend the tax on newspapers to books,
or rather I shall introduce a stamp duty on books having less than a certain
number of pages. A book, for example, with less than 200 or 300 pages will
not rank as a book, but as a brochure. I am sure you see the advantage
of this scheme. On the one hand I thin (je rarifie) by taxation that cloud
of short books which are the mere appendages of journalism; on the other
I force those who wish to escape stamp duty to throw themselves into long
and costly compositions, which will hardly ever be sold and scarcely read
in such a form."
-
- The Protocols, p. 41, has:
-
- "We will tax it (the book press) in the same manner
as the newspaper Press - that is to say, by means of Excise stamps and
deposits. But on books of less than 300 pages we will place a tax twice
as heavy. Those short books we will classify as pamphlets, which constitute
the most virulent form of printed poison. These measures will also compel
writers to publish such long works that they will be little read by the
public and so chiefly on account of their high price."
-
- Both have the same profound contempt for journalists.
-
- Geneva Dialogues, pp. 145, 146:
-
- Machiavelli. -- "You must know that journalism is
a sort of Freemasonry; those who live by it are bound . . . to one another
by the ties of professional discretion; like the augurs of old, they do
not lightly divulge the secret of their oracles. They would gain nothing
by betraying themselves, for they have mostly won more less discreditable
scars . . ."
-
- Protocols, p. 44:
-
- "Already there exists in French journalism a system
of Masonic understanding for giving counter- [p. 15] signs. All organs
of the Press are tied by mutual professional secrets to the manner of the
ancient oracles. Not one of the members will betray his knowledge of the
secret, if the secret has not been ordered to be made public. No single
publisher will have the courage to betray the secret entrusted to him,
the reason being that not one of them is admitted into the literary world
without bearing the marks of some shady act in his past life."
-
- CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE
-
- But this contempt is nothing compared to that which both
Machiavelli and the Elders evince towards the masses whom tyranny is to
reduce to a more than Oriental servitude.
-
- Geneva Dialogues, p. 43:
-
- Machiavelli: -- "You do not know the unbounded meanness
of the peoples . . . . groveling before force, pitiless towards the weak,
implacable to faults, indulgent to crimes, incapable of supporting the
contradictions of a free régime, and patient to the point of martyrdom
under the violence of an audacious despotism . . . giving themselves masters
whom they pardon for deeds for the least of which they would have beheaded
twenty constitutional kings."
-
- Protocols, p. 15:
-
- "In their intense meanness the Christian peoples
help our independence - when kneeling they crouch before power; when they
are pitiless towards the weak; merciless in dealing with faults, and lenient
to crimes; when they refuse to recognize the contradictions of freedom;
when they are patient to the degree of martyrdom in bearing with the violence
of an audacious despotism. At the hands of their present dictators, Premiers,
and Ministers, they endure abuses for the smallest of which they would
have murdered twenty kings."
-
- Both the Elders and Machiavelli propose to make political
crime thoroughly unpopular by assimilating the treatment of the political
criminal to that of the felon. Both devote not a little attention to police
organization and espionage; the creator of Machiavelli had evidently studied
Napoleon III's police methods and suffered at the hands of his agents.
Each proposes to exercise a severe control over the Bar and the Bench.
As regards the Vatican, Machiavelli-Napoleon, with recent Italian history
in mind, aims at the complete control of the Papacy. After inflaming popular
hatred [p. 16] against the Church of Rome and its clergy, he will intervene
to protect the Holy See, as Napoleon III did intervene, when "the
chassepôts worked wonders." The learned Elders propose to follow
a similar plan: "when the people in their rage throw themselves on
to the Vatican we shall appear as its protectors in order to stop bloodshed."
Ultimately, of course, they mean to destroy the Church. The terrible chiefs
of a Pan-Judaic conspiracy could hardly have any other plan of campaign.
Machiavelli, naturally, does not go so far. Enough for him if the Pope
is safely lodged in the Napoleonic pockets.
-
- Is it necessary to produce further proofs that the majority
of the Protocols are simply paraphrases of the Geneva Dialogues, with wicked
Hebrew Elders, and finally an Israelite world ruler in the place of Machiavelli-Napoleon
III, and the brutish goyim (Gentiles) substituted for the fickle masses,
"gripped in a vice [sic] by poverty, ridden by sensuality, devoured
by ambition," whom Machiavelli intends to win?
-
- III. - SOME CONCLUSIONS.
-
- There is no evidence as to how the Geneva Dialogues reached
Russia. The following theory may be suggested.
-
- The Third Napoleon's secret police, many of whom were
Corsicans, must have known the existence of the Dialogues and almost certainly
obtained them from some of the many persons arrested on the charge of political
conspiracy during the reign of of Napoleon III. In the last two decades
of the 19th century and in the early years of the 20th there were always
a few Corsicans in the Palace Police of the Tsar, and in the Russian secret
service. Combining courage with secretiveness, a high average of intelligence
with fidelity to his chief, the Corsican makes a first-class secret agent
or bodyguard. It is not improbably that Corsicans who had been in the service
of Napoleon III, or who had had kinsmen in his secret service, brought
the Geneva Dialogues to Russia, where some member of the Okhrana or some
Court official obtained possession of them, But this is only a theory.
-
- As to the Protocols, they were first published in 1905
at Tsarskoye Selo in the second edition of a book entitled "The Great
Within the Small," the author of which was Professor Sergei Nilus.
Professor Nilus has been described to the writer as a learned, pious, credulous
Conservative, who combined much theological and some historical erudition
with a singular lack of knowledge of the world. In January, 1917, Nilus,
according to the introduction to the French version of the Protocols, published
a book, entitled "It is Here, at Our Doors!!" in which he republished
the Protocols. In this latter work, according to the [p. 18] French version,
Professor Nilus stated that the manuscript of the Protocols was given him
by Alexis Nicolaievich Sukhotin, a noble who afterwards became Vice-Governor
of Stavropol.
-
- According to the 1905 edition of the Protocols they were
obtained by a woman who stole them from "one of the most influential
and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry. The theft was accomplished
at the close of the secret meeting of the 'initiated' in France, that nest
of Jewish conspiracy." But in the epilogue to the English version
of the Protocols Professor Nilus says, "My friend found them in the
sages at the headquarters of the Society of Zion which are at present situated
in France."
-
- According to the French version of the Protocols, Nilus
in his book of 1917 states that the Protocols were notes of a plan submitted
to the "Council of Elders" by Theodor Herzl at the first Zionist
Congress which was held at Basle, in August, 1897, and that Herzl afterwards
complained to the Zionist Committee of Action of the indiscreet publication
of confidential information. The Protocols were signed by "Zionist
representatives of the 33rd Degree" in Orient Freemasonry and were
secretly removed from the complete file of the proceedings of the aforesaid
Zionist Congress, which was hidden in the "Chief Zionist office, which
is situated in French territory."
-
- Such are Professor Nilus's rather contradictory accounts
of the origin of the Protocols. Not a very convincing story! Theodor Herzl
is dead; Sukhotin is dead, and where are the signatures of the Zionist
representatives of the 33rd Degree?
-
- Turning to the text of the Protocols, and comparing it
with that of the Geneva Dialogues, one is struck by the absence of any
effort on the part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarism. The paraphrasing
has been very careless; parts [p. 19] of sentences, whole phrases at times,
are identical; the development of the thought is the same; there has been
no attempt worth mentioning to alter the order of the Geneva Dialogues.
The plagiarist has introduced Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche in one passage
in order to be "up to date"; he has given a Jewish colour to
"Machiavelli's" schemes for dictatorship, but he has utterly
failed to conceal his indebtedness to the Geneva Dialogues. This gives
the impression that the real writer of the Protocols, who does not seem
to have had anything to do with Nilus and may have been some quite unimportant
prècis writer employed by the Court or by the Okhrana, was obliged
to paraphrase the original at short notice. A proof of Jewish conspiracy
was required at once as a weapon for the Conservatives against the Liberal
elements in Russia.
-
- Mr. X, the discoverer of the plagiarism, informs me that
Protocols, shortly after their discovery in 1901, four years before their
publication by Professor Nilus, served a subsidiary purpose, namely, the
first defeat of Monsieur Philippe, a French hypnotist and thought-reader,
who acquired considerable influence over the Tsar and Tsaritsa at the beginning
of the present century. The Court favorite was disliked by certain great
personages, and incurred the natural jealousy of the monks, thaumaturgists,
and similar adventurers who hoped to capture the Tsar though the Empress
in their own interest, or in that of various cliques. Philippe was not
a Jew, but it was easy to represent a Frenchman from "that nest of
Jewish conspiracy" as a Zionist agent. Philippe fell from favour,
to return to Russia and find himself once more in the Court's good graces
at a later date.
-
- But the principal importance of the Protocols was their
use during the first Russian revolution. [p. 20] This revolution was supported
by the Jewish element in Russia, notably by the Jewish Bund. The Okhrana
organization knew this perfectly well; it had its Jewish and crypto-Jewish
agents, one of whom afterwards assassinated M. Stolypin; it was in league
with the powerful Conservative faction; with its allies it sought to gain
the Tsar's ear. For many years before the Russian revolution of 1905-1906
there had been a tale of a secret council of Rabbis [sic] who plotted ceaselessly
against the Orthodox. The publication of the Protocols in 1905 certainly
came at an opportune moment for the Conservatives. It is said by some Russians
that the manuscript of the Protocols was communicated to the Tsar early
in 1905, and that its communication contributed to the fall of the Liberal
Prince Svitopolk-Mirski in that year and the subsequent strong reactionary
movement. However that may be, the date and place of publication of Nilus's
first edition of the Protocols are most significant now that we know that
the originals which were given him were simply paraphrases.
-
- The following conclusions are, therefore, forced upon
any reader of the two books who has studied Nilus's account of the origin
of the Protocols and has some acquaintance with Russian history in the
years preceding the revolution of 1905-6:
-
- 1. The Protocols are largely a paraphrase of the book
here provisionally called the "Geneva Dialogues."
-
- 2. They were designed to foster the belief among Russian
Conservatives, and especially in Court circles, that the prime cause of
discontent among the politically minded elements in Russia was not the
repressive policy of the bureaucracy, but a world-wide Jewish conspiracy.
They thus served as a weapon against the Russian Liberals, who urged the
Tsar [p. 21] to make certain concessions to the intelligentsia.
-
- 3. The Protocols were paraphrased very hastily and carelessly.
-
- 4. Such portions of the Protocols as were not derived
from the Geneva Dialogues were probably supplied by the Okhrana, which
organization very possibly obtained them from the many Jews it employed
to spy on their coreligionists.
-
- So much for the Protocols. They have done harm not so
much, in the writer's opinion, by arousing anti-Jewish feeling, which is
older than the Protocols and will persist in all countries where there
is a Jewish problem until that problem is solved; rather, they have done
harm by persuading all sorts of mostly well-to-do people that every recent
manifestation of discontent on the part of the poor is an unnatural phenomenon,
a factitious agitation caused by a secret society of Jews.
-
- Leading Article ... [p. 22] Leading Article reprinted
from The Times of August 18, 1921 [by an editor]
-
- We publish to-day the last of the articles on the so-called
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion [sic]" from our Constantinople
Correspondent, who has effectively exposed a remarkable forgery. We have,
of course, no political object in making this discovery known. On the general
aspects of the Jewish problem our attitude is known to be impartial, and
we have no intention of taking sides in those political controversies on
this question which too frequently engender excessive passion and obscure
its real character. In the interests of objective truth, however, it was
of great importance that a legend like that so long connected with the
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" should be exposed at the earliest
possible opportunity.
-
- Briefly summarized, the facts of this curious historical
incident are as follows. A Russian book, published in 1905 by an official
named SERGEI NILUS, contained a document described as "The Protocols
of the Elders of Zion," and purported to be a summary of the proceedings
of a secret meeting of a Jewish organization that was plotting in France
to overthrow Gentile civilization and establish a Jewish world State. The
document attracted little attention until after the Russian revolution
in 1917, when the astounding collapse of a great country through the action
of the Bolshevists and the presence of a large number of Jews in the Bolshevist
ranks caused many to search for some simplified explanation of the catastrophe.
The "protocols " appeared to provide such an explanation, more
particularly since the tactics [p. 23] of the Bolshevists in many respects
resembled those advocated in the "Protocols." The book was translated
into several European languages and made the basis for impassioned dissertations
on an alleged Jewish world peril. There was a certain plausibility about
this thesis that attracted many; but the authenticity of the "Protocols"
was very vigorously called in question, and the whole matter was shrouded
in doubt until our Correspondent made his remarkable discovery. 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.
-
- The author of the "protocols" simply copied
from the "Dialogues" a number of passages in which MACHIAVELLI
is made to enunciate the doctrines and tactics of despotism as they were
at that time practiced by NAPOLEON, and put them into the mouth of an imaginary
Jewish Elder. There can be little doubt that the forgery was perpetrated
by some member of the Russian Secret Police. NILUS, who may have acted
in good faith, declared [p. 24] that the manuscript of the "Protocols"
had been given him by an official named ALEXANDER SUKHOTIN, who professed
to have received it from a woman who had stolen it from an Elder of Zion.
On the leather back of the copy of the "Dialogues" sent us by
our Correspondent we notice the letters A.S., and, seeing that the book
was bought from an ex-officer of the Secret Police, it seems possible that
this copy belonged at one time to SUKHOTIN, and that it was the copy actually
used in the compilation of the "protocols."
-
- For many years there was a close connexion between the
Russian and the French police, and one of the confiscated copies of JOLY's
book may easily have fallen into the hands of a Russian agent - such as
RACHKOVSKY, at one time head of the Russian Secret Police in Paris, to
whom other and more clumsy forgeries have been traced - and may have inspired
him to invent a weapon for use against Jewish revolutionaries. At any rate,
the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the
legend may be allowed to pass into oblivion. The historical interest of
the discovery is considerable, though, as we have indicated, it does not,
in our opinion, affect the Jewish problem, which happily, in this country,
cannot be said to exist in its Continental form.
-
-
-
- A Revision Or Rewrite Does Not Always Equal 'Forgery'
-
- Commentary
From Q
12-9-3
-
- Dear Jeff,
-
- Revolt Against Civilization - On the Protocols and Geneva
Dialogues
-
- The Protocols of Zion is often referred to as a forgery,
but can be understood more clearly as a rewriting of the Geneva Dialogues,
also called Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. All
scriptures of the major religions have all been rewritten numerous times,
but these are never referred to as 'forgeries.' Thus, we must look at the
history of the times to figure out the truth behind these two texts.
-
- First, there was the American Revolution which was an
idea seeded by Freemasons with their motto 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'
This revolution was a revolt against the old order of things: of monarchy.
Not that life under the monarchy was too harsh, but it was a fight for
a new idea, a new world order, of liberalism. It was in fact the beginnings
of a political philosophy that is commonly referred to today as Communism.
[1]
-
- Now, France's aid to the American rebels left France
bankrupt which did its best to fuel civil unrest. This in turn led to the
French Revolution. The bloody revolution, the failed revolution, so-called,
and its motto once again, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' must not be thought
of as occurring by happenstance, but as a carefully planned global revolution,
an overthrowing of White civilization in which nations fall like dominoes
one by one to the new order of liberalism, socialism, anarchism and communism.
-
- Napoleon III, who was essentially a puppet for the Freemasonic
plan, played his part to challenge through war Russia and Prussia.
-
- Frenchman Joly's book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli
and Montesquieu was made public as against Napoleon III and as a warning
to the world of the Masonic plot, but gave no mention of Jews. Shortly
thereafter Joly was imprisoned.
-
- A rewritten version of the book now called the Protocols
of the Elders of Zion was printed privately the same year as the First
Zionist Congress in 1897 and later published in 1905 in the second edition
of a book titled The Great Within the Small.
-
- The publisher's contradictory remarks about the origin
of the text led to a claim of forgery. That and the fact that the text
was rewritten to expose a Jewish conspiracy allowed for a 1920 London Times
article to denounce it as a hoax.
-
- But it is well known the Jewish involvement in the French
Revolution, and later in the Jewish Bolshevik Revolution the Protocols
rightly gained credibility.
-
- Still many other protocols have now come true with utmost
accuracy and because the protocols never claimed that 'all Jews were plotting
against the gentiles' but that a small group of Jews and wealthy members
of a secret society were involved in a plot for world domination there
is no reason not to believe the truth of which reality has proven.
-
-
-
- We must only assume that the Jews referred to in the
protocols do not necessarily reflect the actions or intentions of all Jews
but of a small group of Zionist Jews as well as gentile oligarchs, rulers
and Freemasons.
-
- So, one can see now the true revolt against civilization.
A constant subversion and perversion of the old order of things leads a
path for the despotic way of the new world order.
-
- No man, woman, or child, gentile or Jew, in support of
this new world order shall remain unpunished.
-
- [1] It would be accurate to note that Freemasonry existed
before Weishauptís Illuminati.
|
